21268 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[EERE–2020–BT–TP–0032] 

RIN 1904–AC54 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Commercial and 

Industrial Pumps 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and announcement of public webinar. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) proposes to amend the 

test procedure for commercial and 

industrial pumps (‘‘pumps’’) to 

harmonize with updated industry 

standards, to expand the scope of clean 

water pumps covered by this test 

procedure, and to revise calculation 

methods for pumps sold with motors 

and controls to better represent field 

energy use. DOE is seeking comment 

from interested parties on the proposal 

and announcing a public meeting to 

collect comments and data on its 

proposal. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this proposal 

no later than June 10, 2022. See section 

V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for details. 

DOE will hold a webinar on April 26, 

2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See 

section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for 

webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. If no 

participants register for the webinar, it 

will be cancelled. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov, under docket 

number EERE–2020–BT–TP–0032. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. Alternatively, interested 

persons may submit comments by email 

to pumps2020tp0032@ee.doe.gov. 

Include docket number EERE–2020–BT– 

TP–0032 in the subject line of the 

message. No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) 

will be accepted. For detailed 

instructions on submitting comments 

and additional information on this 

process, see section V of this document. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including postal 

mail and hand delivery/courier, the 

Department has found it necessary to 

make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing COVID–19 pandemic. DOE 

is currently suspending receipt of public 

comments via postal mail and hand 

delivery/courier. If a commenter finds 

that this change poses an undue 

hardship, please contact Appliance 

Standards Program staff at (202) 586– 

1445 to discuss the need for alternative 

arrangements. Once the COVID–19 

pandemic health emergency is resolved, 

DOE anticipates resuming all of its 

regular options for public comment 

submission, including postal mail and 

hand delivery/courier. 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts (if a public 

meeting is held), comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly-available. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2020-BT-TP-0032. The docket web page 

contains instructions on how to access 

all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section V 

for information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

9870. Email 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the webinar, contact the Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program staff 

at (202) 287–1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

proposes to update a previously 

approved standard by incorporating by 

reference the following industry 

standard into part 431: HI 40.6–2021, 

‘‘Methods for Rotodynamic Pump 

Efficiency Testing.’’ 

Copies of HI 40.6–2021 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. 

DOE proposes to maintain previously 

approved standards incorporated by 

reference into part 431, except for the 

following, which DOE proposes to 

remove from part 431: 

ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014, ‘‘American 

National Standard for Rotodynamic 

Centrifugal Pumps for Nomenclature 

and Definitions.’’ 

ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014, ‘‘American 

National Standard for Rotodynamic 

Vertical Pumps of Radial, Mixed, and 

Axial Flow types for Nomenclature 

and Definitions.’’ 

For a further discussion of these 

standards, see section IV.M of this 

document. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

III. Discussion 

A. Scope of Applicability 

1. Pumps Not Designed for Clean Water 

Applications 

2. Small Vertical Inline Pumps 

3. Other Clean Water Pump Categories 

a. Between-Bearing Pumps 

b. Vertical Turbine Pumps 

c. Radially-Split Multi-Stage Horizontal 

Pumps 

d. End-Suction Pumps Similar to ESFM 

and ESCC Pumps 

e. Line Shaft and Cantilever Pumps 

4. Scope Limitations 

a. Submersible Turbine Pumps With Bowl 

Diameter Greater Than 6 Inches 

b. Pumps Designed To Be Operated at 

1,200 RPM 

c. Pump Horsepower and Design Speed 

d. Horsepower and Number of Stages for 

Testing 

e. Design Temperature Range 

B. Definitions 

1. Removing Certain References to Volute 

2. HI Pump Class References 

3. Bowl Diameter 

4. Small Vertical Inline Pumps 

5. Between-Bearing Pumps 

6. Vertical Turbine Pump 

7. Radially-Split, Multi-Stage Horizontal 

Pumps 

8. Close-Coupled and MechanicallyCoupled Pumps 

9. Tangential Discharge 

10. Pump 

C. Updates to Industry Standards 

1. ANSI/HI 40.6 

2. ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014 and ANSI/HI 2.1– 

2.2–2014 

D. Metric 

E. Proposed Amendments to Test Method 

1. Nominal Speed 

2. Testing of Multi-Stage Pumps 

3. Best Fit Curve 

4. Load Profile 

5. Pumps With BEP at Run-Out 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21269 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which 

reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 

Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

2EPCA also requires after DOE first prescribes a 

test procedure for regulated industrial equipment, 

to conduct an evaluation of that test procedure not 

later than three years after the prescribing of that 

test procedure—and from time to time thereafter. 

See 42 U.S.C. 6314(c). DOE considers this 

rulemaking to be in satisfaction of this initial 

evaluation requirement. 

6. Calibration of Measurement Equipment 

7. Calculations and Rounding 

8. Test Procedure Credits 

F. Calculation-Based and Testing-Based 

Options According to Pump 

Configuration (Table 1) 

1. Calculation Method for Pumps Sold 

With Induction Motors and Controls 

2. Calculation Method for Pumps Sold 

With Inverter-Only Motors (With or 

Without Controls) 

3. Pumps Sold With Submersible Motors 

G. Test Procedure for SVIL Pumps 

H. Test Procedure for Other Expanded 

Scope Pumps 

I. Sampling Plan, AEDMs, Enforcement 

Provisions, and Basic Model 

1. Sampling Plan for Determining 

Represented Values 

2. Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Methods 

a. Background 

b. Basic Criteria Any AEDM Must Satisfy 

c. Validation 

d. Records Retention Requirements 

e. Additional AEDM Requirements 

f. AEDM Verification Testing 

3. Enforcement Provisions 

4. Basic Model Definition 

J. Representations of Energy Use and 

Energy Efficiency 

K. Labeling Requirements 

L. Test Procedure Costs and Harmonization 

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

a. Scope Expansions 

b. Calculation Method for Testing Pumps 

With Inverter-Only Motors 

c. Updated Calculation Method for Testing 

Pumps With Induction Motors 

d. Additional Amendments 

2. Harmonization With Industry Standards 

M. Compliance Date 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

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. Participation in the Webinar 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Commercial and industrial pumps 

(collectively, ‘‘pumps’’) are included in 

the list of ‘‘covered equipment’’ for 

which DOE is authorized to establish 

and amend energy conservation 

standards and test procedures. (42 

U.S.C. 6311)(1)(A)) DOE’s energy test 

procedures for pumps are currently 

prescribed at title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’), § 431.464, 

and 10 CFR part 431 subpart Y 

appendix A (‘‘appendix A’’). 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, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes 

DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of 

a number of consumer products and 

certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6317) Title III, Part C of EPCA, 

added by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, 

section 441(a), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. This 

equipment includes pumps, the subject 

of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

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

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. EPCA include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6316). 

The Federal 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 pursuant to EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and 

(2) making other representations about 

the efficiency of that equipment (42 

U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must 

use these test procedures to determine 

whether the equipment complies with 

relevant standards promulgated under 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(s)) 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 

6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers 

of Federal preemption for particular 

State laws or regulations, in accordance 

with the procedures and other 

provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered equipment. 

EPCA requires that any test procedures 

prescribed or amended under this 

section must be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which reflect energy 

efficiency, energy use or estimated 

annual operating cost of a given type of 

covered equipment during a 

representative average use cycle and 

requires that test procedures not be 

unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

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

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

equipment, including pumps, to 

determine whether amended test 

procedures would more accurately or 

fully comply with the requirements for 

the test procedures to not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct and be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

use cycle.2 (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) 

In addition, if the Secretary 

determines that a test procedure 

amendment is warranted, the Secretary 

must publish proposed test procedures 

in the Federal Register, and afford 

interested persons an opportunity (of 

not less than 45 days’ duration) to 

present oral and written data, views, 

and arguments on the proposed test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) If DOE 

determines that test procedure revisions 

are not appropriate, DOE must publish 

its determination not to amend the test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii)) 

DOE is publishing this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) in 

satisfaction of the 7-year review 

requirement specified in EPCA. 

B. Background 

DOE’s established its test procedure 

for pumps in a final rule published on 

January 25, 2016. 81 FR 4086 (‘‘January 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21270 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

3On March 23, 2016, DOE published a correction 

to the January 2016 Final Rule to correct the 

placement of the product-specific enforcement 

provisions related to pumps under 10 CFR 

429.134(i). 81 FR 15426. 4A ‘‘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. 5A ‘‘driver’’ provides mechanical input to drive 

a bare pump directly or through the use of 

mechanical equipment. Electric motors, internal 

combustion engines, and gas/steam turbines are 

examples of drivers. (10 CFR 431.462) 

6A ‘‘control’’ is used to operate a driver. (10 CFR 

431.462) 

7A ‘‘continuous control’’ is a control that adjusts 

the speed of the pump driver continuously over the 

driver operating speed range in response to 

incremental changes in the required pump flow, 

head, or power output. A ‘‘non-continuous control’’ 

is a control that adjusts the speed of a driver to one 

of a discrete number of non-continuous preset 

operating speeds, and does not respond to 

incremental reductions in the required pump flow, 

head, or power output. 10 CFR 431.462. 

8Price Pump, EERE–2020–BT–TP–0032, No. 10 at 

p. 1; Hydraulic Institute EERE–2020–BT–TP–0032, 

No. 11 at p. 1; Grundfos, EERE–2020–BT–TP–0032, 

No. 12, at p. 1; Xylem, EERE–2020–BT–TP–0032, 

No. 13 at p. 1. 

9 In addition to the comments listed in Table I.1, 

DOE also received one comment from an 

individual, which was unrelated to the test 

procedures for pumps. 

10The parenthetical reference provides a 

reference for information located in the docket of 

DOE’s rulemaking to develop test procedures for 

pumps (Docket No. EERE–2020–BT–TP–0032, 

which is maintained at www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032). The 

references are arranged as follows: (Commenter 

name, comment docket ID number, page of that 

document). 

2016 Final Rule’’).3 The January 2016 

Final Rule established definitions for 

the terms ‘‘pump,’’ 4 ‘‘driver,’’ 5 and 

‘‘controls,’’ 6 and identified several 

categories and configurations of pumps. 

The pumps test procedure currently 

incorporates by reference the Hydraulic 

Institute (‘‘HI’’) Standard 40.6–2014, 

‘‘Methods for Rotodynamic Pump 

Efficiency Testing’’ (‘‘HI 40.6–2014’’), 

along with several modifications to that 

testing method related to measuring the 

hydraulic power, shaft power, and 

electric input power of pumps, 

inclusive of electric motors and any 

continuous or non-continuous controls.7

On September 28, 2020, DOE 

published an early assessment review 

request for information (‘‘RFI’’) to 

determine whether to proceed with a 

rulemaking to amend the test procedure 

for commercial and industrial pumps. 

85 FR 60734 (‘‘September 2020 Early 

Assessment RFI’’). Following review of 

the comments received in response to 

the September 2020 Early Assessment 

RFI, on April 16, 2021, DOE published 

an RFI in which it sought data and 

information pertinent to whether 

amended test procedures would (1) 

more accurately or fully comply with 

the requirement that the test procedure 

produces results that measure energy 

use during a representative average use 

cycle for the equipment without being 

unduly burdensome to conduct, or (2) 

reduce testing burden. 86 FR 20075 

(‘‘April 2021 RFI’’). In response to 

requests from stakeholders,8 on May 5, 

2021, DOE published an extension of 

the comment period for an additional 30 

days. (86 FR 23875) DOE received 

comments in response to the April 2021 

RFI from the interested parties listed in 

Table I.1.9 A parenthetical reference at 

the end of a comment quotation or 

paraphrase provides the location of the 

item in the public record.10

In their comments, Summit asserted 

that the industry as a whole has become 

more aware of DOE’s energy standards 

for pumps since January 2020 when the 

pumps standards went into effect. 

(Summit, No. 16 at p. 7) Grundfos 

suggested that DOE consider eliminating 

multiple open notices that affect a given 

industry to ensure proper stakeholder 

engagement. (Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 1) 

As noted, EPCA requires DOE to 

periodically review the test procedures 

of covered equipment, including 

pumps, to determine whether amended 

test procedures would more accurately 

or fully comply with the requirements 

for the test procedures to not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct and be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) In order 

to provide stakeholders opportunities to 

engage as part of DOE’s decision 

making, DOE provided opportunity for 

stakeholder comment to the September 

2020 Early Assessment RFI and the 

April 2021 RFI. This NOPR provides 

further opportunity for comment on 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11AP22.000</GPH>

Table 1.1 List of Commenters with Written Submissions in Response to the April 

2021 RFI 

Reference in Organization 

Or2anization( s) this NOPR Type 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural ASAP and Efficiency 

Resources Defense Council NRDC Organization 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern 

California Gas Company, Southern California 

Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric Company 

( coll ecti vel y, the California Investor-Owned Utility 

Utilities) CAIOUs Association 

Grundfos Americas Corporation Grundfos Manufacturer 

Industry 

Hydraulic Institute HI Association 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance and Efficiency 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council NEEA Organization 

Summit Pump Inc Summit Manufacturer 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21271 

proposed amendments to the test 

procedure for pumps, which are 

discussed in the following sections. 

DOE acknowledges that it has multiple 

open notices that may inordinately 

impact a given industry at any time. 

However, DOE notes that the purpose of 

the rulemaking process is to engage 

stakeholders. While notices have 

specific comment dates by which 

comments are due, stakeholders may 

submit material to the rulemaking 

docket at any time during the course of 

the rulemaking by contacting the DOE 

program manager. 

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to: 

(1) Expand the scope of the test 

procedure to include additional clean 

water pumps, specifically: 

(a) Between-bearing (‘‘BB’’) pumps; 

(b) radially-split, multi-stage, 

horizontal, 

(c) in-line diffuser casing (‘‘RSHIL’’) 

pumps; 

(d) radially-split, multi-stage, 

horizontal, end-suction diffuser casing 

(‘‘RSHES’’) pumps; 

(e) small vertical in-line (‘‘SVIL’’) 

pumps; 

(f) vertical turbine (‘‘VT’’) pumps; 

(g) pumps sold with 6-pole induction 

motors or motors with design speeds 

between 960 rpm and 1,440 rpm; 

(h) submersible turbine (‘‘ST’’) pumps 

with bowl diameters larger than 6 

inches; and 

(i) end-suction pumps not covered by 

the current test procedure; 

(2) Clarify the applicability of the 

design temperature range scope 

limitation and modify the range 

parameters; 

(3) Add and modify certain 

definitions in 10 CFR 431.462 to 

accommodate the expansion of scope 

and clarify existing definitions; 

(4) Incorporate by reference HI 40.6– 

2021 into 10 CFR 431.463 and make 

minor revisions to the test procedure to 

address provisions in the current DOE 

test procedure that have been added to 

HI 40.6–2021; 

(5) Remove the incorporations by 

reference of ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014 and 

ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014; 

(6) Add specifications for stages for 

testing for expanded scope multi-stage 

pumps; 

(7) Clarify test provisions for pumps 

with BEP at run-out; 

(8) Clarify test provisions for 

calibration of measurement equipment; 

(9) Update part-load loss factor 

equation coefficients in the calculation 

method for pumps sold with induction 

motors and controls; 

(10) Provide a calculation method for 

pumps sold with inverter-only motors; 

(11) Update the test procedure for 

submersible pumps to address proposed 

DOE coverage of submersible motors; 

(12) Update the test procedure to 

address SVIL pumps; 

(13) Add provisions for testing and 

rating pumps sold with a 6-pole 

induction motor or with design speeds 

between 960 rpm and 1,440 rpm; and 

(14) Allow use of Alternative 

Efficiency Determination Methods 

(‘‘AEDMs’’). 

DOE’s proposed actions are 

summarized in Table II.1 compared to 

the current test procedure as well as the 

reason for the proposed change. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21272 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11AP22.001</GPH>

Table 11.1 Summary of Changes in Proposed Test Procedure Relative to Current 

Test Procedure 

Current DOE Test Procedure Proposed Test Procedure Reason for Proposed 

Chane:e 

Does not include in the scope of the Includes in the scope of the test procedure Improved 

test procedure BB, RSHIL, RSHES, BB, RSHIL, RSHES, SVIL, and VT pumps; representativeness 

SVIL, or VT pumps; pumps pumps distributed in commerce with 

distributed in commerce with nominal nominal speeds of 1,200 rpm; ST pumps 

speeds of 1,200 rpm; ST pumps with with bowl diameter greater than 6 inches; 

bowl diameter greater than 6 inches; and all end-suction pumps 

or all end-suction pumps 

Includes a scope limitation of a Specifies a scope limitation of a pump Improved clarity and 

design temperature range from 14 to whose design temperature range falls wholly enforceability 

248 °F. or partially into the rane:e from 15 to 250 °F. 

Includes definitions for pump Includes definitions for additional pump Required for proposed 

categories within the current scope of categories and clarifications to the scope expansion; improved 

the test procedure. definitions for some existing pump enforceability 

categories. 

Incorporates by reference HI 40.6- Incorporates by reference HI 40.6-2021 for Updates to applicable 

2014 for determining the constant determining the PEicr, and the PEIVL value industry test standard 

load pump energy index ("PEicr,") ofpumps 

and the variable load pump energy 

index ("PEIVL") value of pumps 

Provides example pump categories Removes example pump categories from all Simplification of the test 

for certain pump definitions by relevant definitions. procedure 

referencing ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 

and ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 

References ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 to Incorporates a definition for "intermediate Simplification of the test 

define "intermediate bowl" within the bowl" in the definition for bowl diameter, procedure 

definition for bowl diameter. removing the reference to ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-

2014 

Does not include test provisions for Includes specifications for stages for testing Required for proposed 

multistage pumps other than RSV and for BB, RSHIL, RSHES, and VT pumps scope expansion 

ST 

Includes provisions for pumps with Clarifies provisions for pumps with BEP at Improved repeatability and 

BEP at run-out. run-out. reproducibility 

References a section of HI 40.6-2014 Clarifies the applicable test provisions in HI Improved repeatability and 

related to calibration of measurement 40.6-2021 for calibration of measurement reproducibility 

eQuipment. eQuipment. 

Includes a calculation method for Includes revised part-load loss factor Improved 

pumps sold with induction motors equation coefficients for motors 50 hp and representativeness 

and controls. above. 

Does not provide a calculation Provides a calculation method for pumps Reduced burden 

method for pumps sold with inverter- sold with inverter-only motors 

only motors 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21273 

11The excluded categories of pumps are fire 

pumps; self-priming pumps; prime-assist pumps; 

magnet driven 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 

Specifications: MIL–P–17639F, ‘‘Pumps, 

Centrifugal, Miscellaneous Service, Naval 

Shipboard Use’’ (as amended); MIL–P–17881D, 

‘‘Pumps, Centrifugal, Boiler Feed, (Multi-Stage)’’ (as 

amended); MIL–P–17840C, ‘‘Pumps, Centrifugal, 

Close-Coupled, Navy Standard (For Surface Ship 

Application)’’ (as amended); MIL–P–18682D, 

‘‘Pump, Centrifugal, Main Condenser Circulating, 

Naval Shipboard’’ (as amended); and MIL–P– 

18472G, ‘‘Pumps, Centrifugal, Condensate, Feed 

Booster, Waste Heat Boiler, And Distilling Plant’’ 

(as amended). 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(iii). 

12More specifically, these characteristics include: 

(A) flow rate of 25 gpm or greater at BEP and full 

impeller diameter; (B) maximum head of 459 feet 

at BEP and full impeller diameter and the number 

of stages required for testing; (C) design temperature 

range from 14 to 248 °F; (D) designed to operate 

with either (1) a 2- or 4-pole induction motor, or 

(2) a non-induction motor with a speed of rotation 

operating range that includes speeds of rotation 

between 2,880 and 4,320 revolutions per minute 

(rpm) and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, and in either 

case, the driver and impeller must rotate at the 

same speed; (E) For ST pumps, a 6-inch or smaller 

bowl diameter; and (F) For ESCC and ESFM pumps, 

a specific speed less than or equal to 5,000 when 

calculated using U.S. customary units. 10 CFR 

431.464(a)(1)(ii). 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the proposed amendments described in 

section III of this NOPR would not alter 

the measured efficiency of commercial 

and industrial pumps that are currently 

included in the scope of DOE’s energy 

conservation standards for pumps. 

Therefore, DOE does not expect that 

retesting or recertification would be 

necessary for currently certified pumps 

as a result of DOE’s adoption of the 

proposed amendments to the test 

procedures, if made final. Additionally, 

DOE has tentatively determined that the 

proposed amendments, if made final, 

would not increase the cost of testing for 

these pumps. As such, for pumps 

currently within the scope of DOE’s 

energy conservation standards, any 

representations regarding the energy 

consumption of a pump or the cost of 

energy consumed by a pump would 

have to be made in accordance with the 

amended test procedure beginning 180 

days after publication of the final rule. 

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

For pumps that are not currently 

within the scope of the test procedure 

and are not currently required to certify 

pump energy use, DOE is proposing that 

the test requirements proposed in 

appendix A, if adopted, would take 

place on the compliance date of 

amended energy conservation standards 

for pumps that DOE may ultimately 

decide to adopt as part of a separate 

rulemaking assessing the technological 

feasibility and economic justification for 

such standards. In other words, for 

pumps that DOE is proposing to include 

in the scope of the proposed test 

procedure, manufacturers would need 

to use the results of testing under 

appendix A to determine compliance 

with any new energy conservation 

standards that DOE may establish for 

these pumps. 

Discussion of DOE’s proposed actions 

are addressed in detail in section III of 

this NOPR. 

III. Discussion 

In the following sections, DOE 

proposes certain amendments to its test 

procedures for pumps. For each 

proposed amendment, DOE provides 

relevant background information, 

explains why the amendment merits 

consideration, discusses relevant public 

comments, and proposes a potential 

approach. 

A. Scope of Applicability 

The current DOE test procedure for 

pumps applies to five categories of 

‘‘clean water pumps’’ with specific 

defined characteristics, and excludes 

certain defined categories 11 of pumps. 

10 CFR 431.464(a)(1). 

DOE defines ‘‘clean water pump’’ as 

a pump that is designed for use in 

pumping water with a maximum nonabsorbent free solid content of 0.016 

pounds per cubic foot, and with a 

maximum dissolved solid content of 3.1 

pounds per cubic foot, provided that the 

total gas content of the water does not 

exceed the saturation volume, and 

disregarding any additives necessary to 

prevent the water from freezing at a 

minimum of 14 °F. 10 CFR 431.462. 

The five categories of clean water 

pumps to which the current test 

procedure applies are: End-suction 

close-coupled (‘‘ESCC’’); end-suction 

frame mounted/own bearings (‘‘ESFM’’); 

in-line (‘‘IL’’); radially-split, multi-stage, 

vertical, in-line diffuser casing (‘‘RSV’’); 

and submersible turbine (‘‘ST’’). 10 CFR 

431.464(a)(1)(i). The defined 

characteristics specify limits on flow 

rate, maximum head, design 

temperature range, motor type, bowl 

diameter, and speed.12 10 CFR 

431.464(a)(1)(ii). In the context of the 

energy conservation standards, pumps 

are further delineated into equipment 

classes based on nominal speed of 

rotation and operating mode (i.e., 

constant load or variable load). 10 CFR 

431.465. 

In the April 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on the percentage of pump 

models that fall within the scope of 

DOE’s current test procedure. 86 FR 

20075, 20079. Additionally, DOE also 

sought information regarding how 

manufacturers communicated 

performance in catalogs and other 

related literature for out-of-scope 

pumps. Id. DOE also requested 

shipment and market performance data 

for SVIL pumps, pumps operating with 

motors at speeds different than 1,800 

rpm or 3,600 rpm, submersible turbine 

pumps with a bowl diameter greater 

than 6 inches, and other pumps that are 

currently excluded from scope based on 

the pump characteristics provided at 10 

CFR 431.464(a)(1)(ii). Id. 

In response, Grundfos generally 

recommended that an expansion to the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11AP22.002</GPH>

- . 

Current DOE Test Procedure Proposed Test Procedure Reason for Proposed 

Chane:e 

Includes test provisions specific to Includes test provisions specific to Responsive to DOE 

submersible pumps based on default submersible pumps based onDOE's proposals in related 

motor efficiencv. proposed coverage of submersible motors. rulemaking 

Does not include test provisions Includes test provisions specific to SVILs. Required for proposed 

specific to SVILs. scope exnansion 

Does not include provisions for Includes provisions for testing pumps sold Improved 

testing pumps distributed in with 6-pole motors or motors with design representativeness 

commerce with 6-pole motors or speeds between 960 rpm and 1,440 rpm 

motors with design speeds between 

960 rom and 1 440 mm. 

Does not allow use of AEDMs. Allows use of AEDMs. Reduced burden 
21274 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

13A double-suction pump is one whose impeller 

is designed to draw flow from both sides, as 

opposed to a single-suction pump whose impeller 

only draws flow from one side. 

pumps test procedure scope should be 

addressed through a negotiated 

rulemaking process. (Grundfos, No. 17 

at p. 3) Similarly, HI commented that 

manufacturers and other stakeholders 

should be involved in creating new 

pump categories. (HI, No. 20 at p. 3) HI 

also stated that significant changes to 

the test procedure and scope may lead 

to market confusion and result in 

additional testing burden (HI, No. 20 at 

p. 1) DOE notes that it published a 

notice on October 29, 2021 announcing 

a meeting of the Appliance Standards 

and Rulemaking Federal Advisory 

Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’) held on 

December 14, 2021 to discuss and 

prioritize topic areas for which ASRAC 

can assist the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program. 86 FR 60020. At this 

meeting, pumps themselves were not 

suggested as a category for negotiation, 

but extended equipment systems (i.e., 

motor, drive, and driven load) inclusive 

of the pump were discussed for possible 

negotiation. 

Summit responded that eight percent 

of their models are within scope of the 

DOE test procedure and that pump 

performance information is published in 

catalogs, pump curves, and brochures. 

(Summit, No. 16 at p. 3) Additionally, 

Summit stated that all in-scope pumps 

are labeled as meeting the DOE 

standard. Id. Grundfos stated that it has 

27 basic models that it does not certify 

based on the scope limitations in the 

DOE test procedure. (Grundfos, No. 17 

at p. 2) HI estimated that approximately 

14 percent of manufacturer basic models 

would not be included in the scope of 

the current DOE standards because they 

are SVILs or because of the limitations 

included in 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(ii). 

(HI, No. 20 at p. 3) HI also stated that 

for products not within scope, 

manufacturers generally do not make 

representations of the pump energy 

index (‘‘PEI’’) value. (HI, No. 20 at p. 3) 

NEEA stated that it found that 16 

percent of pumps reported by 

distributors (which are typically 

heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning (‘‘HVAC’’) and domestic 

water equipment companies) are not 

included in DOE’s current test 

procedure scope. (NEEA, No. 21 at p. 3) 

NEEA asserted that nearly all of the 

pumps sold by these distributors pump 

clean water and therefore should be in 

scope. Id. 

Although stakeholders did not 

respond to DOE’s request for data on 

pumps operating with motors at speeds 

other than 1,800 rotations per minute 

(‘‘rpm’’) or 3,600 rpm in the April 2021 

RFI, DOE did receive comments on this 

issue in response to the August 9, 2021 

pumps energy conservation standards 

early assessment review RFI (‘‘August 

2021 ECS RFI’’, Docket EERE–2021–BT– 

STD–0018, No. 1). 86 FR 43430. 

Specifically, the CA IOUs stated that for 

one pump distributor, 27 percent of its 

commercial pump sales were either 

pumps with motors running at 1,200 

rpm or double suction pumps 13 (both of 

which are not included in the scope of 

DOE’s current test procedure). (CA 

IOUs, Docket EERE–2021–BT–STD– 

0018, No. 10 at p. 3) 

DOE considered expanding scope to 

the following pump categories: 

Chemical process and wastewater 

pumps, small vertical inline pumps, 

certain additional clean water pumps 

(between-bearing, vertical suction, 

radially-split, multi-stage horizontal, 

line shaft and cantilever pumps), and 

pumps sold with motors that operate at 

1,200 rpm. The following sections 

provide additional information and 

responses to stakeholder comments 

specific to the pumps that DOE 

considered for inclusion in the test 

procedure scope. 

DOE notes that it is proposing 

changes to the current test procedure 

applicable to currently regulated 

pumps. Any representations regarding 

the energy consumption of these pumps 

or the cost of energy consumed by these 

pumps would have to be made in 

accordance with the amended test 

procedure beginning 180 days after 

publication of the final rule. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(d)) The proposed changes to the 

test procedure would also apply to those 

pumps that DOE is proposing to include 

in its scope; however, for these pumps, 

the revised test procedure would be 

required in conjunction with the 

compliance date of any future amended 

energy conservation standards that DOE 

may set. 

1. Pumps Not Designed for Clean Water 

Applications 

The scope of the current DOE test 

procedure, as described previously, 

excludes both chemical process and 

wastewater pumps. See 10 CFR 

431.464(a)(1)(i). Chemical process 

pumps are designed to pump fluids 

other than water, and wastewater 

pumps are designed for water with a 

higher level of free solids than clean 

water pumps. 

In response to the April 2021 RFI, 

NEEA stated that there is functional 

overlap between pumps that are within 

the scope of the current DOE test 

procedure and those pumps that are 

excluded because they are certified 

under ASME/ANSI B73. (NEEA, No. 21 

at p. 6) NEEA also stated that 

distributors report that a ‘‘significant 

portion’’ of ASME/ANSI B73 pumps are 

installed in clean water applications 

and that without this certification 

designation these pumps would be 

included in the scope for the DOE test 

procedure. Id. Summit stated that if 

DOE were to include ASME/ANSI B73 

pumps within scope of the DOE test 

procedure, 80 percent of their pumps 

would be covered rather than the eight 

percent currently covered. (Summit, No. 

16 at p. 4) ASAP and NRDC 

recommended that DOE consider how 

the DOE test procedure could facilitate 

greater market adoption of wastewater 

pumps with variable-speed drives, 

similar to what has been done for clean 

water pumps. (ASAP and NRDC, No. 18 

at p. 2) 

DOE also received comments 

pertaining to non-clean water pumps in 

the August 2021 ECS RFI. HI stated that 

the current definition of clean water 

pumps and the exclusion of non-clean 

water pumps from the test procedure 

scope aligns with regulations in both 

Canada and the EU. (HI, Docket EERE– 

2021–BT–STD–0018, No. 8 at p. 2) HI 

asserted that maintaining harmonization 

between the United States, Canada and 

the EU is important to minimize burden 

for manufacturers that distribute their 

pumps outside of the U.S. Id. HI stated 

that a large number of additional pump 

categories would need to be added to 

the DOE test procedure in order to 

appropriately characterize non-clean 

water pumps. Id. HI explained that there 

is not a clear distinction between a 

pump being designed for clean water or 

for wastewater or chemicals. Instead, HI 

explained that pump designs constitute 

a range of operation based on a liquid’s 

chemical compatibility and containment 

requirements, in addition to the 

concentration, and hardness of the 

solids being pumped. Id. HI stated that 

it was not aware of any established 

definitions that characterize non-clean 

water pumps into unique groupings, 

and that any definitions would need to 

define each pump group and include 

distinct design features that affect their 

efficiency. Id. HI stated that DOE would 

need to establish many definitions and 

classes for non-clean water pumps to 

accurately develop standards. Id. HI also 

commented that the specificity 

necessary to group pumps with similar 

design options and loss characteristics 

would leave little data in each category 

to develop C-values, making it difficult 

to develop energy conservation 

standards. Id. Finally, HI stated that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21275 

14On February 3, 2016, DOE published its 

intention to establish a working group under the 

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal 

Advisory Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’) to negotiate a test 

procedure and energy conservation standards for 

circulator pumps. 81 FR 5658. Throughout this 

document this working group shall be referred to 

as ‘‘the Circulator Pumps working Group’’. 

15The use of the term SVIL here implies such 

pumps can be over 1 horsepower. The current DOE 

definition of in-line (‘‘IL’’) pumps, and the 

proposed definition of SVIL in section I.B.6 clarify 

that IL pumps under one horsepower are SVIL 

pumps. DOE assumes that the comment may have 

intended that 7 percent of IL pumps are SVIL 

pumps. 

ASME/American Petroleum Institute, 

solids handling, slurry, positive 

displacement, and magnet driven 

pumps could not be tested with the HI 

40.6 standard. (HI, Docket EERE–2021– 

BT–STD–0018, No. 8 at p. 4) 

Also in response to the August 2021 

ECS RFI, Grundfos recommended 

against expanding the DOE scope 

beyond clean water pumps, asserting 

that uses for pumping other fluids are 

too varied. (Grundfos, Docket EERE– 

2021–BT–STD–0018, No. 9 at p. 2) 

DOE acknowledges that certain nonclean water pumps may be used in clean 

water applications; however, DOE 

expects the number of non-clean water 

pumps used in the clean water 

applications to be relatively small. DOE 

notes that the scope of HI 40.6–2014, 

which is currently incorporated by 

reference into the DOE test procedure, 

includes clean water pumps only. The 

scope of the HI 40.6 standard changed 

in the 2016 version to state that the 

standard covers pumps that are 

included in DOE’s energy conservation 

standards and therefore does not 

provide requirements for testing pumps 

designed for non-clean water 

applications. The scope of HI 40.6–2021 

is identical to that of HI 40.6–2016. To 

test non-clean water pumps, DOE would 

need to reference or develop an 

alternate test procedure. While this test 

procedure might enable comparison 

between non-clean water pumps, it is 

unlikely that a clean water and nonclean water test procedure would 

provide comparable results. 

Additionally, DOE notes that nonclean water pumps, specifically 

wastewater pumps, must meet specific 

performance requirements to ensure the 

health of the U.S. population. DOE 

would need to carefully evaluate how 

the performance of non-clean water 

pumps could be impacted by energy 

conservation standards and ensure that 

public health and safety would not be 

negatively affected. As such, additional 

investigation is needed to understand 

the market, energy savings potential, 

test procedure implications, and 

performance requirements of non-clean 

water pumps (i.e., chemical process and 

wastewater). DOE notes that because ‘‘Cvalue’’ is specified in the energy 

conservation standard (see 10 CFR 

431.465(b)(4)) and C-value is required 

for determining PEICL and PEIVL, there 

would be limited use of the test 

procedure without corresponding 

standards. Therefore, DOE has 

determined that it will continue to limit 

the applicability of this test procedure 

to clean water pumps at this time. 

2. Small Vertical Inline Pumps 

As discussed, the scope of the current 

DOE test procedure is limited to five 

categories of pumps designed for clean 

water applications. 10 CFR 

431.464(a)(1)(i). One of these categories 

is in-line (IL) pumps, which are limited 

to shaft input power greater than or 

equal to 1 hp and less than or equal to 

200 hp at BEP and full impeller 

diameter, and in which liquid is 

discharged in a plane perpendicular to 

the impeller shaft. 10 CFR 431.462. In 

2016, a Circulator Pump Working 

Group 14 recommended a test procedure 

and energy conservation standard for 

circulator pumps, which DOE is 

addressing in a separate rulemaking, 

and also made recommendations for 

SVIL pumps. SVIL pumps have 

characteristics identical to those for inline pumps but SVIL pumps have shaft 

input power of less than 1 hp. The 

Circulator Pump Working Group 

recommended that (1) SVIL pumps be 

evaluated using the PEICL or PEIVL

metric, and (2) SVIL pumps should be 

tested using the DOE pump test 

procedure, with any needed 

modifications determined by DOE. 

(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, 

No. 58 Recommendation #1B at pp. 1– 

2) 

In response to the April 2021 RFI, 

NEEA, Grundfos, ASAP and NRDC, the 

CA IOUs, and HI recommended that 

DOE address SVIL pumps in the 

commercial and industrial pumps test 

procedure and energy conservation 

standards rulemakings, rather than in a 

rulemaking for circulator pumps (NEEA, 

No. 21 at p.7; Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 3; 

ASAP and NRDC, No. 18 at p. 2; CA 

IOUs No. 19 at p. 11; HI, No. 20 at p. 

3) NEEA stated that there is confusion 

in the market as to whether SVIL pumps 

are subject to the DOE test procedure 

and energy conservation standards, and 

that SVIL pumps may be in the same 

family as, or have overlapping pump 

curves with, larger pumps that are 

currently subject to the test procedure 

and standards. (NEEA, No. 21 at p. 6) 

NEEA also stated that there is a trend in 

the HVAC industry to move away from 

distributing large central pumps to 

distributing smaller pumps, and that 

therefore unregulated SVIL pumps 

compete with larger regulated pumps. 

Id. 

DOE also received comments relative 

to SVIL pumps in the August 2021 ECS 

RFI. The CA IOUs stated that in 

discussions with distributors, one 

recommended adding fractional SVIL 

pumps to the scope of regulated 

equipment. (CA IOUs, Docket EERE– 

2021–BT–STD–0018, No. 10 at p. 5) 

According to the CA IOUs, this 

distributor stated that the lack of 

coverage currently causes confusion 

since some pumps within a given 

product line are covered and some are 

not. Id . For example, 7 percent of 

Taco’s SVIL pump sales are fractional 

horsepower (‘‘hp’’) and are therefore 

uncovered.15 Id. The CA IOUs also 

reported that SVIL pump use in 

hydronic HVAC systems is increasing 

and asserted that this means that SVIL 

pumps are competing with larger 

regulated pumps. Id. 

Finally, DOE received comments 

relative to SVIL pumps in the May 7, 

2021 Circulator Pumps Test Procedure 

and Energy Conservation Standard RFI 

(‘‘May 2021 Circulator Pumps RFI’’). 86 

FR 24516, 24521. The CA IOUs 

supported NEEA’s comments on SVIL 

pumps from the April 2021 RFI. (CA 

IOUs, Docket EERE–2016–BT–STD– 

0004, No. 116 at p. 6) The CA IOUs 

supported the incorporation and 

development of SVIL pump standards 

based on the PEI metric. Id. 

In the April 2021 RFI, DOE also 

requested shipment and market 

performance data for SVIL pumps. 86 

FR 20075, 20079. In response, Grundfos 

and HI recommended that DOE conduct 

manufacturer interviews to obtain 

specific market performance data. 

(Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 3; HI, No. 20 at 

p. 4) 

Issue 1: Consistent with the Circulator 

Pump Working Group recommendation 

and based on the concerns expressed in 

the comments summarized above 

regarding SVILs being a part of the same 

model family as IL pumps and serving 

as an unregulated alternative to pumps 

currently subject to DOE test procedures 

and energy conservation standards, DOE 

proposes to include SVIL pumps within 

the test procedure’s scope. DOE has 

tentatively determined that SVIL pumps 

can be tested using the current DOE 

pumps test procedure with certain 

additional modifications. The proposed 

test procedure and metric for SVIL 

pumps are discussed in sections III.G 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21276 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

16Pumps certified under the ASME B73 

designation include: B73.1 (‘‘Specification for 

Horizontal End-suction Centrifugal Pumps for 

Chemical Process’’), B73.2 (‘‘Specification for 

Vertical In-Line Centrifugal Pumps for Chemical 

Process’’), B73.3 (‘‘Specification for Sealless 

Horizontal End-suction Centrifugal Pumps for 

Chemical Process’’), and B73.5 (‘‘Thermoplastic/ 

thermoset Polymer Material Horizontal End-suction 

Centrifugal Pumps Chemical Process’’). All B73 

pumps are designed for use as chemical process 

pumps, which have specific design requirements 

related to reliability and performance such as 

maximum shaft deflections, bearing frame 

lubrication, sealing requirements, and vibration 

limits. 

17 VS4 and VS5 are pump categories defined in 

HI 14.1–14.2–2019 that both refer to vertically 

separate discharge pumps. VS4 pumps are line shaft 

pumps and VS5 pumps are cantilever pumps. 

18BB1 pumps are a pump class defined by HI 

14.1–14.2–2019 that are 1 and 2 stage, axially-split 

pumps with the impeller(s) mounted between 

bearings at either end. BB1 pumps are a specific 

sub-category of BB pumps. 

and III.D of this NOPR. Moreover, DOE 

expects that including SVIL pumps 

within the scope of the pumps test 

procedure would reduce confusion over 

which inline pumps are and are not 

regulated. DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to expand the scope of the test 

procedure to cover SVIL pumps. 

3. Other Clean Water Pump Categories 

In the April 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether the five pump 

categories currently included in DOE’s 

regulations sufficiently represent the 

market and technology available for 

clean water pumps; whether these 

categories are sufficiently defined in 

order to ensure that the categories are 

mutually exclusive; or whether any of 

these categories or descriptions should 

be amended. 86 FR 20075, 20078. 

In response to DOE’s request for 

comment in the April 2021 RFI, 

Grundfos and HI supported the current 

pump equipment categories, and 

Grundfos stated that these pump 

categories represent the current market. 

(Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 1; HI, No. 20 at 

p. 2) NEEA and ASAP and NRDC 

recommended that DOE expand the 

scope of the pumps test procedure to 

cover additional pumps used in clean 

water applications. (ASAP and NRDC, 

No. 18 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 21 at p. 2) 

NEEA identified four categories of 

pumps that it stated may have 

overlapping uses and therefore may 

compete with pumps that are currently 

within scope of DOE regulations; 

specifically: Single and two stage 

axially-split pumps, end-suction multistage pumps, vertical turbine pumps, 

and American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (‘‘ASME’’)/ANSI B73 certified 

pumps,16 (NEEA, No. 21 at p. 2) NEEA 

stated that having similar pumps that 

compete in the market but that do not 

use PEI as a performance metric is 

confusing for distributors and end users. 

(NEEA, No. 21 at p. 3) NEEA reiterated 

its points about pump scope expansion 

in its comments to the August 2021 ECS 

RFI. (NEEA, Docket EERE–2021–BT– 

STD–0018, No. 11 at p. 2) 

Similarly, ASAP and NRDC 

recommended adding double suction 

pumps, multi-stage end-suction pumps, 

vertical turbine pumps, and pumps 

tested at a nominal speed of 1,200 rpm. 

(ASAP and NRDC, No. 18 at p. 2) ASAP 

and NRDC stated that this would ensure 

consistent pump efficiency information 

is available for purchasers. (ASAP and 

NRDC, No. 18 at p. 1) ASAP and NRDC 

additionally commented that some 

unregulated pumps can be used in the 

same applications as some regulated 

pumps. Id. ASAP and NRDC contended 

that including additional pump 

categories in the test procedure scope 

would provide a more level playing 

field for manufacturers. Id. In response 

to the August 2021 ECS RFI, ASAP and 

NRDC reiterated the points they made in 

response to the April 2021 RFI. (ASAP 

and NRDC, Docket EERE–2021–BT– 

STD–0018, No. 7 at pp. 1–2) 

In response to the August 2021 ECS 

RFI, the CA IOUs supported NEEA’s 

recommendation to expand the scope of 

the pumps test procedure to the four 

categories listed above. (CA IOUs, 

Docket EERE–2021–BT–STD–0018, No. 

10 at p. 2) Grundfos stated that DOE 

should limit its focus of scope 

expansion to radially-split multi-stage 

horizontal pumps; and that positive 

displacement, axial/mixed flow, double 

suction, multi-stage axially-split, multistage radial split vertical immersible, 

non-submersible vertical turbine, and 

VS4/VS5 pumps 17 should remain 

excluded from the DOE scope. 

(Grundfos, Docket EERE–2021–BT– 

STD–0018, No. 9 at pp. 1–2) HI 

commented that DOE should not 

expand the scope of its regulation to 

either non-clean water pumps or to 

clean water pumps that may serve 

diverse markets and applications and 

therefore may have multiple design 

variants within each pump type. (HI, 

Docket EERE–2021–BT–STD–0018, No. 

8 at p. 1). Additionally, HI stated that 

significant changes to the scope would 

cause market confusion since current 

standards and labeling requirements for 

pumps went into effect only recently in 

early 2020. Id. 

The following sections discuss DOE’s 

consideration of additional categories of 

clean water pumps within the scope of 

the test procedure, including the 

specific categories suggested by 

commenters. 

a. Between-Bearing Pumps 

Section 1.2.9.2 of ANSI–HI 14.1–14.2– 

2019 describes between-bearing (‘‘BB’’) 

pumps as pumps that are one- or twostage, axially-split, mounted to a 

baseplate, driven by a motor via a 

flexible coupling, and with bearings on 

both ends of the rotating assembly. 

In the April 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether pumps that meet 

the description of BB pumps might fall 

within the current test procedure scope 

and if BB pumps could be tested with 

the current DOE test procedure. 86 FR 

20075, 20079. In response, ASAP and 

NRDC and NEEA recommended 

evaluating double suction pumps for 

inclusion in the test standards, and 

stated that most of these pumps are BB1 

pumps,18 many are used in chilled clean 

water applications, and these pumps are 

often below 200 hp. (ASAP and NRDC, 

No. 18 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 21 at p. 2) In 

addition, DOE understands that NEEA’s 

recommendation that DOE cover single 

and two-stage axially-split pumps to 

also refer to BB1 pumps. The CA IOUs 

also seemed to offer support for NEEA’s 

comments. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at pp. 10– 

11) 

Summit and Grundfos recommended 

a new category of double suction 

pumps/between-bearing pumps if DOE 

decides to expand its scope beyond 

clean water pumps. (Summit, No. 16 at 

p. 2; Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 4) 

Additionally, Grundfos specifically 

stated that BB1 pumps have different 

inlet/outlet configurations and losses 

when compared to IL pumps that are 

currently within the scope of the DOE 

test procedure. (Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 

4) Summit stated that although they 

supply BB pumps, none are used in 

clean water applications, and that 

testing these pumps would be 

burdensome. (Summit, No. 16 at p. 3) 

Grundfos and HI commented that some 

BB1 pumps are designed for clean water 

applications and may be rated under 

200 hp. (Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 3–4; HI, 

No. 20 at p. 4) Grundfos agreed that BB1 

pumps can be tested according to the 

current DOE test procedure. (Grundfos, 

No. 17 at p. 4) While HI also agreed that 

BB1 pumps can be tested according to 

the DOE test procedure, they stated that 

BB1 pumps do not share the same 

physical and functional characteristics 

affecting energy consumption of any 

pump category currently defined by 

DOE. (HI, No. 20 at p. 4) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21277 

19Both diffusers and volutes diffuse velocity 

energy into pressure as the flow exits a pump’s 

impeller. A volute is a one or two scroll shaped 

diffusing passageway, while a diffuser is 

characterized by many radially-symmetric diffusing 

passageways. 

20OH1J, OH7J, and OH13J are HI 14.1–14.2–2019 

pump class definitions that refer to the multi-stage 

versions of OH1, OH7, and OH13 end-suction 

pumps. OH pumps are generally classified as 

overhung meaning the impeller shaft is only 

supported by bearings on one side of the impeller. 

OH1 pumps are horizontal, flexibly coupled, and 

have a centerline mount. OH7 pumps are horizontal 

and close coupled. OH13 pumps are horizontal and 

rigidly/short coupled. 

DOE also received comments on the 

August 2021 ECS RFI relevant to BB 

pumps. The CA IOUs stated that in 

discussions with distributors, two 

distributors suggested that split case and 

double suction pumps should be 

included in the scope of the pumps 

rulemaking. (CA IOUs, Docket EERE– 

2021–BT–STD–0018, No. 10 at p. 3) It 

is DOE’s understanding that the 

recommendations to include split case 

and double suction pumps refer to BB 

pumps, since these two characteristics 

synonymous with between-bearing 

pumps. 

Based on a review of the market, BB 

pumps tend to generally be larger than 

the pumps currently subject to the DOE 

test procedure. Many BB pumps exceed 

the head and horsepower limits in the 

current DOE test procedure. 

Additionally, BB pumps are not 

typically designed for clean water 

applications. Despite these generalities, 

DOE has identified certain clean water 

BB pumps under 200 hp and 459 feet of 

head that could be viewed as potentially 

interchangeable with those pumps that 

fall within the scope of the current DOE 

test procedure. 

In order to address the potential for 

pumps that provide unregulated 

alternatives to the pumps currently 

subject to the DOE test procedure, DOE 

proposes to include BB pumps within 

the scope of the DOE test procedure. 

However, DOE does not propose to 

expand beyond clean water pumps and 

does not propose to expand the head or 

horsepower limitations currently listed 

in 10 CFR 431.464(1)(ii). Additional 

investigation is needed to understand 

the market, energy savings potential, 

test procedure implications, and 

performance requirements of non-clean 

water pumps. DOE has determined that 

it will continue to limit the applicability 

of this test procedure to clean water 

pumps at this time. An expansion of the 

head and horsepower restrictions has 

the potential to increase test burden by 

requiring larger laboratory equipment to 

test pumps according to the DOE test 

procedure. Through its literature review 

DOE has found few BB pumps that 

exceed the head and horsepower limits 

and are designed for clean water, 

leading DOE to tentatively determine 

that the burden of expanding head and 

horsepower restrictions outweigh the 

benefits of expanded scope. 

Based on stakeholder comments, 

literature reviews, and reviews of pump 

schematics, DOE has tentatively 

determined that BB pumps can be tested 

using the methodology in HI 40.6–2021; 

therefore, DOE is not proposing any 

modifications specific to testing BB 

pumps in this test procedure NOPR. 

Specific proposals for a definition of 

BB pumps are detailed in section III.B.5 

of this document. 

Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to expand the current test 

procedure’s scope to include BB pumps. 

Additionally, DOE requests comment on 

the repeatability and representativeness 

of testing BB pumps using the current 

DOE test procedure. DOE also requests 

comment on any additional burdens 

associated with testing BB pumps that 

are different from those burdens 

associated with pumps currently 

covered by the DOE test procedure. 

b. Vertical Turbine Pumps 

Section 1.3.3.1.2 of HI 14.1–14.2–2019 

defines VS1 and VS2 pumps as 

vertically suspended, wet pit pumps 

with a single casing and discharge 

through the suspension column. VS1 

pumps use a diffuser, while VS2 use a 

volute.19 VS1 and VS2 pumps are 

generally known as vertical turbine 

pumps. These pumps are generally not 

designed for clean water applications, 

and often exceed head and horsepower 

limits laid out in the current test 

procedure. 

In response to the April 2021 RFI, 

DOE received comments from ASAP 

and NRDC and NEEA recommending 

the inclusion of vertical turbine pumps 

in the scope of the current DOE test 

procedure. (ASAP and NRDC, No. 18 at 

pp. 1–2; NEEA, No. 21 at p. 2) NEEA 

stated that these pumps present a 

compliance loophole in DOE’s pump 

regulations and create market confusion. 

(NEEA, No. 21 at pp. 2–3) The CA IOUs 

encouraged DOE to evaluate vertical 

turbine pumps for inclusion in the test 

procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 11) 

Based on a review of literature, DOE 

has tentatively determined that ST 

pumps and vertical turbine pumps have 

similar end uses. Additionally, DOE has 

tentatively determined that ST and 

vertical turbine pumps have similar 

bowl and impeller assemblies, and that 

vertical turbine pumps may even share 

an identical assembly with an ST pump 

produced by the same manufacturer. To 

address the potential of pumps that 

provide unregulated alternatives to the 

pumps currently subject to the DOE test 

procedure, DOE proposes to include 

vertical turbine pumps within the scope 

of the DOE test procedure. However, as 

discussed previously, DOE does not 

propose to expand beyond clean water 

pumps and does not propose to expand 

the head or horsepower limitations 

currently listed in 10 CFR 431.464(1)(ii). 

An expansion of the head and 

horsepower restrictions has the 

potential to increase test burden by 

requiring larger laboratory equipment to 

test pumps according to the DOE test 

procedure. Through its literature 

review, DOE has found few vertical 

turbine pumps that exceed the head and 

horsepower limits and are designed for 

clean water. Therefore, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the burden 

of expanding head and horsepower 

restrictions outweigh the benefits of 

expanded scope. 

Based on literature reviews and 

reviews of pump schematics, DOE has 

tentatively determined that vertical 

turbine pumps can be tested using the 

methodology in HI 40.6–2021; therefore, 

DOE is not proposing any modifications 

specific to testing vertical turbine 

pumps in this test procedure NOPR. 

Specific proposals for a definition of 

VT pumps are detailed in section III.B.6 

of this document. 

Issue 3: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to expand the current test 

procedure’s scope to include VT pumps. 

Additionally, DOE requests comment on 

the repeatability and representativeness 

of testing VT pumps using the current 

DOE test procedure. DOE also requests 

comment on any additional burdens 

associated with testing VT pumps that 

differ from those burdens associated 

with pumps currently covered by the 

DOE test procedure. 

c. Radially-Split Multi-Stage Horizontal 

Pumps 

The current scope of the DOE test 

procedure includes radially-split, multistage, vertical, in-line casing diffuser 

(RSV) pumps, but does not include 

radially-split horizontal pumps, which 

are also multistage pumps used 

primarily in heating, cooling, and 

pressure boosting applications. In 

response to the April 2021 RFI, NEEA 

and ASAP and NRDC recommended 

that multi-stage end-suction pumps 

(specifically OH1j, OH7j, and OH13j) 20

should be included in the scope of the 

pumps test procedure. (NEEA, No. 21 at 

p. 2; ASAP and NRDC, No. 18 at p. 1) 

The CA IOUs supported NEEA’s 

comment and recommended that DOE 

evaluate multi-stage end-suction pumps 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21278 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

for inclusion in the pumps test 

procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 10– 

11) NEEA additionally stated that multistage end-suction pumps are often in 

direct competition with RSV pumps in 

pressure boosting applications. (NEEA, 

No. 21 at p. 3) NEEA also provided a list 

of applications for multi-stage endsuction pumps to demonstrate the 

similarities between these pumps and 

those that are included in the scope of 

the current test procedure. (NEEA, No. 

21 at p. 4) 

DOE also received comments in 

response to the August 2021 ECS RFI 

relevant to multi-stage end-suction 

pumps. The CA IOUs stated that many 

distributors sell water booster pumps, 

which are often multi-stage end-suction 

pumps. (CA IOUs, Docket EERE–2021– 

BT–STD–0018, No. 10 at p. 3) Grundfos 

recommended that DOE focus its scope 

expansions on radially-split multi-stage 

horizontal pumps. (Grundfos, Docket 

EERE–2021–BT–STD–0018, No. 9 at p. 

2) Grundfos also suggested that, like 

RSV pumps, RSH pumps should be 

limited to in-line flow, and that DOE 

should consider new categories for 

multi-stage products that do not have 

in-line connections. Id. 

DOE has surveyed materials and 

product literature available online and 

has tentatively determined that the 

multi-stage end-suction pumps 

discussed by NEEA, ASAP and NRDC, 

and the CA IOUs would be classified as 

radially-split, multi-stage, horizontal, 

(‘‘RSH’’) end-suction pumps. DOE’s 

literature survey also tentatively 

concluded that RSV and RSH pumps 

were marketed for similar applications, 

and that RSH could therefore serve as an 

unregulated loophole to RSV pumps. In 

addition, through reviews of product 

literature and HI 14.1–14.2–2019 pump 

schematics, DOE has tentatively 

determined that RSH pumps can be 

tested using the current DOE test 

procedure. Based on DOE’s research, 

DOE proposes to include RSH pumps 

with both in-line and end-suction flow 

configurations in its test procedure 

scope. Specific proposals for definitions 

or RSH pump categories are detailed in 

section III.B.7 of this document. 

Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to expand scope to include 

RSH pumps. Additionally, DOE requests 

comment on the repeatability and 

representativeness of testing RSH 

pumps using the current DOE test 

procedure. DOE also requests comment 

on any additional burdens associated 

with testing RSH pumps which are 

different from those burdens associated 

with pumps currently covered by the 

DOE test procedure. 

d. End-suction Pumps Similar to ESFM 

and ESCC Pumps 

DOE defines a ‘‘close-coupled pump’’ 

as a pump having a motor shaft that also 

acts as the impeller shaft, and defines a 

‘‘mechanically-coupled pump’’ as a 

pump that has its own impeller shaft 

and bearings separate from the motor 

shaft. 10 CFR 431.462. As discussed in 

the April 2021 RFI, DOE is aware that 

certain pumps may have their own 

shaft, but with no bearings to support 

that shaft. 86 FR 20075, 20078. 

Additionally, while the close-coupled 

pump definition describes a pump in 

which the motor shaft also serves as the 

pump shaft, the definition does not 

provide detail on how the motor and 

pump shaft may be connected. DOE has 

observed that some manufacturers 

describe close-coupled pumps as using 

an adapter to mount the impeller 

directly to the motor shaft. The coupling 

type is the only differentiator between 

ESCC pumps, which are ‘‘close-coupled 

pumps,’’ and ESFM pumps, which are 

‘‘mechanically-coupled pumps.’’ In the 

January 2016 Final Rule, DOE noted that 

it intended for ESFM and ESCC pumps 

to be mutually exclusive in order to 

ensure that pumps that are closecoupled to the motor and have a single 

impeller and motor shaft would be part 

of the ESCC equipment category, while 

all other end-suction pumps that are 

mechanically-coupled to the motor and 

for which the bare pump and motor 

have separate shafts would be part of 

the ESFM equipment category. 81 FR 

4086, 4096. Despite this intention DOE 

is aware that these definitions may have 

left some end-suction pumps out of 

scope. 

In the April 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether there are pumps 

being sold in commerce that may not 

meet the ‘‘close-coupled’’ or 

‘‘mechanically-coupled’’ definitions but 

would otherwise meet the definition for 

an ‘‘end-suction’’ pump. 86 FR 20075, 

20078. 

HI stated that there are currently 

pumps that have impellers not directly 

connected to the motor shaft, with all 

pump loads supported by the motor 

bearings, which do not meet either the 

definition of close-coupled or 

mechanically-coupled pumps. (HI, No. 

20 at p. 3) 

Based on HI’s response and DOE’s 

review of ESCC and ESFM pumps, DOE 

has tentatively determined that there is 

a group of end-suction pumps that do 

not currently fall into either the ESFM 

or ESCC definition, but which may be 

competitors to the currently regulated 

pumps. Therefore, DOE proposes to 

include all end-suction pumps within 

the coverage of this test procedure by 

modifying the definitions of ESFM and 

ESCC pumps. The details of this 

proposal are outlined in section III.B.8 

of this document. DOE has tentatively 

determined that no test procedure 

revisions would be needed to 

accommodate these additional endsuction pumps. 

Issue 5: DOE requests comment on its 

tentative determination that there are 

certain ends suction pumps excluded 

from the current test procedure due to 

the ESFM and ESCC definitions. DOE 

also requests comment on the number of 

pump models that may fall into this 

category and whether they are currently 

being tested according to the DOE test 

procedure. 

e. Line Shaft and Cantilever Pumps 

ANSI/HI 14.1–14.2–2019 includes 

design criteria for different pump 

configurations, and section 14.1.3.3.1.3 

describes vertically separate discharge 

sump pumps, a category of pump that 

includes line shaft (‘‘VS4’’) pumps and 

cantilever (‘‘VS5’’) pumps. Both VS4 

and VS5 pumps are verticallysuspended pumps with a single casing 

and with a discharge column that is 

separate from the shaft column. The 

pump equipment categories defined by 

DOE do not explicitly reference VS4 or 

VS5 pumps, and some pumps may be 

covered by both the DOE definition of 

an ESFM pump and the HI definition of 

a VS4 or VS5 pump. 86 FR 20075, 

20079. 

In the April 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether the test procedure 

should be amended to explicitly address 

line shaft and cantilever pumps as 

described in the ANSI/HI 14.1–14.2– 

2019. 86 FR 20075, 20079. In response, 

Grundfos stated that line shaft pumps 

and cantilever pumps have designs 

similar to ESFM and ESCC pumps and 

that some are sold for clean water 

applications. (Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 3) 

Grundfos also commented that if DOE 

were to include line shaft and cantilever 

pumps within its scope, DOE should 

create a new equipment class since 

these pumps have different losses, and 

DOE would need to define a standard 

sump depth for testing since these 

products have a wide variance in sump 

depth. Id. HI stated that VS4 and VS5 

are not clean water pumps and therefore 

there is no need to address their 

potential test procedures. (HI, No. 20 at 

p. 4) 

Consistent with the comments from 

HI, DOE’s literature survey indicates all 

cantilever pumps are primarily designed 

for non-clean water applications 

including liquids and slurries 

containing large solids. Therefore, DOE 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21279 

21ST pumps with a bowl diameter greater than 

6 inches are currently excluded from the scope of 

the DOE test procedure. 

22See https://www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032-0024. (Docket No. EERE– 

2020–BT–TP–0032–0024.) 

23 960 and 1440 rpm are ± 20 percent of 1,200 

rpm. The acceptable non-induction motor ranges for 

1800 and 3600 rpm pumps are also ± 20 percent of 

the nominal value. 

has tentatively determined that it will 

not expand the scope of its test 

procedure to include line shaft or 

cantilever pumps at this time. This 

proposed approach is consistent with 

DOE’s tentative decision not to expand 

the current test procedure’s scope to 

pumps designed for non-clean water 

applications. DOE agrees that a standard 

sump depth must be defined for testing 

of these products but a representative 

sump depth could be determined for the 

purpose of this test procedure. DOE has 

not, however, assessed what a 

representative depth would be as it is 

not proposing a test procedure for line 

shaft and cantilever pumps. 

4. Scope Limitations 

Within the categories of clean water 

pumps included in the current DOE test 

procedure and proposed for inclusion in 

this notice, DOE also considered 

potential expansion to scope limitations 

related to bowl diameter, nominal 

speed, horsepower, and design 

temperature range. 

a. Submersible Turbine Pumps With 

Bowl Diameter Greater Than 6 Inches 

As discussed previously, the scope of 

the current DOE test procedure includes 

submersible turbine pumps with a bowl 

diameter of 6 inches or smaller. 10 CFR 

431.464(a)(1)(i)(E) and (a)(1)(ii)(E). In 

response to the September 2020 Early 

Assessment RFI, NEEA listed 

submersible turbine (ST) pumps with a 

bowl diameter greater than 6 inches as 

an example of pumps that DOE should 

consider including as part of an 

expanded scope. (NEEA, No. 7 at p. 8) 

NEEA’s reasoning was that pumps 

within a regulated family may not be 

rated because they have a bowl diameter 

greater than 6 inches.21 (NEEA, No. 7 at 

p. 8) In the April 2021 RFI, DOE 

requested shipment data for submersible 

turbine pumps with a bowl diameter 

greater than 6 inches. 86 FR 20075, 

20079. DOE received no shipment 

information on submersible turbine 

pumps with bowl diameters greater than 

6 inches. 

However, in response to the April 

2021 RFI, HI stated that submersible 

turbine pumps with a flow rate less than 

25 gpm at BEP are used in residential 

well applications and should remain out 

of scope since they have limited 

operating time. (HI, No. 20 at p. 3) DOE 

is not considering expanding scope to 

pumps with a flow rate less than 25 gpm 

at this time, due to the limitations 

leading to the current scope provision. 

However, DOE understands that flow 

rate typically increases with bowl 

diameter, so it is DOE’s understanding 

that HI’s comment is unrelated to a 

potential scope expansion to pumps 

with a bowl diameter greater than 6 

inches. 

As discussed in section III.A.3.b, DOE 

is proposing to include vertical turbine 

pumps within the scope of the DOE test 

procedure. These pumps are similar in 

design to ST pumps and commenters 

have indicated that the two pump 

categories can be used in overlapping 

applications. Stakeholder comments 

about the addition of vertical turbine 

pumps did not indicate a suggested 

bowl diameter limitation. As such DOE 

is not proposing one. To maintain 

consistency across pump categories, and 

in response to NEEA’s early assessment 

RFI comments, DOE is proposing to 

remove the 6-inch bowl diameter 

limitations for ST pumps. 

Issue 6: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to remove the 6-inch 

maximum bowl diameter restriction 

from ST pumps, including whether 

there are any testing limitations for 

larger bowl diameters. 

b. Pumps Designed To Be Operated at 

1,200 RPM 

As discussed, DOE limits the scope of 

pumps under the current test procedure 

to those designed to operate with a 2- 

or 4-pole induction motor, or a noninduction motor with an operating range 

that includes speeds of rotation between 

2,880 and 4,320 rpm and/or 1,440 and 

2,160 rpm. 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(ii). In 

either case, the driver and impeller must 

rotate at the same speed. 10 CFR 

431.464(a)(1)(ii)(D). The current DOE 

test procedure does not include pumps 

designed to operate with 6-pole 

induction motors or with non-induction 

motors that have a speed of rotation 

operating range exclusively outside the 

ranges defined. 

In response to the April 2021 RFI, 

ASAP and NRDC recommended 

evaluating pumps sold with 6-pole, 

1,200 rpm motors and pumps designed 

to be operated at 1,200 rpm. (ASAP and 

NRDC, No. 18 at pp. 1–2) Summit stated 

that if DOE were to expand the nominal 

motor speeds included in its test 

procedure, 1,200 rpm would be the best 

nominal speed to add. (Summit, No. 16 

at p. 5) 

In addition, DOE received comments 

in response to the August 2021 ECS RFI 

pertaining to this topic. The CA IOUs 

stated that it contacted several 

distributors, two of whom 

recommended adding pumps designed 

to operate at 1,200 rpm. (CA IOUs, 

Docket EERE–2021–BT–STD–0018, No. 

10 at p. 3) The CA IOUs added that one 

of these distributors stated that 1,200 

rpm pumps have a longer life than 

higher rpm pumps, while the other 

stated that not including them within 

the test procedure’s scope is confusing 

to customers. Id. 

Based on a review of pump 

performance curves available online, 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

unregulated pumps tested with a 

nominal speed of 1,200 rpm are part of 

the same pump families as those pumps 

that currently fall within the scope of 

the DOE test procedure.22 To ensure 

equitable treatment among these pumps, 

DOE is proposing to extend the scope of 

this test procedure to cover pumps 

designed to operate with 6-pole 

induction motors, and pumps designed 

to operate with non-induction motors 

with an operating range that includes 

speeds of rotation between 960 rpm and 

1,440 rpm.23 DOE proposes test 

provisions to accommodate these 

pumps in sections III.E.1 and III.H of 

this document. 

Issue 7: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to expand the scope of the test 

procedure to include pumps designed to 

operate with a 6-pole induction motor, 

and pumps designed to operate with 

non-induction motors with an operating 

range that includes speeds of rotation 

between 960 rpm and 1,440. 

c. Pump Horsepower and Design Speed 

As discussed, the current DOE test 

procedure’s scope is limited to covered 

pump categories with a 2- or 4-pole 

induction motor; or a non-induction 

motor with an operating range that 

includes speeds of rotation between 

2,880 and 4,320 rpm and/or between 

1,440 and 2,160 rpm, and for which the 

driver and impeller rotate at the same 

speed. 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(ii)(D). In 

addition, DOE’s definitions for the five 

pump categories are limited to pumps 

with shaft input power greater than or 

equal to 1 hp and less than or equal to 

200 hp at BEP and full impeller 

diameter. 10 CFR 431.462. 

DOE received comments on the 

August 2021 ECS RFI from the CA IOUs, 

who stated that in discussions with 

distributors one stated that some pumps 

sold with electronically commutated 

motors (‘‘ECMs’’) and intended to run at 

higher speeds, such as 4,320 rpm, must 

be normalized to rate at 3,600 rpm and 

this adjustment causes the power of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21280 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

motor to fall below 1 hp. (CA IOUs, 

Docket EERE–2021–BT–STD–0018, No. 

10 at p. 4) The CA IOUs asserted that 

this limits purchasers from comparing 

PEIVL values across product lines. Id. 

The CA IOUs argued that this exclusion 

of ECM pump products from the DOE 

test procedure is caused by adjusting 

operation to the BEP operating point 

and does not consider the real-world 

use of this product, which is expected 

to provide similar head and flow as 

many IL pumps that are within the 

scope of the current DOE test procedure. 

(CA IOUs, Docket EERE–2021–BT–STD– 

0018, No. 10 at p. 7) The CA IOUs 

commented that ECM pumps would be 

considered a highly efficient pump, and 

the aforementioned test issue limits 

consumer comparison of these pumps 

with non-ECM pumps, which in turn 

creates a market distortion that will 

slow the adoption of more efficient 

technologies and makes it difficult for 

PEI pump rebate programs to include 

this product subset. Id. The CA IOUs 

recommended that DOE revise the 

inclusion and exclusion criteria for 

these products to be based on the driver 

horsepower of the full operating 

window of the unit. Id. The CA IOUs 

also stated that this issue might be 

addressed if SVIL pumps are included 

in the pumps test procedure. (CA IOUs, 

Docket EERE–2021–BT–STD–0018, No. 

10 at p. 6) 

As stated previously, the definitions 

of the pump categories within the scope 

of the test procedure reference 

horsepower limitations based on shaft 

input power at BEP and full impeller 

diameter. 10 CFR 431.462. DOE defines 

‘‘BEP’’ as the pump hydraulic power 

operating point (consisting of both flow 

and head conditions) that results in 

maximum efficiency and defines ‘‘full 

impeller diameter’’ as the maximum 

impeller diameter with which a given 

pump basic model is distributed in 

commerce. 10 CFR 431.462. DOE’s test 

procedure for pumps at appendix A to 

subpart Y of part 431 also includes test 

provisions for determining both BEP 

and pump input power (also known as 

shaft input power), as well as provisions 

for normalizing all measured data to the 

specified nominal speed of rotation. As 

such, while the definitions themselves 

do not specify that shaft input power is 

determined at nominal speed, DOE 

understands the CA IOUs concern that 

the pump definitions could be read to 

exclude pumps with shaft input power 

greater than or equal to 1 HP at BEP at 

their design speed, but less than 1 HP 

when tested and corrected to nominal 

speed. In addition, DOE understands 

that the value of maximum efficiency 

varies little with speed, and is often 

assumed to be constant, and as such the 

definition of BEP alone would not be 

sufficient to assume that it must be 

determined at a certain speed different 

from that in the test procedure. For 

these reasons, DOE believes there could 

be value in clarifying the current scope 

limitations regarding horsepower that 

are embedded in the pump category 

definitions. 

However, DOE also notes that, as 

previously discussed, it is proposing to 

expand the current test procedure’s 

scope to include SVIL pumps, which 

the CA IOUs noted might address this 

issue. Specifically, the proposed 

inclusion of SVIL pumps would be for 

fractional horsepower pumps, so even 

when corrected to nominal speed, the 

pumps in question would be included 

in scope. DOE understands that use of 

high frequency (circa 4,000 rpm) ECMs 

is likely more prevalent on SVILs than 

on other pumps in this horsepower 

range, particularly as a result of their 

applications and competition with the 

circulator market. This means that 

including SVILs in this proposed test 

procedure would include most, if not 

all, pumps where motor power 

decreases below 1 hp when rated at 

BEP. For these reasons, DOE is not 

proposing to change the specified 

horsepower limitations within the 

pump category definitions at this time. 

Issue 8: DOE requests comment on its 

tentative determination that 

incorporating SVILs into the test 

procedure will largely eliminate the 

issue of higher speed 1 hp pumps falling 

out of scope when they rate at a nominal 

speed of 3600 rpm. 

d. Horsepower and Number of Stages for 

Testing 

In response to the April 2021 RFI, 

Grundfos urged DOE to clarify how to 

handle certification of equipment where 

some equipment is regulated while 

others are not and provided the example 

of an RSV basic model sold with a 1 

horsepower (‘‘hp’’) motor tested at 3 

stages. Grundfos continued that if a 

similar pump is 2-stage and uses a 0.75 

hp motor, it’s partially out of scope. 

Grundfos recommended that equipment 

that straddles the scope of the test 

procedure should be considered to be 

out of scope. (Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 10– 

11) 

DOE understands that the same model 

of RSV pump may be sold with two 

stages, three stages, or some other 

number of stages. DOE’s RSV pump 

definition includes those pumps that 

have a shaft input power greater than or 

equal to 1 hp and less than or equal to 

200 hp at BEP and full impeller 

diameter and at the number of stages 

required for testing. 10 CFR 431.462. 

DOE’s testing provisions for RSV in 

section C.2 of appendix A to subpart Y 

of part 431 specify that the number of 

stages required for testing is three—or, 

if the basic model is only available with 

fewer than three stages, to test the basic 

model with the maximum number of 

stages with which it is distributed in 

commerce in the United States. 

Therefore, the RSV pump model sold 

with 2 or 3 stages would be included in 

the scope of the test procedure (and 

standards) if it has a shaft input power 

greater than or equal to 1 hp when 

tested at 3 stages, and the resulting PEI 

would apply to all stages with which 

the pump model is sold. For this reason, 

DOE is not making any changes to the 

scope of the test procedure. 

e. Design Temperature Range 

The current scope for the pumps test 

procedure is limited to pumps with a 

design temperature range between and 

including 14 to 248 °F. This range was 

derived from the original negotiation 

term sheet for pumps, which 

recommended limiting the scope to 

pumps with a design range from –10 °C 

to 120 °C. (Docket EERE–2013–BT– 

NOC–0039–0092). For the purposes of 

its regulations, DOE translated this 

range to Fahrenheit. DOE has received 

inquires as to whether a pump marketed 

for temperatures up to 250 °F is outside 

of the current test procedure’s scope. 

DOE has reviewed marketing materials 

for a number of pumps and found that 

common upper limits of temperature are 

212, 225, 248, 250, and 300 °F. Some 

marketing materials state that standard 

seals may have one high temperature 

limit while optional seals provide a 

higher limit (typically 250 or 300 °F). 

DOE understands the original intent of 

the scope limitation was to exclude 

pumps designed exclusively for low or 

high temperatures from the test 

procedure. However, if a manufacturer 

is offering a pump model across all 

temperature ranges in order to minimize 

SKUs, rather than offering separate low 

temperature and high temperature 

models, DOE considers that such a 

pump model should be subject to the 

regulations. Only pumps designed and 

marketed for temperatures exclusively 

outside the range of DOE’s scope would 

be excluded from the test procedure and 

energy conservation standards. DOE has 

also recognized that rounding to a 

temperature limit of 250 °F when 

translating from °C to °F would be 

preferable to using the exact value of 

248 °F since manufacturers commonly 

use rounded temperature values in their 

marketing materials. Similarly, DOE 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21281 

24An ‘‘in-line (IL) pump’’ means a pump that is 

either a twin-head pump or a single-stage, singleaxis flow, dry rotor, rotodynamic pump that has a 

shaft input power greater than or equal to 1 hp and 

less than or equal to 200 hp at BEP and full impeller 

diameter, in which liquid is discharged through a 

volute in a plane perpendicular to the shaft. Such 

pumps do not include pumps that are 

mechanically-coupled or close-coupled, have a 

pump power output that is less than or equal to 5 

hp at BEP at full impeller diameter, and are 

distributed in commerce with a horizontal motor. 

Examples of in-line pumps include, but are not 

limited to, pumps within the specified horsepower 

range that comply with ANSI/HI nomenclature 

OH3, OH4, or OH5, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1– 

1.2–2014. 10 CFR 431.462. 

proposes rounding the lower 

temperature limit from 14 °F to 15 °F. 

To clarify the scope of the pumps test 

procedure and to improve the 

enforceability of the regulation, DOE is 

proposing to change the wording and 

the values, such that the scope would 

include pumps with a design 

temperature inclusive of any part of the 

range from 15 to 250 °F. 

Issue 9: DOE seeks comment on its 

proposal to clarify the scope of the 

pumps test procedure with respect to 

design temperature. Specifically, DOE 

requests comment on whether 15 °F and 

250 °F are more appropriate than 14 °F 

and 248 °F, or whether other minor 

adjustments could be made to the range 

to assist with clarity and enforceability. 

B. Definitions 

1. Removing Certain References to 

Volute 

Pumps generally have one of two 

common discharge types, either a volute 

or a diffuser. A volute is made up of one 

or two scroll-shaped channels, whereas 

a diffuser has 3 or more passages that 

diffuse the liquid that is being pumped. 

The current definitions for end-suction 

and in-line pumps use the term 

‘‘volute,’’ when in practice either 

volutes or diffusers may be used for 

these categories of pumps. For example, 

DOE’s current definition for end-suction 

pump includes the following: ‘‘The 

liquid is discharged through a volute in 

a plane perpendicular to the shaft,’’ 

while the definition for ESCC pump, 

which is an end suction pump, 

specifically references OH7 pumps. 10 

CFR 431.462. However, Table 14.1.3.7 of 

HI 14.1–14.2–2019 specifies a diffuser 

as the standard casing for OH7 pumps. 

Similarly, DOE’s current definition for 

IL pump includes the following: ‘‘in 

which liquid is discharged through a 

volute in a plane perpendicular to the 

shaft,’’ and specifically references OH4 

and OH5 pumps as examples of endsuction pumps. Id. In contrast, Table 

14.1.3.7 of HI 14.1–14.2–2019 specifies 

a diffuser as the standard casing for OH4 

and OH5 pumps. DOE notes that HI 1.1– 

1.2–2014 did not make these casing 

distinctions. 

DOE interprets the term ‘‘volute’’ in 

its definitions for ‘‘end-suction pump’’ 

and ‘‘in-line pump’’ to mean the part of 

the pump casing through which liquid 

is discharged generally, rather than to 

reference a specific type of discharge. 

To avoid this unintentional 

inconsistency between DOE’s 

terminology and the terminology used 

by the updated industry standard, DOE 

proposes to amend the definitions of inline pump and end-suction pump to 

remove the distinction that liquid is 

discharged ‘‘through a volute in a plane 

perpendicular to the shaft’’ [emphasis 

added] by specifying instead that liquid 

is discharged ‘‘in a plane perpendicular 

to the shaft.’’ 

Issue 10: DOE requests comment on 

the proposed changes to the definitions 

for ‘‘in-line pump’’ and ‘‘end-suction 

pump’’ to remove the distinction that 

liquid is discharged ‘‘through a volute’’. 

2. HI Pump Class References 

The current DOE definitions for ESCC 

pump, ESFM pump, IL pump, RSV 

pump, and ST pump all include 

references to ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014 

pump configurations as examples of 

pumps that would meet the given 

definition. DOE has tentatively 

determined that it will be beneficial if 

the definitions are self-contained, and 

that these examples may have been 

causing confusion as to which pumps 

the definitions applied to. Therefore, 

DOE proposes to remove references to 

specific pump configurations as defined 

in ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014 and ANSI/HI 

2.1–2.2–2014 in the definitions for 

ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and ST pumps. 

Issue 11: DOE requests comment on 

the proposed changes to the definitions 

for ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and ST 

pumps to remove references to ANSI/HI 

1.1–1.2–2014 pump classes. 

Specifically, DOE requests comment on 

the ability of the modified definitions to 

clearly communicate the intended 

pump categories to industry stake 

holders. 

3. Bowl Diameter 

The current DOE definition for ‘‘bowl 

diameter’’ references the definition of 

‘‘intermediate bowl’’ in ANSI/HI 2.1– 

2.2–2014. This is the sole remaining 

reference to ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014 in 

the test procedure if the proposed 

changes to eliminate the HI pump class 

references are adopted. DOE has 

tentatively determined it would be more 

helpful for readers if the bowl diameter 

definition was self-contained, 

particularly since HI 2.1–2.2–2014 

would not be referenced elsewhere. To 

disassociate the definition of ‘‘bowl 

diameter’’ from ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014, 

DOE is proposing to define ‘‘bowl 

diameter’’ as referring to ‘‘the maximum 

dimension of an imaginary straight line 

passing through, and in the plane of, the 

circular shape of the intermediate bowl 

of the bare pump that is perpendicular 

to the pump shaft and that intersects the 

outermost circular shape of the 

intermediate bowl of the bare pump at 

both of its ends.’’ With respect to 

‘‘intermediate bowl,’’ DOE proposes to 

define this term as ‘‘the enclosure 

within which the impeller rotates and 

which serves as a guide for the flow 

from one impeller to the next.’’ 

The proposed definitions would be 

added to 10 CFR 431.462. 

Issue 12: DOE requests comment on 

the proposed change to the definition of 

bowl diameter to include a more 

specific definition of intermediate bowl 

instead of referring to the term as 

defined in ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014. 

4. Small Vertical Inline Pumps 

As discussed in section III.A.2, DOE 

is proposing to expand the scope of the 

test procedure to include SVIL pumps, 

which are identical to IL pumps except 

for having a shaft input power less 1 hp. 

The Circulator Pump Working Group 

recommended the following definition 

for SVIL pumps: 

‘‘Small vertical in-line pump means a 

single stage, single-axis flow, dry rotor, 

rotodynamic pump that: (1) Has a shaft 

input power less than 1 hp at best 

efficiency point at full impeller 

diameter, (2) is distributed in commerce 

with a motor that does not have to be 

in a horizontal position to function as 

designed, and (3) discharges the 

pumped liquid through a volute in a 

plane perpendicular to the shaft.’’ 

(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, 

No. 58 Recommendations #3C at p. 3) 

In the May 2021 Circulator Pumps 

RFI, DOE requested comment on the 

suitability of the above definition. 86 FR 

24516, 24522. In response, HI and NEEA 

supported the circulator pumps working 

group definition of SVILs. (HI, Docket 

EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 112 at 

p. 4; NEEA, Docket EERE–2016–BT– 

STD–0004, No. 115 at p. 4) 

The recommended definition would 

distinguish SVIL pumps from DOE’s 

current IL pump definition 24 in that 

SVIL pumps have a reduced shaft power 

input range (IL pump is constrained to 

greater than or equal to 1 hp and less 

than or equal to 200 hp; SVIL must be 

less than 1 hp) and a different maximum 

pump power output limitation (IL pump 

has a limit of 5 hp at BEP; SVIL pumps 

have no hp limitation). The change to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21282 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

shaft input power is the primary 

distinction between IL and SVIL pumps. 

DOE has tentatively determined this 

distinction is necessary to adequately 

separate the two categories. The pump 

power output is a consequence of the 

shaft power limitations. DOE has 

tentatively determined that SVIL pumps 

do not require a 5 hp pump power 

output limitation as their shaft input 

power is already capped below 1 hp. 

Another difference is that the IL 

definition includes a group of three 

parameters to exclude circulator 

pumps—namely that they are either 

mechanically-coupled or close-coupled, 

have a pump power output that is less 

than or equal to 5 hp at BEP at full 

impeller diameter, and are distributed 

in commerce with a horizontal motor. In 

contrast, the recommended SVIL 

definition is meant to exclude circulator 

pumps through clause (2)—i.e., ‘‘related 

to distribution in commerce with a 

motor that does not have to be in a 

horizontal position to function as 

designed.’’ On December 20, 2021, DOE 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking to establish a test procedure 

for circulator pumps (‘‘Circulator Pumps 

TP NOPR’’). 86 FR 72096. In the NOPR, 

DOE proposed to define a circulator 

pump as consisting of a wet rotor 

circulator pump; dry rotor, two-piece 

circulator pump; or dry rotor, threepiece circulator pumps. The NOPR also 

included proposed definitions for these 

subcategories of circulator pumps. Id. at 

86 FR 72139. For clarity, DOE proposes 

that for the SVIL definition, rather than 

including the recommendation in clause 

(2), to instead exclude circulator pumps. 

Should a test procedure not be finalized 

for circulator pumps, DOE could instead 

finalize an SVIL definition using clause 

(2). For consistency, DOE also proposes 

to revise the IL pump definition to 

explicitly include circulator pumps 

instead of including the clauses meant 

to implicitly exclude them. Should a 

test procedure not be finalized for 

circulator pumps, DOE would retain the 

existing relevant clauses of the IL 

definition. 

DOE notes that clause (3) of the 

recommended SVIL definition 

(‘‘discharges the pumped liquid through 

a volute in a plane perpendicular to the 

shaft’’) refers to a volute. For the reasons 

discussed in section III.B.1 of this 

document, DOE proposes excluding this 

reference from the proposed SVIL 

definition. 

The recommended SVIL pump 

definition, through clause (2), also 

requires that these pumps be distributed 

into commerce with a motor, meaning 

SVIL pumps cannot be sold as a bare 

pump. Based on a literature search, DOE 

has tentatively determined that all SVIL 

pumps are sold with a motor. However, 

by proposing to replace clause (2) with 

an exclusion for circulator pumps, this 

requirement would be eliminated. 

Although not addressed in the 

recommendation from the Working 

Group, the defined term ‘‘twin-head 

pump’’ (10 CFR 431.462) would be 

applicable to SVIL pumps. Specifically, 

in the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE 

adopted a test procedure for ‘‘twin-head 

pumps’’, where a twin-head pump is 

defined as a: ‘‘dry rotor, single-axis 

flow, rotodynamic pump that contains 

two impeller assemblies, which both 

share a common casing, inlet, and 

discharge, and each of which (1) 

Contains an impeller, impeller shaft (or 

motor shaft in the case of close-coupled 

pumps), shaft seal or packing, driver (if 

present), and mechanical equipment (if 

present); (2) Has a shaft input power 

that is greater than or equal to 1 hp and 

less than or equal to 200 hp at best 

efficiency point (BEP) and full impeller 

diameter; (3) Has the same primary 

energy source (if sold with a driver) and 

the same electrical, physical, and 

functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption or energy 

efficiency; (4) Is mounted in its own 

volute; and (5) Discharges liquid 

through its volute and the common 

discharge in a plane perpendicular to 

the impeller shaft.’’ 81 FR 4086, 4095– 

4096 and 4115–4116 (Jan. 25, 2016). 

Since SVIL pumps are similar to IL 

pumps but operate at a smaller 

horsepower, and also are available in 

twin-head configurations DOE proposes 

to define a new term—‘‘small vertical 

twin-head pump’’—and to extend the 

twin-head pump test procedure adopted 

in the January 2016 Final Rule to small 

vertical twin-head pumps. Accordingly, 

the proposed definition would read as: 

‘‘small vertical twin-head pump’’ as a 

dry rotor, single-axis flow, rotodynamic 

pump that contains two equivalent 

impeller assemblies, each of which: 

(1) Contains an impeller, impeller 

shaft (or motor shaft in the case of closecoupled pumps), shaft seal or packing, 

driver (if present), and mechanical 

equipment (if present); and 

(2) Has a shaft input power that is less 

than or equal to 1 hp at BEP and full 

impeller diameter; and 

(3) Has the same primary energy 

source (if sold with a driver) and the 

same electrical, physical, and functional 

characteristics that affect energy 

consumption or energy efficiency; and 

(4) Is mounted in its own volute; and 

(5) Discharges liquid through its 

volute and the common discharge in a 

plane perpendicular to the impeller 

shaft. 

To summarize, DOE is proposing to 

define SVIL pumps based on the 

recommended definition from the 

Circulator Pump Working Group with 

modifications to include SVILs that are 

small vertical twin-head pumps; to 

exclude pumps that are circulator 

pumps; and to remove the current 

reference to a volute. Specifically, DOE 

is proposing to define a ‘‘small vertical 

in-line pump’’ as a small vertical twinhead pump or a single stage, single-axis 

flow, dry rotor, rotodynamic pump that: 

(1) Has a shaft input power less than 1 

hp at best efficiency point at full 

impeller diameter, (2) in which liquid is 

discharged in a plane perpendicular to 

the shaft; and (3) is not a circulator 

pump. 

Issue 13: DOE also proposes to revise 

the IL definition to explicitly exclude 

circulator pumps. DOE requests 

comment on its proposed definitions for 

‘‘small vertical in-line pumps’’ and 

‘‘small vertical twin-head pump.’’ 

Issue 14: DOE requests comment on 

the percentage of SVIL pumps, if any, 

that are not sold with a motor, and 

whether the definition of SVIL pump 

should be limited to those sold with a 

motor. 

Issue 15: DOE requests comment on 

its proposed revision to the IL pump 

definition to explicitly exclude 

circulator pumps. 

5. Between-Bearing Pumps 

As discussed in section III.A.3.a, DOE 

is proposing to add between-bearing 

pumps to the scope of this test 

procedure and is therefore proposing a 

definition for this pump category. 

ANSI/HI 14.1–14.2–2019 defines 

between-bearing pump as a rotodynamic 

pump with the impeller(s) mounted on 

a shaft between-bearings on either end. 

In addition, all between-bearing pumps 

described in ANSI/HI 14.1–14–2–2019 

are mechanically-coupled and dry rotor. 

Through a literature review, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the betweenbearing pumps that are most similar to 

the pumps currently regulated by DOE 

have axially-split casings and 1 or 2 

stages. Accordingly, using ANSI/HI 

14.1–14.2–2019 as the basis for its 

approach, DOE is proposing to use the 

defined terms ‘‘dry rotor pump’’, 

rotodynamic pump’’, and 

‘‘mechanically-coupled pump’’ to define 

a between-bearing pump,—i.e., ‘‘an 

axially-split, mechanically-coupled, 

one- or two-stage, dry rotor, 

rotodynamic pump with bearings on 

both ends of the rotating assembly that 

has a shaft input power greater than or 

equal to 1 hp and less than or equal to 

200 hp at BEP and full impeller 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21283 

diameter and at the number of stages 

required for testing.’’ 

Issue 16: DOE requests comment on 

its proposed definition for betweenbearing pumps, specifically if it is 

sufficient to identify the intended scope. 

In addition to proposing a definition 

for between-bearing pump, DOE is also 

proposing to define the associated term 

‘‘axially-split pump.’’ The term ‘‘axiallysplit’’ refers to a design of pump casing 

that can be separated, for maintenance 

and assembly, in a plane parallel to the 

impeller shaft. DOE proposes to define 

an ‘‘axially-split pump’’ based on ANSI/ 

HI 14.1–14.2–2019 as ‘‘a pump with a 

casing that can be separated or split in 

a plane that is parallel to and which 

contains the axis of the impeller shaft.’’ 

Issue 17: DOE request comment on 

the proposed definition for axially-split 

pump. 

6. Vertical Turbine Pump 

As discussed in section III.A.3.b, DOE 

is proposing to add vertical turbine 

pumps to the scope of its test procedure 

and is therefore proposing a definition 

for this pump category. ANSI/HI 14.2– 

14.2 –2019 defines vertical turbine 

pumps as ‘‘single-casing, nonsubmersible, pumps with impellers 

mounted in a vertically suspended 

shaft, that discharge liquid through the 

column.’’ Based on this definition and 

existing DOE defined terms and 

proposed defined terms, DOE is 

proposing to define the term ‘‘vertical 

turbine pump’’ as a verticallysuspended, single-stage or multi-stage, 

dry rotor, rotodynamic pump: 

(1) That has a shaft input power 

greater than or equal to 1 hp and less 

than or equal to 200 hp at BEP and full 

impeller diameter and at the number of 

stages required for testing; 

(2) For which no external part of such 

a pump is designed to be submerged in 

the pumped liquid; 

(3) That has a single pressure 

containing boundary (i.e., is single 

casing), which may consist of but is not 

limited to bowls, columns, and 

discharge heads; and 

(4) That discharges liquid through the 

same casing in which the impeller shaft 

is contained. 

Issue 18: DOE requests comment on 

the proposed definition for vertical 

turbine pump. 

7. Radially-Split, Multi-Stage Horizontal 

Pumps 

DOE currently defines a RSV pump as 

a vertically-suspended, multi-stage, 

single axis flow, dry rotor, rotodynamic 

pump: 

(1) That has a shaft input power 

greater than or equal to 1 hp and less 

than or equal to 200 hp at BEP and full 

impeller diameter and at the number of 

stages required for testing; and 

(2) In which liquid is discharged in a 

place perpendicular to the impeller 

shaft; and 

(3) For which each stage (or bowl) 

consists of an impeller and diffuser; 

(4) For which no external part of such 

a pump is designed to be submerged in 

the pumped liquid; and 

(5) Examples include, but are not 

limited to, pumps complying with 

ANSI/HI nomenclature VS8, as 

described in ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014. 

As discussed in section III.A.3.c, DOE 

is proposing to include within the scope 

of the DOE test procedure RSH pumps 

with both end-suction and in-line flow 

configurations. RSH pumps are nearly 

identical to RSV pumps except for the 

mounting orientation and flow 

configurations. In their comments to the 

August 2021 ECS RFI, Grundfos 

recommended that DOE consider new 

categories for products similar to RSV 

and RSH with connections that are not 

in line. (Grundfos, Docket EERE–2021– 

BT–STD–0018, No. 9 at p. 2) As 

discussed in section III.A.3.c, RSH 

pumps may have different flow 

configurations that are expected to 

impact pump efficiency; therefore, DOE 

is proposing three definitions for RSH 

pumps based on the existing DOE 

definition for pumps: One for an 

overarching category of RSH pumps, 

which does not characterize flow; one 

for in-line RHS pumps; and one for endsuction RSH pumps. The three 

definitions would be modified to read as 

follows: 

Radially-split, multi-stage, horizontal, 

diffuser casing (RSH) pump means a 

horizontal, multi-stage, dry rotor, 

rotodynamic pump: 

(1) That has a shaft input power 

greater than or equal to 1 hp and less 

than or equal to 200 hp at BEP and full 

impeller diameter and at the number of 

stages required for testing; and 

(2) In which liquid is discharged in a 

plane perpendicular to the impeller 

shaft; and 

(3) For which each stage (or bowl) 

consists of an impeller and diffuser; and 

(4) For which no external part of such 

a pump is designed to be submerged in 

the pumped liquid. 

Radially-split, multi-stage, horizontal, 

in-line diffuser casing (‘‘RSHIL’’) pump 

means a single-axis flow RSH pump in 

which the liquid enters the pump in a 

plane perpendicular to the impeller 

shaft. 

Radially-split, multi-stage, horizontal, 

end-suction diffuser casing (‘‘RSHES’’) 

pump means a RSH pump in which the 

liquid enters the bare pump in a 

direction parallel to the impeller shaft 

and on the side opposite of the bare 

pump’s driver-end. 

Issue 19: DOE requests comment on 

the proposed definitions for RSH, 

RSHIL, and RSHES pumps—particularly 

whether they are sufficient to identify 

the intended scope of such pumps as 

discussed in section III.A.3.c of this 

document. 

8. Close-Coupled and MechanicallyCoupled Pumps 

As discussed in section III.A.3.d, DOE 

defines a close-coupled pump as a 

pump having a motor shaft that also acts 

as the impeller shaft, and defines a 

mechanically-coupled pump as a pump 

that has its own impeller shaft and 

bearings separate from the motor shaft. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

these definitions leave a gap in the endsuction pump category and is proposing 

to modify the definitions to eliminate 

that gap. 

In the April 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on the definitions of ‘‘closecoupled pump’’ and ‘‘mechanicallycoupled pump’’ and whether the terms 

should be revised. 86 FR 20075, 20078. 

Summit stated that it has no concerns 

with the current definitions for ESCC 

and ESFM and that they are definitive 

enough. (Summit, No. 16 at p. 3) 

Summit’s comments also addressed 

energy conservation standards topics, 

which DOE will address in the pumps 

standards rulemaking. HI suggested the 

following change to the definitions: (1) 

A close-coupled pump, for the purposes 

of this regulation, is defined as a pump 

in which the driver’s bearings absorb 

the pump axial load; and (2) A 

mechanically-coupled pump, for the 

purposes of this regulation, is defined as 

a pump in which bearings external to 

the driver absorb the pump axial load. 

(HI, No. 20 at p. 3) Grundfos agreed with 

HI’s recommendation to modify the 

definitions for close-coupled pump and 

mechanically-coupled pump and 

emphasized that products that do not 

have bearings and have an impeller that 

is not on the motor shaft should be 

covered by these definitions. (Grundfos, 

No. 17 at p. 2) Grundfos additionally 

stated that the definitions for these 

products should utilize how the axial 

loads are handled as a differentiating 

factor for these terms. Id. Grundfos 

added that DOE’s definitions are not 

necessarily aligned with standard 

industry definitions, and therefore 

recommended that DOE preface its 

definitions with the phrase, ‘‘For the 

purposes of this regulation, [product] 

pump means . . .’’. Id. 

DOE acknowledges that a definition 

that addresses how the axial load is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21284 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

absorbed may better differentiate closecoupled and mechanically-coupled 

pumps. DOE notes that regardless of 

whether its definitions align with 

industry definitions, the text in the CFR 

takes precedence over definitions in 

industry standards that may be 

incorporated by reference. See 10 CFR 

431.462. Based on responses received 

from stakeholders and DOE’s review of 

ESCC and ESFM pumps, DOE has 

tentatively determined that there is a 

group of end-suction pumps that do not 

currently fall within the ESFM or ESCC 

definitions. To address this issue, DOE 

proposes revising its definitions for 

‘‘close-coupled pump’’ and 

‘‘mechanically-coupled pump’’ as 

follows: 

A close-coupled pump means a pump 

in which the driver’s bearings absorb 

the pump’s axial load. 

A mechanically-coupled pump means 

a pump in which bearings external to 

the driver absorb the pump’s axial load. 

In DOE’s view, these revised 

definitions should capture all endsuction pumps whose axial loads are 

supported with bearings. This change 

should encompass the previously 

uncovered end-suction pumps and 

clarify the definitions sufficiently to 

avoid future confusion. 

Issue 20: DOE requests comment on 

the proposed definitional changes to 

ESFM and ESCC pumps in defining 

both categories based on the location of 

the bearings which bear the axial load 

of the pump. Specifically, DOE seeks 

comment on whether these proposed 

changes will capture the end-suction 

pumps identified by stakeholders as not 

currently meeting the ESCC or ESFM 

definitions. 

9. Tangential Discharge 

The definition for IL pump applies to 

pumps for which the liquid is 

discharged from the pump in a plane 

(i.e., direction) perpendicular to the 

impeller shaft, and for which the 

entering and exiting flows are along the 

same axis (i.e., single-axis flow). See 10 

CFR 431.462. The definition for endsuction pump applies to pumps for 

which the liquid enters the pump in a 

direction parallel to the impeller shaft 

and exits the pump in a plane 

perpendicular to the shaft. Id. DOE also 

currently defines the term ‘‘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.’’ Id. As discussed in the 

April 2021 RFI, the ‘‘single axis flow 

pump’’ definition does not explicitly 

state whether the axis is defined by the 

suction opening to the volute or the 

suction opening at the perimeter of the 

pump. 86 FR 20075, 20078. Closecoupled pumps can be designed with a 

perpendicular discharge volute which is 

also tangential (i.e., a design in which 

the suction and discharge openings do 

not share a common axis). See 10 CFR 

431.462 (defining ‘‘single axis flow 

pump’’). 

In the April 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on how manufacturers are 

currently categorizing close-coupled 

pumps with tangential discharge volutes 

relative to the five pump categories 

defined at 10 CFR 431.464 and whether 

DOE should provide additional detail in 

the definitions for single-axis flow 

pump and/or end-suction pump 

regarding tangential discharge volute 

configurations. 86 FR 20075, 20078. 

Summit, Grundfos, and HI all 

commented that the existing definitions 

of end-suction pump and IL pump are 

sufficient. (Summit, No. 16 at p. 3; 

Grundfos, No. 17, at p. 2; HI, No. 20 at 

p. 3) Summit additionally stated that it 

assumes end-suction was relative to 

suction and parallel to the shaft, and 

that tangential discharge pumps are 

included in end-suction type pumps 

(Summit, No. 16 at p. 3) DOE 

interpreted this to mean Summit 

interprets end-suction as suction 

parallel to the impeller shaft. HI and 

Grundfos stated that tangential 

discharge is not a concern for IL pumps 

and RSV pumps because of the 

requirement for single axis flow 

included in the definitions for IL pump 

and RSV pump. (HI, No. 20 at p. 3; 

Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 2) HI and 

Grundfos additionally stated that 

tangential discharge is not a design 

characteristic for ST pumps, since this 

would imply a pump discharge 

perpendicular to the pump shaft, and 

that tangential discharge is already 

covered in both the ESCC pump and 

ESFM pump definitions. Id. Grundfos 

recommended that DOE specify whether 

tangential discharge is the location of 

the discharge outlet or the discharge exit 

from the volute. Id. 

After further reviewing the definitions 

for single axis flow pump, ESCC pump, 

ESFM pump, IL pump, and RSV pump, 

and taking into account stakeholder 

comments, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the current definitions 

are sufficient and is not proposing to 

revise the definitions for end-suction 

pump or in-line pump at this time. 

10. Pump 

DOE currently defines a ‘‘pump’’ as 

‘‘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.’’ 10 CFR 431.462. DOE 

currently defines ‘‘bare pump’’ as ‘‘a 

pump excluding mechanical equipment, 

driver, and controls.’’ Id. As discussed 

in the April 2021 RFI, some 

manufacturers distribute kits of 

unassembled components that 

customers (including end users or 

distributors) may purchase and 

assemble into finished equipment that 

meets the definition of a pump or a bare 

pump. 86 FR 20075, 20078 DOE 

requested comment on the definitions of 

‘‘pump’’ and its components and 

whether any of the terms should be 

amended, and if so, how the terms 

should be amended. Id. In particular, 

DOE requested comment on whether the 

terms are sufficient to identify which 

equipment is subject to the test 

procedure and whether any test 

procedure amendments are required to 

ensure that all such equipment can be 

appropriately tested in accordance with 

the test procedure. Id. 

In response to the April 2021 RFI, 

Grundfos and HI supported the 

definition of a pump as written. 

(Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 1; HI, No. 20 at 

p. 2) Summit commented that the pump 

definition could better describe what 

pump parts are subject to regulation. 

(Summit, No. 16 at p. 2) Specifically, 

Summit stated that it interpreted the 

definition such that if the parts in a kit 

alone will only be used to make a pump, 

with no other kits or parts needed, such 

a kit would be considered a pump. Id. 

Summit stated that determining the end 

use of a pump kit can be extremely 

burdensome. Id. Summit additionally 

commented that if a pump does not 

meet the PEI standard, Summit will no 

longer distribute its impeller/casing kit; 

however, Summit does not consider 

these spare parts to be covered by the 

DOE regulation. Id. 

DOE acknowledges that determining 

the end use of a pump kit, or a pump 

part can be burdensome. DOE currently 

interprets the term ‘‘bare pump’’ to 

include any kit that contains all the 

parts necessary for an operating pump, 

barring mechanical equipment, driver, 

and controls. Replacement parts are not 

the subject of this regulation. 

C. Updates to Industry Standards 

The current DOE test procedure for 

pumps incorporates the following 

industry test standards: HI 40.6–2014, 

ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014, and ANSI/HI 

2.1–2.2–2014. 10 CFR 431.463. The 

following sections describe updates to 

these industry standards and discuss 

what industry standards DOE is 

proposing to incorporate by reference in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21285 

25A volute may also be referred to as a ‘‘housing’’ 

or ‘‘casing.’’ 

the NOPR and the relevant provisions of 

those industry standards that DOE is 

proposing to reference. 

1. ANSI/HI 40.6 

As discussed in the April 2021 RFI, 

the DOE test procedure for pumps 

generally incorporates HI 40.6–2014. 86 

FR 20075, 20080. Since publication of 

the January 2016 Final Rule, the 

Hydraulics Institute updated HI 40.6– 

2014 with the publication of HI 

Standard 40.6–2016, ‘‘Methods for 

Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing’’ 

(‘‘HI 40.6–2016’’). The definitions and 

procedures in HI 40.6–2016 align with 

the DOE test procedure for pumps 

published in the January 2016 Final 

Rule. HI published another updated 

version of HI 40.6 in 2021, ‘‘Methods for 

Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing’’ 

(‘‘HI 40.6–2021’’). HI 40.6–2021 

includes the following modifications as 

compared to HI 40.6–2014 (relevant 

sections of HI 40.6–2021 are included in 

parentheses after a summary of the 

modification): 

(1) Clarified that the industy testing 

standard covers efficiency testing of 

rotodynamic pumps that are subject to 

DOE’s energy conservation standards. 

(Section 40.6.1 ‘‘Scope’’) 

(2) Updated the calculation of bare 

pump efficiency to match the current 

DOE test procedure requirements for 

plotting test data to determine the best 

efficiency point (‘‘BEP’’) rate of flow. 

(Section 40.6.6.3 ‘‘Performance curve’’) 

(3) Updated the description and 

requirements of the pressure tap 

configuration for measurement sections 

at inlet and outlet of the pump. (Section 

A.3.1.3 ‘‘Pressure taps’’) 

(4) Added an informative appendix 

for determining, applying, and 

calculating measurement instrument 

uncertainty. (Appendix H 

‘‘Determination, application, and 

calculation of instrument (systematic) 

uncertainty (informative)’’) 

(5) References ANSI/HI 14.1–14.2 

‘‘Rotodynamic Pumps for Nomenclature 

and Definitions’’ (‘‘ANSI/HI 14.1–14.2’’) 

which supersedes ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2– 

2014 and ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014. 

(Section 40.6.4.1 ‘‘Vertically suspended 

pumps’’; Section 40.6.4.3 ‘‘All other 

pump types’’) 

(6) Includes a new appendix 

(Appendix E) for the testing of circulator 

pumps. (Appendix E ‘‘Testing Circulator 

Pumps’’) 

DOE noted in the April 2021 RFI that 

comments in response to the September 

2020 Early Assessment RFI suggested 

that DOE adopt HI 40.6–2021 instead of 

HI 40.6–2016, with commenters stating 

that the 2021 version includes clarifying 

edits, is no more burdensome to 

conduct, and includes a section for 

testing circulator pumps. 86 FR 20075, 

20080. In the April 2021 RFI, DOE again 

requested comment on whether it 

should adopt HI 40.6–2016 or HI 40.6– 

2021. Id. Grundfos, the CA IOUs, HI, 

and NEEA all supported the adoption of 

HI 40.6–2021, stating that the 2021 

version does not change the measured 

test values as compared to HI 40.6–2014 

as referenced by the DOE test procedure, 

and that testing according to the 2021 

version would not be more burdensome 

to conduct. (Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 4; 

CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 11; HI, No. 20 at 

p. 2; NEEA, No. 21 at p. 2) 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

with respect to the provisions of HI 

40.6–2014, the corresponding 

provisions of HI 40.6–2021 are 

substantively the same and adopting 

such provisions would not change the 

current test procedure. As such, in order 

to reference the most current industry 

test procedure, DOE is proposing to 

incorporate by reference HI 40.6–2021 

in place of HI 40.6–2014. 

While DOE proposes to incorporate by 

reference HI 40.6–2021 as the basis for 

its proposed test procedure, DOE has 

tentatively determined that certain 

sections of the industry testing standard 

are not applicable to the DOE test 

procedure. Specifically, Section 40.6.1, 

Scope, provides the scope specific to the 

test methods outlined in HI 40.6; 

Section 40.6.5.3 provides provisions 

regarding the generation of a test report; 

appendix ‘‘B’’ provides informative 

guidance on test report formatting; 

appendix ‘‘E’’ provides normative test 

procedures for circulator pumps; and 

appendix ‘‘G’’ compares HI 40.6 and 

DOE’s nomenclature. None of these 

sections are required for testing and 

rating pumps in accordance with DOE’s 

proposed procedure. As such, DOE is 

not proposing to adopt Section 40.6.1, 

Section 40.6.5.3, appendix B, appendix 

E, and appendix G. 

Additionally, certain provisions of HI 

40.6–2021 are consistent with the 

additional provisions established by 

DOE in appendix A. As such, DOE is 

proposing to maintain those provisions 

through reference to HI 40.6–2021, 

specifically: 

(1) Section I.D.1 of appendix A, which 

addresses damping devices, would be 

amended to reference the corresponding 

provisions in HI 40.6.3.2.2; 

(2) Section I.D.2 of appendix A, which 

addresses stabilization, would be 

amended to reference the corresponding 

provisions in HI 40.6.5.5.1; 

(3) Section I.D.3 of appendix A, which 

addresses calculations and rounding, 

would be amended to reference the 

corresponding provisions in HI 

40.6.6.1.1; 

(4) Sections III.D.1, IV.D.1, V.D.1, 

VI.D.1, and VII.D.1 of appendix A, 

which outline testing the BEP of 

different pump configurations, would be 

amended to reference the corresponding 

provisions in HI 40.6.5.5.1. 

2. ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014 and ANSI/HI 

2.1–2.2–2014 

Subpart Y to part 431 currently 

incorporates by reference ANSI/HI 1.1– 

1.2–2014 and ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014. 

DOE references ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014 

and ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014 in defining 

certain terms in 10 CFR 431.462. In 

2019, ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014 and ANSI/ 

HI 2.1–2.2–2014 were updated and 

combined into ANSI/HI 14.1–14.2– 

2019, ‘‘American National Standard for 

Rotodynamic Pumps for Nomenclature 

and Definitions’’ (‘‘ANSI/HI 14.1–14.2– 

2019’’). The notable additions to ANSI/ 

HI 14.1–14.2 which were absent in 

ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014 and ANSI/HI 

2.1–2.2–2014 are outlined below: 

(1) ANSI/HI 14.1–14.2–2019 includes 

additonal figures and tables to represent 

information included in ANSI/HI 1.1– 

1.2–2014 and ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014; 

(2) ANSI/HI 14.1–14.2–2019 adds new 

pump definitions and pump 

classifications; 

(3) ANSI/HI 14.1–14.2–2019 includes 

configuration definitions for vertical inline, vertical end-suction, vertical selfpriming, seal-less, magnetic drive, 

canned motor, and multi-stage pumps; 

(4) ANSI/HI 14.1–14.2–2019 adds new 

definitions for discharge casing, 

volute,concentric casing, modified 

concentric casing, vaned diffuser/ 

collector, bowl, and stage casing; and 25

(5) ANSI/HI 14.1–14.2–2019 includes 

a new ‘‘preferred operating region’’ 

section to define a guideline for 

reccomended operating flow rates. 

In the April 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on incorporating ANSI/HI 

14.1–14.2–2019 by reference into the 

DOE test procedure. 86 FR 20075, 

20080–20081. Grundfos and HI 

encouraged DOE to incorporate ANSI/HI 

14.1–14.2–2019 (Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 

4; HI, No. 20 at p. 2). However, 

stakeholders did not address whether 

adoption of ANSI/HI 14.1–14.2–2019 

would substantively change currently 

defined terms and equipment classes. 

As stated previously, in general the 

current DOE test procedure incorporates 

pump designations from ANSI/HI 1.1– 

1.2–2014 and ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014 as 

examples for the definitions of endsuction close-coupled (ESCC); endVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:32 Apr 08, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11APP2.SGM 11APP2

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21286 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

26The term ‘‘pump power input’’ in HI 40.6–2021 

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. 27The 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. 28The 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. 

29The term ‘‘pump efficiency’’ is defined in HI 

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

power input. 

30The term ‘‘bowl efficiency’’ is defined in HI 

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

assembly power input and is applicable only to 

VTS and RSV pumps. 

31The 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. 

suction frame mounted/own bearings 

(ESFM); in-line (IL); radially-split, 

multi-stage, vertical, in-line diffuser 

casing (RSV); and submersible turbine 

(ST) pump categories under the DOE 

test procedure. 10 CFR 431.462. DOE 

notes that generally, the references to 

ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014 and ANSI/HI 

2.1–2.2–2014 are in the context of 

providing non-limiting examples. DOE 

is concerned that continued inclusion of 

HI pump designations as examples of 

specific pump categories may cause 

confusion in the market or be 

misunderstood to limit the scope of the 

relevant definitions. To avoid any such 

misreading, DOE is proposing to remove 

the references to ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014 

and ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014 as examples 

of certain pump category definitions. 

Additional detail on the proposed 

changes to the definitions is discussed 

in section III.B.2 of this document. 

Additionally, DOE’s current test 

procedure definition of ‘‘bowl diameter’’ 

relies on the ‘‘intermediate bowl’’ 

definition in ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014. 

DOE is proposing to modify its 

definition for ‘‘bowl diameter’’ and add 

a DOE definition for ‘‘intermediate 

bowl’’ to remove the current reference to 

ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014. These proposed 

changes will create a more selfcontained definition. These proposed 

changes are discussed in section III.B.3 

of this document. 

D. Metric 

The current energy efficiency 

standards for pumps are based on the 

PEI metric. 10 CFR 431.465. The PEI 

metric is a ratio of the pump energy 

rating (‘‘PER’’) of the tested pump to the 

PER of a minimally-compliant pump 

(‘‘PERSTD’’). See section II of appendix 

A. The current test procedure defines 

the metric PEICL, the pump energy index 

for a constant load, as applicable to 

pumps rated as bare pumps or sold with 

motors; and the metric PEIVL, the pump 

energy index for a variable load, as 

applicable to pumps sold with motors 

and continuous controls or 

noncontinuous controls. Appendix A, 

section II.A. A ‘‘continuous control’’ is 

a control that adjusts the speed of the 

pump driver continuously over the 

driver’s operating speed range in 

response to incremental changes in the 

required pump flow, head, or power 

output. 10 CFR 431.462. A ‘‘noncontinuous control’’ is a control that 

adjusts the speed of a driver to one of 

a discrete number of non-continuous 

preset operating speeds and does not 

respond to incremental reductions in 

the required pump flow, head, or power 

output. Id. 

The PEI metric is a ratio of the pump 

energy rating (‘‘PER’’) of the tested 

pump to the PER of a minimallycompliant pump (‘‘PERSTD’’). See 

appendix A. The pump energy rating for 

constant load pumps (‘‘PERCLüü) is 

calculated as the average of driver 

power input at 75 percent, 100 percent, 

and 110 percent of flow at the BEP, 

where the flows are achieved by varying 

the operating head to follow the pump 

performance curve. See appendix A, 

section II.A.1 and subsequently 

referenced sections. The pump energy 

rating for variable load pumps 

(‘‘PERVLüü) is calculated as the average 

of driver power input at 25%, 50%, 

75%, 100% of flow at BEP, where the 

flows are achieved by speed reduction 

to follow a specified system curve. See 

appendix A, section II.A.2 and 

subsequently referenced sections. BEP is 

defined as the pump hydraulic power 

operating point (consisting of both flow 

and head conditions) that results in the 

maximum efficiency. 10 CFR 431.462. 

In response to the April 2021 RFI, 

NEEA stated that DOE’s current pump 

test procedure generally provides a good 

representation of pump energy 

consumption and that the current pump 

metrics are good indicators of relative 

efficiency. (NEEA, No. 21 at p. 2) 

This section discusses the proposed 

regulatory metric for SVIL pumps and 

additional clean water pumps that DOE 

is proposing to incorporate into its test 

procedure scope. In the May 2021 

Circulator Pumps RFI, DOE discussed 

that the Circulator Pump Working 

Group recommended evaluating SVIL 

pumps using the PEICL or PEIVL metrics, 

similar to commercial and industrial 

pumps, and using the commercial and 

industrial pump test procedure to 

measure performance, with any 

additional modifications necessary as 

determined by DOE. 86 FR 24516, 

24527. 

In their comments to the May 2021 

Circulator Pumps RFI, the CA IOUs 

reiterated their support for SVILs to be 

rated using the PEICL or PEIVL metric, 

consistent with the Circulator Pump 

Working Group term sheet. (CA IOUs, 

EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, at No. 10 p. 

6) 

DOE reviewed the PEICL and PEIVL

metrics and has tentatively determined 

that, in general, use of PERCL and PERVL

and indexing the results against PERSTD

would be a reasonable and consistent 

way to evaluate SVIL performance. This 

tentative determination is based largely 

on the similarities between SVILs and 

in-line pumps, which are evaluated 

using the PERCL and PERVL metrics. As 

such, DOE is proposing that the rating 

metric for SVIL pumps would be PEICL

for constant load pumps and PEIVL for 

variable load pumps, equivalent to the 

metric already in use for currently 

covered commercial and industrial 

pumps. 

For the additional clean water pump 

categories that DOE is proposing to 

include within the scope of the test 

procedure (i.e., vertical turbine pumps, 

between-bearing pumps, and radiallysplit, multi-stage horizontal pumps), 

DOE has tentatively determined that its 

proposed test procedure would measure 

energy efficiency during a 

representative average use cycle and not 

be unduly burdensome to conduct. This 

determination is based on the 

similarities between the pump 

categories that are addressed in the 

current test procedure and those that 

DOE is proposing to add. Therefore, 

DOE tentatively determines that PEICL

and PEIVL are appropriate metrics for 

use these pumps. DOE tentatively 

determines that using PEICL and PEIVL

for the additional pump categories 

would ensure a consistent rating 

approach in the market. Thus, DOE 

proposes that the PEICL and PEIVL

metric would be used for rating the 

performance of small vertical in-line 

pumps, vertical turbine pumps, 

between-bearing pumps, and radiallysplit multi-stage horizontal pumps. 

E. Proposed Amendments to Test 

Method 

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

proposing to utilize HI 40.6–2021 in its 

test procedure for pumps with certain 

exceptions. HI 40.6–2021 specifies 

calculating pump power input,26 driver 

power input (for testing-based methods), 

27 pump power output,28 pump 

efficiency,29 bowl efficiency,30 overall 

efficiency,31 and other relevant values at 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21287 

32 DOE notes that HI’s supplemental comments 

responding to the April 2021 RFI did not provide 

input on this issue. (HI, No. 22) 

the specified load points necessary to 

determine PEICL and PEIVL. HI 40.6– 

2021 also contains specifications 

regarding test methodology, standard 

rating conditions, equipment 

specifications, uncertainty calculations, 

and tolerances. 

Sections II through VII of the DOE test 

procedure specify methods for 

determining PEICL and PEIVL for pumps 

based on whether they are distributed 

into commerce with a motor and or with 

controls and are summarized below: 

• Section II: Calculation of PEICL or 

PEIVL for all pumps based on the pump 

energy rating for a minimally-compliant 

reference pump (PERCL or PERVL, 

respectively); 

• Section III: Test procedure for bare 

pumps; 

• Section IV: Testing-based approach 

for pumps sold with motors; 

• Section V: Calculation-based 

approach for pumps sold with motors; 

• Section VI: Testing-based approach 

for pumps sold with motors and 

controls; and 

• Section VII: Calculation-based 

approach for pumps sold with motors 

and controls. 

See appendix A, sections I.A.2 

through I.A.6. 

In response to the April 2021 RFI, 

NEEA recommended against any 

modifications to the test procedure that 

would minimally improve its 

representation of efficiency but that 

would require manufacturers to retest 

and rerate. (NEEA, No. 21 at p. 2) 

Similarly, HI recommended making 

only clarifications to the test procedure, 

except for the addition of a calculation 

method for power drive system losses 

for inverter-only motors. (HI, No. 20 at 

p. 1) The following sections discuss 

proposed amendments to the test 

procedure. 

1. Nominal Speed 

The scope of the current test 

procedure is limited to pumps designed 

to operate with either a 2- or 4-pole 

induction motor or a non-induction 

motor with a speed of rotation operating 

range between 2,880 and 4,320 rpm 

and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm. 10 CFR 

431.464(a)(1)(ii). Section I.C.1 of 

appendix A specifies the selection of 

nominal speed of rotation of either 

1,800 or 3,600 rpm depending on the 

number of poles of the motor or the 

operating range of non-induction 

motors. 

As discussed in section III.A.4.b, DOE 

is proposing to include in the scope of 

the test procedure pumps that operate 

between 960 and 1,440 rpm or are 

designed to operate with 6-pole motors. 

DOE proposes that these pumps would 

be tested with a nominal speed of 1,200 

rpm. DOE is also proposing updates to 

the calculation and rounding sections of 

the test procedure to address this 

additional nominal speed. 

Issue 21: DOE requests comment on 

its proposal that pumps designed to 

operate between 960 and 1,440 rpm or 

with 6-pole motors be assigned a 

nominal speed of 1,200 rpm. 

In the April 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether the nominal motor 

speeds of 1,800 rpm and 3,600 rpm used 

in the current DOE test procedure 

appropriately represent the operation 

and energy use of pumps that are 

capable of higher speeds. 86 FR 20075, 

20083. If these motor speeds are not 

representative, DOE requested comment 

on whether a testing-based or 

calculation-based approach would 

provide more representative energy use 

values and the expected cost burden of 

each. Id. Additionally, DOE requested 

test data at speeds other than the 

nominal speeds specified in the current 

test procedure in order to determine if 

a calculation-based method is 

appropriate. Id. 

HI commented that the test procedure 

has a gap in regard to pumps sold with 

higher speed motors but asserted that 

the comment period did not allow 

enough time to fully develop a 

recommendation to modify the test 

procedure. (HI, No. 20 at p. 7). HI stated 

that they would continue to work on a 

recommendation and requested that 

DOE involve stakeholders in the 

solution.32 Id. Grundfos supported the 

work of HI in creating a 

recommendation for how to handle this 

equipment. (Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 7) 

Given that many of the motors in this 

category would be included in the 

inverter-only motor category for which 

a new calculation method is being 

proposed, and that DOE has not 

identified any data indicating what 

nominal speed would be more 

representative of higher design speeds, 

DOE has tentatively decided not to 

propose a higher nominal speed for 

testing. 

2. Testing of Multi-Stage Pumps 

The current DOE test procedure 

specifies that RSV pumps shall be tested 

with three stages and that ST pumps 

shall be tested with nine stages. If the 

unit under test is only available with 

fewer than the required number of 

stages, the pump is tested with the 

maximum number of stages with which 

the unit is distributed in commerce in 

the United States. If the unit under test 

is only available with greater than the 

number of required stages, the pump is 

tested with the lowest number of stages 

with which the unit is distributed in 

commerce in the United States. If the 

unit under test is available with both 

fewer and greater than the required 

number of stages, but not the required 

number of stages, the pump is 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 is 

tested with the next higher number of 

stages. See appendix A, section I.C.2. 

RSH and VT pumps are sold with a 

varying number of stages, in which the 

same pump may have options for 

multiple different stages for multiple 

applications. To reduce testing burden 

and mirror the practice established for 

RSV pumps, DOE proposes that RSH 

pumps be tested with three stages. To 

reduce testing burden and mirror the 

practice established for ST pumps, DOE 

proposes testing VT pumps with nine 

stages. If units of the basic model of 

pump being tested are not distributed in 

commerce with the number of stages 

prescribed for testing, the existing 

instructions for selection of the correct 

number of stages to use during testing 

would be followed. 

As defined in section IIIB.5, BB 

pumps can have either one or two 

stages. For BB basic models that are 

distributed into commerce with both 

one and two stages, DOE proposes that 

the pump would be tested at two stages. 

This proposed approach would 

maintain consistency with DOE’s 

current test procedure requiring that 

multi-stage pumps be tested with more 

than one stage. 

Issue 22: DOE requests comment on 

the proposed number of stages for 

testing RSH, VT, and BB pumps. 

3. Best Fit Curve 

In the current DOE test procedure, 

BEP flow rate is determined as the flow 

rate at which maximum pump 

efficiency is achieved on the pump 

efficiency curve, as determined in 

accordance with Section 40.6.6.3 of HI 

40.6–2014. Appendix A, Sections 

III.D.2, IV.D.2, V.D.2, VI.D.2, and 

VII.D.2. Section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6–2014 

provides instruction for determining the 

best fit curve for pump flow rate versus 

efficiency. Specifically, the best fit 

curve may be either (1) up to a 6th order 

polynomial, or (2) a spline function 

with a single slow reversal in the region 

of the BEP rate of flow. HI 40.6.6.3. 

In response to the April 2021 RFI, 

Summit recommended better defining 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21288 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘best fit curve’’ to the speed corrected 

data, possibly specifying a degree of 

polynomial required. (Summit, No. 16 at 

p. 2) Summit also recommended 

defining a minimum number of data 

points required per setpoint, or 

clarifying that a confidence interval— 

such as 95%—for each setpoint. 

(Summit, No. 16 at p. 2) 

DOE tentatively concludes that the 

provisions in Section 40.6.6.3 of HI 

40.6–2021 are sufficient for defining the 

best fit curve. When testing a pump, 

data relating to flow rate and efficiency 

can be fit using the allowed methods 

under HI 40.6–2021 in order to find the 

method with the best fit. DOE notes 

that, in general, ‘‘best fit’’ refers to a 

curve that best expresses the 

relationship between the data, and that 

can be determined through a least 

squares method. However, DOE does 

not fully understand Summit’s request 

regarding the minimum number of data 

points required per setpoint. The test 

procedure requires taking a minimum of 

seven flow points and using a least 

squares regression to determine a linear 

relationship between pump power input 

or driver power input at measured flow 

points, which is then used to determine 

pump power input or driver power 

input at the specified load points. See, 

e.g., appendix A, section III E.1.1. 

Because the specified load points are 

determined from the measured flow 

points, it is not essential for multiple 

data points to be taken per measured 

flow point. DOE notes that appendix A 

section VI.E.2.1 and section VI.E.2.2, 

which are relevant to the testing-based 

approach for pumps sold with motors 

and controls, provide tolerances and 

correction equations for the load points 

that must be measured at reduced 

speed. For these reasons, DOE is not 

proposing any changes in response to 

Summit’s comment. 

4. Load Profile 

The current test procedure requires 

that constant load pump energy rating 

be determined using 75, 100 and 110 

percent of BEP flow with each value 

multiplied by 0.33 and the results 

summed to determine PERCL. Appendix 

A, sections III.E, IV.E, V.E. Similarly, for 

variable load pumps, energy ratings are 

determined at 25, 50, 75, and 100 

percent of BEP flow with each point 

weighted by 0.25 and summed to obtain 

a value for PERVL. Appendix A, sections 

VI.E, VII.E. In the April 2021 RFI, DOE 

sought additional comment on the load 

profile distribution for constant and 

variable load pumps and the effect of 

the distribution on PEI value. 86 FR 

20075, 20083. 

HI stated that the actual load profile 

of a pump in use is application specific 

and will vary widely for the 

applications covered by clean water 

pumps. HI stated that the current load 

profiles are sufficient for calculation of 

the PEI. (HI, No. 20 at p. 7) Grundfos 

supported keeping the existing load 

profiles and stated that given the large 

number of applications in which 

regulated pumps are used, the current 

profiles are sufficient to evaluate general 

pump performance. (Grundfos, No. 17 at 

p. 7) NEEA stated that they had no 

additional comment beyond their 

response to the September 2020 Early 

Assessment RFI, which DOE 

summarized in the April 2021 RFI. 

(NEEA, No. 21 at p. 11) 

The existing load profiles provide a 

consistent method for comparing the 

performance of different pumps, which, 

as noted by stakeholders, exhibit a range 

of load profiles across the wide range of 

installation environments. At this time, 

DOE does not have any indication that 

the current load profiles are not 

appropriately representative. Therefore, 

DOE is not proposing changes to the 

current test procedure’s load profiles. 

5. Pumps With BEP at Run-Out 

To determine a pump’s BEP, the DOE 

test procedure references testing 

provisions included in HI 40.6–2014 

(excluding sections 40.6.5.3, section A.7 

and appendix B) at the following seven 

flow 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. Appendix A, section III.D.1. 

All pumps have a maximum flow rate 

which is termed ‘‘run out.’’ For pumps 

where the BEP is expected to be within 

20 percent of the maximum flow rate of 

the pump (BEP at run out), section I.D.4 

of appendix A provides alternative flow 

points, with the maximum flow point 

equal to 100 percent of the expected 

maximum flow rate so that the pump 

may safely operate. As discussed in 

section III.C.1, Sections 40.6.5.5.1 and 

40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6–2021 now include 

provisions related to pumps with BEP at 

run-out. Section 40.6.5.5.1 provides 

alternate test points based on the 

expected BEP rate of flow for pumps 

with a maximum allowable flow rate as 

specified by the manufacturer that is 

less than 120 percent of the BEP flow 

rate. Section 40.6.6.3 also provides 

alternate tested load points for the 

driver input power as a percentage of 

BEP flow rate for pumps that cannot be 

safely tested to flows greater than 120 

percent of BEP. However, these 

provisions are based on flow points 

with respect to expected BEP flow rate 

rather than expected maximum flow 

rate. 

In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE 

responded to a comment from HI that in 

order to determine the location of BEP, 

testing must occur at rates of flow 

greater than 100 percent of expected 

BEP flow. 81 FR 4086, 4117. DOE stated 

that its proposal to use flow points only 

up to 100 percent was with respect to 

the expected maximum allowable flow 

rate rather than with respect to expected 

BEP. Id. DOE notes that the existing 

regulatory text contains an omission in 

which section I.D.4(1) of appendix A 

only refers to ‘‘the expected’’ while 

section I.D.4(2) refers to ‘‘the expected 

maximum flow rate of the pump.’’ DOE 

proposes to include ‘‘expected 

maximum flow rate of the pump’’ in 

both section I.D.4(1) and I.D.4(2) of 

appendix A and would not reference 

Sections 40.6.5.5.1 or 40.6.6.3 of HI 

40.6–2021. 

Issue 23: DOE requests comment on 

whether the alternate flow points for 

pumps with BEP at run-out should be 

determined with respect to expected 

maximum flow rate or expected BEP 

flow rate. 

In addition, upon review and in 

response to previous stakeholder 

questions, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the current regulatory 

text would benefit from additional 

detail as to how the revised loading 

points should be applied in the 

determination of PERSTD. DOE proposes 

to specify that the revised loading 

points would only be used in 

application of the ai coefficient values 

when determining pump power input, 

and not when determining specific 

speed (‘‘Ns’’) or the minimallycompliant pump efficiency 

(‘‘hpump,STD’’), which should always be 

based on 100% of BEP flow for 

standardization purposes. 

DOE has also identified that the 

current provisions for pumps with BEP 

at run-out do not address how to 

perform motor sizing for bare pumps, 

which is based on the horsepower 

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. DOE proposes that for 

pumps with BEP at run-out, motor 

sizing would be based on 100 percent of 

the BEP flow rate of the tested pump, as 

there are no flow rates available higher 

than that level. However, DOE 

acknowledges that this proposed change 

could result in inequitable motor sizing 

as compared to pumps not subject to 

these provisions. 

Issue 24: DOE requests comment on 

how manufacturers are currently 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21289 

performing motor sizing for bare pumps 

with BEP at run-out, and whether using 

100 percent of the BEP flow rate is 

appropriate. 

6. Calibration of Measurement 

Equipment 

HI 40.6–2014 Appendix D, which the 

current DOE test procedure adopts, 

specifies the frequency of measurement 

equipment calibration. Table D.1 of HI 

40.6–2014 provides that manufacturer’s 

recommendations on calibration 

intervals should be followed if they 

differ from those in Table D.1. However, 

DOE notes that its test procedure does 

not explicitly reference Table D.1 of HI 

40.6–2021. 

In the dedicated-purpose pool pump 

test procedures included in appendix B 

and appendix C to 10 part 431 subpart 

Y (‘‘appendix B’’, ‘‘appendix C’’), DOE 

has, for clarity, included the calibration 

requirements contained in Appendix D 

of ANSI/HI 40.6–2014, with 

modification allowing for calibration 

periods up to 3 times longer than those 

specified in Table D.1 of ANSI/HI 40.6– 

2014 if justified by historical calibration 

data. See appendix B, section I.B.2 and 

appendix C, section I.B.2. 

Similar to the approach DOE has 

followed with appendices B and C, DOE 

proposes to specifically reference the 

calibration requirements in Appendix D 

of HI 40.6–2021 in section I.B of 

appendix A to improve the overall 

clarity of its test procedure. 

7. Calculations and Rounding 

The DOE test procedure includes 

provisions for calculations and 

rounding in section I.D.3 of appendix A. 

Generally, all measured data must be 

normalized such that it represents 

performance at nominal speed of 

rotation in accordance with HI 40.6– 

2014, and all calculations must be 

carried out using raw measured values 

without rounding. See appendix A, 

section I.D.3. PER is rounded to three 

significant digits and PEI is rounded to 

the hundredths place. Id. Explicit 

rounding directions are not provided for 

other parameters. In the April 2021 RFI, 

DOE requested comment as to whether 

the test procedure should specify 

rounding requirements on parameters 

other than PER and PEI, and if so, what 

those rounding requirements should be. 

86 FR 20075, 20079 and 20083. 

HI stated that rounding is not a 

concern for parameters other than PER 

and PEI and that DOE does not need to 

specify rounding requirements for these 

parameters. (HI, No. 20 at p. 7) Grundfos 

commented that additional rounding 

requirements might result in 

unnecessary data manipulation and 

would increase manufacturer burden for 

data reporting. (Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 

7) 

With respect to the current rounding 

provisions for PER and PEI, Summit 

recommended rounding PER to 3 

decimal places and rounding PEI to two 

decimal places. (Summit, No. 16 at p. 5). 

Summit also stated that the number of 

significant figures is dependent on 

measurement devices and measurement 

uncertainty. Id. 

In response to Summit’s suggestion 

for PER, DOE notes that three decimal 

places represent three significant figures 

for values less than 1. DOE has not 

identified any reason why three decimal 

places would be necessary for values 

greater than one and has tentatively 

determined that three significant figures 

is sufficient. DOE also notes that 

Summit’s recommendation for two 

decimal places for PEI is consistent with 

the current test procedure’s instruction 

to round to the hundredths place. For 

these reasons, DOE is not proposing any 

changes to its current rounding 

requirements, except for updates to 

reference the appropriate section of HI 

40.6–2021, as discussed in section 

III.C.1 of this document. 

8. Test Procedure Credits 

In response to the April 2021 RFI, 

NEEA recommended that DOE add a 

credit for self-sensing ‘‘smart’’ pumps 

with continuous controls. NEEA stated 

that ‘‘smart’’ pump technologies use 

self-sensing technologies to measure 

power draw and speed to calculate load 

and then adjust speed to maximize 

performance and reduce energy 

consumption required to meet the load, 

and that the drive is programmed with 

the specific pump curve with which it 

is installed. NEEA stated that these 

features potentially reduce energy 

consumption by optimizing pump 

performance compared to traditional 

control strategies. NEEA commented 

that the potential performance 

improvements of such technology is not 

reflected in the test procedure. NEEA 

recommended that DOE investigate the 

potential for energy savings from such 

controls and develop minimally 

burdensome ways to incorporate them 

in the test procedure, such as the 

Controls Verification Procedure for 

Variable Refrigerant Flow (‘‘VRF’’) 

Systems or credit for occupancy systems 

given to certain beverage vending 

machines (‘‘BVM’’). (NEEA, No. 21 at p. 

12) 

According to DOE research, at this 

time the technology referenced by NEEA 

is proprietary, and DOE is unable to 

conduct sufficient testing on available 

proprietary technologies in applications 

to determine achievable energy savings. 

Furthermore, NEEA has not presented 

data demonstrating the viability of the 

asserted potential energy savings. For 

these reasons, DOE is not proposing a 

test procedure accommodation for 

pumps that incorporate self-sensing 

technologies at this time. 

F. Calculation-Based and Testing-Based 

Options According to Pump 

Configuration (Table 1) 

The DOE test procedure for pumps 

includes calculation-based and testingbased options that apply based on pump 

configuration (including style of motor 

and control) as distributed in commerce. 

See appendix A, Table 1. The 

calculation-based options rely on a bare 

pump test, whereas the testing-based 

options rely on a ‘‘wire-to-water’’ test. 

The calculation-based options may 

reduce test burden by allowing a 

manufacturer to test a sample of bare 

pumps and use that data to rate multiple 

pump configurations using calculationbased methods. On the other hand, 

wire-to-water testing may more 

accurately represent pump, motor, and 

control performance. 

In order to further assess opportunity 

for reducing burden, DOE requested 

additional information on how 

manufacturers are implementing Table 1 

of appendix A. Specifically, DOE sought 

comment on the extent to which pumps 

sold with multiple motor and control 

configurations are evaluated multiple 

times using physical testing-based 

methods (rather than a calculationbased approach); the extent to which 

pumps sold with single-phase motors 

are being rated as bare pumps (using a 

calculation-based approach); and the 

extent to which pumps sold with motors 

(other than inverter-only motors) are 

having their efficiency being evaluated 

using a calculation-based approach as 

opposed to a testing-based approach. 86 

FR 20075, 20082. DOE also requested 

comment on whether any revisions to 

Table 1 of appendix A could be 

considered to maintain or improve the 

information derived from the test 

procedure while reducing burden with 

no impact on the PEI rating for currently 

regulated pumps. Id. 

HI stated that testing burdens 

typically cause manufacturers to 

calculate losses based on the standard 

motor efficiency and that approximately 

1 percent of pumps are wire-to-water 

tested according to section IV of the test 

procedure. HI stated that no products 

were reported with wire-to-water testing 

on induction motors with controls per 

section VI of the test procedure. (HI, No. 

20 at p. 5) HI stated that a majority of 

pumps with single-phase motors use the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21290 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

bare pump PEICL value; however, there 

are a small number of these products 

that were wire-to-water tested. Id. 

Grundfos stated that it utilized 

calculated methods wherever it was 

allowed, given what Grundfos 

characterized as the overly burdensome 

testing required to qualify the most 

efficient products running inverter-only 

motors. Grundfos stated that it 

conducted no testing using Section IV or 

Section VI for any product using an 

induction motor and reported all singlephase equipment using Section III. 

(Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 5) Summit stated 

that it filed its certification reports using 

only Section III, as they saw only 

minimal PEI improvement with section 

V, and using section IV for ESCC pumps 

would be burdensome. (Summit, No. 16 

at p. 5) 

NEEA encouraged DOE to ensure the 

information derived from the test 

procedure is maintained when 

considering possible changes to Table 1 

to reduce burden. Specifically, NEEA 

recommended against DOE removing 

options for wire-to-water testing as a 

way to reduce burden and asserted that 

wire-to-water testing may result in more 

accurate ratings. NEEA also 

recommended that DOE not require 

wire-to-water testing but keep the 

option to use calculation-based or wireto-water testing approaches. (NEEA, No. 

21 at p. 10–11) 

HI recommended amending Table I to 

allow use of section IV for pumps + 

single-phase induction motor and to 

require section VI for pumps + singlephase induction motor + continuous or 

non-continuous controls. (HI, No. 20 at 

pp. 5–6). HI also recommended 

amending Table 1 to require section IV 

for pump + motor + controls other than 

continuous or non-continuous controls 

(e.g., ON/OFF switches). (HI, No. 20 at 

pp. 5–6) Grundfos supported the edits to 

Table 1 as recommended by HI. 

(Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 5–6) Grundfos 

additionally stated that because singlephase motors are not completely 

regulated (currently only open dripproof motors are regulated), using 

section III for pump + motors should 

remain, and section IV should be 

optional but not mandatory. Grundfos 

commented that section VI testing for 

single-phase product using a variable 

frequency drive (‘‘VFD’’) should be 

mandatory. (Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 9) 

DOE has reviewed the ways in which 

manufacturers are utilizing the various 

options in Table 1 as well as the 

recommended edits to Table 1. In 

response to NEEA, DOE is not proposing 

to remove wire-to-water testing options 

from Table 1. In response to HI and 

Grundfos, DOE agrees that Table 1 

would benefit from providing more 

explicit instruction, particularly by 

moving information out of footnotes and 

into the table itself. However, DOE does 

not agree with the specific changes 

requested. Specifically, commenters 

provided no reason that a ‘‘pump + 

motor + controls,’’ other than 

continuous or non-continuous controls, 

must use a test method rather than a 

calculation method, or why single-phase 

products using a VFD must use a test 

method rather than the bare pump 

calculation method. Neither of these 

constraints are currently included in 

appendix A Table 1. DOE maintains that 

the existing allowances to use a 

calculation method for these products 

are appropriate and consistent with 

stakeholders’ general desire to use 

calculation methods where possible. In 

particular, controls other than 

continuous or non-continuous 

controls—such as ON/OFF switches— 

would not be expected to impact the 

results of the test method. As such, the 

calculation method should adequately 

represent performance. Similarly, the 

current procedure permits single-phase 

equipment to be tested using the bare 

pump method, which eliminates the 

possibility of penalizing this equipment 

for using these less efficient motors 

compared to pumps sold with 

polyphase motors. While manufacturers 

could choose to use a testing-based 

approach when evaluating pumps sold 

with single-phase induction motors that 

use continuous or non-continuous 

controls in order to get a better rating 

than a bare pump rating, this is not 

necessary. For these reasons, DOE is not 

proposing to remove the calculationbased option, but is proposing to clarify 

Table 1 by moving information out of 

footnotes and into the table itself. 

NEEA encouraged DOE to consider 

developing a calculation-based testing 

approach that would apply to any new 

or future pump configurations not 

covered by the current Table 1. NEEA 

recommended that DOE consider a 

hybrid approach to testing and 

calculation, similar to the test method 

included in Appendix H of ANSI/ 

AMCA Standard 214–21, ‘‘Test 

Procedure for Calculating Fan Energy 

Index (FEI) for Commercial and 

Industrial Fans and Blowers’’ (‘‘AMCA 

214’’), which stipulates a one-time test 

of the motor at multiple load points, 

which can be used to determine the 

input power at the appropriate pump 

test procedure load points and then 

used to calculate a rating. With this 

method, each motor need only be tested 

once, and the results used for multiple 

pump configurations. (NEEA, No. 21 at 

p. 10) 

The hybrid method as suggested by 

NEEA would require use of a test 

procedure that may be dependent on the 

type of motor. As such, DOE would be 

unable to implement such a method for 

unknown future pump configurations 

without specifying all possible test 

methods that might be appropriate for 

various motor types. Accordingly, DOE 

is declining to adopt this suggested 

approach. DOE addresses a similar 

request related to a specific motor type 

in section III.F.3 of this document. 

Issue 25: DOE requests comment on 

whether manufacturers would use a 

hybrid mapping approach, and if so, 

whether manufacturers would conduct 

the motor tests or request the tests from 

their suppliers. In addition, DOE 

requests comment on what additional 

provisions would need to be added to 

Appendix H of AMCA 214 to make it 

applicable to pumps, such as speed and 

load corresponding to pump rating 

points. 

In relation to Table 1, Grundfos asked 

DOE to clarify how manufacturers are 

expected to report pumps using singlephase motors. Grundfos commented that 

these are sold as a pump + motor but 

reported using section III data, and that 

it was unclear whether they should be 

reported as a bare pump. (Grundfos, No. 

17 at p. 5) 

Under the current scope, actual pump 

configuration should be certified for 

pumps sold with single-phase motors. 

These pumps should not be certified as 

a bare pump. 

1. Calculation Method for Pumps Sold 

With Induction Motors and Controls 

In the April 2021 RFI, DOE noted that 

while its test procedure for pumps 

incorporates by reference HI 40.6–2014, 

it also includes additional provisions 

related to measuring the hydraulic 

power, shaft power, and electric input 

power of pumps, inclusive of electric 

motors and any continuous or noncontinuous controls. 86 FR 20075, 

20081. DOE also noted the publication 

of the International Electrotechnical 

Commission (‘‘IEC’’) standard IEC 

61800–9–2:2017 ‘‘Adjustable speed 

electrical power drive systems—Part 9– 

2: Ecodesign for power drive systems, 

motor starters, power electronics and 

their driven applications—Energy 

efficiency indicators for power drive 

systems and motor starters,’’ (‘‘IEC 

61800–9–2:2017’’), which addresses test 

methods and reference losses for power 

drive systems, comparable to the 

approach in section VII of appendix A. 

Id. DOE noted that the majority of 

commenters responding to the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21291 

33The docketed spreadsheet only includes a 

comparison of the DOE method and the AMCA 207 

method. (CA IOUs, No. 19, attachment). 

34For information on the International Energy 

Agency Round Robin of Converter Losses, see: 

www.iea-4e.org/emsa/news/global-round-robin-testprogram-for-converter-losses/. 

September 2020 Early Assessment RFI 

urged DOE to maintain the current test 

approach in section VII of appendix A 

and that substituting IEC 61800–9–2 

would add burden without achieving 

additional energy savings. Id. 

DOE also noted the publication of the 

American Movement and Control 

Association (‘‘AMCA’’) standard, AMCA 

207–17 ‘‘Fan System Efficiency and Fan 

System Input Power Calculation’’ 

(‘‘AMCA 207–17’’) in the April 2021 RFI 

and requested comment on the 

applicability of the VFD/motor 

efficiencies in AMCA 207–17 to pumps, 

and whether DOE should consider 

replacing the calculations in section VII 

of appendix A with those in AMCA 

207–17. 86 FR 20075, 20081. DOE 

additionally requested comment on 

whether adoption of the AMCA 207–17 

approach would be representative for 

pumps, and whether such a change 

would impact PEI ratings, manufacturer 

testing burden, or manufacturer pump 

designs. Id. Finally, DOE requested 

comment on whether it should consider 

incorporating any aspect of ISO/ASME 

14414 ‘‘Pumps System Energy 

Assessment’’ (‘‘ISO ASME 14414’’) into 

its test procedure for pumps, and if so, 

which aspects and why. Id. 

As stated previously, the DOE test 

procedure for pumps includes 

calculation-based and testing-based 

options that apply based on pump 

configuration (including style of motor 

and control) as distributed in commerce. 

See appendix A, Table 1. The 

calculation-based options rely on a bare 

pump test, whereas the testing-based 

options rely on a wire-to-water test. 

Section VII of appendix A provides the 

calculation-based testing method for 

pumps sold with motors and continuous 

controls—specifically polyphase motors 

covered by DOE’s electric motor energy 

conservation standards or submersible 

motors. Section VII includes four 

separate algorithms for determining 

part-load losses of the motor and 

continuous controls together. These 

algorithms account for part-load losses 

of the motor as well as additional losses 

that result from continuous control 

inefficiencies and from increased 

inefficiencies in the speed-controlled 

motor due to harmonic distortion as a 

function of motor horsepower. 

HI stated that the current calculation 

methodology should remain consistent, 

but that HI would provide 

recommendations for updates to 

coefficients that would not increase 

testing burden on pump manufacturers. 

(HI, No. 20 at p. 4) HI additionally 

commented that ISO/ASME 14414 is a 

pump system assessment standard and 

is not applicable to individual bare 

pumps or pumps sold with motors and/ 

or controls. (HI, No. 20 at p. 5) Grundfos 

stated that there is no need to modify or 

replace the Section VII calculation 

method. Grundfos supported the HI 

recommendation to use updated 

coefficients in section VII for induction 

equipment. (Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 4) 

NEEA recommended that DOE 

continue using the current motor loss 

calculation approach, including the 

motor and drive loss equation and 

required test points for pump 

manufacturers. NEEA stated that the 

AMCA 207–17 approach would result in 

an average 3 to 6 percent reduction in 

calculated motor and drive losses, and 

also PEIVL, in comparison to the current 

DOE pumps test procedure. NEEA also 

commented that, while the AMCA 207– 

17 approach could be considered more 

representative of typical losses in 

comparison to test data, AMCA 207–17 

was developed specifically for fans. 

NEEA added that IEC 61800–9–2 results 

in a similar change in motor and drive 

losses and appears to be achieving 

wider adoption in the industry. NEEA 

suggested that if DOE were to consider 

updating the motor and drive losses in 

the test procedure, NEEA would support 

aligning with IEC 61800–9–2 (and the 

embedded standard IEC 60034–2, 

‘‘Rotating electrical machines—part 2–3: 

Specific test methods for determining 

losses and efficiency of converter-fed 

AC motors’’). NEEA stated that updating 

the loss calculations to reference AMCA 

207–2017 or IEC 61800–9–2 would 

require manufacturers to re-rate pumps 

for a difference in PEIVL of only about 

0.01. Instead, NEEA recommended that 

if DOE elects to pursue updates to the 

losses, DOE should do so by updating 

the coefficients or the calculations and 

make no changes to pump, motor, or 

drive testing. NEEA stated that it is 

important that the calculation-based 

approach result in conservative ratings 

so that manufacturers are not 

disincentivized from testing equipment, 

which provides a more accurate result, 

and are not able to overstate product 

performance based on the calculationbased approach. (NEEA, No. 21 at pp. 7– 

8) 

The CA IOUs stated that cost of wireto-water testing can result in the use of 

the calculation method for some 

efficient products, even though the 

calculated PEI would be reduced via 

this method, creating a market 

distortion in which efficient products 

are scored with PEIs worse than would 

be representative. The CA IOUs 

commented that this highlights the need 

for a calculation method to be as 

representative as possible, while 

requiring some conservativeness in the 

calculation methodology to prevent 

scores higher than wire-to-water testing 

of conventional products. The CA IOUs 

stated that the actual motor drive system 

performance is approximately 3 to 14 

percent better in practice than estimated 

with the current methodology and 

encouraged DOE to make adjustments to 

the calculation method to improve the 

representativeness and align across 

industries. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 2) 

The CA IOUs expressed support for 

the use of AMCA 207–17, stating that it 

was designed for predictions based 

solely on variable-torque curves, which 

apply to pumps, that it provides 

accurate and somewhat conservative 

default losses, and that it has been 

directly or indirectly adopted by various 

industry consensus standards. The CA 

IOUs stated that the adoption of the 

AMCA 207–17 method would result in 

manufacturers reporting lower PEIs 

without actually improving the 

efficiency of the pump, but that they 

believe it is more important that DOE 

adopt a loss calculation method that is 

representative and can be used across 

all product lines that employ VFD 

power drive systems. The CA IOUs 

included a figure comparing the percent 

PER improvement with AMCA 207 

losses compared to DOE losses, with 

PER improvements ranging between 6 

and 14 percent. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at pp. 

2–4) 

The CA IOUs also commented that 

industry stakeholders highlighted IEC 

61800–9–2 as a potential framework that 

could apply motor VFD losses in an 

industry and product independent 

manner, and stated that they provided a 

spreadsheet comparing this method, the 

AMCA 207 method, and the existing 

DOE methods.33 The CA IOUs also 

stated that IEC 61800–9–2 provides high 

reference VFD losses that they expect to 

be dealt with in the International Energy 

Agency Round Robin of Converter 

Losses, Phase 2.34 (CA IOUs, No. 19 at 

pp. 4–7). 

In a subsequent submission, HI stated 

that the current coefficients for 

induction motors provide incremental 

losses well below the values in IEC 

60034–31, and that the percent of 

incremental losses were up to 4 times 

more than what IEC provides (primarily 

above 50 hp). HI stated that it developed 

recommended coefficients using the 

delta between the IEC and current motor 

incremental losses, and that the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21292 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

35 Decrease in efficiency, in percentage points due 

to the addition of a VFD. 

36Color versions of Figures 1–3 are available at 

Docket No. EERE–2020–BT–TP–0032–0025. 

37 In the IEC standards, the losses are a function 

of torque and speed, not load. Load equals torque 

times speed; as such there are multiple results at 

the same load depending on the torque/speed point, 

and the average of those results is plotted. 

38Color versions of Figures III.1–III.3 are available 

at Docket No. EERE–2020–BT–TP–0032–0025. 

39NEMA MG 1011–2022 defines a rating system 

for power drive systems that is similar to PEI, 

although it is exclusive of the driven load (i.e., 

pump, fan, compressor). The direct measurement 

approach in the NEMA testing method relies on 

testing in accordance with Section 7.7.1 or 7.7.2 of 

IEC 61800–9–2; the testing standard also offers a 

calculation-based approach which includes default 

losses for a premium efficiency motor, but not 

default losses for a combined power drive system, 

as are needed for DOE’s test procedure for pumps. 

However, DOE recognizes the possibility that 

industry use of this testing standard could 

encourage the collection of part-load performance 

data, including part-load losses, for power drive 

systems applied in pumping applications. These 

data could be used in the future to supplement the 

AHRI 1210-certified data displayed in Figures III.1– 

III.3 and help DOE better tailor potential energy 

conservation standards for the pumps addressed by 

the current test procedure rulemaking. 

modified coefficients provide more 

accurate, but still conservative, PEI 

values for induction products. HI also 

recommended a separate set of 

coefficients for the 50 to 100 hp range 

in order to provide more accurate losses. 

(HI, No. 22 at p. 3) 

HI also provided a table showing the 

delta PEI as a function of horsepower 

with the proposed induction motor loss 

coefficients as well as a limited data set 

of Section VI wire-to-water testing 

results compared to the proposed 

Section VII induction motor loss 

calculations. For three tested pumps, 

the calculation method was equivalent 

to or more conservative than the wireto-water test results. (HI, No. 22 at p. 4) 

Since ISO/ASME 14414 is a pump 

system assessment standard and is not 

applicable to individual bare pumps or 

pumps sold with motors and/or 

controls, DOE has tentatively 

determined that this industry standard 

is not relevant to the DOE test procedure 

for pumps. DOE has reviewed the 

industry standards mentioned by NEEA, 

the CA IOUs, and HI, including AMCA 

207–17, IEC 61800–9–2:2017, IEC 

60034–2–3:2020 and IEC 60034–31:2021 

(‘‘Rotating Electrical Machines—Part 31: 

Selection of Energy-Efficient Motors 

Including Variable Speed 

Applications—Application 

Guidelines’’). IEC 60034–2–3 is a 

method of test and does not provide 

information related to motor and control 

part-load losses, and as such DOE did 

not evaluate this method further. AMCA 

207–17 is specific to fans and includes 

a more complicated model with more 

than three coefficients, resulting in 

efficiency rather than losses. IEC 60034– 

31:2021 is a technical specification 

document that gives technical and 

economical guidelines for the use of 

energy-efficient motors in constant 

speed and variable-speed operations in 

different applications. Annex A 

(informative) to this standard further 

provides typical efficiency values and 

losses of motors and controls. IEC 

61800–9–2:2017 is an international 

standard and provides test methods and 

efficiency classification provisions for 

controls and for motors and controls. 

Annex A (normative) to this standard 

further provides losses for reference 

motors and controls used to develop the 

efficiency classifications. 

DOE has also reviewed the 

coefficients provided by HI, which HI 

stated were designed to provide 

incremental motor losses similar to the 

values in IEC 60034–31 when 

comparing an induction motor operated 

without controls and with controls. (HI, 

No. 22 at p. 3) Based on a subsequent 

submission, DOE understands that the 

intent of HI’s recommended coefficients 

is to better match the full-load losses 

that would result from starting with 

motor-only full-load losses and adding 

incremental harmonic losses of 15 

percent for motors up to 90 kW and 

adding incremental harmonic losses of 

25 percent for motors over 90 kW, as 

specified in section A.3 of IEC 60034– 

31, as well as adding an assumed VFD 

efficiency penalty 35 of 2 percent. (HI, 

No. 23 at p. 1) 

Figures III–1 through III–3 36 show 

example plots for a 1 hp, 10 hp, and 25 

hp power drive system (i.e., motor and 

controls), with the efficiency plotted as 

a function of motor load for the existing 

DOE loss model, HI’s suggested loss 

model, AMCA 207, IEC 61800–9–2 

(Annex A), and IEC 60034–31 (Annex 

A).37 In addition, DOE has included 

AHRI Standard 1210, ‘‘Standard for 

Performance Rating of Variable 

Frequency Drives,’’ (‘‘AHRI 1210’’) 

certified data from 2016, 2020, and 2021 

for specific power drive systems to 

provide a point of comparison, noting 

that this is a different test method and 

may not be directly comparable to the 

other standards. DOE has developed 

these plots for other horsepower drive 

systems, although the AHRI 1210 data 

do not go above 75 hp.38

DOE notes that on February 28, 2022, 

the National Electric Manufacturers 

Association (‘‘NEMA’’) released NEMA 

MG 1011–2022, ‘‘Power Index 

Calculation Procedure—Standard Rating 

Methodology for Power Drive Systems 

and Complete Drive Modules.’’ While 

this NEMA methodology does not 

addresses the default losses that are core 

to DOE’s pumps test procedure method, 

and, accordingly, would not be 

considered within the context of the 

current rulemaking at hand, data based 

on MG 1011–2022’s methodology could 

prove useful in supplementing alreadycollected data regarding part-load 

losses. To the extent that information 

and data using MG 1011–2022 are 

available, DOE invites interested parties 

to provide feedback and comment 

regarding their respective experience 

with this NEMA testing standard.39

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21293 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11AP22.003</GPH>

95 

85 

75 

~ 65 

~ C 

(II 

·u 

:E 55 w 

VI 

C 

0. 

_g- 45 .... 

35 

25 

15 

0 

~--' ~,;, __ , __ ._"-------~-+--~~-----, • ✓ /I ); . i1 l I I / 1 :l----l--•--+-----'-----;---1--

l ~ / l I 

-~, H~-------+----+-----+~----~----•-----•-·-·--

1 

0.25 0.5 

Load Ratio 

0.75 

IEC 61800-9-2 

◊ AHR! 1210 

(2020) 

0 AHR! 1210 

(2016) 

•HI Model 

• IEC 60034-31 

- AHR! 1210 

2021 

1 

Figure 111-1: Efficiency plotted as a function ofload ratio for a 1 hp drive system. 

Comparison of DO E's loss model, Hi's proposed loss model, AMCA 207 losses, IEC 

61800-9-2 (Annex A), and IEC 60034-31 (Annex A), in addition to AHRI 1210 data 

from 2016, 2020, and 2021. 
21294 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11AP22.004</GPH>

95 

85 

75 

~ ~ 65 ~ C 

(IJ 

·o 

;E 55 

Ill 

C 

0.. 

_g- 45 0 

.-1 

35 

25 

15 

o 0.25 0.5 

Load Ratio 

• • • • •AMCA 207 

-DOE Model 

IEC 61800-9-

2 

◊ AHRI 1210 

(2020) 

0 AHRI 1210 

(2016) 

•HI Model 

• IEC 60034-31 

AHRI 1210 

2021 

0.75 1 

Figure 111-2: Efficiency plotted as a function of load ratio for a 10 hp drive system. 

Comparison of DO E's loss model, Hi's proposed loss model, AMCA 207 losses, IEC 

61800-9-2 (Annex A), and IEC 60034-31 (Annex A), in addition to AHRI 1210 data 

from 2016, 2020, and 2021. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21295 

40 80 FR 17586, 17621 (April 1, 2015) 

41Prakash Rao et al., ‘‘U.S. Industrial and 

Commercial Motor System Market Assessment 

Report Volume 1: Characteristics of the Installed 

Base,’’ Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, 

January 12, 2021, https://doi.org/10.2172/1760267. 

(p. 173) 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

DOE’s current test procedure provides 

a calculation method for pumps sold 

with motors and controls in order to 

reduce testing burden compared to wireto-water testing. However, DOE did not 

intend for the calculation method to be 

used for overrating pumps. None of the 

commenters provided justification for 

their statements that actual motor drive 

system performance is better than that 

assumed by the DOE coefficients. At 1 

hp, the DOE model seems to 

appropriately capture motor drive 

system performance of the systems 

represented by the AHRI 1210 data (i.e., 

none of the systems represented would 

likely be overrated using this model). 

However, while DOE based its model 

using results relying on AHRI 1210– 

2011 testing to establish the maximum 

values of the ratio of VFD and motor 

losses to the motor full-load losses,40

current AHRI 1210 data for 10 hp to 50 

hp motors show that the current DOE 

model may be overstating motor drive 

system performance across all loads. 

The curves for AMCA 207, IEC 60034– 

31, and HI’s proposed coefficients result 

in better motor drive system 

performance compared to the DOE 

model at higher motor loads (with the 

exception of IEC 60034–31 at 1 hp). 

However, some curves result in worse 

motor drive system performance at 

lower motor loads compared to the DOE 

model since the DOE model tends to be 

flatter than the other curves, particularly 

in the 10–25 hp range. The relative 

efficiency difference between the DOE 

model and the suggested model with the 

highest efficiency (i.e., the AMCA 207 

curve) across the majority of the curve 

is 4 percent, averaged across all 

horsepower sizes and loads. 

DOE notes that the motor load points 

do not necessarily correspond to the 

pump test points in appendix A; if 

motors were sized such that 100 percent 

BEP flow represented 100 percent motor 

load, the points would be relatively 

close. However, the current test 

procedure for bare pumps assumes that 

motor sizing is based on 120 percent 

BEP flow, which DOE understands to be 

more representative of typical use. 

Furthermore, a recent DOE motor study 

shows that only three percent of 

commercial sector motor system 

electricity consumption and six percent 

of industrial motor system electricity 

consumption operate below 40 percent 

load factor.41 For these reasons, DOE 

expects that typical motor load points 

for pumps would tend to be higher than 

those tested according to AHRI 1210, 

and the higher load points represent a 

larger contribution to the average 

measured power under the test 

procedure. As such, DOE has tentatively 

determined that it is more important for 

the selected model to accurately capture 

performance at higher loads. 

Nevertheless, the best model that would 

be representative across all loads 

without overrating efficiency depends 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11AP22.005</GPH>

95 

85 

75 

~ 65 

C 

cu 

·u 

ffi 55 

V') 

C 

C.. 45 

C. 

.c 

i.n 

N 

35 

25 

15 

0 

~t •• ·~ I~- ~ 

, ' , 

, 

'• .• 

, I 

, 

• 

~ ••• ••• ••• 

••• ••• 

-·· 

••• i- • 

- ► - -' 

- ·~ - -- --• ~ ,, .. "' 

• 

0.25 Loacf·Aatio 

••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •1,1 ,.~ I ---"""!. -. - ... - - - - - - -

0 

• • • • • AMCA 207 

-DOE Model 

-- IEC 61800-9-2 

<> AHRI 1210 

(2020) 

0 AHRI 1210 

(2016) 

-. •HI Model 

- • IEC 60034-31 

- AHRI 1210 

(2021) 

0.75 1 

Figure 111-3: Efficiency plotted as a function of load ratio for a 25 hp drive system. 

Comparison of DO E's loss model, Hi's proposed loss model, AMCA 207 losses, IEC 

61800-9-2 (Annex A), and IEC 60034-31 (Annex A), in addition to AHRI 1210 data 

from 2016, 2020 and 2021. 
21296 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

42 ‘‘IE3’’ is the IEC designation for premium 

efficiency motors. IE3, NEMA premium and Energy 

Independence and Security Act (‘‘EISA’’) 2007 

standards for electric motors are often considered 

equivalent efficiency requirements, although the 

actual values differ depending on pole/hp/ 

enclosure. 

on the performance of the motor drive 

systems associated with the pumps 

being evaluated. DOE does not have 

these specific data. 

DOE notes that AMCA 207 is specific 

to fans. IEC 60034–31 is based on 

‘‘typical’’ values, which would be 

expected to overstate the performance of 

at least some motor drive systems. 

Section 7.7 of that testing standard 

states that Annex A may not be a good 

approximation of loads less than 50 

percent, which DOE notes may be a 

significant portion of loads based on the 

pumps test procedure. Finally, HI’s 

proposed induction coefficients are 

based on typical harmonic losses and 

typical VFD efficiency penalties. DOE 

believes that, at a minimum, the VFD 

efficiency penalty may be understated 

and it is also not clear if the typical 

harmonic losses associated with IE3 42

motors are applicable to the U.S. 

market. Furthermore, HI’s proposed 

inverter-only coefficients, discussed in 

section III.F.2, result in a lower PEI than 

a tested PEI in at least one instance (i.e. 

slightly overstate motor drive system 

performance), and given that those 

coefficients were based on HI’s 

proposed induction coefficients and an 

assumed incremental efficiency 

improvement between induction and 

inverter-only motors, DOE expects that 

HI’s proposed induction coefficients 

may also overstate motor drive system 

performance. As seen in Figure III–1, 

IEC 61800–9–2 represents coefficients 

least likely to overstate motor drive 

system performance; however, DOE 

understands that these coefficients are 

undergoing IEC review. 

Based on its review of available 

coefficients and part-load loss data, DOE 

has tentatively determined that without 

further data indicating that its current 

coefficients overstate motor drive 

system losses for pumps, it will retain 

its current loss model for motors less 

than 50 hp. DOE’s current coefficients 

correspond to about 30 percent added 

harmonic losses and a 3 percent VFD 

efficiency penalty. DOE would consider 

revising its coefficients below 50 hp in 

accordance with the method suggested 

by HI, or to harmonize with fans (AMCA 

207) or with international standards 

(IEC 60034–31 or IEC 61800–9–2), given 

appropriate data specific to pumps. To 

ensure that the calculation method does 

not overrate pumps while balancing 

stakeholders’ requests for 

representativeness, DOE is proposing to 

allow use of an AEDM, as discussed in 

section III.I.2 of this document. 

Issue 26: DOE requests: (1) Data 

indicating whether AHRI 1210-certified 

data is applicable to pumps as well as 

any other applicable part-load loss data; 

(2) data indicating whether 15 percent 

and 25 percent incremental losses, 

which are specified as part of IE3 ratings 

that are not commonly used in the U.S., 

are applicable to the U.S. and do not 

overstate performance, and if not, what 

incremental losses would be appropriate 

to apply, and (3) data indicating an 

appropriate VFD efficiency penalty by 

hp. 

Given HI’s statement that losses are 

especially overstated in the 50 hp to 100 

hp range, DOE has reviewed its existing 

coefficients and found that they result 

in a dip in full-load efficiency at 75 hp, 

which would not be expected. In 

addition, the AHRI 1210-certified data is 

limited to a maximum of 75 hp and does 

not exist at higher hp. Furthermore, 

DOE’s current coefficients in the 50 hp 

to 100 hp range correspond to about 60 

percent added harmonic losses and a 3 

percent VFD penalty, and, based on 

previous discussion of typical losses, 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

these losses are too high. 

In light of this situation, DOE 

proposes to update its coefficients for 

motors rated at 50 hp and above. DOE 

has determined that HI’s approach is 

relatively reasonable, although the 2 

percent VFD penalty may be too low. To 

adjust its coefficients for motors 50 hp 

and above, DOE started with the current 

DOE default losses for the motor-only at 

full-load and added 15 to 25 percent 

losses, as applicable, as well as a VFD 

efficiency penalty of 3 percent. DOE 

then adjusted the current DOE default 

losses for the motor and control at 100 

percent to match the result of adding the 

incremental harmonic losses and VFD 

penalty and applied the same 

adjustment factor to all load points. 

Table III.1 includes DOE’s proposal for 

the induction motor and control partload loss coefficients. 

Issue 27: DOE requests comment on 

its proposed part-load loss factors for 

induction motors and controls greater 

than 50 hp. 

2. Calculation Method for Pumps Sold 

With Inverter-Only Motors (With or 

Without Controls) 

For pumps sold with motors or with 

motors and continuous or 

noncontinuous controls that are rated 

using the calculation-based approach, 

the nominal full-load motor efficiency 

used in determining the PERCL or PERVL

will be the value that is certified to DOE 

as the nominal full-load motor 

efficiency in accordance with the 

standards and test procedures for 

electric motors at 10 CFR part 431, 

subpart B. Use of the certified motor 

efficiency is available only for motors 

that are subject to DOE’s test procedure 

for electric motors and only pumps sold 

with motors subject to DOE’s electric 

motor test procedure and energy 

conservation standards are able to 

utilize the calculation-based approach. 

Inverter-only motors are currently not 

subject to DOE’s electric motor energy 

conservation standards, and as such, 

based on Table 1 in appendix A, pumps 

with inverter-only motors currently 

require wire-to-water testing. DOE 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11AP22.006</GPH>

Table 111.1 Proposed Induction Motor and Control Part Load Loss Factor Equation 

Coefficients 

Motor Horsepower Coefficients for Induction Motor and Control part Load Loss Factor (zo 

(hp) 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 and< 100 -0.6629 2.1452 0.1952 

>100 -0.7583 2.4538 0.2233 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21297 

43 Grundfos referenced induction-only motors, 

which DOE understands to have been intended to 

be a reference to inverter-only motors. 

44The International Electrotechnical Commission 

(‘‘IEC’’) standards IEC 60034–30 for variable-speed 

electric motors establishes an efficiency 

classification system for these motors. Efficiency 

classes are designated as IE1, IE2, IE3, IE4, and IE5. 

IE4 is an approximation of super premium 

efficiency motors and IE5 is the IEC designation for 

ultra-premium efficiency motors. 

45HI provided the incremental loss delta values 

in a subsequent submission. (HI, No. 23 at p. 1) 

requested information and feedback on 

the categories of motors for which DOE 

should consider allowing the 

application of the calculation-based 

method in the April 2021 RFI. 86 FR 

20075, 20082. Specifically, DOE 

requested information on the categories 

of inverter-only motors (e.g., 

electronically commutated motors 

(‘‘ECMs’’), permanent magnet 

alternative current motors (‘‘PMACs’’), 

or other alternative current (‘‘AC’’) 

induction motors) for which DOE 

should consider allowing the 

application of the calculation-based 

method. Id. DOE also sought feedback 

on the general approach for including 

default values and equations to 

represent inverter-only motor 

performance. Id. DOE also requested 

data and information to support the 

development of default values for 

inverter-only motors (similar to the 

values developed for submersible 

motors in Table 2 of appendix A) as 

well as equations that would represent 

the part-load efficiency or losses of 

these motors (similar to the equations 

developed for certain motor and drive 

combinations in Table 4 of appendix A). 

Id. To the extent DOE should consider 

a different approach, DOE requested 

information on the methodology it 

should consider in addition to 

supporting data. Id. Finally, DOE 

requested information on the percentage 

of pumps sold with inverter-only motors 

without controls (which would be 

impacted by a change in rating from 

PEICL to PEIVL). Id. 

HI stated that all inverter-only 

(synchronous) motors should have a 

calculation method with similar 

methodology to ST pumps, but with 

updated full-load motor efficiencies and 

loss coefficients. (HI, No. 20 at p. 6) 

Grundfos supported the creation of a 

calculation method for inverter-only 43

equipment that covers IE4 and IE5 44

motors and controls. (Grundfos, No. 17 

at p. 4) Additionally, Grundfos 

supported HI’s efforts to create a 

calculation-based method for inverteronly motors with part-load loss 

coefficients specifically designed for 

inverter-only products. Grundfos stated 

that the final proposal should include 

both IE4 and IE5 calculation-based 

methods to reduce testing burden. 

(Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 6) 

NEEA commented that inverter-only 

motors are increasing in popularity 

because many inverter-only motors are 

represented as having higher 

efficiencies than induction motors, 

especially at reduced speeds, and that 

the variable-speed capabilities make 

them a compelling choice in variable 

load pumping applications. (NEEA, No. 

21 at p. 8) NEEA also stated that while 

ECM motors are particularly common, 

there is no technical limitation to other 

inverter-only motor types such as 

permanent magnet and synchronous 

reluctance motors being used in clean 

water applications. (NEEA, No. 21 at p. 

8) 

NEEA stated that while they 

supported wire-to-water testing as the 

most accurate way to rate a pump and 

motor (and drive), the calculation 

method of test is a conservative but 

economical option, and the inability to 

rely on the calculation method may 

discourage manufacturers from selling 

or developing these more efficient pump 

systems. Therefore, NEEA 

recommended that DOE include a 

calculation test method for inverter-only 

motors. NEEA stated that motor 

efficiencies consistent with an IE4 

efficiency level would be appropriate 

for pumps. (NEEA, No. 21 at p. 8–9) 

The CA IOUs supported calculation 

approaches for inverter-only motor 

drive systems, provided that the 

calculation methodology can reliably 

generate representative, but slightly 

conservative motor drive system losses, 

in order to minimize potential market 

distortion. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 7) 

Additionally, the CA IOUs commented 

that, unlike submersible motors, 

inverter-only motors are found in 

numerous industries, sectors, and 

applications, so the motor losses table 

must be aligned with other DOE and 

industry treatments of these motors. (CA 

IOUs, No. 19 at p. 8) The CA IOUs 

stated that ECM performance between 

products and manufacturers is likely 

similar enough to performance variance 

typical of conventional induction 

motors that a loss table could be 

developed with manufacturer-submitted 

data. The CA IOUs commented that 

typical ECM motors will be using 

surface permanent magnet architectures, 

while permanent magnet power drive 

systems will use internal permanent 

magnet architectures, and that while 

these differences may eventually result 

in diverging performance, at the 

moment a single losses table may be 

sufficient. The CA IOUs recommended 

that DOE verify this single losses table 

assumption. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 8) 

The CA IOUs recommended 

developing a conventional-efficiency 

branch and a high-efficiency branch of 

a calculation method, for example by 

referring to IEC 60034–30–2 and 

assigning conventional product losses to 

products with an IE4 motor-drive 

system rating and efficient product 

losses to products with an IE5 motor 

drive system rating. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at 

p. 8) For permanent magnet inverteronly motors with a non-integrated 

controller sold with a choice of 

controller, the CA IOUs cautioned 

against the use of a losses table due to 

variance in performance between drive 

units (as opposed to induction motors, 

which are relatively uninfluenced by 

choice of drive unit) and instead 

recommended this subset use a hybrid 

power drive system mapping procedure. 

The CA IOUs stated that this does not 

apply to ECM products that typically 

have the drive embedded. (CA IOUs, 

No. 19 at pp. 8–9) Ultimately, the CA 

IOUs recommended that DOE consider 

a hybrid testing approach similar to that 

detailed in appendix F of AMCA 214, in 

which a motor drive system is mapped 

at several test points, with interpolation 

allowed between test points, which 

could be applied to any pumps that 

would be connected to that power drive 

system. The CA IOUs estimated that this 

approach would reduce test time 

compared to a wire-to-water pump test. 

The CA IOUs suggested that 

manufacturers could choose to use the 

calculation method or the hybrid 

mapping test method. (CA IOUs, No. 19 

at pp. 9–10) 

In a subsequent submittal responding 

to the April 2021 RFI, HI stated that it 

developed coefficients and calculation 

modifications for inverter-only motors 

by establishing the incremental loss 

delta between power drive systems 

operating with induction motors and 

power drive systems operating with 

inverter-only motors.45 HI commented 

that it used actual motor data from 

multiple manufacturers to calculate 

these coefficients. The coefficients 

developed by HI would require using 

either IE4 or IE5 minimum efficiencies 

(IEC 60034–30–2) in the Section VII 

calculation for the equipped motor 

efficiency in appendix A. As suggested 

by HI, IE3 efficiency would be used to 

calculate PERSTD. (HI, No. 22 at pp. 1– 

2) HI also provided limited comparisons 

of the recommended inverter-only 

calculation method to test data for IE5 

products. In five out of six cases, the 

calculation method resulted in a PEI 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21298 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

46While the final column of Table 2 shows that 

in all six cases, the calculation method resulted in 

a PEI equivalent to or higher than the tested PEI, 

in one case the actual delta calculated from 

columns three and five results in one case where 

the calculation method results in a lower PEI than 

the test method. 47 DOE defines ‘‘inverter-only electric motor’’ in 

10 CFR 431.12 as an electric motor that is capable 

of rated operation solely with an inverter, and is not 

intended for operation when directly connected to 

polyphase, sinusoidal line power. 

48HI provided the delta values in a subsequent 

comment submission. (HI, No. 23 at p. 1) 

equivalent to or higher than the test 

method.46 (HI, No. 22 at p. 2) 

After reviewing the comments, DOE 

understands stakeholder references to 

‘‘inverter-only motors’’ to mean 

inverter-only electric motors that are 

synchronous electric motors. DOE’s 

current definition of ‘‘inverter-only 

motor’’ at 10 CFR 431.12 also includes 

AC induction motors.47

In the December 17, 2021, Electric 

Motors TP NOPR (‘‘Motors TP NOPR’’), 

DOE describes a ‘‘synchronous electric 

motor’’ as an electric motor in which the 

average speed of the normal operation is 

exactly proportional to the frequency of 

power supply to which it is connected, 

regardless of load. 86 FR 71710, 71726. 

DOE proposed to include within the 

scope of its electric motors test 

procedure synchronous electric motors 

with specific characteristics, inclusive 

of synchronous electric motors that are 

inverter-only electric motors. 86 FR 

71710, 71727. 

As stated, only pumps sold with 

motors subject to DOE’s electric motor 

test procedure and energy conservation 

standards can be used to conduct the 

calculation-based approach. The current 

electric motors test procedures and 

standards apply only to induction 

electric motors, and the ‘‘induction 

motor’’ criteria exclude synchronous 

electric motors from scope. 10 CFR 

431.25(g)(1). In this NOPR, DOE 

proposes that, to the extent that DOE 

adopts a definition, test procedure, and 

energy conservation standard for 

synchronous electric motors that are 

inverter-only electric motors, DOE 

would reference such regulations in the 

pumps test procedure, allowing for the 

use of the calculation method by pumps 

sold with synchronous electric motors 

that are inverter-only electric motors. 

In the Motors TP NOPR, DOE 

proposed to test inverter-only 

synchronous electric motors (inclusive 

of the inverter) that include an inverter 

in accordance with Section 7.7.2 of IEC 

61800–9–2:2017, using the test 

provisions specified in section 7.7.3.5 

and testing conditions specified in 

section 7.10. 86 FR 71710, 71742. DOE 

proposed to test inverter-only 

synchronous electric motors that do not 

include an inverter in the same manner 

and to specify that testing must be 

performed using an inverter as 

recommended in the manufacturer’s 

catalogs or offered for sale with the 

electric motor. Id. In response to 

comments from HI, Grundfos, NEEA, 

and CA IOUs, rather than referencing 

IE4 and IE5 motor efficiencies in the 

proposed calculation method for pumps 

sold with inverter-only synchronous 

electric motors, DOE proposes to require 

use of the nameplate efficiency of the 

inverter-only synchronous electric 

motors tested in accordance with any 

relevant test procedure in subpart B to 

part 431 if available, or if none 

available, in accordance with the DOE 

test procedure, should it be finalized. 

DOE notes that this nameplate 

efficiency, as proposed, would be 

representative of the motor + inverter 

efficiency rather than just the motor 

efficiency. 

As proposed in the Motors TP NOPR, 

manufacturers of synchronous electric 

motors would not be required to test 

according to the DOE test procedure, if 

finalized, until the compliance date of 

energy conservation standards. 86 FR 

71710, 71716. Accordingly, should DOE 

finalize a test procedure for these 

motors, there may be a period of time 

in which motor manufacturers would 

not be required to publish efficiency 

information for these motors. However, 

since the proposed electric motors test 

procedure is an IEC test procedure, if 

DOE’s proposal is finalized, the tested 

efficiency of the synchronous inverteronly electric motors + inverters would 

likely already be available. 

Issue 28: DOE requests comment on 

whether inverter-only motors used by 

pump manufacturers are typically tested 

in accordance with IEC 61800–9– 

2:2017. 

With respect to HI’s proposal to use 

IE3 efficiency to calculate PERSTD, DOE 

maintains that the appropriate 

denominator for pumps sold with 

inverter-only synchronous electric 

motors is the same as for other pumps 

sold with motors (with or without 

controls)—i.e., the efficiency standards 

for NEMA Design B motors in 10 CFR 

431.25 is comparable to the PEI metric 

when comparing pumps across a 

common baseline. Consequently, DOE is 

not proposing a revision to the 

calculation of PERSTD for these pumps. 

With respect to part-load losses, while 

DOE does not have data to evaluate the 

model quantitatively, DOE has plotted 

HI’s suggested model and preliminarily 

finds the resulting trends in losses to be 

reasonable in relation to the expected 

loss differences between induction and 

synchronous electric motors. 

Specifically, the suggested model shows 

inverter-only motors to be more efficient 

at part-load when compared to DOE’s 

loss model for induction motors. 

Further, HI’s suggested model shows 

higher efficiency at full-load compared 

to DOE’s loss model for induction 

motors—an expected outcome given 

that induction motor efficiency is set at 

a NEMA Premium level, whereas 

inverter-only efficiency is Super 

Premium. 

DOE notes that the HI-provided 

comparison of wire-to-water test data 

with results from the calculation 

method using the recommended 

coefficients did result in one case in 

which the calculation method would 

result in a slightly lower PEI rating than 

the test method. In addition, HI’s 

proposed coefficients were based on a 

delta between induction motors and 

inverter-only motors, and DOE is not 

proposing to adopt HI’s proposed 

induction motor coefficients. Finally, 

HI’s coefficients were developed to be 

applicable to motor-only efficiency, 

while DOE’s proposed test procedure for 

inverter-only motors results in 

efficiency for the motor + inverter 

combined. Therefore, DOE proposes to 

make slight modifications to the 

inverter-only coefficients proposed by 

HI. Specifically, DOE started with the 

revised proposed DOE induction motor 

and control coefficients, then applied 

the deltas provided by HI (the difference 

in efficiency points between a 

synchronous motor + control versus 

induction motor + control at different 

load points and different hp ranges),48

and then normalized to the motor + 

control losses (rather than the motor 

only losses). Table III.2 shows the 

proposed inverter-only motor and 

control part-load loss factor coefficients. 

These coefficients result in slightly 

higher losses than the HI model across 

all hp. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21299 

Issue 29: DOE requests comment on 

its proposed inverter-only part-load loss 

coefficients. DOE specifically requests 

comment on the appropriateness of the 

delta used to derive these coefficients as 

well as any other available comparable 

motor data with which DOE could vet 

these coefficients. 

In response to the suggestion by the 

CA IOUs that DOE investigate whether 

a single table of part-load loss factors 

would be suitable for both ECM and 

permanent magnet motors, as well as for 

both conventional-efficiency and highefficiency motors, DOE has no efficiency 

data for ECM and permanent magnet 

motors with which to perform such an 

analysis at this time. DOE acknowledges 

that permanent magnet inverter-only 

motors sold without a controller may 

perform differently based on the 

inverter with which it is paired. 

However, DOE does not expect that the 

use of a hybrid mapping approach 

would provide the burden reduction 

intended by the use of the calculation 

method. While the hybrid mapping 

approach would be less burdensome 

than multiple wire-to-water tests, it 

would likely be significantly more 

burdensome than a calculation-based 

approach based on a bare pump test, as 

it would require physical tests of all 

motors with which the bare pump 

would be paired. Furthermore, DOE 

tentatively concludes that the 

calculation-based approach is sufficient 

to generate appropriately representative 

values for this equipment—and with the 

option to allow for a testing-based 

approach, or an AEDM as discussed in 

section III.I.2, a manufacturer is free to 

refine accuracy of the values for specific 

equipment. 

Issue 30: DOE requests comment on 

the merits of using a hybrid mapping 

approach for inverter-only motors and 

whether it would reduce or increase 

manufacturer burden compared to the 

current proposals. 

In the April 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

information on the percentage of pumps 

sold with inverter-only motors without 

controls (and thus would be impacted 

by a change in rating from PEICL to 

PEIVL). 86 FR 20075, 20082. 

HI stated that pumps sold with 

inverter-only motors without controls 

constitute a small percentage of the 

market, but that such pumps should be 

labeled with a PEIVL since they cannot 

be operated without the inverter and are 

variable-speed capable. (HI, No. 20 at p. 

7) Grundfos stated that products with 

inverter-only motors cannot operate 

without a controller and should not be 

required to have a PEICL on the 

nameplate if sold without a controller. 

Grundfos suggested that DOE allow a 

PEIVL on any product sold with an 

inverter-only motor (whether PM or 

PM+ controller). Grundfos also stated 

that the PEI will be valid regardless of 

the controller used by the end user. 

(Grundfos, No. 17 at pp. 6–7) 

DOE agrees with the positions 

presented by commenters and proposes 

that to the extent that the calculationbased method would be applicable to 

pumps sold with synchronous electric 

motors that are inverter-only electric 

motors, such provision would apply to 

pumps sold with inverter-only 

synchronous electric motors both with 

and without controls. DOE also 

proposes that pumps sold with inverteronly motors with or without controls 

would apply the testing-based approach 

in section VI of appendix A (for pumps 

sold with motors and controls) rather 

than in section IV of appendix A (for 

pumps sold with motors), given that 

section VI results in PEIVL, and DOE 

assumes that such pumps, even if sold 

without an inverter, would be tested 

with an inverter. 

Issue 31: DOE requests comment on 

its proposal to apply PEIVL to pumps 

sold with inverter-only synchronous 

motors without controls, including 

application of the testing method in 

section VI of appendix A and the 

calculation method in section VII of 

appendix A. 

3. Pumps Sold With Submersible 

Motors 

For pumps sold with submersible 

motors, the calculation of PERSTD, the 

test procedure for bare pumps, the 

calculation-based approach for pumps 

sold with motors, and the calculationbased approach for pumps sold with 

motors and controls all include 

reference to Table 2 of appendix A, 

which includes default nominal fullload submersible motor efficiency 

values. These motor efficiency values 

were developed to allow for pumps sold 

with submersible motors to be rated 

using calculation-based methods despite 

the fact that submersible motors are not 

included in DOE’s current motor 

regulations. In the Motors TP NOPR, 

DOE proposed a test procedure for 

submersible motors based on Section 

34.4 of NEMA MG1–2016 with its 2018 

Supplements. 86 FR 71725, 71749– 

71750. DOE notes that it has not 

established energy conservation 

standards for submersible motors. Were 

DOE to establish a test procedure for 

submersible motors, such motors would 

not be required to be tested according to 

the DOE test procedure until such time 

that compliance with any energy 

conservation standards that DOE may 

establish is required. 

DOE proposes that for the calculationbased approaches for submersible 

pumps sold with motors (with or 

without controls), for determination of 

PERCL and PERVL, the default efficiency 

values in Table 2 would be used until 

compliance with an energy conservation 

standard for submersible motors is 

required, should such a standard be 

established. At such time, calculation of 

the pump efficiency for submersible 

pumps would rely on the motor 

efficiency rating marked on the 

nameplate and tested in accordance 

with the relevant DOE test procedure. 

DOE further proposes that if DOE 

finalizes a test procedure for 

submersible pumps, prior to any 

required compliance with an energy 

conservation standard that DOE may 

establish for these pumps, a 

manufacturer may rely on the motor 

efficiency represented by the motor 

manufacturer, if such a representation 

were made, or the default values in 

Table 2. 

DOE also proposes that when 

determining PERSTD using the 

calculation-based approach for bare 

pumps, before the compliance date of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11AP22.007</GPH>

Table 111.2 Proposed Inverter-Only Motor and Control Part Load Loss Factor 

E ,qua f ion C oe ff 1c1en . t s 

Motor Horsepower Coefficients for Induction Motor and Control part Load Loss Factor (ZiJ 

(hp) a b C 

::;5 -0.0898 1.0251 0.0667 

> 5 and< 20 -0.1591 1.1683 -0.0085 

> 20 and::; 50 -0.4071 1.4028 0.0055 

> 50 and< 100 -0.3341 1.3377 -0.0023 

>100 -0.0749 1.0864 -0.0096 
21300 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

any future standards for submersible 

electric motors that publishes after 

January 1, 2021, the default efficiency 

values in Table 2 would be used. After 

the compliance date of any standards for 

submersible electric motors that 

publishes after January 1, 2021, any 

standards applicable to submersible 

motors in appendix B of part 431 would 

be used. 

Issue 32: DOE requests comment on 

its proposal for the calculation-based 

approach for pumps sold with 

submersible pumps to require use of the 

rated motor efficiency marked on the 

nameplate that has been tested in 

accordance with the relevant DOE test 

procedure after such time as compliance 

is required with an energy conservation 

standard for submersible motors, should 

such a standard be established. 

G. Test Procedure for SVIL Pumps 

As discussed, DOE is proposing to 

expand the scope of the test procedure 

to include SVIL pumps. DOE reviewed 

the general pumps test procedure in 

appendix A to determine if any 

modifications were necessary to 

accommodate SVIL pumps. The current 

general pumps test procedure 

established in appendix A is based on 

the test methods contained in HI 40.6– 

2014, with certain modifications. As 

discussed in section III.C.1, DOE is 

proposing to update this reference to HI 

40.6–2021, which DOE has tentatively 

determined also applies to SVIL pumps. 

As discussed in section III.F, the 

general pumps test procedure also 

contains methods to determine the 

appropriate PEI using either calculationbased methods or testing-based 

methods. DOE has tentatively 

determined that these calculation- and 

testing-based methods are applicable to 

SVIL pumps just as they are applicable 

to IL pumps, based on the configuration 

in which the pump is being sold. Since 

SVIL pumps are sold as pumps with 

motors or pumps with motors and 

controls, the test methods established in 

the January 2016 Final Rule would 

apply to SVIL pumps. Additionally, the 

determination of pump performance in 

the general pumps test procedure, and 

as proposed to be updated in this 

proposed rule, would be appropriate for 

SVIL pumps. 

The primary differences between 

SVIL and IL pumps affecting the 

application of DOE’s general pumps test 

procedure are the size and certain 

characteristics of the motor with which 

the SVIL pumps are rated. Specifically, 

the general pumps test procedure 

establishes that the testing-based 

methods apply to all pump 

configurations, while the calculationbased methods apply only to (1) pumps 

sold without a motor or controls (i.e., a 

bare pump), (2) pumps sold with motors 

that are subject to DOE’s energy 

conservation standards for electric 

motors, as defined pursuant to 10 CFR 

431.25(g), (with or without continuous 

controls), and (3) pumps sold with 

submersible motors (with or without 

continuous controls). This distinction 

exists because the calculation-based test 

methods presume motor efficiency and 

motor or motor and drive loss values 

based on the performance 

characteristics of motors that are subject 

to DOE’s current electric motor energy 

conservation standards detailed in 10 

CFR 431.25. These standards apply to 

electric motors, including partial 

electric motors, that satisfy 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 four-digit 

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, B, or C motor or 

an IEC Design N or H motor. 

10 CFR 431.25(g) 

DOE notes that SVIL pumps, which 

this NOPR proposes to define as pumps 

having shaft input power less than 1 hp, 

may be paired with motors that are less 

than 1 hp and, as such, are not subject 

to DOE’s electric motor regulations 

specified at 10 CFR 431.25. However, 

some motors with less than 1 hp are 

subject to DOE’s small electric motor 

regulations specified at 10 CFR 431.446. 

The current general pumps test 

procedure established in the January 

2016 Final Rule allows pumps sold with 

single-phase motors to apply the test 

procedure for bare pumps. 10 CFR 

431.464 and appendix A. DOE specified 

this approach because the nominal fullload motor efficiency values and partload motor loss curves developed in the 

January 2016 Final Rule that describe 

the minimally-compliant pump (i.e., 

PERSTD) are based on the performance 

and minimum efficiency requirements 

for NEMA B polyphase induction 

motors. 81 FR 4086, 4104. In the January 

2016 Final Rule, DOE noted, and 

interested parties agreed, that such an 

approach was equitable and 

appropriate, since the majority of 

pumps in the scope of that TP 

rulemaking are sold with polyphase 

induction motors and, to the extent that 

pumps within the scope of the proposed 

test procedure are distributed in 

commerce with single-phase motors, 

most of these pumps are offered for sale 

with either single-phase or polyphase 

induction motors of similar size, 

depending on the power requirements 

of customers. Id. However, SVIL pumps 

are much more commonly sold with 

single-phase induction motors, and DOE 

regulations at 10 CFR 431.446 include 

efficiency standards for single-phase 

capacitor-start capacitor-run (‘‘CSCR’’) 

and capacitor-start induction-run 

(‘‘CSIR’’) motors. 

In the May 2021 Circulator Pumps 

RFI, DOE requested comment on the 

recommendation to test SVIL pumps 

with the test methods from the general 

pumps test procedure in conjunction 

with additional provisions to account 

for the differences in size and 

characteristics of SVIL pump motors. In 

particular, DOE requested comment on 

the potential extension of the nominal 

full-load motor efficiency values to 

reference DOE’s small electric motor 

regulations, including certain singlephase motors, and the need for an 

exception for SVIL pumps so that those 

sold with single-phase motors do not 

have to be rated as bare pumps. DOE 

also requested comment on the 

prevalence of SVIL pumps sold with 

single-phase versus three-phase motors, 

and the prevalence of SVIL pumps sold 

with motors not covered by DOE’s small 

electric motors and electric motors 

energy conservation standards for either 

single- or three-phase motors. 86 FR 

24516, 24527. 

HI stated that the small motor 

regulation does not cover the full scope 

of motors (e.g., single-phase, totally 

enclosed, fan-cooled (‘‘TEFC’’), and 

permanent split capacitor (‘‘PSC’’)) used 

with SVILs and that efficiencies for noncovered motors would need to be 

addressed, similar to submersible 

motors in appendix A, to reduce test 

burden and number of basic models to 

report. (HI, Docket No. EERE–2016–BT– 

STD–0004–112, at pp. 5–6) HI stated 

that data reported by four manufacturers 

of SVIL pumps indicated that between 

70% and 75% are single-phase 

products. (HI, Docket No. EERE–2016– 

BT–STD–0004–112 at p. 6) HI added 

that many of these are custom special 

purpose motors specific to each 

manufacturer and may not be covered 

under the current motor efficiency 

regulations. (HI, Docket No. EERE– 

2016–BT–STD–0004–0112, at p. 6) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21301 

Grundfos stated that the test method 

for general pumps is appropriate for 

SVIL pumps, but that SVIL pumps 

would require a new pump category and 

should be limited to variable load 

products only. Grundfos stated that 

incorporating the small [electric] motor 

rule is appropriate to facilitate 

calculations in section VII of appendix 

A but commented that this regulation 

does not cover TEFC products and that 

DOE must ensure TEFC motors can 

utilize the same calculation methods. 

(Grundfos, Docket No. EERE–2016–BT– 

STD–0004–0113 at p. 5) Grundfos stated 

that 70% of its SVIL pumps are sold as 

single-phase (in both constant- and 

variable-speed equipment) and 30% are 

sold with 3-phase motors. They added 

that nearly all SVIL pumps are sold with 

TEFC motors that are not covered by 

DOE’s small [electric] motor regulation. 

(Grundfos, Docket No. EERE–2016–BT– 

STD–0004–0113 at p. 5) Grundfos 

suggested that SVILs may be removed 

from the market and replaced by 

equivalent circulator products but was 

not explicit as to reason for such a 

change. (Grundfos, Docket No. EERE– 

2016–BT–STD–0004–0113 at p. 5) 

DOE motor regulations at 10 CFR 

431.446 exclude TEFC and certain other 

motors considered non-general purpose 

motors. However, in the Motors TP 

NOPR, DOE proposed adding such 

motors to the scope of electric motors 

coverage under the term small nonsmall electric motor electric motors 

(‘‘SNEMs’’). Specifically, DOE has 

proposed to define SNEMs as agnostic 

to enclosure and topology, affirmatively 

stating that the proposed test procedure 

would apply to general-purpose, 

definite-purpose, and special-purpose 

motors. As proposed, SNEMs would 

include fractional horsepower motors as 

low as 0.25 hp. 86 FR 71710, 71721– 

71725. The Motors TP NOPR also 

proposed testing instructions specific to 

these motors. 86 FR 71710, 71739. DOE 

notes that it has not established energy 

conservation standards for SNEMs. 

Were DOE to establish a test procedure 

for SNEMs, such motors would not be 

required to test according to the DOE 

test procedure until such time as 

compliance with any energy 

conservation standards be required, 

should such standards be established. 

Under DOE’s Motors TP NOPR, any 

definitions, test procedures, and 

standards finalized for SNEMs would be 

in found in subpart B of part 431. 

DOE expects that the proposed 

definition and test procedure for 

SNEMs, as well as the proposed test 

procedure for inverter-only synchronous 

electric motors, as discussed in section 

III.F.2, would encompass the additional 

types of motors discussed by HI and 

Grundfos that are not currently covered 

by the standards at 10 CFR 431.446. 

Therefore, DOE proposes that where the 

calculation-based test methods refer to 

the ‘‘represented nominal full-load 

motor efficiency (i.e., nameplate/DOEcertified value),’’ the nominal full-load 

motor efficiency for an SVIL pump 

would be determined in accordance 

with the applicable test procedure in 10 

CFR 431.444 or in subpart B of part 431. 

DOE is also proposing that for SVIL 

pumps, the determination of PERSTD

would reference DOE’s small electric 

motor regulations at 10 CFR 431.446 

rather than the electric motor 

regulations at 10 CFR 431.25, and would 

be the minimum efficiency of the energy 

conservation standards for polyphase or 

single-phase (CSIR/CSCR) for the 

relevant number of poles and motor 

horsepower. As noted, the single-phase 

standards only apply to CSCR and CSIR 

but this proposal would apply the 

efficiency values found at 10 CFR 

431.446 when determining an SVIL 

pump’s PERSTD. DOE believes that these 

values represent an appropriate default 

for the SVIL market. However, DOE 

would also consider application of 

efficiency values found for specific 

SNEMs in subpart B of part 431, if the 

relevant proposed amendments 

contained in the Motors TP NOPR are 

finalized. While DOE’s information does 

not indicate that SVIL pumps are sold 

as bare pumps, as discussed in section 

III.B.4, if stakeholders identify such 

models, DOE would include these same 

provisions in the calculation method for 

bare pumps. 

Issue 33: DOE seeks comment on 

whether the efficiency standards found 

at 10 CFR 431.446 are appropriate for 

use in the determination of PERSTD for 

SVILs, whether certain motor topologies 

that would be classified as SNEM are 

more prevalent and significantly less 

efficient, and whether the minimum 

efficiency of the polyphase and CSCR/ 

CSIR standards for the relevant number 

of poles and motor horsepower is 

appropriate or whether there should be 

differences depending on the phase of 

the motor with which the pump is sold. 

DOE’s market research indicates that 

the vast majority of SVILs are sold with 

motors with a nominal horsepower of 

0.25 hp or greater. However, DOE has 

identified some models with 

horsepower closer to 0.125 hp. Such 

motors are not subject to the standards 

in 10 CFR 431.446 and are not proposed 

to be subject to any test procedure in the 

Motors TP NOPR. DOE proposes that for 

determination of PERSTD for SVILs sold 

with a motor nominal horsepower of 

less than 0.25 hp, the full-load 

efficiency values in Table III.3 would be 

used. DOE has scaled these values from 

the standards for 0.25 hp pumps (3.9 

efficiency point decrease, comparable to 

the most common decrease from 0.33 to 

0.25 hp) and taken the minimum value 

across polyphase and CSCR/CSIR 

motors. DOE also proposes that the 

nominal full-load motor efficiency for 

SVILs would be determined in 

accordance with the applicable test 

procedure in 10 CFR 431.444 or in 

subpart B of part 431, although such test 

procedure is not required for those 

motors. DOE may consider alternate 

methods of determining motor 

efficiency for motors less than 0.25 hp, 

or if there is no appropriate test 

procedure, DOE may consider requiring 

SVILs sold with such motors to use a 

testing-based approach. 

Issue 34: DOE seeks comment on: (1) 

How many models of SVILs are sold 

with motors with a nominal horsepower 

less than 0.25 hp, (2) whether such 

motors could be tested in accordance 

with the relevant test procedures in 10 

CFR 431.446 or proposed in the Motors 

TP NOPR, and if not, how such motors 

are tested, and (3) whether the 

efficiency values in Table III.3 are 

appropriate for such motors, and if not, 

how those values should be determined. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11AP22.008</GPH>

Table 111.3 Average Full Load Efficiency for SVILs Less than 0.25 hp 

Motor Horsepower Avera~e Full-Load Efficiency 

Open Motors (Number of Poles) 

6 I 4 I 2 

<0.25 58.3 I 64.6 I 61.7 
21302 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

DOE expects that the existing 

regulations for small electric motors at 

10 CFR 431.446, as well as any finalized 

regulations for SNEMs and inverter-only 

synchronous electric motors, would 

account for the vast majority of motors 

sold with SVIL pumps. However, DOE 

proposes that any SVIL pumps that are 

distributed in commerce with motors 

that are not regulated by DOE’s electric 

motor regulations at 10 CFR 431.25, 

DOE’s small electric motor regulations 

at 10 CFR 431.466, or any electric motor 

regulations in subpart B to part 431 

established after January 1, 2022, as 

applicable, would need to apply the 

testing-based methods currently 

specified in sections IV and VI of 

appendix A and as proposed to be 

modified in this proposed rule. Given 

that DOE is proposing for PERSTD to 

reference motor efficiencies relevant to 

SVIL pumps, DOE is proposing not to 

have an option for SVIL pumps sold 

with single-phase motors to be rated as 

bare pumps. 

If regulations for SNEMs and inverteronly synchronous electric motors are 

not set, DOE may consider allowing an 

option for SVIL pumps sold with singlephase motors to be rated as bare pumps. 

In this case, DOE would reference the 

efficiency values in 10 CFR 431.446 to 

determine bare pump performance. 

Issue 35: DOE seeks comment on its 

proposal to require testing of SVIL 

pumps distributed in commerce with 

motors not regulated by DOE’s current 

electric motor regulations or any motor 

regulations finalized after January 1, 

2022. DOE also seeks comment on 

whether it should allow such pumps to 

be rated as bare pumps only if any 

motor regulations finalized after January 

1, 2022, do not include SNEMs and 

inverter-only synchronous electric 

motors. 

As stated in section III.F.1, the general 

pumps test procedure includes 

calculation-based methods that specify 

part-load loss curves for pumps sold 

with motors, accounting for the partload losses of the motor at each load 

point, as well as part-load loss curves 

for pumps sold with motors and 

continuous controls, which account for 

additional losses. 

Both the motor and combined motor 

and drive loss curves were developed 

for the general pumps test procedure 

based on data from NEMA and from 

manufacturers of motors and drives, as 

well as data from DOE’s own testing, for 

motors and drives from 1 to 250 hp 

gathered during the general pumps test 

procedure rulemaking. Since these 

losses were based on data for motors 

and drives from 1 to 250 hp, the 

nominal motor losses derived for the 

general pumps test procedure may not 

be appropriate for SVIL pumps, given 

the lower hp ratings of the motors used 

in these applications. In the May 2021 

Circulator Pumps RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether the equations used 

to establish the part-load motor and 

drive losses in the general pumps test 

procedure are appropriate for SVIL 

pumps under one hp—and if 

inappropriate, DOE requested data 

supporting the generation of alternative 

loss curves. 86 FR 24516, 24527. 

HI stated that current loss coefficients 

would not be valid for smaller motors 

and that DOE should investigate since 

this data is not available in the public 

domain. As noted previously, HI added 

that many of these are custom special 

purpose motors specific to each 

manufacturer and may not be covered 

under the current motor efficiency 

regulations. (HI, Docket No. EERE– 

2016–BT–STD–0004–0112 at p. 6) 

Grundfos stated that it did not believe 

that current part-load loss calculations 

apply to fractional horsepower motors 

and that DOE must engage with motor 

manufacturers and NEMA to determine 

appropriate part-load loss calculations. 

(Grundfos, Docket No. EERE–2016–BT– 

STD–0004–0013 at p. 5) 

DOE understands that part-load loss 

curves (i.e., the variation in efficiency as 

a function of load) do not vary 

significantly between 1 hp motors and 

drives and motors and drives that are 

less than 1 hp. DOE did not receive any 

newer data in response to this RFI or 

any indication that the SVIL market has 

changed such that data collected in 

2017 would no longer be applicable. As 

stated previously, DOE is not proposing 

to revise its part-load loss curves for 

motors and drives less than 5 hp. 

Therefore, DOE proposes to apply the 

existing motor and combined motor and 

drive part-load loss curves that are 

applicable to 1 hp motors and drives to 

the fractional horsepower motors and 

drives with which SVIL pumps may be 

sold. DOE notes that IEC standards do 

not include motors below 3⁄4 kw (1 hp), 

and that many SVIL pumps may use 

integrated packages rather than separate 

motors and drives—and as noted by HI, 

may be specific to each manufacturer. 

Consequently, there may be more 

variation in losses across manufacturers 

or models compared to larger hp motors 

and drives. As discussed in section 

III.I.2, DOE is proposing to allow use of 

AEDMs for pumps. In cases where a 

manufacturer wishes to use an 

alternative to the part-load loss 

coefficient method, it may choose to 

perform wire-to-water testing of SVILs 

or employ an AEDM under DOE’s 

proposal. 

Issue 36: DOE seeks comment on 

whether the market for SVIL pumps has 

changed such that the data collected by 

DOE in 2017 would no longer be 

applicable, and whether the use of 

AEDM would address concerns related 

to part-load loss curves specific to lowhorsepower motors. 

H. Test Procedure for Other Expanded 

Scope Pumps 

DOE reviewed the general pumps test 

procedure in appendix A, including the 

amendments proposed in this NOPR, to 

determine if any modifications were 

necessary to accommodate BB, RSH, 

and VT pumps, as well as pumps 

designed to operate with 6-pole 

induction motors and pumps designed 

to operate with non-induction motors 

with an operating range that includes 

speeds of rotation between 960 rpm and 

1,440 rpm (‘‘pumps tested with a 

nominal speed of 1,200 rpm’’). 

Specifically, the general pumps test 

procedure established in appendix A is 

based on the test methods contained in 

HI 40.6–2014, with certain 

modifications. As discussed in section 

III.C.1, DOE is proposing to update this 

reference to HI 40.6–2021, which DOE 

has tentatively determined is also 

applicable to BB, RSH, and VT pumps, 

as well as to pumps tested with a 

nominal speed of 1,200 rpm. 

As discussed in section III.F, the 

general pumps test procedure also 

contains methods to determine the 

appropriate PEI using either calculationbased methods and/or testing-based 

methods. DOE tentatively determined 

that these calculation- and testing-based 

methods are applicable to BB, RSH, and 

VT pumps, as well as pumps tested with 

a nominal speed of 1,200 rpm just as 

they apply to other general pumps, 

based on the configuration in which the 

pump is being sold. Since BB, RSH, and 

VT pumps, as well as pumps tested with 

a nominal speed of 1,200 rpm are sold 

as bare pumps, pumps with motors, or 

pumps with motors and controls, the 

test methods established in the January 

2016 Final Rule would be applicable to 

BB, RSH, and VT pumps, as well as 

pumps tested with a nominal speed of 

1,200 rpm pumps. Additionally, the 

determination of pump performance in 

the current general pumps test 

procedure, and as proposed to be 

updated in this document, would be 

applicable to BB, RSH, and VT pumps, 

as well as pumps tested with a nominal 

speed of 1,200 rpm. 

DOE understands that the motors 

paired with BB, RSH, and VT pumps are 

typically similar to those paired with 

the existing scope of general pumps. As 

such, DOE tentatively determined that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21303 

Table 1 and the relevant test and 

calculation options are appropriate for 

these expanded scope pumps and that 

no modifications are needed. 

Issue 37: DOE requests comment on 

whether the proposed test procedure is 

appropriate for BB, RSH, and VT 

pumps. 

Issue 38: DOE seeks comment on 

whether BB, RSH, and VT pumps are 

typically sold with motors not subject to 

the energy conservation standards in 10 

CFR 431.25 or synchronous inverteronly electric motors, and if so, what 

kind of motors they are sold with, and 

what calculation modifications would 

be needed to accommodate such motors. 

For pumps tested at a nominal speed 

of 1,200 rpm, DOE tentatively 

determined that the existing test 

procedure references to 10 CFR 431.25 

for the appropriate number of poles, and 

the part-load loss factors in Table 4, and 

as proposed in this document, would be 

appropriate. The current requirements 

at 10 CFR 431.25 and 10 CFR 431.446 

include energy efficiency standards for 

6-pole motors. In addition, part-load 

losses are a relative factor that is 

agnostic to pole configuration. As a 

result, DOE is not proposing to revise 

these references and factors. DOE notes 

that Table 2, the default efficiency 

values for submersible pumps, does not 

currently have values for 6-pole motors. 

DOE is proposing to expand Table 2 to 

include such values. The proposed 

values were developed at the same time 

as the existing values in Table 2 but 

were not included in the 2016 test 

procedure at that time because the 

original scope did not include pumps 

tested at a nominal speed of 1,200 rpm. 

DOE notes that, as discussed in section 

III.F.3, Table 2 may be replaced with 

energy conservation standard values for 

submersible motors, if such standards 

are developed and adopted. 

Issue 39: DOE requests comment and 

data on the proposed default 

submersible motor efficiency values for 

6-pole motors. 

I. Sampling Plan, AEDMs, Enforcement 

Provisions, and Basic Model 

1. Sampling Plan for Determining 

Represented Values 

DOE currently provides sampling 

plans for all covered equipment that 

manufacturers must use when certifying 

their equipment as compliant with the 

relevant standards and when making 

written representations of energy 

consumption and efficiency. (See 

generally 10 CFR parts 429 and 431) 

DOE expects that SVIL pumps would 

have the same testing uncertainty and 

manufacturing variability as larger IL 

pumps, as they are similar in 

construction and design to IL pumps 

and would apply the same test 

procedure under DOE’s proposal. 

Similarly, RSH pumps would have the 

same testing uncertainty and 

manufacturing variability as RSV 

pumps, as they are similar in 

construction and design to RSV pumps 

and would use the same test procedure 

under this proposal. DOE has tentatively 

determined that BB pumps would have 

the same testing uncertainty and 

manufacturing variability as large, 

currently covered, end-suction pumps, 

as they are reasonably similar in 

construction and design to BB pumps 

and would apply the same test 

procedure as end-section pumps. VT 

pumps would also likely have the same 

testing uncertainty and manufacturing 

variability as large, currently covered, 

ST pumps, as they are reasonably 

similar in construction and design to VT 

pumps and use the same test procedure 

as VT pumps. Additionally, DOE has 

tentatively determined that pumps 

tested at a nominal speed of 1,200 rpm 

would have the same testing uncertainty 

and manufacturing variability as pumps 

that are currently regulated and tested at 

nominal speeds of 1,800 and 3,600. 

Therefore, DOE proposes to adopt the 

same statistical sampling plans that are 

already in place for commercial 

industrial pumps and apply them to 

those pumps that DOE is proposing to 

include as part of its expanded test 

procedure scope (i.e., SVIL, BB, RSH, 

VT, and 1,200 rpm pumps.). 

Issue 40: DOE request comment on its 

tentative determinations that SVIL, BB, 

RSH, VT, and pumps tested at a 

nominal speed of 1,200 rpm have the 

same testing uncertainty and 

manufacturing variability as currently 

regulated pumps. DOE also requests 

comment on its proposal to adopt the 

same statistical sampling plans which 

are currently in place for commercial 

industrial pumps for SVIL, BB, RSH, 

VT, and pumps tested at a nominal 

speed of 1,200 rpm. 

Under this proposal, for purposes of 

certification testing, determining 

whether 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 the pump categories 

addressed in this proposed expansion of 

the test procedure’s scope. 

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. 

Additionally, DOE’s certification 

requirements state that other 

performance parameters derived from 

the test procedure must be reported, but 

no sampling plan provisions are 

provided for such other parameters, 

which include: pump total head in feet 

at BEP and nominal speed, volume per 

unit time (i.e., flow rate) in gallons per 

minute at BEP and nominal speed, and 

calculated driver power input at each 

load point (i.e., corrected to nominal 

speed in horsepower). 10 CFR 

429.59(b)(2). In the April 2021 RFI, DOE 

sought input on whether it should 

specify an approach for determining 

how to determine represented values for 

parameters other than PEI, and sought 

comment on using the mean of the value 

for each tested unit in the sample as the 

represented value. 86 FR 20075, 20083. 

HI and Grundfos recommended that if 

the sample size is greater than one, the 

arithmetic mean should be used for 

reported parameters other than PEI (HI, 

No. 20 at p.7; Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 7). 

Regarding representative values other 

than PEI and PER, DOE is proposing 

that if more than one unit is tested for 

a given sample, represented values 

(other than PEI and PER) would be 

determined using the arithmetic mean 

of the individual units. For example, if 

three units are tested for a given sample, 

and pump total head at BEP is measured 

at 99.1 ft, 96.2 ft, and 97.3 ft, the 

reported values for head would be the 

sum of the three values divided by three 

(i.e., 97.5 ft). This proposal would apply 

to both the existing and proposed 

expanded scope of pumps that would be 

addressed by the general pumps test 

procedure. 

Issue 41: DOE requests comment on 

the proposed statistical sampling 

procedures and certification 

requirements. 

2. Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Methods 

a. Background 

Pursuant to the requirements of 10 

CFR 429.70, DOE may permit use of an 

AEDM in cases where actual testing of 

regulated equipment may present 

considerable burdens to a manufacturer 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21304 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

49 ‘‘Validation classes’’ are groupings of products 

based on the equipment classes used for validating 

an AEDM. 

and use of that AEDM can reasonably 

predict the equipment’s energy 

efficiency performance. Although 

specific requirements vary by product or 

equipment, use of an AEDM entails 

development of a mathematical model 

that estimates energy efficiency or 

energy consumption characteristics of 

the basic model, as would be measured 

by the applicable DOE test procedure. 

The AEDM must be based on 

engineering or statistical analysis, 

computer simulation or modeling, or 

other analytic evaluation of performance 

data. A manufacturer must validate an 

AEDM by demonstrating that its 

predicted efficiency performance of the 

evaluated equipment agrees with the 

performance as measured by actual 

testing in accordance with the 

applicable DOE test procedure. The 

validation procedure and requirements, 

including the statistical tolerance, 

number of basic models, and number of 

units tested vary by product. 

Once developed, an AEDM may be 

used to certify the performance of 

untested basic models in lieu of 

physical testing. However, use of an 

AEDM for any basic model is always at 

the option of the manufacturer. One 

potential advantage of AEDM use is that 

it may free a manufacturer from the 

burden of physical testing—but this 

advantage must be weighed against the 

potential risk that an AEDM may not 

perfectly predict performance and could 

result in a finding that the equipment 

has an invalid rating and/or that the 

manufacturer has distributed a 

noncompliant basic model. The 

manufacturer, by using an AEDM, bears 

the responsibility and risk of the 

validity of the ratings, including cases 

where the manufacturer receives and 

relies on performance data for certain 

components from a component 

manufacturer. 

Given stakeholder requests for the 

calculation methods to be more 

representative, and to balance the risk of 

allowing overrating through calculation 

methods, DOE proposes to 

accommodate the application of AEDMs 

to determine performance ratings for 

pumps. DOE expects that the use of 

AEDMs would allow manufacturers to 

rate equipment that performs better than 

the assumptions in DOE’s calculation 

method with less burden than if 

physical testing were required for each 

basic model. Manufacturers could still 

choose to use the calculation method 

where they were satisfied that it 

resulted in appropriate representations 

of model performance. DOE proposes 

regulatory language that is consistent 

with most other commercial and 

industrial equipment that have AEDM 

provisions. The specific details are 

discussed in sections III.I.2.b through 

III.I.2.f of this document. 

b. Basic Criteria Any AEDM Must 

Satisfy 

A manufacturer may not use an 

AEDM to determine the values of 

metrics unless the following three 

criteria are met: 

(1) The AEDM is derived from a 

mathematical model that estimates the 

energy efficiency or energy 

consumption characteristics of the basic 

model as measured by the applicable 

DOE test procedure; 

(2) The AEDM is based on engineering 

or statistical analysis, computer 

simulation or modeling, or other 

analytic evaluation of performance data; 

and 

(3) The manufacturer has validated 

the AEDM, in accordance with the 

applicable validation requirements for 

such equipment (discussed in section 

III.I.2.c of this document). 

c. Validation 

Validation is the process by which a 

manufacturer demonstrates that an 

AEDM meets DOE’s requirements for 

use as a certification tool by physically 

testing a certain number and style of 

pump models and comparing the test 

results to the output of the AEDM. 

Before using an AEDM, a manufacturer 

must validate the AEDM’s accuracy and 

reliability as follows: 

A manufacturer must select a 

minimum number of basic models from 

each validation class to which the 

AEDM applies.49 To validate an AEDM, 

the specified number of basic models 

from each validation class must be 

tested in accordance with the DOE test 

procedure and sampling plan in effect at 

the time those basic models used for 

validation are distributed in commerce. 

Testing may be conducted at a 

manufacturer’s testing facility or a thirdparty testing facility. The resulting 

rating is directly compared to the result 

from the AEDM to determine the 

AEDM’s validity. A manufacturer may 

develop multiple AEDMs per validation 

class, and each AEDM may span 

multiple validation classes; however, 

the minimum number of basic models 

must be validated per validation class 

for every AEDM that a manufacturer 

chooses to develop. An AEDM may be 

applied to any basic model within the 

applicable validation classes at the 

manufacturer’s discretion. All 

documentation of testing, the AEDM 

results, and subsequent comparisons to 

the AEDM would be required to be 

maintained as part of both the test data 

underlying the certified rating and the 

AEDM validation package pursuant to 

10 CFR 429.71. 

DOE is proposing to include general 

pumps validation classes at 10 CFR 

429.70(i) and to require that two basic 

models per validation class be tested 

using the relevant proposed test 

procedure. This number of basic models 

is consistent with the number for basic 

models required for most DOE-regulated 

equipment that utilize AEDMs. 

Additionally, DOE proposes that the 

AEDM-predicted result would be 

applied to the PEI metric and would be 

greater than or equal to 95 percent of the 

tested results for that same model. 

Additionally, the predicted PEI for each 

basic model calculated by applying the 

AEDM must meet or exceed the 

applicable federal energy conservation 

standard that applies. 

DOE’s proposed validation classes for 

general pumps are listed below: 

• Constant Load End-suction ClosedCoupled Pumps and Constant Load 

End-suction Frame-Mounted Pumps 

• Variable Load End-suction ClosedCoupled Pumps and Variable Load 

End-suction Frame-Mounted Pumps 

• Constant Load Inline Pumps and 

Constant Load Small Volute Inline 

Pumps 

• Variable Load Inline Pumps and 

Variable Load Small Volute Inline 

Pumps 

• Constant Load Radially-Split MultiStage Vertical Pumps and Constant 

Load Radially-Split Multi-Stage 

Horizonal Pumps 

• Variable Load Radially-Split MultiStage Vertical Pumps and Variable 

Load Radially-Split Multi-Stage 

Horizontal Pumps 

• Constant Load Submersible Turbine 

Pumps and Constant Load Vertical 

Turbine Pumps 

• Variable Load Submersible Turbine 

Pumps and Variable Load Vertical 

Turbine Pumps 

• Constant Load Between-Bearing 

Pumps 

• Variable Load Between-Bearing 

Pumps 

d. Records Retention Requirements 

Consistent with provisions for other 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

DOE also proposes requirements 

regarding retention of certain 

information related to validation and 

use of an AEDM to certify equipment. 

Specifically, any manufacturer using an 

AEDM to generate representative values 

must provide on request records 

showing: (1) The AEDM itself, and any 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21305 

mathematical modeling, engineering or 

statistical analysis, and/or computer 

simulation or modeling that forms the 

AEDM’s basis; (2) regarding tested units 

that were used to validate the AEDM 

pursuant to section III.I.2.b, all relevant 

equipment information, complete test 

data, AEDM calculations, and statistical 

comparisons ; and (3) for each basic 

model to which the AEDM has been 

applied, all relevant equipment 

information and AEDM calculations. 

e. Additional AEDM Requirements 

Consistent with provisions for other 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

DOE proposes to require that, if 

requested by DOE, a manufacturer must 

perform at least one of the following 

activities: (1) Conduct a simulation 

before a DOE representative to predict 

the performance of particular basic 

models of the equipment to which the 

AEDM was applied; (2) provide analysis 

of previous simulations conducted by 

the manufacturer; or (3) conduct 

certification testing of basic model(s) 

selected by DOE. 

In addition, DOE notes that when 

making representations of values other 

than PEI based on the output of an 

AEDM, all other representations 

regarding PER, pump efficiency, overall 

efficiency, flow, head, driver power 

input and pump power output would be 

required to be based on the same AEDM 

results used to generate the represented 

value of PEI. 

f. AEDM Verification Testing 

Consistent with provisions for certain 

other commercial and industrial 

equipment, DOE proposes including in 

10 CFR 429.70 provisions related to 

AEDM verification testing for pumps, 

including: (1) Selection of units from 

retail if available, or otherwise from a 

manufacturer, (2) independent, thirdparty testing if available, or otherwise at 

a manufacturer’s facility, (3) testing 

performed without manufacturer 

representatives on-site, (4) testing in 

accordance with the DOE test 

procedure, any active test procedures, 

any guidance issued by DOE, and lab 

communication with the manufacturer 

only if DOE organizes it, (5) notification 

of manufacturer if a model tests worse 

than its certified rating by an amount 

exceeding a 5 percent tolerance with 

opportunity for the manufacturer to 

respond, (6) potential finding of the 

rating for the model to be invalid, and 

(7) specifications regarding when a 

manufacturer’s use of an AEDM may be 

restricted due to prior invalid 

represented values and how a 

manufacturer could regain the privilege 

of using an AEDM for rating. 

DOE is also proposing conforming 

changes to 10 CFR 429.59 to allow use 

of AEDMs for general pumps in lieu of 

testing. 

Issue 42: DOE requests feedback 

regarding all aspects of its proposal to 

permit use of an AEDM for general 

pumps, and any data or information 

comparing modeled performance with 

the results of physical testing. DOE 

specifically seeks comment on its 

proposed validation classes, and 

whether groupings should be 

considered where performance variation 

between two equipment classes or 

nominal speeds is well established. In 

addition, DOE requests comment on 

whether the calculation-based methods 

would still be necessary if 

manufacturers were permitted to use 

AEDMs in addition to physical testing. 

3. Enforcement Provisions 

Enforcement provisions govern the 

process DOE would follow when 

performing an assessment of basic 

model compliance with standards, as 

described under subpart C of part 429. 

Specifically, subpart C of part 429 

describes the notification requirements, 

legal processes, penalties, specific 

prohibited acts, and testing protocols 

related to testing covered equipment to 

determine or verify compliance with 

standards. 

DOE proposes to apply the same 

general enforcement provisions 

contained in subpart C of part 429 to the 

proposed expanded scope of pumps. 

Additionally, given that DOE is 

proposing to allow the use of AEDMs, 

DOE is also proposing in the product 

specific enforcement provisions in 10 

CFR 429.134 that if the model of pump 

unit was rated using an AEDM, DOE 

may conduct enforcement testing using 

either a testing approach or calculation 

approach. 

Issue 43: DOE requests comment on 

its proposal related to enforcement 

provisions. 

4. Basic Model Definition 

This section discusses the definition 

of basic model as it relates to the 

existing general pumps scope. DOE will 

make any proposals related to the basic 

model definition for its proposed 

expanded scope in any energy 

conservation standards rulemaking for 

pumps. DOE’s regulations for pumps at 

10 CFR 429.59 require that the 

represented values for each basic model 

be determined through testing in 

accordance with the sampling 

provisions specified in that section. As 

applied to pumps, DOE defines the term 

‘‘basic model’’ in 10 CFR 431.462. 

In the April 2021 RFI, DOE stated that 

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 86 FR 20075, 

20083). Accordingly, manufacturers 

may pair a given bare pump with 

several different motors (or motor and 

controls) and can include all 

combinations under the same basic 

model if the certification of energy use 

and all representations made by the 

manufacturer are based on the most 

consumptive bare pump/motor (or 

motor and controls) combination for 

each basic model and all individual 

models are in the same equipment class. 

86 FR 20075, 20083–20084. 

In the case of pumps, the term ‘‘basic 

model’’ means all units of a given class 

of pump 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; and, in addition, for pumps 

that are subject to the standards 

specified in § 431.465(b), the following 

provisions also apply: 

(1) All variations in numbers of stages 

of bare RSV and ST pumps must be 

considered a single basic model; 

(2) Pump models for which the bare 

pump differs in impeller diameter, or 

impeller trim, may be considered a 

single basic model; and 

(3) Pump models for which the bare 

pump differs in number of stages or 

impeller diameter and which are sold 

with motors (or motors and controls) of 

varying horsepower may only be 

considered a single basic model if: 

(i) For ESCC, ESFM, IL, and RSV 

pumps, each motor offered in the basic 

model has a nominal full load motor 

efficiency rated at the Federal minimum 

(see the current table for NEMA Design 

B motors at § 431.25) or the same 

number of bands above the Federal 

minimum for each respective motor 

horsepower (see Table 3 of appendix A 

to subpart Y of this part); or 

(ii) For ST pumps, each motor offered 

in the basic model has a full load motor 

efficiency at the default nominal full 

load submersible motor efficiency 

shown in Table 2 of appendix A to 

subpart Y of this part or the same 

number of bands above the default 

nominal full load submersible motor 

efficiency for each respective motor 

horsepower (see Table 3 of appendix A 

to subpart Y of this part). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21306 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

50The efficiency bands in Table 3 of appendix A 

are derived from Tables 12–10 and 12–12 of NEMA 

MG1–2016, with 2018 supplements. Each higher 

incremental level of nominal full-load efficiency 

represents a loss reduction of approximately 10 

percent or one ‘‘NEMA Band.’’ 

10 CFR 431.462. 

Clauses (1) and (2) of the basic model 

definition, which are applicable to 

pumps that are subject to the standards 

specified in 10 CFR 431.465(b), align the 

scope of the ‘‘basic model’’ definition 

for pumps with the requirements that 

testing be conducted at a certain number 

of stages for RSV and ST pumps and at 

full impeller diameter. (10 CFR 

431.462.) Clause (3) of the definition, 

which is applicable to pumps that are 

subject to the standards specified in 10 

CFR 431.465(b), addresses basic models 

inclusive of pump models for which the 

bare pump differs in number of stages 

or impeller diameter. (Id.) Specifically, 

variation in motor sizing (i.e., variation 

in the horsepower rating of the paired 

motor as a result of different impeller 

trims or stages within a basic model) is 

not a basis for requiring units to be rated 

as unique basic models. However, 

variation in motor sizing may also be 

associated with variation in motor 

efficiency, which is a performance 

characteristic; typically, larger motors 

are more efficient than smaller motors. 

86 FR 20075, 20084. 

In order to group pumps sold with 

motors into a single basic model, clause 

(3)(i) provides that for basic models 

inclusive of pump models for which the 

bare pump differs in number of stages 

or impeller diameter, each motor offered 

in a pump included in that basic model 

must have a full-load efficiency at the 

Federal minimum efficiency level for 

NEMA Design B electric motors (found 

in 10 CFR 431.25) or the same number 

of efficiency bands above the Federal 

minimum for each respective motor 

horsepower as described in Table 3 of 

appendix A.50 (Id.) Clause (3)(ii) 

provides a similar allowance for 

submersible turbine pumps, where, in 

order to group pumps sold with motors 

into a single basic model, each motor 

offered in a pump included in that basic 

model must have a full-load motor 

efficiency at the default nominal fullload submersible motor efficiency 

shown in Table 2 of appendix A, or the 

same number of bands above the default 

nominal full-load submersible motor 

efficiency for each respective motor 

horsepower as described in Table 3 of 

appendix A. (Id.) DOE requested 

comment on how manufacturers are 

currently making use of the basic model 

grouping provisions when rating their 

pumps, and whether any general 

clarifications or modifications are 

needed. 86 FR 20075, 20084. 

HI and Grundfos stated there are no 

modifications or clarifications needed 

for basic model except to modify the 

language to reduce testing burden by 

allowing manufacturers to group 

inverter-only motors into a single basic 

model (HI, No. 20 at p. 8; Grundfos, No. 

17 at p. 8), which DOE discusses later. 

Summit stated that all pumps are 

reported using basic model grouping of 

‘‘bare pump’’ as defined in Section III, 

regardless of whether the pump is sold 

with a motor. (Summit Pump, No. 16 at 

p. 6) 

Summit requested clarification on 

whether ‘‘most consumptive’’ refers to 

the highest power consumption or least 

efficient and requested clarification on 

the phrase ‘‘same number of bands 

above federal minimum.’’ Summit also 

requested examples for reporting a bare 

pump with different motor powers. 

(Summit, No. 16 at p. 6) 

In response to Summit, ‘‘most 

consumptive’’ would refer to the highest 

PEI, given that lower numbers of PEI are 

better. The phrase ‘‘same number of 

bands above federal minimum’’ means 

that the manufacturer should: (1) 

Identify the motor efficiency of the 

motor in question, (2) find the Federal 

minimum for the relevant horsepower/ 

pole combination NEMA Design B 

electric motors in 10 CFR 431.25, (3) 

find both of those values in Table 3 of 

appendix A, and (4) count how many 

rows the motor efficiency is above the 

federal minimum. This process would 

be repeated for the other motors that the 

manufacturer may seek to group into the 

basic model to ensure that the motor 

efficiency for each motor is the same 

number of rows (‘‘bands’’) above the 

relevant Federal minimum in each case. 

Regarding Summit’s request for 

examples of reporting a bare pump with 

different motor powers, DOE 

understands Summit to be referring to 

the case where a bare pump with 

varying number of stages or impeller 

diameters is sold with motors of varying 

horsepower. In this case, the 

manufacturer may choose to group those 

combinations into a single basic model, 

if all the motors are the ‘‘same number 

of bands above [the] federal minimum’’ 

as described in the process above. If so, 

the manufacturer would report the 

performance of that basic model 

following the steps in 10 CFR 429.59(b). 

The performance of the basic model 

would be based on the specific motor 

tested with the bare pump (using a 

testing-based approach or calculationbased approach) in accordance with 10 

CFR 429.59(a). The manufacturer would 

report the basic model number as well 

as the individual model numbers for the 

bare pump and for all motors of varying 

horsepower that the manufacturer 

elected to group into a single basic 

model, in accordance with 10 CFR 

429.59(c). Alternatively, the 

manufacturer could choose to report 

each of the bare pump + motor 

combinations as separate basic models. 

In the April 2021 RFI, DOE stated that 

it received several inquiries related to 

the application of the basic model 

definition to pumps sold with VFDs of 

varying phase, voltage, and/or 

efficiency; pumps sold with inverteronly motors such as PMAC motors; and 

pumps sold with both single-phase and 

polyphase motors. 86 FR 20075, 20084. 

For pumps sold with motors, when 

determining how to group models 

within a basic model, manufacturers 

must consider clause (3), which 

currently allows the grouping of models 

to be based on the number of bands 

above ‘‘nominal full-load motor 

efficiency rated at the Federal minimum 

(see the current table for NEMA Design 

B electric motors at § 431.25),’’ or for 

submersible turbine pumps, the number 

of bands above the default nominal fullload submersible motor efficiency. DOE 

stated that it may consider inclusion of 

explicit language that applies this clause 

to pumps sold with specific kinds of 

motors, or to pumps sold with VFDs. 

For example, inverter-only motors may 

have a rated efficiency (i.e., nameplate 

efficiency) that exceeds the Federal 

minimum for NEMA Design B electric 

motors (10 CFR 431.25) (based on hp, 

poles, and enclosure construction of 

that motor), as might certain singlephase motors subject to the energy 

efficiency standards in 10 CFR 431.446 

and tested in accordance with 10 CFR 

431.444. DOE also noted that 

stakeholders have recommended that 

DOE develop default nominal full-load 

efficiency values for inverter-only 

motors, which could also provide a 

baseline for grouping pumps sold with 

those motors. 86 FR 20075, 20084. 

DOE noted that for motors not 

currently subject to the DOE test 

procedure for electric motors, it is not 

clear how manufacturers would 

determine the full-load efficiency of a 

given motor, or specifically, determine 

the number of bands above the Federal 

minimum or, for submersible pumps, 

above the default efficiency. For 

inverter-only motors, DOE noted that 

the IEC recently published an industry 

test procedure that provides test 

methods for measuring the efficiency of 

these motors: IEC 60034–2–3:2020, 

‘‘Rotating electrical machines—Part 2–3: 

Specific test methods for determining 

losses and efficiency of converter-fed 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21307 

51The comment uses the term ‘‘induction-only 

motors’’; however, DOE believes this to be referring 

to ‘‘inverter-only’’ motors since this comment was 

in response to Issue 25, which requested detail 

about inverter-only motors. Additionally, the HI 

comment referenced by Grundfos also specified 

inverter-only motors. 

AC motors’’ (‘‘IEC 60034’’) and IEC 

61800–9–2:2017 (discussed in section 

III.F.1 of this RFI). DOE requested 

comment on whether to amend clause 

(3) in the basic model definition for 

pumps to provide additional detail 

regarding pumps sold with inverter-only 

motors, single-phase motors, or other 

non-NEMA Design B electric motors. 

DOE requested comment on which 

motor categories not currently subject to 

DOE’s test procedure and standards are 

commonly combined with pumps, as 

well as their relative efficiency 

compared to regulated NEMA Design B 

electric motors, and which 

corresponding industry test procedure 

(if any) should be used to establish their 

‘‘rated’’ efficiency. Finally, DOE 

requested comment on how VFDs are 

typically paired with pumps and 

motors; for example, whether motors of 

various sizes are paired with the same 

VFD. DOE also sought comment on 

whether a pump manufacturer would 

know which VFD commonly paired 

with its pumps would result in the most 

consumptive rating. 86 FR 20075, 

20084. 

Summit stated that the majority of 

supplied motors are covered. (Summit, 

No. 16 at p. 6) Grundfos stated that their 

inverter-only motors are IE5 compliant 

as defined in IEC TS 60034–30–2 and 

tested according to IEC 60034–2–3. 

(Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 8) HI stated that 

IEEE 114 applies for efficiency testing of 

single-phase induction motors and IEC 

60034–2–3 applies for efficiency testing 

of inverter-only motors. (HI, No. 20 at p. 

8) NEEA provided a list of all test 

procedures applicable to all motor 

technologies that DOE considered in the 

2017 Electric Motors test procedure RFI 

and stated that in particular they 

supported consideration of IEC 61800– 

9:2017 and 60034–2–3:2020, which 

appear to be applicable to all inverterfed motors. (NEEA, No. 21 at p. 9–10) 

HI recommended modifying the 

language of the basic model definition 

to reduce testing burden by allowing 

manufacturers to group inverter-only 

motors into a single basic model as long 

as all motors had an efficiency above the 

Federal minimum for each respective 

motor horsepower for NEMA Design B 

motors at 10 CFR 431.25, or above the 

default for submersible motors. (HI, No. 

20 at p. 8) Grundfos supported HI’s 

comment on modifying the ‘‘Band Rule’’ 

requirements to allow for all inverteronly motors 51 to be grouped in a single 

basic model for purposes of testing, 

regardless of how many bands above the 

Federal minimum efficiency standard 

each motor of a given hp rating may be. 

Grundfos noted that this would remove 

burdensome testing requirements when 

products meet IE4 and IE5 efficiency 

levels but the number of bands can vary 

greatly due to inconsistent efficiency 

levels in the Federal minimum. 

(Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 8) 

Grundfos stated that it sells products 

with VFDs in two configurations: (1) For 

products with integrated inverter-only 

motors, the VFD is specifically designed 

for the motor hp it is paired with, and 

(2) for external Grundfos VFDs, the VFD 

is designed for a specific hp motor. 

Grundfos also noted that VFDs can be 

used on differing hp motors where the 

kVA rating of the VFD is not exceeded. 

Finally, Grundfos noted that products 

can be used by end users with many 

different VFDs with which they are not 

sold, and so Grundfos could not 

determine the most consumptive of the 

entire market. (Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 9) 

HI stated that in many cases VFDs and 

pumps are purchased separately, but 

where manufacturers include VFDs with 

pumps, the test procedure is sufficient 

for determining a basic model and 

testing. (HI, No. 20 at p. 8) 

As discussed in section III.F.1 and 

III.F.2, DOE proposed as part of its 

Motors TP NOPR to address singlephase induction motors (SNEMs) and 

inverter-only motors. As such, DOE 

does not need to reference external test 

procedures as part of the basic model 

definition. In addition, DOE proposed 

that PERSTD for inverter-only motors 

would still be based on DOE’s standards 

for NEMA Design B motors. In regard to 

the issue Grundfos raised with the 

difference in number of bands between 

IE4 or IE5 efficiency levels and Federal 

minimums across hp for inverter-only 

motors, DOE proposes to amend clause 

(3) so that the current band rule does 

not apply and instead the grouping can 

be based on anything above the Federal 

minimum for NEMA Design B motors as 

long as the rating is based on the lowest 

number of bands above the minimum. 

With regard to addressing VFDs in the 

basic model definition, HI stated that 

the test procedure is sufficient for 

determining a basic model, and 

Grundfos stated that it would be unable 

to determine which VFD was most 

consumptive. (HI, No. 20 at p. 8; 

Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 9) As such, DOE 

has tentatively determined that there is 

no viable option to more explicitly 

address VFDs in the basic model 

definition and that it does not need to 

change the basic model definition to 

address VFDs. 

In the April 2021 RFI, DOE noted that 

to group pumps sold with both singlephase motors and pumps sold with 

polyphase motors into a single basic 

model, manufacturers would need to 

utilize a testing-based approach on the 

most consumptive configuration, as 

pumps sold with polyphase motors 

cannot be rated as bare pumps, and 

pumps sold with single-phase motors 

cannot be rated using a calculationbased approach (see Table 1 to appendix 

A). DOE requested comment on whether 

allowing such a grouping under the 

same basic model for pumps sold with 

both single-phase and polyphase motors 

would require more explicit direction in 

10 CFR part 431. 86 FR 20075, 20084. 

Grundfos stated that grouping singlephase products with polyphase product 

would not meet the definition of basic 

model because the characteristics that 

affect energy consumption are not 

‘‘essentially identical.’’ Grundfos stated 

that if the intention of this grouping is 

to reduce testing burden, this is not 

accomplished because testing is still 

required on both versions to determine 

whether the single-phase or polyphase 

equipment would be ‘‘most 

consumptive,’’ unless DOE clearly states 

in the regulation what method(s) DOE 

determines to be valid to determine 

‘‘most consumptive’’ before actual 

testing. Grundfos does not believe 

grouping single-phase with polyphase 

equipment should be allowed. 

(Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 9) HI stated that 

attempting to include regulated singlephase equipment would be limited 

because the current DOE regulation only 

includes general purpose open drip 

proof products. (HI, No. 20 at p. 8) HI 

recommended that pumps sold with 

single-phase and polyphase motors not 

be combined into a single basic model 

and recommended that DOE continue to 

allow pumps sold with single-phase 

motors to be rated with section III for 

bare pumps. (HI, No. 20 at p. 8) 

Following consideration of HI and 

Grundfos’ comments, DOE is not 

proposing to allow the grouping of 

single-phase and polyphase products 

into a single basic model. Instead, DOE 

proposes to require that pumps sold 

with single-phase motors can continue 

to be rated as bare pumps (with the 

exception of SVIL as discussed in 

section III.G). 

Issue 44: DOE requests comment on 

the proposed amendments to the 

definition of basic model. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21308 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

J. Representations of Energy Use and 

Energy Efficiency 

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. To ensure 

consistent and standardized 

representations across the pump 

industry and to ensure such 

representations are not in conflict with 

the reported PEI for any given pump 

model, DOE proposes to establish 

optional testing procedures for these 

parameters that are part of the DOE test 

procedure. DOE also proposes that, to 

the extent manufacturers wish to make 

representations regarding the 

performance of commercial and 

industrial pumps using these additional 

metrics, they would be required to do so 

based on testing in accordance with the 

DOE test procedure. 

DOE notes that overall (wire-to-water) 

efficiency, driver power input, and/or 

pump power output (hydraulic 

horsepower) are already parameters that 

are described in HI 40.6–2021, which 

DOE proposes to incorporate by 

reference in the DOE test procedure 

(section III.C.1). DOE expects that 

further specification is not necessary 

regarding the determination of these 

parameters. 

Issue 45: DOE requests comment on 

its proposal to adopt optional test 

provisions for the measurement of 

several other circulator pump metrics, 

including overall (wire-to-water) 

efficiency, driver power input, and/or 

pump power output (hydraulic 

horsepower). 

Issue 46: DOE also requests comment 

on its understanding that HI 40.6–2021 

contains all the necessary methods to 

determine overall (wire-to-water) 

efficiency, driver power input, and/or 

pump power output (hydraulic 

horsepower) and that further 

specification is not necessary. 

K. Labeling Requirements 

DOE specifies labeling requirements 

for pumps at 10 CFR 431.466. DOE 

requires that the permanent nameplate 

must be marked clearly with the 

following information: (A) For bare 

pumps and pumps sold with electric 

motors but not continuous or noncontinuous controls, the rated pump 

energy index—constant load (PEICL), 

and for pumps sold with motors and 

continuous or non-continuous controls, 

the rated pump energy index—variable 

load (PEIVL); (B) The bare pump model 

number; and (C) If transferred directly to 

an end-user, the unit’s impeller 

diameter, as distributed in commerce. 

Otherwise, a space must be provided for 

the impeller diameter to be filled in. 10 

CFR 431.466(a)(1)(i). 

DOE also specifies that all orientation, 

spacing, type sizes, typefaces, and line 

widths to display this required 

information must be the same as or 

similar to the display of the other 

performance data on the pump’s 

permanent nameplate. DOE also 

specifies the form in which PEICL, 

PEIVL, model number, and impeller 

diameter must be identified. 10 CFR 

431.466(a)(1)(ii). 

Regarding disclosure of efficiency 

information in marketing materials, 

DOE requires that the same information 

that must appear on a pump’s 

permanent nameplate must also be 

prominently displayed on each page of 

a catalog that lists the pump; and in 

other materials used to market the 

pump. 10 CFR 431.466(a)(2)(i). 

In the April 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether the test procedure 

should explicitly specify how to 

determine the information required to 

be marked on a label in accordance with 

10 CFR 431.466, and if so, how. 86 FR 

20075, 20085. 

Summit stated that labeling 

requirements seem straightforward but 

requested clarification on who is 

considered the manufacturer. (Summit, 

No. 16 at p. 6) DOE notes that 10 CFR 

431.2 defines the term ‘‘manufacturer’’ 

as ‘‘any person who manufactures 

industrial equipment . . .’’ and defines 

manufacture as ‘‘to manufacture, 

produce, assemble, or import.’’ See also 

42 U.S.C. 6311(5) (defining 

‘‘manufacturer’’), 42 U.S.C. 6311(7) 

(referencing the definition for 

‘‘manufacture’’ under 42 U.S.C. 6291) 

and 42 U.S.C. 6291(10) (defining 

‘‘manufacture’’). 

Grundfos stated that individual model 

numbers should be the only data 

mandated by DOE on labels and 

marketing materials, and that basic 

models should not be mandated on 

product nameplates since they are only 

a reference with the manufacturers and 

DOE. (Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 9) HI 

requested that DOE clarify that only the 

individual model number and PEI need 

to be on the nameplate and marketing 

materials. (HI, No. 20 at p. 9) 

Grundfos stated that mandating the 

actual impeller diameter on the 

nameplate of a product serves no 

purpose with respect to the regulation, 

EPCA, or consumers referencing this 

information. Grundfos added that there 

is also ample evidence from consumers 

that marking the ‘‘actual impeller 

diameter’’ on the product causes 

confusion because the PEI on the label 

is based on full impeller diameter. 

Grundfos recommended that the 

impeller diameter mandate for 

nameplates and marketing materials be 

removed to reduce substantial burden 

for global products. (Grundfos, No. 17 at 

p. 9–10) HI recommended that DOE not 

mandate that the impeller diameter 

appear on the pump nameplate or 

marketing materials, asserting that this 

requirement has no impact on EPCA 

and increases manufacturer burden for 

global products. (HI, No. 20 at p. 9) 

DOE agrees that if the pump is sold 

only as a unit including motor (with or 

without controls) and is not sold as a 

bare pump, then using the 

manufacturer’s individual model 

number on the label rather than the bare 

pump model number would be 

appropriate. DOE also notes that in the 

current regulations, impeller diameter 

does not have to be provided if the 

pump is not transferred directly to an 

end user. However, DOE will address 

these comments and consider proposals 

related to them in a separate 

rulemaking. 

DOE also requested comment on 

whether the term ‘‘full impeller 

diameter’’ should be modified to 

explicitly address pumps with multiple 

stages and varying impeller diameters, 

and if so, how. 86 FR 20075, 20085. 

Grundfos and HI stated that the 

definition of ‘‘full impeller diameter’’ is 

sufficient for testing purposes but could 

be clarified to ensure that multi-stage 

products are properly included by a 

slight modification to the definition by 

adding an ‘‘(s)’’ to the phrase 

‘‘maximum diameter impeller.’’ 

(Grundfos, No. 17 at p. 10) HI offered a 

similar solution, suggesting that the 

definition be modified as to refer to ‘‘the 

maximum diameter impeller or 

impellers (in the case of multistage 

pumps) with which a given pump basic 

model is distributed in commerce.’’ (HI, 

No. 20 at p. 9 (emphasis added)) 

Summit stated that it had no issue with 

the definition of ‘‘full impeller 

diameter’’ and did not request any 

changes. (Summit, No. 16 at p. 6) 

After considering the submitted 

comments, DOE proposes to revise the 

definition of full impeller diameter to 

mean ‘‘the maximum impeller 

diameter(s) with which a given pump 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21309 

52 $8,784,000 (total testing costs) ÷ 5,490 (total 

number of pumps tested) = $1,600 (per pump 

tested). 

53 DOE used the mean hourly wage of $45.94, 

taken from BLS’s ‘‘Occupational Employment and 

Wages, May 2020’’ using the Occupation Profile of 

‘‘Mechanical Engineers’’ (17–2141). See: 

www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172141.htm. Last 

accessed on December 8, 2021. 

Additionally, DOE used data from the ‘‘Employer 

Costs for Employee Compensation—June 2021’’ to 

estimate that a Private Industry Worker’s wages and 

salary are 70.6% of an employee’s total 

compensation. See: www.bls.gov/news.release/ 

archives/ecec_09162021.pdf. Last accessed on 

December 8, 2021. 

Therefore, total employer hourly cost is $65.07 = 

$45.94 ÷ 0.706. 

basic model is distributed in 

commerce.’’ DOE notes that where a 

pump includes different-sized impellers 

for different stages, manufacturers may 

include the largest impeller size only, as 

well as sufficient identifying 

information in the individual model 

number to identify inclusion of reduced 

impeller sizes. 

L. Test Procedure Costs and 

Harmonization 

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend 

the existing test procedure at appendix 

A for pumps by: (1) Expanding the 

scope to include SVIL pumps; (2) 

expanding the scope to include other 

specified clean water pumps; (3) 

reducing the pump bowl diameter 

restriction to include more ST pumps; 

(4) changing the definitions of ESFM 

and ESCC pumps to cover all endsuction pumps; (5) incorporating a 

nominal speed of 1,200 rpm, in addition 

to 1,800 rpm and 3,600 rpm; (6) 

providing a calculation method for 

pumps sold with inverter-only motors; 

and (7) updating the part-load loss 

coefficients for pumps sold with 

induction motors. DOE has tentatively 

determined that the test procedure as 

proposed in this NOPR will not be 

unduly burdensome for manufacturers 

to conduct. Further discussion of the 

cost impacts of the test procedure 

amendments are presented in the 

following paragraphs. 

As discussed in the April 2021 RFI, 

DOE received comments from 

stakeholders in response to the 

September 2020 Early Assessment RFI 

regarding costs to test pumps to the DOE 

test procedure. 86 FR 20075, 20082. 

Specifically, DOE noted HI’s statement 

that, based on a survey of HI members, 

industry testing costs significantly 

exceeded DOE’s estimates, and that 

wire-to-water testing represented 20 

percent of total industry testing. Id. 

Comments from Grundfos were also 

noted by DOE in which Grundfos stated 

that approximately 45 percent of its 

testing was wire-to-water testing— 

specifically, for pumps sold with motors 

that can only operate when driven by an 

inverter (i.e., inverter-only motors). Id. 

In response to the April 2021 RFI, DOE 

received additional comments specific 

to cost and burden of the current DOE 

pumps test procedure. Summit stated 

that testing cost has the largest impact 

to small businesses since the time that 

employees spend testing products is 

time that cannot be used to support the 

business in other ways (i.e, testing has 

high opportunity cost), but also stated 

that DOE has generally managed test 

burden for pumps well. (Summit, No. 16 

at p. 7) HI stated that DOE’s estimates 

of testing costs in the January 2016 Final 

Rule were too low based on data from 

HI member surveys. (HI, No. 20 at p. 1) 

HI also stated that some manufacturers 

have not been able to provide additional 

features due to testing requirements. 

(HI, No. 20 at p. 9) 

Issue 47: DOE requests comment on 

the details of the pump features which 

have been limited due to the burdens 

imposed by DOE’s current test 

procedure, including, but not limited to, 

the nature of the features that 

manufacturers have had to forego 

providing, the extent of the limits that 

manufacturers have had to place, and 

the manner in which manufacturers 

have had to apply these limits—such as 

on the basis of intended markets (e.g., 

higher-end vs. budget-end). DOE also 

seeks information regarding how these 

burdens may be mitigated to reduce the 

likelihood of manufacturers from having 

to limit the inclusion of features with 

their pumps. 

DOE notes that pump manufacturers 

must comply with the energy 

conservation standards that were 

established in 2016 and required 

beginning on January 27, 2020. 81 FR 

4368 (January 26, 2016) (‘‘January 2016 

ECS Final Rule’’). First-time compliance 

costs associated with meeting those 

energy conservation standards included 

testing costs, potential capital costs, and 

other one-time manufacturer costs 

associated with developing a testing and 

certification protocol. DOE also 

recognizes that the current test 

procedure does not provide a 

calculation method for pumps sold with 

motors that do not have a DOE energy 

efficiency standard; therefore, for 

pumps that rely on such motors, wireto-water testing is required for each 

basic model. Finally, DOE notes that for 

all pumps currently subject to the 

energy conservation standards, the 

applicable energy efficiency values must 

be determined for all basic models 

according to the DOE test procedure, 

which includes the calculation method 

for certain pumps. 

DOE notes that HI’s response to the 

September 2020 Early Assessment RFI, 

included an estimate of the overall 

industry cost ($8.76 million) to test 

general pumps to certify compliance 

with the energy conservation standards 

established in the January 2016 ECS 

Final Rule. (HI, No. 6, at p. 2) Using its 

Compliance Certification Management 

System (‘‘CCMS’’) database, DOE 

estimates that a total of 2,745 basic 

models have been certified using the 

testing-based approach. Assuming that 

two individual pumps are tested to rate 

a basic model (the minimum as 

specified in 10 CFR 429.11, the number 

of pumps tested is 5,490. This results in 

an estimated per unit test cost of 

$1,600.52

A total of 6,645 basic models are 

included in DOE’s CCMS database, 

which means that 3,900 basic models, or 

59 percent, were certified using the 

calculation-based approach. DOE 

estimates that it will take a mechanical 

engineer two hours to calculate and 

determine a rating for each basic model. 

Assuming a fully burdened engineering 

hourly wage of $65.07,53 DOE estimates 

the labor cost to perform the pump 

calculation method to be $130.14 per 

basic model. These cost estimates apply 

to the discussion in the following 

sections. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the test procedure amendments 

proposed in this NOPR would impact 

testing costs as discussed in the 

following sections. 

a. Scope Expansions 

As stated previously, DOE is 

proposing to expand the scope of this 

test procedure to include SVIL pumps, 

other specified clean water pumps, ST 

pumps with bowl diameters greater than 

6 inches, currently uncovered endsuction pumps, and pumps designed to 

operate with a 6-pole induction motor 

or with a non-induction motor with an 

operating range that includes speeds of 

rotation between 960 and 1,440 rpm. As 

these pumps would also be newly 

regulated equipment, DOE currently has 

no test procedures or standards for the 

equipment. The proposed test procedure 

and metrics would be consistent with 

the requirements established in the 

January 2016 Final Rule. DOE also 

assumed a sampling plan consistent 

with that for pumps currently subject to 

the test procedure, which requires a 

sample size of at least two units per 

pump basic model be tested when 

determining representative values of 

PEI, as well as other pump performance 

metrics. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21310 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

54As previously stated, DOE estimated that the 

per unit test cost is $1,600 and at least two units 

need to be tested. Therefore, the calculation method 

is estimated to save approximately $3,070 = ($1,600 

× 2)¥$130.14. 

DOE recognizes that some 

manufacturers of these newly-covered 

pump categories may not manufacture 

general pumps, and therefore may not 

be currently testing pumps to the DOE 

test procedure. Manufacturers may opt 

to test their products either in-house or 

at a third-party laboratory. To estimate 

the test burden for newly-covered 

pumps as proposed in this TP NOPR, 

DOE assumed that manufacturers will 

test pumps in-house. In order to test a 

pump in-house, each manufacturer may 

have to undertake the construction and 

maintenance of a test facility that is 

capable of testing pumps in compliance 

with the test procedure, including 

acquisition and calibration of any 

necessary measurement equipment. 

DOE also assumed that manufacturers 

have a pump test facility available but 

may not have the equipment required to 

conduct the DOE test procedure and 

that the cost of purchasing such 

equipment is approximately $4,000 

based on a review of available testing 

equipment on the market. 

DOE assumes that for pump 

manufacturers who are member 

companies of HI or who conduct testing 

in accordance with the January 2016 

Final Rule for other product offerings, 

these manufacturers already conduct 

testing in accordance with HI 40.6–2014 

and would not incur any additional 

capital expenditures to be able to 

conduct the proposed DOE pump test 

procedure. 

Pump manufacturers who are not 

members of HI may need to purchase 

electrical measurement equipment with 

±2.0 percent accuracy to conduct the 

proposed pump test procedure. DOE 

estimates that calibrating the flowmeter, 

torque sensor, power quality meter, 

pressure transducer, and laser 

tachometer, together, will cost a 

manufacturer about $1,250 per year. 

Issue 48: DOE requests comment on 

its assumptions and understanding of 

the anticipated impact and potential 

costs to pump manufacturers if DOE 

expands the scope of the general pumps 

test procedure. Additionally, DOE 

requests comment on any potential cost 

manufacturers may incur, if any, from 

this NOPR’s proposed scope expansion. 

b. Calculation Method for Testing 

Pumps With Inverter-Only Motors 

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing a 

calculation method for testing pumps 

with inverter-only motors. The current 

test procedure does not include a 

calculation method for motors that do 

not have a DOE efficiency standard; 

therefore, manufacturers are required to 

conduct wire-to-water testing for pumps 

sold with these (i.e., inverter) motors. 

Aside from the proposed calculation 

approach, the test procedure, metrics, 

and sampling plan for general pumps 

remains consistent with the 

requirements established in the January 

2016 Final Rule and, among other 

things, require a sample size of at least 

two units per pump basic model be 

tested when determining representative 

values of PEI, as well as other pump 

performance metrics. 

For general pumps already certified, 

DOE would not expect any additional 

costs to manufacturers. DOE has 

tentatively determined that the 

calculation method for inverter-only 

motors proposed in this NOPR would 

provide results that are conservative as 

compared to results from wire-to-water 

testing—consequently, DOE does not 

expect manufacturers will need to rerate 

their basic models. For new basic 

models where the bare pump is already 

certified (i.e., the only change is in the 

inverter-only motor sold with the 

pump), DOE expects a manufacturer’s 

cost to be the labor required to run the 

calculations (i.e., $130.14 per basic 

model), providing an estimated savings 

of $3,070 per basic model (i.e., test cost 

savings).54 DOE expects that there 

would be no change in test cost for new 

bare pump basic models paired with an 

inverter-only motor, since the bare 

pump would need to be tested. 

Issue 49: DOE requests comment on 

its assumptions and understanding of 

the anticipated impact and potential 

cost savings to manufacturers of pumps 

sold with inverter-only motors if DOE 

adopts the proposed calculation 

method. Additionally, DOE requests 

comment on any potential costs or 

savings that manufacturers may incur, if 

any, from this proposal. 

c. Updated Calculation Method for 

Testing Pumps With Induction Motors 

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing an 

updated calculation method for testing 

pumps with induction motors. The 

updated calculation method provides 

less conservative part-load loss 

coefficients than those provided in the 

current test procedure; however, DOE 

has tentatively determined that the 

proposed coefficients would still be 

conservative relative to wire-to-water 

testing. Aside from the proposed 

updated part-load motor coefficients, 

the test procedure, metrics, and 

sampling plan for general pumps 

remains consistent with the 

requirements established in the January 

2016 Final Rule and, among other 

things, require a sample size of at least 

two units per pump basic model be 

tested when determining representative 

values of PEI, as well as other pump 

performance metrics. 

For general pumps already certified, 

DOE would not expect any additional 

costs to manufacturers since the current 

calculation method provides the most 

conservative results. DOE expects that 

there will be no change in test cost for 

new bare pump basic models paired 

with an inverter-only motor, since the 

bare pump will need to be tested. 

Issue 50: DOE requests comment on 

its assumptions and understanding that 

there will be no cost impact to 

manufacturers if DOE adopts the 

proposed updated coefficients for partload motor losses. Additionally, DOE 

requests comment on any potential costs 

or savings that manufacturers may 

incur, if any, from this proposal. 

d. Additional Amendments 

DOE does not anticipate that the 

remaining amendments proposed in this 

NOPR, listed below, would impact test 

costs. 

(1) Incorporate by reference HI 40.6– 

2021 into 10 CFR 431.463; 

(2) Remove the incorporations by 

reference of ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014 and 

ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014; 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

manufacturers would be able to rely on 

data generated under the current test 

procedure should any of these 

additional proposed amendments be 

finalized. 

2. Harmonization With Industry 

Standards 

DOE’s established practice is to adopt 

relevant industry standards as DOE test 

procedures unless such methodology 

would be unduly burdensome to 

conduct or would not produce test 

results that reflect the energy efficiency, 

energy use, water use (as specified in 

EPCA) or estimated operating costs of 

that product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use. See 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

section 8(c). In cases where the industry 

standard does not meet EPCA’s statutory 

criteria for test procedures, DOE will 

make modifications through the 

rulemaking process to these testing 

standards as needed to adopt the 

procedure as the DOE test procedure. 

The test procedures for pumps at 

subpart Y incorporates by reference FM 

Class Number 1319, ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2– 

2014, ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014, HI 40.6– 

2014, NFPA 20–2016, ANSI/UL 448– 

2013, and ANSI/UL 1081–2016. FM 

Class Number 1319, ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2– 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21311 

2014, ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014, NFPA 20– 

2016, ANSI/UL 448–2013, and ANSI/UL 

1081–2016 all provide definitions for 10 

CFR 431.462. HI 40.6–2014 provides test 

methods for the determinations of the 

energy efficiency of pumps. The 

industry standard DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference via 

amendments described in this 

document are discussed in further detail 

in section IV.M of this document. 

Issue 51: DOE requests comments on 

the benefits and burdens of the 

proposed updates and additions to 

industry standards referenced in the test 

procedure for pumps. 

M. Compliance Date 

EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends 

a test procedure, all representations of 

energy efficiency and energy use, 

including those made on marketing 

materials and product labels, must be 

made in accordance with that amended 

test procedure, beginning 180 days after 

publication of such a test procedure 

final rule in the Federal Register. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) To the extent the 

modified test procedure proposed in 

this document is required only for the 

evaluation and issuance of updated 

efficiency standards, use of the modified 

test procedure, if finalized, would not 

be required by manufacturers until the 

compliance date of any amended 

standards that DOE may set. 10 CFR 

431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 

appendix A, section 8(e). 

Manufacturers of commercial and 

industrial pumps newly-covered under 

the proposed scope of the DOE pump 

test procedure, if finalized, would not 

be required to test such pumps to the 

proposed test procedure, if made final, 

until such time as compliance were 

required with energy conservation 

standards was required, should such 

standards be established. However, to 

the extent manufacturers choose to 

make voluntary representations as to the 

energy efficiency of such pumps, 

beginning 180 days following 

publication of the final test procedure, 

if finalized, any such representations 

would be required to be based on testing 

of the pumps in accordance with the 

finalized test procedure and such 

representation must fairly discloses the 

results of such testing. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(d)) 

If DOE were to publish an amended 

test procedure, EPCA provides an 

allowance for individual manufacturers 

to petition DOE for an extension of the 

180-day period if the manufacturer may 

experience undue hardship in meeting 

the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(2)) To 

receive such an extension, petitions 

must be filed with DOE no later than 60 

days before the end of the 180-day 

period and must detail how the 

manufacturer will experience undue 

hardship. (Id.) 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 58 

FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review,’’ as supplemented 

and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), 

requires agencies, to the extent 

permitted by law, to (1) propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) 

tailor regulations to impose the least 

burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives, taking 

into account, among other things, and to 

the extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. DOE emphasizes as 

well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to 

use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized 

that such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this proposed 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this proposed 

regulatory action does not constitute a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, 

this action was not submitted to OIRA 

for review under E.O. 12866. 

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 website: www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed 

this proposed rule under the provisions 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

procedures and policies published on 

February 19, 2003. 

The following sections detail DOE’s 

IRFA for this test procedure rulemaking: 

1. Descriptions of Reasons Why Action 

Is Being Considered 

DOE is proposing to amend the 

existing DOE test procedures for 

commercial and industrial pumps. DOE 

shall amend test procedures with 

respect to covered equipment, if the 

Secretary determines that amended test 

procedures would more accurately 

produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency, energy use, or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered equipment during a 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) 

This proposed rulemaking is in 

accordance with DOE’s obligations 

under EPCA. 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, 

Rule 

DOE is required to review existing 

DOE test procedures for all covered 

equipment every 7 years. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(1)) 

3. Description and Estimate of Small 

Entities Regulated 

DOE has recently conducted a focused 

inquiry into small business 

manufacturers of the equipment covered 

by this proposed rulemaking. DOE used 

the SBA’s small business size standards 

to determine whether any small entities 

would be subject to the requirements of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21312 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

55U.S. Department of Energy Compliance 

Certification Database, available at: 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data. 

the rule. The size standards are listed by 

North American Industry Classification 

System (‘‘NAICS’’) code as well as by 

industry description and are available at 

www.sba.gov/document/support—tablesize-standards. Manufacturing 

commercial and industrial pumps is 

classified under NAICS 333914, 

‘‘measuring, dispensing, and other 

pumping equipment manufacturing.’’ 

The SBA sets a threshold of 750 

employees or fewer for an entity to be 

considered as a small business for this 

category. DOE used available public 

information to identify potential small 

manufacturers. DOE accessed the 

Compliance Certification Database 55 to 

create a list of companies that import or 

otherwise manufacture the equipment 

covered by this proposal. Once DOE 

created a list of potential manufacturers, 

DOE used market research tools to 

determine whether any met the SBA’s 

definition of a small entity, based on the 

total number of employees for each 

company including parent, subsidiary, 

and sister entities. 

Based on DOE’s analysis, 46 

companies potentially selling 

commercial and industrial pumps 

covered by this proposed test procedure 

were identified. DOE screened out 

companies that do not meet the small 

entity definition and additionally 

screened out companies that are largely 

or entirely foreign owned and operated. 

Of the 46 companies, 21 were further 

identified as a small business. Based on 

a review of publicly available model 

databases, DOE estimated the number of 

models currently covered by the test 

procedure for each small business, 

excluding four small businesses not 

reflected in the model databases. DOE 

attributes a total of 779 unique basic 

models of covered pumps to small 

businesses, ranging from one model to 

503 models for an average of 

approximately 46 models per small 

business. DOE was able to find revenue 

estimates for all 21 small businesses. 

4. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

DOE estimates that this proposed test 

procedure would not require any 

manufacturer to incur any additional 

testing burden associated with the 

proposed test procedure. If finalized, 

DOE recognizes that commercial and 

industrial pump energy conservation 

standards may be proposed or 

promulgated in the future and pump 

manufacturers would then be required 

to test all covered pumps in accordance 

with the proposed test procedures. (See 

Docket No. EERE–2020–BT–STD–0013) 

Therefore, although such is not yet 

required, DOE is presenting the costs 

associated with testing equipment and 

procedure consistent with the 

requirements of the proposed test 

procedure, as would be required to 

comply with any future energy 

conservation standards for pumps. 

Additionally, since the list of small 

businesses was drawn from 

manufacturers with products covered by 

the current test procedure, DOE assumes 

that each noted small business already 

possesses the necessary equipment for 

testing under the proposed test 

procedure. Impacts for each test 

procedure amendment are reviewed 

below: 

SVIL Product Class Scope Expansion 

DOE examined the websites and, 

when available, product catalogs of all 

previously identified 21 potential small 

businesses for listings of SVIL pumps. 

DOE identified three small businesses 

manufacturing SVIL pumps—producing 

an estimated total of 73 basic models, 

with one small business producing nine 

basic models, another producing as 

many as 56 basic models, and other 

small business producing eight basic 

models. DOE estimated that it would 

cost approximately $1,600 per unique 

basic model tested. Accordingly, all 

small businesses combined would incur 

costs of approximately $116,800—with 

the first small business incurring a cost 

of $14,400, the second incurring a cost 

of $89,600, and the third incurring a 

cost of $12,800. 

DOE was able to find revenue 

estimates for both small businesses. 

Testing costs for newly-covered SVIL 

pumps would represent significantly 

less than one percent of estimated 

annual revenue for both small 

businesses. 

Other Clean Water Pump Scope 

Expansion 

DOE examined the websites and, 

when available, product catalogs of all 

previously identified 21 potential small 

businesses for listings of any of the 

clean water pumps that would be 

newly-covered under this proposed test 

procedure, if finalized. DOE identified 

five small businesses manufacturing 

clean water pumps potentially covered 

by this rulemaking that are not covered 

by the current test procedure. Although 

a newly-covered model count estimate 

was not possible for two small 

businesses, the remaining three small 

businesses produce an estimated total of 

255 newly-covered basic models, with 

the first small business producing 189 

basic models, the second producing 13 

basic models, and the third producing 

53 basic models. For the first small 

business, DOE conservatively estimated 

65 newly-covered models of betweenbearing pumps, 27 models of newlycovered vertical turbine pumps, and 97 

models covered by the 1200 RPM scope 

expansion—excluding models also 

covered by the other scope expansions. 

The second small business produces 

approximately 13 models that would 

fall under the 1200 RPM scope 

expansion. For the third small business, 

approximately one-third of newlycovered unique basic models are 

submersible pumps and two-thirds are 

vertical turbine pumps, several of which 

also fall under the 1200 RPM scope 

expansion. DOE estimated that it would 

cost approximately $1,600 per unique 

basic model tested. Accordingly, the 

three small businesses combined would 

incur costs of approximately $408,000— 

with the first incurring a cost of 

$302,400, the second incurring accost of 

$20,800, and the third incurring a cost 

of $84,800. The first and second small 

businesses produce both SVIL pumps 

and newly-covered clean water pumps 

and would incur an approximate total 

testing cost of $315,200 and $35,200 

respectively. 

DOE was able to find revenue 

estimates for both small businesses. 

Testing costs for newly-covered clean 

water pumps would represent 

significantly less than one percent of 

estimated annual revenue for both small 

businesses. 

Calculation Method Changes 

Because, relative to the amended test 

procedure calculations, the proposed 

calculation changes are conservative, 

manufacturers would not have to 

recalculate or re-rate existing models. 

Accordingly, DOE does not anticipate 

that updating the part-load loss 

coefficients for pumps sold with 

induction motors or providing a 

calculation method for pumps sold with 

inverter-only motors would impose any 

costs on small businesses if the 

amended test procedures are adopted. 

Likewise, permitting the use of AEDMs 

in lieu of the calculation-based test is 

not expected to result in additional 

costs for affected small businesses, as 

they will continue to be able to employ 

the calculation-based test. 

DOE requests comment on the 

number of small businesses DOE 

identified; the estimated number of 

covered models these small businesses 

manufacture; the per testing costs and 

total testing costs DOE estimated small 

businesses may incur to test models to 

appendix A; and any other potential 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21313 

costs small businesses may incur due to 

the proposed amended test procedures, 

if finalized. 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed rule being 

considered today. 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

As previously stated in this section, 

DOE is required to review existing DOE 

test procedures for all covered products 

and equipment every 7 years. 

Additionally, DOE shall amend test 

procedures with respect to any covered 

equipment, if the Secretary determines 

that amended test procedures would 

more accurately produce test results 

which measure energy efficiency, 

energy use, or estimated annual 

operating cost of a covered equipment 

type during a representative average use 

cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(1)) DOE has initially determined 

that the proposed amendments for the 

existing DOE test procedure for 

commercial and industrial pumps 

would more accurately produce test 

results to measure the efficiency of this 

equipment. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

there are no better alternatives than the 

proposed amendments in terms of 

meeting the agency’s objectives to 

measure energy efficiency more 

accurately and to reduce burden on 

manufacturers. Therefore, DOE is 

proposing in this NOPR to amend the 

existing DOE test procedure for 

commercial and industrial pumps. 

Additional compliance flexibilities 

may be available through other means. 

Notably, section 504 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 

7194, provides authority for the 

Secretary to adjust a rule issued under 

EPCA in order to prevent ‘‘special 

hardship, inequity, or unfair 

distribution of burdens’’ that may be 

imposed on that manufacturer as a 

result of such rule. Manufacturers 

should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

E, and part 1003 for additional details. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Under the procedures established by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(‘‘PRA’’), a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

OMB Control Number 1910–1400, 

Compliance Statement Energy/Water 

Conservation Standards for Appliances, 

is currently valid and assigned to the 

certification reporting requirements 

applicable to covered equipment, 

including pumps. 

DOE’s certification and compliance 

activities ensure accurate and 

comprehensive information about the 

energy and water use characteristics of 

covered products and covered 

equipment sold in the United States. 

Manufacturers of all covered products 

and covered equipment must submit a 

certification report before a basic model 

is distributed in commerce, annually 

thereafter, and if the basic model is 

redesigned in such a manner to increase 

the consumption or decrease the 

efficiency of the basic model such that 

the certified rating is no longer 

supported by the test data. Additionally, 

manufacturers must report when 

production of a basic model has ceased 

and is no longer offered for sale as part 

of the next annual certification report 

following such cessation. DOE requires 

the manufacturer of any covered 

product or covered equipment to 

establish, maintain, and retain the 

records of certification reports, of the 

underlying test data for all certification 

testing, and of any other testing 

conducted to satisfy the requirements of 

10 CFR part 429, 10 CFR part 430, 

and/or 10 CFR part 431. Certification 

reports provide DOE and consumers 

with comprehensive, up-to date 

efficiency information and support 

effective enforcement. 

Certification data would be required 

for pumps that would be covered under 

the proposed expansion of the test 

procedure scope at such time 

compliance is required with energy 

conservation standards for such pumps, 

should such standards be established; 

however, DOE is not proposing 

certification or reporting requirements 

for pumps in this NOPR. Instead, DOE 

may consider proposals to establish 

certification requirements and reporting 

for the pumps covered under the 

proposed expansion of the test 

procedure scope under a separate 

rulemaking regarding appliance and 

equipment certification. DOE will 

address changes to OMB Control 

Number 1910–1400 at that time, as 

necessary. 

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 

DOE is analyzing this proposed 

regulation in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

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

implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 

1021. DOE’s regulations include a 

categorical exclusion for rulemakings 

interpreting or amending an existing 

rule or regulation that does not change 

the environmental effect of the rule or 

regulation being amended as well as a 

categorical exclusion for those 

rulemakings that are strictly procedural. 

See 10 CFR part 1021, appendix A to 

subpart D, A5 and A6. In this NOPR, 

DOE proposes test procedure 

amendments that it expects will be used 

to develop and implement future energy 

conservation standards for pumps. 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, DOE has tentatively 

determined that adopting test 

procedures for measuring energy 

efficiency of consumer products and 

industrial equipment is consistent with 

activities identified in 10 CFR part 1021, 

appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. 

See also 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will 

complete its NEPA review before 

issuing the final rule. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21314 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of this 

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 

www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined this 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). Pursuant to OMB 

Memorandum M–19–15, Improving 

Implementation of the Information 

Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 

published updated guidelines which are 

available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ 

files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20;

Final%20Updated%20;

IQA%20Guidelines%20;

Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed 

this 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. 

The proposed regulatory action to 

amend the test procedure for measuring 

the energy efficiency of pumps is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not 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. Therefore, it is 

not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21315 

56 DOE has historically provided a 75-day 

comment period for test procedure NOPRs pursuant 

to the North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S.- 

Canada-Mexico (‘‘NAFTA’’), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 

I.L.M. 289 (1993); the North American Free Trade 

Agreement Implementation Act, Public Law 103– 

182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993) (codified as amended at 

10 U.S.C.A. 2576) (1993) (‘‘NAFTA Implementation 

Act’’); and Executive Order 12889, ‘‘Implementation 

of the North American Free Trade Agreement,’’ 58 

FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993). However, on July 1, 2020, 

the Agreement between the United States of 

America, the United Mexican States, and the United 

Canadian States (‘‘USMCA’’), Nov. 30, 2018, 134 

Stat. 11 (i.e., the successor to NAFTA), went into 

effect, and Congress’s action in replacing NAFTA 

through the USMCA Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 

4501 et seq. (2020), implies the repeal of E.O. 12889 

and its 75-day comment period requirement for 

technical regulations. Thus, the controlling laws are 

EPCA and the USMCA Implementation Act. 

Consistent with EPCA’s public comment period 

requirements for consumer products, the USMCA 

only requires a minimum comment period of 60 

days. Consequently, DOE now provides a 60-day 

public comment period for test procedure NOPRs. 

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 modifications to the 

test procedure for pumps would 

incorporate testing methods contained 

in certain sections of the following 

commercial standards: HI 40.6–2021. 

DOE has evaluated these standards and 

is unable to conclude whether they fully 

comply with the requirements of section 

32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., whether it was 

developed in a manner that fully 

provides for public participation, 

comment, and review.) DOE will 

consult with both the Attorney General 

and the Chairman of the FTC 

concerning the impact of these test 

procedures on competition, prior to 

prescribing a final rule. 

M. Description of Materials 

Incorporated by Reference 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference the test 

standard published by The Hydraulic 

Institute titled ‘‘HI 40.6–2021, Methods 

for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency 

Testing.’’ HI 40.6–2021 is an industryaccepted test procedure for measuring 

the performance of rotodynamic pumps. 

The test procedure proposed in this 

NOPR references various sections of HI 

40.6–2021 that address test setup, 

instrumentation, test conduct, and 

calculations. Copies of HI 40.6–2021 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. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

The time and date for the webinar 

meeting are listed in the DATES section 

at the beginning of this document. 

Webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants will be 

published on DOE’s website: 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/ 

standards.aspx?productid=41. 

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 an interest in the 

topics addressed in this document, or 

who is representative of a group or class 

of persons that has an interest in these 

issues, may request an opportunity to 

make an oral presentation at the 

webinar. Such persons may submit to 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak 

should include with their request a 

computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format 

that briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and the 

topics they wish to discuss. Such 

persons should also provide a daytime 

telephone number where they can be 

reached. 

DOE requests persons selected to 

make an oral presentation to submit an 

advance copy of their statements at least 

two weeks before the webinar. At its 

discretion, DOE may permit persons 

who cannot supply an advance copy of 

their statement to participate, if those 

persons have made advance alternative 

arrangements with the Building 

Technologies Office. As necessary, 

requests to give an oral presentation 

should ask for such alternative 

arrangements. 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the webinar/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 webinar/public 

meeting. There shall not be discussion 

of proprietary information, costs or 

prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the webinar/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 webinar will be conducted in an 

informal, conference style. DOE will 

present a general overview of the topics 

addressed in this proposed rulemaking, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

proposed 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. 

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 proposed 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

webinar/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 

webinar/public meeting. 

A transcript of the webinar will be 

included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this 

document. 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 no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule.56 Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this 

document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21316 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information 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. No 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. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

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: 

Issue 1: Consistent with the Circulator 

Pump Working Group recommendation 

and based on the concerns expressed in 

the comments summarized above 

regarding SVILs being a part of the same 

model family as IL pumps and serving 

as an unregulated alternative to pumps 

currently subject to DOE test procedures 

and energy conservation standards, DOE 

proposes to include SVIL pumps within 

the test procedure’s scope. DOE has 

tentatively determined that SVIL pumps 

can be tested using the current DOE 

pumps test procedure with certain 

additional modifications The proposed 

test procedure and metric for SVIL 

pumps are discussed in sections III.G 

and III.D of this document. Moreover, 

DOE expects that including SVIL pumps 

within the scope of the pumps test 

procedure would reduce confusion over 

which inline pumps are and are not 

regulated. DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to expand the scope of the test 

procedure to cover SVIL pumps. 

Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to expand the current test 

procedure’s scope to include BB pumps. 

Additionally, DOE requests comment on 

the repeatability and representativeness 

of testing BB pumps using the current 

DOE test procedure. DOE also requests 

comment on any additional burdens 

associated with testing BB pumps that 

are different from those burdens 

associated with pumps currently 

covered by the DOE test procedure. 

Issue 3: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to expand the current test 

procedure’s scope to include VT pumps. 

Additionally, DOE requests comment on 

the repeatability and representativeness 

of testing VT pumps using the current 

DOE test procedure. DOE also requests 

comment on any additional burdens 

associated with testing VT pumps that 

differ from those burdens associated 

with pumps currently covered by the 

DOE test procedure. 

Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to expand scope to include 

RSH pumps. Additionally, DOE requests 

comment on the repeatability and 

representativeness of testing RSH 

pumps using the current DOE test 

procedure. DOE also requests comment 

on any additional burdens associated 

with testing RSH pumps which are 

different from those burdens associated 

with pumps currently covered by the 

DOE test procedure. 

Issue 5: DOE requests comment on its 

tentative determination that there are 

certain ends suction pumps excluded 

from the current test procedure due to 

the ESFM and ESCC definitions. DOE 

also requests comment on the number of 

pump models that may fall into this 

category and whether they are currently 

being tested according to the DOE test 

procedure. 

Issue 6: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to remove the 6-inch 

maximum bowl diameter restriction 

from ST pumps, including whether 

there are any testing limitations for 

larger bowl diameters. 

Issue 7: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to expand the scope of the test 

procedure to include pumps designed to 

operate with a 6-pole induction motor, 

and pumps designed to operate with 

non-induction motors with an operating 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21317 

range that includes speeds of rotation 

between 960 rpm and 1,440. 

Issue 8: DOE requests comment on its 

tentative determination that 

incorporating SVILs into the test 

procedure will largely eliminate the 

issue of higher speed 1 hp pumps falling 

out of scope when they rate at a nominal 

speed of 3600 rpm. 

Issue 9: DOE seeks comment on its 

proposal to clarify the scope of the 

pumps test procedure with respect to 

design temperature. Specifically, DOE 

requests comment on whether 15 °F and 

250 °F are more appropriate than 14 °F 

and 248 °F, or whether other minor 

adjustments could be made to the range 

to assist with clarity and enforceability. 

Issue 10: DOE requests comment on 

the proposed changes to the definitions 

for ‘‘in-line pump’’ and ‘‘end-suction 

pump’’ to remove the distinction that 

liquid is discharged ‘‘through a volute’’. 

Issue 11: DOE requests comment on 

the proposed changes to the definitions 

for ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and ST 

pumps to remove references to ANSI/HI 

1.1–1.2–2014 pump classes. 

Specifically, DOE requests comment on 

the ability of the modified definitions to 

clearly communicate the intended 

pump categories to industry stake 

holders. 

Issue 12: DOE requests comment on 

the proposed change to the definition of 

bowl diameter to include a more 

specific definition of intermediate bowl 

instead of referring to the term as 

defined in ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014. 

Issue 13: DOE also proposes to revise 

the IL definition to explicitly exclude 

circulator pumps. DOE requests 

comment on its proposed definitions for 

‘‘small vertical in-line pumps’’ and 

‘‘small vertical twin-head pump.’’ 

Issue 14: DOE requests comment on 

the percentage of SVIL pumps, if any, 

that are not sold with a motor, and 

whether the definition of SVIL pump 

should be limited to those sold with a 

motor. 

Issue 15: DOE requests comment on 

its proposed revision to the IL pump 

definition to explicitly exclude 

circulator pumps. 

Issue 16: DOE requests comment on 

its proposed definition for betweenbearing pumps, specifically if it is 

sufficient to identify the intended scope. 

Issue 17: DOE request comment on 

the proposed definition for axially-split 

pump. 

Issue 18: DOE requests comment on 

the proposed definition for vertical 

turbine pump. 

Issue 19: DOE requests comment on 

the proposed definitions for RSH, 

RSHIL, and RSHES pumps—particularly 

whether they are sufficient to identify 

the intended scope of such pumps as 

discussed in section III.A.3.c of this 

document. 

Issue 20: DOE requests comment on 

the proposed definitional changes to 

ESFM and ESCC pumps in defining 

both categories based on the location of 

the bearings which bear the axial load 

of the pump. Specifically, DOE seeks 

comment on whether these proposed 

changes will capture the end-suction 

pumps identified by stakeholders as not 

currently meeting the ESCC or ESFM 

definitions. 

Issue 21: DOE requests comment on 

its proposal that pumps designed to 

operate between 960 and 1,440 rpm or 

with 6-pole motors be assigned a 

nominal speed of 1,200 rpm. 

Issue 22: DOE requests comment on 

the proposed number of stages for 

testing RSH, VT, and BB pumps. 

Issue 23: DOE requests comment on 

whether the alternate flow points for 

pumps with BEP at run-out should be 

determined with respect to expected 

maximum flow rate or expected BEP 

flow rate. 

Issue 24: DOE requests comment on 

how manufacturers are currently 

performing motor sizing for bare pumps 

with BEP at run-out, and whether using 

100 percent of the BEP flow rate is 

appropriate. 

Issue 25: DOE requests comment on 

whether manufacturers would use a 

hybrid mapping approach, and if so, 

whether manufacturers would conduct 

the motor tests or request the tests from 

their suppliers. In addition, DOE 

requests comment on what additional 

provisions would need to be added to 

Appendix H of AMCA 214 to make it 

applicable to pumps, such as speed and 

load corresponding to pump rating 

points. 

Issue 26: DOE requests: (1) Data 

indicating whether AHRI 1210-certified 

data is applicable to pumps; (2) data 

indicating whether 15 percent and 25 

percent incremental losses, which are 

specified as part of IE3 ratings that are 

not commonly used in the U.S., are 

applicable to the U.S. and do not 

overstate performance, and if not, what 

incremental losses would be appropriate 

to apply, and (3) data indicating an 

appropriate VFD efficiency penalty by 

hp. 

Issue 27: DOE requests comment on 

its proposed part-load loss factors for 

induction motors and controls greater 

than 50 hp. 

Issue 28: DOE requests comment on 

whether inverter-only motors used by 

pump manufacturers are typically tested 

in accordance with IEC 61800–9– 

2:2017. 

Issue 29: DOE requests comment on 

its proposed inverter-only part-load loss 

coefficients. DOE specifically requests 

comment on the appropriateness of the 

delta used to derive these coefficients as 

well as any other available comparable 

motor data with which DOE could vet 

these coefficients. 

Issue 30: DOE requests comment on 

the merits of using a hybrid mapping 

approach for inverter-only motors and 

whether it would reduce or increase 

manufacturer burden compared to the 

current proposals. 

Issue 31: DOE requests comment on 

its proposal to apply PEIVL to pumps 

sold with inverter-only synchronous 

motors without controls, including 

application of the testing method in 

section VI of appendix A and the 

calculation method in section VII of 

appendix A. 

Issue 32: DOE requests comment on 

its proposal for the calculation-based 

approach for pumps sold with 

submersible pumps to require use of the 

rated motor efficiency marked on the 

nameplate that has been tested in 

accordance with the relevant DOE test 

procedure after such time as compliance 

is required with an energy conservation 

standard for submersible motors, should 

such a standard be established. 

Issue 33: DOE seeks comment on 

whether the efficiency standards found 

at 10 CFR 431.446 are appropriate for 

use in the determination of PERSTD for 

SVILs, whether certain motor topologies 

that would be classified as SNEM are 

more prevalent and significantly less 

efficient, and whether the minimum 

efficiency of the polyphase and CSCR/ 

CSIR standards for the relevant number 

of poles and motor horsepower is 

appropriate or whether there should be 

differences depending on the phase of 

the motor with which the pump is sold. 

Issue 34: DOE seeks comment on: (1) 

How many models of SVILs are sold 

with motors with a nominal horsepower 

less than 0.25 hp, (2) whether such 

motors could be tested in accordance 

with the relevant test procedures in 10 

CFR 431.446 or proposed in the Motors 

TP NOPR, and if not, how such motors 

are tested, and (3) whether the 

efficiency values in Table III.3 are 

appropriate for such motors, and if not, 

how those values should be determined. 

Issue 35: DOE seeks comment on its 

proposal to require testing of SVIL 

pumps distributed in commerce with 

motors not regulated by DOE’s current 

electric motor regulations or any motor 

regulations finalized after January 1, 

2022. DOE also seeks comment on 

whether it should allow such pumps to 

be rated as bare pumps only if any 

motor regulations finalized after January 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21318 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1, 2022, do not include SNEMs and 

inverter-only synchronous electric 

motors. 

Issue 36: DOE seeks comment on 

whether the market for SVIL pumps has 

changed such that the data collected by 

DOE in 2017 would no longer be 

applicable, and whether the use of 

AEDM would address concerns related 

to part-load loss curves specific to lowhorsepower motors. 

Issue 37: DOE requests comment on 

whether the proposed test procedure is 

appropriate for BB, RSH, and VT 

pumps. 

Issue 38: DOE seeks comment on 

whether BB, RSH, and VT pumps are 

typically sold with motors not subject to 

the energy conservation standards in 10 

CFR 431.25 or synchronous inverteronly electric motors, and if so, what 

kind of motors they are sold with, and 

what calculation modifications would 

be needed to accommodate such motors. 

Issue 39: DOE requests comment and 

data on the proposed default 

submersible motor efficiency values for 

6-pole motors. 

Issue 40: DOE request comment on its 

tentative determinations that SVIL, BB, 

RSH, VT, and pumps tested at a 

nominal speed of 1,200 rpm have the 

same testing uncertainty and 

manufacturing variability as currently 

regulated pumps. DOE also requests 

comment on its proposal to adopt the 

same statistical sampling plans which 

are currently in place for commercial 

industrial pumps for SVIL, BB, RSH, 

VT, and pumps tested at a nominal 

speed of 1,200 rpm. 

Issue 41: DOE requests comment on 

the proposed statistical sampling 

procedures and certification 

requirements. 

Issue 42: DOE requests feedback 

regarding all aspects of its proposal to 

permit use of an AEDM for general 

pumps, and any data or information 

comparing modeled performance with 

the results of physical testing. DOE 

specifically seeks comment on its 

proposed validation classes, and 

whether groupings should be 

considered where performance variation 

between two equipment classes or 

nominal speeds is well established. In 

addition, DOE requests comment on 

whether the calculation-based methods 

would still be necessary if 

manufacturers were permitted to use 

AEDMs in addition to physical testing. 

Issue 43: DOE requests comment on 

its proposal related to enforcement 

provisions. 

Issue 44: DOE requests comment on 

the proposed amendments to the 

definition of basic model. 

Issue 45: DOE requests comment on 

its proposal to adopt optional test 

provisions for the measurement of 

several other circulator pump metrics, 

including overall (wire-to-water) 

efficiency, driver power input, and/or 

pump power output (hydraulic 

horsepower). 

Issue 46: DOE also requests comment 

on its understanding that HI 40.6–2021 

contains all the necessary methods to 

determine overall (wire-to-water) 

efficiency, driver power input, and/or 

pump power output (hydraulic 

horsepower) and that further 

specification is not necessary. 

Issue 47: DOE requests comment on 

the details of the pump features which 

have been limited due to the burdens 

imposed by DOE’s current test 

procedure, including, but not limited to, 

the nature of the features that 

manufacturers have had to forego 

providing, the extent of the limits that 

manufacturers have had to place, and 

the manner in which manufacturers 

have had to apply these limits—such as 

on the basis of intended markets (e.g. 

higher-end vs. budget-end). DOE also 

seeks information regarding how these 

burdens may be mitigated to reduce the 

likelihood of manufacturers from having 

to limit the inclusion of features with 

their pumps. 

Issue 48: DOE requests comment on 

its assumptions and understanding of 

the anticipated impact and potential 

costs to pump manufacturers if DOE 

expands the scope of the general pumps 

test procedure. Additionally, DOE 

requests comment on any potential cost 

manufacturers may incur, if any, from 

this NOPR’s proposed scope expansion. 

Issue 49: DOE requests comment on 

its assumptions and understanding of 

the anticipated impact and potential 

cost savings to manufacturers of pumps 

sold with inverter-only motors if DOE 

adopts the proposed calculation 

method. Additionally, DOE requests 

comment on any potential costs or 

savings that manufacturers may incur, if 

any, from this proposal. 

Issue 50: DOE requests comment on 

its assumptions and understanding that 

there will be no cost impact to 

manufacturers if DOE adopts the 

proposed updated coefficients for partload motor losses. Additionally, DOE 

requests comment on any potential costs 

or savings that manufacturers may 

incur, if any, from this proposal. 

Issue 51: DOE requests comments on 

the benefits and burdens of the 

proposed updates and additions to 

industry standards referenced in the test 

procedure for pumps. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking and announcement of 

public webinar. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Small 

businesses. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on March 17, 2022, 

by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

pursuant to delegated authority from the 

Secretary of Energy. That document 

with the original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on March 18, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 

parts 429 and 431 of chapter II 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; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21319 

■ 2. Amend § 429.59 by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (a); and 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and 

(a)(3). 

The revision and additions 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 

of general purpose pump either by 

testing (which includes the calculationbased methods in the test procedure), in 

conjunction with the following 

sampling provisions, or by application 

of an AEDM that meets the requirements 

of § 429.70 and the provisions of this 

section. Manufacturers must determine 

the represented value, which includes 

the certified rating, for each basic model 

of dedicated-purpose pool pump by 

testing, in conjunction with the 

following sampling provisions. 

Manufacturers must update represented 

values to account for any change in the 

applicable motor standards in subpart B 

of part 431 of this chapter and certify 

amended values as of the next annual 

certification. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) General pumps. The 

representative values for pump total 

head in feet at BEP and nominal speed, 

volume per unit time in gallons per 

minute at BEP and nominal speed, and 

calculated driver power input at each 

load point must be the arithmetic mean 

of the value determined for each tested 

unit of general pump. 

(3) Alternative efficiency 

determination methods. In lieu of 

testing, a represented value of efficiency 

or consumption for a basic model of 

pump must be determined through the 

application of an AEDM pursuant to the 

requirements of § 429.70 and the 

provisions of this section, where: 

(i) Any represented value of energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

use of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

output of the AEDM and less than or 

equal to the Federal standard for that 

basic model; and 

(ii) Any represented value of energy 

efficiency or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor higher values 

shall be less than or equal to the output 

of the AEDM and greater than or equal 

to the Federal standard for that basic 

model. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 429.70 by adding 

paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 429.70 Alternative methods for 

determining energy efficiency and energy 

use. 

* * * * * 

(i) Alternative efficiency 

determination method (AEDM) for 

general pumps—(1) Criteria an AEDM 

must satisfy. A manufacturer may not 

apply an AEDM to a basic model to 

determine its efficiency pursuant to this 

section, unless: 

(i) The AEDM is derived from a 

mathematical model that estimates the 

energy efficiency or energy 

consumption characteristics of the basic 

model as measured by the applicable 

DOE test procedure; 

(ii) The AEDM is based on 

engineering or statistical analysis, 

computer simulation or modeling, or 

other analytic evaluation of performance 

data; and 

(iii) The manufacturer has validated 

the AEDM, in accordance with 

paragraph (i)(2) of this section. 

(2) Validation of an AEDM. Before 

using an AEDM, the manufacturer must 

validate the AEDM’s accuracy and 

reliability as follows: 

(i) AEDM overview. The manufacturer 

must select at least the minimum 

number of basic models for each 

validation class specified in paragraph 

(i)(2)(iv) of this section to which the 

particular AEDM applies. Using the 

AEDM, calculate the PEI for each of the 

selected basic models. Test each basic 

model and determine the represented 

value(s) in accordance with § 429.63(a). 

Compare the results from the testing and 

the AEDM output according to 

paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this section. The 

manufacturer is responsible for ensuring 

the accuracy and repeatability of the 

AEDM. 

(ii) AEDM basic model tolerances. (A) 

The predicted representative PEI for 

each basic model calculated by applying 

the AEDM may not be more than five 

percent less than the represented PEI 

determined from the corresponding test 

of the model. 

(B) The predicted constant or variable 

load pump energy index for each basic 

model calculated by applying the AEDM 

must meet or exceed the applicable 

federal energy conservation standard. 

(iii) Additional test unit requirements. 

(A) Each AEDM must be supported by 

test data obtained from physical tests of 

current models; and 

(B) Test results used to validate the 

AEDM must meet or exceed current, 

applicable Federal standards as 

specified in part 431 of this chapter; and 

(C) Each test must have been 

performed in accordance with the 

applicable DOE test procedure with 

which compliance is required at the 

time the basic models used for 

validation are distributed in commerce. 

(iv) Pump validation classes. 

Validation class 

Minimum number of 

distinct basic models 

that must be tested 

Constant Load End-suction Closed-Coupled Pumps and Constant Load End-suction Frame-Mounted Pumps ..................... 2 Basic Models. 

Variable Load End-suction Closed-Coupled Pumps and Variable Load End-suction Frame-Mounted Pumps ....................... 2 Basic Models. 

Constant Load Inline Pumps and Constant Load Small Volute Inline Pumps .......................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Variable Load Inline Pumps and Variable Load Small Volute Inline Pumps ............................................................................ 2 Basic Models. 

Constant Load Radially-Split Multi-Stage Vertical Pumps and Constant Load Radially-Split Multi-Stage Horizonal Pumps .. 2 Basic Models. 

Variable Load Radially-Split Multi-Stage Vertical Pumps and Variable Load Radially-Split Multi-Stage Horizontal Pumps .... 2 Basic Models. 

Constant Load Submersible Turbine Pumps and Constant Load Vertical Turbine Pumps ...................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Variable Load Submersible Turbine Pumps and Variable Load Vertical Turbine Pumps ........................................................ 2 Basic Models. 

Constant Load Between-Bearing Pumps ..................................................................................................................................

Variable Load Between-Bearing Pumps ....................................................................................................................................

2 Basic Models. 

(3) AEDM Records Retention 

Requirements. If a manufacturer has 

used an AEDM to determine 

representative values pursuant to this 

section, the manufacturer must have 

available upon request for inspection by 

the Department records showing: 

(i) The AEDM, including the 

mathematical model, the engineering or 

statistical analysis, and/or computer 

simulation or modeling that is the basis 

of the AEDM; 

(ii) Regarding the units tested that 

were used to validate the AEDM 

pursuant to paragraph (i)(2) of this 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21320 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

section, equipment information, 

complete test data, AEDM calculations, 

and the statistical comparisons; and 

(iii) For each basic model to which 

the AEDM was applied, equipment 

information and AEDM calculations. 

(4) Additional AEDM requirements. If 

requested by the Department, the 

manufacturer must: 

(i) Conduct simulations before 

representatives of the Department to 

predict the performance of particular 

basic models of the equipment to which 

the AEDM was applied; 

(ii) Provide analyses of previous 

simulations conducted by the 

manufacturer; and/or 

(iii) Conduct certification testing of 

basic models selected by the 

Department. 

(5) AEDM verification testing. DOE 

may use the test data for a given 

individual model generated pursuant to 

§ 429.104 to verify the certified rating 

determined by an AEDM as long as the 

following process is followed: 

(i) Selection of units. DOE will obtain 

units for test from retail, where 

available. If units cannot be obtained 

from retail, DOE will request that a unit 

be provided by the manufacturer. 

(ii) Lab requirements. DOE will 

conduct testing at an independent, 

third-party testing facility of its 

choosing. In cases where no third-party 

laboratory is capable of testing the 

equipment, it may be tested at a 

manufacturer’s facility upon DOE’s 

request. 

(iii) Manufacturer participation. 

Testing will be performed without 

manufacturer representatives on-site. 

(iv) Testing. All verification testing 

will be conducted in accordance with 

the applicable DOE test procedure, as 

well as each of the following to the 

extent that they apply: 

(A) Any active test procedure waivers 

that have been granted for the basic 

model; 

(B) Any test procedure guidance that 

has been issued by DOE; 

(C) If during test set-up or testing, the 

lab indicates to DOE that it needs 

additional information regarding a given 

basic model in order to test in 

accordance with the applicable DOE test 

procedure, DOE may organize a meeting 

between DOE, the manufacturer and the 

lab to provide such information. 

(D) At no time during the process may 

the lab communicate directly with the 

manufacturer without DOE present. 

(v) Failure to meet certified rating. If 

a model’s test results are worse than its 

certified rating by an amount exceeding 

the tolerance prescribed in paragraph 

(f)(5)(vi) of this section, DOE will notify 

the manufacturer. DOE will provide the 

manufacturer with all documentation 

related to the test set up, test conditions, 

and test results for the unit. Within the 

timeframe allotted by DOE, the 

manufacturer may then present all 

claims regarding testing validity. 

(vi) Tolerances. For consumption 

metrics, the result from a DOE 

verification test must be less than or 

equal to the certified rating × (1 + the 

applicable tolerance). 

TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (I)(5)(VI) 

Equipment Metric 

Applicable 

tolerance 

(%) 

General Pumps ......................... Constant or Variable Load Pump Energy Index .......................................................................... 5 

(vii) Invalid rating. If, following 

discussions with the manufacturer and 

a retest where applicable, DOE 

determines that the testing was 

conducted appropriately in accordance 

with the DOE test procedure, the rating 

for the model will be considered 

invalid. The manufacturer must conduct 

additional testing and re-rate and recertify the basic models that were rated 

using the AEDM based on all test data 

collected, including DOE’s test data. 

(viii) AEDM use. This paragraph 

(i)(5)(viii) specifies when a 

manufacturer’s use of an AEDM may be 

restricted due to prior invalid 

represented values. 

(A) If DOE has determined that a 

manufacturer made invalid ratings on 

two or more models rated using the 

same AEDM within a 24 month period, 

the manufacturer must take the action 

listed in the table corresponding to the 

number of invalid certified ratings. The 

twenty-four month period begins with a 

DOE determination that a rating is 

invalid through the process outlined 

above. Additional invalid ratings apply 

for the purposes of determining the 

appropriate consequences if the 

subsequent determination(s) is based on 

selection of a unit for testing within the 

twenty-four month period (i.e., 

subsequent determinations need not be 

made within 24 months). 

TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (i)(5)(viii)(A) 

Number of invalid certified 

ratings from the same 

AEDM 1 within a rolling 

24-month period 2

Required manufacturer actions 

2 .......................................... Submit different test data and reports from testing to validate that AEDM within the validation classes to which it is 

applied.3 Adjust the ratings as appropriate. 

4 .......................................... Conduct double the minimum number of validation tests for the validation classes to which the AEDM is applied. 

Note, the tests required under this paragraph (i)(5)(viii) must be performed on different models than the original 

tests required under paragraph (i)(2) of this section. 

6 .......................................... Conduct the minimum number of validation tests for the validation classes to which the AEDM is applied at a thirdparty test facility; And 

Conduct additional testing, which is equal to 1⁄2 the minimum number of validation tests for the validation classes 

to which the AEDM is applied, at either the manufacturer’s facility or a third-party test facility, at the manufacturer’s discretion. 

Note, the tests required under this paragraph (i)(5)(viii) must be performed on different models than the original 

tests performed under paragraph (i)(2) of this section. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21321 

TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (i)(5)(viii)(A)—Continued 

Number of invalid certified 

ratings from the same 

AEDM 1 within a rolling 

24-month period 2

Required manufacturer actions 

> = 8 .................................... Manufacturer has lost privilege to use AEDM. All ratings for models within the validation classes to which the 

AEDM applied should be rated via testing. Distribution cannot continue until certification(s) are corrected to reflect actual test data. 

1The ‘‘same AEDM’’ means a computer simulation or mathematical model that is identified by the manufacturer at the time of certification as 

having been used to rate a model or group of models. 2The twenty-four month period begins with a DOE determination that a rating is invalid through the process outlined above. Additional invalid 

ratings apply for the purposes of determining the appropriate consequences if the subsequent determination(s) is based on testing of a unit that 

was selected for testing within the twenty-four month period (i.e., subsequent determinations need not be made within 24 months). 3A manufacturer may discuss with DOE’s Office of Enforcement whether existing test data on different basic models within the validation 

classes to which that specific AEDM was applied may be used to meet this requirement. 

(B) If, as a result of eight or more 

invalid ratings, a manufacturer has lost 

the privilege of using an AEDM for 

rating, the manufacturer may regain the 

ability to use an AEDM by: 

(1) Investigating and identifying 

cause(s) for failures; 

(2) Taking corrective action to address 

cause(s); 

(3) Performing six new tests per 

validation class, a minimum of two of 

which must be performed by an 

independent, third-party laboratory to 

validate the AEDM; and 

(4) Obtaining DOE authorization to 

resume use of the AEDM. 

■ 3. Section 429.134 is amended by 

revising paragraph (i)(1)(ii): 

§ 429.134 Product-specific enforcement 

provisions. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) DOE will test each pump unit 

according to the test method specified 

by the manufacturer in the certification 

report submitted pursuant to 

§ 429.59(b); if the model of pump unit 

was rated using an AEDM, DOE may use 

either a testing approach or calculation 

approach. 

* * * * * 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 5. Amend § 431.462 by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text; 

■ b. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definition for ‘‘Axially-split pump’’; 

■ c. Revising the definition for ‘‘Basic 

model’’; 

■ d. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definition for ‘‘Between-bearing pump’’; 

■ e. Revising the definitions for ‘‘Bowl 

diameter’’, ‘‘Close-coupled pump’’, 

■ f. Removing the definitions for ‘‘End 

suction close-coupled (ESCC) pump’’, 

‘‘End suction frame mounted/own 

bearings (ESFM) pump’’, ‘‘End suction 

pump’’, and adding, in their respective 

places, the definitions for ‘‘End-suction 

close-coupled (ESCC) pump’’, ‘‘Endsuction frame mounted/own bearings 

(ESFM) pump’’, and ‘‘End-suction 

pump; 

■ g. Revising the definition for ‘‘In-line 

(IL) pump’’; 

■ h. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definition for ‘‘Intermediate bowl’’; 

■ i. Revising the definition for 

‘‘Mechanically-coupled pump’’; 

■ j. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definitions for ‘‘Radially-split, multistage, horizontal, diffuser casing (RSH) 

pump’’, ‘‘Radially-split, multi-stage, 

horizontal, end-suction diffuser casing 

(RSHES) pump’’, ‘‘Radially-split, multistage, horizontal, in-line diffuser casing 

(RSHIL) pump’’; 

■ k. Removing the definition for 

‘‘Radially split, multi-stage, vertical, 

diffuser casing (RSV) pump’’ and 

adding, in its place, the definition for 

‘‘Radially-split, multi-stage, vertical, 

diffuser casing (RSV) pump’’ 

■ j. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definitions for ‘‘Small vertical in-line 

(SVIL) pump’’; ‘‘Small vertical twinhead pump’’; 

■ k. Revising the definition for 

‘‘Submersible turbine (ST) pump’’; and 

■ l. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definition for ‘‘Vertical turbine pump’’. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 431.462 Definitions. 

The following definitions are 

applicable to this subpart, including 

appendices A, B, and C. In cases where 

definitions reference design intent, DOE 

will consider marketing materials, labels 

and certifications, and equipment 

design to determine design intent. 

Axially-split pump means a pump 

with a casing that can be separated or 

split in a plane that is parallel to, and 

which contains, the axis of the impeller 

shaft. 

* * * * * 

Basic model means all units of a given 

class of pump 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; and, in addition, for pumps 

that are subject to the test procedures 

specified in § 431.464(a), the following 

provisions also apply: 

(1) All variations in numbers of stages 

of bare RSV and ST pumps must be 

considered a single basic model; 

(2) Pump models for which the bare 

pump differs in impeller diameter, or 

impeller trim, may be considered a 

single basic model; and 

(3) Pump models for which the bare 

pump differs in number of stages or 

impeller diameter and which are sold 

with motors (or motors and controls) of 

varying horsepower may only be 

considered a single basic model if: 

(i) For ESCC, ESFM, IL, and RSV 

pumps, each motor offered in the basic 

model has a nominal full load motor 

efficiency rated at the Federal minimum 

(see the applicable table at § 431.25) or 

the same number of bands above the 

Federal minimum for each respective 

motor horsepower (see table 3 of 

appendix A to subpart Y of this part); or 

for pumps sold with inverter-only 

synchronous electric motors, any 

number of bands above the Federal 

minimum for each respective motor 

horsepower provided that the rating is 

based on the lowest number of bands; or 

(ii) For ST pumps, each motor offered 

in the basic model has a full load motor 

efficiency at the default nominal full 

load submersible motor efficiency 

shown in table 2 of appendix A to 

subpart Y of this part or the same 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21322 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

number of bands above the default 

nominal full load submersible motor 

efficiency for each respective motor 

horsepower (see table 3 of appendix A 

to subpart Y of this part) or for inverteronly synchronous electric motors, any 

number of bands above the default 

nominal full load submersible motor 

efficiency provided the rating is based 

on the lowest number of bands. 

* * * * * 

Between-bearing (BB) pump means an 

axially-split, mechanically-coupled, 

one- or two-stage, dry rotor, 

rotodynamic pump with bearings on 

both ends of the rotating assembly that 

has a shaft input power greater than or 

equal to 1 hp and less than or equal to 

200 hp at BEP and full impeller 

diameter and at the number of stages 

required for testing. 

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 

of the bare pump that is perpendicular 

to the pump shaft and that intersects the 

outermost circular shape of the 

intermediate bowl of the bare pump at 

both of its ends. 

* * * * * 

Close-coupled pump means a pump 

in which the driver’s bearings absorb 

the pump’s axial load. 

* * * * * 

End-suction close-coupled (ESCC) 

pump means a close-coupled, dry rotor, 

end-suction pump that has a shaft input 

power greater than or equal to 1 hp and 

less than or equal to 200 hp at BEP and 

full impeller diameter and that is not a 

dedicated-purpose pool pump. 

End-suction frame mounted/own 

bearings (ESFM) pump means a 

mechanically-coupled, dry rotor, endsuction pump that has a shaft input 

power greater than or equal to 1 hp and 

less than or equal to 200 hp at BEP and 

full impeller diameter and that is not a 

dedicated-purpose pool pump. 

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 in a plane perpendicular to 

the shaft. 

* * * * * 

In-line (IL) pump means a pump that 

is either a twin-head pump or a singlestage, single-axis flow, dry rotor, 

rotodynamic pump that has a shaft 

input power greater than or equal to 1 

hp and less than or equal to 200 hp at 

BEP and full impeller diameter, in 

which liquid is discharged in a plane 

perpendicular to the shaft. Such pumps 

do not include circulator pumps. 

* * * * * 

Intermediate bowl means the 

enclosure within which the impeller 

rotates and which serves as a guide for 

the flow from one impeller to the next. 

* * * * * 

Mechanically-coupled pump means a 

pump in which bearings external to the 

driver absorb the pump’s axial load. 

* * * * * 

Radially-split, multi-stage, horizontal, 

diffuser casing (RSH) pump means a 

horizontal, multi-stage, dry rotor, 

rotodynamic pump: 

(1) That has a shaft input power 

greater than or equal to 1 hp and less 

than or equal to 200 hp at BEP and full 

impeller diameter and at the number of 

stages required for testing; 

(2) In which liquid is discharged in a 

plane perpendicular to the impeller 

shaft; 

(3) For which each stage (or bowl) 

consists of an impeller and diffuser; and 

(4) For which no external part of such 

a pump is designed to be submerged in 

the pumped liquid. 

Radially-split, multi-stage, horizontal, 

end-suction diffuser casing (RSHES) 

pump means a RSH 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. 

Radially-split, multi-stage, horizontal, 

in-line diffuser casing (RSHIL) pump 

means a single-axis flow RSH pump in 

which the liquid enters the pump in a 

plane perpendicular to the impeller 

shaft. 

Radially-split, multi-stage, vertical, 

diffuser casing (RSV) pump means a 

vertically suspended, multi-stage, 

single-axis flow, dry rotor, rotodynamic 

pump: 

(1) That has a shaft input power 

greater than or equal to 1 hp and less 

than or equal to 200 hp at BEP and full 

impeller diameter and at the number of 

stages required for testing; 

(2) In which liquid is discharged in a 

plane perpendicular to the impeller 

shaft; 

(3) For which each stage (or bowl) 

consists of an impeller and diffuser; and 

(4) For which no external part of such 

a pump is designed to be submerged in 

the pumped liquid. 

* * * * * 

Small vertical in-line (SVIL) pump 

means a small vertical twin-head pump 

or a single stage, single-axis flow, dry 

rotor, rotodynamic pump that: 

(1) Has a shaft input power less than 

1 horsepower at its BEP at full impeller 

diameter; and 

(2) In which liquid is discharged in a 

plane perpendicular to the shaft; and 

(3) Is not a circulator pump. 

Small vertical twin-head pump means 

a dry rotor, single-axis flow, 

rotodynamic pump that contains two 

equivalent impeller assemblies, each of 

which: 

(1) Contains an impeller, impeller 

shaft (or motor shaft in the case of closecoupled pumps), shaft seal or packing, 

driver (if present), and mechanical 

equipment (if present); and 

(2) Has a shaft input power that is less 

than or equal to 1 hp at BEP and full 

impeller diameter; and 

(3) Has the same primary energy 

source (if sold with a driver) and the 

same electrical, physical, and functional 

characteristics that affect energy 

consumption or energy efficiency; and 

(4) Is mounted in its own volute; and 

(5) Discharges liquid through its 

volute and the common discharge in a 

plane perpendicular to the impeller 

shaft. 

* * * * * 

Submersible turbine (ST) pump 

means a single-stage or multi-stage, dry 

rotor, rotodynamic pump that is 

designed to be operated with the motor 

and stage(s) fully submerged in the 

pumped liquid; that has a shaft input 

power greater than or equal to 1 hp and 

less than or equal to 200 hp at BEP and 

full impeller diameter and at the 

number of stages required for testing; 

and in which each stage of this pump 

consists of an impeller and diffuser, and 

liquid enters and exits each stage of the 

bare pump in a direction parallel to the 

impeller shaft. 

* * * * * 

Vertical turbine (VT) pump means a 

vertically suspended, single-stage or 

multi-stage, dry rotor, rotodynamic 

pump: 

(1) That has a shaft input power 

greater than or equal to 1 hp and less 

than or equal to 200 hp at BEP and full 

impeller diameter and at the number of 

stages required for testing; 

(2) For which no external part of such 

pump is designed to be submerged in 

the pumped liquid; 

(3) That has a single pressure 

containing boundary (i.e., is single 

casing), which may consist of, but is not 

limited, to bowls, columns, and 

discharge heads; and 

(4) That discharges liquid through the 

same casing in which the impeller shaft 

is contained. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 431.463 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ b. Removing paragraphs (d)(1) and (2); 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21323 

■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(3) and 

(4) as paragraphs (d)(2) and (1), 

respectively; and. 

■ d. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (d)(2). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 431.463 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce 

any edition other than that specified in 

this section, DOE must publish a 

document in the Federal Register and 

the material must be available to the 

public. All approved material is 

available for inspection at DOE and at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). Contact DOE at 

the 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) 586–9127, 

Buildings@ee.doe.gov, https://

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

building-technologies-office. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, email: fr.inspection@

nara.gov, or go to: www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

The material may be obtained from the 

sources in the following paragraphs of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) HI 40.6–2021, ‘‘Methods for 

Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing’’, 

IBR approved for appendix A to this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 431.464 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (a)(1)(i); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) 

and (iii) as (a)(1)(iii) and (iv); 

■ c. Adding new paragraph (a)(1)(ii); 

and 

■ d. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (a)(1)(iii). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 431.464 Test procedure for measuring 

and determining energy consumption of 

pumps. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) The following categories of clean 

water pumps that have the 

characteristics listed in paragraph 

(a)(1)(iii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(ii) The additional following 

categories of clean water pumps that 

have the characteristics listed in 

paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section: 

(A) Between-bearing (BB); 

(B) Radially-split, multi-stage, 

horizontal, end-suction diffuser casing 

(RSHES); 

(C) Radially-split, multi-stage, 

horizontal, in-line diffuser casing 

(RSHIL); 

(D) Small vertical in-line (SVIL); and 

(E) Vertical Turbine (VT). 

(iii) Pump characteristics: 

(A) Flow rate of 25 gpm or greater at 

BEP and full impeller diameter; 

(B) Maximum head of 459 feet at BEP 

and full impeller diameter and the 

number of stages required for testing 

(see section 1.2.2 of appendix A of this 

subpart); 

(C) Design temperature range wholly 

or partially in the range of 15 to 250 °F; 

(D) Designed to operate with either: 

(1) A 2- or 4- or 6-pole induction 

motor, or 

(2) A non-induction motor with a 

speed of rotation operating range that 

includes speeds of rotation between 

2,880 and 4,320 revolutions per minute 

(rpm) and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm and/ 

or 960 and 1,440 revolutions per 

minute, and in each case, the driver and 

impeller must rotate at the same speed; 

and 

(E) For ESCC and ESFM pumps, a 

specific speed less than or equal to 

5,000 when calculated using U.S. 

customary units. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Appendix A to subpart Y of part 

431 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the note to the beginning 

of the appendix; 

■ b. Revising Section I; 

■ c. In section II, 

■ i. Revising paragraphs A.1, A.2, 

B.1.2.1.2, B.1.2.1.2.1., and B.1.2.1.2.2; 

and 

■ ii. Adding paragraph B.1.2.1.2.3; 

■ d. In Section III, revising paragraphs A 

through D, E.1.2.1.2, E.1.2.1.2.1., and 

E.1.2.1.2.2.; 

■ e. In Section IV, revising paragraphs A 

through D; 

■ f. In Section V, revising paragraphs A 

through D, E.1.1, E.1.2.1.1, E.1.2.1.1.1. 

and E.1.2.1.1.2.; 

■ g. In Section VI, revising paragraphs A 

through D; 

■ h. In Section VII, 

■ i. Revising paragraphs A through D, 

the definition of Lfull in paragraph E.1.2, 

paragraphs E.1.2.1, E.1.2.1.1, E.1.2.1.1.1, 

and E.1.2.1.1.2, 

■ ii. Adding E.1.2.1.1.3; and 

■ iii. Revising paragraph E.1.2.2; 

■ i. Revising Tables 2 and 4; and 

■ j. Adding Table 5. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart Y of Part 431— 

Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement of Energy Consumption of 

Pumps 

Note: Prior to [date 180 days after 

publication of final rule], 

representations with respect to the 

energy use or efficiency (including 

compliance certifications) of pumps 

specified in § 431.464(a)(1)(i), excluding 

pumps listed in § 431.464(a)(1)(iv), must 

be based on testing conducted in 

accordance with the applicable 

provisions of this appendix as they 

appeared in the January 1, 2022 edition 

of the Code of Federal Regulations of 

subpart Y of part 431 in 10 CFR parts 

200 through 499. 

On or after [date 180 days after 

publication of final rule], 

representations with respect to the 

energy use or efficiency (including 

compliance certifications) of pumps 

specified in § 431.464(a)(1)(i), excluding 

pumps listed in § 431.464(a)(1)(iv), must 

be based on testing conducted in 

accordance with the applicable 

provisions of this appendix. 

Any representations with respect to 

the energy use or efficiency of pumps 

specified in 431.464(a)(1)(ii), excluding 

pumps listed in § 431.464(a)(1)(iv), 

made on or after [date 180 days after 

publication of final rule] must be made 

in accordance with the results of testing 

pursuant to this appendix. 

Manufacturers must use the results of 

testing under this appendix to 

determine compliance with any energy 

conservation standards established for 

pumps specified in § 431.464(a)(1)(ii), 

excluding pumps listed in 

§ 431.464(a)(1)(iv), that are published 

after January 1, 2022. 

I. Test Procedure for Pumps 

0. Incorporation by Reference. DOE 

incorporated by reference in § 431.463 

the entire standard for HI 40.6–2021; 

however, certain enumerated provisions 

of HI 40.6–2021, as set forth below are 

inapplicable. To the extent that there is 

a conflict between the terms or 

provisions of a referenced industry 

standard and the CFR, the CFR 

provisions control. 

0.1 Section 40.6.1 Scope 

0.2 Section 40.6.5.3 Test report 

0.3 Appendix B Reporting of test 

results (informative) 

0.3 Appendix E Testing Circulator 

Pumps (normative) 

0.4 Appendix G DOE Compared to HI 

40.6 Nomenclature 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21324 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

index (PEIVL) for pumps sold with 

electric motors and continuous or noncontinuous controls, perform testing in 

accordance with HI 40.6–2021, except 

Section 40.6.5.3, ‘‘Test report;’’ 

Appendix E, ‘‘Testing Circulator Pumps 

(normative)’’, and Appendix G ‘‘DOE 

Compared to HI 40.6 Nomenclature’’ 

with the modifications and additions as 

noted throughout the provisions below. 

Where HI 40.6–2021 refers to ‘‘pump,’’ 

the term refers 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 40.6–2021 shall be 

deemed to be synonymous with the 

term ‘‘flow rate’’ used throughout that 

standard and this appendix. In addition, 

the specifications in Section 40.6.4.1 of 

HI 40.6–2021, ‘‘Vertically suspended 

pumps’’ do not apply to ST pumps and 

the performance of ST bare pumps 

considers bowl performance only. 

A.1 Scope. Section II of this 

appendix applies to all pumps and 

describes how to calculate the pump 

energy index (section II.A) based on the 

pump energy rating for the minimallycompliant reference pump (PERSTD; 

section II.B) and the constant load pump 

energy rating (PERCL) or variable load 

pump energy rating (PERVL) determined 

in accordance with one of sections III 

through VII of this appendix, based on 

the configuration in which the pump is 

distributed in commerce and the 

applicable testing method specified in 

sections III through VII and 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 OR Pump + Single-Phase Induction Motor (Excluding SVIL) OR Pump + 

Driver Other Than Electric Motor.

Section III: Test Procedure for Bare Pumps. 

Pump + Motor OR Pump + Motor + Controls 

other than continuous or non-continuous controls (e.g., ON/OFF switches).

Pump + Motor Listed at § 431.25(g) OR SVIL 

Pump + Motor Covered by DOE’s Energy 

Conservation Standards * OR Pump + Submersible Motor.

Section IV: Testing-Based Approach for 

Pumps Sold with Motors OR Section V: 

Calculation-Based Approach for Pumps 

Sold with Motors. 

Pump (Including SVIL)+ Motor Not Covered 

by DOE’s Motor Energy Conservation 

Standards (Except Submersible Motors) ** 

OR Pump (Other than SVIL) + SinglePhase Induction Motor (if Section III is not 

used).

Section IV: Testing-Based Approach for 

Pumps Sold with Motors. 

Pump + Motor + Continuous Controls OR 

Pump + Motor + Non-Continuous Controls 

OR Pump + Inverter-Only Synchronous Electric Motor *** (With or Without Controls).

Pump + Motor Listed at § 431.25(g) + Continuous Control OR SVIL Pump + Motor Covered by DOE’s Energy Conservation Standards * + Continuous Control OR Pump + 

Submersible Motor + Continuous Control 

OR Pump + Inverter-Only Synchronous 

Electric Motor *** (With or Without Continuous Control).

Section VI: Testing-Based Approach for 

Pumps Sold with Motors and Controls OR 

Section VII: Calculation-Based Approach for 

Pumps Sold with Motors Controls. 

Pump + Motor Listed at § 431.25(g) + NonContinuous Control OR SVIL Pump + Motor 

Covered by DOE’s Energy Conservation 

Standards * + Non-Continuous Control OR 

Pump + Submersible Motor + Non-Continuous Control.

Section VI: Testing-Based Approach for 

Pumps Sold with Motors and Controls. 

Pump (Including SVIL) + Motor Not Covered 

by DOE’s Motor Energy Conservation 

Standards ** (Except Submersible Motors) + 

Continuous or Non-Continuous Controls OR 

Pump (Other than SVIL) + Single-Phase Induction Motor + Continuous or Non-Continuous Controls (if Section III is not used).

Section VI: Testing-Based Approach for 

Pumps Sold with Motors and Controls. 

* All references to ‘‘Motor Covered by DOE’s Motor Energy Conservation Standards’’ refer to those listed at § 431.446 or those for Small NonSmall Electric Motor Electric Motors (SNEMs) at subpart B of this part, including motors of such varieties that are less than 0.25 hp. 

** All references to ‘‘Motor Not Covered by DOE’s Motor Energy Conservation Standards’’ refer to motors not listed at § 431.25 or, for SVIL, 

not listed at either § 431.446 or in subpart B of this part (excluding motors of such varieties that are less than 0.25 hp). 

*** All references to ‘‘Inverter-Only Synchronous Electric Motor’’ refer to inverter-only electric motors than are synchronous electric motors, both 

as defined in subpart B of this part. 

A.2 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 BB, ESCC, ESFM, 

IL, RSHES, RSHIL, RSV, ST, and VT 

pumps sold with single-phase induction 

motors. 

A.3 Section IV of this appendix 

addresses the testing-based approach for 

pumps sold with motors, which applies 

to all pumps sold with electric motors, 

except for pumps sold with inverteronly synchronous electric motors, but 

including pumps sold with single-phase 

induction motors. This test procedure 

also applies to pumps sold with controls 

other than continuous or noncontinuous controls (e.g., on/off 

switches). 

A.4 Section V of this appendix 

addresses the calculation-based 

approach for pumps sold with motors, 

which applies to: 

A.4.1 Pumps sold with polyphase 

electric motors regulated by DOE’s 

energy conservation standards for 

electric motors at § 431.25(g), and 

A.4.2 SVIL pumps sold with small 

electric motors regulated by DOE’s 

energy conservation standards at 

§ 431.446 or sold with SNEMs regulated 

by DOE’s energy conservation standards 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21325 

in subpart B of this part but including 

motors of such varieties that are less 

than 0.25 hp, and 

A.4.3 Pumps sold with submersible 

motors. 

A.5 Section VI of this appendix 

addresses the testing-based approach for 

pumps sold with motors and controls, 

which applies to all pumps sold with 

electric motors (including single-phase 

induction motors) and continuous or 

non-continuous controls and to pumps 

sold with inverter-only synchronous 

electric motors with or without controls. 

A.6 Section VII of this appendix 

discusses the calculation-based 

approach for pumps sold with motors 

and controls, which applies to: 

A.6.1 Pumps sold with polyphase 

electric motors regulated by DOE’s 

energy conservation standards for 

electric motors at § 431.25(g) and 

continuous controls and 

A.6.2 Pumps sold with inverter-only 

synchronous electric motors, 

A.6.3 SVIL pumps sold with small 

electric motors regulated by DOE’s 

energy conservation standards at 

§ 431.446 (but including motors of such 

varieties that are less than 0.25 hp) and 

continuous controls or with SNEMs 

regulated by DOE’s energy conservation 

standards at subpart B of this part (but 

including motors of such varieties that 

are less than 0.25 hp) and continuous 

controls, and 

A.6.4 Pumps sold with submersible 

motors and continuous controls. 

B. Measurement Equipment. 

B.1 Instrument Accuracy. For the 

purposes of measuring pump power 

input, driver power input to the motor 

or controls, and pump power output, 

the equipment specified in HI 40.6– 

2021 Appendix C necessary to measure 

head, speed of rotation, flow rate, 

temperature, torque, and electrical 

power must be used and must comply 

with the stated accuracy requirements 

in HI 40.6–2021 Table 40.6.3.2.3 except 

as noted in sections III.B, IV.B, V.B, 

VI.B, and VII.B of this appendix. When 

more than one instrument is used to 

measure a given parameter, the 

combined accuracy, calculated as the 

root sum of squares of individual 

instrument accuracies, must meet the 

specified accuracy requirements. 

B.2 Calibration. Calibration 

requirements for instrumentation are 

specified in Appendix D of HI 40.6– 

2021. 

C. Test Conditions. Conduct testing at 

full impeller diameter in accordance 

with the test conditions, stabilization 

requirements, and specifications of HI 

40.6–2021 Section 40.6.3, ‘‘Pump 

efficiency testing;’’ Section 40.6.4, 

‘‘Considerations when determining the 

efficiency of certain pumps;’’ Section 

40.6.5.4 (including appendix A), ‘‘Test 

arrangements;’’ and Section 40.6.5.5, 

‘‘Test conditions.’’ For ST pumps, head 

measurements must be based on the 

bowl assembly total head as described 

in Section A.5 of 40.6–2021 and the 

pump power input or driver power 

input, as applicable, must be based on 

the measured input power to the driver 

or bare pump, respectively; Section 

40.6.4.1, ‘‘Vertically suspended 

pumps,’’ does not apply to ST pumps. 

C.1 Nominal Speed of Rotation. 

Determine the nominal speed of rotation 

based on the range of speeds of rotation 

at which the pump is designed to 

operate, in accordance with sections 

I.C.1.1, I.C.1.2, and I.C.1.3 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 publiclyavailable information about the pump 

model and motor, as applicable. 

C.1.1 For pumps sold without 

motors, select the nominal speed of 

rotation based on the speed for which 

the pump is designed. 

C.1.1.1 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. 

C.1.1.2 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. 

C1.1.3 For bare pumps designed for 

speeds of rotation including 960 to 

1,440 rpm, the nominal speed of 

rotation shall be 1,200 rpm. 

C.1.2 For pumps sold with 

induction motors, select the appropriate 

nominal speed of rotation. 

C1.2.1 For pumps sold with 6-pole 

induction motors, the nominal speed of 

rotation shall be 1,200 rpm. 

C.1.2.2 For pumps sold with 4-pole 

induction motors, the nominal speed of 

rotation shall be 1,800 rpm. 

C.1.2.3 For pumps sold with 2-pole 

induction motors, the nominal speed of 

rotation shall be 3,600 rpm. 

C.1.3 For pumps sold with noninduction motors, select the appropriate 

nominal speed of rotation. 

C.1.3.1 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.1.3.2 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.1.3.3 Where the operating range of 

the pump and motor includes speeds of 

rotation between 960 and 1,440, the 

nominal speed of rotation shall be 1,200 

rpm. 

C.2 Multi-Stage Pumps. Perform 

testing on the pump with two stages for 

BB pumps, three stages for RSH and 

RSV pumps, and nine stages for ST and 

VT pumps. If the basic model of pump 

being tested is only available with fewer 

than the required number of stages, test 

the pump 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, test the 

pump 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, test the pump 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, 

test the pump with the next higher 

number of stages. 

C.3 Twin-Head Pumps. For twinhead pumps, perform testing on an 

equivalent single impeller IL or SVIL 

pump as applicable, constructed by 

incorporating one of the driver and 

impeller assemblies of the twin-head 

pump being rated into an adequate ILstyle or SVIL-style, single impeller 

volute and casing. An adequate IL-style 

or SVIL-style, single impeller volute and 

casing means a volute and casing for 

which any physical and functional 

characteristics that affect energy 

consumption and energy efficiency are 

the same as their corresponding 

characteristics for a single impeller in 

the twin-head pump volute and casing. 

D. Data Collection and Analysis. 

D.1 Damping Devices. Use of 

damping devices, as described in 

Section 40.6.3.2.2 of HI 40.6–2021, are 

only permitted to integrate up to the 

data collection interval used during 

testing. 

D.2 Stabilization. Record data at any 

tested load point only under stabilized 

conditions, as defined in HI 40.6–2021 

Section 40.6.5.5.1, where a minimum of 

two measurements are used to 

determine stabilization. 

D.3 Calculations and Rounding. 

Normalize all measured data to the 

nominal speed of rotation of 3,600 or 

1,800 or 1,200 rpm based on the 

nominal speed of rotation selected for 

the pump in section I.C.1 of this 

appendix, in accordance with the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21326 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

procedures specified in Section 

40.6.6.1.1 of HI 40.6–2021. 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. Perform all calculations 

using raw measured values without 

rounding. Round PERCL and PERVL to 

three significant digits, and round 

PEICL, and PEIVL values, as applicable, 

to the hundredths place (i.e., 0.01). 

D.4 Pumps with BEP at Run Out. 

Test pumps for which the expected BEP 

corresponds to a volume rate of flow 

that is within 20 percent of the expected 

maximum flow rate at which the pump 

is designed to operate continuously or 

safely (i.e., pumps with BEP at run-out) 

in accordance with the test procedure 

specified in this appendix, but with the 

following exceptions: 

D.4.1 Use the following seven flow 

points—40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 

percent of the expected maximum flow 

rate for determination of BEP in sections 

III.D, IV.D, V.D, VI.D, and VII.D of this 

appendix instead of the flow points 

specified in those sections. 

D.4.2 Use flow points of 60, 70, 80, 

90, and 100 percent of the expected 

maximum flow rate of the pump to 

determine pump power input or driver 

power input instead of the flow points 

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

of the expected BEP flow rate specified 

in sections III.E.1.1, IV.E.1, V.E.1.1, 

VI.E.1, and VII.E.1.1 of this appendix. 

D.4.3 To determine PERCL in 

sections III.E, IV.E, and V.E and to 

determine PERSTD in section II.B, use 

load points of 65, 90, and 100 percent 

of the BEP flow rate determined with 

the modified flow points specified in 

this section I.D.4 of this appendix 

instead of 75, 100, and 110 percent of 

BEP flow. In section II.B.1.1, where 

alpha values are specified for the load 

points 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP 

flow rate, instead apply the alpha values 

to the load points of 65, 90, and 100 

percent of the BEP flow rate determined 

with the modified flow points specified 

in this section I.D.4 of this appendix. 

However, in sections II.B.1.1.1 and 

II.B.1.1.1.1 of this appendix, use 100 

percent of the BEP flow rate as specified 

to determine hpump,STD and Ns as 

specified. To determine motor sizing for 

bare pumps in sections II.B.1.2.1.1 and 

III.E.1.2.1.1 of this appendix, use a load 

point of 100 percent of the BEP flow rate 

instead of 120 percent. 

E. Determination of Additional 

Performance Parameters. 

E.1 To determine overall (wire-towater) efficiency, driver power input, 

and/or pump power output (hydraulic 

horsepower), conduct testing in 

accordance with HI 40.6–2021. 

II. Calculation of the Pump Energy 

Index 

A. * * * 

A.1. For pumps rated as bare pumps 

or pumps sold with motors (other than 

inverter-only synchronous electric 

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 (hp), determined in 

accordance with either section III (for 

bare pumps; BB, ESCC, ESFM, IL, 

RSHES, RSHIL, RSV, ST or VT pumps 

sold with single-phase induction motors; 

and pumps sold with drivers other than 

electric motors), section IV (for pumps 

sold with motors and rated using the 

testing-based approach), or section V (for 

pumps sold with motors and rated using 

the calculation-based approach) of this 

appendix, and 

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), as determined in 

accordance with section II.B of this 

appendix. 

A.2 For pumps rated as pumps sold 

with motors and continuous controls or 

non-continuous controls (including 

pumps sold with inverter-only 

synchronous electric motors with or 

without controls), determine the PEIVL

using the following equation: 

PEIVL = the pump energy index for a variable 

load (hp), 

PERVL = the pump energy rating for a 

variable load (hp), 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), and 

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), as determined in 

accordance with section II.B of this 

appendix. 

B. * * * 

B.1.2.1.2 Determine the default 

nominal full load motor efficiency as 

described in section II.B.1.2.1.2.1 of this 

appendix for BB, ESCC, ESFM, IL, 

RSHES, RSHIL, RSV, and VT pumps; 

section II.B.1.2.1.2.2 of this appendix for 

ST pumps; and section II.B.1.2.1.2.3 for 

SVIL pumps. 

B.1.2.1.2.1. For BB, ESCC, ESFM, IL, 

RSHES, RSHIL, RSV, and VT pumps, 

the default nominal full load motor 

efficiency is the minimum of the 

nominal full load motor efficiency 

standards (open or enclosed) from the 

table containing the current energy 

conservation standards for NEMA 

Design B motors at § 431.25, with the 

number of poles relevant to the speed at 

which the pump is being tested (see 

section I.C.1 of this appendix) and the 

motor horsepower determined in 

section II.B.1.2.1.1 of this appendix. 

B.1.2.1.2.2. For ST pumps, prior to the 

compliance date of any energy 

conservation standards for submersible 

motors in subpart B of this part, the 

default nominal full load motor 

efficiency is the default nominal full 

load submersible motor efficiency listed 

in table 2 of this appendix, with the 

number of poles relevant to the speed at 

which the pump is being tested (see 

section I.C.1 of this appendix) and the 

motor horsepower determined in 

section II.B.1.2.1.1 of this appendix. 

Starting on the compliance date of any 

energy conservation standards for 

submersible motors in subpart B of this 

part, the default nominal full load motor 

efficiency shall be the minimum of any 

nominal full load motor efficiency 

standard from the table containing 

energy conservation standards for 

submersible motors in subpart B of this 

part, with the number of poles relevant 

to the speed at which the pump is being 

tested (see section I.C.1 of this 

appendix) and the motor horsepower 

determined in section II.B.1.2.1.1 of this 

appendix. 

B.1.2.1.2.3. For SVIL pumps, the 

default nominal full load motor 

efficiency is the minimum full load 

motor efficiency standard from the 

tables containing the current energy 

conservation standards for polyphase or 

CSCR/CSIR small electric motors at 

§ 431.446, with the number of poles 

relevant to the speed at which the pump 

is being tested (see section I.C.1 of this 

appendix) and the motor horsepower 

determined in section II.B.1.2.1.1 of this 

appendix, or for SVIL pumps sold with 

motors less than 0.25 hp, the default 

nominal full load motor efficiency is 

58.3% for 6-pole, 64.6% for 4-pole, and 

61.7% for 2-pole motors. 

* * * * * 

III. Test Procedure for Bare Pumps 

A. Scope. This section III applies only 

to: 

A.1 Bare pumps, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11AP22.009</GPH> EP11AP22.010</GPH>

PEicL = 

PERvL 

PElvL = PERsTo 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21327 

A.2 Pumps sold with drivers other 

than electric motors, and 

A.3 BB, ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSHES, 

RSHIL, RSV, ST, and VT pumps sold 

with single-phase induction motors. 

B. Measurement Equipment. The 

requirements regarding measurement 

equipment presented in section I.B of 

this appendix apply to this section III. 

In addition, when testing pumps using 

a calibrated motor, electrical 

measurement equipment shall meet the 

requirements of Section C.4.3 of HI 

40.6–2021 and motor power input shall 

be determined according to Section 

40.6.3.2.3 of HI 40.6–2021 and meet the 

requirements in Table 40.6.3.2.3 of HI 

40.6–2021. 

C. Test Conditions. The requirements 

regarding test conditions presented in 

section I.C of this appendix apply to this 

section III. In addition, when testing 

pumps using a calibrated motor, the 

conditions in Section C.4.3.1 of HI 40.6– 

2021 shall be met. 

D. Testing BEP for the Pump. 

Determine the best efficiency point 

(BEP) of the pump as follows: 

D.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the 

pump without changing the speed of 

rotation of the pump and conduct the 

test at a minimum of the following 

seven flow 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 Section 40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6–2021. 

D.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as 

the flow rate at the operating point of 

maximum pump efficiency on the pump 

efficiency curve, as determined in 

accordance with Section 40.6.6.3 of HI 

40.6–2021, where the pump efficiency is 

the ratio of the pump power output 

divided by the pump power input, as 

specified in Table 40.6.2 of HI 40.6– 

2021, disregarding the calculations 

provided in Section 40.6.6.2. 

* * * * * 

E.1.2.1.2 Determine the default 

nominal full load motor efficiency as 

described in section III.E.1.2.1.2.1 of 

this appendix for BB, ESCC, ESFM, IL, 

RSHES, RSHIL, RSV, and VT pumps; or 

section III.E.1.2.1.2.2. of this appendix 

for ST pumps. 

E.1.2.1.2.1. For BB, ESCC, ESFM, IL, 

RSHES, RSHIL, RSV, and VT pumps, 

the default nominal full load motor 

efficiency is the minimum of the 

nominal full load motor efficiency 

standards (open or enclosed) from the 

table containing the current energy 

conservation standards for NEMA 

Design B motors at § 431.25, with the 

number of poles relevant to the speed at 

which the pump is being tested (see 

section I.C.1 of this appendix) and the 

motor horsepower determined in 

section III.E.1.2.1.1 of this appendix. 

E.1.2.1.2.2. For ST pumps, prior to the 

compliance date of any energy 

conservation standards for submersible 

motors in subpart B of this part, the 

default nominal full load motor 

efficiency is the default nominal full 

load submersible motor efficiency listed 

in table 2 of this appendix, with the 

number of poles relevant to the speed at 

which the pump is being tested (see 

section I.C.1 of this appendix) and the 

motor horsepower determined in 

section III.E.1.2.1.1 of this appendix. 

Starting on the compliance date of any 

energy conservation standards for 

submersible motors in subpart B of this 

part, the default nominal full load motor 

efficiency is the minimum of any 

nominal full load motor efficiency 

standard from the table containing 

energy conservation standards for 

submersible motors in subpart B of this 

part, with the number of poles relevant 

to the speed at which the pump is being 

tested (see section I.C.1 of this 

appendix) and the motor horsepower 

determined in accordance with section 

III.E.1.2.1.1 of this appendix. 

* * * * * 

IV. Testing-Based Approach for Pumps 

Sold With Motors 

A. Scope. This section IV applies only 

to pumps sold with electric motors 

(excluding pumps sold with inverteronly synchronous electric motors), 

including single-phase induction 

motors. 

B. Measurement Equipment. The 

requirements regarding measurement 

equipment presented in section I.B of 

this appendix apply to this section IV. 

In addition, when testing pumps using 

a calibrated motor, electrical 

measurement equipment shall meet the 

requirements of Section C.4.3 of HI 

40.6–2021 and motor power input shall 

be determined according to Section 

40.6.3.2.3 of HI 40.6–2021 and meet the 

requirements in Table 40.6.3.2.3 of HI 

40.6–2021. 

C. Test Conditions. The requirements 

regarding test conditions presented in 

section I.C of this appendix apply to this 

section IV. In addition, when testing 

pumps using a calibrated motor, the 

conditions in Section C.4.3.1 of HI 40.6– 

2021 shall be met. 

D. Testing BEP for the Pump. 

Determine the best efficiency point 

(BEP) of the pump as follows: 

D.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the 

pump without changing the speed of 

rotation of the pump and conduct the 

test at a minimum of the following 

seven flow 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 Section 40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6–2021. 

D.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as 

the flow rate at the operating point of 

maximum pump efficiency on the pump 

efficiency curve, as determined in 

accordance with Section 40.6.6.3 of HI 

40.6–2021, where the pump efficiency is 

the ratio of the pump power output 

divided by the pump power input, as 

specified in Table 40.6.2 of HI 40.6– 

2021, disregarding the calculations 

provided in Section 40.6.6.2 of HI 40.6– 

2021. 

* * * * * 

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 pumps sold with motors 

listed in section V.A.1, V.A.2, or V.A.3 

of this appendix. 

A.1 Pumps sold with motors subject 

to DOE’s energy conservation standards 

for polyphase electric motors at 

§ 431.25(g), 

A.2 SVIL pumps sold with small 

electric motors regulated by DOE’s 

energy conservation standards at 

§ 431.446 or with SNEMs regulated by 

DOE’s energy conservation standards in 

subpart B of this part but including 

motors of such varieties that are less 

than 0.25 hp, and 

A.3. Pumps sold with submersible 

motors. 

A.4. Pumps sold with motors not 

listed in sections V.A.1, V.A.2, or V.A.3 

of this appendix cannot use this section 

V and must apply the test method in 

section IV of this appendix. 

B. Measurement Equipment. The 

requirements regarding measurement 

equipment presented in section I.B of 

this appendix apply to this section V. In 

addition, when testing pumps using a 

calibrated motor, electrical 

measurement equipment shall meet the 

requirements of Section C.4.3 of HI 

40.6–2021 and motor power input shall 

be determined according to Section 

40.6.3.2.3 of HI 40.6–2021 and meet the 

requirements in Table 40.6.3.2.3 of HI 

40.6–2021. 

C. Test Conditions. The requirements 

regarding test conditions presented in 

section I.C of this appendix apply to this 

section V. In addition, when testing 

pumps using a calibrated motor, the 

conditions in Section C.4.3.1 of HI 40.6– 

2021 shall be met. 

D. Testing BEP for the Pump. 

Determine the best efficiency point 

(BEP) of the pump as follows: 

D.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the 

pump without changing the speed of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
21328 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

rotation of the pump and conduct the 

test at a minimum of the following 

seven flow 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 Section 40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6–2021. 

D.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as 

the flow rate at the operating point of 

maximum pump efficiency on the pump 

efficiency curve, as determined in 

accordance with Section 40.6.6.3 of HI 

40.6–2021, where the pump efficiency is 

the ratio of the pump power output 

divided by the pump power input, as 

specified in Table 40.6.2 of HI 40.6– 

2021, disregarding the calculations 

provided in Section 40.6.6.2. 

* * * * * 

E.1.1 Determine the pump 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 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 determine the pump 

power input at the nominal speed of 

rotation for the load points of 75, 100, 

and 110 percent of the BEP flow rate. 

* * * * * 

E.1.2.1.1 For pumps sold with 

motors other than submersible motors, 

determine the represented nominal full 

load motor efficiency as described in 

section V.E.1.2.1.1.1 of this appendix. 

For pumps sold with submersible 

motors, determine the default nominal 

full load submersible motor efficiency 

as described in section V.E.1.2.1.1.2 of 

this appendix. 

E.1.2.1.1.1 For pumps sold with 

motors other than submersible motors, 

the represented nominal full load motor 

efficiency is that of the motor with 

which the given pump model is being 

tested, as determined in accordance 

with the DOE test procedure for electric 

motors at § 431.16 or, for SVIL, the DOE 

test procedure for small electric motors 

at § 431.444, or the DOE test procedure 

for SNEMs in subpart B to this part, as 

applicable (including for motors less 

than 0.25 hp), and if available, 

applicable representation procedures in 

10 CFR part 429 and this part. 

E.1.2.1.1.2 For pumps sold with 

submersible motors, prior to the 

compliance date of any energy 

conservation standards for submersible 

motors in subpart B of this part, the 

default nominal full load submersible 

motor efficiency is that listed in table 2 

of this appendix, with the number of 

poles relevant to the speed at which the 

pump is being tested (see section I.C.1 

of this appendix) and the motor 

horsepower of the pump being tested, or 

if a test procedure for submersible 

motors is provided in subpart B to this 

part, the represented nominal full load 

motor efficiency of the motor with 

which the given pump model is being 

tested, as determined in accordance 

with the applicable test procedure in 

subpart B to this part and applicable 

representation procedures in 10 CFR 

part 429 and this part, may be used 

instead. Starting on the compliance date 

of any energy conservation standards for 

submersible motors in subpart B of this 

part, the default nominal full load 

submersible motor efficiency may no 

longer be used. Instead, the represented 

nominal full load motor efficiency of the 

motor with which the given pump 

model is being tested, as determined in 

accordance with the applicable test 

procedure in subpart B of this part and 

applicable representation procedures in 

10 CFR part 429 and this part, must be 

used. 

* * * * * 

VI. Testing-Based Approach for Pumps 

Sold With Motors and Controls 

A. Scope. This section VI applies only 

to pumps sold with electric motors, 

including single-phase induction 

motors, and continuous or noncontinuous controls, as well as to 

pumps sold with inverter-only 

synchronous electric motors (with or 

without controls). For the purposes of 

this section VI, all references to ‘‘driver 

input power’’ in this section VI or HI 

40.6–2021 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. 

In addition, when testing pumps using 

a calibrated motor, electrical 

measurement equipment shall meet the 

requirements of Section C.4.3 of HI 

40.6–2021 and motor power input shall 

be determined according to Section 

40.6.3.2.3 of HI 40.6–2021 and meet the 

requirements in Table 40.6.3.2.3 of HI 

40.6–2021. 

C. Test Conditions. The requirements 

regarding test conditions presented in 

section I.C of this appendix apply to this 

section VI. In addition, when testing 

pumps using a calibrated motor, the 

conditions in Section C.4.3.1 of HI 40.6– 

2021 shall be met. 

D. Testing BEP for the Pump. 

Determine the best efficiency point 

(BEP) of the pump as follows: 

D.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the 

pump without changing the speed of 

rotation of the pump and conduct the 

test at a minimum of the following 

seven flow 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 Section 40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6–2021. 

D.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as 

the flow rate at the operating point of 

maximum pump efficiency on the pump 

efficiency curve, as determined in 

accordance with Section 40.6.6.3 of HI 

40.6–2021, where the pump efficiency is 

the ratio of the pump power output 

divided by the pump power input, as 

specified in Table 40.6.2 of HI 40.6– 

2021, disregarding the calculations 

provided in Section 40.6.6.2. 

* * * * * 

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 pumps listed in sections 

VII.A.1, VII.A.2, VII.A.3, and VII.A.4 of 

this appendix. 

A.1. Pumps sold with motors 

regulated by DOE’s energy conservation 

standards for polyphase NEMA Design 

B electric motors at § 431.25(g) and 

continuous controls, 

A.2 Pumps sold with inverter-only 

synchronous electric motors regulated 

by DOE’s energy conservation standards 

in subpart B of this part, 

A.3 SVIL pumps sold with small 

electric motors regulated by DOE’s 

energy conservation standards at 

§ 431.446 or with SNEMs regulated by 

DOE’s energy conservation standards in 

subpart B of this part (but including 

motors of such varieties that are less 

than 0.25 hp) and continuous controls, 

A.4. Pumps sold with submersible 

motors and continuous controls, and 

A.5. Pumps sold with motors not 

listed in sections VII.A.1, VII.A.2, 

VII.A.3, and VII.A.4 of this appendix 

and pumps sold without continuous 

controls, including pumps sold with 

non-continuous controls, cannot use 

this section and must apply the test 

method in section VI of this appendix. 

B. Measurement Equipment. The 

requirements regarding measurement 

equipment presented in section I.B of 

this appendix apply to this section VII. 

In addition, when testing pumps using 

a calibrated motor, electrical 

measurement equipment shall meet the 

requirements of Section C.4.3 of HI 

40.6–2021 and motor power input shall 

be determined according to Section 

40.6.3.2.3 of HI 40.6–2021 and meet the 

requirements in Table 40.6.3.2.3 of HI 

40.6–2021. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21329 

C. Test Conditions. The requirements 

regarding test conditions presented in 

section I.C of this appendix apply to this 

section VII. In addition, when testing 

pumps using a calibrated motor, the 

conditions in Section C.4.3.1 of HI 40.6– 

2021 shall be met. 

D. Testing BEP for the Pump. 

Determine the best efficiency point 

(BEP) of the pump as follows: 

D.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the 

pump without changing the speed of 

rotation of the pump and conduct the 

test at a minimum of the following 

seven flow 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 40.6–2021, except Section 

40.6.5.3, and appendix B. 

D.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as 

the flow rate at the operating point of 

maximum pump efficiency on the pump 

efficiency curve, as determined in 

accordance with Section 40.6.6.3 of HI 

40.6–2021, where the pump efficiency is 

the ratio of the pump power output 

divided by the pump power input, as 

specified in Table 40.6.2 of HI 40.6– 

2021, disregarding the calculations 

provided in Section 40.6.6.2. 

* * * * * 

E.1.2 * * * 

* * * * * 

Lfull = motor losses at full load or, for 

inverter-only synchronous electric 

motors, motor + inverter losses at 

full load, as determined in 

accordance with section VII.E.1.2.1 

of this appendix (hp), 

* * * * * 

E.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 = motor losses at full load (hp), or for 

inverter-only synchronous electric 

motors, motor + inverter losses at full 

load, 

MotorHP = the horsepower of the motor with 

which the pump model is being tested 

(hp), and 

hmotor,full = the represented nominal full load 

motor efficiency (i.e., nameplate/DOEcertified value) or the represented 

nominal full load motor + inverter 

efficiency or the default nominal full 

load submersible motor efficiency as 

determined in accordance with section 

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

E.1.2.1.1 For pumps sold with 

motors other than inverter-only 

synchronous electric motors or 

submersible motors, determine the 

represented nominal full load motor 

efficiency as described in section 

VII.E.1.2.1.1.1 of this appendix. For 

pumps sold with inverter-only 

synchronous electric motors, determine 

the represented nominal full load motor 

+ inverter efficiency as described in 

section VII.E.1.2.1.1.2 of this appendix. 

For pumps sold with submersible 

motors, determine the default nominal 

full load submersible motor efficiency 

as described in section VII.E.1.2.1.1.3 of 

this appendix. 

E.1.2.1.1.1 For pumps sold with 

motors other than inverter-only 

synchronous electric motors or 

submersible motors, the represented 

nominal full load motor efficiency is 

that of the motor with which the given 

pump model is being tested, as 

determined in accordance with the DOE 

test procedure for electric motors at 

§ 431.16 or, for SVIL, the DOE test 

procedure for small electric motors at 

§ 431.444 or the DOE test procedure for 

SNEMs in subpart B of this part, as 

applicable (including for motors less 

than 0.25 hp), and, if available, 

applicable representation procedures in 

10 CFR part 429 and this part. 

E.1.2.1.1.2 For pumps sold with 

inverter-only synchronous electric 

motors, the represented nominal full 

load motor + inverter efficiency is that 

of the motor with which the given pump 

model is being tested, as determined in 

accordance with any DOE test 

procedure for inverter-only synchronous 

electric motors in subpart B of this part, 

and, if available, applicable 

representation procedures in 10 CFR 

part 429 and this part. 

E.1.2.1.1.3 For pumps sold with 

submersible motors, prior to the 

compliance date of any energy 

conservation standards for submersible 

motors in subpart B of this part, the 

default nominal full load submersible 

motor efficiency is that listed in table 2 

of this appendix, with the number of 

poles relevant to the speed at which the 

pump is being tested (see section I.C.1 

of this appendix) and the motor 

horsepower of the pump being tested, or 

if a test procedure for submersible 

motors is provided in subpart B of this 

part, the represented nominal full load 

motor efficiency of the motor with 

which the given pump model is being 

tested, as determined in accordance 

with the applicable test procedure in 

subpart B of this part and applicable 

representation procedures in 10 CFR 

part 429 and this part, may be used 

instead. Starting on the compliance date 

of any energy conservation standards for 

submersible motors in subpart B of this 

part, the default nominal full load 

submersible motor efficiency may no 

longer be used and instead the 

represented nominal full load motor 

efficiency of the motor with which the 

given pump model is being tested, as 

determined in accordance with the 

applicable test procedure in subpart B of 

this part and applicable representation 

procedures in 10 CFR part 429 and this 

part, must be used instead. 

E.1.2.2 For load points 

corresponding to 25, 50, 75, and 100 

percent of the BEP flow rate, determine 

the part load loss factor at each load 

point as follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11AP22.011</GPH> EP11AP22.012</GPH>

MotorHP 

Lrun = -----~- MotorHP 

[ l'lmotor,full/ lOO] 

( R )

2 

( R ) zi = a x Mot~rHP + b x Mot~rHP + c 
21330 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

zi = the motor and control part load loss 

factor at load point i, 

a,b,c = coefficients listed in either Table 4 of 

this appendix for induction motors or 

Table 5 of this appendix for inverter-only 

synchronous electric motors, based on 

the horsepower of the motor with which 

the pump is being tested, 

Pi = the pump power input to the bare pump 

at load point i, as determined in 

accordance with section VII.E.1.1 of this 

appendix (hp), 

MotorHP = the horsepower of the motor with 

which the pump is being tested (hp), 

TABLE 2—DEFAULT NOMINAL FULL LOAD SUBMERSIBLE MOTOR EFFICIENCY BY MOTOR HORSEPOWER AND POLE

Motor horsepower 

(hp) 

Default nominal full load submersible 

motor efficiency 

2 poles 4 poles 6 poles 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... 55 68 64 

1.5 ................................................................................................................................................ 66 70 72 

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 68 70 74 

3 ................................................................................................................................................... 70 75.5 75.5 

5 ................................................................................................................................................... 74 75.5 75.5 

7.5 ................................................................................................................................................ 68 74 72 

10 ................................................................................................................................................. 70 74 72 

15 ................................................................................................................................................. 72 75.5 74 

20 ................................................................................................................................................. 72 77 74 

25 ................................................................................................................................................. 74 78.5 77 

30 ................................................................................................................................................. 77 80 78.5 

40 ................................................................................................................................................. 78.5 81.5 81.5 

50 ................................................................................................................................................. 80 82.5 81.5 

60 ................................................................................................................................................. 81.5 84 82.5 

75 ................................................................................................................................................. 81.5 85.5 82.5 

100 ............................................................................................................................................... 81.5 84 82.5 

125 ............................................................................................................................................... 84 84 82.5 

150 ............................................................................................................................................... 84 85.5 85.5 

200 ............................................................................................................................................... 85.5 86.5 85.5 

250 ............................................................................................................................................... 86.5 86.5 85.5 

* * * * * 

TABLE 4—INDUCTION MOTOR AND CONTROL PART LOAD LOSS FACTOR EQUATION COEFFICIENTS FOR SECTION

VII.E.1.2.2 OF THIS APPENDIX A 

Motor horsepower 

(hp) 

Coefficients for induction 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 and ≤100 ............................................................................................................................... ¥0.6629 2.1452 0.1952 

>100 ............................................................................................................................................. ¥0.7583 2.4538 0.2233 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11AP22.013</GPH>

i = load point corresponding to 25, 50, 75, or 100 percent ofBEP flow rate, and 

Pi ::; 1.000. If Pi > 1.000, then set Pi = 1.000 in the equation in 

Motor HP Motor HP Motor HP 

section VII.E.1.2.2 of this appendix to calculate the part load loss factor at load point 

1. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21331 

TABLE 5—INVERTER-ONLY SYNCHRONOUS ELECTRIC MOTOR AND CONTROL PART LOAD LOSS FACTOR EQUATION

COEFFICIENTS FOR SECTION VII.E.1.2.2 OF THIS APPENDIX A 

Motor horsepower 

(hp) 

Coefficients for induction motor and control 

part load loss factor 

(zi)

a b c 

≤5 ................................................................................................................................................. ¥0.0898 1.0251 0.0667 

>5 and ≤20 ................................................................................................................................... ¥0.1591 1.1683 ¥0.0085 

>20 and ≤50 ................................................................................................................................. ¥0.4071 1.4028 0.0055 

>50 and ≤100 ............................................................................................................................... ¥0.3341 1.3377 ¥0.0023 

>100 ............................................................................................................................................. ¥0.0749 1.0864 ¥0.0096 

[FR Doc. 2022–06142 Filed 4–8–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2