[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21268-21331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06142]



[[Page 21267]]

Vol. 87

Monday,

No. 69

April 11, 2022

Part II





Department of Energy





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





10 CFR Parts 429 and 431





Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial and 
Industrial Pumps; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 21268]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f6f6a726f6c2d2f2d2f6b6f2f2f2c2d5f7a7a317b707a31787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b1c1c4dcc1c283818381c5c181818283f1d4d49fd5ded49fd6dec7">[email protected]</span></a>. 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/EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See 
section 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f2b382829e9b939c9197a186939c9693809681a3879781869b9d9c81b29797dc969d97dc959d84"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5f4c5c5d9dcd4dbd6d0e6c1d4dbd1d4c7d1c6e4c0d0c6c1dcdadbc6f5d0d09bd1dad09bd2dac3">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6924000a01080c054722000d06290118470d060c470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1d50747e757c787133567479725d756c33797278337a726b">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7e6d7d7cbcec6c9c4c2f4d3c6c9c3c6d5c3d4f6d2c2d4d3cec8c9d4e7c2c289c3c8c289c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e8a99898848189868b8dbb9c89868c899a8c9bb99d8d9b9c8187869ba88d8dc68c878dc68f879e">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 Mechanically-Coupled 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

[[Page 21269]]

    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''), Sec.  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))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPCA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 21270]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On March 23, 2016, DOE published a correction to the January 
2016 Final Rule to correct the placement of the product-specific 
enforcement provisions related to pumps under 10 CFR 429.134(i). 81 
FR 15426.
    \4\ A ``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.
    \5\ A ``driver'' provides mechanical input to drive a bare pump 
directly or through the use of mechanical equipment. Electric 
motors, internal combustion engines, and gas/steam turbines are 
examples of drivers. (10 CFR 431.462)
    \6\ A ``control'' is used to operate a driver. (10 CFR 431.462)
    \7\ A ``continuous control'' is a control that adjusts the speed 
of the pump driver continuously over the driver operating speed 
range in response to incremental changes in the required pump flow, 
head, or power output. A ``non-continuous control'' is a control 
that adjusts the speed of a driver to one of a discrete number of 
non-continuous preset operating speeds, and does not respond to 
incremental reductions in the required pump flow, head, or power 
output. 10 CFR 431.462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 28, 2020, DOE published an early assessment review 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Price 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.
    \10\ The 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).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP22.000

    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

[[Page 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

[[Page 21272]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP22.001


[[Page 21273]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP22.002

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE defines ``clean water pump'' as a pump that is designed for use 
in pumping water with a maximum non-absorbent 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 [deg]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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ More 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 [deg]F; (D) designed to operate with either (1) a 2- 
or 4-pole induction motor, or (2) a non-induction motor with a speed 
of rotation operating range that includes speeds of rotation between 
2,880 and 4,320 revolutions per minute (rpm) and/or 1,440 and 2,160 
rpm, and in either case, the driver and impeller must rotate at the 
same speed; (E) For ST pumps, a 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter; and 
(F) For ESCC and ESFM pumps, a specific speed less than or equal to 
5,000 when calculated using U.S. customary units. 10 CFR 
431.464(a)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 21274]]

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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 21275]]

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 non-clean 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 non-clean water test procedure would provide comparable 
results.
    Additionally, DOE notes that non-clean 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 
``C-value'' is specified in the energy conservation standard (see 10 
CFR 431.465(b)(4)) and C-value is required for determining 
PEI<INF>CL</INF> and PEI<INF>VL</INF>, 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 in-line 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 
PEI<INF>CL</INF> or PEI<INF>VL</INF> 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ On 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''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 21276]]

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 multi-stage 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Pumps 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, multi-stage 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 two-stage, 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ BB1 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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)

[[Page 21277]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Both 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, multi-stage, 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

[[Page 21278]]

for inclusion in the pumps test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 10-
11) NEEA additionally stated that multi-stage 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 end-suction 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ OH1J, 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 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 close-coupled to the motor and 
have a single impeller and motor shaft would be part of the ESCC 
equipment category, while all other end-suction pumps that are 
mechanically-coupled to the motor and for which the bare pump and motor 
have separate shafts would be part of the ESFM equipment category. 81 
FR 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 end-suction 
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 vertically-suspended 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

[[Page 21279]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ST pumps with a bowl diameter greater than 6 inches are 
currently excluded from the scope of the DOE test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-induction 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 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 <plus-minus> 20 percent of 1,200 rpm. 
The acceptable non-induction motor ranges for 1800 and 3600 rpm 
pumps are also <plus-minus> 20 percent of the nominal value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 21280]]

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 PEI<INF>VL</INF> 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 [deg]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 [deg]C to 120 [deg]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 [deg]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 [deg]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 [deg]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 [deg]F when translating from [deg]C to [deg]F 
would be preferable to using the exact value of 248 [deg]F since 
manufacturers commonly use rounded temperature values in their 
marketing materials. Similarly, DOE

[[Page 21281]]

proposes rounding the lower temperature limit from 14 [deg]F to 15 
[deg]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 
[deg]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 [deg]F and 250 [deg]F 
are more appropriate than 14 [deg]F and 248 [deg]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 end-
suction 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 in-line 
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

[[Page 21282]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ An ``in-line (IL) pump'' means a pump that is either a 
twin-head pump or a single-stage, 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, three-piece 
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 close-coupled 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 twin-head 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 between-bearing 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

[[Page 21283]]

diameter and at the number of stages required for testing.''
    Issue 16: DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for 
between-bearing 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 ``axially-split'' 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, non-submersible, 
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 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 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 end-suction 
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 Mechanically-Coupled 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 end-
suction 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 
``close-coupled pump'' and ``mechanically-coupled 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

[[Page 21284]]

absorbed may better differentiate close-coupled 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 end-
suction 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 end-suction 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. 
Close-coupled 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

[[Page 21285]]

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 in-line, vertical end-suction, vertical self-priming, 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ A volute may also be referred to as a ``housing'' or 
``casing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 21286]]

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 self-contained 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 (``PER<INF>STD</INF>''). See section II of appendix A. 
The current test procedure defines the metric PEI<INF>CL,</INF> the 
pump energy index for a constant load, as applicable to pumps rated as 
bare pumps or sold with motors; and the metric PEI<INF>VL</INF>, 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 ``non-continuous control'' is 
a control that adjusts the speed of a driver to one of a discrete 
number of non-continuous preset operating speeds and does not respond 
to incremental reductions in the required pump flow, head, or power 
output. Id.
    The PEI metric is a ratio of the pump energy rating (``PER'') of 
the tested pump to the PER of a minimally-compliant pump 
(``PER<INF>STD</INF>''). See appendix A. The pump energy rating for 
constant load pumps (``PER<INF>CL''</INF>) 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 (``PER<INF>VL''</INF>) 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 PEI<INF>CL</INF> or 
PEI<INF>VL</INF> 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 
PEI<INF>CL</INF> or PEI<INF>VL</INF> 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 PEI<INF>CL</INF> and PEI<INF>VL</INF> metrics and 
has tentatively determined that, in general, use of PER<INF>CL</INF> 
and PER<INF>VL</INF> and indexing the results against PER<INF>STD</INF> 
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 
PER<INF>CL</INF> and PER<INF>VL</INF> metrics. As such, DOE is 
proposing that the rating metric for SVIL pumps would be 
PEI<INF>CL</INF> for constant load pumps and PEI<INF>VL</INF> 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 radially-split, 
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 PEI<INF>CL</INF> and PEI<INF>VL</INF> are appropriate 
metrics for use these pumps. DOE tentatively determines that using 
PEI<INF>CL</INF> and PEI<INF>VL</INF> for the additional pump 
categories would ensure a consistent rating approach in the market. 
Thus, DOE proposes that the PEI<INF>CL</INF> and PEI<INF>VL</INF> 
metric would be used for rating the performance of small vertical in-
line pumps, vertical turbine pumps, between-bearing pumps, and 
radially-split 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

[[Page 21287]]

the specified load points necessary to determine PEI<INF>CL</INF> and 
PEI<INF>VL</INF>. HI 40.6-2021 also contains specifications regarding 
test methodology, standard rating conditions, equipment specifications, 
uncertainty calculations, and tolerances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The 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.
    \27\ The 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.
    \28\ The 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.
    \29\ The term ``pump efficiency'' is defined in HI 40.6-2014 as 
a ratio of pump power output to pump power input.
    \30\ The 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.
    \31\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections II through VII of the DOE test procedure specify methods 
for determining PEI<INF>CL</INF> and PEI<INF>VL</INF> for pumps based 
on whether they are distributed into commerce with a motor and or with 
controls and are summarized below:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Section III: Test procedure for bare pumps;
    <bullet> Section IV: Testing-based approach for pumps sold with 
motors;
    <bullet> Section V: Calculation-based approach for pumps sold with 
motors;
    <bullet> Section VI: Testing-based approach for pumps sold with 
motors and controls; and
    <bullet> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ DOE notes that HI's supplemental comments responding to the 
April 2021 RFI did not provide input on this issue. (HI, No. 22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 21288]]

``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 
PER<INF>CL</INF>. 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 PER<INF>VL</INF>. 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 PER<INF>STD.</INF> DOE 
proposes to specify that the revised loading points would only be used 
in application of the [alpha]<INF>i</INF> coefficient values when 
determining pump power input, and not when determining specific speed 
(``Ns'') or the minimally-compliant pump efficiency 
(``[eta]<INF>pump,STD</INF>''), 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

[[Page 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 
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. The 
calculation-based options may reduce test burden by allowing a 
manufacturer to test a sample of bare pumps and use that data to rate 
multiple pump configurations using calculation-based methods. 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 calculation-based 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

[[Page 21290]]

bare pump PEI<INF>CL</INF> 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 
single-phase 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 wire-to-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 + single-phase 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 
single-phase motors are not completely regulated (currently only open 
drip-proof 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 
calculation-based 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 single-phase 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 non-continuous 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

[[Page 21291]]

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 PEI<INF>VL</INF>, 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 PEI<INF>VL</INF> 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 
calculation-based approach. (NEEA, No. 21 at pp. 7-8)
    The CA IOUs stated that cost of wire-to-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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The docketed spreadsheet only includes a comparison of the 
DOE method and the AMCA 207 method. (CA IOUs, No. 19, attachment).
    \34\ For information on the International Energy Agency Round 
Robin of Converter Losses, see: www.iea-4e.org/emsa/news/global-round-robin-test-program-for-converter-losses/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 21292]]

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 wire-to-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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Decrease in efficiency, in percentage points due to the 
addition of a VFD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Color 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.
    \38\ Color versions of Figures III.1-III.3 are available at 
Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032-0025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
already-collected 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ NEMA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 21293]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP22.003


[[Page 21294]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP22.004


[[Page 21295]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP22.005

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 wire-to-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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

[[Page 21296]]

on the performance of the motor drive systems associated with the pumps 
being evaluated. DOE does not have these specific data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Prakash 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 part-load 
loss coefficients.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP22.006

    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 PER<INF>CL</INF> or PER<INF>VL</INF> 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

[[Page 21297]]

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 PEI<INF>CL</INF> to PEI<INF>VL</INF>). 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 inverter-only 
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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Grundfos referenced induction-only motors, which DOE 
understands to have been intended to be a reference to inverter-only 
motors.
    \44\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 inverter-only 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ HI provided the incremental loss delta values in a 
subsequent submission. (HI, No. 23 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PER<INF>STD</INF>. (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

[[Page 21298]]

equivalent to or higher than the test method.\46\ (HI, No. 22 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ While 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
inverter-only 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 
PER<INF>STD</INF>, 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 PER<INF>STD</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ HI provided the delta values in a subsequent comment 
submission. (HI, No. 23 at p. 1)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 21299]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP22.007

    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 high-efficiency 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 PEI<INF>CL</INF> to 
PEI<INF>VL</INF>). 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 PEI<INF>VL</INF> 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 PEI<INF>CL</INF> on the nameplate if sold without a controller. 
Grundfos suggested that DOE allow a PEI<INF>VL</INF> 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 calculation-based 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 inverter-only 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 PEI<INF>VL</INF>, 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 
PER<INF>STD</INF>, the test procedure for bare pumps, the calculation-
based approach for pumps sold with motors, and the calculation-based 
approach for pumps sold with motors and controls all include reference 
to Table 2 of appendix A, which includes default nominal full-load 
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 calculation-based approaches for 
submersible pumps sold with motors (with or without controls), for 
determination of PER<INF>CL</INF> and PER<INF>VL</INF>, 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 PER<INF>STD</INF> using the 
calculation-based approach for bare pumps, before the compliance date 
of

[[Page 21300]]

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 
calculation-based 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 
calculation-based 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 full-load motor efficiency 
values and part-load motor loss curves developed in the January 2016 
Final Rule that describe the minimally-compliant pump (i.e., 
PER<INF>STD</INF>) 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 single-phase 
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 non-covered 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)

[[Page 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 non-small 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/DOE-certified 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 
PER<INF>STD</INF> 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 PER<INF>STD</INF>. 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 PER<INF>STD</INF> 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP22.008

    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.

[[Page 21302]]

    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 
PER<INF>STD</INF> 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 inverter-only synchronous electric 
motors are not set, DOE may consider allowing an option for SVIL pumps 
sold with single-phase 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 part-load 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 low-horsepower 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 
calculation-based 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

[[Page 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 inverter-only 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

[[Page 21304]]

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 third-party 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ ``Validation classes'' are groupings of products based on 
the equipment classes used for validating an AEDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:

<bullet> Constant Load End-suction Closed-Coupled Pumps and Constant 
Load End-suction Frame-Mounted Pumps
<bullet> Variable Load End-suction Closed-Coupled Pumps and Variable 
Load End-suction Frame-Mounted Pumps
<bullet> Constant Load Inline Pumps and Constant Load Small Volute 
Inline Pumps
<bullet> Variable Load Inline Pumps and Variable Load Small Volute 
Inline Pumps
<bullet> Constant Load Radially-Split Multi-Stage Vertical Pumps and 
Constant Load Radially-Split Multi-Stage Horizonal Pumps
<bullet> Variable Load Radially-Split Multi-Stage Vertical Pumps and 
Variable Load Radially-Split Multi-Stage Horizontal Pumps
<bullet> Constant Load Submersible Turbine Pumps and Constant Load 
Vertical Turbine Pumps
<bullet> Variable Load Submersible Turbine Pumps and Variable Load 
Vertical Turbine Pumps
<bullet> Constant Load Between-Bearing Pumps
<bullet> 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

[[Page 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, third-party 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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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).


[[Page 21306]]


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 
full-load submersible motor efficiency shown in Table 2 of appendix A, 
or the same number of bands above the default nominal full-load 
submersible motor efficiency for each respective motor horsepower as 
described in Table 3 of appendix A. (Id.) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
calculation-based 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 inverter-only 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 
Sec.  431.25),'' or for submersible turbine pumps, the number of bands 
above the default nominal full-load 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 
single-phase 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

[[Page 21307]]

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 inverter-fed 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 inverter-only 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 single-phase 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 PER<INF>STD</INF> 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 
single-phase motors and pumps sold with polyphase motors into a single 
basic model, manufacturers would need to utilize a testing-based 
approach on the most consumptive configuration, as pumps sold with 
polyphase motors cannot be rated as bare pumps, and pumps sold with 
single-phase motors cannot be rated using a calculation-based approach 
(see Table 1 to appendix A). 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 single-phase 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 single-phase 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.

[[Page 21308]]

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 non-continuous controls, the 
rated pump energy index--constant load (PEI<INF>CL</INF>), and for 
pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, the 
rated pump energy index--variable load (PEI<INF>VL</INF>); (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 
PEI<INF>CL</INF>, PEI<INF>VL</INF>, 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

[[Page 21309]]

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 
end-suction 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, wire-to-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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ $8,784,000 (total testing costs) / 5,490 (total number of 
pumps tested) = $1,600 (per pump tested).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 end-suction 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.

[[Page 21310]]

    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 <plus-minus>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ As 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 x 2)-$130.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 part-load 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-

[[Page 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

[[Page 21312]]

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--table-
size-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ U.S. Department of Energy Compliance Certification 
Database, available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 between-bearing 
pumps, 27 models of newly-covered 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 
newly-covered 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 21314]]

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-general-counsel. 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.

[[Page 21315]]

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 
industry-accepted 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e2a392928e8b838c8187b196838c8683908691b3978791968b8d8c91a28787cc868d87cc858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bbfacbcbd7d2dad5d8dee8cfdad5dfdac9dfc8eacedec8cfd2d4d5c8fbdede95dfd4de95dcd4cd">[email protected]</span></a>. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and

[[Page 21316]]

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

[[Page 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 [deg]F and 250 [deg]F 
are more appropriate than 14 [deg]F and 248 [deg]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 
between-bearing 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 
PEI<INF>VL</INF> 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 
PER<INF>STD</INF> 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

[[Page 21318]]

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 low-horsepower 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 inverter-only 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 part-load 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

0
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.


[[Page 21319]]


0
2. Amend Sec.  429.59 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (a)(3).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  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 calculation-based methods in the test procedure), in 
conjunction with the following sampling provisions, or by application 
of an AEDM that meets the requirements of Sec.  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 Sec.  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.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  429.70 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Minimum number of distinct basic
           Validation class                models that must be tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constant Load End-suction Closed-      2 Basic Models.
 Coupled Pumps and Constant Load End-
 suction Frame-Mounted Pumps.
Variable Load End-suction Closed-      2 Basic Models.
 Coupled Pumps and Variable Load End-
 suction Frame-Mounted Pumps.
Constant Load Inline Pumps and         2 Basic Models.
 Constant Load Small Volute Inline
 Pumps.
Variable Load Inline Pumps and         2 Basic Models.
 Variable Load Small Volute Inline
 Pumps.
Constant Load Radially-Split Multi-    2 Basic Models.
 Stage Vertical Pumps and Constant
 Load Radially-Split Multi-Stage
 Horizonal Pumps.
Variable Load Radially-Split Multi-    2 Basic Models.
 Stage Vertical Pumps and Variable
 Load Radially-Split Multi-Stage
 Horizontal Pumps.
Constant Load Submersible Turbine      2 Basic Models.
 Pumps and Constant Load Vertical
 Turbine Pumps.
Variable Load Submersible Turbine      2 Basic Models.
 Pumps and Variable Load Vertical
 Turbine Pumps.
Constant Load Between-Bearing Pumps..  2 Basic Models.
Variable Load Between-Bearing Pumps..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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

[[Page 21320]]

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 Sec.  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 x 
(1 + the applicable tolerance).

                                         Table 4 to Paragraph (i)(5)(vi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Applicable
                   Equipment                                         Metric                        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 re-certify 
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       Required manufacturer actions
     rolling  24-month period \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 third-party
                                        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.

[[Page 21321]]

 
> = 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ``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.
\2\ 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 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).
\3\ A 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.
0
3. Section 429.134 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(1)(ii):


Sec.  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 Sec.  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

0
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.

0
5. Amend Sec.  431.462 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text;
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order the definition for ``Axially-split 
pump'';
0
c. Revising the definition for ``Basic model'';
0
d. Adding in alphabetical order the definition for ``Between-bearing 
pump'';
0
e. Revising the definitions for ``Bowl diameter'', ``Close-coupled 
pump'',
0
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'', ``End-suction frame 
mounted/own bearings (ESFM) pump'', and ``End-suction pump;
0
g. Revising the definition for ``In-line (IL) pump'';
0
h. Adding in alphabetical order the definition for ``Intermediate 
bowl'';
0
i. Revising the definition for ``Mechanically-coupled pump'';
0
j. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions for ``Radially-split, 
multi-stage, horizontal, diffuser casing (RSH) pump'', ``Radially-
split, multi-stage, horizontal, end-suction diffuser casing (RSHES) 
pump'', ``Radially-split, multi-stage, horizontal, in-line diffuser 
casing (RSHIL) pump'';
0
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''
0
j. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions for ``Small vertical 
in-line (SVIL) pump''; ``Small vertical twin-head pump'';
0
k. Revising the definition for ``Submersible turbine (ST) pump''; and
0
l. Adding in alphabetical order the definition for ``Vertical turbine 
pump''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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

[[Page 21322]]

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 inverter-only 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, 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 pump means a single-stage, 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 
single-stage, 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 close-coupled 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.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 431.463 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Removing paragraphs (d)(1) and (2);

[[Page 21323]]

0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(3) and (4) as paragraphs (d)(2) and 
(1), respectively; and.
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (d)(2).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80c2f5e9ece4e9eee7f3c0e5e5aee4efe5aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="db99aeb2b7bfb2b5bca89bbebef5bfb4bef5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>, https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/building-technologies-office. For 
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#caacb8e4a3a4b9baafa9bea3a5a48aa4abb8abe4ada5bc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d0b1f4304031e1d080e190402032d030c1f0c430a021b">[email protected]</span></a>, 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.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 431.464 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1)(i);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (iii) as (a)(1)(iii) and 
(iv);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (a)(1)(ii); and
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (a)(1)(iii).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  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 [deg]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.
* * * * *
0
8. Appendix A to subpart Y of part 431 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the note to the beginning of the appendix;
0
b. Revising Section I;
0
c. In section II,
0
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
0
ii. Adding paragraph B.1.2.1.2.3;
0
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.;
0
e. In Section IV, revising paragraphs A through D;
0
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.;
0
g. In Section VI, revising paragraphs A through D;
0
h. In Section VII,
0
i. Revising paragraphs A through D, the definition of L<INF>full</INF> 
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,
0
ii. Adding E.1.2.1.1.3; and
0
iii. Revising paragraph E.1.2.2;
0
i. Revising Tables 2 and 4; and
0
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 Sec.  
431.464(a)(1)(i), excluding pumps listed in Sec.  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 Sec.  
431.464(a)(1)(i), excluding pumps listed in Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  
431.464(a)(1)(ii), excluding pumps listed in Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 
(PEI<INF>CL</INF>) for bare pumps and pumps sold with electric motors 
or the variable load pump energy

[[Page 21324]]

index (PEI<INF>VL</INF>) for pumps sold with electric motors and 
continuous or non-continuous 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 Sec.  
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 minimally-compliant reference pump 
(PER<INF>STD</INF>; section II.B) and the constant load pump energy 
rating (PER<INF>CL</INF>) or variable load pump energy rating 
(PER<INF>VL</INF>) 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 sub-        Applicable test
       Pump configuration            configuration          methods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bare Pump.......................  Bare Pump OR Pump   Section III: Test
                                   + Single-Phase      Procedure for
                                   Induction Motor     Bare Pumps.
                                   (Excluding SVIL)
                                   OR Pump + Driver
                                   Other Than
                                   Electric Motor.
Pump + Motor OR Pump + Motor +    Pump + Motor        Section IV:
 Controls other than continuous    Listed at Sec.      Testing-Based
 or non-continuous controls        431.25(g) OR SVIL   Approach for
 (e.g., ON/OFF switches).          Pump + Motor        Pumps Sold with
                                   Covered by DOE's    Motors OR Section
                                   Energy              V: Calculation-
                                   Conservation        Based Approach
                                   Standards * OR      for Pumps Sold
                                   Pump +              with Motors.
                                   Submersible Motor.
                                  Pump (Including     Section IV:
                                   SVIL)+ Motor Not    Testing-Based
                                   Covered by DOE's    Approach for
                                   Motor Energy        Pumps Sold with
                                   Conservation        Motors.
                                   Standards (Except
                                   Submersible
                                   Motors) ** OR
                                   Pump (Other than
                                   SVIL) + Single-
                                   Phase Induction
                                   Motor (if Section
                                   III is not used).
Pump + Motor + Continuous         Pump + Motor        Section VI:
 Controls OR Pump + Motor + Non-   Listed at Sec.      Testing-Based
 Continuous Controls OR Pump +     431.25(g) +         Approach for
 Inverter-Only Synchronous         Continuous          Pumps Sold with
 Electric Motor *** (With or       Control OR SVIL     Motors and
 Without Controls).                Pump + Motor        Controls OR
                                   Covered by DOE's    Section VII:
                                   Energy              Calculation-Based
                                   Conservation        Approach for
                                   Standards * +       Pumps Sold with
                                   Continuous          Motors Controls.
                                   Control OR Pump +
                                   Submersible Motor
                                   + Continuous
                                   Control OR Pump +
                                   Inverter-Only
                                   Synchronous
                                   Electric Motor
                                   *** (With or
                                   Without
                                   Continuous
                                   Control).
                                  Pump + Motor        Section VI:
                                   Listed at Sec.      Testing-Based
                                   431.25(g) + Non-    Approach for
                                   Continuous          Pumps Sold with
                                   Control OR SVIL     Motors and
                                   Pump + Motor        Controls.
                                   Covered by DOE's
                                   Energy
                                   Conservation
                                   Standards * + Non-
                                   Continuous
                                   Control OR Pump +
                                   Submersible Motor
                                   + Non-Continuous
                                   Control.
                                  Pump (Including     Section VI:
                                   SVIL) + Motor Not   Testing-Based
                                   Covered by DOE's    Approach for
                                   Motor Energy        Pumps Sold with
                                   Conservation        Motors and
                                   Standards **        Controls.
                                   (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).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All references to ``Motor Covered by DOE's Motor Energy Conservation
  Standards'' refer to those listed at Sec.   431.446 or those for Small
  Non-Small 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 Sec.   431.25
  or, for SVIL, not listed at either Sec.   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 inverter-only 
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 non-continuous 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 Sec.  431.25(g), 
and
    A.4.2 SVIL pumps sold with small electric motors regulated by DOE's 
energy conservation standards at Sec.  431.446 or sold with SNEMs 
regulated by DOE's energy conservation standards

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 publicly-available 
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 non-induction 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 twin-head 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 IL-style 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

[[Page 21326]]

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 PER<INF>CL</INF> and 
PER<INF>VL</INF> to three significant digits, and round 
PEI<INF>CL</INF>, and PEI<INF>VL</INF> 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 PER<INF>CL</INF> in sections III.E, IV.E, and 
V.E and to determine PER<INF>STD</INF> 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 [eta]<INF>pump,STD</INF> 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-to-water) 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 
PEI<INF>CL</INF> using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP22.009


Where:

PEI<INF>CL</INF> = the pump energy index for a constant load (hp),
PER<INF>CL</INF> = 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
PER<INF>STD</INF> = the PER<INF>CL</INF> 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 PEI<INF>VL</INF> using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP22.010

PEI<INF>VL</INF> = the pump energy index for a variable load (hp),
    PER<INF>VL</INF> = 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
PER<INF>STD</INF> = the PER<INF>CL</INF> 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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,

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 inverter-only 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 Sec.  431.25(g),
    A.2 SVIL pumps sold with small electric motors regulated by DOE's 
energy conservation standards at Sec.  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

[[Page 21328]]

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 Sec.  431.16 or, for SVIL, the DOE test procedure for small 
electric motors at Sec.  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 non-
continuous 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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 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 * * *
* * * * *
L<INF>full</INF> = 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP22.011


Where:
L<INF>full</INF> = 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
[eta]<INF>motor,full</INF> = the represented nominal full load motor 
efficiency (i.e., nameplate/DOE-certified 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 Sec.  431.16 or, for SVIL, 
the DOE test procedure for small electric motors at Sec.  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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP22.012



[[Page 21330]]


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,
P<INF>i</INF> = 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),

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP22.013


          Table 2--Default Nominal Full Load Submersible Motor Efficiency by Motor Horsepower and Pole
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Default nominal full load submersible  motor
                                                                                    efficiency
                      Motor horsepower (hp)                      -----------------------------------------------
                                                                      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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Coefficients for induction motor and control
                                                                            part load loss factor (zi)
                      Motor horsepower (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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Coefficients for induction motor and control
                                                                            part load loss factor  (zi)
                      Motor horsepower (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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. 2022-06142 Filed 4-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>