43430 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

time for interested parties to submit 

comments. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on August 2, 2021, 

by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, pursuant to 

delegated authority from the Secretary 

of Energy. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on August 3, 

2021. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16828 Filed 8–6–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2020–BT–STD–0018] 

RIN 1904–AE54 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Certain 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment; 

Early Assessment Review; Commercial 

and Industrial Pumps 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is undertaking an early 

assessment review for amended energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

and industrial pumps (‘‘pumps’’) to 

determine whether to amend applicable 

energy conservation standards for this 

equipment. Specifically, through this 

request for information (‘‘RFI’’), DOE 

seeks data and information to evaluate 

whether amended energy conservation 

standards would result in a significant 

savings of energy; be technologically 

feasible; and be economically justified. 

DOE welcomes written comments from 

the public on any subject within the 

scope of this document (including those 

topics not specifically raised in this 

RFI), as well as the submission of data 

and other relevant information 

concerning this early assessment 

review. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before September 8, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2021–BT–STD–0018, by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: to Pumps2021STD0018@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2021–BT–STD–0018 in the 

subject line of the message. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

III of this document. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including postal 

mail and hand delivery/courier, the 

Department has found it necessary to 

make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing Covid–19 pandemic. DOE is 

currently suspending receipt of public 

comments via postal mail and hand 

delivery/courier. If a commenter finds 

that this change poses an undue 

hardship, please contact Appliance 

Standards Program staff at (202) 586– 

1445 to discuss the need for alternative 

arrangements. Once the Covid–19 

pandemic health emergency is resolved, 

DOE anticipates resuming all of its 

regular options for public comment 

submission, including postal mail and 

hand delivery/courier. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at https://

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the https://

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket web page can be found at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

EERE-2021-BT-STD-0018. The docket 

web page contains instructions on how 

to access all documents, including 

public comments, in the docket. See 

section III for information on how to 

submit comments through https://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

9870. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Rulemaking History 

II. Request for Information 

A. Scope and Equipment Classes 

B. Significant Savings of Energy 

1. Base Case Efficiency Distribution 

2. Energy Use 

3. National Energy Savings 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. Technology Options 

2. Representative Units 

3. Efficiency Levels 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Distribution Channels 

2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

III. Submission of Comments 

I. Introduction 

DOE has established an early 

assessment review process to conduct a 

more focused analysis to evaluate, based 

on statutory criteria, whether a new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

is warranted. Based on the information 

received in response to the RFI and 

DOE’s own analysis, DOE will 

determine whether to proceed with a 

rulemaking for a new or amended 

energy conservation standard. If DOE 

makes an initial determination that a 

new or amended energy conservation 

standard would satisfy the applicable 

statutory criteria or DOE’s analysis is 

inconclusive, DOE would undertake the 

preliminary stages of a rulemaking to 

issue a new or amended energy 

conservation standard. If DOE makes an 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 43431 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

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

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. 

3Clean water pumps are designed for pumping 

water with a maximum non-absorbent free solid 

content of 0.016 pounds per cubic foot, with a 

maximum dissolved solid content of 3.1 pounds per 

cubic foot, provided that the total gas content of the 

water does not exceed the saturation volume, and 

disregarding any additives necessary to maintain 

the water above 14 °F. 

4CIP working group Term Sheet, https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013-BTNOC-0039-0092. 

5On March 23, 2016, DOE published a correction 

to the January 2016 ECS Final Rule to correct the 

placement of the product-specific enforcement 

provisions related to pumps under 10 CFR 429.134 

at paragraph (i). 81 FR 15426. 

6A ‘‘bare pump’’ is exclusive of mechanical 

equipment, driver, and controls. See 10 CFR 

431.462. 

initial determination based upon 

available evidence that a new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

would not meet the applicable statutory 

criteria, DOE would engage in notice 

and comment rulemaking before issuing 

a final determination that new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

are not warranted. 

A. Authority 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 among 

other things, authorizes DOE to regulate 

the energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6317) Title III, Part C 2 of EPCA, added 

by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, section 

441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as 

codified), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. This 

equipment includes pumps, the subject 

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

Under EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program consists 

essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) 

labeling, (3) federal energy conservation 

standards, and (4) certification and 

enforcement procedures. Relevant 

provisions of EPCA include definitions 

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

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

U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation 

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

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6316). 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

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

6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE 

may, however, grant waivers of federal 

preemption in limited instances for 

particular state laws or regulations, in 

accordance with the procedures and 

other provisions set forth under 42 

U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption 

waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297). 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered equipment. EPCA 

requires that any new or amended 

energy conservation standard prescribed 

by the Secretary of Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) 

be designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy or water 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). 

The Secretary may not prescribe an 

amended or new standard that will not 

result in significant conservation of 

energy, or is not technologically feasible 

or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) 

EPCA also requires that, not later than 

6 years after the issuance of any Final 

Rule establishing or amending a 

standard, DOE evaluate the energy 

conservation standards for each type of 

covered equipment, including those at 

issue here, and publish either a notice 

of determination that the standards do 

not need to be amended, or a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) that 

includes new proposed energy 

conservation standards (proceeding to a 

Final Rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

B. Rulemaking History 

DOE published a framework 

document for pumps on January 25, 

2013. 78 FR 7304. This document 

described the procedural and analytical 

approaches DOE anticipated using to 

evaluate potential new energy 

conservation standards for pumps. DOE 

solicited comment on this document 

and invited stakeholders to a public 

meeting to discuss the document. 

A commercial and industrial pumps 

working group (‘‘CIP working group’’) 

was established in 2013 under the 

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking 

Advisory Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’) in 

accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act and the Negotiated 

Rulemaking Act. (5 U.S.C. App.; 5 

U.S.C. 561–570). See also 78 FR 44036. 

The purpose of the CIP working group 

was to discuss and, if possible, reach 

consensus on proposed standards for 

pump energy efficiency. On June 19, 

2014, the CIP working group reached 

consensus on proposed energy 

conservation standards for specific 

rotodynamic, clean water pumps 3 used 

in a variety of commercial, industrial, 

agricultural, and municipal 

applications. The CIP working group 

assembled their recommendations into a 

Term Sheet (See Docket EERE–2013– 

BT–NOC–0039–0092).4

The Term Sheet contained 

recommendations on the definitions 

relevant to all pumps, the scope for 

commercial and industrial pumps, 

energy conservation standards for 

pumps within scope, and the test metric 

for commercial and industrial pumps. 

Consequently, DOE initiated both an 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking and a test procedure 

rulemaking to implement these 

recommendations. 

On January 26, 2016, DOE published 

a final rule adopting energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

and industrial pumps manufactured on 

or after January 27, 2020. 81 FR 4368 

(‘‘January 2016 ECS Final Rule’’). The 

energy conservation standards 

established in the January 2016 ECS 

Final Rule were consistent with those 

recommended by the CIP working group 

and approved by ASRAC. 81 FR 4368, 

4375. The current energy conservation 

standards for pumps are codified at 10 

CFR 431.465. Additionally, DOE 

established a test procedure for 

determining pump energy efficiency 

published in a Final Rule on January 25, 

2016. 81 FR 4086 (‘‘January 2016 TP 

Final Rule’’).5 The current test 

procedures for pumps are codified at 10 

CFR 431.464 and in Appendix A to 

Subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431 

(‘‘Appendix A’’). 

II. Request for Information 

DOE is publishing this RFI to collect 

data and information during the early 

assessment review process to inform its 

decision, consistent with its obligations 

under EPCA, as to whether the 

Department should proceed with an 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. Below DOE has identified 

certain topics for which information and 

data are requested to assist in the 

evaluation of the potential for amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

also welcomes comments on other 

issues relevant to its early assessment 

that may not specifically be identified in 

this document. 

A. Scope and Equipment Classes 

This RFI covers equipment meeting 

the pump definition codified in 10 CFR 

431.462. ‘‘Pump’’ means equipment 

designed to move liquids (which may 

include entrained gases, free solids, and 

totally dissolved solids) by physical or 

mechanical action and includes a bare 

pump 6 and, if included by the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
43432 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

7 ‘‘Mechanical equipment’’ is any component of a 

pump that transfers energy from the driver to the 

bare pump. See 10 CFR 431.462. 

8A ‘‘driver’’ provides mechanical input to drive 

a bare pump directly or through the use of 

mechanical equipment. Electric motors, internal 

combustion engines, and gas/steam turbines are 

examples of drivers. See 10 CFR 431.462. 

9A ‘‘control’’ is used to operate a driver. See 10 

CFR 431.462. 

10Best efficiency point (‘‘BEP’’) is the pump 

hydraulic power operating point consisting of both 

flow and head conditions of a pump that results in 

the maximum efficiency. See 10 CFR 431.462. 

11The test procedure applies to the established 

categories of pumps that have the following 

characteristics: (a) Flow rate of 25 gallons per 

minute (gpm) or greater at BEP and full impeller 

diameter; (b) Maximum head of 459 feet at BEP and 

full impeller diameter and the number of stages 

required for testing (see section 1.2.2 of appendix 

A of this subpart); (c) Design temperature range 

from 14 to 248 °F; (d) Designed to operate with 

either: (1) A 2- or 4-pole induction motor; or (2) A 

non-induction motor with a speed of rotation 

operating range that includes speeds of rotation 

between 2,880 and 4,320 revolutions per minute 

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

case, the driver and impeller must rotate at the 

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

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

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

calculated using U.S. customary units. 10 CFR 

431.464(a)(ii). 

manufacturer at the time of sale, 

mechanical equipment,7 driver,8 and 

controls.9 10 CFR 431.462. 

As part of the January 2016 ECS Final 

Rule, DOE established energy 

conservation standards for five 

categories of clean water pumps: End 

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

suction frame mounted/own bearings 

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

multi-stage, vertical, in-line diffuser 

casing (‘‘RSV’’); and submersible turbine 

(‘‘ST’’) pumps. 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(i). 

Each of these categories is limited to 

pumps that have a shaft input power 

greater than or equal to 1 horsepower 

(‘‘hp’’) and less than or equal to 200 hp 

at the best efficiency point (‘‘BEP’’) 10

and full impeller diameter. DOE defines 

each of these categories in 10 CFR 

431.462. DOE provides additional 

specifications regarding the 

applicability of the test procedure, and 

therefore the energy conservation 

standards, at 10 CFR 431.464(a)(ii).11

Pumps are further delineated into 

equipment classes based on nominal 

speed of rotation and operating mode. 

10 CFR 431.465. All pump equipment 

classes are summarized in Table II.1. 

TABLE II.1—EQUIPMENT CLASSES FOR PUMPS

Basic pump equipment category 

Nominal driver 

speed 

(rpm) 

Constant or 

variable load 

(CL or VL) 

Equipment class 

ESCC ................................................................................................................................. 1,800 CL ESCC.1800.CL 

3,600 CL ESCC.3600.CL 

1,800 VL ESCC.1800.VL 

3,600 VL ESCC.3600.VL 

ESFM ................................................................................................................................. 1,800 CL ESFM.1800.CL 

3,600 CL ESFM.3600.CL 

1,800 VL ESFM.1800.VL 

3,600 VL ESFM.3600.VL 

IL ........................................................................................................................................ 1,800 CL IL.1800.CL 

3,600 CL IL.3600.CL 

1,800 VL IL.1800.VL 

3,600 VL IL.3600.VL 

RSV .................................................................................................................................... 1,800 CL RSV.1800.CL 

3,600 CL RSV.3600.CL 

1,800 VL RSV.1800.VL 

3,600 VL RSV.3600.VL 

ST ....................................................................................................................................... 1,800 CL ST.1800.CL 

3,600 CL ST.3600.CL 

1,800 VL ST.1800.VL 

3,600 VL ST.3600.VL 

In a test procedure RFI published on 

April 16, 2021, DOE requested comment 

on whether it should expand or remove 

some of the limitations in 10 CFR 

431.464(a)(ii) for pumps. 86 FR 20075. 

In developing its recommendations, 

and in consideration of time constraints, 

the CIP working group further limited 

its scope to clean water pumps. (Term 

Sheet, recommendation #8). The CIP 

working group also recommended that 

pump energy efficiency standards not 

apply to (1) fire pumps, (2) self-priming 

pumps, (3) prime-assist pumps, (4) 

magnet driven pumps, (5) pumps 

designed to be used in nuclear facilities, 

and (6) pumps meeting design and 

construction requirements in various 

military specifications. Id. Consistent 

with the CIP working group 

recommendations, DOE established 

energy conservation standards for clean 

water pumps (10 CFR 431.465(b)(2)) and 

excluded from the scope of the energy 

conservation standards the pumps listed 

above (10 CFR 431.465(c)). 

Additionally, consistent with the 

recommendation from the CIP working 

group (See Term Sheet, 

recommendation #6), DOE excluded 

from coverage under the standards 

positive displacement pumps, axial/ 

mixed flow pumps, double suction 

pumps, multistage axially split pumps, 

multistage radial-split horizontal 

pumps, multistage radial split vertical 

immersible pumps, and vertical turbine 

(non-submersible) pumps. 81 FR 4368, 

4376. 

Issue 1: DOE seeks comment on 

whether to consider energy conservation 

standards for pumps other than clean 

water pumps. Additionally, DOE seeks 

comment on whether energy 

conservation standards should be 

considered for positive displacement, 

axial/mixed flow, double suction, 

multistage axially split, multistage 

radial-split horizontal, multistage radial 

split vertical immersible, or nonsubmersible vertical turbine pumps, fire 

pumps, self-priming pumps, primeassist pumps, magnet driven pumps, 

pumps used in nuclear facilities, or 

pumps specified for certain military 

uses. Specifically, DOE is interested in 

information and data on the industries 

in which these pumps are typically 

used, shipment data for these products 

(or the relative shipments for these 

products compared to clean water 

pumps currently with the scope of 

DOE’s efficiency standards), and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 43433 

12U.S. Department of Energy’s Compliance 

Certification Database, https://

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS4-Pumps_-_General_Pumps.html#q=Product_

Group_s%3A%22Pumps%20- 

%20General%20Pumps%22, Accessed February 24, 

2020. 

13The baseline efficiency level was set to 

represent the lowest efficiency hydraulic designs on 

the market. 81 FR 4368, 4382. 

14While DOE does not have updated information 

on efficiency distribution by shipment as it did in 

the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE compared 

the efficiency distributions by model and shipment 

gathered for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule and 

determined that model distribution is a reasonable 

proxy for shipment distribution. 

15 DOE’s shipment estimates for the January 2016 

ECS Final Rule (and carried through to the updated 

energy savings estimate presented in this section) 

relied on annual shipments data for 2012 provided 

by industry. 81 FR 4368, 4391. See discussion in 

the January 2016 ECS Final Rule Technical Support 

Document (‘‘TSD’’), Section 8.3.3 of Chapter 8, 

available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031-0056. 

16 In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE used 

performance data for bare pumps to represent the 

performance of all pump equipment classes. 81 FR 

4368, 4382. In addition, DOE considered improved 

hydraulic design to be the only technology option 

suitable for further consideration in a standards 

rulemaking. 81 FR 4368, 4383–4384. 

additional safety or performance 

standards that these pump types must 

meet. 

B. Significant Savings of Energy 

The January 2016 ECS Final Rule 

estimated that the established energy 

conservation standard for pumps would 

result in 0.10 quadrillion British 

thermal units (‘‘quads’’) of site energy 

savings in site energy use over a 30-year 

period. 81 FR 4368, 4371. Additionally, 

in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, 

DOE estimated that an energy 

conservation standard established at an 

energy efficiency level equivalent to that 

achieved using the maximum available 

technology (‘‘max-tech’’) would have 

resulted in 0.38 additional quads of site 

energy savings. 81 FR 4368, 4415. 

As a preliminary step in evaluating 

potential energy savings, DOE updated 

its energy savings estimates from the 

January 2016 ECS Final Rule. DOE’s 

current estimate indicates that an 

amended energy conservation standard 

established at the same max-tech as the 

January 2016 ECS Final Rule would 

result in 0.25 quads of site energy 

savings (0.69 quads of full-fuel cycle 

energy savings) which is a reduction 

from 0.38 quads. The primary driver for 

the reduced estimate is a revised 

estimate of the base case efficiency 

distribution. In preparation for this RFI, 

DOE reviewed its Compliance 

Certification database 12 and found that 

the efficiency distribution by basic 

model in the marketplace in 2020 

exceeded that assumed in the January 

2016 ECS Final Rule for the adopted 

standard level (i.e., there are fewer 

models at baseline,13 indicating that 

manufacturers redesigned pump models 

to surpass, rather than just meet, the 

current Federal standard).14

While DOE’s request for information 

is not limited to the following issues, 

DOE is particularly interested in 

comment, information, and data on the 

following topics to inform whether 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards would result in a significant 

savings of energy. 

1. Base Case Efficiency Distribution 

DOE uses base case efficiency 

distributions to calculate life cycle cost 

(‘‘LCC’’) savings resulting from each 

considered energy efficiency level. In 

the analysis supporting the January 

2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE developed 

the base case efficiency distributions 

based on the shipments data provided 

by manufacturers 15 and used base case 

efficiency distribution specific to 

equipment class, shaft input power and 

flow.16

Issue 2: DOE seeks data and 

information on the distribution of pump 

efficiencies. To the extent available, 

DOE requests the data, in terms of pump 

energy index (‘‘PEI’’); by pump 

shipments at the equipment class level; 

and disaggregated by shaft input power 

and flow, for bare pumps only. DOE 

seeks comment on how the shipments 

efficiency distribution might differ 

across ranges of flow and shaft input 

power for each equipment class. 

2. Energy Use 

Consumer inputs to the energy use 

analysis are based on operational 

demands that are independent of the 

pump efficiency, while equipment 

inputs to the analysis are based on the 

efficiency of the pump. Consumer 

inputs include consumer duty point that 

is defined by the flow and head, annual 

load profile, and annual operating 

hours. With limited data available with 

respect to the duty point in the January 

2016 ECS Final Rule analysis, DOE 

developed a distribution of duty points 

(i.e., operating shaft input power and 

flow) based on shipments data provided 

by manufacturers. DOE developed four 

representative load profiles, 

characterized by different weights at 50 

percent, 75 percent, 100 percent, and 

110 percent of the flow at the duty 

point. The load profiles were developed 

to represent a range of pump loading 

conditions within an annual cycle. For 

the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE 

estimated statistical distributions and 

average values of annual operating 

hours by application based on inputs 

from a subject matter expert and 

feedback from the CIP working group. In 

addition, in the January 2016 ECS Final 

Rule, DOE sized the pumps to operate 

within 75 percent to 110 percent of their 

BEP flow. 81 FR 4368, 4390. 

Issue 3: DOE requests data and 

information on whether, and if so, how, 

the field energy use of pumps has 

changed since the January 2016 ECS 

Final Rule. Specifically, DOE is 

interested in any information and data 

related to whether there have been 

changes in duty points (i.e., flow, head, 

and shaft input power required for a 

given application), annual hours of 

operation, and load profiles since the 

January 2016 ECS Final Rule. 

Issue 4: DOE requests comment on 

whether the characterization of pump 

sizing practices in the January 2016 ECS 

Final Rule remains appropriate. If not, 

DOE requests data and information on 

how pump sizing practices have 

changed since the January 2016 ECS 

Final Rule. 

3. National Energy Savings 

In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule 

shipments analysis, DOE developed 

shipment projections for pumps and, in 

turn, calculated equipment stock from 

2020 through 2049, starting with the 

2012 shipment estimates from the 

Hydraulics Institute (‘‘HI’’) (Docket 

EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039–0068). To 

project shipments of pumps, DOE relied 

primarily on Annual Energy Outlook 

2014 forecasts. DOE used the shipments 

projection and the equipment stock to 

determine the National Energy Savings 

(‘‘NES’’). 

Issue 5: DOE requests 2020 (or the 

most recent year available) annual sales 

data (i.e., number of shipments) for 

pumps by equipment class, as shown in 

10 CFR 431.465(b)(4). If disaggregated 

fractions of annual sales are not 

available at the equipment class level, 

DOE requests more aggregated fractions 

of annual sales at the category level (i.e., 

ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, ST). If available, 

DOE requests annual sales data by 

equipment class for the previous five 

years (2015–2019). 

C. Technological Feasibility 

During the January 2016 ECS Final 

Rule, DOE considered a number of 

technology options that manufacturers 

could use to reduce energy consumption 

in pumps. 81 FR 4368, 4383. DOE seeks 

comment on any changes to these 

technology options that could affect 

whether DOE could propose a ‘‘no-newstandards’’ determination, such as an 

insignificant increase in the range of 

efficiencies and performance 

characteristics of these technologies. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
43434 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

17See Section 3.6.1 Chapter 3 of the TSD for the 

January 2016 ECS Final Rule. Docket EERE–2011– 

BT–STD–0031–0056. 

While DOE’s request for information 

is not limited to the following issues, 

DOE is particularly interested in 

comment, information, and data on the 

following. 

1. Technology Options 

A complete list of technology options 

evaluated for pumps in preparation for 

the January 2016 ECS Final Rule is 

presented in Table II.2. 81 FR 4368, 

4383. 

TABLE II.2—PUMPS TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE JANUARY 2016 ECS FINAL RULE

Technology Options 

Improved Hydraulic Design 

Improved surface finish on wetted components 

Reduced running clearances 

Reduced mechanical friction in seals 

Reduction of other volumetric losses 

Addition of variable speed drive (‘‘VSD’’) 

Improvement of VSD efficiency 

Reduced VSD standby and off mode power usage 

In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, 

DOE determined that most of the 

technology options listed in Table II.2 

had limited potential to improve pump 

efficiency. 81 FR 4368, 4383. 

Specifically, DOE received 

manufacturer feedback that certain 

technologies (a) did not significantly 

improve efficiency; (b) were not 

applicable to the equipment for which 

standards were being considered; (c) did 

not significantly improve efficiency 

across the entire scope of each 

equipment class; or (d) benefits 

degraded quickly over time. Id. 

Table II.3 summarizes the pump 

technology options that DOE screened 

from its analysis in the January 2016 

ECS Final Rule, and the applicable 

screening criteria. 

TABLE II.3—PUMPS TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS SCREENED FROM THE JANUARY 2016 ECS FINAL RULE

Screened technology option 

EPCA criteria 

Technological 

feasibility 

Practicability to 

manufacture, 

install, and 

service 

Adverse impact 

on product utility 

or availability 

Adverse impacts 

on health and 

safety 

Other reasons 

for not 

considering the 

technology 

Improved surface finish on wetted components—smoothing operations ....................... ............................ X ............................ ............................ X* 

Improved surface finish on wetted components—coating or plating ............................. ............................ ............................ X ............................ X* 

Improved surface finish on wetted components—casting .............................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ X†† 

Reduced running clearances ........................... X ............................ ............................ ............................ X†, X†† 

Reduced mechanical friction in seals .............. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ X†, X* 

Reduction of other volumetric losses .............. ............................ ............................ X ............................ ............................

Addition of variable speed drive ...................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ X* 

Improvement of VSD efficiency ....................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ X* 

Reduced VSD standby and off mode power 

usage ............................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ X* 

* DOE screened out these technology options because they were not applicable to the equipment for which standards were being considered 

or did not significantly improve efficiency across the entire scope of each equipment class. 

† DOE screened out these technology options because they did not significantly improve efficiency. 

†† DOE screened out these technology options because efficiency improvements from these technologies degrade quickly. 

Ultimately, hydraulic redesign was 

the only design option incorporated into 

the January 2016 ECS Final Rule 

engineering analysis. 81 FR 4368, 4385. 

Hydraulic redesign is a broad term used 

to describe the system design of a bare 

pump’s wetted components. Although 

hydraulic redesign focuses on the 

specific hydraulic characteristics of the 

impeller and the volute/casing, it also 

includes design choices related to 

clearances, seals, and other volumetric 

losses.17

Issue 6: DOE seeks comment on if 

there are additional technology options 

that were not considered during the 

January 2016 ECS Final Rule that may 

have a significant potential for 

improving pump energy use beyond 

hydraulic redesign. Additionally, DOE 

requests feedback on whether, and if so, 

how, technologically feasible design 

options might vary by equipment class. 

DOE also seeks comment on how any of 

the listed technologies in Table II.3 may 

have changed since the January 2016 

ECS Final Rule. Specifically, DOE is 

interested in data that support whether 

DOE should continue to screen-out the 

technologies listed in Table II.3 from its 

engineering analysis. 

2. Representative Units 

In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, 

DOE identified representative 

configurations that were based on 

typical product offerings for each of the 

five equipment classes. 81 FR 4368, 

4385. For the ESCC, ESFM, and IL 

equipment classes, the representative 

configuration was a pump fitted with a 

cast bronze impeller, a cast-iron volute 

and a mechanical seal. Id. For RSV and 

ST equipment classes, the 

representative configuration was a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 43435 

18Section II of Appendix A prescribes how to 

compare a tested pump to the standard minimally 

compliant bare pump for each equipment class. 

19Council of the European Union. 2012. 

Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2012 of 25 

June 2012 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of 

the European Parliament and of the Council with 

regard to ecodesign requirements for water pumps. 

Official Journal of the European Union. L 165, 26 

June 2012, pp. 28–36. 

20See Section 5.8.1 of Chapter 5 of the TSD for 

the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. Docket EERE– 

2011–BT–STD–0031–0056 p. 5–13. 

21As described in sections II.E and II.B of 

Appendix A. 

22See Section 3 of Chapter 3.6 of the TSD for the 

January 2016 ECS Final Rule. Docket EERE–2011– 

BT–STD–0031–0056 p. 5–13. 

pump fitted with sheet metal-based 

fabricated stainless-steel impeller(s), 

and sheet metal-based fabricated 

stainless-steel casing and internal static 

components. Id. DOE is aware that 

many manufacturers redesigned their 

pump models in order to meet the 

standards set forth in the January 2016 

ECS Final Rule (see discussion in 

Section II.B). 

Issue 7: DOE seeks comment on 

whether the representative 

configurations used in the January 2016 

ECS Final Rule analysis for ESCC, 

ESFM, and IL pump impeller, volute 

and mechanical seal, and for RSV and 

ST impeller and bowl/casing continue 

to provide an accurate representation of 

the current market. 

3. Efficiency Levels 

DOE uses a standardized, minimally 

compliant bare pump, inclusive of a 

minimally compliant motor, as a 

reference pump. The efficiency of the 

minimally compliant pump is defined 

as a function of certain physical 

properties of the bare pump, such as 

flow at BEP and specific speed.18

Section II.B.1.1.1 of Appendix A. The 

terms in the efficiency model (i.e., BEP 

flow rate at full impeller diameter and 

nominal speed of rotation, specific 

speed) can be measured or calculated 

using the physical properties of the 

pump, except for the ‘‘C-value’’. The ‘‘Cvalue’’ is a constant based on the speed 

of rotation and equipment category of 

the pump model. 81 FR 4368, 4377– 

4378. 

This pump hydraulic efficiency 

model is an adaptation of the European 

Union’s (‘‘EU’’) model equation,19

modified to use United States customary 

units and 60 Hz electrical input power. 

81 FR 4368, 4377. DOE defined pump 

efficiency levels using efficiency 

percentile ranges. Id. As an example, at 

the 25th percentile, 25 percent of pump 

models are less efficient than the 

defined efficiency model.20

The C-values specified in 10 CFR 

431.465 correspond to the lower 25th 

percentile of efficiency for the ESCC, 

ESFM and IL equipment classes. 81 FR 

4368, 4370. For the ST equipment 

classes, C-values for pumps at 3600 rpm 

correspond to the lower 25th percentile 

of efficiency, while C-values for pumps 

at 1800 rpm represent the baseline 

efficiency evaluated for the January 

2016 ECS Final Rule. Id. Due to a lack 

of available data for ST pumps at 1800 

rpm, DOE used data from the ST 3600 

rpm analysis to set the C-value standard 

for ST pumps at 1800 rpm. 81 FR 4368, 

4382. Ultimately, the standard for ST 

pumps at 1800 rpm was set to the 

baseline efficiency C-value established 

for ST pumps at 3600 rpm. Id. Because 

of a lack of available data for all RSV 

pumps, DOE harmonized the C-values 

for the RSV equipment classes with the 

EU 40th percentile value. 81 FR 4368, 

4370. 

Issue 8: DOE requests data for all 

pump equipment classes that would 

enable DOE to conduct an efficiency 

level analysis similar to that conducted 

for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. To 

the extent available, DOE requests data 

grouped by equipment class and shaft 

power, and that includes pump energy 

rating (‘‘PER’’), pump hydraulic 

efficiency at BEP, specific speed at 60 

Hz, and the BEP flow rate at full 

impeller diameter and nominal speed of 

rotation. If these data are not available, 

DOE requests test data that would allow 

for the calculation of these values 

according to Appendix A (e.g., pump 

hydraulic efficiency at BEP can be 

calculated from bare pump PER at 

constant load, bare pump hydraulic 

output power and part load motor losses 

at 75 percent, 100 percent, and 110 

percent of BEP flow 21). 

In its analysis supporting the January 

2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE assigned the 

max-tech efficiency level as the 

maximum available efficiency already 

offered in the marketplace. DOE 

established a max-tech level at the 70th 

efficiency percentile for all equipment 

classes. 81 FR 4368, 4386. At this maxtech level there were existing pumps 

available in the market that met this 

level for all shaft powers between 1 and 

200 hp. 81 FR 4368, 4386. However, the 

opportunity for efficiency improvement 

is not equal across the entire range of 

shaft powers, specifically, DOE’s 

analysis supporting the January 2016 

ECS Final Rule indicated that 

application of the design options listed 

in Table II.2 resulted in greater 

efficiency improvement for smaller 

pumps compared to larger pumps.22

Issue 9: DOE requests information on 

whether conducting a max-tech analysis 

based on size (for example, developing 

small and large shaft power 

designations) or specific speed would be 

more representative of the pumps 

market and provide an opportunity for 

additional energy savings. 

D. Economic Justification 

In determining whether a proposed 

energy conservation standard is 

economically justified, DOE analyzes, 

among other things, the potential 

economic impact on consumers, 

manufacturers, and the Nation. DOE 

seeks comment on whether there are 

economic barriers to the adoption of 

more-stringent energy conservation 

standards. DOE also seeks comment and 

data on any aspects of its economic 

justification analysis from the January 

2016 ECS Final Rule that may indicate 

whether a more-stringent energy 

conservation standard would be 

economically justified or cost effective. 

While DOE’s request for information 

is not limited to the following issues, 

DOE is particularly interested in 

comment, information, and data on the 

following. 

1. Distribution Channels 

In generating end-user price inputs for 

the LCC analysis and the National 

Impacts Analysis (‘‘NIA’’), DOE 

identified distribution channels (i.e., 

how the equipment are distributed from 

the manufacturer to the consumer), and 

estimated relative sales volumes 

through each channel. Table II.5 

presents the distribution channels 

identified by the CIP working group 

with their corresponding share of total 

pump sales that were used in the 

January 2016 ECS Final Rule analysis. 

81 FR 4368, 4389. 

TABLE II.5—DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS

MARKET SHARES FOR PUMPS

Distribution channel 

Percentage of 

total pump 

sales 

(%) 

Manufacturer to distributor to 

contractor to end-user ....... 70 

Manufacturer to distributor to 

end-users .......................... 17 

Manufacturer to original 

equipment manufacturer to 

end-users .......................... 8 

Manufacturer to end-users ... 2 

Manufacturer to contractor to 

end-users .......................... 1 

Other ..................................... 2 

Issue 10: DOE seeks input on whether 

the distribution channels described, and 

the percentage of shipments in each 

channel, as shown in Table II.5, reflect 

the current market. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
43436 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

23See Section 8.3.2.5 of Chapter 8 of the TSD for 

the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. Docket EERE– 

2011–BT–STD–0031–0056 p. 5–13. 

2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule 

analysis, DOE conducted a LCC and 

payback period (‘‘PBP’’) analysis to 

estimate the economic impacts of 

potential new standards on individual 

consumers of pump equipment. The 

analysis included, among others, the 

inputs further elaborated below. 

a. Installation, Repair and Maintenance 

Costs 

In generating end-user price inputs for 

the LCC analysis and NIA in the January 

2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE assumed that 

installation, maintenance, and repair 

costs remain identical across efficiency 

levels. With the market efficiency 

moving beyond what was projected in 

the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, there 

may be additional or different data 

available to represent the relationship 

between installation, repair, and 

maintenance costs and efficiency. 

Issue 11: DOE requests feedback and 

data on whether installation costs at 

higher efficiency levels differ in 

comparison to baseline installation 

costs. To the extent that these costs 

differ, DOE seeks supporting data and 

the reasons for those differences. 

Issue 12: DOE requests feedback and 

data on whether repair and maintenance 

costs at higher efficiency levels differ in 

comparison to repair and maintenance 

costs at baseline levels, respectively, 

both in terms of value and frequency of 

occurrence during the equipment 

lifetime. To the extent that these costs 

differ, DOE seeks supporting data and 

the reasons for those differences. 

b. Equipment Lifetimes 

The lifetime energy use of a pump is 

calculated as the annual energy use 

multiplied by the equipment economic 

lifetime. DOE considers economic 

lifetime, also called service lifetime, as 

the total number of years that the 

equipment is in service (from initial 

equipment installation until its final 

retirement), and the mechanical 

lifetime, as the total number of 

operating hours from initial equipment 

installation until its final retirement. In 

the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE 

estimated the pump equipment lifetimes 

to range between 4 and 40 years, with 

an average lifetime of 15 years across all 

equipment classes, based on estimates 

from market experts and input from the 

CIP working group. The analysis 

conducted for the January 2016 ECS 

Final Rule used Weibull lifetime 

distribution per equipment class, and 

included variability by pump rotation 

speed, and lifetime extensions through 

repairs.23

Issue 13: DOE requests comment and 

data on whether any market and 

technology changes since the January 

2016 ECS Final Rule would affect its 

equipment lifetime estimates for pumps 

for which DOE currently has standards, 

and if so, how. DOE additionally 

requests equipment lifetime data for any 

pump types discussed through Section 

II.A that are not currently subject to 

energy conservation standards. 

III. Submission of Comments 

DOE invites all interested parties to 

submit in writing by the date under the 

DATES heading, comments and 

information on matters addressed in this 

notification and on other matters 

relevant to DOE’s early assessment of 

whether more-stringent energy 

conservation standards are warranted 

for pumps. 

Submitting comments via https://

www.regulations.gov. The https://

www.regulations.gov web page requires 

you to provide your name and contact 

information. Your contact information 

will be viewable to DOE Building 

Technologies staff only. Your contact 

information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. If 

this instruction is followed, persons 

viewing comments will see only first 

and last names, organization names, 

correspondence containing comments, 

and any documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit information for which 

disclosure is restricted by statute, such 

as trade secrets and commercial or 

financial information (hereinafter 

referred to as Confidential Business 

Information (CBI)) to https://

www.regulations.gov. Comments 

submitted through https://

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will not be protected under CBI. 

For information on submitting CBI, see 

the Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through https://www.regulations.gov 

before posting. Normally, comments 

will be posted within a few days of 

being submitted. However, if large 

volumes of comments are being 

processed simultaneously, your 

comment may not be viewable for up to 

several weeks. Please keep the comment 

tracking number that is generated 

through https://www.regulations.gov 

after you have successfully uploaded 

your comment. 

Submitting comments via email. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email also will be posted to https:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. Faxes 

will not be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide only unsecured 

documents in English, and free of any 

defects or viruses. Documents should 

not contain special characters or any 

form of encryption and, if possible, they 

should carry the electronic signature of 

the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 43437 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

DOE considers public participation to 

be a very important part of the process 

for developing test procedures and 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

actively encourages the participation 

and interaction of the public during the 

comment period in each stage of this 

process. Interactions with and between 

members of the public provide a 

balanced discussion of the issues and 

assist DOE in the process. Anyone who 

wishes to be added to the DOE mailing 

list to receive future notices and 

information about this process should 

contact Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or via email at 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on August 2, 2021, 

by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, pursuant to 

delegated authority from the Secretary 

of Energy. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on August 4, 

2021. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16936 Filed 8–6–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2021–0621; Project 

Identifier MCAI–2020–01517–T] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly 

Known as Construcciones 

Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to 

supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

2018–25–16, which applies to certain 

Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model 

CN–235, CN–235–200, and CN–235–300 

airplanes. AD 2018–25–16 requires 

revising the existing maintenance or 

inspection program, as applicable, to 

incorporate new or more restrictive 

airworthiness limitations. Since the 

FAA issued AD 2018–25–16, the FAA 

has determined that additional new or 

more restrictive airworthiness 

limitations, including inspections for 

discrepancies (cracking) of certain 

structural elements, are necessary. This 

proposed AD would require revising the 

existing maintenance or inspection 

program, as applicable, to incorporate 

new or more restrictive airworthiness 

limitations, and repetitive inspections 

for discrepancies (cracking) of certain 

structural elements and corrective 

actions, as specified in a European 

Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) 

AD, which is proposed for incorporation 

by reference. The FAA is proposing this 

AD to address the unsafe condition on 

these products. 

DATES: The FAA must receive comments 

on this proposed AD by September 23, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For EASA material that will be 

incorporated by reference (IBR) in this 

AD, contact EASA, Konrad-AdenauerUfer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; 

telephone +49 221 8999 000; email 

ADs@easa.europa.eu; internet 

www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this 

IBR material on the EASA website at 

https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may 

view this IBR material at the FAA, 

Airworthiness Products Section, 

Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 

216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. 

It is also available in the AD docket on 

the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2021– 

0621. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2021– 

0621; or in person at Docket Operations 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The AD docket contains this NPRM, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The street address for 

Docket Operations is listed above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace 

Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, 

International Validation Branch, FAA, 

2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 

98198; telephone and fax 206–231– 

3220; email shahram.daneshmandi@

faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites you to send any 

written relevant data, views, or 

arguments about this proposal. Send 

your comments to an address listed 

under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2021–0621; Project Identifier 

MCAI–2020–01517–T’’ at the beginning 

of your comments. The most helpful 

comments reference a specific portion of 

the proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. The FAA will consider 

all comments received by the closing 

date and may amend the proposal 

because of those comments. 

Except for Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) as described in the 

following paragraph, and other 

information as described in 14 CFR 

11.35, the FAA will post all comments 

received, without change, to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. The 

agency will also post a report 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1