Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial and Industrial Pumps

Federal RegisterMar 24, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032]

RIN 1904-AE53

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial and Industrial Pumps

AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule amends the test procedure for commercial and industrial pumps (“pumps”) to incorporate by reference relevant portions of the latest version of the industry testing standard, expands the scope of clean water pumps covered by this test procedure, revises calculation methods for pumps sold with motors and controls to better represent field energy use, adds and updates certain definitions, and allows the use of alternative efficiency determination methods for the rating and certification of pumps.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is April 24, 2023. The amendments will be mandatory for product testing starting September 20, 2023.

The incorporation by reference of certain materials listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on April 24, 2023. The incorporation by reference of certain other materials listed in this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on January 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The docket, which includes

Federal Register

notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, 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, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure.

A link to 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.

For further information on how to review the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

Mr. Nolan Brickwood, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4498. Email:

Nolan.Brickwood@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DOE incorporates by reference the following industry standards into part 431:

HI 40.6-2021, “Methods For Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing”;

ANSI/HI 9.6.1-2017, “Rotodynamic Pumps Guideline for NPSH Margin”;

ANSI/HI 9.6.6-2016, “Rotodynamic Pumps for Pump Piping”;

ANSI/HI 9.8-2018, “Rotodynamic Pumps for Pump Intake Design”;

ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2-2019, “Rotodynamic Pumps for Nomenclature and Definitions”;

HI Engineering Data Book—Second Edition;

Copies of HI 40.6-2021, ANSI/HI 9.6.1-2017, ANSI/HI 9.6.6-2016, ANSI/HI 9.8-2018, ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2-2019, and the HI Engineering Data Book—Second Edition, can be obtained from the Hydraulics Institute (HI), 300 Interpace Parkway, 3rd Bldg. A Floor, Parsippany, NJ 07054, (973) 267-9700, or online at:

www.Pumps.org.

ANSI/ASME MFC-5M-1985 (Reaffirmed 2006), “Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits Using Transit-Time Ultrasonic Flowmeters” (“ANSI/ASME MFC-5M-1985”);

ASME MFC-3M-2004 (Reaffirmed 2017), “Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi” (“ASME MFC-3M-2004”);

ASME MFC-8M-2001 (Reaffirmed 2011), “Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits: Connections for Pressure Signal Transmissions Between Primary and Secondary Devices”;

ASME MFC-12M-2006 (Reaffirmed 2014), “Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Elements” (“ASME MFC-12M-2006”);

ASME MFC-16-2014, “Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits with Electromagnetic Flowmeters”;

ASME MFC-22-2007 (Reaffirmed 2014), “Measurement of Liquid by Turbine Flowmeters” (“ASME MFC-22-2007”);

Copies of ANSI/ASME MFC-5M-1985, ASME MFC-3M-2004, ASME MFC-8M-2001, ASME MFC-12M-2006, ASME MFC-16-2014, and ASME MFC-22-2007 can be obtained from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Two Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990, (800) 843-2763, or online at:

www.asme.org.

ANSI/AWWA E103-2015, “Horizontal and Vertical Line-Shaft Pumps” (“AWWA E103-2015”);

Copies of AWWA E103-2015 can be obtained from the American Water Works Association (AWWA), 6666 W Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235, (303) 794-7711, or online at:

www.awwa.org.

CSA C390-10, “Test methods, marking requirements, and energy efficiency levels for three-phase induction motors”;

Copies of CSA C390-10 can be obtained from the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 178 Rexdale Blvd., Toronto, ON, Canada M9W 1R3, (800) 463-6727, or online at

www.csagroup.org.

IEEE 112-2017, “IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators”;

IEEE 114-2010, “IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Single-Phase Induction Motors”;

Copies of IEEE 112-2017 and IEEE 114-2010 can be obtained from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141, (732) 981-0060, or online at

standards.ieee.org.

ISO 1438:2017(E), “Hydrometry—Open channel flow measurement using thin-plate weirs” (“ISO 1438:2017”);

ISO 2186:2007(E), “Fluid flow in closed conduits—Connections for pressure signal transmissions between primary and secondary elements” (“ISO 2186:2007”);

ISO 2715:2017(E), “Liquid hydrocarbons—Volumetric measurement by turbine flowmeter” (“ISO 2715:2017”);

ISO 3354:2008(E), “Measurement of clean water flow in closed conduits—Velocity-area method using current-meters in full conduits and under regular flow conditions” (“ISO 3354:2008”);

ISO 3966:2020(E), “Measurement of fluid flow in closed conduits—Velocity area method using Pitot static tubes” (“ISO 3996:2020”);

ISO 5167-1:2003(E), “Measurement of fluid flow by means of pressure differential devices inserted in circular cross-section conduits running full—Part 1: General

principles and requirements” (“ISO 5167-1:2003”);

ISO 5198:1987(E), “Centrifugal, mixed flow and axial pumps—Code for hydraulic performance tests—Precision class” (“ISO 5198:1987”);

ISO 6416:2017(E), “Hydrometry—Measurement of discharge by the ultrasonic transit time (time of flight) method” (“ISO 6416:2017”);

ISO 20456:2017(E), “Measurement of fluid flow in closed conduits—Guidance for the use of electromagnetic flowmeters for conductive liquids” (“ISO 20456:2017”);

Copies of ISO 1438:2017, ISO 2186:2007, ISO 2715:2017, ISO 3354:2008, ISO 3966:2020, ISO 5167-1:2003, ISO 5198:1987, ISO 6416:2017, and ISO 20456:2017 can be obtained from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland, +41 22 749 01 11, or online at:

www.iso.org.

For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.N of this document.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

B. Background

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

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

4. Scope Limitations

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

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. Amendments to Test Method

1. Nominal Speed

2. Testing of Multi-Stage Pumps

3. Load Profile

4. Pumps With BEP at Run-Out

5. Calibration of Measurement Equipment

6. Calculations and Rounding

F. Calculation-Based and Testing-Based Options According to Pump Configuration (Table 1 of Appendix A)

1. Hybrid Mapping Approach

2. Calculation Method for Pumps Sold With Induction Motors and Controls

3. Calculation Method for Pumps Sold With Inverter-Only Motors (With or Without Controls)

4. Pumps Sold With Submersible Motors

G. Test Procedure for SVIL Pumps

1. Applicable Motor Regulations

2. SVIL Paired With Motors Less Than 0.25 Horsepower

3. SVIL Paired With Other Motors Not Covered by DOE Regulations

4. Part-Load Loss Curves

H. Test Procedure for Other Expanded Scope Pumps

1. Testing Other Expanded Scope Pumps to HI 40.6

2. Testing Other Expanded Scope Pumps With Motors

I. Sampling Plan, AEDMs, Enforcement Provisions, and Basic Model

1. Sampling Plan for Determining Represented Values

2. Alternative Efficiency Determination Methods

3. Enforcement Provisions

4. Basic Model Definition

J. Representations of Energy Use and Energy Efficiency

K. Test Procedure Costs and Harmonization

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact

2. Harmonization With Industry Standards

L. 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. Congressional Notification

N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

V. 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 the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) DOE's energy conservation standards and test procedures for pumps are currently prescribed at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), § 431.464, and 10 CFR part 431 subpart Y appendix A (“appendix A”). The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test procedures for pumps and relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this equipment.

A. Authority

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”),

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,

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))

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.

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-1.

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. 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; 42 U.S.C. 6296).

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(b)(2)(D).

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 (as determined by the Secretary) 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. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)

In addition, if the Secretary determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, the Secretary must publish proposed test procedures in the

Federal Register

, and afford interested persons an opportunity (of not less than 45 days' duration) to present oral and written data, views, and arguments on the proposed test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)). If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not to amend the test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii))

DOE is publishing this final rule in satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)(1))

B. Background

DOE established its test procedure for pumps in a final rule published on January 25, 2016. 81 FR 4086 (“January 2016 Final Rule”).

The January 2016 Final Rule established definitions for the terms “pump,”

“driver,”

and “controls,”

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.

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.

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. (10 CFR 431.462)

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)

A “control” is used to operate a driver. (10 CFR 431.462)

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 pumps. 85 FR 60734 (“September 2020 Early Assessment RFI”). DOE subsequently published an RFI on April 16, 2021 seeking further data and information pertaining to the test procedure for pumps. 86 FR 20075 (“April 2021 RFI”). On April 11, 2022, DOE published a test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking presenting DOE's proposals to amend the pumps test procedure. 87 FR 21268 (“April 2022 NOPR”). DOE held a public meeting related to the April 2022 NOPR on April 26, 2022 (“NOPR public meeting”).

DOE received comments in response to the April 2022 NOPR from the interested parties listed in Table I.1.

Table I.1—List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the April 2022 NOPR

Commenter(s)

Reference in this final rule

Comment No. in the docket

Commenter type

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural Resources Defense Council

Efficiency Advocates

Efficiency Organizations.

ebm-pabst, Inc

ebm-pabst

n/a

Motor Manufacturer.

Grundfos Americas Corporation

Grundfos

Manufacturer.

Hydraulic Institute

Trade Association.

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

NEEA

Efficiency Organization.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison; collectively, the California Investor-Owned Utilities

CA IOUs

Utilities.

People's Republic of China

China

Country.

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.

To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided during the NOPR public meeting, DOE cites the written comments throughout this final rule. Any oral comments provided during the webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments are summarized and cited separately throughout this final rule.

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

). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

In this final rule, DOE amends §§ 431.462, 431.463, 431.464, and appendix A as follows:

(1) Expand the scope of the test procedure to include additional clean water pumps, specifically radially-split, multi-stage, horizontal (“RSH”) pumps; radially-split, multi-stage, horizontal in-line diffuser casing (“RSHIL”) pumps; radially-split, multi-stage, horizontal, end-suction diffuser casing (“RSHES”) pumps; small vertical in-line (“SVIL”) pumps; vertical turbine (“VT”) pumps; pumps sold with 6-pole induction motors or motors with design speeds greater than or equal to 960 rpm and less than 1,440 rpm; and end-suction pumps not covered by the current test procedure;

(2) Clarify the applicability of the design temperature range and modify the range parameters;

(3) Add and modify certain definitions in 10 CFR 431.462 to accommodate the expansion of the test procedure's scope and to clarify existing definitions;

(4) Incorporate by reference HI 40.6-2021 into 10 CFR 431.463 and remove language in the DOE test procedure that is redundant with HI 40.6-2021;

(5) Clarify certain test provisions for pumps with BEP at run-out;

(6) Update part-load loss factor equation coefficients in the calculation method for pumps sold with induction motors and controls;

(7) Provide a calculation method for pumps sold with inverter-only motors;

(8) Update the test procedure for submersible pumps to address DOE's coverage of submersible motors;

(9) Add provisions for testing and rating RSH, SVIL, VT pumps, and pumps sold with a 6-pole induction motors or with design speeds greater than or equal to 960 rpm and less than 1,440 rpm; and

(10) Allow use of alternative efficiency determination methods (“AEDMs”).

The adopted amendments are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the current test procedure provision prior to the amendment, as well as the reason for the adopted change.

Table II.1—Summary of Changes in the Amended Test Procedure

DOE test procedure prior to amendment

Amended test procedure

Attribution

Does not include in the scope of the test procedure RSHIL, RSHES, SVIL, or VT pumps; pumps distributed in commerce with nominal speeds of 1,200 rpm; or all end-suction pumps

Includes in the scope of the test procedure RSHIL, RSHES, SVIL, and VT pumps; pumps distributed in commerce with nominal speeds of 1,200 rpm; and all end-suction pumps

Improved representativeness.

Includes a scope limitation of a design temperature range from 14 to 248 °F

Specifies a scope limitation of a pump whose design temperature range falls wholly or partially into the range from 15 to 250 °F

Improved clarity and enforceability.

Includes definitions for pump categories within the current scope of the test procedure

Includes definitions for additional pump categories and clarifications to the definitions for some existing pump categories

Required for scope expansion; improved enforceability.

Incorporates by reference HI 40.6-2014 for determining the constant load pump energy index (“PEI

”) and the variable load pump energy index (“PEI

”) value of pumps

Incorporates by reference HI 40.6-2021 for determining the PEI

and the PEI

value of pumps

Updates to applicable industry test standard.

Provides example pump categories for certain pump definitions by referencing ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 and ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014

Removes example pump categories from all relevant definitions

Simplification of the test procedure.

References ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 to define “intermediate bowl” within the definition for bowl diameter

Incorporates a definition for “intermediate bowl” in the definition for bowl diameter, removing the reference to ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014

Simplification of the test procedure.

Does not include test provisions for multistage pumps other than RSV and ST

Includes specifications for stages for testing for RSHIL, RSHES, and VT pumps

Required for scope expansion.

Includes provisions for pumps with BEP at run-out

Clarifies provisions for pumps with BEP at run-out

Improved repeatability and reproducibility.

References a section of HI 40.6-2014 related to calibration of measurement equipment

Clarifies the applicable test provisions in HI 40.6-2021 for calibration of measurement equipment

Improved repeatability and reproducibility.

Includes a calculation method for pumps sold with induction motors and controls

Includes revised part-load loss factor equation coefficients for motors 50 hp and above

Improved representativeness.

Does not provide a calculation method for pumps sold with inverter-only motors

Provides a calculation method for pumps sold with inverter-only motors

Reduced burden.

Includes test provisions specific to submersible pumps based on default motor efficiency

Includes test provisions specific to submersible pumps based on DOE's coverage of submersible motors

Allows for seamless update if or when DOE finalizes submersible motor coverage.

Does not include test provisions specific to SVILs

Includes test provisions specific to SVILs

Required for scope expansion.

Does not include provisions for testing pumps distributed in commerce with 6-pole motors or motors with design speeds greater than or equal to 960 rpm and less than 1,440 rpm

Includes provisions for testing pumps sold with 6-pole motors or motors with design speeds greater than or equal to 960 rpm and less than 1,440 rpm

Improved representativeness.

Does not allow use of AEDMs

Allows use of AEDMs

Reduced burden.

DOE has determined that the amendments described in section III of this final rule 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 amendments to the test procedures. Additionally, DOE has determined that the amendments would not increase the cost of testing for these pumps.

DOE is updating the induction motor coefficients (see section III.F.2 of this document) which will change the calculated rating for pumps sold with induction motors. However, DOE expects the updated calculations will provide a PEI equal to or less than that determined using the current induction motor coefficients. Since the pump would be considered more efficient, manufacturers would not have to recertify their basic models, although they could voluntarily choose to do so. As such, DOE has determined that the updated induction motor coefficients will not increase manufacturer burden.

For pumps that are not currently within the scope of the test procedure but are subject to the expansion of scope adopted by this final rule, use of the DOE test procedure as amended by this final rule is not required until the compliance date of any energy conservation standards that DOE may ultimately establish for such pumps as part of a separate rulemaking assessing the technological feasibility and economic justification for such standards.

The effective date for the amended test procedures adopted in this final rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the

Federal Register

. Representations of energy use or energy efficiency must be based on testing in accordance with the amended test procedures beginning 180 days after the publication of this final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d))

Discussion of DOE's actions are addressed in detail in section III of this final rule.

III. Discussion

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

of pumps. 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1).

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 °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.

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.

More specifically, these characteristics include: (A) flow rate of 25 gallons per minute or greater at best efficiency point (“BEP”) and full impeller diameter; (B) maximum head of 459 feet at BEP and full impeller diameter and the number of stages required for testing; (C) design temperature range from 14 to 248 °F; (D) designed to operate with either (1) a 2- or 4-pole induction motor, or (2) a non-induction motor with a speed of rotation operating range that includes speeds of rotation between 2,880 and 4,320 revolutions per minute (“rpm”) and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, and in either case, the driver and impeller must rotate at the same speed; (E) For ST pumps, a 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter; and (F) For ESCC and ESFM pumps, a specific speed less than or equal to 5,000 when calculated using U.S. customary units. 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(ii).

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed expanding the test procedure scope to include BB, RSH, RSHIL, RSHES, SVIL, and VT pumps, as well as pumps sold with 6-pole induction motors or motors with design speeds between 960 rpm and 1,440 rpm; ST pumps with bowl diameters greater than 6 inches; and end-suction pumps not covered by the current test procedure. 87 FR 21268, 21272.

The CA IOUs, Efficiency Advocates, and NEEA supported DOE's proposal to expand the test procedure scope to include additional pumps. (NEEA, No. 34 at p. 2; Efficiency Advocates, No. 30 at pp. 1-3; CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 1) NEEA commented that sales reported to its commercial and industrial pumps efficiency program indicated these pumps should be included in the scope of the test procedure and that this would avoid pumps outside the scope from competing with regulated pumps without the costs of complying with the efficiency standards and labeling requirements. (NEEA, No. 34 at p. 2)

HI stated that the proposed scope expansion could be tested to HI 40.6-2021 but commented that DOE should consider the benefits of including larger pumps, since these pumps are often sold in much smaller volumes and the capital and manufacturing impacts will be disproportionate compared to energy savings for the current scope. (HI, No. 33 at p. 1) HI also stated that these larger pumps may require different testing infrastructure and instrumentation and that this would require substantial capital investment for testing.

Id.

DOE addresses HI's comments in the following sections relative to specific pump categories. The following sections also provide additional information and responses to stakeholder comments specific to the pumps that DOE considered for inclusion in the test procedure scope.

1. Pumps Not Designed for Clean Water Applications

The scope of the current DOE test procedure, as described previously, does not include either chemical process or 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 the April 2022 NOPR, in response to comments received on the April 2021 RFI, DOE explained that although certain non-clean water pumps may be used in clean water applications, DOE expects the number of non-clean water pumps used in the clean water applications to be relatively small. 87 FR 21268, 21275. DOE noted that the relevant industry standards do not provide requirements for testing pumps designed for non-clean water applications.

Id.

To test non-clean water pumps, DOE would need to reference or develop an alternate test procedure.

Id.

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.

Id.

Additionally, DOE noted that non-clean water pumps, specifically wastewater pumps, must meet specific performance requirements to ensure the health of the U.S. population. 87 FR 21268, 21275. 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.

Id.

As such, additional investigation would be 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).

Id.

DOE noted 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

and PEI

VL,

there would be limited use of the test procedure without corresponding standards.

Id.

Therefore, in the April 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined to continue to limit the applicability of the test procedure to clean water pumps.

Id.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, NEEA requested that DOE add ASME B73

compliant pumps in the clean water definition. (NEEA, No. 34 at p. 2-4) NEEA explained that pumps that meet the requirements of ANSI/ASME Standard B73.1-2012 or ANSI/ASME B73.2-2002 are often used in pumping clean water.

Id.

NEEA further stated that these pumps are often advertised as serving clean water functions and have been certified for that end use—some for drinking water components. Since these pumps overlap and compete directly with covered pumps in clean water applications, NEEA argued that they potentially create a compliance loophole.

Id.

NEEA suggested that DOE no longer consider ASME B73 certified pumps to be excluded from the clean water definition and clarified that they did not believe DOE would need to change the current or proposed scope of pumps to do so. (NEEA, No. 34 at p. 4) NEEA stated that ending the exclusion was sufficient, and that in doing so DOE would only be including those ASME B73 certified pumps that advertise as clean water pumps and compete directly with clean water pumps.

Id.

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.

In response to NEEA, any pump designed for non-clean water applications would also be capable of pumping clean water. However, DOE notes that the definition of clean water pump specifies that the pump is

designed for use

in pumping [clean water] (emphasis added).

See

10 CFR 431.462. DOE further notes that the ASME B73 pumps have additional design requirements for maximum shaft deflections, bearing frame lubrication, sealing, and vibration limits because they are designed for use in chemical process applications.

Because of the additional design requirements applicable to ASME B73 pumps, it is unlikely that a manufacturer of clean water pumps would certify to ASME B73 as a way to avoid DOE energy conservation standards. DOE market research indicates that the prices of ASME B73 pumps are typically substantially higher than the clean water pumps that are included in this rulemaking, presumably due to these additional design requirements. Therefore, DOE does not expect end users to specifically purchase ASME B73 pumps for use as replacements for clean water pumps currently covered by DOE energy conservation standards. Finally, DOE is not aware of ASME B73 pumps being distributed in commerce as substitutes for clean water pumps to any significant degree. Given these considerations, DOE is not amending the definition of clean water pump to specifically include pumps certified under the ASME B73 designation in this rulemaking.

The Efficiency Advocates encouraged DOE to investigate ways to accelerate adoption of variable speed drives (“VSDs”) in nonclean water applications, stating that pumps in chemical and wastewater sectors are estimated to use more than 27 and 17 TWh/yr of electricity respectively. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 30 at p. 4) They cited a 2020 study by NEEA showing that VSDs provided average energy savings of 23 percent and 43 percent for constant- and variable-load clean water pumping applications, respectively.

Id.

The Efficiency Advocates concluded from this study that there are significant potential savings from using VSDs, noting that wastewater flow can vary significantly over time and may benefit especially.

Id.

Efficiency Advocates encouraged DOE to develop the test procedure for VSDs in non-clean water applications in order to facilitate greater market adoption of VSDs in wastewater and chemical process pumps and capture the potential energy-savings benefits.

In response to the Efficiency Advocates, DOE reiterates its discussion in the April 2022 NOPR that DOE expects the number of non-clean water pumps used in the clean water applications to be relatively small; that the scope of HI 40.6-2014, which is currently incorporated by reference into the DOE test procedure, includes clean water pumps only, and that it is unlikely that a clean water and non-clean water test procedure would provide comparable results. 87 FR 21268, 21275. DOE emphasizes that waste water pumps, in particular, are required to pump slurries/solids. DOE is incorporating by reference HI 40.6-2021, which is only applicable to clean water pumps. If DOE were to include waste water and other clean water pumps in its scope of coverage, it would need to evaluate the applicability and repeatability of industry test procedures for these pumps. DOE has not had an opportunity to appropriately evaluate these test procedures or conduct its own testing on non-clean water pumps during this test procedure rulemaking; however, DOE may consider evaluating these pumps in a future rulemaking.

In summary, the scope of the test procedure as amended by this final rule continues to exclude both chemical process and wastewater pumps.

Regarding VSDs, DOE notes that its current test procedure accommodates pumps with variable speed operation by providing calculations for determining variable load PEI (“PEI

”). (

See

Appendix A to subpart Y of part 431.) However, as discussed, DOE is continuing to exclude wastewater pumps from the scope of the test procedure.

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 IL pumps, which are limited to a shaft input power greater than or equal to 1 hp and less than or equal to 200 hp at best efficiency point (“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

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 except 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

or PEI

metric, and (2) SVIL pumps should be tested using the DOE commercial and industrial 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).

BEP is the pump hydraulic power operating point (consisting of both flow and head conditions) that results in the maximum efficiency.

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 is referred to as the “Circulator Pump Working Group”.

In the April 2022 NOPR, consistent with the Circulator Pump Working Group recommendation, DOE proposed to include SVIL pumps in the pump test procedure scope as an extension of IL pumps. 87 FR 21268, 21275-21276. DOE tentatively determined that SVIL pumps can be tested using the current DOE pumps test procedure with certain additional modifications. The metric and test procedure for SVIL pumps are discussed in sections III.D and III.G of this notice. Moreover, DOE stated in the April 2022 NOPR that it expects that including SVIL pumps in the pumps test procedure would reduce confusion over which inline pumps are and are not subject to energy conservation standards.

Id.

DOE requested comment on its proposal to expand the scope of the test procedure to cover SVIL pumps.

HI, NEEA, the CA IOUs, and the Efficiency Advocates agreed with including SVIL pumps in the scope of the test procedure, and Grundfos agreed that SVILs should be an extension of IL pumps. (HI, No. 33 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 34 at p. 4; CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 2; Efficiency Advocates, No. 30 at pp. 2-3; Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 1) Grundfos also commented that it sells a small number of SVIL pumps without a motor, but it does not believe that SVILs sold without motors should be excluded from the regulation. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 4)

Due to the overlap between SVILs and circulators, NEEA and the CA IOUs expressed support for the development of standards to ensure that efficiencies of both are comparable. (NEEA, No. 34 at p. 4; CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 2) NEEA stated their finding that 12 percent of IL pumps (excluding circulator pumps) are less than 1 hp, and that SVILs are therefore an important and overlapping segment of the market. (NEEA, No. 34 at p. 4) NEEA stated that it believes broadening the scope to include SVILs will help to avoid market confusion or gaps in coverage.

Id.

For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in the April 2022 NOPR, DOE is finalizing its proposal to include SVILs in the scope of the test procedure. DOE finalizes a definition for SVIL pumps in section III.B.4 of this document. In response to Grundfos' comment, DOE's finalized test procedure, as discussed in section III.G, incudes methods to test SVILs both with and without motors. DOE will address the development of standards separately in the ongoing pumps energy conservation standards rulemaking.

3. Other Clean Water Pump Categories

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to expand the current test procedure's scope to include additional clean water pumps. 87 FR 21268, 21276-21279. The following sections discuss DOE's consideration of additional pump categories in the scope of the test procedure.

a. Between-Bearing Pumps

Section 1.2.9.2 of ANSI-HI 14.1-14.2-2019 describes between-bearing 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.

Based on a review of the market, BB pumps are generally 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 pumps that are currently included in the scope of the current DOE test procedure.

To address the potential for pumps that provide unregulated alternatives to the pumps currently subject to the DOE test procedure, DOE proposed to include BB pumps within the scope of the DOE test procedure in the April 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 21268, 21277. However, DOE did not propose to expand scope beyond clean water pumps, and did not propose to expand the head or horsepower limitations currently listed in 10 CFR 431.464(1)(ii).

Id.

DOE noted that while many BB pumps exceed the test procedure's head or horsepower limitations, an expansion of the current 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 and most of the larger BB pumps were not designed for clean water.

Id.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, the CA IOUs, the Efficiency Advocates, and Grundfos supported DOE's proposal to expand the test procedure scope to include BB pumps. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 3; Efficiency Advocates, No. 30 at pp. 2-3; Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 1) The CA IOUs commented that BB pumps are high-cost, low-sale pumps and that they anticipate BB pumps will be larger, with motor horsepower of 100 or over. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 3) The CA IOUs also cited industry literature indicating that efficiency can be improved by balancing the impeller forces in BB pumps.

Id.

HI disagreed that BB1

pumps are commercially acceptable replacements for currently regulated pumps due to design and cost considerations. (HI, No. 33 at p. 2) HI stated that the price for a BB1 pump compared to a currently regulated pump would be two times or more.

Id.

Despite supporting DOE's proposal to include BB pumps in the test procedure scope, Grundfos stated that it expects testing these pumps will increase test burden because of their large size, larger motor sizes required for test, and the potential for additional test fixtures. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 1)

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.

Based on stake holder comments, feedback from manufacturer interviews, and additional reviews of product literature, DOE has determined that BB pumps do not serve as replacements for pumps currently covered by the DOE test procedure. For a given load point, a BB pump will be larger, heavier, and more expensive than an equivalent end suction pump. Therefore, it is making it very unlikely that customers would choose to replace a regulated end suction pump with an unregulated BB pump. Additionally, DOE has determined that manufacturers of BB pumps would likely need to build new test stands to test their BB products using the DOE test procedure. DOE notes that because most BB pumps are outside of the DOE test procedure scope, due to their flow and head exceeding the maximum flow and head set by DOE. Therefore, if DOE were to include BB pumps in this test procedure, BB pump manufacturers would need to make substantial capital investments to test and certify a very small number of

pumps. This would result in a test cost per basic model that is as much as 100 times higher than DOE's estimate presented in the April 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 21268, 21309. Test costs are discussed in more detail in section III.K.1. Since customers are not expected to use BB pumps as replacements for end suction pumps and test burden for BB pump manufacturers would be very high relative to the number of pumps tested, DOE has determined that the potential benefits of including BB pumps within the scope of this test procedure are outweighed by the burdens associated with testing and certifying such products. As such, in this final rule DOE is not including BB pumps within the scope of this test procedure.

b. Vertical Turbine Pumps

As discussed in the April 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that ST pumps and VT pumps have similar end uses. 87 FR 21268, 21277. Additionally, DOE tentatively determined that ST and VT pumps have similar bowl and impeller assemblies, and that VT pumps may even share an identical assembly with an ST pump produced by the same manufacturer.

Id.

To address the potential for pumps that provide unregulated alternatives to the pumps currently subject to the DOE test procedure, DOE proposed in the April 2022 NOPR to include VT pumps, with no limit on bowl diameter for inclusion in the DOE test procedure.

Id.

In response to DOE's proposal in the April 2022 NOPR, the Efficiency Advocates expressed support for DOE's scope expansion to cover VT pumps. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 30 at pp. 2-3) The CA IOUs commended DOE for including VT pumps and asserted that regulating equipment used for accessing groundwater in irrigation applications is important because at least 30 percent of the wells in Texas and California use VT pumps. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 2)

HI stated that expanding the test procedure scope to include VT pumps would add a substantial burden for manufacturers who will have to test low-speed and large-diameter pumps. (HI, No. 33 at p. 3) HI continued by stating that these large-diameter VT pumps may be assembled and tested on site, and that manufacturers may or may not have the capacity to test VT pumps in their test facilities.

Id.

DOE is finalizing its proposal to include VT pumps in the pumps test procedure scope. However, DOE is not adopting its proposal to include these pumps without a limit on bowl diameter, and is instead limiting the scope of VT pumps to bowl diameters less than or equal to six inches, consistent with the existing test procedure and energy conservation standards size limitation for ST pumps. HI indicated that expanding bowl diameter to greater than 6 inches for VT and ST pumps may have a significant impact on manufacturer test burden. DOE expects test time and cost for VT pumps with bowl diameters less than or equal to 6 inches is equivalent to that for ST pumps with bowl diameters less than or equal to 6 inches because of the similar physical characteristics and hydraulic properties for these pump classes. DOE's determination to exclude VT and ST pumps with bowl diameters greater than 6 inches is discussed in more detail in section III.A.4.a. of this document.

Based on its review of pump literature and pump schematics, DOE has determined that the current DOE test procedure based on HI 40.6-2021 is applicable to VT pumps and that therefore VT pumps can be easily added to the scope of the DOE test procedure. In addition, including provisions for VT pumps in the DOE test procedure will give consumers the ability to easily compare the efficiency of different VT and ST pump models serving similar applications. Lastly, creating a uniform test procedure and rating method for VT pumps will enable DOE to consider establishing energy conservation standards for these pumps. The definition for VT pumps is discussed in section III.B.6 of this document. DOE addresses the question of test burden in section III.K.1.a. of this document.

c. Radially-Split Multi-Stage Horizontal Pumps

The current DOE test procedure includes RSV pumps, but does not include RSH pumps, which are also multistage pumps used primarily in heating, cooling, and pressure boosting applications.

DOE has surveyed pump and end-product materials and literature available online and has concluded that RSV and RSH pumps are marketed for similar applications, and that RSH pumps could be substituted for RSV pumps and may provide a regulatory loophole to RSV pumps. Additionally, DOE determined that RSH pumps can be tested using the current DOE test procedure. In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to include RSH pumps with both in-line (“RSHIL”) and end-suction (“RSHES”) flow configurations in its test procedure scope. 87 FR 21268, 21278.

In response to the proposal to include RSH pumps in the test procedure scope, Grundfos stated that it agrees with adding RSHES pumps to the scope but requested additional information regarding which products meet the definitions and whether they should be considered under a single pump category. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 2) The Efficiency Advocates supported DOE expanding its test procedure scope to include RSHIL and RSHES configurations. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 30 at pp. 2-3) HI commented that the addition of RSH pumps will add manufacturer test burden. (HI, No. 33 at p. 3)

DOE has determined that the current DOE test procedure based on HI 40.6-2021 is applicable to RSH pumps, and that therefore RSH pumps can be easily added to the scope of the DOE test procedure. In addition, including provisions for RSH pumps in the DOE test procedure will give consumers the ability to easily compare the efficiency of different RSH and RSV pump models. Lastly, creating a uniform test procedure and rating method for RSH pumps will enable DOE to consider establishing energy conservation standards for these pumps. DOE is finalizing its proposal to include RSH pumps, specifically RSHIL and RSHES pumps, in the scope of the DOE test procedure. Definitions for RSH, RSHES, and RSHIL are discussed in section III.B.7 of this document. DOE addresses the question of test burden in section III.K.1.a. of this document.

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 serves 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 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 excluded some end-suction pumps from the test procedure scope.

In the April 2022 NOPR, based on comment responses from the April 2021 RFI and DOE's review of ESCC and ESFM pumps, DOE 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. 87 FR 21268, 21278. Therefore, in the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to ensure that all clean water end-suction pumps are covered by the test procedure by revising the definitions of ESFM and ESCC pumps.

Id.

DOE tentatively determined that no test procedure revisions would be needed to accommodate these additional end-suction pumps.

Id.

In response to DOE's proposal in the April 2022 NOPR, Grundfos and the Efficiency Advocates expressed support for revising the ESFM and ESCC definitions to include additional end-suction pumps. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 2; Efficiency Advocates, No. 30 at pp. 2-3)

For the reasons discussed in the April 2022 NOPR and in the preceding paragraphs, DOE is including all end-suction pumps within the coverage of this test procedure by modifying the definitions of ESFM and ESCC pumps.

e. Line Shaft and Cantilever Pumps

ANSI/HI Standard 14.1-14.2-2019, “American National Standard for Rotodynamic Pumps for Nomenclature and Definitions” (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.

DOE addressed comments on the April 2021 RFI regarding these pumps in the April 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 21268, 21278. DOE discussed that some line shaft pumps may already be within the test procedure scope but are defined as ESFM pumps.

Id.

Additionally, DOE noted that cantilever pumps are primarily designed for non-clean water applications, including liquids and slurries containing large solids.

Id.

DOE did not propose to include line shaft or cantilever pumps in the test procedure scope in the April 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 21268, 21279.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, the Efficiency Advocates further encouraged DOE to consider coverage for both cantilever and line shaft pumps, stating that some of these pumps have similar designs to ESFM and ESCC pumps and some are marketed for pumping clean water. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 30 at pp. 3-4)

DOE notes that most or all clean water line shaft and cantilever pumps are already covered by the ES definition. DOE does not believe there is a significant amount of clean water cantilever and line shaft pumps, as these pumps are primarily designed for non-clean water applications including liquids and slurries that contain large solids. As discussed, DOE is not expanding the scope to include non-clear water pumps.

4. Scope Limitations

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE also proposed to remove bowl diameter limitations for certain pumps, include an additional nominal speed of 1200 rpm, and decrease horsepower requirements for IL pumps. 87 FR 21268, 21279. DOE also proposed to clarify pump design temperature range.

Id.

The following sections summarize each of these topics.

a. Submersible Turbine Pumps With Bowl Diameter Greater Than 6 Inches

As discussed previously, the scope of the current DOE test procedure includes ST pumps with a bowl diameter of 6 inches or smaller. 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(i)(E) and (a)(1)(ii)(E).

DOE proposed in the April 2022 NOPR to include VT pumps within the scope of the DOE test procedure. 87 FR 21268, 21279. DOE did not propose a bowl diameter limitation for VT pumps in the April 2022 NOPR. VT pumps are similar in design to ST pumps and commenters had indicated that the two pump categories can be used in overlapping applications.

Id.

Therefore, to maintain consistency across VT and ST pump categories, DOE also proposed to remove the 6-inch bowl diameter limitation for ST pumps.

Id.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, the CA IOUs and the Efficiency Advocates supported including ST pumps with a bowl diameter greater than six inches. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 3; Efficiency Advocates, No. 30 at p. 3) The CA IOUs also provided supplemental data to support the inclusion of ST pumps with bowl diameters greater than six inches. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 3-5, 7) They found that 21 percent of California wells, and 36 percent of Texas wells had an estimated nominal bowl size between eight and twelve inches.

Id.

at 5.

China recommended that DOE retain the 6-inch maximum bowl diameter restriction for ST pumps to avoid the high cost of testing larger ST pumps. (China, No. 29 at p. 4)

Grundfos stated that all of its products with bowl diameters greater than 6 inches would be excluded from the regulation due to the head limitation (

i.e.,

less than or equal to 459 feet); however, it commented that increasing the maximum bowl diameter would have minimal impact on energy use and suggested that DOE instead evaluate how ST pumps with larger bowl diameters may be evaluated in a future rulemaking. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 2)

HI encouraged DOE to define how bowl size would be determined for a ST pump when the bowl diameter varies among stages. (HI, No. 33 at p. 4) HI also stated that since DOE has proposed to expand the size of ST pumps and include all sizes of VT pumps, DOE should clarify that its scope is limited to a specific speed of 5,000 in U.S. customary units for these pumps. (HI, No. 33 at p. 1) Additionally, HI recommended that DOE update the text in 431.464 (a)(1)(iii)(E) as follows: For ST, VT, ESCC and ESFM pumps, a specific speed less than or equal to 5,000 when calculated using U.S. customary units.

Id.

In response to HI's comment on determining bowl size when bowl diameter varies between stages, DOE clarifies that where bowl diameter varies among stages, the minimum bowl diameter of a ST or VT pump would be considered the appropriate measurement.

Based on additional evaluation and the feedback it received from stakeholders, DOE has determined that manufacturers of VT and ST pumps with bowl diameters larger then 6 inches would likely need to build new test stands to test these products using the DOE test procedure. DOE notes that because many VT and ST pumps with bowl diameters larger then 6 inches are outside of the DOE test procedure scope because their head exceeds the

maximum set by DOE. Therefore, if DOE were to include these pumps in its test procedure, pump manufacturers would need to make substantial capital investments to test and certify a very small number of in-scope pumps. This would result in a test cost per basic model that is as much as 100 times higher than the estimates DOE presented in the April 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 21268, 21309. Test costs are discussed in more details in section III.K.1 of this document. Since test burden for VT and ST pump manufacturers would be very high relative to the number of pumps tested, DOE has determined that the potential benefits of including VT and ST pumps with bowl diameters larger than 6 inches within the scope of this test procedure are outweighed by the burdens associated with testing and certifying such products. Therefore, DOE is maintaining the 6-inch bowl diameter limitation for ST pumps and specifying a maximum bowl diameter of 6 inches for VT pumps in this final rule.

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)(D). 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.

Based on a review of pump performance curves available online, DOE found that unregulated pumps tested with a nominal speed of 1,200 rpm are often part of the same pump families as those pumps that currently fall within the scope of the DOE test procedure.

87 FR 21268, 21279. To ensure equitable treatment among these pumps, DOE proposed in the April 2022 NOPR 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.

Id.

DOE proposed test provisions to accommodate these pumps in the April 2022 NOPR and requested comment on its proposal.

Id.

See

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032-0024

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

960 and 1440 rpm are ±20 percent of 1,200 rpm. The acceptable non-induction motor ranges for 1800 and 3600 rpm pumps are also ±20 percent of the nominal value.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, the CA IOUs and the Efficiency Advocates supported DOE including 6-pole motors. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 3; Efficiency Advocates, No. 30 at p. 3) The CA IOUs stated that 6-pole clean water pumps often have operating ranges that compete with 4-pole pumps. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 3) Grundfos agreed that 6‐pole pumps should be considered but questioned whether doing so would achieve the energy savings that DOE anticipates, and observed that 6-pole pumps have much smaller sales numbers compared to less expensive 4‐pole pumps for a similar duty point. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 5).

After review of stakeholder feedback, and for the reasons discussed above, DOE is extending the scope of this test procedure to cover pumps designed to operate with 6-pole induction motors. DOE may evaluate potential energy savings for these pumps in a future energy conservation standard.

In terms of operating range, Grundfos urged DOE to ensure that the operating ranges for 6-pole and 4-pole pumps designed to operate with non-induction motors are independent from each other. Grundfos additionally recommended setting the maximum operating range for 6‐pole pumps designed to operate with non-induction motors at 1,439 rpm since the lower end of the operating range is 1,440 rpm for 4‐pole pumps designed to operate with non-induction motors. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 2, 5) Similarly, HI recommended that DOE change the maximum operating speed for 6-pole pumps designed to operate with non-induction motors from 1,440 rpm to 1,439 rpm to provide a clear delineation between the operating range for 4-pole pumps designed to operate with non-induction motors (

i.e.,

1,440 rpm to 2,160 rpm). (HI, No. 33 at p. 5)

DOE agrees that the operating ranges for 2-, 4-, and 6-pole pumps designed to operate with a non-induction motor should be separate from each other and not overlap. In consideration of stakeholder feedback, DOE is modifying the maximum operating speed for a 6-pole pump designed to operate with a non-induction motor from 960 rpm to 1,400 rpm as proposed in the April 2022 NOPR to greater than or equal to 960 rpm and less than 1,440 rpm. In summary, in this final rule, DOE is including clean water pumps designed to operate with a 6-pole induction motor or a non-induction motor with a speed of rotation operating range greater than or equal to 960 rpm and less than 1,440 rpm.

Grundfos also commented that adding the 6‐pole speed highlights a point of unnecessary testing burden around the defined “operating ranges” with respect to variable speed equipment. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 2) According to Grundfos, a variable speed product with a motor designed for 4,000 rpm can technically operate at speeds across all three defined “ranges,” and current regulations require testing at all three nominal speeds.

Id.

However, Grundfos stated that a product with a 4,000 rpm design speed will likely perform only in a single operating range defined by DOE.

Id.

Grundfos asserted that consumers are more likely to purchase a less expensive pump with a smaller horsepower range than run a 4,000 rpm pump at 1,800 rpm.

Id.

Therefore, Grundfos recommended the DOE consider updating its language to state that variable load equipment should be tested at the nominal speed nearest the speed identified on the pump nameplate.

Id.

DOE notes that section I.C.1 in appendix A specifies how to determine the nominal speed of rotation for testing. For instance, for pumps sold with 4-pole induction motors, the nominal speed of rotation shall be 1,800 rpm. (

See

section I.C.1.2) For 4-pole pumps designed for use with non-induction motors where the operating range of the pump and motor includes speeds of rotation between 1,440 rpm and 2,160 rpm, the nominal speed for test would be 1,800 rpm. (

See

section I.C.1.5) Whether the pump is sold with variable speed capability is immaterial, as the determination of nominal test speed is based solely on where the pump is designed to operate. DOE notes that, to determine the range of speeds that a pump is designed to operate within, DOE would refer to published data, marketing literature, and other publicly available information. This would include the pump nameplate. If the range of speeds a pump is designed to operate within crosses two or more categories, manufacturers must test and certify at each relevant nominal speed.

c. Pump Horsepower and Design Speed

As previously discussed, the current test procedure includes only ESFM, ESCC, IL, RSV, and ST pumps, each of which is limited by its respective definition to those 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 431.464(a)(1)(i); 10 CFR 431.462.

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE discussed comments 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. 87 FR 21268, 21279-21280. This adjustment causes the power of the motor to fall below 1 hp, meaning the pump is therefore out of scope.

Id.

As stated previously, the pump definitions 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 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 that the pump definitions could be interpreted 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.

However, DOE also notes that it is expanding the current test procedure scope to include SVIL pumps, which will address this issue. Specifically, SVIL pumps are 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 (

i.e.,

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 test procedure includes most, if not all, pumps where motor power decreases below 1 hp when rated at BEP. For these reasons, DOE did not propose to change the specified horsepower limitations within the pump category definitions in the April 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 21268, 21280.

DOE requested comment on its tentative determination that including SVILs in the test procedure scope will largely eliminate the issue of higher speed 1 hp pumps falling out of scope when they rate at a nominal speed of 3,600 rpm. 87 FR 21268, 21273. Grundfos and HI both agreed with DOE's determination. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 3; HI, No. 33 at p. 3)

For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in the April 2022 NOPR, DOE is maintaining the 1 hp limitations in the ESFM, ESFC, IL, RSV, and ST pump definitions, and is including the 1 hp limitation in its definitions for RSH, and VT pumps.

d. Pumps Over 200 HP

As previously discussed, the current test procedure includes only ESFM, ESCC, IL, RSV, and ST pumps. Each of these classes is limited by its respective definition to those 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 431.464(a)(1)(i); 10 CFR 431.462.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, the Efficiency Advocates encouraged DOE to expand the test procedure scope to include pumps greater than 200 hp, and stated that motors between 201 and 500 hp are the most consumptive motor size group in industrial electricity consumption. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 32 at p. 3) The Efficiency Advocates further commented that the current calculation methods and DOE's proposal to allow alternative efficiency determination methods (AEDMs) in lieu of physical testing would help mitigate test burden associated with these larger pumps.

Id.

DOE notes in response that pumps with shaft input powers over 200 hp generally require larger, more expensive, test stands and testing facilities. Additionally, these pumps are often “engineered-to-order”, resulting in many different basic models. These two factors would lead to significantly higher per- model test costs than for pumps with shaft input powers below 200 hp. AEDMs and the calculation methods in the DOE test procedure for pumps may alleviate some testing burden, but neither completely negate the need for physical testing of bare pumps which drives the higher testing burden above 200 hp. At this time, DOE has determined that expanding the pumps test procedure to include pumps with shaft powers greater than 200 hp would be too burdensome to pump manufacturers. DOE may re-evaluate this decision in a future rulemaking.

e. Horsepower and Number of Stages for Testing

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE discussed how to handle certification of equipment when some models are regulated, and others are not. 87 FR 21268, 21280. DOE provided an example of an RSV basic model sold with a 1 hp motor tested at 3 stages, which is in scope, and an RSV model that is 2-stage with a 0.75 hp motor.

Id.

Since the latter pump uses a 0.75 hp motor, it is partially out of scope.

Id.

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE stated it understands that the same model of RSV pump may be sold with two stages, three stages, or some other number of stages. 87 FR 21268, 21280. 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 pumps in section C.2 of appendix A specify that the number of stages required for testing is three, or, if the basic model is only available with fewer than three stages, the basic model is tested with the maximum number of stages with which it is distributed in commerce in the United States. Therefore, in the previous example, the RSV pump model sold with 2 or 3 stages would be included in the scope of the test procedure (and standards) if it had 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. 87 FR 21268, 21280. DOE did not propose to modify this language in the April 2022 NOPR.

Id.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, Grundfos stated that it disagrees with DOE's interpretation of the regulation. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 11) Grundfos explained that the definition for a basic model states that a manufacturer cannot group equipment using DOE-regulated motors with equipment using motors under 1 hp, and therefore, the manufacturer would have two basic models, one with pumps at 1 to 200 hp and a second for pumps under 1 hp.

Id.

Grundfos added that the second basic model would not be in scope since RSV pumps with motors under 1 hp are not included in the test procedure scope.

Id.

Additionally, Grundfos commented that the same equipment sold as a bare pump would be considered a single basic model regardless of the number of stages and shaft power.

Id.

DOE notes that the basic model definition in 10 CFR 431.462 states that all variations in the number of stages of

bare RSV and ST pumps must be considered a single basic model. The definition also states that for pumps sold with different motors, the motors must be in the same motor efficiency band to be considered a single basic model, referencing Table 3 in appendix A. However, Table 3 does not provide motor efficiencies for fractional horsepower motors. Additionally, section I.C.2 of appendix A specifies the number of stages for testing RSV and ST pumps. DOE acknowledges that this leaves multi-stage pumps sold with fractional horsepower motors out of scope of this test procedure, whereas equivalent pumps that include the specified number of stages for testing are included within scope of this test procedure. This distinction applies only for pumps sold with motors and does not affect bare pumps, in which DOE's original interpretation still stands.

f. Design Temperature Range

The current scope for the pumps test procedure is limited to pumps with a design temperature range between and including 14 to 248 °F. This range was derived from the original negotiation term sheet for pumps, which recommended limiting the scope to pumps with a design range from −10 °C to 120 °C. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0092). For the purposes of its regulations, DOE translated this range to Fahrenheit. DOE has received inquires as to whether a pump marketed for temperatures up to 250 °F is outside of the current test procedure's scope. In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE stated it reviewed marketing materials for a number of pumps and found that common upper limits of temperature are 212, 225, 248, 250, and 300 °F. 87 FR 21268, 21280. Some marketing materials stated that standard seals may have one high temperature limit while optional seals provide a higher limit (typically 250 or 300 °F).

Id.

DOE noted it understood that the original intent of the scope limitation was to exclude pumps designed exclusively for low or high temperatures from the test procedure.

Id.

However, if a manufacturer is offering a pump model across all temperature ranges to minimize SKUs, rather than offering separate low temperature and high temperature models, such a pump model should be subject to the regulations.

Id.

DOE explained that 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.

Id.

DOE also discussed that rounding to a temperature limit of 250 °F when translating from °C to °F would be preferable to using the exact value of 248 °F since manufacturers commonly use rounded temperature values in their marketing materials.

Id.

Similarly, DOE discussed that it would be preferable to round the lower temperature limit from 14 °F to 15 °F.

Id.

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify its design temperature limits to include equipment that is designed for operation at temperatures that fall into any part of the range from 15 to 250 °F. 87 FR 21268, 21280. DOE requested comment on this clarification and on DOE's recommendation to shift the design temperature range from 14 °F to 248 °F to 15 °F to 250 °F.

Id.

In response, Grundfos agreed with DOE's intention to clarify the temperature ranges. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 3) HI stated that it does not expect the temperature adjustment to have a significant impact (HI, No. 33 at p. 3)

For the reasons discussed previously, DOE is finalizing its proposed clarifications to the design temperature range which includes pumps with a design temperature inclusive of any part of the range from 15 °F to 250 °F.

B. Definitions

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE discussed removing certain references to volute in pump definitions and HI pump class references. 87 FR 21268, 21281. DOE also proposed new definitions for bowl diameter, SVILs, BB, VT, RSH, RSHIL, and RSHES pumps. 87 FR 21268, 21281-21283. Further, DOE considered updating the definitions for close-coupled and mechanically-coupled pumps. 87 FR 21268, 21283-21284.

DOE received one general comment in response to the definitions proposed in the April 2022 NOPR. China suggested that DOE add corresponding schematic diagrams to textual definitions. (China, No. 29 at p. 3)

DOE understands that diagrams can help provide context and notes that its current test procedure references ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2 and ANSI/HI 2.1/2.2, which includes pump schematics. However, DOE has found that schematics may result in greater confusion, since schematics provide a specific example design but may not apply to other designs. For instance, a diagram may suggest scope restrictions (or expansions) that are not consistent with the definition language. Therefore, DOE is not including schematics or diagrams in addition to its textual definitions.

1. Removing Certain References to Volute

As discussed in the April 2022 NOPR, pumps generally have one of two common discharge types, either a volute or a diffuser. 87 FR 21268, 21281. A volute is made up of one or two scroll-shaped channels, whereas a diffuser has three or more passages that diffuse the liquid that is being pumped.

Id.

The current definitions for end-suction and in-line pumps use only the term “volute” when, in practice, either volutes or diffusers may be used for these pump categories. For example, DOE's current definition for end-suction pump specifies that 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 states that the 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 noted in the April 2022 NOPR that HI 1.1-1.2-2014 did not make these casing distinctions. 87 FR 21268, 21281.

OH5 and OH7 pumps are defined as close-coupled pumps in ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2-2019. OH4 pumps are defined as rigidly-coupled/short-coupled pumps in ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2-2019.

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 proposed in the April 2022 NOPR 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.”

Id.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, HI, Grundfos, and China stated they support the volute clarification. (HI, No. 33 at p. 3; China, No. 29 at p. 4; Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 3)

For the reasons discussed, DOE is adopting the amended definitions for

end-suction and in-line pumps as proposed in the April 2022 NOPR.

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 1.1-1.2-2014 or ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 pump configurations as examples of pumps that would meet the given definition. In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed 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 since DOE and HI terminology are not wholly consistent. 87 FR 21268, 21281.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, Grundfos stated it agrees with the proposal to remove the reference to ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 in DOE's definitions for ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and ST pumps. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 3) In its comments, HI recommended replacing references to ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2 and ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2 with the updated ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2-2019, which superseded ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2 and ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2. (HI, No. 33 at p. 4) HI further explained that these references are used as the industry standard and will provide clarity to the market.

Id.

DOE notes that its definitional language must be clear and consistent on its own without the support of diagrams or schematics, as application of additional diagrams or schematics may confuse the intent of a given definition. To establish self-contained definitions, DOE is removing the references to ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 and ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 in the ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV and ST pump definitions, as proposed in the April 2022 NOPR. DOE has determined that the definitions without references to ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 and ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 provide sufficient specificity to clearly define the various pump categories.

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 mention is the sole remaining reference to ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 in the test procedure, since DOE is eliminating the HI pump class references to ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 and ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014. In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that a self-contained definition for bowl diameter is clearer. 87 FR 21268, 21281. To disassociate the definition of “bowl diameter” from ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014, DOE proposed in the April 2022 NOPR to define “bowl diameter” as “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.”

Id.

With respect to “intermediate bowl,” DOE proposed 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.”

Id.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, both HI and Grundfos encouraged DOE to also update the definition of “intermediate bowl” to be “bowl” as defined in ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2-2019. (HI, No. 33 at p. 4; Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 3)

Considering comments received, DOE is adopting a definition for “bowl” rather than “intermediate bowl.” DOE is defining bowl in 10 CFR 431.462 to mean a casing in which the impeller rotates, and that directs flow axially to the next stage or the discharge column. This definition is consistent with the definition for “bowl” in ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2-2019. In this final rule, DOE is modifying the definition for bowl diameter proposed in the April 2022 NOPR to refer to “bowl” instead of “intermediate bowl”.

4. Small Vertical Inline Pumps

DOE proposed in the April 2022 NOPR 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. 87 FR 21268, 21282. The Circulator Pump Working Group recommended that SVIL pumps be defined as a single stage, single-axis flow, dry rotor, rotodynamic pump that: (1) has a shaft input power less than 1 hp at the 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)

The recommended definition would distinguish SVIL pumps from DOE's current IL pump definition

in that SVIL pumps have a reduced shaft power input range

and a different maximum pump power output limitation.

The change to shaft input power is the primary distinction between IL and SVIL pumps. In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined this distinction would be necessary to adequately separate the two categories. 87 FR 21268, 21282. The pump power output is a consequence of the shaft power limitations.

Id.

DOE 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.

Id.

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.

IL pumps are constrained to greater than or equal to 1 hp and less than or equal to 200 hp, whereas SVIL pumps must be less than 1 hp.

IL pumps have a limit of 5 hp at BEP, whereas SVIL pumps have no hp limitation.

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE noted that 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. 87 FR 21268, 21282. 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”).

Id.

On September 9, 2022, DOE published a test procedure final rule for circulator pumps (“Circulator Pumps TP Final Rule”). 87 FR 57264. In the Circulator Pumps TP Final Rule, DOE defined a circulator pump as consisting of a wet-rotor circulator pump; dry rotor, two-piece circulator pump; or dry rotor, three-piece circulator pumps 87 FR 57264, 57269. The Circulator Pumps TP Final Rule also defined these subcategories of circulator pumps.

Id.

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed that for the SVIL definition, rather than including the recommendation in clause (2), to instead exclude circulator pumps. 87 FR 21268, 21282. For consistency, DOE also proposed to revise the IL pump definition to explicitly exclude circulator pumps instead of including the clauses meant to implicitly exclude them.

Id.

DOE notes that clause (3) of the SVIL definition recommended in the April 2022 NOPR refers to a volute. For the reasons discussed in section III.B.1 of

this document, DOE is excluding this reference from the SVIL definition.

The recommended SVIL pump definition also requires that these pumps be distributed into commerce with a motor, meaning SVIL pumps cannot be sold as bare pumps. In the April 2022 NOPR, based on a literature search, DOE tentatively determined that all SVIL pumps are sold with a motor. 87 FR 21268, 21282. However, by proposing to replace clause (2) with an exclusion for circulator pumps, this requirement would be eliminated.

Id.

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE discussed that, although not addressed in the recommendation from the Circulating Pump Working Group, the defined term “twin-head pump” (10 CFR 431.462) would be applicable to SVIL pumps. 87 FR 21268, 21282. 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, 4115-4117, 4147.

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed 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. 87 FR 21268, 21282. Specifically, DOE proposed 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 the 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.

Id.

Since SVIL pumps are similar to IL pumps but operate at a lower horsepower, and also are available in twin-head configurations, DOE also proposed to define “small vertical twin-head pump” in the April 2022 NOPR and to extend the twin-head pump test procedure adopted in the January 2016 Final Rule to small vertical twin-head pumps. 87 FR 21268, 21273.

DOE requested comment on its proposed revision to the IL definition to explicitly exclude circulator pumps. Both Grundfos and HI agreed that DOE should revise the IL definition to explicitly exclude circulator pumps. (HI, No. 33 at p. 4; Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 4) DOE is adopting the definition for IL pumps as proposed in the April 2022 NOPR.

DOE also requested comment on the definitions for “small vertical in-line pump” and “small vertical twin-head pump.” DOE also requested comment on the percentage of SVIL pumps, if any, that are not sold with a motor, and whether the definition of SVIL pumps should be limited to those sold with a motor.

China requested that DOE provide additional clarity on the number of motor phases used in SVILs under 0.25 hp. (China, No. 29 at p. 4) China also commented that the definition for SVILs contains “with bearings on both ends of the rotating assembly” while common IL pumps on the market do not have bearings at both ends (China, No. 29 at p. 3).

HI commented that including SVILs in the pumps test procedure will ensure consistency between IL and SVIL pumps and that SVIL pumps should not be treated differently from IL pumps. (HI, No. 33 at p. 3, 4).

Regarding China's comment on motor phases for SVILs under 0.25 hp, DOE clarifies that the SVIL definition does not, nor does any aspect of the DOE test procedure, limit the number of phases of an SVIL motor below 0.25 hp. In response to China's question about bearings in the SVIL definition, DOE notes that the SVIL definition does not include “with bearings on both ends of the rotating assembly” and that the text China referenced is from the proposed definition of BB pumps in the April 2022 NOPR.

In response to DOE's proposed definition for small vertical twin-head pumps, Grundfos suggested that DOE revise the term “twin head pump” to “in‐line twin‐head pump” to minimize confusion with the small vertical twin-head pump definition. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 3) Additionally, Grundfos stated that “Twin Head Pump” is not consistent with the use of “twin‐head” within the IL definition and needs a hyphen.

Id.

HI suggested that DOE clarify if both the volute discharge and common discharge must meet the “plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft” requirement in the small vertical twin-head pump definition. (HI, No. 33 at p. 4)

After consideration, DOE has determined that the twin-head and small vertical twin-head pump definitions are distinct and specific enough to avoid confusion. In response to HI's comment, DOE clarifies that only the common discharge of a twin-head and small vertical twin-head pump have to be in a plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft.

Regarding the percentage of SVILs that are sold with a motor, HI stated that it does not collect data on SVILs sold without motors and recommends asking manufacturers for this information during interviews. (HI, No. 33 at p. 4) While Grundfos commented that it sells a very small number of SVILs without a motor, it stated that SVILs sold without a motor should not be excluded. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 4)

In this final rule, DOE is adopting the SVIL definition proposed in the April 2022 NOPR, with the following revision: DOE has added a hyphen to the small vertical twin-head pump term to be consistent with the twin-head pump term.

5. Between-Bearing Pumps

As discussed in section III.A.3.a of the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to add between-bearing pumps to the scope of its test procedure and therefore proposed a definition for this pump category. 87 FR 21268, 21282.

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. Based on a literature review, DOE tentatively determined in the April 2022 NOPR 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. 87 FR 21268, 21282. Accordingly, using ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2-2019 as the basis for its approach, DOE proposed in the April 2022 NOPR 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 diameter and at the number of stages required for testing.” 87 FR 21268, 218221282-21283.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, Grundfos agreed with DOE's proposed definition for BB pumps and stated that the definition is sufficient to identify the intended scope. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 4) HI recommended amending the definition to be consistent with the definition for BB1 in ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2-2019.

(HI, No. 33 at p. 4)

ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2-2019 defines BB1 Pumps as one and two stage axially split casing pumps that are generally characterized by the following attributes: (1) pump and drive have separate shafts; (2) the pump has two integral bearing housings to absorb all pump axial and radial pump hydraulic loads.

As discussed, DOE is not including BB pumps within the scope of this test procedure; therefore, DOE is not adopting the proposed definition for BB pumps.

DOE also proposed to define “axially-split pump,” a term associated with BB pumps, in the April 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 21268, 21283. The term “axially-split” refers to a pump casing that can be separated, for maintenance and assembly, in a plane parallel to the impeller shaft. In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to define an “axially-split pump” 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.”

Id.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, HI and Grundfos supported DOE's proposed definitions for axially-split pumps. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 4; HI, No. 33 at p. 4)

Again, since DOE is not including BB pumps within the scope of this test procedure, DOE is not adopting the proposed definition for axially-split pumps.

6. Vertical Turbine Pump

As discussed in section III.A.3.b, DOE is adding vertical turbine pumps to the scope of its test procedure and proposed a definition for vertical turbine pumps in the April 2022 NOPR. 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.” Using this definition as a basis, DOE proposed in the April 2022 NOPR to define “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. 87 FR 21268, 21283.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, both HI and Grundfos recommended that DOE update the definition for vertical turbine pumps. (HI, No. 33 at p. 1, 2 and 4; Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 4) Specifically, HI and Grundfos mentioned that clause 2 of DOE's definition, which states “no external part of such a pump is designed to be submerged in the pumped liquid,” would exclude all vertical turbine pumps because their typical bowl assembly is submerged.

Id.

HI also explained that, within the pumps industry, vertical turbine pumps are understood to be VS1 and V3 types and do not include VS2

pumps.

Id.

HI therefore recommended that DOE reference ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2-2019. (HI, No. 33 at p. 5)

VS1, VS2, and VS3 pumps are vertically suspended impeller type pumps that discharge through a column. VS1 pumps have a diffuser, VS2 pumps use a volute, and VS3 pumps have axial flow. They are defined further in section 1.3.3.1.2 of ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2-2019.

Grundfos suggested that DOE exclude VS2 pumps and change the term from “vertical turbine pumps” to “vertical turbine, bowl assembly” to avoid confusion (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 4). Additionally, Grundfos commented that DOE should add a definition for “bowl assembly” and directly reference section 14.1.7.6 of ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2.

Id.

Finally, Grundfos recommended that DOE use the term `bowl assembly' rather than `pump', since `pump' implies that losses for column, line shaft discharge head, etc. would be included.

Id.

After further evaluation and considering the comments received, DOE has concluded that the definition for vertical turbine pumps proposed in the April 2022 NOPR would exclude all vertical turbine pumps since all or part of the bowl assembly is designed to be submerged in the pumped fluid. This was not DOE's intent; therefore, DOE is adopting a revised definition for vertical turbine pump that excludes only pumps with the driver submerged in the pump liquid. This allows the bowl assembly of vertical turbine pumps to be submerged in the pumped liquid, but still differentiates vertical turbine pumps from submersible turbine pumps. In response to comments from HI and Grundfos about referencing ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2-2019, DOE has determined not to reference ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2-2019 in the definition for vertical turbine pumps. This determination is discussed in detail in section III.C.1. of this document. DOE has determined that the adopted definitions in this final rule are sufficiently specific and detailed to stand on their own without reference to industry definitions.

7. Radially-Split, Multi-Stage Horizontal Pumps

As discussed in section III.A.3.c, DOE is including RSH pumps with both end-suction and in-line flow configurations in the scope of the DOE test procedure. RSH pumps are nearly identical to RSV pumps except for the mounting orientation and flow configurations. As discussed in section III.A.3.c, RSH pumps may have different flow configurations that are expected to impact pump efficiency; therefore, in the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed three definitions for RSH pumps based on the existing DOE definition for RSV pumps: one for an overarching category of RSH pumps, which does not characterize flow; one for in-line RHS pumps (“RHSIL”); and one for end-suction RSH pumps (“RSHESS). 10 CFR 431.462; 87 FR 21268, 21283.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, both HI and Grundfos supported DOE's proposed definitions for RSH, RSHIL, and RSHES pumps. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 5; HI, No. 33 at p. 5) However, Grundfos commented that the RSH definitions are quite broad and will likely capture multiple different pump products under the RSHES definition. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 2) Grundfos requested that DOE clarify which pumps meet this definition and whether these pumps should be considered as a single pump category.

Id.

DOE has determined that additional pump category definitions within the RSH definitions are not necessary for the purposes of testing. DOE interprets that the concerns shared by Grundfos are based on differences in hydraulic performance between different RSH pumps. DOE notes that should it find notable hydraulic performance differences between RSH, RSHES, and RSHIL pumps, DOE would consider these differences and define separate equipment classes accordingly for any future energy conservation standards rulemaking.

In this final rule, DOE is adopting the definitions for RHS, RHSES, and RHSILs as proposed in the April 2022 NOPR.

8. Close-Coupled and Mechanically-Coupled Pumps

DOE defines a close-coupled pump as a pump having a motor shaft that also acts as the impeller shaft.

See

10 CFR 431.462. DOE defines a mechanically-coupled pump as a pump that has its own impeller shaft and bearings separate from the motor shaft.

See

10 CFR 431.462. In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE discussed how its definitions for close-coupled and mechanically-coupled pumps did not account for end suction pumps that do not have bearings separate from the motor and do not have the impellers mounted on the motor shaft. 87 FR 21268, 21283. In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed revisions to the definitions for close-coupled and mechanically-coupled pumps to eliminate this gap.

Id.

DOE proposed that (1) A close-coupled pump means a pump in which the driver's bearings absorb the pump's axial load; and (2) A mechanically-coupled pump means a pump in which bearings external to the driver absorb the pump's axial load.

Id.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, HI recognized DOE's effort to clarify the definitions for ESFM and ESCC pumps but provided the following recommendations to further improve clarity: (1) A close-coupled pump means a pump in which radial and axial loads are primarily supported by the driver; and (2) A mechanically-coupled pump means a pump in which radial and axial loads are primarily supported external to the driver. (HI, No. 33 at p. 5)

Grundfos commented that the proposed revisions to the ESFM and ESCC definitions will create additional burden for manufacturers that must reclassify products accordingly. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 5)

DOE interprets HI's comment to indicate that the definitions for close-coupled and mechanically-coupled proposed in the April 2022 NOPR did not leave enough flexibility for pumps where most, but not all, of a pump's axial load is supported by either bearings external to the driver or by the driver. DOE acknowledges that some flexibility is important when defining close-coupled and mechanically-coupled to avoid excluding any end suction pumps. However, DOE notes that the definitions recommended by HI are vague, specifically the term “primarily” which leaves the suggested definition open to interpretation. In an effort to add flexibility to the definitions while minimizing the need for interpretation, DOE is adopting the following definitions for close-coupled and mechanically-coupled pumps, where the italicized portions of each definition are revisions to the definitions proposed in the April 2022 NOPR. A close-coupled pump means a pump in which the driver's bearings

are designed

to absorb the pump's axial load. A mechanically-coupled pump means a pump in which bearings external to the driver

are designed

to absorb the pump's axial load.

In response to the comment from Grundfos, DOE notes the change in definition is intended to improve clarity rather than substantively shift the bounds of the ESCC or ESFM pump categories. DOE has determined, based on its review of manufacturer literature and the consensus of industry in the form of HI's comments, that the revisions to close-coupled and mechanically-coupled pumps do not change the classification of currently regulated end suction pumps.

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 the industry standards DOE is incorporating by reference in the final rule and the relevant provisions of those industry standards that DOE is referencing.

1. ANSI/HI 40.6

The current DOE test procedure for pumps incorporates HI 40.6-2014 for use in appendix A. The most recent version of HI 40.6 was published in 2021 (“HI 40.6-2021”). HI 40.6-2021 includes the following updates 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”).

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that the provisions of HI 40.6-2021 that correspond to the provisions in HI 40.6-2014 are substantively the same and adopting such provisions would not change the current test procedure or measured PEI values. 87 FR 21268, 21285. Therefore, in the April 2022 NOPR DOE proposed to incorporate by reference HI 40.6-2021 in place of HI 40.6-2014, in order to reference the most current industry test procedure.

Id.

DOE received no comments on its proposal to incorporate HI 40.6-2021 by reference for use in appendix A of the DOE test procedure. Therefore, in this final rule DOE is incorporating HI 40.6-2021 by reference as proposed in the April 2022 NOPR.

While DOE proposed to incorporate by reference HI 40.6-2021 as the basis for its proposed test procedure, DOE tentatively determined in the April 2022 NOPR that certain sections of the industry test standard are not applicable to the DOE test procedure. 87 FR 21268, 21285. Specifically:

(1) Section 40.6.1, Scope, provides the scope specific to the test methods outlined in HI 40.6-2021;

(2) Section 40.6.5.3 provides provisions regarding the generation of a test report;

(3) Appendix “B” provides informative guidance on test report formatting;

(4) Appendix “E” provides normative test procedures for circulator pumps; and

(5) Appendix “G” compares HI 40.6-2021 and DOE's nomenclature.

Id.

None of these sections are required for testing and rating pumps in accordance with the test procedure that DOE proposed in the April 2022 NOPR. As such, in the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to not adopt Section 40.6.1, Section 40.6.5.3, appendix B, appendix E, and appendix G in the April 2022 NOPR.

Id.

DOE received no comments on the proposal to exclude the specified sections of HI 40.6-2021 from the DOE test procedure. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is adopting the exclusions as proposed in the April 2022 NOPR.

Additionally, as discussed in the April 2022 NOPR, certain provisions of HI 40.6-2021 are consistent with the provisions of the current DOE test procedure in appendix A. 87 FR 21268, 21285. DOE proposed to remove these provisions in appendix A and instead reference the appropriate sections of HI 40.6-2021, specifically:

(1) Section I.D.1 of appendix A, which addresses damping devices, is amended to reference the corresponding provisions in HI 40.6.3.2.2;

(2) Section I.D.2 of appendix A, which addresses stabilization, is 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, is 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, are amended to reference the corresponding provisions in HI 40.6.5.5.1.

Id.

DOE received no comments on its proposal to remove provisions of appendix A and instead reference the equivalent provisions in HI 40.6-2021 and is therefore adopting the revisions as proposed in the April 2022 NOPR.

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 for 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 that 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 additional 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

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 recommended operating flow rates.

As stated previously, 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 ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and ST pumps under the DOE test procedure. 10 CFR 431.462. DOE notes that, in general, 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 minimize potential misapplication of its definitions, DOE is removing 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, as proposed in the April 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 21268, 21286. Additional detail on the adopted 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. As proposed in the April 2022 NOPR, DOE is modifying its definition for “bowl diameter” and adding a DOE definition for “bowl” to remove the current reference to ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014.

Id.

These changes will create a more self-contained definition and are discussed in section III.B.3 of this document.

DOE is incorporating ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2-2019 by reference for use in appendix A since it is referenced in HI 40.6-2019. However, DOE does not directly reference ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2-2019 in appendix A.

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

STD

”).

See

section II of appendix A. The current test procedure defines the PEI

metric as the pump energy index for a constant load, as applicable to pumps rated as bare pumps or sold with motors; and the PEI

metric, 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 pre-set operating speeds and does not respond to incremental reductions in the required pump flow, head, or power output.

Id.

PER

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. PER

is calculated as the average of driver power input at 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, and 100 percent 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.

This section discusses the regulatory metric for SVIL pumps and additional clean water pumps that DOE is incorporating into its test procedure.

In the April 2022 NOPR, based on manufacturer feedback to this rulemaking and the current circulator pumps rulemaking,

DOE tentatively determined that use of PER

and PER

and indexing the results against PER

STD

would be a reasonable and consistent way to evaluate SVIL performance. 87 FR 21268, 21286. This determination was based largely on the similarity of SVILs to in-line pumps, which are evaluated using the PER

and PER

metrics.

Id.

As such, DOE proposed in the April 2022 NOPR that the rating metric for SVIL pumps would be PEI

for constant load pumps and PEI

for variable load pumps, equivalent to the metric already in use for currently covered commercial and industrial pumps.

Id.

A link to the circulator pumps docket web page can be found at

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004.

In the April 2022 NOPR DOE tentatively determined that, for BB, VT, and RSH pumps, the test procedure will measure energy efficiency during a representative average use cycle and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 87 FR 21268, 21286. This determination was based on the similarities between the pump categories that are addressed in the current test procedure and those that DOE proposed to include in the scope of the test procedure.

Id.

DOE tentatively determined that PEI

and PEI

are appropriate metrics for BB, VT, and RSH pumps.

Id.

Using PEI

and PEI

for these additional pump categories ensures a consistent rating approach in the market.

Id.

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed that the PEI

and PEI

metric would be used

for rating the performance of BB, VT, and RSH pumps.

Id.

For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs, for SVIL, VT, and RSH pumps, DOE is adopting PEI

for constant load pumps and PEI

for variable load pumps, equivalent to the metric already in use for currently covered commercial and industrial pumps.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, China suggested that DOE revise PER

std

on the basis of a scientific assessment of the new pumps being added to the test procedure scope. (China, No. 29 at p. 3) DOE notes that this test procedure final rule does contain amendments that may adjust PER

std

for both current and expanded scope pumps. However, the overall methodology of determining PER

std

does not differ by pump category; PER

std

is specific to the flow and specific speed of a given pump model and includes a C-value that sets the energy conservation standard and is specific to a given pump category. Adopting a C-value for the expanded scope pumps would be considered in an energy conservation standard rulemaking rather than in this test procedure rulemaking.

E. Amendments to Test Method

DOE is incorporating HI 40.6-2021 into appendix A of subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431. HI 40.6-2021 specifies calculating pump power input,

driver power input (for testing-based methods),

pump power output,

pump efficiency,

bowl efficiency,

overall efficiency,

and other relevant values at the specified load points necessary to determine PEI

and PEI

. HI 40.6-2021 also contains provisions for test methodology, standard rating conditions, equipment specifications, uncertainty calculations, and tolerances.

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.

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.

The term “pump power output” in HI-40.6-2021 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.

The term “pump efficiency” is defined in HI 40.6-2014 as a ratio of pump power output to pump power input.

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.

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 appendix A specify methods for determining PEI

and PEI

for pumps based on whether they are distributed into commerce with a motor and/or with controls. These sections are summarized as follows:

•

Section II:

Calculation of PEICL or PEIVL for all pumps based on the pump energy rating for a minimally compliant reference pump (PERCL or PERVL, respectively);

•

Section III:

Test procedure for bare pumps;

•

Section IV:

Testing-based approach for pumps sold with motors;

•

Section V:

Calculation-based approach for pumps sold with motors;

•

Section VI:

Testing-based approach for pumps sold with motors and controls; and

•

Section VII:

Calculation-based approach for pumps sold with motors and controls.

See

appendix A, sections I.A.2 through I.A.6.

The following sections summarize the amendments to the current test procedure that DOE proposed in the April 2022 NOPR, address stakeholder comments on these proposals, and finalize provisions for the amended 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)(D). 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 including pumps that operate at greater than or equal to 960 rpm and less than 1,440 rpm or are designed to operate with 6-pole motors in the test procedure. In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed that these pumps would be tested with a nominal speed of 1,200 rpm. 87 FR 21268, 21287. DOE also proposed to update the calculation and rounding sections of the test procedure to address this additional nominal speed.

Id.

China commented that the DOE test procedure for 1,200 rpm pumps may result in cavitation and suggested that DOE instead provide a speed reduction test using pump affinity rules. (China, No. 29 at p. 3)

DOE notes that the test procedure for 1,200 rpm pumps would use a nominal test speed of 1,200 rpm. DOE has determined that this would be most representative of field operation for these pumps. If cavitation occurs at 1,200 rpm for a given pump under test, DOE considers that this is representative of field performance and is therefore a valid test. No other stakeholders identified cavitation as an issue for 1,200 rpm pumps.

HI stated it expects testing 6-pole pumps will significantly increase test burden and test cost; however, HI expects minimal energy savings relative to manufacturer impact since the volume of equipment impacted is small. (HI, No. 33 at p.3). Specifically, HI stated that most of these pumps are already regulated as 4-pole products.

Id.

In response to HI's comments, DOE notes that increased burden associated with test procedure modifications is estimated and discussed in section III.L of this document. DOE will evaluate energy savings during its energy conservation standards rulemaking.

In this final rule, DOE is adopting the amendments to the test procedure as proposed in the April 2022 NOPR.

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 also may be 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 proposed in the April 2022 NOPR that RSH pumps be tested with three stages. 87 FR 21268, 21287. To reduce testing burden and mirror the

practice established for ST pumps, DOE proposed testing VT pumps with nine stages.

Id.

If the pump under test is not distributed in commerce with the number of stages prescribed for testing, DOE proposed that the existing instructions for selecting the correct number of stages during testing would be followed.

Id.

As defined in section III.B.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 proposed in the April 2022 NOPR to test BB pumps at two stages. 87 FR 21268, 21287. DOE discussed that this approach is consistent with the provisions in the current test procedure that require multi-stage pumps be tested with more than one stage.

Id.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, HI and Grundfos supported the proposed number of stages for testing RSH, VT, and BB pumps. (HI, No. 33 at p. 5; Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 5) HI additionally commented that a one-stage BB pump and a two-stage BB pump will always be different basic models. (HI, No. 33 at p. 5) China requested that DOE provide additional description for when BB pumps would be tested using one-stage versus two-stage. (China, No. 29 at p. 4)

As DOE is not including BB pumps within the scope of this test procedure DOE is not adopting the multi-stage testing provisions for BB pumps proposed in the April 2022 NOPR.

For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs, DOE is adopting the number of stages for testing RSH and VT pumps test procedure as proposed in the April 2022 NOPR.

3. Load Profile

The current test procedure requires that the constant load pump energy rating be determined using 75, 100 and 110 percent of BEP flow with each value multiplied by 0.3333 and the results summed to determine PER

. 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

. Appendix A, sections VI.E, VII.E.

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE discussed the current load profiles in response to comments received from stakeholders on the April 2021 RFI. 87 FR 21268, 21288. Specifically, DOE agreed with stakeholders that load profiles vary depending on the pump installation environment and application; however, DOE stated that the existing load profiles provide a consistent method for comparing the performance of different pumps.

Id.

DOE did not propose to modify the current load profiles in the April 2022 NOPR.

NEEA recommended that DOE consider test procedures and metrics that better account for motor and control performance at various load points in the future. (NEEA, No. 34 at p. 5) The CA IOUs stated that they are not aware of any reports that provide BB pump-specific operating hour ranges but suggested that DOE review industrial cooling, boiler feedwater, and municipal water supply application reports. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 3)

As discussed in the April 2022 NOPR, DOE is not revising the current load profiles in this final rule notice. Additionally, SVIL, VT, and RSH pumps will use the same load profiles as other pumps previously covered in the scope of this rulemaking and described in the preceding paragraphs. DOE will continue to evaluate the impact of load profile on PEI.

4. 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.” In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed 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. 87 FR 21268, 21288. DOE requested 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.

Id.

In response, HI recommended that DOE modify the test procedure to require testing at 105 percent of BEP as a minimum criterion for pumps that cannot be tested to 120 percent of BEP. (HI, No. 33 at p. 5) HI suggested 105 percent of BEP because lower specific speed pumps can artificially benefit by truncating the actual BEP flow.

Id.

Grundfos commented that using the maximum flow rate provides a better curve for finding BEP and ensures that curve shape after BEP is properly captured (where possible). (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 5) Grundfos additionally stated that using maximum expected flow can require a second test in some cases, with small additional burden, if BEP is found to be plus or minus 5 percent of the tested points but noted that this burden would be small given the limited systems reporting using BEP at run-out provisions.

Id.

DOE notes that by relying on maximum expected flow rather than expected BEP flow rate, it is likely that most pumps would test at a minimum of 105 percent of BEP, as in most cases, maximum expected flow would not be less than 5% away from BEP. This addresses HI's suggestion to have a minimum point at 105 percent of BEP, while also making sure that all pumps in this category can be tested. This is also consistent with Grundfos' comment that maximum flow provides a better curve shape, especially after BEP. For these reasons, DOE is adopting BEP at run-out provisions as proposed.

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE discussed 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

STD

. 87 FR 21268, 21288. DOE proposed to specify that the revised loading points would only be used in application of the α

coefficient values when determining pump power input, and not when determining specific speed (“Ns”) or the minimally-compliant pump efficiency (“η

pump,STD

”), which should always be based on 100 percent of BEP flow for standardization purposes.

Id.

DOE did not receive any comments regarding how the revised loading points should be applied in the determination of PER

STD

. Therefore, DOE is including the language as proposed in the April 2022 NOPR.

As part of the April 2022 NOPR, DOE 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. 87 FR 21268, 21288-21289. DOE proposed 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.

Id.

However, DOE acknowledged in the April 2022 NOPR that this proposed change could result in inequitable motor sizing compared to pumps not subject to these provisions.

Id.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, Grundfos agreed with the use of maximum flow rate to ensure BEP can be determined for motor sizing for bare pumps. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 6)

In this final rule, DOE is including the motor sizing language for pumps with BEP at run-out, as proposed in the April 2022 NOPR.

5. Calibration of Measurement Equipment

The current DOE test procedure references HI 40.6-2014 Appendix D, which specifies the frequency at which measurement equipment should be calibrated. Table D.1 of HI 40.6-2014 states 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 appendices B and C to subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431 (“appendix B”, “appendix C”), DOE has 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 that DOE uses in appendix B and appendix C, DOE proposed in the April 2022 NOPR 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. 87 FR 21268, 21289.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, Grundfos agreed that including the reference to HI 40.6, Appendix D provides consistency and clarity regarding the required calibration requirements for testing. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 11).

For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs and the stakeholder feedback received, DOE is adopting Table D.1 of ANSI/HI 40.6-2021 as proposed in the April 2022 NOPR.

6. 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 2022 NOPR, DOE did not propose 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. 87 FR 21268, 21289.

DOE did not receive comments on this proposal. For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in the April 2022 NOPR, DOE is adopting the updated references as proposed in the April 2022 NOPR.

F. Calculation-Based and Testing-Based Options According to Pump Configuration (Table 1 of Appendix A)

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.

1. Hybrid Mapping Approach

In response to the April 2021 RFI, 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)

Similarly, in response to the April 2021 RFI, with respect to pumps sold with inverter-only motors, the CA IOUs cautioned against the use of a losses table for permanent magnet inverter-only motors with a non-integrated controller sold with a choice of controller 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, which they expected would reduce burden. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at pp. 8-9)

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE acknowledged that permanent magnet inverter-only motors sold without a controller may perform differently based on the inverter with which it is paired and recognized that a hybrid mapping approach may be beneficial. 87 FR 21268, 21290, 21299. However, DOE stated that it did not expect that the use of a hybrid mapping approach would provide the burden reduction intended by the use of the calculation method. 87 FR 21268, 21299. 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.

Id.

Furthermore, DOE

tentatively concluded 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 would be free to refine accuracy of the values for specific equipment.

Id.

DOE did not propose a hybrid approach in the April 2022 NOPR but requested 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. 87 FR 21268, 21290. In addition, DOE requested 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.

Id.

Finally, DOE requested comment on the merits of using a hybrid mapping approach specific to inverter-only motors and whether it would reduce or increase manufacturer burden compared to the current proposals. 87 FR 21268, 21299.

HI stated that hybrid mapping is not a current practice, so including this would add complexity and confusion, without an understood benefit. (HI, No. 33 at p. 6, 7) HI stated that the hybrid approach would be significantly more burdensome than a calculation-based approach based on a bare pump test, and that the calculation approach based on coefficients and bare pump test is sufficient to generate appropriately representative values or the equipment. (HI, No. 33 at p. 7). HI added that in many cases hybrid mapping data would not be available. For these reasons HI is not in favor of a hybrid mapping approach for inverter-only motors.

Id.

Grundfos stated that compared to the current proposals of calculated method and AEDM, it did not believe a hybrid mapping approach would reduce burden. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 7) Grundfos commented that a hybrid mapping approach is not currently necessary since DOE has proposed a method for calculating PEIs for pumps sold with inverter‐only motors.

Id.

at 6. However, Grundfos also stated they believe a hybrid mapping approach could provide more representative PEIs when compared to calculation‐based approaches, but that more effort would be necessary to define a suitable motor mapping procedure to ensure it is applicable to pumping.

Id.

NEEA recommended that in future proceedings DOE consider an optional hybrid approach to testing pumps sold with inverter-only synchronous motors to show the improvement in Pump Energy Index (PEI) from IE5 motors. (NEEA, No. 34 at p. 2)

DOE agrees with stakeholders that it is premature to develop a hybrid mapping approach in this rulemaking, but notes that DOE may consider the issue in future rulemakings.

2. Calculation Method for Pumps Sold With Induction Motors and Controls

Based on its review of available coefficients and part-load loss data, DOE tentatively determined in the April 2022 NOPR that without further data indicating that its current coefficients overstate motor drive system losses for pumps, it would retain its current loss model for motors less than 50 hp. 87 FR 21268, 21296. DOE noted that its current coefficients correspond to about 30 percent added harmonic losses and a 3 percent variable frequency drive (“VFD”) efficiency penalty.

Id.

DOE stated that it would consider revising its coefficients below 50 hp in accordance with the method suggested by HI,

or to harmonize with fans or with international standards, given appropriate data specific to pumps.

Id.

To ensure that the calculation method does not overrate pumps, while balancing stakeholders' requests for representativeness, DOE proposed to allow use of an AEDM, as discussed in section III.I.2 of this document.

Id.

DOE requested (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.

Id.

HI suggested new part load loss coefficients based on the differences between incremental losses predicted by IEC 60034-31 and the current DOE part load loss coefficients. (HI, No. 22 at p. 3)

HI stated that related to item 2, the 15 percent and 25 percent incremental losses are appropriate and should be representative of motors commonly used in the U.S. (HI, No. 33 at p. 6) HI understood that NEMA supported these values and is adopting them into a future American National Standard.

Id.

In its comment to the April 2021 RFI, HI stated that losses are especially overstated in the 50 hp to 100 hp range. (HI, No. 22 at p.3) In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE discussed its findings that its existing coefficients show a decrease in full-load efficiency at 75 hp, which would not be expected. 87 FR 21268, 21296. In addition, DOE noted that the AHRI 1210-certified data is limited to a maximum of 75 hp and does not exist at higher hp.

Id.

Furthermore, DOE stated that its 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 tentatively determined that these losses are too high.

Id.

In light of the fact that DOE's coefficients in the 50 hp to 100 hp represent harmonic losses that are too high, DOE proposed in the April 2022 NOPR to update its coefficients for motors rated at 50 hp and above. 87 FR 21268, 21296. 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.

Id.

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.

Id.

Table III.1 summarizes DOE's proposal for the induction motor and control part-load loss coefficients.

Id.

DOE requested comment on its proposed part-load loss factors for induction motors and controls greater than 50 hp.

Id.

Table III.1—Proposed Induction Motor and Control Part Load Loss Factor Equation Coefficients

Motor horsepower

(hp)

Coefficients for induction motor and control part load loss factor

)

≤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

Grundfos agreed that the updated coefficients better represent losses for motors greater than 50 hp. (Grundfos, No. 30 at p. 6) HI stated that it reviewed the coefficients proposed by DOE compared to those suggested by HI and noted only minor deviations in the calculated PEI. (HI, No. 33 at p. 6) HI supported the part-load loss factors for induction motors and controls proposed by DOE.

Id.

For the reasons discussed previously, and based on stakeholder feedback, DOE is finalizing the updated induction motor and control part load loss factor equation coefficients as proposed and shown in Table III.1.

3. Calculation Method for Pumps Sold With Inverter-Only Motors (With or Without Controls)

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed 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. 87 FR 21268, 21298.

a. Reliance on DOE Motors Test Procedure and Development of Coefficients

DOE published a NOPR regarding the test procedures for motors (“Motors TP NOPR”), in which 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 (Dec. 17, 2021). 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 manufacturer catalogs or offered for sale with the electric motor.

Id.

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to require 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 not available, in accordance with the DOE motors test procedure, should it be finalized. 87 FR 21268, 21298. DOE noted that this nameplate efficiency, as proposed, would be representative of the motor + inverter efficiency rather than just the motor efficiency.

Id.

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. In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE stated that should it 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. 87 FR 21268, 21298. However, DOE stated that since the proposed electric motors test procedure is an IEC test procedure, if DOE's proposal in the Motors TP NOPR were finalized, the tested efficiency of the synchronous inverter-only electric motors + inverters would likely already be available.

Id.

Based on this premise, DOE proceeded to discuss a proposal regarding development of coefficients for the calculation method for pumps sold with inverter-only motors. 87 FR 21268, 21297-21299. DOE noted that in a 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. (HI, No. 22 at pp. 1-2) HI commented that it used actual motor data from multiple manufacturers to calculate these coefficients.

Id.

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.

Id.

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 equivalent to or higher than the test method.

Id.

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.nIE4 is an approximation of super premium efficiency motors and IE5 is the IEC designation for ultra-premium efficiency motors.

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE stated that while it did not have data to evaluate HI's part load loss model quantitatively, DOE did plot HI's suggested model and preliminarily found the resulting trends in losses to be reasonable in relation to the expected loss differences between induction and synchronous electric motors. 87 FR 21268, 21298. Specifically, HI's suggested model showed inverter-only motors to be more efficient at part-load when compared to DOE's loss model for induction motors.

Id.

Further, HI's suggested model showed 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.

Id.

However, DOE identified three concerns with the HI's suggested model which it discussed in the April 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 21268, 21298. First, the HI-provided comparison of wire-to-water test data with results from the calculation method using the recommended coefficients resulted in one case where the PEI rating determined using the calculation method was lower than the PEI rating determined using the test method.

Id.

Second, HI's proposed coefficients were based on a delta between induction motors and inverter-only motors, and

DOE did not propose to adopt HI's proposed induction motor coefficients in the April 2022 NOPR.

Id.

Third, HI's coefficients are applicable to motor-only efficiency, while DOE's proposed test procedure for inverter-only motors includes efficiency for the motor + inverter combined.

Id.

Therefore, DOE proposed in the April 2022 NOPR to make slight modifications to the inverter-only coefficients proposed by HI. 87 FR 21268, 21298. Specifically, DOE started with the proposed revised 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), and then normalized to the motor + control losses (rather than the motor only losses).

Id.

Table III.2 shows the inverter-only motor and control part-load loss factor coefficients proposed in the April 2022 NOPR. These coefficients result in slightly higher losses than the HI model across all hp. 87 FR 21268, 21298. DOE requested comment on its proposed inverter-only part-load loss coefficients, specifically 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. 87 FR 21268, 21299.

Table III.2—Proposed Inverter-Only Motor and Control Part Load Loss Factor Equation Coefficients

Motor horsepower

(hp)

Coefficients for induction motor and control part load loss factor

)

≤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

The Efficiency Advocates supported DOE's proposal to permit use of a calculation-based method for pumps sold with inverter-only motors. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 32 at p. 3

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.