Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-05635

Rule2023-05635

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial and Industrial Pumps

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

March 24, 2023

Effective

April 24, 2023

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

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.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 57 (Friday, March 24, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17934-17986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05635]

[[Page 17933]]

Vol. 88

Friday,

No. 57

March 24, 2023

Part II

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

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

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 2023 / Rules
and Regulations

[[Page 17934]]

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

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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
All documents in the docket are listed in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>
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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032</a>. 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8dccfdfde1e4ece3eee8def9ece3e9ecffe9fedcf8e8fef9e4e2e3fecde8e8a3e9e2e8a3eae2fb">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-9870. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c382b3b3afaaa2ada0a690b7a2ada7a2b1a7b092b6a6b0b7aaacadb083a6a6eda7aca6eda4acb5">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
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:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f3bd9c9f929dddb1819a9098849c9c97b39b82dd979c96dd949c85">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

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: <a href="http://www.Pumps.org">www.Pumps.org</a>.

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:
<a href="http://www.asme.org">www.asme.org</a>.

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: <a href="http://www.awwa.org">www.awwa.org</a>.

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 <a href="http://www.csagroup.org">www.csagroup.org</a>.

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
<a href="http://standards.ieee.org">standards.ieee.org</a>.

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

[[Page 17935]]

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:
<a href="http://www.iso.org">www.iso.org</a>.
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''), Sec. 431.464, and 10 CFR part 431 subpart Y
appendix A (``appendix A''). The following sections discuss DOE's
authority to establish test procedures for pumps and relevant
background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures
for this equipment.

A. Authority

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C of EPCA,\2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This
equipment includes pumps, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ 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

[[Page 17936]]

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'').\3\ The January 2016 Final Rule established definitions for the
terms ``pump,'' \4\ ``driver,'' \5\ and ``controls,'' \6\ and
identified several categories and configurations of pumps. The pumps
test procedure currently incorporates by reference the Hydraulic
Institute (``HI'') Standard 40.6-2014, ``Methods for Rotodynamic Pump
Efficiency Testing'' (``HI 40.6-2014''), along with several
modifications to that testing method related to measuring the hydraulic
power, shaft power, and electric input power of pumps, inclusive of
electric motors and any continuous or non-continuous controls.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

On September 28, 2020, DOE published an early assessment review
request for information (``RFI'') to determine whether to proceed with
a rulemaking to amend the test procedure for 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this final Comment No. in
Commenter(s) rule the docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Efficiency Advocates...... 30 Efficiency Organizations.
American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, Natural Resources
Defense Council.
ebm-pabst, Inc.......................... ebm-pabst................. n/a Motor Manufacturer.
Grundfos Americas Corporation........... Grundfos.................. 31 Manufacturer.
Hydraulic Institute..................... HI........................ 33 Trade Association.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.... NEEA...................... 34 Efficiency Organization.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San CA IOUs................... 32 Utilities.
Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern
California Edison; collectively, the
California Investor-Owned Utilities.
People's Republic of China.............. China..................... 29 Country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\8\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). 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 Sec. Sec. 431.462, 431.463,
431.464, and appendix A as follows:

[[Page 17937]]

(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 Includes in the scope Improved
of the test procedure RSHIL, of the test procedure representativen
RSHES, SVIL, or VT pumps; RSHIL, RSHES, SVIL, ess.
pumps distributed in commerce and VT pumps; pumps
with nominal speeds of 1,200 distributed in
rpm; or all end-suction pumps. commerce with nominal
speeds of 1,200 rpm;
and all end-suction
pumps.
Includes a scope limitation of Specifies a scope Improved clarity
a design temperature range limitation of a pump and
from 14 to 248 [deg]F. whose design enforceability.
temperature range
falls wholly or
partially into the
range from 15 to 250
[deg]F.
Includes definitions for pump Includes definitions Required for
categories within the current for additional pump scope
scope of the test procedure. categories and expansion;
clarifications to the improved
definitions for some enforceability.
existing pump
categories.
Incorporates by reference HI Incorporates by Updates to
40.6-2014 for determining the reference HI 40.6- applicable
constant load pump energy 2021 for determining industry test
index (``PEICL'') and the the PEICL and the standard.
variable load pump energy PEIVL value of pumps.
index (``PEIVL'') value of
pumps.
Provides example pump Removes example pump Simplification
categories for certain pump categories from all of the test
definitions by referencing relevant definitions. procedure.
ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 and ANSI/
HI 2.1-2.2-2014.
References ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2- Incorporates a Simplification
2014 to define ``intermediate definition for of the test
bowl'' within the definition ``intermediate bowl'' procedure.
for bowl diameter. in the definition for
bowl diameter,
removing the
reference to ANSI/HI
2.1-2.2-2014.
Does not include test Includes Required for
provisions for multistage specifications for scope
pumps other than RSV and ST. stages for testing expansion.
for RSHIL, RSHES, and
VT pumps.
Includes provisions for pumps Clarifies provisions Improved
with BEP at run-out. for pumps with BEP at repeatability
run-out. and
reproducibility
.
References a section of HI Clarifies the Improved
40.6-2014 related to applicable test repeatability
calibration of measurement provisions in HI 40.6- and
equipment. 2021 for calibration reproducibility
of measurement .
equipment.
Includes a calculation method Includes revised part- Improved
for pumps sold with induction load loss factor representativen
motors and controls. equation coefficients ess.
for motors 50 hp and
above.
Does not provide a calculation Provides a calculation Reduced burden.
method for pumps sold with method for pumps sold
inverter-only motors. with inverter-only
motors.
Includes test provisions Includes test Allows for
specific to submersible pumps provisions specific seamless update
based on default motor to submersible pumps if or when DOE
efficiency. based on DOE's finalizes
coverage of submersible
submersible motors. motor coverage.
Does not include test Includes test Required for
provisions specific to SVILs. provisions specific scope
to SVILs. expansion.
Does not include provisions Includes provisions Improved
for testing pumps distributed for testing pumps representativen
in commerce with 6-pole sold with 6-pole ess.
motors or motors with design motors or motors with
speeds greater than or equal design speeds greater
to 960 rpm and less than than or equal to 960
1,440 rpm. rpm and less than
1,440 rpm.
Does not allow use of AEDMs... Allows use of AEDMs... Reduced burden.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 17938]]

DOE has determined that the amendments described in section III of
this final rule would not alter the measured efficiency \9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ 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 \10\ of pumps. 10 CFR
431.464(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ The excluded categories of pumps are fire pumps; self-
priming pumps; prime-assist pumps; magnet driven pumps; pumps
designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10 CFR part 50,
``Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities''; and
pumps meeting the design and construction requirements set forth in
Military Specifications: MIL-P-17639F, ``Pumps, Centrifugal,
Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use'' (as amended); MIL-P-
17881D, ``Pumps, Centrifugal, Boiler Feed, (Multi-Stage)'' (as
amended); MIL-P-17840C, ``Pumps, Centrifugal, Close-Coupled, Navy
Standard (For Surface Ship Application)'' (as amended); MIL-P-
18682D, ``Pump, Centrifugal, Main Condenser Circulating, Naval
Shipboard'' (as amended); and MIL-P-18472G, ``Pumps, Centrifugal,
Condensate, Feed Booster, Waste Heat Boiler, And Distilling Plant''
(as amended). 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE defines ``clean water pump'' as a pump that is designed for use
in pumping water with a maximum non-absorbent free solid content of
0.016 pounds per cubic foot, and with a maximum dissolved solid content
of 3.1 pounds per cubic foot, provided that the total gas content of
the water does not exceed the saturation volume and disregarding any
additives necessary to prevent the water from freezing at a minimum of
14 [deg]F. 10 CFR 431.462.
The five categories of clean water pumps to which the current test
procedure applies are: end-suction close-coupled (``ESCC''); end-
suction frame mounted/own bearings (``ESFM''); in-line (``IL'');
radially-split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line diffuser casing
(``RSV''); and submersible turbine (``ST''). 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(i).
The defined characteristics specify limits on flow rate, maximum head,
design temperature range, motor type, bowl diameter, and speed.\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ 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 [deg]F; (D)
designed to operate with either (1) a 2- or 4-pole induction motor,
or (2) a non-induction motor with a speed of rotation operating
range that includes speeds of rotation between 2,880 and 4,320
revolutions per minute (``rpm'') and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, and in
either case, the driver and impeller must rotate at the same speed;
(E) For ST pumps, a 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter; and (F) For
ESCC and ESFM pumps, a specific speed less than or equal to 5,000
when calculated using U.S. customary units. 10 CFR
431.464(a)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the April 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.

[[Page 17939]]

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<INF>CL</INF> and PEI<INF>VL,</INF> 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 \12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ 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<INF>VL</INF>'').
(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'') \13\ and full impeller diameter, and in which liquid is
discharged in a plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft. 10 CFR
431.462. In 2016, a Circulator Pump Working Group \14\ recommended a
test procedure

[[Page 17940]]

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<INF>CL</INF> or PEI<INF>VL</INF> 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ BEP is the pump hydraulic power operating point (consisting
of both flow and head conditions) that results in the maximum
efficiency.
\14\ On February 3, 2016, DOE published its intention to
establish a working group under the Appliance Standards and
Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (``ASRAC'') to negotiate a
test procedure and energy conservation standards for circulator
pumps. 81 FR 5658. Throughout this document, this working group 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 \15\ 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ 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

[[Page 17941]]

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

[[Page 17942]]

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

[[Page 17943]]

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.\16\ 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.\17\ Id.
DOE proposed test provisions to accommodate these pumps in the April
2022 NOPR and requested comment on its proposal. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ See <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032-0024">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032-0024</a>.
(Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032-0024.)
\17\ 960 and 1440 rpm are <plus-minus>20 percent of 1,200 rpm.
The acceptable non-induction motor ranges for 1800 and 3600 rpm
pumps are also <plus-minus>20 percent of the nominal value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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[hyphen]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[hyphen]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[hyphen]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[hyphen]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[hyphen]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

[[Page 17944]]

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

[[Page 17945]]

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 [deg]F.
This range was derived from the original negotiation term sheet for
pumps, which recommended limiting the scope to pumps with a design
range from -10 [deg]C to 120 [deg]C. (Docket 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 [deg]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 [deg]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 [deg]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
[deg]F when translating from [deg]C to [deg]F would be preferable to
using the exact value of 248 [deg]F since manufacturers commonly use
rounded temperature values in their marketing materials. Id. Similarly,
DOE discussed that it would be preferable to round the lower
temperature limit from 14 [deg]F to 15 [deg]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
[deg]F. 87 FR 21268, 21280. DOE requested comment on this clarification
and on DOE's recommendation to shift the design temperature range from
14 [deg]F to 248 [deg]F to 15 [deg]F to 250 [deg]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 [deg]F to 250 [deg]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 \18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ 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

[[Page 17946]]

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 \19\ in that SVIL pumps have a reduced shaft
power input range \20\ and a different maximum pump power output
limitation.\21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ 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.
\20\ 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.
\21\ 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

[[Page 17947]]

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[hyphen]line twin[hyphen]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[hyphen]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

[[Page 17948]]

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.\22\ (HI, No. 33 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ 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 \23\ pumps. Id. HI therefore
recommended that DOE reference ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2-2019. (HI, No. 33 at
p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ 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.

[[Page 17949]]

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:

[[Page 17950]]

(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 \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ 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<INF>STD</INF>''). See section II of appendix A.
The current test procedure defines the PEI<INF>CL</INF> 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<INF>VL</INF> 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<INF>CL</INF> is calculated as the average of driver power input
at 75 percent, 100 percent, and 110 percent of flow at the BEP, where
the flows are achieved by varying the operating head to follow the pump
performance curve. See appendix A, section II.A.1 and subsequently
referenced sections. PER<INF>VL</INF> 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,\25\ DOE
tentatively determined that use of PER<INF>CL</INF> and
PER<INF>VL</INF> and indexing the results against PER<INF>STD</INF>
would be a reasonable and consistent way to evaluate SVIL performance.
87 FR 21268, 21286. This determination was based largely on the
similarity of SVILs to in-line pumps, which are evaluated using the
PER<INF>CL</INF> and PER<INF>VL</INF> metrics. Id. As such, DOE
proposed in the April 2022 NOPR that the rating metric for SVIL pumps
would be PEI<INF>CL</INF> for constant load pumps and PEI<INF>VL</INF>
for variable load pumps, equivalent to the metric already in use for
currently covered commercial and industrial pumps. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ A link to the circulator pumps docket web page can be found
at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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<INF>CL</INF> and PEI<INF>VL</INF> are appropriate metrics for BB,
VT, and RSH pumps. Id. Using PEI<INF>CL</INF> and PEI<INF>VL</INF> for
these additional pump categories ensures a consistent rating approach
in the market. Id. In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed that the
PEI<INF>CL</INF> and PEI<INF>VL</INF> metric would be used

[[Page 17951]]

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<INF>CL</INF> for constant load
pumps and PEI<INF>VL</INF> for variable load pumps, equivalent to the
metric already in use for currently covered commercial and industrial
pumps.
In response to the April 2022 NOPR, China suggested that DOE revise
PER<INF>std</INF> 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<INF>std</INF> for both current and expanded scope
pumps. However, the overall methodology of determining
PER<INF>std</INF> does not differ by pump category; PER<INF>std</INF>
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,\26\ driver power input (for testing-based methods),\27\ pump
power output,\28\ pump efficiency,\29\ bowl efficiency,\30\ overall
efficiency,\31\ and other relevant values at the specified load points
necessary to determine PEI<INF>CL</INF> and PEI<INF>VL</INF>. HI 40.6-
2021 also contains provisions for test methodology, standard rating
conditions, equipment specifications, uncertainty calculations, and
tolerances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ The term ``pump power input'' in HI 40.6-2021 is defined as
``the power transmitted to the pump by its driver'' and is
synonymous with the term ``pump shaft input power,'' as used in this
document.
\27\ The term ``driver power input'' in HI 40.6-2014 is defined
as ``the power absorbed by the pump driver'' and is synonymous with
the term ``pump input power to the driver,'' as used in this
document.
\28\ The term ``pump power output'' in HI-40.6-2021 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.
\29\ The term ``pump efficiency'' is defined in HI 40.6-2014 as
a ratio of pump power output to pump power input.
\30\ The term ``bowl efficiency'' is defined in HI 40.6-2014 as
a ratio of pump power output to bowl assembly power input and is
applicable only to VTS and RSV pumps.
\31\ The term ``overall efficiency'' is defined in HI 40.6-2014
as a ratio of pump power output to driver power input and describes
the combined efficiency of a pump and driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sections II through VII of appendix A specify methods for
determining PEI<INF>CL</INF> and PEI<INF>VL</INF> for pumps based on
whether they are distributed into commerce with a motor and/or with
controls. These sections are summarized as follows:
<bullet> Section II: Calculation of PEICL or PEIVL for all pumps
based on the pump energy rating for a minimally compliant reference
pump (PERCL or PERVL, respectively);
<bullet> Section III: Test procedure for bare pumps;
<bullet> Section IV: Testing-based approach for pumps sold with
motors;
<bullet> Section V: Calculation-based approach for pumps sold with
motors;
<bullet> Section VI: Testing-based approach for pumps sold with
motors and controls; and
<bullet> Section VII: Calculation-based approach for pumps sold
with motors and controls.
See appendix A, sections I.A.2 through I.A.6.
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

[[Page 17952]]

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<INF>CL</INF>. Appendix A, sections III.E, IV.E, V.E.
Similarly, for variable load pumps, energy ratings are determined at
25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow with each point weighted by
0.25 and summed to obtain a value for PER<INF>VL</INF>. Appendix A,
sections VI.E, VII.E.
In the April 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

[[Page 17953]]

points should be applied in the determination of PER<INF>STD</INF>. 87
FR 21268, 21288. DOE proposed to specify that the revised loading
points would only be used in application of the [alpha]<INF>i</INF>
coefficient values when determining pump power input, and not when
determining specific speed (``Ns'') or the minimally-compliant pump
efficiency (``[eta]<INF>pump,STD</INF>''), which should always be based
on 100 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<INF>STD</INF>. 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

[[Page 17954]]

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[hyphen]only motors. Id. at 6. However, Grundfos also
stated they believe a hybrid mapping approach could provide more
representative PEIs when compared to calculation[hyphen]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,\32\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coefficients for induction motor and control
part load loss factor (zi)
Motor horsepower (hp) -----------------------------------------------
a b c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=5............................................................. -0.4658 1.4965 0.5303

[[Page 17955]]

>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) \33\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ 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

[[Page 17956]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coefficients for induction motor and control
part load loss factor (zi)
Motor horsepower (hp) -----------------------------------------------
a b c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=5............................................................. -0.0898 1.0251 0.0667
>5 and <=20..................................................... -0.1591 1.1683 -0.0085
>20 and <=50.................................................... -0.4071 1.4028 0.0055
>50 and <=100................................................... -0.3341 1.3377 -0.0023
>100............................................................ -0.0749 1.0864 -0.0096
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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) They commented that inverter-
only motors are highly efficient, and that a calculation-based method
may reduce testing burden and facilitate adoption of pumps using these
highly efficient motors. Id.
The CA IOUs supported inverter-only calculation methods discussed
in the April 2022 NOPR for inverter-only pumps and added that the
operating points are consistent with observations on field metered pump
load profiles, operating speed assumptions, and other industry
standards. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 6) The CA IOUs also agreed that the
proposed coefficients provide conservative calculation method results,
which do not exceed wire-to-water measured performance and recommended
DOE finalize the calculation method. Id. However, the CA IOUs stated
that VFD to motor harmonic losses on the order of 30 percent is higher
than standard practice or current generation products and indicated
that they plan to submit data on this topic. Id. No such data were
submitted.
While Grundfos stated that the method DOE used to determine these
coefficients is reasonable, it suggested using the manufacturer
interview process to obtain this information from specific
manufacturers under both the motor and/or pump rules. (Grundfos, No. 31
at p. 6) Grundfos stated that it follows IEC 61800-9-2 for inverter-
only motors and publishes combined motor and inverter efficiency. Id.
HI stated there is currently no standard methodology or
specification for motor manufacturers to publish efficiency on the
nameplate that includes motor and drive losses, and it is not typically
available to pump manufacturers. (HI, No. 33 at p. 6) HI added that
some manufacturers are measuring and publishing wire-to-shaft
efficiency with inverter-only motors, but only when integrated by the
manufacturer and this information may not be on the nameplate. Id.
HI commented that the coefficients proposed by HI in response to
the April 2021 RFI added harmonic and VFD losses to the motor only
losses as defined in IEC 60034-30-2, and that HI recommended using IE4
motor efficiencies (IEC 60034-30-1) as a default for the synchronous
motors. (HI, No. 33 at p. 6) HI stated it understood that IEC 60034-30-
1 provides tables for the motor only and IEC 60034-30-2 provides a
calculation method to take IEC 60034-30-1 values and determine the
motor efficiency on the drive by applying the incremental losses
through calculation. Id. Additionally, HI responded that the
coefficients proposed by DOE are different than proposed by industry
since they start with a combined motor and VFD efficiency, and that
this value is not available to pump manufacturers and there is no
specification for manufacturers to publish these data. Id. HI
recommended that instead of using a nameplate value that is not
available to pump manufacturers, DOE (1) use the IE4 motor only
efficiencies as defaults and specify standard math to add the VFD
losses, or (2) start with IE4 motor only efficiencies and include the
VFD losses in the coefficients as proposed by HI in the April 2021 RFI.
Id.
NEEA supported the proposed calculation methodology for inverter-
only synchronous motors, but recommended DOE consider an interim
approach until these motors are covered by DOE regulations. (NEEA, No.
34 at p. 5) NEEA stated that it will take many years for the motors
test procedure, should it proceed as written, to take effect and
require testing of synchronous motors, and that this lag would cause
confusion in the marketplace and stifle adoption of new technologies.
Id. at 6. NEEA recommended that DOE incorporate by reference IEC 60034-
2-3 until DOE has regulations covering these motors. Id. NEEA added
that IEC 60034-2-3 is the most appropriate motors test procedure for
calculating full load motor efficiency values, and the values do not
include inverter losses, therefore producing reasonable full load motor
efficiency values to be used with the values DOE proposed in Table
III.2 of the pumps NOPR when calculation PER<INF>VL</INF>.\34\ Id. NEEA
further recommended that incorporation of IEC 60034-2-3 should no
longer apply when the motors are covered by DOE regulations. Id. NEEA
stated that it had no test data with

[[Page 17957]]

which to evaluate the coefficients proposed in Table III.2 in the April
2022 NOPR, but supported the method used to determine the coefficients.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ DOE notes that Table III.2 of the April 2022 NOPR included
coefficients relative to motor + inverter efficiency, so it is not
clear what NEEA's proposal is referring to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEEA additionally recommended that in the future, DOE consider test
procedures and metrics that better account for motor and control
performance at various load points. (NEEA, No. 34 at p. 5) NEEA stated
that as more inverter-only and synchronous motors are developed and
deployed, differentiating motor and control performance at part load
points will become increasingly important. (NEEA, No. 34 at p. 7) NEEA
noted that IE5-level motors can show more variability at part-load. Id.
NEEA recommended that when IEC 61800-9-2 data are available, DOE
consider revising the pumps test procedure to incorporate the specific
losses at each load point as opposed to, or in addition to, the default
loss curves. Id. NEEA stated this would allow manufacturers to showcase
their improvements in efficiency and allow for more accurate
representation of losses Id.
On October 19, 2022, following submission of comments to the April
2022 NOPR, DOE published a final rule regarding test procedures for
motors (the ``Motors TP Final Rule''), which adopted a test procedure
for inverter-only synchronous motors generally as proposed in
accordance with IEC 61800-9-2:2017.87 FR 63588, 63659.
Since the adopted DOE test procedure for electric motors relies on
motor and inverter efficiency, and beginning 180 days following
publication of that test procedure, any representations of energy
consumption for those inverter-only synchronous electric motors must be
made in accordance with that test procedure, DOE has determined that it
would not be appropriate to have a pumps test procedure that relies on
motor only efficiency for these same motors. Instead, the pumps test
procedure should rely on motor and inverter efficiency tested in
accordance with the DOE electric motors test procedure, consistent with
the existing test procedure for pumps sold with induction motors. As
such, DOE is finalizing the pump test procedure as proposed in the
April 2022 NOPR, to be based on motor and inverter efficiency rather
than motor only efficiency. DOE acknowledges that there will be a
period of time in which motor and inverter efficiency is not required
to be published by motor manufacturers, however, DOE is also declining
to develop an interim test procedure. This approach will limit
potential deviation between interim ratings and any ratings post motor-
standard, should one be finalized, which could cause market confusion,
and will allow pump manufacturers to use motor and inverter data when
available. Now that the DOE motors test procedure is final, there is
more certainty in the market than there was at the time of the April
2022 NOPR, and motor manufacturers may choose to make representations
early or upon request of their customers. DOE notes that many motor
manufacturers are currently making representations regarding the energy
efficiency of their inverter-only synchronous electric motors, and in
order to continue doing so after the 180-day mark, those
representations must be of motor and inverter efficiency in accordance
with the DOE test procedure. Therefore, DOE expects such information to
be relatively widely available. DOE is also finalizing an AEDM option
for pumps, as discussed in section III.I.2. With this option, pump
manufacturers may use their own calculation method, relying on any
available data and coefficients they have, including potentially HI or
NEEA's recommended approach, as long as such calculation meets the AEDM
requirements, as discussed in section III.1.2. In addition, as DOE
received no comment on the coefficients excluding the request to base
them on motor-only efficiency, DOE is finalizing the coefficients as
proposed.
b. Denominator for PEI Metric
In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE stated that the appropriate denominator
for pumps sold with inverter-only synchronous electric motors is the
same as for other pumps sold with motors with or without controls
(i.e., the efficiency standards for NEMA Design B motors in 10 CFR
431.25 is comparable to the PEI metric when comparing pumps across a
common baseline). 87 FR 21268, 21298. Consequently, DOE did not propose
a revision to the calculation of PER<INF>STD</INF> for these pumps. Id.
DOE received no comments on this issue and is finalizing the
denominator as proposed.
c. Applicability
In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed that, to the extent that the
calculation-based method would be applicable to pumps sold with
synchronous electric motors that are inverter-only electric motors,
such provision would apply to pumps sold with inverter-only synchronous
electric motors both with and without controls. 87 FR 21268, 21299. DOE
also proposed that pumps sold with inverter-only motors with or without
controls would apply the testing-based approach in section VI of
appendix A (for pumps sold with motors and controls) rather than in
section IV of appendix A (for pumps sold with motors), given that
section VI results in PEI<INF>VL</INF>, and DOE assumed that such
pumps, even if sold without an inverter, would be tested with an
inverter. Id. DOE requested comment on its proposal to apply
PEI<INF>VL</INF> to pumps sold with inverter-only synchronous motors
without controls, including application of the testing method in
section VI of appendix A and the calculation method in section VII of
appendix A. Id.
Grundfos agreed with the proposal. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 7) HI
agreed with the proposal to apply PEI<INF>VL</INF> ratings to pumps
sold with inverter-only synchronous motors without controls, assuming
they would use section VII of appendix A. (HI, No. 33 at p. 7) However,
HI disagreed with section VII.A.2, ``Pumps sold with inverter-only
synchronous electric motors regulated by DOE's energy conservation
standards in subpart B of this part,'' stating that DOE should allow
use of the calculation method using IE4 efficiency from IEC 60034-30-1,
since most (if not all) synchronous inverter-only motors will meet the
IE4 level. Id. HI also disagreed with sections V.A.2 and VII.A.3,
``SVIL pumps sold with small electric motors regulated by DOE's energy
conservation standards at Sec. 431.446 or with small non-small-
electric-motor electric motors (``SNEMs'') regulated by DOE's energy
conservation standards in subpart B of this part (but including motors
of such varieties that are less than 0.25 hp) and continuous
controls,'' stating that DOE should continue to allow use of the
calculation method for non-DOE regulated small or SNEM motors as
referenced in previous comments by creating coefficients specific to
these motor types for section VII calculations. Id.
Based on the comments received, DOE is finalizing its proposal to
apply PEI<INF>VL</INF> to pumps sold with inverter-only synchronous
motors without controls, including application of the testing method in
section VI of appendix A and the calculation method in section VII of
appendix A. DOE has addressed HI's concern with respect to their
proposed IE4-based calculation method in section III.F.3.a of this
document and discusses the concern regarding small or SNEM motors in
section III.G of this document.
4. Pumps Sold With Submersible Motors
For pumps sold with submersible motors, the calculation of
PER<INF>STD</INF>, the test procedure for bare pumps, the calculation-
based approach for pumps

[[Page 17958]]

sold with motors, and the calculation-based approach for pumps sold
with motors and controls all include reference to Table 2 of appendix
A, which includes default nominal full-load submersible motor
efficiency values. These motor efficiency values were developed to
allow for pumps sold with submersible motors to be rated using
calculation-based methods despite the fact that submersible motors are
not included in DOE's current motor regulations. In the Motors TP NOPR,
DOE proposed a test procedure for submersible motors based on section
34.4 of NEMA MG1-2016 with its 2018 Supplements. 86 FR 71725, 71749-
71750. DOE noted in the April 2022 NOPR that it had not established
energy conservation standards for submersible motors, and that were DOE
to establish a test procedure for submersible motors, such motors would
not be required to be tested according to the DOE test procedure until
such time that compliance with any energy conservation standards that
DOE may establish is required. 87 FR 21268, 21299.
In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed that for the calculation-based
approaches for submersible pumps sold with motors (with or without
controls), for determination of PER<INF>CL</INF> and PER<INF>VL</INF>,
the default efficiency values in Table 2 of appendix A would be used
until compliance with an energy conservation standard for submersible
motors is required, should such a standard be established. 87 FR 21268,
21299. At such time, calculation of the pump efficiency for submersible
pumps would rely on the motor efficiency rating marked on the nameplate
and tested in accordance with the relevant DOE test procedure. Id. DOE
further proposed that if DOE finalized a test procedure for submersible
pumps, prior to any required compliance with an energy conservation
standard that DOE may establish for these pumps, a manufacturer may
rely on the motor efficiency represented by the motor manufacturer, if
such a representation were made, or the default values in Table 2 of
appendix A. Id.
DOE also proposed in the April 2022 NOPR that when determining
PER<INF>STD</INF> using the calculation-based approach for bare pumps,
before the compliance date of any future standards for submersible
electric motors that publishes after January 1, 2021, the default
efficiency values in Table 2 of appendix A would be used. 87 FR 21268,
21299-21300. After the compliance date of any standards for submersible
electric motors that publishes after January 1, 2021, any standards
applicable to submersible motors in appendix B of part 431 would be
used. 87 FR 21268, 21300. DOE requested comment on its proposal for the
calculation-based approach for pumps sold with submersible pumps to
require use of the rated motor efficiency marked on the nameplate that
has been tested in accordance with the relevant DOE test procedure
after such time as compliance is required with an energy conservation
standard for submersible motors, should such a standard be established.
Id.
Grundfos commented that this approach would be in line with the
current requirements for pump testing using DOE regulated product and
agreed with the approach. (Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 7) However, Grundfos
stated that Section 34.4 of NEMA MG1-2016 is an inadequate test
procedure for submersible motors. Id.
HI responded that, consistent with its comments on the Motors TP
NOPR, which stated that the proposed submersible motor test procedure
was inadequate, it does not believe this language is warranted at this
time. (HI, No. 33 at p. 7) Thus, HI recommended that no changes to the
test procedure for pumps sold with submersible motors be made at this
time. Id.
In the Motors TP Final Rule, DOE did not finalize a test procedure
for submersible motors. 87 FR 63588, 63605. However, DOE notes that the
proposed provision in the pumps test procedure relates to any future
standards for submersible motors, and as Grundfos stated, the approach
is in line with the current requirements for pump testing with motors
covered by DOE. As such, DOE is finalizing the provision as proposed,
noting that it will have no impact if and until a future motors
rulemaking adopts a test procedure and/or standard for submersible
motors.

G. Test Procedure for SVIL Pumps

In this final rule, DOE is expanding the scope of the test
procedure to include SVIL pumps. DOE reviewed the general pumps test
procedure as finalized in this rule to determine if any modifications
were necessary to accommodate SVIL pumps. The amended test procedure is
based on the test methods contained in HI 40.6-2021, which DOE has
determined also applies to SVIL pumps.
As discussed in section III.F, the general pumps test procedure
also contains methods to determine the appropriate PEI using either
calculation-based methods or testing-based methods. DOE has determined
that these calculation- and testing-based methods are applicable to
SVIL pumps just as they are applicable to IL pumps, based on the
configuration in which the pump is being sold (i.e., since SVIL pumps
are sold as pumps with motors or pumps with motors and controls, the
test methods enumerated in Table 1 to Appendix A apply to SVIL pumps).
Additionally, the determination of pump performance in the pumps test
procedure, as amended in this final rule, would be appropriate for SVIL
pumps.
1. Applicable Motor Regulations
The primary differences between SVIL and IL pumps affecting the
application of DOE's general pumps test procedure are the size and
certain characteristics of the motor with which the SVIL pumps are
rated. DOE notes that SVIL pumps, which this final rule defines as
pumps having shaft input power less than 1 hp, may be paired with
motors that are less than 1 hp and, as such, are not subject to DOE's
electric motor regulations specified at 10 CFR 431.25. However, some
motors less than 1 hp are subject to DOE's small electric motor
regulations specified at 10 CFR 431.446.
In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE stated that its motor regulations at 10
CFR 431.446 exclude totally enclosed fan-cooled electric motors
(``TEFC'') and certain other motors considered to be non-general
purpose motors, which pump manufacturers had noted are frequently
paired with SVIL pumps. 87 FR 21268, 21301. DOE stated that in the
Motors TP NOPR, it had proposed adding such motors to the scope of
electric motors coverage under the term small non-small electric motor
electric motors (``SNEMs''). Specifically, DOE proposed to define SNEMs
as agnostic to enclosure and topology, affirmatively stating that the
proposed test procedure would apply to general-purpose, definite-
purpose, and special-purpose motors. As proposed, SNEMs would include
fractional horsepower motors as low as 0.25 hp. 86 FR 71710, 71721-
71725. The Motors TP NOPR also proposed testing instructions specific
to these motors. 86 FR 71710, 71739. DOE noted that it had not
established energy conservation standards for SNEMs, and that were DOE
to establish a test procedure for SNEMs, such motors would not be
required to test according to the DOE test procedure until such time as
compliance with any energy conservation standards be required, should
such standards be established. Under DOE's Motors TP NOPR, any
definitions, test procedures, and standards finalized for SNEMs would
be in found in subpart B of part 431. 87 FR 21268, 21301.

[[Page 17959]]

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE stated that it expected that the
proposed definition and test procedure for SNEMs, as well as the
proposed test procedure for inverter-only synchronous electric motors,
as discussed in section III.F.3, would encompass the additional types
of motors discussed by stakeholders that are not currently covered by
the standards at 10 CFR 431.446. Therefore, DOE proposed that where the
calculation-based test methods refer to the ``represented nominal full-
load motor efficiency (i.e., nameplate/DOE-certified value),'' the
nominal full-load motor efficiency for an SVIL pump would be determined
in accordance with the applicable test procedure in 10 CFR 431.444 or
in subpart B of part 431.87 FR 21268, 21301.
DOE also proposed that for SVIL pumps, the determination of
PER<INF>STD</INF> would reference DOE's small electric motor
regulations at 10 CFR 431.446 rather than the electric motor
regulations at 10 CFR 431.25, and would be the minimum efficiency of
the energy conservation standards for polyphase or single-phase (CSIR/
CSCR) for the relevant number of poles and motor horsepower. 87 FR
21268, 21301. The single-phase standards only apply to CSCR and CSIR
but the proposal would apply the efficiency values found at 10 CFR
431.446 when determining an SVIL pump's PER<INF>STD</INF>. Id. DOE
stated that it believed that these values represent an appropriate
default for the SVIL market. Id. DOE also stated that it would also
consider application of efficiency values found for specific SNEMs in
subpart B of part 431, if the relevant proposed amendments contained in
the Motors TP NOPR were finalized. Id. DOE stated that its information
did not indicate that SVIL pumps are sold as bare pumps, but that if
stakeholders identify such models, DOE would include these same
provisions in the calculation method for bare pumps. Id.
DOE sought comment on whether the efficiency standards found at 10
CFR 431.446 are appropriate for use in the determination of PERSTD for
SVILs, whether certain motor topologies that would be classified as
SNEM are more prevalent and significantly less efficient, and whether
the minimum efficiency of the polyphase and CSCR/CSIR standards for the
relevant number of poles and motor horsepower is appropriate or whether
there should be differences depending on the phase of the motor with
which the pump is sold. 87 FR 21268, 21301.
HI and Grundfos stated that motor efficiencies found in 10 CFR
431.446 are not the lowest for topologies used in SVIL pumps and are
inappropriate for determining PER<INF>STD</INF> for SVIL products. (HI,
No. 33 at p. 7; Grundfos, No. 31 at p. 7) HI and Grundfos stated that
DOE must create a minimum efficiency table, similar to that created for
submersible motors, to capture the minimums across the motor sizes
covered by the SVIL products. Id.
NEEA supported DOE's recommendation for the test procedure for
SVILs, but stated that they were concerned that the SNEM rulemaking
will not conclude in sufficient time to allow for incorporation of
those test procedures and standards into this rulemaking, creating a
gap during which manufacturers would not have a calculation-based
approach. (NEEA, No. 34 at p. 5) NEEA recommended that DOE add an
additional calculation-based approach for SVIL pumps sold with motors
not covered by the motors standard or test procedure at 10 CFR 431.446.
Id. NEEA recommended that DOE embed a calculation approach for SVILs
that uses IE2 efficiency levels to determine full load motor
efficiency, as described in IEC 60034-30-1. Id. NEEA stated that these
values are appropriate because the motors are not currently covered by
a standard, so a conservative value would use an efficiency level below
the standard for covered motors of similar sizes, and would not
disadvantage manufacturers that choose to wire-to-water test equipment.
Id. NEEA stated that once any motor TP or standard is in place and
covering additional motor types, the embedded calculation-based
methodology would no longer be valid. Id.
Following receipt of comments, DOE published the Motors TP final
rule, which adopted a test procedure for SNEMs in appendix B to subpart
B of part 431.87 FR 63588, 63657-63660. However, DOE has yet to adopt
any energy conservation standards for SNEM. As a result, there are not
currently minimum efficiency values for SNEMs on which DOE could base
the calculation of PER<INF>STD</INF> for SVIL.
DOE acknowledges that in the proposed approach, SVIL paired with
SNEM may have worse PER ratings than SVIL paired with small electric
motors (``SEM''), given that some SNEMs currently have lower efficiency
that DOE's minimum requirements for SEMs. However, this is
representative of the energy use of such an SVIL. In addition, DOE
notes that the test procedure does not set a standard for SVIL, and
that any calculated PER<INF>STD</INF> is just a reference point. If or
when DOE considers setting standards for SVIL, DOE may consider a PEI
other than 1.00 as appropriate for this equipment category--depending
on the timing and finalization of any DOE standards related to SNEM,
and the relationship of SNEM to SEM minimum efficiency. Therefore, HI
and Grundfos' concern regarding the lower efficiency of SNEM as
compared to SEM can be ameliorated. DOE acknowledges that motor
manufacturers will not be required to publish full-load motor
efficiency for a given SNEM until the compliance date of any standards
for SNEM. However, DOE is declining to develop an interim approach as
suggested by NEEA, and is adopting the provisions for motor efficiency
in SVIL calculations as proposed. As discussed regarding inverter-only
motors in section III.F.3, this approach will limit potential deviation
between interim ratings and ratings post motor-standard, if any, which
could cause market confusion, and will allow manufacturers to use SNEM
motor efficiency when available. Now that the DOE motors test procedure
is final, there is more certainty in the market than there was at the
time of the April 2022 NOPR, and motor manufacturers may choose to make
representations in accordance with the DOE test procedure early such as
at the request of customers, or if they are already making
representations of energy use or energy efficiency and wish to continue
doing so past the 180 day mark following publication of the DOE motors
test procedure. DOE is also finalizing an AEDM option for pumps, as
discussed in section III.I.2 of this document. With this option, pump
manufacturers may use their own calculation method, relying on any
available data and coefficients they have, including potentially NEEA's
recommended approach, as long as such calculation meets the AEDM
requirements, as discussed in section III.1.2.
Since the April 2022 NOPR, DOE has also determined through
manufacturer interviews that a small percent of pumps are sold as bare
pumps. Therefore, DOE is adopting the same provisions relevant to SVIL
in the calculation method for bare pumps.
2. SVIL Paired With Motors Less Than 0.25 Horsepower
In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE stated that its market research
indicates that the vast majority of SVILs are sold with motors with a
nominal horsepower of 0.25 hp or greater. 87 FR 21268, 21301. However,
DOE identified some models with horsepower closer to 0.125 hp. Id. Such
motors are not subject to the standards in 10 CFR 431.446 and are not
proposed to be subject to any test procedure in the Motors TP NOPR. Id.

[[Page 17960]]

DOE proposed that for determination of PER<INF>STD</INF> for SVILs sold
with a motor nominal horsepower of less than 0.25 hp, the full-load
efficiency values in Table III.3 would be used. Id. DOE scaled these
values from the standards for 0.25 hp pumps (3.9 efficiency point
decrease, comparable to the most common decrease from 0.33 to 0.25 hp)
and taken

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on March 24, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.