80 FR 22658 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Pumps

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 78 (April 23, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22658-22661]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: C1-2015-06945]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 22658]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0055]
RIN 1905-AD50


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Pumps

Correction

    In proposed rule document 2015-06945 beginning on page 17585 in the 
issue of Wednesday, April 1, 2015, make the following correction:
    On page 17637, in the first column, beginning with the third 
paragraph under the section heading ``E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks 
Comment'' and continuing through to the third column, on page 17639 up 
to the heading entitled ``VI. Approval of the Office of the 
Secretary'', revise the existing text to read as follows:
    (2) DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for ``pump,'' 
``bare pump,'' ``mechanical equipment,'' ``driver,'' and ``control.''
    (3) DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for 
``continuous control'' and ``non-continuous control.''
    (4) DOE also requests comment and information regarding how often 
pumps with continuous or non-continuous controls are packaged and 
distributed in commerce, by manufacturers, with integrated sensors and 
feedback logic that would allow such pumps to automatically actuate.
    (5) DOE also requests comment on the likelihood of pumps with 
continuous and non-continuous controls being distributed in commerce, 
but never paired with any sensor or feedback mechanisms that would 
enable energy savings.
    (6) DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``basic 
model'' as applied to pumps. Specifically, DOE is interested in 
comments on DOE's proposal to allow manufacturers the option of rating 
pumps with trimmed impellers as a single basic model or separate basic 
models, provided the rating for each pump model is based on the maximum 
impeller diameter for that model.
    (7) DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``full 
impeller.''
    (8) DOE requests comment on the proposal to require that all pump 
models be rated in a full impeller configuration only.
    (9) DOE requests comment on any other characteristics of pumps that 
are unique from other commercial and industrial equipment and may 
require modifications to the definition of ``basic model,'' as 
proposed.
    (10) DOE requests comment on the proposed applicability of the test 
procedure to the five pump equipment classes noted above, namely ESCC, 
ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps.
    (11) DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for end 
suction pump, end suction frame mounted pump, end suction close-coupled 
pump, in-line pump, radially split multi-stage vertical in-line casing 
diffuser pump, rotodynamic pump, single axis flow pump, and vertical 
turbine submersible pump.
    (12) DOE requests comment on whether the references to ANSI/HI 
nomenclature are necessary as part of the equipment definitions in the 
regulatory text, are likely to cause confusion due to inconsistencies, 
and whether discussing the ANSI/HI nomenclature in this preamble would 
provide sufficient reference material for manufacturers when 
determining the appropriate equipment class for their pump models.
    (13) DOE requests comment on whether it needs to clarify the flow 
direction to distinguish RSV pumps from other similar pumps when 
determining test procedure and standards applicability.
    (14) DOE requests comment on whether any additional language is 
necessary in the proposed RSV definition to make the exclusion of 
immersible pumps clearer.
    (15) DOE requests comment on its proposal to exclude circulators 
and pool pumps from the scope of this test procedure rulemaking.
    (16) DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for 
circulators and dedicated-purpose pool pumps.
    (17) DOE requests comment on the extent to which ESCC, ESFM, IL, 
and RSV pumps require attachment to a rigid foundation to function as 
designed.
    Specifically, DOE is interested to know if any pumps commonly 
referred to as ESCC, ESFM, IL, or RSV do not require attachment to a 
rigid foundation.
    (18) DOE requests comment on its initial determination that axial/
mixed flow and PD pumps are implicitly excluded from this rulemaking 
based on the proposed definitions and scope parameters. In cases where 
commenters suggest a more explicit exclusion be used, DOE requests 
comment on the appropriate changes to the proposed definitions or 
criteria that would be needed to appropriately differentiate axial/
mixed flow and/or PD pumps from the specific rotodynamic pumps 
equipment classes proposed for coverage in this NOPR.
    (19) DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``clean 
water pump.''
    (20) DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by 
reference the definition for ``clear water'' in HI 40.6-2014 to 
describe the testing fluid to be used when testing pumps in accordance 
with the DOE test procedure.
    (21) DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``fire 
pump,'' ``selfpriming pump,'' ``prime-assisted pump,'' and ``sealless 
pump.''
    (22) Regarding the proposed definition of a self-priming pump, DOE 
notes that such pumps typically include a liquid reservoir above or in 
front of the impeller to allow recirculating water within the pump 
during the priming cycle. DOE requests comment on any other specific 
design features that enable the pump to operate without manual re-
priming, and whether such specificity is needed in the definition for 
clarity.
    (23) DOE requests comment on the proposed specifications and 
criteria to determine if a pump is designed to meet a specific Military 
Specification and if Military Specifications other than MIL-P-17639F 
should be referenced.
    (24) DOE requests comment on excluding the following pumps from the 
test procedure: fire pumps, self-priming pumps, prime-assist pumps, 
sealless 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

[[Page 22659]]

Specification MIL-P-17639F, ``Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous 
Service, Naval Shipboard Use'' (as amended).
    (25) DOE requests comment on the listed design characteristics 
(power, flow, head, design temperature, design speed, and bowl 
diameter) as limitations on the scope of pumps to which the proposed 
test procedure would apply.
    (26) DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``bowl 
diameter'' as it would apply to VTS pumps.
    (27) DOE requests comment on its proposal to test pumps sold with 
non-electric drivers as bare pumps.
    (28) DOE requests comment on its proposal that any pump distributed 
in commerce with a single-phase induction motor be tested and rated in 
the bare pump configuration, using the calculation method.
    (29) DOE requests comment from interested party on any categories 
of electric motors, except submersible motors, that: (1) Are used with 
pumps considered in this rulemaking and (2) typically have efficiencies 
lower than the default nominal full load motor efficiency for NEMA 
Design A, NEMA Design B, or IEC Design N motors. . . .
    (30) DOE requests comment on the proposed load points and weighting 
for PEICL for bare pumps and pumps sold with motors and PEIVL for pumps 
inclusive of motors and continuous or non-continuous controls.
    (31) DOE requests comments on the proposed PEICL and PEIVL metric 
architecture.
    (32) DOE requests comment on its proposal to base the default motor 
horsepower for the minimally compliant pump on that of the pump being 
evaluated. That is, the motor horsepower for the minimally compliant 
pump would be based on the calculated pump shaft input power of the 
pump when evaluated at 120 percent of BEP flow for bare pumps and the 
horsepower of the motor with which that pump is sold for pumps sold 
with motors and controls (with or without continuous or non-continuous 
controls).
    (33) DOE requests comment on using HI 40.6-2014 as the basis of the 
DOE test procedure for pumps.
    (34) DOE requests comment on its proposal to not incorporate by 
reference section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B of HI 40.6-2014 
as part of the DOE test procedure.
    (35) DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that data be 
collected at least every 5 seconds for all measured quantities.
    (36) DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow dampening 
devices, as described in section 40.6.3.2.2, but with the proviso noted 
above (i.e., permitted to integrate up to the data collection interval, 
or 5 seconds).
    (37) DOE requests comment on its proposal to require data collected 
at the pump speed measured during testing to be normalized to the 
nominal speeds of 1,800 and 3,600.
    (38) DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt the requirements 
in HI 40.6-2014 regarding the deviation of tested speed from nominal 
speed and the variation of speed during the test. Specifically, DOE is 
interested if maintaining tested speed within 1 percent of 
the nominal speed is feasible and whether this approach would produce 
more accurate and repeatable test results.
    (39) DOE requests comment on the proposed voltage, frequency, 
voltage unbalance, total harmonic distortion, and impedance 
requirements that are required when performing a wire-to-water pump 
test or when testing a bare pump with a calibrated motor. Specifically, 
DOE requests comments on whether these tolerances can be achieved in 
typical pump test labs, or whether specialized power supplies or power 
conditioning equipment would be required.
    (40) DOE requests comment on its proposal to test RSV and VTS pumps 
in their 3- and 9-stage versions, respectively, or the next closest 
number of stages if the pump model is not distributed in commerce with 
that particular number of stages.
    (41) DOE requests comment on its proposal to use a linear 
regression of the pump shaft input power with respect to flow rate at 
all the tested flow points greater than or equal to 60 percent of 
expected BEP flow to determine the pump shaft input power at the 
specific load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow. DOE is 
especially interested in any pump models for which such an approach 
would yield inaccurate measurements.
    (42) DOE requests comment on its proposal that for pumps with BEP 
at run-out, the BEP would be determined at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 
100 percent of expected BEP flow instead of the seven data points 
described in section 40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6-2014 and that the constant 
load points for pumps with BEP at run-out shall be 100, 90, and 65 
percent of BEP flow, instead of 110, 100, and 75 percent of BEP flow.
    (43) DOE requests comment on the type and accuracy of required 
measurement equipment, especially the equipment required for electrical 
power measurements for pumps sold with motors having continuous or 
noncontinuous controls.
    (44) DOE requests comment on its proposal to conduct all 
calculations and corrections to nominal speed using raw measured values 
and that the PERCL and PEICL or PERVL and PEIVL, as applicable, be 
reported to the nearest 0.01.
    (45) DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the default 
motor horsepower for rating bare pumps based on the pump shaft input 
power at 120 percent of BEP flow. DOE is especially interested in any 
pumps for which the 120 percent of BEP flow load point would not be an 
appropriate basis to determine the default motor horsepower (e.g., 
pumps for which the 120 percent of BEP flow load point is a 
significantly lower horsepower than the BEP flow load point).
    (46) DOE requests comment on its proposal that would specify the 
default, minimally compliant nominal full load motor efficiency based 
on the applicable minimally allowed nominal full load motor efficiency 
specified in DOE's energy conservation standards for NEMA Design A, 
NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N motors at 10 CFR 431.25 for all pumps 
except pumps sold with submersible motors.
    (47) DOE requests comment on the proposed default minimum full load 
motor efficiency values for submersible motors.
    (48) DOE requests comment on defining the proposed default minimum 
motor full load efficiency values for submersible motors relative to 
the most current minimum efficiency standards levels for regulated 
electric motors, through the use of ``bands'' as presented in Table 
III.6.
    (49) DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow the use of the 
default minimum submersible motor full load efficiency values presented 
in Table III.6 to rate: (1) VTS bare pumps, (2) pumps sold with 
submersible motors, and (3) pumps sold with submersible motors and 
continuous or noncontinuous controls as an option instead of wire-to-
water testing.
    (50) DOE requests comment on the development and use of the motor 
part load loss factor curves to describe part load performance of 
covered motors and submersible motors including the default motor 
specified in section III.D.1 for bare pumps and calculation of PERSTD.
    (51) DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the part 
load losses of motors covered by DOE's electric motor energy 
conservation standards at 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow based on 
the nominal full load efficiency of the motor, as determined in 
accordance with DOE's electric motor

[[Page 22660]]

test procedure, and the same default motor part load loss curve applied 
to the default motor in test method A.1 for the bare pump.
    (52) DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the PERCL of 
pumps sold with submersible motors using the proposed default minimum 
efficiency values for submersible motors and applying the same default 
motor part load loss curve to the default motor in test method A.1 for 
the bare pump.
    (53) DOE also requests comment on its proposal that pumps sold with 
motors that are not addressed by DOE's electric motors test procedure 
(except submersible motors) would be rated based on a wire-to-water, 
testing-based approach.
    (54) DOE requests comment on the proposed system curve shape to 
use, as well as whether the curve should go through the origin instead 
of the statically loaded offset.
    (55) DOE requests comment on the proposed calculation approach for 
determining pump shaft input power for pumps sold with motors and 
continuous controls when rated using the calculation-based method.
    (56) DOE requests comment on the proposal to adopt four part load 
loss factor equations expressed as a function of the load on the motor 
(i.e., motor brake horsepower) to calculate the losses of a combined 
motor and continuous controls, where the four curves would correspond 
to different horsepower ratings of the continuous control.
    (57) DOE also requests comment on the accuracy of the proposed 
equation compared to one that accounts for multiple performance 
variables (speed and torque).
    (58) DOE requests comment on the proposed 5 percent scaling factor 
that was applied to the measured VSD efficiency data to generate the 
proposed coefficients of the four part load loss curves. Specifically, 
DOE seeks comment on whether another scaling factor or no scaling 
factor would be more appropriate in this context.
    (59) DOE requests comment on the variability of control horsepower 
ratings that might be distributed in commerce with a given pump and 
motor horsepower.
    (60) DOE requests comment and data from interested parties 
regarding the extent to which the assumed default part load loss curve 
would represent minimum efficiency motor and continuous control 
combinations.
    (61) DOE requests comment on its proposal to require testing of 
each individual bare pump as the basis for a certified PEICL or PEIVL 
rating for one or more pump basic models.
    (62) DOE requests comment on its proposal to limit the use of 
calculations and algorithms in the determination of pump performance to 
the calculation-based methods proposed in this NOPR.
    (63) DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine BEP for 
pumps rated with a testing-based method by using the ratio of input 
power to the driver or continuous control, if any, over pump hydraulic 
output. DOE also seeks input on the degree to which this method may 
yield significantly different BEP points from the case where BEP is 
determined based on pump efficiency.
    (64) DOE requests comment on the proposed testing-based method for 
pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls.
    (65) DOE requests comment on the proposed testing-based method for 
determining the input power to the pump for pumps sold with motors and 
non-continuous controls.
    (66) DOE requests comment on any other type of non-continuous 
control that may be sold with a pump and for which the proposed test 
procedure would not apply.
    (67) DOE requests comment on its proposal to establish calculation-
based test methods as the required test method for bare pumps and 
testing-based methods as the required test method for pumps sold with 
motors that are not regulated by DOE's electric motor energy 
conservation standards, except for submersible motors, or for pumps 
sold with any motors and with noncontinuous controls.
    (68) DOE also requests comment on the proposal to allow either 
testing-based methods or calculation-based methods to be used to rate 
pumps sold with continuous control-equipped motors that are either (1) 
regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (2) submersible motors.
    (69) DOE requests comment on the level of burden to include with 
any certification requirements the reporting of the test method used by 
a manufacturer to certify a given pump basic model as compliant with 
any energy conservation standards DOE may set.
    (70) DOE requests comment on the proposed sampling plan for 
certification of commercial and industrial pump models.
    (71) DOE requests comment regarding the size of pump manufacturing 
entities and the number of manufacturing businesses represented by this 
market.
    (72) DOE requests comment on its assumption that, for most pump 
models, only physical testing of the underlying bare pump model is 
required, and subsequent ratings for that bare pump sold with a motor 
or motor and continuous control can be based on calculations only.
    (73) DOE requests information on the percentage of pump models for 
which the rating of the bare pump, pump sold with a motor, and pump 
sold with a motor and controls cannot be based on the same fundamental 
physical test of the bare pump. For example, DOE is interested in the 
number of pump models sold with motors that are not covered by DOE's 
energy conservation standards for electric motors or the number of pump 
models sold with controls that would not meet DOE's definition of 
continuous control.
    (74) DOE requests comment on the testing currently conducted by 
pump manufacturers and the magnitude of incremental changes necessary 
to transform current test facilities to conduct the DOE test procedure 
as described in this NOPR.
    (75) DOE requests comment on its assumption that using a non-
calibrated test motor and VFD would be the most common and least costly 
approach for testing bare pumps in accordance with the proposed DOE 
test procedure.
    (76) DOE requests comment on the estimates of materials and costs 
to build a pump testing facility as presented.
    (77) DOE requests comment on the test facility description and 
measurement equipment assumed in DOE's estimate of burden.
    (78) DOE requests comment and information regarding the burden 
associated with achieving the power quality requirements proposed in 
the NOPR.
    (79) DOE requests comment on the number of pump models per 
manufacturer that would be required to use the wire-to-water test 
method to certify pump performance.
    (80) DOE requests comment on the estimation of the portion of pumps 
that would need to be newly certified or recertified annually.
    (81) DOE requests comment on the use of annual sales as the 
financial indicator for this analysis and whether another financial 
indicator would be more representative to assess the burden upon the 
pump manufacturing industry.
    (82) DOE requests comment on its conclusion that the proposed rule 
may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. DOE is particularly interested in feedback on the assumptions 
and estimates made in the analysis of burden associated with 
implementing the proposed DOE test procedure.

[[Page 22661]]

    (83) DOE requests comment on the burden estimate to comply with the 
proposed recordkeeping requirements.

[FR Doc. C1-2015-06945 Filed 4-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1505-01-D