Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules pump fitted with sheet metal-based fabricated stainless-steel impellers, and sheet metal-based fabricated stainless-steel casing and internal static components. Id. DOE is aware that many manufacturers redesigned their pump models in order to meet the standards set forth in the January 2016
ECS Final Rule see discussion in Section II.B.
Issue 7: DOE seeks comment on whether the representative configurations used in the January 2016
ECS Final Rule analysis for ESCC, ESFM, and IL pump impeller, volute and mechanical seal, and for RSV and ST impeller and bowl/casing continue to provide an accurate representation of the current market.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

3. Efficiency Levels DOE uses a standardized, minimally compliant bare pump, inclusive of a minimally compliant motor, as a reference pump. The efficiency of the minimally compliant pump is defined as a function of certain physical properties of the bare pump, such as flow at BEP and specific speed.18
Section II.B.1.1.1 of Appendix A. The terms in the efficiency model i.e., BEP
flow rate at full impeller diameter and nominal speed of rotation, specific speed can be measured or calculated using the physical properties of the pump, except for the C-value. The Cvalue is a constant based on the speed of rotation and equipment category of the pump model. 81 FR 4368, 4377
4378.
This pump hydraulic efficiency model is an adaptation of the European Unions EU model equation,19
modified to use United States customary units and 60 Hz electrical input power.
81 FR 4368, 4377. DOE defined pump efficiency levels using efficiency percentile ranges. Id. As an example, at the 25th percentile, 25 percent of pump models are less efficient than the defined efficiency model.20
The C-values specified in 10 CFR
431.465 correspond to the lower 25th percentile of efficiency for the ESCC, ESFM and IL equipment classes. 81 FR
4368, 4370. For the ST equipment classes, C-values for pumps at 3600 rpm 18 Section II of Appendix A prescribes how to compare a tested pump to the standard minimally compliant bare pump for each equipment class.
19 Council of the European Union. 2012.
Commission Regulation EU No 547/2012 of 25
June 2012 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for water pumps.
Official Journal of the European Union. L 165, 26
June 2012, pp. 2836.
20 See Section 5.8.1 of Chapter 5 of the TSD for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. Docket EERE
2011BTSTD00310056 p. 513.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:39 Aug 06, 2021

Jkt 253001

correspond to the lower 25th percentile of efficiency, while C-values for pumps at 1800 rpm represent the baseline efficiency evaluated for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. Id. Due to a lack of available data for ST pumps at 1800
rpm, DOE used data from the ST 3600
rpm analysis to set the C-value standard for ST pumps at 1800 rpm. 81 FR 4368, 4382. Ultimately, the standard for ST
pumps at 1800 rpm was set to the baseline efficiency C-value established for ST pumps at 3600 rpm. Id. Because of a lack of available data for all RSV
pumps, DOE harmonized the C-values for the RSV equipment classes with the EU 40th percentile value. 81 FR 4368, 4370.
Issue 8: DOE requests data for all pump equipment classes that would enable DOE to conduct an efficiency level analysis similar to that conducted for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. To the extent available, DOE requests data grouped by equipment class and shaft power, and that includes pump energy rating PER, pump hydraulic efficiency at BEP, specific speed at 60
Hz, and the BEP flow rate at full impeller diameter and nominal speed of rotation. If these data are not available, DOE requests test data that would allow for the calculation of these values according to Appendix A e.g., pump hydraulic efficiency at BEP can be calculated from bare pump PER at constant load, bare pump hydraulic output power and part load motor losses at 75 percent, 100 percent, and 110
percent of BEP flow 21.
In its analysis supporting the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE assigned the max-tech efficiency level as the maximum available efficiency already offered in the marketplace. DOE
established a max-tech level at the 70th efficiency percentile for all equipment classes. 81 FR 4368, 4386. At this maxtech level there were existing pumps available in the market that met this level for all shaft powers between 1 and 200 hp. 81 FR 4368, 4386. However, the opportunity for efficiency improvement is not equal across the entire range of shaft powers, specifically, DOEs analysis supporting the January 2016
ECS Final Rule indicated that application of the design options listed in Table II.2 resulted in greater efficiency improvement for smaller pumps compared to larger pumps.22
Issue 9: DOE requests information on whether conducting a max-tech analysis 21 As
described in sections II.E and II.B of Appendix A.
22 See Section 3 of Chapter 3.6 of the TSD for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. Docket EERE2011
BTSTD00310056 p. 513.

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

43435

based on size for example, developing small and large shaft power designations or specific speed would be more representative of the pumps market and provide an opportunity for additional energy savings.
D. Economic Justification In determining whether a proposed energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE analyzes, among other things, the potential economic impact on consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. DOE
seeks comment on whether there are economic barriers to the adoption of more-stringent energy conservation standards. DOE also seeks comment and data on any aspects of its economic justification analysis from the January 2016 ECS Final Rule that may indicate whether a more-stringent energy conservation standard would be economically justified or cost effective.
While DOEs request for information is not limited to the following issues, DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and data on the following.
1. Distribution Channels In generating end-user price inputs for the LCC analysis and the National Impacts Analysis NIA, DOE
identified distribution channels i.e., how the equipment are distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer, and estimated relative sales volumes through each channel. Table II.5
presents the distribution channels identified by the CIP working group with their corresponding share of total pump sales that were used in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule analysis.
81 FR 4368, 4389.

TABLE II.5DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS
MARKET SHARES FOR PUMPS
Distribution channel
Manufacturer to distributor to contractor to end-user
Manufacturer to distributor to end-users
Manufacturer to original equipment manufacturer to end-users
Manufacturer to end-users
Manufacturer to contractor to end-users
Other

Percentage of total pump sales %
70
17
8 2
1 2

Issue 10: DOE seeks input on whether the distribution channels described, and the percentage of shipments in each channel, as shown in Table II.5, reflect the current market.

E:FRFM09AUP1.SGM

09AUP1