[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 211 (Thursday, November 2, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50844-50847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23634]


 ========================================================================
 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. 82, No. 211 / Thursday, November 2, 2017 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 50844]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047-0001]


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors 
and Small Electric Motors

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

ACTION: Notice of petition and request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt and publishes petitions from the 
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and UL LLC (UL) 
requesting that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) incorporate the IEC 
60034-2-1:2014 (2014) test methods 2-1-1A and 2-1-1B as alternative 
test methods in addition to the existing test methods referenced in its 
regulations for determining the energy efficiency of certain electric 
motors and small electric motors: Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) standards 112-2004 Method B (2004) and 
114-2010 (2010); and Canadian Standards Association standards (CSA) 
C390-10 (2010) and C747-09 (2009). NEMA found IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 
2-1-1B to be equivalent to IEEE 112-2004 Method B and CSA C390-10 UL 
testing found IEC 60034-2-1:2004 Method 2-1-1B results to be in close 
agreement with those of CSA C390-10, and noted that the respective 
methodologies of IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A and CSA C747 were 
also in accord. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning 
NEMA's and UL's petitions.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be 
accepted on or before January 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested 
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-
TP-0047-0001, by any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: to [email protected]. Include 
docket number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047-0001 in the subject line of the 
message.
    3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-6636. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards 
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 
586-6636. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case 
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section IV of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes the two 
petitions, Federal Register notices, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. Specifically, the petition and supporting 
documentation from NEMA is available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047-0028 and the petition from UL is 
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047-0029. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, 
such as those containing information that is exempt from public 
disclosure, may not be publicly available.
    The docket Web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047. The docket Web page contains simple 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section IV for information on how to submit comments 
through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-9870. Email: [email protected].
    Ms. Mary Greene, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-1817. Email: [email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment or review other 
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or by email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
II. Petitions of NEMA and UL
    A. Petition of NEMA for Incorporating IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 
2-1-1B
    B. Petition of UL for Incorporating IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Methods 
2-1-1B and 2-1-1A
    1. IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B
    2. IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A
III. Request for Comments
IV. Submission of Comments

I. Authority and Background

    Electric motors are included in the list of ``covered equipment'' 
for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation 
standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)). Additionally, 
EPCA directed DOE, subject to a determination of feasibility and 
justification, to establish energy conservation standards and test 
procedure for small electric motors. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)) DOE's test 
procedures for electric motors are prescribed at appendix B to subpart 
B of part 431. DOE's test procedures for small electric motors are 
prescribed at 10 CFR part 431, subpart X.

[[Page 50845]]

    DOE test procedures reference IEEE 112-2004 Method B \1\ and CSA 
C390-10 \2\ as the approved test methods for determining the energy 
efficiency of polyphase electric motors with a horsepower greater than 
or equal to 1 hp; and for determining the energy efficiency of 
polyphase small electric motors with a horsepower greater than 1 hp. 
Both industry standards are incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.15 
and 10 CFR 431.443.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ IEEE Std 112-2004, Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction 
Motors and Generators, approved February 9, 2004, Section 6.4, 
Efficiency Test Method B, Input-Output with Loss Segregation.
    \2\ CSA C390-10, Test methods, marking requirements, and energy 
efficiency levels for three-phase induction motors, March 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, DOE's small electric motors test procedures at 
subpart X of part 431 reference: (1) IEEE 114-2010 \3\ and CSA C747-09 
\4\ as the approved test methods for determining the energy efficiency 
of single-phase small electric motors, and (2) IEEE 112-2004 Method A 
\5\ and CSA C747-09 as the approved test methods for determining the 
energy efficiency of polyphase small electric motors with a horsepower 
less than or equal to 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ IEEE Std 114-2010, Test Procedure for Single-Phase Induction 
Motors, approved September 30, 2010.
    \4\ CSA C747-09, Energy efficiency test methods for small 
motors, October 2009.
    \5\ IEEE Std 112-2004, Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction 
Motors and Generators, approved February 9, 2004, Section 6.3, 
Efficiency Test Method A, Input-Output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 31, 2017, DOE published a request for information (the 
``July 2017 RFI'') initiating a data collection process to consider 
whether to amend DOE's test procedure for small electric motors and 
electric motors, and whether new test procedures are needed for motors 
beyond those subject to the existing Federal test procedures. 82 FR 
35468. The petitions of NEMA and UL request modifications to the 
current test procedures for small electric motors and electric motors, 
and accordingly, DOE is entering this petition into the same docket 
that houses the July 2017 RFI. The docket is available at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047.

II. Petitions of NEMA and UL

A. Petition of NEMA for Incorporating IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B

    NEMA submitted a petition letter requesting that DOE incorporate 
the IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B \6\ test method as an alternative 
to the existing IEEE 112-2004 Method B and CSA C390-10 approved test 
methods of appendix B to subpart B of part 431. The petition further 
includes a ``work paper'' that summarizes an evaluation conducted by 
the NEMA Motor and Generator Section technical committee which found 
the IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B test method to be equivalent to 
the IEEE 112-2004 Method B and CSA C390-10 test methods.\7\ This 
evaluation relied on: (1) A comparison of instrumentation accuracy, 
test method, and calculation approach among the IEC, IEEE, and CSA 
industry standards, (2) analysis of test results from over 500 motors 
tested at the Hydro-Quebec Research Institute, and (3) reference to one 
scientific research paper (the ``Angers et al. paper'') which also 
concluded that all three methods \8\ were equivalent.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B (2014), ``Rotating 
Electrical Machines--Part 2-1: Standard methods for determining 
losses and efficiency from tests (excluding machines for traction 
vehicles),'' ``Summation of losses, additional load losses according 
to the method of residual loss.''
    \7\ The NEMA petition and work paper are available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047-0028.
    \8\ The paper compared 2013 draft updates of IEEE 112-2004 and 
IEC 60034-2-1:2007 (not the 2014 version the NEMA petition requests 
that DOE reference).
    \9\ Pierre Angers-Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's Research Institute, 
Andrew Baghurst--CalTest Laboratory, Martin Doppelbauer--Karlsruhe 
Institute of Technology (KIT), Review of Energy Efficiency 
Measurement Standards for Induction Motors in the Context of the 
IECEE Global Efficiency Labeling Initiative. EEMODS conference 2013. 
Available at: https://e3p.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/proceedings-8th-international-conference-eemods2013-energy-efficiency-motor-driven.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA's petition letter claimed that the results of the Hydro-Quebec 
Research Institute testing typically showed a loss deviation of less 
than 2 percent. The NEMA petition letter also stated a loss 
difference of 2 percent is: (1) Within the variation of two tests 
performed using the same motor and test equipment but with different 
operators and at different times of day; and (2) well below the typical 
variation of 10 percent of losses when different labs are used to test 
the same motor.

B. Petition of UL for Incorporating IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Methods 2-1-1B 
and 2-1-1A

    UL submitted a petition letter \10\ requesting that DOE incorporate 
two IEC 60034-2-1:2014 IEC test methods in its test procedures for 
electric motors and certain small electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The UL petition and supporting documentation is available 
at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047-0029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B
    First, UL requested that IEC 60034-2-1:2014 test method 2-1-1B be 
approved for appendix B to subpart B of part 431 and section 431.444 of 
subpart X of part 431 (as an alternative to CSA C390-10). Regarding the 
first request, the petition further included two papers comparing the 
respective test standards.
    The first paper,\11\ which is the same paper (Angers et al.) cited 
in NEMA's petition's attachment, compared IEEE 112-2004, Method B (a 
2013 year draft version), CSA C390-10, and IEC 60034-2-1, Method 2-1-1B 
(a 2013 year draft version). The comparison focused on instrumentation 
accuracy, test method, and calculation approach among the IEC, IEEE, 
and CSA industry standards and concluded that all three methods \12\ 
were equivalent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Pierre Angers--Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's Research Institute, 
Andrew Baghurst--CalTest Laboratory, Martin Doppelbauer--Karlsruhe 
Institute of Technology (KIT), Review of Energy Efficiency 
Measurement Standards for Induction Motors in the Context of the 
IECEE Global Efficiency Labeling Initiative. EEMODS conference 2013. 
Available at: https://e3p.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/proceedings-8th-international-conference-eemods2013-energy-efficiency-motor-driven.
    \12\ The paper compared 2013 draft updates of IEEE 112-2004 and 
IEC 60034-2-1:2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second paper \13\ (the ``Cao paper'') compared the respective 
methodologies of IEEE 112-2004, Method B and IEC 60034-2-1:2007, Method 
2-1-1B and also conducted comparison testing, applying both standards' 
test methods to the same six motors of varied output power. The 
resulting efficiency values were found to be closely aligned, with 
respective maximum and mean deviations of 0.1 and 0.03 percentage 
points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Cao, W. Comparison of IEEE 112 and new IEC standard 60034-
2-1. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion. 2009. 24(3): pp. 802-
808.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    UL's petition letter claimed that the test results of the Cao paper 
testing aligned with UL's own, firsthand testing experience using the 
same methods. UL's own comparison testing found a difference in 
calculated efficiency of less than 0.1 percentage points, when using 
measurements from a single test to reduce variability.
2. IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A
    Second, UL requested that IEC 60034-2-1:2014 test method 2-1-1A be 
approved for section 431.444 of subpart X of part 431 (as an 
alternative to CSA C747-09). UL stated that the IEC and CSA standards 
use the same method, but that the IEC equipment specifications are more 
rigorous. UL did not provide a quantitative test result comparison to 
support the similarity between the standards.

III. Request for Comments

    DOE solicits comments from interested parties on any aspect of the 
petition. In particular, DOE seeks

[[Page 50846]]

comment on the matters described in this section.
    DOE seeks comment on the differences among IEC 60034-2-1:2014 
Method 2-1-1B, IEEE 112-2004 Method B, and CSA C390-10, and data 
characterizing the degree to which choice of test procedure alters 
measured efficiency.
    DOE seeks comment on the differences among IEC 60034-2-1:2014 
Method 2-1-1A, IEEE 114-2010, and CSA C747-09 and data characterizing 
the degree to which choice of test procedure alters measured 
efficiency.
    DOE seeks comment regarding whether IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-
1B should be considered as an alternate for testing certain small 
electric motors under 10 CFR part 431, subpart X. DOE also seeks 
comment on whether the comparison test results presented in the 
petitions, which concern the test procedures under 10 CFR part 431, 
subpart B, would also apply to testing of certain small electric motors 
under Subpart X of 10 CFR 431.
    DOE seeks comment on NEMA's claims: (1) That the Hydro-Quebec test 
results support a typical loss deviation between IEEE 112-2004 Method B 
and IEC 60034-2-1:2004 Method 2-1-1B of less than 2 
percent, (2) that a 2 percent loss deviation is characteristic of 
substituting a test operator with the test equipment unchanged, and (3) 
that a 10 percent loss deviation is characteristic of testing the same 
motor at different laboratories.
    DOE seeks comment on whether Angers et al. paper's findings of 
similarity between IEEE 112-2004 (2013 draft revision) and IEC 60034-2-
1:2007 (2013 draft revision) would hold for the latest adopted versions 
of those standards: IEEE 112-2004 and IEC 60034-2-1:2014.
    DOE seeks comment on UL's claims that the difference in calculated 
efficiency between IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B and IEEE 112-2004 
method B is less than 0.1 percentage points, if using measurements from 
the same test.
    DOE seeks comment regarding similarity in methods, differences in 
equipment specifications, and expected efficiency percentage point 
differences between the test results of IEEE 114-2010, CSA C747-09, and 
IEC 60034-2-1:2004, Method 2-1-1A.

IV. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by January 
2, 2018, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice 
and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended test 
procedures for electric and small electric motors. These comments and 
information will aid in the development of a test procedure NOPR for 
electric and small electric motors if DOE determines that amended test 
procedures may be appropriate for these products.
    Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov Web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, 
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any 
documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments 
received through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the 
information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the 
Confidential Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov 
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of 
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being 
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to 
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your 
comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and 
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be 
posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal 
contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your 
comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact 
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email 
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover 
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any 
comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand 
delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not 
necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 
accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. 
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of 
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature 
of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy 
of the document marked confidential including all the information 
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-
confidential'' with the information believed to be confidential 
deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE 
will make its own determination about the confidential status of the 
information and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the 
items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the

[[Page 50847]]

information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).
    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of 
the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation 
standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of 
the public during the comment period in each stage of this process. 
Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced 
discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who 
wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices 
and information about this process should contact Appliance and 
Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or via email at 
[email protected].

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 19, 2017.
David Nemtzow,
Director, Building Technologies Office, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy.
[FR Doc. 2017-23634 Filed 11-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P