[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