[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 23, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17004-17028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06868]
[[Page 17003]]
Vol. 84
Tuesday,
No. 78
April 23, 2019
Part III
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Small Electric Motors
and Electric Motors; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 78 / Tuesday, April 23, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 17004]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047]
RIN 1904-AE18
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Small Electric
Motors and Electric Motors
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes amending its test
procedures for small electric motors. First, DOE proposes further
harmonizing its procedures with industry practice by incorporating a
new industry standard manufacturers would be permitted to use in
addition to the industry standards currently incorporated by reference
as options for use when testing small electric motor efficiency.
Second, with respect to electric motors, DOE proposes further
harmonizing its test procedures by incorporating an additional industry
standard to the two that are already incorporated by reference as
options when testing the efficiency of this equipment. Each of these
changes is expected to reduce testing burdens on manufacturers.
Finally, DOE proposes to adopt industry provisions related to the test
conditions to ensure the comparability of test results for small
electric motors. None of these proposed changes would affect the
measured average full-load efficiency of small electric motors or the
measured nominal full-load efficiency of electric motors when compared
to the current test procedures.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposal no later than June 24, 2019. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for details. DOE will hold a public meeting on this
proposed test procedure if one is requested by May 7, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted must identify the Test Procedure NOPR
for small electric motors and electric motors and provide docket number
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) 1904-
AE18. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include the docket
number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
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) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
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) 287-1445.
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 written comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document (Public
Participation).
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. 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 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section V.A 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 Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email:
[email protected].
Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or to request a public meeting, contact
the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445
or by email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to maintain previously approved
incorporations by reference or newly incorporate by reference the
following industry standards into 10 CFR part 431:
(1) Canadian Standards Association (CSA) CSA Standard C390-10,
``Test methods, marking requirements, and energy efficiency levels for
three-phase induction motors.''
(2) CSA Standard C747-09, ``Energy efficiency test methods for
small motors.''
Copies of CSA C390-10 and CSA C747-09 can be obtained from Canadian
Standards Association, Sales Department, 5060 Spectrum Way, Suite 100,
Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1-800-463-6727, or http://www.shopcsa.ca/onlinestore/welcome.asp.
(3) IEEE 112-2004, ``IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase
Induction Motors and Generators.''
(4) IEEE 112-2017, ``IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase
Induction Motors and Generators.''
(5) IEEE Standard 114-2010, ``Test Procedure for Single-Phase
Induction Motors.''
Copies of IEEE 112-2004, IEEE 112-2017, and IEEE 114-2010 can be
obtained from: IEEE, 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ
08855-1331, (732) 981-0060, or by visiting http://www.ieee.org.
(6) IEC 60034-2-1:2014, ``Rotating electrical machines--Part 2-1:
Standard methods for determining losses and efficiency from tests
(excluding machines for traction vehicles).''
(7) IEC 60034-1:2010, ``Rotating electric machines--Part 1: Rating
and performance''.
(8) IEC 60051-1:2016, ``Direct acting indicating analogue
electrical measuring instruments and their accessories--Part 1:
Definitions and general requirements common to all parts''.
Copies of IEC 60034-2-1:2014, IEC 60034-1:2010, and IEC 60051-
1:2016 may be purchased from International Electrotechnical Commission,
3 rue de Varemb[eacute], 1st floor, P.O. Box 131, CH--1211 Geneva 20--
Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 11, or by going to https://webstore.iec.ch/home.
(9) National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) MG 1-2016,
``Motors and Generators.''
Copies of NEMA MG 1-2016 may be purchases from National Electrical
[[Page 17005]]
Manufacturers Association, 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 900,
Arlington, Virginia 22209, +1 703 841 3200, or by going to https://www.nema.org.
For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.N.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
A. Scope of the Test Procedures for Currently Regulated Small
Electric Motors and Electric Motors
1. Definitions Relevant to ``Small Electric Motor''
2. Scope of the Small Electric Motor Test Procedure
3. Scope of the Electric Motor Test Procedure
B. Metric for Small Electric Motors
1. Average and Nominal Efficiency
2. Representations
C. Industry Standards for Existing Test Procedures
1. IEEE 112-2017
2. IEC 60034-2-1:2014
D. Rated Output Power of Small Electric Motors
1. Background
2. NEMA Breakdown Torque Method
3. NEMA Service Factor Load Method
E. Rated Values Specified for Testing Small Electric Motors
1. Rated Frequency
2. Rated Load
3. Rated Voltage
F. Test Procedure Costs, Harmonization, and Other Topics
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
2. Harmonization with Industry Standards
3. Other Test Procedure Topics
G. Compliance Date and Waivers
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
E. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
F. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
G. Review Under Executive Order 13132
H. Review Under Executive Order 12988
I. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
K. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
M. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation
standards and test procedures for small electric motors and electric
motors.\1\ (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6317(b)) The current DOE
test procedures for small electric motors appear at Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') section 431.444. The current DOE
test procedures for electric motors appear in appendix B to subpart B
of 10 CFR part 431 (``Appendix B''). The following sections discuss
DOE's authority to amend test procedures for small electric motors and
electric motors, as well as relevant background information regarding
DOE's consideration of test procedures for these motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPCA authorized DOE to establish and amend energy
conservation standards and test procedure for small electric motors
pending a determination of feasibility and justification (42 U.S.C.
6317(b)), completed on July 10, 2006. 71 FR 38799
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended
(``EPCA'') \2\ (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317), among other things, authorizes
DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products
and industrial equipment. In 1978, Title III, Part C \3\ of EPCA was
added by section 441(a) of Title IV of the National Energy Conservation
Policy Act, Public Law 95-619 (November 9, 1978), which established the
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, and set
forth a variety of provisions designed to improve the energy efficiency
of certain industrial equipment. Later, in 1992, the Energy Policy Act
of 1992, Public Law 102-486 (October 24, 1992), further amended EPCA by
adding, among other things, provisions governing the regulation of
small electric motors. EPCA was further amended by the American Energy
Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act, Public Law 112-210 (December
18, 2012), which explicitly permitted DOE to examine the possibility of
regulating ``other motors'' in addition to those electric and small
electric motors that Congress had already otherwise defined and
required DOE to regulate. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A), 6311(2)(B)(xiii); 42
U.S.C. 6317(b))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
Public Law 115-270 (October 23, 2018).
\3\ For editorial purposes, upon codification into the U.S.
Code, Part C was re-designated as Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists of four
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of the Act include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C.
6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
EPCA includes specific authority to establish test procedures and
standards for small electric motors. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b))
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 (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297)
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 representations about the
efficiency of that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Similarly, DOE uses
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))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth criteria and procedures for
prescribing and amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA
provides in relevant part that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test
results which reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of covered equipment during a representative
average use cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is
warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the
public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42
U.S.C. 6314(b))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered equipment including small
electric motors, 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 the energy efficiency,
energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative
average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) If the
[[Page 17006]]
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)) DOE is
publishing this NOPR to satisfy the 7-year review requirement specified
in EPCA, which requires that DOE publish either a final rule amending
the test procedures or a determination that amended test procedures are
not required. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A))
B. Background
EPCA defines ``small electric motor,'' as ``a NEMA general purpose
alternating current single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit
frame number series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-
1987.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) (The term ``NEMA'' refers to the
National Electrical Manufacturers Association.) EPCA directed DOE to
establish a test procedure for small electric motors for which DOE
makes a determination that energy conservation standards would be
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result
in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)) On July 10, 2006,
DOE published its determination that energy conservation standards for
certain polyphase and certain single-phase, capacitor-start, induction-
run, small electric motors are technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings.
71 FR 38799. In a final rule published July 7, 2009, DOE adopted test
procedures for small electric motors. 74 FR 32059. EPCA also required
that following establishment of the required test procedures, DOE
establish energy conservation standards for those small electric motors
for which test procedures were prescribed. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(2)) In a
final rule published on March 9, 2010 (the ``March 2010 ECS final
rule''), DOE adopted energy conservation standards for small electric
motors. 75 FR 10874.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A technical correction was published on April 5, 2010, to
correct the compliance date. 75 FR 17036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, DOE updated the test procedures for small electric
motors on May 4, 2012 (the ``May 2012 EM/SEM TP final rule''). 77 FR
26608. The existing test procedures for small electric motors appear at
10 CFR 431.444, and incorporate certain industry standards from the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (``IEEE'') and
Canadian Standards Association (``CSA''), as listed in Table I-1.
Table I-1--Industry Standards Currently Incorporated by Reference for
Small Electric Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment description Industry test procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-phase small electric motors..... IEEE 114-2010, CSA C747-09.
Polyphase small electric motors less IEEE 112-2004 Test Method A,
than or equal to 1 horsepower. CSA C747-09.
Polyphase small electric motors greater IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B,
than 1 horsepower. CSA C390-10.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE published a request for information pertaining to the test
procedures for small electric motors and electric motors. 82 FR 35468
(July 31, 2017) (the ``July 2017 TP RFI''). In the July 2017 TP RFI,
DOE solicited public comments, data, and information on all aspects of,
and any issues or problems with, the existing DOE test procedure for
small electric motors, including on any needed updates or revisions.
DOE also discussed potential categories of electric motors (as defined
at 10 CFR 431.12) that may be considered in future DOE test procedures.
82 FR at 35470-35474. At the request of commenters, DOE extended the
comment period for the July 2017 TP RFI in a notice published on August
30, 2017. 82 FR 41179.
DOE received a number of comments in response to the July 2017 TP
RFI.\5\ This NOPR proposes to further clarify the test procedures for
small electric motors and incorporate an additional industry test
method for testing small electric motors and electric motors. Comments
regarding other matters related to electric motors are not addressed in
this document. DOE also notes that it received a number of comments
unrelated to either small electric motors or electric motors--these are
also not addressed.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ All comments received in response to the July 2017 TP RFI
are available for review at http://www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047.
\6\ Anonymous, No. 9, No. 11, No. 12, No. 13, No. 14, No. 15,
and No. 17; Raymond Calore, No. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In this notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''), DOE proposes to
update 10 CFR part 431 as follows:
(1) Incorporate by reference a revised test procedure for the
measurement of energy efficiency in small electric motors and electric
motors, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(``IEEE'') 112-2017, ``IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase
Induction Motors and Generators;''
(2) Incorporate by reference an alternative test procedure for the
measurement of energy efficiency in small electric motors and electric
motors, the International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') 60034-
2-1:2014, ``Standard methods for determining losses and efficiency from
tests (excluding machines for traction vehicles);''
Add definitions for ``rated load'', ``rated output power'', and
``breakdown torque'' of small electric motors based on NEMA MG 1-2016;
and
Specify the frequency used for testing and specify that
manufacturers select the voltage used for testing
Table II-1 summarizes the proposed test procedure amendments
compared to the current test procedure as well as the reason for the
change.
[[Page 17007]]
Table II-1--Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed test Reason for
Current test procedure procedure proposed change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporates by reference IEEE --Adds IEEE 112-2017 Achieve
112-2004 to measure full-load as an alternative to consistency
efficiency of polyphase small IEEE 112-2004. This with industry
electric motors. latest version: update to IEEE
--Updates certain 112.
requirements
regarding measurement
instrument selection
and accuracy.
--Aligns core loss
calculation with CSA
390-10 and Method 2-1-
1B of IEC 60034-2-
1:2014.
Does not incorporate by --Adds Method 2-1-1B Address
reference IEC 60034-2-1:2014. of IEC 60034-2-1:2014 suggestions
as an alternative to offered in
IEEE 112-2004 Test industry
Method B, IEEE 112- petition (EERE-
2017 Test Method B 2017-BT-TP-0047
and CSA C390-10. -0030).
--Adds method 2-1-1A
of IEC 60034-2-1:2014
as an alternative to
IEEE 114-2010, IEEE
112-2004, IEEE 112-
2017 Test Method A
and CSA C747-09.
For Small Electric Motors: --Adds definition for Harmonize with
Specifies testing at rated ``rated load'' (and definitions
load but does not define that ``rated output from industry
term. power'' and standards.
``breakdown torque''
to support the
definition of ``rated
load'') of small
electric motors based
on NEMA MG 1-2016.
For Small Electric Motors: --Adds a definition Improved
Specifies testing at rated for rated voltage, repeatability
voltage and rated frequency, which provides that of the test
but does not define those manufacturers select procedure.
terms. the voltage that is
used for testing, and
a definition for
rated frequency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments
described in section III of this NOPR would not alter the measured
efficiency of small electric motors or electric motors, and that the
proposed test procedures would not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
Discussion of DOE's proposed actions are addressed in detail in section
III of this NOPR.
III. Discussion
A. Scope of the Test Procedures for Currently Regulated Small Electric
Motors and Electric Motors
This NOPR does not propose changes to the scope of the test
procedure with respect to small electric motors and electric motors.
DOE discusses test procedure scoping issues for currently regulated
motors in sections III.A.1 through III.A.3 of this document.
1. Definitions Relevant to ``Small Electric Motor''
EPCA defines the term ``small electric motor'' as ``a NEMA general
purpose alternating-current single-speed induction motor, built in a
two-digit frame number series in accordance with NEMA Standards
Publication MG 1-1987.'' 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G) After considering
comments received on its proposal for establishing test procedures for
evaluating small electric motor efficiency, DOE adopted a modified
version of this definition at 10 CFR 431.442 in an attempt to clarify
that the term also encompassed those motors that were built as ``IEC
metric equivalent motors.'' 74 FR 32059, 32062. DOE made this
adjustment to its regulatory definition to ensure that those motors
that otherwise satisfied the small electric motor definition but were
built in accordance with metric-units would be treated in a like manner
as their counterparts that were built in accordance with U.S. customary
units of measurement. DOE offered three primary reasons in support of
this approach.
First, IEC-equivalent small electric motors generally can perform
the identical functions of those motors strictly defined under EPCA.
DOE noted that the differences in criteria between the relevant IEC and
MG 1-1987 provisions lay in the nomenclature, units of measurement,
standard motor configurations and design details--not in the function
of the motor itself. Consequently, DOE concluded that in most general
purpose applications, IEC motors can be used interchangeably with small
electric motors built in accordance with MG 1-1987. See 74 FR 32059,
32062.
Second, a broad exclusion of IEC-equivalent motors from DOE's
regulatory framework would create a regulatory gap. Moreover, any
efficiency standards applying to small electric motors built according
to MG 1-1987's specified units of measurement would be readily
applicable to IEC motors. See 74 FR 32059, 32062.
Finally, treating IEC-based motors as falling outside of the small
electric motor definition would effectively provide preferential
treatment to manufacturers of IEC motors. DOE noted at the time that
the creation of such a situation would likely lead to a reduction in
the production of NEMA (i.e., MG 1-1987-based) motors while encouraging
the increased production of IEC motors that, if unaddressed, would be
inadvertently treated as unregulated motors. See 74 FR 32059, 32062.
The current definition at 10 CFR 431.442 lists the criteria that
must be met for a motor to be defined as a ``small electric motor.''
Under these criteria, a small electric motor is:
A NEMA general purpose motor \7\ that
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In response to questions from NEMA and various motor
manufacturers, DOE issued a guidance document that identifies some
key design elements that manufacturers should consider when
determining whether a given individual motor meets the small
electric motor definition and is subject to the energy conservation
standards promulgated for small electric motors. See https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047-0082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] Uses alternating current, and
[cir] Is single-speed, and
[cir] Is an induction motor; and
[cir] Is built in a two-digit frame size in accordance with NEMA
Standards Publication MG 1-1987, including IEC metric equivalent
motors.
See 10 CFR 431.442.
In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, NEMA supported maintaining all
existing criteria specified in the current regulatory definition.
(NEMA, No. 24, at p. 7) \8\ No other commenters argued in favor of
altering the current definition. Accordingly, DOE is not proposing to
modify the definition of small electric motor. However, a number of
issues
[[Page 17008]]
relevant to small electric motors were also raised and are discussed in
the following sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A notation in this form provides a reference for information
that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop test procedures
for small electric motors and electric motors (EERE-2017-BT-TP-
0047), which is maintained at http://www.regulations.gov. This
notation indicates that the statement preceding the reference is
document number 0024 in the docket for small electric motor and
electric motor test procedure rulemaking, and appears at page 7 of
that document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Synchronous Operation
In the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE included a table of motor topologies,
categorized by induction or synchronous operation. 82 FR 35468, 35471.
In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, Advanced Energy commented that
line-start permanent magnet motors are better classified as synchronous
motors rather than as induction (or asynchronous) motors. Advanced
Energy noted that these motors do not operate on the principle of
induction (i.e., production of electric current in a conductor by
varying the magnetic field applied to it), and the presence of the
squirrel cage is only for starting the motor. (Advanced Energy, No. 25
at p. 3)
DOE agrees that line-start permanent magnet motors are more
properly considered synchronous, rather than induction, motors. Line-
start permanent magnet motors contain inductive elements, but these
elements are used only to start the motor and bring it to synchronous
operation. As a result, the inductive portions of the motor are not
representative of the motor's operation. As noted earlier, the
definition of ``small electric motor'' limits the test procedure's
scope to induction motors. Accordingly, line-start permanent magnet
motors are best classified as synchronous motors rather than induction
motors, and would not fall under the small electric motor definition or
be subject to the small electric motor test procedure.
b. Rated Output Power
DOE's regulations provide a method for evaluating small electric
motor efficiency. See 10 CFR 431.444. As part of its review of the
current test procedures for this equipment, DOE discussed the
possibility of revising the output power range for motors considered in
the scope of applicability of this test procedure. 82 FR 35468, 35470.
As explained in the 2017 TP RFI, only motors with a power rating of
greater than or equal to 0.25 horsepower (``hp'') and less than or
equal to 3 hp \9\ are subject to the regulations in subpart X to 10 CFR
part 431. 82 FR 35468, 35470. DOE used the existing scope for small
electric motors as a starting point, and reviewed market data to
determine whether the limits could be revised. Specifically, DOE
discussed considering a lower output power limit of 0.125 hp. Id.. In
the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE also discussed applying an upper limit of 15
hp for single-phase electric motors and of 5 hp for 2-digit frame size
polyphase electric motors. Id..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For certain motor configurations within this range, DOE has
not established standards. See 10 CFR 431.446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA opposed changes to the current output power range of regulated
motors. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 6) Advanced Energy commented that 15 hp and
5 hp upper limits for single and polyphase motors in two-digit frames
are reasonable. However, Advanced Energy noted that expanding the scope
to include motors in the subfractional horsepower range may not lead to
significant energy savings. (Advanced Energy, No. 25, at p. 2) The
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, San
Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison (hereafter
referred to as the ``CA IOUs'') commented in support of expanding the
scope of small electric motor test procedures to 0.125 hp through 15
hp. The CA IOUs noted that having greater information about the small
motor market has many benefits, such as aiding in the development of
new utility incentive programs. (CA IOUs, No. 26 at p. 2)
As stated in section III.A, DOE is not proposing to modify the
present scope of test procedure applicability; DOE is not proposing to
include motors with additional horsepower ratings. If finalized as
proposed, the test procedure would continue to apply to small electric
motors as pursuant to EPCA. See 10 CFR 431.444.
DOE requests comments on its proposal to maintain the current scope
of applicability, with respect to horsepower ratings, of the small
electric motors test procedure.
c. Motors Used as a Component of Another Covered Product
Under EPCA, no standard prescribed for small electric motors shall
apply to any such motor that is a component of a covered product under
section 322(a) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)), or of covered equipment
under section 340 (42 U.S.C. 6311). (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3). In the July
2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment on the feasibility of testing motors
that are components of other equipment. While not offering comment on
testing, NEMA, AHAM and AHRI, McMillan Electric Company, Detech Inc.,
and Lennox International indicated that they do not support regulating
motors as components of covered products or equipment but instead
supported a finished-product approach to energy efficiency regulations.
(NEMA, No. 24 at p. 1; AHAM and AHRI, No. 21 at p. 2-3; McMillian
Electric Company, No. 16 at p. 1; Detech Inc., no. 18 at p. 1; Lennox,
No. 22 at p. 1-2) As noted, EPCA directed DOE to establish test
procedures and energy conservation standards for small electric motors,
except those motors that are a component of a covered product or
covered equipment, (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)), and this NOPR, which focuses
solely on test procedure issues, does not propose altering the scope of
applicability of that procedure or related energy conservation
standards.
d. Air-Over Motors
DOE defines the term ``air-over electric motor'' as ``an electric
motor rated to operate in and be cooled by the airstream of a fan or
blower that is not supplied with the motor and whose primary purpose is
providing airflow to an application other than the motor driving it.''
10 CFR 431.12. In the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE sought comment on defining
``air-over electric motors''--among others--based on physical and
technical features of the motor. 82 FR 35468, 35473.
Air-over electric motors do not have a factory-attached fan and
require a separate means of convecting air over the frame of the motor.
The external cooling keeps internal motor winding temperatures beneath
the motor's insulation class' permissible temperature rise or the
maximum temperature value specified by the manufacturer. Without
external cooling, the air-over electric motor would overheat during
continuous operation. Air-over motors can be found in direct-drive
axial fans, blowers and several other applications. Single-phase air-
over motors are widely used in residential and commercial HVAC systems,
appliances, and equipment as well as in agricultural applications.
DOE reviewed catalog offerings of air-over motors to understand the
typical configurations available on the market. Air-over motors can be
broadly categorized into open air-over and enclosed air-over motors and
into polyphase and single-phase motors.
In terms of physical construction, DOE did not find clear
differences between air-over motors and non-air-over motors. For
example, there is little difference between a totally-enclosed fan-
cooled motor (``TEFC'') and a totally-enclosed air-over motor
(``TEAO''). In fact, a user could remove the fan on a TEFC motor, and
then place the motor in an airstream of the application to obtain an
air-over motor configuration. Further, the absence of a fan is not a
differentiating feature as with other motor categories, such as
totally-enclosed non-ventilated
[[Page 17009]]
(``TENV'') motors, which do not have internal fans or blowers and are
similar in construction to TEAO motors.
Based on these observations, DOE initially finds that what
differentiates air-over motors from non-air-over motors is that air-
over motors require external cooling by a free flow of air to avoid
overheating during continuous operation. That is, the internal motor
winding temperatures would exceed the maximum temperature value
corresponding to the motor's insulation class or specified by the
manufacturer. The risk of overheating can be verified by observing
whether the motor's temperature keeps rising during a rated load
temperature test instead of stabilizing. During a rated load
temperature test, the motor is loaded at its rated full load using a
dynamometer until it is thermally stable. The current industry
standards referenced by the existing DOE small electric motors test
procedure each contain a rated load temperature test, wherein thermal
stability is defined as the condition where the motor temperature does
not change by more than 1 [ordm]C over either 30 minutes or 15 minutes,
depending on the motor category (See section 5.8.4.4 of IEEE 112-2004
and section 10.3.1.3 of IEEE 114-2010). Further, specifying that
external cooling is obtained by a free flow of air would differentiate
air-over motors from other totally-enclosed pipe-ventilated motors.
In the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE discussed potentially revising the
definition of an air-over electric motor as a motor that does not
thermally stabilize without the application of external cooling by a
free flow of air during a rated temperature test according to either
IEEE 112-2004, CSA C747-09, or CSA C390-10 for polyphase motors or IEEE
114-2010 or CSA C747-09 for single-phase motors.'' 82 FR 35468, 35472-
35473.
NEMA and Advanced Energy asserted that it would be extremely
difficult or impossible to identify air-over motors by physical and
technical features alone. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 6; Advanced Energy, No.
25 at p. 4) Advanced Energy stated that air-over motors could be
defined by their inability to achieve a stable temperature under
standard test conditions. (Advanced Energy, No. 25 at p. 4) Advanced
Energy suggested that the term ``rated temperature test'' be replaced
by ``rated load temperature test,'' and emphasized the need to specify
that the external cooling air comes from a source that is not
mechanically attached to the motor. Advanced Energy suggested that air-
over motors be defined as ``a motor that does not reach thermal
equilibrium (or thermal stability) during a rated load temperature test
according to test standards incorporated by reference, without the
application of forced cooling by a free flow of air from an external
device not mechanically connected to the motor.'' (Advanced Energy, No.
25 at pp. 4-5) Advanced Energy further added that the term ``thermal
equilibrium'' in its recommended air-over motor definition is defined
in the referenced test standards, but that DOE could consider adding a
definition for that term as part of the air-over motor definition.
(Advanced Energy, No. 25 at p. 5) Finally, Lennox commented that air-
over motors are already defined at 10 CFR 431.12, and did not see a
need to make changes to this definition. (Lennox, No. 22, at p. 4)
As stated in section III.A of this NOPR, DOE is not proposing to
modify the scope of applicability of the current test procedures for
small electric motors and electric motors. The definition of air-over
electric motors implicates equipment beyond those electric and small
electric motors DOE already regulates under subpart B of 10 CFR part
431. As a result, DOE is not proposing to amend the definition at this
time.
2. Scope of the Small Electric Motor Test Procedure
In the March 2010 ECS final rule, DOE identified motor topologies
that met the small electric motor definition. DOE reviewed the
topologies of alternating-current single-speed induction motors,
identifying six in total: Split-phase, shaded-pole, capacitor-start
induction-run (``CSIR''), capacitor-start capacitor-run (``CSCR''),
permanent-split capacitor (``PSC''), and polyphase (see descriptions in
Table III-1). 75 FR 10874, 10882.
Table III-1--Alternating Current, Single-Speed, Induction Motor
Topologies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topology Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent-Split Capacitor......... A capacitor motor * having the same
value of capacitance for both
starting and running conditions.
(MG 1-2014, 1.20.3.3.2).
Capacitor-Start Induction-Run..... A capacitor motor * in which the
capacitor phase is in the circuit
only during the starting period.
(MG 1-2014, 1.20.3.3.1).
Capacitor-Start Capacitor-Run..... A capacitor motor * using different
values of effective capacitance for
the starting and running
conditions. (MG 1-2014,
1.20.3.3.3).
Shaded-Pole....................... A single-phase induction motor
provided with an auxiliary short-
circuited winding or windings
displaced in magnetic position from
the main winding. (MG 1-2014,
1.20.3.4).
Split-phase....................... A single-phase induction motor
equipped with an auxiliary winding,
displaced in magnetic position
from, and connected in parallel
with the main winding. (MG 1-2014,
1.20.3.1).
Polyphase induction, squirrel cage A polyphase induction motor in which
the secondary circuit (squirrel-
cage winding) consists of a number
of conducting bars having their
extremities connected by metal
rings or plates at each end. (MG 1-
2014, 1.18.1.1).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A capacitor motor is a single-phase induction motor with a main
winding arranged for direct connection to a source of power and an
auxiliary winding connected in series with a capacitor. (MG 1-2014
1.20.3.3).
Of these six topologies, DOE concluded that three would satisfy the
small electric motor definition: CSIR, CSCR, and certain polyphase
motors. Id. Therefore, DOE added subpart X of 10 CFR part 431 to
address energy conservation standards and test procedures regarding
these three topologies that meet the definition of a small electric
motor.
DOE received a number of comments related to the test procedure's
scope in response to the July 2017 TP RFI. Many of these comments
addressed whether the test procedure should be expanded to apply to
additional motors. Parties commenting on the test procedure's scope are
listed in Table III-2:
[[Page 17010]]
Table III-2--Parties Commenting on the Test Procedure's Scope
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Party Affiliation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Energy................................. Laboratory.
AHAM and AHRI (Association of Home Appliance Trade Association--
Manufacturers and Air-conditioning, Heating, Manufacturer.
and Refrigeration Institute).
Anonymous Commenters (7 total).................. Anonymous.
APSP (Association of Pool and Spa Professionals) Trade Association--
Manufacturer.
CA IOUs (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Utility.
Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas
and Electric, Southern California Edison).
CEC (California Energy Commission).............. State Government.
Detech Inc. (Detector Technology Inc.).......... Manufacturer.
EEI (Edison Electric Institute)................. Association--Utility.
Gent University................................. University.
Joint Advocates (American Council for an Energy- Efficiency Advocate.
efficient Economy, Appliance Standards
Awareness Project, Northwest Power and
Conservation Council, Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance).
Lennox (Lennox International Inc.).............. Manufacturer.
McMillan Electric Company....................... Manufacturer.
NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Trade Association--
Association). Manufacturer.
Raymond Calore.................................. Individual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated, DOE is not proposing to modify the test procedure's
scope; instead, the test procedure would continue to apply only to
small electric motors that are currently subject to the DOE's existing
test procedure at 10 CFR 431.444.
3. Scope of the Electric Motor Test Procedure
As noted, this NOPR also addresses the test procedure for electric
motors in response to a petition for rulemaking. The current electric
motor test procedure is at subpart B of 10 CFR part 431. DOE is not
proposing any changes to the scope of applicability of the electric
motor test procedure.
B. Metric for Small Electric Motors
DOE's existing test procedure for small electric motors requires
that motor efficiency of this equipment be determined using the average
full-load efficiency of the small electric motor's basic model. 10 CFR
431.445(b)(1). This formulation of efficiency represents the mechanical
output power at full-load (i.e., the rated output power) divided by the
electrical input power, and is expressed as a percentage. DOE further
requires manufacturers to test at least five units of a basic model to
determine the limit on represented value of average full-load
efficiency by applying the equations at 10 CFR 431.445(c)(3). See 10
CFR 431.445(c)(2).
1. Average and Nominal Efficiency
In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, NEMA and Advanced Energy
suggested that DOE's test procedure use the NEMA nominal, rather than
average, full load efficiency metric for small electric motors.\10\
(NEMA, No. 24 at p. 8; Advanced Energy, No. 25 at p. 9) NEMA stated
that the NEMA nominal full load efficiency metric is established in the
industry and is harmonized with global IEC standards. NEMA asserted
that the difference between the metrics used for electric motor
standards and small electric motor standards causes confusion in the
industry. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 8) Advanced Energy stated that if DOE
decided to use the NEMA nominal efficiency metric for small electric
motors, DOE would need to ensure that the translation from average
efficiencies to nominal efficiencies would not change the stringency of
existing energy conservation standards. (Advanced Energy, No. 25 at p.
8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Currently, small electric motor efficiency is based on
average full load efficiency while electric motor efficiency is
based on nominal full load efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The nominal efficiency values for electric motors are based on a
sequence of discretized standard values in NEMA Standard MG 1-2016
Table 12-10, and are familiar to motor users. Under this approach, the
full-load efficiency is identified on the electric motor nameplate by a
nominal efficiency selected from Table 12-10 that shall not be greater
than the average efficiency of a large population of motors of the same
design. However, NEMA has not adopted a comparable set of standardized
values for small electric motors. Because no standardized nominal
values are published for small electric motors, DOE is unable to
consider at this time their appropriateness as a small electric motors
performance metric. Absent standardized nominal values for small
electric motors, DOE is unable to ascertain whether existing energy
conservation standards would require the same level of stringency if
based on nominal values. As a result, this NOPR does not propose to
adopt NEMA's suggestion to amend the metric for small electric motor
energy conservation standards (i.e., average full-load efficiency).
2. Representations
In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, AHAM and AHRI commented that
if DOE elects to expand the scope of the small electric motors and
electric motors test procedures, DOE should not make these newly
expanded test procedures mandatory, including for representations,
until or unless energy conservation standards are established. (AHAM
and AHRI, No. 21 at p. 4)
As discussed in section III.A of this NOPR, DOE is not proposing to
expand the scope of applicability of the small electric motors test
procedure.
C. Industry Standards for Existing Test Procedures
The DOE test procedures rely on industry standards that are
incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.443 and 10 CFR 431.15.
Specifically, the existing DOE test procedures for small electric
motors and electric motors rely on the following test methods:
(1) For polyphase small electric motors of less than or equal to 1
hp, either Section 6.3 ``Efficiency Test Method A, Input-Output'' of
IEEE 112-2004, ``IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction
Motors and Generators;'' or CSA C747-09, ``Energy Efficiency Test
Methods for Small Motors'' (10 CFR 431.444(b)(2));
(2) For polyphase small electric motors of greater than 1 hp and
electric motors, either Section 6.4 ``Efficiency Test Method B, Input-
Output with Loss Segregation'' of IEEE 112-2004; or CSA C390-10, ``Test
Methods, Marking Requirements, and Energy Efficiency
[[Page 17011]]
Levels for Three-Phase Induction Motors'' (10 CFR 431.444(b)(3); 10 CFR
431.16 and Appendix B); and
(3) For single-phase small electric motors: either IEEE 114-2010,
``IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Single-Phase Induction Motors;'' or
CSA C747-09 (10 CFR 431.444(b)(1)).
In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, Advanced Energy commented
generally that the existing test procedures for small electric motors
do not require any revisions. (Advanced Energy, No. 25 at p. 9)
Comments suggesting revisions to specific aspects of the current test
procedure (e.g., scope, metric, and incorporation of new test methods)
are discussed elsewhere in this document (see sections III.A.2, III.B,
and III.C.2).
DOE conducted a review of each of the referenced industry standards
to determine whether they still represent the most current procedures
accepted and used by industry. After the July 2017 TP RFI comment
period closed (September 13, 2017), IEEE approved an updated edition of
the IEEE 112 standard on February 14, 2018. Section III.C.1 of this
document describes DOE's consideration of the updated IEEE 112-2017
standard. The other referenced industry standards incorporated into
DOE's test procedure developed by CSA remain current or have been
reaffirmed without changes.\11\ All of these standards remain among the
most commonly used industry consensus standards for determining motor
efficiency. Therefore, as explained later in this section, in
recognition of the wide acceptance of these testing standards, DOE
proposes to modify 10 CFR 431.15 and 431.443 by incorporating by
reference the latest version of IEEE 112, while retaining the
incorporation by reference of the IEEE 112-2004 standard. In addition,
section III.C.2 of this document addresses DOE's consideration of
incorporating by reference an additional industry standard also
commonly used by the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Both CSA C747-09 and CSA C390-10 have been reaffirmed in
2014 and 2015, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III-3 summarizes the industry standards DOE proposes to
incorporate by reference to use as the basis for measuring motor
efficiency of currently regulated small electric motors and electric
motors. The specific industry standards that would be referenced are
listed in section IV.N of this document.
Table III-3--Summary of the Proposed Industry Test Methods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry test
Equipment Description methods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Electric Motors....... Single-phase........ IEEE 114-
2010.*
CSA C747-
09.*
IEC 60034-2-
1:2014 Test Method
2-1-1A.
Polyphase with rated IEEE 112-
output power less 2004 Test Method
or equal to 1 hp. A.*
IEEE 112-
2017 Test Method A.
CSA C747-
09.*
IEC 60034-2-
1:2014 Test Method
2-1-1A.
Polyphase with rated IEEE 112-
output power 2004 Test Method
greater than 1 hp. B.*
IEEE 112-
2017 Test Method B.
CSA C390-
10.*
IEC 60034-2-
1:2014 Test Method
2-1-1B.
Electric Motors............. Electric Motors-- IEEE 112-
regulated at 10 CFR 2004 Test Method
431.25. B.*
IEEE 112-
2017 Test Method B.
CSA C390-
10.*
IEC 60034-2-
1:2014 Test Method
2-1-1B.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These IEEE and CSA standards are already incorporated by reference in
the current test procedure and would be maintained as part of this
proposal.
1. IEEE 112-2017
On February 14, 2018, IEEE approved IEEE 112-2017, ``IEEE Standard
Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators.'' DOE
conducted a full review of the revised standard to identify any changes
made relative to the industry test methods that are incorporated by
reference from IEEE 112-2004.
Section 4, ``Measurements'', of IEEE 112-2017 includes several
updates regarding instrument selection and measurement accuracy.
Specifically, the 2017 revision includes updates to the permissible
limits of error for general measurement instrumentation, the limits of
error for torque measurement, and the limits of error for speed
measurement. In addition, the 2017 revision specifies new requirements
for limits of error in current measurement, power measurement, and
frequency measurement. Section 4 also indicates that alcohol
thermometers are no longer permitted for measuring temperature in the
2017 revision of IEEE 112.
The method for calculating core loss used in Section 6.4,
``Efficiency test method B--Input-output with loss segregation'' was
revised for the 2017 edition of IEEE 112. Core loss at each load point
is now determined directly based on the no-load test data at the stator
core voltage instead of being calculated by subtracting friction,
windage, and resistive core losses from total no-load losses. This
change in calculation methodology for core losses aligns the IEEE 112-
2017 Test Method B with the efficiency test method specified in CSA
C390-10, currently incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.444(b)(3).
DOE further notes that this change also aligns with the Method 2-1-1B
approach of IEC 60034-2-1:2014.
Previously, when DOE added CSA 390-10 as a permissible test method
for small electric motors, DOE concluded that the differences between
IEEE 112-2004 and CSA 390-10 are minimal, and both tests will result in
an accurate and similar measurement of efficiency. 77 FR 26608, 26622.
IEEE 112-2017 uses the same core-loss calculation as CSA C390-10.
However, DOE has initially determined that the core-loss calculation in
IEEE 112-2017 may result in a difference in the measured efficiency
value as compared to the core-loss calculation under the currently
referenced IEEE 112-2004. In the small electric motor and electric
motor final rule published on May 4, 2012, commenters indicated the
difference in efficiency outcome between IEEE 112-2004 and CSA C390-10
to be within 0.2
[[Page 17012]]
percent. 77 FR 26608, 26622. As discussed, the core loss calculation in
IEEE 112-2017 aligns with the core loss calculation in CSA C390-10.
Based on this comparison of IEEE 112-2004 and CSA C390-10, the impact
of the core-loss calculation between IEEE 112-2004 and IEEE 112-2017
should be no greater than 0.2 percent. To avoid any potential need to
retest motors that have relied on IEEE 112-2004 for purposes of
compliance, DOE is proposing to incorporate the IEEE 112-2017 test
methods as alternatives to the test methods incorporated in the current
test procedure, while retaining the currently incorporated IEEE 112-
2004 methods. DOE has initially determined that IEEE 112-2017 will
result in an accurate and similar measurement of efficiency as compared
to IEEE 112-2004. Given the variable nature of tested efficiency values
for electric motors and small electric motors due to manufacturing and
material differences, the variation in the calculated efficiency is not
likely to result in any significant change in overall energy efficiency
test results.
Since the introduction of the IEEE 112 standard in 1964, IEEE has
made periodic updates to the standard to keep the test methods current
with improvements to instrumentation and test techniques, and
incorporating this update would help to align DOE's test procedures
with current industry practice. Accordingly, DOE proposes to
incorporate by reference IEEE 112-2017 Test Method A and Test Method B
as alternatives to the industry test methods that are currently
incorporated by reference from IEEE 112-2004 (see 10 CFR 431.15 and 10
CFR 431.443). This proposal would further harmonize the permitted test
methods under subparts X (for small electric motors) and B (for
electric motors) of 10 CFR part 431 and align measurement and
instrumentation requirements with industry practice, while ensuring
that motors that have demonstrated compliance under IEEE 112-2004
methods do not require retesting.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference
IEEE 112-2017 Test Method A and Test Method B as alternatives to the
currently incorporated industry test standards in IEEE 112-2004. In
particular, DOE requests data comparing test results of these standards
2. IEC 60034-2-1:2014
Separate from DOE's July 2017 TP RFI, NEMA and Underwriter
Laboratories (``UL'') independently submitted written petitions
requesting that certain portions of IEC 60034-2-1:2014 be adopted as a
permitted alternative test method for small electric motors and
electric motors. DOE published a notice regarding its receipt of these
petitions in November 2017. See 82 FR 50844 (November 2, 2017)
(hereinafter, ``the November 2017 notice of petition'') (announcing the
receipt of petitions from UL and NEMA seeking the incorporation of
certain test methods from IEC 60034-2-1:2014 into DOE's regulations).
Specifically, NEMA's petition requested that DOE incorporate IEC
60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B \12\ as an alternative to IEEE 112-2004
Test Method B and CSA C390-10, which are currently referenced in
Appendix B. (NEMA, No. 28.2 at p.1) UL requested that (1) IEC 60034-2-
1:2014 test method 2-1-1B be approved for Appendix B and section
431.444 of 10 CFR part 431 (as an alternative to CSA C390-10) and (2)
that IEC 60034-2-1:2014 test method 2-1-1A be approved for section
431.444 of 10 CFR part 431 (as an alternative to CSA C747-09). (UL, No.
29.1 at p.1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NEMA and UL petitions included and referenced papers that
compare the testing methodologies presented in IEC 60034-2-1:2014 and
the IEEE and CSA standards currently referenced in the small electric
motors and electric motors test procedures at 10 CFR part 431.
The NEMA petition included a ``work paper'' that summarizes an
evaluation conducted by the NEMA Motor and Generator Section technical
committee, which found that the IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B test
method was a suitable alternative to the IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B
and CSA C390-10 test methods. (NEMA, No. 28.3 at p. 1) This evaluation
relied on (1) 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[thinsp]provide results that are very closely aligned. (NEMA,
No. 28.3 at pp. 1-3) NEMA's work paper 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. (NEMA, No. 28.3 at p. 2) NEMA commented
that incorporating IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B test method as an
alternative to the IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B and CSA C390-10 test
methods would reduce the unnecessary burden of performing a second test
for motors originally tested to the IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B
test method. (NEMA, No. 28.3 at pp. 3-4) NEMA did not specify the
number of motors that would benefit from such burden reduction.
The UL petition included two papers comparing the IEC 60034-2-1
test methods with the respective IEEE and CSA standards. The first
paper was the Angers et. al. study, that concluded that the IEC 60034-
2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B test method provides results that are very
closely aligned with the IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B and CSA C390-10
test methods. (UL, No 29.2 at pp. 1-8) The second paper, written by
IEEE member Wenping Cao, compared the IEEE 112 and IEC 60034-2-1
standards. The study evaluated test results from six induction motors
with ratings between 5.5 and 150 kW (7.5 to 200 hp) and determined that
the overall power losses found using the two standards is similar. The
resulting efficiency values were found to be equal or otherwise closely
aligned, with respective maximum and mean deviations of 0.1 and 0.03
percentage points. (UL, No. 29.3 at p. 7) UL requested that DOE
incorporate IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B as an alternative to IEEE
112-2004 Test Method B and CSA C390-10 because of an increased use of
the IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B. (UL, No 29.1 at p.1) In its
comments, UL did not quantify how broadly the IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method
2-1-1B is currently being used.
Comments in response to the November 2017 notice of petition are
discussed in sections III.C.2.a through III.C.2.b of this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
DOE also received several anonymous comments in response to the
November 2017 notice of petition. Those comments, however, raised
topics unrelated to the test procedures at issue and are, consequently,
not addressed.
a. Method 2-1-1A
Among multiple testing methods provided in IEC 60034-2-1:2014,
Method 2-1-1A ``Direct measurement of input and output'' is the
standard's preferred testing method for single-
[[Page 17013]]
phase motors. It is based on direct measurement of electrical input
power to the motor and mechanical output power (in the form of torque
and speed) from the motor. This approach is analogous to the methods of
the other industry standards, IEEE 114-2010 and CSA C747-09, currently
incorporated by reference for testing single-phase motors, and IEEE
112-2004 Test Method A, currently incorporated by reference for the
purpose of testing polyphase motors of output power less than or equal
to one horsepower.
Regarding equivalency among IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A, IEEE
114-2010, and CSA C749-09, Advanced Energy commented that previous
comparisons finding equivalence between the latter two still held, but
that Method 2-1-1A had not been formally compared to the others through
testing. (Advanced Energy, No. 81 at p. 4 that IEC 60034-2-1:2014
Method 2-1-1A is likely to produce results that are accurate,
reproducible, and consistent with results from the other test methods
permitted under subparts X and B of 10 CFR part 431.
To identify ways to resolve the concern surrounding the torque
correction procedure in IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A, DOE reviewed
analogous provisions in other industry standards. IEEE 114-2010 \13\
and CSA C747-09 \14\ contain more detailed descriptions of torque
correction procedures, but both state that torque correction is not
required when torque is measured using either an inline, rotating
torque transducer or stator reaction torque transducer. The
insufficient specificity of IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A regarding
dynamometer torque correction can be avoided by using a torque
measurement method that does not require correction. As a result, DOE
proposes to incorporate by reference the provisions of IEC 60034-2-
1:2014 Method 2-1-1A as a permitted alternative to IEEE 114-2010 and
CSA C747-09, but to limit torque measurement to methods which do not
require dynamometer torque correction. Specifically, DOE proposes to
limit torque measurement, when using IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A,
to either in-line, shaft-coupled, rotating torque transducers or
stationary, stator reaction torque transducers, and to reflect these
changes in 10 CFR 431.444(b)(1) and 431.444(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Section 5.2.1.1.1 of IEEE 114-2010 addressees when torque
correction is required.
\14\ Section 6.7.1 of CSA C747-09 addresses when torque
correction is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the IEC 60034-2-1:2014 2-1-1A test method specifies
that motors under test should be operated at the ``required load''
until thermal equilibrium is achieved. As required under DOE's test
procedure, the motor must be rated and tested at rated load. For
clarity and consistency, DOE proposes to modify these instructions by
replacing the term ``required load'' with ``rated load.''
DOE tentatively agrees with NEMA and Advanced Energy that IEC
60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A is likely to produce accurate and
reproducible results that are consistent with results from the other
test methods permitted under subparts X and B of 10 CFR part 431. In
light of this likely outcome, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference
IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A as an alternative to currently
incorporated industry testing standards IEEE 112-2004 Test Method A and
CSA C747-09 in 10 CFR 431.433. This proposal would further harmonize
DOE's test procedures with current industry practice and reduce
manufacturer test burden (see section III.F.1 for more details).
DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference
IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A as an alternative to currently
incorporated industry testing standards IEEE 112-2004 Test Method A and
CSA C747-09. In particular, DOE requests data comparing the average
full-load efficiency test results of those standards. DOE requests
comments on its proposal to limit torque measurement, when using IEC
60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A, to either in-line, shaft-coupled,
rotating torque transducers or stationary, stator reaction torque
transducers.
b. Method 2-1-1B
Among multiple testing methods provided in IEC 60034-2-1:2014,
Method 2-1-1B ``Summation of losses, additional load losses according
to the method of residual loss'' is the IEC 60034-2-1:2014 standard's
preferred testing method for three-phase motors. It is based on the
indirect calculation of motor losses using a combination of measured
values (e.g., winding resistance) and assumptions so that direct
measurement of motor torque is not needed. This is analogous to the
methods of the other industry standards, IEEE 112-2004 and CSA C390-10,
currently incorporated by reference for testing polyphase motors of
output power greater than one horsepower.
In response to the November 2017 notice of petition, NEMA
encouraged DOE to recognize IEC 60034-2-1:2014 as valid for
demonstrating compliance with the DOE energy conservation standards.
(NEMA, No. 80 at p. 1) Advanced Energy commented that, of its analysis
of 117 motors, 112 were found to have full-load efficiency differences
of 0.2 or fewer percentage points between their respective
IEC 60034-2-1:2014-measured and IEEE 112 Test Method B-measured
efficiency values. (Advanced Energy, No. 81 at p. 2) Advanced Energy
commented that, although the comparison was performed using IEC 60034-
2-1:2007, the 2014 version is similar enough that results should
continue to hold.\15\ (Advanced Energy, No. 81 at p. 5) On that basis,
Advanced Energy considered the loss segregation methods of IEC 60034-2-
1:2014 and IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B to be in close agreement with
each other. (Advanced Energy, No. 81 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Advanced Energy's study published in 2011, before the 2014
version of IEC 60034-2-1 was available, but Advanced Energy expects
the conclusion to extend to 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Energy also generally supported the assessments of
variation between IEC 60034-2-1 and IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B:
Regarding UL's claim that IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B/IEC
60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B alignment is less than 0.1 percentage
points, Advanced Energy commented that motors of lower rated output
power, especially, sometimes varied by more. (Advanced Energy, No. 81
at p. 5)
Regarding differences in IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B/IEC
60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B alignment across motors with respective
energy conservation standards at Subparts B and X of 10 CFR part 431,
Advanced Energy commented that the results of its analysis would hold
for motors of both subparts, but that error may grow as motor output
power falls. (Advanced Energy, No. 81 at p. 4)
Regarding a Hydro-Quebec study finding a characteristic
loss estimation difference of 2 percent of losses between
IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B and IEC 60034-2-1, Advanced Energy
commented that this result approximately aligned with its own.
(Advanced Energy, No. 81 at p. 5)
Advanced Energy also commented that although the core loss
estimation method varied somewhat between IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B,
IEC 60034-2-1:2014, and CSA C390-10, the difference was modest and,
further, that a 2018 update of IEEE 112 was expected to eliminate it.
(Advanced Energy, No. 81 at pp. 3-4)
In addition to the studies submitted by the stakeholders, DOE notes
that a recent comparison of results from a round robin between 11
participants
[[Page 17014]]
concluded that the same motor tested at multiple locations showed a
maximum deviation of 0.4 percentage points, using the same
IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B for each test.\16\ DOE further notes that
the largest difference reported by stakeholders between measured
efficiency values using IEC 60034-2-1:2014 and IEEE 112-2004 Test
Method B did not exceed 0.2 percentage points. (Advanced
Energy, No. 81 at p. 2). This difference is comparable to the
difference in efficiency observed when testing using CSA 390-10 and
IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B. DOE also determined that given the
variable nature of tested efficiency values for electric motors and
small electric motors due to manufacturing and material differences,
the variation in the calculated efficiency is not likely to result in
any significant change in overall energy efficiency test results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Hydro-Quebec Research Institute, NEMA Motor Round Robin,
November 2018. Motor Summit 2018 Proceedings. Available at https://www.motorsummit.ch/sites/default/files/2018-11/MS18_proceedings.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding variance in the core loss calculation between IEEE 112
Test Method B and IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B, the proposed
incorporation by reference of the updated IEEE 112-2017 test methods is
expected to resolve this discrepancy and further reduce differences in
test results between the IEEE 112-2017 Test Method B and IEC 60034-2-
1:2014 Method 2-1-1B. See section III.C.1 for details on this aspect of
DOE's proposal.
When amending a test procedure, DOE must determine the extent to
which a proposed procedure will alter the measured energy efficiency of
a given type of covered equipment when compared to the current
procedure. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(C) (incorporating the procedural
steps of 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) for electric motors)) In view of the
comments regarding the comparison among IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B,
CSA 390-10, and IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B, including the results
of the Hydro Quebec study, the paper written by IEEE member Wenping
Cao, and the Advanced Energy study, along with the additional
information gathered by DOE, DOE initially concludes that (1) these
methods are not identical, but the differences between these standards
are within the expected measurement variation of the existing test
procedure; (2) all three tests would result in measurements of
efficiency that would yield the same results with respect to motor
compliance; and (3) given the variable nature of tested efficiency
values for electric motors and small electric motors due to
manufacturing and material differences, the variation in the calculated
efficiency is insignificant and not likely to result in any
manipulation of energy efficiency test results. Therefore, DOE proposes
to incorporate by reference the relevant provisions of IEC 60034-2-
1:2014 Method 2-1-1B as a permitted alternative to the current test
methods IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B and CSA C390-10 in 10 CFR 431.15
and 10 CFR 431.443. Allowing manufacturers to test according to IEC
60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B would further harmonize DOE's test
procedures with current industry practice and reduce manufacturer test
burden (see section III.F.1 for more details).
DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference
IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B as an alternative to the currently
incorporated industry testing standards IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B and
CSA C390-10 and to IEEE 112-2017 Test Method B. In particular, DOE
requests data comparing test results of those standards.
D. Rated Output Power of Small Electric Motors
1. Background
The current regulations for small electric motors specify that the
metric for energy conservation standards, average full-load efficiency,
is to be measured at ``full rated load.'' 10 CFR 431.442. However, the
industry testing standards discussed in section III.C do not provide a
method to determine the rated load of the tested unit. Rather, the
standards rely on a manufacturer-specified output power, which is
typically listed on a motor's nameplate. Motors subject to the test
procedures for small electric motors are capable of operating over a
continuous range of loads. For example, a motor that is rated at 1 hp
is also capable of delivering 0.75 hp, but likely with a different
speed, torque, and efficiency than those of when it is delivering its
rated load of 1 hp. The output power of the motor depends on the load
and the design of the motor. Therefore, the load point at which the
motor must be tested is not an intrinsic parameter to the motor, but
rather a parameter that must be defined or specified. The test's load
point is relevant to efficiency testing because the efficiency of small
electric motors varies according to load.
To provide for more accurate comparisons of similar motors from
different manufacturers, DOE considered specifying objective rating
points. However, DOE recognizes that in some instances it may be more
appropriate to allow manufacturers to rate and test their equipment at
a selected load point within an allowable range that reflects a
manufacturer preference (e.g., a nominal value, increasing the service
factor, or the load resulting in the highest efficiency) and that more
appropriately matches the operating conditions likely to be experienced
by operators of small electric motors.
In the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE described potential methods of
determining motor output power based on factors other than manufacturer
declaration, including deriving motor output power from either
breakdown torque or service factor load. 82 FR 35468, 35476-77.
Details of the options considered and the proposed approach are
discussed in sections III.D.2 and III.D.3 of this document.
2. NEMA Breakdown Torque Method
DOE investigated whether breakdown torque (a directly measurable
quantity) corresponds to rated output power, and if it could be used as
a means for determining rated output power. NEMA MG 1-2016, section
10.34, specifies that the horsepower rating of a small or medium
single-phase induction motor is based on breakdown torque. Breakdown
torque is defined in section 1.50 of NEMA MG 1-2016 as the maximum
torque which the motor will develop with rated voltage and frequency
applied without an abrupt drop in speed.\17\ In concept, breakdown
torque describes the maximum torque the motor can develop without
slowing down and stalling. The maximum torque over the entire speed
range could occur at a different condition (e.g., the motor start-up,
zero speed condition) than the breakdown condition. Therefore,
breakdown torque corresponds to a local maximum torque (on a plot of
torque versus speed) that is nearest to the rated torque. The phrase
``abrupt drop in speed'' corresponds to the expectation that the motor
will slow down or stall if the load increases and indicates that minor
reductions in speed observed due to measurement sensitivities are not
considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ NEMA MG 1-2016 does not quantify what would constitute ``an
abrupt drop in speed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The breakdown torque for a specific horsepower rating is specified
as a range as a function of input frequency and synchronous speed of
the motor in two tables: Table 10-5 of NEMA MG 1-2016, which applies to
induction motors, except PSC and shaded-pole motors; and Table 10-6 of
NEMA MG 1-2016, which applies to shaded-pole and PSC
[[Page 17015]]
motors for fan and pump applications. For polyphase motors, section
12.37 of NEMA MG 1-2016 specifies that the breakdown torque of a
general-purpose polyphase squirrel-cage small motor shall not be less
than 140 percent of the breakdown torque of a single-phase general
purpose motor of the same horsepower and speed rating. As an example,
according to Table 10-5 of NEMA MG 1-2016, a 60 hertz (``Hz'') \18\
motor rated for 1 hp with a synchronous speed of 1,800 revolutions per
minute (``RPM'') must have a breakdown torque between 5.16 and 6.8
pound-feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Hertz is a unit of measure of frequency--or the rate at
which current cycles. One hertz equals one cycle per second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all small electric motors subject to standards are directly
addressed by NEMA MG 1-2016. The highest horsepower rating for small
motors for which breakdown torque is provided in NEMA MG 1-2016 Table
10-5 is 1 hp for 2-pole motors, 0.75 hp for 4-pole motors, and 0.5 hp
for 6-pole motors. Table 10-5 provides breakdown torque values for
motors with horsepower ratings greater than these values, but specifies
that these ratings correspond to 3-digit frame number series ``medium
motors'' rather than 2-digit number series ``small motors.'' The energy
conservation standards for small electric motors at 10 CFR 431.446
apply only to motors with a two-digit frame number series. However, the
upper output power bound of energy conservation standards for single-
phase small electric motors is 3 hp for 2- and 4-pole motors, and 1.5
hp for 6-pole motors. The upper output power bound of energy
conservation standards for polyphase small electric motors is 3 hp for
2-pole motors, 2 hp for 4-pole motors, and 1 hp for 6-pole motors.
DOE investigated the possibility of applying the breakdown torque
ranges associated with NEMA medium motors in Table 10-5 of NEMA MG 1-
2016 to small electric motors not identified as small motors in NEMA MG
1-2016.\19\ DOE converted the breakdown torque values in NEMA MG 1-2016
Table 10-5 to units of oz-ft and plotted the upper limits of the
breakdown torque range versus horsepower for NEMA small and medium
motors up to 3 hp for 2-, 4-, and 6-pole motors operating at 60 Hz. DOE
found that the relationship between breakdown torque and horsepower can
be expressed as a power law, with continuity across the horsepower
ratings at the transition point from motors designated by NEMA MG 1-
2016 as ``small'' versus ``medium''. This continuity indicates that the
breakdown torque to horsepower relationship for motors designated
``medium'' is no different than those motors designated ``small.'' DOE
tentatively concludes from this review that the portions of NEMA MG 1-
2016 Table 10-5 corresponding to ``medium'' motors, as that term is
applied in the context of NEMA MG 1-2016, can be applied to 2-digit
frame number series small electric motors of the same horsepower, and
which are subject to DOE's test procedure. Figure III-1 shows breakdown
torque plotted against horsepower, with power law relationships fitted
to the data from NEMA MG 1-2016 Table 10-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ These include small electric motors with horsepower ratings
greater than the ratings provided in NEMA MG 1-2016 Table 10-5 for
NEMA small motors and less than or equal to the upper horsepower
bound for regulated small electric motors,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23AP19.023
In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, NEMA commented that single-
phase small electric motors are typically rated based on breakdown
torque per NEMA MG 1 limits. (NEMA, No. 25 at p. 11-12) To confirm that
the breakdown torque method is commonly used by industry, DOE compared
the values of breakdown torque specified in Table
[[Page 17016]]
10-5 of NEMA MG 1-2016 to values listed in manufacturer catalogs and
product literature for small electric motors. For most single-phase
small electric motors, breakdown torque corresponded to the associated
NEMA range in Table 10-5 of NEMA MG 1-2016.\20\ Similarly, for
polyphase small electric motors, nearly all models had a manufacturer
listed breakdown torque which was not less than 140 percent of the
lower bounds of the NEMA ranges listed in Table 10-5.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 88% of single-phase small electric motor models collected
from major manufacturer's catalogs listed values for breakdown
torque that corresponded to the associated NEMA range.
\21\ DOE reviewed data from five major manufacturer's catalogs.
Of the reviewed catalog listings, approximately 98% of polyphase
small electric motor models listed values for breakdown torque that
were not less than 140 percent of the associated range in Table 10-5
of NEMA MG 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also in response to the July 2017 TP RFI, Advanced Energy commented
that an approach for determining the full load output power of a motor
based on breakdown torque is possible, but with potentially
inconsistent results due to the sensitivity of breakdown torque to
voltage and temperature. Advanced Energy stated that in NEMA MG1-2014,
the ranges of breakdown torque for single-phase motors are likely
provided as guidance for the user and not intended to serve as a method
for determining rated output power. Advanced Energy commented that the
full load or rated output power of a motor is best declared by the
manufacturer. (Advanced Energy, No. 25 at p. 13-14)
Regarding potentially inconsistent results when measuring breakdown
torque, DOE notes that Section 12.30 of NEMA MG 1-2016 specifies that
the tests to determine performance characteristics, including breakdown
torque, shall be made in accordance with IEEE 114 for single-phase
motors and IEEE 112 for polyphase motors. These methods include
requirements for instrument calibration and measurement accuracy
pertaining to voltage and temperature (see sections 4 and 5 of IEEE 114
and section 4 of IEEE 112). Further, the range of breakdown torque
values that correspond to a rated horsepower value provides flexibility
for some variation in test results.
Based on the ability to apply NEMA MG 1-2016 to all small electric
motors subject to standards, and evidence that most manufacturers
already use this method as a standard practice, DOE proposes to use
breakdown torque to define rated output power. DOE proposes to define
rated output power as, ``the mechanical output power that corresponds
to the small electric motor's breakdown torque as specified in NEMA MG
1-2016 Table 10-5 for single-phase motors or 140 percent of the
breakdown torque values specified in NEMA MG 1-2016 Table 10-5 for
polyphase motors. For purposes of this definition, NEMA MG 1-2016 Table
10-5 can be applied to all small electric motors, regardless of whether
elements of NEMA MG 1-2016 Table 10-5 are identified as for small or
medium motors.'' DOE also proposes defining ``breakdown torque'' as
referring to the maximum torque that the motor will develop with rated
voltage and frequency applied without an abrupt drop in speed,
determined in accordance with NEMA MG 1-2016.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for ``rated output
power'' and ``breakdown torque.
DOE requests comment on how to determine when an ``abrupt drop in
speed'' (e.g., the local maximum of the torque-speed plot closest to
the rated torque) has occurred when testing the breakdown torque of a
small electric motor.
3. NEMA Service Factor Load Method
DOE also researched a method of establishing rated output power
based on the service factor load of a motor. NEMA MG 1-2016 defines
service factor in section 1.42 as a multiplier that, when applied to
the rated output power at full-load, indicates a permissible horsepower
loading that may be carried under the conditions specified in NEMA MG
1-2016 section 14.37. While it is possible for a motor to operate at
the service factor load, there are advantages when the motor operates
at a load less than the service factor load (e.g., longer motor life
and greater ability to withstand occasional higher ambient
temperatures). Nonetheless, DOE explored the potential use of service
factor load as an intermediate step to determination of rated output
power.
Section 14.37 of NEMA MG 1-2016 specifies that when operated at the
service factor load, small and medium alternating current motors will
have a temperature rise as specified in section 12.42.1 and 12.43 item
a.2, respectively.\22\ The temperature rises in these sections are
specified according to insulation class (i.e., A, B, F, or H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ DOE notes that NEMA MG 1-2016 section 14.37 contains a typo
and refers to section 12.44 item a.2 and 12.43.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE examined sections in NEMA MG 1-2016 relevant to the insulation
class of a motor, which is a standardized way to describe an electrical
insulation system. Section 1.65 of NEMA MG 1-2016 defines an insulation
system as an assembly of insulating materials in association with the
conductors and the supporting structural parts. An insulation system is
composed of coil insulation with its accessories, connection and
winding support insulation, and associated structural parts. Insulation
systems are designated as one of four insulation classes in section
1.66 of NEMA MG 1-2016. The insulation classes are designated as A, B,
F, and H, where each class has an associated maximum temperature rise
at which the insulation system can safely operate. Section 1.66 of NEMA
MG 1-2016 describes that these insulation classes are determined
through experience or an accepted test.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ In NEMA MG 1-2016, ``experience'' means successful
operation for a ``long time'' under actual operating conditions of
machines designated with temperature rise at or near the temperature
rating limit; ``accepted test'' means a test on a system or model
system which simulates the electrical, thermal, and mechanical
stresses occurring in service. The test must also be made in
accordance with IEEE 43, IEEE 117, IEEE 275, and IEEE 304 when
appropriate for the motor construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE investigated the motor industry's current use of insulation
class markings to determine if insulation class is suitable to be used
as a starting point for determining service factor load. DOE is aware
that service factor load is related to the temperature rise of a motor,
according to section 14.37 in NEMA MG 1-2016. Additionally, section
14.37 references two sections (i.e., sections 12.43 item a.2 and
12.42.1), which describe temperature rise based on insulation class.
Insulation class is defined in NEMA MG 1-2016 section 1.66. This
information indicates that insulation class is fairly well established
according to industry standards.
In examining whether insulation class is commonly used by industry
for equipment within the scope of 10 CFR 431.444, DOE found that MG 1-
2016 includes nameplate markings (sections 10.39 and 10.40) and that
NEMA requires that small electric motor nameplates include insulation
class designations. Additionally, DOE reviewed catalog data from
various manufacturers, and found that catalog data usually include the
insulation class of the motor. However, neither DOE nor industry
require including insulation class information in catalog data. In rare
cases \24\ where catalog data omit the insulation class of the motor,
the manufacturer knows the insulation class, as it is part of the
design process for selecting materials for the motor with appropriate
thermal properties.
[[Page 17017]]
Based on the information in NEMA MG 1-2016 and the prevalence of
insulation class in manufacturer literature, standard industry practice
is to rate motors according to NEMA insulation classes. DOE also notes
that since insulation class information is included with manufacturer
literature for nearly every motor model, it could be used by DOE in a
test procedure without any additional testing burden. However, DOE was
not able to determine whether insulation class and temperature rise,
even if known, could be reliably used to derive a motor's service
factor load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ DOE found that only 0.1% of 5,588 motor models with data
collected from manufacturer catalogs did not include the insulation
class of the motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, NEMA opposed the adoption of a
method to determine full-load or rated output power of a motor based on
the load which results in a temperature rise associated with the
insulation class of the motor. NEMA reasoned that the insulation class
for some motors is selected based on the potential for operation under
harsher conditions than continuous duty in a laboratory setting. NEMA
asserted that this additional design consideration would undermine a
direct relationship between temperature rise, insulation class, and
rated output power. NEMA commented that with respect to insulation
classes, each insulation class is rated for continuous operation at a
specified temperature limit. While all motors operate within the
temperature limits of that insulation class, not all motors operate
continuously at the same temperature. The insulation class for any
given motor could be selected based on continuous use at an elevated
temperature. Alternatively, it could be selected to protect motors due
to spikes in temperature that cannot be controlled but are not the
typical/normal operating points. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 11-12)
Advanced Energy offered that it is possible to establish the output
power rating of a motor by determining the load (i.e., torque and
speed) at which the motor will achieve a stable temperature that does
not exceed the insulation class temperature. However, it added that
there could be several loads that would meet this criterion, and
therefore the horsepower determined with this method cannot necessarily
be considered the correct rating of the motor. Advanced Energy
commented that the full load or rated output power of a motor is best
declared by the manufacturer. (Advanced Energy, No. 25 at p. 13-14)
DOE recognizes that testing at the service factor load may
characterize a motor's maximum sustainable output, but may not be
representative of the typical service conditions that a motor
experiences. DOE also acknowledges that manufacturers may design their
motors to operate optimally at a ``rated'' load that is less than the
service factor load. Further, DOE recognizes that manufacturer
performance information is commonly given at nominal horsepower
ratings,\25\ which are not always equivalent to the service factor
load, and that retesting all motors to evaluate performance at the
service factor load rather than at the current nominal values may be
burdensome. Finally, DOE does not have sufficient data to assess the
potential impact on reproducibility given that multiple load points
(i.e., torque and speed) may generate the same temperature rise, but
the different load points may have different measured efficiencies. As
a result, DOE is not proposing to require determination of rated output
power on the basis of service factor load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Nominal horsepower ratings refer to horsepower ratings
commonly used by manufacturers, and ratings for which NEMA provides
specifications for (e.g., 0.5, 0.75, 1, and 1.5 hp).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Rated Values Specified for Testing Small Electric Motors
DOE is also proposing to clarify several values used for testing
small electric motors. DOE notes that the definition of average full-
load efficiency at 10 CFR 431.442 specifies that it is determined when
the motor operates at the rated frequency, rated load, and rated
voltage. Additionally, industry standards refer to ``rated'' values
which are expected to be known or provided (e.g., on the nameplate).
However, ``rated frequency,'' ``rated load,'' and ``rated voltage'' are
not defined. To resolve any ambiguity, DOE is proposing to include
additional instruction on how to derive each of these values to allow
for more accurate comparisons between motors, and better ensure
reproducible testing for all equipment.
1. Rated Frequency
Rated frequency is a term commonly used by industry standards
developed for testing small electric motors (e.g., section 6.1 in IEEE
112-2004, and section 3 in IEEE 114-2010). The test procedures and
energy conservation standards established under EPCA apply to motors
distributed in commerce within the United States. Within the United
States, electricity is supplied at 60 Hz. However, small electric
motors could be designed to operate at frequencies in addition to 60 Hz
(e.g., motors designed to operate at either 60 or 50 Hz).
Small electric motors subject to 10 CFR 431.444 could potentially
be marketed as capable of operating at two different frequencies and
could have data provided for both (e.g., 60 and 50 Hz). In this case,
it could be unclear at which frequency the test should be performed.
Therefore, DOE proposes, through the proposed referenced test methods,
that all tests be performed using a rated frequency of 60 Hz. DOE
proposes 60 Hz so that the tested input frequency matches the frequency
experienced by the motor when installed in the field. To implement this
proposal, DOE proposes to modify 10 CFR 431.442 to define the term
``rated frequency'' as ``60 hertz.''
2. Rated Load
Rated load \26\ is used in industry standards to specify a loading
point for motor testing (e.g., sections 5.6 and 6.1 in IEEE 112-2004,
and section 8.2.1 in IEEE 114-2010). Typically, a rated load represents
a power output expected from the motor (e.g., a horsepower value on the
nameplate). The rated load will have a corresponding rated speed and
rated torque. DOE proposes to modify 10 CFR 431.442 to define the term
``rated load'' as ``the rated output power of a small electric motor''
(See section III.D.2 for definition of rated output power). DOE
proposes that the rated output power (given on the motor nameplate) be
used for any reference to rated load, full rated load, rated full-load,
or full-load in an industry standard used for testing small electric
motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Also referred to as full rated load, rated full-load, or
full-load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Rated Voltage
Rated voltage is used in industry standards to specify the voltage
supplied to the motor under test (e.g., section 6.1 in IEEE 112-2004,
and section 3 in IEEE 114-2010). DOE is proposing to clarify the
permissible test voltage options when small electric motors are rated
for use at multiple voltages (e.g., 230 and 460 volts) by defining the
term ``rated voltage'' at 10 CFR 431.442.
NEMA, Baldor, UL, ASAP, ACEEE, NEEA, and CA IOUs commented on this
issue in response to a prior proposal related to certain certification,
compliance, labeling, and enforcement issues involving electric and
small electric motors. NEMA commented that with respect to single-phase
capacitor run motors, DOE currently allows the manufacturer to select
the voltage for compliance. NEMA also indicated that the input voltage
setting can affect efficiency, noting that if DOE were to require
motors to comply at the lowest
[[Page 17018]]
level of efficiency, manufacturers would be forced to redesign these
motors, since at least some motors would be out of compliance at
voltages not currently selected for certification. These redesign
efforts would result in larger motors to accommodate the additional
active material required to create a compliant motor and could result
in the use of larger frame sizes, which would create utility problems
for end users of the motors. (NEMA, EERE-2014-BT-CE-0019, No. 10 at p.
10) With respect to the input voltage setting for testing and
representations, Baldor agreed with NEMA's comments. (Baldor, EERE-
2014-BT-CE-0019, No. 11 at p. 6) UL and Advanced Energy also commented
that the input voltage setting can affect efficiency and that DOE
should either allow the manufacturer to select the input voltage for
testing or require testing at all nameplate voltages. (UL, EERE-2014-
BT-CE-0019, No. 9 at p. 8-9; Advanced Energy, EERE-2014-BT-CE-0019, No.
8 at p. 11) UL also commented that, should testing be required at all
nameplate voltages, 208 volts should be excluded because it is
typically listed as a ``usable'' voltage rather than a voltage for
which the motor was designed and optimized. (UL, EERE-2014-BT-CE-0019,
No. 9 at p. 9) ASAP, ACEEE, and NEEA, in a joint comment, indicated
that clarification on the voltage used during the test would address
ambiguity and ensure consistency. (ASAP, ACEEE, NEEA, EERE-2014-BT-CE-
0019, No. 16 at p. 3) The CA IOUs also supported specifying a voltage
for testing, reasoning that this would ensure consumers are unlikely to
purchase a unit less efficient than advertised. (CA IOUs, EERE-2014-BT-
CE-0019, No. 13 at p. 4)
In the March 2010 ECS final rule, DOE indicated the industry test
procedures incorporated into DOE's regulations permit manufacturers to
select the input voltage for testing. 75 FR 10874, 10892 (``DOE
understands that it is at the manufacturer's discretion under which
single voltage condition to test its motor.''). After considering the
regulatory history on this topic and the market data supporting the
notion that efficiency can vary with the input voltage setting, DOE
proposes to continue to allow small electric motors to be tested at any
nameplate voltage value and to specify this flexibility by defining the
term ``rated voltage'' at 10 CFR 431.442 as referring to the input
voltage of a small electric motor selected by the motor's manufacturer
to be used for testing the motor's efficiency. In DOE's view, this
change will help ensure consistency and clarity during testing and when
making representations of the performance characteristics of a given
motor (i.e., on a motor nameplate or product catalog).
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions, and procedures
for determining the values of rated frequency and rated load for small
electric motors
F. Test Procedure Costs, Harmonization, and Other Topics
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
EPCA requires that test procedures prescribed by DOE not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2). DOE proposes to amend (1)
the existing test procedure for small electric motors (by clarifying
the existing scope and testing instructions, adding an authorized
procedure incorporated by reference from IEEE 112-2017, and permitting
the use of IEC 60034-2-1:2014) and (2) the existing test procedure for
electric motors (by proposing to permit the use of IEC 60034-2-1:2014).
DOE has tentatively determined that testing under these proposed
amendments would not be unduly burdensome for manufacturers to conduct
and that these proposed amendments would reduce test burden for
manufacturers.
DOE's analyses of this proposal indicate that, if finalized, the
proposal would result in a net cost savings to manufacturers.
Table III-4--Summary of Cost Impacts for Small Electric Motors and
Electric Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present value
Category (million Discount rate
2016$) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost savings:
Reduction in Future Testing Costs 0.3 3
for Small Electric Motors.......... 0.1 7
Reduction in Future Testing Costs 4.0 3
for Electric Motors................ 1.6 7
Total Net Cost Impact:
-------------------------------
Total Net Cost Impact........... (4.2) 3
(1.7) 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III-5--Summary of Annualized Cost Impacts for Small Electric
Motors and Electric Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
value Discount rate
Category (thousand (percent)
2016$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Cost Savings:
Reduction in Future Testing Costs 8 3
for Small Electric Motors.......... 7 7
Reduction in Future Testing Costs 119 3
for Electric Motors................ 111 7
Total Net Annualized Cost Impact:
-------------------------------
Total Net Cost Impact........... (127) 3
(118) 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17019]]
Further discussion of the analyses of the cost impact of the
proposed test procedure amendments is presented in the following
paragraphs.
(a) Cost Impacts for Small Electric Motors
Regarding small electric motors, the proposed clarifications of the
existing scope and test instructions would not impose any new
requirements on manufacturers of regulated small electric motors.
Instead, DOE's proposal, if adopted, would provide manufacturers with
greater certainty in the conduct of the test procedures, offer
additional testing options, and would not increase test burden. The
proposed addition of IEEE 112-2017 is not expected to increase test
burden or require new testing. Manufacturers would be able to rely on
data generated under the current test procedure, should the proposed
amendments for small electric motors be adopted, because the proposal
would retain the existing test method options at 10 CFR 431.444, and
none of the proposed changes would result in a change in measured
efficiency under the existing test method options. Additionally, the
proposed incorporation of IEC 60034-2-1:2014 would further harmonize
DOE's test procedures with current industry practice and international
standards by providing manufacturers with an additional testing option.
This change would enable manufacturers who use IEC 60034-2-1:2014 for
everyday business purposes (for international markets) or to comply
with regulatory requirements in other countries to significantly reduce
the number of tests that they must perform by removing the need to
conduct a test according to the CSA or IEEE methods \27\ currently
referenced in DOE's test procedure for small electric motors. As
described in section III.C.2, NEMA and UL petitioned that certain
portions of IEC test procedure 60034-2-1:2014 be adopted as a permitted
alternative test method for small electric motors and electric motors.
UL further noted in its petition the increasing use of the IEC test
procedure 60034-2-1:2014 by the industry worldwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ CSA 747-09, CSA 390-10, IEEE 112-2004, or IEEE 114-2010
depending on the category of small electric motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing that some, but not all, manufacturers already test
their motors using IEC 60034-2-1:2014, DOE assumed that 10 percent \28\
of small electric motor models sold in the U.S. that are tested with
either the CSA or IEEE methods referenced in the Federal test procedure
are also tested with the IEC 60034-2-1 method. The savings calculated
in this notice could be higher if a larger fraction of U.S.-market
motor models are currently already tested to IEC 60034-2-1 (i.e.,
greater than 10 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ NEMA and UL did not provide quantitative information
regarding the number of small electric motors that are tested with
either the CSA method or the IEEE method, and the IEC method,
although NEMA commented that this is an increasing trend. Based on a
review of the market, only some motors appear suitable for sale in
both the U.S. and foreign markets. A small fraction of motors are
designed for operation on 50 Hz and 60 Hz power, or use NEMA and IEC
units of measure (hp vs. kW) and other designators. The U.S.
electrical grid is operated at 60 Hz, while many other countries and
regions (e.g., Europe) operate at 50 Hz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the testing cost reduction associated with allowing
the IEC 60034-2-1:2014 method for testing small electric motors, DOE
estimated the number of motor models that would be tested each year for
compliance. First, DOE reviewed the product catalogs of four major
small electric motor manufacturers published over a seven-year period
between 2009 and 2016. DOE compared the current product offerings to
the historical catalogs to identify the total number of new models
listed over that period of time. DOE then annualized that total number
of new models. Next, DOE scaled up that annualized value based on the
estimated market share of the manufacturers whose catalogs were
reviewed. This scaled-up annualized value estimated the total number of
new models listed for sale each year for the entire U.S. market. Then,
DOE estimated that only 10 percent of new models would be tested each
year. DOE made this estimate based on (1) knowledge that many motor
models are grouped under a single basic model classification (and
therefore each individual model would not need to be tested), (2)
observations that only a fraction of electric motor basic models are
tested (the remainder have efficiency determined through an alternative
efficiency determination method [``AEDM'']), and (3) recognition that
many motor models may have been relabeled or rebranded but not
redesigned (and therefore no new testing is needed). Based on these
calculations, DOE tentatively determined that approximately 1 new small
electric motor basic model per year would not require testing according
to the existing test methods and therefore would realize costs savings
due to the proposed test procedure.
DOE estimated the cost of testing a single small electric motor
unit to be $2,000 at a third-party facility and approximately $500 at
an in-house facility.\29\ DOE requires at least five units to be tested
per basic model. 10 CFR 431.455(c)(2) To estimate in-house testing
costs, DOE assumed testing a single motor unit requires approximately
nine hours of a mechanical engineer technician time and three hours
from a mechanical engineer. The mean hourly wage for a mechanical
engineer technician is $27.97 and the total hourly compensation paid by
the employer (including all fringe benefits) is $36.21. The mean hourly
wage for a mechanical engineer is $43.99 and the total hourly
compensation paid by the employer (including all fringe benefits) is
$56.95.\30\ In addition, DOE assumed that 50 percent of tests are
conducted at third-party facilities and 50 percent of tests are
conducted at in-house facilities. Based on these estimates, DOE
anticipates annual cost savings of approximately $8,000 for the small
electric motors industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Estimate based on standard rates charged by third party
laboratories.
\30\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and
Wages, 17-3027 Mechanical Engineer Technician; 17-2141 Mechanical
Engineer, May 2017. Last accessed January 30, 2019, United States
Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufacturers, 2016 for NAICS Code
335312 ``Motor and Generator Manufacturing''. Last accessed January
30, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Cost Impacts for Electric Motors
Regarding electric motors, DOE is not proposing to amend the scope
of applicability of the test procedure at Appendix B. Consistent with
the small electric motors analysis, the proposed incorporation of IEC
60034-2-1:2014 in this test procedure would provide manufacturers
additional flexibility by permitting an alternative test procedure for
measuring energy loss and would further harmonize DOE's test procedures
with current industry practice and international standards. DOE expects
that, for those manufacturers who are already using IEC 60034-2-1:2014,
this proposed change would reduce the number of tests that
manufacturers perform by avoiding the need to conduct a test according
to the CSA or IEEE methods \31\ currently referenced in DOE's test
procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ CSA 390-10 or IEEE 112-2004 depending on the category of
electric motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the testing cost reduction associated with allowing
the IEC 60034-2-1:2014 method for testing electric motors, DOE employed
a similar methodology to the small electric motors analysis and
estimated the number of electric motor models that would be tested each
year for compliance. First, DOE reviewed the
[[Page 17020]]
product catalogs of four major electric motor manufacturers published
over a six-year period between 2010 and 2016. DOE compared the current
product offerings to the historical catalogs to identify the total
number of new models listed over that period of time. DOE then
annualized that total number of new models. Next, DOE scaled up that
annualized value based on the estimated market share of the
manufacturers whose catalogs were reviewed. This scaled-up annualized
value estimated the total number of new models listed for sale each
year for the entire U.S. market. Then, DOE estimated that only 10
percent of new models would be tested each year. DOE made this estimate
based on (1) knowledge that many motor models are grouped under a
single basic model classification (and therefore each individual model
would not need to be tested), (2) observations that only a fraction of
electric motor basic models are tested (the remainder have efficiency
determined through an AEDM), and (3) recognition that many motor models
that may have been relabeled or rebranded but not redesigned (and
therefore no new testing is needed). Similar to what was done for small
electric motors, DOE assumed that 10 percent of electric motor models
sold in the U.S. that are tested with either the CSA or IEEE methods
referenced in the Federal test procedure are also tested with the IEC
60034-2-1 method. The savings calculated in this notice could be higher
if a larger fraction of U.S.-market motor models are currently already
tested to IEC 60034-2-1. Based on these calculations, DOE tentatively
determined that approximately 20 new electric motor basic models per
year would not require testing according to the existing test methods
and therefore would realize costs savings due to the proposed test
procedure.
DOE estimated the cost of testing a single electric motor unit to
be $2,000 at a third-party facility and approximately $500 at an in-
house facility. DOE requires at least five units to be tested per basic
model. 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2) In addition, based on DOE's understanding
that this equipment is tested both in-house and at third-party testing
labs, DOE assumed an even split in testing between the two venues.
Based on these estimates, DOE anticipates annual industry cost savings
of approximately $127,000 for electric motors that are currently
subject to the standards at 10 CFR 431.25.
DOE seeks input on the testing cost impacts and manufacturer burden
associated with the test procedure amendments described in this
document. DOE also seeks comment and any additional data relevant to
its assumptions in calculating these impacts
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
DOE's current test procedures for electric and small electric
motors are based on the industry standards that have been incorporated
by reference. The current test procedures for small electric motors at
10 CFR 431.444 incorporate by reference certain provisions of IEEE 114-
2010, IEEE 112-2004, CSA C747-09, CSA C390-10, all of which contain
methods for measuring the energy efficiency of small electric motors.
The current test procedures for electric motors in Appendix B
incorporate by reference certain provisions of IEEE 112-2004 and CSA
C390-10. DOE proposes to also allow the use of IEEE 112-2017, to
further harmonize IEEE 112 Test Method B with the other permitted
industry test methods. This NOPR also proposes to incorporate by
reference certain provisions of the IEC test procedure 60034-2-1:2014
for measuring the performance of small electric motors and electric
motors.
DOE requests comment on the benefits and burdens of adopting any
industry/voluntary consensus-based or other appropriate test procedure,
without modification
3. Other Test Procedure Topics
In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE
welcomes comment on any other aspect of the existing test procedure for
small electric motors and electric motors. DOE particularly seeks
information that would ensure that the test procedure measures energy
efficiency during a representative average use cycle or period of use,
as well as information that would help DOE create a procedure that
would limit manufacturer test burden. Comments regarding repeatability
and reproducibility are also welcome.
DOE also requests information that would help it create procedures
that would limit manufacturer test burden through streamlining or
simplifying testing requirements without impacting testing accuracy. In
particular, DOE notes that under Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' Executive Branch
agencies such as DOE must manage the costs associated with the
imposition of expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
See 82 FR 9339 (February 3, 2017). Consistent with that Executive
Order, DOE encourages the public to provide input on measures DOE could
take to lower the cost of its regulations applicable to small electric
motors consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
G. Compliance Date
EPCA prescribes that all representations made in writing or
broadcast advertisements of energy efficiency and energy use, including
those made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in
accordance with an amended test procedure, beginning 180 days after
publication of such a test procedure final rule in the Federal
Register. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) If DOE were to publish an amended
test procedure, EPCA allows individual manufacturers to petition DOE
for an extension of the 180-day period if the manufacturer may
experience undue hardship in meeting the deadline. (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)(2)) To receive such an extension, petitions must be filed with
DOE no later than 60 days before the end of the 180-day period and must
detail how the manufacturer will experience undue hardship. (Id.) By
statute, any extension granted by DOE under this provision may not
exceed 180 days in duration. (Id.)
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
test procedure rulemaking is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not
subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB.
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order
(``E.O.'') 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs.'' E.O. 13771 stated the policy of the executive branch is to be
prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from
both public and private sources. E.O. 13771 stated it is essential to
manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O.
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' E.O. 13777 required
the head
[[Page 17021]]
of each agency designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform
Officer (``RRO''). Each RRO oversees the implementation of regulatory
reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively
carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. Further,
E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of a regulatory task force at
each agency. The regulatory task force is required to make
recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal, replacement,
or modification of existing regulations, consistent with applicable
law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform task force must attempt to
identify regulations that:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) Are inconsistent with the requirements of Information Quality
Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those
regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or
methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently
transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
(vi) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other
Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or
substantially modified.
DOE initially concludes that this rulemaking is consistent with the
directives set forth in these executive orders. This proposed rule is
estimated to result in cost savings. This proposed rule would yield
annualized cost savings of approximately $118,000 (2016$) using a
perpetual time horizon discounted to 2016 at a 7 percent discount rate.
Therefore, if finalized as proposed, this rule is expected to be an
E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE reviewed the test procedures considered in this proposed rule
to amend the test procedure for small electric motors and electric
motors under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003.
The Small Business Administration (``SBA'') considers a business
entity to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it
employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR
part 121. The size standards and codes are established by the 2017
North American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'').
Small electric motor and electric motor manufacturers are
classified under NAICS code 335312, motor and generator manufacturing.
The SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer for an entity to
be considered as a small business. DOE conducted a focused inquiry into
small business manufacturers of equipment covered by this rulemaking.
DOE used available public information to identify potential small
manufacturers. DOE accessed the membership directories of NEMA and The
Motor Control and Motor Association (MCMA) to create a list of
companies that import or otherwise manufacture small electric motors
and electric motors covered by this rulemaking. Using these sources,
DOE identified a total of 56 distinct manufacturers of small electric
motors and electric motors.
DOE then reviewed the data to determine whether the entities met
the SBA's definition of ``small business'' as it relates to NAICS code
335312 and to screen out companies that do not offer equipment covered
by this rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a ``small business,''
or are foreign owned and operated. Based on this review, DOE has
identified 21 manufacturers that are potential small businesses.
Through this analysis, DOE has determined the expected effects of the
rule on these covered small businesses.
In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, NEMA provided input on the
costs and time required for testing motors of different configurations.
NEMA indicated that testing a motor can take as little as 8 hours and
as long as 32 hours, depending on the size of the motor. NEMA noted
that the teardown process also takes several hours. (NEMA, No. 24 at
pp. 10-11) Advanced Energy commented that a properly conducted test
could take a full working day for a large motor, excluding setup, or a
minimum of half a day for a small motor. (Advanced Energy, No. 25 at p.
13) Advanced Energy commented that relative to the motors already
subject to energy conservation standards and test procedure, no
significant burden is expected in testing the motors categories
identified by DOE in the July 2017 TP RFI. (Advanced Energy, No. 25 at
p. 3) Advanced Energy noted one exception in the case of fractional
horsepower motors. 82 FR 35468, 35471. Advanced Energy believes that
the cost of testing these motors may far exceed the cost of the motors,
themselves. (Advanced Energy, No. 25 at p. 3)
This proposal would neither expand the scope of test procedure
applicability to small electric motors beyond those currently subject
to test procedures, nor would it place additional requirements on those
small electric motors currently subject to DOE's test procedures.
Furthermore, this proposal would not place any additional requirements
on those electric motors that are already subject to DOE's test
procedures, nor would it require manufacturers to retest existing
electric motors. Accordingly, manufacturers would not be required under
this proposal to retest any existing small electric motors or electric
motors already subject to DOE's test procedures.
This proposal, if adopted, would also not increase testing costs
nor would it impose any additional testing burden on manufacturers.
Therefore, DOE concludes that the impacts of this proposal would not
have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities,'' and the preparation of an IRFA is not warranted. DOE will
transmit the certification and supporting statement of factual basis to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for
review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
DOE seeks comments on whether the proposed test procedure would
place new and significant burdens on a substantial number of small
entities
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of electric motors must certify to DOE that their
equipment comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To
certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their
equipment according to the DOE test procedures, including any
amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping
[[Page 17022]]
requirements for covered consumer products and commercial equipment,
including electric motors. (See subpart B of 10 CFR part 431) The
collection-of-information requirement for the certification and
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by
OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the
certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, including
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
E. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed rule, if adopted, would not have any impact on the
autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE
has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
F. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and DOE's NEPA implementing
regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include a categorical
exclusion for rulemakings interpreting or amending an existing rule or
regulation that does not change the environmental effect of the rule or
regulation being amended. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, Appendix A5. DOE
anticipates that this rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion A5
because it is an interpretive rulemaking that does not change the
environmental effect of the rule and otherwise meets the requirements
for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE
will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final rule.
G. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has
determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can
petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
H. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction,
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines
key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
this proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order
12988.
I. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this
proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and
determined that the proposal contains neither an intergovernmental
mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100
million or more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed
[[Page 17023]]
regulation would not result in any takings that might require
compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
K. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002),
and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002).
DOE has reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines
and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in
those guidelines.
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action to amend the test procedure for
measuring the energy efficiency of small electric motors is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it
would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a
significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it
is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
M. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA)
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission
(``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards
on competition.
The proposed modifications to the test procedures for small
electric motors and electric motors adopted in this NOPR incorporate
testing methods contained in certain sections of the following
commercial standard: ``IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Rotating electrical
machines--Part 2-1: Standard methods for determining losses and
efficiency from tests (excluding machines for traction vehicles).'' DOE
has evaluated this standard and is unable to conclude whether it fully
complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e.,
whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review.) DOE will consult with both the
Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of
these test procedures on competition, prior to prescribing a final
rule.
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference standards
published by IEEE, IEC, and NEMA. The IEC standard, titled ``IEC 60034-
2-1:2014 Rotating electrical machines--Part 2-1: Standard methods for
determining losses and efficiency from tests (excluding machines for
traction vehicles)'' is a proposed alternative industry standard to
those currently incorporated by reference (IEEE 112-2004, IEEE 114-
2010, CSA C747-09, and CSA C390-10) for measurement of small electric
motor efficiency and electric motor efficiency (See section III.C.1 for
more details). IEC 60034-2-1:2014 establishes methods of determining
efficiencies from tests and to specify methods of obtaining specific
losses. In addition, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference two
additional IEC standards, titled ``IEC 60034-1:2010, Rotating
electrical machines--Part 1: Rating and performance'' and ``IEC 60051-
1:2016, Direct acting indicating analogue measuring instruments and
their accessories--Part 1: Definitions and general requirements common
to all parts.'' IEC 60034-1:2001 and IEC 60051-1:2016 specify test
conditions and procedures that are required for application of the test
methods for measurement of energy efficiency established in IEC 60034-
2-1:2014. The IEEE standard, titled ``IEEE 112-2017, Test Procedure for
Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators'' establishes additional
methods of measurement for current and frequency for both small
electric motors and electric motors. Further, DOE proposes to
additionally incorporate IEEE 112-2017 Test Method A and Test Method B
as alternatives to the industry test methods that are currently
incorporated by reference from IEEE 112-2004 (See section III.C.1 for
more details). These proposals will harmonize the permitted test
methods under subparts X (for small electric motors) and B (for
electric motors) of 10 CFR part 431 and align measurement and
instrumentation requirements with industry practice. The NEMA standard,
titled ``NEMA MG 1-2016 Motors and Generators'' establishes industry
definitions for breakdown torque of small electric motors (See section
III.D.2 for more details).
In summary, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the following
standards:
(1) IEC 60034-1:2010, ``Rotating electric machines--Part 1: Rating
and performance''.
(2) IEC 60034-2-1:2014, ``Rotating electrical machines--Part 2-1:
Standard methods for determining losses and efficiency from tests
(excluding machines for traction vehicles)''.
(3) IEC 60051-1:2016, ``Direct acting indicating analogue
electrical measuring instruments and their accessories--Part 1:
Definitions and general requirements common to all parts''.
(4) IEEE 112-2017, ``IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase
Induction Motors and Generators''.
(5) National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) MG 1-2016,
``Motors and Generators''.
Copies of these standards can be obtained from the organizations
directly at the following addresses:
International Electrotechnical Commission, 3 rue de
Varemb[eacute], 1st floor, P.O. Box 131, CH--1211 Geneva 20--
Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 11, or
[[Page 17024]]
by visiting https://webstore.iec.ch/home.
IEEE, 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-
1331, (732) 981-0060, or by visiting http://www.ieee.org.
NEMA, 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 900, Arlington,
Virginia 22209, +1 703 841 3200, or by visiting https://www.nema.org.
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section at
the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit
comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this proposed rulemaking.
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 website 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 postal 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
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].
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests comments on its proposal to maintain the current
scope of applicability, with respect to horsepower ratings, of the
small electric motors test procedure.
(2) DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by
reference IEEE 112-2017 Test Method A and Test
[[Page 17025]]
Method B as alternatives to the currently incorporated industry test
standards in IEEE 112-2004. In particular, DOE requests data comparing
test results of these standards.
(3) DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by
reference IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A as an alternative to
currently incorporated industry testing standards IEEE 112-2004 Test
Method A and CSA C747-09. In particular, DOE requests data comparing
the average full-load efficiency test results of those standards. DOE
requests comments on its proposal to limit torque measurement, when
using IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A, to either in-line, shaft-
coupled, rotating torque transducers or stationary, stator reaction
torque transducers.
(4) DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by
reference IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B as an alternative to the
currently incorporated industry testing standards IEEE 112-2004 Test
Method B and CSA C390-10 and to IEEE 112-2017-Test Method B. In
particular, DOE requests data comparing test results of those
standards.
(5) DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for ``rated
output power'' and ``breakdown torque.''
(6) DOE requests comment on how to determine when an ``abrupt drop
in speed'' (e.g., the local maximum of the torque-speed plot closest to
the rated torque) has occurred when testing the breakdown torque of a
small electric motor.
(7) DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions, and
procedures for determining the values of rated frequency and rated load
for small electric motors.
(8) DOE seeks input on the testing cost impacts and manufacturer
burden associated with the test procedure amendments described in this
document. DOE also seeks comment and any additional data relevant to
its assumptions in calculating these impacts.
(9) DOE seeks comment on the degree to which the DOE test procedure
should consider, and be harmonized further with, the most recent
relevant industry standards for small electric motors and whether there
are any changes to the Federal test method that would provide
additional benefits to the public. DOE also requests comment on the
benefits and burdens of adopting any industry/voluntary consensus-based
or other appropriate test procedure, without modification.
(10) DOE seeks comments on whether the proposed test procedure
would place new and significant burdens on a substantial number of
small entities.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Signed in Washington, DC, on March 20, 2019.
Steven Chalk,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend
part 431 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set
forth below:
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Section 431.15 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(4) as paragraph (c)(7) and paragraphs
(c)(2) and (3) as paragraphs (c)(4) and (5), respectively;
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (c)(2), (3), and (6); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (d)(2).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 431.15 Materials incorporated by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into subpart B of
part 431 with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register
under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is
available for inspection at U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth
Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, or
go to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/, and
is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030 or go to www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) IEC 60034-1:2010, ``Rotating electrical machines--Part 1:
Rating and performance'', IBR approved for appendix B to subpart B of
this part.
(3) IEC 60034-2-1:2014, ``Rotating electrical machines--Part 2-1:
Standard methods for determining losses and efficiency from tests
(excluding machines for traction vehicles)'', IBR approved for appendix
B to subpart B of this part.
* * * * *
(6) IEC 60051-1:2016, ``Direct acting indicating analogue
electrical measuring instruments and their accessories--Part 1:
Definitions and general requirements common to all parts'', IBR
approved for appendix B to subpart B of this part.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) IEEE 112-2017, ``IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase
Induction Motors and Generators'', approved February 14, 2018, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 431.12, 431.19, 431.20, and appendix B to
subpart B of this part.
* * * * *
0
3. Appendix B to subpart B of part 431 is amended by revising the
introductory note and Sections 2 and 4 to read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
Nominal Full Load Efficiency of Electric Motors
Note: For any electric motor type that is not currently covered
by the energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25, manufacturers
of this equipment will need to use Appendix B 180 days after the
effective date of the final rule adopting energy conservation
standards for these motors.
Incorporation by Reference
In Sec. 431.15, DOE incorporated by reference, the entire
standard for CSA C390-10, IEC 60034-2-1:2014, IEC 60034-1:2010, IEC
60051-1:2016, and IEEE 112-2017 into this appendix; however, only
the provisions of those documents specified in section 2 of this
appendix are applicable to this appendix.
In cases where there is a conflict, the language of this
appendix takes precedence over those documents. Any subsequent
amendment to a referenced document by the standard-setting
organization will not affect the test procedure in this appendix,
unless and until the test procedure is amended by DOE. Material is
incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval, and a
notification of any change in the material will be published in the
Federal Register.
* * * * *
[[Page 17026]]
2. Test Procedures
Efficiency and losses must be determined in accordance with NEMA
MG 1-2009, paragraph 12.58.1, ``Determination of Motor Efficiency
and Losses,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15) and one
of the following testing methods:
(1) CSA C390-10 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15),
Section 1.3 ``Scope'', Section 3.1 ``Definitions'', Section 5
``General test requirements--Measurements'', Section 7 ``Test
method'', Table 1 ``Resistance measurement time delay'', Annex B
``Linear regression analysis'' and Annex C ``Procedure for
correction of dynamometer torque readings.''
(2) IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 431.15), Section 3 ``Terms and definitions'', Section 4
``Symbols and abbreviations'', Section 5 ``Basic requirements'',
Section 6.1.3 ``Method 2-1-1B--Summation of losses, additional load
losses according to the method of residual losses.'' The supply
voltage shall be in accordance with section 7.2 of IEC 60034-1:2010
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15). The measured
resistance at the end of the thermal test shall be determined in a
similar way to the extrapolation procedure described in section
8.6.2.3.3 of IEC 60034-1:2010 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.15), using the shortest possible time instead of the time
interval specified in Table 5 therein, and extrapolating to zero.
The measuring instruments for electrical quantities shall have the
equivalent of an accuracy class of 0,2 in case of a direct test and
0,5 in case of an indirect test in accordance with IEC 60051-1:2016
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15).
(3) IEEE 112-2004, Section 6.4 ``Efficiency test method B--
Input-output with loss segregation (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.15), or
(4) IEEE 112-2017 Test Method B, Input-Output With Loss
Segregation, (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15), Section
3 ``General'', Section 4 ``Measurements'', Section 5 ``Machine
losses and tests for losses'', Section 6.1 ``General'', Section 6.4
``Efficiency test method B--Input-output with loss segregation'',
Section 7 ``Other performance tests'', Section 9.2 ``Form A--Method
A'', Section 9.3 ``Form A2--Method A calculations'', Section 9.4
``Form B--Method B'', and Section 9.5 ``Form B2--Method B
calculations.
* * * * *
4. Procedures for the Testing of Certain Electric Motor Types
Prior to testing according to CSA C390-10, IEC 60034-2-1:2014
Method 2-1-1B, IEEE 112-2004 (Test Method B), or IEEE 112-2017 (Test
Method B) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15), each basic
model of the electric motor types listed below must be set up in
accordance with the instructions of this section to ensure
consistent test results. These steps are designed to enable a motor
to be attached to a dynamometer and run continuously for testing
purposes. For the purposes of this appendix, a ``standard bearing''
is a 6000 series, either open or grease-lubricated double-shielded,
single-row, deep groove, radial ball bearing.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 431.442 is amended by adding in alphabetical order
definitions for ``breakdown torque'', ``rated frequency'', ``rated
load'', ``rated output power'', and ``rated voltage'', to read as
follows:
Sec. 431.442 Definitions.
* * * * *
Breakdown torque means the maximum torque that the motor will
develop with rated voltage and frequency applied without an abrupt drop
in speed, determined in accordance with NEMA MG 1-2016 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.443).
* * * * *
Rated frequency means 60 hertz.
Rated load means the rated output power of a small electric motor.
Rated output power means the mechanical output power that
corresponds to the small electric motor's breakdown torque as specified
in NEMA MG 1-2016 Table 10-5 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.443) for single-phase motors or 140 percent of the breakdown torque
values specified in NEMA MG 1-2016 Table 10-5 for polyphase motors. For
purposes of this definition, NEMA MG 1-2016 Table 10-5 is applied
regardless of whether elements of NEMA MG 1-2016 Table 10-5 are
identified as for small or medium motors.
Rated voltage means the input voltage of a small electric motor
selected by the motor's manufacturer to be used for testing the motor's
efficiency.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 431.443 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c) as (d);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (c);
0
d. Redesignating newly designated paragraph (d)(2) as paragraph (d)(3),
and adding new paragraph (d)(2); and
0
e. Adding paragraph (e).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 431.443 Materials incorporated by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into subpart X of
part 431 with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register
under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is
available for inspection at U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth
Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, or
go to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/, and
is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030 or go to www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
* * * * *
(c) IEC. International Electrotechnical Commission, 3 rue de
Varemb[eacute], 1st Floor, P.O. Box 131, CH--1211 Geneva 20--
Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 11, or go to https://webstore.iec.ch/home.
(1) IEC 60034-1:2010, ``Rotating electrical machines--Part 1:
Rating and performance'', IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 431.444,
431.447.(2) IEC 60034-2-1:2014 (``IEC 60034-2-1''), ``Rotating
electrical machines--Part 2-1: Standard methods for determining losses
and efficiency from tests (excluding machines for traction vehicles)'',
approved June 2014, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 431.444, 431.447.
(3) IEC 60051-1:2016, ``Direct acting indicating analogue
electrical measuring instruments and their accessories--Part 1:
Definitions and general requirements common to all parts'', IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 431.444, 431.447.
(d) * * *
(2) IEEE 112-2017, ``IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase
Induction Motors and Generators'', approved February 14, 2018, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 431.444, 431.447.
* * * * *
(e) NEMA. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 North
17th Street, Suite 900, Arlington, Virginia 22209, +1 703 841 3200, or
go to https://www.nema.org.
(1) NEMA MG 1-2016, ``Motors and Generators'', approved March 2017,
IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 431.442.
(2) [Reserved].
0
6. Section 431.444 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.444 Test Procedures for the measurement of energy efficiency
of small electric motors.
Prior to [DATE 180 days after publication of a final rule in the
Federal Register], representations with respect to the energy use or
efficiency of small electric motors must be based on testing conducted
in accordance with Sec. 431.444 as it appeared in 10 CFR part 431
subpart X in the 10 CFR parts 200 through 499 edition revised as of
January 1, 2019. Starting on [Date 180 days after publication of a
final rule in the Federal Register] representations with respect to
energy use or efficiency of small electric motors must be based
[[Page 17027]]
on testing conducted in accordance with the results of testing pursuant
to this section.
(a) Scope. Pursuant to section 346(b)(1) of EPCA, this section
provides the test procedures for measuring the full-load efficiency of
small electric motors pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)) For
purposes of this part 431 and EPCA, the test procedures for measuring
the efficiency of small electric motors shall be the test procedures
specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Testing and Calculations. Determine the full-load efficiency of
a small electric motor using one of the test methods listed in
paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) of this section. Where the terms ``rated
frequency,'' ``rated load,'' and ``rated voltage'' appear in the
standards incorporated by reference, use the corresponding definitions
provided at Sec. 431.442.
(1) Incorporation by reference. (i) In Sec. 431.443, DOE
incorporated by reference the entire standard for CSA C747-09, CSA
C390-10, IEC 60034-2-1:2014, IEC 60034-1:2010, IEC 60051-1:2016, and
IEEE 112-2017 into this section; however, only the provisions of those
documents specified in paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) of this section
are applicable to this section.
(ii) In cases where there is a conflict, the language of this
appendix takes precedence over those documents. Any subsequent
amendment to a referenced document by the standard-setting organization
will not affect the test procedure in this appendix, unless and until
the test procedure is amended by DOE. Material is incorporated as it
exists on the date of the approval, and a notification of any change in
the material will be published in the Federal Register.
(2) Single-phase small electric motors. For single-phase small
electric motors, use one of the following methods:
(i) IEEE 114-2010,, Section 3.2, ``Test with load'', Section 4,
``Testing Facilities, Section 5, ``Measurements'', Section 6,
``General'', Section 7, ``Type of loss'', Section 8, ``Efficiency and
Power Factor''; Section 10 ``Temperature Tests'', Annex A, Section A.3
``Determination of Motor Efficiency'', Annex A, Section A.4
``Explanatory notes for form 3, test data'';
(ii) CSA C747-09, Section 1.6 ``Scope'', Section 3 ``Definitions'',
Section 5, ``General test requirements'', and Section 6 ``Test
method'';
(iii) IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A., Section 3 ``Terms and
definitions'', Section 4 ``Symbols and abbreviations'', Section 5
``Basic requirements'', and Section 6.1.2 ``Method 2-1-1A--Direct
measurement of input and output'' (except Section 6.1.2.2, ``Test
Procedure''). The supply voltage shall be in accordance with section
7.2 of IEC 60034-1:2010 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.443).
The measured resistance at the end of the thermal test shall be
determined in a similar way to the extrapolation procedure described in
section 8.6.2.3.3 of IEC 60034-1:2010 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.443), using the shortest possible time instead of the time
interval specified in Table 5 therein, and extrapolating to zero. The
measuring instruments for electrical quantities shall have the
equivalent of an accuracy class of 0,2 in case of a direct test and 0,5
in case of an indirect test in accordance with IEC 60051-1:2016
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.443).
(A) Additional IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A Torque Measurement
Instructions. If using IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A to measure
motor performance, follow the instructions in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)
of this section, instead of section 6.1.2.2 of IEC 60034-2-1:2014;
(B) Couple the machine under test to a load machine. Measure torque
using an in-line, shaft-coupled, rotating torque transducer or
stationary, stator reaction torque transducer. Operate the machine
under test at the rated load until thermal equilibrium is achieved
(rate of change 1 K or less per half hour). Record U, I, Pel, n, T,
[thgr]c.
(3) Polyphase small electric motors of less than or equal to 1
horsepower (0.75 kW). For polyphase small electric motors with 1
horsepower or less, use one of the following methods:
(i) IEEE 112-2004, Section 6.3, ``Efficiency test method A--Input-
output'';
(ii) IEEE 112-2017, Section 3, ``General'', Section 4,
``Measurements'', Section 5, ``Machine losses and tests for losses'',
Section 6.1, ``General'', Section 6.3, ``Efficiency test method A--
Input-output'', Section 9.2, ``Form A--Method A'', and Section 9.3,
``Form A2--Method A calculations'';
(iii) CSA C747-09,, Section 1.6 ``Scope'', Section 3
``Definitions'', Section 5, ``General test requirements'', and Section
6 ``Test method'';
(iv) IEC 60034-2-1:2014, Section 3 ``Terms and definitions'',
Section 4 ``Symbols and abbreviations'', Section 5 ``Basic
requirements'', and Section 6.1.2 ``Method 2-1-1A--Direct measurement
of input and output'' (except Section 6.1.2.2, ``Test Procedure''). The
supply voltage shall be in accordance with section 7.2 of IEC 60034-
1:2010 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.443). The measured
resistance at the end of the thermal test shall be determined in a
similar way to the extrapolation procedure described in section
8.6.2.3.3 of IEC 60034-1:2010 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.443), using the shortest possible time instead of the time interval
specified in Table 5 therein, and extrapolating to zero. The measuring
instruments for electrical quantities shall have the equivalent of an
accuracy class of 0,2 in case of a direct test and 0,5 in case of an
indirect test in accordance with IEC 60051-1:2016 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.443).
(A) Additional IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A Torque Measurement
Instructions. If using IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A to measure
motor performance, follow the instructions in paragraph (b)(3)(iv)(B)
of this section, instead of section 6.1.2.2 of IEC 60034-2-1:2014;
(B) Couple the machine under test to load machine. Measure torque
using an in-line shaft-coupled, rotating torque transducer or
stationary, stator reaction torque transducer. Operate the machine
under test at the rated load until thermal equilibrium is achieved
(rate of change 1 K or less per half hour). Record U, I, Pel, n, T,
[thgr]c.
(4) Polyphase small electric motors of greater than 1 horsepower
(0.75 kW). For polyphase small electric motors exceeding 1 horsepower,
use one of the following methods:
(i) IEEE 112-2004, Section 6.4, ``Efficiency test method B--Input-
output with loss segregation''; or
(ii) IEEE 112-2017, Section 3, ``General''; Section 4,
``Measurements''; Section 5, ``Machine losses and tests for losses'',
Section 6.1, ``General'', Section 6.4, ``Efficiency test method B--
Input-output with loss segregation'', Section 9.4, ``Form B--Method
B'', and Section 9.5, ``Form B2--Method B calculations''; or
(iii) CSA C390-10, Section 1.3, ``Scope'', Section 3.1,
``Definitions'', Section 5, ``General test requirements--
Measurements'', Section 7, ``Test method'', Table 1, ``Resistance
measurement time delay, Annex B, ``Linear regression analysis'', and
Annex C, ``Procedure for correction of dynamometer torque readings'';
or
(iv) IEC 60034-2-1:2014, Section 3 ``Terms and definitions'',
Section 4 ``Symbols and abbreviations'', Section 5 ``Basic
requirements'', Section 6.1.3 ``Method 2-1-1B--Summation of losses,
additional load losses according to the method of residual losses.'',
and Annex D, ``Test report template for 2-1-1B''.
[[Page 17028]]
The supply voltage shall be in accordance with section 7.2 of IEC
60034-1:2010 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.443). The
measured resistance at the end of the thermal test shall be determined
in a similar way to the extrapolation procedure described in section
8.6.2.3.3 of IEC 60034-1:2010 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.443), using the shortest possible time instead of the time interval
specified in Table 5 therein, and extrapolating to zero. The measuring
instruments for electrical quantities shall have the equivalent of an
accuracy class of 0,2 in case of a direct test and 0,5 in case of an
indirect test in accordance with IEC 60051-1:2016 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.443).
0
7. Section 431.447 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(4),
to read as follows:
Sec. 431.447 Department of Energy recognition of nationally
recognized certification programs.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) It must be expert in the content and application of the test
procedures and methodologies in IEEE 112-2004, IEEE 112-2017, IEEE Std
114-2010, IEC 60034-2-1, CSA C390-10, and CSA C747 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.443) or similar procedures and methodologies
for determining the energy efficiency of small electric motors. It must
have satisfactory criteria and procedures for the selection and
sampling of electric motors tested for energy efficiency.
(c) * * *
(4) Expertise in small electric motor test procedures. The petition
should set forth the program's experience with the test procedures and
methodologies in IEEE Std 112-2004, IEEE Std 112-2017, IEEE Std 114-
2010, IEC 60034-2-1, CSA C390-10, and CSA C747 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.443) and with similar procedures and
methodologies. This part of the petition should include items such as,
but not limited to, a description of prior projects and qualifications
of staff members. Of particular relevance would be documentary evidence
that establishes experience in applying guidelines contained in the
ISO/IEC Guide 25, General Requirements for the Competence of
Calibration and Testing Laboratories to energy efficiency testing for
electric motors.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-06868 Filed 4-22-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P