Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors and Small Electric Motors, 50844-50847 [2017-23634]

Download as PDF 50844 Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 82, No. 211 Thursday, November 2, 2017 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [EERE–2017–BT–TP–0047–0001] Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors and Small Electric Motors Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of petition and request for public comments. AGENCY: This notice announces receipt and publishes petitions from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and UL LLC (UL) requesting that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) incorporate the IEC 60034–2–1:2014 (2014) test methods 2– 1–1A and 2–1–1B as alternative test methods in addition to the existing test methods referenced in its regulations for determining the energy efficiency of certain electric motors and small electric motors: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) standards 112–2004 Method B (2004) and 114–2010 (2010); and Canadian Standards Association standards (CSA) C390–10 (2010) and C747–09 (2009). NEMA found IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1B to be equivalent to IEEE 112–2004 Method B and CSA C390–10 UL testing found IEC 60034–2–1:2004 Method 2–1–1B results to be in close agreement with those of CSA C390–10, and noted that the respective methodologies of IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1A and CSA C747 were also in accord. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning NEMA’s and UL’s petitions. DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before January 2, 2018. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:57 Nov 01, 2017 Jkt 244001 submit comments, identified by docket number EERE–2017–BT–TP–0047–0001, by any of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 2. Email: to SmallElectricMotors2017TP0047@ ee.doe.gov. Include docket number EERE–2017–BT–TP–0047–0001 in the subject line of the message. 3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–6636. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. 4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586–6636. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section IV of this document. Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes the two petitions, Federal Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/ materials, is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. Specifically, the petition and supporting documentation from NEMA is available at https://www.regulations.gov/ document?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-00470028 and the petition from UL is available at https:// www.regulations.gov/ document?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-00470029. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available. The docket Web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/ docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047. The docket Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 in the docket. See section IV for information on how to submit comments through http:// www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–9870. Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov. Ms. Mary Greene, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–1817. Email: mary.greene@hq.doe.gov. For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586– 6636 or by email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Authority and Background II. Petitions of NEMA and UL A. Petition of NEMA for Incorporating IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1B B. Petition of UL for Incorporating IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Methods 2–1–1B and 2– 1–1A 1. IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1B 2. IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1A III. Request for Comments IV. Submission of Comments I. Authority and Background Electric motors are included in the list of ‘‘covered equipment’’ for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)). Additionally, EPCA directed DOE, subject to a determination of feasibility and justification, to establish energy conservation standards and test procedure for small electric motors. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)) DOE’s test procedures for electric motors are prescribed at appendix B to subpart B of part 431. DOE’s test procedures for small electric motors are prescribed at 10 CFR part 431, subpart X. E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 211 / Thursday, November 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules DOE test procedures reference IEEE 112–2004 Method B 1 and CSA C390– 10 2 as the approved test methods for determining the energy efficiency of polyphase electric motors with a horsepower greater than or equal to 1 hp; and for determining the energy efficiency of polyphase small electric motors with a horsepower greater than 1 hp. Both industry standards are incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.15 and 10 CFR 431.443. Additionally, DOE’s small electric motors test procedures at subpart X of part 431 reference: (1) IEEE 114–2010 3 and CSA C747–09 4 as the approved test methods for determining the energy efficiency of single-phase small electric motors, and (2) IEEE 112–2004 Method A 5 and CSA C747–09 as the approved test methods for determining the energy efficiency of polyphase small electric motors with a horsepower less than or equal to 1. On July 31, 2017, DOE published a request for information (the ‘‘July 2017 RFI’’) initiating a data collection process to consider whether to amend DOE’s test procedure for small electric motors and electric motors, and whether new test procedures are needed for motors beyond those subject to the existing Federal test procedures. 82 FR 35468. The petitions of NEMA and UL request modifications to the current test procedures for small electric motors and electric motors, and accordingly, DOE is entering this petition into the same docket that houses the July 2017 RFI. The docket is available at: https:// www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE2017-BT-TP-0047. II. Petitions of NEMA and UL nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS A. Petition of NEMA for Incorporating IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1B NEMA submitted a petition letter requesting that DOE incorporate the IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1B 6 test 1 IEEE Std 112–2004, Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators, approved February 9, 2004, Section 6.4, Efficiency Test Method B, Input-Output with Loss Segregation. 2 CSA C390–10, Test methods, marking requirements, and energy efficiency levels for threephase induction motors, March 2010. 3 IEEE Std 114–2010, Test Procedure for SinglePhase Induction Motors, approved September 30, 2010. 4 CSA C747–09, Energy efficiency test methods for small motors, October 2009. 5 IEEE Std 112–2004, Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators, approved February 9, 2004, Section 6.3, Efficiency Test Method A, Input-Output. 6 IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1B (2014), ‘‘Rotating Electrical Machines—Part 2–1: Standard methods for determining losses and efficiency from tests (excluding machines for traction vehicles),’’ ‘‘Summation of losses, additional load losses according to the method of residual loss.’’ VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:57 Nov 01, 2017 Jkt 244001 method as an alternative to the existing IEEE 112–2004 Method B and CSA C390–10 approved test methods of appendix B to subpart B of part 431. The petition further includes a ‘‘work paper’’ that summarizes an evaluation conducted by the NEMA Motor and Generator Section technical committee which found the IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1B test method to be equivalent to the IEEE 112–2004 Method B and CSA C390–10 test methods.7 This evaluation relied on: (1) A comparison of instrumentation accuracy, test method, and calculation approach among the IEC, IEEE, and CSA industry standards, (2) analysis of test results from over 500 motors tested at the Hydro-Quebec Research Institute, and (3) reference to one scientific research paper (the ‘‘Angers et al. paper’’) which also concluded that all three methods 8 were equivalent.9 NEMA’s petition letter claimed that the results of the Hydro-Quebec Research Institute testing typically showed a loss deviation of less than ±2 percent. The NEMA petition letter also stated a loss difference of 2 percent is: (1) Within the variation of two tests performed using the same motor and test equipment but with different operators and at different times of day; and (2) well below the typical variation of 10 percent of losses when different labs are used to test the same motor. B. Petition of UL for Incorporating IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Methods 2–1–1B and 2– 1–1A UL submitted a petition letter 10 requesting that DOE incorporate two IEC 60034–2–1:2014 IEC test methods in its test procedures for electric motors and certain small electric motors. 1. IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1B First, UL requested that IEC 60034–2– 1:2014 test method 2–1–1B be approved for appendix B to subpart B of part 431 and section 431.444 of subpart X of part 7 The NEMA petition and work paper are available at https://www.regulations.gov/ document?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047-0028. 8 The paper compared 2013 draft updates of IEEE 112–2004 and IEC 60034–2–1:2007 (not the 2014 version the NEMA petition requests that DOE reference). 9 Pierre Angers-Hydro-Quebec’s Research ´ Institute, Andrew Baghurst—CalTest Laboratory, Martin Doppelbauer—Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Review of Energy Efficiency Measurement Standards for Induction Motors in the Context of the IECEE Global Efficiency Labeling Initiative. EEMODS conference 2013. Available at: https://e3p.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/ proceedings-8th-international-conferenceeemods2013-energy-efficiency-motor-driven. 10 The UL petition and supporting documentation is available at https://www.regulations.gov/ document?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047-0029. PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 50845 431 (as an alternative to CSA C390–10). Regarding the first request, the petition further included two papers comparing the respective test standards. The first paper,11 which is the same paper (Angers et al.) cited in NEMA’s petition’s attachment, compared IEEE 112–2004, Method B (a 2013 year draft version), CSA C390–10, and IEC 60034– 2–1, Method 2–1–1B (a 2013 year draft version). The comparison focused on instrumentation accuracy, test method, and calculation approach among the IEC, IEEE, and CSA industry standards and concluded that all three methods 12 were equivalent. The second paper 13 (the ‘‘Cao paper’’) compared the respective methodologies of IEEE 112–2004, Method B and IEC 60034–2–1:2007, Method 2–1–1B and also conducted comparison testing, applying both standards’ test methods to the same six motors of varied output power. The resulting efficiency values were found to be closely aligned, with respective maximum and mean deviations of 0.1 and 0.03 percentage points. UL’s petition letter claimed that the test results of the Cao paper testing aligned with UL’s own, firsthand testing experience using the same methods. UL’s own comparison testing found a difference in calculated efficiency of less than 0.1 percentage points, when using measurements from a single test to reduce variability. 2. IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1A Second, UL requested that IEC 60034– 2–1:2014 test method 2–1–1A be approved for section 431.444 of subpart X of part 431 (as an alternative to CSA C747–09). UL stated that the IEC and CSA standards use the same method, but that the IEC equipment specifications are more rigorous. UL did not provide a quantitative test result comparison to support the similarity between the standards. III. Request for Comments DOE solicits comments from interested parties on any aspect of the petition. In particular, DOE seeks 11 Pierre Angers—Hydro-Quebec’s Research ´ Institute, Andrew Baghurst—CalTest Laboratory, Martin Doppelbauer—Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Review of Energy Efficiency Measurement Standards for Induction Motors in the Context of the IECEE Global Efficiency Labeling Initiative. EEMODS conference 2013. Available at: https://e3p.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/ proceedings-8th-international-conferenceeemods2013-energy-efficiency-motor-driven. 12 The paper compared 2013 draft updates of IEEE 112–2004 and IEC 60034–2–1:2007. 13 Cao, W. Comparison of IEEE 112 and new IEC standard 60034–2–1. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion. 2009. 24(3): pp. 802–808. E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS 50846 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 211 / Thursday, November 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules comment on the matters described in this section. DOE seeks comment on the differences among IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1B, IEEE 112–2004 Method B, and CSA C390–10, and data characterizing the degree to which choice of test procedure alters measured efficiency. DOE seeks comment on the differences among IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1A, IEEE 114–2010, and CSA C747–09 and data characterizing the degree to which choice of test procedure alters measured efficiency. DOE seeks comment regarding whether IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2– 1–1B should be considered as an alternate for testing certain small electric motors under 10 CFR part 431, subpart X. DOE also seeks comment on whether the comparison test results presented in the petitions, which concern the test procedures under 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, would also apply to testing of certain small electric motors under Subpart X of 10 CFR 431. DOE seeks comment on NEMA’s claims: (1) That the Hydro-Quebec test results support a typical loss deviation between IEEE 112–2004 Method B and IEC 60034–2–1:2004 Method 2–1–1B of less than ±2 percent, (2) that a 2 percent loss deviation is characteristic of substituting a test operator with the test equipment unchanged, and (3) that a 10 percent loss deviation is characteristic of testing the same motor at different laboratories. DOE seeks comment on whether Angers et al. paper’s findings of similarity between IEEE 112–2004 (2013 draft revision) and IEC 60034–2–1:2007 (2013 draft revision) would hold for the latest adopted versions of those standards: IEEE 112–2004 and IEC 60034–2–1:2014. DOE seeks comment on UL’s claims that the difference in calculated efficiency between IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1B and IEEE 112–2004 method B is less than 0.1 percentage points, if using measurements from the same test. DOE seeks comment regarding similarity in methods, differences in equipment specifications, and expected efficiency percentage point differences between the test results of IEEE 114– 2010, CSA C747–09, and IEC 60034–2– 1:2004, Method 2–1–1A. IV. Submission of Comments DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by January 2, 2018, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE’s consideration of amended test procedures for electric VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:57 Nov 01, 2017 Jkt 244001 and small electric motors. These comments and information will aid in the development of a test procedure NOPR for electric and small electric motors if DOE determines that amended test procedures may be appropriate for these products. Submitting comments via http:// www.regulations.gov. The http:// www.regulations.gov Web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment. However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments. Do not submit to http:// www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through http:// www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section. DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http:// www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment. Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 211 / Thursday, November 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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 ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov. Issued in Washington, DC, on October 19, 2017. David Nemtzow, Director, Building Technologies Office, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [FR Doc. 2017–23634 Filed 11–1–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2017–0111; Product Identifier 2016–SW–079–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; AgustaWestland S.p.A. Helicopters Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS AGENCY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain AgustaWestland S.p.A. (AgustaWestland) Model AW189 helicopters. This proposed AD would SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:57 Nov 01, 2017 Jkt 244001 require replacing the seal and filler wedges of all emergency exit windows. The proposed actions are prompted by a report that some windows were improperly glued when installed. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to correct an unsafe condition on these products. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 2, 2018. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Fax: 202–493–2251. • Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001. • Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ‘‘Mail’’ address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–2017– 0111; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39–0331–711756; fax +39–0331–229046; or at http:// www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin R. Crane, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations & Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222–5110; email martin.r.crane@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 50847 Comments Invited We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive. Discussion EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2016– 0216, dated October 28, 2016, to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo Helicopters (previously Finmeccanica S.p.A., previously AgustaWestland) Model AW189 helicopters, serial numbers 49007 through 49021, 49023, 49029, 49033, 49035, 89001, 89003, 89004, 92001, 92003, and 92005. The EASA AD does not apply to windows that have been reinstalled at least once since helicopter delivery and windows that are part of bubble window kit part number (P/N) 8G5620F00111. EASA advises that during a scheduled replacement of emergency exit window seals on helicopters in service, an excessively high level of pushing force was required to jettison some of the windows. According to EASA, further investigation determined the windows were installed with glue applied in locations that were not in accordance with the approved design. This condition, if not corrected, could prevent the jettisoning of helicopter emergency exit windows, possibly affecting the evacuation of crew and passengers during an emergency situation, EASA advises. EASA consequently requires replacement of the seal and the filler wedges of the E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM 02NOP1

Agencies

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


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

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

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


Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 211 / Thursday, November 2, 2017 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 50844]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

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


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

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

ACTION: Notice of petition and request for public comments.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested 
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-
TP-0047-0001, by any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: to SmallElectricMotors2017TP0047@ee.doe.gov. Include 
docket number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047-0001 in the subject line of the 
message.
    3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-6636. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards 
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 
586-6636. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case 
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section IV of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes the two 
petitions, Federal Register notices, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. Specifically, the petition and supporting 
documentation from NEMA is available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047-0028 and the petition from UL is 
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047-0029. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, 
such as those containing information that is exempt from public 
disclosure, may not be publicly available.
    The docket Web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047. The docket Web page contains simple 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section IV for information on how to submit comments 
through http://www.regulations.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Authority and Background

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

[[Page 50845]]

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

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

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

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

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

II. Petitions of NEMA and UL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Request for Comments

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

[[Page 50846]]

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

IV. Submission of Comments

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

[[Page 50847]]

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

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