Home/Federal/Federal Register/2022-21891

Rule2022-21891

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Electric Motors

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

October 19, 2022

Effective

November 18, 2022

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

This final rule amends the existing scope of the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") test procedures for electric motors consistent with related updates to the relevant industry testing standard (i.e., for air-over electric motors, electric motors greater than 500 horsepower, electric motors considered small, inverter-only electric motors, and synchronous electric motors); adds test procedures, an appropriate metric, and supporting definitions for additional electric motors covered under the amended scope; and updates references to industry standards to reference current versions. Furthermore, DOE is adopting certain industry provisions related to the prescribed test conditions to further ensure the comparability of test results. DOE is also amending provisions pertaining to certification testing and the determination of represented values for electric motors other than dedicated-purpose pool pump motors, and re-locating such provisions consistent with the location of the certification requirements for other covered products and equipment. Finally, DOE is adding provisions pertaining to certification testing and the determination of represented values for dedicated-purpose pool pump motors.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 201 (Wednesday, October 19, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 19, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63588-63660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21891]

[[Page 63587]]

Vol. 87

Wednesday,

No. 201

October 19, 2022

Part II

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Electric Motors; Final
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 63588]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[EERE-2020-BT-TP-0011]
RIN 1904-AE62

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Electric Motors

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the existing scope of the U.S.
Department of Energy (``DOE'') test procedures for electric motors
consistent with related updates to the relevant industry testing
standard (i.e., for air-over electric motors, electric motors greater
than 500 horsepower, electric motors considered small, inverter-only
electric motors, and synchronous electric motors); adds test
procedures, an appropriate metric, and supporting definitions for
additional electric motors covered under the amended scope; and updates
references to industry standards to reference current versions.
Furthermore, DOE is adopting certain industry provisions related to the
prescribed test conditions to further ensure the comparability of test
results. DOE is also amending provisions pertaining to certification
testing and the determination of represented values for electric motors
other than dedicated-purpose pool pump motors, and re-locating such
provisions consistent with the location of the certification
requirements for other covered products and equipment. Finally, DOE is
adding provisions pertaining to certification testing and the
determination of represented values for dedicated-purpose pool pump
motors.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is November 18, 2022. The final
rule changes will be mandatory for product testing starting April 17,
2023. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on
November 18, 2022. The incorporation by reference of certain other
publications listed in the rule was approved by the Director as of June
4, 2012 and February 3, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, webinar
attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
All documents in the docket are listed in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>
index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those
containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not
be publicly available.
A link to the docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2020-BT-TP-0011">www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2020-BT-TP-0011</a>. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#511021213d38303f32340225303f35302335220024342225383e3f221134347f353e347f363e27">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

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
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d594a5a5b9bcb4bbb6b086a1b4bbb1b4a7b1a684a0b0a6a1bcbabba695b0b0fbb1bab0fbb2baa3">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Mr. 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e0ad89838881858cceab89848fa08891ce848f85ce878f96">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE maintains standards previously approved
for incorporation by reference and incorporates by reference the
following industry standards into part 431:
CSA C390:10 (reaffirmed 2019), ``Test methods, marking
requirements, and energy efficiency levels for three-phase induction
motors,'' including Updates No. 1 through 3, Revised January 2020
(``CSA C390-10'').
CSA C747-09 (reaffirmed 2019), ``Energy Efficiency Test Methods for
Small Motors,'' including Update No. 1 (August 2016), dated October
2009 (``CSA C747-09'').
Copies of CSA C390-10 and CSA C747-09 can be obtained from Canadian
Standards Association (``CSA''), Sales Department, 5060 Spectrum Way,
Suite 100, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1-800-463-6727, or by
visiting www.shopcsa.ca/onlinestore/welcome.asp.
IEC 60034-12:2016, Edition 3.0 2016-11, ``Rotating Electrical
Machines, Part 12: Starting Performance of Single-Speed Three-Phase
Cage Induction Motors,'' Published November 23, 2016 (``IEC 60034-
12:2016'').
IEC 60072-1, ``Dimensions and Output Series for Rotating Electrical
Machines--Part 1: Frame numbers 56 to 400 and flange numbers 55 to
1080,'' Sixth Edition, 1991-02, clauses 2, 3, 4.1, 6.1, 7, and 10, and
Tables 1, 2 and 4. (``IEC 60072-1'')
IEC 60079-7:2015, Edition 5.0 2015-06, ``Explosive atmospheres--
Part 7: Equipment protection by increased safety `e,' '' Published June
26, 2015 (``IEC 60079-7:2015'').
IEC 61800-9-2:2017, ``Adjustable speed electrical power drive
systems--Part 9-2: Ecodesign for power drive systems, motor starters,
power electronics and their driven applications--Energy efficiency
indicators for power drive systems and motor starters,'' Edition 1.0,
March 2017 (``IEC 61800-9-2:2017'').
Copies of IEC 60034-12:2016, IEC 60079-7:2015 and IEC 61800-9-
2:2017 may be purchased from International Electrotechnical Commission
(``IEC''), 3 rue de Varemb[eacute], 1st floor, P.O. Box 131, CH-1211
Geneva 20-Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 11, or by visiting <a href="https://webstore.iec.ch/home">https://webstore.iec.ch/home</a>.
IEEE 114-2010, ``Test Procedure for Single-Phase Induction
Motors,'' December 23, 2010 (``IEEE 114-2010'').
Copies of IEEE 114-2010 can be obtained from: Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (``IEEE''), 445 Hoes Lane, P.O.
Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, (732) 981-0060, or by visiting
<a href="http://www.ieee.org">www.ieee.org</a>.
ANSI/NEMA MG 1-2016 (Revision 1, 2018), ``Motors and Generators,''
ANSI approved June 15, 2021 (``NEMA MG 1-2016'').
Copies of NEMA MG 1-2016 may be purchased from National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (``NEMA''), 1300 North 17th Street, Suite
900, Arlington, Virginia 22209, +1 703 841 3200, or by visiting /
<a href="http://www.nema.org">www.nema.org</a>.
National Fire Protection Association (``NFPA'') 20, 2022 Edition,
``Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire
Protection,'' Approved by ANSI on April 8, 2021 (``NFPA 20-2022'').
Copies of NFPA 20-2022 may be purchased from National Fire
Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169, +1 800
344 3555, or by visiting <a href="http://www.nfpa.org">www.nfpa.org</a>.
See section IV.N of this document for a further discussion of these
standards.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
1. Motor Used as a Component of a Covered Product or Equipment
2. ``E'' and ``Y'' Designations of IEC Design N and H Motors
3. Air-Over Electric Motors
4. AC Induction Electric Motors Greater Than 500 Horsepower

[[Page 63589]]

5. SNEMs
6. AC Induction Inverter-Only Electric Motors
7. Synchronous Electric Motors
8. Submersible Electric Motors
9. Other Exemptions
B. Definitions
1. Updating IEC Design N and H Motors Definitions and Including
New Definitions for IEC Design N and H ``E'' and ``Y'' Designations
2. Updating Definitions to Reference Current NEMA MG 1-2016
3. Inverter, Inverter-Only, and Inverter-Capable
4. Air-Over Electric Motors
5. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motors
6. Basic Model and Equipment Class
C. Updates to Industry Standards Currently Incorporated by
Reference
D. Industry Standards Incorporated By Reference
1. Test Procedures for Air-Over Electric Motors
2. Test Procedures for SNEMs
3. Test Procedures for AC Induction Inverter-Only Electric
Motors and Synchronous Electric Motors
E. Metric
F. Rated Output Power and Breakdown Torque of Electric Motors
G. Rated Values Specified for Testing
1. Rated Frequency
2. Rated Load
3. Rated Voltage
H. Contact Seals Requirement
I. Vertical Electric Motors Testing
J. Proposed Testing Instructions for Those Electric Motors Being
Added to the Scope of Appendix B
K. Testing Instructions for Brake Electric Motors
L. Transition to 10 CFR part 429
M. Certification of Electric Motors
1. Independent Testing
2. Certification Process for Electric Motors
N. Determination of Represented Values
1. Nominal Full-Load Efficiency
2. Testing: Use of an Accredited Laboratory
3. Testing: Use of a Nationally Recognized Certification Program
4. Use of an AEDM
O. Certification, Sampling Plans and AEDM Provisions for
Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Motors
P. Effective and Compliance Dates
Q. Test Procedure Costs
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impacts
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
R. Compliance Date
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
1. Description of the Requirements
2. Method of Collection
3. Data
4. Conclusion
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

Electric motors are included in the list of ``covered equipment''
for which the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is authorized to
establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) DOE's energy conservation standards and test
procedures for electric motors are currently prescribed at 10 CFR
431.25 and appendix B to subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 (``appendix B''),
respectively. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to
establish test procedures for electric motors and relevant background
information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this
equipment.

A. Authority

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA, added by the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act, Pub. L. 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a),
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve
energy efficiency. These equipment include electric motors, the subject
of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Pub. L. 116-260 (Dec. 27,
2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts
A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42
U.S.C. 6296).
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 other representations about
the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE
must use 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))
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 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however,
grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test
results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a given type of covered equipment during a
representative average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary) and
requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
EPCA, pursuant to amendments made by the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
Pub. L. 102-486 (Oct. 24, 1992) (``EPACT 1992''), specifies that the
test procedures for electric motors subject to the standards prescribed
in 42 U.S.C. 6313 shall be those specified in National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (``NEMA'') Standards Publication MG1-1987 and
the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (``IEEE'')
Standard 112 Test Method B, as in effect on October 24, 1992. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A)). If these industry test procedures are amended,
DOE must

[[Page 63590]]

amend its own test procedures to conform to such amended test procedure
requirements, unless DOE determines by rule, published in the Federal
Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that to do so
would not meet the statutory requirements related to the test procedure
representativeness and burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including 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 energy efficiency, energy
use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use
cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
In addition, if the 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)). If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are
not appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not to amend the
test procedures.
DOE is publishing this final rule in satisfaction of its statutory
obligations specified in EPCA.

B. Background

On December 17, 2021, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NOPR'') for the electric motors test procedure. 86 FR 71710
(``December 2021 NOPR''). In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to
revise the current scope of the test procedures to add additional
electric motors and implement related updates needed for supporting
definitions and metric requirements as a result of this expanded scope;
incorporate by reference the most recent versions of the referenced
industry standards; incorporate by reference additional industry
standards used to test additional electric motors that DOE had proposed
to include within its scope; clarify the current test procedure's scope
and test instructions by adding definitions for specific terms; revise
the current vertical motor testing instructions to reduce manufacturer
test burden; clarify that the current test procedure permits removal of
contact seals for immersible electric motors only; revise the
provisions pertaining to certification testing and determination of
represented values; and add provisions pertaining to certification
testing and determination of represented values for dedicated purpose
pool pump (``DPPP'') motors. Id The NOPR provided an opportunity for
submitting written comments, data, and information on the proposal by
February 15, 2022.
On February 4, 2022, DOE published a notice granting an extension
of the public comment period to allow public comments to be submitted
until February 28, 2022. 87 FR 6436.
DOE received comments in response to the December 2021 NOPR from
the interested parties listed in Table II.1.

Table II.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the December 2021 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this final
Commenter(s) rule Docket No. Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Motors and Mechanical Inc........... ABB....................... 18 Manufacturer.
Air Movement and Control Association AMCA...................... 21 Industry Motor Trade
International. Association.
American Gear Manufacturers Association. AGMA...................... 14 Industry Gear Manufacturer
Trade Association.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Joint Advocates........... 27 Efficiency Organizations.
American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, Natural Resources
Defense Council, New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority.
Association of Home Appliance AHAM and AHRI............. 36 Industry OEM Trade
Manufacturers; Air-Conditioning, Association.
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute.
The Australian Industry Group \i\....... AI Group.................. 25 Industry Motor Trade
Association.
ebm-papst Inc........................... ebm-papst................. 23 Manufacturer.
European Committee of Manufacturers of CEMEP..................... 19 Industry Electrical
Electrical Machines and Power Machines and Power
Electronics. Electronics Trade
Association.
Franklin Electric Co, Inc............... Franklin Electric......... 22 Manufacturer.
Grundfos Americas Corporation........... Grundfos.................. 29 OEM/Pump manufacturer.
Hydraulics Institute.................... HI........................ 30 Industry Pump Trade
Association.
International Electrotechnical IEC....................... 20 Industry Standards
Commission. Organization.
Johnson Controls........................ JCI....................... 34 Manufacturer.
Lennox International.................... Lennox.................... 24 Manufacturer.
National Electrical Manufacturers NEMA...................... 26 Industry Trade
Association. Association.
North Carolina Advanced Energy Advanced Energy........... 33 Independent Testing
Corporation. Laboratory.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance NEEA/NWPCC................ 37 Non-profit organization/
(NEEA), Northwest Power and interstate compact
Conservation Council (NWPCC). agency.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), CA IOUs................... 32.1 and 32.2 Utilities.
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and
Southern California Edison (SCE).
Regal Rexnord........................... Regal..................... 28 Manufacturer.
Sumitomo Machinery Corporation of Sumitomo.................. 17 Manufacturer.
America.
Trane Technologies...................... Trane..................... 31 OEM.
Water Systems Council................... WSC....................... 35 Industry Trade
Association.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ The AI group submitted multiple comments to the docket. One comment was an email cover letter, while the
other two were preliminary and final submission of their comments. In their cover letter, the AI group
attested that there were no changes between the final and preliminary submissions. Therefore, in this final
rule, DOE's reference to AI group's comment submission is the final submission.

[[Page 63591]]

To the extent that DOE received comments relating to the energy
conservation standards for electric motors subject to DOE's proposal to
expand the test procedure's scope, those comments fall outside of the
focus of this rulemaking, which addresses only the test procedure
itself. Comments related to any potential standards that DOE may
consider for electric motors will be discussed in the separate energy
conservation standards rulemaking docket (EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for electric motors. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-
0011, which is maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The references
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number,
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the general rulemaking timeline, ABB requested that DOE
issue a Supplemental NOPR and schedule a meeting to discuss the test
procedure before a final rule is issued. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 3) NEMA
requested a Supplemental NOPR be added to this rulemaking asserting
that significant changes to the scope and test methods are needed to
ensure the test procedure is reasonable, accurate, and repeatable.
(NEMA, No. 26 at p. 6) CA IOUs suggested that DOE consider forming an
ASRAC Working Group to engage on cross-segment electric motor topics.
(CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 50)
As discussed in this final rule, DOE is amending the scope of the
test procedure and adopting corresponding test procedure provisions
consistent with the most current applicable industry test standard. The
test procedure adopted in this final rule is generally consistent with
the test procedure proposed in the December 2021 NOPR. Therefore, DOE
has determined that additional actions such as an SNOPR or ASRAC
Working Group are not appropriate and is proceeding with this final
rule. Additionally, as stated, EPCA requires DOE to evaluate the test
procedures at least once every seven years to determine whether
amendments to the test procedure are needed to more fully meet the
statutory requirement that the test procedure be representative of an
average use cycle without being unduly burdensome. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(1)) Accordingly, DOE is proceeding with a final rule as
discussed in the following sections.

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

In this final rule, DOE amends the test procedure as follows:
(1) Update the existing definitions for IEC Design N and H motors
to reflect industry standard updates; amend the existing scope to
reflect updates in industry nomenclature, specifically for new industry
motor design designations IEC Design NE, HE, NEY and HEY, and include
corresponding definitions;
(2) Amend the definition of ``basic model'' to rely on the term
``equipment class'' and add a definition for ``equipment class'' to
make the electric motor provisions consistent with the provisions for
other DOE-regulated products and equipment;
(3) Add test procedures, a full-load efficiency metric, and
supporting definitions for air-over electric motors; electric motors
greater than 500 horsepower (``hp''); electric motors considered small
(i.e., SNEMs); inverter-only electric motors, and synchronous electric
motors;
(4) Incorporate by reference the most recent versions of NEMA MG 1
(i.e., NEMA MG 1-2016 (Revision 1, 2018) ANSI-approved 2021) and CSA
C390-10 (i.e., reaffirmed 2019), as well as other referenced industry
standards i.e., IEC 60034-12:2016, Edition 3.0 2016-11, ``Rotating
Electrical Machines, Part 12: Starting Performance of Single-Speed
Three-Phase Cage Induction Motors,''; IEC 60079-7:2015, Edition 5.0
2015-06, ``Explosive atmospheres--Part 7: Equipment protection by
increased safety `e,' '', which is referenced within IEC 60034-12:2016
and is necessary for the test procedure; and NFPA 20 ``Standard for the
Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection'' 2022 Edition
(``NFPA 20-2022'');
(5) Incorporate by reference additional industry test standards and
test instructions to support testing of the additional motors included
in the amended test procedure scope: CSA C747-09 (reaffirmed 2019)
(``CSA C747-09''), IEEE 114-2010, and IEC 61800-9-2:2017;
(6) Provide additional detail in the test instructions for electric
motors by adding definitions for the terms ``rated frequency'' and
``rated voltage;''
(7) Update the testing instructions for vertical electric motors to
reduce manufacturer test burden;
(8) Add a definition of ``independent'' as it relates to nationally
recognized certification and accreditation programs;
(9) Permit manufacturers to certify an electric motor's energy
efficiency using one of three options: (i) testing the electric motor
at an accredited laboratory and then certifying on its own behalf or
having a third-party submit the manufacturer's certification report;
(ii) testing the electric motor at a testing laboratory other than an
accredited laboratory and then having a nationally recognized
certification program certify the efficiency of the electric motor; or
(iii) using an alternative efficiency determination method (``AEDM'')
and then having a third-party nationally recognized certification
program certify the efficiency of the electric motor. Using these
provisions would be required for certification starting on the
compliance date for any new or amended standards for electric motors
published after January 1, 2022;
(10) Revise the provisions pertaining to the determination of
represented values applied starting on the compliance date of the next
final rule adopting new or amended energy conservation standards for
electric motors;
(11) Revise the AEDM provisions for electric motors and apply them
to all electric motors covered in the scope of the test procedure;
(12) Revise the procedures for recognition and withdrawal of
recognition of accreditation bodies and certification programs as
applied to electric motors and apply these provisions to all electric
motors covered in the scope of the test procedure;
(13) Move provisions pertaining to certification testing, AEDM, and
determination of represented values from 10 CFR part 431 to 10 CFR part
429; and
(14) Add provisions pertaining to certification testing and
determination of represented values for DPPP motors.
The adopted amendments are summarized in Table II-1 compared to the
test procedure provision prior to the amendment, as well as the reason
for the adopted change.

Table II-1--Summary of Changes in the Amended Test Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current DOE test procedure Amended test procedure Attribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to Design N and H motors defined Reflects updates in industry nomenclature, Update to industry testing
at 10 CFR 431.12. specifically, new motor design standard IEC 60034-12.
designations IEC Design HE, HY, HEY, NE,
NY and NEY, and includes corresponding
definitions.

[[Page 63592]]

Exempts air-over electric motors........ Includes test methods, full-load Update to industry testing
efficiency metric, and supporting standard NEMA MG 1 2016
definitions for air-over electric motors. with revisions through
2021 which include a test
method for air-over
electric motors.
Includes electric motors with a Includes test methods and full-load Statute allowance to
horsepower equal to or less than 500 hp. efficiency metric for electric motors extend applicability of
with a horsepower greater than 500 and the test procedure to
equal to or less than 750 hp. these electric motors.
Includes electric motors with a Includes test methods and full-load Statute allowance to
horsepower equal to or greater than 1 efficiency metric for electric motors extend applicability of
hp. considered small (i.e., small non-small- the test procedure to
electric-motor electric motors, or SNEMs). these electric motors.
Exempts inverter-only electric motors... Includes test methods, full-load New industry testing
efficiency metric, and supporting standard (IEC 61800-9-
definitions for inverter-only electric 2:2017).
motors.
Includes electric motors that are Includes test methods, full-load New developments in motor
induction motors only. efficiency metric, and supporting technologies and new
definitions for certain synchronous industry testing standard
electric motors. (IEC 61800-9-2:2017).
Incorporates by reference NEMA MG 1- Incorporates by reference the most recent Updates to industry
2009, CSA 390-10, IEC 60034-12 Edition versions of NEMA MG 1 (i.e., NEMA MG 1- testing standards NEMA MG
2.1 2007-09, and NFPA 20-2010. 2016), CSA 390 (i.e., CSA C390-10), as 1, CSA 390, IEC 60034-12
well as other referenced industry and NFPA 20-209.
standards (i.e., IEC 60034-12 Edition 3.0 Incorporates industry
2016 and NFPA 20-2022). In addition, standards for additional
incorporates by reference IEC 60079- motors included in scope.
7:2015, which is referenced within IEC
60034-12:2016 and is necessary for the
test procedure.
Incorporates by reference additional
industry test standards and testing
instructions to support testing of the
additional motors included in scope: CSA
C747-09, IEEE 114-2010, and IEC 61800-9-
2:2017.
Specifies testing at rated frequency, Provides additional detail in the test Harmonizes with
and rated voltage but does not define instructions for electric motors by definitions from NEMA MG
these terms. adding definitions for the terms ``rated 1 and improves the
frequency,'' and ``rated voltage''. repeatability of the test
procedure.
Specifies one method of connecting the Updates the vertical electric motor Reduce manufacturer
dynamometer to vertical electric motors. testing requirements to allow alternative testing burden.
methods for connecting to the dynamometer.
Includes a description of Adds a definition for ``independent'' as Required by 42 U.S.C.
``independent'' at 10 CFR 431.19(b)(2), it relates to nationally recognized 6316(c).
431.19(c)(2), 431.20(b)(2) and certification and accreditation programs
431.20(c)(2). and replace the descriptions of
``independent'' at 10 CFR 431.19(b)(2),
431.19(c)(2), 431.20(b)(2) and
431.20(c)(2) by this definition.
Allows a manufacturer to both test in Continues to allow a manufacturer to both Required by 42 U.S.C.
its own accredited laboratories and test in its own accredited laboratories 6316(c).
directly submit the certification of and directly submit the certification of
compliance to DOE for its own electric compliance to DOE for its own electric
motors. motors. Also now permits certification of
compliance using one of three options:
(1) a manufacturer can have the electric
motor tested using an accredited
laboratory and then certify on its own
behalf or have a third-party submit the
manufacturer's certification report; (2)
a manufacturer can test the electric
motor at a testing laboratory other than
an accredited laboratory and then have a
nationally recognized certification
program certify the efficiency of the
electric motor; or (3) a manufacturer can
use an alternative efficiency
determination method and then have a
third-party nationally recognized
certification program certify the
efficiency of the electric motor. DOE
adopts to require these provisions on or
after the compliance date for any new or
amended standards for electric motors
published after January 1, 2021.
Includes provisions pertaining to the Revises the provisions pertaining to the Align the determination of
determination of the represented value determination of the represented values the average and nominal
at 10 CFR 431.17. (i.e., nominal full-load efficiency and full-load efficiency with
average full-load efficiency) and the definitions at 10 CFR
requires use of these provisions for all 431.12. Harmonizes
electric motors subject to energy sampling requirements
conservation standards at 10 CFR 431, with other covered
subpart B, on or after the compliance equipment and covered
date of the final rule adopting new or products at 10 CFR
amended energy conservation standards for 429.70.
electric motors. Moves the provisions to
10 CFR 429.64. Applies these provisions
to all electric motors included in the
scope of the test procedure.
Includes AEDM provisions at 10 CFR Revises the AEDM provisions and applies Harmonizes the AEDM
431.17. these provisions to all electric motors requirements with other
included in the scope of the test covered equipment and
procedure. covered products at 10
CFR 429.70.
Includes provisions pertaining to Revises the procedures for recognition and Transfer provisions
nationally recognized accreditation withdrawal of recognition of related to certification
bodies and certification programs at 10 accreditation bodies and certification at 10 CFR part 429.
CFR 431.19, 431.20, and 431.21. programs as applied to electric motors.
Applies these provisions to all electric
motors included in the scope of the test
procedure.

[[Page 63593]]

Includes a definition of basic model Amends the definition of ``basic model'' Align the definition of
that relies on the term ``rating''. to rely on the term ``equipment class.'' basic model with other
Adds a definition for ``equipment class''. DOE-regulated products
and equipment and
eliminate the ambiguity
of the term ``rating.''
Does not include any certification, Adds certification, sampling plans, and Aligns DPPP motor
sampling plans, or AEDM provisions for AEDM provisions for DPPP Motors. provisions with the
DPPP Motors. provisions for electric
motors subject to the
requirements in subpart B
of 10 CFR part 431.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE has determined that the amendments described in section III of
this final rule would not alter the measured efficiency of those
electric motors that are currently within the scope of the test
procedure and that are currently required to comply with energy
conservation standards.
The effective date for the amended test procedures adopted in this
final rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register. Representations of energy use or energy efficiency must be
based on testing in accordance with the amended test procedures
beginning 180 days after the publication of this final rule. DOE notes
that manufacturers of electric motors that have been added to the scope
of the test procedure per this final rule are not required to use the
test procedure for Federal certification or labeling purposes until
such time as energy conservation standards are established for such
electric motors. But, if manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and
private labelers choose to make any representations respecting the
energy consumption or cost of energy consumed by such motors, then such
voluntary representations must be made in accordance with the test
procedure and sampling requirements, and such representation must also
fairly disclose the results of such testing. In addition, manufacturers
of electric motors subject to energy conservation standards at 10 CFR
part 431, subpart B, will be required to follow the newly adopted
certification provisions at 10 CFR 429.64(d) through (f) beginning on
the compliance date of the final rule adopting new or amended energy
conservation standards for electric motors.
Similarly, DOE notes that manufacturers of dedicated-purpose pool
pump motors falling within the scope of the test procedure at 10 CFR
431.484 are not required to use the test procedure for Federal
certification or labeling purposes until such time as energy
conservation standards are established for those motors. But, if
manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and private labelers choose to
make any representations respecting the energy consumption or cost of
energy consumed by such motors, then such voluntary representations
must be made in accordance with the test procedure and sampling
requirements, and such representation must also fairly disclose the
results of such testing. In addition, manufacturers of dedicated-
purpose pool pump motors subject to any energy conservation standards
at 10 CFR part 431, subpart Z, will be required to follow the newly
adopted certification provisions at 10 CFR 429.65 starting on the
compliance date of the final rule adopting new energy conservation
standards for these motors.

III. Discussion

A. Scope of Applicability

The term ``electric motor'' is defined as ``a machine that converts
electrical power into rotational mechanical power.'' 10 CFR 431.12.
Manufacturers are required to test those electric motors subject to
energy conservation standards according to the test procedure in
appendix B.\4\ (See generally 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A); see also the
introductory paragraph to 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, appendix B)
Currently, energy conservation standards apply to certain categories of
electric motors provided that they meet the criteria specified at 10
CFR 431.25(g). These categories of electric motors are NEMA Design A
motors,\5\ NEMA Design B motors,\6\ NEMA Design C motors,\7\ IEC Design
N motors,\8\ IEC Design H motors,\9\ and fire

[[Page 63594]]

pump electric motors.\10\ See 10 CFR 431.25(h)-(j). The current energy
conservation standards apply to electric motors within the identified
categories only if they:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The amendments do not address small electric motors, which
are covered separately under 10 CFR part 431, subpart X. A small
electric motor is ``a NEMA general purpose alternating current
single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number
series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987,
including IEC metric equivalent motors.'' 10 CFR 431.442.
\5\ ``NEMA Design A'' motor means a squirrel-cage motor that:
(1) Is designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing
locked-rotor torque as shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.38.1
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15); (2) Has pull-up
torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph
12.40.1; (3) Has breakdown torque not less than the values shown in
NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.39.1; (4) Has a locked-rotor current
higher than the values shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.35.1
for 60 hertz and NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and
(5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for motors with
fewer than 10 poles. 10 CFR 430.12.
\6\ ``NEMA Design B motor'' means a squirrel-cage motor that is:
(1) Designed to withstand full-voltage starting; (2) Develops
locked-rotor, breakdown, and pull-up torques adequate for general
application as specified in Paragraphs 12.38, 12.39 and 12.40 of
NEMA MG1-2009 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15); (3)
Draws locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in
Paragraph 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and 12.35.2 for 50 hertz of NEMA MG1-
2009; and (4) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for
motors with fewer than 10 poles. Id.
\7\ ``NEMA Design C'' motor means a squirrel-cage motor that:
(1) Is Designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing
locked-rotor torque for high-torque applications up to the values
shown in NEMA MG1-2009, Paragraph 12.38.2 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.15); (2) Has pull-up torque not less than
the values shown in NEMA MG1-2009, Paragraph 12.40.2; (3) Has
breakdown torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG1-2009,
Paragraph 12.39.2; (4) Has a locked-rotor current not to exceed the
values shown in NEMA MG1-2009, Paragraphs 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and
12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and (5) Has a slip at rated load of less than
5 percent. Id.
\8\ IEC Design N motor means an electric motor that: (1) Is an
induction motor designed for use with three-phase power; (2)
Contains a cage rotor; (3) Is capable of direct-on-line starting;
(4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles; (5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW at
a frequency of 60 Hz; and (6) Conforms to Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3
of the IEC 60034-12 edition 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.15) requirements for torque characteristics, locked rotor
apparent power, and starting. Id.
\9\ IEC Design H motor means an electric motor that (1) Is an
induction motor designed for use with three-phase power; (2)
Contains a cage rotor; (3) Is capable of direct-on-line starting (4)
Has 4, 6, or 8 poles; (5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 160 kW at a
frequency of 60 Hz; and (6) Conforms to Sections 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3
of the IEC 60034-12 edition 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.15) requirements for starting torque, locked rotor
apparent power, and starting. Id.
\10\ ``Fire pump electric motor'' means an electric motor,
including any IEC-equivalent motor, that meets the requirements of
Section 9.5 of NFPA 20. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Are single-speed, induction motors;
(2) Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type
S1 (IEC);
(3) Contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
(4) Operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz)
sinusoidal line power;
(5) Are rated 600 volts or less;
(6) Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration;
(7) Are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or
IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive
NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA
frame size (or IEC metric equivalent);
(8) Produce at least one horsepower (hp) (0.746 kilowatt (kW)) but
not greater than 500 hp (373 kW), and
(9) Meet all of the performance requirements of one of the
following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design
N or H motor.
10 CFR 431.25(g).
In the test procedure final rule published on December 13, 2013
(``December 2013 Final Rule''), DOE identified certain categories of
motors that meet the definition of ``electric motor'' but for which DOE
determined the referenced industry test procedures do not provide a
standardized test method for determining the energy efficiency. 78 FR
75962, 75975, 75987-75989. Motors that fall into this grouping are not
currently regulated by DOE and consist of the following categories:
<bullet> Air-over electric motors;
<bullet> Component sets of an electric motor;
<bullet> Liquid-cooled electric motors;
<bullet> Submersible electric motors; and
<bullet> Inverter-only electric motors.
10 CFR 431.25(l).
In this final rule, DOE is clarifying that certain equipment that
are designated with IEC Design letters NE, HE, NY, NEY, HY, and HEY are
within the scope of the current electric motors test procedure.
Furthermore, DOE is establishing test procedure requirements for
certain categories of electric motors not currently subject to energy
conservation standards. These categories are (1) air-over electric
motors; (2) certain electric motors greater than 500 hp; (3) electric
motors considered small (i.e., small not-small-electric-motor electric
motors or ``SNEMs''); and (4) inverter-only electric motors. Finally,
DOE is also including within the scope of the test procedure
synchronous electric motors. DOE is covering these motors under its
``electric motors'' authority. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
DOE notes that manufacturers of electric motors for which DOE is
including within the scope of the test procedure, but that are not
currently subject to an energy conservation standard, are not required
to use the test procedure for Federal certification or labeling
purposes until such time as amended or new energy conservation
standards are established for such electric motors. However, any
voluntary representations by manufacturers, distributors, retailers, or
private labelers about the energy consumption or cost of energy for
these motors must be based on the use of the test procedure beginning
180 days following publication of this final rule, and such
representation must also fairly disclose the results of such testing.
DOE's rule does not require manufacturers who do not currently make
voluntary representations to then begin making public representations
of efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) Manufacturers not currently
making representations of efficiency would be required to test such
motors in accordance with the test procedure only when compliance is
required with a labeling or energy conservation standard requirement if
such a requirement should be established. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b); 42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed an amended scope for the
electric motors test procedure that is generally consistent with the
amendments established in this final rule and also proposed to include
submersible electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71716. In general, NEEA/NWPCC
supported DOE's proposed changes to expand the scope of the electric
motors test procedure to include additional motor sizes and topologies.
They stated that the current test procedure is limited to one category
of motor, excluding many commonly used general purpose motors, and most
advanced motor technologies. NEEA/NWPCC recommended the electric motors
test procedure apply to as broad a range of motor technologies,
designs, and categories as possible to enable consumers to make fair
comparisons and informed decisions. NEEA/NWPCC commented that these
motors are installed in the same applications as regulated motors, yet
are not subject to the same test procedure and standard. (NEEA/NWPCC,
No. 37 at p. 2) DOE also received a number of specific comments on each
category of electric motor included in the scope of the test procedure,
which are discussed in the following sections.
1. Motor Used as a Component of a Covered Product or Equipment
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed not to exclude motors used
as a component of a covered product or covered equipment from the test
procedure scope. This includes any proposed expanded scope electric
motors. Specifically, DOE noted that the current electric motors test
procedure applies to definite purpose and special purpose electric
motors, and DOE is not aware of any technical issues with testing such
motors using the current DOE test procedure. 86 FR 71710, 71728. In
response, DOE received a number of comments, many of whom objected to
DOE's approach.
AHAM and AHRI filed joint comments opposing DOE's proposed
expansion of the test procedure's scope of coverage to include special-
and definite-purpose electric motors, specifically air-over electric
motors, inverter-only electric motors, synchronous motors, and SNEMs.
They explained that Original Equipment Manufacturer (``OEM'') products
have been built around special/definite purpose motors or that these
motors are specially built to be installed inside OEM products. AHAM
and AHRI stated that those finished products are already regulated by
DOE and many manufacturers turn to more efficient designs that include
components such as more efficient motors to meet more stringent energy
conservation standards. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 1-3) AHAM and
AHRI added that special purpose and definite purpose motors are
distinct and different from general purpose motors and noted that
despite the reworking of the ``electric motor'' definition in the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, special purpose and
definite purpose motors are still defined separately. Id.
AHAM and AHRI commented that efficient electric motors destined for
finished products are already a major part of the energy equation when
OEMs consider which design options to apply to meet new standards and
added that DOE's proposed test procedure, which would rate motor
efficiency at full-load, fails to adequately capture representative
load conditions for finished products and equipment that

[[Page 63595]]

are largely optimized for, and regulated on, part-load performance.
AHAM and AHRI commented that regulating special and definite purpose
motors, particularly with the proposed third-party nationally
recognized certification program requirements, will add cost, reduce
market choices, and do little, if anything, to realize further energy
savings over time. AHRI and AHAM asserted that in the near-term, the
proposed rules will counter intuitively create a recipe for setbacks in
energy savings. They stated that the timing of these proposed changes
will also exacerbate supply chain disruption, further delaying products
reaching U.S. consumers and inflating the cost of finished goods. Id.
AHAM and AHRI provided information on the market size represented
by their respective member companies, stating that it represents a
significant segment of the economy. AHRI and AHAM commented that
regulation of a single component product can have ramifications to
other components throughout the product. AHAM and AHRI stated that
durable products work as a system to achieve their purpose for the
consumer and as such, requested DOE carefully consider the perspective
of the end-purchasers and users of the categories of small electric
motors (``SEMs'') that would be governed by the proposed regulation.
(AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 1-3)
Further, AHAM and AHRI commented that small electric motors that
are components of covered equipment are, and should continue to be,
appropriately afforded an exemption from energy conservation standards
and test method, and SNEMs should be given similar treatment. AHAM and
AHRI stated that DOE's proposal to not exclude motors that are
components of regulated products was contrary to DOE's previously
published public opinion (regarding SEMs) and the intent of Congress as
expressed in the EPCA Amendments of 1992. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp.
3-5) AHAM and AHRI further commented that in the April 2020 Small
Electric Motors Proposed Determination (see 85 FR 24146, 24152 (April
30, 2020)), DOE acknowledged, ``the term `small electric motor' has a
specific meaning under EPCA,'' codified in 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G) and 10
CFR 431.442. AHAM and AHRI commented that DOE's preliminary findings,
outlined in the 2011 RFI for Increased Scope of Coverage for Electric
Motors (see 76 FR 17577, 17578 (March 30, 2011)), noted explicitly that
many of the motors contemplated for coverage by DOE's proposed test
procedure require separate analysis from general purpose motors. AHAM
and AHRI commented that the notable exceptions from scope outlined in
the final rule published May 29, 2014, Energy Conservation Standards
for Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors Final Rule (79 FR 30934
(``May 2014 Final Rule''), are fractional horsepower motors. They
agreed with DOE's previous determination related to small electric
motors (81 FR 41378, 41394-41395) in which the agency recognized that
Congress intentionally excluded these motors from coverage by DOE
regulation when such motors are used as components of products and
equipment that are already subject to DOE regulation. (AHAM and AHRI,
No. 36 at pp. 3-5)
AHAM and AHRI commented that regulating SNEMs directly conflicts
with Congress's vision that components of EPCA-covered products and
equipment remain unregulated. AHAM and AHRI commented that given DOE's
claimed similarities between small electric motors and the SNEMs
category, DOE nevertheless proposes to deny to SNEMs a key exemption
that Congress expressly provided for small electric motors. AHAM and
AHRI stated that when Congress amended EPCA through the Energy Policy
Act of 1992 and defined ``small electric motors,'' it expressly
required that energy conservation standards ``shall not apply to any
small electric motor which is a component of a covered product under
section 6292(a) of this title or covered equipment under section 6311
of this title.'' 42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3) (emphasis added). AHAM and AHRI
commented that DOE provides no rationale or explanation for the
disparate treatment of small electric motors and SNEMs when it comes to
their use as components. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 3-5)
Similarly, Lennox stated that the exemption for SEMs that are
components of larger regulated equipment (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) should
also apply to SNEMs, particularly with respect to the heating,
ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration (``HVACR'') context.
(Lennox, No. 24 at pp. 5-6)
AI Group stated that SNEMs often go into regulated equipment and
that double regulation should be avoided. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 3)
NEMA argued that the creation of the SNEM category violated the intent
of 42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)'s prohibition against applying the SEM
standards to an SEM that is used as a component in another regulated
product. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 5) NEMA also stated that much of the SNEM
expanded scope includes definite and special-purpose motors that have
been designed for specific applications. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 5) Trane
commented that SNEMs are designed for end-product performance
requirements and that applying efficiency standards to the motor
specifically would add burden without providing energy savings, and on
that basis opposed including them in the scope of the test procedure.
(Trane, No. 31 at p. 3)
In addition, JCI generally opposed the proposed scope expansion to
mandate new test procedures to include special and definite purpose
motors--which specifically includes air-over, inverter, synchronous as
well as SNEMs--because these motors are already being regulated at the
system level and are, in its view, clearly exempted under 42 U.S.C.
6317(b)(3). (JCI, No. 34 at p. 1) JCI commented that component level
regulations will not result in significant savings or performance
benefits to consumers, and that consumers do not inquire about
component level efficiency and only are concerned with system-level
efficiency. In its view, this double regulation stifles design and
limits improvements because of the higher constraints without benefit.
It stated that the motor is typically not the least efficient component
with air conditioners, heat pumps, or furnaces and double regulation
only serves to add unnecessary cost. (JCI, No. 34 at p. 1)
In contrast, the Joint Advocates and the CA IOUs supported
including motors falling within the scope of the test procedure that
are installed into other DOE covered products. (Joint Advocates, No. 27
at p. 5; CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 45) The CA IOUs cautioned, however,
that DOE consider the manufacturer burdens associated with regulation,
and to not push manufacturers towards offering less diverse product
lines. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 45-46)
In their joint comments, NEEA/NWPCC recommended that DOE include
all electric motors that directly compete against each other in this
test procedure so that they can be fairly compared against other motor
designs. NEEA/NWPCC noted that some of these motor categories and
designs are known for having low efficiencies but are commonly chosen
by consumers and OEMs because they are cheaper than other motors. They
added that because of the incomplete coverage of the current test
procedure and standard, unregulated inefficient motor categories have a
competitive advantage compared to more efficient motors and--in spite
of

[[Page 63596]]

their cheaper initial costs--result in increased operating costs for
consumers. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3)
DOE is not addressing any potential standards in this rulemaking;
standards for electric motors are addressed in a separate rulemaking
procedure (see docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007). Rather, this
rulemaking addresses only the scope of the test procedure.
As discussed in the final rule published on May 4, 2012 (the ``May
2012 Final Rule''), EPCA, as amended through EISA 2007, provides DOE
with the authority to regulate the expanded scope of motors addressed
in this rule. 77 FR 26608, 26612-26613. Before the enactment of EISA
2007, EPCA defined the term ``electric motor'' as any motor that is a
general purpose T-frame, single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase
squirrel-cage induction motor of the NEMA, Design A and B, continuous
rated, operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60 Hertz line power as
defined in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987. (See 42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(A) (2006)) Section 313(a)(2) of EISA 2007 removed that
definition and the prior limits that narrowly defined what types of
motors would be considered as electric motors. In its place, EISA 2007
inserted a new ``Electric motors'' heading, and created two new
subtypes of electric motors: General purpose electric motor (subtype I)
and general purpose electric motor (subtype II). (42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(A)-(B) (2011)) In addition, section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007
established energy conservation standards for four types of electric
motors: general purpose electric motors (subtype I) (i.e., subtype I
motors) with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; fire pump motors;
general purpose electric motor (subtype II) (i.e., subtype II motors)
with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; and NEMA Design B, general
purpose electric motors with a power rating of more than 200
horsepower, but less than or equal to 500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C.
6313(b)(2)) The term ``electric motor'' was left undefined.
As described in the May 2012 Final Rule, a regulatory definition
for ``electric motor'' was necessary, and therefore DOE adopted the
broader definition of ``electric motor'' currently found in 10 CFR
431.12. Specifically, DOE noted that the absence of a definition may
cause confusion about which electric motors are required to comply with
mandatory test procedures and energy conservation standards. 77 FR
26608, 26613. Further, in the May 2012 Final Rule, DOE noted that this
broader approach would allow DOE to fill the definitional gap created
by the EISA 2007 amendments while providing DOE with the flexibility to
set energy conservation standards for other types of electric motors
without having to continuously update the definition of ``electric
motors'' each time DOE sets energy conservation standards for a new
subset of electric motors. Id.
Congress specifically defined what equipment comprises an SEM--
specifically, ``a NEMA general purpose alternating current single-speed
induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance
with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G))
(DOE clarified, at industry's urging, that the definition also includes
motors that are IEC metric equivalents to the specified NEMA motors
prescribed by the statute. See 74 FR 32059, 32061-32062; 10 CFR
431.442)) In conjunction with this definition, Congress also exempted
any SEM that is a component of a covered product or a covered equipment
from the standards that DOE was required to establish under 42 U.S.C.
6317(b). Congress did not, however, similarly restrict electric motors.
SNEMs, which are electric motors, are not SEMs because they do not
satisfy the more specific statutory SEM definition--or even the
arguably broader clarifying definition that DOE adopted to accommodate
electric motors that were IEC metric equivalents of the NEMA motors
falling under the SEM definition of that term and therefore not subject
to the exclusion explicitly established for SEMs. Accordingly, DOE is
declining to adopt the suggestions offered by commenters to exclude
SNEMs installed as components in other DOE regulated products and
equipment from the test procedure being promulgated in this final rule.
DOE is not establishing energy conservation standards for SNEMs in
this final rule. Were DOE to consider energy conservation standards for
SNEMs, DOE would evaluate the efficiency of SNEMs on the market for
their various applications, as well as opportunities for improved
efficiency while still being able to serve those applications.
DOE is also including in the scope of the test procedure special
purpose and definite purpose motors.
DOE notes that manufacturers of electric motors for which DOE is
including within the scope of the test procedure, but that are not
currently subject to an energy conservation standard, would not be
required to use the test procedure for Federal certification or
labeling purposes until such time as amended or new energy conservation
standards are established for such electric motors.
Further discussion on each of the expanded scope categories are
provided in the following sections. Discussion on maintaining the full-
load metric in this test procedure is provided in section III.E. of
this document.
2. ``E'' and ``Y'' Designations of IEC Design N and H Motors
Currently regulated electric motors include those motors designated
as IEC Design N and IEC Design H motors. In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
discussed that IEC 60034-12:2016 includes industry nomenclature updates
to IEC Design N and IEC Design H motors, whose designations are
augmented with the designations IEC Design NE, HE, NY, NEY, HY, and
HEY. 86 FR 71710, 71716-71717. DOE stated that all six additional
categories are described as electric motors that are variants of IEC
Design N and IEC Design H electric motors that DOE currently regulates,
with the only differences being the premium efficiency attribute
(indicated by the letter ``E''), and starting configuration \11\
(``star-delta'' starter \12\ indicated by the letter ``Y''). Id.
Accordingly, DOE proposed to revise 10 CFR 431.25 to reflect the
inclusion of IEC Design NE, NEY, and NY motors as IEC Design N motors
and to make a similar set of revisions to reflect the inclusion of IEC
Design HE, HEY, and HY motors as IEC Design H motors. DOE clarified
that to the extent IEC Design N and IEC Design H motors are subject to
the DOE regulations for electric motors, such coverage already includes
IEC Design NE, NY, NEY, HE, HY and HEY motors. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ For induction motors, the starting configuration refers to
the manner in which the three-phase input terminals are connected to
each other, and the star configuration results in a lower line-to-
line voltage than the delta configuration. See Sections 2.62 and
2.64 of NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements) and 2021 updates for
further detail.
\12\ A ``star-delta starter'' refers to a reduced voltage
starter system arranged by connecting the supply with the primary
motor winding initially in star (``wye'' or ``Y'') configuration,
then reconnected in a delta configuration for running operation. In
the star configuration, all three supply lines are connected at a
single point and the circuit diagram resembles the letter Y. In the
delta configuration each supply line is connected at one end with
the next supply line and the circuit diagram resembles the Greek
letter delta ([Delta]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response, CEMEP, NEMA and Grundfos supported DOE's proposed
clarification regarding the additional IEC designations. (CEMEP, No. 19
at p. 1; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 6; Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 1) For the
reasons discussed in the previous paragraph, DOE is adopting its
proposal to reflect the inclusion of IEC Design NE, NEY, and NY motors
as IEC Design N motors and to make a similar set of revisions to
reflect the

[[Page 63597]]

inclusion of IEC Design HE, HEY, and HY motors as IEC Design H motors.
In this final rule, DOE is revising 10 CFR 431.25(g)-(i) to reflect the
inclusion of IEC Design N and H variants as it relates to current
energy conservation standards.
DOE received comments regarding the definitions proposed for the
IEC Design designations, which are addressed separately in section
III.B.1. of this document.
3. Air-Over Electric Motors
DOE defines an ``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. These motors are currently exempt from the energy
conservation standards. 10 CFR 431.25(l)(4). In the December 2021 NOPR,
DOE reviewed NEMA MG 1-2016, Part 34: Air-Over Motor Efficiency Test
Method, as well as Section 8.2.1 of IEEE 114-2010 and Section 5 of CSA
C747-09, and initially determined that sufficient information was
available to propose a test method for air-over electric motors, and
therefore proposed to include air-over electric motors in the scope of
the test procedure. 86 FR 71710, 71718. Further, DOE also proposed an
amended definition for air-over electric motors (86 FR 71710, 71730-
71731), which is discussed further in section III.B.4 of this
rulemaking. Accordingly, DOE requested comment on its proposal to add
air-over electric motors in scope. Id.
In response to the expanded scope proposal, a number of
stakeholders supported the inclusion of air-over electric motors.
(AMCA, No. 21 at p. 2; ebm-papst, No. 23 at pp. 2, 6; CA IOUs, No. 32.1
at p. 10) NEMA agreed with the proposal in concept, but disagreed with
several testing provisions, which are discussed further in section
III.D.1 of this document. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 6) Lennox opposed the
inclusion of air-over motors, citing that component-level regulation
should be avoided when system-level regulation is possible. Lennox
stated that the cost of component-level regulation outweighs the
benefit when DOE could more effectively use system-level regulation
(HVAC in this case). (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 1-2) Regal opposed including
air-over motors to the scope of test procedure, explaining that it
already tests the motors according to DOE requirements for the
equipment into which these motors would be installed, and that
regulating these motors separately would increase costs while yielding
no benefit. (Regal, No. 28 at p. 1) AI Group referenced a 2019
Australian testing standard for three-phase cage induction motors that
includes testing requirements for totally enclosed air-over motors. (AI
Group, No. 25 at p. 3)
DOE is covering air-over electric motors under its ``electric
motors'' authority. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) As discussed in section
III.A of this document, the statute does not limit DOE's authority to
regulate an electric motor with respect to whether they are stand-alone
equipment items or as components of a covered product or covered
equipment. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (providing that standards for
electric motors be applied to electric motors manufactured ``alone or
as a component of another piece of equipment'') DOE's previous
determination in the December 2013 Final Rule to exclude air-over
electric motors from scope was due to insufficient information
available to DOE at the time to support establishment of a test method.
78 FR 75962, 75974-75975. Since that time, NEMA published a test
standard for air-over motors in Section IV, ``Performance Standards
Applying to All Machines,'' Part 34 ``Air-Over Motor Efficiency Test
Method'' of NEMA MG 1-2016 (``NEMA Air-over Motor Efficiency Test
Method''). The air-over method was originally published as part of the
2017 NEMA MG-1 Supplements and is also included in the latest version
of NEMA MG 1-2016. Therefore, DOE does not consider including air-over
electric motors within its test procedure scope significantly
burdensome because the NEMA test method (which is an industry-accepted
method) has existed since 2017. Further, based on a general market
review, DOE notes that several manufacturers have already been
representing the performance of their air-over electric motors in
marketing materials. Based on the additional information and the
development of an industry standard appropriate for air-over electric
motors, DOE is including air-over electric motors within scope of the
test procedure. DOE believes that including such a test procedure
within its regulations will provide consistent and comparable
efficiency ratings for consumers and provide manufacturers with a level
playing field.
DOE notes that air-over electric motors are not currently subject
to energy conservation standards in 10 CFR 431.25(l)(1). Manufacturers
would not be required to use the test procedure for certification,
until such time as a standard is established. If a manufacturer
voluntarily chooses to make representations about the energy
consumption or cost of energy for these motors such representations
must be based on the use of that test procedure beginning 180 days
following publication of a final rule. DOE's amendments do not require
manufacturers who do not currently make voluntary representations to
then begin making public representations of efficiency. (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)(1)) Manufacturers would be required to test such motors in
accordance with the DOE test procedure at such time as compliance is
required with a labeling or energy conservation standard requirement
should such a requirement be established. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b); 42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
In addition, DOE notes that the industry test procedure
incorporated by reference (see section III.D.1) are only applicable to
air-over motors that are induction motors and capable of operating
without an inverter. As such, they are not applicable to air-over
electric motors that are synchronous electric motors and to air-over
electric motors that are inverter-only. Accordingly, DOE clarifies that
it did not propose and is not adopting to include air-over electric
motors that are synchronous electric motors and air-over electric
motors that are inverter-only in the scope of the test procedure. DOE
adopts to add a clarification in the scope section of the test
procedure in appendix B to subpart B to specify which air-over electric
motors are included in the test procedure.
DOE also received a number of comments on the air-over electric
motor definition and test method, which are discussed in section
III.B.4 and section III.D.1 of this document, respectively.
4. AC Induction Electric Motors Greater Than 500 Horsepower
DOE currently specifies that its test procedures and energy
conservation standards for electric motors do not apply to motors that
produce greater than 500 horsepower (373 kW). 10 CFR 431.25(g)(8);
appendix B, Note.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to expand the scope of the
test procedure to include induction electric motors with a horsepower
rating greater than 500 hp and up to 750 hp, that otherwise meet the
criteria provided in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and are not currently listed at
10 CFR 431.25(l)(2)-(4). 86 FR 71710, 71719.
In response, CEMEP supported expanding the test procedure's scope
to include motors between 500 and 750 hp that otherwise meet the
conditions of 10 CFR 431.25(g). (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2) NEMA supported
adding motors

[[Page 63598]]

between 500 and 750 hp to the energy conservation standards but noted
there are currently no NEMA Design A, B, or C performance requirements
for this horsepower range, and that these requirements would need to be
developed. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7) The CA IOUs supported DOE's inclusion
of 500+ hp motors to the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 46)
The Joint Advocates supported expanding the scope beyond 500 hp and
suggested the upper limit should be 1000 hp and identified models that
they asserted would be included in scope even with a limit of 600V
input voltage. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 3) Grundfos questioned
how many motors were sold in this range and what energy savings could
be captured by including 500 to 750 hp motors into the scope of the
test procedure. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2) Advanced Energy stated that
motors of this size are outside of its lab test capabilities, but as a
nationally recognized certification program for electric and small
electric motor efficiency, its certification scheme allows it to
certify motors of this size by witnessing testing in manufacturer's
accredited labs. Accordingly, they commented that they offer
certification services for covered motor products above 250 hp.
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 3)
As discussed in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE's review of catalog
offerings identified large induction motors rated up to 750 hp
currently being sold in the market, and the majority of the models
identified listed full-load efficiencies even though DOE currently does
not regulate electric motors greater than 500 hp. 86 FR 71710, 71719.
Based on discussions with a subject matter expert, DOE understands that
most of these large motors rely on the alternative efficiency
determination method (``AEDM'') permitted under 10 CFR 431.17 to
determine full-load efficiencies for regulated electric motors at and
under 500 hp.\13\ Id. Accordingly, DOE understands that there are
motors sold in the range between 500 and 750 hp. DOE was unable to
identify any motors for sale greater than 750 hp with input voltages up
to 600 volts. Accordingly, DOE will not be expanding the horsepower
limit of the test procedure beyond 750 hp. While there may be motors
available at input voltages greater than 600 volts, in this final rule,
DOE is maintaining the approach from the December 2021 NOPR proposal to
limit the voltage to 600 volts, consistent with other in-scope electric
motors defined by 10 CFR 431.25(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ An AEDM may be used to determine the average full-load
efficiency of one or more of a manufacturer's basic models if the
average full-load efficiency of at least five of its other basic
models is determined through testing. 10 CFR 431.17(a)(1). An AEDM
applied to a basic model must be: (i) derived from a mathematical
model that represents the mechanical and electrical characteristics
of that basic model, and (ii) based on engineering or statistical
analysis, computer simulation or modeling, or other analytic
evaluation of performance data. 10 CFR 431.17(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE notes that the proposed expanded scope would have required that
an electric motor meet all of the performance requirements of one of
the following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC
Design N or H motor. 10 CFR 431.25(g)(9) While DOE agrees with NEMA's
comment that there are no NEMA Design A, B, or C performance
requirements for motors greater than 500 hp, there are performance
requirements for IEC Design N or H motors for the same range. As such,
the IEC Design N or H performance requirements would be applicable for
this horsepower range instead of the NEMA Design A, B, or C performance
requirements.
Accordingly, consistent with the proposed scope expansion and
related discussion from the December 2021 NOPR and the reasons set
forth in the preceding paragraphs, DOE is expanding the scope of the
test procedure to include induction electric motors with a horsepower
rating greater than 500 hp and up to 750 hp that otherwise meet the
criteria provided in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and are not currently listed at
10 CFR 431.25(l)(2)-(4).
5. SNEMs
An SEM is a NEMA general purpose AC single-speed induction motor,
built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with NEMA
Standards Publication MG1-1987, including IEC metric equivalent motors.
See 42 U.S.C. 6311(G); see also 10 CFR 431.442 (clarifying that the
statutory definition for ``small electric motor'' includes IEC metric
equivalent motors). Table III-1 and Table III-2 provide a general
description of currently regulated small electric motors and electric
motors.

Table III-1--General Description of Single-Phase Induction Motors
Currently Subject to Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA frame size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-Digit NEMA
Motor enclosure construction 2-Digit NEMA frame frame size or
size above
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open.......................... NEMA general purpose None.
capacitor-start
induction run,
capacitor-start
capacitor run motors
between 0.25 and 3 hp.
Enclosed...................... None.................. None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: this table provides a high-level description. Full description of
motors currently subject to energy conservation standards and test
procedures available at 10 CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X.

Table III--2 General Description of Polyphase Phase Induction Motors
Currently Subject to Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA frame size
-----------------------------------------
Motor enclosure construction 3-Digit NEMA
2-Digit NEMA frame frame size or
size above
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open.......................... NEMA general purpose Between 1-500
motor between 0.25 hp.
and 3 hp.
Enclosed...................... NEMA 56-frame size Between 1-500
only between 1-500 hp. hp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: this table provides a high-level description. Full description of
motors currently subject to energy conservation standards and test
procedures in available at 10 CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X.

[[Page 63599]]

This section addresses electric motors that do not fall within the
SEM definition as described above but that are generally considered
``small'' by industry (i.e., ``small, non-small-electric-motor electric
motor,'' or ``SNEM''). In this section, DOE specifically discusses
SNEMs that are induction motors. Some of these motors are marketed as
general purpose by manufacturers, although they do not meet the
definition of small electric motor at 10 CFR 431.442.\14\ Non-induction
motor topologies (specifically certain synchronous electric motors) are
discussed in section III.A.7 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Based on DOE review of catalogs from four major
manufacturers, out of 3262 SNEMs in scope identified, 1300 were
marketed either general (1128) or definite purpose (172).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include test procedures
for additional electric motors not covered under the current electric
motors test procedure and that do not meet the definition of small
electric motors in 10 CFR part 431, subpart X, but are nonetheless
considered ``small,'' i.e., SNEMs. 86 FR 71710, 71719-71725. DOE
proposed to distinguish SNEMs from SEMs by specifying combinations of
frame size, rated motor horsepower, enclosure construction, and
additional performance criteria that are not currently included in the
existing electric motors and small electric motors regulations at 10
CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X (See Table III-1 and Table III-2
for electric motors and small electric motors that are currently
regulated). Id.
Accordingly, DOE proposed the following definition for this
expanded scope in the December 2021 NOPR:

Small non-small-electric-motor electric motor (``SNEMs'') means
an electric motor that:
(a) Is not a small electric motor, as defined at Sec. 431.442
and is not dedicated-purpose pool pump motors as defined at Sec.
431.483;
(b) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty
type S1 (IEC);
(c) Is capable of operating on polyphase or single-phase
alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power (with or
without an inverter);
(d) Is rated for 600 volts or less;
(e) Is a single-speed induction motor;
(f) Produces a rated motor horsepower greater than or equal to
0.25 horsepower (0.18 kW); and
(g) Is built in the following frame sizes: any frame sizes if
the motor operates on single-phase power; any frame size if the
motor operates on polyphase power, and has a rated motor horsepower
less than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW); or a two-digit NEMA frame size (or
IEC metric equivalent), if the motor operates on polyphase power,
has a rated motor horsepower equal to or greater than 1 horsepower
(0.75 kW), and is not an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric
equivalent).

86 FR 71710, 71780.
DOE received a number of comments on how the criteria for SNEMs was
defined. Some commenters supported including SNEMs in the scope of the
test procedure as proposed. Commenters noted that these motors are very
similar in application, construction, and performance to existing
covered equipment, and therefore should be covered. (Advanced Energy,
No. 33 at p. 3; NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) Further, NEEA/NWPCC
encouraged DOE to include all motors that directly compete against each
other in the test procedure so that they can be fairly compared against
other motor designs. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) Other commenters,
however, criticized DOE's approach. ABB stated that the criteria for
establishing if a product is in the proposed scope as an SNEM are not
adequately defined, and recommended that DOE list the criteria that an
SNEM must satisfy, citing the nine criteria DOE has already listed for
electric motors in 10 CFR 431.25. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 1) NEMA added that
the proposed SNEM definition needs to be clearer since it does not
allow manufacturers to clearly identify what motors in their inventory
would fall within the SNEM category. NEMA requested that DOE provide
specific examples of SNEMs and better identify whether an electric
motors is an SNEM. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7) HI offered a similar view,
noting that the proposed SNEM scope is too broad and that the proposed
definition's overly-broad nature prevented HI from identifying areas of
concern. (HI, No. 30 at p. 2)
DOE proposed to distinguish SNEMs by specifying combinations of
frame sizes, rated motor horsepower, enclosure construction, and
additional performance criteria that are not currently included in the
existing electric motors and small electric motors regulations at 10
CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X (See Table III-1 and Table III-2,
and proposed definition for SNEM earlier in this section). DOE proposed
seven specific criteria to identify whether an electric motor is a
SNEM, an approach similar to how DOE identifies those electric motors
that are subject to the standards at 10 CFR 431.25. If an electric
motor meets the seven proposed criteria, then it is an SNEM. ABB
recommended listing criteria to identify the appropriate scope (ABB,
No. 18 at p. 1), which DOE notes is consistent with the approach DOE
proposed in the December 2021 NOPR and is consistent with how
specifications are provided for motors currently in scope in 10 CFR
431.25(g). Further, other commenters did not identify any specific
areas of confusion. In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE provided a detailed
description on how the SNEM scope was determined based on the current
SEM and electric motor scope. 86 FR 71710, 71719-71725. In all, it is
DOE's understanding that the proposed specifications are sufficient to
specify the SNEM scope. DOE is, however, clarifying some of the
proposed criteria related to frame size, speed, and power supply in
response to other comments.
For example, the Joint Advocates suggested that multi-speed SNEMs
should be included in the scope as well, and that including only
single-speed SNEMs is inconsistent with the proposed broader test
procedure scope that includes variable-speed motors. They raised the
concern of a loophole with inefficient multi-speed SNEMs replacing more
efficient single-speed SNEMs. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at pp. 3-4) The
CA IOUs recommended including multi-speed SNEMs to the test procedure's
scope, citing as support the scenario where a consumer seeks to replace
a failed variable-speed electrically commutated motor (``ECM'') in a
residential furnace fan with a lower first cost, less efficient, multi-
speed permanent split capacitor (``PSC'') motor. They also stated that
multi-speed PSC and shaded-pole motors are in widespread use. (CA IOUs,
No. 32.1 at p. 42)
After careful consideration of these comments, DOE has decided at
this time to retain its single-speed limitation for SNEMs. As
explained, DOE is taking this step to ensure coverage of those motors
that are generally considered small by industry that have similarities
to motors that DOE currently regulates as SEMs at 10 CFR part 431
subpart X--the scope of which only includes single-speed induction
motors. See 10 CFR 431.442.
Commenters also had some concerns with the inclusion of the clause
``with or without an inverter'' within the SNEM definition.
Specifically, Grundfos stated that the proposed SNEM definition is
confusing and that DOE should clarify the intent with the ``single
speed'' and ``with or without an inverter'' requirements to remove any
ambiguity on the intention. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2) HI stated that
for clarity, the clause ``with or without an inverter'' should be
removed from the criteria. (HI, No. 30 at p. 2) DOE re-evaluated the
proposed text relevant to inverters. DOE's intention with the proposal
was

[[Page 63600]]

to ensure that in-scope electric motors that satisfy the SNEM
definition would be either: (1) single-speed and capable of operating
without an inverter; or (2) inverter-only electric motors operating
with an inverter and capable of varying speed.\15\ Therefore, to
clarify this intent, DOE is revising the language used to describe
SNEMs to state this more directly. First, to add clarity, DOE is
replacing the proposed criteria ``Is capable of operating on polyphase
or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power
(with or without an inverter)'' with ``Operates on polyphase or single-
phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is
used with an inverter that operates on polyphase or single-phase
alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power.'' Second, to
clarify its intent, DOE is replacing the proposed criterion ``Is a
single-speed induction motor'' with a revised one that accounts for
inverter-only electric motors as follows: ``Is a single-speed induction
motor capable of operating without an inverter or is an inverter-only
electric motor.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ See discussion of the term ``inverter-only electric motor''
in section III.B.3 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separately, HI had concerns regarding how the frame sizes should be
identified within the SNEM definition. HI commented that DOE should
explicitly list the NEMA and IEC equivalents frame sizes that are
covered. (HI, No. 30 at p. 2) Further, HI noted that the proposed phase
``any frame size'' in the SNEM definition is not defined, and could
imply a motor of any dimensions, or a motor of any defined NEMA or IEC
frame size is covered. They suggested that this ambiguity needs to be
remedied. Id. DOE clarifies in this final rule that the proposed ``any
frame size'' is intended to designate ``any NEMA or IEC-equivalent''
frame size. As such, in this final rule, DOE is modifying the term
``any frame size'' to ``any two-, or three- digit NEMA frame size (or
IEC-equivalent).'' DOE notes that there are no four-digit frames sizes
that qualify as SNEMs.
Finally, DOE also received comments regarding the proposed term
``small non-small-electric-motor electric motor,'' or ``SNEM''. NEEA/
NWPCC recommended that DOE reconsider the use of the term ``small non-
small-electric-motor electric motor'' because it is a confusing term
for these motors. NEEA/NWPCC suggested ``Other Small HP Motors (OSHM)''
or ``Other Small Electric Motors (OSEM)'' as two possible options.
(NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) Grundfos stated that the DOE should
identify a more suitable, and less confusing name for this class of
motors. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2) DOE did not receive any other
recommendations regarding an alternate to the proposed ``SNEM'' term.
DOE notes that the term explicitly states that it is a ``non-small-
electric-motor.'' This specifies that SEMs, as defined in 10 CFR
431.442, are not part of this scope. Accordingly, DOE is maintaining
the term ``SNEM'' in this final rule.
Accordingly, DOE is finalizing the scope to cover SNEMs, which DOE
is defining as:
Small non-small-electric-motor electric motor (``SNEM'') means an
electric motor that:
(a) Is not a small electric motor, as defined Sec. 431.442 and is
not a dedicated-purpose pool pump motor as defined at Sec. 431.483;
(b) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type
S1 (IEC);
(c) Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-
hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that
operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz)
sinusoidal line power;
(d) Is rated for 600 volts or less;
(e) Is a single-speed induction motor capable of operating without
an inverter or is an inverter-only electric motor;
(f) Produces a rated motor horsepower greater than or equal to 0.25
horsepower (0.18 kW); and
(g) Is built in the following frame sizes: any two-, or three-
digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent) if the motor operates
on single-phase power; any two-, or three-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC
metric equivalent) if the motor operates on polyphase power, and has a
rated motor horsepower less than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW); or a two-digit
NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), if the motor operates on
polyphase power, has a rated motor horsepower equal to or greater than
1 horsepower (0.75 kW), and is not an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or
IEC metric equivalent).
6. AC Induction Inverter-Only Electric Motors
The current electric motor test procedures apply to AC induction
motors except for those AC induction motors that are ``inverter-only
electric motors.'' \16\ These motors are an exempted category of
electric motors listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l)(5).\17\ As it noted in its
May 2014 Final Rule, DOE exempted these electric motors from its
standards at 10 CFR 431.25 in the absence of a reliable and repeatable
method to test their efficiency. 79 FR 30934, 30945. In the December
2021 NOPR, DOE noted that in the interim since its 2014 rule was
published, the industry has developed several methods to test inverter-
only motors. As a result of this development, DOE proposed to include
within the electric motor test procedure's scope those AC induction
inverter-only electric motors that meet both the criteria listed at 10
CFR 431.25(g) and the proposed SNEM scope. 86 FR 71710, 71725-71726.
Further, as discussed in section III.A.4 of this section, DOE also
separately proposed to include within the test procedure's scope those
induction electric motors with a horsepower rating greater than 500 hp
and up to 750 hp that otherwise meet the criteria provided in 10 CFR
431.25(g) and are not currently listed as exempt at 10 CFR
431.25(l)(2)-(4). 86 FR 71710, 71719.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ NEMA MG-1 2016, Paragraph 30.2.1.5 defines the term
``control'' for motors receiving AC power, as ``devices that are
also called inverters and converters. These are ``electronic devices
that convert an input AC or DC power into a controlled output AC
voltage or current..''.'' Converters can also be found in motors
that receive DC power and include electronic devices that convert an
AC or DC power input into a controlled output DC voltage or current.
See section III.B.3 of this final rule.
\17\ DOE defines an ``inverter-only electric motor'' as an
electric motor that is capable of rated operation solely with an
inverter, and is not intended for operation when directly connected
to polyphase, sinusoidal line power.'' 10 CFR 431.12 DOE notes that
more generally, the requirement to operate with an inverter also
means that that inverter-only motors are not intended for operation
when directly connected to single-phase, sinusoidal line power or to
DC power. See section III.B.3 of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response, several stakeholders objected to the inclusion of
inverter-only electric motors and suggested that DOE continue to exempt
them from coverage under the test procedure. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7;
CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 24 at p. 6; AI Group, No. 25 at p.
4; Regal, No. 28 at p. 1; Trane, No. 31 at pp. 3, 5-6) Further, CEMEP
suggested that DOE address inverter-only electric motors in a separate
(presumably dedicated) rulemaking. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2) ABB
supported NEMA's request that inverter-only motors be excluded from the
test procedure because inverter-only motors are different from
currently covered electric motors that are operated from inverters
(presumably inverter-capable) to operate continuous loads like pumps
and fans. On the other hand, ABB noted that inverter-only motors are
rated by the amount of torque they produce and are generally not used
for continuous fixed loads; instead, they operate at widely varying
loads or directions in applications such as sawmill carriage drives,
machine tools and other high-performance machinery. ABB also commented
that

[[Page 63601]]

inverter-only motors may have a special voltage/frequency combination
that allows them to operate at very high speeds with up to 400 Hz
input, and these motors are normally cooled by separately powered fans
and may have their laminations exposed with no external frame. Finally,
regarding inverters, ABB stated that inverters may vary from micro
designs to very large drives with widely varying topography, and some
newer drive topographies may result in a more efficient drive but at
the expense of producing additional harmonics, heating, and reduced
efficiency from the motor. (ABB, No. 18 at pp. 2-3) AI Group stated
that inverter-only motors are rarely general-purpose motors and have
non-continuous duty applications with high cycling and high-performance
demands. In its view, these special characteristics and the low volume
of sales for inverter-only motors favor excluding them from the scope
of the test procedure. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 4)
Similarly, NEMA, along with a number of individual electric motor
manufacturers, also supported excluding inverter-only motors from the
test procedure's scope. It explained that the motor and drive
combination required to operate is a ``motor-drive system''--not an
electric motor--and should not fall within the scope of an electric
motor test procedure. It further stated that inverter-only motors are
not general purpose and have unique performance requirements that
complicate expressions of efficiency. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7) Regal also
opposed including inverter-only motors within the scope of DOE's test
procedure. They stated that they already test the motors according to
DOE requirements for the equipment into which these motors are
installed, and that regulating these motors separately would increase
costs for no benefit. (Regal, No. 28 at p. 1) Trane commented that
inverter-only motors should not be included in the scope because, in
its view, there are no energy savings gained and that testing related
to these electric motors should occur as part of the overall system in
which they are installed. (Trane, No. 31 at pp. 3, 5-6)
In contrast, several stakeholders supported the inclusion of
inverter-only electric motors as part of the test procedure's scope.
(Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 4; Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2; CA IOUs,
No. 32.1 at p. 19; Advanced Energy, No. 33 at pp. 3-4; NEEA/NWPCC, No.
37 at p. 3) The CA IOUs commented that the inclusion of inverter-only
motors will provide end-users with a representative method to compare
these motors with conventional induction motors combined with variable-
frequency drives. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 19) The CA IOUs also
provided examples of case studies where inverter-only motors have
successfully substituted conventional induction motors combined with
VFDs. (CA IOUs, No. 32.2 at pp. 1-15) The Joint Advocates commented
that inverter-only motors with variable-speed capabilities may serve as
more energy efficient replacements for currently covered and newly
included (e.g., SNEM) AC induction motors, and that inclusion of these
more energy efficient motor types may unlock significant potential
energy savings. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 4) Advanced Energy
stated that in the past, DOE excluded inverter-only motors because
these motors can only be operated continuously when connected to an
inverter, and there may be difficulty testing the combined motor and
inverter. However, it noted that in practice, there are induction
machines marked as ``inverter-only'' that can be relatively more easily
tested than synchronous motors. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at pp. 3-4)
As discussed in section III.A.1, EPCA previously defined the term
``electric motor'' as encompassing specific motors that are general
purpose. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (2006)) Section 313(a)(2) of EISA
2007 removed that definition and the prior limits that narrowly defined
what types of motors would be considered as electric motors. Further,
section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 established energy conservation
standards for four types of electric motors (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) The
term ``electric motor'' was left undefined. EPCA does not limit
``electric motors'' to ``general purpose.''
In the May 2012 Final Rule, DOE determined a regulatory definition
for ``electric motor'' was necessary, and therefore DOE adopted the
broader definition of ``electric motor'' currently found in 10 CFR
431.12. Specifically, DOE noted that the absence of a definition may
cause confusion about which electric motors are required to comply with
mandatory test procedures and energy conservation standards. 77 FR
26608, 26613. Further, DOE noted that this broader approach would allow
DOE to fill the definitional gap created by the EISA 2007 amendments
while providing DOE with the flexibility to set energy conservation
standards for other types of electric motors without having to
continuously update the definition of ``electric motors'' each time DOE
sets energy conservation standards for a new subset of electric motors.
Id.
In addition, the statute does not limit DOE's authority to regulate
an electric motor with respect to whether ``electric motors'' are
stand-alone equipment items or components of a covered product or
covered equipment. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (providing that standards
for electric motors be applied to electric motors manufactured ``alone
or as a component of another piece of equipment'') As such, inverter-
only electric motors not being general purpose or components of another
covered product or equipment have no bearing on whether DOE may
regulate these motors.
Further, an inverter-only electric motor requiring an inverter to
operate also has no bearing on whether DOE may regulate these motors.
An electric motor is defined as a machine that converts electrical
power into rotational mechanical power. 10 CFR 431.12. Inverter-only
electric motors require the inverter to operate in the field to convert
electrical power into rotational mechanical power. Inverter-only motors
cannot be run continuously when directly connected to a 60-hertz, AC
polyphase sinusoidal power source. Therefore, a separate, special
electronic controller, called an inverter, is used to alter the power
signal to the motor. The inverter can be physically combined with the
motor into a single unit, may be physically separate from the motor, or
may not be included in the motor, but the motor is unable to operate
without a drive. As such, this electric motor would remain inoperable
if it does not include an inverter and would need to include both the
inverter-only electric motor and the inverter-component to convert
electrical power into rotational mechanical power. For this reason, the
combination of these two components, in DOE's view, meets the
definition of an electric motor and DOE has included this combination
within the scope of its test procedure.
In the December 2013 Final Rule, DOE considered inverter-only
electric motors as part of the scope and only excluded these motors
from the test procedure due to the absence of a reliable and repeatable
method to test them for efficiency. 78 FR 75962, 75989. In the December
2021 NOPR, DOE noted that in the interim since the December 2013 Final
Rule, the industry has developed several methods to test inverter-only
motors. 86 FR 71710, 71725-71726. These industry test methods are
discussed further in section III.D.3.
Accordingly, DOE is including inverter-only electric motors within
the scope of this test procedure. Establishing test procedures for
these

[[Page 63602]]

motors would allow for standardized representations of efficiency of
motors.
As proposed in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE will only be including
within scope the following inverter-only electric motors: (1) AC
induction inverter-only electric motors that meet the criteria listed
at 10 CFR 431.25(g); and (2) Inverter-only motors that meet the SNEM
definition. In addition, as discussed in section III.A.3 of this
document, DOE is not including air-over inverter-only electric motors.
In response to stakeholder comments, DOE is clarifying some of the
requirements. First, the criteria in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and the SNEM
scope presented in section III.A.5 both require that the motor be rated
for continuous duty. Therefore, non-continuous duty motors are not
included. Second, per 10 CFR 431.25(g) and the SNEM definition, in-
scope inverter-only electric motors would be those motors built using
certain NEMA (or IEC equivalent) frame sizes. Third, DOE is requiring
that the rated frequency be limited to 60 Hz (see section III.G.1). As
such, the scope of the test procedure is limited to inverter-only
electric motors with a rated frequency of 60 Hz, where the rated
frequency corresponds to the frequency of the electricity supplied to
the inverter (see section III.G.1). Finally, DOE is requiring that
inverter-only electric motors be tested with an inverter (see section
III.D.3); therefore, the efficiency determined would be a combined
efficiency of the motor and inverter, not just the efficiency of the
motor or the inverter measured individually and would account for any
interactions between the motor and the inverter (e.g. increase in
harmonics). As such, only inverter-only electric motors that meet the
specific requirements in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and are SNEMs, including
those discussed in this paragraph, would be included in scope of the
test procedure.
In this final rule, DOE is incorporating the proposed inverter-only
electric motors in scope. Further discussion on the test procedure is
provided in section III.D.3 of this document, and discussion of the
metric is provided in section III.E. of this document.
7. Synchronous Electric Motors
The current electric motor test procedures apply only to induction
electric motors. 10 CFR 431.25(g)(1), appendix B, Note.
The ``induction motor'' criteria exclude synchronous electric
motors from the scope. A ``synchronous electric motor'' is an electric
motor in which the average speed of the normal operation of the motor
is exactly proportional to the frequency of the power supply to which
it is connected, regardless of load.\18\ In contrast, in an induction
electric motor, the average speed of the normal operation of the motor
is not proportional to the frequency of the power supply to which the
motor is connected.\19\ For example, a 4-pole synchronous electric
motor will rotate at 1800 rpm when connected to 60 Hz power even when
the load varies while a 4-pole induction electric motor in the same
setup will slow down as load increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ NEMA MG 1-2016 Paragraph 1.17.3.4 defines a ``synchronous
machine,'' as an ``alternating-current machine in which the average
speed of the normal operation is exactly proportional to the
frequency of the system to which it is connected.''
\19\ NEMA MG 1-2016 Paragraph 1.17.3.3 defines an ``induction
machine,'' as an ``an asynchronous machine that comprises a magnetic
circuit interlinked with two electric circuits or sets of circuits,
rotating with respect to each other and in which power is
transferred from one circuit to another by electromagnetic
induction.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Synchronous electric motors can operate as either direct-on-line
(connected directly to the power supply) or inverter-fed (connected to
an inverter). Some inverter-fed electric motors require being connected
to an inverter to operate (i.e., inverter-only electric motors) while
others are capable of operating both direct-on-line or connected to an
inverter (i.e., inverter-capable electric motors).
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that it identified new
industry standards that apply to synchronous electric motors, and on
the basis of this finding, proposed to include within the test
procedure's scope synchronous electric motors with the following
characteristics: \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ DOE notes that while the preamble section of the December
2021 NOPR proposed to specify that synchronous electric motors ``are
rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1
(IEC),'' (see 86 FR 71710, 71727) the proposed regulatory text of
the notice did not include that requirement (see 86 FR 71710,
71780). DOE is clarifying in this final rule that the regulatory
text mistakenly excluded this requirement.

Table III-3--Synchronous Electric Motors Proposed for Inclusion in Scope
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria No. Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. Are not dedicated-purpose pool pump
motors as defined at 10 CFR
431.483.
2................................. Are synchronous electric motors;
3................................. Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1)
operation or for duty type S1
(IEC);
4................................. Capable of operating on polyphase or
single-phase alternating current 60-
hertz (Hz); sinusoidal line power
(with or without an inverter);
5................................. Are rated 600 volts or less;
6................................. Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, 8-, 10-, or 12-
pole configuration.
7................................. Produce at least 0.25 horsepower
(hp) (0.18 kilowatt (kW)) but not
greater than 750 hp (373 kW).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

86 FR 71710, 71726-71727.
Several stakeholders agreed with including synchronous electric
motors in scope and with the proposed criteria. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p.
2; NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) The Joint Advocates supported DOE's
proposed expansion of scope to include synchronous motors. (Joint
Advocates, No. 27 at pp. 4-5)
On the other hand, several commenters urged continuing to exempt
synchronous electric motors from the test procedure's scope, with some
suggesting that DOE evaluate these motors in a separate dedicated
rulemaking. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 3; CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; AI Group, No.
25 at p. 4; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 8) Specifically, ABB commented that
synchronous motors could be used in widely differing product
categories, like AC servo motors, which are not used for continuous
load applications but for incremental motion and positioning as on
machine tools and industrial robots. It added that other larger
synchronous motors are often used in freshwater pumps and fans, both
extended products that have a DOE regulation in effect or in
development. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 3) CEMEP also did not support the scope
of the definition as it would include servo-motors. (CEMEP, No. 19 at
p. 2) AI Group stated that synchronous motors are not general purpose
motors and have many different designs, characteristics, and
definitions as to what constitutes a synchronous

[[Page 63603]]

motor, and as such should be excluded from the scope of the test
procedure. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 4)
As already discussed in section III.A.1 and section III.A.7 of this
document, EPCA, as amended through EISA 2007, provides statutory
authority for the regulation of expanded scope of motors. EPCA does not
limit ``electric motors'' to ``general purpose.'' In addition, the
statute does not limit DOE's authority to regulate an electric motor
with respect to whether they are stand-alone equipment items or are
components of a covered product or covered equipment. See 42 U.S.C.
6313(b)(1) (providing that standards for electric motors be applied to
electric motors manufactured ``alone or as a component of another piece
of equipment'') Whether synchronous electric motors fall outside the
category of being general purpose (i.e., being special purpose or
definite purpose) or are used as components of other covered products
and equipment have no bearing on DOE's authority to regulate these
motors.
Further, as DOE presented in the December 2021 NOPR, industry
standards exist that apply to in-scope synchronous electric motors. 86
FR 71710, 71726-71727. Establishing test procedures for these motors
would allow for standardized representations of motor efficiency. DOE
notes that these motors are typically used as higher efficiency
replacements for single-speed induction motors that DOE currently
regulates. Accordingly, establishing a test procedure for standardized
representations of synchronous electric motors would reduce market
confusion by providing comparable ratings for substitutable induction
motors. As discussed in section III.E, DOE is requiring expanded scope
motors, including synchronous electric motors, to be represented based
on average full-load efficiency, similar to current in-scope electric
motors. Accordingly, a test procedure for synchronous electric motors
would ensure that end users are provided with ratings from a uniform
test method that can be used to compare and select between electric
motors of competing technologies that would ultimately be used in the
same end-use applications. DOE notes that, as proposed in the December
2021 NOPR, DOE is only including within the test procedure's scope
those synchronous motors that are rated for continuous duty (MG 1)
operation. As a result, non-continuous duty synchronous electric motors
would continue to remain out of scope.
The following paragraphs summarize comments and responses regarding
several specific criteria for synchronous electric motors that DOE
proposed in the December 2021 NOPR (See Table III-3 describing the
proposal).
The Joint Advocates stated that DOE should clarify the definition
of synchronous motors to more explicitly include inverter-fed
synchronous motors. Specifically, the Joint Advocates noted potential
concerns about whether the proposed definition could be interpreted as
requiring a synchronous motor to start and run on sinusoidal line power
(i.e., not inverter-fed), which would conflict with their understanding
that DOE intended to exclude only those synchronous motors that start
and run directly from a DC power source. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at
pp. 4-5) In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE's intention for the synchronous
electric motor scope was to include those that operate either direct-
on-line (connected directly to the power supply) or as inverter-fed
(connected to an inverter). 86 FR 71710, 71727; See Criterion 4 in
Table III.8. DOE acknowledged a number of inverter-fed synchronous
electric motors that are not currently included in the test procedures
for electric motors, including line start permanent magnet (``LSPM'');
\21\ permanent magnet AC (``PMAC,'' also known as permanent magnet
synchronous motor (``PMSM'') or brushless AC); switched reluctance
(``SR''); synchronous reluctance motors (``SynRMs''); and
electronically commutated motor (``ECMs'').\22\ 86 FR 71710, 71726.
Accordingly, to clarify in this final rule, DOE has updated the
description that motors used with an inverter that operate on polyphase
or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power
are included in the synchronous electric motor scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Advanced Energy noted that LSPM motors are synchronous
motors. Though these motors have a squirrel cage, they do not
operate on the principle of induction as is attributed to regular
induction motors. The cage is simply for starting the motor and
these motors are essentially synchronous motors. (Docket No. EERE-
2017-BT-TP-0047; Advanced Energy, No. 25 at p. 3) This technology is
described further in Chapter 3 of the technical support document
accompanying the May 2014 Final Rule: During the motor transient
start up, the squirrel cage in the rotor contributes to the
production of enough torque to start the rotation of the rotor,
albeit at an asynchronous speed. When the speed of the rotor
approaches synchronous speed, the constant magnetic field of the
permanent magnet locks to the rotating stator field, thereby pulling
the rotor into synchronous operation. See DOE Technical Support
Document (Electric Motors Standards Final Rule) (May 2014) (Docket
No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0108).
\22\ All 5 topologies are referred to as ``advanced motor
technologies'' and represent motor technologies that have been more
recently introduced on the market and have variable speed
capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While Advanced Energy supported including synchronous motors in
scope, it requested a modification to the proposed pole criteria.
Advanced Energy explained that synchronous motors cannot be classified
in the same manner as induction motors regarding magnetic pole
configuration. It noted that some synchronous motors have significantly
more poles than what designates the operating speed, and this
designation may be present on the motor nameplate. Rather than pole
count, Advanced Energy suggested DOE use rated speed. (Advanced Energy,
No. 33 at p. 4)
DOE's proposal to include the pole configuration in the synchronous
electric motors description sought to maintain consistency with how DOE
describes current in-scope electric motors in 10 CFR 431.25(g)(6). The
synchronous speed of any electric motor is determined by the pole count
and the input frequency to the motor. For direct-on-line induction
motors, the input frequency is a fixed value determined by the
electricity supply grid the motor is connected to, so the synchronous
speed would then only vary as the pole count varies. For synchronous
motors, the input frequency to the motor is not fixed because the
inverter supplying power to the motor can supply different frequencies
on command, allowing two synchronous motors with different pole counts
to have the same synchronous speed. As such, DOE agrees with Advanced
Energy that pole configuration is not as critical a characteristic of
synchronous electric motor compared to induction motors. Because of
this inconsistency between synchronous motors and induction motors, DOE
no longer sees a need to maintain consistency on the pole count scope
criterion between the two groups of electric motors. Since pole count
is not nearly as critical to the operation of a synchronous motor, DOE
is removing the proposed pole configuration requirement from the
synchronous electric motor description.
ebm-papst commented that synchronous air-over motors do not fit
into the scope of NEMA MG 1-2016 Part 34's air-over electric motor test
method. (ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 3) DOE clarifies in this final rule
that DOE is not including in the test procedure's scope synchronous
electric motors that are also air-over electric motors. DOE agrees that
the test procedure for air-over electric motors is only specific to
induction motors and not the synchronous electric motors at issue in
this rulemaking. (See further discussion in section III.D.1 of this
document).
Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is defining synchronous
electric motor as follows:

[[Page 63604]]

A Synchronous Electric Motor means an electric motor that:
(a) Is not a dedicated pool pump motor as defined at Sec. 431.483,
or is not an air-over electric motor;
(b) Is a synchronous electric motor;
(c) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type
S1 (IEC);
(d) Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-
hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that
operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz)
sinusoidal line power;
(e) Is rated 600 volts or less; and
(f) Produces at least 0.25 hp (0.18 kW) but not greater than 750 hp
(559 kW).
8. Submersible Electric Motors
DOE defines a ``submersible electric motor'' as an electric motor
that: (1) is intended to operate continuously only while submerged in
liquid; (2) is capable of operation while submerged in liquid for an
indefinite period of time; and (3) has been sealed to prevent ingress
of liquid from contacting the motor's internal parts. 10 CFR 431.12.
These motors are currently exempt from the energy conservation
standards. 10 CFR 431.25(l)(4). In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed
to include submersible electric motors within the test procedure's
scope. 86 FR 71710, 71718-71719. DOE's proposal was informed in part by
its initial determination that the air-over test methods developed by
NEMA could be adapted as a test method for submersible electric motors
either by using an external blower to cool the motor or without the
need to submerge the motor in a liquid during testing to cool the
motor. With this potential modification to the air-over test method in
mind, DOE proposed to include submersible electric motors within the
scope of DOE's test procedures. 86 FR 71710, 71749-71750.
Several commenters suggested that the current definition of
submersible electric motors is too broad for the purpose of adding them
to the test procedure scope, in that the definition could cover a wide
range of products, each of which have different design constraints and
should be tested differently. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; Franklin
Electric, No. 22 at p. 2; HI, No. 30 at p. 1; WSC, No. 35 at p. 1) The
CA IOUs recommended refining the definition of submersible electric
motors based on appropriate classifications for different designs of
submersible motors, and recommended DOE consider multiple industry
definitions. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 18) Several commenters also
raised concerns with having a single test procedure for all types of
submersible electric motors. They noted that several different types of
submersible motors exist, each having different technical performances
and design constraints. Accordingly, they suggested that type-specific
test procedures may be needed to provide accurate representations of
efficiency. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 1; HI, No.
30 at p. 1; WSC, No. 35 at p. 1)
NEMA questioned the merits of testing submersible motors in open
air conditions, as these motors are designed to operate submerged. It
noted that because the proposed test procedure does not require
submersion for cooling, it is neither representative, nor accurate, nor
repeatable. (NEMA, No 26 at p. 6) It stated that submersible motors are
often designed with a much higher power density than open-air motors
because the specific heat capacity of water is approximately 4 times
that of air, allowing much more heat dissipation to be accounted for in
the design. It noted that because of the design difference, in most
cases it is not sufficient to rely on air flow to cool submersible
electric motors with such high power densities. It provided motor
performance modeling data for a 15 hp submersible motor built in a NEMA
184 frame. NEMA showed that using a typical value of minimum required
air velocity for the manufacturer's air-over motors at the same frame
size (i.e., at 12 mph), the AEDM predicts that the maximum horsepower
at which the motor would stabilize is at 12.5 hp, at which point the
predicted average winding temperature rise would reach 442 [deg]C.
Because IEEE 112-2017 requires that the load temperature test be
performed before taking efficiency measurements, conducting the load
temperature test at an average winding temperature rise of 442 [deg]C
would likely result in motor failure even before the efficiency
measurements could be made, which in turn would subject personnel
performing the measurements to potential safety hazards. Even at the
maximum air velocity that this manufacturer's AEDM is capable of
reaching (i.e., at 114 mph), the AEDM predicts this motor would
stabilize at 14.8 HP, for which the predicted average winding
temperature rise is 322.2 [deg]C, which would also likely result in
motor failure. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 21-22)
CEMEP stated that NEMA part 34.4 was not applicable to submersible
motors. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 4) CEMEP stated that some submersible
motors would not be sufficiently cooled by air alone as would occur
under the proposed test procedure. They provided an example of a 45 kW
motor needing to dissipate 8 kW of heat losses while operating. They
also stated that the bearings and seals would not be properly
lubricated when tested under the conditions of the proposed test
procedure--which would effectively be by air rather than by a liquid as
would occur during the normal operation of submersible motors. (CEMEP,
No. 19 at p. 8)
Franklin Electric opposed using NEMA 34.4 as the test method for
submersible motors, arguing that no standardized test procedure exists;
the proposed test procedure was not validated on a diverse enough group
of motors; many submersible motor bearings require liquid to be used to
lubricate seals and bearings during operation, the lack of which would
damage the motor and present additional frictional losses not
representative as part of the motor's intended use; many submersible
motors are not designed to operate in a horizontal configuration as
proposed by the test procedure; the leads for submersible motors are
often designed with liquid cooling in mind, and using thermocouples on
the surface of the motor is not a reliable means of evaluating the
winding temperature--particularly when different liquids are used to
encapsulate the windings. (Franklin Electric, No. 22 at pp. 3-4)
Further, Franklin Electric noted that no non-manufacturer test lab has
the capability to certify a motor using the proposed method, (Franklin
Electric, No. 22 at p. 5), and added that submersible motor
manufacturers already have custom in-house tests that accommodate water
cooling and vertical orientation of the motor to provide accurate and
repeatable efficiency testing. It stated that using air-cooling would
actually be more burdensome than liquid for submersible motors larger
than 5 hp. (Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 4)
In response to DOE's comments on whether the proposed test
procedure should only apply to a certain horsepower range, Franklin
Electric stated that even if the submersible test method scope was
limited to 10 hp, that limit would exclude from scope most sizes other
than 4-inch diameter submersible motors. It noted that this cut-off
would result in a very small fraction of products being added to the
test procedure and therefore, would create confusion around efficiency
ratings of an in-scope submersible motor vs. out of scope submersible
motor. (Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 5) For these reasons, Franklin
Electric argued that the submersible test procedure is

[[Page 63605]]

both technologically infeasible and not economically justified and
disagreed with DOE's initial view that the proposed changes would not
constitute a ``significant'' regulatory action. (Franklin Electric, No.
22 at p. 6)
AI Group stated that submersible motors should be tested according
to a procedure that has them submerged in water. (AI Group, No. 25 at
p. 3) Grundfos offered a similar critique, asserting that the proposed
submersible motor test procedure is inadequate because these motors are
designed to operate while submerged in a liquid and the proposed test
method has them tested in air. Grundfos stated that testing these
motors in air rather than submerged in water would not accurately
reflect their efficiency in their intended application. It explained
that the proposed method for determining winding temperatures is
impractical and for some motors impossible--and it specifically noted
that DOE's proposed test method in air does not consider the ``heat
rejection'' efficiency of the motors and forces them to reach winding
temperatures the motor may never reach under normal operating
conditions. (Grundfos, No. 29 at pp. 1, 7-8) Grundfos added that no
amount of modification to the air-over method would make it an
appropriate method for accurately evaluating the efficiency of
submersible motors (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 1)
HI also criticized the proposed approach. It stated that no
internationally recognized test standard exists for evaluating the
efficiency of borehole and submersible wastewater motors and that the
proposed approach of using air cooling will not result in an accurate
measurement of motor performance. It argued that any test procedure for
submersible wastewater motors would need to better reflect the specific
aspects of these motors and require multiple product categories,
definitions, and test methods to properly test and represent the
efficiencies for these specialized motors. HI also stated that many
submersible motors rely liquid for lubrication. Further, it asserted
that the proposed test method was not repeatable and reproducible
across test facilities and that DOE's testing of only two small motors
does not adequately address this concern. HI also stated that the
proposed temperature measurement provisions do not address all
submersible motor designs required to accurately obtain winding
temperature measurements to ensure testing is conducted within the
defined temperature tolerances. (HI, No. 30 at pp. 1-2)
WSC commented that testing submersible motors in air will not
result in accurate values of motor performance. It noted that
submersible motors have multiple designs, and any test procedure will
need multiple product testing categories and methods to accurately
separate out the motor losses from these different designs. It also
noted manufacturers have developed their own specialized methods that
are capital intensive. It added that wastewater submersible motors have
specific designs (oil filled, air filled, single seal, dual seal, lip
seal, seal materials) that impact utility, which in turn would require
any test method that DOE adopts to consider these factors through the
use of multiple product testing categories and appropriate testing
methods for each. WSC also asserted that DOE's sample size was too
small to prove a repeatable test method. (WSC, No. 35 at pp. 1-2)
CEMEP, WSC, and Grundfos all recommended that a test method for
submersible motors should be developed by international standardization
committees. (CEMEP, No. 19 at pp. 8-9; WSC, No. 35 at p. 2; Grundfos,
No. 29 at p. 1)
In contrast to those commenters who objected to the adoption of
DOE's proposed test method for submersible electric motors, other
commenters supported DOE's proposal--but with reservations. Advanced
Energy stated that the submersible test method appears repeatable for 5
hp or smaller submersible motors, and that there is opportunity to
evaluate this test method for larger hp motors. (Advanced Energy, No.
33 at p. 16) The Joint Advocates and CA IOUs supported including
submersible electric motors in scope and encouraged DOE to continue to
investigate options for submersible motor testing to support
development of test procedures. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 2; CA
IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 17-18) The CA IOUs commented that Japan, China,
and Brazil have standards for submersible motors. They noted that China
has published testing standards for waste submersible motor-pumps,
submersible motors for deep wells, and submersible motor-pumps.
Further, they noted that India has published a case study and three
test methods for submersible motors. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 17) The
CA IOUs also stated that IEEE is developing a submersible motor test
standard and provided links to the currently published IEEE
recommendations for testing submersible motors. They also suggested
that NEMA Part 34 would need more modification to be used as the test
procedure, or that a completely new test procedure needs to be
developed for these motors. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 17-18)
DOE re-evaluated the proposed test method based on concerns noted
by stakeholders. DOE agrees that further testing is needed to ensure
that any test method(s) would be both applicable and representative for
submersible electric motors of all designs and sizes. Further, DOE also
agrees that a test procedure based on air cooling as opposed to water
cooling may not accurately capture intended performance. In addition,
DOE acknowledges concerns that liquid is needed to lubricate seals and
bearings during operation, the lack of which could potentially damage
the motor and present additional frictional losses. Finally, DOE
understands that the applicability of the proposed test procedure at
higher horsepowers may result in winding temperature rises that may
cause motor failure. Accordingly, based on comments received and
further review, DOE is not including submersible electric motors within
scope of this test procedure. Therefore, submersible electric motors
will continue to be exempt from the test procedures and energy
conservation standards.
9. Other Exemptions
Currently, DOE exempts (1) component sets of an electric motor; and
(2) liquid-cooled electric motors. 10 CFR 431.25(l)(2) and (3).
DOE defines ``component set'' as a combination of motor parts that
require the addition of more than two endshields (and their associated
bearings) to create an operable motor. These parts may consist of any
combination of a stator frame, wound stator, rotor, shaft, or
endshields. 10 CFR 431.12. DOE defines ``liquid-cooled electric motor''
as a motor that is cooled by liquid circulated using a designated
cooling apparatus such that the liquid or liquid-filled conductors come
into direct contact with the parts of the motor. Id. DOE is amending
the definition for ``liquid-cooled electric motor'' in this final rule,
as discussed in section III.B.5 of this document. In the December 2021
NOPR, DOE requested comment on maintaining the exemptions. 86 FR 71710,
71727-71728.
Certain stakeholders supported continuing to exempt components set
of electric motors from the scope of the test procedure. (CEMEP, No. 19
at p. 2; ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 8; Grundfos, No.
29 at p. 2) Certain stakeholders also supported excluding liquid-cooled
electric motors from scope. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 26 at p.
8; Grundfos, No. 29 at p.

[[Page 63606]]

3) Advanced Energy supported continuing to exclude liquid-cooled
electric motors stating that they are highly specialized motors and
often prioritize power density over other performance requirements.
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 5) Comments received regarding the
liquid-cooled definition are addressed in section III.B.5. of this
document.
Based on the discussion presented in the December 2021 NOPR and in
the preceding paragraphs in this final rule, DOE is continuing to
exempt component sets of an electric motor and liquid-cooled electric
motors from the scope of the electric motors test procedure.

B. Definitions

In this final rule DOE is modifying 10 CFR 431.12 by amending and
adding certain definitions applicable to electric motors. These
amendments and additions are discussed in further detail in the
following sections.
1. Updating IEC Design N and H Motors Definitions and Including New
Definitions for IEC Design N and H ``E'' and ``Y'' Designations
As discussed in section III.A.2 of this document, DOE is clarifying
in this final rule that IEC Design HE, HEY, HY, NE, NEY, and NY motors
are within the scope of the test procedure. In the December 2021 NOPR,
DOE proposed to add definitions for these ``E'' and ``Y'' designations
for IEC Design N and H motors based on IEC 60034-12:2016. 86 FR 71710,
71728-71729.
In response to this proposal, Advanced Energy stated that the
proposed updates are not consistent with the definitions as they appear
in IEC 60034-12:2016. It stated the IEC standard states a ``Y''
designation represents ``star-delta starting'' as opposed to ``direct-
on-line'' starting for both IEC Design HEY and NEY. Further, Advanced
Energy also commented that the upper limit of output power for IEC
Design H was not consistent with Section 5.5 of IEC 60034-12:2016.
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 5) DOE did not receive any other
comments regarding the definition of the ``E'' and ``Y'' variants of
IEC Design N and H motors.
Based on the comment from Advanced Energy and additional review of
IEC 60034-12:2016, DOE agrees that the IEC Design N and H motors with
the ``Y'' variant are capable of star-delta starting, not direct-on-
line starting. DOE is finalizing the definitions for IEC Design N and H
that include the Y variant (IEC Design HY, HEY, NY, NEY) accordingly.
Regarding the upper limit for the Design H definition, DOE notes
that the current DOE definition for IEC Design H motor in 10 CFR 431.12
extends to 1600 kW. DOE established this definition in the December
2013 Final Rule. 78 FR 75962, 75969-75970. In the December 2013 Final
Rule, DOE explained that in defining IEC Design H and IEC Design N
motors, DOE specified the characteristics and features that identify
these types of motors, so that manufacturers designing to the IEC
standards can easily tell whether their motor is subject to DOE's
regulatory requirements. DOE could not identify a justification for why
DOE's definition of IEC Design H included an upper limit of 1600 kW
instead of the 160 kW limit consistent with the IEC definition of
Design H. Although standards are limited by a horsepower range (see 10
CFR 431.25(g)(8)), DOE stated that it does not need to limit the DOE
definitions to the same power range as the standards to describe
whether a given motor falls under Design H or Design N. Id. Since the
definition of Design H in IEC 60034-12:2016 already limits Design H
motors to 160 kW, bringing the upper limit in DOE's definitions to be
consistent with IEC 60034-12:2016 will not change the scope of the test
procedure. Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is amending the upper
horsepower limit for Design H (and E and Y variations) to 160 kW.
2. Updating Definitions To Reference Current NEMA MG 1-2016
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise a number of
definitions at 10 CFR 431.12 by updating references from NEMA MG 1-2009
to NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements). 86 FR 71710, 71729-71730.
DOE noted that the following definitions reference provisions of NEMA
MG 1-2009 that have changed between the 2009 and 2016 versions:
``definite purpose motor,'' ``definite purpose electric motor,''
``general purpose electric motor,'' ``NEMA Design A Motor,'' ``NEMA
Design B Motor,'' ``NEMA Design C motor,'' and ``nominal full-load
efficiency.'' DOE initially determined that the changes in NEMA MG 1-
2016 (with 2018 Supplements) do not substantively change these
definitions. Id.
In response, NEMA commented that updating the reference of NEMA MG
1 to the 2016 version (with 2018 Supplements) would not substantially
change the definitions currently prescribed in 10 CFR 431.12. It
further stated the definitions of NEMA Design A, B, and C should be
updated to reflect the revised subsection references of 12.35 in NEMA
MG 1-2016. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 10)
Since the December 2021 NOPR, NEMA has published a revised version
of NEMA MG 1-2016. On June 15, 2021, ANSI approved the revised version,
which is referred to in this document as NEMA MG 1-2016. DOE
understands that NEMA continues to title this standard as ``NEMA MG 1-
2016,'' even with the latest 2021 updates. In reviewing the latest
standard, DOE notes that this revision only appears to unify the
supplements and the rest of NEMA MG 1 into one continuous document and
does not include any substantial changes to the content of the standard
that was reviewed in the December 2021 NOPR. While the December 2021
NOPR requested comment on the definitions based on the latest version
at the time [NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements)], because DOE has
since concluded that the latest version [NEMA MG 1-2016 ((Revision 1,
2018) ANSI-approved 2021)] is not substantially different, the
assessment conducted in the December 2021 NOPR is still relevant for
the latest version of the standard. As such, in this final rule, DOE is
incorporating by reference and including within the definitions the
latest NEMA MG 1-2016 standard.
In addition, DOE reviewed the subsection references contained in
the definitions of NEMA Design A, B, and C in NEMA MG 1-2016 and notes
that there have been no updates to the content of the updated
subsections. Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE has updated the
definitions to include the new subsection references as they appear in
NEMA MG 1-2016.
3. Inverter, Inverter-Only, and Inverter-Capable
DOE defines an ``inverter-only electric motor'' as an electric
motor that is capable of rated operation solely with an inverter, and
is not intended for operation when directly connected to polyphase,
sinusoidal line power.'' DOE also defines an ``inverter-capable
electric motor'' as an ``electric motor designed to be directly
connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line power, but that is also capable
of continuous operation on an inverter drive over a limited speed range
and associated load.'' 10 CFR 431.12. Inverter-only and inverter-
capable electric motors can be sold with or without an inverter.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise the definitions
for ``inverter-only electric motor'' and ``inverter-capable electric
motor.'' Further, DOE also proposed a definition for ``inverter.'' 86
FR 71710, 71730. DOE

[[Page 63607]]

noted that, in addition to not being designed for operation when
directly connected to polyphase, sinusoidal power, inverter-only motors
are also not designed for operation when directly connected to single-
phase, sinusoidal line power or to DC power. Id. To provide a more
complete definition, DOE proposed to revise the definition of inverter-
only electric motor as follows: ``an electric motor that is capable of
continuous operation solely with an inverter, and is not designed for
operation when directly connected to AC sinusoidal or DC power
supply.'' Id. Similarly, DOE proposed to revise the definition of an
inverter-capable electric motor as follows: ``an electric motor
designed to be directly connected to AC sinusoidal or DC power, but
that is also capable of continuous operation on an inverter drive over
a limited speed range and associated load.'' Id.
Finally, Paragraph 30.2.1.5 of NEMA MG 1 2016 defines the term
``control'' for motors receiving AC power, as ``devices that are also
called inverters and converters. They are electronic devices that
convert an input AC or DC power into a controlled output AC voltage or
current''. Converters can also be found in motors that receive DC power
and also include electronic devices that convert an input AC or DC
power into a controlled output DC voltage or current. Therefore, to
support the definition of ``inverter-only motor,'' in the December 2021
NOPR, DOE proposed to define an inverter as ``an electronic device that
converts an input AC or DC power into a controlled output AC or DC
voltage or current. An inverter may also be called a converter.'' Id.
Grundfos and Advanced Energy supported the proposed definitions for
``inverter,'' ``inverter-only electric motor,'' and ``inverter-capable
electric motors.'' (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 3; Advanced Energy, No. 33
at p. 6) NEMA, CEMEP, and AI commented that the definitions should be
amended to harmonize with the definitions in IEC 60034-1 Edition 14.
(NEMA, No. 26 at p. 11; CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 3; AI Group, No. 25 at p.
4)
In response to these comments, DOE reviewed the definitions
contained in IEC 60034-1 Ed. 14. IEC 60034-1 Ed. 14 contains
specifications for the ratings and performance of rotating electrical
machines and defines a ``converter duty machine'' as an ``electrical
machine designed specifically for operation fed by a power electronic
frequency converter with a temperature rise within the specified
insulation thermal class or thermal class.'' DOE notes that this
definition was not in edition 13 of IEC 60034-1 and was not available
for consideration in the December 2021 NOPR since edition 14 was
published in 2022. DOE also notes that the IEC definition is generally
similar to the definition proposed in the December 2021 NOPR with only
minor differences. The IEC definition uses the term ``electrical
machine'' where DOE used ``electric motor'' and ``power electronic
frequency converter'' where DOE used ``inverter.'' DOE also understands
that the temperature rise clause in the IEC definition is similar to
the ``continuous operation'' clause of the DOE definition since
overheating (potentially through gradually breaking down the motor's
insulation) is a common mode of failure caused by an inverter feeding a
non-inverter-rated motor. As such, DOE is adopting the IEC definition
to harmonize with industry standards, with only minor modifications to
be consistent with the terminology currently used in the rulemaking
process. Specifically, in this final rule, DOE is defining an
``inverter-only electric motor'' as an ``electric motor designed
specifically for operation fed by an inverter with a temperature rise
within the specified insulation thermal class or thermal limits.''
IEC 60034-1 Ed. 14 also defines a ``converter capable machine'' as
an ``electrical machine designed for direct online start and suitable
for operation on a power electronic frequency converter without special
filtering.'' DOE understands that the IEC definition for ``converter
capable machine'' is largely similar to the term ``inverter-capable
electric motor'' in the same way as how the IEC definition for
``converter duty machine'' is largely similar to the term ``inverter-
only electric motor.'' Specifically, the IEC definition uses the clause
``suitable for operation'' whereas the proposed DOE definition included
an analogous clause ``capable of continuous operation.'' Further, the
IEC definition uses the term ``power electronic frequency converter,''
whereas the proposed DOE definition included the term ``inverter.''
In reviewing the IEC definition for ``converter capable machine''
and the proposed definition for ``inverter-capable electric motor,''
DOE identified two additional differences. The first difference DOE
identified was the proposed inclusion of the clause ``over a limited
speed range and associated load''--a qualification not included with
the IEC definition. However, DOE understands that this additional
clause would not create a significant difference between the two
definitions as all motors effectively have a limited speed range or
associated load by nature of their construction. Therefore, DOE
concludes that adopting the IEC definition would not modify the
currently proposed scope of this test procedure.
The second difference DOE identified was the clause ``without
special filtering,'' which is included in the IEC definition but not in
the DOE proposed definition. DOE understands that the inclusion of this
clause in the IEC definition is to ensure that non-inverter-rated
motors are not considered inverter-capable when a filter is used
between the inverter and motor to filter out the higher-order harmonics
to prevent damage to the non-inverter-rated motor. This understanding
is consistent with the intent of the DOE proposed definition of
``inverter-capable electric motor.'' Therefore, to harmonize with
industry standards, DOE is adopting the IEC definition with minor
modifications to keep the terminology consistent. Specifically, in this
final rule, DOE is defining an ``inverter-capable electric motor'' as
an ``electric motor designed for direct online start and suitable for
operation on an inverter without special filtering.''
4. Air-Over Electric Motors
Certain general-purpose electric motors have an internal fan
attached to the shaft that forces air through the motor and prevents it
from overheating during continuous use. Air-over electric motors do not
have a factory-attached fan and require a separate means of forcing air
over the frame of the motor. The external cooling maintains internal
motor winding temperatures within the permissible temperature rise for
the motor's insulation class or to a maximum temperature value
specified by the manufacturer.\23\ Without an external means of
cooling, an 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; for example, single-phase air-
over motors are widely used in residential and commercial HVAC systems,
appliances, and equipment as well as in agricultural applications. The
current definition for air-over electric motors in 10 CFR 431.12 is as
follows: 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

[[Page 63608]]

whose primary purpose is providing airflow to an application other than
the motor driving it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Sections 12.42 and 12.43 of NEMA MG 1-2016 specifies the
maximum temperature rises corresponding to four insulation classes
(A, B, F, and H). Each class represents the maximum allowable
operating temperature rise at which the motor can operate without
failure, or risk of reducing its lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE noted that the absence of a fan is
not a differentiating feature specific to air-over electric motors. 86
FR 71710, 71730-71731. For example, there is little difference between
a totally enclosed fan-cooled electric motor (``TEFC'') and a totally
enclosed air-over electric motor (``TEAO''). A user could remove the
fan on a TEFC electric motor, and then place the motor in an airstream
of the application to obtain an air-over electric motor configuration.
Further, other motor categories such as totally enclosed non-ventilated
(``TENV'') electric motors do not have internal fans or blowers and are
similar in construction to TEAO electric motors.\24\ Finally, DOE also
noted that to differentiate air-over motors from totally-enclosed pipe-
ventilated (``TEPV'') motors, it needed to specify that the external
cooling is obtained by a free flow of air rather than external cooling
that is directed onto the motor via a duct or a pipe.\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ TENV electric motors are ``built in a frame-surface cooled,
totally enclosed configuration that is designed and equipped to be
cooled only by free convection'' 10 CFR 431.12.
\25\ DOE did not find any pipe-ventilated motors in the proposed
scope of applicability of this test procedure but is aware that some
motors may exist in such configurations. TEPV motors are cooled by
supply air which is piped into the motor and ducted out of the
motor. They are typically used to overcome heat dissipation
difficulties and when air surrounding the motor is not clean (e.g.,
dust).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE explained 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 prevent overheating
during continuous operation.\26\ 86 FR 71710, 71730-71731. Further, DOE
noted that the free flow of air was needed for the air-over motor to
thermally stabilize. Accordingly, DOE proposed a revised definition of
air-over electric motor in consideration of the above specifications--
i.e., ``an electric motor that does not reach thermal equilibrium
(i.e., thermal stability) during a rated load temperature test
according to section 2 of appendix B, without the application of forced
cooling by a free flow of air from an external device not mechanically
connected to the motor.'' 86 FR 71710, 71730-71731.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Without the application of free-flowing air, the internal
winding temperatures of an air-over electric motor would exceed the
maximum permissible temperature (i.e., the motor's insulation
class's permissible temperature rise or a maximum temperature value
specified by the manufacturer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to DOE's proposal, Advanced Energy supported DOE's
proposed definition of air-over electric motor. (Advanced Energy, No.
33 at p. 6) NEMA commented that the definition was adequate, but
pointed out that DOE should preserve and allow all three potential
stabilization methods. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 11) Lennox commented that
while it supported the proposed definition, it stated that DOE must
continue to exempt HVACR air-over motors from component level-
regulation when such motors are used in equipment already regulated at
the systems level. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 7)
Trane commented that the current definition of air-over electric
motor is appropriate and that changing it to include thermal
equilibrium is inappropriate because the motor could still reach
equilibrium without forced-air through heat dissipation. However, the
same motor would still be defined as an air-over motor because the
manufacturer specifies certain minimum airflow requirements to maintain
winding temperatures within permissible limits. (Trane, No. 31 at p. 4)
As discussed previously, DOE proposed the updated definition to
ensure that air-over electric motors are correctly distinguished from
TEFC, TENV, and TEPV motors. The proposed definition for air-over
electric motor specifies reaching thermal equilibrium with forced
cooling at a target temperature \27\ according to section 2 of appendix
B, which is the air-over electric motor test procedure. As discussed in
section III.D.1 of this document, the air-over electric motor test
procedure allows the use of the motor temperature rise if it is
indicated by the manufacturer to specify the target temperature, or if
it is not indicated, requires use a target temperature of 75 [deg]C.
Based on the updated definition, if the electric motor can thermally
stabilize below the target temperature without airflow, then that motor
is not considered an air-over electric motor. Without an external means
of cooling, an air-over electric motor would overheat during continuous
operation. Therefore, if the motor is able to stabilize and operate
below the target temperature, then there is no requirement for external
means of cooling. On the other hand, the electric motor would still be
considered an air-over electric motor if it can thermally stabilize
without airflow at a temperature above the target temperature. The
updated definition does not limit this occurrence, as it is only
specifying that thermal equilibrium must be met during a rated load
temperature test according to section 2 of appendix B (i.e., using the
temperature rise indicated by the manufacturer to determine target
temperature, or if it is not indicated, a target temperature of 75
[deg]C). Accordingly, having an external means of cooling would still
be required during continuous operation at the manufacturer specified
target temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ The amount of ventilation required during the test is based
on motor winding temperature reaching a target temperature. See
section III.D.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMCA stated that the proposed definition for air-over motors is
ambiguous and would exclude many intended air-over motors because of
the provision ``without the application of forced cooling by a free
flow of air from an external device not mechanically connected to the
motor'' would exclude air-over motors which are cooled by an external
fan driven by the motor's shaft. AMCA recommended as an alternate
definition: ``an electric motor that does not reach thermal equilibrium
(i.e., thermal stability) during a rated load temperature test
according to section 2 of appendix B, without the application of forced
cooling by a free flow of air from an external device not supplied for
permanent use with the motor.'' (AMCA, No. 21 at pp. 2-3) ebm-papst
supported AMCA's suggested definition of an air-over motor and stated
that DOE's proposed definition was too broad. (ebm-papst, No. 23 at p.
5)
As described in the NOPR, air-over motors do not have a factory-
attached fan and require a separate means of forcing air over the frame
of the motor. 86 71710, 71730. DOE interprets the concerns from AMCA
and ebm-papst as being that requiring the free flow of air to come from
an external device not mechanically connected to the motor would
unintentionally exclude certain air-over electric motors that should be
included, such as air-over motors that are sold with a fan mechanically
connected to the motor's shaft (in this case, the fan is used to
provide function beyond cooling of the motor and an air over-motor is
used to drive the fan). DOE agrees with AMCA and ebm-papst, that such
motors must not be excluded from the air-motor electric motor
definition. DOE's intent in specifying ``external device'' and ``not
mechanically connected'' in the proposed definition was to distinguish
air-over motors that do not incorporate a fan within the motor's
enclosure from motors that do incorporate a fan in the motor's
enclosure, where the fan is used for the sole purpose of cooling the
motor. Therefore, in response to the recommendations by AMCA and ebm-

[[Page 63609]]

papst, for clarification, DOE is adopting a modified version of the
proposed definition instead. DOE is specifying that the external device
should also not be supplied within the motor enclosure. In general, DOE
prefers to rely on physical features instead of intended usage (i.e.,
``for permanent use'') when establishing equipment definitions.
As such, in this final rule, DOE adopts the following definition of
air-over electric motor: an electric motor that does not reach thermal
equilibrium (i.e., thermal stability), during a rated load temperature
test according to section 2 of appendix B, without the application of
forced cooling by a free flow of air from an external device not
mechanically connected to the motor within the motor enclosure.
5. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motors
Liquid-cooled electric motors are definite-purpose motors typically
designed for high power density applications. The higher power density
from these applications causes a liquid-cooled electric motor to
generate more heat over a given volume than a conventional air-cooled
electric motor. To prevent the motor from overheating, it relies on a
liquid to be forced through and over components of the motor to provide
better cooling than an internal fan would. DOE currently defines a
liquid-cooled electric motor as: a motor that is cooled by liquid
circulated using a designated cooling apparatus such that the liquid or
liquid-filled conductors come into direct contact with the parts of the
motor. 10 CFR 431.12.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise this definition
to read as ``a motor that is cooled by liquid circulated using a
designated cooling apparatus such that the liquid or liquid-filled
conductors come into direct contact with the parts of the motor, but is
not submerged in a liquid during operation.'' DOE proposed this
revision to better distinguish liquid-cooled electric motors from
submersible electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71731-71732.
NEMA supported the proposed definition of liquid-cooled electric
motor. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 11) Grundfos commented that ``designated
cooling apparatus'' is not clearly defined and believe that the
proposed definition makes it unclear as to what constitutes a liquid-
cooled motor. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 3)
In the December 2013 Final Rule, DOE discussed that liquid-cooled
electric motors rely on a special cooling apparatus that pumps liquid
into and around the motor housing. 78 FR 75962, 75987-75988. The liquid
is circulated around the motor frame to dissipate heat and prevent the
motor from overheating during continuous-duty operation. The December
2013 Final Rule amended the definition of liquid-cooled electric motor
to better differentiate liquid-cooled electric motors from other types
of electric motors, and the term ``designated cooling apparatus'' was
added to specify that a cooling apparatus is required for a motor to be
designated as a liquid-cooled electric motor. Id. In this final rule,
DOE further specifies that a ``designated cooling apparatus'' is any
apparatus that circulates a liquid in order to cool a liquid-cooled
electric motor. One example of such an apparatus is an external pump
that forces a liquid through the motor for cooling purposes.
For the reasons discussed in the December 2021 NOPR and with the
modification discussed in the preceding paragraph, DOE is adopting the
definition of liquid-cooled, as proposed.
6. Basic Model and Equipment Class
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the definition of
``basic model'' in 10 CFR 431.12 to make it similar to the definitions
used for other DOE-regulated products and equipment, and to eliminate
an ambiguity found in the current definition. 86 FR 71710, 71732. The
definition in 10 CFR 431.12 specifies that basic models of electric
motors are all units of a given type manufactured by the same
manufacturer, which have the same rating, and have electrical
characteristics that are essentially identical, and do not have any
differing physical or functional characteristics that affect energy
consumption or efficiency. For the purposes of this definition, the
term ``rating'' is specified to mean one of 113 combinations of
horsepower, poles, and open or enclosed construction. See id. The
reference to 113 combinations dates from the Department's
implementation of EPACT 1992, which established initial standards for
motors based on that categorization. Since then, EISA 2007 and DOE's
regulations have established standards for additional motor categories.
See 10 CFR 431.25. To clarify that the concept of a ``basic model''
reflects the categorization in effect under the prevailing standard, as
it stands today, and as it may evolve in future rulemakings, DOE
proposed to refer only to the combinations of horsepower (or standard
kilowatt equivalent), number of poles, and open or enclosed
construction for which 10 CFR 431.25 prescribes standards; and to
remove the current reference to 113 such combinations. 86 FR 71710,
71732. As such, DOE proposed to replace the term ``rating'' with the
term ``equipment class'' in the basic model definition. In addition,
DOE proposed to define ``equipment class'' as one of the combinations
of an electric motor's horsepower (or standard kilowatt equivalent),
number of poles, and open or enclosed construction, with respect to a
category of electric motor for which Sec. 431.25 prescribes nominal
full-load efficiency standards. Id. This proposal would also limit
confusion between the use of the term ``rating'' in this specific case
and the use of the term as it applies to represented values of other
individual characteristics of an electric motor, such as its rated
horsepower, voltage, torque, or energy efficiency. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments on these definitions and adopts
the definitions of equipment class and basic model as proposed.

C. Updates to Industry Standards Currently Incorporated by Reference

In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE reviewed each of the industry
standards that are currently incorporated by reference as test methods
for determining the energy efficiency of electric motors or that are
referenced within the definitions prescribed in 10 CFR 431.12, and
identified updates for each as provided in Table III-4 of this
document. 86 FR 71710, 71732-71734.

Table III-4--Updated Industry Standards Proposed in the December 2021
NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing reference Updated version Type of update
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEC 60034-12 Edition 2.1 IEC 60034-12 Revision.
2007-09. Edition 3.0
2016.
NFPA 20-2010................ NFPA 20-2019... Revision.
CSA C390-10................. CSA C390-10 Reaffirmed.
(Reaffirmed
2019).
NEMA MG 1-2009.............. NEMA MG 1-2016. Revision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 63610]]

Through the review, DOE tentatively concluded that updating the
industry standards to the latest version would not alter the measured
efficiency of electric motors and would not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. Therefore, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference the
updated versions of the industry standards. Id.
DOE also proposed to incorporate by reference IEC 60079-7:2015 as
it is referenced within IEC 60034-12:2016 and is necessary for the test
procedure. Sections 5.2.7.3 and 5.2.8.2 of IEC 60079-7:2015 describe
the additional starting requirements of increased safety ``eb'' and
``ec'' motors. The ``eb'' and ``ec'' designations are the two levels of
protection offered by the increased safety ``e'' designation and are
intended for use in explosive gas atmospheres, according to Section 1
of IEC 60079-7:2015. Section 5.2.7.3 specifies the application of
protective measures to prevent airgap sparking while Section 5.2.8.2
specifies the application of starting current requirements and when a
current-dependent safety device is required. 86 FR 71710, 71733. Also,
to ensure consistency in the versions of the referenced standards used
when testing, DOE proposed to specify the publication year for each of
the industry standards referenced by Section 12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1-2016,
which are as follows: IEEE 112-2017, CSA C390-10, and IEC 60034-2-
1:2014. 86 FR 71710, 71734.
In response, CEMEP agreed that DOE's assessment of the updates to
NEMA 12.58.1 of MG 1-2016 with its 2018 Supplements was accurate, and
supported updating the IEEE, CSA, and IEC standards to their latest
versions. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 4) However, CEMEP stated that IEC 60079-
7:2015 contains some specific requirements for 'eb' motors related to
the safety of such protection type, and for 'ec' motors, there are no
requirements regarding starting performance. Accordingly, CEMEP
recommended against including IEC 60079-7:2015. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 4)
NEMA agreed with DOE's assessment of the updates to IEC 60034-
12:2016, and supported referencing both IEC 60034-12:2016 and IEC
60079-7:2015. It commented that while IEC 60034-12 is currently under
revision, substantial changes were not expected. (NEMA, No. 26 at p.
11) Further, NEMA agreed with DOE's assessment of the updates to
Paragraph 12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1-2016, and asserted that updating the
references to IEEE 112-2017, CSA C390-10, and IEC 60034-2-1:2014 should
not affect the measured efficiency of electric motors currently in
scope of the test procedure. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 11-12) Finally, NEMA
also supported DOE updating to the 2019 version of NFPA 20. Id. NEMA
stated that ``including any IEC equivalent'' should remain in DOE's
definition of fire pump for clarity even if NFPA 20 section 9.5 now
includes that clause. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 11)
Grundfos did not believe updating to the 2016 version of NEMA MG 1
(with 2018 Supplements) would alter the measured efficiency of electric
motors. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 3) Further, Grundfos agreed with DOE's
assessment and proposed inclusion of IEC 60034-12:2016 and the proposed
updates to Section 12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1. It also supported including
IEC 60034-2-1:2014 as part of the DOE test procedure. (Grundfos, No. 29
at pp. 3-4) Advanced Energy agreed with DOE's assessment on the updates
to Section 12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements), and
agreed with updating DOE's test procedures to reference the most recent
IEEE, CSA, and IEC standards because it would be consistent with
current industry practice. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 7)
Since the December 2021 NOPR, there have been updates to two of the
standards: (1) NFPA 20-2019 has been revised to a 2022 version; and (2)
NEMA MG 1-2016 has been updated to an ANSI approved June 15, 2021,
version that includes updates to parts 0, 1, 7, 12, 30, and 31, along
with Part 34 (separately published).
For the 2022 update to NFPA-20, new requirements were added to
address numerous recent advancements in the field of stationary pumps
for fire protection, which is not relevant for the scope of this
rulemaking. The updates to Section 9.5 of NFPA-20 provide further
clarifications on calculating values for locked rotor current for
motors rated at voltages other than 230 V presented in that section.
Otherwise, section 9.5 remains the same as the 2019 version.
Accordingly, referencing the most current version (NFPA 20-2022) would
not change the applicability of the definition of fire pump electric
motor for the purposes of DOE's regulations. Further, DOE is
maintaining ``including any IEC equivalent'' within the fire pump
electric motor definition.
For the 2021 update to NEMA MG 1-2016, this revision consolidates
the supplements and the rest of NEMA MG 1 into one document. DOE did
not identify any substantial changes compared to the prior version of
NEMA MG 1. Accordingly, as with the updates to NFPA-2020, referencing
the most current would not alter the measured efficiency of electric
motors, and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
Further, as discussed in the December 2021 NOPR, IEC 60034-12:2016
references IEC 60079-7:2015 to determine locked rotor apparent power
for motors with type of protection ``e'' '--which are eligible to be
considered IEC Design N or H motors. 86 FR 71710, 71733. Considering
IEC 60079-7:2015 is necessary to test using IEC 60034-12:2016, DOE is
incorporating by reference both test procedures in this final rule.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the December 2021 NOPR
and discussed in the preceding paragraphs, DOE is updating its test
procedure regulations to incorporate the current industry standards to
the latest references, as summarized in Table III-5.

Table III-5--Updated Industry Standards in This Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing reference Updated version Type of update
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEC 60034-12 Edition 2.1 IEC 60034-12 Revision.
2007-09. Edition 3.0
2016
(including IEC
60079-7:2015).
NFPA 20-2010................ NFPA 20-2022... Revision.
CSA C390-10................. CSA C390-10 Reaffirmed.
(Reaffirmed
2019).
NEMA MG 1-2009.............. NEMA MG 1-2016. Revision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 63611]]

D. Industry Standards Incorporated By Reference

This section discusses industry test standards that DOE is
incorporating by reference for testing the additional electric motors
for inclusion in the scope of the DOE test procedure.
EPCA includes specific test procedure-related requirements for
electric motors subject to energy conservation standards under 42
U.S.C. 6313. The provisions in EPCA require that electric motors be
tested in accordance with the test procedures specified in NEMA
Standards Publication MG1-1987 and IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B for
motor efficiency, as in effect on October 24, 1992 (See 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(5)) As discussed in section III.C of this document, both
publications have been replaced with the more recent version IEEE 112-
2017 and NEMA MG 1-2016.
The additional electric motors DOE is adding to the scope of the
DOE test procedure are not addressed by the standards that are
currently applicable under 42 U.S.C. 6313. DOE notes that the industry
test procedures incorporated by reference for air-over electric motors
and for SNEMs are included in NEMA MG 1-2016. See Section IV, Part 34:
Air-Over Motor Efficiency Test Method and Section 12.30. Section 12.30
of NEMA MG 1-2016, specifies the use of IEEE 112 and IEEE 114 for all
single-phase and polyphase motors.\28\ As further discussed in section
III.D.2 of this document, DOE is requiring testing of SNEMs other than
air-over and inverter-only electric motors according to IEEE 112-2017
(or CSA C390-10 or IEC 60034-2-1:2014, which are equivalent to IEEE
112-2017) and IEEE 114-2010 (or CSA C747-09 or IEC 60034-2-1:2014,
which are equivalent to IEEE 114-2010). This amendment satisfies the
test procedure requirements under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ As previously mentioned, NEMA MG 1-2016 does not specify
the publication year of the referenced test standards and instead
specifies that the most recent version should be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The methods listed in Section 12.30 of NEMA MG 1-2016, for testing
AC motors apply only to AC induction motors that can be operated when
directly connected to the power supply (direct-on-line) and do not
apply to electric motors that are inverter-only or to synchronous
electric motors that are not AC induction motors. Therefore, for these
additional electric motor types, DOE is specifying the use of different
industry test procedures, as further discussed in section III.D.3. of
this document.
AI Group stated that DOE should harmonize with IEC international
standards with respect to the electric motor test procedures,
efficiency classes, and scope of regulation. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 2)
DOE's test procedures currently incorporate by reference several
IEC test methods for testing current in-scope electric motors. See 10
CFR 431.15(c). As part of this rulemaking, DOE reviewed a number of
industry standards that would be relevant for testing the additional
electric motors that DOE proposed to include within the scope of the
DOE test procedure. Several of those industry standards include IEC
standards, which are discussed in sections III.D.2 and III.D.3 of this
document.
1. Test Procedures for Air-Over Electric Motors
a. Test Method
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE evaluated three test methods
published by NEMA in NEMA MG 1-2016 that are used to measure the
efficiency of an air-over electric motor. 86 FR 71710, 71735-71739. The
first alternative test method (i.e., Part 34.3) specifies that the
temperature test must be conducted by thermally stabilizing the motor
at the rated full-load conditions using an external airflow according
to the end user specifications in terms of air-velocity ratings in feet
per minute. The second alternative test method (i.e., Part 34.4)
includes a temperature test conducted with the use of an external
blower, but the amount of airflow is not specified; therefore, the
amount of ventilation required is based on motor winding temperature
reaching a target temperature. Finally, the third alternative test
method (i.e., Part 34.5) includes a temperature test performed without
the use of an external blower while not loading the motor at its rated
load. Instead, the motor is gradually loaded until the motor winding
temperature reaches the required target temperature. Id.
As part of the review of the test methods, in the December 2021
NOPR, DOE did not consider Part 34.3 because testing with an external
airflow according to the customer or application specific requirements
as specified in the first alternative test method could result in
testing the same motor at different winding temperature during the
test, which would impact the measurement of efficiency. Therefore, DOE
tentatively concluded that results from applying the first test method
according to Part 34.3 would not ensure relative comparability of
efficiency for air-over electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71737-71738.
Otherwise, DOE considered the other two test methods (Parts 34.4
and 34.5) and conducted testing to evaluate the repeatability and
equivalency of the methods. 86 FR 71710, 71737-71738. DOE conducted a
series of efficiency tests for a test sample that included seven air-
over motor models spanning a range of 0.25 to 20 hp and represented
both single-phase and polyphase motors. DOE observed the percentage
difference in losses between Parts 34.5 and 34.4 range from -0.4 (on
the lower end) to +10.9 (on the higher end), and the units at the
higher end of the percentage difference spanned a wide range of hp
ratings. These units included both single-phase and polyphase motor
types, indicating no clear or consistent trend that could be used to
define criteria by which the two methods would produce equivalent
results. As such, DOE found that the two test methods could not be
considered equal. Id.
To determine which of the two test methods (Part 34.4 or 34.5) to
propose for air-over electric motors, DOE tested a subset of the seven
air-over motors to evaluate the repeatability of each test methods. 86
FR 71710, 71737. The test results indicated that for three units, Part
34.4 showed less variation between subsequent tests compared to the
Part 34.5. However, for one unit, Part 34.4 test method showed greater
variation than Part 34.5. Based on these results, DOE concluded that
Part 34.4 may provide more repeatability than Part 34.5 for air-over
motors. Id. As such, DOE proposed to require that air-over motors be
tested only according to Part 34.4. Id.
Regarding the test method, CEMEP supported using Part 34.4 but
recommended allowing the use of other methods present in NEMA Part 34,
but offered no specific justification for its view. (CEMEP, No. 19 at
p. 1) AI Group referred DOE to Australian standards that included
efficiency requirements for air-over motors and what test procedure
Australia uses to test these motors.\29\ (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 3)
AMCA supported the use of Section 34.4 as the test method for air-over
motors only if the motor is: (1) induction, (2) constructed in a NEMA/
IEC standard frame, and (3) the motor target temperature test is
verified by means of the winding resistance method or a temperature
detector closely

[[Page 63612]]

coupled to the stator winding. (AMCA, No. 21 at p. 3) ebm-papst agreed
with AMCA that the scope of the air-over test procedure should be
limited to induction motors built in standard NEMA/IEC frames. (ebm-
papst, No. 23 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ The Australian test method includes a requirement for an
externally- and independently-generated air-steam, similar to Parts
34.3 and 34.4. <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00968">https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00968</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CA IOUs stated that they conducted testing on the proposed air-
over test method and reported their preliminary findings as follows:
(1) NEMA MG 1 Parts 34.4 and 34.5 appear to be repeatable, (2) some
totally enclosed air-over (TEAO) motors stabilize before the target
temperature is reached, suggesting the need for modifications to the
test procedure for those motors, (3) manufacturer-specified airflow
differs across different designs, with some having no specification,
and (4) TEAO motor designs have varying responses to airflow and
varying relationships to measured efficiency and target winding
temperature. Relying on their preliminary test data, the CA IOUs agreed
with DOE's initial finding that Part 34.4 meets DOE's test procedure
requirements for repeatability and supported the use of Part 34.4 for
rating TEAO motors. However, the CA IOUs also suggested an approach
that they anticipated would significantly increase the
representativeness of the test procedure for a broader range of field
applications (which are discussed in section III.D.1.b) (CA IOUs, No.
32.1 at pp. 10-11)
Advanced Energy stated that the air-over test method has proven to
be repeatable and reliable. Advanced Energy also supported the
conclusion that Part 34.4 of NEMA Part 34 is more repeatable than Part
34.5 for air-over electric motors. It commented that boths Part 34.4
and 34.5 are repeatable but that the data presented by DOE suggest Part
34.4 is more repeatable. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at pp. 2, 8-9)
Further, Advanced Energy stated it has tested air-over motors up to 20
hp and has not found blower capacity to be a limiting factor. It stated
that if its testing were limited by the blower, a larger blower could
be used to permit the test to be conducted according to the test
procedure. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 9)
NEMA disagreed with the December 2021 NOPR's conclusion that Part
34.4 is less repeatable than Part 34.5. NEMA further noted that the
methods in Part 34.4 and Part 34.5 are useful depending on in-situ
factors and should both remain available as needed. NEMA commented that
a fair assessment of repeatability required understanding the potential
sources of variations in test results. NEMA suggested certain potential
sources of error to investigate for discrepancies, specifically: power
meter capability, temperature measurement, torque acquisition,
tachometer, and torque transducer capability. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 13-
14) NEMA recommended that air-over motors be tested in accordance with
any of the three test methods in Part 34, without exception and
modification, and provided reasoning why Part 34.3 and Part 34.5 test
methods should also be allowed: (1) for Part 34.3, NEMA noted that
motor manufacturers are approached by OEMs to develop a motor with
application specific fit, form, and function constraints, and motor
design and development is frequently performed as a system approach and
includes the motor, the OEM's fan, baffles, support structure and
ducting. Accordingly, it commented that reproducing system operating
conditions of airflow and temperature while coupled to a dynamometer is
the most desirable case for determining motor efficiency; (2) for Part
34.5, it stated that not all laboratories have the equipment and
resources to design a blower system and measure the airflow while the
motor is coupled to a dynamometer, and therefore a test without airflow
is an effective test method in these cases. NEMA did not directly
comment on the accuracy and equivalency of the test methods, asserting
simply (without offering more) that there is a significant risk that an
equivalent test procedure option could be rejected for inclusion in the
electric motor test procedure if feedback is submitted based on data
comprised of unexplained test error. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 13-15) Lennox
stated that a generic component-level test method would not yield
results that are representative of an average use cycle for definite
purpose motors because a component-level test procedure would fail to
capture system operating characteristics that affect motor efficiency.
Lennox also identified relevant system operating characteristics--e.g.,
motor mounting, motor tuning, and how the air moving systems relate to
the heat exchanging equipment--as variables that factor into the system
efficiency of the finished product. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 3)
DOE notes that neither NEMA nor CEMEP provided data supporting
equivalency of the three test methods in Part 34. The CA IOUs also did
not provide the data underlying their preliminary findings. Absent data
other than that generated by the DOE testing, DOE is unable to conclude
that Parts 34.4 and 34.5 are equivalent.
DOE understands that the different test methods in Part 34 may be
useful depending on in-situ factors. However, this test procedure
rulemaking focuses solely on the electric motor independent of the
product or equipment into which the electric motor may be installed.
This focus necessarily means that DOE must consider a test method that
is repeatable for the electric motor as stand-alone equipment. As
noted, Part 34.3 allows testing with an external airflow according to
the customer, which could result in testing the same motor at different
winding temperature during the test, which would impact the measurement
of efficiency. With regard to Parts 34.4 and 34.5, testing performed as
part of the December 2021 NOPR indicated that they did not provide
equivalent results. Further, DOE has not received any new test data
that indicates the three test methods in Part 34 are equivalent.
Accordingly, at this time DOE cannot conclude that the three test
methods in Part 34 are equivalent. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE
is adopting Part 34.4 as the only test method for air-over electric
motors.
b. Target Temperature Specification
Part 34.4 specifies that, if a motor temperature rise is not
indicated, polyphase air-over electric motors use a target temperature
that depends on the motor's insulation class. This target temperature
is then used as the temperature at which the load test is conducted. In
contrast, for all single-phase motors, the target temperature is
specified at 75 [deg]C, regardless of insulation class. In the December
2021 NOPR, DOE reported that it conducted testing to understand how
much the temperature target could affect measured efficiency. 86 FR
71710, 71738. That testing demonstrated different measurements of
efficiency at different test temperatures, and therefore, DOE
tentatively concluded that defining a single test temperature, rather
than using a target temperature that depends on the motor's insulation
class, would produce measured efficiency values that are more
comparable across insulation classes. Accordingly, DOE proposed to use
a single target temperature for polyphase motors regardless of
insulation class. 86 FR 71710, 71738-71739.
In response, the Joint Advocates opposed a single target
temperature for all air-over motors and asserted that this single
target temperature could give a testing advantage to motors that are
designed to run hotter than the target temperature. (Joint Advocates,
No. 27 at p. 3) AMCA stated that testing a motor of an insulation class
higher than insulation class A (a 75 [deg]C limit) at a target
temperature of 75 [deg]C would result

[[Page 63613]]

in lower I\2\R losses than when the motor is used as intended. (AMCA,
No. 21 at p. 3) CEMEP stated that a fixed temperature target would
penalize or reward certain motors depending on the temperatures at
which they were designed to operate. (CEMEP, No. 19 at pp. 4-5) ebm-
papst commented that higher temperatures lead to higher losses in the
stator, rotor, and other current-carrying components of the motor.
(ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 5) ebm-papst also stated that many definite
purpose motors would stabilize under the 75 [deg]C target temperature
and would be unable to use the proposed test procedure. (ebm-papst, No.
23 at pp. 6)
NEMA disagreed with modifying Section 34.4 to have a single target
temperature of 75 [deg]C, regardless of insulation class. It commented
that although the proposal indicated that the single target temperature
would apply to all motors even if the temperature rise is indicated,
the proposed updates to the regulatory text in section 2.2.1 of
appendix B appear to only apply to motors without an indicated
temperature rise.\30\ NEMA commented that if a manufacturer does not
want its motor to be tested at the upper bounds of its insulation
class, then all the manufacturer has to do is indicate the temperature
rise. NEMA suggested that DOE adopt Section 34.4 without modification.
In support, NEMA provided data from a motor performance simulation that
predicted the required airflow for different target temperatures. In
cases where a motor is designed to have a higher temperature rise than
the 75 [deg]C target, NEMA stated that the motor could need an
unfeasibly large amount of airflow to get to the temperature to the
proposed 75 [deg]C target. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 12-15) It explained
that in situations where the motor temperature rise under testing is
significantly higher than the motor temperature rise in the actual
application, the efficiency test would be biased towards higher losses
and lower efficiency than the intended application. NEMA recommended
that a manufacturer in that situation should simply indicate the motor
temperature rise. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 12) Separately, NEMA also noted
that a default 75 [deg]C condition could be specified for cases where a
manufacturer does not indicate motor temperature rise, although NEMA
still preferred that the test procedure in Part 34.4 be followed
without modification. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ In the December 2021 NOPR, the proposed section 2.2.1 of
appendix B stated ``the provisions in Paragraph 34.4.1.a.1 NEMA MG
1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements) rela

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on October 19, 2022.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.