```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75961-75995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29677]

[[Page 75961]]

Vol. 78

Friday,

No. 240

December 13, 2013

Part II

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Part 431

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

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 75962]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0043]
RIN 1904-AC89

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is amending the energy 
efficiency test procedures for electric motors to allow currently 
unregulated motors to be tested by clarifying the test setup 
requirements that are needed to facilitate testing of these types of 
electric motors. In addition, DOE is adopting definitions, which will 
determine the applicability of DOE's regulations to various types of 
electric motors. The amendments would clarify the scope of coverage for 
electric motors and not otherwise affect the test procedure.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 13, 2014.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on 
January 13, 2014. The incorporation by reference of other publications 
listed in this rule were approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register on May 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. 
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov 
index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those 
containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not 
be publicly available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/74. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this 
notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will 
contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including 
public comments, in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. 
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Mr. James Raba, 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) 
586-8654. Email: medium_electric_motors@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Ami Grace-Tardy, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-5709. Email: Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference 
into subpart B of 10 CFR part 431, the following industry standards:
    NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-2009 (``NEMA MG 1-2009''), Motors 
and Generators, 2009, Paragraphs 12.62 and 12.63.
    Copies of NEMA MG 1-2009 can be obtained from the National 
Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 17th St. N., Suite 900, 
Arlington, VA 22209, (703) 841-3200, or http://www.nema.org.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Expanding the Scope of Coverage of Energy Conservation 
Standards
    B. Electric Motor Types for Which DOE Is Not Amending Existing 
Definitions
    C. International Electrotechnical Commission IP and IC Codes
    D. Motor Type Definitions and Testing Set-Up Instructions
    1. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Design A and 
Design C Motors
    2. International Electrotechnical Commission Designs N and H 
Motors
    3. Electric Motors With Moisture-Resistant, Sealed or 
Encapsulated Windings
    4. Inverter-Capable Electric Motors
    5. Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated Electric Motors
    6. Air-Over Electric Motor
    E. Electric Motor Types Requiring Definitions and Test Procedure 
Instructions
    1. Immersible Electric Motors
    2. Brake Electric Motors
    3. Partial Electric Motors
    F. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only Test Procedure 
Instructions
    1. Electric Motors With Non-Standard Endshields or Flanges
    2. Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors and Electric Motors With 
Single or Double Shaft Extensions of Non-Standard Dimensions or 
Design
    3. Vertical Electric Motors
    4. Electric Motor Bearings
    5. Electric Motors With Non-Standard Bases, Feet or Mounting 
Configurations
    6. Electric Motors With Separately-Powered Blowers
    G. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only Definitions
    1. Component Set of an Electric Motor
    2. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motor
    3. Submersible Electric Motor
    4. Inverter-Only Electric Motor
    H. Effective Dates for the Amended Test Procedures and Other 
Issues
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    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. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'') sets forth a variety of provisions 
designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer to 
the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing 
Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (December 18, 
2012)). Part C of title III, which for editorial reasons was 
redesignated as Part A-1 upon incorporation into the U.S. Code, 
establishes an energy conservation program for certain industrial 
equipment, which includes electric motors, the subject of today's 
notice. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A), 6313(b)).
    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 
testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of 
covered products must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to the 
Department of Energy (DOE) that their products comply with the 
applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) 
making representations about the energy or water consumption of those 
products. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures when testing 
products to determine whether they comply with the applicable standards 
promulgated pursuant to EPCA.
    In the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486 (October 24, 
1992)

[[Page 75963]]

(EPACT 1992), Congress amended EPCA to establish energy conservation 
standards, test procedures, compliance certification, and labeling 
requirements for certain electric motors. (When used in context, the 
term ``motor'' refers to ``electric motor'' in this document.) On 
October 5, 1999, DOE published a final rule to implement these 
requirements. 64 FR 54114. In 2007, section 313 of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act (EISA 2007) amended EPCA by: (1) Striking 
the definition of ``electric motor,'' (2) setting forth definitions for 
``general purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' and ``general purpose 
electric motor (subtype II),'' and (3) prescribing energy conservation 
standards for ``general purpose electric motors (subtype I),'' 
``general purpose electric motors (subtype II), ``fire pump electric 
motors,'' and ``NEMA Design B general purpose electric motors'' with a 
power rating of more than 200 horsepower but not greater than 500 
horsepower. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13) and 6313(b)). Consequently, on March 
23, 2009, DOE updated the corresponding regulations at 10 CFR part 431 
consistent with these changes. 74 FR 12058. On December 22, 2008, DOE 
proposed to update the test procedures under Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, part 431 (10 CFR part 431) for both electric 
motors and small electric motors. 73 FR 78220. After considering 
comments from interested parties, DOE finalized key provisions related 
to small electric motor testing in a 2009 final rule (see 74 FR 32059 
(July 7, 2009)) and further updated the test procedures for electric 
motors and small electric motors. See 77 FR 26608 (May 4, 2012).
    On June 26, 2013, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NOPR) focused on electric motors that proposed adding certain 
definitions along with specific testing set-up instructions and 
clarifications to the current test procedures under subpart B of 10 CFR 
part 431 that would address a wider variety of electric motor 
categories (or types) than what DOE currently regulates. 78 FR 38456. 
DOE proposed these amendments because the additional testing set-up 
instructions and clarifications were designed to permit manufacturers 
of these ``unregulated'' motors to test these motors using one of the 
prescribed test methods listed in 10 CFR part 431. The addition of 
these set-up instructions will more readily enable a manufacturer to 
consistently measure the losses and determine the efficiency of a wider 
variety of motor categories than what is regulated under the current 
energy conservation standards laid out in 10 CFR 431.25.\1\ Related to 
today's rulemaking, DOE is also considering prescribing standards for 
some electric motor categories addressed in this notice through a 
parallel energy conservation standards-related activity. See 78 FR 
73590 (Dec. 6, 2013). See also 76 FR 17577 (March 30, 2011) (detailing 
DOE's request for information regarding electric motor coverage) and 77 
FR 43015 (July 23, 2012) (announcing DOE's preliminary analysis for 
potential standards related to electric motors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPCA, as amended by EPACT 1992, had previously defined an 
``electric motor'' as any motor which is a general purpose T-frame, 
single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction motor 
of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 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. 
(42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (1992)) Through subsequent amendments to EPCA 
made by EISA 2007, Congress removed this definition and added 
language denoting two new subtypes of general purpose electric 
motors. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)-(B) (2012)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, DOE notes that section 343(a)(5)(A) of EPCA, 
42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A), initially required that the test procedures to 
determine electric motor efficiency shall be those procedures specified 
in two documents: National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 
Standards Publication MG 1-1987 \2\ and Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 112 (Test Method B) for motor 
efficiency, as in effect on the date of enactment of EPACT 1992. 
Section 343(a)(5)(B)-(C) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B)-(C), provides 
in part that if the NEMA- and IEEE-developed test procedures are 
amended, the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary) shall so amend the 
test procedures under 10 CFR part 431, unless the Secretary determines, 
by rule, that the amended industry procedures would not meet the 
requirements for test procedures to produce results that reflect energy 
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of the tested 
motor, or would be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-
(3), (a)(5)(B)) DOE has updated 10 CFR part 431 consistent with this 
requirement as newer versions of the NEMA and IEEE test procedures for 
electric motors were published and used by industry. See, e.g. 64 FR 
54114 (October 5, 1999) (reflecting changes introduced by MG 1-1993 and 
IEEE Standard 112-1996). DOE also added Canadian Standards Association 
(CSA) CAN/CSA C390-93, ``Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Three-Phase 
Induction Motors'' as an equivalent and acceptable test method, which 
aligns with industry practices. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NEMA MG1 does not contain the actual methods and 
calculations needed to perform an energy efficiency test but, 
rather, refers the reader to the proper industry methodologies in 
IEEE Standard 112 and CSA C390-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, on May 4, 2012, DOE incorporated by reference the updated 
versions of NEMA MG 1-2009, IEEE 112-2004, and CAN/CSA C390-10. 77 FR 
26608, 26638 (the ``2012 final test procedure''). DOE made the updates 
to ensure consistency between 10 CFR part 431 and current industry 
procedures and related practices. Since publication of the 2012 final 
test procedure, NEMA Standards Publication MG 1 has been updated to MG 
1-2011. The updates, however, did not affect the sections that DOE had 
proposed to incorporate by reference from MG 1-2009 and, subsequently, 
declines to adopt MG 1-2011.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

    In this final rule, DOE:
    (1) Defines a variety of electric motor configurations (i.e., 
types) that are currently regulated under 10 CFR 431.25, but are not 
currently defined under 10 CFR part 431.12;
    (2) Defines a variety of electric motor configurations (i.e., 
types) that are not currently regulated under 10 CFR 431.25 and are not 
currently defined under 10 CFR 431.12; and
    (3) Clarifies the necessary testing ``set-up'' procedures to 
facilitate the testing of certain motor types that are not currently 
regulated for energy efficiency by DOE.
    This final rule was precipitated by DOE's ongoing electric motors 
standards rulemaking. DOE published its ``Framework Document for 
Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors'' (the ``2010 framework 
document'') (75 FR 59657) on September 28, 2010. Public comments filed 
in response urged DOE to consider regulating the efficiency of certain 
definite and special purpose motors. DOE, in turn, published an Request 
for Information (RFI) seeking information regarding definite and 
special purpose motors (the ``March 2011 RFI''). See 76 FR 17577 (March 
30, 2011). In its December 6, 2013 energy conservation standards NOPR, 
DOE proposed expanding the scope of its regulatory program to include 
all continuous duty, single speed, squirrel-cage, polyphase 
alternating-current, induction motors, with some narrowly defined 
exceptions. See 78 FR 73589. Today's final rule addresses test 
procedure issues potentially arising from the proposed scope of DOE's 
energy efficiency requirements to include certain motor types that are 
not currently required to meet energy conservation standards. In 
particular,

[[Page 75964]]

today's final rule includes, among other things, definitions for those 
motor types that DOE may consider regulating. DOE has coordinated 
today's test procedure final rule with its parallel efforts to examine 
proposed energy conservation standards for electric motors. To the 
extent possible, DOE has considered all relevant comments pertaining to 
these activities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See dockets at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027 and http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-TP-0043.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to including new definitions, today's final rule adds 
set-up procedures for the applicable test procedures contained in 
appendix B to subpart B of 10 CFR part 431, to accommodate certain 
electric motors that DOE has proposed to regulate. Because the 
amendments are limited to those steps necessary to facilitate testing 
under the currently incorporated test procedures found at 10 CFR 
431.16, DOE does not anticipate that this rule would affect the actual 
measurement of losses and the subsequent determination of efficiency 
for any of the electric motors within the scope of the conservation 
standards rulemaking.
    The revisions are summarized in the table below and addressed in 
detail in the following sections. Note that all citations to various 
sections of 10 CFR part 431 throughout this preamble refer to the 
current version of 10 CFR part 431. The regulatory text follows the 
preamble to this final rule.

 Table II-1--Summary of Changes and Affected Sections of 10 CFR Part 431
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Existing section in 10 CFR part
                431                   Summary of proposed modifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 431.12--Definitions.......   Adds new definitions for:
                                    [cir] Air-over electric motor.
                                       [cir] Brake electric motor.
                                       [cir] Component set.
                                       [cir] Electric motor with
                                        moisture resistant, sealed or
                                        encapsulated windings.
                                       [cir] IEC Design H motor.
                                       [cir] IEC Design N motor.
                                       [cir] Immersible electric motor.
                                       [cir] Inverter-capable electric
                                        motor.
                                       [cir] Inverter-only electric
                                        motor.
                                       [cir] Liquid-cooled electric
                                        motor.
                                       [cir] NEMA Design A motor.
                                       [cir] NEMA Design C motor.
                                       [cir] Partial electric motor.
                                       [cir] Submersible electric motor.
                                       [cir] Totally enclosed non-
                                        ventilated (TENV) electric
                                        motor.
Appendix B to Subpart B--Uniform     Updates test procedure set-
 Test Method for Measuring Nominal   up methods for:
 Full Load Efficiency of Electric   [cir] Brake Electric motors.
 Motors.                            [cir] Close-coupled pump electric
                                     motors and electric motors with
                                     single or double shaft extensions
                                     of non-standard dimensions or
                                     design.
                                       [cir] Electric motors with non-
                                        standard endshields or flanges.
                                       [cir] Electric motors with non-
                                        standard bases, feet or mounting
                                        configurations.
                                       [cir] Electric motors with
                                        separately powered blowers.
                                       [cir] Immersible electric motors.
                                       [cir] Partial electric motors.
                                       [cir] Vertical electric motors
                                        and electric motors with
                                        bearings incapable of horizontal
                                        operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE developed today's final rule after considering public input, 
including written comments, from a wide variety of interested parties. 
All commenters, along with their corresponding abbreviations and 
affiliation, are listed in Table II.2 below. The issues raised by these 
commenters are addressed in the discussions that follow.

              Table II-2--Summary of Final Rule Commenters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Company or organization         Abbreviation         Affiliation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Energy.................  AE................  Testing
                                                       Laboratory.
Appliance Standards Awareness     ASAP..............  Energy Efficiency
 Project.                                              Advocate.
American Council for an Energy-   ACEEE.............  Energy Efficiency
 Efficient Economy.                                    Advocate.
Alliance to Save Energy.........  ASE...............  Energy Efficiency
                                                       Advocate.
Baldor Electric Co..............  Baldor............  Manufacturer.
Bluffton Motor Works............  Bluffton..........  Manufacturer.
California Investor Owned         CA IOUs...........  Utilities.
 Utilities.
Copper Development Association..  CDA...............  Trade Association.
Motor Coalition *...............  MC................  Energy Efficiency
                                                       Advocates,
                                                       Manufacturer
                                                       Trade
                                                       Association.
National Electrical               NEMA..............  Trade Association.
 Manufacturers Association.
Natural Resource Defense Council  NRDC..............  Energy Efficiency
                                                       Advocate.
Nidec Motor Corporation.........  Nidec.............  Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency       NEEA..............  Energy Efficiency
 Alliance.                                             Advocate.
Regal Beloit....................  Regal Beloit......  Manufacturer.
SEW-EURODRIVE, Inc..............  SEWEUR............  Manufacturer.
Siemens.........................  Siemens...........  Manufacturer.

[[Page 75965]]

 
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc..  UL................  Testing
                                                       Laboratory.
WEG Electric Corp...............  WEG...............  Manufacturer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The members of the Motor Coalition include: National Electrical
  Manufacturers Association, American Council for an
  Energy[hyphen]Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness
  Project, Alliance to Save Energy, Earthjustice, Natural Resources
  Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Northeast
  Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and Northwest Power and Conservation
  Council.

III. Discussion

A. Expanding the Scope of Coverage of Energy Conservation Standards

    As noted in DOE's recent energy conservation standards rulemaking 
proposal, changes brought about by the Energy Independence and Security 
Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007) and the American Energy 
Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act. Public Law 112-210, Sec. 10 
(Dec. 18, 2012) have enabled the Agency to consider an expanded scope 
of motors for regulatory coverage. See 78 FR at 73603.
    Based on its analysis of this discrete group of ``expanded-scope'' 
motors, DOE believes that the existing IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method 
B) and CSA C390-10 test procedures can be used to accurately measure 
their losses and determine their energy efficiency because all of the 
motor types under consideration are single-speed, polyphase induction 
motors with electromechanical characteristics similar to those 
currently subject to energy conservation standards. While some of these 
motor types require additional testing set-up instructions prior to 
testing, all can be tested using the same methodology provided in those 
industry-based procedures DOE has already incorporated into its 
regulations.
    Testing an electric motor using IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) 
or CSA C390-10 requires some basic electrical connections and physical 
configurations. To test an electric motor under either procedure, the 
electric motor is first mounted on a test bench, generally in a 
horizontal position. In this orientation, this means that the motor 
shaft is horizontal to the test bench and the motor is equipped with 
antifriction bearings that can withstand operation while in a 
horizontal position.\4\ Instruments are then connected to the power 
leads of the motor to measure input power, voltage, current, speed, 
torque, temperature, and other input, output, and performance 
characteristics. Thermocouples are attached to the motor to facilitate 
temperature measurement. Stator winding resistance is measured while 
the motor is at ambient, or room, temperature. No-load measurements are 
recorded while the motor is operating, both temperature and input power 
have stabilized, and the shaft extension is free from any attachments. 
After ambient temperature and no-load measurements are taken, a 
dynamometer is attached to the motor shaft to take ``loaded'' 
measurements. A dynamometer is a device that simultaneously applies and 
measures torque for a motor. The dynamometer applies incremental loads 
to the shaft, typically at 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, and 150 percent of the 
motor's total rated output horsepower. This allows the testing 
laboratory to record motor performance criteria, such as power output 
and torque, at each incremental load point. Additional stator winding 
resistance measurements are taken to record the temperature at the 
different load points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DOE is aware of some types of bearings that cannot operate 
while the motor is in a horizontal position. DOE addresses such 
bearings in later sections of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, DOE has added clarifying instructions it 
believes are necessary to test some of the expanded-scope motors should 
DOE decide at some point to set standards for these motors. Some motors 
will require modifications before they can operate continuously and be 
tested on a dynamometer in a manner consistent with the current DOE 
test procedure. For example, a partial electric motor may be engineered 
for use without one or both endshields, including bearings, because it 
relies on mechanical support from another piece of equipment. Without 
these components, the motor would be unable to operate as a stand-alone 
piece of equipment. To address this issue, DOE has added instructions 
to facilitate consistent and repeatable procedures for motors such as 
these. These additions are based on testing and research conducted by 
DOE along with technical consultations with subject matter experts 
(SMEs), manufacturers, testing laboratories, various trade 
associations, and comments from stakeholders in response to the June 
2013 NOPR. Table III-7 lists those electric motors that are covered 
under current energy conservation standards or that DOE is analyzing 
for potential new energy conservation standards. In each case, the 
table identifies whether DOE is addressing a given motor through the 
use of new definitions, test procedure instructions, or both.

                                 Table III-1--Motor Types Considered for Regulation in DOE Proposed Standards Rulemaking
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Currently subject to      Under  consideration  for                                     Additional set-up
             Motor type                        standards?              potential standards?     New definition established?   instructions  established?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA Design A Motors................  Yes........................  Yes........................  Yes........................  No.
NEMA Design C Motors................  Yes........................  Yes........................  Yes........................  No.
IEC Design N Motors.................  Yes........................  Yes........................  Yes........................  No.
IEC Design H Motors.................  Yes........................  Yes........................  Yes........................  No.
Electric Motors with Moisture-        No.........................  Yes........................  Yes........................  No.
 resistant, Sealed, or Encapsulated
 Windings.
Inverter-Capable Electric Motors....  Yes........................  Yes........................  Yes........................  No.
Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated       No.........................  Yes........................  Yes........................  No.
 Electric Motors.
Immersible Electric Motors..........  No.........................  Yes........................  Yes........................  Yes.
Electric Motors with Contact Seals..  Yes........................  Yes........................  No.........................  No.

[[Page 75966]]

 
Brake Electric Motors...............  Yes \5\....................  Yes........................  Yes........................  Yes.
Partial Electric Motors.............  No.........................  Yes........................  Yes........................  Yes.
Electric Motors with Non-Standard     No.........................  Yes........................  No.........................  Yes.
 Endshields or Flanges.
Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors..  Yes........................  Yes........................  No.........................  Yes.
Electric Motors with Special Shafts.  No.........................  Yes........................  No.........................  Yes.
Vertical Solid Shaft Motors.........  Yes........................  Yes........................  No.........................  Yes.
Vertical Hollow-Shaft Motors........  No.........................  Yes........................  No.........................  Yes.
Electric Motors with Thrust Bearings  No.........................  Yes........................  No.........................  Yes.
Electric Motors with Sealed Bearings  Yes........................  Yes........................  No.........................  Yes.
Electric Motors with Roller Bearings  No.........................  Yes........................  No.........................  Yes.
Electric Motors with Sleeve Bearings  Yes........................  Yes........................  No.........................  Yes.
Electric Motors with Non-Standard     No.........................  Yes........................  No.........................  No.
 Bases.
Air-Over Electric Motors............  No.........................  No.........................  Yes........................  No.
Component Sets......................  No.........................  No.........................  Yes........................  No.
Liquid-cooled Electric Motors.......  No.........................  No.........................  Yes........................  No.
Submersible Electric Motors.........  No.........................  No.........................  Yes........................  No.
Inverter-Only Electric Motors.......  No.........................  No.........................  Yes........................  No.
Electric Motors with Separately       No.........................  Yes........................  No.........................  Yes.
 Powered Blowers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \5\ Some motors (i.e., ``non-integral'') that fall under the new 
definition for ``brake electric motors'' are currently required to 
meet standards and others (i.e., ``integral'') are not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the scope of coverage, the advocates commented that the NOPR 
shows that DOE takes the August 2012 Motor Coalition ``Joint Petition 
to Adopt Joint Stakeholder Proposal As it Relates to the Rulemaking on 
Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors'' (the 
``Petition''),\6\ seriously and contemplates proposing standards based 
on the Petition. (ASAP et al., No. 12 at p. 1) CDA strongly supported 
DOE's intention to expand the scope of covered electric motors 
described in the written Joint Petition and proposed in the NOPR. 
However, CDA urged DOE to consider including electric motors greater 
than 500 hp in the future standards rulemaking since they account for 
27% of total power consumption in the U.S. (CDA, No. 9 at p. 3) 
Conversely, Regal Beloit suggested that the definitions and test 
procedures in this rulemaking be extended to include small electric 
motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 166-168).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Motor Coalition, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that its final rule simply provides a standardized means 
to test certain other types of electric motors that DOE does not 
currently regulate. The applicability of the proposed energy 
conservation standards was discussed in the NOPR and will be determined 
as part of that rulemaking. Any basic model of electric motors 
distributed in commerce that is subject to DOE's current or amended 
energy conservation standards will need to be tested in accordance with 
the test methods being adopted in this final rule. See the effective 
date discussion below regarding the timing requirements for 
representations and compliance.

B. Electric Motor Types for Which DOE Is Not Amending Existing 
Definitions

    Prior to EISA 2007, section 340(13)(A) of EPCA, as amended, defined 
the term ``electric motor'' as any motor which is a general purpose T-
frame, single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction 
motor of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Design A 
and B, continuous rated, operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60 
Hertz line power as defined in NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-1987. 
(42 U.S.C. 6311(13) (2006)) EISA 2007, section 313(a)(2) struck out 
that definition, replacing it with an ``electric motor'' heading, and 
adding two subtypes of electric motors: General purpose electric motor 
(subtype I) and general purpose electric motor (subtype II). (42 U.S.C. 
6311(13)). Additionally, section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 established 
energy conservation standards for four types of electric motors: 
General purpose electric motor (subtype I) with a power rating of 1 to 
200 horsepower; fire pump motors \7\; general purpose electric motor 
(subtype II) 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 at 
this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For the most part, DOE understands that a fire pump electric 
motor is a NEMA Design B motor, except it does not have a thermal 
limit switch that would otherwise preclude multiple starts. In other 
words, a NEMA Design B electric motor has a thermal limit switch 
that protects the motor, whereas a fire pump electric motor does not 
have such a thermal limit switch to ensure that the motor will start 
and operate to pump water to extinguish a fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 4, 2012 DOE published a final rule test procedure for 
electric motors that further updated the definitional structure for 
electric motors. 77 FR 26608. DOE noted that while EISA 2007 struck the 
definition for electric motor, EPCA, as amended by EISA, continued to 
reference ``electric motors,'' causing confusion and ambiguity. As DOE 
has the statutory authority to regulate motors beyond the subtypes of 
motors for which Congress had established energy conservation standards 
in EISA 2007, DOE chose to define ``electric motor'' broadly, 
eliminating the process of having to continually update the definition 
each time the Department set energy conservation standards for a new 
subset of motors. The 2012 final test procedure defined ``electric 
motor'' as ``a machine that converts electrical power into rotational 
mechanical power.'' 77 FR 26633.
    EISA 2007 also established definitions for ``general purpose 
electric motor (subtype I)'' and ``general purpose electric motor 
(subtype II).'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)) During the last test procedure 
rulemaking process, DOE made some clarifying changes to these 
definitions, noting that electric motors built according to 
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards and that 
otherwise meet the proposed definition of ``general purpose electric 
motor (subtype I),'' are covered

[[Page 75967]]

motors under EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, even though the NEMA-
equivalent frame size was discontinued. Outside of these small changes, 
the definitions for subtype I and subtype II motors have remained 
largely unchanged.
    In the 2012 final test procedure, DOE also amended the definition 
of ``general purpose motor'' in 10 CFR part 431 by adding the word 
``electric'' to clarify that a general purpose motor is a type of 
electric motor. 77 FR 26633.
    In the June 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed a number of new definitions for 
types of motors that it is considering regulating in its concurrent 
standards rulemaking. While many of these motors are ``special 
purpose'' or ``definite purpose'' motors, DOE did not alter these 
definitions in its regulations. Furthermore, DOE did not update its 
definitions for ``electric motor,'' ``general purpose electric motor,'' 
``general purpose electric motor (subtype I),'' or ``general purpose 
electric motor (subtype II).'' Rather, it laid out the nine criteria 
mentioned earlier in this rulemaking (i.e., single-speed, polyphase, 
etc.), that a motor must meet to be considered for coverage in DOE's 
concurrent standards rulemaking process, regardless of whether a given 
motor is special purpose, definite purpose, etc. 78 FR 38460.
    DOE chose the definition structure that it chose because the now 
proposed standards rulemaking develops a coverage structure based on a 
motor meeting both the simple ``electric motors'' definition and the 
nine referenced criteria. Because the standards NOPR was under initial 
development at the time of the final test procedure development, DOE 
could not share this now proposed coverage structure. Therefore, many 
of NEMA's comments on electric motor definitions are made irrelevant by 
the recent standards NOPR. Nevertheless, NEMA's definitional concerns 
are listed here as they were provided as comments on the test procedure 
rulemaking.
    In response to the NOPR, NEMA urged DOE to add clarity to the 
definition of ``electric motor'' and ``general purpose electric motor 
subtype I,'' and add new definitions for ``motor,'' ``definite purpose 
electric motor,'' and ``special purpose electric motor.'' NEMA pointed 
out that the term ``motor'' has not been defined in the NOPR. (Pub. 
Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 76-77). NEMA recommended defining ``motor'' as 
``a machine that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical 
power.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 7) Further, NEMA noted that the definition 
of ``electric motor'' needs to be clearer and more complete for 
regulatory purposes and suggested that the proposed definition of 
electric motor should include the nine characteristics describing 
construction and performance of the motor. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 
15-22; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 76; NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 2,3,6,7) NEMA 
stated that if these characteristics are not included in the definition 
of ``electric motor'', then these would need to be included in the 
definitions of all electric motor types such as ``special purpose 
electric motor with moisture resistant windings,'' ``special purpose 
electric motor with encapsulated windings,'' and ``special purpose 
electric motor with sealed windings.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 15). With 
that in mind, NEMA suggested that an electric motor be defined as a 
motor that:
    (1) Is a single-speed, induction motor;
    (2) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type 
S1 (IEC);
    (3) Contains a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
    (4)(i) Is built in accordance with NEMA T-frame dimensions or their 
IEC metric equivalents, including a NEMA frame size that is between two 
consecutive NEMA T-frames or their IEC metric equivalents; or
    (ii) Is built in an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric 
equivalent);
    (5) Has performance in accordance with NEMA Design A (MG 1) or B 
(MG 1) characteristics or equivalent designs such as IEC Design N 
(IEC); and
    (6) Operates on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal 
power. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 2, 3, 6, 7)
    NEMA recommended changing the definition of ``general purpose 
electric motor (subtype I)'' as a general purpose electric motor that:
    (1) Has foot-mounting that may include foot-mounting with flanges 
or detachable feet;
    (2)(i) Is rated at 230 or 460 volts (or both) including motors 
rated at multiple voltages that include 230 or 460 volts (or both), or
    (ii) Can be operated on 230 or 460 volts (or both); and
    (3) Includes, but is not limited to, explosion-proof 
construction.''(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 7)
    DOE understands the intention of NEMA's proposal was to establish a 
definitional structure that would clearly delineate which motors were 
covered and which motors were excluded from coverage. By essentially 
using pulling the nine criteria DOE laid out in the June 2013 NOPR for 
the definition for ``electric motor,'' NEMA is proposing that any motor 
that falls under the definition of ``electric motor'' would be a 
covered motor. But following the approach suggested by NEMA would 
undercut the long-term stability that DOE had sought to provide when it 
developed a broad definition for the term ``electric motor'' by 
requiring DOE to continually update the definition each time DOE 
updates its scope of coverage. In addition, as is evident in the 
standards NOPR, the nine criteria that NEMA is suggesting for the 
``electric motor'' definition are the same criteria that DOE proposes 
using to define the scope of coverage in its proposed standards 
rulemaking so, in effect, DOE's proposal has the same effect as NEMA's 
``electric motor'' definition as far as defining broadly the motor 
types that DOE is considering for coverage (as well as those that are 
already covered.)
    Retaining the definition for ``electric motor'' renders unnecessary 
NEMA's suggestion to add a definition for ``motor;'' this suggestion 
would simply reclassify what are currently defined as ``electric 
motors'' to be ``motors.''
    NEMA's recommended that DOE retain the definitions for ``general 
purpose electric motor'' and ``general purpose electric motor (subtype 
II).'' DOE agrees that changes to these definitions are unnecessary and 
has made no changes to these definitions for the final rule.
    NEMA recommended that the definition for ``general purpose electric 
motor (subtype I)'' be modified by removing clauses from that 
definition that would overlap with the criteria that DOE listed earlier 
in this rule,\8\ and which NEMA proposed be added to the definition of 
``electric motor.'' However, as DOE is choosing not to change the 
definition of ``electric motor'' at this time, DOE believes it is 
essential to leave these clauses in the definition for ``general 
purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' to fully define this type of 
motor. Therefore, DOE has elected to not update the definition for 
``general purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ E.g., single-speed, induction, continuous-duty, squirrel-
cage rotor, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA also suggested editing the existing definitions of special and 
definite purpose motors. NEMA suggested that DOE define a ``definite 
purpose electric motor'' as any electric motor that:
    (1) Is rated at 600 volts or less; and
    (2) Cannot be used in most general purpose applications and is 
designed either:
    (i) To standard ratings with standard operating characteristics or 
standard mechanical construction for use under

[[Page 75968]]

service conditions other than usual, such as those specified in NEMA MG 
1-2009, paragraph 14.3, ``Unusual Service Conditions,'' (incorporated 
by reference, see 431.15); or
    (ii) For use on a particular type of application.'' (NEMA, No. 10 
at p. 8)
    NEMA suggested defining a ``special purpose electric motor'' as any 
electric motor, other than a general purpose electric motor or definite 
purpose electric motor, that:
    (1) Is rated at 600 volts or less; and
    (2) Has special operating characteristics or special mechanical 
construction, or both, designed for a particular application.'' (NEMA, 
No. 10 at p. 8)
    DOE had opted not to update the definitions for ``special purpose 
motor'' and ``definite purpose motor'' in the NOPR because these 
definitions would apply broadly to cover a group of motors, 
irrespective of whether each motor category within that group is 
required to meet energy conservation standards. However, DOE does agree 
with NEMA that ``special purpose motors'' and ``definite purpose 
motors'' should be defined within the context of the broader term 
``electric motors.'' In the 2012 final rule test procedure for electric 
motors DOE made a similar decision to update the term ``fire pump 
motor'' to ``fire pump electric motor.'' 77 FR 26616. For this final 
rule, DOE has therefore revised the terms ``special purpose motor'' and 
``definite purpose motor'' to be ``special purpose electric motor'' and 
``definite purpose electric motor'' \9\ while retaining the previously 
established definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In the recent standards NOPR, the special or definite 
purpose distinctions evaporate based on the proposed regulatory 
structure. Therefore, at some point in the future, DOE intends to 
remove these definitions from DOE regulations. DOE is retaining the 
definitions for now to help manufacturer's meet the current energy 
conservation standards and delineating between general purpose 
versus definite or special purpose electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. International Electrotechnical Commission IP and IC Codes

    As discussed in section III.A.2, International Electrotechnical 
Commission (IEC), similar to NEMA, produces industry standards that 
contain performance requirements for electric motors. In the NOPR, DOE 
incorporated the term `IEC motor equivalents' in the proposed 
definitions of NEMA-based electric motor types included in 10 CFR part 
431 to ensure that IEC motors equivalents would be treated in a similar 
and consistent manner as NEMA-based electric motors.
    In response to the NOPR, NEMA raised concerns that the IEC does not 
use the same identifiers as NEMA to characterize the motor types. 
Instead, IEC generally uses specific ``IP'' (protection provided by 
enclosure) and ``IC'' codes (method of cooling) to identify the motor 
types. Therefore, NEMA requested that DOE include appropriate IP and IC 
codes to properly include IEC-equivalent electric motors within the 
proposed definitions (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 9)
    DOE will consider issuing separate guidance regarding these codes 
and their interplay with those motors built in accordance with NEMA 
specifications. As part of that process, the agency will afford the 
public with an opportunity to comment on any proposed guidance that the 
agency decides to issue.

D. Motor Type Definitions and Testing Set-Up Instructions

    In the course of the 2012 final test procedure rulemaking, some 
interested parties questioned why DOE defined the term ``NEMA Design B 
motor'' but not ``NEMA Design A motor'' or ``NEMA Design C motor.'' DOE 
explained at the time that a definition for ``NEMA Design B motor'' was 
necessary because the application section in MG 1 (paragraph 1.19.1.2 
in both MG 1-2009 and MG 1-2011) contained a typographical error that 
required correcting for purposes of DOE's regulations, which exactly 
implemented a standard for NEMA Design B motors that are general 
purpose electric motors with a power rating of more than 200 
horsepower, but less than or equal to 500 horsepower. See 10 CFR 
431.25(d). At that time, DOE also noted that it may incorporate a 
corrected version of the ``NEMA Design C motor'' definition in a future 
rulemaking because that definition, which is found in NEMA MG 1-2009, 
paragraph 1.19.1.3, also contains a typographical error. DOE did not, 
however, intend to add definitions for NEMA Design A and IEC Design N, 
as the existing definitions found in MG 1 are correct as published. 77 
FR at 26616 and 26634 (May 4, 2012).
    Given DOE's current intention to consider establishing energy 
conservation standards for an expanded scope of motors, however, DOE 
now believes it is necessary to clarify the terms and definitions 
pertaining to Design A and Design N motors as well. DOE understands 
that many terms and definitions applicable to motors are used in common 
industry parlance for voluntary standards and day-to-day business 
communication but are not necessarily defined with sufficient clarity 
for regulatory purposes. At this time, DOE is making changes designed 
to provide more precise definitions for these terms to sufficiently 
capture the particular characteristics attributable to each definition. 
Both DOE and manufacturers should use these definitions to determine 
whether a particular basic model is covered by DOE's regulations for 
electric motors. DOE notes, however, that the presence of a given 
definition in this document does not obligate DOE to establish energy 
conservation standards for the motor type defined.
1. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Design A and Design C 
Motors
    NEMA MG 1-2009's definitions include the following three types of 
polyphase, alternating current, induction motors: NEMA Designs A, B, 
and C. NEMA MG 1-2009 establishes the same pull-up, breakdown, and 
locked-rotor torque requirements for both NEMA Design A and NEMA Design 
B motors.\10\ However, a NEMA Design A motor must be designed such that 
its locked-rotor current exceeds the maximum locked-rotor current 
established for a NEMA Design B motor. Unless the application 
specifically requires the higher locked-rotor current capability 
offered by a NEMA Design A motor, a NEMA Design B motor (which has the 
same specified minimum torque characteristics as the NEMA Design A 
motor) is often used instead because of the additional convenience 
offered by these motors when compared to Design A motors. (See NEMA, 
EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at 36 (noting the additional convenience 
offered by Design B motors over Design A motors with respect to 
selecting disconnecting methods and in satisfying National Electrical 
Code and UL requirements.)) In addition, DOE understands that NEMA 
Design B motors are frequently preferred because the user can easily 
select the motor control and protection

[[Page 75969]]

equipment that meets the applicable requirements of the National Fire 
Protection Association (NFPA) National Electrical Code (NFPA 70). These 
motors are also listed by private testing, safety, or certification 
organizations, such as CSA International or UL. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-
STD-0027-0054 at p. 36)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Locked-rotor torque is the torque that a motor produces 
when it is at rest or zero speed and initially turned on. A higher 
locked-rotor torque is important for hard-to-start applications, 
such as positive displacement pumps or compressors. A lower locked-
rotor torque can be accepted in applications such as centrifugal 
fans or pumps where the start load is low or close to zero. Pull-up 
torque is the torque needed to cause a load to reach its full rated 
speed. If a motor's pull-up torque is less than that required by its 
application load, the motor will overheat and eventually stall. 
Breakdown torque is the maximum torque a motor can produce without 
abruptly losing motor speed. High breakdown torque is necessary for 
applications that may undergo frequent overloading, such as a 
conveyor belt. Often, conveyor belts have more product or materials 
placed upon them than their rating allows. High breakdown torque 
enables the conveyor to continue operating under these conditions 
without causing heat damage to the motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike NEMA Design A and B motors, a NEMA Design C motor requires a 
minimum locked-rotor torque per NEMA MG 1-2009, Table 12-3, which is 
higher than either the NEMA Design A or Design B minimum locked-rotor 
torque required per NEMA MG 1-2009, Table 12-2.
    In view of the above, DOE proposed to incorporate a definition for 
both ``NEMA Design A motor'' and ``NEMA Design C motor'' to improve the 
clarity between these two terms. As DOE had already adopted a 
definition for ``NEMA Design B motor'' at 10 CFR 431.12, it believed 
that providing definitions for other motor types would provide 
consistency in the treatment of all considered motors. 78 FR 38462. The 
proposed definitions for NEMA Design A and Design C motors were based 
on the definitions in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraphs 1.19.1.1 and 1.19.1.3, 
respectively. DOE proposed to define a ``NEMA Design A motor'' as ``a 
squirrel-cage motor designed to withstand full-voltage starting and 
that develops locked-rotor torque, pull-up torque, breakdown torque, 
and locked-rotor current as specified in NEMA MG 1-2009-and with a slip 
at rated load of less than 5 percent for motors with fewer than 10 
poles.'' DOE also proposed to define a ``NEMA Design C motor'' as ``a 
squirrel-cage motor designed to withstand full-voltage starting and 
that develops locked-rotor torque for high-torque applications, pull-up 
torque, breakdown torque, and locked-rotor current as specified in NEMA 
MG 1-2009--and with a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent.''
    NEMA requested that DOE modify its proposed definitions of NEMA 
Design A and Design C motors and urged that the definitions be 
consistent when referencing to the NEMA MG 1-2009 tables. (Pub. Mtg. 
Tr., No. 7 at p. 41, 44, 45) \11\ NEMA acknowledged an error in the 
definition of NEMA Design C in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph 1.19.1.3 and 
suggested that the phrase ``up to the values'' in reference to the 
level of locked rotor torque and breakdown torque should be replaced 
with ``not less than the values'' because the limits in the referenced 
tables are the minimum values. NEMA suggested that the proper 
statements can be found in the actual standards in the referenced 
clauses of NEMA MG 1-2009 paragraph 12.37 and NEMA MG 1-2009 paragraph 
12.39. (NEMA, No.10 at p. 13) WEG asserted that since DOE's procedure 
would apply only to 60 Hertz (Hz) motors, DOE should omit references to 
50 Hz motors in the definitions. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 43)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ (In this and subsequent citations, the document number 
refers to the number of the comment in the Docket for the DOE 
rulemaking on test procedures for electric motors, Docket No. EERE-
2012-BT-TP-0043; and the page references refer to the place in the 
document where the statement preceding appears.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has re-evaluated its proposed definitions for NEMA Design A 
motors and NEMA Design C motors after receiving the comments above. 
Regarding the NEMA Design C definition, DOE recognizes the error in its 
proposed definition and is modifying the definition to read ``not less 
than the values'' instead of ``up to the values.'' The remainder of the 
proposed Design C definition is being adopted. DOE did not receive any 
other specific comments regarding the definition of NEMA Design A 
motors, so DOE is adopting the definition proposed in the NOPR without 
modifications. Regarding the clause for ``50 Hz'' motors, DOE notes 
that the definition for NEMA Design B motors already present in 10 CFR 
part 431 contains this phrase, and to maintain consistency between the 
three definitions, DOE has retained it for the NEMA Design A and NEMA 
Design C definitions. DOE also notes that NEMA's MG 1-2009 includes 
both 60 Hz and 50 Hz in its Design A, B and C definitions. Under the 
regulatory scheme outlined in the standards NOPR, however, DOE's 
proposed standards would only apply to 60 Hz motors because of the nine 
criteria that define the scope of coverage.
2. International Electrotechnical Commission Designs N and H Motors
    The European International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 
produces industry standards that contain performance requirements for 
electric motors similar to those produced by NEMA. Analogous to NEMA 
Designs B and C are IEC Designs N and H. IEC Design N motors have 
similar performance characteristics to NEMA Design B motors, while IEC 
Design H motors are similar to NEMA Design C motors. Because many 
motors imported into the U.S. are built to IEC specifications instead 
of NEMA specifications, DOE proposed to include a definition for IEC 
Design N and IEC Design H motor types to ensure that these functionally 
similar motors were treated in a manner consistent with equivalent 
NEMA-based electric motors and to retain overall consistency with the 
existing definitional framework.
    DOE's proposed definition for ``IEC Design N motor'' incorporated 
language from IEC Standard 60034-12 (2007 Ed. 2.1) (IEC 60034) with 
some modifications that would make the definition more comprehensive. 
IEC 60034 defines IEC Design N motors as being ``normal starting torque 
three-phase cage induction motors intended for direct-across the line 
starting, having 2, 4, 6 or 8 poles and rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW,'' 
with torque characteristics and locked-rotor characteristics detailed 
in subsequent tables of the standard.\12\ A similar approach for IEC 
Design H motors is taken in IEC 60034, but with references to different 
sections and slightly different wording. DOE proposed including all 
references to tables for torque characteristics and locked-rotor 
characteristics as part of these definitions to improve their 
comprehensiveness. As detailed in the NOPR, DOE proposed to define an 
``IEC Design N motor'' as ``an induction motor designed for use with 
three-phase power with the following characteristics: A cage rotor, 
intended for direct-on-line starting, having 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles, rated 
from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz, and conforming to IEC 
specifications for torque characteristics, locked rotor apparent power, 
and starting.'' DOE proposed to define a ``IEC Design H motor'' as ``an 
induction motor designed for use with three-phase power with the 
following characteristics: A cage rotor, intended for direct-on-line 
starting, with 4, 6, or 8 poles, rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW, and 
conforming to IEC specifications for starting torque, locked rotor 
apparent power, and starting.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Across-the-line (or direct-on-line) starting is the ability 
of a motor to start directly when connected to a polyphase 
sinusoidal power source without the need for an inverter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these proposed definitions, interested parties made 
several suggestions. NEMA requested removal of the parenthetical 
statement ``(as demonstrated by the motor's ability to operate without 
an inverter)'' because, in its view, it is unnecessary and not included 
in the present definition of NEMA Design B motor nor in the proposed 
definitions of NEMA Designs A and C motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 
45, 46) NEMA further suggested that the rating range of 0.4 kW to 1600 
kW be replaced with 0.75 kW to 373 kW as applicable to all defined 
electric motors and as given in the

[[Page 75970]]

present 10 CFR 431.25.\13\ Baldor commented that the 1 to 500 
horsepower range should be included in the definition, which presumably 
would align with the scope of coverage proposed in DOE's standards 
NOPR. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 52) SEW pointed out that the 
definition for IEC Design H includes ``at a frequency of 60 Hz'' while 
the definition for IEC design N does not include it. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., 
No. 7 at p. 52)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ These are the metric figures for 1 and 500 horsepower, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA commented that, depending on the level of apparent locked 
rotor power, an IEC Design N electric motor may be equivalent to a NEMA 
Design B or NEMA Design A electric motor. Moreover, the marking 
requirements in IEC 60034-1 do not require that a design type or locked 
rotor apparent power be marked on IEC design motors. Therefore, NEMA 
requested that DOE consider these factors (but made no specific 
suggestions on how) while including IEC standards in terms of the level 
of equivalency to the NEMA MG 1 standard in the proposed definitions. 
(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 13) Regal Beloit requested that DOE address the 
scope and design of IEC Design N motors with high inrush locked rotor 
current. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 166-168).
    DOE notes that its objective in defining IEC Design H and IEC 
Design N motors is to define what characteristics and features comprise 
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. While DOE currently regulates motors that have 
a power rating between 0.75 kW to 373 kW, DOE does not believe it needs 
to limit the definitions to this power range to describe whether a 
given motor falls under Design H or Design N. DOE agrees with NEMA 
regarding the need to provide additional clarity about how to determine 
NEMA and IEC equivalent motors to determine the applicability of DOE's 
regulations to IEC-rated motors. Consequently, DOE intends to issue a 
separate guidance document that will help describe the process that 
both DOE and manufacturers should use to determine whether IEC-rated 
motors are subject to DOE's regulations.
    As Baldor noted, DOE also acknowledges that its inclusion of the 
clause ``at a frequency of 60 hz'' in the definition for IEC Design H 
motor and not for IEC Design N may create some ambiguity. For the final 
rule, DOE is modifying the definition of an IEC Design N motor and 
maintaining the definition of an IEC Design H motors, both to specify 
applicability to motors at a frequency of 60 hz.
    DOE generally agrees that removing the parenthetical statement 
``(as demonstrated by the motor's ability to operate without an 
inverter)'' from the definition of IEC Design H and IEC Design N motors 
is unnecessary, and has rewritten the definition such that it is not 
needed. DOE understands that the coverage of IEC motors and NEMA motors 
should comport with one another to help ensure that manufacturers 
follow a consistent set of requirements. It does not make sense to have 
a clause for the definitions of IEC Design H and IEC Design N motors 
and not have it for definitions of NEMA Design A and B. In an effort to 
maintain consistency with DOE's existing, NEMA-based definitions, DOE 
has removed the clause ``as demonstrated by the motor's ability to 
operate without an inverter'' from the two IEC definitions DOE has also 
replaced the term ``intended'' with ``capable'' because the former does 
not definitively establish the capability of motor for direct online 
starting.
    Electric motors that meet the IEC Design N or Design H requirements 
and otherwise meet the definitions of general purpose electric motor 
(subtype I) or (subtype II) are already required to satisfy DOE's 
energy conservation standards at the specified horsepower ranges 
prescribed in 10 CFR 431.25. Because these IEC definitions stipulate a 
set of performance parameters that do not inhibit an electric motor's 
ability to be tested, DOE did not propose any additional test procedure 
amendments in the NOPR.
    At the NOPR public meeting, Regal Beloit suggested that DOE add an 
alternate test plan per the IEC 60034-2-1 because even though there are 
slight differences relative to IEEE 112 (Test Method B), industry 
accepts it as equivalent. It pointed out that this test plan would be 
the IEC equivalent of IEEE 112 (Test Method B) and, because DOE was 
opting to define IEC motor types, it would seem pertinent to include an 
IEC test method. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 166-168). While DOE 
understands Regal Beloit's view, the inclusion of IEC motors that are 
equivalent to motors built in accordance with NEMA specifications is 
not a new concept. These ``IEC-equivalent'' motors are already subject 
to regulation are currently subject to standards. To date, DOE is 
unaware of any difficulties in testing IEC-equivalent motors but will 
consider any appropriate changes to its procedures if any such problems 
arise.
3. Electric Motors With Moisture-resistant, Sealed or Encapsulated 
Windings
    All electric motors have ``insulation systems'' that surround the 
various copper winding components in the stator. The insulation, such 
as a resin coating or plastic sheets, serves two purposes. First, it 
helps separate the three electrical phases of the windings from each 
other and, second, it separates the copper windings from the stator 
lamination steel. Electric motors with encapsulated windings have 
additional insulation that completely encases the stator windings, 
which protects them from condensation, moisture, dirt, and debris. This 
insulation typically consists of a special material coating, such as 
epoxy or resin that completely seals the stator's windings. 
Encapsulation is generally found on open-frame motors, where the 
possibility of contaminants getting inside the motor is higher than for 
an enclosed-frame motor.
    In the electric motors preliminary analysis TSD,\14\ DOE set forth 
a possible definition for the term ``encapsulated electric motor'' that 
was based on a NEMA's definition for the term ``Machine with Sealed 
Windings.'' DOE intended to address those motors containing special 
windings that could withstand exposure to contaminants and moisture--
and whose efficiency is currently unregulated. Commenting on this 
approach, NEMA and Baldor noted that NEMA MG 1-2009 does not specify a 
single term that encompasses a motor with encapsulated windings. 
Instead, NEMA MG 1-2009 provides two terms: one for a ``Machine with 
Sealed Windings'' and one for a ``Machine with Moisture Resistant 
Windings.'' A definition for the term ``Machine with Encapsulated 
Windings'' has not appeared in MG 1 since the 1967 edition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The preliminary TSD published in July 2012 is available at: 
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-
0023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the two pertinent definitions, the comments from 
Baldor and NEMA, and DOE's own research on these types of motors, DOE 
proposed that motors meeting either definition would be addressed by 
the expanded scope of the test procedure and accompanying definitions 
under consideration. The ability for a motor's windings to continue to 
function properly when the motor is in the presence of moisture, water, 
or contaminants, as is the case when a motor meets one of these two 
definitions, does not affect its ability to

[[Page 75971]]

be connected to a dynamometer and be tested for efficiency. 
Additionally, this ability does not preclude a motor from meeting the 
nine criteria that DOE preliminarily used to characterize those 
electric motors whose energy efficiency are not currently regulated but 
that fall within the scope of DOE's regulatory authority. Therefore, in 
the NOPR, DOE proposed two definitions based on the NEMA MG 1-2009 
definitions of a ``Machine with Moisture Resistant Windings'' and a 
``Machine with Sealed Windings.''
    DOE's proposed definitions were based on modified versions of the 
NEMA MG 1-2009 definitions in order to eliminate potential confusion 
and ambiguities. The proposed definitions emphasized the ability of 
motors to pass the conformance tests for moisture and water resistance, 
thereby identifying them as having special or definite purpose 
characteristics. As detailed in the NOPR analysis, DOE proposed to 
define ``electric motor with moisture resistant windings'' as ``an 
electric motor engineered to pass the conformance test for moisture 
resistance as specified in NEMA MG 1-2009.'' DOE proposed to define an 
``electric motor with sealed windings'' as ``an electric motor 
engineered to pass the conformance test for water resistance as 
specified in NEMA MG 1-2009.'' 78 FR 38455.
    In response to the June 2013 NOPR, NEMA pointed out that the 
proposed definitions refer to NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraphs 12.62 and 
12.63 as incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 431.15. DOE's regulations 
currently do not include references to these paragraphs and DOE did not 
propose to add them. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 54; NEMA, No. 10 at p. 
13) As suggested by NEMA, however, DOE is incorporating these two 
paragraphs into 10 CFR 431.15, since both paragraphs are necessary to 
these definitions. DOE notes that no interested parties at either the 
public meeting or in written comments opposed this suggested approach.
    In the proposed definitions of electric motor with moisture 
resistant windings and electric motor with sealed windings, NEMA 
commented that the phrase ``engineered for passing,'' should be 
replaced with ``capable of passing'' as stated in the NEMA MG 1-2009 
standard. Finally NEMA suggested that DOE define an ``electric motor 
with moisture resistant windings'' based on paragraph 1.27.1 of NEMA MG 
1-2009:
    ``Special purpose electric motor with moisture resistant windings 
means a special purpose electric motor that has motor windings that 
have been treated such that exposure to a moist atmosphere will not 
readily cause malfunction. This type of machine is intended for 
exposure to moisture conditions that are more excessive than the usual 
insulation system can withstand. A motor with moisture resistant 
windings is capable of passing the conformance test for moisture 
resistance described in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph 12.63, (incorporated 
by reference, see 431.15) as demonstrated on a representative sample or 
prototype.''
    Based on paragraph 1.27.2 of NEMA MG 1-2009, NEMA proposed that the 
definition for special purpose electric motor with sealed windings be:
    ``Special purpose electric motor with sealed windings means a 
special purpose electric motor that has an insulation system which, 
through the use of materials, processes, or a combination of materials 
and processes, results in windings and connections that are sealed 
against contaminants. This type of machine is intended for 
environmental conditions that are more severe than the usual insulation 
system can withstand. A motor with sealed windings is capable of 
passing the conformance test for water resistance described in NEMA MG 
1-2009, paragraph 12.62, (incorporated by reference, see 431.15) as 
demonstrated on a representative sample or prototype.'' (NEMA, No. 10 
at p. 13-14)
    NEMA and Baldor requested that DOE consider an additional third 
type of motors--``special purpose electric motor with encapsulated 
windings.'' These motors are included in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph 
12.62 and also identified in DOE's 1997 policy statement. NEMA proposed 
that the following definition of this type be considered for 10 CFR 
431.12: ``Special purpose electric motor with encapsulated windings 
means a special purpose electric motor that has motor windings that are 
fully enclosed in an insulating material that protects the windings 
from detrimental operating environments (moisture, dust, dirt, 
contamination, etc.). The encapsulate material may fully enclose not 
only the motor windings but the wound stator core. A motor with 
encapsulated windings is capable of passing the conformance test for 
water resistance described in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph 12.62, 
(incorporated by reference, see 10 CFR Part 431.15) as demonstrated on 
a representative sample or prototype.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 14, Pub. 
Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 55)
    DOE has evaluated the suggestions made on these definitions. DOE 
notes that while a motor may be engineered to comply with a parameter, 
the final product may not meet the standards. To address this issue, 
DOE has adjusted these two definitions to read as ``capable of 
passing'' rather than ``engineered for passing.'' DOE prefers to leave 
the definition broad, incorporating all motors that pass the 
conformance tests in NEMA MG 1-2009 paragraphs 12.62 and 12.63, rather 
than further specifying, as NEMA suggested in its definition. However, 
DOE has decided to avoid any confusion regarding these motors types 
and, therefore, has adopted three definitions.
    For the final rule, DOE is adopting the following definition: 
``Electric motor with moisture-resistant windings means an electric 
motor that is capable of passing the conformance test for moisture 
resistance generally described in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph 12.63 
(incorporated by reference, see 431.15).'' DOE is also adopting the 
following definition for ``Electric motor with sealed windings'' and 
for ``Electric motor with encapsulated windings'': ``. . . an electric 
motor capable of passing the conformance test for water resistance 
described in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph 12.62 (incorporated by 
reference, see 431.15).''
    In addition to proposing a definition for these motor types, DOE 
also considered difficulties that may arise during testing when 
following IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA C390-10 or any 
potential impacts on efficiency caused by encapsulation of the 
windings. Prior to the NOPR, DOE conducted its own research and found 
no evidence that electric motors with specially insulated windings 
could not be tested using the existing DOE test procedures without 
further modification.. Therefore, DOE did not propose any test 
procedure amendments tailored for electric motors with moisture 
resistant windings or electric motors with sealed windings in the NOPR.
    Bluffton Motors highlighted the challenges associated with testing 
encapsulated windings motors in its comments. Bluffton commented that 
the thermocouples cannot be used to measure winding temperature and 
that measuring the temperature through winding resistance is a 
difficult process, thus consistent, repeatable results may not be 
obtained. (Bluffton, No. 11 at p. 1)
    Advanced Energy agreed with DOE's decision not to propose 
additional test procedures for electric motors with moisture resistant 
windings and electric motors with sealed windings. Advanced Energy 
commented that they could be fully tested using existing standard

[[Page 75972]]

procedures. (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 2)
    DOE understands the comments made regarding testing motors with 
encapsulated windings. As a result of discussions with subject matter 
experts (SMEs) prior to the NOPR, and research performed after, DOE 
does not believe that the presence of specially insulated stator 
windings in an electric motor would interfere with DOE-prescribed test 
procedures. Because temperature measurements are taken by measuring the 
stator winding resistance, DOE does not believe that the insulation on 
the stator windings themselves will interfere with carrying out any 
part of IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA C390-10, both of which 
require temperature measurements to be taken during testing. The 
modifications made to stator windings have no impact on a motor's 
ability to be connected to a dynamometer because they are modifications 
to the internal portions of the motor. Therefore, DOE has retained the 
approach proposed in the NOPR and is not adopting an alternative test 
plan for these motor types.
4. Inverter-Capable Electric Motors
    Current standards for electric motors apply to single speed motors 
with a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration. 10 CFR 431.25. Each of 
these motors operates at a constant rotational speed, which is 
predicated by its pole configuration. This means that the motor shaft 
is engineered to rotate at the same speed, regardless of its 
application or required power. In addition to its pole configuration, a 
motor's rotational speed is partially determined by the frequency of 
its power source. The equation determining a motor's theoretical 
maximum speed (or synchronous speed) is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13DE13.000

    Inverter drives (also called variable-frequency drives (VFDs), 
variable-speed drives, adjustable frequency drives, alternating-current 
drives, microdrives, or vector drives) operate by changing the 
frequency and voltage of the power source that feeds into an electric 
motor. The inverter is connected between the power source and the motor 
and provides a variable frequency power source to the motor. The 
benefit of the inverter is that it can control the frequency of the 
power source fed to the motor, which in turn controls the rotational 
speed of the motor. This allows the motor to operate at a reduced speed 
when the full, nameplate-rated speed is not needed. This practice can 
save energy, particularly for fan and pump applications that frequently 
operate at reduced loading points. Inverters can also control the 
start-up characteristics of the motor, such as locked-rotor current or 
locked-rotor torque, which allows a motor to employ higher-efficiency 
designs while still attaining locked-rotor current or locked-rotor 
torque limits standardized in NEMA MG 1-2009.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Li, Harry. Impact of VFD, Starting Method and Driven Load 
on Motor Efficiency. 2011.Siemens Industry, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE did not propose to exempt a motor suitable for use on an 
inverter from any applicable energy conservation standards because this 
type of motor operates like a typical, general purpose electric motor 
when not connected to an inverter. As detailed in the NOPR, DOE 
proposed to define 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. 
Because this motor type operates like a typical, general purpose 
electric motor when not connected to an inverter, DOE did not believe 
any test procedure amendments were needed. Under DOE's proposed 
approach, an inverter-capable electric motor would be tested without 
the use of an inverter and rely on the set-ups used when testing a 
general purpose electric motor.
    In response to the NOPR, interested parties raised concerns 
regarding the proposed definition for inverter-capable electric motors. 
NEMA commented that the current definition is neither complete nor 
clear, noting that the definition is fairly wide open as far as the 
type of three-phase motors that could be connected to an inverter (Pub. 
Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 58-59 ; NEMA, No. 10 at p. 15). CA IOUs requested 
that the definition for inverter-capable electric motor be specifically 
constrained to polyphase motors, but NEMA noted that if the definition 
for electric motor refers to polyphase, as it recommended in its 
comments, then the term ``polyphase'' need not be included in the 
definition of inverter-capable electric motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 
at p. 58; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 59). Finally, NEMA proposed that 
the following definition be adopted instead: ``Inverter-capable 
electric motor means a general purpose electric motor (subtype I) or 
general purpose electric motor (subtype II) that is also capable of 
continuous operation on an inverter control over a limited speed range 
and associated load.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 15)
    DOE does not agree with NEMA's suggestion to further limit the 
definition proposed in the NOPR. Specifically, DOE's intent with the 
proposed definition was to include all types of electric motors that 
were capable of working with an inverter, which encompass a wide 
variety of three-phase electric motors. These definitions should help 
manufacturers determine if a given basic model is covered and subject 
to DOE's regulations. DOE believes that NEMA is primarily concerned as 
to whether certain types of inverter capable motors will ultimately be 
subject to amended energy conservation standards. Whether a motor meets 
one of the definitions finalized today, however, does not necessarily 
mean that the motor type's efficiency will be regulated by DOE. For 
these reasons, DOE has maintained the proposed definition for 
``inverter-capable electric motor'' in the final rule and NEMA should 
provide further comment in the standards rulemaking about the 
applicability of the proposed standards to these types of motors.
5. Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated Electric Motors
    Most enclosed electric motors are constructed with a fan attached 
to the shaft, typically on the end opposite the driven load, as a means 
of pushing air over the surface of the motor enclosure, which helps 
dissipate heat and reduce the motor's operating temperature. Totally 
enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) motors, however, have no fan blowing air 
over the surface of the motor. These motors rely, instead, on the 
conduction and convection of the motor heat into the surrounding 
environment for heat removal, which results in a motor that operates at 
higher temperatures than motors with attached cooling fans. TENV motors 
may be used in environments where an external fan

[[Page 75973]]

could clog with dirt or dust, or applications where the shaft operates 
at too low of a speed to provide sufficient cooling (i.e., a motor 
controlled by an inverter to operate at very low revolutions per 
minute). TENV motors may employ additional frame material as well as 
improved stator winding insulation so that the motor may withstand the 
increased operating temperatures. Extra frame material allows for more 
surface area and mass to dissipate heat, whereas higher-grade stator 
winding insulation may be rated to withstand the higher operating 
temperatures.
    In view of the statutory definitional changes created by EISA 2007, 
and the support expressed by both industry and energy efficiency 
advocates in the Joint Petition submitted by the Motor Coalition, DOE 
is addressing TENV motors in the energy conservation standards 
rulemaking. (Motor Coalition, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0035 at p. 19) As 
part of this effort, in the June 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed to add a 
definition for this motor type based on the definition of a ``totally 
enclosed nonventilated machine'' in paragraph 1.26.1 of NEMA MG 1-2009. 
DOE tentatively concluded that this definition is accurate and 
sufficiently clear and concise and proposed that the definition be 
adopted with minor alterations. The NOPR proposed to define a ``TENV 
electric motor'' as an electric motor built in a frame-surface cooled, 
totally enclosed configuration that is designed and equipped to be 
cooled only by free convection.
    In addition to proposing a definition for these motors, DOE 
considered whether any test procedure set-up instructions would be 
necessary to test TENV motors. In response to the framework 
document,\16\ ASAP and NEMA submitted comments suggesting that 
manufacturers could demonstrate compliance with the applicable energy 
conservation standards by testing similar models. (ASAP and NEMA, EERE-
2010-BT-STD-0027-0012 at p. 7) Although NEMA and ASAP suggested this 
was a possible way to test these motors to demonstrate compliance, they 
did not state that this was necessary method because of difficulties 
testing these types of motors. Subsequently, after DOE published its 
electric motors preliminary analysis, NEMA stated that it was not aware 
of any changes that were required to use IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method 
B) when testing TENV motors. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 
16) Also, in response to the preliminary analysis, the Copper 
Development Association (CDA) commented that DOE may need to develop 
new test procedures for these motor types but did not explain why such 
a change would be necessary. (CDA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0018 at p. 2) 
CDA did not indicate whether the current procedures could be modified 
to test these motors or what specific steps would need to be included 
to test these types of motors. Additionally, DOE knew of no technical 
reason why a TENV motor could not be tested using either IEEE Standard 
112 (Test Method B) or the CSA C390-10 procedure without modification. 
In view of NEMA's most recent comments suggesting that IEEE Standard 
112 (Test Method B) was an appropriate means to determine the 
efficiency of these motors, and the fact that the CDA did not provide 
an explanation of why changes would be necessary, DOE did not propose 
any test procedure amendments for TENV electric motors in the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-
STD-0027-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the June 2013 NOPR, Advanced Energy agreed with the 
proposed definition for TENV electric motors and with DOE's decision 
not to propose any clarifying set-up procedure. (Advanced Energy, No. 8 
at p. 2) However, NEMA asserted that the proposed definition is 
inadequate. NEMA suggested that if DOE accepts NEMA's earlier 
recommendations on modifying the definition for ``motor'' and 
``electric motor,'' the definition of TENV would be a ``totally 
enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) definite purpose electric motor means a 
definite purpose electric motor that is built in a frame-surface 
cooled, totally enclosed configuration that is designed and equipped to 
be cooled only by free convection.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 15). NEMA 
further requested that DOE consider including IEC equivalents along 
with relevant IC and IP codes. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 79; NEMA, 
No. 10 at p. 15-16)
    During the NOPR public meeting, the CA IOUs noted that DOE's 
proposed definition for TENVs would overlap with the State of 
California's regulations pertaining to pool pump motors. Those 
regulations, in relevant part, prescribe an energy conservation 
standard for pool pump motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 61-64). 
Regal Beloit indicated in response during the public meeting that the 
proposed test procedures may not apply to pool pump motors since the 
majority of those motors are single-phase motors; in contrast, TENV 
motors operate on polyphase power. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 61-65)
    DOE has addressed the addition of phrases such as ``definite 
purpose electric motor'' to the individual motors definitions in 
section G, and for the reasons discussed there, will not be adding this 
phrase to the definition for TENV motors. Outside of this change, 
NEMA's proposal matches that which was proposed by DOE in the NOPR. 
Based on this, DOE has maintained the NOPR proposed definition for this 
final rule. Having received no negative feedback on its proposal to not 
require set-up procedures for the testing of TENV motors, DOE is 
maintaining this approach in the final rule.
    DOE understands NEMA's concerns about IEC equivalency and 
recognizes that including IP and IC codes for IEC-equivalent motors may 
help eliminate any ambiguity in the proposed definitions. As noted 
earlier in the section H, DOE conducted its own independent research 
and consulted with SMEs to identify proper IP and IC codes for IEC 
motors equivalents to the motor types that were proposed to be defined 
in 10 CFR part 431 in the NOPR and intends to develop guidance 
regarding the appropriate codes.
    Regarding pool pump motors, DOE notes that, by statute, any 
electric motor could be regulated by DOE for energy efficiency. DOE is 
considering setting energy conservation standards as part of its 
ongoing standards rulemaking effort for a wider variety of motors than 
are currently covered. To the extent that those efforts lead to the 
promulgation of standards that would affect an electric motor used in a 
pool pump, those standards would preempt any State standards that are 
currently in effect.
6. Air-Over Electric Motor
    Most enclosed electric motors are constructed with a fan attached 
to the shaft, typically on the end opposite the drive, as a means of 
providing cooling airflow over the surface of the motor frame. This 
airflow helps remove heat, which reduces the motor's operating 
temperature. The reduction in operating temperature prevents the motor 
from overheating during continuous duty operation and increases the 
life expectancy of the motor.\17\ On the other hand, air-over electric 
motors do not have a factory-attached fan and, therefore, require a 
separate, external means of forcing air over the frame of the motor. 
Without an external means of cooling, an air-over electric motor could

[[Page 75974]]

overheat during continuous operation and potentially degrade the 
motor's life. To prevent overheating, an air-over electric motor may, 
for example, operate in the airflow of an industrial fan it is driving, 
or it may operate in a ventilation shaft that provides constant 
airflow. The manufacturer typically specifies the required volume of 
air that must flow over the motor housing for the motor to operate at 
the proper temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The temperature at which a motor operates is correlated to 
the motor's efficiency. Generally, as the operating temperature 
increases the efficiency decreases. Additionally, motor components 
wear our more slowly when operated at lower temperatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the enactment of the EISA 2007 amendments, DOE performed 
independent research and consultation with manufacturers and SMEs. 
Through this work, DOE found that testing air-over electric motors 
would be complex. IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) and CSA C390-10 do 
not provide standardized procedures for preparing an air-over electric 
motor for testing, which would otherwise require an external cooling 
apparatus. Additionally, DOE was not aware of any standard test 
procedures that provide guidance on how to test such motors. Test 
procedure guidance that would produce a consistent, repeatable test 
method would likely require testing laboratories to be capable of 
measuring the cubic airflow of an external cooling fan used to cool the 
motor during testing. At the time of the NOPR publication, DOE believed 
that this is a capability that most testing laboratories do not have. 
Without the ability to measure airflow, one testing laboratory may 
provide more airflow to the motor than a different testing laboratory. 
Increasing or decreasing airflow between tests could impact the tested 
efficiency of the motor, which would provide inconsistent test results. 
Because of this difficulty, DOE stated that it has no plans to require 
energy conservation standards for air-over electric motors, making 
further test procedure changes unnecessary. 78 FR 38461.
    Although DOE did not plan to apply energy conservation standards to 
air-over electric motors, it proposed to define them for clarity. DOE's 
proposed ``air-over electric motor'' definition was based on the NEMA 
MG 1-2009 definition of a ``totally enclosed air-over machine,'' with 
some modification to that definition to include air-over electric 
motors with open frames. DOE believed that air-over electric motors 
with either totally enclosed or open frame construction use the same 
methods for heat dissipation and, therefore, should be included in the 
same definition. As detailed in the NOPR, DOE proposed to define ``air-
over electric motor'' as ``an electric motor designed to be cooled by a 
ventilating means external to, and not supplied with, the motor.'' 78 
FR 38481.
    In response to the NOPR, NEMA and ASAP commented that the proposed 
definition of air-over electric motor is inadequate. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., 
No. 7 at p. 70; NEMA, No. 10 at p. 33) NEMA commented that DOE's 
definition for air-over electric motor does not distinguish between 
air-over machines and pipe-ventilated machines, in which the 
ventilating means is external to the machine, but the air is ducted to 
and from and circulated through the machine. NEMA stated that the 
proposed definition should refer to the air as being free-flowing, 
which could be over an enclosed electric motor or through an open 
electric motor. Therefore, NEMA suggested that DOE define these motors 
as: ``[a]ir-over definite purpose motor means a definite purpose motor 
that is designed to be cooled by a free flow of air provided by a 
ventilating means external to, and not supplied with, the motor.'' 
(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 33) NEMA further commented that there is no need 
for any definition of ``air-over definite purpose motor'' or ``air-over 
definite purpose electric motor'' if efficiency standards are not 
established. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 34)
    DOE believes that NEMA's suggestion provides a useful conceptual 
starting point, but has concern that without more specificity, the 
suggestion could create an incentive to sell motors intended for 
general purpose use but labeled as air-over. DOE understands that most, 
or all, air-over motors are used in applications where they drive a fan 
or blower that provides airflow to a certain application. Rather that 
having traditional cooling fans, air-over motors depend on the larger 
airstream to stabilize temperature. Maintaining NEMA's suggestion to 
specify that the source of the cooling air not be supplied with the 
motor, DOE adopts the following definition for today's rule: ``An air-
over motor is 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.''
    Regarding NEMA's contention that DOE does not need to define this 
motor type, as noted earlier, DOE does not intend to define only motors 
that it intends to regulate via the standards rulemaking.
    DOE believed that the difficulties associated with testing air-over 
electric motors such as providing a standard flow of cooling air from 
an external source that provides a constant velocity under defined 
ambient temperature and barometric conditions over the motor were 
insurmountable at this time of the NOPR, and therefore, did not propose 
a test plan for these motors and did not plan to subject this motor 
type to standards in the standards rulemaking.
    In response to the June 2013 test procedure NOPR, NEMA agreed with 
DOE's proposal to not require air-over electric motors to meet energy 
conservation standards, noting that the difficulties of testing to 
determine the efficiency of an air-over motor make the establishment of 
efficiency standards impractical. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 34)
    On the other hand, Advanced Energy urged DOE to consider 
implementing standards for air over electric motors. Advanced Energy 
expressed concern that if TENV motors are regulated and TEAO motors are 
not regulated, TENV motors that did not meet standards could be labeled 
and sold as TEAO motors. (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 5)
    In its NOPR comments, Advanced Energy recognized the following 
challenges with the testing of air-over motors: (1) Unstable 
temperature due to heat run,\18\ (2) requirement of additional 
equipment to test airflow to motor, and (3) inconsistency in test 
results by different labs due to variation in the airflow. Advanced 
Energy suggested testing air-over motors by making modifications in the 
instructions for CSA 747-2009 and IEEE 114-2010. Both standards require 
test measurements at temperature within 70 [deg]C-80 [deg]C. (Advanced 
Energy, No. 8 at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In other words, the winding temperature does not stabilize 
without a cooling, external airflow in which air-over motors are 
designed to operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an effort to substantiate its claims, Advanced Energy tested a 
5hp, 4-pole TEFC motor following the IEEE 112 (Test Method B) 
procedure. The following six tests were conducted: Test A: With fan; 
Test B: Without fan and without blower; Test F: Without fan and with 
blower; Test E: With fan and a 1.25 service factor; Test D: Without 
fan, without blower and with a 1.25 service factor; and Test C: Without 
fan, with blower and with a 1.25 service factor. Advanced Energy 
observed the following results, shown in table Table III-2. (Advanced 
Energy, No. 8 at pp. 6-7)

[[Page 75975]]

             Table III-2--Test Results of TEFC Motor Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Efficiency @
                  Test                      Rated load    rated load (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (Test A).......................            5               89.3
Without Fan, Without Blower (Test B)....            5               89.9
Without Fan, With Blower (Test F).......            5               90.2
Baseline (Test E).......................            6.25            88.1
Without Fan, Without Blower (Test D)....            6.25            89.0
Without Fan, With Blower (Test C).......            6.25            88.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Advanced Energy observed that the efficiency of the motor in tests 
B, C, D, and F increased compared to the respective baseline tests--
tests A and E. It believes that the tests show that the standard test 
procedures can be modified to test air-over electric motors, especially 
when comparing tests D to C, or test B to F. Advanced Energy noted that 
the test without a fan (Test B), in which the thermal run was stopped 
to test between 70 degrees and 80 degrees Celsius, resulted in a 
measured efficiency comparable to the test where a blower was used to 
provide cooling airflow (Test F). (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at pp. 6-7)
    Advanced Energy requested that DOE further investigate the test 
instructions for air-over electric motors and proposed test 
instructions stating: ``Air-over motors shall be tested at their rated 
conditions (horsepower, speed, voltage) by providing air from external 
means such that the motor winding temperature shall be between 70 
[deg]C-80 [deg]C.'' (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 8)
    While DOE has considered the test data, DOE does not believe it has 
sufficient information at this time to support establishment of a test 
method for measuring air-over motor efficiency for regulatory purposes. 
DOE intends, however, to research other test procedure options for air-
over electric motors to determine whether, in a future, separate 
rulemaking, DOE might propose a test procedure set-up for air-over 
electric motors and, possibly, an energy conservation standard for such 
motors.

E. Electric Motor Types Requiring Definitions and Test Procedure 
Instructions

    In the June 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed define a number of electric 
motor types that were already, apparently, commonly understood, but not 
necessarily clearly defined, by the industry. DOE also proposed 
clarifying language for testing each of these motor types.
1. Immersible Electric Motors
    Most electric motors are not engineered to withstand immersion in 
liquid (e.g., water, including wastewater). If liquid enters an 
electric motor's stator frame, it could create electrical faults 
between the different electrical phases or electrical steel and could 
impede rotor operation or corrode internal components. Immersible 
motors are electric motors that are capable of withstanding immersion 
in a liquid without causing damage to the motor. Immersible motors can 
withstand temporary operation in liquid, sometimes up to two weeks, but 
also run continuously outside of a liquid environment because they do 
not rely on the liquid to cool the motor. According to test 7 in Table 
5-4 of NEMA MG 1-2009, for a motor to be marked as protected against 
the effects of immersion, a motor must prevent the ingress of water 
into the motor while being completely submerged in water for a 
continuous period of at least 30 minutes. Therefore, DOE has 
interpreted ``temporary'' to mean a period of time of no less than 30 
minutes. Immersible motors can operate while temporarily submerged 
because they have contact seals that keep liquid and other contaminants 
out of the motor. Additionally, some immersible motors may have 
pressurized oil inside the motor enclosure, which is used in 
conjunction with contact seals to prevent the ingress of liquid during 
immersion. Finally, immersible motors are occasionally constructed in a 
package that includes another, smaller (e.g., \1/2\ horsepower) motor 
that is used to improve cooling when the immersible motor is not 
submerged in water. In these cases, the two motors are constructed in a 
totally enclosed blower-cooled (TEBC) frame and sold together. The 
electric motors with separately powered blowers are discussed in a 
separate section III.F.6.
    In responding to the October 15, 2010 framework document, NEMA and 
ASAP commented that greater clarification is needed with regard to 
immersible motors and how to differentiate them from liquid-cooled or 
submersible motors. (NEMA and ASAP, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0012 at p. 9) 
DOE understands the general differences to be as follows:
    1. Submersible motors are engineered to operate only while 
completely surrounded by liquid because they require liquid for cooling 
purposes;
    2. liquid-cooled motors use liquid (or liquid-filled components) to 
facilitate heat dissipation but are not submerged in liquid during 
operation; and
    3. immersible motors are capable of operating temporarily while 
surrounded by liquid, but are engineered to work primarily out of 
liquid.
    In the June 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed to define an immersible 
electric motor as an electric motor primarily designed to operate 
continuously in free-air, but that is also capable of withstanding 
complete immersion in liquid for a continuous period of no less than 30 
minutes.
    In response to the definition for immersible electric motor 
proposed in NOPR, interested parties expressed several concerns. 
Advanced Energy commented that the phrase ``capable of withstanding 
complete immersion in a liquid for a continuous period of no less than 
30 minutes'' implies that the motor can be put in the liquid 
indefinitely, stating that this phrase is more appropriate for test 
instruction but not for definition. Thus, Advanced Energy suggested 
that this phrase be modified with the word ``temporarily'' or an upper 
limit (e.g., two weeks) be provided for immersion. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 
7 at p. 135; Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 2). ASAP responded that since 
immersible electric motor is a covered motor, the temporal upper limit 
is not needed. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 135-136). WEG commented 
that the definition of immersible motors needs further addition, such 
as ``no less than 14 days,'' to differentiate it from the submersible 
motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 137) NEMA commented that the 
proposed definition is inadequate as it is neither sufficiently 
complete nor clear. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 20)

[[Page 75976]]

    Finally, Advanced Energy proposed that the definition be modified 
to describe these motors as those that are ``primarily designed to 
operate continuously in free-air'' but that can ``temporarily withstand 
complete immersion in liquid for a continuous period of no less than 30 
minutes.'' (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 2) On the other hand, NEMA 
proposed to define this term as ``a definite purpose electric motor 
that is primarily designed to operate continuously in free-air, but is 
also capable of withstanding complete immersion in liquid for a 
continuous period of no less than 30 minutes, during which time any 
operation may or may not be inhibited.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 20)
    DOE's intention in the NOPR was to fully differentiate between 
three types of motors: Submersible, immersible, and liquid-cooled. DOE 
recognizes that without an upper limit on the submersion in liquid, the 
definition for immersible motors is very similar to that of submersible 
motors. However, as it noted in the proposal, immersible motors are 
``primarily designed to operate continuously in free-air,'' while 
submersible motors are ``designed for operation only while submerged in 
liquid.'' DOE believes that these clauses should sufficiently 
differentiate between the two types of motors, but in an effort to 
further eliminate any confusion, DOE has added the word ``temporary'' 
to the definition, as suggested by Advanced Energy and defining an 
``immersible electric motor'' as an electric motor ``primarily designed 
to operate continuously in free-air, but that is also capable of 
temporarily withstanding complete immersion in liquid for a continuous 
period of no less than 30 minutes.''
    Regarding immersible motor testing, the contact seals used by 
immersible motors to prevent the ingress of water or other contaminants 
have an effect on tested efficiency that generally changes over time. 
New seals are stiff, and provide higher levels of friction than seals 
that have been used and undergone an initial break-in period.\19\ DOE 
understands that as the seals wear-in, they will loosen and become more 
flexible, which will somewhat reduce friction losses. In its comments 
on the electric motors preliminary analysis, NEMA stated that 
immersible motors should be tested with their contact seals removed. 
(NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Guide for the Use of Electric Motor Testing Methods Based 
on IEC 60034-2-1. May 2011. Version 1.1. 4E, Electric Motors 
Systems, EMSA, available at: http://www.motorsystems.org/files/otherfiles/0000/0113/guide_to_iec60034-2-1_may2011.pdf and Neal, 
Michael J. The Tribology Handbook Second Edition. Page C26.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE had previously discussed testing immersible electric motors 
with industry experts, SMEs, and testing laboratories, all of whom 
suggested that the seals should be removed prior to testing to 
eliminate any impacts on the tested efficiency. DOE sought to confirm 
the effects of contact seals by conducting its own testing. DOE 
procured a five-horsepower, two-pole, TENV motor for this purpose.\20\ 
Upon receipt of the motor, DOE's testing laboratory followed IEEE 
Standard 112 (Test Method B) and tested the motor in the same condition 
as it was received, with the contact seals in place (test 1). After 
completing that initial test, the laboratory removed the contact seals 
and tested the motor again (test 2). Finally, the testing laboratory 
reinstalled the seals, ran the motor for an additional period of time 
such that the motor had run for a total of 10 hours with the contact 
seals installed (including time from the initial test) and then 
performed IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) again (test 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The immersible motor tested by DOE was also a vertical, 
solid-shaft motor. The testing laboratory was able to orient the 
motor horizontally without any issues, enabling the lab to test the 
motor per IEEE 112 Test Method B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's testing showed the potential impact that contact seals can 
have on demonstrated efficiency. In the case of the five-horsepower, 
two-pole, TENV motor, the motor performed with a higher efficiency with 
the contact seals removed, demonstrating a reduction in motor losses of 
nearly 20 percent. DOE's testing also demonstrated a decaying effect of 
the contact seals on motor losses as they break-in over time. In this 
instance, the effect of the contact seals on motor losses was reduced, 
but not eliminated, after 10 hours of running the motor. The results of 
DOE's immersible motor testing are shown below.

                                Table III-3--Results of Immersible Motor Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Nameplate
                 Motor type                      efficiency         Test 1           Test 2           Test 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immersible Motor (also TENV and a vertical             89.5%            88.9%            91.0%            89.2%
 solid-shaft motor).........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the limited testing conducted by DOE which showed that 
seals may have an impact on the tested efficiency of a given motor, DOE 
proposed that these motors be tested with the contact seals in place. 
In addition, DOE proposed an allowance of a maximum run-in period of 10 
hours prior to performing IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B). This run-
in period was intended to allow the contact seals a sufficient amount 
of time to break-in such that test conditions were equal or very 
similar to normal operating conditions that would be experienced by a 
user. DOE's proposed 10-hour maximum was a preliminary estimate 
obtained through discussions with electric motors testing experts.
    In response to the NOPR, several interested parties expressed 
concern with the proposed test procedure. Advanced Energy noted that 
the effect of a seal on motor efficiency, as well as its ``run-in'' 
time, would vary by motor, depending on the motor and type of seal 
used. Advanced Energy commented that there is no guarantee that a given 
motor will break-in within a specified time period of 10 hours, which 
is small compared to the lifetime of a motor. Based on these 
conditions, it continued to recommend that seals be removed during 
initial testing to verify the efficiency of the motor. (Advanced 
Energy, No. 8 at p. 3)
    NEMA noted that DOE's tests on a sample immersible motor as 
received for testing, after an extended time of operation, and with the 
seals removed, illustrate the difficulty of determining the efficiency 
of electric motors relative to operating time with various types of 
seals. Therefore, NEMA continued to recommend that contact seals be 
removed prior to testing. In the alternative, NEMA asserted that 
efficiency standards for electric motors with contact seals or sealed 
bearings would need to be lower than those for the motors without 
contact seals or sealed bearings. It added that different standard 
levels may also be needed based on the different types of contact seals 
and sealed bearings used in a given motor. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 21-23)

[[Page 75977]]

    NEMA noted that the NOPR refers to 200 hours as the possible time 
during which the efficiency losses from seals will continue to 
decrease. NEMA commented that the run-in time depends on the type of 
contact seals used. However, it commented that 200 hours would seem to 
be a short run-in estimate for a continuous duty electric motor that 
DOE assumed in its testing has an average mechanical lifetime of up to 
108,398 hours. NEMA expressed concern with the proposed requirement of 
a 10-hour run-in period to represent the efficiency level of the 
electric motor with seals when averaged over the total period of use. 
It also pointed out that for labs that operate on a standard eight-hour 
workday, a 10-hour run-in period could place undue hardship on the lab, 
or require unmonitored conditions. NEMA further pointed out that DOE 
does not indicate if the run-in testing is to be performed with the 
motor unloaded or at its rated load. NEMA continued to recommend that 
the contact seals be removed prior to testing. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 22-
23; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 138-139)
    Bluffton commented that motors with seals in them should be tested 
without the seals because of the inability to obtain consistent results 
from motor to motor because of the difference in mechanical pressure on 
the seal from one motor to the next. It noted that if the goal is to 
reduce power consumption on an overall basis, the differential will be 
the same regardless of whether the starting point is with or without 
seals. Moreover, the friction of the seal may change over the entire 
life of the motor. Thus, testing with seals may not give consistent and 
repeatable measurements. (Bluffton, No. 11 at p. 1)
    WEG and Nidec also recommended that the seals be removed for 
testing (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 139-140; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at 
p. 143) CDA acknowledged that there are valid arguments for both the 
inclusion and the exclusion of seals during testing. It suggested an 
additional allowance for these seal losses be included within the 
allowable testing results in these specific categories. (CDA, No. 9 at 
p. 2)
    Based on the responses to the NOPR, and additional investigation 
following publication, DOE has reconsidered its NOPR proposal. At this 
time, DOE does not believe it has enough information to determine the 
extent of the impact seals may have on a motor's efficiency when 
installed in the field over time. Seals can be made of rubber (with 
varying degrees of hardness and pliability), ceramic material, or 
metal. Each of these materials has a different impact on an electric 
motor's performance and may or may not ``break in'' over time to reduce 
the overall level of friction that a motor may encounter while 
operating. Due to the variety of designs and materials offered and used 
by motor manufacturers, and the variety of impacts that these 
differences may have, DOE is unable at this time to quantify a specific 
break-in period to help determine the point in time where the losses 
contributed by the seals would be considered ``representative.'' 
Furthermore, DOE understands that each motor type, size, and 
configuration will be affected differently by seals, and various types 
of seals can be used. Without additional data, applying a particular 
break-in period or adjustment factor to account for the additional 
friction added by seals would be premature. Therefore, in light of this 
uncertainty, DOE is, at this time, requiring that test labs remove 
seals when testing immersible motors but make no other modifications. 
This approach is also consistent with the suggestions made by NEMA and 
the energy efficiency advocates. DOE may continue to explore the effect 
of seals on motor performance and may revise this requirement in the 
future.
    NEMA also noted that even though the title of the proposed 4.3 in 
Appendix B to Subpart B is ``Immersible Electric Motors and Electric 
Motors with Contact Seals,'' the actual test procedure appears to apply 
to immersible electric motors only. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 23)
    In response to NEMA's comment DOE has adjusted the heading of this 
section to read ``Immersible Electric Motors'' for clarification 
purposes.
2. Brake Electric Motors
    In most applications, electric motors are not required to stop 
immediately; instead, electric motors typically slow down and gradually 
stop after power is removed from the motor, due to a buildup of 
friction and windage from the internal components of the motor. 
However, some applications require electric motors to stop quickly. 
Such motors may employ a brake component that, when engaged, abruptly 
slows or stops shaft rotation. The brake component attaches to one end 
of the motor and surrounds a section of the motor's shaft. During 
normal operation of the motor, the brake is disengaged from the motor's 
shaft--it neither touches nor interferes with the motor's operation. 
However, under these conditions, the brake is drawing power from the 
electric motor's power source and may be contributing to windage 
losses, because the brake is an additional rotating component on the 
motor's shaft. When power is removed from the electric motor (and brake 
component), the brake component de-energizes and engages the motor 
shaft, quickly slowing or stopping rotation of the rotor and shaft 
components.
    In its Joint Petition, the Motor Coalition proposed to define the 
term ``integral brake electric motor'' as ``an electric motor 
containing a brake mechanism either inside of the motor endshield or 
between the motor fan and endshield such that removal of the brake 
component would require extensive disassembly of the motor or motor 
parts.'' (Motor Coalition, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0035 at p. 19) After 
receiving the petition, DOE spoke with some of the Motor Coalition's 
manufacturers and its own SMEs. Based on these conversations, DOE 
believed that the Motor Coalition's definition is consistent with DOE's 
understanding of the term. In the electric motors preliminary analysis, 
DOE presented a definition of the term ``integral brake motor'' 
consistent with the definition proposed by the Motor Coalition. (For 
additional details, see Chapter 3 of the electric motors preliminary 
analysis Technical Support Document). However, upon further 
consideration, DOE believed that there may be uncertainty regarding 
certain aspects of the definition, particularly, what constitutes 
``extensive disassembly of the motor or motor parts.'' Therefore, in 
the NOPR, DOE proposed a new definition that would remove this 
ambiguity. The proposed rule defined an ``integral brake electric 
motor'' as an electric motor containing a brake mechanism either inside 
of the motor endshield or between the motor fan and endshield.
    Conversely, the brake component of a non-integral brake motor is 
usually external to the motor and can be easily detached without 
disassembly or adversely affecting the motor's performance. DOE 
proposed a new definition for ``non-integral brake electric motor'' 
that paralleled its proposed definition for ``integral brake electric 
motor.'' DOE believed that the new definition was clearer because it 
relied solely on the placement of the brake and not what level of 
effort is needed to remove it. Additionally, DOE believed that the 
structure of its two definitions encompassed all brake motors by 
requiring them to meet one definition or the other. As detailed in the 
NOPR, DOE's proposed definition for a ``non-integral brake electric 
motor'' was an electric motor containing a brake mechanism outside of 
the endshield, but not between the motor fan and endshield.

[[Page 75978]]

    As discussed in the NOPR, DOE conducted its own testing on both 
integral and non-integral brake motors. DOE described the details of 
this testing in the NOPR along with the results. DOE generally found 
that testing the brake component attached, but powered by a source 
separate from the motor, resulted in demonstrated efficiencies 
equivalent to testing a motor with the brake component completely 
removed. As a result of its testing of integral and non-integral brake 
electric motors, DOE proposed the same test instructions for both 
motors types. DOE proposed to include instructions that would require 
manufacturers to keep the brake mechanism attached to the motor, but to 
power it externally while performing IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B). 
DOE believed that this was the best approach because it allows the test 
laboratory to isolate the motor losses, which includes the friction and 
windage produced by the rotating brake mechanism. DOE believed that 
powering the motor and the brake mechanism separately during testing 
would ensure that the power consumed to keep the brake mechanism 
disengaged is not counted against the motor's tested efficiency. The 
power consumed to keep the brake mechanism disengaged represents useful 
work performed by the motor and should not be construed as losses, but 
it should be measured and reported. DOE believed this information is 
pertinent for brake motor consumers who wish to understand the energy 
consumption of their motor. Furthermore, when conducting the testing, 
DOE's test laboratory was able to splice connections and externally 
power the brake on multiple integral and non-integral brake motors, so 
DOE preliminarily believed that this process would not be unduly 
burdensome. 78 FR 38468.
    In response to the June 2013 NOPR, NEMA noted in its comments that 
as DOE is proposing the same test plan for both types of motors, the 
location of the brake assembly is not important in determining the 
efficiency of the motor. NEMA suggested that DOE use a single 
definition of ``special purpose electric motor with brake'' that would 
refer to ``a special purpose electric motor that contains a brake 
mechanism either within the motor enclosure or external to the motor 
enclosure.'' NEMA stated that it understood that defining both types of 
brake motors into a single definition would include integral brake 
electric motors as covered products, whereas the Joint Petition 
suggested that these motors continue to be exempted from any testing or 
efficiency requirements. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 16).
    In the alternative, NEMA suggested that if DOE used two separate 
definitions, the two proposed definitions should be modified. (Pub. 
Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 144 ; NEMA, No. 10 at p. 16) NEMA suggested that 
DOE re-classify and define integral brake electric motor as an 
``integral brake special purpose electric motor'' and define it as ``a 
special purpose electric motor that contains a brake mechanism either 
within the motor enclosure or between a motor fan, when present, and 
the nearest endshield.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 17; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 
at p.149) NEMA suggested that a non-integral brake motor be classified 
as a ``non-integral brake special purpose electric motor'' which would 
be defined as ``a special purpose electric motor that contains a brake 
mechanism outside of the endshield, but not between the motor fan and 
endshield.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 17)
    As addressed previously, the facts available to DOE indicate that 
it is unnecessary to note that these motors are special purpose because 
whether a motor is special or definite purpose does not exclude it from 
consideration under DOE's standards rulemaking. However, DOE does agree 
that two separate definitions are unnecessary because DOE is adopting 
the same test procedure for both motors. The test results include 
mechanical losses of the brake components which are not impacted by the 
location of the brake. A single definition for brake motors will avoid 
any confusion. Therefore, for the final rule DOE is adopting the 
following definition: ``Brake electric motor means a motor that 
contains a dedicated mechanism for speed reduction, such as a brake, 
either within or external to the motor enclosure.''
    Regarding the proposed test procedure, Advanced Energy agreed with 
DOE's proposed approach for both motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 
147; Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 2) Advanced Energy commented that by 
powering the brake through external means, the brake will have no 
impact on the power consumption and avoid the potential difficulties 
during no-load testing and the risk associated withimproper re-assembly 
of the motor. (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 2) Highlighting that this 
proposed method for testing brake motors deviated from the earlier 
Joint Petition, the advocates agreed with DOE's proposal that integral 
and non-integral brake motors be tested in the same manner. The 
advocates stated that this approach will enable the coverage of 
integral brake motors, further increasing the scope of covered motors. 
(ASAP et al., No. 12 at pp. 1-2)
    However, NEMA expressed concern with the proposed test procedure 
for integral and non-integral brake electric motors. It commented that 
the test procedure needs to clearly state that the efficiency 
determined for the electric motor is not to include any power that may 
be required to disengage the brake. The test procedure should also 
provide for manually releasing the brake when such an option is 
available. NEMA commented that when developing the energy conservation 
standards for electric motors, any testing DOE conducts with the brakes 
in place as proposed, should take into account the mechanical losses of 
the brake components which are significant relative to the losses of 
the motor components. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 16)
    If NEMA's earlier proposal to have a single definition for 
``integral brake special purpose electric motor'' and ``non-integral 
brake special purpose electric motor'' is accepted, then NEMA suggested 
a single test procedure for a ``special purpose electric motor with 
brake.'' NEMA commented that DOE should not require that the testing 
lab measure electrical power to the brake in 10-minute intervals. It 
suggested that the determination of efficiency of the electric motor 
should be based on measurements of the electrical input power to just 
the electric motor and should not include any power which may be 
supplied to the brake. NEMA suggested that the connections need to be 
separated in those cases where the power leads for the brake are 
interconnected with the stator winding or electric motor leads. The 
brake should be disengaged during testing by either supplying 
electrical power to the brake at its rated voltage or through the use 
of a mechanical release, when available. The required power should be 
measured and recorded when electrical power is supplied to the brake 
for the purpose of disengaging the brake. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 17-18)
    DOE's own testing showed that during normal operation the brake 
will not be engaged--and will not significantly impact energy 
consumption. Under the approach laid out in the final rule, testing 
must be performed with the brake powered separately from the motor such 
that it does not activate during testing. Only power used to drive the 
motor is included in the efficiency calculation; power supplied to 
prevent the brake from engaging is not used. The rule provides that if 
the brake may be disengaged mechanically, if such a mechanism exists 
and if the use of this

[[Page 75979]]

mechanism does not yield a different efficiency value than when 
separately powering the brake electrically.
3. Partial Electric Motors
    Most general purpose electric motors have two endshields,\21\ which 
support the bearings and shaft while also allowing the shaft to rotate 
during operation. DOE understands that ``partial electric motors,'' 
also called ``partial \3/4\ motors,'' or ``\3/4\ motors,'' are motors 
that are sold without one or both endshields and the accompanying 
bearings. When partial electric motors are installed in the field, they 
are attached to another piece of equipment, such as a pump or gearbox. 
The equipment to which the motor is mated usually provides support for 
the shaft, allowing the shaft to rotate and drive its intended 
equipment. The equipment may also provide support for a shaft. When a 
partial electric motor is mated to another piece of equipment it is 
often referred to as an ``integral'' motor.\22\ For example, an 
``integral gearmotor'' is the combination of a partial electric motor 
mated to a gearbox. The gearbox provides a bearing or support structure 
that allows the shaft to rotate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Endshields are metal plates on each end of the motor that 
house the motor's bearings and close off the internal components of 
the motor from the surrounding environment.
    \22\ DOE notes that integral brake motors are not considered 
integral or partial motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is aware that there are many different industry terms used to 
describe a partial electric motor. DOE proposed to define the term 
``partial electric motor'' in the NOPR to distinguish them from 
component sets, which, alone, do not comprise an operable electric 
motor. See Section III.D.1. Additionally, because DOE considered 
integral gearmotors to be a subset of partial electric motors, this 
definition also applied to integral gearmotors. Therefore, the NOPR 
defined ``partial electric motor'' as an assembly of motor components 
necessitating the addition of no more than two endshields, including 
bearings, to create an operable motor. The term ``operable motor'' 
means an electric motor engineered for performing in accordance with 
the applicable nameplate ratings.
    In response to the NOPR, NEMA suggested that DOE include the 
concept of ``partial'' as a design element within other definitions 
rather than as a separate type of electric motor. NEMA commented that 
the definition should be for ``partial motor,'' rather than a ``partial 
electric motor.'' NEMA commented that the phrase ``engineered for 
performing'' in the proposed definition should be replaced with 
``capable of operation'' because the engineering of a motor does not 
imply that a motor can operate. Therefore, NEMA suggested that partial 
motor means an assembly of motor components necessitating the addition 
of no more than two endshields, including bearings, to create an 
operable motor. For the purpose of this definition, the term ``operable 
motor'' means a motor capable of operation in accordance with the 
applicable nameplate ratings. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 18-19)
    DOE explains in section III.B of this document why it will not 
change the definition of ``electric motor'' and DOE is declining to 
adopt NEMA's suggestion. Furthermore, while it recognizes that adding 
this clause would, as NEMA pointed out, cover partial motors of all 
types of motors that are a part of NEMA's proposal, the proposed 
definition would permit a ``partial motor'' to be any type of electric 
motor. Consequently, a partial motor, by definition, could be any type 
of electric motor (e.g. multispeed, single speed, polyphase, etc.). 
While DOE's approach is a broad one, it does not signal DOE's intention 
to regulate the efficiency of all types of partial motors. The types of 
electric motors whose efficiency DOE intends to regulate will be 
addressed in the energy conservation standards rulemaking.
    DOE has, however, adjusted the phrase ``engineered for performing'' 
as it understands the ambiguity related with this phrase; it is 
difficult to establish conclusively what, exactly, a motor is 
engineered for and is clearer to discuss what a motor is ``capable of'' 
or its rating. For this final rule, DOE is adopting the following 
definition: ``partial electric motor means an assembly of motor 
components necessitating the addition of no more than two endshields, 
including bearings, to create an electric motor capable of operation in 
accordance with the applicable nameplate ratings.''
    DOE is aware that partial electric motors require modifications 
before they can be attached to a dynamometer for testing. Prior to the 
NOPR, DOE discussed stakeholder comments and additional testing options 
with SMEs, testing laboratories, and motor industry representatives. 
Some interested parties suggested that the motor manufacturer could 
supply generic or ``dummy'' endplates equipped with standard ball 
bearings, which would allow for testing when connected to the partial 
electric motor. Alternatively, testing laboratories had considered 
machining the ``dummy'' endplates themselves, and supplying the 
properly sized deep-groove, ball bearings for the testing. Various 
testing laboratories indicated they had the ability to perform this 
operation, but some added that they would require design criteria for 
the endplates from the original manufacturer of the motor. These 
laboratories noted that machining their own endplates could create 
motor performance variation between laboratories because it may impact 
airflow characteristics (and therefore thermal characteristics) of the 
motor.
    DOE procured an integral gearmotor to determine the feasibility of 
testing partial electric motors. For this investigation, DOE purchased 
and tested one five-horsepower, four-pole, TEFC electric motor. DOE 
tested the motor twice, first with an endplate obtained from the 
manufacturer and second with an endplate machined in-house by the 
testing laboratory. The results of these tests are shown below.

                             Table III-4--Results of Partial Electric Motor Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Nameplate
                          Motor type                              efficiency         Test 1           Test 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial Electric Motor.......................................           81.0%            83.5%            82.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE found a variation in efficiency because of the endplate used 
during testing. DOE believes that the variation seen in tested 
efficiency was likely the result of varying the material used for the 
endplate. The endplate provided by the manufacturer was made of cast 
iron, while the endplate provided by the testing laboratory was 
machined from steel. The testing laboratory was not equipped to cast an 
iron endshield and thus was not able to replace the

[[Page 75980]]

manufacturer's endshield with one of the original material. 
Additionally, DOE knows of no testing laboratory (other than a motor 
manufacturer), with such capability. DOE believes that the variance in 
the magnetic properties of steel likely produced small eddy currents in 
the endshield which resulted in added losses within the motor.\23\ 
Consequently, DOE believes that frame material consistency is needed in 
order to prevent such variances in future testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Eddy currents are circulating currents induced in 
conductors (e.g., steel) by changing magnetic fields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time of the NOPR, because of the possible variance that DOE 
found through its testing, DOE proposed that an endplate be provided by 
the manufacturer of the motor and that the motor be tested with that 
endplate in place. If bearings are also needed, the test laboratory 
would use what DOE views as a ``standard bearing,'' a 6000-series, 
open, single-row, deep groove, radial ball bearing. DOE selected this 
set of specifications because it is a common bearing type capable of 
horizontal operation.
    In response to DOE's proposal on endshields required for testing, 
NEMA suggested that the manufacturer should not be required to provide 
endshields that they may not normally produce, use, nor easily obtain, 
especially if the manufacturer is an importer. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(5), 
(7) and 6291(10) (treating importers as manufacturers for purposes of 
EPCA). Instead, the manufacturer should be given the option to provide 
the endshields, if possible. If the manufacturer declined to do so and 
instead agreed to let the test laboratory provide the endshields, then 
the test laboratory should provide the endshields for testing and 
consult with the manufacturer to determine the critical characteristics 
of the endshields. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 19-20)
    DOE has considered NEMA's suggestion and has decided to allow the 
manufacturer to authorize the lab to machine endplates for testing of 
partial motors if the manufacturer chooses not to provide the endplate. 
The lab should consult with the manufacturer before constructing the 
endshields to determine the endshields' critical characteristics. 
Manufacturers should of course realize that the use of any lab machined 
endplate is likely to result in more losses than one machined by the 
manufacturer given the limited availability of certain materials (e.g. 
cast iron) at labs that a manufacturer may have more readily available 
on-hand. DOE notes that endshield specifications are found in NEMA MG-1 
(2009) Section I, Part 4--see paragraphs 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.3, 4.4.1, 
4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, and 4.4.6; Figures 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, and 4-
6; and Table 4-2--and in IEC 60072-1 (1991).

F. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only Test Procedure Instructions

    DOE proposed to add additional instructions to its test procedure 
that would affect a number of motor types for which DOE is considering 
new energy conservation standards. DOE did not propose any definitions 
for these terms because DOE believed the terms were self-explanatory or 
already readily understood in the industry. These motor types are 
discussed below.
1. Electric Motors With Non-Standard Endshields or Flanges
    Most electric motors are attached to a mounting surface by 
``mounting feet'' or other hardware attached to the motor's housing, 
oftentimes on the bottom of the motor. However, some motors are mounted 
by directly attaching the motor's endshield, also called a faceplate, 
to a piece of driven equipment. If a motor's endshield protrudes 
forward to create a smooth mounting surface it may also be referred to 
as a flange, such as a Type D-flange or Type P-flange motor, as 
described in NEMA MG 1-2009. Attaching a motor to the shaft of the 
driven equipment in this manner generally involves bolting the motor to 
the equipment through mounting holes in the flange or faceplate of the 
motor.
    NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraphs 1.63.1, 1.63.2, and 1.63.3 define Type C 
face-mounting, Type D flange-mounting, and Type P flange-mounting 
motors, respectively. These definitions provide reference figures in 
NEMA MG 1-2009, section I, part 4 (``Dimensions, Tolerances, and 
Mounting'') that contain specifications for the standard mounting 
configurations and dimensions for these three motor types. The 
dimensions designate standard locations and dimensions for mounting 
holes on the faceplates or flanges of the motors. DOE is aware that 
some electric motors may have special or customer-defined endshields, 
faceplates, or flanges with mounting-hole locations or other 
specifications that do not necessarily conform to NEMA MG 1-2009, 
Figure 4-3, ``Letter Symbols for Type C Face-Mounting Foot or Footless 
Machines,'' Figure 4-4, ``Letter Symbols for Type D Flange-Mounting 
Foot or Footless Machines,'' or Figure 4-5, ``Letter Symbols for 
Vertical Machines.''
    As previously explained, DOE is considering setting energy 
conservation standards for electric motors with non-standard 
endshields. This potential change to the scope of energy conservation 
standards for electric motors would mean that the dimensions of a 
motor's endshields or flanges--neither of which impacts the efficiency 
or the ability to measure the efficiency of the motor--would no longer 
dictate whether a given motor would be required to meet energy 
conservation standards. Hence, DOE believed that an actual definition 
for such motors would be unnecessary.
    In evaluating the possibility of requiring these motor types to 
meet potential energy conservation standards, DOE assessed whether 
these motors could be tested using non-standard flanges or endshields. 
DOE had received comments concerning the testing of these motor types. 
In response to the March 2011 RFI (76 FR 17577), ASAP and NEMA 
commented that motors with customer-defined endshields and flanged 
special motors should have their efficiency verified by testing a motor 
with an equivalent electrical design that could more easily be attached 
to a dynamometer. (ASAP and NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0020 at p. 4) 
NEMA added that testing motors with non-standard endshields may require 
a substitution of the special endshields with more conventional 
endshields. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 15)
    In the NOPR, DOE recognized that it may not be possible to attach 
motors with non-standard endshields to a testing laboratory's 
dynamometer. If such occurs and a test laboratory is unable to 
reconfigure the motor without removal of the endplate such that 
attachment to a dynamometer is possible, DOE proposed that the custom 
endshield be replaced with one that has standard (i.e., in compliance 
with NEMA MG-1) dimensions and mounting configurations. DOE proposed 
that, as with partial electric motors, such a replacement would be 
required to be obtained through the manufacturer and be constructed of 
the same material as the original endplate.
    In response to the NOPR, several interested parties raised concerns 
that requiring a manufacturer to provide a ``standard endshield in 
compliance with NEMA MG 1,'' of the same material as the ``original 
end-plate'' may place an undue burden on the manufacturer. (Pub. Mtg. 
Tr., No. 7 at p. 105-107, 111,116-118; Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 4; 
NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 24-25) NEMA noted that the proposed test plan may 
have several difficulties: (1) A manufacturer may not have (or be 
unable to make available) end shields of

[[Page 75981]]

the appropriate design; (2) in the case of imported motors, it is 
unlikely that the importer could provide the required endshield or 
flange; (3) it may not be possible to obtain an endshield or flange of 
the same material, especially if the motor is made of a special 
material; and (4) replacing the original endshield with a standard 
dimension endshield may require different shaft construction, resulting 
in a completely new assembly of shaft and rotor. For situations where 
an electric motor with a non-standard enshield or flange cannot be 
connected to the dynamometer, NEMA recommended that DOE permit a 
testing lab to use an endshield or flange that meets the NEMA or the 
IEC specifications. NEMA further suggested that the manufacturer should 
be contacted to determine the appropriateness of replacement endshield 
or flange. If the replacement endshield or flange is not available then 
the testing laboratory may construct the same in consultation with the 
manufacturer. NEMA also argued that the test procedure should also 
allow testing of a general purpose electric motor of equivalent 
electrical design and enclosure, as an alternative. (NEMA, No. 10 at 
pp. 24-25)
    Advanced Energy agreed with DOE that non-standard endshields and 
flanges be replaced with standard ones for testing purposes. However, 
Advanced Energy noted that the term ``original'' in the proposed test 
procedure is ambiguous because it indicated that the motor was 
initially designed with an endshield, which may not be the case. It 
suggested that the term ``original'' be replaced with ``conventional.'' 
Advanced Energy also expressed concern that requiring a manufacturer to 
provide a ``standard endshield in compliance with NEMA MG 1'' of the 
same material as ``original endplate'' is too strict. It suggested that 
manufacturers be allowed to use an alternative material for the 
endshield that will not impact the airflow and energy performance. It 
also commented that a provision should be included that allows test 
labs the option of fabricating suitable endshields if the need arises. 
(Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 4). UL requested that DOE consider 
modifying the proposed language to permit the endshield to be modified 
or fabricated as necessary to facilitate coupling to the dynamometer 
without affecting the results.'' (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 105-107; 
Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 111) WEG suggested that in situations where 
the motor cannot be tested at all, an equivalent motor with similar 
electrical design and a standard endshield can be tested. (Pub. Mtg. 
Tr., No. 7 at pp. 114-115) CDA opined that the customers can provide 
end covers for testing to match actual use conditions and that 
allowance for additional friction should be allowed for accuracy in 
test results. (CDA, No. 9 at p. 2)
    DOE has considered these comments and decided to take slightly 
differing approaches for testing conducted on behalf of manufacturers 
(for purposes of representations and certification of compliance) and 
for DOE-initiated testing (for purposes of determining compliance). In 
both instances, if it is not possible to connect the electric motor to 
a dynamometer with the non-standard endshield or flange in place, the 
testing laboratory shall replace the non-standard endshield or flange 
with an endshield or flange that meets the NEMA or IEC endshield 
specifications. DOE notes that endshield specifications are found in 
NEMA MG-1 (2009) Section I, Part 4--see paragraphs 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 
4.3, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, and 4.4.6; Figures 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 
4-5, and 4-6; and Table 4-2--and in IEC 60072-1 (1991). If possible, 
the manufacturer should provide the endshield or flange. The 
manufacturer may authorize the lab to machine replacement endplates or 
flanges for testing if the manufacturer chooses not to provide it. The 
lab should consult with the manufacturer before constructing these 
components to determine their critical characteristics.
2. Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors and Electric Motors With Single 
or Double Shaft Extensions of Non-Standard Dimensions or Design
    Close-coupled pump motors are electric motors used in pump 
applications where the impeller is mounted directly on the motor shaft. 
Such motors are typically built with different shafts (usually longer) 
than generic general-purpose electric motors. Section I, part 4 of NEMA 
MG 1-2009 and IEC Standard 60072-1 (1991) specify standard tolerances 
for shaft extensions, diameters, and keyseats that relate to the fit 
between the shaft and the device mounted to the shaft. However, 
sometimes manufacturers provide shafts with a special diameter, length, 
or design because of a customer's application.\24\ In 2011, DOE 
considered clarifying its treatment of these types of motors and 
included a table with allowable shaft variations. 76 FR 648, 671-72 
(January 5, 2011) This guidance table was intended to enumerate the 
deviations from standard shaft dimensions that DOE would allow while 
still considering the motor to be a general purpose motor subject to 
energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For example, see Baldor's marketing materials at: http://www.baldor.com/support/Literature/Load.ashx/BR401?LitNumber=BR401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, in view of the EISA 2007 and AEMTCA 2012 amendments, DOE's 
scope of regulatory coverage extends beyond the initial scope set by 
EPCA prior to these two amendments. DOE believes that a motor's shaft 
alone, no matter what its dimensions or type, does not exclude a motor 
from having to satisfy any applicable energy conservation standards. 
Further, DOE believes that it is not necessary to explicitly define a 
close-coupled pump electric motor or an electric motor with a single or 
double shaft extension of non-standard dimensions or additions because 
whether a shaft is built within the shaft tolerances defined by NEMA 
and IEC is unambiguous.
    In considering applying standards to these types of motors, DOE 
assessed whether motors with non-standard shaft dimensions or additions 
can be tested using accepted and established procedures. DOE received 
feedback concerning the testing of these motor types during and after 
the October 18, 2010, framework document public meeting. NEMA and ASAP 
submitted a joint comment noting that DOE could allow testing of a 
``similar model'' motor with a standard shaft to enable the motor to be 
more easily tested on a dynamometer. (NEMA and ASAP, EERE-2010-BT-STD-
0027-0012 at p. 8) In its comments about the electric motors 
preliminary analysis, NEMA added that special couplings or adapters may 
be needed to test motors with special shaft extensions, but noted that 
a motor's shaft extension has little to no effect on its efficiency. 
(NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 14)
    DOE investigated the feasibility of using coupling adapters for 
motors with extended shafts or shafts of unique design. To do this, DOE 
procured a close-coupled pump motor with an extended shaft. When this 
motor was received, DOE's testing laboratory had no problems attaching 
the motor to its dynamometer. The use of an adapter was not needed in 
this case. However, DOE also conferred with experts at its testing 
laboratory and learned that coupling adapters were needed for motors 
with extended shafts or shafts of unique design, which it had tested in 
the past. As such, DOE is not aware of any motor shaft design that has 
prevented DOE's test laboratory from performing a proper test according 
to IEEE 112 (Test Method B). Therefore, DOE proposed to include 
instructions for special couplings or adapters. In

[[Page 75982]]

other words, if a testing facility cannot attach a motor to its 
dynamometer because of the motor's shaft extension, that facility 
should use a coupling or adapter to mount and test the motor. DOE 
understood that a motor's shaft configuration has minimal, if any, 
impact on overall motor efficiency, and believed that this approach was 
technologically feasible and would not result in any distortion of a 
motor's inherent efficiency when tested.
    In response to the NOPR, the interested parties agreed with DOE's 
decision to not define motors with non-standard shaft dimensions or 
additions. However, NEMA suggested replacing the term ``additions'' 
with ``non-standard designs'' to provide better clarity. (NEMA, No. 10 
at p. 26)
    To avoid any ambiguity regarding this motor type, DOE has modified 
the term to be ``Electric Motors with Single or Double Shaft Extensions 
of Non-Standard Dimensions or Design.'' DOE believes that this change 
to the description of this motor type is broad enough to characterize 
all electric motors with non-standard shafts without unintentionally 
limiting this motor type to those with shaft additions. In view of its 
own research and consensus among interested parties, DOE is continuing 
to not define these electric motor types.
3. Vertical Electric Motors
    Although most electric motors are engineered to run while oriented 
horizontally, some operate in applications that require a vertical 
orientation. A horizontally oriented motor has a shaft parallel to the 
floor (or perpendicular to the force of gravity), while a vertically 
oriented motor has a shaft perpendicular to the floor (or parallel to 
the force of gravity). Relative to horizontal motors, vertical motors 
have different designs made with different construction techniques so 
that the electric motor can be operated in a vertical position. These 
different designs can include modifications to the mounting 
configuration, bearing design, and bearing lubrication (a discussion 
regarding bearings can be found in the following section, III.F.4). 
Additionally, vertical motors can come with various shaft 
configurations, including with a solid or hollow shaft. An example of a 
typical application requiring a vertical motor is a pump used in a well 
or a pit.
    DOE did not propose a definition for any terms related to vertical 
electric motors. DOE believed definitions were not needed because there 
is no industry confusion or ambiguity in whether an electric motor is a 
vertical electric motor. Furthermore, whether an electric motor has a 
solid shaft or a hollow shaft is also unambiguous and unnecessary to 
clarify. Although defining a vertically mounted electric motor did not 
appear necessary, DOE believed instructions detailing how to configure 
and mount a vertical motor for testing in a horizontal position, 
including the motor's orientation and shaft characteristics, would be 
helpful in ensuring a proper and consistent testing set-up.
    EISA 2007 classified vertical solid-shaft motors as subtype II 
motors and required them to be tested in a ``horizontal 
configuration.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(B)(v)) Prior to the NOPR, NEMA, 
ASAP, and the Motor Coalition submitted comments, noting that vertical 
motors cannot be tested on a standard dynamometer because most 
dynamometers are designed to test electric motors in horizontal 
orientation. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0013 at p. 5; NEMA and ASAP, 
EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0012 at p. 3; Motor Coalition, EERE-2010-BT-STD-
0027-0035 at pp. 18 and 30) DOE confirmed this assertion with its test 
laboratory and SMEs. In view of the statutory requirement and current 
dynamometer testing configuration limits, DOE proposed in the NOPR to 
test motors, which are otherwise engineered to operate vertically, in a 
horizontal position when determining efficiency.
    Another consideration was the shaft of a vertical motor and whether 
it was solid or hollow. If a vertical motor has a solid shaft, DOE 
proposed no further adjustments after considering orientation, unless 
the motor contained a special shaft. For vertical motors with a hollow 
shaft, (i.e., an empty cylinder that runs through the rotor and 
typically attaches internally to the end opposite the drive of the 
motor with a special coupling) additional instructions were proposed.
    DOE conducted testing prior to the NOPR publication to gauge the 
feasibility of testing a vertical, hollow-shaft motor. For its 
investigation, DOE purchased a five-horsepower, two-pole, TEFC vertical 
motor with a hollow shaft. Upon receipt of the motor, the testing 
laboratory found that the motor's bearing construction was sufficient 
for horizontal operation and no replacement would be needed. However, 
the motor did require a shaft extension to be machined. After a solid 
shaft was constructed, it was inserted into the hollow shaft and 
attached via welding to the lip of the hollow shaft. The testing 
laboratory encountered no further problems and was able to properly 
test the motor according to IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B).
    After conducting this testing, DOE believed that, as long as the 
attached solid-shaft maintained sufficient clearance through the drive 
end of the motor to enable the motor to be attached to the dynamometer, 
this approach would be feasible to test vertical hollow-shaft motors. 
Aside from the addition of a shaft extension, DOE did not believe that 
testing a vertical hollow-shaft motor in a horizontal configuration 
would add undue testing burden when compared to testing a solid-shaft 
vertical motor.
    In response to the March 2011 RFI, NEMA suggested that vertical 
motors rated 1-500 horsepower be tested according to section 6.4 of 
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B--Input-output with segregation of 
losses and indirect measurement of stray-load loss), if bearing 
construction permits; otherwise, it suggested testing vertical motors 
according to section 6.6 of IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method E--Electric 
power measurement under load with segregation of losses and direct 
measurement of stray-load loss), as specified in NEMA MG 1-2009 
paragraph 12.58.1 ``Determination of Motor Efficiency and Losses.'' 
\25\ (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0019 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ ``Efficiency and losses shall be determined in accordance 
with IEEE Std 112 or Canadian Standards Association Standard C390. 
The efficiency shall be determined at rated output, voltage, and 
frequency. Unless otherwise specified, horizontal polyphase, 
squirrel-cage medium motors rated 1 to 500 horsepower shall be 
tested by dynamometer (Method B) (or CSA Std C390 Method 1) as 
described in Section 6.4 of IEEE Std 112. Motor efficiency shall be 
calculated using form B of IEEE Std 112 or the equivalent C390 
calculation procedure. Vertical motors of this horsepower range 
shall also be tested by Method B if bearing construction permits; 
otherwise they shall be tested by segregated losses (Method E) (or 
CSA Std Method 2) as described in Section 6.6 of IEEE Std 112, 
including direct measurement of stray-loss load.'' NEMA Standards 
Publication MG1--2009, Motors and Generators, paragraph 12.58.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE consulted with testing laboratories about whether IEEE Standard 
112 (Test Method E) would be an appropriate procedure to use when 
testing vertical motors. DOE understood that the primary difference 
between IEEE Standard 112's Test Method B and Test Method E is that 
Test Method E uses a different method to calculate stray-load loss 
relative to Test Method B. Test Method B measures motor output power 
and uses this number as part of the calculation for stray-load loss. 
However, Test Method E does not require the measurement of output 
power, and, therefore, uses a different method to find the stray-load 
loss. By not requiring the measurement of output power, Test Method E 
can be conducted on motors installed in an area or in

[[Page 75983]]

equipment that cannot be attached to a dynamometer. Although Test 
Method E may reduce some testing burden for manufacturers of vertical 
motors, DOE was concerned that Test Method E could produce results that 
were inconsistent and inaccurate relative to testing comparable motors 
under Test Method B. Therefore, DOE declined to propose the use of Test 
Method E for vertical motors.
    In response to the NOPR, there were several comments regarding the 
definitions and test setups for vertical motors. Assuming that DOE 
intended to set standards eventually for vertical motors generally 
(beyond those already applicable to general purpose subtype II motors), 
NEMA suggested that newly-covered vertical motors be considered as 
either definite purpose electric motors or special purpose electric 
motors and their features be incorporated in a definition for vertical 
motors to clearly identify the type included in the covered electric 
motors. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 29)
    As described earlier, in the NOPR, DOE did not intend to define 
``covered motors.'' Rather, it was DOE's intention to define subsets of 
motors that would have the potential to be covered in a standards 
rulemaking. In the case of vertical motors, DOE did not believe that a 
definition was necessary because it is always obvious whether a motor 
is intended for vertical operation. Being defined as a vertical motor 
would not, then, necessarily mean a vertical motor was subject to 
energy conservation standards. The current energy conservation 
standards rulemaking is intended to determine coverage parameters for 
defined motor types. Based on these facts, DOE does not believe it is 
necessary to state whether a vertical motor is special or definite 
purpose (as neither distinction would change the fact that the motor is 
vertical), and has not updated its decision from the NOPR to leave 
vertical motors undefined.
    In regard to testing, NEMA commented that IEEE 112 (Test Method E) 
is a standard method for testing vertical motors when the vertical 
motor cannot be tested in horizontal position due to bearing 
construction (which may require that vertical load be exerted on the 
bearings). NEMA suggested that because vertical electric motors other 
than vertical solid shaft normal thrust general purpose electric motors 
(subtype II) would be included in the scope of covered products (and 
which may require testing in vertical orientation), IEEE 112 (Test 
Method E) be added as a valid test procedure in paragraph 2 of Appendix 
B to Subpart B and all other paragraphs in Subparts B and U where it is 
necessary to identify the applicable test standards for vertical 
motors. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 32) NEMA noted that there will be a 
difference in efficiency when a vertical motor is tested in vertical 
position with no modification as compared to the vertical motor tested 
in horizontal position after changing the bearings. NEMA suggested that 
this difference in efficiency levels should be considered while 
establishing standards for vertical motors. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 31-32)
    Based on the present definitions in 10 CFR 431.12, and those 
proposed in the NOPR, and assuming that vertical motors of various 
types are to be included, NEMA recommended that the proposed test 
procedure be revised to permit the testing of vertical electric motors 
in a horizontal or vertical configuration according to the equipment 
available at the testing facility and the construction of the motor. If 
the vertical motor cannot operate in a horizontal position due to its 
bearing construction or due to the requirement that a vertical load be 
applied to the shaft, then the bearings should be replaced with the 
standard bearings during testing. NEMA further suggested that a 
coupling or other adapter may be required to connect the vertical 
electric motor to the test equipment to provide sufficient clearance. 
(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 32)
    DOE has reevaluated its test instructions for vertical electric 
motors following the comments received in response to the NOPR. It 
understands that there was confusion prior to the NOPR regarding which 
types of vertical motors were being defined, and earlier comments were 
based on this misunderstanding. After the NOPR, DOE verified the claims 
in the comments with SMEs and determined that testing vertically and 
testing horizontally would result in similar efficiencies. However, for 
reasons stated earlier, DOE continues to decline the use of IEEE 112 
(Test Method E). For this final rule, while vertical solid shaft normal 
thrust general purpose electric motors (subtype II) shall be tested in 
a horizontal configuration in accordance with IEEE 112 (Test Method B), 
the test instructions for other types of vertical electric motors are 
amended to allow test labs to choose between vertical and horizontal 
orientation for testing, as provided for by the lab's equipment, with 
preference given to testing in the motor's native orientation when 
either is possible.
4. Electric Motor Bearings
    Electric motors usually employ anti-friction bearings that are 
housed within the endshields to support the motor's shaft and provide a 
low-friction means for shaft rotation. Anti-friction bearings contain 
rolling elements, which are the components inside the bearings that 
``roll'' around the bearing housing and provide the reduced-friction 
means of rotation. Rolling elements can be spherical, cylindrical, 
conical, or other shapes. The design of the rolling element is selected 
based on the type and amount of force the shaft must be capable of 
withstanding. The two primary types of loads imposed on motor bearings 
are radial and thrust. Radial loads are so named because the load is 
applied along the radius of the shaft (i.e., perpendicular to the 
shaft's axis of rotation). Bearings may be subject to radial loads if 
the motor's shaft is horizontal to the floor (i.e., horizontally 
oriented). These bearings are called ``radial bearings.'' ``Thrust 
bearings'' are bearings capable of withstanding thrust loads, which are 
loads with forces parallel to the ``axis'' of the shaft (i.e., parallel 
to the shaft's axis of rotation) and may be encountered when the shaft 
is vertical to the floor (i.e., vertically oriented). However, either 
radial or axial shaft loads can be encountered in any orientation.
    In addition to the type of force, bearings are also chosen based on 
the magnitude of the force they can withstand. While most applications 
use spherical rolling-elements, some motors employ cylindrical-shaped 
rolling-elements inside the bearings. These cylindrical-shaped rolling 
elements are called ``rollers,'' and this bearing type is referred to 
as a ``roller bearing.'' Roller bearings can withstand higher loads 
than spherical ball bearings because the cylindrically shaped rolling-
element provides a larger contact area for transmitting forces. 
However, the larger contact area of the rolling element with the 
bearing housing also creates more friction and, therefore, may cause 
more losses during motor operation.
    Regardless of the rolling element used, bearings must be lubricated 
with either grease or oil to further reduce friction and prevent wear 
on the bearings. Open or shielded bearing construction allows for the 
exchange of grease or oil during motor operation. Sealed bearings, 
unlike shielded or open bearings, do not allow the free exchange of 
grease or oil during operation. Sealed bearings incorporate close-
fitting seals that prevent the exchange of oil or grease during the 
bearing's operational

[[Page 75984]]

lifetime. Such bearings may be referred to as ``lubed-for-life'' 
bearings because the user purchases the bearings with the intention of 
replacing the bearing before it requires re-lubrication. Shielded 
bearings differ from open bearings in that shielded bearings contain a 
cover, called a ``shield,'' which allows the flow of oil or grease into 
the inner portions of the bearing casing, but restricts dirt or debris 
from contacting the rolling elements. Preventing dirt and debris from 
contacting the bearing prevents wear and increases the life of the 
bearing.
    Certain vertical motors use oil-lubricated bearings rather than the 
grease-lubricated bearings that are typically found in horizontal 
motors. If a vertical motor contains an oil-lubricated system, problems 
can occur when the motor is reoriented into a horizontal position and 
attached to a dynamometer for testing. Because oil has a lower 
viscosity than grease, it could pool in the bottom of the now 
horizontally oriented (vertical motor) bearing.\26\ Such pooling, or 
loss of proper lubrication to the bearings, could adversely affect the 
motor's performance, damage the motor, and distort the results of 
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Viscosity is the measure of a liquid's resistivity to being 
deformed. An example of a material with high viscosity is molasses 
and an example of a material with low viscosity is water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the various construction and lubrication types, DOE 
understands that motors may contain bearings only capable of horizontal 
operation, vertical operation, or, in some limited cases, both 
horizontal and vertical operation. For those motors equipped with 
thrust bearings only capable of vertical orientation, DOE stated in the 
NOPR that reorienting the motor could cause physical damage to the 
motor. For motors equipped with such bearings, DOE proposed to add 
testing instructions that would require the testing laboratory to 
replace the thrust bearing with a ``standard bearing,'' which DOE 
defined as a 6000 series, open, single-row, deep groove, radial ball 
bearing, because that is the most common type of bearing employed on 
horizontally oriented motors. For any electric motor equipped with 
bearings that are capable of operating properly (i.e., without damaging 
the motor) when the motor is oriented horizontally, DOE proposed that 
the motor should be tested as is, without replacing the bearings. DOE 
believed that this was the most appropriate approach because it would 
provide the truest representation of the energy use that will be 
experienced by the user.
    NEMA agreed that thrust bearings should be replaced with standard 
bearings if the motor is tested in an orientation different from the 
normal one. However, NEMA stated that the motor manufacturer should be 
consulted before any modification is made. This is because some 
bearings may require oil or other lubricants for normal use. (NEMA, No. 
10 at pp. 28, 32-33)
    Advanced Energy agreed with the proposed approach of testing 
electric motors with bearings capable of horizontal orientation. 
However, for motors with bearings not capable of horizontal 
orientation, Advanced Energy proposed that thrust bearings be replaced 
with shielded bearings with already packed grease to prevent over-
filling of grease and to reduce lead time of installation of bearings. 
(Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 5) Advanced Energy requested that DOE 
replace ``should'' with ``may,'' in the proposed testing instruction 
for ``electric motors with bearings incapable of horizontal operation'' 
so that the testing instruction for states: ``may replace the thrust 
bearing'' and ``may be tested as is''. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 130)
    DOE notes NEMA's and Advanced Energy's comment that different 
bearings may require different lubricants (e.g., oil, grease), which 
should be considered when the bearings of a motor are replaced with 
standard bearings for testing. Considering NEMA's and Advanced Energy's 
comments, DOE has modified the definition of standard bearings to 
include a grease lubricated double shielded bearing. Furthermore, while 
DOE understands Advanced Energy's suggestions regarding the language, 
the language is written such that only motors whose bearings cannot be 
operated horizontally ``shall be'' replaced for testing. DOE believes 
that this renders this suggested wording change unnecessary. Motors 
whose bearings do not permit horizontal operation but which must be 
tested horizontally due to test equipment availability must have their 
bearings replaced in order to yield accurate results.
    In response to the preliminary analysis, DOE received comment 
specifically about testing electric motors with sleeve bearings. Sleeve 
bearings are another type of bearing that do not use typical rolling 
elements, but rather consist of a lubricated bushing, or ``sleeve,'' 
inside of which the motor shaft rotates. The shaft rotates on a film of 
oil or grease, which reduces friction during rotation. Sleeve bearings 
generally have a longer life than anti-friction ball bearings, but they 
are more expensive than anti-friction ball bearings for most horsepower 
ratings.\27\ Both ASAP and NEMA asserted that a motor with sleeve 
bearings should have its efficiency verified by testing a motor of 
equivalent electrical design and that employs standard bearings.\28\ 
(ASAP and NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0020 at p. 4) However, NEMA later 
revised its position in separately submitted comments to the electric 
motors preliminary analysis public meeting. NEMA stated that further 
review of pertinent test data indicated that sleeve bearings do not 
significantly impact the efficiency of a motor, and that a motor having 
sleeve bearings is not sufficient reason to exclude it from meeting 
energy conservation standards. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 
17) NEMA also commented that it is not aware of any reason that a motor 
cannot be tested with sleeve bearings, but that DOE should also provide 
the option to test sleeve bearing motors with the sleeve bearing 
swapped out for anti-friction ball bearings. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-
0027-0054 at p. 17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ William R. Finley and Mark M. Hodowanec. Sleeve Vs. Anti-
Friction Bearings: Selection of the Optimal Bearing for Induction 
Motors. 2001. IEEE. USA.
    \28\ Neither NEMA nor ASAP elaborated on what ``standard'' 
bearings are. DOE is interpreting ``standard'' bearings to mean 
spherical, radial ball bearings, because this is the most common 
type of bearing used for general purpose, horizontally oriented 
motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE separately consulted with testing laboratories, SMEs, and 
manufacturers and reviewed a pertinent technical paper.\29\ As a result 
of this collective research, at the time of the NOPR, DOE tentatively 
determined that sleeve bearings do not significantly degrade efficiency 
when compared to spherical, radial ball bearings. DOE also did not 
believe that it was more difficult to attach a motor with sleeve 
bearings to a dynamometer than a standard, general purpose electric 
motor equipped with radial ball bearings. Additionally, DOE believed 
that swapping sleeve bearings with spherical, radial ball bearings may 
be time consuming and otherwise present unforeseen or undue 
difficulties because of the overall design of the motor that operates 
with the sleeve bearings. Motors that employ sleeve bearings have 
significantly different bearing-support configurations than motors that 
employ spherical, radial ball bearings, and DOE was not certain that 
sleeve bearings could be readily

[[Page 75985]]

swapped with standard ball bearings without significant, costly motor 
alterations. Therefore, because it may be impracticable to swap them 
out with other bearings, DOE proposed that motors with sleeve bearings 
be tested as-is and with the sleeve bearings installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ William R. Finley and Mark M. Hodowanec. Sleeve Vs. Anti-
Friction Bearings: Selection of the Optimal Bearing for Induction 
Motors. 2001. IEEE. USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the NOPR, NEMA agreed with DOE's proposal to test 
motors with sleeve bearings intact. NEMA stated that testing the motor 
with sleeve bearings in place will result in a decrease of efficiency 
due to losses associated with sleeve bearings. In its view, the 
efficiency measure will thus represent normal consumer operation. NEMA 
further added that the normal IEEE 112 (Test Method B) or (Test Method 
E), where applicable, is sufficient for testing electric motors with 
sleeve bearings. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 27-28, 32-33)
    As no stakeholders presented reasons why motors with sleeve 
bearings should not be tested with the bearings in place, and the 
available facts indicate that the presence of sleeve bearings does not 
affect efficiency testing, DOE has retained this approach for this 
final rule.\30\ As these sleeve bearings will already be in place when 
the motor arrives for testing, and the bearings will not be replaced, 
if the shield bearings are not already have packed grease in place, it 
will not be used for testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ William R. Finley and Mark M. Hodowanec. Sleeve Vs. Anti-
Friction Bearings: Selection of the Optimal Bearing for Induction 
Motors. 2001. IEEE. USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Electric Motors With Non-Standard Bases, Feet or Mounting 
Configurations
    DOE has not yet regulated special or definite purpose motors, or 
general purpose motors with ``special bases or mounting feet,'' because 
of the limits prescribed by the previous statutory definition of 
``electric motor.'' That definition included a variety of criteria such 
as ``foot-mounting'' and being built in accordance with NEMA ``T-
frame'' dimensions, which all narrowed the scope of what comprised an 
electric motor under the statute. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (1992)) As 
a result of EISA 2007 and related amendments that established energy 
conservation standards for two subtypes of general purpose electric 
motors (subtype I and subtype II), among other motor types, the 
statutory meaning of the term ``general purpose motor'' was broadened 
to include, for example, ``footless motors.'' Similarly, because 
definite and special purpose motors now fall under the broad statutory 
heading of ``electric motors,'' DOE is now considering whether to set 
standards for electric motors with non-standard bases, feet, or 
mounting configurations in the standards rulemaking.
    Part 4 of section I in NEMA MG 1-2009 provides general standards 
for dimensions, tolerances, and mounting for all types of electric 
motors. In that section, figures 4-1 through 4-5 identify the letter 
symbols associated with specific dimensions of electric motors with 
various bases, feet, and mounting configurations. Accompanying these 
figures are tables throughout part 4 of section I that specify 
dimensions, explain how a particular dimension is measured and detail 
the applicable measurement tolerances. This collective information is 
used to standardize the dimensions associated with specific frame 
sizes, given a certain base, feet, or mounting configuration. The IEC 
provides similar information in its standard, IEC Standard 60072-1, 
``Dimensions and output series for rotating electrical machines.'' 
Although the majority of motors are built within these specifications, 
DOE is aware that some motors may have feet, bases, or mounting 
configurations that do not necessarily conform to the industry 
standards. These are the motors--i.e. those not conforming to NEMA or 
IEC standards for bases, feet, or mounting configurations--that DOE is 
considering regulating under the standards NOPR.
    DOE believed that a definition was not needed for this particular 
type of electric motor because whether a motor has a mounting base, 
feet, or configuration that is built in compliance with the standard 
dimensions laid out in NEMA MG 1-2009 or IEC Standard 60072-1 was 
unambiguous. Also, DOE believed that additional testing set-up 
instructions for these types of electric motors were not necessary 
because such mounting characteristics are not explicitly addressed 
either in IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA C390-10, other than 
how mounting conditions will affect the vibration of a motor under IEEE 
Standard 112, paragraph 9.6.2, ``Mounting configurations.''
    In response to the March 2011 RFI, ASAP and NEMA asserted that a 
motor with a special base or mounting feet, as well as a motor of any 
mounting configuration, should have its efficiency verified by testing 
a model motor with an equivalent electrical design that could more 
easily be attached to a dynamometer. (ASAP and NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-
0027-0020 at p. 4)
    DOE believed testing a ``similar model'' to show compliance would 
likely create difficulties in ensuring the accuracy and equivalence of 
claimed efficiency ratings. Additionally, DOE believed that testing 
motors with non-standard bases or mounting feet would not present an 
undue burden or insurmountable obstacle to testing. The test benches 
used for testing electric motors can have, for example, adjustable 
heights to accommodate the wide variety of motor sizes and mechanical 
configurations that commonly exist. Therefore, because the mounting 
feet will not necessarily affect how a motor is mounted to a 
dynamometer, but simply the positioning of the shaft extension, DOE 
believed non-standard mounting feet would present no additional testing 
burdens. As was done for the vertical electric motor that DOE had 
tested and which did not have a standard horizontal mounting 
configuration, a testing laboratory would likely treat these motors as 
a typical general purpose electric motor and adjust the test bench as 
applicable for the unit under test.
    Finally, DOE understood that an electric motor's mounting base, 
feet, or configuration would have no impact on its demonstrated 
efficiency. An electric motor's mounting base, feet, or configuration 
does not affect a motor's operating characteristics because this is a 
feature external to the core components of the motor. It is also a 
feature that will not impact friction and windage losses because this 
feature does not involve any rotating elements of the motor. An 
electric motor's mounting base, feet, or mounting configuration only 
affects how a motor is physically installed in a piece of equipment. 
DOE's approach was premised on these facts.
    While NEMA agreed with DOE's proposed approach not to define 
electric motors with non-standard base, feet or mounting 
configurations, it suggested that additional test instructions for 
these electric motor types were needed in view of testing difficulties. 
(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 26) In the case of special mounting configurations 
or footless motors, particularly TENV types, NEMA stated that mounting 
configuration may affect the free convection cooling of the motor. For 
instance, some testing facilities may use a V-shape or U-shape block 
with straps to hold the movement of a footless motor. The design of the 
block(s) can inhibit free convection over TENV motor and can cover 
ventilation openings in case of open motors. Thus, NEMA recommended 
that DOE consider adding language for testing of an electric motor with 
non-standard bases, feet, or mounting configurations to ensure that the 
method of mounting ``does not have an adverse effect on the performance 
of the electric motor'' particularly on

[[Page 75986]]

cooling of the motor due to use of adaptive mounting fixtures. (NEMA, 
No. 10 at p. 27).
    DOE notes NEMA's concern and understands that the current 
procedures to test electric motors with a non-standard base, feet, or 
mounting configuration, as described by NEMA, may affect the cooling of 
the motor and impact the efficiency ratings of the motor. In order to 
achieve accuracy in the efficiency measures, because bases, feet, and 
mounting arrangements can alter tested efficiency, DOE has adopted the 
following test procedure for electric motors with a non-standard base, 
feet, or mounting configuration: ``Some adaptive fixtures may be 
required to mount a motor on the test equipment when testing an 
electric motor with a non-standard base, feet, or mounting 
configuration. The method of mounting or use of adaptive mounting 
fixtures should not have an adverse impact on the performance of the 
electric motor, particularly on the cooling of the motor.''
6. Electric Motors With Separately-Powered Blowers
    In the NOPR, DOE addressed a subset of immersible motors it 
referred to as being built in a ``TEBC'' (totally enclosed blower 
cooled--i.e., with cooling airflow provided by a separate blower driven 
by a separate, auxiliary motor) configuration. These motors were not 
only immersible, but had a separately powered blower as part of their 
assembly. For these motors, DOE proposed requiring the testing 
laboratory to power the smaller blower motor from a power source 
separate from the one used for the electric motor being tested for 
efficiency. Following this approach would allow the testing laboratory 
to isolate the performance of the motor under test while continuing to 
provide the necessary cooling from the blower motor.
    Advanced Energy concurred with separately powering the blower motor 
of an immersible motor configured in a TEBC configuration. (Advanced 
Energy, No. 8 at p. 3) However, NEMA requested that DOE reconsider the 
requirement of ``separate power source'' in the proposed definition 
because a test facility may have only one power source. NEMA also 
stated that this requirement is not necessary because all that matters 
is that the test equipment used to measure the electrical power flowing 
into the motor is connected only to the motor leads and not to both the 
motor leads and blower leads. Also, in its view, the proper voltage 
should be applied to the blower when the voltage to the motor is to be 
reduced as a part of the IEEE 112 Method B or Method E test procedure. 
NEMA commented that it was unclear why the requirement to exclude the 
input power to the blower in the measurement of the motor power would 
apply only to blower cooled ``immersible'' motors if the test procedure 
is intended to apply to any electric motor with contact seals. The test 
procedure should also clearly state that the input power to the 
separately powered blower is not to be included in the determination of 
the efficiency of the immersible definite purpose electric motor, or, 
in general, for any electric motor with a separately powered blower 
furnished as a part of the total assembly. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 23-24)
    Following the NOPR, DOE raised this issue with stakeholders and 
SMEs. From those discussions, DOE acknowledges that at least some non-
immersible motors that were furnished with separately-powered blowers 
exist would also meet the nine criteria that DOE is considering 
applying with respect to its standards rulemaking efforts. It was not 
DOE's intention to omit guidance on testing these motors; DOE agrees 
with NEMA that a test plan for ``blower-cooled'' electric motors should 
not be limited only to those motors that are also immersible. 
Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is adding separate test set-up 
instructions for an ``electric motor with a separately-powered 
blower.'' This set-up will be applicable to any electric motor that has 
this particular design element, regardless of whether this electric 
motor is also immersible. As DOE did not receive comments in the NOPR 
asking DOE to define this motor type, the Department believes that 
stakeholders understand what motor types were covered by this test set-
up, and DOE has opted not to define this motor type at this time.
    Regarding the use of the term ``separate power source,'' DOE 
recognizes that test labs may use a variety of power supplies to 
facilitate testing. DOE believes that NEMA's suggested plan of 
measuring the two sources of power separately (rather than powering 
them separately) can work, provided it is done such that it accurately 
characterizes the power going into the tested motor. In either 
arrangement, the objective is to exclude the power to the blower's 
motor from any calculations of efficiency for the tested motor. For 
these reasons and based on the comments received, DOE has added 
instructions to the procedure to exclude the losses attributable to the 
motor powering a separately-powered blower. Under this change, the 
blower's motor can be powered by a source separate from the source 
powering the electric motor under test or by connecting leads such that 
they only measure the power of the motor under test. This instruction 
follows from DOE's proposal ``to isolate the performance of the motor 
under test while continuing to provide the necessary cooling from the 
blower motor.'' 78 FR 38466. In this final rule, DOE extends those 
instructions to all motors with separately-powered blowers rather than 
limiting it to immersible motors in recognition of the fact that the 
qualities of being immersible and having a separately-powered blower 
are technologically independent and should be treated as such.

G. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only Definitions

    There are several electric motor types whose energy efficiency DOE 
is not proposing to regulate as part of the recently published energy 
conservation standards proposal but that DOE is defining in today's 
rule to provide manufacturers regulatory clarity when the final 
standards rule is published. More details regarding the specific motor 
types are discussed below.
1. Component Set of an Electric Motor
    Electric motors are comprised of several primary components that 
include: A rotor, stator, stator windings, stator frame, two 
endshields, two bearings, and a shaft. As described in the NOPR, a 
component set of an electric motor comprises any combination of these 
motor parts that does not form an operable motor. 78 FR 38466. For 
example, a component set may consist of a wound stator and rotor 
component sold without a stator housing, endshields, or shaft. These 
components may be sold with the intention of having the motor parts 
mounted inside other equipment, with the equipment providing the 
necessary mounting and rotor attachments for the components to operate 
in a manner similar to a stand-alone electric motor. Component sets may 
also be sold with the intention of a third party using the components 
to construct a complete, stand-alone motor. In such cases, the end 
manufacturer that ``completes'' the motor's construction must certify 
that the motor meets any pertinent standards. (See 42 U.S.C. 
6291(1)(10) (defining ``manufacture'' to include manufacture, produce, 
assemble, or import.)) This approach was supported by NEMA in its 
comments on the electric motors preliminary analysis. (NEMA, EERE-2010-
BT-STD-0027-0054 at pp. 15-16)

[[Page 75987]]

    DOE understands that a component set does not constitute a 
complete, or near-complete, motor that could be tested under IEEE 
Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA C390-10, because it would require 
major modifications before it can operate as a motor. In view of its 
examination of motor component sets, DOE understands that some of them 
would require the addition of costly and fundamental parts for the 
motor to be capable of continuous-duty operation, as would be required 
under either test procedure. The parts that would need to be added to 
the component set, such as a wound stator or rotor, are complex 
components that directly affect the performance of a motor and can only 
be provided by a motor manufacturer. Without the fundamental 
components, there is no motor. Therefore, DOE believes that a single 
testing laboratory would have insurmountable difficulty machining motor 
parts, assembling the parts into an operable machine, and testing the 
motor in a way that would be manageable, consistent, and repeatable by 
other testing laboratories. Because DOE is not aware of any test 
procedures or additional test procedure instructions that would 
accommodate the testing of a component set in a manageable, consistent, 
and repeatable manner, it declined to consider component sets for 
energy conservations standards in the NOPR.
    In terms of defining a ``component set,'' DOE was aware of some 
confusion regarding what constitutes a ``component set'' of a motor, 
especially about the difference between a ``component set'' and a 
``partial'' motor. No technical standard currently defines these terms. 
To bring a common definition for these generally understood, but 
undefined, concepts, DOE proposed to define a ``component set'' as a 
``combination of motor parts that require the addition of more than two 
endshields to create an operable motor.'' 78 FR 38469. Under the 
proposed definition, these parts may consist of any combination of a 
stator frame, wound stator, rotor, shaft, or endshields and the term 
``operable motor'' would refer to an electric motor engineered for 
performing in accordance with nameplate ratings. 78 FR 38469.
    In response to the NOPR, Nidec suggested that the definition of 
component set be clearer so that it can be differentiated from a 
partial motor. It criticized the proposed definition for not being 
clear enough to distinguish a component set from a partial motor. (Pub. 
Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 31) NEMA, on the other hand, recommended that DOE 
not define this term, noting that the clearer definition of partial 
motor should be sufficient to distinguish it from a component set. 
(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 34)
    In DOE's view, defining what a ``component set'' is, and 
distinguishing it from a ``partial electric motor'' is critical. 
Furthermore, as explained earlier, DOE does not intend to define only 
those motors for which it is proposing energy conservation standards in 
the parallel rulemaking. Rather, motors that need to be defined in 
order to clearly outline coverage in the standards rulemaking will be 
defined. By defining a ``component set,'' DOE can clearly state whether 
a given motor would be affected in a particular standards rulemaking.
    Nidec also raised concerns regarding where bearings fit into the 
definition (i.e. whether the presence or absence of bearings factored 
into the classification of equipment as a compenent set or partial 
electric motor), In recognition of the fact that bearings are often 
specifically designed to match endplates, DOE is modifying its proposed 
definition by adding the phrase ``and their associated bearings'' to 
the ``component set'' definition. to better distinguish it from a 
partial motor. To mitigate the risk of confusion, DOE is defining a 
component set as referring to ``a combination of motor parts that 
require the addition of critical componentry in excess of two 
endshields (and their associated bearings) to create an operable 
motor.'' In view of its own research and consensus among interested 
parties, DOE is maintaining its NOPR proposal.
2. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motor
    While most electric motors are air-cooled and many use a fan 
attached to the shaft on the end opposite the drive to blow air over 
the surface of the motor to dissipate heat during the motor's 
operation, liquid-cooled electric motors rely on a special cooling 
apparatus that pumps liquid into and around the motor housing. The 
liquid is circulated around the motor frame to dissipate heat and 
prevent the motor from overheating during continuous-duty operation. A 
liquid-cooled electric motor may use different liquids or liquids at 
different temperatures, which could affect the operating temperature of 
the motor and, therefore, the efficiency of the motor. This variability 
could present testing consistency and reliability problems.
    Neither IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) nor CSA C390-10 provide a 
standardized methodology for testing the energy efficiency of a liquid-
cooled electric motor. Additionally, as NEMA noted in its comments, 
these motors are typically used in space-constrained applications, such 
as mining applications, and require a high power density, which 
somewhat limits their efficiency potential. (NEMA, NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-
STD-0027-0054 at p. 42) In view of these likely testing consistency 
problems, DOE noted its intent to not propose energy conservation 
standards for these motors at this time. 78 FR 38475.
    At least two key issues were raised in the context of these motors: 
First, how to test them while accounting for temperature differences 
and second, how to differentiate these motors from certain other motor 
types.
a. Temperature Conditions
    In response to the NOPR, NEMA commented that it is very difficult 
to simulate the various environments in a testing facility where the 
tested motor is required to be connected to a dynamometer. In order to 
maintain acceptable temperature levels, some motors operating in an 
open environment may rely on both free convection and liquid cooling, 
motors operating in a confined space may rely only on liquid cooling 
and other motors may be operated in an area with externally supplied 
ventilating air and liquid cooling. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 36). Thus, NEMA 
argued that energy conservation standards should not be established for 
liquid-cooled electric motors. As noted earlier, NEMA commented that 
the liquid-cooled electric motors are used in specialized applications 
that require high power density within a limited size. Different 
physical sizes may be used for the same power rating for different 
applications for different speed-torque performance, as needed. This 
fact also makes it difficult to establish any particular energy 
conservation standard for a rating. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 35-36).
    No standardized methodology for testing the energy efficiency of a 
liquid-cooled electric motor, the consensus among stakeholders on how 
to treat these motors, and liquid-cooled electric motors are likely to 
be used in specialized applications with high power density 
requirements. Because of that, it is difficult to established a 
procedure that can be confidently said to be representative of energy 
use experienced by consumers. For that reason, DOE is not establishing 
energy conservation standards for liquid-cooled electric motors at this 
time.
b. Differentiating From Other Motor Types
    In response to the October 15, 2010 energy conservation standards

[[Page 75988]]

framework document, NEMA and ASAP commented that greater clarification 
is needed with regard to liquid-cooled electric motors and how to 
differentiate them from immersible or submersible electric motors. 
(NEMA and ASAP, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0012 at p. 9) DOE proposed to 
define ``liquid-cooled electric motor'' to clarify DOE's view of which 
motors would be covered by this term but did not indicate it planned to 
set standards for them. DOE's proposed definition was based on the 
definition of a ``totally enclosed water-cooled machine'' found in 
paragraph 1.26.5 of NEMA MG 1-2009. Further, DOE proposed to remove 
``totally enclosed'' from the definition to prevent any unintentional 
limitations of the definition due to frame construction; liquid-cooling 
may exist independently of degree of frame enclosure. DOE also planned 
to replace the term ``water'' with ``liquid'' to cover the use of any 
type of liquid as a coolant. Finally, per comments from NEMA, DOE 
proposed to modify the term ``water conductors'' to ``liquid-filled 
conductors'' to clarify that the conductors, themselves, are not made 
of liquid. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 35) Consequently, 
DOEe proposed to define ``liquid-cooled electric motor'' as ``a motor 
that is cooled by circulating liquid with the liquid or liquid-filled 
conductors coming into direct contact with the machine parts.''
    In response to the NOPR, NEMA commented that it does not see a need 
for a definition of ``liquid-cooled electric motor'' because these 
motor types are not covered under regulation. However, if DOE still 
decided there was a need to include a definition, NEMA suggested using 
and defining the term ``liquid-cooled definite purpose motor'' rather 
than ``liquid-cooled definite purpose electric motor''. In order to 
remove any confusion related to ``liquid filled conductors'', NEMA 
recommended the definition, if needed, be modified as: ``Liquid-cooled 
definite purpose motor means a motor that is cooled by circulating 
liquid with the liquid coming into direct contact with machine parts, 
typically the enclosure.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 35)
    As stated earlier, even if these motor types are not currently 
regulated, DOE intends to define these motor types for clarity. This 
decision is further described in section G. DOE has also considered 
NEMA's proposed addition to the definition of ``typically the 
enclosure'' and removal of the term ``liquid-filled conductors.'' For 
the final rule, DOE is maintaining the term ``liquid-filled 
conductors'' to maintain the broadness of the original definition and 
not limit the definition to only circulating liquid. Furthermore, DOE 
is opting not to add the term ``typically the enclosure'' as it does 
not believe that this phrase adds to the content of the definition and 
may only add confusion. DOE is including the term ``designated cooling 
apparatus'' to bring more clarity. For this final rule, DOE adopts the 
definition of ``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.''
3. Submersible Electric Motor
    As previously addressed, most motors are not engineered to operate 
while under water. Any liquid inside a stator frame could impede rotor 
operation and corrode components of the motor. However, a submersible 
electric motor is capable of complete submersion in liquid without 
damaging the motor. A submersible electric motor uses special seals to 
prevent the ingress of liquid into its enclosure. Additionally, DOE 
understands that a submersible electric motor relies on the properties 
of the surrounding liquid to cool the motor during continuous-duty 
operation. That is, submersible electric motors are only capable of 
continuous duty operation while completely submerged in liquid, as NEMA 
clarified in its comments on the energy conservation standards 
preliminary analysis. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 37) 
Consequently, as detailed in the NOPR, DOE defined ``submersible 
electric motor'' as an electric motor designed for continuous operation 
only while submerged in liquid.
    In response to the NOPR, NEMA commented that no definition of 
``submersible electric motor'' is needed because these motor types are 
not covered under DOE's regulations. However, if DOE still decided 
there was a need to include a definition, in NEMA's view, the 
definition should be for that of a ``submersible definite purpose 
motor'' and not a ``submersible definite purpose electric motor.'' NEMA 
claimed that the term ``continuous'' was unnecessary as part of the 
definition since the motor is not intended to be operated outside of 
the liquid for any period of time. NEMA suggested that the term be 
defined as referring to a motor ``designed for operation only while 
submerged in liquid.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 36)
    As explained above, DOE is not adding the term ``definite purpose'' 
to any individual motor definitions at this time. However, DOE 
recognizes that it is necessary to distinguish submersible electric 
motors from electric motors with moisture-resistant, sealed or 
encapsulated windings. To clarify this distinction, in this final rule, 
DOE is defining ``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.''
    At the time of the NOPR, DOE believed that testing submersible 
electric motors would be difficult because the motor must be submerged 
in a liquid to properly operate. After discussions with manufacturers 
and testing laboratories, DOE confirmed that no industry test 
procedures or potential modifications to the procedures currently under 
10 CFR 431.16 could be used to consistently test (and reliably measure) 
a motor that relies on submersion in liquid for continuous-duty 
operation. Additionally, DOE was not aware of any testing facilities 
that are capable of testing a submerged motor. Consequently, DOE 
decided not to propose specific preparatory instructions for testing 
submersible electric motors in the NOPR. DOE requested stakeholder 
comment on whether there are facilities capable of conducting energy 
efficiency tests on submersible motors, along with any specific 
procedures that these facilities follow when attempting to rate the 
energy efficiency of this equipment. In its written comments, NEMA 
affirmed that they were unaware of any test facilities available for 
conducting an IEEE 112 (Method B) test on a motor while submerged in 
liquid. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 37)
    Therefore, DOE is only adopting a definition in today's final rule, 
which is consistent with DOE's continuing intention to exclude these 
motors from the proposed energy conservation standards.
4. Inverter-Only Electric Motor
    DOE considered two types of electric motors related to the use of 
inverters, those that are engineered to work only with an inverter and 
those that are capable of working with an inverter, but also capable of 
general, continuous-duty operation without an inverter. This section 
addresses the former. Inverter-capable electric motors are addressed in 
section III.A.4.
    In its electric motors preliminary analysis TSD, DOE sought to 
clarify that, in its view, inverter-only motors were motors that can 
operate

[[Page 75989]]

continuously only by means of an inverter drive. DOE also explained 
that it preliminarily planned to continue to exclude these motors from 
energy conservation standards requirements, in large part because of 
the difficulties that were likely to arise from testing them. One such 
difficulty is the fact that they can be operated at a continuum of 
speeds with no established speed testing profile. Another is that 
motors may be optimized for different waveforms, which also have no 
established testing standards. It would be difficult to generate 
meaningful test results for products which may be designed for a wide 
variety of operating inputs. The breadth of specifications resists 
treatment with a single test procedure without extensive study. 
Additonally, the high frequency power signals may be difficult to 
measure accurately without specialized equipment that testing 
laboratories may not possess.
    NEMA agreed with DOE's preliminary approach to define such motors 
but not require them, for the time being, to meet energy conservation 
standards. It suggested a more specific definition of an ``inverter-
only motor,'' based on NEMA MG 1 part 31, ``Definite-Purpose Inverter-
Fed Polyphase Motors,'' in place of the one previously considered by 
DOE. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 35) DOE examined the 
suggested definition and proposed to adopt it, with minor 
modifications. DOE proposed not to require that a motor be marked as a 
``definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric motor,'' but stated that it 
may consider such a requirement in the future. DOE also noted NEMA's 
concern with the characterization of these motors and changed the term 
to read as an ``inverter-only electric motor.'' DOE proposed to define 
an ``inverter-only electric motor'' as ``an electric motor that is 
designed for operation solely with an inverter, and is not intended for 
operation when directly connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line 
power.''
    In response to the NOPR, NEMA contended that no definition is 
needed for ``definite purpose inverter fed electric motor'' because, in 
its view, a definition would be needed only if there was a clear 
indication that a motor designed for operation on inverter power 
appears to meet the definition of ``electric motor'' as recommended by 
NEMA. If DOE still needed to include a definition, NEMA asserted that 
the definition should be for an ``inverter-fed definite purpose motor'' 
and not a ``definite purpose inverter-fed electric motor.'' If, upon 
further consideration, DOE did decide that a definition was needed, 
NEMA recommended that DOE use the term ``inverter-fed definite-purpose 
motor'', which would refer to ``a definite purpose motor that is 
designed for operation solely with an inverter, and is not defined for 
across-the-line starting when directly connected to polyphase, 
sinusoidal line power.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 37)
    As noted earlier, DOE intends to define these motor types to 
clarify these terms. DOE has also explained that it is not including 
the terms definite purpose or special purpose in its individual motors 
definitions, even though ``definite-purpose'' was initially used in the 
definition of these motors, because ``definite-purpose'' is a term that 
has meaning in the context of many other motor types which DOE does not 
wish to be confused with those requiring inverters. DOE also wishes to 
define these motors in terms of their actual capabilities instead of 
design intent. Therefore, to clear up any confusion surrounding the use 
of the phrase ``definite-purpose'', DOE is changing the name of this 
motor type to be ``inverter-only electric motor.'' As a result, DOE is 
adopting the definition of ``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.''
    As for testing an inverter-only electric motor, NEMA asserted that 
the industry-based procedures, which have already been incorporated by 
reference in DOE's regulations, require that a tested motor be capable 
of across-the-line starting. Inverter-only motors are incapable of 
meeting this requirement without the inverter. (See NEMA, at EERE-2010-
BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 35 and NEMA MG 1-2009, part 31 at paragraph 
31.4.3.1, which elaborates that an ``inverter-only electric motor'' 
cannot perform across-the-line starting unless the motor is attached to 
the inverter.) In the NOPR, DOE noted it was not aware of an industry 
accepted test procedure specifying the speed or torque characteristics 
to use when testing an inverter-only motor. Furthermore, DOE was unable 
to develop a standardized test procedure for inverter-only electric 
motors at this time. Because inverters allow a motor to operate at a 
wide array of speeds for many different applications, there would be 
considerable difficulties in developing a single test procedure that 
produced a fair representation of the actual energy used by all 
electric motors connected to an inverter in the field.
    Additionally, a single motor design may be paired with a wide 
variety of inverters, so properly selecting an inverter to use for the 
test such that an accurate representation of efficiency is obtained 
would prove extremely difficult. Inverters may also operate at 
frequencies that make accurate measurement of power difficult with the 
type of equipment used for conventional motors. Even if DOE intended to 
regulate such motors, testing them could be extremely challenging using 
the currently accepted industry test procedures. Therefore, DOE 
proposed to exclude these motors from consideration for energy 
conservation standards.
    In response to the NOPR, NEMA and Regal Beloit agreed with DOE's 
decision not to establish energy conservation standards for motors 
intended for operation solely with an inverter. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 38; 
Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 78).
    As noted earlier, one difficulty in testing inverter-only motors is 
the fact that they can be operated at a continuum of speeds with no 
established speed testing profile. Another is that motors may be 
optimized for different waveforms, which also have no established 
testing standards. It would be difficult to generate meaningful test 
results for products which may be designed for a wide variety of 
operating inputs. The breadth of specifications resists treatment with 
a single test procedure without extensive study. Additonally, the high 
frequency power signals may be difficult to measure accurately without 
specialized equipment that testing laboratories may not possess. In 
view of this consensus and DOE's own conclusions regarding test 
procedure difficulties, DOE has maintained this approach for the final 
rule and is not adopting a test procedure set-up for these motors, nor 
will these motors be considered for energy conservation standards at 
this time.

H. Effective Dates for the Amended Test Procedures and Other Issues

    In the June 26, 2013 NOPR (78 FR 38455), DOE proposed that the 
amendments described in the sections below become effective 30 days 
after the publication of the final rule. Furthermore, at 180 days after 
publication, the NOPR stated that the manufacturers of those motors 
that would be affected by the proposal would need to make 
representations regarding energy efficiency based on results obtained 
through testing in accordance with the proposed amendments. 
Calculations based on a substantiated alternative efficiency 
determination method (AEDM) would also need to need reflect the same 
approach, as would any certifications of

[[Page 75990]]

compliance with the applicable energy conservation standards.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ DOE acknowledged that, at the time, there are were no 
current energy conservation standards for the majority of the motor 
types covered in the NOPR. DOE stated that if it establishes 
standards for these motor types, manufacturers will be required to 
use the proposed test procedure to certify compliance with these 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Responding to the proposal, NEMA commented that the effective date 
of any change in test procedures should coincide with the effective 
date of any remedial change in the standards provided to rectify the 
effect of the changes in the test procedures on the tested efficiency. 
(NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 11-13) \32\ DOE understands NEMA's concern. Per 
DOE's ``Process Rule'' at appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430 
and the requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and (r), DOE usually tries 
to finalize its test procedures before its energy conservation 
standards. This timeframe allows stakeholders to understand how the 
proposed standard will be calculated to apply to the covered equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ In this and subsequent citations, the document number 
refers to the number of the comment in the Docket for the DOE 
rulemaking on test procedures for electric motors, Docket No. EERE-
2012-BT-TP-0043; and the page references refer to the place in the 
document where the statement preceding appears.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA was also concerned that the test procedure effective date 
would mean that the test procedure applies to motor types that are to 
be covered under the parallel standards rulemaking over a year before 
standards are finalized for such motor types. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 11-
13). It also made a number of miscellaneous comments related to 
clarifying the proposed requirements.
    As described in the ``Note'' to Appendix B to Subpart B and 
consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6314(d), any representations of energy 
efficiency or energy consumption of motors for which energy 
conservation standards are currently provided at 10 CFR 431.25 must be 
based on any final amended procedures in appendix B to subpart B of 
part 431 starting 180 days after the publication of any final amended 
test procedures. Until that time, manufacturers of motors for which 
energy conservation standards are currently provided at 10 CFR 431.25 
may make such representations based either on the final amended test 
procedures or on the previous test procedures, set forth at 10 CFR part 
431, subpart B, appendix B as contained in the 10 CFR parts 200 to 499 
edition revised as of January 1, 2013.
    For any other electric motor type that is not currently covered by 
the energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25 but may become 
covered by standards under the standards rulemaking for which a 
proposed rule is currently open for comment (see 78 FR 73589 (Dec. 6, 
2013), manufacturers of this equipment would need to use Appendix B 180 
days after the effective date of the final rule adopting energy 
conservation standards for these motors. DOE would publish a notice 
upon publication of a final rule in that standards rulemaking 
announcing the specific date and amending the Note regarding compliance 
with test procedures that the today's final rule codifies in Appendix 
B.
    NEMA also suggested that the test procedures should be applicable 
only to those general purpose, definite purpose and special purpose 
electric motors for which energy conservation standards apply. (NEMA, 
No. 10 at p. 10) DOE disagrees. For the motor types defined in 10 CFR 
part 431, and to the extent to which any representations of energy 
efficiency are made, manufacturers must follow the given test 
procedures even if they are currently exempt from energy conservation 
standards. This approach follows from DOE's intention to standardize 
the way the motors are tested and energy efficiency is reported.
    NEMA asserted that the proposed ``note'' limits the use of Appendix 
B to Subpart B for purposes related to representation of efficiency and 
demonstration of compliance and would not apply to the test procedures 
for the enforcement process. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 11) Again, DOE 
disagrees. The note lays out the test procedures that a manufacturer 
would use to determine that any applicable energy conservation 
requirements are met. Those procedures would be followed by DOE as part 
of any enforcement action against a given manufacturer.
    NEMA suggested that any provisional requirements included in the 
final rule should be within the appropriate requirements in 10 CFR 
431.16 or 10 CFR 431.17. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 10-13). DOE takes note of 
NEMA's suggestions and has ensured that today's final rule meets the 
requirements in 10 CFR 431.16 or 10 CFR 431.17.
    NEMA suggested replacing the term ``open bearing'' with ``grease 
lubricated double shielded bearing'' in the proposed definition of 
standard bearing in paragraph 4 of Appendix B to Subpart B because, in 
its view, bearings require lubrication during operation and not all 
endshields have the ability to contain lubricating material. (NEMA, No. 
10 at p. 38) DOE notes NEMA's concern that some endshields may not be 
able to contain grease or lubricating material and thus would require 
grease-lubricated bearings instead of open bearings. Therefore, DOE has 
amended the definition to allow the use of grease-lubricated double 
shielded bearing.
    As for other concerns raised by NEMA suggesting that the test 
procedures be structured to limit their application to special and 
definit purpose electric motors, DOE notes that the procedures are to 
apply to electric motors as a whole. There is no need to insert 
limiting language that would narrow the application of the procedure. 
DOE further notes that it chose the proposed (and now final) 
definitional structure because the now-proposed standards rulemaking 
develops a coverage structure based on a motor satisfying both the 
broad ``electric motors'' definition and the nine referenced criteria. 
With the release of this standards proposal, many, if not all, of 
NEMA's comments on electric motor definitions are resolved. Any further 
comments that interested parties may have on this structure can be 
submitted for consideration as part of the ongoing energy conservation 
standards rulemaking.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test 
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General

[[Page 75991]]

Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    As described in the preamble, today's final rule presents 
additional test procedure set-up clarifications for motors currently 
subject to Federal energy conservation standards, new test procedure 
set-up and test procedures for motors not currently subject to Federal 
energy conservation standards, and additional clarifications of 
definitions for certain key terms to aid manufacturers in better 
understanding DOE's regulations. All of the additions are consistent 
with current industry practices and, once compliance is required, 
should be used for making representations of energy-efficiency of those 
covered electric motors and for certifying compliance with any 
applicable Federal energy conservation standards. DOE certified to the 
Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that the 
additional test procedures and definitions for electric motors would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The factual basis for this certification follows.
    To estimate the number of small businesses impacted by the rule, 
DOE considered the size standards for a small business listed by the 
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and 
description under 13 CFR 121.201. To be considered a small business, a 
manufacturer of electric motors and its affiliates may employ a maximum 
of 1,000 employees. DOE estimates that there are approximately 30 
domestic motor manufacturers that manufacture electric motors covered 
by EPCA, and no more than 13 of these manufacturers are small 
businesses employing a maximum of 1,000 employees. The number of motor 
manufacturers, including the number of manufacturers qualifying as 
small businesses, was estimated based on interviews with motor 
manufacturers and publicly available data.
    To determine the anticipated economic impact of the testing 
requirements on small manufacturers, DOE compared this final rule to 
current industry practices regarding testing procedures and 
representations for energy efficiency along with those steps DOE has 
taken in the design of the rule to minimize the testing burden on 
manufacturers. For motors that are currently subject to Federal 
standards, today's procedures are largely clarifications and will not 
change the underlying DOE test procedure and methodologies currently 
being employed by industry to rate and certify to the Department 
compliance with Federal standards.
    For motors that are not currently subject to Federal standards, 
manufacturers of such unregulated electric motors would only need to 
use the testing set-up instructions, testing procedures, and rating 
procedures provided in today's rule 180 days after the effective date 
of any relevant energy conservation standards final rule if a 
manufacturer elected to make voluntary representations of energy-
efficiency of its basic models. To better understand how this rule will 
impact small manufacturers of electric motors, DOE reviewed current 
industry practice regarding the representations of energy efficiency 
made for motors not subject to energy conservation standards and how 
the rulemaking will impact current industry practice. Specifically, 
DOE's test procedures require that those manufacturers of regulated 
motors not currently subject to standards who choose to make public 
representations of efficiency to follow the methods prescribed in this 
rule. DOE's rule does not require manufacturers who do not currently 
make voluntary representations to then begin making public 
representations of efficiency.
    DOE researched the catalogs and Web sites of the 13 identified 
small manufacturers and found that only four of these manufacturers 
clearly list efficiency ratings for their equipment in public 
disclosures. The remaining manufacturers either build custom equipment, 
which are not subject to the changes made in this rule, or do not list 
energy efficiency in their motor specifications, in part because it is 
not required. For the manufacturers that currently do not voluntarily 
make any public representations of energy efficiency for their motors, 
DOE does not believe this rule will impact their current practice. DOE 
does not anticipate any burden accruing to these manufacturers unless 
the agency considered and set energy conservation standards for those 
additional electric motor types. Of the four manufacturers that 
currently elect to make voluntary representations of the electric motor 
efficiency, DOE believes those manufacturers will be minimally impacted 
because they are already basing those representations on commonly used 
industry standards, which are the same testing procedures incorporated 
by this rule. DOE does not have any reason to believe that the test 
set-up clarifications adopted in today's rule would have any 
significant impact on the current practice of these four manufacturers.
    In view of the foregoing, DOE certifies that today's final rule 
will not impose significant economic impacts on a substantial number of 
small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE has provided its 
certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review 
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    In response to the regulatory flexibility analysis in the NOPR, 
Bluffton stated that while it agrees that the test procedure being 
proposed would not have a significant impact on small electric motor 
manufacturers, if energy conservation standards are applied to newly-
defined electric motor types and special and definite purpose electric 
motors, as extended to 56-frame motors, there would be a major impact 
to small electric motor manufacturers. Bringing these electric motors 
types into compliance using the proposed test procedure could put a 
small electric motor manufacturer's existence in jeopardy. (Bluffton, 
No. 11 at pp. 1-2)
    DOE acknowledges that expanding the scope of the existing energy 
conservation standards to include additional electric motor types, such 
as special and definite purpose electric motors and 56-frame motors, 
could disproportionally impact small electric motor manufacturers that 
specialize in producing these types of motors. DOE further notes that 
in the final test procedure rule that manufacturers of electric motors 
whose energy efficiency is not currently regulated will not need to use 
the test procedure until energy conservation standards are set for 
those electric motor types. Bluffton also commented that since a number 
of suppliers would also be considered small businesses, they could also 
be adversely affected by an expanded scope for standards since they 
could potentially lose customers of their products. Bluffton also 
stated that expanding the scope of standards could also prove to be a 
significant impact on the many small businesses that are customers of 
small electric motor manufacturers because their customers would have 
to redesign and re-tool their units to accommodate potentially larger 
new designs. (Bluffton, No. 11 at pp. 1-2) For purposes of the 
Regulatory Flexibilty Act, DOE notes that it is required to focus its 
analysis on the direct impact of the current rule on those small 
businesses that manufacture electric motors as part of the regulatory 
flexibility analysis. DOE will address the impacts of any proposed 
standards on small manufacturers of electric

[[Page 75992]]

motors in the Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of the 
related electric motor standards' rulemaking.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of electric motors must certify to DOE that their 
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In 
certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according 
to the DOE test procedures for electric motors, including any 
amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established 
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for 
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including 
electric motors. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-
information requirement for certification and recordkeeping is subject 
to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). 
This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 
1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated 
to average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for electric 
motors. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions 
that are categorically excluded from review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's 
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this rule 
amends an existing rule without affecting the amount, quality or 
distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will not result in any 
environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical 
Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any 
rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing 
the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined 
that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State 
energy conservation regulations for the equipment subject to today's 
final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption 
to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 
6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is 
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined today's 
final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined 
that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a 
mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in 
any year, so these requirements do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule

[[Page 75993]]

that may affect family well-being. Today's final rule will not have any 
impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. 
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a 
Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 
reviewed today's final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the 
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy 
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of 
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 
energy supply, distribution, and use.
    Today's regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has 
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator 
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, 
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 
1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed 
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The modifications DOE addressed in this action incorporate testing 
methods followed by industry when evaluating the energy efficiency of 
electric motors. DOE's rule establishes the necessary testing set-up to 
facilitate consistency and repeatability when conducting a test in 
accordance with one of the prescribed test procedures incorporated into 
DOE's regulations. These methods, as described earlier in the preamble 
discussion above, would be used in instances where an electric motor 
manufacturer makes representations of energy efficiency regarding its 
motors. DOE has consulted with both the Attorney General and the 
Chairman of the FTC about the impact on competition of using the 
methods contained in these standards and has received no comments 
objecting to their use.

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of today's final rule before its effective date. The 
report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Incorporation by reference, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 6, 2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 431 of 
chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND 
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

0
2. Amend Sec.  431.12 by:
0
a. Removing the reserved terms ``Fire pump motor'' and ``NEMA design B 
general purpose electric motor;'' and
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order, definitions for: ``air-over electric 
motor,'' ``brake electric motor,'' ``component set,'' ``definite 
purpose electric motor,'' ``electric motor with encapsulated 
windings,'' ``electric motor with moisture resistant windings,'' 
``electric motor with sealed windings,'' ``IEC Design H motor,'' ``IEC 
Design N motor,'' ``immersible electric motor,'' ``inverter-capable 
electric motor,'' ``inverter-only electric motor,'' ``liquid-cooled 
electric motor,'' ``NEMA Design A motor,'' ``NEMA Design C motor,'' 
``partial electric motor,'' ``special purpose electric motor,'' 
``submersible electric motor,'' ``totally enclosed non-ventilated 
(TENV) electric motor.''
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  431.12  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Air-over electric motor means 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.
* * * * *
    Brake electric motor means a motor that contains a dedicated 
mechanism for speed reduction, such as a brake, either within or 
external to the motor enclosure
* * * * *
    Component set means a combination of motor parts that require the 
addition

[[Page 75994]]

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. For the 
purpose of this definition, the term ``operable motor'' means an 
electric motor engineered for performing in accordance with nameplate 
ratings.
* * * * *
    Definite purpose electric motor means any electric motor that 
cannot be used in most general purpose applications and is designed 
either:
    (1) To standard ratings with standard operating characteristics or 
standard mechanical construction for use under service conditions other 
than usual, such as those specified in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 14.3, 
``Unusual Service Conditions,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.15); or
    (2) For use on a particular type of application.
* * * * *
    Electric motor with encapsulated windings means an electric motor 
capable of passing the conformance test for water resistance described 
in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph 12.62 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.15).
* * * * *
    Electric motor with moisture resistant windings means an electric 
motor that is capable of passing the conformance test for moisture 
resistance generally described in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph 12.63 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15).
* * * * *
    Electric motor with sealed windings means an electric motor capable 
of passing the conformance test for water resistance described in NEMA 
MG 1-2009, paragraph 12.62 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.15).
* * * * *
    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 1600 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.
* * * * *
    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.
* * * * *
    Immersible electric motor means an electric motor primarily 
designed to operate continuously in free-air, but is also capable of 
temporarily withstanding complete immersion in liquid for a continuous 
period of no less than 30 minutes.
* * * * *
    Inverter-capable electric motor means 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.
* * * * *
    Inverter-only electric motor means 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.
* * * * *
    Liquid-cooled electric motor means 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.
* * * * *
    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 MG1-2009, paragraph 12.38.1 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15);
    (2) Has pull-up torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG1-
2009, paragraph 12.40.1;
    (3) Has breakdown torque not less than the values shown in NEMA 
MG1-2009, paragraph 12.39.1;
    (4) Has a locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in 
NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and NEMA MG1-2009, 
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.
* * * * *
    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.
* * * * *
    Partial electric motor means an assembly of motor components 
necessitating the addition of no more than two endshields, including 
bearings, to create an an electric motor capable of operation in 
accordance with the applicable nameplate ratings.
* * * * *
    Special purpose electric motor means any electric motor, other than 
a general purpose motor or definite electric purpose motor, which has 
special operating characteristics or special mechanical construction, 
or both, designed for a particular application.
* * * * *
    Submersible electric motor means 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.
* * * * *
    Totally enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) electric motor means an 
electric motor that is built in a frame-surface cooled, totally 
enclosed configuration that is designed and equipped to be cooled only 
by free convection.
0
3. Amend Sec.  431.15 by adding paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(D) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  431.15  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (D) Paragraphs 12.62 and 12.63, IBR approved for Sec.  431.12.
* * * * *
0
4. Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431 is amended by adding an

[[Page 75995]]

introductory note and section 4 to read as follows:

Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
Nominal Full-Load Efficiency of Electric Motors

    Note: After June 11, 2014, any representations made with respect 
to the energy use or efficiency of electric motors for which energy 
conservation standards are currently provided at 10 CFR 431.25 must 
be made in accordance with the results of testing pursuant to this 
appendix.
    For manufacturers conducting tests of motors for which energy 
conservation standards are provided at 10 CFR 431.25, after January 
13, 2014 and prior to June 11, 2014, manufacturers must conduct such 
test in accordance with either this appendix or appendix B as it 
appeared at 10 CFR Part 431, subpart B, appendix B, in the 10 CFR 
Parts 200 to 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2013. Any 
representations made with respect to the energy use or efficiency of 
such electric motors must be in accordance with whichever version is 
selected. Given that after June 11, 2014 representations with 
respect to the energy use or efficiency of electric motors must be 
made in accordance with tests conducted pursuant to this appendix, 
manufacturers may wish to begin using this test procedure as soon as 
possible.
    For any other electric motor type that is not currently covered 
by the energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25, manufacturers 
of this equipment will need to use Appendix B 180 days after the 
effective date of the final rule adopting energy conservation 
standards for these motors.
* * * * *
    4. Procedures for the Testing of Certain Electric Motor Types.
    Prior to testing according to IEEE Std 112-2004 (Test Method B) 
or CSA C390-10 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15), each 
basic model of the electric motor types listed below must be set up 
in accordance with the instructions of this section to ensure 
consistent test results. These steps are designed to enable a motor 
to be attached to a dynamometer and run continuously for testing 
purposes. For the purposes of this appendix, a ``standard bearing'' 
is a 6000 series, either open or grease-lubricated double-shielded, 
single-row, deep groove, radial ball bearing.
    4.1 Brake Electric Motors:
    Brake electric motors shall be tested with the brake component 
powered separately from the motor such that it does not activate 
during testing. Additionally, for any 10-minute period during the 
test and while the brake is being powered such that it remains 
disengaged from the motor shaft, record the power consumed (i.e., 
watts). Only power used to drive the motor is to be included in the 
efficiency calculation; power supplied to prevent the brake from 
engaging is not included in this calculation. In lieu of powering 
the brake separately, the brake may be disengaged mechanically, if 
such a mechanism exists and if the use of this mechanism does not 
yield a different efficiency value than separately powering the 
brake electrically.
    4.2 Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors and Electric Motors with 
Single or Double Shaft Extensions of Non-Standard Dimensions or 
Design:
    To attach the unit under test to a dynamometer, close-coupled 
pump electric motors and electric motors with single or double shaft 
extensions of non-standard dimensions or design must be tested using 
a special coupling adapter.
    4.3 Electric Motors with Non-Standard Endshields or Flanges:
    If it is not possible to connect the electric motor to a 
dynamometer with the non-standard endshield or flange in place, the 
testing laboratory shall replace the non-standard endshield or 
flange with an endshield or flange meeting NEMA or IEC 
specifications. The replacement component should be obtained from 
the manufacturer or, if the manufacturer chooses, machined by the 
testing laboratory after consulting with the manufacturer regarding 
the critical characteristics of the endshield.
    4.4 Electric Motors with Non-Standard Bases, Feet or Mounting 
Configurations
    An electric motor with a non-standard base, feet, or mounting 
configuration may be mounted on the test equipment using adaptive 
fixtures for testing as long as the mounting or use of adaptive 
mounting fixtures does not have an adverse impact on the performance 
of the electric motor, particularly on the cooling of the motor.
    4.5 Electric Motors with a Separately-powered Blower:
    For electric motors furnished with a separately-powered blower, 
the losses from the blower's motor should not be included in any 
efficiency calculation. This can be done either by powering the 
blower's motor by a source separate from the source powering the 
electric motor under test or by connecting leads such that they only 
measure the power of the motor under test.
    4.6 Immersible Electric Motors
    Immersible electric motors shall be tested with all contact 
seals removed but be otherwise unmodified.
    4.7 Partial Electric Motors:
    Partial electric motors shall be disconnected from their mated 
piece of equipment. After disconnection from the equipment, standard 
bearings and/or endshields shall be added to the motor, such that it 
is capable of operation. If an endshield is necessary, an endshield 
meeting NEMA or IEC specifications should be obtained from the 
manufacturer or, if the manufacturer chooses, machined by the 
testing laboratory after consulting with the manufacturer regarding 
the critical characteristics of the endshield.
    4.8 Vertical Electric Motors and Electric Motors with Bearings 
Incapable of Horizontal Operation:
    Vertical electric motors and electric motors with thrust 
bearings shall be tested in a horizontal or vertical configuration 
in accordance with IEEE 112 (Test Method B), depending on the 
testing facility's capabilities and construction of the motor, 
except if the motor is a vertical solid shaft normal thrust general 
purpose electric motor (subtype II), in which case it shall be 
tested in a horizontal configuration in accordance with IEEE 112 
(Test Method B). Preference shall be given to testing a motor in its 
native orientation. If the unit under test cannot be reoriented 
horizontally due to its bearing construction, the electric motor's 
bearing(s) shall be removed and replaced with standard bearings. If 
the unit under test contains oil-lubricated bearings, its bearings 
shall be removed and replaced with standard bearings. Finally, if 
the unit under test contains a hollow shaft, a solid shaft shall be 
inserted, bolted to the non-drive end of the motor and welded on the 
drive end. Enough clearance shall be maintained such that attachment 
to a dynamometer is possible.

0
5. Amend Sec.  431.383 by adding paragraph (e)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  431.383  Enforcement process for electric motors.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4)(i) Non-standard endshields or flanges. For purposes of DOE-
initiated testing of electric motors with non-standard endshields or 
flanges, the Department will have the discretion to determine whether 
the lab should test a general purpose electric motor of equivalent 
electrical design and enclosure rather than replacing the nonstandard 
flange or endshield.
    (ii) Partial electric motors. For purposes of DOE-initiated 
testing, the Department has the discretion to determine whether the lab 
should test a general purpose electric motor of equivalent electrical 
design and enclosure rather than machining and attaching an endshield.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-29677 Filed 12-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```