Vol. 78 Wednesday, 

No. 123 June 26, 2013 

Part II 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Part 431 

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors; 

Proposed Rule 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38456 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to clarify 

aspects of certain U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) energy efficiency 

regulations related to electric motors. 

DOE is considering establishing 

definitions, specifying testing set-up 

procedures necessary to test, and 

extending DOE’s existing test 

procedures for electric motors to certain 

electric motor types that have not been 

regulated by DOE. These actions are 

being proposed to clarify the scope of 

regulatory coverage for electric motors 

and to ensure accurate and consistent 

measurements when determining the 

energy efficiency of various types of 

electric motors. This notice seeks 

comment on this proposal and requests 

comments, data, and other information 

to assist DOE in deciding whether to 

finalize or modify these provisions. 

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting 

on Tuesday, July 16, 2013, from 9 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The 

meeting will also be broadcast as a 

webinar. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this NOPR before 

and after the public meeting, but no 

later than September 9, 2013. See 

section V, ‘‘Public Participation.’’ for 

details. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. To attend, 

please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586–2945. For detailed 

information regarding attendance and 

participation at the public meeting, see 

section V, ‘‘Public Participation.’’ 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the NOPR for Test Procedures 

for Electric Motors, and provide docket 

number EERE–2012–BT–TP–0043 and/ 

or regulation identifier number (RIN) 

number 1904–AC89. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: ElectricMotors2012TP0043 

@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

EERE–2012–BT–TP–0043 and/or RIN 

1904–AC89 in the subject line of the 

message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disc. It is not necessary to 

include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. Please submit one 

signed paper original. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section V, ‘‘Public Participation.’’ 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

public meeting attendee lists and 

transcripts, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/74. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, 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 Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 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. Telephone: 

(202) 586–5709. Email: Ami.GraceTardy@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

II. Summary of Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

III. Discussion 

A. Proposed Effective Dates for the 

Amended Test Procedures 

B. Expanding the Scope of Coverage of 

Energy Conservation Standards 

C. Motor Type Definitions 

1. National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association Design A and Design C 

Motors 

2. International Electrotechnical 

Commission Designs N and H Motors 

3. Electric Motors with Sealed and 

Moisture Resistant Windings 

4. Inverter-Capable Electric Motors 

5. Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated Electric 

Motors 

D. Electric Motor Types Requiring 

Definitions and Test Procedure 

Instructions 

1. Immersible Electric Motors and Electric 

Motors with Contact Seals 

2. Integral and Non-Integral Brake Electric 

Motors 

3. Partial Electric Motors 

E. 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 NonStandard Dimensions or Additions 

3. Vertical Electric Motors 

4. Electric Motor Bearings 

F. General Clarification for Certain Electric 

Motor Types 

1. Electric Motors with Non-Standard 

Bases, Feet or Mounting Configurations 

G. Electric Motor Types DOE Proposes Not 

to Regulate at This Time 

1. Air-Over Electric Motor 

2. Component Set of an Electric Motor 

3. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motor 

4. Submersible Electric Motor 

5. Definite-Purpose Inverter-Fed Electric 

Motors 

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 

V. Public Participation 

a. Attendance at Public Meeting 

b. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

c. Conduct of Public Meeting 

d. Submission of Comments 

e. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6291, et 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38457 

1EPCA, 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)). 

2NEMA 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. 

seq., (‘‘EPCA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’) sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve the energy efficiency of 

products and commercial equipment. 

(All references to EPCA refer to the 

statute as amended through the 

American Energy Manufacturing 

Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA 

2012), Public Law 112–210 (December 

18, 2012)). Part C of Title III (42 U.S.C. 

6311–6317), which was subsequently 

redesignated as Part A–1 for editorial 

reasons, 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)) 

B. Background 

In the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 

Public Law 102–486 (October 24, 1992) 

(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 in the 

Federal Register, 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. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13), 

6313(b)). Consequently, on March 23, 

2009, DOE updated the corresponding 

regulations at 10 CFR part 431 with the 

new definitions and energy 

conservation standards. 74 FR 12058. 

On December 22, 2008, DOE proposed 

to update the test procedures under 10 

CFR part 431 both for electric motors 

and small electric motors. 73 FR 78220. 

DOE finalized key provisions related to 

small electric motor testing in a 2009 

final rule at 74 FR 32059 (July 7, 2009), 

and further updated test procedures for 

electric motors and small electric 

motors at 77 FR 26608 (May 4, 2012). 

Today’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) focuses on electric 

motors and proposes to add the 

aforementioned definitions and 

additional testing set-up instructions 

and clarifications to the current test 

procedures under subpart B of 10 CFR 

part 431 for a wider variety of electric 

motor types than currently regulated. 

Additionally, DOE is proposing to 

extend the applicability of DOE’s 

existing electric motor test procedure in 

10 CFR part 431 to the wider scope of 

currently unregulated motors. DOE is 

proposing such amendments because 

the additional testing set-up instructions 

and clarifications are designed to help 

manufacturers of certain types of motors 

prepare them for testing under the 

applicable test procedure. The proposed 

steps are intended to enable a 

manufacturer to consistently measure 

the losses and determine the efficiency 

of a wider variety of motors, and 

potentially facilitate the application of 

energy conservation standards to a 

wider array of motors than what is 

currently covered under 10 CFR part 

431.1 In addition, DOE is considering 

prescribing standards for some electric 

motors addressed in this notice through 

a parallel energy conservation 

standards-related activity. See 77 FR 

43015 (July 23, 2012). To ensure 

consistency between the two 

rulemakings, this test procedure NOPR 

addresses scope of coverage and test 

procedure issues raised in response to 

DOE’s current electric motors energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. See 

76 FR 17577 (March 30, 2011); 77 FR 

43015 (July 23, 2012). Finally, to 

provide regulatory clarity and 

consistency with existing regulations, 

today’s proposed rule also defines 

NEMA Design A motors, NEMA Design 

C motors, International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC) Design H motors and 

IEC Design N motors, which are covered 

under subpart B of 10 CFR part 431. 

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 MG1–1987 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 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)) Subsequently, 

as newer versions of the NEMA and 

IEEE test procedures for electric motors 

were published and used by industry, 

DOE updated 10 CFR part 431. For 

example, see 64 FR 54114 (October 5, 

1999) that incorporated by reference 

into 10 CFR part 431 applicable 

provisions of NEMA Standards 

Publication MG1–1993 and IEEE 

Standard 112–1996, and codified them 

at 10 CFR 431.16 and appendix B to 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 431. DOE also 

added the equivalent test procedure— 

Canadian Standards Association (CSA) 

CAN/CSA C390–93, ‘‘Energy Efficiency 

Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction 

Motors,’’ because NEMA added this 

procedure to its Standards Publication, 

MG1, when it was revised and updated 

in 1993. See 61 FR 60440, 60446 

(November 27, 1996). 

On May 4, 2012, DOE incorporated by 

reference the updated versions of the 

above test procedures: NEMA MG1– 

2009, IEEE 112–2004, and CAN/CSA 

C390–10. 77 FR 26608, 26638 (the 

‘‘2012 final test procedure.’’) DOE made 

these 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 MG1 has been updated to 

MG1–2011. The text of the sections and 

paragraphs of NEMA MG1–2009, which 

is incorporated by reference under 10 

CFR part 431.15, is identical to the text 

of the relevant sections and paragraphs 

of NEMA MG1–2011. The substance of 

those NEMA MG1–2009 sections and 

paragraphs incorporated by reference 

into subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 were 

subjected to public notice and comment 

during the 2012 test procedure 

rulemaking. DOE addressed its reasons 

for incorporating the MG1–2009 text 

into its regulations in its May 2012 final 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38458 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

rule. See 77 FR at 26616–26617. For all 

the above reasons, DOE has 

preliminarily chosen not to update its 

regulations with NEMA MG1–2011, but 

is accepting public comment on this 

preliminary decision. 

II. Summary of Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to: 

(1) Define a variety of electric motor 

configurations (i.e., types) that are 

currently covered under 10 CFR 431.25 

but are not currently defined under 10 

CFR 431.12; 

(2) Define a variety of electric motor 

configurations (i.e., types) that are not 

currently covered under 10 CFR 431.25 

and are not currently defined under 10 

CFR 431.12; and 

(3) Clarify the necessary testing ‘‘setup’’ procedures to facilitate the testing 

of the currently not covered motor types 

under IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method 

B) or CSA Standard C390–10. 

Today’s NOPR 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 a 

request for information regarding 

definite and special purpose motors (the 

‘‘March 2011 RFI’’). See 76 FR 17577 

(March 30, 2011). DOE is considering 

whether to propose expanding the scope 

of what its electric motor standards 

regulate to include all continuous duty, 

single speed, squirrel-cage, polyphase 

alternating-current, induction motors, 

with some narrowly defined 

exemptions. See 77 FR 43015 (July 23, 

2012). Today’s NOPR addresses and 

solicits comment on test procedure 

issues arising from potentially 

expanding the scope of DOE’s energy 

efficiency requirements to include 

certain motor types that are not 

currently required to meet energy 

conservation standards. In particular, 

today’s proposal includes definitions for 

those motor types that DOE may 

consider regulating and those types that 

DOE is not considering regulating at this 

time. DOE is coordinating today’s NOPR 

with a parallel electric motor energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. To 

the extent possible, DOE will consider 

all comments submitted in response to 

the electric motors test procedure or 

standards rulemaking in connection 

with both activities. 

In addition to proposing to include 

new definitions, today’s notice proposes 

to add certain steps to the applicable 

test procedures contained in appendix B 

to subpart B of 10 CFR part 431, to 

accommodate setting those motors up 

for testing that DOE is considering 

regulating. Because the proposed 

amendments are strictly limited to those 

steps necessary to facilitate testing 

under the currently incorporated test 

procedures, DOE does not anticipate 

that the proposal would affect the actual 

measurement of losses and the 

subsequent determination of efficiency 

for any of the electric motors within the 

scope of today’s proposed rulemaking. 

The proposed 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 

proposed regulatory text follows the 

preamble to this notice. DOE seeks 

comments from interested parties on 

each of the proposed revisions. 

TABLE II–1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES PROPOSED IN THIS NOPR 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: 

Æ Air-over electric motor. 

Æ Component set. 

Æ Definite-purpose inverter-fed electric motor. 

Æ Electric motor with moisture resistant windings. 

Æ Electric motor with sealed windings. 

Æ IEC Design H motor. 

Æ IEC Design N motor. 

Æ Immersible electric motor. 

Æ Integral brake electric motor. 

Æ Inverter-capable electric motor. 

Æ Liquid-cooled electric motor. 

Æ NEMA Design A motor. 

Æ NEMA Design C motor. 

Æ Non-integral brake electrical motor. 

Æ Partial electric motor. 

Æ Submersible electric motor. 

Æ Totally enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) electric motor. 

Appendix B to Subpart B—Uniform Test Method for Measuring Nominal 

Full Load Efficiency of Electric Motors.

• Updates test procedure set-up methods for: 

Æ Close-coupled pump electric motors and electric motors with single or double shaft extensions of non-standard dimensions or additions. 

Æ Electric motors with non-standard endshields or flanges. 

Æ Immersible electric motors and electric motors with contact seals. 

Æ Integral brake electric motors. 

Æ Non-integral brake electric motors. 

Æ Partial electric motors. 

Æ Vertical electric motors and electric motors with bearings incapable of horizontal operation. 

Æ Close-coupled pump electric motors. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38459 

3As comments have not yet been submitted for 

this test procedure rulemaking, all comments cited 

in this NOPR can be found in the Electric Motors 

Standards rulemaking docket with the number 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027. 

4 DOE acknowledges that there are no current 

energy conservation standards for the majority of 

the motor types covered in today’s proposed rule. 

If DOE establishes standards for these motor types, 

manufacturers will be required to use the proposed 

test procedure to certify compliance with these 

standards. 

5For 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. 6EPCA specifies the types of industrial 

equipment that can be classified as covered in 

addition to the equipment enumerated in 42 U.S.C. 

6311(1). This equipment includes ‘‘other motors’’ 

(to be codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)). Industrial 

equipment must also, without regard to whether 

such equipment is in fact distributed in commerce 

for industrial or commercial use, be of a type that: 

(1) In operation consumes, or is designed to 

consume, energy in operation; (2) to any significant 

extent, is distributed in commerce for industrial or 

commercial use; and (3) is not a covered product 

as defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(a)(2) of EPCA, other 

than a component of a covered product with respect 

to which there is in effect a determination under 42 

U.S.C. 6312(c). (42 U.S.C. 6311 (2)(A)). Data from 

the 2002 United States Industrial Electric Motor 

Systems Market Opportunities Assessment 

estimated total energy use from industrial motor 

systems to be 747 billion kWh. Based on the 

expansion of industrial activity, it is likely that 

current annual electric motor energy use is higher 

than this figure. Electric motors are distributed in 

commerce for both the industrial and commercial 

Continued 

DOE developed today’s proposal 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.3

TABLE II–2—SUMMARY OF NOPR COMMENTERS

Company or organization Abbreviation Affiliation 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project ..................... ASAP ..................... Energy Efficiency Advocate. 

Baldor Electric Co. ....................................................... Baldor .................... Manufacturer. 

Copper Development Association ................................ CDA ....................... Trade Association. 

Motor Coalition * ........................................................... MC ......................... Energy Efficiency Advocates, Trade Associations, Manufacturers. 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association ............. NEMA .................... Trade Association. 

* The members of the Motor Coalition include: National Electrical Manufacturers Association, American Council for an Energy-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. Proposed Effective Dates for the 

Amended Test Procedures 

If adopted, the proposed amendments 

would become effective 30 days after 

the publication of the final rule. As 

previously explained, today’s proposal 

would primarily add a new section to 

DOE’s test procedure with the steps that 

the manufacturers of certain types of 

special and definite purpose electric 

motors would need to take before testing 

a motor. Because these test procedure 

changes would add only a new section 

to the existing test procedure for motor 

types that are not currently regulated 

(i.e., special and definite purpose 

motors), manufacturers of motors 

currently covered by DOE regulations 

(i.e., general purpose electric motors 

(subtype I and subtype II), including fire 

pump electric motors and NEMA Design 

B motors with a power rating of more 

than 200 horsepower but not greater 

than 500 horsepower) can continue to 

use the current test procedure until 180 

days after publication of the final rule. 

At 180 days after publication of the final 

rule, both manufacturers of currently 

regulated motors and manufacturers of 

special and definite purpose motors for 

which definitions or testing set-up 

procedures are proposed in this rule 

may not make any representations 

regarding energy use or the cost of 

energy use for all electric motors 

addressed in today’s rulemaking unless 

such representations are based on the 

results of testing, or calculations from a 

substantiated alternative efficiency 

determination method (AEDM), that 

reflect values of efficiency that would be 

obtained through testing in accordance 

with the amended test procedures. In 

addition, 180 days after publication of 

the final rule, both manufacturers of 

currently regulated motors and 

manufacturers of special and definite 

purpose motors for which definitions or 

testing set-up procedures are provided 

would be required to comply with and 

use the amended test procedures to 

determine if the covered electric motor 

types they manufacture comply with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards.4 See 42 U.S.C. 6314(d). 

B. Expanding the Scope of Coverage of 

Energy Conservation Standards 

DOE has the authority to set energy 

conservation standards for a wider range 

of electric motors than those classified 

as general purpose electric motors (e.g., 

definite or special purpose motors). The 

EPACT 1992 amendments to EPCA had 

defined ‘‘electric motor’’ to include a 

certain type of ‘‘general purpose’’ motor 

that Congress would eventually classify 

as a general purpose electric motor 

(subtype I). (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) 

(1992)) Those amendments also defined 

several other types of motors, including 

definite purpose motors and special 

purpose motors. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6311(13)(C) and (D) (1992)) EPACT 1992 

set energy conservation standards for 

‘‘electric motors’’ (i.e., general purpose 

electric motors (subtype I)) and 

explicitly stated that the standards did 

not apply to definite purpose or special 

purpose motors.5 (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1)) 

(1992)) EISA 2007 struck the narrow 

EPACT 1992 definition for ‘‘electric 

motor’’ and replaced it with the heading 

‘‘Electric motors.’’ As a result of these 

changes, both definite and special 

purpose motors fell under the broad 

heading of ‘‘Electric motors’’ that 

previously only applied to ‘‘general 

purpose’’ motors. While EISA 2007 set 

specific standards for general purpose 

electric motors, it did not explicitly 

apply these new requirements to 

definite or special purpose motors. (See 

generally 42 U.S.C. 6313(b) (2012)) 

Although DOE believes that EPCA, as 

amended through EISA 2007, provides 

sufficient statutory authority for the 

regulation of special purpose and 

definite purpose motors as ‘‘electric 

motors,’’ DOE notes it has additional 

authority provided under section 10 of 

AEMTCA (to be codified at 42 U.S.C. 

6311(2)(B)) to generally regulate ‘‘other 

motors’’ as covered ‘‘industrial 

equipment.’’ Therefore, even if special 

and definite purpose motors were not 

‘‘electric motors,’’ special and definite 

purpose motors would be considered as 

‘‘other motors’’ that EPCA already treats 

as covered industrial equipment.6


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38460 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

sectors. According to data provided by the Motors 

Coalition, the number of electric motors 

manufactured in, or imported into, the United 

States is over five million electric motors annually, 

including special and definite purpose motors. 

Finally, special and definite purpose motors are not 

currently regulated under Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, part 430 (10 CFR part 430). 

To classify equipment as covered commercial or 

industrial equipment, the Secretary must also 

determine that classifying the equipment as covered 

equipment is necessary for the purposes of Part A– 

1 of EPCA. The purpose of Part A–1 is to improve 

the efficiency of electric motors, pumps and certain 

other industrial equipment to conserve the energy 

resources of the nation. (42 U.S.C. 6312(a)–(b)) In 

today’s proposal, DOE has tentatively determined 

that the regulation of special and definite purpose 

motors is necessary to carry out the purposes of part 

A–1 of EPCA because regulating these motors will 

promote the conservation of energy supplies. 

Efficiency standards that may result from coverage 

would help to capture some portion of the potential 

for improving the efficiency of special and definite 

purpose motors. 

7The preliminary TSD published in July 2012 is 

available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#

!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0023 

8 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 NOPR. 

Consistent with the changes made by 

EISA 2007, DOE defined the term 

‘‘electric motor’’ broadly. See 77 FR 

26633 (May 4, 2012). That definition 

covers ‘‘general purpose,’’ ‘‘special 

purpose’’ and ‘‘definite purpose’’ 

electric motors (as defined by EPCA). 

Previously, EPCA did not require either 

‘‘special purpose’’ or ‘‘definite purpose’’ 

motor types to meet energy conservation 

standards because they were not 

considered ‘‘general purpose’’ under the 

EPCA definition of ‘‘general purpose 

motor’’—a necessary element to meet 

the pre-EISA 2007 ‘‘electric motor’’ 

definition. See 77 FR 26612. Because of 

the restrictive nature of the prior electric 

motor definition, along with the 

restrictive definition of the term 

‘‘industrial equipment,’’ DOE would 

have been unable to set standards for 

such motors. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B) 

(limiting the scope of equipment 

covered under EPCA)) In view of the 

changes introduced by EISA 2007 and 

the absence of current Federal energy 

conservation standards for special 

purpose and definite purpose motors, as 

noted in chapter 2 of DOE’s July 2012 

electric motors preliminary analysis 

technical support document (TSD),7 it is 

DOE’s view that both are categories of 

‘‘electric motors’’ covered under EPCA, 

as currently amended. Accordingly, 

DOE is considering establishing 

standards for certain definite purpose 

and special purpose motors in the 

context of a separate rulemaking. At this 

time, DOE is considering setting energy 

conservation standards for only those 

motors that exhibit all of the following 

nine characteristics: 

• Is a single-speed, induction motor, 

• Is rated for continuous duty (MG1) 

operation or for duty type S1 (IEC), 

• Contains a squirrel-cage (MG1) or 

cage (IEC) rotor, 

• Operates on polyphase alternating 

current 60-hertz sinusoidal line power, 

• Is rated 600 volts or less, 

• Has a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole 

configuration, 

• Has a three-digit NEMA frame size 

(or IEC metric equivalent) or an 

enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC 

metric equivalent), 

• Is rated no more than 500 

horsepower, but greater than or equal to 

1 horsepower (or kilowatt equivalent), 

and 

• Meets all of the performance 

requirements of one of the following 

motor types: a NEMA Design A, B, or C 

motor or an IEC design N or H motor. 

Motor types that exhibit all of the 

characteristics listed above, but that 

DOE is declining to subject to energy 

conservation standards at this time 

because of the inability to test them for 

efficiency in a repeatable manner, 

would be identified by DOE through a 

parallel notice of proposed rulemaking. 

To prepare this test procedure NOPR, 

DOE has incorporated feedback received 

during the August 21, 2012, electric 

motors standards preliminary analysis 

public meeting, comments on the March 

2011 RFI, and comments on the July 

2012 electric motors preliminary 

analysis (‘‘electric motors preliminary 

analysis’’) as well as information 

gleaned from discussions with testing 

laboratories, manufacturers, and subject 

matter experts (SMEs). 

To facilitate the potential application 

of energy conservation standards to 

motors built in the configurations 

described above, DOE proposes to first 

define the motors and then provide 

additional testing instructions to enable 

them to be tested using the existing DOE 

test method for electric motors. The 

definitions under consideration would 

address motors currently subject to 

standards, certain motors DOE is 

considering requiring to meet standards, 

and certain other motors that DOE is, at 

this time, considering not regulating 

through energy conservation standards. 

Some clarifying definitions, such as the 

definitions for NEMA Design A and 

NEMA Design C motors from NEMA 

MG1–2009, would be added. However, 

DOE understands that some motors, 

such as partial motors and integral brake 

motors, do not have standard, industryaccepted definitions. For such motor 

types, DOE conducted its own 

independent research and consulted 

with SMEs, manufacturers, and the 

Motor Coalition so that DOE could 

create the working definitions that are 

proposed in section III of this NOPR. 

For the definitions of ‘‘electric motor 

with moisture resistant windings’’ and 

‘‘electric motor with sealed windings,’’ 

which reference certain subsections of 

NEMA MG1–2009, DOE intends to 

incorporate by reference the cited 

sections of NEMA MG1–2009. 

DOE believes that the existing IEEE 

Standard 112 (Test Method B) and CSA 

C390–10 test procedures can be used to 

accurately measure losses and 

determine the energy efficiency for this 

additional group (or ‘‘expanded scope’’) 

of motors 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 the 

addition of testing step-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 

in a horizontal position. 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.8 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38461 

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. 

DOE believes that clarifying 

instructions may be necessary to test 

some of the expanded-scope motors that 

DOE is considering and for which DOE 

is conducting an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking because some 

motors may 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. Therefore, DOE is proposing 

to add instructions to facilitate 

consistent and repeatable procedures for 

motors such as these. These additions 

were based on testing and research 

conducted by the Department along 

with technical consultations with SMEs, 

manufacturers, testing laboratories, and 

various trade associations. Table III–1 

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 

proposing to address 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 TEST PROCEDURE AND STANDARDS

RULEMAKINGS

Motor type 

Currently 

subject to 

standards? 

Under 

consideration 

for potential 

standards? 

New definition 

proposed? 

Additional 

set-up 

instructions 

proposed? 

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 Resistant or Sealed Windings ..................... No ................... Yes ................. Yes ................. No. 

Inverter-Capable Electric Motors ................................................................ Yes ................. Yes ................. Yes ................. No. 

Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated Electric Motors ........................................ No ................... Yes ................. Yes ................. No. 

Immersible Electric Motors .......................................................................... No ................... Yes ................. Yes ................. Yes. 

Electric Motors with Contact Seals ............................................................. Yes ................. Yes ................. No ................... Yes. 

Integral Brake Electric Motors ..................................................................... No ................... Yes ................. Yes ................. Yes. 

Non-Integral Brake Electric Motors ............................................................. Yes ................. Yes ................. Yes ................. Yes. 

Partial Electric Motors ................................................................................. No ................... Yes ................. Yes ................. Yes. 

Electric Motors with Non-Standard Endshields or Flanges ........................ No ................... Yes ................. No ................... Yes. 

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 Bases .................................................. No ................... Yes ................. No ................... No. 

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. 

Definite-Purpose Inverter-Fed Electric Motors ............................................ No ................... No ................... Yes ................. No. 

C. Motor Type Definitions 

During the course of the 2012 final 

test procedure rulemaking, some 

interested parties questioned why DOE 

defined NEMA Design B motors but not 

NEMA Design A or Design C motors. 

DOE explained that it chose to adopt a 

definition for ‘‘NEMA Design B’’ motor 

because the application section in MG1 

(MG1–1.19.1.2 in both MG1–2009 and 

MG1–2011) contained a typographical 

error that required correcting for 

purposes of DOE’s regulations. DOE also 

noted that it may incorporate a 

corrected version of the ‘‘NEMA Design 

C’’ motor definition in a future 

rulemaking—that definition, which is 

found in MG1–1.19.1.3, also contains a 

typographical error. DOE did not intend 

to add definitions for NEMA Design A 

and IEC Design N, as the existing 

definitions found in MG1 are correct as 

published. 77 FR 26616, 26634 (May 4, 

2012). In view of DOE’s intention to 

consider regulating other types of 

motors, DOE now believes it is 

necessary to make clear the terms and 

definitions for them as well. DOE 

understands that many terms and 

definitions applicable to motors and 

used in common industry parlance for 

voluntary standards and day-to-day 

business communication are not 

necessarily defined with sufficient 

clarity for regulatory purposes. DOE 

does not, at this time, propose to add 

amendments related to such types of 

motors other than to provide more 

precise definitions for them to 

sufficiently capture the particular 

characteristics attributable to each and 

aid the manufacturing community in 

determining whether a particular basic 

model is covered by DOE’s regulations 

for electric motors. 

1. National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association Design A and Design C 

Motors 

NEMA MG1–2009 defines the 

following three types of polyphase, 

alternating current, induction motors: 

NEMA Designs A, B, and C. NEMA 

MG1–2009 establishes the same pull-up, 

breakdown, and locked-rotor torque 

requirements for both NEMA Design A 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38462 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

9 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. Pullup 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. 

10 In NEMA MG1–2009, the definition for NEMA 

Design C refers the reader to paragraph 12.34.1 for 

locked-rotor current limits for 60 hertz motors. The 

appropriate paragraph appears to be 12.35.1. 

11Across-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. 

and NEMA Design B motors.9 However, 

a NEMA Design A motor must be 

designed such that its locked-rotor 

current exceeds the maximum lockedrotor current established for a NEMA 

Design B motor. Unless the application 

specifically requires the higher lockedrotor current capability offered by a 

NEMA Design A motor, a NEMA Design 

B motor (that 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 

Underwriters Laboratory requirements.)) 

In addition, DOE understands that 

NEMA Design B motors are frequently 

preferred because the user can easily 

select motor control and protection 

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 and 

Underwriters Laboratory. (NEMA, 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0054 at p. 

36) A NEMA Design C motor requires a 

minimum locked-rotor torque per 

NEMA MG1–2009, Table 12–3, which is 

higher than either the NEMA Design A 

or Design B minimum locked-rotor 

torque required per NEMA MG1–2009, 

Table 12–2. 

In view of the above, DOE is 

proposing to incorporate a definition for 

both ‘‘NEMA Design A motor’’ and 

‘‘NEMA Design C motor’’ to improve 

regulatory clarity. DOE notes it has 

already adopted a definition for ‘‘NEMA 

Design B motor’’ at 10 CFR 431.12. DOE 

believes that providing definitions for 

other motor types will provide 

consistency in the treatment of all 

considered motors. The proposed 

definitions for NEMA Design A and 

Design C motors are based on the 

definitions in NEMA MG1–2009, 

paragraphs 1.19.1.1 and 1.19.1.3, 

respectively. DOE believes that the 

NEMA MG1–2009 definition of ‘‘NEMA 

Design A motor’’ is sufficiently clear 

and concise and is proposing to add it 

with minor clarifying elements. DOE is 

proposing to incorporate the definition 

of ‘‘NEMA Design C motor’’ from NEMA 

MG1–2009, paragraph 1.19.1.3 with 

some minor corrections because the 

NEMA MG1–2009 definition appears to 

contain typographical errors 10 with 

regard to the tables referenced in the 

definition. As detailed in the proposed 

regulations below, a NEMA Design A 

motor is defined as a squirrel-cage 

motor designed to withstand full-voltage 

starting and developing locked-rotor 

torque, pull-up torque, breakdown 

torque, and locked-rotor current as 

specified in NEMA MG1–2009; and 

with a slip at rated load of less than 5 

percent for motors with fewer than 10 

poles. A NEMA Design C motor is 

defined as a squirrel-cage motor 

designed to withstand full-voltage 

starting and developing locked-rotor 

torque for high-torque applications, 

pull-up torque, breakdown torque, and 

locked-rotor current as specified in 

NEMA MG1–2009; and with a slip at 

rated load of less than 5 percent. 

As previously mentioned, DOE is 

proposing these definitions to retain 

consistency with other already 

incorporated regulatory definitions. 

General purpose electric motors that 

meet the definition of NEMA Design A 

and Design C motor and are rated 

between 1 and 200 horsepower are 

currently subject to energy conservation 

standards. DOE is not aware of any 

difficulties in testing either of these 

motor design types using the current 

procedures. Therefore, DOE is not 

proposing any test procedure 

amendments for these motor types at 

this time. DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to incorporate definitions for 

NEMA Design A and NEMA Design C 

motors based on the NEMA MG1–2009 

definitions of these motor designs. 

2. International Electrotechnical 

Commission Designs N and H Motors 

Similar to NEMA, the European 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC) produces industry 

standards that contain performance 

requirements for electric motors. 

Analogous to NEMA Designs B and C, 

the IEC has design types 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 is proposing to 

include a definition for IEC Design N 

and IEC Design H motor types to ensure 

that these functionally similar motors 

are 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’’ incorporates 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 threephase cage induction motors intended 

for direct-across the line starting, having 

2, 4, 6 or 8 poles and rated from 0,4 kW 

to 1 600 kW,’’ with torque 

characteristics and locked-rotor 

characteristics detailed in subsequent 

tables of the standard.11 A similar 

approach for IEC Design H motors is 

taken in IEC 60034, but with references 

to different sections and slightly 

different wording. DOE is proposing to 

include all references to tables for 

torque characteristics and locked-rotor 

characteristics as part of these 

definitions to improve their 

comprehensiveness. As detailed in the 

proposed regulations below, today’s 

proposed rule defines 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, and conforming to IEC 

specifications for torque characteristics, 

locked rotor apparent power, and 

starting. An ‘‘IEC Design H motor’’ is 

defined 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 160 

kW, and conforming to IEC 

specifications for starting torque, locked 

rotor apparent power, and starting. 

Electric motors that meet these 

performance requirements and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38463 

12The preliminary TSD published in July 2012 is 

available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#

!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0023. 

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 specified horsepower 

ranges. Because these IEC definitions 

stipulate a set of performance 

parameters that do not inhibit an 

electric motor’s ability to be tested, DOE 

is not proposing any additional test 

procedure amendments at this time. 

However, DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions. 

3. Electric Motors With Sealed and 

Moisture Resistant 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,12 DOE set forth a possible 

definition for the term ‘‘encapsulated 

electric motor.’’ The definition 

presented was based upon a NEMA 

definition for the term ‘‘Machine with 

Sealed Windings’’ and was intended to 

cover motors containing special 

windings that could withstand exposure 

to contaminants and moisture. As 

highlighted in NEMA and Baldor’s 

comments, NEMA MG1–2009 does not 

specify a single term that encompasses 

a motor with encapsulated windings. 

Instead, NEMA MG1–2009 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 MG1 since the 1967 edition. 

Because of potential confusion, NEMA 

asked DOE to clarify which type of 

motor, or possibly both, DOE was 

considering covering. (Baldor, Pub. Mtg. 

Tr., EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0060 at 

p 52; NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0027–0054 at p. 33) 

After reviewing the two pertinent 

definitions, the comments from Baldor 

and NEMA, and DOE’s own research on 

these types of motors, DOE believes that 

motors that meet both definitions 

should be covered by any proposed 

definition and be included within its 

expanded scope of coverage. 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 

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 is 

preliminarily using to characterize the 

electric motors that are within the scope 

of DOE’s regulatory authority. 

Therefore, DOE is proposing two 

definitions based on the NEMA MG1— 

2009 definitions of a ‘‘Machine with 

Moisture Resistant Windings’’ and a 

‘‘Machine with Sealed Windings.’’ 

DOE’s proposed definitions are based on 

modified versions of the NEMA MG1— 

2009 definitions in order to eliminate 

potential confusion and ambiguities. 

The proposed definitions emphasize 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 proposed regulations below, today’s 

proposed rule defines ‘‘electric motor 

with moisture resistant’’ as an electric 

motor engineered to pass the 

conformance test for moisture resistance 

as specified in NEMA MG1–2009. An 

‘‘electric motor with sealed windings’’ is 

defined as an electric motor engineered 

to pass the conformance test for water 

resistance as specified in NEMA MG1– 

2009. 

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. While DOE received 

comment advocating the regulation of 

motors with special windings, it did not 

receive any comments suggesting or 

raising any necessary test procedure 

changes that would need to be made as 

a result of the stator winding 

encapsulation. (NEMA, EERE–2010– 

BT–STD–0027–0054 at p. 14) 

Subsequently, DOE conducted its own 

research and consulted with testing 

laboratories and various industry 

experts regarding any effects that 

specially insulated windings may have 

on testing or efficiency. 

As a result of these discussions, DOE 

does not believe that the presence of 

specially insulated stator windings in an 

electric motor would interfere with 

DOE-prescribed test procedures. Also, 

because temperature measurements are 

taken by measuring the stator winding 

resistance, DOE does not believe that 

the insulation on the stator windings 

themselves would 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, at this time, DOE 

is not proposing any test procedure 

amendments for electric motors with 

moisture resistant windings or electric 

motors with sealed windings. 

DOE believes that the effects that 

specially insulated windings may have 

on an electric motor’s efficiency are 

likely to be minimal. Although DOE 

recognizes there could be a change in 

the thermal characteristics of the motor, 

DOE believes that the additional 

treatment given to these specially 

insulated windings could, in some 

cases, improve heat dissipation. Again, 

however, DOE does not believe that the 

efficiency changes, whether positive or 

negative, will be significant. DOE 

requests any data, information, or 

comments regarding the effects of 

specially insulated stator windings on 

electric motor efficiency. 

DOE also seeks comment on its 

proposed definition for motors with 

moisture resistant windings and motors 

with sealed windings and its 

preliminary decision not to propose 

additional testing instructions for these 

motors types. 

4. Inverter-Capable Electric Motors 

DOE currently regulates single speed 

motors with a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole 

configuration. 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38464 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

13Li, Harry. Impact of VFD, Starting Method and 

Driven Load on Motor Efficiency. 2011. Siemens 

Industry, Inc. 

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: 

Inverter drives (also called variablefrequency 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 lockedrotor torque limits standardized in 

NEMA MG1–2009.13

Currently, being suitable for use on an 

inverter alone would not exempt a 

motor from having to satisfy any 

applicable energy conservation 

requirements because it does not 

preclude a motor from meeting the nine 

design characteristics of electric motors 

that will define regulatory coverage. In 

today’s NOPR, DOE is maintaining this 

approach. However, today’s NOPR seeks 

to further clarify this position by 

proposing a definition for the term 

‘‘inverter-capable electric motor.’’ 

In its comments about the electric 

motors preliminary analysis, NEMA 

provided suggestions on how to define 

inverter capable-electric motors. NEMA 

agreed with DOE that these motors are 

capable of both operating with or 

without an inverter. However, NEMA 

stressed that these electric motors are 

primarily engineered to be used without 

an inverter and, in its view, this fact 

should be evident by the definition DOE 

ultimately adopts. NEMA also provided 

a suggested definition for the term 

‘‘inverter-capable electric motor.’’ 

(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027– 

0054 at pp. 34–35) This definition, 

similar in substance and meaning to the 

definition that DOE presented in the 

electric motors preliminary analysis but 

including a few minor word changes, is 

consistent with DOE’s understanding. 

As detailed in the proposed regulations 

below, today’s proposed rule defines an 

‘‘inverter-capable electric motor’’ as an 

electric motor designed to be directly 

connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line 

power, but that is also capable of 

continuous operation on an inverter 

drive over a limited speed range and 

associated load. 

Because this motor type operates like 

a typical, general purpose electric motor 

when not connected to an inverter, DOE 

does not believe any test procedure 

amendments are needed. Under DOE’s 

proposed approach, an inverter-capable 

electric motor would be tested without 

the use of an inverter and rely on the 

procedures used when testing a general 

purpose electric motor. DOE requests 

comments on its proposed definition 

and its tentative decision not to specify 

any test procedure instructions for this 

motor type beyond that which is already 

contained in the current procedure. 

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 

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, DOE is 

analyzing TENV motors in the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. 

(Motor Coalition, EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0027–0035 at p. 19) As part of this 

effort, DOE proposes 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 MG1–2009. DOE 

tentatively concludes that this 

definition is accurate and sufficiently 

clear and concise and is proposing that 

the definition be adopted with minor 

alterations. As detailed in the proposed 

regulations below, today’s proposed rule 

defines 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 modifications to the test 

procedure may be necessary to test 

TENV motors. Prior to the electric 

motors preliminary analysis, 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 

because of testing difficulties. 

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) 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP26JN13.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38465 

14 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. 

15The 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, thus being able to test the motor 

properly per IEEE 112 Test Method B. 

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 knows of no 

technical reason why a TENV motor 

could not be tested using either IEEE 

Standard 112 (Test Method B) or the 

CSA–C390 procedure without 

modification. In view of NEMA’s most 

recent comments suggesting that IEEE 

Standard 112 (Test Method B) is 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 is not proposing any test 

procedure amendments for TENV 

electric motors. 

DOE requests comments on its 

proposed definition and preliminary 

decision not to propose any test 

procedure amendments for TENV 

electric motors. 

D. Electric Motor Types Requiring 

Definitions and Test Procedure 

Instructions 

DOE is proposing to add definitions 

for a number of electric motor types that 

are already commonly understood, but 

not necessarily clearly defined, by the 

industry. DOE is also proposing 

clarifying language for testing each of 

these motor types. 

1. Immersible Electric Motors and 

Electric Motors With Contact Seals 

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 MG1–2009, 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 interprets 

‘‘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. 

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. 

As a result, as detailed in the 

proposed regulations below, today’s 

proposed rule defines 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. 

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.14

DOE understands that as the seals wearin 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) 

DOE 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. 

Given the break-in period 

considerations discussed above, DOE 

sought to confirm the effects of contact 

seals by conducting its own testing. 

DOE procured a five-horsepower, twopole, TENV motor for this purpose.15

Upon receipt of the motor, DOE’s testing 

laboratory followed IEEE Standard 112 

(Test Method B) and tested the motor 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). 

DOE’s testing confirmed the 

significant impact that contact seals can 

have on demonstrated efficiency. In the 

case of the five-horsepower, two-pole, 

TENV motor, the motor performed 

significantly better 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. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38466 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

16 DOE’s proposed definitions for integral and 

non-integral brake motors do not require a certain 

manner of attachment of the brake rather, the 

placement of the brake is the relevant distinctive 

factor. 

TABLE III–2—RESULTS OF IMMERSIBLE MOTOR TESTING

Motor type Nameplate 

efficiency 

Test 1 

(percent) 

Test 2 

(percent) 

Test 3 

(percent) 

Immersible Motor (also TENV and a vertical solid-shaft motor) ..................... 89.5 88.9 91.0 89.2 

Although DOE’s testing confirmed 

that the impacts from contact seals can 

be significant and may reduce over time, 

DOE is proposing test procedure 

instructions that differ from the 

recommendations offered by interested 

parties. DOE believes testing with the 

contact seals may better represent an 

immersible motor’s installed efficiency. 

DOE does not have specific data 

showing how the impacts from contact 

seals decay over time and DOE believes 

this decay may vary by basic model of 

immersible motor. In absence of such 

data showing near equivalent 

performance of immersible motors that 

are tested without contact seals to those 

that have contact seals that have been 

broken in, DOE is proposing that these 

motors be tested with the contact seals 

in place. In addition, DOE is proposing 

an allowance of a maximum run-in 

period of 10 hours prior to performing 

IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B). 

This run-in period is intended to allow 

the contact seals a sufficient amount of 

time to break-in such that test 

conditions are equal or very similar to 

normal operating conditions that will be 

experienced by a user. DOE’s proposed 

10-hour maximum is a preliminary 

estimate obtained through discussions 

with electric motors testing experts. 

DOE may consider a longer run-in 

period or potentially removing the seals 

prior to testing in the final rule if data 

are obtained from manufacturers that 

substantiate the claim that an 

immersible motor’s contact seals will 

wear-in, early on during the motor’s 

lifetime (i.e., 200 hours), and to the 

point that the motor’s efficiency is not 

affected. DOE is soliciting comments on 

its 200 hour assumption in its early 

motor lifetime estimate. 

Finally, with regard to immersible 

motors built in a TEBC configuration, 

DOE is proposing instructions that 

would require the testing laboratory to 

power the smaller blower motor from an 

alternate power source than the one 

used for the electric motor being tested 

for efficiency. This approach will allow 

the testing laboratory to isolate the 

performance of the motor under test 

while continuing to provide the 

necessary cooling from the blower 

motor. 

DOE requests comments concerning 

its proposed definition for ‘‘immersible 

electric motor,’’ especially with respect 

to differentiating this motor type from 

‘‘liquid-cooled’’ and ‘‘submersible’’ 

motors. Additionally, DOE invites 

comment on its proposal to permit 

manufacturers to run their motors for a 

period of time prior to performing IEEE 

Standard 112 (Test Method B) to breakin any contact seals. In particular, DOE 

requests comment and any data on the 

appropriateness of the proposed 10-hour 

time limit allowable for the run-in 

period. Finally, DOE requests comment 

on the appropriateness of allowing 

manufacturers to use an alternative 

power source to run the blower motor 

while testing an immersible motor built 

in a TEBC frame. 

2. Integral and Non-Integral 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 deenergizes and engages the motor shaft, 

quickly slowing or stopping rotation of 

the rotor and shaft components. 

There are two general types of brake 

motors—integral and non-integral brake 

motors. An electric motor falls into one 

of these two categories depending on 

how its brake component is connected 

to the motor. If the brake component is 

integrated with other components of the 

electric motor and not readily 

detachable, it is usually considered 16 an 

integral brake motor. Conversely, if the 

brake component is connected 

externally and is more readily 

detachable, it is considered a nonintegral brake motor. 

In its August 15, 2012 ‘‘Joint Petition 

to Adopt Joint Stakeholder Proposal As 

it Relates to the Rulemaking on Energy 

Conservation Standards for Electric 

Motors’’ (the Petition), the Motor 

Coalition proposed a definition for the 

term ‘‘integral brake electric motor.’’ 

That definition stated that an integral 

brake electric motor is ‘‘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) 

Subsequent to the submission of the 

petition, DOE spoke with some of the 

Motor Coalition’s manufacturers and its 

own SMEs. Based on these 

conversations, DOE believes 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 believes that there may be 

uncertainty regarding certain aspects of 

the definition, particularly, what 

constitutes ‘‘extensive disassembly of 

the motor or motor parts.’’ Therefore, 

DOE is proposing a new definition that 

would remove this ambiguity. As 

detailed in the proposed regulations 

below, today’s proposed rule defines 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38467 

17This motor was originally thought to be an 

integral brake motor, which is why it was tested a 

third time. 

18For this test, the brake would engage during the 

no-load test, thus the testing laboratory connected 

the brake to a separate power source for that test. 

19For this test, the laboratory connected the brake 

to an external power source for the duration of the 

test. 

detached without disassembly or 

adversely affecting the motor’s 

performance. However, as with the 

definition of an ‘‘integral brake motor,’’ 

DOE reconsidered the definition it 

presented in its electric motors 

preliminary analysis TSD for ‘‘nonintegral brake electric motor.’’ Similarly, 

DOE concluded that the previous 

definition was ambiguous, particularly 

with regards to detaching the brake 

component. Therefore, in today’s notice, 

DOE is proposing a new definition for 

‘‘non-integral brake electric motor’’ that 

parallels its proposed definition for 

‘‘integral brake electric motor.’’ DOE 

believes that the new definition is 

clearer because it relies solely on the 

placement of the brake and not what 

level of effort is needed to remove it. 

Additionally, DOE believes that the 

structure of its two definitions 

encompasses all brake motors by 

requiring them to meet one definition or 

the other. As detailed in the proposed 

regulations below, DOE’s proposed 

definition for a ‘‘non-integral brake 

electric motor’’ is an electric motor 

containing a brake mechanism outside 

of the endshield, but not between the 

motor fan and endshield. 

DOE believes that a definition for both 

integral and non-integral brake electric 

motors is necessary to distinguish 

between the two motor types because 

DOE may consider requiring different 

setup procedures for the two motor 

types and holding them to different 

efficiency levels. 

In the electric motors preliminary 

analysis, DOE stated that it had 

preliminarily planned to include 

integral brake motors in the scope of 

expanded energy conservation. The 

Motor Coalition suggested that DOE 

continue to exclude these motors from 

coverage because of potential 

complications with testing. The group 

explained that there are no test 

standards for this motor type and that 

removing the brake components from 

the motor would affect the motor’s 

performance and possibly leave the 

motor inoperable because of the 

integrated nature of the removed brake 

components. The Motor Coalition added 

that the efficiency losses from brake 

componentry would not be uniform 

across the industry. (Motor Coalition, 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0035 at p. 

13) 

When considering test procedures for 

both brake motor types, DOE considered 

all the recommendations from the Motor 

Coalition and the results of its own 

testing. DOE conducted its own testing 

to gather information on the feasibility 

of testing integral and non-integral brake 

motors. During its investigation of 

integral brake motors, DOE procured 

and tested two motors: one fivehorsepower, four-pole, TEFC motor and 

one one-horsepower, four-pole, TEFC 

motor. For each of the motors, DOE 

performed three tests. Each motor was 

initially tested following IEEE Standard 

112 (Test Method B) as the motor was 

received (i.e., no modifications to the 

brake components). Then, the test 

laboratory removed the brake 

components and retested the motor, 

again following IEEE Standard 112 (Test 

Method B). Finally, a third test was 

conducted after the test laboratory 

reattached the brake components. The 

results of this testing are shown in Table 

III–3. 

TABLE III–3—RESULTS OF INTEGRAL BRAKE MOTOR TESTING

Motor type 

Nameplate 

efficiency 

(percent) 

Test 1 

(percent) 

Test 2 

(percent) 

Test 3 

(percent) 

Integral Brake Motor 1 ..................................................................................... 87.5 86.4 87.2 86.0 

Integral Brake Motor 2 ..................................................................................... 82.5 77.4 80.3 78.0 

For the two integral brake motors, 

there was no consistent amount of 

losses observed and attributable to the 

brake component. However, the 

decrease in motor losses that resulted 

when the brake was removed reached as 

high as 16 percent. While DOE 

anticipated that brake losses would vary 

based on motor horsepower and brake 

type, it appears that such losses are 

difficult to quantify in certain integral 

brake motor configurations. 

Additionally, while DOE found that the 

testing laboratory was able to reconnect 

the braking mechanisms after removal 

and to make the motor operable again 

after reconnecting the braking 

mechanism, there was a slight change in 

the performance of the two motors 

tested. 

DOE also sought to investigate the 

feasibility of testing non-integral brake 

motors. DOE procured two non-integral 

brake motors, one five-horsepower, fourpole, TEFC motor and one 15- 

horsepower, four-pole, TEFC motor. 

When testing the motors, DOE’s testing 

laboratory performed two tests on each 

motor. Initially, the motors were to be 

tested as they were received, following 

IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B); 

however DOE’s test facility faced a few 

complications. When attempting to test 

the five-horsepower motor, the test 

laboratory experienced complications 

when trying to conduct the no-load test. 

Because of the low voltage levels 

required for the no-load test, the braking 

mechanism would engage, stopping the 

test. Therefore, the testing laboratory 

spliced the electrical connections of the 

braking mechanism and connected the 

brake to an external power source. For 

the 15-horsepower motor, the brake had 

its own power connection and the test 

laboratory elected to connect the brake 

to an external power source (i.e., 

separate from what was supplied to the 

motor itself). For both motors, the test 

laboratory performed a second test in 

which the brake component was 

completely removed and the motor was 

tested according to IEEE Standard 112 

(Test Method B) again. Finally, for the 

five-horsepower motor, the test 

laboratory performed a third test with 

the brake mechanism reattached.17 The 

results of DOE’s non-integral brake 

motor testing are shown below. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38468 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

20Endshields 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. 

21 DOE notes that integral brake motors are not 

considered integral or partial motors. 

TABLE III–4—RESULTS OF NON-INTEGRAL BRAKE MOTOR TESTING

Motor type 

Nameplate 

efficiency 

(percent) 

Test 1 

(percent) 

Test 2 

(percent) 

Test 3 

(percent) 

Non-Integral Brake Motor 1 ............................................................................. 87.5 18 87.3 87.7 87.1 

Non-Integral Brake Motor 2 ............................................................................. 89.5 19 90.0 90.0 

DOE obtained much useful 

information from both rounds of nonintegral brake motor testing. For the 

five-horsepower motor (‘‘non-integral 

brake motor 1’’), DOE obtained 

additional test data that supports the 

notion that removing and reattaching a 

brake mechanism to a motor could affect 

its performance. In this case, when the 

brake was reattached, the demonstrated 

efficiency of the motor decreased, albeit 

a minimal amount that could simply be 

due to testing variation. For the 15- 

horsepower motor (‘‘non-integral brake 

motor 2’’) DOE obtained the same tested 

efficiency when the brake was powered 

externally and when it was removed. In 

this instance, this shows that there was 

a negligible impact on friction and 

windage losses due to the brake 

mechanism. DOE understands that this 

could have occurred for several reasons. 

It could be because the significant 

impacts on losses from brakes come 

from the power consumed to keep the 

brake disengaged. It could also be that 

the design of this particular brake 

mechanism was an anomaly and most 

brake mechanisms would have a larger 

impact on friction and windage. Finally, 

it could be because the motor tested was 

a 15-horsepower motor and the friction 

and windage losses due to the brake 

may have been small relative to other 

losses in the motor. 

In light of the test results of the 15 

horsepower, non-integral brake motor, 

DOE sought to investigate testing brake 

motors with the brake powered 

separately. Therefore, DOE conducted a 

final set of tests for the other three 

motors. During this testing the brake 

component was attached, but powered 

by a source separate from the motor. 

This testing showed that powering the 

brake component separately resulted in 

demonstrated efficiencies equivalent to 

testing a motor with the brake 

component completely removed. 

Results are shown in the Table below. 

TABLE III–5—COMPARISON OF REMOVING BRAKE AND POWERING BRAKE SEPARATELY

Motor tested 

Tested 

efficiency 

with brake 

removed 

(percent) 

Tested 

efficiency 

with brake 

powered 

separately 

(percent) 

Integral Brake Motor 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 87.2 87.6 

Integral Brake Motor 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 80.3 80.4 

Non-Integral Brake Motor 1 ............................................................................................................................. 87.7 87.7 

As a result of its testing of integral 

and non-integral brake electric motors, 

DOE is proposing the same test 

instructions for both motors types in 

today’s notice. DOE proposes 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 believes that this is the best 

approach because it allows the test 

laboratory to isolate the losses due to 

the motor, which includes the friction 

and windage produced by the rotating 

brake mechanism. DOE believes 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 believes 

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 nonintegral brake motors, so DOE 

preliminarily believes that this process 

would not be unduly burdensome. 

DOE requests comments on its 

proposed definitions. Additionally, DOE 

requests comments on its proposed 

instructions for testing integral and nonintegral brake electric motors. 

3. Partial Electric Motors 

Most general purpose electric motors 

have two endshields,20 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, 

thus 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.21 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. 

DOE is aware that there are many 

different industry terms used to describe 

a partial electric motor and now that it 

is considering covering special and 

definite purpose electric motors in light 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38469 

22 Driven equipment is machinery that is run or 

‘‘driven’’ by an electric motor. 

23Eddy currents are circulating currents induced 

in conductors (e.g., steel) by changing magnetic 

fields. They typically manifest themselves as heat, 

which can increase losses within an electric motor. 

of the EISA 2007 changes to EPCA, DOE 

is proposing to define the term ‘‘partial 

electric motor’’ to ensure clarity. 

Additionally, because DOE considers 

integral gearmotors to be a subset of 

partial electric motors, this definition 

would also apply to integral gearmotors. 

Also, DOE does not wish to create 

confusion regarding the difference 

between a ‘‘component set’’ of an 

electric motor (discussed below in 

section III.G.2) and a ‘‘partial electric 

motor.’’ Therefore, as detailed in the 

proposed regulations below, today’s 

proposed rule defines ‘‘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 ‘‘operable motor’’ means an 

electric motor engineered for performing 

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 purposes. DOE received 

comments concerning potential testing 

difficulties for partial motors. The CDA 

indicated that a new test procedure may 

be required for partial motors and that 

DOE should consider developing a new 

test procedure for these and other 

motors. (CDA, No. 18 at p. 2) DOE has 

also received feedback suggesting that 

manufacturers could show compliance 

by testing a similar model that could 

more easily be attached to a 

dynamometer. (ASAP and NEMA, 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0012 at p. 

9) In comments on the electric motors 

preliminary analysis, NEMA 

recommended that DOE require 

endshields to be installed prior to 

testing a partial motor. NEMA stated 

this would be an appropriate approach 

as long as the operating and cooling 

characteristics of a particular motor 

with endshields installed for testing is 

similar to how the partial motor would 

operate when connected to the driven 

equipment.22 (NEMA, EERE–2010–BT– 

STD–0027–0054 at p 16) 

DOE discussed NEMA’s proposal 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 

have considered machining the 

‘‘dummy’’ endplates themselves, and 

supplying the properly sized deepgroove, ball bearings for the testing. 

Various testing laboratories have 

indicated 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–6—RESULTS OF PARTIAL ELECTRIC MOTOR TESTING

Motor type 

Nameplate 

efficiency 

(percent) 

Test 1 

(percent) 

Test 2 

(percent) 

Partial Electric Motor ....................................................................................................... 81.0 83.5 82.9 

As stated by testing laboratories, DOE 

found a variation in efficiency because 

of the endplate used during testing. In 

this case, DOE understands 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 replace the 

manufacturer’s endshield with one of 

the same material. Additionally, DOE 

knows of no testing laboratory (other 

than a motor manufacturer), with such 

capability. DOE understands that the 

variance in the magnetic properties of 

steel likely produced small eddy 

currents in the endshield which 

increased heat and, therefore, losses 

within the motor.23 Consequently, DOE 

believes that it is necessary to try and 

maintain a consistency in frame 

material, in order to prevent such 

variances in future testing. 

At this time, because of the possible 

variance that DOE found through its 

testing, DOE is proposing that an 

endplate be provided by the 

manufacturer of the motor and test with 

that endplate in place. If bearings are 

also needed, the test laboratory should 

use what DOE views as a ‘‘standard 

bearing’’—a 6000-series, open, singlerow, deep groove, radial ball bearing. 

DOE selected this set of specifications 

because it is common bearing type 

capable of horizontal operation. DOE 

requests comments on its proposed 

testing instructions for partial electric 

motors. In particular, DOE requests any 

data regarding the variation in tested 

efficiency likely to result from varying 

an endplate and its material. 

E. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only 

Test Procedure Instructions 

DOE is proposing to add additional 

instructions to the DOE test procedure 

that would affect a number of motor 

types for which DOE is analyzing new 

energy conservation standards. DOE is 

not proposing any definitions for these 

terms because DOE believes the terms 

are self-explanatory or already readily 

understood in the industry. 

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 MG1–2009. Attaching a motor to 

the shaft of the driven equipment in this 

manner generally involves bolting the 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38470 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

motor to the equipment through 

mounting holes in the flange or 

faceplate of the motor. 

NEMA MG1–2009, paragraphs 1.63.1, 

1.63.2, and 1.63.3 designate Type C 

face-mounting, Type D flange-mounting, 

and Type P flange-mounting motors, 

respectively. These definitions provide 

reference figures in NEMA MG1–2009, 

section I, part 4 titled ‘‘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 MG1–2009, Figure 4– 

3, ‘‘Letter Symbols for Type C FaceMounting 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 special and definite 

purpose electric motors such as those 

motors with non-standard endshields. 

This change to the scope of energy 

conservation standards for electric 

motors means 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 believes that an 

actual definition for such motors is 

unnecessary. 

In evaluating the possibility of 

requiring these motor types to meet 

potential energy conservation standards, 

DOE is assessing whether these motors 

can be tested using non-standard flanges 

or endshields. DOE has 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 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) 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) 

DOE understands that it may not be 

possible to attach motors with nonstandard endshields to a testing 

laboratory’s dynamometer. If such 

situation arises and a test laboratory is 

unable to reconfigure the motor without 

removal of the endplate such that 

attachment to a dynamometer is 

possible, DOE proposes that the custom 

endshield be replaced with one that has 

standard (i.e., in compliance with 

NEMA MG1) dimensions and mounting 

configurations. As with partial electric 

motors, such a replacement must be 

obtained through the manufacturer and 

be constructed of the same material as 

the original endplate. 

DOE requests comment on its 

preliminary decision not to propose a 

definition for these motor types. DOE 

also requests comments on its proposed 

instructions for testing motors with nonstandard endshields or flanges. 

2. Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors 

and Electric Motors With Single or 

Double Shaft Extensions of NonStandard Dimensions or Additions 

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 MG1–2009 

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 special application. In 2011, 

DOE proposed to clarify its treatment of 

these types of motors and included a 

table with allowable shaft variations. 76 

FR 648, 671–72 (January 5, 2011) This 

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. 

The guidance was intended to 

identify variations in shaft dimensions 

for a motor that would be covered as a 

general purpose electric motor under 

EPCA. However, in view of the EISA 

2007 and AEMTCA 2012 amendments, 

DOE has preliminarily decided to 

expand the scope of regulatory coverage 

beyond the initial scope set by EPCA 

prior to these two amendments. As 

such, DOE believes that a motor’s shaft 

alone, no matter what its dimensions or 

type, is an insufficient reason to exclude 

a motor from having to satisfy 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 is assessing 

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 sought to investigate 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 in this case, was not 

needed. 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, at 

this time, DOE agrees with the above 

NEMA comment and is proposing to 

include instructions for special 

couplings or adapters. In 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 

understands that a motor’s shaft 

configuration has minimal, if any, 

impact on overall motor efficiency, and 

believes that this approach is 

technologically feasible and will not 

result in any distortion of a motor’s 

inherent efficiency when tested. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38471 

24 ‘‘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) [Footnote: 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) [Footnote: 

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 seeks comment on its tentative 

approach declining to propose a 

definition for motors with non-standard 

shaft dimensions or additions. DOE also 

requests comment on its proposed 

instructions for testing such motors. 

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.E.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. 

At this time, DOE is not proposing a 

definition for any terms related to 

vertical electric motors. DOE believes 

definitions are 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 

without need for DOE clarification. 

Although defining a vertically mounted 

electric motor does not appear 

necessary, DOE believes 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 solidshaft motors as subtype II motors and 

required them to be tested in a 

‘‘horizontal configuration.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6311(13)(B)(v)) NEMA, ASAP, and the 

Motor Coalition submitted comments 

agreeing with the EISA 2007 provision 

and noted that vertical motors cannot be 

tested on a standard dynamometer 

because most dynamometers are 

designed to operate in conjunction with 

horizontally oriented electric motors. 

(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 subject matter experts. In view of 

the statutory requirement and current 

dynamometer testing configuration 

limits, DOE is proposing to test motors, 

which are otherwise engineered to 

operate vertically, in a horizontal 

position when determining efficiency. 

Another consideration is the shaft of 

a vertical motor and whether it is solid 

or hollow. If a vertical motor has a solid 

shaft, then no further adjustments are 

needed after considering orientation, 

unless the motor contains a special 

shaft. (See section III.E.2) If a vertical 

motor has 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) then additional 

instructions would be needed prior to 

testing for efficiency. 

After publishing the preliminary 

analysis, DOE did not receive any 

public comments suggesting that the 

testing of a vertical, hollow-shaft motor 

in a horizontal position would be 

technologically infeasible or unduly 

burdensome, especially when compared 

to the testing of a vertical solid-shaft 

motor. DOE understands that vertical 

hollow-shaft motors may not have a 

shaft extension at the drive end of the 

motor, which would be necessary for 

attaching or coupling the motor to a 

dynamometer for testing. 

DOE conducted testing to gauge the 

feasibility of testing a vertical, hollowshaft 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 

believes that, as long as the attached 

solid-shaft maintains sufficient 

clearance through the drive end of the 

motor to enable the motor to be attached 

to the dynamometer this is a feasible 

approach to testing vertical hollow-shaft 

motors. Aside from the addition of a 

shaft extension, DOE does 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—Inputoutput 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 MG1 paragraph 

12.58.1 ‘‘Determination of Motor 

Efficiency and Losses.’’ 24 (NEMA, 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0019 

at p. 4) 

DOE consulted testing laboratories 

about whether IEEE Standard 112 (Test 

Method E) would be an appropriate 

procedure to use when testing vertical 

motors. DOE understands that the 

primary difference between IEEE 

Standard 112 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 measurement 

method to directly 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 equipment that cannot be 

attached to a dynamometer. Although 

Test Method E may reduce some testing 

burden for vertical motors, DOE is 

concerned that Test Method E could 

produce results that are inconsistent 

and inaccurate relative to testing 

comparable motors under Test Method 

B. Therefore, DOE is declining to 

propose the use of Test Method E for 

vertical motors. However, DOE requests 

additional comments and test data that 

demonstrate any differences in the 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38472 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

25 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. 

26William R. Finley and Mark. M Hodowanec. 

Sleeve Vs. Anti-Friction Bearings: Selection of the 

Optimal Bearing for Induction Motors. 2001. IEEE. 

USA. 

27Neither 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. 

28William R. Finley and Mark. M Hodowanec. 

Sleeve Vs. Anti-Friction Bearings: Selection of the 

Optimal Bearing for Induction Motors. 2001. IEEE. 

USA. 

results of testing under Test Method E 

and Test Method B for the same basic 

model of vertical motor. 

DOE requests comments on its 

preliminary decision not to propose any 

definitions for vertical motors. It also 

requests comments on its proposed 

instructions when addressing various 

construction differences between 

vertical and horizontal motors, in 

particular, test methods for vertical 

motors with hollow shafts. 

4. Electric Motor Bearings 

Electric motors usually employ 

antifriction bearings that are housed 

within the endshields to support the 

motor’s shaft and provide a low-friction 

means for shaft rotation. Antifriction 

bearings contain rolling elements, 

which are the components inside the 

bearings that ‘‘roll’’ around the bearing 

housing and provide the reducedfriction 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). 

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 rollingelements 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 

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. 

DOE also understands that certain 

vertical motors use oil-lubricated 

bearings rather than the greaselubricated 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.25 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. 

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 understands that 

reorienting the motor, as would be 

necessary for testing, could cause 

physical damage to the motor. For 

motors equipped with such bearings, 

DOE is proposing to add testing 

instructions that would require the 

testing laboratory to replace the thrust 

bearing with a ‘‘standard bearing,’’ 

which shall be interpreted 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 

is proposing that the motor should be 

tested as is, without replacing the 

bearings. DOE believes that this is the 

most appropriate approach because it 

will provide the truest representation of 

the energy use that will be experienced 

by the user. 

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 antifriction ball bearings, but they are more 

expensive than anti-friction ball 

bearings for most horsepower ratings.26

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 

which employs standard bearings.27

(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, 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 antifriction ball bearings. (NEMA, EERE– 

2010–BT–STD–0027–0054 at p. 17) 

DOE separately consulted with testing 

laboratories, SMEs, and manufacturers 

and reviewed a pertinent technical 

paper.28 As a result of this collective 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38473 

research, DOE has tentatively 

determined that sleeve bearings do not 

significantly degrade efficiency when 

compared to spherical, radial ball 

bearings. More importantly, DOE does 

not believe that it is any 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 

believes 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 is not certain that 

sleeve bearings could be readily 

swapped with standard ball bearings 

without significant, costly motor 

alterations. Therefore, because it may be 

impracticable to swap them out with 

other bearings, DOE is proposing that 

motors with sleeve bearings be tested asis and with the sleeve bearings installed. 

DOE requests comment regarding its 

proposed approach to testing motors 

with thrust bearings only capable of 

vertical operation. DOE also requests 

comment on its proposed approach to 

testing motors with all types of bearings 

that are capable of horizontal operation, 

in particular, its proposed approach to 

testing motors with sleeve bearings. 

F. General Clarification for Certain 

Electric Motor Types 

For some electric motor types, DOE is 

neither proposing additions to the DOE 

test procedure nor proposing to define 

the motor types. However, DOE believes 

that some general clarification is needed 

for the following electric motor types to 

ensure that the regulations have 

sufficient clarity in detailing whether a 

particular motor is covered by DOE’s 

regulations. 

1. 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 considering whether to 

set standards for electric motors with 

non-standard bases, feet, or mounting 

configurations. 

Part 4 of section I in NEMA MG1– 

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. 

DOE believes that a definition is not 

needed for this particular type of 

electric motor because whether a motor 

has a mounting base, feet, or 

configuration that is built within 

compliance of the standard dimensions 

laid out in NEMA MG1–2009 or IEC 

Standard 60072–1 is unambiguous. 

Also, DOE believes that additional 

instructions for these types of electric 

motors are 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 believes testing a ‘‘similar 

model’’ to show compliance would 

likely create difficulties in ensuring the 

accuracy and equivalence of claimed 

efficiency ratings. Additionally, DOE 

believes that testing motors with nonstandard bases or mounting feet would 

not present an undue burden or 

insurmountable obstacle to testing. DOE 

understands that 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 

believes non-standard mounting feet 

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 understands that an 

electric motor’s mounting base, feet, or 

configuration will 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 seeks comment about its 

tentative decision declining to propose 

a definition for ‘‘electric motors with 

non-standard base, feet, or mounting 

configurations.’’ DOE also requests 

comment on any potential testing 

difficulties that may arise from testing 

these motor types and its preliminary 

decision not to issue any specific 

instructions related to testing such 

electric motors. Finally, DOE requests 

comment on its understanding that a 

motor’s mounting base, feet, or 

configuration will not impact its 

demonstrated efficiency. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38474 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

29The 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. 

30A combination of wound stator, rotor, shaft, 

and stator housing that is missing only one or both 

endshields or bearings is not considered a 

component set because this particular combination 

of assembled components creates an operable 

motor. A set of motor parts missing one or both 

endshields or bearing components is considered a 

‘‘partial electric motor’’ and is discussed earlier in 

this NOPR. 

G. Electric Motor Types DOE Proposes 

Not To Regulate at This Time 

1. 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 

air flow over the surface of the motor 

frame. This air flow 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.29 On the other 

hand, air-over electric motors do not 

have a factory-attached fan and, 

therefore, require a separate and 

external means of forcing air over the 

frame of the motor. Without an external 

means of cooling, an air-over electric 

motor could 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. 

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 airover electric motors would be extremely 

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 is 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. This is a capability that most 

testing laboratories, at this time, 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 has no plans to require 

energy conservation standards for airover electric motors, making further test 

procedure changes unnecessary. 

Although DOE does not plan to apply 

energy conservation standards to airover electric motors, it is proposing to 

define them for clarity. DOE’s proposed 

‘‘air-over electric motor’’ definition is 

based on the NEMA MG1–2009 

definition of a ‘‘totally enclosed air-over 

machine,’’ with some modification to 

that definition to include air-over 

electric motors with open frames. DOE 

believes 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. DOE 

requests comment on the broad 

definition for air-over electric motor. As 

detailed in the proposed regulations 

below, today’s proposed rule defines 

‘‘air-over electric motor’’ as an electric 

motor designed to be cooled by a 

ventilating means external to, and not 

supplied with, the motor. 

DOE believes 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— 

are insurmountable at this time. 

Therefore, DOE also requests comment 

on its tentative decision not to require 

air-over electric motors to meet energy 

conservation standards at this time 

given the difficulties in developing a 

consistent, repeatable test method for 

these motors. 

2. 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. A component set 

of an electric motor is comprised of any 

combination of these motor parts that 

does not form an operable motor.30 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 a piece 

of equipment, with the equipment 

providing the necessary mounting and 

rotor attachments for the components to 

operate in a manner similar to a standalone 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) 

DOE is 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. 

DOE is aware that there is no definition 

for either of these motor types in NEMA 

MG1–2009 or any other standard. 

Therefore, DOE is proposing a definition 

for ‘‘component set’’ in view of 

comments from SMEs, NEMA, and other 

industry experts. Defining ‘‘component 

set’’ is necessary to differentiate it from 

a ‘‘partial electric motor,’’ addressed 

previously in this NOPR. DOE requests 

comment on its definition of 

‘‘component set.’’ As detailed in the 

proposed regulations below, today’s 

proposed rule defines ‘‘component set’’ 

as a combination of motor parts that 

require the addition of more than two 

endshields to create an operable motor. 

Under the definition, these parts may 

consist of any combination of a stator 

frame, wound stator, rotor, shaft, or 

endshields and the term ‘‘operable 

motor’’ means an electric motor 

engineered for performing in accordance 

with nameplate ratings. 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38475 

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 is 

declining at this time to require them to 

satisfy any energy conservations 

standards. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed definition for ‘‘component 

set.’’ DOE also requests comment on its 

tentative decision to not require 

component sets to meet any particular 

energy conservation standards. 

3. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motor 

While most electric motors are cooled 

by air 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 does not 

intend to subject them to energy 

conservation standards at this time. 

NEMA and ASAP commented in 

response to the October 15, 2010, energy 

conservation standards framework 

document, 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 does not plan to subject these 

motors to energy conservation 

standards, but instead is proposing to 

define ‘‘liquid-cooled electric motor’’ to 

clarify its view of what motors fall 

within this term. DOE’s proposed 

definition is based on the definition of 

a ‘‘totally enclosed water-cooled 

machine’’ found in paragraph 1.26.5 of 

NEMA MG1–2009. Further, DOE is 

proposing to remove ‘‘totally enclosed’’ 

from the definition to prevent any 

unintentional limitations of the 

definition due to frame construction. 

DOE also plans 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 is proposing to modify the term 

‘‘water conductors’’ to ‘‘liquid-filled 

conductors’’ to make it clear that the 

conductors are not made of liquid. 

(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027– 

0054 at p. 35) As detailed in the 

proposed regulations below, today’s 

proposed rule defines ‘‘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. 

DOE seeks comment on its proposed 

definition for ‘‘liquid-cooled electric 

motor’’ as well as its tentative decision 

not to cover these motors because of 

potential testing difficulties identified 

above, along with the testing variables 

that are introduced by an additional 

coolant system and pump apparatus. 

Nevertheless, DOE is open to comment 

about any test procedure standards or 

additional test procedure instructions 

that would take into account all such 

variables and allow this motor-type to 

be tested in a consistent, manageable, 

and repeatable manner. 

4. Submersible Electric Motor 

As previously addressed, most motors 

are not engineered for operation 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 preliminary analysis. (NEMA, 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0054 at p. 

37) Consequently, as detailed in the 

proposed regulations below, today’s 

proposed rule defines ‘‘submersible 

electric motor’’ as an electric motor 

designed for continuous operation only 

while submerged in liquid. 

DOE does not plan to require 

submersible electric motors to meet 

energy conservation standards at this 

time. DOE believes that testing 

submersible electric motors would be 

extremely difficult because the motor 

must be submerged in a liquid to 

properly operate. After having 

discussions with manufacturers and 

testing laboratories, DOE is not aware of 

any industry test procedures or 

potential modifications to the 

procedures under 10 CFR 431.16 that 

could test a motor that relies on 

submersion in liquid for continuousduty operation. Additionally DOE is not 

aware of any testing facilities that are 

capable of testing a submerged motor. 

Consequently, DOE has tentatively 

decided not to propose specific 

preparatory instructions for testing 

submersible electric motors. DOE is 

interested in 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. 

DOE seeks comment about its 

proposed definition for ‘‘submersible 

electric motor.’’ Additionally, DOE 

seeks comment on its tentative decision 

not to cover these motors because of 

potential testing difficulties and the 

number of testing concerns, such as the 

availability of standard testing 

procedures and testing facilities. 

Nevertheless, DOE is open to comment 

about any test procedure standards or 

additional test procedure instructions 

that would facilitate the testing of 

submersible electric motors in a 

consistent, manageable, and repeatable 

manner. 

5. Definite-Purpose Inverter-Fed Electric 

Motors 

DOE considers 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 

are otherwise capable of general, 

continuous-duty operation without an 

inverter. This section addresses the 

former type of electric motors. Invertercapable electric motors are addressed in 

section II.C.4. 

In its electric motors preliminary 

analysis TSD, DOE sought to clarify 

that, in its view, inverter-only motors 

were motors that can operate 

continuously only by means of an 

inverter drive. DOE also explained that 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38476 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

NEMA agreed with DOE’s preliminary 

approach to define such motors and not 

require them to meet energy 

conservation standards, but suggested a 

more specific definition of ‘‘inverteronly motor,’’ based on NEMA MG1 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 is proposing to adopt it, 

with minor modifications. At this time, 

DOE is not proposing to require that a 

motor be marked as a ‘‘definite-purpose, 

inverter-fed electric motor,’’ but may 

consider such a requirement in the 

future. DOE believes the new definition 

is more precise than what it previously 

considered and understands that it is a 

term currently recognized and used in 

common industry parlance. As detailed 

in the proposed regulations below, 

today’s proposed rule defines ‘‘definitepurpose, inverter-fed 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. 

Regarding testing a definite-purpose 

inverter-fed 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 acrossthe-line starting, but inverter-fed motors 

are incapable of meeting this 

requirement without the inverter. (See 

NEMA, at EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027– 

0054 at p. 35 and NEMA MG1–2009, 

part 31 at paragraph 31.4.3.1, which 

elaborates that an ‘‘inverter-fed motor’’ 

cannot perform across-the-line starting 

unless the motor is attached to the 

inverter.) Otherwise, DOE is not aware 

of an industry accepted test procedure 

that specifies at which speed or torque 

characteristics an inverter-fed motor 

should be tested. Furthermore, DOE 

does not believe it would be possible for 

it to develop a standardized test 

procedure for definite-purpose, inverterfed electric motors on its own. 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 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. Therefore, even if 

DOE intended to regulate such motors, 

testing them could be extremely 

challenging using the currently accepted 

industry test procedures. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed definition for ‘‘definitepurpose, inverter-fed electric motors’’ 

and its preliminary decision to exclude 

such motors from any expanded energy 

conservation standards for electric 

motors. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

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 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, 

this action was not subject to review 

under the Executive Order by the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the 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 (IRFA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule, 

if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site: www.gc.doe.gov. 

As described in the preamble, today’s 

proposal 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 proposals 

are consistent with current industry 

practices and, once adopted and 

compliance is required, should be used 

for making representations of energyefficiency of those covered electric 

motors and for certifying compliance to 

Federal energy conservation standards. 

DOE certified to the Office of Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) that the proposed test procedures 

for electric motors would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The factual basis for this certification is 

as 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 its proposal 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 would 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. 

If DOE ultimately adopts the 

additional definitions in this 

rulemaking extending the existing test 

procedures to motors that are not 

currently subject to Federal energy 

conservation standards, manufacturers 

would only need to use the testing setup instructions, testing procedures, and 

rating procedures if a manufacturer 

elected to make voluntary 

representations of energy-efficiency of 

his or her basic models once compliance 

with the final test procedure was 

required. To better understand how the 

proposal would impact small 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38477 

manufacturers of electric motors, DOE 

reviewed current industry practice 

regarding the representations of energy 

efficiency currently made for motors not 

currently subject to energy conservation 

standards and how the proposal may 

impact current industry practice. 

Specifically, DOE’s test procedures 

would require that those manufacturers 

of motors not currently subject to 

standards who choose to make public 

representations of efficiency to comply 

with the proposed methods. DOE’s rule 

would 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 the small manufacturers clearly list 

efficiency ratings for their equipment in 

public disclosures. The remaining 

manufacturers either build custom 

products, which would not be subject to 

the proposal, or do not list energy 

efficiency in their motor specifications, 

in part because it is not required. For 

the manufacturers that currently do not 

make any public representations of 

energy efficiency of their motors, DOE 

does not believe the proposal would 

impact the current behavior of those 

manufacturers that do not elect to make 

voluntary representations. DOE does not 

anticipate any burden accruing to these 

manufacturers unless the agency was to 

consider 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 

that are contained within DOE’s 

proposals. DOE does not have any 

reason to believe that the test set-up 

clarifications proposed for adoption 

would have any significant impact on 

the current practice of these four 

manufacturers. 

In view of the foregoing, DOE certifies 

that today’s proposal would 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). 

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. The collection-ofinformation requirement for electric 

motors 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 that expires 

February 13, 2014. 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 proposed rule, DOE proposes 

test procedure amendments that it 

expects will be used to develop and 

implement future energy conservation 

standards 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 proposed rule 

would amend the existing test 

procedures without affecting the 

amount, quality or distribution of 

energy usage, and, therefore, would 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 has 

examined this proposed rule and has 

determined that it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of 

today’s proposed rule. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38478 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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, the proposed 

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 Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

www.gc.doe.gov. DOE examined today’s 

proposed rule according to UMRA and 

its statement of policy and determined 

that today’s proposal contains neither 

an intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

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 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposal would not have any impact on 

the autonomy or integrity of the family 

as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

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 proposal 

would 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 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed today’s proposed 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 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Today’s proposal to amend the test 

procedure for measuring the energy 

efficiency of electric motors is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not, if adopted, 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 rule proposed in this notice 

incorporates portions of the following 

commercial standard as specified: 

National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA) Standards 

Publication MG1–2009 Section I (Part 

4), Section II and Section II (Part 12). 

Although other portions of NEMA 

MG1–2009 are already incorporated by 

reference into DOE regulations, portions 

of Section I (Part 4) and Section II (Part 

12) have yet to be incorporated. DOE 

has evaluated these provisions and is 

unable to conclude whether they fully 

comply with the requirements of section 

32(b) of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act (i.e., that they were 

developed in a manner that fully 

provides for public participation, 

comment, and review). DOE will 

consult with the Attorney General and 

the Chairman of the FTC about the 

impact of this test procedure on 

competition. 

V. Public Participation 

a. Attendance at Public Meeting 

The time, date and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this document. If you plan to attend 

the public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

Any foreign national wishing to 

participate in the meeting should advise 

DOE as soon as possible by contacting 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38479 

Ms. Edwards to initiate the necessary 

procedures. Please also note that those 

wishing to bring laptop computers into 

the Forrestal Building will be required 

to obtain a property pass. Visitors 

should avoid bringing laptop 

computers, or allow an extra 45 minutes 

for security screening. Persons can also 

participate in the public meeting via 

webinar. For more information, refer to 

the Public Participation section near the 

end of this notice. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

Web site http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/74. Participants 

are responsible for ensuring their 

systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

b. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements For Distribution 

Any person who has plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format, to the appropriate address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice. The request 

and advance copy of statements must be 

received at least one week before the 

public meeting and may be emailed, 

hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE 

prefers to receive requests and advance 

copies via email. Please include a 

telephone number to enable DOE staff to 

make a follow-up contact, if needed. 

c. Conduct of Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

public meeting. After the public 

meeting, interested parties may submit 

further comments on the proceedings as 

well as on any aspect of the rulemaking 

until the end of the comment period. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this notice. 

In addition, any person may buy a copy 

of the transcript from the transcribing 

reporter. 

d. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

regulations.gov Web page will require 

you to provide your name and contact 

information. Your contact information 

will be viewable to DOE Building 

Technologies staff only. Your contact 

information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Persons viewing comments will see only 

first and last names, organization 

names, correspondence containing 

comments, and any documents 

submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as 

CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted 

within a few days of being submitted. 

However, if large volumes of comments 

are being processed simultaneously, 

your comment may not be viewable for 

up to several weeks. Please keep the 

comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your 

personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information on a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery, please 

provide all items on a compact disk 

(CD), if feasible. It is not necessary to 

submit printed copies. No facsimiles 

(faxes) will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English and are free 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38480 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

of any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery two well-marked copies: 

one copy of the document marked 

confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

e. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. DOE requests comment on the 

decision to incorporate definitions for 

NEMA Design A and NEMA Design C 

motors based on the NEMA MG1–2009 

definitions of these motor designs. 

2. DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions for IEC Design N 

and H motors. 

3. DOE seeks comment on its 

proposed definition for electric motors 

with moisture resistant windings and 

electric motors with sealed windings 

and its preliminary decision to not 

propose additional testing instructions 

for these motors types. 

4. DOE requests comments on its 

proposed definition for inverter-capable 

electric motors and its decision not to 

provide any test procedure instructions 

for this motor type. 

5. DOE requests comments on its 

proposed definition and preliminary 

decision not to propose any clarifying 

testing instructions for TENV electric 

motors. 

6. DOE requests comments on its 

proposed definition of integral brake 

electric motor and its preliminary 

decision to include them in the scope of 

these test procedures. 

7. DOE requests comments on its 

preliminary decision to test integral 

brake electric motors and non-integral 

brake electric motors without 

disassembly but, rather, with their brake 

components powered externally. 

8. DOE requests comments concerning 

its proposed definition for immersible 

electric motor, especially with regards 

to differentiating this motor type from 

liquid-cooled electric and submersible 

electric motors. 

9. DOE invites comment on its 

proposed test procedure instructions for 

immersible electric motors, in 

particular, the proposal to allow for a 

maximum run-in period of 10 hours 

prior to testing according to IEEE 

Standard 112 Test Method B. 

10. DOE requests comment on its 

preliminary decision not to propose a 

definition for electric motors with nonstandard endshields or bases 

11. DOE invites comment on its 

proposed instructions for testing electric 

motors with non-standard endshields or 

flanges. 

12. DOE seeks comment on the 

decision to not propose a definition for 

electric motors with non-standard shaft 

dimensions or additions. 

13. DOE requests comment on it 

proposed instructions for testing motors 

with non-standard shaft dimensions or 

additions. 

14. DOE seeks comment regarding its 

decision not to propose a definition for 

electric motors with non-standard base, 

feet, or mounting configurations. 

15. DOE requests comment on its 

instructions for testing electric motors 

with non-standard base, feet, or 

mounting configurations. 

16. DOE seeks comment on any other 

testing difficulties that may arise from 

testing electric motors with nonstandard base, feet, or mounting 

configurations. 

17. DOE requests comment regarding 

its proposed approach to testing electric 

motors with bearings capable of 

horizontal orientation. DOE also 

requests comment on its proposed 

approach to testing electric motors with 

bearings not capable of horizontal 

orientation. 

18. DOE requests comments on its 

preliminary decision not to propose any 

definitions for vertical motors. 

19. DOE seeks comments on its 

proposed instructions for dealing with 

the various construction differences 

found between vertical and horizontal 

motors. 

20. DOE requests comment on its 

decision not to propose additional test 

procedure clarifications for motors with 

sleeve bearings or a definition for these 

motor types. 

21. DOE requests comment regarding 

the effect of sleeve bearings on a motor’s 

tested efficiency. 

22. DOE requests comment on its 

proposed definition for air-over electric 

motor, and the decision to include both 

open and enclosed frame motors under 

the same definition. 

23. DOE requests comment on the 

decision to not require air-over electric 

motors to meet energy conservation 

standards at this time. 

24. DOE requests comment on its 

proposed definition of component set of 

an electric motor. 

25. DOE is open to comment on its 

tentative decision to not require 

component sets of electric motors to 

meet any particular energy conservation 

standards. 

26. DOE seeks feedback on its 

proposed definition for liquid-cooled 

electric motors. 

27. DOE seeks comment on its 

tentative decision not to cover liquidcooled electric motors, primarily 

because of the testing difficulties 

encountered when testing them, namely 

the number of testing variables that are 

introduced by the additional coolant 

system and pump apparatus. 

28. DOE is open to comment 

regarding any test procedure standards 

or additional test procedure guidance 

language that would take into account 

all variables involved in testing liquidcooled motors and allows this motor 

type to be tested in a consistent, 

manageable, and repeatable manner. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38481 

29. DOE requests comment on its 

proposed definition of submersible 

electric motor. 

30. DOE requests comment on 

whether it is correct that there are no 

test facilities capable of conducting 

performance tests on submersible 

electric motors. 

31. DOE requests comment on its 

proposed definition for definitepurpose, inverter-fed electric motors. 

32. DOE seeks comment on its 

preliminary decision to continue to not 

require definite-purpose, inverter-fed 

electric motors to meet any expanded 

energy conservation standards for 

electric motors. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practices and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 19, 

2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 

431 of chapter II of title 10, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as set forth below. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Section 431.12 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing the reserved terms ‘‘Fire 

pump motors’’ and ‘‘NEMA design B 

general purpose electric motor;’’ and 

■ b. Adding in alphabetical order, 

definitions for: ‘‘air-over electric 

motor,’’ ‘‘component set,’’ ‘‘definitepurpose, inverter-fed electric motor,’’ 

‘‘electric motor with moisture resistant 

windings,’’ ‘‘electric motor with sealed 

windings,’’ ‘‘IEC Design H motor,’’ ‘‘IEC 

Design N motor,’’ ‘‘immersible electric 

motor,’’ ‘‘integral brake electric motor,’’ 

‘‘inverter-capable electric motor,’’ 

‘‘liquid-cooled electric motor,’’ ‘‘NEMA 

Design A motor,’’ ‘‘NEMA Design C 

motor,’’ ‘‘non-integral brake electric 

motor,’’ ‘‘partial electric motor,’’ 

‘‘submersible electric motor,’’ ‘‘totally 

enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) electric 

motor.’’ 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 431.12 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Air-over electric motor means an 

electric motor designed to be cooled by 

a ventilating means external to, and not 

supplied with, the motor. 

* * * * * 

Component set means a combination 

of motor parts that require the addition 

of more than two endshields 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, inverter-fed electric 

motor means 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. 

* * * * * 

Electric motor with moisture resistant 

windings means an electric motor that is 

engineered for passing the conformance 

test for moisture resistance described in 

NEMA MG1–2009, paragraph 12.63, 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15) 

as demonstrated on a representative 

sample or prototype. 

Electric motor with sealed windings 

means an electric motor that is 

engineered for passing the conformance 

test for water resistance described in 

NEMA MG1–2009, paragraph 12.62, 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15) 

as demonstrated on a representative 

sample or prototype. 

* * * * * 

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 intended for direct-on-line 

starting (as demonstrated by the motor’s 

ability to operate without an inverter) 

(4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles; 

(5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 160 kW at 

a frequency of 60 Hz; and 

(6) Conforms to sections 8.1, 8.2, and 

8.3 of the IEC 60034–12 edition 2.1 

(incorporated by reference, see § 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 intended for direct-on-line 

starting (as demonstrated by the motor’s 

ability to operate without an inverter); 

(4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles; 

(5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW; 

and 

(6) Conforms to sections 6.1, 6.2, and 

6.3 of the IEC 60034–12 edition 2.1 

(incorporated by reference, see § 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 withstanding complete 

immersion in liquid for a continuous 

period of no less than 30 minutes. 

Integral brake electric motor means an 

electric motor containing a brake 

mechanism either inside of the motor 

endshield or between the motor fan and 

endshield. 

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. 

Liquid-cooled electric motor means a 

motor that is cooled by circulating 

liquid with the liquid or liquid-filled 

conductors coming into direct contact 

with the machine parts. 

* * * * * 

NEMA Design A motor means a 

squirrel-cage motor that: 

(1) Is Designed to withstand fullvoltage starting and developing lockedrotor torque as shown in NEMA MG1– 

2009, paragraph 12.38 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.15); 

(2) Has pull-up torque as shown in 

NEMA MG1–2009, paragraph 12.40; 

(3) Has breakdown torque as shown in 

NEMA MG1–2009, paragraph 12.39; 

(4) Has a locked-rotor current higher 

than 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 fullvoltage starting and developing lockedrotor torque for high-torque applications 

up to the values shown in NEMA MG1– 

2009, paragraph 12.38 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.15); 

2. Has pull-up torque as shown in 

NEMA MG1–2009, paragraph 12.40; 

3. Has breakdown torque up to the 

values shown in NEMA MG1–2009, 

paragraph 12.39; 

4. Has a locked-rotor current not to 

exceed the values shown in NEMA 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38482 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Non-integral brake electric motor 

means an electric motor containing a 

brake mechanism outside of the 

endshield, but not between the motor 

fan and endshield. 

* * * * * 

Partial electric 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 an 

electric motor engineered for performing 

in accordance with the applicable 

nameplate ratings. 

* * * * * 

Submersible electric motor means an 

electric motor designed for continuous 

operation only while submerged in 

liquid. 

* * * * * 

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. 

■ 3. Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 

431 is amended by adding an 

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: Any representation made after [date 

180 days after publication of the final rule 

will be inserted here] related to special and 

definite purpose motor types for which 

definitions are provided at § 431.12, or for 

which specific testing procedures are 

provided in this appendix, must be based 

upon results generated under this test 

procedure. Upon the compliance date(s) of 

any energy conservation standard(s) for 

special and definite purpose motor types, use 

of the applicable provisions of this test 

procedure to demonstrate compliance with 

the energy conservation standard will also be 

required. 

Any representation, including 

demonstrations of compliance, related to 

general purpose electric motors (subtype I or 

II) made after [date 180 days after publication 

of the final rule will be inserted here] must 

be based upon results generated under this 

test procedure. 

* * * * * 

4. Procedures for the Testing of Certain 

Electric Motor Types. 

Prior to testing according to IEEE Standard 

112 (Test Method B) or CSA C390–10 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15), 

each basic model of the electric motor types 

listed below must be prepared 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, open, single-row, deep groove, radial 

ball bearing. 

4.1 Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors 

and Electric Motors with Single or Double 

Shaft Extensions of Non-Standard 

Dimensions or Additions: 

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 additions must be tested using 

a special coupling adapter. 

4.2 Electric Motors with Non-Standard 

Endshields or Flanges: 

If it is not possible to connect the electric 

motor to a dynamometer without removing 

the endplate, the testing laboratory shall 

replace the non-standard endshield or flange 

with an endshield or flange meeting NEMA 

or IEC specifications. The NEMA 

specifications are found in NEMA MG–1 

(2009) in Section I, Part 4, paragraphs 4.1, 

4.2.1, 4.2.2, 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, and 4–5, 

and Table 4–2 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.15). The IEC specifications are found in 

IEC 60072–1 (1991) (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.15). If this is necessary, 

the replacement endshield or flange shall be 

obtained through the manufacturer, either by 

request or purchased as a replacement part; 

any such replacement endshield or flange 

must be constructed of the same material as 

the original endplate. 

4.3 Immersible Electric Motors and 

Electric Motors with Contact Seals: 

Immersible electric motors shall be tested 

with all contact seals installed as the motor 

is received. A manufacturer or test laboratory 

may run the electric motor being tested for 

a period of no more than 10 hours in order 

to break in the contact seals prior to testing. 

For immersible motors built in a totally 

enclosed blower cooled construction, the 

smaller, cooling motor shall be powered by 

a source separate from the source powering 

the electric motor under test. 

4.4 Integral Brake Electric Motors: 

Integral brake electric motors shall be 

tested with the integral brake component 

powered by a source separate from the source 

powering the electric motor under test. 

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). 

4.5 Non-Integral Brake Electric Motors: 

Non-integral brake electric motors shall be 

tested with the non-integral brake component 

powered by a source separate from the source 

powering the electric motor under test. 

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). 

4.6 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 shall be obtained through 

the manufacturer, either by request or 

purchased as a replacement part. 

4.7 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 configuration. If the unit under 

test cannot be reoriented horizontally due to 

its bearing construction, the electric motor’s 

bearings 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. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15132 Filed 6–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2