Vol. 78 Friday, 

No. 240 December 13, 2013 

Part II 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Part 431 

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors; 

Final Rule 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75962 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP–0043] 

RIN 1904–AC89 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Electric Motors 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is amending the energy 

efficiency test procedures for electric 

motors to allow currently unregulated 

motors to be tested by clarifying the test 

setup requirements that are needed to 

facilitate testing of these types of 

electric motors. In addition, DOE is 

adopting definitions, which will 

determine the applicability of DOE’s 

regulations to various types of electric 

motors. The amendments would clarify 

the scope of coverage for electric motors 

and not otherwise affect the test 

procedure. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

January 13, 2014. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in this rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register on January 13, 2014. The 

incorporation by reference of other 

publications listed in this rule were 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register on May 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, some documents listed in the 

index, such as those containing 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure, may not be publicly 

available. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

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

buildings/appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/74. This Web 

page will contain a link to the docket for 

this notice on the regulations.gov site. 

The regulations.gov Web page will 

contain simple instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8654. Email: 

medium_electric_motors@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Ami Grace-Tardy, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General 

Counsel, GC–71, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Telephone: (202) 586–5709. 

Email: Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule incorporates by reference into 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 431, the 

following industry standards: 

NEMA Standards Publication MG 

1–2009 (‘‘NEMA MG 1–2009’’), Motors 

and Generators, 2009, Paragraphs 12.62 

and 12.63. 

Copies of NEMA MG 1–2009 can be 

obtained from the National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association, 1300 17th 

St. N., Suite 900, Arlington, VA 22209, 

(703) 841–3200, or http://

www.nema.org. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Expanding the Scope of Coverage of 

Energy Conservation Standards 

B. Electric Motor Types for Which DOE Is 

Not Amending Existing Definitions 

C. International Electrotechnical 

Commission IP and IC Codes 

D. Motor Type Definitions and Testing SetUp Instructions 

1. National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association Design A and Design C 

Motors 

2. International Electrotechnical 

Commission Designs N and H Motors 

3. Electric Motors With Moisture-Resistant, 

Sealed or Encapsulated Windings 

4. Inverter-Capable Electric Motors 

5. Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated Electric 

Motors 

6. Air-Over Electric Motor 

E. Electric Motor Types Requiring 

Definitions and Test Procedure 

Instructions 

1. Immersible Electric Motors 

2. Brake Electric Motors 

3. Partial Electric Motors 

F. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only 

Test Procedure Instructions 

1. Electric Motors With Non-Standard 

Endshields or Flanges 

2. Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors 

and Electric Motors With Single or 

Double Shaft Extensions of NonStandard Dimensions or Design 

3. Vertical Electric Motors 

4. Electric Motor Bearings 

5. Electric Motors With Non-Standard 

Bases, Feet or Mounting Configurations 

6. Electric Motors With SeparatelyPowered Blowers 

G. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only 

Definitions 

1. Component Set of an Electric Motor 

2. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motor 

3. Submersible Electric Motor 

4. Inverter-Only Electric Motor 

H. Effective Dates for the Amended Test 

Procedures and Other Issues 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Congressional Notification 

N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 

6291, et seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’) sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. (All 

references to EPCA refer to the statute 

as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical 

Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 

112–210 (December 18, 2012)). Part C of 

title III, which for editorial reasons was 

redesignated as Part A–1 upon 

incorporation into the U.S. Code, 

establishes an energy conservation 

program for certain industrial 

equipment, which includes electric 

motors, the subject of today’s notice. (42 

U.S.C. 6311(1)(A), 6313(b)). 

Under EPCA, the energy conservation 

program consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. The testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered products must 

use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to the 

Department of Energy (DOE) that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA, and (2) making 

representations about the energy or 

water consumption of those products. 

Similarly, DOE must use these test 

procedures when testing products to 

determine whether they comply with 

the applicable standards promulgated 

pursuant to EPCA. 

In the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 

Public Law 102–486 (October 24, 1992) 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75963 

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. 

(EPACT 1992), Congress amended EPCA 

to establish energy conservation 

standards, test procedures, compliance 

certification, and labeling requirements 

for certain electric motors. (When used 

in context, the term ‘‘motor’’ refers to 

‘‘electric motor’’ in this document.) On 

October 5, 1999, DOE published a final 

rule to implement these requirements. 

64 FR 54114. In 2007, section 313 of the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

(EISA 2007) amended EPCA by: (1) 

Striking the definition of ‘‘electric 

motor,’’ (2) setting forth definitions for 

‘‘general purpose electric motor 

(subtype I)’’ and ‘‘general purpose 

electric motor (subtype II),’’ and (3) 

prescribing energy conservation 

standards for ‘‘general purpose electric 

motors (subtype I),’’ ‘‘general purpose 

electric motors (subtype II), ‘‘fire pump 

electric motors,’’ and ‘‘NEMA Design B 

general purpose electric motors’’ with a 

power rating of more than 200 

horsepower but not greater than 500 

horsepower. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13) and 

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

2009, DOE updated the corresponding 

regulations at 10 CFR part 431 

consistent with these changes. 74 FR 

12058. On December 22, 2008, DOE 

proposed to update the test procedures 

under Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, part 431 (10 CFR part 431) 

for both electric motors and small 

electric motors. 73 FR 78220. After 

considering comments from interested 

parties, DOE finalized key provisions 

related to small electric motor testing in 

a 2009 final rule (see 74 FR 32059 (July 

7, 2009)) and further updated the test 

procedures for electric motors and small 

electric motors. See 77 FR 26608 (May 

4, 2012). 

On June 26, 2013, DOE published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

focused on electric motors that 

proposed adding certain definitions 

along with specific testing set-up 

instructions and clarifications to the 

current test procedures under subpart B 

of 10 CFR part 431 that would address 

a wider variety of electric motor 

categories (or types) than what DOE 

currently regulates. 78 FR 38456. DOE 

proposed these amendments because 

the additional testing set-up instructions 

and clarifications were designed to 

permit manufacturers of these 

‘‘unregulated’’ motors to test these 

motors using one of the prescribed test 

methods listed in 10 CFR part 431. The 

addition of these set-up instructions 

will more readily enable a manufacturer 

to consistently measure the losses and 

determine the efficiency of a wider 

variety of motor categories than what is 

regulated under the current energy 

conservation standards laid out in 10 

CFR 431.25.1 Related to today’s 

rulemaking, DOE is also considering 

prescribing standards for some electric 

motor categories addressed in this 

notice through a parallel energy 

conservation standards-related activity. 

See 78 FR 73590 (Dec. 6, 2013). See also 

76 FR 17577 (March 30, 2011) (detailing 

DOE’s request for information regarding 

electric motor coverage) and 77 FR 

43015 (July 23, 2012) (announcing 

DOE’s preliminary analysis for potential 

standards related to electric motors). 

By way of background, DOE notes that 

section 343(a)(5)(A) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(5)(A), initially required that the 

test procedures to determine electric 

motor efficiency shall be those 

procedures specified in two documents: 

National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA) Standards 

Publication MG 1–1987 2 and Institute 

of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 

(IEEE) Standard 112 (Test Method B) for 

motor efficiency, as in effect on the date 

of enactment of EPACT 1992. Section 

343(a)(5)(B)–(C) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(5)(B)–(C), provides in part that 

if the NEMA- and IEEE-developed test 

procedures are amended, the Secretary 

of Energy (the Secretary) shall so amend 

the test procedures under 10 CFR part 

431, unless the Secretary determines, by 

rule, that the amended industry 

procedures would not meet the 

requirements for test procedures to 

produce results that reflect energy 

efficiency, energy use, and estimated 

operating costs of the tested motor, or 

would be unduly burdensome to 

conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)–(3), 

(a)(5)(B)) DOE has updated 10 CFR part 

431 consistent with this requirement as 

newer versions of the NEMA and IEEE 

test procedures for electric motors were 

published and used by industry. See, 

e.g. 64 FR 54114 (October 5, 1999) 

(reflecting changes introduced by MG 1– 

1993 and IEEE Standard 112–1996). 

DOE also added Canadian Standards 

Association (CSA) CAN/CSA C390–93, 

‘‘Energy Efficiency Test Methods for 

Three-Phase Induction Motors’’ as an 

equivalent and acceptable test method, 

which aligns with industry practices. Id. 

Further, on May 4, 2012, DOE 

incorporated by reference the updated 

versions of NEMA MG 1–2009, IEEE 

112–2004, and CAN/CSA C390–10. 77 

FR 26608, 26638 (the ‘‘2012 final test 

procedure’’). DOE made the updates to 

ensure consistency between 10 CFR part 

431 and current industry procedures 

and related practices. Since publication 

of the 2012 final test procedure, NEMA 

Standards Publication MG 1 has been 

updated to MG 1–2011. The updates, 

however, did not affect the sections that 

DOE had proposed to incorporate by 

reference from MG 1–2009 and, 

subsequently, declines to adopt MG 1– 

2011. 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

In this final rule, DOE: 

(1) Defines a variety of electric motor 

configurations (i.e., types) that are 

currently regulated under 10 CFR 

431.25, but are not currently defined 

under 10 CFR part 431.12; 

(2) Defines a variety of electric motor 

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

currently regulated under 10 CFR 

431.25 and are not currently defined 

under 10 CFR 431.12; and 

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

of certain motor types that are not 

currently regulated for energy efficiency 

by DOE. 

This final rule was precipitated by 

DOE’s ongoing electric motors standards 

rulemaking. DOE published its 

‘‘Framework Document for Commercial 

and Industrial Electric Motors’’ (the 

‘‘2010 framework document’’) (75 FR 

59657) on September 28, 2010. Public 

comments filed in response urged DOE 

to consider regulating the efficiency of 

certain definite and special purpose 

motors. DOE, in turn, published an 

Request for Information (RFI) seeking 

information regarding definite and 

special purpose motors (the ‘‘March 

2011 RFI’’). See 76 FR 17577 (March 30, 

2011). In its December 6, 2013 energy 

conservation standards NOPR, DOE 

proposed expanding the scope of its 

regulatory program to include all 

continuous duty, single speed, squirrelcage, polyphase alternating-current, 

induction motors, with some narrowly 

defined exceptions. See 78 FR 73589. 

Today’s final rule addresses test 

procedure issues potentially arising 

from the proposed scope of DOE’s 

energy efficiency requirements to 

include certain motor types that are not 

currently required to meet energy 

conservation standards. In particular, 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75964 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

3See dockets at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027 and 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE2012-BT-TP-0043. 

today’s final rule includes, among other 

things, definitions for those motor types 

that DOE may consider regulating. DOE 

has coordinated today’s test procedure 

final rule with its parallel efforts to 

examine proposed energy conservation 

standards for electric motors. To the 

extent possible, DOE has considered all 

relevant comments pertaining to these 

activities.3

In addition to including new 

definitions, today’s final rule adds setup procedures for the applicable test 

procedures contained in appendix B to 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 431, to 

accommodate certain electric motors 

that DOE has proposed to regulate. 

Because the amendments are limited to 

those steps necessary to facilitate testing 

under the currently incorporated test 

procedures found at 10 CFR 431.16, 

DOE does not anticipate that this rule 

would affect the actual measurement of 

losses and the subsequent determination 

of efficiency for any of the electric 

motors within the scope of the 

conservation standards rulemaking. 

The revisions are summarized in the 

table below and addressed in detail in 

the following sections. Note that all 

citations to various sections of 10 CFR 

part 431 throughout this preamble refer 

to the current version of 10 CFR part 

431. The regulatory text follows the 

preamble to this final rule. 

TABLE II–1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES AND AFFECTED SECTIONS OF 10 CFR PART 431 

Existing section in 10 CFR part 431 Summary of proposed modifications 

Section 431.12—Definitions ............ • Adds new definitions for: 

Æ Air-over electric motor. 

Æ Brake electric motor. 

Æ Component set. 

Æ Electric motor with moisture resistant, sealed or encapsulated windings. 

Æ IEC Design H motor. 

Æ IEC Design N motor. 

Æ Immersible electric motor. 

Æ Inverter-capable electric motor. 

Æ Inverter-only electric motor. 

Æ Liquid-cooled electric motor. 

Æ NEMA Design A motor. 

Æ NEMA Design C 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 Brake Electric motors. 

Æ Close-coupled pump electric motors and electric motors with single or double shaft extensions of 

non-standard dimensions or design. 

Æ Electric motors with non-standard endshields or flanges. 

Æ Electric motors with non-standard bases, feet or mounting configurations. 

Æ Electric motors with separately powered blowers. 

Æ Immersible electric motors. 

Æ Partial electric motors. 

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

DOE developed today’s final rule after 

considering public input, including 

written comments, from a wide variety 

of interested parties. All commenters, 

along with their corresponding 

abbreviations and affiliation, are listed 

in Table II.2 below. The issues raised by 

these commenters are addressed in the 

discussions that follow. 

TABLE II–2—SUMMARY OF FINAL RULE COMMENTERS

Company or organization Abbreviation Affiliation 

Advanced Energy ........................................................ AE .................................................. Testing Laboratory. 

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

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ... ACEEE ........................................... Energy Efficiency Advocate. 

Alliance to Save Energy .............................................. ASE ................................................ Energy Efficiency Advocate. 

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

Bluffton Motor Works .................................................. Bluffton ........................................... Manufacturer. 

California Investor Owned Utilities .............................. CA IOUs ........................................ Utilities. 

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

Motor Coalition * .......................................................... MC ................................................. Energy Efficiency Advocates, Manufacturer Trade 

Association. 

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

Natural Resource Defense Council ............................ NRDC ............................................ Energy Efficiency Advocate. 

Nidec Motor Corporation ............................................. Nidec .............................................. Manufacturer. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ......................... NEEA ............................................. Energy Efficiency Advocate. 

Regal Beloit ................................................................. Regal Beloit ................................... Manufacturer. 

SEW–EURODRIVE, Inc. ............................................. SEWEUR ....................................... Manufacturer. 

Siemens ...................................................................... Siemens ......................................... Manufacturer. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75965 

4 DOE is aware of some types of bearings that 

cannot operate while the motor is in a horizontal 

position. DOE addresses such bearings in later 

sections of this notice. 

TABLE II–2—SUMMARY OF FINAL RULE COMMENTERS—Continued 

Company or organization Abbreviation Affiliation 

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. ................................... UL .................................................. Testing Laboratory. 

WEG Electric Corp. ..................................................... WEG .............................................. Manufacturer. 

* The members of the Motor Coalition include: National Electrical Manufacturers Association, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Alliance to Save Energy, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 

III. Discussion 

A. Expanding the Scope of Coverage of 

Energy Conservation Standards 

As noted in DOE’s recent energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

proposal, changes brought about by the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 (Pub. L. 110–140 (Dec. 19, 2007) 

and the American Energy 

Manufacturing Technical Corrections 

Act. Public Law 112–210, Sec. 10 (Dec. 

18, 2012) have enabled the Agency to 

consider an expanded scope of motors 

for regulatory coverage. See 78 FR at 

73603. 

Based on its analysis of this discrete 

group of ‘‘expanded-scope’’ motors, 

DOE believes that the existing IEEE 

Standard 112 (Test Method B) and CSA 

C390–10 test procedures can be used to 

accurately measure their losses and 

determine their energy efficiency 

because all of the motor types under 

consideration are single-speed, 

polyphase induction motors with 

electromechanical characteristics 

similar to those currently subject to 

energy conservation standards. While 

some of these motor types require 

additional testing set-up instructions 

prior to testing, all can be tested using 

the same methodology provided in 

those industry-based procedures DOE 

has already incorporated into its 

regulations. 

Testing an electric motor using IEEE 

Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA 

C390–10 requires some basic electrical 

connections and physical 

configurations. To test an electric motor 

under either procedure, the electric 

motor is first mounted on a test bench, 

generally in a horizontal position. In 

this orientation, this means that the 

motor shaft is horizontal to the test 

bench and the motor is equipped with 

antifriction bearings that can withstand 

operation while in a horizontal 

position.4 Instruments are then 

connected to the power leads of the 

motor to measure input power, voltage, 

current, speed, torque, temperature, and 

other input, output, and performance 

characteristics. Thermocouples are 

attached to the motor to facilitate 

temperature measurement. Stator 

winding resistance is measured while 

the motor is at ambient, or room, 

temperature. No-load measurements are 

recorded while the motor is operating, 

both temperature and input power have 

stabilized, and the shaft extension is 

free from any attachments. After 

ambient temperature and no-load 

measurements are taken, a 

dynamometer is attached to the motor 

shaft to take ‘‘loaded’’ measurements. A 

dynamometer is a device that 

simultaneously applies and measures 

torque for a motor. The dynamometer 

applies incremental loads to the shaft, 

typically at 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, and 150 

percent of the motor’s total rated output 

horsepower. This allows the testing 

laboratory to record motor performance 

criteria, such as power output and 

torque, at each incremental load point. 

Additional stator winding resistance 

measurements are taken to record the 

temperature at the different load points. 

In this final rule, DOE has added 

clarifying instructions it believes are 

necessary to test some of the expandedscope motors should DOE decide at 

some point to set standards for these 

motors. Some motors will require 

modifications before they can operate 

continuously and be tested on a 

dynamometer in a manner consistent 

with the current DOE test procedure. 

For example, a partial electric motor 

may be engineered for use without one 

or both endshields, including bearings, 

because it relies on mechanical support 

from another piece of equipment. 

Without these components, the motor 

would be unable to operate as a standalone piece of equipment. To address 

this issue, DOE has added instructions 

to facilitate consistent and repeatable 

procedures for motors such as these. 

These additions are based on testing and 

research conducted by DOE along with 

technical consultations with subject 

matter experts (SMEs), manufacturers, 

testing laboratories, various trade 

associations, and comments from 

stakeholders in response to the June 

2013 NOPR. Table III–7 lists those 

electric motors that are covered under 

current energy conservation standards 

or that DOE is analyzing for potential 

new energy conservation standards. In 

each case, the table identifies whether 

DOE is addressing a given motor 

through the use of new definitions, test 

procedure instructions, or both. 

TABLE III–1—MOTOR TYPES CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION IN DOE PROPOSED STANDARDS RULEMAKING

Motor type Currently subject 

to standards? 

Under 

consideration 

for potential 

standards? 

New definition 

established? 

Additional set-up 

instructions 

established? 

NEMA Design A Motors ....................................................................... Yes ................... Yes ................... Yes ................... No. 

NEMA Design C Motors ...................................................................... Yes ................... Yes ................... Yes ................... No. 

IEC Design N Motors ........................................................................... Yes ................... Yes ................... Yes ................... No. 

IEC Design H Motors ........................................................................... Yes ................... Yes ................... Yes ................... No. 

Electric Motors with Moisture-resistant, Sealed, or Encapsulated 

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 ..................... No. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75966 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

5Some motors (i.e., ‘‘non-integral’’) that fall 

under the new definition for ‘‘brake electric 

motors’’ are currently required to meet standards 

and others (i.e., ‘‘integral’’) are not. 

6Motor Coalition, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027– 

0035. 

7For 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. 

TABLE III–1—MOTOR TYPES CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION IN DOE PROPOSED STANDARDS RULEMAKING—Continued 

Motor type Currently subject 

to standards? 

Under 

consideration 

for potential 

standards? 

New definition 

established? 

Additional set-up 

instructions 

established? 

Brake Electric Motors ........................................................................... Yes 5 ................. 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. 

Inverter-Only Electric Motors ............................................................... No ..................... No ..................... Yes ................... No. 

Electric Motors with Separately Powered Blowers .............................. No ..................... Yes ................... No ..................... Yes. 

On the scope of coverage, the 

advocates commented that the NOPR 

shows that DOE takes the August 2012 

Motor Coalition ‘‘Joint Petition to Adopt 

Joint Stakeholder Proposal As it Relates 

to the Rulemaking on Energy 

Conservation Standards for Electric 

Motors’’ (the ‘‘Petition’’),6 seriously and 

contemplates proposing standards based 

on the Petition. (ASAP et al., No. 12 at 

p. 1) CDA strongly supported DOE’s 

intention to expand the scope of 

covered electric motors described in the 

written Joint Petition and proposed in 

the NOPR. However, CDA urged DOE to 

consider including electric motors 

greater than 500 hp in the future 

standards rulemaking since they 

account for 27% of total power 

consumption in the U.S. (CDA, No. 9 at 

p. 3) Conversely, Regal Beloit suggested 

that the definitions and test procedures 

in this rulemaking be extended to 

include small electric motors. (Pub. Mtg. 

Tr., No. 7 at pp. 166–168). 

DOE notes that its final rule simply 

provides a standardized means to test 

certain other types of electric motors 

that DOE does not currently regulate. 

The applicability of the proposed energy 

conservation standards was discussed in 

the NOPR and will be determined as 

part of that rulemaking. Any basic 

model of electric motors distributed in 

commerce that is subject to DOE’s 

current or amended energy conservation 

standards will need to be tested in 

accordance with the test methods being 

adopted in this final rule. See the 

effective date discussion below 

regarding the timing requirements for 

representations and compliance. 

B. Electric Motor Types for Which DOE 

Is Not Amending Existing Definitions 

Prior to EISA 2007, section 340(13)(A) 

of EPCA, as amended, defined the term 

‘‘electric motor’’ as any motor which is 

a general purpose T-frame, single-speed, 

foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage 

induction motor of the National 

Electrical Manufacturers Association, 

Design A and B, continuous rated, 

operating on 230/460 volts and constant 

60 Hertz line power as defined in 

NEMA Standards Publication MG 1– 

1987. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13) (2006)) EISA 

2007, section 313(a)(2) struck out that 

definition, replacing it with an ‘‘electric 

motor’’ heading, and adding two 

subtypes of electric motors: General 

purpose electric motor (subtype I) and 

general purpose electric motor (subtype 

II). (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)). Additionally, 

section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 

established energy conservation 

standards for four types of electric 

motors: General purpose electric motor 

(subtype I) with a power rating of 1 to 

200 horsepower; fire pump motors 7; 

general purpose electric motor (subtype 

II) with a power rating of 1 to 200 

horsepower; and NEMA Design B, 

general purpose electric motors with a 

power rating of more than 200 

horsepower, but less than or equal to 

500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) 

The term ‘‘electric motor’’ was left 

undefined at this point. 

On May 4, 2012 DOE published a 

final rule test procedure for electric 

motors that further updated the 

definitional structure for electric 

motors. 77 FR 26608. DOE noted that 

while EISA 2007 struck the definition 

for electric motor, EPCA, as amended by 

EISA, continued to reference ‘‘electric 

motors,’’ causing confusion and 

ambiguity. As DOE has the statutory 

authority to regulate motors beyond the 

subtypes of motors for which Congress 

had established energy conservation 

standards in EISA 2007, DOE chose to 

define ‘‘electric motor’’ broadly, 

eliminating the process of having to 

continually update the definition each 

time the Department set energy 

conservation standards for a new subset 

of motors. The 2012 final test procedure 

defined ‘‘electric motor’’ as ‘‘a machine 

that converts electrical power into 

rotational mechanical power.’’ 77 FR 

26633. 

EISA 2007 also established definitions 

for ‘‘general purpose electric motor 

(subtype I)’’ and ‘‘general purpose 

electric motor (subtype II).’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6311(13)) During the last test procedure 

rulemaking process, DOE made some 

clarifying changes to these definitions, 

noting that electric motors built 

according to International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 

standards and that otherwise meet the 

proposed definition of ‘‘general purpose 

electric motor (subtype I),’’ are covered 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75967 

8E.g., single-speed, induction, continuous-duty, 

squirrel-cage rotor, etc. 

motors under EPCA, as amended by 

EISA 2007, even though the NEMAequivalent frame size was discontinued. 

Outside of these small changes, the 

definitions for subtype I and subtype II 

motors have remained largely 

unchanged. 

In the 2012 final test procedure, DOE 

also amended the definition of ‘‘general 

purpose motor’’ in 10 CFR part 431 by 

adding the word ‘‘electric’’ to clarify 

that a general purpose motor is a type 

of electric motor. 77 FR 26633. 

In the June 2013 NOPR, DOE 

proposed a number of new definitions 

for types of motors that it is considering 

regulating in its concurrent standards 

rulemaking. While many of these motors 

are ‘‘special purpose’’ or ‘‘definite 

purpose’’ motors, DOE did not alter 

these definitions in its regulations. 

Furthermore, DOE did not update its 

definitions for ‘‘electric motor,’’ 

‘‘general purpose electric motor,’’ 

‘‘general purpose electric motor 

(subtype I),’’ or ‘‘general purpose 

electric motor (subtype II).’’ Rather, it 

laid out the nine criteria mentioned 

earlier in this rulemaking (i.e., singlespeed, polyphase, etc.), that a motor 

must meet to be considered for coverage 

in DOE’s concurrent standards 

rulemaking process, regardless of 

whether a given motor is special 

purpose, definite purpose, etc. 78 FR 

38460. 

DOE chose the definition structure 

that it chose because the now proposed 

standards rulemaking develops a 

coverage structure based on a motor 

meeting both the simple ‘‘electric 

motors’’ definition and the nine 

referenced criteria. Because the 

standards NOPR was under initial 

development at the time of the final test 

procedure development, DOE could not 

share this now proposed coverage 

structure. Therefore, many of NEMA’s 

comments on electric motor definitions 

are made irrelevant by the recent 

standards NOPR. Nevertheless, NEMA’s 

definitional concerns are listed here as 

they were provided as comments on the 

test procedure rulemaking. 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA 

urged DOE to add clarity to the 

definition of ‘‘electric motor’’ and 

‘‘general purpose electric motor subtype 

I,’’ and add new definitions for ‘‘motor,’’ 

‘‘definite purpose electric motor,’’ and 

‘‘special purpose electric motor.’’ NEMA 

pointed out that the term ‘‘motor’’ has 

not been defined in the NOPR. (Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 76–77). NEMA 

recommended defining ‘‘motor’’ as ‘‘a 

machine that converts electrical power 

into rotational mechanical power.’’ 

(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 7) Further, NEMA 

noted that the definition of ‘‘electric 

motor’’ needs to be clearer and more 

complete for regulatory purposes and 

suggested that the proposed definition 

of electric motor should include the 

nine characteristics describing 

construction and performance of the 

motor. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 15– 

22; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 76; NEMA, 

No. 10 at pp. 2,3,6,7) NEMA stated that 

if these characteristics are not included 

in the definition of ‘‘electric motor’’, 

then these would need to be included in 

the definitions of all electric motor 

types such as ‘‘special purpose electric 

motor with moisture resistant 

windings,’’ ‘‘special purpose electric 

motor with encapsulated windings,’’ 

and ‘‘special purpose electric motor 

with sealed windings.’’ (NEMA, No. 10 

at p. 15). With that in mind, NEMA 

suggested that an electric motor be 

defined as a motor that: 

(1) Is a single-speed, induction motor; 

(2) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 

1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC); 

(3) Contains a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or 

cage (IEC) rotor; 

(4)(i) Is built in accordance with 

NEMA T-frame dimensions or their IEC 

metric equivalents, including a NEMA 

frame size that is between two 

consecutive NEMA T-frames or their 

IEC metric equivalents; or 

(ii) Is built in an enclosed 56 NEMA 

frame size (or IEC metric equivalent); 

(5) Has performance in accordance 

with NEMA Design A (MG 1) or B (MG 

1) characteristics or equivalent designs 

such as IEC Design N (IEC); and 

(6) Operates on polyphase alternating 

current 60-hertz sinusoidal power. 

(NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 2, 3, 6, 7) 

NEMA recommended changing the 

definition of ‘‘general purpose electric 

motor (subtype I)’’ as a general purpose 

electric motor that: 

(1) Has foot-mounting that may 

include foot-mounting with flanges or 

detachable feet; 

(2)(i) Is rated at 230 or 460 volts (or 

both) including motors rated at multiple 

voltages that include 230 or 460 volts 

(or both), or 

(ii) Can be operated on 230 or 460 

volts (or both); and 

(3) Includes, but is not limited to, 

explosion-proof construction.’’(NEMA, 

No. 10 at p. 7) 

DOE understands the intention of 

NEMA’s proposal was to establish a 

definitional structure that would clearly 

delineate which motors were covered 

and which motors were excluded from 

coverage. By essentially using pulling 

the nine criteria DOE laid out in the 

June 2013 NOPR for the definition for 

‘‘electric motor,’’ NEMA is proposing 

that any motor that falls under the 

definition of ‘‘electric motor’’ would be 

a covered motor. But following the 

approach suggested by NEMA would 

undercut the long-term stability that 

DOE had sought to provide when it 

developed a broad definition for the 

term ‘‘electric motor’’ by requiring DOE 

to continually update the definition 

each time DOE updates its scope of 

coverage. In addition, as is evident in 

the standards NOPR, the nine criteria 

that NEMA is suggesting for the 

‘‘electric motor’’ definition are the same 

criteria that DOE proposes using to 

define the scope of coverage in its 

proposed standards rulemaking so, in 

effect, DOE’s proposal has the same 

effect as NEMA’s ‘‘electric motor’’ 

definition as far as defining broadly the 

motor types that DOE is considering for 

coverage (as well as those that are 

already covered.) 

Retaining the definition for ‘‘electric 

motor’’ renders unnecessary NEMA’s 

suggestion to add a definition for 

‘‘motor;’’ this suggestion would simply 

reclassify what are currently defined as 

‘‘electric motors’’ to be ‘‘motors.’’ 

NEMA’s recommended that DOE 

retain the definitions for ‘‘general 

purpose electric motor’’ and ‘‘general 

purpose electric motor (subtype II).’’ 

DOE agrees that changes to these 

definitions are unnecessary and has 

made no changes to these definitions for 

the final rule. 

NEMA recommended that the 

definition for ‘‘general purpose electric 

motor (subtype I)’’ be modified by 

removing clauses from that definition 

that would overlap with the criteria that 

DOE listed earlier in this rule,8 and 

which NEMA proposed be added to the 

definition of ‘‘electric motor.’’ However, 

as DOE is choosing not to change the 

definition of ‘‘electric motor’’ at this 

time, DOE believes it is essential to 

leave these clauses in the definition for 

‘‘general purpose electric motor 

(subtype I)’’ to fully define this type of 

motor. Therefore, DOE has elected to 

not update the definition for ‘‘general 

purpose electric motor (subtype I)’’ at 

this time. 

NEMA also suggested editing the 

existing definitions of special and 

definite purpose motors. NEMA 

suggested that DOE define a ‘‘definite 

purpose electric motor’’ as any electric 

motor that: 

(1) Is rated at 600 volts or less; and 

(2) Cannot be used in most general 

purpose applications and is designed 

either: 

(i) To standard ratings with standard 

operating characteristics or standard 

mechanical construction for use under 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75968 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

9 In the recent standards NOPR, the special or 

definite purpose distinctions evaporate based on 

the proposed regulatory structure. Therefore, at 

some point in the future, DOE intends to remove 

these definitions from DOE regulations. DOE is 

retaining the definitions for now to help 

manufacturer’s meet the current energy 

conservation standards and delineating between 

general purpose versus definite or special purpose 

electric motors. 

10 Locked-rotor torque is the torque that a motor 

produces when it is at rest or zero speed and 

initially turned on. A higher locked-rotor torque is 

important for hard-to-start applications, such as 

positive displacement pumps or compressors. A 

lower locked-rotor torque can be accepted in 

applications such as centrifugal fans or pumps 

where the start load is low or close to zero. 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. 

service conditions other than usual, 

such as those specified in NEMA MG 1– 

2009, paragraph 14.3, ‘‘Unusual Service 

Conditions,’’ (incorporated by reference, 

see 431.15); or 

(ii) For use on a particular type of 

application.’’ (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 8) 

NEMA suggested defining a ‘‘special 

purpose electric motor’’ as any electric 

motor, other than a general purpose 

electric motor or definite purpose 

electric motor, that: 

(1) Is rated at 600 volts or less; and 

(2) Has special operating 

characteristics or special mechanical 

construction, or both, designed for a 

particular application.’’ (NEMA, No. 10 

at p. 8) 

DOE had opted not to update the 

definitions for ‘‘special purpose motor’’ 

and ‘‘definite purpose motor’’ in the 

NOPR because these definitions would 

apply broadly to cover a group of 

motors, irrespective of whether each 

motor category within that group is 

required to meet energy conservation 

standards. However, DOE does agree 

with NEMA that ‘‘special purpose 

motors’’ and ‘‘definite purpose motors’’ 

should be defined within the context of 

the broader term ‘‘electric motors.’’ In 

the 2012 final rule test procedure for 

electric motors DOE made a similar 

decision to update the term ‘‘fire pump 

motor’’ to ‘‘fire pump electric motor.’’ 

77 FR 26616. For this final rule, DOE 

has therefore revised the terms ‘‘special 

purpose motor’’ and ‘‘definite purpose 

motor’’ to be ‘‘special purpose electric 

motor’’ and ‘‘definite purpose electric 

motor’’ 9 while retaining the previously 

established definitions. 

C. International Electrotechnical 

Commission IP and IC Codes 

As discussed in section III.A.2, 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC), similar to NEMA, 

produces industry standards that 

contain performance requirements for 

electric motors. In the NOPR, DOE 

incorporated the term ‘IEC motor 

equivalents’ in the proposed definitions 

of NEMA-based electric motor types 

included in 10 CFR part 431 to ensure 

that IEC motors equivalents would be 

treated in a similar and consistent 

manner as NEMA-based electric motors. 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA 

raised concerns that the IEC does not 

use the same identifiers as NEMA to 

characterize the motor types. Instead, 

IEC generally uses specific ‘‘IP’’ 

(protection provided by enclosure) and 

‘‘IC’’ codes (method of cooling) to 

identify the motor types. Therefore, 

NEMA requested that DOE include 

appropriate IP and IC codes to properly 

include IEC-equivalent electric motors 

within the proposed definitions (NEMA, 

No. 10 at p. 9) 

DOE will consider issuing separate 

guidance regarding these codes and 

their interplay with those motors built 

in accordance with NEMA 

specifications. As part of that process, 

the agency will afford the public with 

an opportunity to comment on any 

proposed guidance that the agency 

decides to issue. 

D. Motor Type Definitions and Testing 

Set-Up Instructions 

In the course of the 2012 final test 

procedure rulemaking, some interested 

parties questioned why DOE defined the 

term ‘‘NEMA Design B motor’’ but not 

‘‘NEMA Design A motor’’ or ‘‘NEMA 

Design C motor.’’ DOE explained at the 

time that a definition for ‘‘NEMA Design 

B motor’’ was necessary because the 

application section in MG 1 (paragraph 

1.19.1.2 in both MG 1–2009 and MG 1– 

2011) contained a typographical error 

that required correcting for purposes of 

DOE’s regulations, which exactly 

implemented a standard for NEMA 

Design B motors that are general 

purpose electric motors with a power 

rating of more than 200 horsepower, but 

less than or equal to 500 horsepower. 

See 10 CFR 431.25(d). At that time, DOE 

also noted that it may incorporate a 

corrected version of the ‘‘NEMA Design 

C motor’’ definition in a future 

rulemaking because that definition, 

which is found in NEMA MG 1–2009, 

paragraph 1.19.1.3, also contains a 

typographical error. DOE did not, 

however, intend to add definitions for 

NEMA Design A and IEC Design N, as 

the existing definitions found in MG 1 

are correct as published. 77 FR at 26616 

and 26634 (May 4, 2012). 

Given DOE’s current intention to 

consider establishing energy 

conservation standards for an expanded 

scope of motors, however, DOE now 

believes it is necessary to clarify the 

terms and definitions pertaining to 

Design A and Design N motors as well. 

DOE understands that many terms and 

definitions applicable to motors are 

used in common industry parlance for 

voluntary standards and day-to-day 

business communication but are not 

necessarily defined with sufficient 

clarity for regulatory purposes. At this 

time, DOE is making changes designed 

to provide more precise definitions for 

these terms to sufficiently capture the 

particular characteristics attributable to 

each definition. Both DOE and 

manufacturers should use these 

definitions to determine whether a 

particular basic model is covered by 

DOE’s regulations for electric motors. 

DOE notes, however, that the presence 

of a given definition in this document 

does not obligate DOE to establish 

energy conservation standards for the 

motor type defined. 

1. National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association Design A and Design C 

Motors 

NEMA MG 1–2009’s definitions 

include the following three types of 

polyphase, alternating current, 

induction motors: NEMA Designs A, B, 

and C. NEMA MG 1–2009 establishes 

the same pull-up, breakdown, and 

locked-rotor torque requirements for 

both NEMA Design A and NEMA Design 

B motors.10 However, a NEMA Design A 

motor must be designed such that its 

locked-rotor current exceeds the 

maximum locked-rotor current 

established for a NEMA Design B motor. 

Unless the application specifically 

requires the higher locked-rotor current 

capability offered by a NEMA Design A 

motor, a NEMA Design B motor (which 

has the same specified minimum torque 

characteristics as the NEMA Design A 

motor) is often used instead because of 

the additional convenience offered by 

these motors when compared to Design 

A motors. (See NEMA, EERE–2010–BT– 

STD–0027–0054 at 36 (noting the 

additional convenience offered by 

Design B motors over Design A motors 

with respect to selecting disconnecting 

methods and in satisfying National 

Electrical Code and UL requirements.)) 

In addition, DOE understands that 

NEMA Design B motors are frequently 

preferred because the user can easily 

select the motor control and protection 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75969 

11 (In this and subsequent citations, the document 

number refers to the number of the comment in the 

Docket for the DOE rulemaking on test procedures 

for electric motors, Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP– 

0043; and the page references refer to the place in 

the document where the statement preceding 

appears.) 

12Across-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. 

equipment that meets the applicable 

requirements of the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) National 

Electrical Code (NFPA 70). These 

motors are also listed by private testing, 

safety, or certification organizations, 

such as CSA International or UL. 

(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027– 

0054 at p. 36) 

Unlike NEMA Design A and B motors, 

a NEMA Design C motor requires a 

minimum locked-rotor torque per 

NEMA MG 1–2009, Table 12–3, which 

is higher than either the NEMA Design 

A or Design B minimum locked-rotor 

torque required per NEMA MG 1–2009, 

Table 12–2. 

In view of the above, DOE proposed 

to incorporate a definition for both 

‘‘NEMA Design A motor’’ and ‘‘NEMA 

Design C motor’’ to improve the clarity 

between these two terms. As DOE had 

already adopted a definition for ‘‘NEMA 

Design B motor’’ at 10 CFR 431.12, it 

believed that providing definitions for 

other motor types would provide 

consistency in the treatment of all 

considered motors. 78 FR 38462. The 

proposed definitions for NEMA Design 

A and Design C motors were based on 

the definitions in NEMA MG 1–2009, 

paragraphs 1.19.1.1 and 1.19.1.3, 

respectively. DOE proposed to define a 

‘‘NEMA Design A motor’’ as ‘‘a squirrelcage motor designed to withstand fullvoltage starting and that develops 

locked-rotor torque, pull-up torque, 

breakdown torque, and locked-rotor 

current as specified in NEMA MG 1– 

2009–and with a slip at rated load of 

less than 5 percent for motors with 

fewer than 10 poles.’’ DOE also 

proposed to define a ‘‘NEMA Design C 

motor’’ as ‘‘a squirrel-cage motor 

designed to withstand full-voltage 

starting and that develops locked-rotor 

torque for high-torque applications, 

pull-up torque, breakdown torque, and 

locked-rotor current as specified in 

NEMA MG 1–2009—and with a slip at 

rated load of less than 5 percent.’’ 

NEMA requested that DOE modify its 

proposed definitions of NEMA Design A 

and Design C motors and urged that the 

definitions be consistent when 

referencing to the NEMA MG 1–2009 

tables. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 41, 44, 

45) 11 NEMA acknowledged an error in 

the definition of NEMA Design C in 

NEMA MG 1–2009, paragraph 1.19.1.3 

and suggested that the phrase ‘‘up to the 

values’’ in reference to the level of 

locked rotor torque and breakdown 

torque should be replaced with ‘‘not less 

than the values’’ because the limits in 

the referenced tables are the minimum 

values. NEMA suggested that the proper 

statements can be found in the actual 

standards in the referenced clauses of 

NEMA MG 1–2009 paragraph 12.37 and 

NEMA MG 1–2009 paragraph 12.39. 

(NEMA, No.10 at p. 13) WEG asserted 

that since DOE’s procedure would apply 

only to 60 Hertz (Hz) motors, DOE 

should omit references to 50 Hz motors 

in the definitions. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 

at p. 43) 

DOE has re-evaluated its proposed 

definitions for NEMA Design A motors 

and NEMA Design C motors after 

receiving the comments above. 

Regarding the NEMA Design C 

definition, DOE recognizes the error in 

its proposed definition and is modifying 

the definition to read ‘‘not less than the 

values’’ instead of ‘‘up to the values.’’ 

The remainder of the proposed Design 

C definition is being adopted. DOE did 

not receive any other specific comments 

regarding the definition of NEMA 

Design A motors, so DOE is adopting the 

definition proposed in the NOPR 

without modifications. Regarding the 

clause for ‘‘50 Hz’’ motors, DOE notes 

that the definition for NEMA Design B 

motors already present in 10 CFR part 

431 contains this phrase, and to 

maintain consistency between the three 

definitions, DOE has retained it for the 

NEMA Design A and NEMA Design C 

definitions. DOE also notes that NEMA’s 

MG 1–2009 includes both 60 Hz and 50 

Hz in its Design A, B and C definitions. 

Under the regulatory scheme outlined in 

the standards NOPR, however, DOE’s 

proposed standards would only apply to 

60 Hz motors because of the nine 

criteria that define the scope of 

coverage. 

2. International Electrotechnical 

Commission Designs N and H Motors 

The European International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 

produces industry standards that 

contain performance requirements for 

electric motors similar to those 

produced by NEMA. Analogous to 

NEMA Designs B and C are IEC Designs 

N and H. IEC Design N motors have 

similar performance characteristics to 

NEMA Design B motors, while IEC 

Design H motors are similar to NEMA 

Design C motors. Because many motors 

imported into the U.S. are built to IEC 

specifications instead of NEMA 

specifications, DOE proposed to include 

a definition for IEC Design N and IEC 

Design H motor types to ensure that 

these functionally similar motors were 

treated in a manner consistent with 

equivalent NEMA-based electric motors 

and to retain overall consistency with 

the existing definitional framework. 

DOE’s proposed definition for ‘‘IEC 

Design N motor’’ incorporated language 

from IEC Standard 60034–12 (2007 Ed. 

2.1) (IEC 60034) with some 

modifications that would make the 

definition more comprehensive. IEC 

60034 defines IEC Design N motors as 

being ‘‘normal starting torque 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 1600 kW,’’ with torque characteristics 

and locked-rotor characteristics detailed 

in subsequent tables of the standard.12

A similar approach for IEC Design H 

motors is taken in IEC 60034, but with 

references to different sections and 

slightly different wording. DOE 

proposed including all references to 

tables for torque characteristics and 

locked-rotor characteristics as part of 

these definitions to improve their 

comprehensiveness. As detailed in the 

NOPR, DOE proposed to define an ‘‘IEC 

Design N motor’’ as ‘‘an induction motor 

designed for use with three-phase power 

with the following characteristics: A 

cage rotor, intended for direct-on-line 

starting, having 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles, rated 

from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW at a frequency 

of 60 Hz, and conforming to IEC 

specifications for torque characteristics, 

locked rotor apparent power, and 

starting.’’ DOE proposed to define a 

‘‘IEC Design H motor’’ as ‘‘an induction 

motor designed for use with three-phase 

power with the following 

characteristics: A cage rotor, intended 

for direct-on-line starting, with 4, 6, or 

8 poles, rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW, 

and conforming to IEC specifications for 

starting torque, locked rotor apparent 

power, and starting.’’ 

In response to these proposed 

definitions, interested parties made 

several suggestions. NEMA requested 

removal of the parenthetical statement 

‘‘(as demonstrated by the motor’s ability 

to operate without an inverter)’’ 

because, in its view, it is unnecessary 

and not included in the present 

definition of NEMA Design B motor nor 

in the proposed definitions of NEMA 

Designs A and C motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., 

No. 7 at p. 45, 46) NEMA further 

suggested that the rating range of 0.4 kW 

to 1600 kW be replaced with 0.75 kW 

to 373 kW as applicable to all defined 

electric motors and as given in the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75970 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

13These are the metric figures for 1 and 500 

horsepower, respectively. 

14The preliminary TSD published in July 2012 is 

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

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

0023. 

present 10 CFR 431.25.13 Baldor 

commented that the 1 to 500 

horsepower range should be included in 

the definition, which presumably would 

align with the scope of coverage 

proposed in DOE’s standards NOPR. 

(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 52) SEW 

pointed out that the definition for IEC 

Design H includes ‘‘at a frequency of 60 

Hz’’ while the definition for IEC design 

N does not include it. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., 

No. 7 at p. 52) 

NEMA commented that, depending 

on the level of apparent locked rotor 

power, an IEC Design N electric motor 

may be equivalent to a NEMA Design B 

or NEMA Design A electric motor. 

Moreover, the marking requirements in 

IEC 60034–1 do not require that a design 

type or locked rotor apparent power be 

marked on IEC design motors. 

Therefore, NEMA requested that DOE 

consider these factors (but made no 

specific suggestions on how) while 

including IEC standards in terms of the 

level of equivalency to the NEMA MG 

1 standard in the proposed definitions. 

(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 13) Regal Beloit 

requested that DOE address the scope 

and design of IEC Design N motors with 

high inrush locked rotor current. (Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 166–168). 

DOE notes that its objective in 

defining IEC Design H and IEC Design 

N motors is to define what 

characteristics and features comprise 

these types of motors, so that 

manufacturers designing to the IEC 

standards can easily tell whether their 

motor is subject to DOE’s regulatory 

requirements. While DOE currently 

regulates motors that have a power 

rating between 0.75 kW to 373 kW, DOE 

does not believe it needs to limit the 

definitions to this power range to 

describe whether a given motor falls 

under Design H or Design N. DOE agrees 

with NEMA regarding the need to 

provide additional clarity about how to 

determine NEMA and IEC equivalent 

motors to determine the applicability of 

DOE’s regulations to IEC-rated motors. 

Consequently, DOE intends to issue a 

separate guidance document that will 

help describe the process that both DOE 

and manufacturers should use to 

determine whether IEC-rated motors are 

subject to DOE’s regulations. 

As Baldor noted, DOE also 

acknowledges that its inclusion of the 

clause ‘‘at a frequency of 60 hz’’ in the 

definition for IEC Design H motor and 

not for IEC Design N may create some 

ambiguity. For the final rule, DOE is 

modifying the definition of an IEC 

Design N motor and maintaining the 

definition of an IEC Design H motors, 

both to specify applicability to motors at 

a frequency of 60 hz. 

DOE generally agrees that removing 

the parenthetical statement ‘‘(as 

demonstrated by the motor’s ability to 

operate without an inverter)’’ from the 

definition of IEC Design H and IEC 

Design N motors is unnecessary, and 

has rewritten the definition such that it 

is not needed. DOE understands that the 

coverage of IEC motors and NEMA 

motors should comport with one 

another to help ensure that 

manufacturers follow a consistent set of 

requirements. It does not make sense to 

have a clause for the definitions of IEC 

Design H and IEC Design N motors and 

not have it for definitions of NEMA 

Design A and B. In an effort to maintain 

consistency with DOE’s existing, 

NEMA-based definitions, DOE has 

removed the clause ‘‘as demonstrated by 

the motor’s ability to operate without an 

inverter’’ from the two IEC definitions 

DOE has also replaced the term 

‘‘intended’’ with ‘‘capable’’ because the 

former does not definitively establish 

the capability of motor for direct online 

starting. 

Electric motors that meet the IEC 

Design N or Design H requirements and 

otherwise meet the definitions of 

general purpose electric motor (subtype 

I) or (subtype II) are already required to 

satisfy DOE’s energy conservation 

standards at the specified horsepower 

ranges prescribed in 10 CFR 431.25. 

Because these IEC definitions stipulate 

a set of performance parameters that do 

not inhibit an electric motor’s ability to 

be tested, DOE did not propose any 

additional test procedure amendments 

in the NOPR. 

At the NOPR public meeting, Regal 

Beloit suggested that DOE add an 

alternate test plan per the IEC 60034–2– 

1 because even though there are slight 

differences relative to IEEE 112 (Test 

Method B), industry accepts it as 

equivalent. It pointed out that this test 

plan would be the IEC equivalent of 

IEEE 112 (Test Method B) and, because 

DOE was opting to define IEC motor 

types, it would seem pertinent to 

include an IEC test method. (Pub. Mtg. 

Tr., No. 7 at p. 166–168). While DOE 

understands Regal Beloit’s view, the 

inclusion of IEC motors that are 

equivalent to motors built in accordance 

with NEMA specifications is not a new 

concept. These ‘‘IEC-equivalent’’ motors 

are already subject to regulation are 

currently subject to standards. To date, 

DOE is unaware of any difficulties in 

testing IEC-equivalent motors but will 

consider any appropriate changes to its 

procedures if any such problems arise. 

3. Electric Motors With Moistureresistant, Sealed or Encapsulated 

Windings 

All electric motors have ‘‘insulation 

systems’’ that surround the various 

copper winding components in the 

stator. The insulation, such as a resin 

coating or plastic sheets, serves two 

purposes. First, it helps separate the 

three electrical phases of the windings 

from each other and, second, it 

separates the copper windings from the 

stator lamination steel. Electric motors 

with encapsulated windings have 

additional insulation that completely 

encases the stator windings, which 

protects them from condensation, 

moisture, dirt, and debris. This 

insulation typically consists of a special 

material coating, such as epoxy or resin 

that completely seals the stator’s 

windings. Encapsulation is generally 

found on open-frame motors, where the 

possibility of contaminants getting 

inside the motor is higher than for an 

enclosed-frame motor. 

In the electric motors preliminary 

analysis TSD,14 DOE set forth a possible 

definition for the term ‘‘encapsulated 

electric motor’’ that was based on a 

NEMA’s definition for the term 

‘‘Machine with Sealed Windings.’’ DOE 

intended to address those motors 

containing special windings that could 

withstand exposure to contaminants 

and moisture—and whose efficiency is 

currently unregulated. Commenting on 

this approach, NEMA and Baldor noted 

that NEMA MG 1–2009 does not specify 

a single term that encompasses a motor 

with encapsulated windings. Instead, 

NEMA MG 1–2009 provides two terms: 

one for a ‘‘Machine with Sealed 

Windings’’ and one for a ‘‘Machine with 

Moisture Resistant Windings.’’ A 

definition for the term ‘‘Machine with 

Encapsulated Windings’’ has not 

appeared in MG 1 since the 1967 

edition. 

After reviewing the two pertinent 

definitions, the comments from Baldor 

and NEMA, and DOE’s own research on 

these types of motors, DOE proposed 

that motors meeting either definition 

would be addressed by the expanded 

scope of the test procedure and 

accompanying definitions under 

consideration. The ability for a motor’s 

windings to continue to function 

properly when the motor is in the 

presence of moisture, water, or 

contaminants, as is the case when a 

motor meets one of these two 

definitions, does not affect its ability to 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75971 

be connected to a dynamometer and be 

tested for efficiency. Additionally, this 

ability does not preclude a motor from 

meeting the nine criteria that DOE 

preliminarily used to characterize those 

electric motors whose energy efficiency 

are not currently regulated but that fall 

within the scope of DOE’s regulatory 

authority. Therefore, in the NOPR, DOE 

proposed two definitions based on the 

NEMA MG 1–2009 definitions of a 

‘‘Machine with Moisture Resistant 

Windings’’ and a ‘‘Machine with Sealed 

Windings.’’ 

DOE’s proposed definitions were 

based on modified versions of the 

NEMA MG 1–2009 definitions in order 

to eliminate potential confusion and 

ambiguities. The proposed definitions 

emphasized the ability of motors to pass 

the conformance tests for moisture and 

water resistance, thereby identifying 

them as having special or definite 

purpose characteristics. As detailed in 

the NOPR analysis, DOE proposed to 

define ‘‘electric motor with moisture 

resistant windings’’ as ‘‘an electric 

motor engineered to pass the 

conformance test for moisture resistance 

as specified in NEMA MG 1–2009.’’ 

DOE proposed to define an ‘‘electric 

motor with sealed windings’’ as ‘‘an 

electric motor engineered to pass the 

conformance test for water resistance as 

specified in NEMA MG 1–2009.’’ 78 FR 

38455. 

In response to the June 2013 NOPR, 

NEMA pointed out that the proposed 

definitions refer to NEMA MG 1–2009, 

paragraphs 12.62 and 12.63 as 

incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 

431.15. DOE’s regulations currently do 

not include references to these 

paragraphs and DOE did not propose to 

add them. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 54; 

NEMA, No. 10 at p. 13) As suggested by 

NEMA, however, DOE is incorporating 

these two paragraphs into 10 CFR 

431.15, since both paragraphs are 

necessary to these definitions. DOE 

notes that no interested parties at either 

the public meeting or in written 

comments opposed this suggested 

approach. 

In the proposed definitions of electric 

motor with moisture resistant windings 

and electric motor with sealed 

windings, NEMA commented that the 

phrase ‘‘engineered for passing,’’ should 

be replaced with ‘‘capable of passing’’ as 

stated in the NEMA MG 1–2009 

standard. Finally NEMA suggested that 

DOE define an ‘‘electric motor with 

moisture resistant windings’’ based on 

paragraph 1.27.1 of NEMA MG 1–2009: 

‘‘Special purpose electric motor with 

moisture resistant windings means a 

special purpose electric motor that has 

motor windings that have been treated 

such that exposure to a moist 

atmosphere will not readily cause 

malfunction. This type of machine is 

intended for exposure to moisture 

conditions that are more excessive than 

the usual insulation system can 

withstand. A motor with moisture 

resistant windings is capable of passing 

the conformance test for moisture 

resistance described in NEMA MG 1– 

2009, paragraph 12.63, (incorporated by 

reference, see 431.15) as demonstrated 

on a representative sample or 

prototype.’’ 

Based on paragraph 1.27.2 of NEMA 

MG 1–2009, NEMA proposed that the 

definition for special purpose electric 

motor with sealed windings be: 

‘‘Special purpose electric motor with 

sealed windings means a special 

purpose electric motor that has an 

insulation system which, through the 

use of materials, processes, or a 

combination of materials and processes, 

results in windings and connections 

that are sealed against contaminants. 

This type of machine is intended for 

environmental conditions that are more 

severe than the usual insulation system 

can withstand. A motor with sealed 

windings is capable of passing the 

conformance test for water resistance 

described in NEMA MG 1–2009, 

paragraph 12.62, (incorporated by 

reference, see 431.15) as demonstrated 

on a representative sample or 

prototype.’’ (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 13–14) 

NEMA and Baldor requested that DOE 

consider an additional third type of 

motors—‘‘special purpose electric motor 

with encapsulated windings.’’ These 

motors are included in NEMA MG 1– 

2009, paragraph 12.62 and also 

identified in DOE’s 1997 policy 

statement. NEMA proposed that the 

following definition of this type be 

considered for 10 CFR 431.12: ‘‘Special 

purpose electric motor with 

encapsulated windings means a special 

purpose electric motor that has motor 

windings that are fully enclosed in an 

insulating material that protects the 

windings from detrimental operating 

environments (moisture, dust, dirt, 

contamination, etc.). The encapsulate 

material may fully enclose not only the 

motor windings but the wound stator 

core. A motor with encapsulated 

windings is capable of passing the 

conformance test for water resistance 

described in NEMA MG 1–2009, 

paragraph 12.62, (incorporated by 

reference, see 10 CFR Part 431.15) as 

demonstrated on a representative 

sample or prototype.’’ (NEMA, No. 10 at 

p. 14, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 55) 

DOE has evaluated the suggestions 

made on these definitions. DOE notes 

that while a motor may be engineered to 

comply with a parameter, the final 

product may not meet the standards. To 

address this issue, DOE has adjusted 

these two definitions to read as ‘‘capable 

of passing’’ rather than ‘‘engineered for 

passing.’’ DOE prefers to leave the 

definition broad, incorporating all 

motors that pass the conformance tests 

in NEMA MG 1–2009 paragraphs 12.62 

and 12.63, rather than further 

specifying, as NEMA suggested in its 

definition. However, DOE has decided 

to avoid any confusion regarding these 

motors types and, therefore, has adopted 

three definitions. 

For the final rule, DOE is adopting the 

following definition: ‘‘Electric motor 

with moisture-resistant windings means 

an electric motor that is capable of 

passing the conformance test for 

moisture resistance generally described 

in NEMA MG 1–2009, paragraph 12.63 

(incorporated by reference, see 431.15).’’ 

DOE is also adopting the following 

definition for ‘‘Electric motor with 

sealed windings’’ and for ‘‘Electric 

motor with encapsulated windings’’: 

‘‘. . . an electric motor capable of 

passing the conformance test for water 

resistance described in NEMA MG 1– 

2009, paragraph 12.62 (incorporated by 

reference, see 431.15).’’ 

In addition to proposing a definition 

for these motor types, DOE also 

considered difficulties that may arise 

during testing when following IEEE 

Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA 

C390–10 or any potential impacts on 

efficiency caused by encapsulation of 

the windings. Prior to the NOPR, DOE 

conducted its own research and found 

no evidence that electric motors with 

specially insulated windings could not 

be tested using the existing DOE test 

procedures without further 

modification.. Therefore, DOE did not 

propose any test procedure amendments 

tailored for electric motors with 

moisture resistant windings or electric 

motors with sealed windings in the 

NOPR. 

Bluffton Motors highlighted the 

challenges associated with testing 

encapsulated windings motors in its 

comments. Bluffton commented that the 

thermocouples cannot be used to 

measure winding temperature and that 

measuring the temperature through 

winding resistance is a difficult process, 

thus consistent, repeatable results may 

not be obtained. (Bluffton, No. 11 at 

p. 1) 

Advanced Energy agreed with DOE’s 

decision not to propose additional test 

procedures for electric motors with 

moisture resistant windings and electric 

motors with sealed windings. Advanced 

Energy commented that they could be 

fully tested using existing standard 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75972 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

15Li, Harry. Impact of VFD, Starting Method and 

Driven Load on Motor Efficiency. 2011.Siemens 

Industry, Inc. 

procedures. (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at 

p. 2) 

DOE understands the comments made 

regarding testing motors with 

encapsulated windings. As a result of 

discussions with subject matter experts 

(SMEs) prior to the NOPR, and research 

performed after, DOE does not believe 

that the presence of specially insulated 

stator windings in an electric motor 

would interfere with DOE-prescribed 

test procedures. Because temperature 

measurements are taken by measuring 

the stator winding resistance, DOE does 

not believe that the insulation on the 

stator windings themselves will 

interfere with carrying out any part of 

IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) or 

CSA C390–10, both of which require 

temperature measurements to be taken 

during testing. The modifications made 

to stator windings have no impact on a 

motor’s ability to be connected to a 

dynamometer because they are 

modifications to the internal portions of 

the motor. Therefore, DOE has retained 

the approach proposed in the NOPR and 

is not adopting an alternative test plan 

for these motor types. 

4. Inverter-Capable Electric Motors 

Current standards for electric motors 

apply to single speed motors with a 

2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration. 10 

CFR 431.25. Each of these motors 

operates at a constant rotational speed, 

which is predicated by its pole 

configuration. This means that the 

motor shaft is engineered to rotate at the 

same speed, regardless of its application 

or required power. In addition to its 

pole configuration, a motor’s rotational 

speed is partially determined by the 

frequency of its power source. The 

equation determining a motor’s 

theoretical maximum speed (or 

synchronous speed) is: 

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 MG 1–2009.15

DOE did not propose to exempt a 

motor suitable for use on an inverter 

from any applicable energy conservation 

standards because this type of motor 

operates like a typical, general purpose 

electric motor when not connected to an 

inverter. As detailed in the NOPR, DOE 

proposed to define an ‘‘inverter-capable 

electric motor’’ as an electric motor 

designed to be directly connected to 

polyphase, sinusoidal line power, but 

that is also capable of continuous 

operation on an inverter drive over a 

limited speed range and associated load. 

Because this motor type operates like a 

typical, general purpose electric motor 

when not connected to an inverter, DOE 

did not believe any test procedure 

amendments were needed. Under DOE’s 

proposed approach, an inverter-capable 

electric motor would be tested without 

the use of an inverter and rely on the 

set-ups used when testing a general 

purpose electric motor. 

In response to the NOPR, interested 

parties raised concerns regarding the 

proposed definition for inverter-capable 

electric motors. NEMA commented that 

the current definition is neither 

complete nor clear, noting that the 

definition is fairly wide open as far as 

the type of three-phase motors that 

could be connected to an inverter (Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 58–59 ; NEMA, No. 

10 at p. 15). CA IOUs requested that the 

definition for inverter-capable electric 

motor be specifically constrained to 

polyphase motors, but NEMA noted that 

if the definition for electric motor refers 

to polyphase, as it recommended in its 

comments, then the term ‘‘polyphase’’ 

need not be included in the definition 

of inverter-capable electric motors. (Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 58; Pub. Mtg. Tr., 

No. 7 at p. 59). Finally, NEMA proposed 

that the following definition be adopted 

instead: ‘‘Inverter-capable electric motor 

means a general purpose electric motor 

(subtype I) or general purpose electric 

motor (subtype II) that is also capable of 

continuous operation on an inverter 

control over a limited speed range and 

associated load.’’ (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 

15) 

DOE does not agree with NEMA’s 

suggestion to further limit the definition 

proposed in the NOPR. Specifically, 

DOE’s intent with the proposed 

definition was to include all types of 

electric motors that were capable of 

working with an inverter, which 

encompass a wide variety of three-phase 

electric motors. These definitions 

should help manufacturers determine if 

a given basic model is covered and 

subject to DOE’s regulations. DOE 

believes that NEMA is primarily 

concerned as to whether certain types of 

inverter capable motors will ultimately 

be subject to amended energy 

conservation standards. Whether a 

motor meets one of the definitions 

finalized today, however, does not 

necessarily mean that the motor type’s 

efficiency will be regulated by DOE. For 

these reasons, DOE has maintained the 

proposed definition for ‘‘invertercapable electric motor’’ in the final rule 

and NEMA should provide further 

comment in the standards rulemaking 

about the applicability of the proposed 

standards to these types of motors. 

5. Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated 

Electric Motors 

Most enclosed electric motors are 

constructed with a fan attached to the 

shaft, typically on the end opposite the 

driven load, as a means of pushing air 

over the surface of the motor enclosure, 

which helps dissipate heat and reduce 

the motor’s operating temperature. 

Totally enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) 

motors, however, have no fan blowing 

air over the surface of the motor. These 

motors rely, instead, on the conduction 

and convection of the motor heat into 

the surrounding environment for heat 

removal, which results in a motor that 

operates at higher temperatures than 

motors with attached cooling fans. 

TENV motors may be used in 

environments where an external fan 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13DE13.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75973 

16http://www.regulations.gov/

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

0002. 

17The 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. 

could clog with dirt or dust, or 

applications where the shaft operates at 

too low of a speed to provide sufficient 

cooling (i.e., a motor controlled by an 

inverter to operate at very low 

revolutions per minute). TENV motors 

may employ additional frame material 

as well as improved stator winding 

insulation so that the motor may 

withstand the increased operating 

temperatures. Extra frame material 

allows for more surface area and mass 

to dissipate heat, whereas higher-grade 

stator winding insulation may be rated 

to withstand the higher operating 

temperatures. 

In view of the statutory definitional 

changes created by EISA 2007, and the 

support expressed by both industry and 

energy efficiency advocates in the Joint 

Petition submitted by the Motor 

Coalition, DOE is addressing TENV 

motors in the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. (Motor Coalition, 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0035 at p. 

19) As part of this effort, in the June 

2013 NOPR, DOE proposed to add a 

definition for this motor type based on 

the definition of a ‘‘totally enclosed 

nonventilated machine’’ in paragraph 

1.26.1 of NEMA MG 1–2009. DOE 

tentatively concluded that this 

definition is accurate and sufficiently 

clear and concise and proposed that the 

definition be adopted with minor 

alterations. The NOPR proposed to 

define a ‘‘TENV electric motor’’ as an 

electric motor built in a frame-surface 

cooled, totally enclosed configuration 

that is designed and equipped to be 

cooled only by free convection. 

In addition to proposing a definition 

for these motors, DOE considered 

whether any test procedure set-up 

instructions would be necessary to test 

TENV motors. In response to the 

framework document,16 ASAP and 

NEMA submitted comments suggesting 

that manufacturers could demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable energy 

conservation standards by testing 

similar models. (ASAP and NEMA, 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0012 at p. 

7) Although NEMA and ASAP suggested 

this was a possible way to test these 

motors to demonstrate compliance, they 

did not state that this was necessary 

method because of difficulties testing 

these types of motors. Subsequently, 

after DOE published its electric motors 

preliminary analysis, NEMA stated that 

it was not aware of any changes that 

were required to use IEEE Standard 112 

(Test Method B) when testing TENV 

motors. (NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0027–0054 at p. 16) Also, in response to 

the preliminary analysis, the Copper 

Development Association (CDA) 

commented that DOE may need to 

develop new test procedures for these 

motor types but did not explain why 

such a change would be necessary. 

(CDA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0018 

at p. 2) CDA did not indicate whether 

the current procedures could be 

modified to test these motors or what 

specific steps would need to be 

included to test these types of motors. 

Additionally, DOE knew of no technical 

reason why a TENV motor could not be 

tested using either IEEE Standard 112 

(Test Method B) or the CSA C390–10 

procedure without modification. In 

view of NEMA’s most recent comments 

suggesting that IEEE Standard 112 (Test 

Method B) was an appropriate means to 

determine the efficiency of these 

motors, and the fact that the CDA did 

not provide an explanation of why 

changes would be necessary, DOE did 

not propose any test procedure 

amendments for TENV electric motors 

in the NOPR. 

In response to the June 2013 NOPR, 

Advanced Energy agreed with the 

proposed definition for TENV electric 

motors and with DOE’s decision not to 

propose any clarifying set-up procedure. 

(Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 2) 

However, NEMA asserted that the 

proposed definition is inadequate. 

NEMA suggested that if DOE accepts 

NEMA’s earlier recommendations on 

modifying the definition for ‘‘motor’’ 

and ‘‘electric motor,’’ the definition of 

TENV would be a ‘‘totally enclosed nonventilated (TENV) definite purpose 

electric motor means a definite purpose 

electric motor that is built in a framesurface cooled, totally enclosed 

configuration that is designed and 

equipped to be cooled only by free 

convection.’’ (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 15). 

NEMA further requested that DOE 

consider including IEC equivalents 

along with relevant IC and IP codes. 

(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 79; NEMA, 

No. 10 at p. 15–16) 

During the NOPR public meeting, the 

CA IOUs noted that DOE’s proposed 

definition for TENVs would overlap 

with the State of California’s regulations 

pertaining to pool pump motors. Those 

regulations, in relevant part, prescribe 

an energy conservation standard for 

pool pump motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 

7 at p. 61–64). Regal Beloit indicated in 

response during the public meeting that 

the proposed test procedures may not 

apply to pool pump motors since the 

majority of those motors are singlephase motors; in contrast, TENV motors 

operate on polyphase power. (Pub. Mtg. 

Tr., No. 7 at p. 61–65) 

DOE has addressed the addition of 

phrases such as ‘‘definite purpose 

electric motor’’ to the individual motors 

definitions in section G, and for the 

reasons discussed there, will not be 

adding this phrase to the definition for 

TENV motors. Outside of this change, 

NEMA’s proposal matches that which 

was proposed by DOE in the NOPR. 

Based on this, DOE has maintained the 

NOPR proposed definition for this final 

rule. Having received no negative 

feedback on its proposal to not require 

set-up procedures for the testing of 

TENV motors, DOE is maintaining this 

approach in the final rule. 

DOE understands NEMA’s concerns 

about IEC equivalency and recognizes 

that including IP and IC codes for IECequivalent motors may help eliminate 

any ambiguity in the proposed 

definitions. As noted earlier in the 

section H, DOE conducted its own 

independent research and consulted 

with SMEs to identify proper IP and IC 

codes for IEC motors equivalents to the 

motor types that were proposed to be 

defined in 10 CFR part 431 in the NOPR 

and intends to develop guidance 

regarding the appropriate codes. 

Regarding pool pump motors, DOE 

notes that, by statute, any electric motor 

could be regulated by DOE for energy 

efficiency. DOE is considering setting 

energy conservation standards as part of 

its ongoing standards rulemaking effort 

for a wider variety of motors than are 

currently covered. To the extent that 

those efforts lead to the promulgation of 

standards that would affect an electric 

motor used in a pool pump, those 

standards would preempt any State 

standards that are currently in effect. 

6. Air-Over Electric Motor 

Most enclosed electric motors are 

constructed with a fan attached to the 

shaft, typically on the end opposite the 

drive, as a means of providing cooling 

airflow over the surface of the motor 

frame. This airflow helps remove heat, 

which reduces the motor’s operating 

temperature. The reduction in operating 

temperature prevents the motor from 

overheating during continuous duty 

operation and increases the life 

expectancy of the motor.17 On the other 

hand, air-over electric motors do not 

have a factory-attached fan and, 

therefore, require a separate, external 

means of forcing air over the frame of 

the motor. Without an external means of 

cooling, an air-over electric motor could 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75974 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

18 In other words, the winding temperature does 

not stabilize without a cooling, external airflow in 

which air-over motors are designed to operate. 

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 complex. 

IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) and 

CSA C390–10 do not provide 

standardized procedures for preparing 

an air-over electric motor for testing, 

which would otherwise require an 

external cooling apparatus. 

Additionally, DOE was not aware of any 

standard test procedures that provide 

guidance on how to test such motors. 

Test procedure guidance that would 

produce a consistent, repeatable test 

method would likely require testing 

laboratories to be capable of measuring 

the cubic airflow of an external cooling 

fan used to cool the motor during 

testing. At the time of the NOPR 

publication, DOE believed that this is a 

capability that most testing laboratories 

do not have. Without the ability to 

measure airflow, one testing laboratory 

may provide more airflow to the motor 

than a different testing laboratory. 

Increasing or decreasing airflow 

between tests could impact the tested 

efficiency of the motor, which would 

provide inconsistent test results. 

Because of this difficulty, DOE stated 

that it has no plans to require energy 

conservation standards for air-over 

electric motors, making further test 

procedure changes unnecessary. 78 FR 

38461. 

Although DOE did not plan to apply 

energy conservation standards to airover electric motors, it proposed to 

define them for clarity. DOE’s proposed 

‘‘air-over electric motor’’ definition was 

based on the NEMA MG 1–2009 

definition of a ‘‘totally enclosed air-over 

machine,’’ with some modification to 

that definition to include air-over 

electric motors with open frames. DOE 

believed that air-over electric motors 

with either totally enclosed or open 

frame construction use the same 

methods for heat dissipation and, 

therefore, should be included in the 

same definition. As detailed in the 

NOPR, DOE proposed to define ‘‘airover electric motor’’ as ‘‘an electric 

motor designed to be cooled by a 

ventilating means external to, and not 

supplied with, the motor.’’ 78 FR 38481. 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA and 

ASAP commented that the proposed 

definition of air-over electric motor is 

inadequate. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 

70; NEMA, No. 10 at p. 33) NEMA 

commented that DOE’s definition for 

air-over electric motor does not 

distinguish between air-over machines 

and pipe-ventilated machines, in which 

the ventilating means is external to the 

machine, but the air is ducted to and 

from and circulated through the 

machine. NEMA stated that the 

proposed definition should refer to the 

air as being free-flowing, which could 

be over an enclosed electric motor or 

through an open electric motor. 

Therefore, NEMA suggested that DOE 

define these motors as: ‘‘[a]ir-over 

definite purpose motor means a definite 

purpose motor that is designed to be 

cooled by a free flow of air provided by 

a ventilating means external to, and not 

supplied with, the motor.’’ (NEMA, No. 

10 at p. 33) NEMA further commented 

that there is no need for any definition 

of ‘‘air-over definite purpose motor’’ or 

‘‘air-over definite purpose electric 

motor’’ if efficiency standards are not 

established. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 34) 

DOE believes that NEMA’s suggestion 

provides a useful conceptual starting 

point, but has concern that without 

more specificity, the suggestion could 

create an incentive to sell motors 

intended for general purpose use but 

labeled as air-over. DOE understands 

that most, or all, air-over motors are 

used in applications where they drive a 

fan or blower that provides airflow to a 

certain application. Rather that having 

traditional cooling fans, air-over motors 

depend on the larger airstream to 

stabilize temperature. Maintaining 

NEMA’s suggestion to specify that the 

source of the cooling air not be supplied 

with the motor, DOE adopts the 

following definition for today’s rule: 

‘‘An air-over motor is an electric motor 

rated to operate in and be cooled by the 

airstream of a fan or blower that is not 

supplied with the motor and whose 

primary purpose is providing airflow to 

an application other than the motor 

driving it.’’ 

Regarding NEMA’s contention that 

DOE does not need to define this motor 

type, as noted earlier, DOE does not 

intend to define only motors that it 

intends to regulate via the standards 

rulemaking. 

DOE believed that the difficulties 

associated with testing air-over electric 

motors such as providing a standard 

flow of cooling air from an external 

source that provides a constant velocity 

under defined ambient temperature and 

barometric conditions over the motor 

were insurmountable at this time of the 

NOPR, and therefore, did not propose a 

test plan for these motors and did not 

plan to subject this motor type to 

standards in the standards rulemaking. 

In response to the June 2013 test 

procedure NOPR, NEMA agreed with 

DOE’s proposal to not require air-over 

electric motors to meet energy 

conservation standards, noting that the 

difficulties of testing to determine the 

efficiency of an air-over motor make the 

establishment of efficiency standards 

impractical. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 34) 

On the other hand, Advanced Energy 

urged DOE to consider implementing 

standards for air over electric motors. 

Advanced Energy expressed concern 

that if TENV motors are regulated and 

TEAO motors are not regulated, TENV 

motors that did not meet standards 

could be labeled and sold as TEAO 

motors. (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at 

p. 5) 

In its NOPR comments, Advanced 

Energy recognized the following 

challenges with the testing of air-over 

motors: (1) Unstable temperature due to 

heat run,18 (2) requirement of additional 

equipment to test airflow to motor, and 

(3) inconsistency in test results by 

different labs due to variation in the 

airflow. Advanced Energy suggested 

testing air-over motors by making 

modifications in the instructions for 

CSA 747–2009 and IEEE 114–2010. Both 

standards require test measurements at 

temperature within 70 °C–80 °C. 

(Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 6) 

In an effort to substantiate its claims, 

Advanced Energy tested a 5hp, 4-pole 

TEFC motor following the IEEE 112 

(Test Method B) procedure. The 

following six tests were conducted: Test 

A: With fan; Test B: Without fan and 

without blower; Test F: Without fan and 

with blower; Test E: With fan and a 1.25 

service factor; Test D: Without fan, 

without blower and with a 1.25 service 

factor; and Test C: Without fan, with 

blower and with a 1.25 service factor. 

Advanced Energy observed the 

following results, shown in table Table 

III–2. (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at pp. 

6–7) 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75975 

TABLE III–2—TEST RESULTS OF TEFC MOTOR TESTING

Test Rated 

load 

Efficiency 

@ rated load 

(%) 

Baseline (Test A) ................................................................................................................................................... 5 89.3 

Without Fan, Without Blower (Test B) ................................................................................................................... 5 89.9 

Without Fan, With Blower (Test F) ........................................................................................................................ 5 90.2 

Baseline (Test E) ................................................................................................................................................... 6 .25 88.1 

Without Fan, Without Blower (Test D) .................................................................................................................. 6 .25 89.0 

Without Fan, With Blower (Test C) ....................................................................................................................... 6 .25 88.6 

Advanced Energy observed that the 

efficiency of the motor in tests B, C, D, 

and F increased compared to the 

respective baseline tests—tests A and E. 

It believes that the tests show that the 

standard test procedures can be 

modified to test air-over electric motors, 

especially when comparing tests D to C, 

or test B to F. Advanced Energy noted 

that the test without a fan (Test B), in 

which the thermal run was stopped to 

test between 70 degrees and 80 degrees 

Celsius, resulted in a measured 

efficiency comparable to the test where 

a blower was used to provide cooling 

airflow (Test F). (Advanced Energy, No. 

8 at pp. 6–7) 

Advanced Energy requested that DOE 

further investigate the test instructions 

for air-over electric motors and 

proposed test instructions stating: ‘‘Airover motors shall be tested at their rated 

conditions (horsepower, speed, voltage) 

by providing air from external means 

such that the motor winding 

temperature shall be between 70 °C–80 

°C.’’ (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 8) 

While DOE has considered the test 

data, DOE does not believe it has 

sufficient information at this time to 

support establishment of a test method 

for measuring air-over motor efficiency 

for regulatory purposes. DOE intends, 

however, to research other test 

procedure options for air-over electric 

motors to determine whether, in a 

future, separate rulemaking, DOE might 

propose a test procedure set-up for airover electric motors and, possibly, an 

energy conservation standard for such 

motors. 

E. Electric Motor Types Requiring 

Definitions and Test Procedure 

Instructions 

In the June 2013 NOPR, DOE 

proposed define a number of electric 

motor types that were already, 

apparently, commonly understood, but 

not necessarily clearly defined, by the 

industry. DOE also proposed clarifying 

language for testing each of these motor 

types. 

1. Immersible Electric Motors 

Most electric motors are not 

engineered to withstand immersion in 

liquid (e.g., water, including 

wastewater). If liquid enters an electric 

motor’s stator frame, it could create 

electrical faults between the different 

electrical phases or electrical steel and 

could impede rotor operation or corrode 

internal components. Immersible motors 

are electric motors that are capable of 

withstanding immersion in a liquid 

without causing damage to the motor. 

Immersible motors can withstand 

temporary operation in liquid, 

sometimes up to two weeks, but also 

run continuously outside of a liquid 

environment because they do not rely 

on the liquid to cool the motor. 

According to test 7 in Table 5–4 of 

NEMA MG 1–2009, for a motor to be 

marked as protected against the effects 

of immersion, a motor must prevent the 

ingress of water into the motor while 

being completely submerged in water 

for a continuous period of at least 30 

minutes. Therefore, DOE has interpreted 

‘‘temporary’’ to mean a period of time of 

no less than 30 minutes. Immersible 

motors can operate while temporarily 

submerged because they have contact 

seals that keep liquid and other 

contaminants out of the motor. 

Additionally, some immersible motors 

may have pressurized oil inside the 

motor enclosure, which is used in 

conjunction with contact seals to 

prevent the ingress of liquid during 

immersion. Finally, immersible motors 

are occasionally constructed in a 

package that includes another, smaller 

(e.g., 1⁄2 horsepower) motor that is used 

to improve cooling when the immersible 

motor is not submerged in water. In 

these cases, the two motors are 

constructed in a totally enclosed 

blower-cooled (TEBC) frame and sold 

together. The electric motors with 

separately powered blowers are 

discussed in a separate section III.F.6. 

In responding to the October 15, 2010 

framework document, NEMA and ASAP 

commented that greater clarification is 

needed with regard to immersible 

motors and how to differentiate them 

from liquid-cooled or submersible 

motors. (NEMA and ASAP, EERE–2010– 

BT–STD–0027–0012 at p. 9) DOE 

understands the general differences to 

be as follows: 

1. Submersible motors are engineered 

to operate only while completely 

surrounded by liquid because they 

require liquid for cooling purposes; 

2. liquid-cooled motors use liquid (or 

liquid-filled components) to facilitate 

heat dissipation but are not submerged 

in liquid during operation; and 

3. immersible motors are capable of 

operating temporarily while surrounded 

by liquid, but are engineered to work 

primarily out of liquid. 

In the June 2013 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to define an immersible 

electric motor as an electric motor 

primarily designed to operate 

continuously in free-air, but that is also 

capable of withstanding complete 

immersion in liquid for a continuous 

period of no less than 30 minutes. 

In response to the definition for 

immersible electric motor proposed in 

NOPR, interested parties expressed 

several concerns. Advanced Energy 

commented that the phrase ‘‘capable of 

withstanding complete immersion in a 

liquid for a continuous period of no less 

than 30 minutes’’ implies that the motor 

can be put in the liquid indefinitely, 

stating that this phrase is more 

appropriate for test instruction but not 

for definition. Thus, Advanced Energy 

suggested that this phrase be modified 

with the word ‘‘temporarily’’ or an 

upper limit (e.g., two weeks) be 

provided for immersion. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., 

No. 7 at p. 135; Advanced Energy, No. 

8 at p. 2). ASAP responded that since 

immersible electric motor is a covered 

motor, the temporal upper limit is not 

needed. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 135– 

136). WEG commented that the 

definition of immersible motors needs 

further addition, such as ‘‘no less than 

14 days,’’ to differentiate it from the 

submersible motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 

7 at p. 137) NEMA commented that the 

proposed definition is inadequate as it 

is neither sufficiently complete nor 

clear. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 20) 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75976 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

19 Guide for the Use of Electric Motor Testing 

Methods Based on IEC 60034–2–1. May 2011. 

Version 1.1. 4E, Electric Motors Systems, EMSA, 

available at: http://www.motorsystems.org/files/

otherfiles/0000/0113/guide_to_iec60034-2-1_

may2011.pdf and Neal, Michael J. The Tribology 

Handbook Second Edition. Page C26.5. 

20The immersible motor tested by DOE was also 

a vertical, solid-shaft motor. The testing laboratory 

was able to orient the motor horizontally without 

any issues, enabling the lab to test the motor per 

IEEE 112 Test Method B. 

Finally, Advanced Energy proposed 

that the definition be modified to 

describe these motors as those that are 

‘‘primarily designed to operate 

continuously in free-air’’ but that can 

‘‘temporarily withstand complete 

immersion in liquid for a continuous 

period of no less than 30 minutes.’’ 

(Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 2) On the 

other hand, NEMA proposed to define 

this term as ‘‘a definite purpose electric 

motor that is primarily designed to 

operate continuously in free-air, but is 

also capable of withstanding complete 

immersion in liquid for a continuous 

period of no less than 30 minutes, 

during which time any operation may or 

may not be inhibited.’’ (NEMA, No. 10 

at p. 20) 

DOE’s intention in the NOPR was to 

fully differentiate between three types of 

motors: Submersible, immersible, and 

liquid-cooled. DOE recognizes that 

without an upper limit on the 

submersion in liquid, the definition for 

immersible motors is very similar to that 

of submersible motors. However, as it 

noted in the proposal, immersible 

motors are ‘‘primarily designed to 

operate continuously in free-air,’’ while 

submersible motors are ‘‘designed for 

operation only while submerged in 

liquid.’’ DOE believes that these clauses 

should sufficiently differentiate between 

the two types of motors, but in an effort 

to further eliminate any confusion, DOE 

has added the word ‘‘temporary’’ to the 

definition, as suggested by Advanced 

Energy and defining an ‘‘immersible 

electric motor’’ as an electric motor 

‘‘primarily designed to operate 

continuously in free-air, but that is also 

capable of temporarily withstanding 

complete immersion in liquid for a 

continuous period of no less than 30 

minutes.’’ 

Regarding immersible motor testing, 

the contact seals used by immersible 

motors to prevent the ingress of water or 

other contaminants have an effect on 

tested efficiency that generally changes 

over time. New seals are stiff, and 

provide higher levels of friction than 

seals that have been used and 

undergone an initial break-in period.19

DOE understands that as the seals 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 had previously discussed testing 

immersible electric motors with 

industry experts, SMEs, and testing 

laboratories, all of whom suggested that 

the seals should be removed prior to 

testing to eliminate any impacts on the 

tested efficiency. DOE sought to confirm 

the effects of contact seals by 

conducting its own testing. DOE 

procured a five-horsepower, two-pole, 

TENV motor for this purpose.20 Upon 

receipt of the motor, DOE’s testing 

laboratory followed IEEE Standard 112 

(Test Method B) and tested the motor in 

the same condition as it was received, 

with the contact seals in place (test 1). 

After completing that initial test, the 

laboratory removed the contact seals 

and tested the motor again (test 2). 

Finally, the testing laboratory 

reinstalled the seals, ran the motor for 

an additional period of time such that 

the motor had run for a total of 10 hours 

with the contact seals installed 

(including time from the initial test) and 

then performed IEEE Standard 112 (Test 

Method B) again (test 3). 

DOE’s testing showed the potential 

impact that contact seals can have on 

demonstrated efficiency. In the case of 

the five-horsepower, two-pole, TENV 

motor, the motor performed with a 

higher efficiency with the contact seals 

removed, demonstrating a reduction in 

motor losses of nearly 20 percent. DOE’s 

testing also demonstrated a decaying 

effect of the contact seals on motor 

losses as they break-in over time. In this 

instance, the effect of the contact seals 

on motor losses was reduced, but not 

eliminated, after 10 hours of running the 

motor. The results of DOE’s immersible 

motor testing are shown below. 

TABLE III–3—RESULTS OF IMMERSIBLE MOTOR TESTING

Motor type Nameplate 

efficiency Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 

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

Based on the limited testing 

conducted by DOE which showed that 

seals may have an impact on the tested 

efficiency of a given motor, DOE 

proposed that these motors be tested 

with the contact seals in place. In 

addition, DOE proposed an allowance of 

a maximum run-in period of 10 hours 

prior to performing IEEE Standard 112 

(Test Method B). This run-in period was 

intended to allow the contact seals a 

sufficient amount of time to break-in 

such that test conditions were equal or 

very similar to normal operating 

conditions that would be experienced 

by a user. DOE’s proposed 10-hour 

maximum was a preliminary estimate 

obtained through discussions with 

electric motors testing experts. 

In response to the NOPR, several 

interested parties expressed concern 

with the proposed test procedure. 

Advanced Energy noted that the effect 

of a seal on motor efficiency, as well as 

its ‘‘run-in’’ time, would vary by motor, 

depending on the motor and type of seal 

used. Advanced Energy commented that 

there is no guarantee that a given motor 

will break-in within a specified time 

period of 10 hours, which is small 

compared to the lifetime of a motor. 

Based on these conditions, it continued 

to recommend that seals be removed 

during initial testing to verify the 

efficiency of the motor. (Advanced 

Energy, No. 8 at p. 3) 

NEMA noted that DOE’s tests on a 

sample immersible motor as received for 

testing, after an extended time of 

operation, and with the seals removed, 

illustrate the difficulty of determining 

the efficiency of electric motors relative 

to operating time with various types of 

seals. Therefore, NEMA continued to 

recommend that contact seals be 

removed prior to testing. In the 

alternative, NEMA asserted that 

efficiency standards for electric motors 

with contact seals or sealed bearings 

would need to be lower than those for 

the motors without contact seals or 

sealed bearings. It added that different 

standard levels may also be needed 

based on the different types of contact 

seals and sealed bearings used in a 

given motor. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 21– 

23) 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75977 

NEMA noted that the NOPR refers to 

200 hours as the possible time during 

which the efficiency losses from seals 

will continue to decrease. NEMA 

commented that the run-in time 

depends on the type of contact seals 

used. However, it commented that 200 

hours would seem to be a short run-in 

estimate for a continuous duty electric 

motor that DOE assumed in its testing 

has an average mechanical lifetime of 

up to 108,398 hours. NEMA expressed 

concern with the proposed requirement 

of a 10-hour run-in period to represent 

the efficiency level of the electric motor 

with seals when averaged over the total 

period of use. It also pointed out that for 

labs that operate on a standard eighthour workday, a 10-hour run-in period 

could place undue hardship on the lab, 

or require unmonitored conditions. 

NEMA further pointed out that DOE 

does not indicate if the run-in testing is 

to be performed with the motor 

unloaded or at its rated load. NEMA 

continued to recommend that the 

contact seals be removed prior to 

testing. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 22–23; 

Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 138–139) 

Bluffton commented that motors with 

seals in them should be tested without 

the seals because of the inability to 

obtain consistent results from motor to 

motor because of the difference in 

mechanical pressure on the seal from 

one motor to the next. It noted that if the 

goal is to reduce power consumption on 

an overall basis, the differential will be 

the same regardless of whether the 

starting point is with or without seals. 

Moreover, the friction of the seal may 

change over the entire life of the motor. 

Thus, testing with seals may not give 

consistent and repeatable 

measurements. (Bluffton, No. 11 at p. 1) 

WEG and Nidec also recommended 

that the seals be removed for testing 

(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 139–140; 

Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 143) CDA 

acknowledged that there are valid 

arguments for both the inclusion and 

the exclusion of seals during testing. It 

suggested an additional allowance for 

these seal losses be included within the 

allowable testing results in these 

specific categories. (CDA, No. 9 at p. 2) 

Based on the responses to the NOPR, 

and additional investigation following 

publication, DOE has reconsidered its 

NOPR proposal. At this time, DOE does 

not believe it has enough information to 

determine the extent of the impact seals 

may have on a motor’s efficiency when 

installed in the field over time. Seals 

can be made of rubber (with varying 

degrees of hardness and pliability), 

ceramic material, or metal. Each of these 

materials has a different impact on an 

electric motor’s performance and may or 

may not ‘‘break in’’ over time to reduce 

the overall level of friction that a motor 

may encounter while operating. Due to 

the variety of designs and materials 

offered and used by motor 

manufacturers, and the variety of 

impacts that these differences may have, 

DOE is unable at this time to quantify 

a specific break-in period to help 

determine the point in time where the 

losses contributed by the seals would be 

considered ‘‘representative.’’ 

Furthermore, DOE understands that 

each motor type, size, and configuration 

will be affected differently by seals, and 

various types of seals can be used. 

Without additional data, applying a 

particular break-in period or adjustment 

factor to account for the additional 

friction added by seals would be 

premature. Therefore, in light of this 

uncertainty, DOE is, at this time, 

requiring that test labs remove seals 

when testing immersible motors but 

make no other modifications. This 

approach is also consistent with the 

suggestions made by NEMA and the 

energy efficiency advocates. DOE may 

continue to explore the effect of seals on 

motor performance and may revise this 

requirement in the future. 

NEMA also noted that even though 

the title of the proposed 4.3 in 

Appendix B to Subpart B is ‘‘Immersible 

Electric Motors and Electric Motors with 

Contact Seals,’’ the actual test procedure 

appears to apply to immersible electric 

motors only. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 23) 

In response to NEMA’s comment DOE 

has adjusted the heading of this section 

to read ‘‘Immersible Electric Motors’’ for 

clarification purposes. 

2. Brake Electric Motors 

In most applications, electric motors 

are not required to stop immediately; 

instead, electric motors typically slow 

down and gradually stop after power is 

removed from the motor, due to a 

buildup of friction and windage from 

the internal components of the motor. 

However, some applications require 

electric motors to stop quickly. Such 

motors may employ a brake component 

that, when engaged, abruptly slows or 

stops shaft rotation. The brake 

component attaches to one end of the 

motor and surrounds a section of the 

motor’s shaft. During normal operation 

of the motor, the brake is disengaged 

from the motor’s shaft—it neither 

touches nor interferes with the motor’s 

operation. However, under these 

conditions, the brake is drawing power 

from the electric motor’s power source 

and may be contributing to windage 

losses, because the brake is an 

additional rotating component on the 

motor’s shaft. When power is removed 

from the electric motor (and brake 

component), the brake component deenergizes and engages the motor shaft, 

quickly slowing or stopping rotation of 

the rotor and shaft components. 

In its Joint Petition, the Motor 

Coalition proposed to define the term 

‘‘integral brake electric motor’’ as ‘‘an 

electric motor containing a brake 

mechanism either inside of the motor 

endshield or between the motor fan and 

endshield such that removal of the 

brake component would require 

extensive disassembly of the motor or 

motor parts.’’ (Motor Coalition, EERE– 

2010–BT–STD–0027–0035 at p. 19) 

After receiving the petition, DOE spoke 

with some of the Motor Coalition’s 

manufacturers and its own SMEs. Based 

on these conversations, DOE believed 

that the Motor Coalition’s definition is 

consistent with DOE’s understanding of 

the term. In the electric motors 

preliminary analysis, DOE presented a 

definition of the term ‘‘integral brake 

motor’’ consistent with the definition 

proposed by the Motor Coalition. (For 

additional details, see Chapter 3 of the 

electric motors preliminary analysis 

Technical Support Document). 

However, upon further consideration, 

DOE believed that there may be 

uncertainty regarding certain aspects of 

the definition, particularly, what 

constitutes ‘‘extensive disassembly of 

the motor or motor parts.’’ Therefore, in 

the NOPR, DOE proposed a new 

definition that would remove this 

ambiguity. The proposed rule defined 

an ‘‘integral brake electric motor’’ as an 

electric motor containing a brake 

mechanism either inside of the motor 

endshield or between the motor fan and 

endshield. 

Conversely, the brake component of a 

non-integral brake motor is usually 

external to the motor and can be easily 

detached without disassembly or 

adversely affecting the motor’s 

performance. DOE proposed a new 

definition for ‘‘non-integral brake 

electric motor’’ that paralleled its 

proposed definition for ‘‘integral brake 

electric motor.’’ DOE believed that the 

new definition was clearer because it 

relied solely on the placement of the 

brake and not what level of effort is 

needed to remove it. Additionally, DOE 

believed that the structure of its two 

definitions encompassed all brake 

motors by requiring them to meet one 

definition or the other. As detailed in 

the NOPR, DOE’s proposed definition 

for a ‘‘non-integral brake electric motor’’ 

was an electric motor containing a brake 

mechanism outside of the endshield, 

but not between the motor fan and 

endshield. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75978 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

As discussed in the NOPR, DOE 

conducted its own testing on both 

integral and non-integral brake motors. 

DOE described the details of this testing 

in the NOPR along with the results. DOE 

generally found that testing the brake 

component attached, but powered by a 

source separate from the motor, resulted 

in demonstrated efficiencies equivalent 

to testing a motor with the brake 

component completely removed. As a 

result of its testing of integral and nonintegral brake electric motors, DOE 

proposed the same test instructions for 

both motors types. DOE proposed to 

include instructions that would require 

manufacturers to keep the brake 

mechanism attached to the motor, but to 

power it externally while performing 

IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B). 

DOE believed that this was the best 

approach because it allows the test 

laboratory to isolate the motor losses, 

which includes the friction and windage 

produced by the rotating brake 

mechanism. DOE believed that 

powering the motor and the brake 

mechanism separately during testing 

would ensure that the power consumed 

to keep the brake mechanism 

disengaged is not counted against the 

motor’s tested efficiency. The power 

consumed to keep the brake mechanism 

disengaged represents useful work 

performed by the motor and should not 

be construed as losses, but it should be 

measured and reported. DOE believed 

this information is pertinent for brake 

motor consumers who wish to 

understand the energy consumption of 

their motor. Furthermore, when 

conducting the testing, DOE’s test 

laboratory was able to splice 

connections and externally power the 

brake on multiple integral and nonintegral brake motors, so DOE 

preliminarily believed that this process 

would not be unduly burdensome. 78 

FR 38468. 

In response to the June 2013 NOPR, 

NEMA noted in its comments that as 

DOE is proposing the same test plan for 

both types of motors, the location of the 

brake assembly is not important in 

determining the efficiency of the motor. 

NEMA suggested that DOE use a single 

definition of ‘‘special purpose electric 

motor with brake’’ that would refer to ‘‘a 

special purpose electric motor that 

contains a brake mechanism either 

within the motor enclosure or external 

to the motor enclosure.’’ NEMA stated 

that it understood that defining both 

types of brake motors into a single 

definition would include integral brake 

electric motors as covered products, 

whereas the Joint Petition suggested that 

these motors continue to be exempted 

from any testing or efficiency 

requirements. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 16). 

In the alternative, NEMA suggested 

that if DOE used two separate 

definitions, the two proposed 

definitions should be modified. (Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 144 ; NEMA, No. 

10 at p. 16) NEMA suggested that DOE 

re-classify and define integral brake 

electric motor as an ‘‘integral brake 

special purpose electric motor’’ and 

define it as ‘‘a special purpose electric 

motor that contains a brake mechanism 

either within the motor enclosure or 

between a motor fan, when present, and 

the nearest endshield.’’ (NEMA, No. 10 

at p. 17; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p.149) 

NEMA suggested that a non-integral 

brake motor be classified as a ‘‘nonintegral brake special purpose electric 

motor’’ which would be defined as ‘‘a 

special purpose electric motor that 

contains a brake mechanism outside of 

the endshield, but not between the 

motor fan and endshield.’’ (NEMA, No. 

10 at p. 17) 

As addressed previously, the facts 

available to DOE indicate that it is 

unnecessary to note that these motors 

are special purpose because whether a 

motor is special or definite purpose 

does not exclude it from consideration 

under DOE’s standards rulemaking. 

However, DOE does agree that two 

separate definitions are unnecessary 

because DOE is adopting the same test 

procedure for both motors. The test 

results include mechanical losses of the 

brake components which are not 

impacted by the location of the brake. A 

single definition for brake motors will 

avoid any confusion. Therefore, for the 

final rule DOE is adopting the following 

definition: ‘‘Brake electric motor means 

a motor that contains a dedicated 

mechanism for speed reduction, such as 

a brake, either within or external to the 

motor enclosure.’’ 

Regarding the proposed test 

procedure, Advanced Energy agreed 

with DOE’s proposed approach for both 

motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 147; 

Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 2) 

Advanced Energy commented that by 

powering the brake through external 

means, the brake will have no impact on 

the power consumption and avoid the 

potential difficulties during no-load 

testing and the risk associated 

withimproper re-assembly of the motor. 

(Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 2) 

Highlighting that this proposed method 

for testing brake motors deviated from 

the earlier Joint Petition, the advocates 

agreed with DOE’s proposal that integral 

and non-integral brake motors be tested 

in the same manner. The advocates 

stated that this approach will enable the 

coverage of integral brake motors, 

further increasing the scope of covered 

motors. (ASAP et al., No. 12 at 

pp. 1–2) 

However, NEMA expressed concern 

with the proposed test procedure for 

integral and non-integral brake electric 

motors. It commented that the test 

procedure needs to clearly state that the 

efficiency determined for the electric 

motor is not to include any power that 

may be required to disengage the brake. 

The test procedure should also provide 

for manually releasing the brake when 

such an option is available. NEMA 

commented that when developing the 

energy conservation standards for 

electric motors, any testing DOE 

conducts with the brakes in place as 

proposed, should take into account the 

mechanical losses of the brake 

components which are significant 

relative to the losses of the motor 

components. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 16) 

If NEMA’s earlier proposal to have a 

single definition for ‘‘integral brake 

special purpose electric motor’’ and 

‘‘non-integral brake special purpose 

electric motor’’ is accepted, then NEMA 

suggested a single test procedure for a 

‘‘special purpose electric motor with 

brake.’’ NEMA commented that DOE 

should not require that the testing lab 

measure electrical power to the brake in 

10-minute intervals. It suggested that 

the determination of efficiency of the 

electric motor should be based on 

measurements of the electrical input 

power to just the electric motor and 

should not include any power which 

may be supplied to the brake. NEMA 

suggested that the connections need to 

be separated in those cases where the 

power leads for the brake are 

interconnected with the stator winding 

or electric motor leads. The brake 

should be disengaged during testing by 

either supplying electrical power to the 

brake at its rated voltage or through the 

use of a mechanical release, when 

available. The required power should be 

measured and recorded when electrical 

power is supplied to the brake for the 

purpose of disengaging the brake. 

(NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 17–18) 

DOE’s own testing showed that during 

normal operation the brake will not be 

engaged—and will not significantly 

impact energy consumption. Under the 

approach laid out in the final rule, 

testing must be performed with the 

brake powered separately from the 

motor such that it does not activate 

during testing. Only power used to drive 

the motor is included in the efficiency 

calculation; power supplied to prevent 

the brake from engaging is not used. The 

rule provides that if the brake may be 

disengaged mechanically, if such a 

mechanism exists and if the use of this 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75979 

21Endshields are metal plates on each end of the 

motor that house the motor’s bearings and close off 

the internal components of the motor from the 

surrounding environment. 

22 DOE notes that integral brake motors are not 

considered integral or partial motors. 

mechanism does not yield a different 

efficiency value than when separately 

powering the brake electrically. 

3. Partial Electric Motors 

Most general purpose electric motors 

have two endshields,21 which support 

the bearings and shaft while also 

allowing the shaft to rotate during 

operation. DOE understands that 

‘‘partial electric motors,’’ also called 

‘‘partial 3⁄4 motors,’’ or ‘‘3⁄4 motors,’’ are 

motors that are sold without one or both 

endshields and the accompanying 

bearings. When partial electric motors 

are installed in the field, they are 

attached to another piece of equipment, 

such as a pump or gearbox. The 

equipment to which the motor is mated 

usually provides support for the shaft, 

allowing the shaft to rotate and drive its 

intended equipment. The equipment 

may also provide support for a shaft. 

When a partial electric motor is mated 

to another piece of equipment it is often 

referred to as an ‘‘integral’’ motor.22 For 

example, an ‘‘integral gearmotor’’ is the 

combination of a partial electric motor 

mated to a gearbox. The gearbox 

provides a bearing or support structure 

that allows the shaft to rotate. 

DOE is aware that there are many 

different industry terms used to describe 

a partial electric motor. DOE proposed 

to define the term ‘‘partial electric 

motor’’ in the NOPR to distinguish them 

from component sets, which, alone, do 

not comprise an operable electric motor. 

See Section III.D.1. Additionally, 

because DOE considered integral 

gearmotors to be a subset of partial 

electric motors, this definition also 

applied to integral gearmotors. 

Therefore, the NOPR defined ‘‘partial 

electric motor’’ as an assembly of motor 

components necessitating the addition 

of no more than two endshields, 

including bearings, to create an operable 

motor. The term ‘‘operable motor’’ 

means an electric motor engineered for 

performing in accordance with the 

applicable nameplate ratings. 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA 

suggested that DOE include the concept 

of ‘‘partial’’ as a design element within 

other definitions rather than as a 

separate type of electric motor. NEMA 

commented that the definition should 

be for ‘‘partial motor,’’ rather than a 

‘‘partial electric motor.’’ NEMA 

commented that the phrase ‘‘engineered 

for performing’’ in the proposed 

definition should be replaced with 

‘‘capable of operation’’ because the 

engineering of a motor does not imply 

that a motor can operate. Therefore, 

NEMA suggested that partial motor 

means an assembly of motor 

components necessitating the addition 

of no more than two endshields, 

including bearings, to create an operable 

motor. For the purpose of this 

definition, the term ‘‘operable motor’’ 

means a motor capable of operation in 

accordance with the applicable 

nameplate ratings. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 

18–19) 

DOE explains in section III.B of this 

document why it will not change the 

definition of ‘‘electric motor’’ and DOE 

is declining to adopt NEMA’s 

suggestion. Furthermore, while it 

recognizes that adding this clause 

would, as NEMA pointed out, cover 

partial motors of all types of motors that 

are a part of NEMA’s proposal, the 

proposed definition would permit a 

‘‘partial motor’’ to be any type of electric 

motor. Consequently, a partial motor, by 

definition, could be any type of electric 

motor (e.g. multispeed, single speed, 

polyphase, etc.). While DOE’s approach 

is a broad one, it does not signal DOE’s 

intention to regulate the efficiency of all 

types of partial motors. The types of 

electric motors whose efficiency DOE 

intends to regulate will be addressed in 

the energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. 

DOE has, however, adjusted the 

phrase ‘‘engineered for performing’’ as it 

understands the ambiguity related with 

this phrase; it is difficult to establish 

conclusively what, exactly, a motor is 

engineered for and is clearer to discuss 

what a motor is ‘‘capable of’’ or its 

rating. For this final rule, DOE is 

adopting the following definition: 

‘‘partial electric motor means an 

assembly of motor components 

necessitating the addition of no more 

than two endshields, including 

bearings, to create an electric motor 

capable of operation in accordance with 

the applicable nameplate ratings.’’ 

DOE is aware that partial electric 

motors require modifications before 

they can be attached to a dynamometer 

for testing. Prior to the NOPR, DOE 

discussed stakeholder comments and 

additional testing options with SMEs, 

testing laboratories, and motor industry 

representatives. Some interested parties 

suggested that the motor manufacturer 

could supply generic or ‘‘dummy’’ 

endplates equipped with standard ball 

bearings, which would allow for testing 

when connected to the partial electric 

motor. Alternatively, testing laboratories 

had considered machining the 

‘‘dummy’’ endplates themselves, and 

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

Various testing laboratories indicated 

they had the ability to perform this 

operation, but some added that they 

would require design criteria for the 

endplates from the original 

manufacturer of the motor. These 

laboratories noted that machining their 

own endplates could create motor 

performance variation between 

laboratories because it may impact 

airflow characteristics (and therefore 

thermal characteristics) of the motor. 

DOE procured an integral gearmotor 

to determine the feasibility of testing 

partial electric motors. For this 

investigation, DOE purchased and tested 

one five-horsepower, four-pole, TEFC 

electric motor. DOE tested the motor 

twice, first with an endplate obtained 

from the manufacturer and second with 

an endplate machined in-house by the 

testing laboratory. The results of these 

tests are shown below. 

TABLE III–4—RESULTS OF PARTIAL ELECTRIC MOTOR TESTING

Motor type Nameplate 

efficiency Test 1 Test 2 

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

DOE found a variation in efficiency 

because of the endplate used during 

testing. DOE believes that the variation 

seen in tested efficiency was likely the 

result of varying the material used for 

the endplate. The endplate provided by 

the manufacturer was made of cast iron, 

while the endplate provided by the 

testing laboratory was machined from 

steel. The testing laboratory was not 

equipped to cast an iron endshield and 

thus was not able to replace the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75980 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

23Eddy currents are circulating currents induced 

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

fields. 

manufacturer’s endshield with one of 

the original material. Additionally, DOE 

knows of no testing laboratory (other 

than a motor manufacturer), with such 

capability. DOE believes that the 

variance in the magnetic properties of 

steel likely produced small eddy 

currents in the endshield which 

resulted in added losses within the 

motor.23 Consequently, DOE believes 

that frame material consistency is 

needed in order to prevent such 

variances in future testing. 

At the time of the NOPR, because of 

the possible variance that DOE found 

through its testing, DOE proposed that 

an endplate be provided by the 

manufacturer of the motor and that the 

motor be tested with that endplate in 

place. If bearings are also needed, the 

test laboratory would use what DOE 

views as a ‘‘standard bearing,’’ a 6000- 

series, open, single-row, deep groove, 

radial ball bearing. DOE selected this set 

of specifications because it is a common 

bearing type capable of horizontal 

operation. 

In response to DOE’s proposal on 

endshields required for testing, NEMA 

suggested that the manufacturer should 

not be required to provide endshields 

that they may not normally produce, 

use, nor easily obtain, especially if the 

manufacturer is an importer. See 42 

U.S.C. 6311(5), (7) and 6291(10) 

(treating importers as manufacturers for 

purposes of EPCA). Instead, the 

manufacturer should be given the 

option to provide the endshields, if 

possible. If the manufacturer declined to 

do so and instead agreed to let the test 

laboratory provide the endshields, then 

the test laboratory should provide the 

endshields for testing and consult with 

the manufacturer to determine the 

critical characteristics of the endshields. 

(NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 19–20) 

DOE has considered NEMA’s 

suggestion and has decided to allow the 

manufacturer to authorize the lab to 

machine endplates for testing of partial 

motors if the manufacturer chooses not 

to provide the endplate. The lab should 

consult with the manufacturer before 

constructing the endshields to 

determine the endshields’ critical 

characteristics. Manufacturers should of 

course realize that the use of any lab 

machined endplate is likely to result in 

more losses than one machined by the 

manufacturer given the limited 

availability of certain materials (e.g. cast 

iron) at labs that a manufacturer may 

have more readily available on-hand. 

DOE notes that endshield specifications 

are found in NEMA MG–1 (2009) 

Section I, Part 4—see paragraphs 4.1, 

4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.3, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, 

and 4.4.6; Figures 4–1, 4–2, 4–3, 4–4, 4– 

5, and 4–6; and Table 4–2—and in IEC 

60072–1 (1991). 

F. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only 

Test Procedure Instructions 

DOE proposed to add additional 

instructions to its test procedure that 

would affect a number of motor types 

for which DOE is considering new 

energy conservation standards. DOE did 

not propose any definitions for these 

terms because DOE believed the terms 

were self-explanatory or already readily 

understood in the industry. These motor 

types are discussed below. 

1. Electric Motors With Non-Standard 

Endshields or Flanges 

Most electric motors are attached to a 

mounting surface by ‘‘mounting feet’’ or 

other hardware attached to the motor’s 

housing, oftentimes on the bottom of the 

motor. However, some motors are 

mounted by directly attaching the 

motor’s endshield, also called a 

faceplate, to a piece of driven 

equipment. If a motor’s endshield 

protrudes forward to create a smooth 

mounting surface it may also be referred 

to as a flange, such as a Type D-flange 

or Type P-flange motor, as described in 

NEMA MG 1–2009. Attaching a motor to 

the shaft of the driven equipment in this 

manner generally involves bolting the 

motor to the equipment through 

mounting holes in the flange or 

faceplate of the motor. 

NEMA MG 1–2009, paragraphs 1.63.1, 

1.63.2, and 1.63.3 define Type C facemounting, Type D flange-mounting, and 

Type P flange-mounting motors, 

respectively. These definitions provide 

reference figures in NEMA MG 1–2009, 

section I, part 4 (‘‘Dimensions, 

Tolerances, and Mounting’’) that 

contain specifications for the standard 

mounting configurations and 

dimensions for these three motor types. 

The dimensions designate standard 

locations and dimensions for mounting 

holes on the faceplates or flanges of the 

motors. DOE is aware that some electric 

motors may have special or customerdefined endshields, faceplates, or 

flanges with mounting-hole locations or 

other specifications that do not 

necessarily conform to NEMA MG 

1–2009, Figure 4–3, ‘‘Letter Symbols for 

Type C Face-Mounting Foot or Footless 

Machines,’’ Figure 4–4, ‘‘Letter Symbols 

for Type D Flange-Mounting Foot or 

Footless Machines,’’ or Figure 4–5, 

‘‘Letter Symbols for Vertical Machines.’’ 

As previously explained, DOE is 

considering setting energy conservation 

standards for electric motors with nonstandard endshields. This potential 

change to the scope of energy 

conservation standards for electric 

motors would mean that the dimensions 

of a motor’s endshields or flanges— 

neither of which impacts the efficiency 

or the ability to measure the efficiency 

of the motor—would no longer dictate 

whether a given motor would be 

required to meet energy conservation 

standards. Hence, DOE believed that an 

actual definition for such motors would 

be unnecessary. 

In evaluating the possibility of 

requiring these motor types to meet 

potential energy conservation standards, 

DOE assessed whether these motors 

could be tested using non-standard 

flanges or endshields. DOE had received 

comments concerning the testing of 

these motor types. In response to the 

March 2011 RFI (76 FR 17577), ASAP 

and NEMA commented that motors with 

customer-defined endshields and 

flanged special motors should have their 

efficiency verified by testing a motor 

with an equivalent electrical design that 

could more easily be attached to a 

dynamometer. (ASAP and NEMA, 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0020 at p. 

4) NEMA added that testing motors with 

non-standard endshields may require a 

substitution of the special endshields 

with more conventional endshields. 

(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027– 

0054 at p. 15) 

In the NOPR, DOE recognized that it 

may not be possible to attach motors 

with non-standard endshields to a 

testing laboratory’s dynamometer. If 

such occurs and a test laboratory is 

unable to reconfigure the motor without 

removal of the endplate such that 

attachment to a dynamometer is 

possible, DOE proposed that the custom 

endshield be replaced with one that has 

standard (i.e., in compliance with 

NEMA MG–1) dimensions and 

mounting configurations. DOE proposed 

that, as with partial electric motors, 

such a replacement would be required 

to be obtained through the manufacturer 

and be constructed of the same material 

as the original endplate. 

In response to the NOPR, several 

interested parties raised concerns that 

requiring a manufacturer to provide a 

‘‘standard endshield in compliance with 

NEMA MG 1,’’ of the same material as 

the ‘‘original end-plate’’ may place an 

undue burden on the manufacturer. 

(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 105–107, 

111,116–118; Advanced Energy, No. 8 at 

p. 4; NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 24–25) NEMA 

noted that the proposed test plan may 

have several difficulties: (1) A 

manufacturer may not have (or be 

unable to make available) end shields of 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75981 

24For example, see Baldor’s marketing materials 

at: http://www.baldor.com/support/Literature/

Load.ashx/BR401?LitNumber=BR401. 

the appropriate design; (2) in the case of 

imported motors, it is unlikely that the 

importer could provide the required 

endshield or flange; (3) it may not be 

possible to obtain an endshield or flange 

of the same material, especially if the 

motor is made of a special material; and 

(4) replacing the original endshield with 

a standard dimension endshield may 

require different shaft construction, 

resulting in a completely new assembly 

of shaft and rotor. For situations where 

an electric motor with a non-standard 

enshield or flange cannot be connected 

to the dynamometer, NEMA 

recommended that DOE permit a testing 

lab to use an endshield or flange that 

meets the NEMA or the IEC 

specifications. NEMA further suggested 

that the manufacturer should be 

contacted to determine the 

appropriateness of replacement 

endshield or flange. If the replacement 

endshield or flange is not available then 

the testing laboratory may construct the 

same in consultation with the 

manufacturer. NEMA also argued that 

the test procedure should also allow 

testing of a general purpose electric 

motor of equivalent electrical design 

and enclosure, as an alternative. 

(NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 24–25) 

Advanced Energy agreed with DOE 

that non-standard endshields and 

flanges be replaced with standard ones 

for testing purposes. However, 

Advanced Energy noted that the term 

‘‘original’’ in the proposed test 

procedure is ambiguous because it 

indicated that the motor was initially 

designed with an endshield, which may 

not be the case. It suggested that the 

term ‘‘original’’ be replaced with 

‘‘conventional.’’ Advanced Energy also 

expressed concern that requiring a 

manufacturer to provide a ‘‘standard 

endshield in compliance with NEMA 

MG 1’’ of the same material as ‘‘original 

endplate’’ is too strict. It suggested that 

manufacturers be allowed to use an 

alternative material for the endshield 

that will not impact the airflow and 

energy performance. It also commented 

that a provision should be included that 

allows test labs the option of fabricating 

suitable endshields if the need arises. 

(Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 4). UL 

requested that DOE consider modifying 

the proposed language to permit the 

endshield to be modified or fabricated 

as necessary to facilitate coupling to the 

dynamometer without affecting the 

results.’’ (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 

105–107; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 111) 

WEG suggested that in situations where 

the motor cannot be tested at all, an 

equivalent motor with similar electrical 

design and a standard endshield can be 

tested. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 114– 

115) CDA opined that the customers can 

provide end covers for testing to match 

actual use conditions and that 

allowance for additional friction should 

be allowed for accuracy in test results. 

(CDA, No. 9 at p. 2) 

DOE has considered these comments 

and decided to take slightly differing 

approaches for testing conducted on 

behalf of manufacturers (for purposes of 

representations and certification of 

compliance) and for DOE-initiated 

testing (for purposes of determining 

compliance). In both instances, if it is 

not possible to connect the electric 

motor to a dynamometer with the nonstandard endshield or flange in place, 

the testing laboratory shall replace the 

non-standard endshield or flange with 

an endshield or flange that meets the 

NEMA or IEC endshield specifications. 

DOE notes that endshield specifications 

are found in NEMA MG–1 (2009) 

Section I, Part 4—see paragraphs 4.1, 

4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.3, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, 

and 4.4.6; Figures 4–1, 4–2, 4–3, 4–4, 4– 

5, and 4–6; and Table 4–2—and in IEC 

60072–1 (1991). If possible, the 

manufacturer should provide the 

endshield or flange. The manufacturer 

may authorize the lab to machine 

replacement endplates or flanges for 

testing if the manufacturer chooses not 

to provide it. The lab should consult 

with the manufacturer before 

constructing these components to 

determine their critical characteristics. 

2. Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors 

and Electric Motors With Single or 

Double Shaft Extensions of NonStandard Dimensions or Design 

Close-coupled pump motors are 

electric motors used in pump 

applications where the impeller is 

mounted directly on the motor shaft. 

Such motors are typically built with 

different shafts (usually longer) than 

generic general-purpose electric motors. 

Section I, part 4 of NEMA MG 1–2009 

and IEC Standard 60072–1 (1991) 

specify standard tolerances for shaft 

extensions, diameters, and keyseats that 

relate to the fit between the shaft and 

the device mounted to the shaft. 

However, sometimes manufacturers 

provide shafts with a special diameter, 

length, or design because of a 

customer’s application.24 In 2011, DOE 

considered clarifying its treatment of 

these types of motors and included a 

table with allowable shaft variations. 76 

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

guidance table was intended to 

enumerate the deviations from standard 

shaft dimensions that DOE would allow 

while still considering the motor to be 

a general purpose motor subject to 

energy conservation standards. 

However, in view of the EISA 2007 

and AEMTCA 2012 amendments, DOE’s 

scope of regulatory coverage extends 

beyond the initial scope set by EPCA 

prior to these two amendments. DOE 

believes that a motor’s shaft alone, no 

matter what its dimensions or type, does 

not exclude a motor from having to 

satisfy any applicable energy 

conservation standards. Further, DOE 

believes that it is not necessary to 

explicitly define a close-coupled pump 

electric motor or an electric motor with 

a single or double shaft extension of 

non-standard dimensions or additions 

because whether a shaft is built within 

the shaft tolerances defined by NEMA 

and IEC is unambiguous. 

In considering applying standards to 

these types of motors, DOE assessed 

whether motors with non-standard shaft 

dimensions or additions can be tested 

using accepted and established 

procedures. DOE received feedback 

concerning the testing of these motor 

types during and after the October 18, 

2010, framework document public 

meeting. NEMA and ASAP submitted a 

joint comment noting that DOE could 

allow testing of a ‘‘similar model’’ motor 

with a standard shaft to enable the 

motor to be more easily tested on a 

dynamometer. (NEMA and ASAP, 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0012 at p. 

8) In its comments about the electric 

motors preliminary analysis, NEMA 

added that special couplings or adapters 

may be needed to test motors with 

special shaft extensions, but noted that 

a motor’s shaft extension has little to no 

effect on its efficiency. (NEMA, EERE– 

2010–BT–STD–0027–0054 at p. 14) 

DOE investigated the feasibility of 

using coupling adapters for motors with 

extended shafts or shafts of unique 

design. To do this, DOE procured a 

close-coupled pump motor with an 

extended shaft. When this motor was 

received, DOE’s testing laboratory had 

no problems attaching the motor to its 

dynamometer. The use of an adapter 

was not needed in this case. However, 

DOE also conferred with experts at its 

testing laboratory and learned that 

coupling adapters were needed for 

motors with extended shafts or shafts of 

unique design, which it had tested in 

the past. As such, DOE is not aware of 

any motor shaft design that has 

prevented DOE’s test laboratory from 

performing a proper test according to 

IEEE 112 (Test Method B). Therefore, 

DOE proposed to include instructions 

for special couplings or adapters. In 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75982 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

25 ‘‘Efficiency and losses shall be determined in 

accordance with IEEE Std 112 or Canadian 

Standards Association Standard C390. The 

efficiency shall be determined at rated output, 

voltage, and frequency. Unless otherwise specified, 

horizontal polyphase, squirrel-cage medium motors 

rated 1 to 500 horsepower shall be tested by 

dynamometer (Method B) (or CSA Std C390 Method 

1) as described in Section 6.4 of IEEE Std 112. 

Motor efficiency shall be calculated using form B 

of IEEE Std 112 or the equivalent C390 calculation 

procedure. Vertical motors of this horsepower range 

shall also be tested by Method B if bearing 

construction permits; otherwise they shall be tested 

by segregated losses (Method E) (or CSA Std 

Method 2) as described in Section 6.6 of IEEE Std 

112, including direct measurement of stray-loss 

load.’’ NEMA Standards Publication MG1—2009, 

Motors and Generators, paragraph 12.58.1. 

other words, if a testing facility cannot 

attach a motor to its dynamometer 

because of the motor’s shaft extension, 

that facility should use a coupling or 

adapter to mount and test the motor. 

DOE understood that a motor’s shaft 

configuration has minimal, if any, 

impact on overall motor efficiency, and 

believed that this approach was 

technologically feasible and would not 

result in any distortion of a motor’s 

inherent efficiency when tested. 

In response to the NOPR, the 

interested parties agreed with DOE’s 

decision to not define motors with nonstandard shaft dimensions or additions. 

However, NEMA suggested replacing 

the term ‘‘additions’’ with ‘‘nonstandard designs’’ to provide better 

clarity. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 26) 

To avoid any ambiguity regarding this 

motor type, DOE has modified the term 

to be ‘‘Electric Motors with Single or 

Double Shaft Extensions of NonStandard Dimensions or Design.’’ DOE 

believes that this change to the 

description of this motor type is broad 

enough to characterize all electric 

motors with non-standard shafts 

without unintentionally limiting this 

motor type to those with shaft additions. 

In view of its own research and 

consensus among interested parties, 

DOE is continuing to not define these 

electric motor types. 

3. Vertical Electric Motors 

Although most electric motors are 

engineered to run while oriented 

horizontally, some operate in 

applications that require a vertical 

orientation. A horizontally oriented 

motor has a shaft parallel to the floor (or 

perpendicular to the force of gravity), 

while a vertically oriented motor has a 

shaft perpendicular to the floor (or 

parallel to the force of gravity). Relative 

to horizontal motors, vertical motors 

have different designs made with 

different construction techniques so that 

the electric motor can be operated in a 

vertical position. These different 

designs can include modifications to the 

mounting configuration, bearing design, 

and bearing lubrication (a discussion 

regarding bearings can be found in the 

following section, III.F.4). Additionally, 

vertical motors can come with various 

shaft configurations, including with a 

solid or hollow shaft. An example of a 

typical application requiring a vertical 

motor is a pump used in a well or a pit. 

DOE did not propose a definition for 

any terms related to vertical electric 

motors. DOE believed definitions were 

not needed because there is no industry 

confusion or ambiguity in whether an 

electric motor is a vertical electric 

motor. Furthermore, whether an electric 

motor has a solid shaft or a hollow shaft 

is also unambiguous and unnecessary to 

clarify. Although defining a vertically 

mounted electric motor did not appear 

necessary, DOE believed instructions 

detailing how to configure and mount a 

vertical motor for testing in a horizontal 

position, including the motor’s 

orientation and shaft characteristics, 

would be helpful in ensuring a proper 

and consistent testing set-up. 

EISA 2007 classified vertical solidshaft motors as subtype II motors and 

required them to be tested in a 

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

6311(13)(B)(v)) Prior to the NOPR, 

NEMA, ASAP, and the Motor Coalition 

submitted comments, noting that 

vertical motors cannot be tested on a 

standard dynamometer because most 

dynamometers are designed to test 

electric motors in horizontal orientation. 

(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027– 

0013 at p. 5; NEMA and ASAP, EERE– 

2010–BT–STD–0027–0012 at p. 3; Motor 

Coalition, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027– 

0035 at pp. 18 and 30) DOE confirmed 

this assertion with its test laboratory 

and SMEs. In view of the statutory 

requirement and current dynamometer 

testing configuration limits, DOE 

proposed in the NOPR to test motors, 

which are otherwise engineered to 

operate vertically, in a horizontal 

position when determining efficiency. 

Another consideration was the shaft 

of a vertical motor and whether it was 

solid or hollow. If a vertical motor has 

a solid shaft, DOE proposed no further 

adjustments after considering 

orientation, unless the motor contained 

a special shaft. For vertical motors with 

a hollow shaft, (i.e., an empty cylinder 

that runs through the rotor and typically 

attaches internally to the end opposite 

the drive of the motor with a special 

coupling) additional instructions were 

proposed. 

DOE conducted testing prior to the 

NOPR publication to gauge the 

feasibility of testing a vertical, 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 

believed that, as long as the attached 

solid-shaft maintained sufficient 

clearance through the drive end of the 

motor to enable the motor to be attached 

to the dynamometer, this approach 

would be feasible to test vertical hollowshaft motors. Aside from the addition of 

a shaft extension, DOE did not believe 

that testing a vertical hollow-shaft motor 

in a horizontal configuration would add 

undue testing burden when compared to 

testing a solid-shaft vertical motor. 

In response to the March 2011 RFI, 

NEMA suggested that vertical motors 

rated 1–500 horsepower be tested 

according to section 6.4 of IEEE 

Standard 112 (Test Method B—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 MG 1–2009 

paragraph 12.58.1 ‘‘Determination of 

Motor Efficiency and Losses.’’ 25

(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027– 

0019 at p. 4) 

DOE consulted with testing 

laboratories about whether IEEE 

Standard 112 (Test Method E) would be 

an appropriate procedure to use when 

testing vertical motors. DOE understood 

that the primary difference between 

IEEE Standard 112’s Test Method B and 

Test Method E is that Test Method E 

uses a different method to calculate 

stray-load loss relative to Test Method 

B. Test Method B measures motor 

output power and uses this number as 

part of the calculation for stray-load 

loss. However, Test Method E does not 

require the measurement of output 

power, and, therefore, uses a different 

method to find the stray-load loss. By 

not requiring the measurement of output 

power, Test Method E can be conducted 

on motors installed in an area or in 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75983 

equipment that cannot be attached to a 

dynamometer. Although Test Method E 

may reduce some testing burden for 

manufacturers of vertical motors, DOE 

was concerned that Test Method E 

could produce results that were 

inconsistent and inaccurate relative to 

testing comparable motors under Test 

Method B. Therefore, DOE declined to 

propose the use of Test Method E for 

vertical motors. 

In response to the NOPR, there were 

several comments regarding the 

definitions and test setups for vertical 

motors. Assuming that DOE intended to 

set standards eventually for vertical 

motors generally (beyond those already 

applicable to general purpose subtype II 

motors), NEMA suggested that newlycovered vertical motors be considered as 

either definite purpose electric motors 

or special purpose electric motors and 

their features be incorporated in a 

definition for vertical motors to clearly 

identify the type included in the 

covered electric motors. (NEMA, No. 10 

at p. 29) 

As described earlier, in the NOPR, 

DOE did not intend to define ‘‘covered 

motors.’’ Rather, it was DOE’s intention 

to define subsets of motors that would 

have the potential to be covered in a 

standards rulemaking. In the case of 

vertical motors, DOE did not believe 

that a definition was necessary because 

it is always obvious whether a motor is 

intended for vertical operation. Being 

defined as a vertical motor would not, 

then, necessarily mean a vertical motor 

was subject to energy conservation 

standards. The current energy 

conservation standards rulemaking is 

intended to determine coverage 

parameters for defined motor types. 

Based on these facts, DOE does not 

believe it is necessary to state whether 

a vertical motor is special or definite 

purpose (as neither distinction would 

change the fact that the motor is 

vertical), and has not updated its 

decision from the NOPR to leave 

vertical motors undefined. 

In regard to testing, NEMA 

commented that IEEE 112 (Test Method 

E) is a standard method for testing 

vertical motors when the vertical motor 

cannot be tested in horizontal position 

due to bearing construction (which may 

require that vertical load be exerted on 

the bearings). NEMA suggested that 

because vertical electric motors other 

than vertical solid shaft normal thrust 

general purpose electric motors (subtype 

II) would be included in the scope of 

covered products (and which may 

require testing in vertical orientation), 

IEEE 112 (Test Method E) be added as 

a valid test procedure in paragraph 2 of 

Appendix B to Subpart B and all other 

paragraphs in Subparts B and U where 

it is necessary to identify the applicable 

test standards for vertical motors. 

(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 32) NEMA noted 

that there will be a difference in 

efficiency when a vertical motor is 

tested in vertical position with no 

modification as compared to the vertical 

motor tested in horizontal position after 

changing the bearings. NEMA suggested 

that this difference in efficiency levels 

should be considered while establishing 

standards for vertical motors. (NEMA, 

No. 10 at pp. 31–32) 

Based on the present definitions in 10 

CFR 431.12, and those proposed in the 

NOPR, and assuming that vertical 

motors of various types are to be 

included, NEMA recommended that the 

proposed test procedure be revised to 

permit the testing of vertical electric 

motors in a horizontal or vertical 

configuration according to the 

equipment available at the testing 

facility and the construction of the 

motor. If the vertical motor cannot 

operate in a horizontal position due to 

its bearing construction or due to the 

requirement that a vertical load be 

applied to the shaft, then the bearings 

should be replaced with the standard 

bearings during testing. NEMA further 

suggested that a coupling or other 

adapter may be required to connect the 

vertical electric motor to the test 

equipment to provide sufficient 

clearance. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 32) 

DOE has reevaluated its test 

instructions for vertical electric motors 

following the comments received in 

response to the NOPR. It understands 

that there was confusion prior to the 

NOPR regarding which types of vertical 

motors were being defined, and earlier 

comments were based on this 

misunderstanding. After the NOPR, 

DOE verified the claims in the 

comments with SMEs and determined 

that testing vertically and testing 

horizontally would result in similar 

efficiencies. However, for reasons stated 

earlier, DOE continues to decline the 

use of IEEE 112 (Test Method E). For 

this final rule, while vertical solid shaft 

normal thrust general purpose electric 

motors (subtype II) shall be tested in a 

horizontal configuration in accordance 

with IEEE 112 (Test Method B), the test 

instructions for other types of vertical 

electric motors are amended to allow 

test labs to choose between vertical and 

horizontal orientation for testing, as 

provided for by the lab’s equipment, 

with preference given to testing in the 

motor’s native orientation when either 

is possible. 

4. Electric Motor Bearings 

Electric motors usually employ antifriction bearings that are housed within 

the endshields to support the motor’s 

shaft and provide a low-friction means 

for shaft rotation. Anti-friction bearings 

contain rolling elements, which are the 

components inside the bearings that 

‘‘roll’’ around the bearing housing and 

provide the reduced-friction means of 

rotation. Rolling elements can be 

spherical, cylindrical, conical, or other 

shapes. The design of the rolling 

element is selected based on the type 

and amount of force the shaft must be 

capable of withstanding. The two 

primary types of loads imposed on 

motor bearings are radial and thrust. 

Radial loads are so named because the 

load is applied along the radius of the 

shaft (i.e., perpendicular to the shaft’s 

axis of rotation). Bearings may be 

subject to radial loads if the motor’s 

shaft is horizontal to the floor (i.e., 

horizontally oriented). These bearings 

are called ‘‘radial bearings.’’ ‘‘Thrust 

bearings’’ are bearings capable of 

withstanding thrust loads, which are 

loads with forces parallel to the ‘‘axis’’ 

of the shaft (i.e., parallel to the shaft’s 

axis of rotation) and may be 

encountered when the shaft is vertical 

to the floor (i.e., vertically oriented). 

However, either radial or axial shaft 

loads can be encountered in any 

orientation. 

In addition to the type of force, 

bearings are also chosen based on the 

magnitude of the force they can 

withstand. While most applications use 

spherical rolling-elements, some motors 

employ cylindrical-shaped 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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75984 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

26 Viscosity is the measure of a liquid’s resistivity 

to being deformed. An example of a material with 

high viscosity is molasses and an example of a 

material with low viscosity is water. 

27William R. Finley and Mark M. Hodowanec. 

Sleeve Vs. Anti-Friction Bearings: Selection of the 

Optimal Bearing for Induction Motors. 2001. IEEE. 

USA. 

28Neither 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. 

29William R. Finley and Mark M. Hodowanec. 

Sleeve Vs. Anti-Friction Bearings: Selection of the 

Optimal Bearing for Induction Motors. 2001. IEEE. 

USA. 

lifetime. Such bearings may be referred 

to as ‘‘lubed-for-life’’ bearings because 

the user purchases the bearings with the 

intention of replacing the bearing before 

it requires re-lubrication. Shielded 

bearings differ from open bearings in 

that shielded bearings contain a cover, 

called a ‘‘shield,’’ which allows the flow 

of oil or grease into the inner portions 

of the bearing casing, but restricts dirt 

or debris from contacting the rolling 

elements. Preventing dirt and debris 

from contacting the bearing prevents 

wear and increases the life of the 

bearing. 

Certain vertical motors use oillubricated bearings rather than the 

grease-lubricated bearings that are 

typically found in horizontal motors. If 

a vertical motor contains an oillubricated system, problems can occur 

when the motor is reoriented into a 

horizontal position and attached to a 

dynamometer for testing. Because oil 

has a lower viscosity than grease, it 

could pool in the bottom of the now 

horizontally oriented (vertical motor) 

bearing.26 Such pooling, or loss of 

proper lubrication to the bearings, could 

adversely affect the motor’s 

performance, damage the motor, and 

distort the results of testing. 

Because of the various construction 

and lubrication types, DOE understands 

that motors may contain bearings only 

capable of horizontal operation, vertical 

operation, or, in some limited cases, 

both horizontal and vertical operation. 

For those motors equipped with thrust 

bearings only capable of vertical 

orientation, DOE stated in the NOPR 

that reorienting the motor could cause 

physical damage to the motor. For 

motors equipped with such bearings, 

DOE proposed to add testing 

instructions that would require the 

testing laboratory to replace the thrust 

bearing with a ‘‘standard bearing,’’ 

which DOE defined as a 6000 series, 

open, single-row, deep groove, radial 

ball bearing, because that is the most 

common type of bearing employed on 

horizontally oriented motors. For any 

electric motor equipped with bearings 

that are capable of operating properly 

(i.e., without damaging the motor) when 

the motor is oriented horizontally, DOE 

proposed that the motor should be 

tested as is, without replacing the 

bearings. DOE believed that this was the 

most appropriate approach because it 

would provide the truest representation 

of the energy use that will be 

experienced by the user. 

NEMA agreed that thrust bearings 

should be replaced with standard 

bearings if the motor is tested in an 

orientation different from the normal 

one. However, NEMA stated that the 

motor manufacturer should be 

consulted before any modification is 

made. This is because some bearings 

may require oil or other lubricants for 

normal use. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 28, 

32–33) 

Advanced Energy agreed with the 

proposed approach of testing electric 

motors with bearings capable of 

horizontal orientation. However, for 

motors with bearings not capable of 

horizontal orientation, Advanced 

Energy proposed that thrust bearings be 

replaced with shielded bearings with 

already packed grease to prevent overfilling of grease and to reduce lead time 

of installation of bearings. (Advanced 

Energy, No. 8 at p. 5) Advanced Energy 

requested that DOE replace ‘‘should’’ 

with ‘‘may,’’ in the proposed testing 

instruction for ‘‘electric motors with 

bearings incapable of horizontal 

operation’’ so that the testing instruction 

for states: ‘‘may replace the thrust 

bearing’’ and ‘‘may be tested as is’’. 

(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 130) 

DOE notes NEMA’s and Advanced 

Energy’s comment that different 

bearings may require different 

lubricants (e.g., oil, grease), which 

should be considered when the bearings 

of a motor are replaced with standard 

bearings for testing. Considering 

NEMA’s and Advanced Energy’s 

comments, DOE has modified the 

definition of standard bearings to 

include a grease lubricated double 

shielded bearing. Furthermore, while 

DOE understands Advanced Energy’s 

suggestions regarding the language, the 

language is written such that only 

motors whose bearings cannot be 

operated horizontally ‘‘shall be’’ 

replaced for testing. DOE believes that 

this renders this suggested wording 

change unnecessary. Motors whose 

bearings do not permit horizontal 

operation but which must be tested 

horizontally due to test equipment 

availability must have their bearings 

replaced in order to yield accurate 

results. 

In response to the preliminary 

analysis, DOE received comment 

specifically about testing electric motors 

with sleeve bearings. Sleeve bearings are 

another type of bearing that do not use 

typical rolling elements, but rather 

consist of a lubricated bushing, or 

‘‘sleeve,’’ inside of which the motor 

shaft rotates. The shaft rotates on a film 

of oil or grease, which reduces friction 

during rotation. Sleeve bearings 

generally have a longer life than antifriction ball bearings, but they are more 

expensive than anti-friction ball 

bearings for most horsepower ratings.27

Both ASAP and NEMA asserted that a 

motor with sleeve bearings should have 

its efficiency verified by testing a motor 

of equivalent electrical design and that 

employs standard bearings.28 (ASAP 

and NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0027–0020 at p. 4) However, NEMA 

later revised its position in separately 

submitted comments to the electric 

motors preliminary analysis public 

meeting. NEMA stated that further 

review of pertinent test data indicated 

that sleeve bearings do not significantly 

impact the efficiency of a motor, and 

that a motor having sleeve bearings is 

not sufficient reason to exclude it from 

meeting energy conservation standards. 

(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027– 

0054 at p. 17) NEMA also commented 

that it is not aware of any reason that 

a motor cannot be tested with sleeve 

bearings, but that DOE should also 

provide the option to test sleeve bearing 

motors with the sleeve bearing swapped 

out for anti-friction ball bearings. 

(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027– 

0054 at p. 17) 

DOE separately consulted with testing 

laboratories, SMEs, and manufacturers 

and reviewed a pertinent technical 

paper.29 As a result of this collective 

research, at the time of the NOPR, DOE 

tentatively determined that sleeve 

bearings do not significantly degrade 

efficiency when compared to spherical, 

radial ball bearings. DOE also did not 

believe that it was more difficult to 

attach a motor with sleeve bearings to a 

dynamometer than a standard, general 

purpose electric motor equipped with 

radial ball bearings. Additionally, DOE 

believed that swapping sleeve bearings 

with spherical, radial ball bearings may 

be time consuming and otherwise 

present unforeseen or undue difficulties 

because of the overall design of the 

motor that operates with the sleeve 

bearings. Motors that employ sleeve 

bearings have significantly different 

bearing-support configurations than 

motors that employ spherical, radial ball 

bearings, and DOE was not certain that 

sleeve bearings could be readily 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75985 

30William R. Finley and Mark M. Hodowanec. 

Sleeve Vs. Anti-Friction Bearings: Selection of the 

Optimal Bearing for Induction Motors. 2001. IEEE. 

USA. 

swapped with standard ball bearings 

without significant, costly motor 

alterations. Therefore, because it may be 

impracticable to swap them out with 

other bearings, DOE proposed that 

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

In response to the NOPR, NEMA 

agreed with DOE’s proposal to test 

motors with sleeve bearings intact. 

NEMA stated that testing the motor with 

sleeve bearings in place will result in a 

decrease of efficiency due to losses 

associated with sleeve bearings. In its 

view, the efficiency measure will thus 

represent normal consumer operation. 

NEMA further added that the normal 

IEEE 112 (Test Method B) or (Test 

Method E), where applicable, is 

sufficient for testing electric motors 

with sleeve bearings. (NEMA, No. 10 at 

pp. 27–28, 32–33) 

As no stakeholders presented reasons 

why motors with sleeve bearings should 

not be tested with the bearings in place, 

and the available facts indicate that the 

presence of sleeve bearings does not 

affect efficiency testing, DOE has 

retained this approach for this final 

rule.30 As these sleeve bearings will 

already be in place when the motor 

arrives for testing, and the bearings will 

not be replaced, if the shield bearings 

are not already have packed grease in 

place, it will not be used for testing. 

5. Electric Motors With Non-Standard 

Bases, Feet or Mounting Configurations 

DOE has not yet regulated special or 

definite purpose motors, or general 

purpose motors with ‘‘special bases or 

mounting feet,’’ because of the limits 

prescribed by the previous statutory 

definition of ‘‘electric motor.’’ That 

definition included a variety of criteria 

such as ‘‘foot-mounting’’ and being built 

in accordance with NEMA ‘‘T-frame’’ 

dimensions, which all narrowed the 

scope of what comprised an electric 

motor under the statute. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6311(13)(A) (1992)) As a result of EISA 

2007 and related amendments that 

established energy conservation 

standards for two subtypes of general 

purpose electric motors (subtype I and 

subtype II), among other motor types, 

the statutory meaning of the term 

‘‘general purpose motor’’ was broadened 

to include, for example, ‘‘footless 

motors.’’ Similarly, because definite and 

special purpose motors now fall under 

the broad statutory heading of ‘‘electric 

motors,’’ DOE is now considering 

whether to set standards for electric 

motors with non-standard bases, feet, or 

mounting configurations in the 

standards rulemaking. 

Part 4 of section I in NEMA MG 1– 

2009 provides general standards for 

dimensions, tolerances, and mounting 

for all types of electric motors. In that 

section, figures 4–1 through 4–5 identify 

the letter symbols associated with 

specific dimensions of electric motors 

with various bases, feet, and mounting 

configurations. Accompanying these 

figures are tables throughout part 4 of 

section I that specify dimensions, 

explain how a particular dimension is 

measured and detail the applicable 

measurement tolerances. This collective 

information is used to standardize the 

dimensions associated with specific 

frame sizes, given a certain base, feet, or 

mounting configuration. The IEC 

provides similar information in its 

standard, IEC Standard 60072–1, 

‘‘Dimensions and output series for 

rotating electrical machines.’’ Although 

the majority of motors are built within 

these specifications, DOE is aware that 

some motors may have feet, bases, or 

mounting configurations that do not 

necessarily conform to the industry 

standards. These are the motors—i.e. 

those not conforming to NEMA or IEC 

standards for bases, feet, or mounting 

configurations—that DOE is considering 

regulating under the standards NOPR. 

DOE believed that a definition was 

not needed for this particular type of 

electric motor because whether a motor 

has a mounting base, feet, or 

configuration that is built in compliance 

with the standard dimensions laid out 

in NEMA MG 1–2009 or IEC Standard 

60072–1 was unambiguous. Also, DOE 

believed that additional testing set-up 

instructions for these types of electric 

motors were not necessary because such 

mounting characteristics are not 

explicitly addressed either in IEEE 

Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA 

C390–10, other than how mounting 

conditions will affect the vibration of a 

motor under IEEE Standard 112, 

paragraph 9.6.2, ‘‘Mounting 

configurations.’’ 

In response to the March 2011 RFI, 

ASAP and NEMA asserted that a motor 

with a special base or mounting feet, as 

well as a motor of any mounting 

configuration, should have its efficiency 

verified by testing a model motor with 

an equivalent electrical design that 

could more easily be attached to a 

dynamometer. (ASAP and NEMA, 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0020 at 

p. 4) 

DOE believed testing a ‘‘similar 

model’’ to show compliance would 

likely create difficulties in ensuring the 

accuracy and equivalence of claimed 

efficiency ratings. Additionally, DOE 

believed that testing motors with nonstandard bases or mounting feet would 

not present an undue burden or 

insurmountable obstacle to testing. The 

test benches used for testing electric 

motors can have, for example, 

adjustable heights to accommodate the 

wide variety of motor sizes and 

mechanical configurations that 

commonly exist. Therefore, because the 

mounting feet will not necessarily affect 

how a motor is mounted to a 

dynamometer, but simply the 

positioning of the shaft extension, DOE 

believed non-standard mounting feet 

would present no additional testing 

burdens. As was done for the vertical 

electric motor that DOE had tested and 

which did not have a standard 

horizontal mounting configuration, a 

testing laboratory would likely treat 

these motors as a typical general 

purpose electric motor and adjust the 

test bench as applicable for the unit 

under test. 

Finally, DOE understood that an 

electric motor’s mounting base, feet, or 

configuration would have no impact on 

its demonstrated efficiency. An electric 

motor’s mounting base, feet, or 

configuration does not affect a motor’s 

operating characteristics because this is 

a feature external to the core 

components of the motor. It is also a 

feature that will not impact friction and 

windage losses because this feature does 

not involve any rotating elements of the 

motor. An electric motor’s mounting 

base, feet, or mounting configuration 

only affects how a motor is physically 

installed in a piece of equipment. DOE’s 

approach was premised on these facts. 

While NEMA agreed with DOE’s 

proposed approach not to define electric 

motors with non-standard base, feet or 

mounting configurations, it suggested 

that additional test instructions for these 

electric motor types were needed in 

view of testing difficulties. (NEMA, No. 

10 at p. 26) In the case of special 

mounting configurations or footless 

motors, particularly TENV types, NEMA 

stated that mounting configuration may 

affect the free convection cooling of the 

motor. For instance, some testing 

facilities may use a V-shape or U-shape 

block with straps to hold the movement 

of a footless motor. The design of the 

block(s) can inhibit free convection over 

TENV motor and can cover ventilation 

openings in case of open motors. Thus, 

NEMA recommended that DOE consider 

adding language for testing of an electric 

motor with non-standard bases, feet, or 

mounting configurations to ensure that 

the method of mounting ‘‘does not have 

an adverse effect on the performance of 

the electric motor’’ particularly on 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75986 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

cooling of the motor due to use of 

adaptive mounting fixtures. (NEMA, No. 

10 at p. 27). 

DOE notes NEMA’s concern and 

understands that the current procedures 

to test electric motors with a nonstandard base, feet, or mounting 

configuration, as described by NEMA, 

may affect the cooling of the motor and 

impact the efficiency ratings of the 

motor. In order to achieve accuracy in 

the efficiency measures, because bases, 

feet, and mounting arrangements can 

alter tested efficiency, DOE has adopted 

the following test procedure for electric 

motors with a non-standard base, feet, 

or mounting configuration: ‘‘Some 

adaptive fixtures may be required to 

mount a motor on the test equipment 

when testing an electric motor with a 

non-standard base, feet, or mounting 

configuration. The method of mounting 

or use of adaptive mounting fixtures 

should not have an adverse impact on 

the performance of the electric motor, 

particularly on the cooling of the 

motor.’’ 

6. Electric Motors With SeparatelyPowered Blowers 

In the NOPR, DOE addressed a subset 

of immersible motors it referred to as 

being built in a ‘‘TEBC’’ (totally 

enclosed blower cooled—i.e., with 

cooling airflow provided by a separate 

blower driven by a separate, auxiliary 

motor) configuration. These motors 

were not only immersible, but had a 

separately powered blower as part of 

their assembly. For these motors, DOE 

proposed requiring the testing 

laboratory to power the smaller blower 

motor from a power source separate 

from the one used for the electric motor 

being tested for efficiency. Following 

this approach would allow the testing 

laboratory to isolate the performance of 

the motor under test while continuing to 

provide the necessary cooling from the 

blower motor. 

Advanced Energy concurred with 

separately powering the blower motor of 

an immersible motor configured in a 

TEBC configuration. (Advanced Energy, 

No. 8 at p. 3) However, NEMA requested 

that DOE reconsider the requirement of 

‘‘separate power source’’ in the 

proposed definition because a test 

facility may have only one power 

source. NEMA also stated that this 

requirement is not necessary because all 

that matters is that the test equipment 

used to measure the electrical power 

flowing into the motor is connected 

only to the motor leads and not to both 

the motor leads and blower leads. Also, 

in its view, the proper voltage should be 

applied to the blower when the voltage 

to the motor is to be reduced as a part 

of the IEEE 112 Method B or Method E 

test procedure. NEMA commented that 

it was unclear why the requirement to 

exclude the input power to the blower 

in the measurement of the motor power 

would apply only to blower cooled 

‘‘immersible’’ motors if the test 

procedure is intended to apply to any 

electric motor with contact seals. The 

test procedure should also clearly state 

that the input power to the separately 

powered blower is not to be included in 

the determination of the efficiency of 

the immersible definite purpose electric 

motor, or, in general, for any electric 

motor with a separately powered blower 

furnished as a part of the total assembly. 

(NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 23–24) 

Following the NOPR, DOE raised this 

issue with stakeholders and SMEs. From 

those discussions, DOE acknowledges 

that at least some non-immersible 

motors that were furnished with 

separately-powered blowers exist would 

also meet the nine criteria that DOE is 

considering applying with respect to its 

standards rulemaking efforts. It was not 

DOE’s intention to omit guidance on 

testing these motors; DOE agrees with 

NEMA that a test plan for ‘‘blowercooled’’ electric motors should not be 

limited only to those motors that are 

also immersible. Therefore, in this final 

rule, DOE is adding separate test set-up 

instructions for an ‘‘electric motor with 

a separately-powered blower.’’ This setup will be applicable to any electric 

motor that has this particular design 

element, regardless of whether this 

electric motor is also immersible. As 

DOE did not receive comments in the 

NOPR asking DOE to define this motor 

type, the Department believes that 

stakeholders understand what motor 

types were covered by this test set-up, 

and DOE has opted not to define this 

motor type at this time. 

Regarding the use of the term 

‘‘separate power source,’’ DOE 

recognizes that test labs may use a 

variety of power supplies to facilitate 

testing. DOE believes that NEMA’s 

suggested plan of measuring the two 

sources of power separately (rather than 

powering them separately) can work, 

provided it is done such that it 

accurately characterizes the power going 

into the tested motor. In either 

arrangement, the objective is to exclude 

the power to the blower’s motor from 

any calculations of efficiency for the 

tested motor. For these reasons and 

based on the comments received, DOE 

has added instructions to the procedure 

to exclude the losses attributable to the 

motor powering a separately-powered 

blower. Under this change, the blower’s 

motor can be powered by a source 

separate from the source powering the 

electric motor under test or by 

connecting leads such that they only 

measure the power of the motor under 

test. This instruction follows from 

DOE’s proposal ‘‘to isolate the 

performance of the motor under test 

while continuing to provide the 

necessary cooling from the blower 

motor.’’ 78 FR 38466. In this final rule, 

DOE extends those instructions to all 

motors with separately-powered 

blowers rather than limiting it to 

immersible motors in recognition of the 

fact that the qualities of being 

immersible and having a separatelypowered blower are technologically 

independent and should be treated as 

such. 

G. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only 

Definitions 

There are several electric motor types 

whose energy efficiency DOE is not 

proposing to regulate as part of the 

recently published energy conservation 

standards proposal but that DOE is 

defining in today’s rule to provide 

manufacturers regulatory clarity when 

the final standards rule is published. 

More details regarding the specific 

motor types are discussed below. 

1. Component Set of an Electric Motor 

Electric motors are comprised of 

several primary components that 

include: A rotor, stator, stator windings, 

stator frame, two endshields, two 

bearings, and a shaft. As described in 

the NOPR, a component set of an 

electric motor comprises any 

combination of these motor parts that 

does not form an operable motor. 78 FR 

38466. For example, a component set 

may consist of a wound stator and rotor 

component sold without a stator 

housing, endshields, or shaft. These 

components may be sold with the 

intention of having the motor parts 

mounted inside other equipment, with 

the equipment providing the necessary 

mounting and rotor attachments for the 

components to operate in a manner 

similar to a stand-alone electric motor. 

Component sets may also be sold with 

the intention of a third party using the 

components to construct a complete, 

stand-alone motor. In such cases, the 

end manufacturer that ‘‘completes’’ the 

motor’s construction must certify that 

the motor meets any pertinent 

standards. (See 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)(10) 

(defining ‘‘manufacture’’ to include 

manufacture, produce, assemble, or 

import.)) This approach was supported 

by NEMA in its comments on the 

electric motors preliminary analysis. 

(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027– 

0054 at pp. 15–16) 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75987 

DOE understands that a component 

set does not constitute a complete, or 

near-complete, motor that could be 

tested under IEEE Standard 112 (Test 

Method B) or CSA C390–10, because it 

would require major modifications 

before it can operate as a motor. In view 

of its examination of motor component 

sets, DOE understands that some of 

them would require the addition of 

costly and fundamental parts for the 

motor to be capable of continuous-duty 

operation, as would be required under 

either test procedure. The parts that 

would need to be added to the 

component set, such as a wound stator 

or rotor, are complex components that 

directly affect the performance of a 

motor and can only be provided by a 

motor manufacturer. Without the 

fundamental components, there is no 

motor. Therefore, DOE believes that a 

single testing laboratory would have 

insurmountable difficulty machining 

motor parts, assembling the parts into 

an operable machine, and testing the 

motor in a way that would be 

manageable, consistent, and repeatable 

by other testing laboratories. Because 

DOE is not aware of any test procedures 

or additional test procedure instructions 

that would accommodate the testing of 

a component set in a manageable, 

consistent, and repeatable manner, it 

declined to consider component sets for 

energy conservations standards in the 

NOPR. 

In terms of defining a ‘‘component 

set,’’ DOE was aware of some confusion 

regarding what constitutes a 

‘‘component set’’ of a motor, especially 

about the difference between a 

‘‘component set’’ and a ‘‘partial’’ motor. 

No technical standard currently defines 

these terms. To bring a common 

definition for these generally 

understood, but undefined, concepts, 

DOE proposed to define a ‘‘component 

set’’ as a ‘‘combination of motor parts 

that require the addition of more than 

two endshields to create an operable 

motor.’’ 78 FR 38469. Under the 

proposed definition, these parts may 

consist of any combination of a stator 

frame, wound stator, rotor, shaft, or 

endshields and the term ‘‘operable 

motor’’ would refer to an electric motor 

engineered for performing in accordance 

with nameplate ratings. 78 FR 38469. 

In response to the NOPR, Nidec 

suggested that the definition of 

component set be clearer so that it can 

be differentiated from a partial motor. It 

criticized the proposed definition for 

not being clear enough to distinguish a 

component set from a partial motor. 

(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 31) NEMA, 

on the other hand, recommended that 

DOE not define this term, noting that 

the clearer definition of partial motor 

should be sufficient to distinguish it 

from a component set. (NEMA, No. 10 

at p. 34) 

In DOE’s view, defining what a 

‘‘component set’’ is, and distinguishing 

it from a ‘‘partial electric motor’’ is 

critical. Furthermore, as explained 

earlier, DOE does not intend to define 

only those motors for which it is 

proposing energy conservation 

standards in the parallel rulemaking. 

Rather, motors that need to be defined 

in order to clearly outline coverage in 

the standards rulemaking will be 

defined. By defining a ‘‘component set,’’ 

DOE can clearly state whether a given 

motor would be affected in a particular 

standards rulemaking. 

Nidec also raised concerns regarding 

where bearings fit into the definition 

(i.e. whether the presence or absence of 

bearings factored into the classification 

of equipment as a compenent set or 

partial electric motor), In recognition of 

the fact that bearings are often 

specifically designed to match 

endplates, DOE is modifying its 

proposed definition by adding the 

phrase ‘‘and their associated bearings’’ 

to the ‘‘component set’’ definition. to 

better distinguish it from a partial 

motor. To mitigate the risk of confusion, 

DOE is defining a component set as 

referring to ‘‘a combination of motor 

parts that require the addition of critical 

componentry in excess of two 

endshields (and their associated 

bearings) to create an operable motor.’’ 

In view of its own research and 

consensus among interested parties, 

DOE is maintaining its NOPR proposal. 

2. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motor 

While most electric motors are aircooled and many use a fan attached to 

the shaft on the end opposite the drive 

to blow air over the surface of the motor 

to dissipate heat during the motor’s 

operation, liquid-cooled electric motors 

rely on a special cooling apparatus that 

pumps liquid into and around the motor 

housing. The liquid is circulated around 

the motor frame to dissipate heat and 

prevent the motor from overheating 

during continuous-duty operation. A 

liquid-cooled electric motor may use 

different liquids or liquids at different 

temperatures, which could affect the 

operating temperature of the motor and, 

therefore, the efficiency of the motor. 

This variability could present testing 

consistency and reliability problems. 

Neither IEEE Standard 112 (Test 

Method B) nor CSA C390–10 provide a 

standardized methodology for testing 

the energy efficiency of a liquid-cooled 

electric motor. Additionally, as NEMA 

noted in its comments, these motors are 

typically used in space-constrained 

applications, such as mining 

applications, and require a high power 

density, which somewhat limits their 

efficiency potential. (NEMA, NEMA, 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0054 at p. 

42) In view of these likely testing 

consistency problems, DOE noted its 

intent to not propose energy 

conservation standards for these motors 

at this time. 78 FR 38475. 

At least two key issues were raised in 

the context of these motors: First, how 

to test them while accounting for 

temperature differences and second, 

how to differentiate these motors from 

certain other motor types. 

a. Temperature Conditions 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA 

commented that it is very difficult to 

simulate the various environments in a 

testing facility where the tested motor is 

required to be connected to a 

dynamometer. In order to maintain 

acceptable temperature levels, some 

motors operating in an open 

environment may rely on both free 

convection and liquid cooling, motors 

operating in a confined space may rely 

only on liquid cooling and other motors 

may be operated in an area with 

externally supplied ventilating air and 

liquid cooling. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 36). 

Thus, NEMA argued that energy 

conservation standards should not be 

established for liquid-cooled electric 

motors. As noted earlier, NEMA 

commented that the liquid-cooled 

electric motors are used in specialized 

applications that require high power 

density within a limited size. Different 

physical sizes may be used for the same 

power rating for different applications 

for different speed-torque performance, 

as needed. This fact also makes it 

difficult to establish any particular 

energy conservation standard for a 

rating. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 35–36). 

No standardized methodology for 

testing the energy efficiency of a liquidcooled electric motor, the consensus 

among stakeholders on how to treat 

these motors, and liquid-cooled electric 

motors are likely to be used in 

specialized applications with high 

power density requirements. Because of 

that, it is difficult to established a 

procedure that can be confidently said 

to be representative of energy use 

experienced by consumers. For that 

reason, DOE is not establishing energy 

conservation standards for liquid-cooled 

electric motors at this time. 

b. Differentiating From Other Motor 

Types 

In response to the October 15, 2010 

energy conservation standards 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75988 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

framework document, NEMA and ASAP 

commented that greater clarification is 

needed with regard to liquid-cooled 

electric motors and how to differentiate 

them from immersible or submersible 

electric motors. (NEMA and ASAP, 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0012 at p. 

9) DOE proposed to define ‘‘liquidcooled electric motor’’ to clarify DOE’s 

view of which motors would be covered 

by this term but did not indicate it 

planned to set standards for them. 

DOE’s proposed definition was based on 

the definition of a ‘‘totally enclosed 

water-cooled machine’’ found in 

paragraph 1.26.5 of NEMA MG 1–2009. 

Further, DOE proposed to remove 

‘‘totally enclosed’’ from the definition to 

prevent any unintentional limitations of 

the definition due to frame construction; 

liquid-cooling may exist independently 

of degree of frame enclosure. DOE also 

planned to replace the term ‘‘water’’ 

with ‘‘liquid’’ to cover the use of any 

type of liquid as a coolant. Finally, per 

comments from NEMA, DOE proposed 

to modify the term ‘‘water conductors’’ 

to ‘‘liquid-filled conductors’’ to clarify 

that the conductors, themselves, are not 

made of liquid. (NEMA, EERE–2010– 

BT–STD–0027–0054 at p. 35) 

Consequently, DOEe proposed to define 

‘‘liquid-cooled electric motor’’ as ‘‘a 

motor that is cooled by circulating 

liquid with the liquid or liquid-filled 

conductors coming into direct contact 

with the machine parts.’’ 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA 

commented that it does not see a need 

for a definition of ‘‘liquid-cooled 

electric motor’’ because these motor 

types are not covered under regulation. 

However, if DOE still decided there was 

a need to include a definition, NEMA 

suggested using and defining the term 

‘‘liquid-cooled definite purpose motor’’ 

rather than ‘‘liquid-cooled definite 

purpose electric motor’’. In order to 

remove any confusion related to ‘‘liquid 

filled conductors’’, NEMA 

recommended the definition, if needed, 

be modified as: ‘‘Liquid-cooled definite 

purpose motor means a motor that is 

cooled by circulating liquid with the 

liquid coming into direct contact with 

machine parts, typically the enclosure.’’ 

(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 35) 

As stated earlier, even if these motor 

types are not currently regulated, DOE 

intends to define these motor types for 

clarity. This decision is further 

described in section G. DOE has also 

considered NEMA’s proposed addition 

to the definition of ‘‘typically the 

enclosure’’ and removal of the term 

‘‘liquid-filled conductors.’’ For the final 

rule, DOE is maintaining the term 

‘‘liquid-filled conductors’’ to maintain 

the broadness of the original definition 

and not limit the definition to only 

circulating liquid. Furthermore, DOE is 

opting not to add the term ‘‘typically the 

enclosure’’ as it does not believe that 

this phrase adds to the content of the 

definition and may only add confusion. 

DOE is including the term ‘‘designated 

cooling apparatus’’ to bring more clarity. 

For this final rule, DOE adopts the 

definition of ‘‘liquid-cooled electric 

motor’’ as ‘‘a motor that is cooled by 

liquid circulated using a designated 

cooling apparatus such that the liquid or 

liquid-filled conductors come into 

direct contact with the parts of the 

motor.’’ 

3. Submersible Electric Motor 

As previously addressed, most motors 

are not engineered to operate while 

under water. Any liquid inside a stator 

frame could impede rotor operation and 

corrode components of the motor. 

However, a submersible electric motor 

is capable of complete submersion in 

liquid without damaging the motor. A 

submersible electric motor uses special 

seals to prevent the ingress of liquid 

into its enclosure. Additionally, DOE 

understands that a submersible electric 

motor relies on the properties of the 

surrounding liquid to cool the motor 

during continuous-duty operation. That 

is, submersible electric motors are only 

capable of continuous duty operation 

while completely submerged in liquid, 

as NEMA clarified in its comments on 

the energy conservation standards 

preliminary analysis. (NEMA, EERE– 

2010–BT–STD–0027–0054 at p. 37) 

Consequently, as detailed in the NOPR, 

DOE defined ‘‘submersible electric 

motor’’ as an electric motor designed for 

continuous operation only while 

submerged in liquid. 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA 

commented that no definition of 

‘‘submersible electric motor’’ is needed 

because these motor types are not 

covered under DOE’s regulations. 

However, if DOE still decided there was 

a need to include a definition, in 

NEMA’s view, the definition should be 

for that of a ‘‘submersible definite 

purpose motor’’ and not a ‘‘submersible 

definite purpose electric motor.’’ NEMA 

claimed that the term ‘‘continuous’’ was 

unnecessary as part of the definition 

since the motor is not intended to be 

operated outside of the liquid for any 

period of time. NEMA suggested that the 

term be defined as referring to a motor 

‘‘designed for operation only while 

submerged in liquid.’’ (NEMA, No. 10 at 

p. 36) 

As explained above, DOE is not 

adding the term ‘‘definite purpose’’ to 

any individual motor definitions at this 

time. However, DOE recognizes that it is 

necessary to distinguish submersible 

electric motors from electric motors 

with moisture-resistant, sealed or 

encapsulated windings. To clarify this 

distinction, in this final rule, DOE is 

defining ‘‘submersible electric motor’’ as 

an ‘‘electric motor that (1) is intended to 

operate continuously only while 

submerged in liquid, (2) is capable of 

operation while submerged in liquid for 

an indefinite period of time, and (3) has 

been sealed to prevent ingress of liquid 

from contacting the motor’s internal 

parts.’’ 

At the time of the NOPR, DOE 

believed that testing submersible 

electric motors would be difficult 

because the motor must be submerged 

in a liquid to properly operate. After 

discussions with manufacturers and 

testing laboratories, DOE confirmed that 

no industry test procedures or potential 

modifications to the procedures 

currently under 10 CFR 431.16 could be 

used to consistently test (and reliably 

measure) a motor that relies on 

submersion in liquid for continuousduty operation. Additionally, DOE was 

not aware of any testing facilities that 

are capable of testing a submerged 

motor. Consequently, DOE decided not 

to propose specific preparatory 

instructions for testing submersible 

electric motors in the NOPR. DOE 

requested stakeholder comment on 

whether there are facilities capable of 

conducting energy efficiency tests on 

submersible motors, along with any 

specific procedures that these facilities 

follow when attempting to rate the 

energy efficiency of this equipment. In 

its written comments, NEMA affirmed 

that they were unaware of any test 

facilities available for conducting an 

IEEE 112 (Method B) test on a motor 

while submerged in liquid. (NEMA, No. 

10 at p. 37) 

Therefore, DOE is only adopting a 

definition in today’s final rule, which is 

consistent with DOE’s continuing 

intention to exclude these motors from 

the proposed energy conservation 

standards. 

4. Inverter-Only Electric Motor 

DOE considered two types of electric 

motors related to the use of inverters, 

those that are engineered to work only 

with an inverter and those that are 

capable of working with an inverter, but 

also capable of general, continuous-duty 

operation without an inverter. This 

section addresses the former. Invertercapable electric motors are addressed in 

section III.A.4. 

In its electric motors preliminary 

analysis TSD, DOE sought to clarify 

that, in its view, inverter-only motors 

were motors that can operate 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75989 

continuously only by means of an 

inverter drive. DOE also explained that 

it preliminarily planned to continue to 

exclude these motors from energy 

conservation standards requirements, in 

large part because of the difficulties that 

were likely to arise from testing them. 

One such difficulty is the fact that they 

can be operated at a continuum of 

speeds with no established speed testing 

profile. Another is that motors may be 

optimized for different waveforms, 

which also have no established testing 

standards. It would be difficult to 

generate meaningful test results for 

products which may be designed for a 

wide variety of operating inputs. The 

breadth of specifications resists 

treatment with a single test procedure 

without extensive study. Additonally, 

the high frequency power signals may 

be difficult to measure accurately 

without specialized equipment that 

testing laboratories may not possess. 

NEMA agreed with DOE’s preliminary 

approach to define such motors but not 

require them, for the time being, to meet 

energy conservation standards. It 

suggested a more specific definition of 

an ‘‘inverter-only motor,’’ based on 

NEMA MG 1 part 31, ‘‘Definite-Purpose 

Inverter-Fed Polyphase Motors,’’ in 

place of the one previously considered 

by DOE. (NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0027–0054 at p. 35) DOE examined the 

suggested definition and proposed to 

adopt it, with minor modifications. DOE 

proposed not to require that a motor be 

marked as a ‘‘definite-purpose, inverterfed electric motor,’’ but stated that it 

may consider such a requirement in the 

future. DOE also noted NEMA’s concern 

with the characterization of these 

motors and changed the term to read as 

an ‘‘inverter-only electric motor.’’ DOE 

proposed to define an ‘‘inverter-only 

electric motor’’ as ‘‘an electric motor 

that is designed for operation solely 

with an inverter, and is not intended for 

operation when directly connected to 

polyphase, sinusoidal line power.’’ 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA 

contended that no definition is needed 

for ‘‘definite purpose inverter fed 

electric motor’’ because, in its view, a 

definition would be needed only if there 

was a clear indication that a motor 

designed for operation on inverter 

power appears to meet the definition of 

‘‘electric motor’’ as recommended by 

NEMA. If DOE still needed to include a 

definition, NEMA asserted that the 

definition should be for an ‘‘inverter-fed 

definite purpose motor’’ and not a 

‘‘definite purpose inverter-fed electric 

motor.’’ If, upon further consideration, 

DOE did decide that a definition was 

needed, NEMA recommended that DOE 

use the term ‘‘inverter-fed definitepurpose motor’’, which would refer to 

‘‘a definite purpose motor that is 

designed for operation solely with an 

inverter, and is not defined for acrossthe-line starting when directly 

connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line 

power.’’ (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 37) 

As noted earlier, DOE intends to 

define these motor types to clarify these 

terms. DOE has also explained that it is 

not including the terms definite purpose 

or special purpose in its individual 

motors definitions, even though 

‘‘definite-purpose’’ was initially used in 

the definition of these motors, because 

‘‘definite-purpose’’ is a term that has 

meaning in the context of many other 

motor types which DOE does not wish 

to be confused with those requiring 

inverters. DOE also wishes to define 

these motors in terms of their actual 

capabilities instead of design intent. 

Therefore, to clear up any confusion 

surrounding the use of the phrase 

‘‘definite-purpose’’, DOE is changing the 

name of this motor type to be ‘‘inverteronly electric motor.’’ As a result, DOE 

is adopting the definition of ‘‘inverteronly electric motor’’ as ‘‘an electric 

motor that is capable of rated operation 

solely with an inverter, and is not 

intended for operation when directly 

connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line 

power.’’ 

As for testing an inverter-only electric 

motor, NEMA asserted that the industrybased procedures, which have already 

been incorporated by reference in DOE’s 

regulations, require that a tested motor 

be capable of across-the-line starting. 

Inverter-only motors are incapable of 

meeting this requirement without the 

inverter. (See NEMA, at EERE–2010– 

BT–STD–0027–0054 at p. 35 and NEMA 

MG 1–2009, part 31 at paragraph 

31.4.3.1, which elaborates that an 

‘‘inverter-only electric motor’’ cannot 

perform across-the-line starting unless 

the motor is attached to the inverter.) In 

the NOPR, DOE noted it was not aware 

of an industry accepted test procedure 

specifying the speed or torque 

characteristics to use when testing an 

inverter-only motor. Furthermore, DOE 

was unable to develop a standardized 

test procedure for inverter-only electric 

motors at this time. Because inverters 

allow a motor to operate at a wide array 

of speeds for many different 

applications, there would be 

considerable difficulties in developing a 

single test procedure that produced a 

fair representation of the actual energy 

used by all electric motors connected to 

an inverter in the field. 

Additionally, a single motor design 

may be paired with a wide variety of 

inverters, so properly selecting an 

inverter to use for the test such that an 

accurate representation of efficiency is 

obtained would prove extremely 

difficult. Inverters may also operate at 

frequencies that make accurate 

measurement of power difficult with the 

type of equipment used for conventional 

motors. Even if DOE intended to 

regulate such motors, testing them could 

be extremely challenging using the 

currently accepted industry test 

procedures. Therefore, DOE proposed to 

exclude these motors from 

consideration for energy conservation 

standards. 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA and 

Regal Beloit agreed with DOE’s decision 

not to establish energy conservation 

standards for motors intended for 

operation solely with an inverter. 

(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 38; Pub. Mtg. Tr., 

No. 7 at p. 78). 

As noted earlier, one difficulty in 

testing inverter-only motors is the fact 

that they can be operated at a 

continuum of speeds with no 

established speed testing profile. 

Another is that motors may be 

optimized for different waveforms, 

which also have no established testing 

standards. It would be difficult to 

generate meaningful test results for 

products which may be designed for a 

wide variety of operating inputs. The 

breadth of specifications resists 

treatment with a single test procedure 

without extensive study. Additonally, 

the high frequency power signals may 

be difficult to measure accurately 

without specialized equipment that 

testing laboratories may not possess. In 

view of this consensus and DOE’s own 

conclusions regarding test procedure 

difficulties, DOE has maintained this 

approach for the final rule and is not 

adopting a test procedure set-up for 

these motors, nor will these motors be 

considered for energy conservation 

standards at this time. 

H. Effective Dates for the Amended Test 

Procedures and Other Issues 

In the June 26, 2013 NOPR (78 FR 

38455), DOE proposed that the 

amendments described in the sections 

below become effective 30 days after the 

publication of the final rule. 

Furthermore, at 180 days after 

publication, the NOPR stated that the 

manufacturers of those motors that 

would be affected by the proposal 

would need to make representations 

regarding energy efficiency based on 

results obtained through testing in 

accordance with the proposed 

amendments. Calculations based on a 

substantiated alternative efficiency 

determination method (AEDM) would 

also need to need reflect the same 

approach, as would any certifications of 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75990 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

31 DOE acknowledged that, at the time, there are 

were no current energy conservation standards for 

the majority of the motor types covered in the 

NOPR. DOE stated that if it establishes standards for 

these motor types, manufacturers will be required 

to use the proposed test procedure to certify 

compliance with these standards. 

32 In this and subsequent citations, the document 

number refers to the number of the comment in the 

Docket for the DOE rulemaking on test procedures 

for electric motors, Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP– 

0043; and the page references refer to the place in 

the document where the statement preceding 

appears. 

compliance with the applicable energy 

conservation standards.31

Responding to the proposal, NEMA 

commented that the effective date of any 

change in test procedures should 

coincide with the effective date of any 

remedial change in the standards 

provided to rectify the effect of the 

changes in the test procedures on the 

tested efficiency. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 

11–13) 32 DOE understands NEMA’s 

concern. Per DOE’s ‘‘Process Rule’’ at 

appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 

430 and the requirements at 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3) and (r), DOE usually tries to 

finalize its test procedures before its 

energy conservation standards. This 

timeframe allows stakeholders to 

understand how the proposed standard 

will be calculated to apply to the 

covered equipment. 

NEMA was also concerned that the 

test procedure effective date would 

mean that the test procedure applies to 

motor types that are to be covered under 

the parallel standards rulemaking over a 

year before standards are finalized for 

such motor types. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 

11–13). It also made a number of 

miscellaneous comments related to 

clarifying the proposed requirements. 

As described in the ‘‘Note’’ to 

Appendix B to Subpart B and consistent 

with 42 U.S.C. 6314(d), any 

representations of energy efficiency or 

energy consumption of motors for 

which energy conservation standards 

are currently provided at 10 CFR 431.25 

must be based on any final amended 

procedures in appendix B to subpart B 

of part 431 starting 180 days after the 

publication of any final amended test 

procedures. Until that time, 

manufacturers of motors for which 

energy conservation standards are 

currently provided at 10 CFR 431.25 

may make such representations based 

either on the final amended test 

procedures or on the previous test 

procedures, set forth at 10 CFR part 431, 

subpart B, appendix B as contained in 

the 10 CFR parts 200 to 499 edition 

revised as of January 1, 2013. 

For any other electric motor type that 

is not currently covered by the energy 

conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25 

but may become covered by standards 

under the standards rulemaking for 

which a proposed rule is currently open 

for comment (see 78 FR 73589 (Dec. 6, 

2013), manufacturers of this equipment 

would need to use Appendix B 180 days 

after the effective date of the final rule 

adopting energy conservation standards 

for these motors. DOE would publish a 

notice upon publication of a final rule 

in that standards rulemaking 

announcing the specific date and 

amending the Note regarding 

compliance with test procedures that 

the today’s final rule codifies in 

Appendix B. 

NEMA also suggested that the test 

procedures should be applicable only to 

those general purpose, definite purpose 

and special purpose electric motors for 

which energy conservation standards 

apply. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 10) DOE 

disagrees. For the motor types defined 

in 10 CFR part 431, and to the extent to 

which any representations of energy 

efficiency are made, manufacturers must 

follow the given test procedures even if 

they are currently exempt from energy 

conservation standards. This approach 

follows from DOE’s intention to 

standardize the way the motors are 

tested and energy efficiency is reported. 

NEMA asserted that the proposed 

‘‘note’’ limits the use of Appendix B to 

Subpart B for purposes related to 

representation of efficiency and 

demonstration of compliance and would 

not apply to the test procedures for the 

enforcement process. (NEMA, No. 10 at 

p. 11) Again, DOE disagrees. The note 

lays out the test procedures that a 

manufacturer would use to determine 

that any applicable energy conservation 

requirements are met. Those procedures 

would be followed by DOE as part of 

any enforcement action against a given 

manufacturer. 

NEMA suggested that any provisional 

requirements included in the final rule 

should be within the appropriate 

requirements in 10 CFR 431.16 or 10 

CFR 431.17. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 10– 

13). DOE takes note of NEMA’s 

suggestions and has ensured that today’s 

final rule meets the requirements in 10 

CFR 431.16 or 10 CFR 431.17. 

NEMA suggested replacing the term 

‘‘open bearing’’ with ‘‘grease lubricated 

double shielded bearing’’ in the 

proposed definition of standard bearing 

in paragraph 4 of Appendix B to 

Subpart B because, in its view, bearings 

require lubrication during operation and 

not all endshields have the ability to 

contain lubricating material. (NEMA, 

No. 10 at p. 38) DOE notes NEMA’s 

concern that some endshields may not 

be able to contain grease or lubricating 

material and thus would require greaselubricated bearings instead of open 

bearings. Therefore, DOE has amended 

the definition to allow the use of greaselubricated double shielded bearing. 

As for other concerns raised by NEMA 

suggesting that the test procedures be 

structured to limit their application to 

special and definit purpose electric 

motors, DOE notes that the procedures 

are to apply to electric motors as a 

whole. There is no need to insert 

limiting language that would narrow the 

application of the procedure. DOE 

further notes that it chose the proposed 

(and now final) definitional structure 

because the now-proposed standards 

rulemaking develops a coverage 

structure based on a motor satisfying 

both the broad ‘‘electric motors’’ 

definition and the nine referenced 

criteria. With the release of this 

standards proposal, many, if not all, of 

NEMA’s comments on electric motor 

definitions are resolved. Any further 

comments that interested parties may 

have on this structure can be submitted 

for consideration as part of the ongoing 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that test 

procedure rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 

action was not subject to review under 

the Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IFRA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule, 

if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75991 

Counsel’s Web site: http://energy.gov/

gc/office-general-counsel. 

As described in the preamble, today’s 

final rule presents additional test 

procedure set-up clarifications for 

motors currently subject to Federal 

energy conservation standards, new test 

procedure set-up and test procedures for 

motors not currently subject to Federal 

energy conservation standards, and 

additional clarifications of definitions 

for certain key terms to aid 

manufacturers in better understanding 

DOE’s regulations. All of the additions 

are consistent with current industry 

practices and, once compliance is 

required, should be used for making 

representations of energy-efficiency of 

those covered electric motors and for 

certifying compliance with any 

applicable Federal energy conservation 

standards. DOE certified to the Office of 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) that the 

additional test procedures and 

definitions for electric motors would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The factual basis for this certification 

follows. 

To estimate the number of small 

businesses impacted by the rule, DOE 

considered the size standards for a small 

business listed by the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code and description under 13 CFR 

121.201. To be considered a small 

business, a manufacturer of electric 

motors and its affiliates may employ a 

maximum of 1,000 employees. DOE 

estimates that there are approximately 

30 domestic motor manufacturers that 

manufacture electric motors covered by 

EPCA, and no more than 13 of these 

manufacturers are small businesses 

employing a maximum of 1,000 

employees. The number of motor 

manufacturers, including the number of 

manufacturers qualifying as small 

businesses, was estimated based on 

interviews with motor manufacturers 

and publicly available data. 

To determine the anticipated 

economic impact of the testing 

requirements on small manufacturers, 

DOE compared this final rule to current 

industry practices regarding testing 

procedures and representations for 

energy efficiency along with those steps 

DOE has taken in the design of the rule 

to minimize the testing burden on 

manufacturers. For motors that are 

currently subject to Federal standards, 

today’s procedures are largely 

clarifications and will not change the 

underlying DOE test procedure and 

methodologies currently being 

employed by industry to rate and certify 

to the Department compliance with 

Federal standards. 

For motors that are not currently 

subject to Federal standards, 

manufacturers of such unregulated 

electric motors would only need to use 

the testing set-up instructions, testing 

procedures, and rating procedures 

provided in today’s rule 180 days after 

the effective date of any relevant energy 

conservation standards final rule if a 

manufacturer elected to make voluntary 

representations of energy-efficiency of 

its basic models. To better understand 

how this rule will impact small 

manufacturers of electric motors, DOE 

reviewed current industry practice 

regarding the representations of energy 

efficiency made for motors not subject 

to energy conservation standards and 

how the rulemaking will impact current 

industry practice. Specifically, DOE’s 

test procedures require that those 

manufacturers of regulated motors not 

currently subject to standards who 

choose to make public representations 

of efficiency to follow the methods 

prescribed in this rule. DOE’s rule does 

not require manufacturers who do not 

currently make voluntary 

representations to then begin making 

public representations of efficiency. 

DOE researched the catalogs and Web 

sites of the 13 identified small 

manufacturers and found that only four 

of these manufacturers clearly list 

efficiency ratings for their equipment in 

public disclosures. The remaining 

manufacturers either build custom 

equipment, which are not subject to the 

changes made in this rule, or do not list 

energy efficiency in their motor 

specifications, in part because it is not 

required. For the manufacturers that 

currently do not voluntarily make any 

public representations of energy 

efficiency for their motors, DOE does 

not believe this rule will impact their 

current practice. DOE does not 

anticipate any burden accruing to these 

manufacturers unless the agency 

considered and set energy conservation 

standards for those additional electric 

motor types. Of the four manufacturers 

that currently elect to make voluntary 

representations of the electric motor 

efficiency, DOE believes those 

manufacturers will be minimally 

impacted because they are already 

basing those representations on 

commonly used industry standards, 

which are the same testing procedures 

incorporated by this rule. DOE does not 

have any reason to believe that the test 

set-up clarifications adopted in today’s 

rule would have any significant impact 

on the current practice of these four 

manufacturers. 

In view of the foregoing, DOE certifies 

that today’s final rule will not impose 

significant economic impacts on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

rulemaking. DOE has provided its 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for review under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b). 

In response to the regulatory 

flexibility analysis in the NOPR, 

Bluffton stated that while it agrees that 

the test procedure being proposed 

would not have a significant impact on 

small electric motor manufacturers, if 

energy conservation standards are 

applied to newly-defined electric motor 

types and special and definite purpose 

electric motors, as extended to 56-frame 

motors, there would be a major impact 

to small electric motor manufacturers. 

Bringing these electric motors types into 

compliance using the proposed test 

procedure could put a small electric 

motor manufacturer’s existence in 

jeopardy. (Bluffton, No. 11 at pp. 1–2) 

DOE acknowledges that expanding 

the scope of the existing energy 

conservation standards to include 

additional electric motor types, such as 

special and definite purpose electric 

motors and 56-frame motors, could 

disproportionally impact small electric 

motor manufacturers that specialize in 

producing these types of motors. DOE 

further notes that in the final test 

procedure rule that manufacturers of 

electric motors whose energy efficiency 

is not currently regulated will not need 

to use the test procedure until energy 

conservation standards are set for those 

electric motor types. Bluffton also 

commented that since a number of 

suppliers would also be considered 

small businesses, they could also be 

adversely affected by an expanded 

scope for standards since they could 

potentially lose customers of their 

products. Bluffton also stated that 

expanding the scope of standards could 

also prove to be a significant impact on 

the many small businesses that are 

customers of small electric motor 

manufacturers because their customers 

would have to redesign and re-tool their 

units to accommodate potentially larger 

new designs. (Bluffton, No. 11 at pp. 1– 

2) For purposes of the Regulatory 

Flexibilty Act, DOE notes that it is 

required to focus its analysis on the 

direct impact of the current rule on 

those small businesses that manufacture 

electric motors as part of the regulatory 

flexibility analysis. DOE will address 

the impacts of any proposed standards 

on small manufacturers of electric 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75992 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

motors in the Review Under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of the related 

electric motor standards’ rulemaking. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of electric motors must 

certify to DOE that their products 

comply with any applicable energy 

conservation standards. In certifying 

compliance, manufacturers must test 

their products according to the DOE test 

procedures for electric motors, 

including any amendments adopted for 

those test procedures. DOE has 

established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including electric motors. (76 FR 12422 

(March 7, 2011). The collection-ofinformation requirement for 

certification and recordkeeping is 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 20 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this final rule, DOE amends its test 

procedure for electric motors. DOE has 

determined that this rule falls into a 

class of actions that are categorically 

excluded from review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s 

implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 

1021. Specifically, this rule amends an 

existing rule without affecting the 

amount, quality or distribution of 

energy usage, and, therefore, will not 

result in any environmental impacts. 

Thus, this rulemaking is covered by 

Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D, which applies to 

any rulemaking that interprets or 

amends an existing rule without 

changing the environmental effect of 

that rule. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE 

examined this final rule and determined 

that it will not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State energy conservation 

regulations for the equipment subject to 

today’s final rule. States can petition 

DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

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

6297(d)) No further action is required by 

Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this final rule 

meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law104–4, sec. 

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

regulatory action resulting in a rule that 

may cause the expenditure by State, 

local, and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish a written statement that 

estimates the resulting costs, benefits, 

and other effects on the national 

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

UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 

develop an effective process to permit 

timely input by elected officers of State, 

local, and Tribal governments on a 

proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input to potentially affected 

small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820; also available at http://

energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE examined today’s final rule 

according to UMRA and its statement of 

policy and determined that the rule 

contains neither an intergovernmental 

mandate, nor a mandate that may result 

in the expenditure of $100 million or 

more in any year, so these requirements 

do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75993 

that may affect family well-being. 

Today’s final rule will not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

will not result in any takings that might 

require compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s final rule under the OMB and 

DOE guidelines and has concluded that 

it is consistent with applicable policies 

in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgated or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, or any successor order; and (2) 

is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy; or (3) is designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action. For any significant energy 

action, the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use if the 

regulation is implemented, and of 

reasonable alternatives to the action and 

their expected benefits on energy 

supply, distribution, and use. 

Today’s regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

a significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is 

not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply 

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 

788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The modifications DOE addressed in 

this action incorporate testing methods 

followed by industry when evaluating 

the energy efficiency of electric motors. 

DOE’s rule establishes the necessary 

testing set-up to facilitate consistency 

and repeatability when conducting a 

test in accordance with one of the 

prescribed test procedures incorporated 

into DOE’s regulations. These methods, 

as described earlier in the preamble 

discussion above, would be used in 

instances where an electric motor 

manufacturer makes representations of 

energy efficiency regarding its motors. 

DOE has consulted with both the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the FTC about the impact on 

competition of using the methods 

contained in these standards and has 

received no comments objecting to their 

use. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of today’s final rule before its effective 

date. The report will state that it has 

been determined that the rule is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

N. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 6, 

2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 431 of 

chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Amend § 431.12 by: 

■ a. Removing the reserved terms ‘‘Fire 

pump motor’’ and ‘‘NEMA design B 

general purpose electric motor;’’ and 

■ b. Adding in alphabetical order, 

definitions for: ‘‘air-over electric 

motor,’’ ‘‘brake electric motor,’’ 

‘‘component set,’’ ‘‘definite purpose 

electric motor,’’ ‘‘electric motor with 

encapsulated windings,’’ ‘‘electric motor 

with moisture resistant windings,’’ 

‘‘electric motor with sealed windings,’’ 

‘‘IEC Design H motor,’’ ‘‘IEC Design N 

motor,’’ ‘‘immersible electric motor,’’ 

‘‘inverter-capable electric motor,’’ 

‘‘inverter-only electric motor,’’ ‘‘liquidcooled electric motor,’’ ‘‘NEMA Design 

A motor,’’ ‘‘NEMA Design C motor,’’ 

‘‘partial electric motor,’’ ‘‘special 

purpose electric motor,’’ ‘‘submersible 

electric motor,’’ ‘‘totally enclosed nonventilated (TENV) electric motor.’’ 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 431.12 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Air-over electric motor means an 

electric motor rated to operate in and be 

cooled by the airstream of a fan or 

blower that is not supplied with the 

motor and whose primary purpose is 

providing airflow to an application 

other than the motor driving it. 

* * * * * 

Brake electric motor means a motor 

that contains a dedicated mechanism for 

speed reduction, such as a brake, either 

within or external to the motor 

enclosure 

* * * * * 

Component set means a combination 

of motor parts that require the addition 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75994 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

of more than two endshields (and their 

associated bearings) to create an 

operable motor. These parts may consist 

of any combination of a stator frame, 

wound stator, rotor, shaft, or endshields. 

For the purpose of this definition, the 

term ‘‘operable motor’’ means an 

electric motor engineered for performing 

in accordance with nameplate ratings. 

* * * * * 

Definite purpose electric motor means 

any electric motor that cannot be used 

in most general purpose applications 

and is designed either: 

(1) To standard ratings with standard 

operating characteristics or standard 

mechanical construction for use under 

service conditions other than usual, 

such as those specified in NEMA MG1– 

2009, paragraph 14.3, ‘‘Unusual Service 

Conditions,’’ (incorporated by reference, 

see § 431.15); or 

(2) For use on a particular type of 

application. 

* * * * * 

Electric motor with encapsulated 

windings means an electric motor 

capable of passing the conformance test 

for water resistance described in NEMA 

MG 1–2009, paragraph 12.62 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.15). 

* * * * * 

Electric motor with moisture resistant 

windings means an electric motor that is 

capable of passing the conformance test 

for moisture resistance generally 

described in NEMA MG 1–2009, 

paragraph 12.63 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.15). 

* * * * * 

Electric motor with sealed windings 

means an electric motor capable of 

passing the conformance test for water 

resistance described in NEMA MG 1– 

2009, paragraph 12.62 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.15). 

* * * * * 

IEC Design H motor means an electric 

motor that 

(1) Is an induction motor designed for 

use with three-phase power; 

(2) Contains a cage rotor; 

(3) Is capable of direct-on-line starting 

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

(5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW 

at a frequency of 60 Hz; and 

(6) Conforms to sections 8.1, 8.2, and 

8.3 of the IEC 60034–12 edition 2.1 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15) 

requirements for starting torque, locked 

rotor apparent power, and starting. 

* * * * * 

IEC Design N motor means an electric 

motor that: 

(1) Is an induction motor designed for 

use with three-phase power; 

(2) Contains a cage rotor; 

(3) Is capable of direct-on-line 

starting; 

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

(5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW 

at a frequency of 60 Hz; and 

(6) Conforms to sections 6.1, 6.2, and 

6.3 of the IEC 60034–12 edition 2.1 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15) 

requirements for torque characteristics, 

locked rotor apparent power, and 

starting. 

* * * * * 

Immersible electric motor means an 

electric motor primarily designed to 

operate continuously in free-air, but is 

also capable of temporarily 

withstanding complete immersion in 

liquid for a continuous period of no less 

than 30 minutes. 

* * * * * 

Inverter-capable electric motor means 

an electric motor designed to be directly 

connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line 

power, but that is also capable of 

continuous operation on an inverter 

drive over a limited speed range and 

associated load. 

* * * * * 

Inverter-only electric motor means an 

electric motor that is capable of rated 

operation solely with an inverter, and is 

not intended for operation when 

directly connected to polyphase, 

sinusoidal line power. 

* * * * * 

Liquid-cooled electric motor means a 

motor that is cooled by liquid circulated 

using a designated cooling apparatus 

such that the liquid or liquid-filled 

conductors come into direct contact 

with the parts of the motor. 

* * * * * 

NEMA Design A motor means a 

squirrel-cage motor that: 

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

2009, paragraph 12.38.1 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.15); 

(2) Has pull-up torque not less than 

the values shown in NEMA MG1–2009, 

paragraph 12.40.1; 

(3) Has breakdown torque not less 

than the values shown in NEMA MG1– 

2009, paragraph 12.39.1; 

(4) Has a locked-rotor current not to 

exceed the values shown in NEMA 

MG1–2009, paragraph 12.35.1 for 60 

hertz and NEMA MG1–2009, paragraph 

12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and 

(5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 

5 percent for motors with fewer than 10 

poles. 

* * * * * 

NEMA Design C motor means a 

squirrel-cage motor that: 

(1) Is Designed to withstand fullvoltage starting and developing lockedrotor torque for high-torque applications 

up to the values shown in NEMA MG1– 

2009, paragraph 12.38.2 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.15); 

(2) Has pull-up torque not less than 

the values shown in NEMA MG1–2009, 

paragraph 12.40.2; 

(3) Has breakdown torque not less 

than the values shown in NEMA MG1– 

2009, paragraph 12.39.2; 

(4) Has a locked-rotor current not to 

exceed the values shown in NEMA 

MG1–2009, paragraphs 12.35.1 for 60 

hertz and 12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and 

(5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 

5 percent. 

* * * * * 

Partial electric motor means an 

assembly of motor components 

necessitating the addition of no more 

than two endshields, including 

bearings, to create an an electric motor 

capable of operation in accordance with 

the applicable nameplate ratings. 

* * * * * 

Special purpose electric motor means 

any electric motor, other than a general 

purpose motor or definite electric 

purpose motor, which has special 

operating characteristics or special 

mechanical construction, or both, 

designed for a particular application. 

* * * * * 

Submersible electric motor means an 

electric motor that: 

(1) Is intended to operate 

continuously only while submerged in 

liquid; 

(2) Is capable of operation while 

submerged in liquid for an indefinite 

period of time; and 

(3) Has been sealed to prevent ingress 

of liquid from contacting the motor’s 

internal parts. 

* * * * * 

Totally enclosed non-ventilated 

(TENV) electric motor means an electric 

motor that is built in a frame-surface 

cooled, totally enclosed configuration 

that is designed and equipped to be 

cooled only by free convection. 

■ 3. Amend § 431.15 by adding 

paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(D) to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.15 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(D) Paragraphs 12.62 and 12.63, IBR 

approved for § 431.12. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 

431 is amended by adding an 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75995 

introductory note and section 4 to read 

as follows: 

Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring 

Nominal Full-Load Efficiency of 

Electric Motors 

Note: After June 11, 2014, any 

representations made with respect to the 

energy use or efficiency of electric motors for 

which energy conservation standards are 

currently provided at 10 CFR 431.25 must be 

made in accordance with the results of 

testing pursuant to this appendix. 

For manufacturers conducting tests of 

motors for which energy conservation 

standards are provided at 10 CFR 431.25, 

after January 13, 2014 and prior to June 11, 

2014, manufacturers must conduct such test 

in accordance with either this appendix or 

appendix B as it appeared at 10 CFR Part 431, 

subpart B, appendix B, in the 10 CFR Parts 

200 to 499 edition revised as of January 1, 

2013. Any representations made with respect 

to the energy use or efficiency of such 

electric motors must be in accordance with 

whichever version is selected. Given that 

after June 11, 2014 representations with 

respect to the energy use or efficiency of 

electric motors must be made in accordance 

with tests conducted pursuant to this 

appendix, manufacturers may wish to begin 

using this test procedure as soon as possible. 

For any other electric motor type that is not 

currently covered by the energy conservation 

standards at 10 CFR 431.25, manufacturers of 

this equipment will need to use Appendix B 

180 days after the effective date of the final 

rule adopting energy conservation standards 

for these motors. 

* * * * * 

4. Procedures for the Testing of Certain 

Electric Motor Types. 

Prior to testing according to IEEE Std 112– 

2004 (Test Method B) or CSA C390–10 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15), 

each basic model of the electric motor types 

listed below must be set up in accordance 

with the instructions of this section to ensure 

consistent test results. These steps are 

designed to enable a motor to be attached to 

a dynamometer and run continuously for 

testing purposes. For the purposes of this 

appendix, a ‘‘standard bearing’’ is a 6000 

series, either open or grease-lubricated 

double-shielded, single-row, deep groove, 

radial ball bearing. 

4.1 Brake Electric Motors: 

Brake electric motors shall be tested with 

the brake component powered separately 

from the motor such that it does not activate 

during testing. Additionally, for any 10- 

minute period during the test and while the 

brake is being powered such that it remains 

disengaged from the motor shaft, record the 

power consumed (i.e., watts). Only power 

used to drive the motor is to be included in 

the efficiency calculation; power supplied to 

prevent the brake from engaging is not 

included in this calculation. In lieu of 

powering the brake separately, the brake may 

be disengaged mechanically, if such a 

mechanism exists and if the use of this 

mechanism does not yield a different 

efficiency value than separately powering the 

brake electrically. 

4.2 Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors 

and Electric Motors with Single or Double 

Shaft Extensions of Non-Standard 

Dimensions or Design: 

To attach the unit under test to a 

dynamometer, close-coupled pump electric 

motors and electric motors with single or 

double shaft extensions of non-standard 

dimensions or design must be tested using a 

special coupling adapter. 

4.3 Electric Motors with Non-Standard 

Endshields or Flanges: 

If it is not possible to connect the electric 

motor to a dynamometer with the nonstandard endshield or flange in place, the 

testing laboratory shall replace the nonstandard endshield or flange with an 

endshield or flange meeting NEMA or IEC 

specifications. The replacement component 

should be obtained from the manufacturer or, 

if the manufacturer chooses, machined by the 

testing laboratory after consulting with the 

manufacturer regarding the critical 

characteristics of the endshield. 

4.4 Electric Motors with Non-Standard 

Bases, Feet or Mounting Configurations 

An electric motor with a non-standard 

base, feet, or mounting configuration may be 

mounted on the test equipment using 

adaptive fixtures for testing as long as the 

mounting or use of adaptive mounting 

fixtures does not have an adverse impact on 

the performance of the electric motor, 

particularly on the cooling of the motor. 

4.5 Electric Motors with a Separatelypowered Blower: 

For electric motors furnished with a 

separately-powered blower, the losses from 

the blower’s motor should not be included in 

any efficiency calculation. This can be done 

either by powering the blower’s motor by a 

source separate from the source powering the 

electric motor under test or by connecting 

leads such that they only measure the power 

of the motor under test. 

4.6 Immersible Electric Motors 

Immersible electric motors shall be tested 

with all contact seals removed but be 

otherwise unmodified. 

4.7 Partial Electric Motors: 

Partial electric motors shall be 

disconnected from their mated piece of 

equipment. After disconnection from the 

equipment, standard bearings and/or 

endshields shall be added to the motor, such 

that it is capable of operation. If an endshield 

is necessary, an endshield meeting NEMA or 

IEC specifications should be obtained from 

the manufacturer or, if the manufacturer 

chooses, machined by the testing laboratory 

after consulting with the manufacturer 

regarding the critical characteristics of the 

endshield. 

4.8 Vertical Electric Motors and Electric 

Motors with Bearings Incapable of Horizontal 

Operation: 

Vertical electric motors and electric motors 

with thrust bearings shall be tested in a 

horizontal or vertical configuration in 

accordance with IEEE 112 (Test Method B), 

depending on the testing facility’s 

capabilities and construction of the motor, 

except if the motor is a vertical solid shaft 

normal thrust general purpose electric motor 

(subtype II), in which case it shall be tested 

in a horizontal configuration in accordance 

with IEEE 112 (Test Method B). Preference 

shall be given to testing a motor in its native 

orientation. If the unit under test cannot be 

reoriented horizontally due to its bearing 

construction, the electric motor’s bearing(s) 

shall be removed and replaced with standard 

bearings. If the unit under test contains oillubricated 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. 

■ 5. Amend § 431.383 by adding 

paragraph (e)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 431.383 Enforcement process for electric 

motors. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(4)(i) Non-standard endshields or 

flanges. For purposes of DOE-initiated 

testing of electric motors with nonstandard endshields or flanges, the 

Department will have the discretion to 

determine whether the lab should test a 

general purpose electric motor of 

equivalent electrical design and 

enclosure rather than replacing the 

nonstandard flange or endshield. 

(ii) Partial electric motors. For 

purposes of DOE-initiated testing, the 

Department has the discretion to 

determine whether the lab should test a 

general purpose electric motor of 

equivalent electrical design and 

enclosure rather than machining and 

attaching an endshield. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–29677 Filed 12–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2