Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Electric Motors

Federal RegisterOct 19, 2022

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[EERE-2020-BT-TP-0011]

RIN 1904-AE62

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Electric Motors

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule amends the existing scope of the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) test procedures for electric motors consistent with related updates to the relevant industry testing standard (

i.e.,

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

DATES:

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

ADDRESSES:

The docket, which includes

Federal Register

notices, webinar attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at

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

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2020-BT-TP-0011.

The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

For further information on how to review the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email:

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DOE maintains standards previously approved for incorporation by reference and incorporates by reference the following industry standards into part 431:

CSA C390:10 (reaffirmed 2019), “Test methods, marking requirements, and energy efficiency levels for three-phase induction motors,” including Updates No. 1 through 3, Revised January 2020 (“CSA C390-10”).

CSA C747-09 (reaffirmed 2019), “Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Small Motors,” including Update No. 1 (August 2016), dated October 2009 (“CSA C747-09”).

Copies of CSA C390-10 and CSA C747-09 can be obtained from Canadian Standards Association (“CSA”), Sales Department, 5060 Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1-800-463-6727, or by visiting

www.shopcsa.ca/onlinestore/welcome.asp.

IEC 60034-12:2016, Edition 3.0 2016-11, “Rotating Electrical Machines, Part 12: Starting Performance of Single-Speed Three-Phase Cage Induction Motors,” Published November 23, 2016 (“IEC 60034-12:2016”).

IEC 60072-1, “Dimensions and Output Series for Rotating Electrical Machines—Part 1: Frame numbers 56 to 400 and flange numbers 55 to 1080,” Sixth Edition, 1991-02, clauses 2, 3, 4.1, 6.1, 7, and 10, and Tables 1, 2 and 4. (“IEC 60072-1”)

IEC 60079-7:2015, Edition 5.0 2015-06, “Explosive atmospheres—Part 7: Equipment protection by increased safety `e,' ” Published June 26, 2015 (“IEC 60079-7:2015”).

IEC 61800-9-2:2017, “Adjustable speed electrical power drive systems—Part 9-2: Ecodesign for power drive systems, motor starters, power electronics and their driven applications—Energy efficiency indicators for power drive systems and motor starters,” Edition 1.0, March 2017 (“IEC 61800-9-2:2017”).

Copies of IEC 60034-12:2016, IEC 60079-7:2015 and IEC 61800-9-2:2017 may be purchased from International Electrotechnical Commission (“IEC”), 3 rue de Varembé, 1st floor, P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 Geneva 20-Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 11, or by visiting

https://webstore.iec.ch/home.

IEEE 114-2010, “Test Procedure for Single-Phase Induction Motors,” December 23, 2010 (“IEEE 114-2010”).

Copies of IEEE 114-2010 can be obtained from: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”), 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, (732) 981-0060, or by visiting

www.ieee.org.

ANSI/NEMA MG 1-2016 (Revision 1, 2018), “Motors and Generators,” ANSI approved June 15, 2021 (“NEMA MG 1-2016”).

Copies of NEMA MG 1-2016 may be purchased from National Electrical Manufacturers Association (“NEMA”), 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 900, Arlington, Virginia 22209, +1 703 841 3200, or by visiting

/www.nema.org.

National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA”) 20, 2022 Edition, “Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,” Approved by ANSI on April 8, 2021 (“NFPA 20-2022”).

Copies of NFPA 20-2022 may be purchased from National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169, +1 800 344 3555, or by visiting

www.nfpa.org.

See section IV.N of this document for a further discussion of these standards.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

B. Background

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

III. Discussion

A. Scope of Applicability

1. Motor Used as a Component of a Covered Product or Equipment

2. “E” and “Y” Designations of IEC Design N and H Motors

3. Air-Over Electric Motors

4. AC Induction Electric Motors Greater Than 500 Horsepower

5. SNEMs

6. AC Induction Inverter-Only Electric Motors

7. Synchronous Electric Motors

8. Submersible Electric Motors

9. Other Exemptions

B. Definitions

1. Updating IEC Design N and H Motors Definitions and Including New Definitions for IEC Design N and H “E” and “Y” Designations

2. Updating Definitions to Reference Current NEMA MG 1-2016

3. Inverter, Inverter-Only, and Inverter-Capable

4. Air-Over Electric Motors

5. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motors

6. Basic Model and Equipment Class

C. Updates to Industry Standards Currently Incorporated by Reference

D. Industry Standards Incorporated By Reference

1. Test Procedures for Air-Over Electric Motors

2. Test Procedures for SNEMs

3. Test Procedures for AC Induction Inverter-Only Electric Motors and Synchronous Electric Motors

E. Metric

F. Rated Output Power and Breakdown Torque of Electric Motors

G. Rated Values Specified for Testing

1. Rated Frequency

2. Rated Load

3. Rated Voltage

H. Contact Seals Requirement

I. Vertical Electric Motors Testing

J. Proposed Testing Instructions for Those Electric Motors Being Added to the Scope of Appendix B

K. Testing Instructions for Brake Electric Motors

L. Transition to 10 CFR part 429

M. Certification of Electric Motors

1. Independent Testing

2. Certification Process for Electric Motors

N. Determination of Represented Values

1. Nominal Full-Load Efficiency

2. Testing: Use of an Accredited Laboratory

3. Testing: Use of a Nationally Recognized Certification Program

4. Use of an AEDM

O. Certification, Sampling Plans and AEDM Provisions for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Motors

P. Effective and Compliance Dates

Q. Test Procedure Costs

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impacts

2. Harmonization With Industry Standards

R. Compliance Date

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered

2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule

3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

1. Description of the Requirements

2. Method of Collection

3. Data

4. Conclusion

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

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

M. Congressional Notification

N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

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

A. Authority

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”),

authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C

of EPCA, added by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, Pub. L. 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. These equipment include electric motors, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))

All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Pub. L. 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-1.

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).

The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making other representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))

Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a given type of covered equipment during a representative average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary) and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))

EPCA, pursuant to amendments made by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-486 (Oct. 24, 1992) (“EPACT 1992”), specifies that the test procedures for electric motors subject to the standards prescribed in 42 U.S.C. 6313 shall be those specified in National Electrical Manufacturers Association (“NEMA”) Standards Publication MG1-1987 and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) Standard 112 Test Method B, as in effect on October 24, 1992. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A)). If these industry test procedures are amended, DOE must

amend its own test procedures to conform to such amended test procedure requirements, unless DOE determines by rule, published in the

Federal Register

and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that to do so would not meet the statutory requirements related to the test procedure representativeness and burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B))

EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including electric motors, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))

In addition, if the Secretary determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, the Secretary must publish proposed test procedures in the

Federal Register

, and afford interested persons an opportunity (of not less than 45 days' duration) to present oral and written data, views, and arguments on the proposed test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)). If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not to amend the test procedures.

DOE is publishing this final rule in satisfaction of its statutory obligations specified in EPCA.

B. Background

On December 17, 2021, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) for the electric motors test procedure. 86 FR 71710 (“December 2021 NOPR”). In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise the current scope of the test procedures to add additional electric motors and implement related updates needed for supporting definitions and metric requirements as a result of this expanded scope; incorporate by reference the most recent versions of the referenced industry standards; incorporate by reference additional industry standards used to test additional electric motors that DOE had proposed to include within its scope; clarify the current test procedure's scope and test instructions by adding definitions for specific terms; revise the current vertical motor testing instructions to reduce manufacturer test burden; clarify that the current test procedure permits removal of contact seals for immersible electric motors only; revise the provisions pertaining to certification testing and determination of represented values; and add provisions pertaining to certification testing and determination of represented values for dedicated purpose pool pump (“DPPP”) motors.

The NOPR provided an opportunity for submitting written comments, data, and information on the proposal by February 15, 2022.

On February 4, 2022, DOE published a notice granting an extension of the public comment period to allow public comments to be submitted until February 28, 2022. 87 FR 6436.

DOE received comments in response to the December 2021 NOPR from the interested parties listed in Table II.1.

Table II.1—List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the December 2021 NOPR

Commenter(s)

Reference in this final rule

Docket No.

Commenter type

ABB Motors and Mechanical Inc

ABB

Manufacturer.

Air Movement and Control Association International

AMCA

Industry Motor Trade Association.

American Gear Manufacturers Association

AGMA

Industry Gear Manufacturer Trade Association.

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

Joint Advocates

Efficiency Organizations.

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers; Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute

AHAM and AHRI

Industry OEM Trade Association.

The Australian Industry Group

AI Group

Industry Motor Trade Association.

ebm-papst Inc

ebm-papst

Manufacturer.

European Committee of Manufacturers of Electrical Machines and Power Electronics

CEMEP

Industry Electrical Machines and Power Electronics Trade Association.

Franklin Electric Co, Inc

Franklin Electric

Manufacturer.

Grundfos Americas Corporation

Grundfos

OEM/Pump manufacturer.

Hydraulics Institute

Industry Pump Trade Association.

International Electrotechnical Commission

IEC

Industry Standards Organization.

Johnson Controls

JCI

Manufacturer.

Lennox International

Lennox

Manufacturer.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

NEMA

Industry Trade Association.

North Carolina Advanced Energy Corporation

Advanced Energy

Independent Testing Laboratory.

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC)

NEEA/NWPCC

Non-profit organization/interstate compact agency.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE)

CA IOUs

32.1 and 32.2

Utilities.

Regal Rexnord

Regal

Manufacturer.

Sumitomo Machinery Corporation of America

Sumitomo

Manufacturer.

Trane Technologies

Trane

OEM.

Water Systems Council

WSC

Industry Trade Association.

The AI group submitted multiple comments to the docket. One comment was an email cover letter, while the other two were preliminary and final submission of their comments. In their cover letter, the AI group attested that there were no changes between the final and preliminary submissions. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE's reference to AI group's comment submission is the final submission.

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

The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop test procedures for electric motors. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0011, which is maintained at

www.regulations.gov

). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).

Regarding the general rulemaking timeline, ABB requested that DOE issue a Supplemental NOPR and schedule a meeting to discuss the test procedure before a final rule is issued. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 3) NEMA requested a Supplemental NOPR be added to this rulemaking asserting that significant changes to the scope and test methods are needed to ensure the test procedure is reasonable, accurate, and repeatable. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 6) CA IOUs suggested that DOE consider forming an ASRAC Working Group to engage on cross-segment electric motor topics. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 50)

As discussed in this final rule, DOE is amending the scope of the test procedure and adopting corresponding test procedure provisions consistent with the most current applicable industry test standard. The test procedure adopted in this final rule is generally consistent with the test procedure proposed in the December 2021 NOPR. Therefore, DOE has determined that additional actions such as an SNOPR or ASRAC Working Group are not appropriate and is proceeding with this final rule. Additionally, as stated, EPCA requires DOE to evaluate the test procedures at least once every seven years to determine whether amendments to the test procedure are needed to more fully meet the statutory requirement that the test procedure be representative of an average use cycle without being unduly burdensome. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) Accordingly, DOE is proceeding with a final rule as discussed in the following sections.

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

In this final rule, DOE amends the test procedure as follows:

(1) Update the existing definitions for IEC Design N and H motors to reflect industry standard updates; amend the existing scope to reflect updates in industry nomenclature, specifically for new industry motor design designations IEC Design NE, HE, NEY and HEY, and include corresponding definitions;

(2) Amend the definition of “basic model” to rely on the term “equipment class” and add a definition for “equipment class” to make the electric motor provisions consistent with the provisions for other DOE-regulated products and equipment;

(3) Add test procedures, a full-load efficiency metric, and supporting definitions for air-over electric motors; electric motors greater than 500 horsepower (“hp”); electric motors considered small (

i.e.,

SNEMs); inverter-only electric motors, and synchronous electric motors;

(4) Incorporate by reference the most recent versions of NEMA MG 1 (

i.e.,

NEMA MG 1-2016 (Revision 1, 2018) ANSI-approved 2021) and CSA C390-10 (

i.e.,

reaffirmed 2019), as well as other referenced industry standards

i.e.,

IEC 60034-12:2016, Edition 3.0 2016-11, “Rotating Electrical Machines, Part 12: Starting Performance of Single-Speed Three-Phase Cage Induction Motors,”; IEC 60079-7:2015, Edition 5.0 2015-06, “Explosive atmospheres—Part 7: Equipment protection by increased safety ‘e,’ ”, which is referenced within IEC 60034-12:2016 and is necessary for the test procedure; and NFPA 20 “Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection” 2022 Edition (“NFPA 20-2022”);

(5) Incorporate by reference additional industry test standards and test instructions to support testing of the additional motors included in the amended test procedure scope: CSA C747-09 (reaffirmed 2019) (“CSA C747-09”), IEEE 114-2010, and IEC 61800-9-2:2017;

(6) Provide additional detail in the test instructions for electric motors by adding definitions for the terms “rated frequency” and “rated voltage;”

(7) Update the testing instructions for vertical electric motors to reduce manufacturer test burden;

(8) Add a definition of “independent” as it relates to nationally recognized certification and accreditation programs;

(9) Permit manufacturers to certify an electric motor's energy efficiency using one of three options: (i) testing the electric motor at an accredited laboratory and then certifying on its own behalf or having a third-party submit the manufacturer's certification report; (ii) testing the electric motor at a testing laboratory other than an accredited laboratory and then having a nationally recognized certification program certify the efficiency of the electric motor; or (iii) using an alternative efficiency determination method (“AEDM”) and then having a third-party nationally recognized certification program certify the efficiency of the electric motor. Using these provisions would be required for certification starting on the compliance date for any new or amended standards for electric motors published after January 1, 2022;

(10) Revise the provisions pertaining to the determination of represented values applied starting on the compliance date of the next final rule adopting new or amended energy conservation standards for electric motors;

(11) Revise the AEDM provisions for electric motors and apply them to all electric motors covered in the scope of the test procedure;

(12) Revise the procedures for recognition and withdrawal of recognition of accreditation bodies and certification programs as applied to electric motors and apply these provisions to all electric motors covered in the scope of the test procedure;

(13) Move provisions pertaining to certification testing, AEDM, and determination of represented values from 10 CFR part 431 to 10 CFR part 429; and

(14) Add provisions pertaining to certification testing and determination of represented values for DPPP motors.

The adopted amendments are summarized in Table II-1 compared to the test procedure provision prior to the amendment, as well as the reason for the adopted change.

Table II-1—Summary of Changes in the Amended Test Procedure

Current DOE test procedure

Amended test procedure

Attribution

Applies to Design N and H motors defined at 10 CFR 431.12

Reflects updates in industry nomenclature, specifically, new motor design designations IEC Design HE, HY, HEY, NE, NY and NEY, and includes corresponding definitions

Update to industry testing standard IEC 60034-12.

Exempts air-over electric motors

Includes test methods, full-load efficiency metric, and supporting definitions for air-over electric motors

Update to industry testing standard NEMA MG 1 2016 with revisions through 2021 which include a test method for air-over electric motors.

Includes electric motors with a horsepower equal to or less than 500 hp

Includes test methods and full-load efficiency metric for electric motors with a horsepower greater than 500 and equal to or less than 750 hp

Statute allowance to extend applicability of the test procedure to these electric motors.

Includes electric motors with a horsepower equal to or greater than 1 hp

Includes test methods and full-load efficiency metric for electric motors considered small (

i.e.,

small non-small-electric-motor electric motors, or SNEMs)

Statute allowance to extend applicability of the test procedure to these electric motors.

Exempts inverter-only electric motors

Includes test methods, full-load efficiency metric, and supporting definitions for inverter-only electric motors

New industry testing standard (IEC 61800-9-2:2017).

Includes electric motors that are induction motors only

Includes test methods, full-load efficiency metric, and supporting definitions for certain synchronous electric motors

New developments in motor technologies and new industry testing standard (IEC 61800-9-2:2017).

Incorporates by reference NEMA MG 1-2009, CSA 390-10, IEC 60034-12 Edition 2.1 2007-09, and NFPA 20-2010

Incorporates by reference the most recent versions of NEMA MG 1 (

i.e.,

NEMA MG 1-2016), CSA 390 (

i.e.,

CSA C390-10), as well as other referenced industry standards (

i.e.,

IEC 60034-12 Edition 3.0 2016 and NFPA 20-2022). In addition, incorporates by reference IEC 60079-7:2015, which is referenced within IEC 60034-12:2016 and is necessary for the test procedure

Updates to industry testing standards NEMA MG 1, CSA 390, IEC 60034-12 and NFPA 20-209. Incorporates industry standards for additional motors included in scope.

Incorporates by reference additional industry test standards and testing instructions to support testing of the additional motors included in scope: CSA C747-09, IEEE 114-2010, and IEC 61800-9-2:2017

Specifies testing at rated frequency, and rated voltage but does not define these terms

Provides additional detail in the test instructions for electric motors by adding definitions for the terms “rated frequency,” and “rated voltage”

Harmonizes with definitions from NEMA MG 1 and improves the repeatability of the test procedure.

Specifies one method of connecting the dynamometer to vertical electric motors

Updates the vertical electric motor testing requirements to allow alternative methods for connecting to the dynamometer

Reduce manufacturer testing burden.

Includes a description of “independent” at 10 CFR 431.19(b)(2), 431.19(c)(2), 431.20(b)(2) and 431.20(c)(2)

Adds a definition for “independent” as it relates to nationally recognized certification and accreditation programs and replace the descriptions of “independent” at 10 CFR 431.19(b)(2), 431.19(c)(2), 431.20(b)(2) and 431.20(c)(2) by this definition

Required by 42 U.S.C. 6316(c).

Allows a manufacturer to both test in its own accredited laboratories and directly submit the certification of compliance to DOE for its own electric motors

Continues to allow a manufacturer to both test in its own accredited laboratories and directly submit the certification of compliance to DOE for its own electric motors. Also now permits certification of compliance using one of three options: (1) a manufacturer can have the electric motor tested using an accredited laboratory and then certify on its own behalf or have a third-party submit the manufacturer's certification report; (2) a manufacturer can test the electric motor at a testing laboratory other than an accredited laboratory and then have a nationally recognized certification program certify the efficiency of the electric motor; or (3) a manufacturer can use an alternative efficiency determination method and then have a third-party nationally recognized certification program certify the efficiency of the electric motor. DOE adopts to require these provisions on or after the compliance date for any new or amended standards for electric motors published after January 1, 2021

Required by 42 U.S.C. 6316(c).

Includes provisions pertaining to the determination of the represented value at 10 CFR 431.17

Revises the provisions pertaining to the determination of the represented values (

i.e.,

nominal full-load efficiency and average full-load efficiency) and requires use of these provisions for all electric motors subject to energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431, subpart B, on or after the compliance date of the final rule adopting new or amended energy conservation standards for electric motors. Moves the provisions to 10 CFR 429.64. Applies these provisions to all electric motors included in the scope of the test procedure

Align the determination of the average and nominal full-load efficiency with the definitions at 10 CFR 431.12. Harmonizes sampling requirements with other covered equipment and covered products at 10 CFR 429.70.

Includes AEDM provisions at 10 CFR 431.17

Revises the AEDM provisions and applies these provisions to all electric motors included in the scope of the test procedure

Harmonizes the AEDM requirements with other covered equipment and covered products at 10 CFR 429.70.

Includes provisions pertaining to nationally recognized accreditation bodies and certification programs at 10 CFR 431.19, 431.20, and 431.21

Revises the procedures for recognition and withdrawal of recognition of accreditation bodies and certification programs as applied to electric motors. Applies these provisions to all electric motors included in the scope of the test procedure

Transfer provisions related to certification at 10 CFR part 429.

Includes a definition of basic model that relies on the term “rating”

Amends the definition of “basic model” to rely on the term “equipment class.” Adds a definition for “equipment class”

Align the definition of basic model with other DOE-regulated products and equipment and eliminate the ambiguity of the term “rating.”

Does not include any certification, sampling plans, or AEDM provisions for DPPP Motors

Adds certification, sampling plans, and AEDM provisions for DPPP Motors

Aligns DPPP motor provisions with the provisions for electric motors subject to the requirements in subpart B of 10 CFR part 431.

DOE has determined that the amendments described in section III of this final rule would not alter the measured efficiency of those electric motors that are currently within the scope of the test procedure and that are currently required to comply with energy conservation standards.

The effective date for the amended test procedures adopted in this final rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the

Federal Register

. Representations of energy use or energy efficiency must be based on testing in accordance with the amended test procedures beginning 180 days after the publication of this final rule. DOE notes that manufacturers of electric motors that have been added to the scope of the test procedure per this final rule are not required to use the test procedure for Federal certification or labeling purposes until such time as energy conservation standards are established for such electric motors. But, if manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and private labelers choose to make any representations respecting the energy consumption or cost of energy consumed by such motors, then such voluntary representations must be made in accordance with the test procedure and sampling requirements, and such representation must also fairly disclose the results of such testing. In addition, manufacturers of electric motors subject to energy conservation standards at 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, will be required to follow the newly adopted certification provisions at 10 CFR 429.64(d) through (f) beginning on the compliance date of the final rule adopting new or amended energy conservation standards for electric motors.

Similarly, DOE notes that manufacturers of dedicated-purpose pool pump motors falling within the scope of the test procedure at 10 CFR 431.484 are not required to use the test procedure for Federal certification or labeling purposes until such time as energy conservation standards are established for those motors. But, if manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and private labelers choose to make any representations respecting the energy consumption or cost of energy consumed by such motors, then such voluntary representations must be made in accordance with the test procedure and sampling requirements, and such representation must also fairly disclose the results of such testing. In addition, manufacturers of dedicated-purpose pool pump motors subject to any energy conservation standards at 10 CFR part 431, subpart Z, will be required to follow the newly adopted certification provisions at 10 CFR 429.65 starting on the compliance date of the final rule adopting new energy conservation standards for these motors.

III. Discussion

A. Scope of Applicability

The term “electric motor” is defined as “a machine that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power.” 10 CFR 431.12. Manufacturers are required to test those electric motors subject to energy conservation standards according to the test procedure in appendix B.

(

See generally

42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A); see also the introductory paragraph to 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, appendix B) Currently, energy conservation standards apply to certain categories of electric motors provided that they meet the criteria specified at 10 CFR 431.25(g). These categories of electric motors are NEMA Design A motors,

NEMA Design B motors,

NEMA Design C motors,

IEC Design N motors,

IEC Design H motors,

and fire

pump electric motors.

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

The amendments do not address

small electric motors,

which are covered separately under 10 CFR part 431, subpart X. A

small electric motor

is “a NEMA general purpose alternating current single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987, including IEC metric equivalent motors.” 10 CFR 431.442.

“NEMA Design A” motor means a squirrel-cage motor that: (1) Is designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing locked-rotor torque as shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.38.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.15); (2) Has pull-up torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.40.1; (3) Has breakdown torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.39.1; (4) Has a locked-rotor current higher than the values shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and (5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for motors with fewer than 10 poles. 10 CFR 430.12.

“NEMA Design B motor” means a squirrel-cage motor that is: (1) Designed to withstand full-voltage starting; (2) Develops locked-rotor, breakdown, and pull-up torques adequate for general application as specified in Paragraphs 12.38, 12.39 and 12.40 of NEMA MG1-2009 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.15); (3) Draws locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in Paragraph 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and 12.35.2 for 50 hertz of NEMA MG1-2009; and (4) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for motors with fewer than 10 poles.

Id.

“NEMA Design C” motor means a squirrel-cage motor that: (1) Is Designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing locked-rotor torque for high-torque applications up to the values shown in NEMA MG1-2009, Paragraph 12.38.2 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.15); (2) Has pull-up torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG1-2009, Paragraph 12.40.2; (3) Has breakdown torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG1-2009, Paragraph 12.39.2; (4) Has a locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in NEMA MG1-2009, Paragraphs 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and 12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and (5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent.

Id.

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.

Id.

IEC Design H motor means an electric motor that (1) Is an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power; (2) Contains a cage rotor; (3) Is capable of direct-on-line starting (4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles; (5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 160 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and (6) Conforms to Sections 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 of the IEC 60034-12 edition 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.15) requirements for starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and starting.

Id.

“Fire pump electric motor” means an electric motor, including any IEC-equivalent motor, that meets the requirements of Section 9.5 of NFPA 20.

Id.

(1) Are single-speed, induction motors;

(2) Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);

(3) Contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor;

(4) Operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power;

(5) Are rated 600 volts or less;

(6) Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration;

(7) Are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent);

(8) Produce at least one horsepower (hp) (0.746 kilowatt (kW)) but not greater than 500 hp (373 kW), and

(9) Meet all of the performance requirements of one of the following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design N or H motor.

10 CFR 431.25(g).

In the test procedure final rule published on December 13, 2013 (“December 2013 Final Rule”), DOE identified certain categories of motors that meet the definition of “electric motor” but for which DOE determined the referenced industry test procedures do not provide a standardized test method for determining the energy efficiency. 78 FR 75962, 75975, 75987-75989. Motors that fall into this grouping are not currently regulated by DOE and consist of the following categories:

• Air-over electric motors;

• Component sets of an electric motor;

• Liquid-cooled electric motors;

• Submersible electric motors; and

• Inverter-only electric motors.

10 CFR 431.25(l).

In this final rule, DOE is clarifying that certain equipment that are designated with IEC Design letters NE, HE, NY, NEY, HY, and HEY are within the scope of the current electric motors test procedure. Furthermore, DOE is establishing test procedure requirements for certain categories of electric motors not currently subject to energy conservation standards. These categories are (1) air-over electric motors; (2) certain electric motors greater than 500 hp; (3) electric motors considered small (

i.e.,

small not-small-electric-motor electric motors or “SNEMs”); and (4) inverter-only electric motors. Finally, DOE is also including within the scope of the test procedure synchronous electric motors. DOE is covering these motors under its “electric motors” authority. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))

DOE notes that manufacturers of electric motors for which DOE is including within the scope of the test procedure, but that are not currently subject to an energy conservation standard, are not required to use the test procedure for Federal certification or labeling purposes until such time as amended or new energy conservation standards are established for such electric motors. However, any voluntary representations by manufacturers, distributors, retailers, or private labelers about the energy consumption or cost of energy for these motors must be based on the use of the test procedure beginning 180 days following publication of this final rule, and such representation must also fairly disclose the results of such testing. DOE's rule does not require manufacturers who do not currently make voluntary representations to then begin making public representations of efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) Manufacturers not currently making representations of efficiency would be required to test such motors in accordance with the test procedure only when compliance is required with a labeling or energy conservation standard requirement if such a requirement should be established. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))

In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed an amended scope for the electric motors test procedure that is generally consistent with the amendments established in this final rule and also proposed to include submersible electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71716. In general, NEEA/NWPCC supported DOE's proposed changes to expand the scope of the electric motors test procedure to include additional motor sizes and topologies. They stated that the current test procedure is limited to one category of motor, excluding many commonly used general purpose motors, and most advanced motor technologies. NEEA/NWPCC recommended the electric motors test procedure apply to as broad a range of motor technologies, designs, and categories as possible to enable consumers to make fair comparisons and informed decisions. NEEA/NWPCC commented that these motors are installed in the same applications as regulated motors, yet are not subject to the same test procedure and standard. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 2) DOE also received a number of specific comments on each category of electric motor included in the scope of the test procedure, which are discussed in the following sections.

1. Motor Used as a Component of a Covered Product or Equipment

In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed not to exclude motors used as a component of a covered product or covered equipment from the test procedure scope. This includes any proposed expanded scope electric motors. Specifically, DOE noted that the current electric motors test procedure applies to definite purpose and special purpose electric motors, and DOE is not aware of any technical issues with testing such motors using the current DOE test procedure. 86 FR 71710, 71728. In response, DOE received a number of comments, many of whom objected to DOE's approach.

AHAM and AHRI filed joint comments opposing DOE's proposed expansion of the test procedure's scope of coverage to include special-and definite-purpose electric motors, specifically air-over electric motors, inverter-only electric motors, synchronous motors, and SNEMs. They explained that Original Equipment Manufacturer (“OEM”) products have been built around special/definite purpose motors or that these motors are specially built to be installed inside OEM products. AHAM and AHRI stated that those finished products are already regulated by DOE and many manufacturers turn to more efficient designs that include components such as more efficient motors to meet more stringent energy conservation standards. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 1-3) AHAM and AHRI added that special purpose and definite purpose motors are distinct and different from general purpose motors and noted that despite the reworking of the “electric motor” definition in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, special purpose and definite purpose motors are still defined separately.

Id.

AHAM and AHRI commented that efficient electric motors destined for finished products are already a major part of the energy equation when OEMs consider which design options to apply to meet new standards and added that DOE's proposed test procedure, which would rate motor efficiency at full-load, fails to adequately capture representative load conditions for finished products and equipment that

are largely optimized for, and regulated on, part-load performance. AHAM and AHRI commented that regulating special and definite purpose motors, particularly with the proposed third-party nationally recognized certification program requirements, will add cost, reduce market choices, and do little, if anything, to realize further energy savings over time. AHRI and AHAM asserted that in the near-term, the proposed rules will counter intuitively create a recipe for setbacks in energy savings. They stated that the timing of these proposed changes will also exacerbate supply chain disruption, further delaying products reaching U.S. consumers and inflating the cost of finished goods.

Id.

AHAM and AHRI provided information on the market size represented by their respective member companies, stating that it represents a significant segment of the economy. AHRI and AHAM commented that regulation of a single component product can have ramifications to other components throughout the product. AHAM and AHRI stated that durable products work as a system to achieve their purpose for the consumer and as such, requested DOE carefully consider the perspective of the end-purchasers and users of the categories of small electric motors (“SEMs”) that would be governed by the proposed regulation. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 1-3)

Further, AHAM and AHRI commented that small electric motors that are components of covered equipment are, and should continue to be, appropriately afforded an exemption from energy conservation standards and test method, and SNEMs should be given similar treatment. AHAM and AHRI stated that DOE's proposal to not exclude motors that are components of regulated products was contrary to DOE's previously published public opinion (regarding SEMs) and the intent of Congress as expressed in the EPCA Amendments of 1992. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 3-5) AHAM and AHRI further commented that in the April 2020 Small Electric Motors Proposed Determination (

see

85 FR 24146, 24152 (April 30, 2020)), DOE acknowledged, “the term `small electric motor' has a specific meaning under EPCA,” codified in 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G) and 10 CFR 431.442. AHAM and AHRI commented that DOE's preliminary findings, outlined in the 2011 RFI for Increased Scope of Coverage for Electric Motors (

see

76 FR 17577, 17578 (March 30, 2011)), noted explicitly that many of the motors contemplated for coverage by DOE's proposed test procedure require separate analysis from general purpose motors. AHAM and AHRI commented that the notable exceptions from scope outlined in the final rule published May 29, 2014, Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors Final Rule (79 FR 30934 (“May 2014 Final Rule”), are fractional horsepower motors. They agreed with DOE's previous determination related to small electric motors (81 FR 41378, 41394-41395) in which the agency recognized that Congress intentionally excluded these motors from coverage by DOE regulation when such motors are used as components of products and equipment that are already subject to DOE regulation. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 3-5)

AHAM and AHRI commented that regulating SNEMs directly conflicts with Congress's vision that components of EPCA-covered products and equipment remain unregulated. AHAM and AHRI commented that given DOE's claimed similarities between small electric motors and the SNEMs category, DOE nevertheless proposes to deny to SNEMs a key exemption that Congress expressly provided for small electric motors. AHAM and AHRI stated that when Congress amended EPCA through the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and defined “small electric motors,” it expressly required that energy conservation standards “shall not apply to any small electric motor which is a component of a covered product under section 6292(a) of this title or covered equipment under section 6311 of this title.” 42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3) (emphasis added). AHAM and AHRI commented that DOE provides no rationale or explanation for the disparate treatment of small electric motors and SNEMs when it comes to their use as components. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 3-5)

Similarly, Lennox stated that the exemption for SEMs that are components of larger regulated equipment (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) should also apply to SNEMs, particularly with respect to the heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration (“HVACR”) context. (Lennox, No. 24 at pp. 5-6)

AI Group stated that SNEMs often go into regulated equipment and that double regulation should be avoided. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 3) NEMA argued that the creation of the SNEM category violated the intent of 42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)'s prohibition against applying the SEM standards to an SEM that is used as a component in another regulated product. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 5) NEMA also stated that much of the SNEM expanded scope includes definite and special-purpose motors that have been designed for specific applications. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 5) Trane commented that SNEMs are designed for end-product performance requirements and that applying efficiency standards to the motor specifically would add burden without providing energy savings, and on that basis opposed including them in the scope of the test procedure. (Trane, No. 31 at p. 3)

In addition, JCI generally opposed the proposed scope expansion to mandate new test procedures to include special and definite purpose motors—which specifically includes air-over, inverter, synchronous as well as SNEMs—because these motors are already being regulated at the system level and are, in its view, clearly exempted under 42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3). (JCI, No. 34 at p. 1) JCI commented that component level regulations will not result in significant savings or performance benefits to consumers, and that consumers do not inquire about component level efficiency and only are concerned with system-level efficiency. In its view, this double regulation stifles design and limits improvements because of the higher constraints without benefit. It stated that the motor is typically not the least efficient component with air conditioners, heat pumps, or furnaces and double regulation only serves to add unnecessary cost. (JCI, No. 34 at p. 1)

In contrast, the Joint Advocates and the CA IOUs supported including motors falling within the scope of the test procedure that are installed into other DOE covered products. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 5; CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 45) The CA IOUs cautioned, however, that DOE consider the manufacturer burdens associated with regulation, and to not push manufacturers towards offering less diverse product lines. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 45-46)

In their joint comments, NEEA/NWPCC recommended that DOE include all electric motors that directly compete against each other in this test procedure so that they can be fairly compared against other motor designs. NEEA/NWPCC noted that some of these motor categories and designs are known for having low efficiencies but are commonly chosen by consumers and OEMs because they are cheaper than other motors. They added that because of the incomplete coverage of the current test procedure and standard, unregulated inefficient motor categories have a competitive advantage compared to more efficient motors and—in spite of

their cheaper initial costs—result in increased operating costs for consumers. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3)

DOE is not addressing any potential standards in this rulemaking; standards for electric motors are addressed in a separate rulemaking procedure (see docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007). Rather, this rulemaking addresses only the scope of the test procedure.

As discussed in the final rule published on May 4, 2012 (the “May 2012 Final Rule”), EPCA, as amended through EISA 2007, provides DOE with the authority to regulate the expanded scope of motors addressed in this rule. 77 FR 26608, 26612-26613. Before the enactment of EISA 2007, EPCA defined the term “electric motor” as any motor that is a general purpose T-frame, single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction motor of the NEMA, Design A and B, continuous rated, operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60 Hertz line power as defined in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987. (

See

42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (2006)) Section 313(a)(2) of EISA 2007 removed that definition and the prior limits that narrowly defined what types of motors would be considered as electric motors. In its place, EISA 2007 inserted a new “Electric motors” heading, and created two new subtypes of electric motors: General purpose electric motor (subtype I) and general purpose electric motor (subtype II). (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)-(B) (2011)) In addition, section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 established energy conservation standards for four types of electric motors: general purpose electric motors (subtype I) (

i.e.,

subtype I motors) with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; fire pump motors; general purpose electric motor (subtype II) (

i.e.,

subtype II motors) with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; and NEMA Design B, general purpose electric motors with a power rating of more than 200 horsepower, but less than or equal to 500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) The term “electric motor” was left undefined.

As described in the May 2012 Final Rule, a regulatory definition for “electric motor” was necessary, and therefore DOE adopted the broader definition of “electric motor” currently found in 10 CFR 431.12. Specifically, DOE noted that the absence of a definition may cause confusion about which electric motors are required to comply with mandatory test procedures and energy conservation standards. 77 FR 26608, 26613. Further, in the May 2012 Final Rule, DOE noted that this broader approach would allow DOE to fill the definitional gap created by the EISA 2007 amendments while providing DOE with the flexibility to set energy conservation standards for other types of electric motors without having to continuously update the definition of “electric motors” each time DOE sets energy conservation standards for a new subset of electric motors.

Id.

Congress specifically defined what equipment comprises an SEM—specifically, “a NEMA general purpose alternating current single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) (DOE clarified, at industry's urging, that the definition also includes motors that are IEC metric equivalents to the specified NEMA motors prescribed by the statute. See 74 FR 32059, 32061-32062; 10 CFR 431.442)) In conjunction with this definition, Congress also exempted any SEM that is a component of a covered product or a covered equipment from the standards that DOE was required to establish under 42 U.S.C. 6317(b). Congress did not, however, similarly restrict electric motors.

SNEMs, which are electric motors, are not SEMs because they do not satisfy the more specific statutory SEM definition—or even the arguably broader clarifying definition that DOE adopted to accommodate electric motors that were IEC metric equivalents of the NEMA motors falling under the SEM definition of that term and therefore not subject to the exclusion explicitly established for SEMs. Accordingly, DOE is declining to adopt the suggestions offered by commenters to exclude SNEMs installed as components in other DOE regulated products and equipment from the test procedure being promulgated in this final rule.

DOE is not establishing energy conservation standards for SNEMs in this final rule. Were DOE to consider energy conservation standards for SNEMs, DOE would evaluate the efficiency of SNEMs on the market for their various applications, as well as opportunities for improved efficiency while still being able to serve those applications.

DOE is also including in the scope of the test procedure special purpose and definite purpose motors.

Further discussion on each of the expanded scope categories are provided in the following sections. Discussion on maintaining the full-load metric in this test procedure is provided in section III.E. of this document.

2. “E” and “Y” Designations of IEC Design N and H Motors

Currently regulated electric motors include those motors designated as IEC Design N and IEC Design H motors. In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE discussed that IEC 60034-12:2016 includes industry nomenclature updates to IEC Design N and IEC Design H motors, whose designations are augmented with the designations IEC Design NE, HE, NY, NEY, HY, and HEY. 86 FR 71710, 71716-71717. DOE stated that all six additional categories are described as electric motors that are variants of IEC Design N and IEC Design H electric motors that DOE currently regulates, with the only differences being the premium efficiency attribute (indicated by the letter “E”), and starting configuration

(“star-delta” starter

indicated by the letter “Y”).

Id.

Accordingly, DOE proposed to revise 10 CFR 431.25 to reflect the inclusion of IEC Design NE, NEY, and NY motors as IEC Design N motors and to make a similar set of revisions to reflect the inclusion of IEC Design HE, HEY, and HY motors as IEC Design H motors. DOE clarified that to the extent IEC Design N and IEC Design H motors are subject to the DOE regulations for electric motors, such coverage already includes IEC Design NE, NY, NEY, HE, HY and HEY motors.

Id.

For induction motors, the starting configuration refers to the manner in which the three-phase input terminals are connected to each other, and the star configuration results in a lower line-to-line voltage than the delta configuration.

See

Sections 2.62 and 2.64 of NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements) and 2021 updates for further detail.

A “star-delta starter” refers to a reduced voltage starter system arranged by connecting the supply with the primary motor winding initially in star (“wye” or “Y”) configuration, then reconnected in a delta configuration for running operation. In the star configuration, all three supply lines are connected at a single point and the circuit diagram resembles the letter Y. In the delta configuration each supply line is connected at one end with the next supply line and the circuit diagram resembles the Greek letter delta (Δ).

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

inclusion of IEC Design HE, HEY, and HY motors as IEC Design H motors. In this final rule, DOE is revising 10 CFR 431.25(g)-(i) to reflect the inclusion of IEC Design N and H variants as it relates to current energy conservation standards.

DOE received comments regarding the definitions proposed for the IEC Design designations, which are addressed separately in section III.B.1. of this document.

3. Air-Over Electric Motors

DOE defines an “air-over electric motor” as an electric motor rated to operate in and be cooled by the airstream of a fan or blower that is not supplied with the motor and whose primary purpose is providing airflow to an application other than the motor driving it. 10 CFR 431.12. These motors are currently exempt from the energy conservation standards. 10 CFR 431.25(l)(4). In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE reviewed NEMA MG 1-2016, Part 34: Air-Over Motor Efficiency Test Method, as well as Section 8.2.1 of IEEE 114-2010 and Section 5 of CSA C747-09, and initially determined that sufficient information was available to propose a test method for air-over electric motors, and therefore proposed to include air-over electric motors in the scope of the test procedure. 86 FR 71710, 71718. Further, DOE also proposed an amended definition for air-over electric motors (86 FR 71710, 71730-71731), which is discussed further in section III.B.4 of this rulemaking. Accordingly, DOE requested comment on its proposal to add air-over electric motors in scope.

Id.

In response to the expanded scope proposal, a number of stakeholders supported the inclusion of air-over electric motors. (AMCA, No. 21 at p. 2; ebm-papst, No. 23 at pp. 2, 6; CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 10) NEMA agreed with the proposal in concept, but disagreed with several testing provisions, which are discussed further in section III.D.1 of this document. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 6) Lennox opposed the inclusion of air-over motors, citing that component-level regulation should be avoided when system-level regulation is possible. Lennox stated that the cost of component-level regulation outweighs the benefit when DOE could more effectively use system-level regulation (HVAC in this case). (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 1-2) Regal opposed including air-over motors to the scope of test procedure, explaining that it already tests the motors according to DOE requirements for the equipment into which these motors would be installed, and that regulating these motors separately would increase costs while yielding no benefit. (Regal, No. 28 at p. 1) AI Group referenced a 2019 Australian testing standard for three-phase cage induction motors that includes testing requirements for totally enclosed air-over motors. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 3)

DOE is covering air-over electric motors under its “electric motors” authority. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) As discussed in section III.A of this document, the statute does not limit DOE's authority to regulate an electric motor with respect to whether they are stand-alone equipment items or as components of a covered product or covered equipment. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (providing that standards for electric motors be applied to electric motors manufactured “alone or as a component of another piece of equipment”) DOE's previous determination in the December 2013 Final Rule to exclude air-over electric motors from scope was due to insufficient information available to DOE at the time to support establishment of a test method. 78 FR 75962, 75974-75975. Since that time, NEMA published a test standard for air-over motors in Section IV, “Performance Standards Applying to All Machines,” Part 34 “Air-Over Motor Efficiency Test Method” of NEMA MG 1-2016 (“NEMA Air-over Motor Efficiency Test Method”). The air-over method was originally published as part of the 2017 NEMA MG-1 Supplements and is also included in the latest version of NEMA MG 1-2016. Therefore, DOE does not consider including air-over electric motors within its test procedure scope significantly burdensome because the NEMA test method (which is an industry-accepted method) has existed since 2017. Further, based on a general market review, DOE notes that several manufacturers have already been representing the performance of their air-over electric motors in marketing materials. Based on the additional information and the development of an industry standard appropriate for air-over electric motors, DOE is including air-over electric motors within scope of the test procedure. DOE believes that including such a test procedure within its regulations will provide consistent and comparable efficiency ratings for consumers and provide manufacturers with a level playing field.

DOE notes that air-over electric motors are not currently subject to energy conservation standards in 10 CFR 431.25(l)(1). Manufacturers would not be required to use the test procedure for certification, until such time as a standard is established. If a manufacturer voluntarily chooses to make representations about the energy consumption or cost of energy for these motors such representations must be based on the use of that test procedure beginning 180 days following publication of a final rule. DOE's amendments do not require manufacturers who do not currently make voluntary representations to then begin making public representations of efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) Manufacturers would be required to test such motors in accordance with the DOE test procedure at such time as compliance is required with a labeling or energy conservation standard requirement should such a requirement be established. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))

In addition, DOE notes that the industry test procedure incorporated by reference (see section III.D.1) are only applicable to air-over motors that are induction motors and capable of operating without an inverter. As such, they are not applicable to air-over electric motors that are synchronous electric motors and to air-over electric motors that are inverter-only. Accordingly, DOE clarifies that it did not propose and is not adopting to include air-over electric motors that are synchronous electric motors and air-over electric motors that are inverter-only in the scope of the test procedure. DOE adopts to add a clarification in the scope section of the test procedure in appendix B to subpart B to specify which air-over electric motors are included in the test procedure.

DOE also received a number of comments on the air-over electric motor definition and test method, which are discussed in section III.B.4 and section III.D.1 of this document, respectively.

4. AC Induction Electric Motors Greater Than 500 Horsepower

DOE currently specifies that its test procedures and energy conservation standards for electric motors do not apply to motors that produce greater than 500 horsepower (373 kW). 10 CFR 431.25(g)(8); appendix B, Note.

In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to expand the scope of the test procedure to include induction electric motors with a horsepower rating greater than 500 hp and up to 750 hp, that otherwise meet the criteria provided in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and are not currently listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l)(2)-(4). 86 FR 71710, 71719.

In response, CEMEP supported expanding the test procedure's scope to include motors between 500 and 750 hp that otherwise meet the conditions of 10 CFR 431.25(g). (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2) NEMA supported adding motors

between 500 and 750 hp to the energy conservation standards but noted there are currently no NEMA Design A, B, or C performance requirements for this horsepower range, and that these requirements would need to be developed. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7) The CA IOUs supported DOE's inclusion of 500+ hp motors to the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 46) The Joint Advocates supported expanding the scope beyond 500 hp and suggested the upper limit should be 1000 hp and identified models that they asserted would be included in scope even with a limit of 600V input voltage. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 3) Grundfos questioned how many motors were sold in this range and what energy savings could be captured by including 500 to 750 hp motors into the scope of the test procedure. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2) Advanced Energy stated that motors of this size are outside of its lab test capabilities, but as a nationally recognized certification program for electric and small electric motor efficiency, its certification scheme allows it to certify motors of this size by witnessing testing in manufacturer's accredited labs. Accordingly, they commented that they offer certification services for covered motor products above 250 hp. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 3)

As discussed in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE's review of catalog offerings identified large induction motors rated up to 750 hp currently being sold in the market, and the majority of the models identified listed full-load efficiencies even though DOE currently does not regulate electric motors greater than 500 hp. 86 FR 71710, 71719. Based on discussions with a subject matter expert, DOE understands that most of these large motors rely on the alternative efficiency determination method (“AEDM”) permitted under 10 CFR 431.17 to determine full-load efficiencies for regulated electric motors at and under 500 hp.

Id.

Accordingly, DOE understands that there are motors sold in the range between 500 and 750 hp. DOE was unable to identify any motors for sale greater than 750 hp with input voltages up to 600 volts. Accordingly, DOE will not be expanding the horsepower limit of the test procedure beyond 750 hp. While there may be motors available at input voltages greater than 600 volts, in this final rule, DOE is maintaining the approach from the December 2021 NOPR proposal to limit the voltage to 600 volts, consistent with other in-scope electric motors defined by 10 CFR 431.25(g).

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

DOE notes that the proposed expanded scope would have required that an electric motor meet all of the performance requirements of one of the following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design N or H motor. 10 CFR 431.25(g)(9) While DOE agrees with NEMA's comment that there are no NEMA Design A, B, or C performance requirements for motors greater than 500 hp, there are performance requirements for IEC Design N or H motors for the same range. As such, the IEC Design N or H performance requirements would be applicable for this horsepower range instead of the NEMA Design A, B, or C performance requirements.

Accordingly, consistent with the proposed scope expansion and related discussion from the December 2021 NOPR and the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, DOE is expanding the scope of the test procedure to include induction electric motors with a horsepower rating greater than 500 hp and up to 750 hp that otherwise meet the criteria provided in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and are not currently listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l)(2)-(4).

5. SNEMs

An SEM is a NEMA general purpose AC single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987, including IEC metric equivalent motors.

See

42 U.S.C. 6311(G); see also 10 CFR 431.442 (clarifying that the statutory definition for “small electric motor” includes IEC metric equivalent motors). Table III-1 and Table III-2 provide a general description of currently regulated small electric motors and electric motors.

Table III-1—General Description of Single-Phase Induction Motors Currently Subject to Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures

Motor enclosure

construction

NEMA frame size

2-Digit NEMA frame size

3-Digit NEMA frame size or above

Open

NEMA general purpose capacitor-start induction run, capacitor-start capacitor run motors between 0.25 and 3 hp

None.

Enclosed

None

None.

Note:

this table provides a high-level description. Full description of motors currently subject to energy conservation standards and test procedures available at 10 CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X.

Table III—2 General Description of Polyphase Phase Induction Motors Currently Subject to Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures

Motor enclosure

construction

NEMA frame size

2-Digit NEMA frame size

3-Digit NEMA frame size or above

Open

NEMA general purpose motor between 0.25 and 3 hp

Between 1-500 hp.

Enclosed

NEMA 56-frame size only between 1-500 hp

Between 1-500 hp.

Note:

this table provides a high-level description. Full description of motors currently subject to energy conservation standards and test procedures in available at 10 CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X.

This section addresses electric motors that do not fall within the SEM definition as described above but that are generally considered “small” by industry (

i.e.,

“small, non-small-electric-motor electric motor,” or “SNEM”). In this section, DOE specifically discusses SNEMs that are induction motors. Some of these motors are marketed as general purpose by manufacturers, although they do not meet the definition of small electric motor at 10 CFR 431.442.

Non-induction motor topologies (specifically certain synchronous electric motors) are discussed in section III.A.7 of this document.

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

In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include test procedures for additional electric motors not covered under the current electric motors test procedure and that do not meet the definition of small electric motors in 10 CFR part 431, subpart X, but are nonetheless considered “small,”

i.e.,

SNEMs. 86 FR 71710, 71719-71725. DOE proposed to distinguish SNEMs from SEMs by specifying combinations of frame size, rated motor horsepower, enclosure construction, and additional performance criteria that are not currently included in the existing electric motors and small electric motors regulations at 10 CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X (

See

Table III-1 and Table III-2 for electric motors and small electric motors that are currently regulated).

Id.

Accordingly, DOE proposed the following definition for this expanded scope in the December 2021 NOPR:

Small non-small-electric-motor electric motor (“SNEMs”)

means an electric motor that:

(a) Is not a small electric motor, as defined at § 431.442 and is not dedicated-purpose pool pump motors as defined at § 431.483;

(b) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);

(c) Is capable of operating on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power (with or without an inverter);

(d) Is rated for 600 volts or less;

(e) Is a single-speed induction motor;

(f) Produces a rated motor horsepower greater than or equal to 0.25 horsepower (0.18 kW); and

(g) Is built in the following frame sizes: any frame sizes if the motor operates on single-phase power; any frame size if the motor operates on polyphase power, and has a rated motor horsepower less than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW); or a two-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), if the motor operates on polyphase power, has a rated motor horsepower equal to or greater than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW), and is not an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent).

86 FR 71710, 71780.

DOE received a number of comments on how the criteria for SNEMs was defined. Some commenters supported including SNEMs in the scope of the test procedure as proposed. Commenters noted that these motors are very similar in application, construction, and performance to existing covered equipment, and therefore should be covered. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 3; NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) Further, NEEA/NWPCC encouraged DOE to include all motors that directly compete against each other in the test procedure so that they can be fairly compared against other motor designs. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) Other commenters, however, criticized DOE's approach. ABB stated that the criteria for establishing if a product is in the proposed scope as an SNEM are not adequately defined, and recommended that DOE list the criteria that an SNEM must satisfy, citing the nine criteria DOE has already listed for electric motors in 10 CFR 431.25. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 1) NEMA added that the proposed SNEM definition needs to be clearer since it does not allow manufacturers to clearly identify what motors in their inventory would fall within the SNEM category. NEMA requested that DOE provide specific examples of SNEMs and better identify whether an electric motors is an SNEM. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7) HI offered a similar view, noting that the proposed SNEM scope is too broad and that the proposed definition's overly-broad nature prevented HI from identifying areas of concern. (HI, No. 30 at p. 2)

DOE proposed to distinguish SNEMs by specifying combinations of frame sizes, rated motor horsepower, enclosure construction, and additional performance criteria that are not currently included in the existing electric motors and small electric motors regulations at 10 CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X (

See

Table III-1 and Table III-2, and proposed definition for SNEM earlier in this section). DOE proposed seven specific criteria to identify whether an electric motor is a SNEM, an approach similar to how DOE identifies those electric motors that are subject to the standards at 10 CFR 431.25. If an electric motor meets the seven proposed criteria, then it is an SNEM. ABB recommended listing criteria to identify the appropriate scope (ABB, No. 18 at p. 1), which DOE notes is consistent with the approach DOE proposed in the December 2021 NOPR and is consistent with how specifications are provided for motors currently in scope in 10 CFR 431.25(g). Further, other commenters did not identify any specific areas of confusion. In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE provided a detailed description on how the SNEM scope was determined based on the current SEM and electric motor scope. 86 FR 71710, 71719-71725. In all, it is DOE's understanding that the proposed specifications are sufficient to specify the SNEM scope. DOE is, however, clarifying some of the proposed criteria related to frame size, speed, and power supply in response to other comments.

For example, the Joint Advocates suggested that multi-speed SNEMs should be included in the scope as well, and that including only single-speed SNEMs is inconsistent with the proposed broader test procedure scope that includes variable-speed motors. They raised the concern of a loophole with inefficient multi-speed SNEMs replacing more efficient single-speed SNEMs. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at pp. 3-4) The CA IOUs recommended including multi-speed SNEMs to the test procedure's scope, citing as support the scenario where a consumer seeks to replace a failed variable-speed electrically commutated motor (“ECM”) in a residential furnace fan with a lower first cost, less efficient, multi-speed permanent split capacitor (“PSC”) motor. They also stated that multi-speed PSC and shaded-pole motors are in widespread use. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 42)

After careful consideration of these comments, DOE has decided at this time to retain its single-speed limitation for SNEMs. As explained, DOE is taking this step to ensure coverage of those motors that are generally considered small by industry that have similarities to motors that DOE currently regulates as SEMs at 10 CFR part 431 subpart X—the scope of which only includes single-speed induction motors.

See

10 CFR 431.442.

Commenters also had some concerns with the inclusion of the clause “with or without an inverter” within the SNEM definition. Specifically, Grundfos stated that the proposed SNEM definition is confusing and that DOE should clarify the intent with the “single speed” and “with or without an inverter” requirements to remove any ambiguity on the intention. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2) HI stated that for clarity, the clause “with or without an inverter” should be removed from the criteria. (HI, No. 30 at p. 2) DOE re-evaluated the proposed text relevant to inverters. DOE's intention with the proposal was

to ensure that in-scope electric motors that satisfy the SNEM definition would be either: (1) single-speed and capable of operating without an inverter; or (2) inverter-only electric motors operating with an inverter and capable of varying speed.

Therefore, to clarify this intent, DOE is revising the language used to describe SNEMs to state this more directly. First, to add clarity, DOE is replacing the proposed criteria “Is capable of operating on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power (with or without an inverter)” with “Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power.” Second, to clarify its intent, DOE is replacing the proposed criterion “Is a single-speed induction motor” with a revised one that accounts for inverter-only electric motors as follows: “Is a single-speed induction motor capable of operating without an inverter or is an inverter-only electric motor.”

See discussion of the term “inverter-only electric motor” in section III.B.3 of this document.

Separately, HI had concerns regarding how the frame sizes should be identified within the SNEM definition. HI commented that DOE should explicitly list the NEMA and IEC equivalents frame sizes that are covered. (HI, No. 30 at p. 2) Further, HI noted that the proposed phase “any frame size” in the SNEM definition is not defined, and could imply a motor of any dimensions, or a motor of any defined NEMA or IEC frame size is covered. They suggested that this ambiguity needs to be remedied.

Id.

DOE clarifies in this final rule that the proposed “any frame size” is intended to designate “any NEMA or IEC-equivalent” frame size. As such, in this final rule, DOE is modifying the term “any frame size” to “any two-, or three- digit NEMA frame size (or IEC-equivalent).” DOE notes that there are no four-digit frames sizes that qualify as SNEMs.

Finally, DOE also received comments regarding the proposed term “small non-small-electric-motor electric motor,” or “SNEM”. NEEA/NWPCC recommended that DOE reconsider the use of the term “small non-small-electric-motor electric motor” because it is a confusing term for these motors. NEEA/NWPCC suggested “Other Small HP Motors (OSHM)” or “Other Small Electric Motors (OSEM)” as two possible options. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) Grundfos stated that the DOE should identify a more suitable, and less confusing name for this class of motors. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2) DOE did not receive any other recommendations regarding an alternate to the proposed “SNEM” term. DOE notes that the term explicitly states that it is a “non-small-electric-motor.” This specifies that SEMs, as defined in 10 CFR 431.442, are not part of this scope. Accordingly, DOE is maintaining the term “SNEM” in this final rule.

Accordingly, DOE is finalizing the scope to cover SNEMs, which DOE is defining as:

Small non-small-electric-motor electric motor (“SNEM”)

means an electric motor that:

(a) Is not a small electric motor, as defined § 431.442 and is not a dedicated-purpose pool pump motor as defined at § 431.483;

(b) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);

(c) Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power;

(d) Is rated for 600 volts or less;

(e) Is a single-speed induction motor capable of operating without an inverter or is an inverter-only electric motor;

(f) Produces a rated motor horsepower greater than or equal to 0.25 horsepower (0.18 kW); and

(g) Is built in the following frame sizes: any two-, or three- digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent) if the motor operates on single-phase power; any two-, or three-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent) if the motor operates on polyphase power, and has a rated motor horsepower less than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW); or a two-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), if the motor operates on polyphase power, has a rated motor horsepower equal to or greater than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW), and is not an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent).

6. AC Induction Inverter-Only Electric Motors

The current electric motor test procedures apply to AC induction motors except for those AC induction motors that are “inverter-only electric motors.”

These motors are an exempted category of electric motors listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l)(5).

As it noted in its May 2014 Final Rule, DOE exempted these electric motors from its standards at 10 CFR 431.25 in the absence of a reliable and repeatable method to test their efficiency. 79 FR 30934, 30945. In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE noted that in the interim since its 2014 rule was published, the industry has developed several methods to test inverter-only motors. As a result of this development, DOE proposed to include within the electric motor test procedure's scope those AC induction inverter-only electric motors that meet both the criteria listed at 10 CFR 431.25(g) and the proposed SNEM scope. 86 FR 71710, 71725-71726. Further, as discussed in section III.A.4 of this section, DOE also separately proposed to include within the test procedure's scope those induction electric motors with a horsepower rating greater than 500 hp and up to 750 hp that otherwise meet the criteria provided in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and are not currently listed as exempt at 10 CFR 431.25(l)(2)-(4). 86 FR 71710, 71719.

NEMA MG-1 2016, Paragraph 30.2.1.5 defines the term “control” for motors receiving AC power, as “devices that are also called inverters and converters. These are “electronic devices that convert an input AC or DC power into a controlled output AC voltage or current..”.” Converters can also be found in motors that receive DC power and include electronic devices that convert an AC or DC power input into a controlled output DC voltage or current.

See

section III.B.3 of this final rule.

DOE defines an “inverter-only electric motor” as an electric motor that is capable of rated operation solely with an inverter, and is not intended for operation when directly connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line power.” 10 CFR 431.12 DOE notes that more generally, the requirement to operate with an inverter also means that that inverter-only motors are not intended for operation when directly connected to single-phase, sinusoidal line power or to DC power.

See

section III.B.3 of this final rule.

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

inverter-only motors may have a special voltage/frequency combination that allows them to operate at very high speeds with up to 400 Hz input, and these motors are normally cooled by separately powered fans and may have their laminations exposed with no external frame. Finally, regarding inverters, ABB stated that inverters may vary from micro designs to very large drives with widely varying topography, and some newer drive topographies may result in a more efficient drive but at the expense of producing additional harmonics, heating, and reduced efficiency from the motor. (ABB, No. 18 at pp. 2-3) AI Group stated that inverter-only motors are rarely general-purpose motors and have non-continuous duty applications with high cycling and high-performance demands. In its view, these special characteristics and the low volume of sales for inverter-only motors favor excluding them from the scope of the test procedure. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 4)

Similarly, NEMA, along with a number of individual electric motor manufacturers, also supported excluding inverter-only motors from the test procedure's scope. It explained that the motor and drive combination required to operate is a “motor-drive system”—not an electric motor—and should not fall within the scope of an electric motor test procedure. It further stated that inverter-only motors are not general purpose and have unique performance requirements that complicate expressions of efficiency. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7) Regal also opposed including inverter-only motors within the scope of DOE's test procedure. They stated that they already test the motors according to DOE requirements for the equipment into which these motors are installed, and that regulating these motors separately would increase costs for no benefit. (Regal, No. 28 at p. 1) Trane commented that inverter-only motors should not be included in the scope because, in its view, there are no energy savings gained and that testing related to these electric motors should occur as part of the overall system in which they are installed. (Trane, No. 31 at pp. 3, 5-6)

In contrast, several stakeholders supported the inclusion of inverter-only electric motors as part of the test procedure's scope. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 4; Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 19; Advanced Energy, No. 33 at pp. 3-4; NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) The CA IOUs commented that the inclusion of inverter-only motors will provide end-users with a representative method to compare these motors with conventional induction motors combined with variable-frequency drives. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 19) The CA IOUs also provided examples of case studies where inverter-only motors have successfully substituted conventional induction motors combined with VFDs. (CA IOUs, No. 32.2 at pp. 1-15) The Joint Advocates commented that inverter-only motors with variable-speed capabilities may serve as more energy efficient replacements for currently covered and newly included (

e.g.,

SNEM) AC induction motors, and that inclusion of these more energy efficient motor types may unlock significant potential energy savings. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 4) Advanced Energy stated that in the past, DOE excluded inverter-only motors because these motors can only be operated continuously when connected to an inverter, and there may be difficulty testing the combined motor and inverter. However, it noted that in practice, there are induction machines marked as “inverter-only” that can be relatively more easily tested than synchronous motors. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at pp. 3-4)

As discussed in section III.A.1, EPCA previously defined the term “electric motor” as encompassing specific motors that are general purpose. (

See

42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (2006)) Section 313(a)(2) of EISA 2007 removed that definition and the prior limits that narrowly defined what types of motors would be considered as electric motors. Further, section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 established energy conservation standards for four types of electric motors (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) The term “electric motor” was left undefined. EPCA does not limit “electric motors” to “general purpose.”

In the May 2012 Final Rule, DOE determined a regulatory definition for “electric motor” was necessary, and therefore DOE adopted the broader definition of “electric motor” currently found in 10 CFR 431.12. Specifically, DOE noted that the absence of a definition may cause confusion about which electric motors are required to comply with mandatory test procedures and energy conservation standards. 77 FR 26608, 26613. Further, DOE noted that this broader approach would allow DOE to fill the definitional gap created by the EISA 2007 amendments while providing DOE with the flexibility to set energy conservation standards for other types of electric motors without having to continuously update the definition of “electric motors” each time DOE sets energy conservation standards for a new subset of electric motors.

Id.

In addition, the statute does not limit DOE's authority to regulate an electric motor with respect to whether “electric motors” are stand-alone equipment items or components of a covered product or covered equipment. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (providing that standards for electric motors be applied to electric motors manufactured “alone or as a component of another piece of equipment”) As such, inverter-only electric motors not being general purpose or components of another covered product or equipment have no bearing on whether DOE may regulate these motors.

Further, an inverter-only electric motor requiring an inverter to operate also has no bearing on whether DOE may regulate these motors. An electric motor is defined as a machine that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power. 10 CFR 431.12. Inverter-only electric motors require the inverter to operate in the field to convert electrical power into rotational mechanical power. Inverter-only motors cannot be run continuously when directly connected to a 60-hertz, AC polyphase sinusoidal power source. Therefore, a separate, special electronic controller, called an inverter, is used to alter the power signal to the motor. The inverter can be physically combined with the motor into a single unit, may be physically separate from the motor, or may not be included in the motor, but the motor is unable to operate without a drive. As such, this electric motor would remain inoperable if it does not include an inverter and would need to include both the inverter-only electric motor and the inverter-component to convert electrical power into rotational mechanical power. For this reason, the combination of these two components, in DOE's view, meets the definition of an electric motor and DOE has included this combination within the scope of its test procedure.

In the December 2013 Final Rule, DOE considered inverter-only electric motors as part of the scope and only excluded these motors from the test procedure due to the absence of a reliable and repeatable method to test them for efficiency. 78 FR 75962, 75989. In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE noted that in the interim since the December 2013 Final Rule, the industry has developed several methods to test inverter-only motors. 86 FR 71710, 71725-71726. These industry test methods are discussed further in section III.D.3.

Accordingly, DOE is including inverter-only electric motors within the scope of this test procedure. Establishing test procedures for these

motors would allow for standardized representations of efficiency of motors.

As proposed in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE will only be including within scope the following inverter-only electric motors: (1) AC induction inverter-only electric motors that meet the criteria listed at 10 CFR 431.25(g); and (2) Inverter-only motors that meet the SNEM definition. In addition, as discussed in section III.A.3 of this document, DOE is not including air-over inverter-only electric motors. In response to stakeholder comments, DOE is clarifying some of the requirements. First, the criteria in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and the SNEM scope presented in section III.A.5 both require that the motor be rated for continuous duty. Therefore, non-continuous duty motors are not included. Second, per 10 CFR 431.25(g) and the SNEM definition, in-scope inverter-only electric motors would be those motors built using certain NEMA (or IEC equivalent) frame sizes. Third, DOE is requiring that the rated frequency be limited to 60 Hz (see section III.G.1). As such, the scope of the test procedure is limited to inverter-only electric motors with a rated frequency of 60 Hz, where the rated frequency corresponds to the frequency of the electricity supplied to the inverter (see section III.G.1). Finally, DOE is requiring that inverter-only electric motors be tested with an inverter (see section III.D.3); therefore, the efficiency determined would be a combined efficiency of the motor and inverter, not just the efficiency of the motor or the inverter measured individually and would account for any interactions between the motor and the inverter (

e.g.

increase in harmonics). As such, only inverter-only electric motors that meet the specific requirements in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and are SNEMs, including those discussed in this paragraph, would be included in scope of the test procedure.

In this final rule, DOE is incorporating the proposed inverter-only electric motors in scope. Further discussion on the test procedure is provided in section III.D.3 of this document, and discussion of the metric is provided in section III.E. of this document.

7. Synchronous Electric Motors

The current electric motor test procedures apply only to induction electric motors. 10 CFR 431.25(g)(1), appendix B, Note.

The “induction motor” criteria exclude synchronous electric motors from the scope. A “synchronous electric motor” is an electric motor in which the average speed of the normal operation of the motor is exactly proportional to the frequency of the power supply to which it is connected, regardless of load.

In contrast, in an induction electric motor, the average speed of the normal operation of the motor is not proportional to the frequency of the power supply to which the motor is connected.

For example, a 4-pole synchronous electric motor will rotate at 1800 rpm when connected to 60 Hz power even when the load varies while a 4-pole induction electric motor in the same setup will slow down as load increases.

NEMA MG 1-2016 Paragraph 1.17.3.4 defines a “synchronous machine,” as an “alternating-current machine in which the average speed of the normal operation is exactly proportional to the frequency of the system to which it is connected.”

NEMA MG 1-2016 Paragraph 1.17.3.3 defines an “induction machine,” as an “an asynchronous machine that comprises a magnetic circuit interlinked with two electric circuits or sets of circuits, rotating with respect to each other and in which power is transferred from one circuit to another by electromagnetic induction.”

Synchronous electric motors can operate as either direct-on-line (connected directly to the power supply) or inverter-fed (connected to an inverter). Some inverter-fed electric motors require being connected to an inverter to operate (

i.e.,

inverter-only electric motors) while others are capable of operating both direct-on-line or connected to an inverter (

i.e.,

inverter-capable electric motors).

In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that it identified new industry standards that apply to synchronous electric motors, and on the basis of this finding, proposed to include within the test procedure's scope synchronous electric motors with the following characteristics:

DOE notes that while the preamble section of the December 2021 NOPR proposed to specify that synchronous electric motors “are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC),” (

see

86 FR 71710, 71727) the proposed regulatory text of the notice did not include that requirement (

see

86 FR 71710, 71780). DOE is clarifying in this final rule that the regulatory text mistakenly excluded this requirement.

Table III-3—Synchronous Electric Motors Proposed for Inclusion in Scope

Criteria No.

Description

Are not dedicated-purpose pool pump motors as defined at 10 CFR 431.483.

Are synchronous electric motors;

Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);

Capable of operating on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz); sinusoidal line power (with or without an inverter);

Are rated 600 volts or less;

Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, 8-, 10-, or 12-pole configuration.

Produce at least 0.25 horsepower (hp) (0.18 kilowatt (kW)) but not greater than 750 hp (373 kW).

86 FR 71710, 71726-71727.

Several stakeholders agreed with including synchronous electric motors in scope and with the proposed criteria. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2; NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) The Joint Advocates supported DOE's proposed expansion of scope to include synchronous motors. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at pp. 4-5)

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

motor, and as such should be excluded from the scope of the test procedure. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 4)

As already discussed in section III.A.1 and section III.A.7 of this document, EPCA, as amended through EISA 2007, provides statutory authority for the regulation of expanded scope of motors. EPCA does not limit “electric motors” to “general purpose.” In addition, the statute does not limit DOE's authority to regulate an electric motor with respect to whether they are stand-alone equipment items or are components of a covered product or covered equipment. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (providing that standards for electric motors be applied to electric motors manufactured “alone or as a component of another piece of equipment”) Whether synchronous electric motors fall outside the category of being general purpose (

i.e.,

being special purpose or definite purpose) or are used as components of other covered products and equipment have no bearing on DOE's authority to regulate these motors.

Further, as DOE presented in the December 2021 NOPR, industry standards exist that apply to in-scope synchronous electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71726-71727. Establishing test procedures for these motors would allow for standardized representations of motor efficiency. DOE notes that these motors are typically used as higher efficiency replacements for single-speed induction motors that DOE currently regulates. Accordingly, establishing a test procedure for standardized representations of synchronous electric motors would reduce market confusion by providing comparable ratings for substitutable induction motors. As discussed in section III.E, DOE is requiring expanded scope motors, including synchronous electric motors, to be represented based on average full-load efficiency, similar to current in-scope electric motors. Accordingly, a test procedure for synchronous electric motors would ensure that end users are provided with ratings from a uniform test method that can be used to compare and select between electric motors of competing technologies that would ultimately be used in the same end-use applications. DOE notes that, as proposed in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE is only including within the test procedure's scope those synchronous motors that are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation. As a result, non-continuous duty synchronous electric motors would continue to remain out of scope.

The following paragraphs summarize comments and responses regarding several specific criteria for synchronous electric motors that DOE proposed in the December 2021 NOPR (See Table III-3 describing the proposal).

The Joint Advocates stated that DOE should clarify the definition of synchronous motors to more explicitly include inverter-fed synchronous motors. Specifically, the Joint Advocates noted potential concerns about whether the proposed definition could be interpreted as requiring a synchronous motor to start and run on sinusoidal line power (

i.e.,

not inverter-fed), which would conflict with their understanding that DOE intended to exclude only those synchronous motors that start and run directly from a DC power source. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at pp. 4-5) In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE's intention for the synchronous electric motor scope was to include those that operate either direct-on-line (connected directly to the power supply) or as inverter-fed (connected to an inverter). 86 FR 71710, 71727; See Criterion 4 in Table III.8. DOE acknowledged a number of inverter-fed synchronous electric motors that are not currently included in the test procedures for electric motors, including line start permanent magnet (“LSPM”);

permanent magnet AC (“PMAC,” also known as permanent magnet synchronous motor (“PMSM”) or brushless AC); switched reluctance (“SR”); synchronous reluctance motors (“SynRMs”); and electronically commutated motor (“ECMs”).

86 FR 71710, 71726. Accordingly, to clarify in this final rule, DOE has updated the description that motors used with an inverter that operate on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power are included in the synchronous electric motor scope.

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

All 5 topologies are referred to as “advanced motor technologies” and represent motor technologies that have been more recently introduced on the market and have variable speed capabilities.

While Advanced Energy supported including synchronous motors in scope, it requested a modification to the proposed pole criteria. Advanced Energy explained that synchronous motors cannot be classified in the same manner as induction motors regarding magnetic pole configuration. It noted that some synchronous motors have significantly more poles than what designates the operating speed, and this designation may be present on the motor nameplate. Rather than pole count, Advanced Energy suggested DOE use rated speed. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 4)

DOE's proposal to include the pole configuration in the synchronous electric motors description sought to maintain consistency with how DOE describes current in-scope electric motors in 10 CFR 431.25(g)(6). The synchronous speed of any electric motor is determined by the pole count and the input frequency to the motor. For direct-on-line induction motors, the input frequency is a fixed value determined by the electricity supply grid the motor is connected to, so the synchronous speed would then only vary as the pole count varies. For synchronous motors, the input frequency to the motor is not fixed because the inverter supplying power to the motor can supply different frequencies on command, allowing two synchronous motors with different pole counts to have the same synchronous speed. As such, DOE agrees with Advanced Energy that pole configuration is not as critical a characteristic of synchronous electric motor compared to induction motors. Because of this inconsistency between synchronous motors and induction motors, DOE no longer sees a need to maintain consistency on the pole count scope criterion between the two groups of electric motors. Since pole count is not nearly as critical to the operation of a synchronous motor, DOE is removing the proposed pole configuration requirement from the synchronous electric motor description.

ebm-papst commented that synchronous air-over motors do not fit into the scope of NEMA MG 1-2016 Part 34's air-over electric motor test method. (ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 3) DOE clarifies in this final rule that DOE is not including in the test procedure's scope synchronous electric motors that are also air-over electric motors. DOE agrees that the test procedure for air-over electric motors is only specific to induction motors and not the synchronous electric motors at issue in this rulemaking. (See further discussion in section III.D.1 of this document).

Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is defining synchronous electric motor as follows:

A Synchronous Electric Motor

means an electric motor that:

(a) Is not a dedicated pool pump motor as defined at § 431.483, or is not an air-over electric motor;

(b) Is a synchronous electric motor;

(d) Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power;

(e) Is rated 600 volts or less; and

(f) Produces at least 0.25 hp (0.18 kW) but not greater than 750 hp (559 kW).

8. Submersible Electric Motors

DOE defines a “submersible electric motor” as an electric motor that: (1) is intended to operate continuously only while submerged in liquid; (2) is capable of operation while submerged in liquid for an indefinite period of time; and (3) has been sealed to prevent ingress of liquid from contacting the motor's internal parts. 10 CFR 431.12. These motors are currently exempt from the energy conservation standards. 10 CFR 431.25(l)(4). In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include submersible electric motors within the test procedure's scope. 86 FR 71710, 71718-71719. DOE's proposal was informed in part by its initial determination that the air-over test methods developed by NEMA could be adapted as a test method for submersible electric motors either by using an external blower to cool the motor or without the need to submerge the motor in a liquid during testing to cool the motor. With this potential modification to the air-over test method in mind, DOE proposed to include submersible electric motors within the scope of DOE's test procedures. 86 FR 71710, 71749-71750.

Several commenters suggested that the current definition of submersible electric motors is too broad for the purpose of adding them to the test procedure scope, in that the definition could cover a wide range of products, each of which have different design constraints and should be tested differently. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 2; HI, No. 30 at p. 1; WSC, No. 35 at p. 1) The CA IOUs recommended refining the definition of submersible electric motors based on appropriate classifications for different designs of submersible motors, and recommended DOE consider multiple industry definitions. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 18) Several commenters also raised concerns with having a single test procedure for all types of submersible electric motors. They noted that several different types of submersible motors exist, each having different technical performances and design constraints. Accordingly, they suggested that type-specific test procedures may be needed to provide accurate representations of efficiency. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 1; HI, No. 30 at p. 1; WSC, No. 35 at p. 1)

NEMA questioned the merits of testing submersible motors in open air conditions, as these motors are designed to operate submerged. It noted that because the proposed test procedure does not require submersion for cooling, it is neither representative, nor accurate, nor repeatable. (NEMA, No 26 at p. 6) It stated that submersible motors are often designed with a much higher power density than open-air motors because the specific heat capacity of water is approximately 4 times that of air, allowing much more heat dissipation to be accounted for in the design. It noted that because of the design difference, in most cases it is not sufficient to rely on air flow to cool submersible electric motors with such high power densities. It provided motor performance modeling data for a 15 hp submersible motor built in a NEMA 184 frame. NEMA showed that using a typical value of minimum required air velocity for the manufacturer's air-over motors at the same frame size (

i.e.,

at 12 mph), the AEDM predicts that the maximum horsepower at which the motor would stabilize is at 12.5 hp, at which point the predicted average winding temperature rise would reach 442 °C. Because IEEE 112-2017 requires that the load temperature test be performed before taking efficiency measurements, conducting the load temperature test at an average winding temperature rise of 442 °C would likely result in motor failure even before the efficiency measurements could be made, which in turn would subject personnel performing the measurements to potential safety hazards. Even at the maximum air velocity that this manufacturer's AEDM is capable of reaching (

i.e.,

at 114 mph), the AEDM predicts this motor would stabilize at 14.8 HP, for which the predicted average winding temperature rise is 322.2 °C, which would also likely result in motor failure. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 21-22)

CEMEP stated that NEMA part 34.4 was not applicable to submersible motors. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 4) CEMEP stated that some submersible motors would not be sufficiently cooled by air alone as would occur under the proposed test procedure. They provided an example of a 45 kW motor needing to dissipate 8 kW of heat losses while operating. They also stated that the bearings and seals would not be properly lubricated when tested under the conditions of the proposed test procedure—which would effectively be by air rather than by a liquid as would occur during the normal operation of submersible motors. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 8)

Franklin Electric opposed using NEMA 34.4 as the test method for submersible motors, arguing that no standardized test procedure exists; the proposed test procedure was not validated on a diverse enough group of motors; many submersible motor bearings require liquid to be used to lubricate seals and bearings during operation, the lack of which would damage the motor and present additional frictional losses not representative as part of the motor's intended use; many submersible motors are not designed to operate in a horizontal configuration as proposed by the test procedure; the leads for submersible motors are often designed with liquid cooling in mind, and using thermocouples on the surface of the motor is not a reliable means of evaluating the winding temperature—particularly when different liquids are used to encapsulate the windings. (Franklin Electric, No. 22 at pp. 3-4) Further, Franklin Electric noted that no non-manufacturer test lab has the capability to certify a motor using the proposed method, (Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 5), and added that submersible motor manufacturers already have custom in-house tests that accommodate water cooling and vertical orientation of the motor to provide accurate and repeatable efficiency testing. It stated that using air-cooling would actually be more burdensome than liquid for submersible motors larger than 5 hp. (Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 4)

In response to DOE's comments on whether the proposed test procedure should only apply to a certain horsepower range, Franklin Electric stated that even if the submersible test method scope was limited to 10 hp, that limit would exclude from scope most sizes other than 4-inch diameter submersible motors. It noted that this cut-off would result in a very small fraction of products being added to the test procedure and therefore, would create confusion around efficiency ratings of an in-scope submersible motor vs. out of scope submersible motor. (Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 5) For these reasons, Franklin Electric argued that the submersible test procedure is

both technologically infeasible and not economically justified and disagreed with DOE's initial view that the proposed changes would not constitute a “significant” regulatory action. (Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 6)

AI Group stated that submersible motors should be tested according to a procedure that has them submerged in water. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 3) Grundfos offered a similar critique, asserting that the proposed submersible motor test procedure is inadequate because these motors are designed to operate while submerged in a liquid and the proposed test method has them tested in air. Grundfos stated that testing these motors in air rather than submerged in water would not accurately reflect their efficiency in their intended application. It explained that the proposed method for determining winding temperatures is impractical and for some motors impossible—and it specifically noted that DOE's proposed test method in air does not consider the “heat rejection” efficiency of the motors and forces them to reach winding temperatures the motor may never reach under normal operating conditions. (Grundfos, No. 29 at pp. 1, 7-8) Grundfos added that no amount of modification to the air-over method would make it an appropriate method for accurately evaluating the efficiency of submersible motors (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 1)

HI also criticized the proposed approach. It stated that no internationally recognized test standard exists for evaluating the efficiency of borehole and submersible wastewater motors and that the proposed approach of using air cooling will not result in an accurate measurement of motor performance. It argued that any test procedure for submersible wastewater motors would need to better reflect the specific aspects of these motors and require multiple product categories, definitions, and test methods to properly test and represent the efficiencies for these specialized motors. HI also stated that many submersible motors rely liquid for lubrication. Further, it asserted that the proposed test method was not repeatable and reproducible across test facilities and that DOE's testing of only two small motors does not adequately address this concern. HI also stated that the proposed temperature measurement provisions do not address all submersible motor designs required to accurately obtain winding temperature measurements to ensure testing is conducted within the defined temperature tolerances. (HI, No. 30 at pp. 1-2)

WSC commented that testing submersible motors in air will not result in accurate values of motor performance. It noted that submersible motors have multiple designs, and any test procedure will need multiple product testing categories and methods to accurately separate out the motor losses from these different designs. It also noted manufacturers have developed their own specialized methods that are capital intensive. It added that wastewater submersible motors have specific designs (oil filled, air filled, single seal, dual seal, lip seal, seal materials) that impact utility, which in turn would require any test method that DOE adopts to consider these factors through the use of multiple product testing categories and appropriate testing methods for each. WSC also asserted that DOE's sample size was too small to prove a repeatable test method. (WSC, No. 35 at pp. 1-2)

CEMEP, WSC, and Grundfos all recommended that a test method for submersible motors should be developed by international standardization committees. (CEMEP, No. 19 at pp. 8-9; WSC, No. 35 at p. 2; Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 1)

In contrast to those commenters who objected to the adoption of DOE's proposed test method for submersible electric motors, other commenters supported DOE's proposal—but with reservations. Advanced Energy stated that the submersible test method appears repeatable for 5 hp or smaller submersible motors, and that there is opportunity to evaluate this test method for larger hp motors. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 16) The Joint Advocates and CA IOUs supported including submersible electric motors in scope and encouraged DOE to continue to investigate options for submersible motor testing to support development of test procedures. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 17-18) The CA IOUs commented that Japan, China, and Brazil have standards for submersible motors. They noted that China has published testing standards for waste submersible motor-pumps, submersible motors for deep wells, and submersible motor-pumps. Further, they noted that India has published a case study and three test methods for submersible motors. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 17) The CA IOUs also stated that IEEE is developing a submersible motor test standard and provided links to the currently published IEEE recommendations for testing submersible motors. They also suggested that NEMA Part 34 would need more modification to be used as the test procedure, or that a completely new test procedure needs to be developed for these motors. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 17-18)

DOE re-evaluated the proposed test method based on concerns noted by stakeholders. DOE agrees that further testing is needed to ensure that any test method(s) would be both applicable and representative for submersible electric motors of all designs and sizes. Further, DOE also agrees that a test procedure based on air cooling as opposed to water cooling may not accurately capture intended performance. In addition, DOE acknowledges concerns that liquid is needed to lubricate seals and bearings during operation, the lack of which could potentially damage the motor and present additional frictional losses. Finally, DOE understands that the applicability of the proposed test procedure at higher horsepowers may result in winding temperature rises that may cause motor failure. Accordingly, based on comments received and further review, DOE is not including submersible electric motors within scope of this test procedure. Therefore, submersible electric motors will continue to be exempt from the test procedures and energy conservation standards.

9. Other Exemptions

Currently, DOE exempts (1) component sets of an electric motor; and (2) liquid-cooled electric motors. 10 CFR 431.25(l)(2) and (3).

DOE defines “component set” as a combination of motor parts that require the addition of more than two endshields (and their associated bearings) to create an operable motor. These parts may consist of any combination of a stator frame, wound stator, rotor, shaft, or endshields. 10 CFR 431.12. DOE defines “liquid-cooled electric motor” as a motor that is cooled by liquid circulated using a designated cooling apparatus such that the liquid or liquid-filled conductors come into direct contact with the parts of the motor.

Id.

DOE is amending the definition for “liquid-cooled electric motor” in this final rule, as discussed in section III.B.5 of this document. In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE requested comment on maintaining the exemptions. 86 FR 71710, 71727-71728.

Certain stakeholders supported continuing to exempt components set of electric motors from the scope of the test procedure. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 8; Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2) Certain stakeholders also supported excluding liquid-cooled electric motors from scope. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 8; Grundfos, No. 29 at p.

3) Advanced Energy supported continuing to exclude liquid-cooled electric motors stating that they are highly specialized motors and often prioritize power density over other performance requirements. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 5) Comments received regarding the liquid-cooled definition are addressed in section III.B.5. of this document.

Based on the discussion presented in the December 2021 NOPR and in the preceding paragraphs in this final rule, DOE is continuing to exempt component sets of an electric motor and liquid-cooled electric motors from the scope of the electric motors test procedure.

B. Definitions

In this final rule DOE is modifying 10 CFR 431.12 by amending and adding certain definitions applicable to electric motors. These amendments and additions are discussed in further detail in the following sections.

1. Updating IEC Design N and H Motors Definitions and Including New Definitions for IEC Design N and H “E” and “Y” Designations

As discussed in section III.A.2 of this document, DOE is clarifying in this final rule that IEC Design HE, HEY, HY, NE, NEY, and NY motors are within the scope of the test procedure. In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to add definitions for these “E” and “Y” designations for IEC Design N and H motors based on IEC 60034-12:2016. 86 FR 71710, 71728-71729.

In response to this proposal, Advanced Energy stated that the proposed updates are not consistent with the definitions as they appear in IEC 60034-12:2016. It stated the IEC standard states a “Y” designation represents “star-delta starting” as opposed to “direct-on-line” starting for both IEC Design HEY and NEY. Further, Advanced Energy also commented that the upper limit of output power for IEC Design H was not consistent with Section 5.5 of IEC 60034-12:2016. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 5) DOE did not receive any other comments regarding the definition of the “E” and “Y” variants of IEC Design N and H motors.

Based on the comment from Advanced Energy and additional review of IEC 60034-12:2016, DOE agrees that the IEC Design N and H motors with the “Y” variant are capable of star-delta starting, not direct-on-line starting. DOE is finalizing the definitions for IEC Design N and H that include the Y variant (IEC Design HY, HEY, NY, NEY) accordingly.

Regarding the upper limit for the Design H definition, DOE notes that the current DOE definition for IEC Design H motor in 10 CFR 431.12 extends to 1600 kW. DOE established this definition in the December 2013 Final Rule. 78 FR 75962, 75969-75970. In the December 2013 Final Rule, DOE explained that in defining IEC Design H and IEC Design N motors, DOE specified the characteristics and features that identify these types of motors, so that manufacturers designing to the IEC standards can easily tell whether their motor is subject to DOE's regulatory requirements. DOE could not identify a justification for why DOE's definition of IEC Design H included an upper limit of 1600 kW instead of the 160 kW limit consistent with the IEC definition of Design H. Although standards are limited by a horsepower range (

see

10 CFR 431.25(g)(8)), DOE stated that it does not need to limit the DOE definitions to the same power range as the standards to describe whether a given motor falls under Design H or Design N.

Id.

Since the definition of Design H in IEC 60034-12:2016 already limits Design H motors to 160 kW, bringing the upper limit in DOE's definitions to be consistent with IEC 60034-12:2016 will not change the scope of the test procedure. Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is amending the upper horsepower limit for Design H (and E and Y variations) to 160 kW.

2. Updating Definitions To Reference Current NEMA MG 1-2016

In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise a number of definitions at 10 CFR 431.12 by updating references from NEMA MG 1-2009 to NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements). 86 FR 71710, 71729-71730. DOE noted that the following definitions reference provisions of NEMA MG 1-2009 that have changed between the 2009 and 2016 versions: “definite purpose motor,” “definite purpose electric motor,” “general purpose electric motor,” “NEMA Design A Motor,” “NEMA Design B Motor,” “NEMA Design C motor,” and “nominal full-load efficiency.” DOE initially determined that the changes in NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements) do not substantively change these definitions.

Id.

In response, NEMA commented that updating the reference of NEMA MG 1 to the 2016 version (with 2018 Supplements) would not substantially change the definitions currently prescribed in 10 CFR 431.12. It further stated the definitions of NEMA Design A, B, and C should be updated to reflect the revised subsection references of 12.35 in NEMA MG 1-2016. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 10)

Since the December 2021 NOPR, NEMA has published a revised version of NEMA MG 1-2016. On June 15, 2021, ANSI approved the revised version, which is referred to in this document as NEMA MG 1-2016. DOE understands that NEMA continues to title this standard as “NEMA MG 1-2016,” even with the latest 2021 updates. In reviewing the latest standard, DOE notes that this revision only appears to unify the supplements and the rest of NEMA MG 1 into one continuous document and does not include any substantial changes to the content of the standard that was reviewed in the December 2021 NOPR. While the December 2021 NOPR requested comment on the definitions based on the latest version at the time [NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements)], because DOE has since concluded that the latest version [NEMA MG 1-2016 ((Revision 1, 2018) ANSI-approved 2021)] is not substantially different, the assessment conducted in the December 2021 NOPR is still relevant for the latest version of the standard. As such, in this final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference and including within the definitions the latest NEMA MG 1-2016 standard.

In addition, DOE reviewed the subsection references contained in the definitions of NEMA Design A, B, and C in NEMA MG 1-2016 and notes that there have been no updates to the content of the updated subsections. Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE has updated the definitions to include the new subsection references as they appear in NEMA MG 1-2016.

3. Inverter, Inverter-Only, and Inverter-Capable

DOE defines an “inverter-only electric motor” as an electric motor that is capable of rated operation solely with an inverter, and is not intended for operation when directly connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line power.” DOE also defines an “inverter-capable electric motor” as an “electric motor designed to be directly connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line power, but that is also capable of continuous operation on an inverter drive over a limited speed range and associated load.” 10 CFR 431.12. Inverter-only and inverter-capable electric motors can be sold with or without an inverter.

In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise the definitions for “inverter-only electric motor” and “inverter-capable electric motor.” Further, DOE also proposed a definition for “inverter.” 86 FR 71710, 71730. DOE

noted that, in addition to not being designed for operation when directly connected to polyphase, sinusoidal power, inverter-only motors are also not designed for operation when directly connected to single-phase, sinusoidal line power or to DC power.

Id.

To provide a more complete definition, DOE proposed to revise the definition of inverter-only electric motor as follows: “an electric motor that is capable of continuous operation solely with an inverter, and is not designed for operation when directly connected to AC sinusoidal or DC power supply.”

Id.

Similarly, DOE proposed to revise the definition of an inverter-capable electric motor as follows: “an electric motor designed to be directly connected to AC sinusoidal or DC power, but that is also capable of continuous operation on an inverter drive over a limited speed range and associated load.”

Id.

Finally, Paragraph 30.2.1.5 of NEMA MG 1 2016 defines the term “control” for motors receiving AC power, as “devices that are also called inverters and converters. They are electronic devices that convert an input AC or DC power into a controlled output AC voltage or current”. Converters can also be found in motors that receive DC power and also include electronic devices that convert an input AC or DC power into a controlled output DC voltage or current. Therefore, to support the definition of “inverter-only motor,” in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to define an inverter as “an electronic device that converts an input AC or DC power into a controlled output AC or DC voltage or current. An inverter may also be called a converter.”

Id.

Grundfos and Advanced Energy supported the proposed definitions for “inverter,” “inverter-only electric motor,” and “inverter-capable electric motors.” (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 3; Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 6) NEMA, CEMEP, and AI commented that the definitions should be amended to harmonize with the definitions in IEC 60034-1 Edition 14. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 11; CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 3; AI Group, No. 25 at p. 4)

In response to these comments, DOE reviewed the definitions contained in IEC 60034-1 Ed. 14. IEC 60034-1 Ed. 14 contains specifications for the ratings and performance of rotating electrical machines and defines a “converter duty machine” as an “electrical machine designed specifically for operation fed by a power electronic frequency converter with a temperature rise within the specified insulation thermal class or thermal class.” DOE notes that this definition was not in edition 13 of IEC 60034-1 and was not available for consideration in the December 2021 NOPR since edition 14 was published in 2022. DOE also notes that the IEC definition is generally similar to the definition proposed in the December 2021 NOPR with only minor differences. The IEC definition uses the term “electrical machine” where DOE used “electric motor” and “power electronic frequency converter” where DOE used “inverter.” DOE also understands that the temperature rise clause in the IEC definition is similar to the “continuous operation” clause of the DOE definition since overheating (potentially through gradually breaking down the motor's insulation) is a common mode of failure caused by an inverter feeding a non-inverter-rated motor. As such, DOE is adopting the IEC definition to harmonize with industry standards, with only minor modifications to be consistent with the terminology currently used in the rulemaking process. Specifically, in this final rule, DOE is defining an “inverter-only electric motor” as an “electric motor designed specifically for operation fed by an inverter with a temperature rise within the specified insulation thermal class or thermal limits.”

IEC 60034-1 Ed. 14 also defines a “converter capable machine” as an “electrical machine designed for direct online start and suitable for operation on a power electronic frequency converter without special filtering.” DOE understands that the IEC definition for “converter capable machine” is largely similar to the term “inverter-capable electric motor” in the same way as how the IEC definition for “converter duty machine” is largely similar to the term “inverter-only electric motor.” Specifically, the IEC definition uses the clause “suitable for operation” whereas the proposed DOE definition included an analogous clause “capable of continuous operation.” Further, the IEC definition uses the term “power electronic frequency converter,” whereas the proposed DOE definition included the term “inverter.”

In reviewing the IEC definition for “converter capable machine” and the proposed definition for “inverter-capable electric motor,” DOE identified two additional differences. The first difference DOE identified was the proposed inclusion of the clause “over a limited speed range and associated load”—a qualification not included with the IEC definition. However, DOE understands that this additional clause would not create a significant difference between the two definitions as all motors effectively have a limited speed range or associated load by nature of their construction. Therefore, DOE concludes that adopting the IEC definition would not modify the currently proposed scope of this test procedure.

The second difference DOE identified was the clause “without special filtering,” which is included in the IEC definition but not in the DOE proposed definition. DOE understands that the inclusion of this clause in the IEC definition is to ensure that non-inverter-rated motors are not considered inverter-capable when a filter is used between the inverter and motor to filter out the higher-order harmonics to prevent damage to the non-inverter-rated motor. This understanding is consistent with the intent of the DOE proposed definition of “inverter-capable electric motor.” Therefore, to harmonize with industry standards, DOE is adopting the IEC definition with minor modifications to keep the terminology consistent. Specifically, in this final rule, DOE is defining an “inverter-capable electric motor” as an “electric motor designed for direct online start and suitable for operation on an inverter without special filtering.”

4. Air-Over Electric Motors

Certain general-purpose electric motors have an internal fan attached to the shaft that forces air through the motor and prevents it from overheating during continuous use. Air-over electric motors do not have a factory-attached fan and require a separate means of forcing air over the frame of the motor. The external cooling maintains internal motor winding temperatures within the permissible temperature rise for the motor's insulation class or to a maximum temperature value specified by the manufacturer.

Without an external means of cooling, an air-over electric motor would overheat during continuous operation. Air-over motors can be found in direct-drive axial fans, blowers, and several other applications; for example, single-phase air-over motors are widely used in residential and commercial HVAC systems, appliances, and equipment as well as in agricultural applications. The current definition for air-over electric motors in 10 CFR 431.12 is as follows: an electric motor rated to operate in and be cooled by the airstream of a fan or blower that is not supplied with the motor and

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

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

In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE noted that the absence of a fan is not a differentiating feature specific to air-over electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71730-71731. For example, there is little difference between a totally enclosed fan-cooled electric motor (“TEFC”) and a totally enclosed air-over electric motor (“TEAO”). A user could remove the fan on a TEFC electric motor, and then place the motor in an airstream of the application to obtain an air-over electric motor configuration. Further, other motor categories such as totally enclosed non-ventilated (“TENV”) electric motors do not have internal fans or blowers and are similar in construction to TEAO electric motors.

Finally, DOE also noted that to differentiate air-over motors from totally-enclosed pipe-ventilated (“TEPV”) motors, it needed to specify that the external cooling is obtained by a free flow of air rather than external cooling that is directed onto the motor via a duct or a pipe.

Id.

TENV electric motors are “built in a frame-surface cooled, totally enclosed configuration that is designed and equipped to be cooled only by free convection” 10 CFR 431.12.

DOE did not find any pipe-ventilated motors in the proposed scope of applicability of this test procedure but is aware that some motors may exist in such configurations. TEPV motors are cooled by supply air which is piped into the motor and ducted out of the motor. They are typically used to overcome heat dissipation difficulties and when air surrounding the motor is not clean (

e.g.,

dust).

In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE explained that what differentiates air-over motors from non-air-over motors is that air-over motors require external cooling by a free flow of air to prevent overheating during continuous operation.

86 FR 71710, 71730-71731. Further, DOE noted that the free flow of air was needed for the air-over motor to thermally stabilize. Accordingly, DOE proposed a revised definition of air-over electric motor in consideration of the above specifications—

i.e.,

“an electric motor that does not reach thermal equilibrium (

i.e.,

Without the application of free-flowing air, the internal winding temperatures of an air-over electric motor would exceed the maximum permissible temperature (

i.e.,

the motor's insulation class's permissible temperature rise or a maximum temperature value specified by the manufacturer).

In response to DOE's proposal, Advanced Energy supported DOE's proposed definition of air-over electric motor. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 6) NEMA commented that the definition was adequate, but pointed out that DOE should preserve and allow all three potential stabilization methods. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 11) Lennox commented that while it supported the proposed definition, it stated that DOE must continue to exempt HVACR air-over motors from component level-regulation when such motors are used in equipment already regulated at the systems level. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 7)

Trane commented that the current definition of air-over electric motor is appropriate and that changing it to include thermal equilibrium is inappropriate because the motor could still reach equilibrium without forced-air through heat dissipation. However, the same motor would still be defined as an air-over motor because the manufacturer specifies certain minimum airflow requirements to maintain winding temperatures within permissible limits. (Trane, No. 31 at p. 4)

As discussed previously, DOE proposed the updated definition to ensure that air-over electric motors are correctly distinguished from TEFC, TENV, and TEPV motors. The proposed definition for air-over electric motor specifies reaching thermal equilibrium with forced cooling at a target temperature

according to section 2 of appendix B, which is the air-over electric motor test procedure. As discussed in section III.D.1 of this document, the air-over electric motor test procedure allows the use of the motor temperature rise if it is indicated by the manufacturer to specify the target temperature, or if it is not indicated, requires use a target temperature of 75 °C. Based on the updated definition, if the electric motor can thermally stabilize below the target temperature without airflow, then that motor is not considered an air-over electric motor. Without an external means of cooling, an air-over electric motor would overheat during continuous operation. Therefore, if the motor is able to stabilize and operate below the target temperature, then there is no requirement for external means of cooling. On the other hand, the electric motor would still be considered an air-over electric motor if it can thermally stabilize without airflow at a temperature above the target temperature. The updated definition does not limit this occurrence, as it is only specifying that thermal equilibrium must be met during a rated load temperature test according to section 2 of appendix B (

i.e.,

using the temperature rise indicated by the manufacturer to determine target temperature, or if it is not indicated, a target temperature of 75 °C). Accordingly, having an external means of cooling would still be required during continuous operation at the manufacturer specified target temperature.

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

AMCA stated that the proposed definition for air-over motors is ambiguous and would exclude many intended air-over motors because of the provision “without the application of forced cooling by a free flow of air from an external device not mechanically connected to the motor” would exclude air-over motors which are cooled by an external fan driven by the motor's shaft. AMCA recommended as an alternate definition: “an electric motor that does not reach thermal equilibrium (

i.e.,

thermal stability) during a rated load temperature test according to section 2 of appendix B, without the application of forced cooling by a free flow of air from an external device not supplied for permanent use with the motor.” (AMCA, No. 21 at pp. 2-3) ebm-papst supported AMCA's suggested definition of an air-over motor and stated that DOE's proposed definition was too broad. (ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 5)

As described in the NOPR, air-over motors do not have a factory-attached fan and require a separate means of forcing air over the frame of the motor. 86 71710, 71730. DOE interprets the concerns from AMCA and ebm-papst as being that requiring the free flow of air to come from an external device

not mechanically connected to the motor

would unintentionally exclude certain air-over electric motors that should be included, such as air-over motors that are sold with a fan mechanically connected to the motor's shaft (in this case, the fan is used to provide function beyond cooling of the motor and an air over-motor is used to drive the fan). DOE agrees with AMCA and ebm-papst, that such motors must not be excluded from the air-motor electric motor definition. DOE's intent in specifying “external device” and “not mechanically connected” in the proposed definition was to distinguish air-over motors that do not incorporate a fan within the motor's enclosure from motors that do incorporate a fan in the motor's enclosure, where the fan is used for the sole purpose of cooling the motor. Therefore, in response to the recommendations by AMCA and ebm-

papst, for clarification, DOE is adopting a modified version of the proposed definition instead. DOE is specifying that the external device should also not be supplied within the motor enclosure. In general, DOE prefers to rely on physical features instead of intended usage (

i.e.,

“for permanent use”) when establishing equipment definitions.

As such, in this final rule, DOE adopts the following definition of air-over electric motor: an electric motor that does not reach thermal equilibrium (

i.e.,

thermal stability), during a rated load temperature test according to section 2 of appendix B, without the application of forced cooling by a free flow of air from an external device not mechanically connected to the motor within the motor enclosure.

5. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motors

Liquid-cooled electric motors are definite-purpose motors typically designed for high power density applications. The higher power density from these applications causes a liquid-cooled electric motor to generate more heat over a given volume than a conventional air-cooled electric motor. To prevent the motor from overheating, it relies on a liquid to be forced through and over components of the motor to provide better cooling than an internal fan would. DOE currently defines a liquid-cooled electric motor as: a motor that is cooled by liquid circulated using a designated cooling apparatus such that the liquid or liquid-filled conductors come into direct contact with the parts of the motor. 10 CFR 431.12.

In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise this definition to read as “a motor that is cooled by liquid circulated using a designated cooling apparatus such that the liquid or liquid-filled conductors come into direct contact with the parts of the motor, but is not submerged in a liquid during operation.” DOE proposed this revision to better distinguish liquid-cooled electric motors from submersible electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71731-71732.

NEMA supported the proposed definition of liquid-cooled electric motor. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 11) Grundfos commented that “designated cooling apparatus” is not clearly defined and believe that the proposed definition makes it unclear as to what constitutes a liquid-cooled motor. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 3)

In the December 2013 Final Rule, DOE discussed that liquid-cooled electric motors rely on a special cooling apparatus that pumps liquid into and around the motor housing. 78 FR 75962, 75987-75988. The liquid is circulated around the motor frame to dissipate heat and prevent the motor from overheating during continuous-duty operation. The December 2013 Final Rule amended the definition of liquid-cooled electric motor to better differentiate liquid-cooled electric motors from other types of electric motors, and the term “designated cooling apparatus” was added to specify that a cooling apparatus is required for a motor to be designated as a liquid-cooled electric motor.

Id.

In this final rule, DOE further specifies that a “designated cooling apparatus” is any apparatus that circulates a liquid in order to cool a liquid-cooled electric motor. One example of such an apparatus is an external pump that forces a liquid through the motor for cooling purposes.

For the reasons discussed in the December 2021 NOPR and with the modification discussed in the preceding paragraph, DOE is adopting the definition of liquid-cooled, as proposed.

6. Basic Model and Equipment Class

In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the definition of “basic model” in 10 CFR 431.12 to make it similar to the definitions used for other DOE-regulated products and equipment, and to eliminate an ambiguity found in the current definition. 86 FR 71710, 71732. The definition in 10 CFR 431.12 specifies that basic models of electric motors are all units of a given type manufactured by the same manufacturer, which have the same rating, and have electrical characteristics that are essentially identical, and do not have any differing physical or functional characteristics that affect energy consumption or efficiency. For the purposes of this definition, the term “rating” is specified to mean one of 113 combinations of horsepower, poles, and open or enclosed construction.

See id.

The reference to 113 combinations dates from the Department's implementation of EPACT 1992, which established initial standards for motors based on that categorization. Since then, EISA 2007 and DOE's regulations have established standards for additional motor categories.

See

10 CFR 431.25. To clarify that the concept of a “basic model” reflects the categorization in effect under the prevailing standard, as it stands today, and as it may evolve in future rulemakings, DOE proposed to refer only to the combinations of horsepower (or standard kilowatt equivalent), number of poles, and open or enclosed construction for which 10 CFR 431.25 prescribes standards; and to remove the current reference to 113 such combinations. 86 FR 71710, 71732. As such, DOE proposed to replace the term “rating” with the term “equipment class” in the basic model definition. In addition, DOE proposed to define “equipment class” as one of the combinations of an electric motor's horsepower (or standard kilowatt equivalent), number of poles, and open or enclosed construction, with respect to a category of electric motor for which § 431.25 prescribes nominal full-load efficiency standards.

Id.

This proposal would also limit confusion between the use of the term “rating” in this specific case and the use of the term as it applies to represented values of other individual characteristics of an electric motor, such as its rated horsepower, voltage, torque, or energy efficiency.

Id.

DOE did not receive any comments on these definitions and adopts the definitions of equipment class and basic model as proposed.

C. Updates to Industry Standards Currently Incorporated by Reference

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

Table III-4—Updated Industry Standards Proposed in the December 2021 NOPR

Existing reference

Updated version

Type of update

IEC 60034-12 Edition 2.1 2007-09

IEC 60034-12 Edition 3.0 2016

Revision.

NFPA 20-2010

NFPA 20-2019

Revision.

CSA C390-10

CSA C390-10 (Reaffirmed 2019)

Reaffirmed.

NEMA MG 1-2009

NEMA MG 1-2016

Revision.

Through the review, DOE tentatively concluded that updating the industry standards to the latest version would not alter the measured efficiency of electric motors and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. Therefore, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference the updated versions of the industry standards.

Id.

DOE also proposed to incorporate by reference IEC 60079-7:2015 as it is referenced within IEC 60034-12:2016 and is necessary for the test procedure. Sections 5.2.7.3 and 5.2.8.2 of IEC 60079-7:2015 describe the additional starting requirements of increased safety “eb” and “ec” motors. The “eb” and “ec” designations are the two levels of protection offered by the increased safety “e” designation and are intended for use in explosive gas atmospheres, according to Section 1 of IEC 60079-7:2015. Section 5.2.7.3 specifies the application of protective measures to prevent airgap sparking while Section 5.2.8.2 specifies the application of starting current requirements and when a current-dependent safety device is required. 86 FR 71710, 71733. Also, to ensure consistency in the versions of the referenced standards used when testing, DOE proposed to specify the publication year for each of the industry standards referenced by Section 12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1-2016, which are as follows: IEEE 112-2017, CSA C390-10, and IEC 60034-2-1:2014. 86 FR 71710, 71734.

In response, CEMEP agreed that DOE's assessment of the updates to NEMA 12.58.1 of MG 1-2016 with its 2018 Supplements was accurate, and supported updating the IEEE, CSA, and IEC standards to their latest versions. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 4) However, CEMEP stated that IEC 60079-7:2015 contains some specific requirements for 'eb' motors related to the safety of s

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.