# Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Electric Motors > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2022-21891 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** October 19, 2022 - **Citation:** 87 FR 63588 ## 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”), 1 authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C 2 of EPCA, added by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, Pub. L. 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. These equipment include electric motors, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) 1 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Pub. L. 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A-1 of EPCA. 2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-1. The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296). The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making other representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D)) Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a given type of covered equipment during a representative average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary) and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) EPCA, pursuant to amendments made by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-486 (Oct. 24, 1992) (“EPACT 1992”), specifies that the test procedures for electric motors subject to the standards prescribed in 42 U.S.C. 6313 shall be those specified in National Electrical Manufacturers Association (“NEMA”) Standards Publication MG1-1987 and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) Standard 112 Test Method B, as in effect on October 24, 1992. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A)). If these industry test procedures are amended, DOE must amend its own test procedures to conform to such amended test procedure requirements, unless DOE determines by rule, published in the Federal Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that to do so would not meet the statutory requirements related to the test procedure representativeness and burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B)) EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including electric motors, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) In addition, if the Secretary determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, the Secretary must publish proposed test procedures in the Federal Register , and afford interested persons an opportunity (of not less than 45 days' duration) to present oral and written data, views, and arguments on the proposed test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)). If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not to amend the test procedures. DOE is publishing this final rule in satisfaction of its statutory obligations specified in EPCA. B. Background On December 17, 2021, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) for the electric motors test procedure. 86 FR 71710 (“December 2021 NOPR”). In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise the current scope of the test procedures to add additional electric motors and implement related updates needed for supporting definitions and metric requirements as a result of this expanded scope; incorporate by reference the most recent versions of the referenced industry standards; incorporate by reference additional industry standards used to test additional electric motors that DOE had proposed to include within its scope; clarify the current test procedure's scope and test instructions by adding definitions for specific terms; revise the current vertical motor testing instructions to reduce manufacturer test burden; clarify that the current test procedure permits removal of contact seals for immersible electric motors only; revise the provisions pertaining to certification testing and determination of represented values; and add provisions pertaining to certification testing and determination of represented values for dedicated purpose pool pump (“DPPP”) motors. Id The NOPR provided an opportunity for submitting written comments, data, and information on the proposal by February 15, 2022. On February 4, 2022, DOE published a notice granting an extension of the public comment period to allow public comments to be submitted until February 28, 2022. 87 FR 6436. DOE received comments in response to the December 2021 NOPR from the interested parties listed in Table II.1. Table II.1—List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the December 2021 NOPR Commenter(s) Reference in this final rule Docket No. Commenter type ABB Motors and Mechanical Inc ABB 18 Manufacturer. Air Movement and Control Association International AMCA 21 Industry Motor Trade Association. American Gear Manufacturers Association AGMA 14 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 27 Efficiency Organizations. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers; Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute AHAM and AHRI 36 Industry OEM Trade Association. The Australian Industry Group i AI Group 25 Industry Motor Trade Association. ebm-papst Inc ebm-papst 23 Manufacturer. European Committee of Manufacturers of Electrical Machines and Power Electronics CEMEP 19 Industry Electrical Machines and Power Electronics Trade Association. Franklin Electric Co, Inc Franklin Electric 22 Manufacturer. Grundfos Americas Corporation Grundfos 29 OEM/Pump manufacturer. Hydraulics Institute HI 30 Industry Pump Trade Association. International Electrotechnical Commission IEC 20 Industry Standards Organization. Johnson Controls JCI 34 Manufacturer. Lennox International Lennox 24 Manufacturer. National Electrical Manufacturers Association NEMA 26 Industry Trade Association. North Carolina Advanced Energy Corporation Advanced Energy 33 Independent Testing Laboratory. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC) NEEA/NWPCC 37 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 28 Manufacturer. Sumitomo Machinery Corporation of America Sumitomo 17 Manufacturer. Trane Technologies Trane 31 OEM. Water Systems Council WSC 35 Industry Trade Association. i The AI group submitted multiple comments to the docket. One comment was an email cover letter, while the other two were preliminary and final submission of their comments. In their cover letter, the AI group attested that there were no changes between the final and preliminary submissions. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE's reference to AI group's comment submission is the final submission. To the extent that DOE received comments relating to the energy conservation standards for electric motors subject to DOE's proposal to expand the test procedure's scope, those comments fall outside of the focus of this rulemaking, which addresses only the test procedure itself. Comments related to any potential standards that DOE may consider for electric motors will be discussed in the separate energy conservation standards rulemaking docket (EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007). 3 3 The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop test procedures for electric motors. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0011, which is maintained at 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. 4 ( See generally 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A); see also the introductory paragraph to 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, appendix B) Currently, energy conservation standards apply to certain categories of electric motors provided that they meet the criteria specified at 10 CFR 431.25(g). These categories of electric motors are NEMA Design A motors, 5 NEMA Design B motors, 6 NEMA Design C motors, 7 IEC Design N motors, 8 IEC Design H motors, 9 and fire pump electric motors. 10 See 10 CFR 431.25(h)-(j). The current energy conservation standards apply to electric motors within the identified categories only if they: 4 The amendments do not address small electric motors, which are covered separately under 10 CFR part 431, subpart X. A small electric motor is “a NEMA general purpose alternating current single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987, including IEC metric equivalent motors.” 10 CFR 431.442. 5 “NEMA Design A” motor means a squirrel-cage motor that: (1) Is designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing locked-rotor torque as shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.38.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.15); (2) Has pull-up torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.40.1; (3) Has breakdown torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.39.1; (4) Has a locked-rotor current higher than the values shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and (5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for motors with fewer than 10 poles. 10 CFR 430.12. 6 “NEMA Design B motor” means a squirrel-cage motor that is: (1) Designed to withstand full-voltage starting; (2) Develops locked-rotor, breakdown, and pull-up torques adequate for general application as specified in Paragraphs 12.38, 12.39 and 12.40 of NEMA MG1-2009 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.15); (3) Draws locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in Paragraph 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and 12.35.2 for 50 hertz of NEMA MG1-2009; and (4) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for motors with fewer than 10 poles. Id. 7 “NEMA Design C” motor means a squirrel-cage motor that: (1) Is Designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing locked-rotor torque for high-torque applications up to the values shown in NEMA MG1-2009, Paragraph 12.38.2 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.15); (2) Has pull-up torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG1-2009, Paragraph 12.40.2; (3) Has breakdown torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG1-2009, Paragraph 12.39.2; (4) Has a locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in NEMA MG1-2009, Paragraphs 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and 12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and (5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent. Id. 8 IEC Design N motor means an electric motor that: (1) Is an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power; (2) Contains a cage rotor; (3) Is capable of direct-on-line starting; (4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles; (5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and (6) Conforms to Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of the IEC 60034-12 edition 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.15) requirements for torque characteristics, locked rotor apparent power, and starting. Id. 9 IEC Design H motor means an electric motor that (1) Is an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power; (2) Contains a cage rotor; (3) Is capable of direct-on-line starting (4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles; (5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 160 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and (6) Conforms to Sections 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 of the IEC 60034-12 edition 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.15) requirements for starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and starting. Id. 10 “Fire pump electric motor” means an electric motor, including any IEC-equivalent motor, that meets the requirements of Section 9.5 of NFPA 20. Id. (1) Are single-speed, induction motors; (2) Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC); (3) Contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor; (4) Operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; (5) Are rated 600 volts or less; (6) Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration; (7) Are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent); (8) Produce at least one horsepower (hp) (0.746 kilowatt (kW)) but not greater than 500 hp (373 kW), and (9) Meet all of the performance requirements of one of the following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design N or H motor. 10 CFR 431.25(g). In the test procedure final rule published on December 13, 2013 (“December 2013 Final Rule”), DOE identified certain categories of motors that meet the definition of “electric motor” but for which DOE determined the referenced industry test procedures do not provide a standardized test method for determining the energy efficiency. 78 FR 75962, 75975, 75987-75989. Motors that fall into this grouping are not currently regulated by DOE and consist of the following categories: • 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. DOE notes that manufacturers of electric motors for which DOE is including within the scope of the test procedure, but that are not currently subject to an energy conservation standard, would not be required to use the test procedure for Federal certification or labeling purposes until such time as amended or new energy conservation standards are established for such electric motors. Further discussion on each of the expanded scope categories are provided in the following sections. Discussion on maintaining the full-load metric in this test procedure is provided in section III.E. of this document. 2. “E” and “Y” Designations of IEC Design N and H Motors Currently regulated electric motors include those motors designated as IEC Design N and IEC Design H motors. In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE discussed that IEC 60034-12:2016 includes industry nomenclature updates to IEC Design N and IEC Design H motors, whose designations are augmented with the designations IEC Design NE, HE, NY, NEY, HY, and HEY. 86 FR 71710, 71716-71717. DOE stated that all six additional categories are described as electric motors that are variants of IEC Design N and IEC Design H electric motors that DOE currently regulates, with the only differences being the premium efficiency attribute (indicated by the letter “E”), and starting configuration 11 (“star-delta” starter 12 indicated by the letter “Y”). Id. Accordingly, DOE proposed to revise 10 CFR 431.25 to reflect the inclusion of IEC Design NE, NEY, and NY motors as IEC Design N motors and to make a similar set of revisions to reflect the inclusion of IEC Design HE, HEY, and HY motors as IEC Design H motors. DOE clarified that to the extent IEC Design N and IEC Design H motors are subject to the DOE regulations for electric motors, such coverage already includes IEC Design NE, NY, NEY, HE, HY and HEY motors. Id. 11 For induction motors, the starting configuration refers to the manner in which the three-phase input terminals are connected to each other, and the star configuration results in a lower line-to-line voltage than the delta configuration. See Sections 2.62 and 2.64 of NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements) and 2021 updates for further detail. 12 A “star-delta starter” refers to a reduced voltage starter system arranged by connecting the supply with the primary motor winding initially in star (“wye” or “Y”) configuration, then reconnected in a delta configuration for running operation. In the star configuration, all three supply lines are connected at a single point and the circuit diagram resembles the letter Y. In the delta configuration each supply line is connected at one end with the next supply line and the circuit diagram resembles the Greek letter delta (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. 13 Id. Accordingly, DOE understands that there are motors sold in the range between 500 and 750 hp. DOE was unable to identify any motors for sale greater than 750 hp with input voltages up to 600 volts. Accordingly, DOE will not be expanding the horsepower limit of the test procedure beyond 750 hp. While there may be motors available at input voltages greater than 600 volts, in this final rule, DOE is maintaining the approach from the December 2021 NOPR proposal to limit the voltage to 600 volts, consistent with other in-scope electric motors defined by 10 CFR 431.25(g). 13 An AEDM may be used to determine the average full-load efficiency of one or more of a manufacturer's basic models if the average full-load efficiency of at least five of its other basic models is determined through testing. 10 CFR 431.17(a)(1). An AEDM applied to a basic model must be: (i) derived from a mathematical model that represents the mechanical and electrical characteristics of that basic model, and (ii) based on engineering or statistical analysis, computer simulation or modeling, or other analytic evaluation of performance data. 10 CFR 431.17(a)(2). DOE notes that the proposed expanded scope would have required that an electric motor meet all of the performance requirements of one of the following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design N or H motor. 10 CFR 431.25(g)(9) While DOE agrees with NEMA's comment that there are no NEMA Design A, B, or C performance requirements for motors greater than 500 hp, there are performance requirements for IEC Design N or H motors for the same range. As such, the IEC Design N or H performance requirements would be applicable for this horsepower range instead of the NEMA Design A, B, or C performance requirements. Accordingly, consistent with the proposed scope expansion and related discussion from the December 2021 NOPR and the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, DOE is expanding the scope of the test procedure to include induction electric motors with a horsepower rating greater than 500 hp and up to 750 hp that otherwise meet the criteria provided in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and are not currently listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l)(2)-(4). 5. SNEMs An SEM is a NEMA general purpose AC single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987, including IEC metric equivalent motors. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(G); see also 10 CFR 431.442 (clarifying that the statutory definition for “small electric motor” includes IEC metric equivalent motors). Table III-1 and Table III-2 provide a general description of currently regulated small electric motors and electric motors. Table III-1—General Description of Single-Phase Induction Motors Currently Subject to Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures 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. 14 Non-induction motor topologies (specifically certain synchronous electric motors) are discussed in section III.A.7 of this document. 14 Based on DOE review of catalogs from four major manufacturers, out of 3262 SNEMs in scope identified, 1300 were marketed either general (1128) or definite purpose (172). In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include test procedures for additional electric motors not covered under the current electric motors test procedure and that do not meet the definition of small electric motors in 10 CFR part 431, subpart X, but are nonetheless considered “small,” i.e., SNEMs. 86 FR 71710, 71719-71725. DOE proposed to distinguish SNEMs from SEMs by specifying combinations of frame size, rated motor horsepower, enclosure construction, and additional performance criteria that are not currently included in the existing electric motors and small electric motors regulations at 10 CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X ( See Table III-1 and Table III-2 for electric motors and small electric motors that are currently regulated). Id. Accordingly, DOE proposed the following definition for this expanded scope in the December 2021 NOPR: Small non-small-electric-motor electric motor (“SNEMs”) means an electric motor that: (a) Is not a small electric motor, as defined at § 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. 15 Therefore, to clarify this intent, DOE is revising the language used to describe SNEMs to state this more directly. First, to add clarity, DOE is replacing the proposed criteria “Is capable of operating on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power (with or without an inverter)” with “Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power.” Second, to clarify its intent, DOE is replacing the proposed criterion “Is a single-speed induction motor” with a revised one that accounts for inverter-only electric motors as follows: “Is a single-speed induction motor capable of operating without an inverter or is an inverter-only electric motor.” 15 See discussion of the term “inverter-only electric motor” in section III.B.3 of this document. Separately, HI had concerns regarding how the frame sizes should be identified within the SNEM definition. HI commented that DOE should explicitly list the NEMA and IEC equivalents frame sizes that are covered. (HI, No. 30 at p. 2) Further, HI noted that the proposed phase “any frame size” in the SNEM definition is not defined, and could imply a motor of any dimensions, or a motor of any defined NEMA or IEC frame size is covered. They suggested that this ambiguity needs to be remedied. Id. DOE clarifies in this final rule that the proposed “any frame size” is intended to designate “any NEMA or IEC-equivalent” frame size. As such, in this final rule, DOE is modifying the term “any frame size” to “any two-, or three- digit NEMA frame size (or IEC-equivalent).” DOE notes that there are no four-digit frames sizes that qualify as SNEMs. Finally, DOE also received comments regarding the proposed term “small non-small-electric-motor electric motor,” or “SNEM”. NEEA/NWPCC recommended that DOE reconsider the use of the term “small non-small-electric-motor electric motor” because it is a confusing term for these motors. NEEA/NWPCC suggested “Other Small HP Motors (OSHM)” or “Other Small Electric Motors (OSEM)” as two possible options. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) Grundfos stated that the DOE should identify a more suitable, and less confusing name for this class of motors. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2) DOE did not receive any other recommendations regarding an alternate to the proposed “SNEM” term. DOE notes that the term explicitly states that it is a “non-small-electric-motor.” This specifies that SEMs, as defined in 10 CFR 431.442, are not part of this scope. Accordingly, DOE is maintaining the term “SNEM” in this final rule. Accordingly, DOE is finalizing the scope to cover SNEMs, which DOE is defining as: Small non-small-electric-motor electric motor (“SNEM”) means an electric motor that: (a) Is not a small electric motor, as defined § 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.” 16 These motors are an exempted category of electric motors listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l)(5). 17 As it noted in its May 2014 Final Rule, DOE exempted these electric motors from its standards at 10 CFR 431.25 in the absence of a reliable and repeatable method to test their efficiency. 79 FR 30934, 30945. In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE noted that in the interim since its 2014 rule was published, the industry has developed several methods to test inverter-only motors. As a result of this development, DOE proposed to include within the electric motor test procedure's scope those AC induction inverter-only electric motors that meet both the criteria listed at 10 CFR 431.25(g) and the proposed SNEM scope. 86 FR 71710, 71725-71726. Further, as discussed in section III.A.4 of this section, DOE also separately proposed to include within the test procedure's scope those induction electric motors with a horsepower rating greater than 500 hp and up to 750 hp that otherwise meet the criteria provided in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and are not currently listed as exempt at 10 CFR 431.25(l)(2)-(4). 86 FR 71710, 71719. 16 NEMA MG-1 2016, Paragraph 30.2.1.5 defines the term “control” for motors receiving AC power, as “devices that are also called inverters and converters. These are “electronic devices that convert an input AC or DC power into a controlled output AC voltage or current..”.” Converters can also be found in motors that receive DC power and include electronic devices that convert an AC or DC power input into a controlled output DC voltage or current. See section III.B.3 of this final rule. 17 DOE defines an “inverter-only electric motor” as an electric motor that is capable of rated operation solely with an inverter, and is not intended for operation when directly connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line power.” 10 CFR 431.12 DOE notes that more generally, the requirement to operate with an inverter also means that that inverter-only motors are not intended for operation when directly connected to single-phase, sinusoidal line power or to DC power. See section III.B.3 of this final rule. In response, several stakeholders objected to the inclusion of inverter-only electric motors and suggested that DOE continue to exempt them from coverage under the test procedure. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7; CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 24 at p. 6; AI Group, No. 25 at p. 4; Regal, No. 28 at p. 1; Trane, No. 31 at pp. 3, 5-6) Further, CEMEP suggested that DOE address inverter-only electric motors in a separate (presumably dedicated) rulemaking. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2) ABB supported NEMA's request that inverter-only motors be excluded from the test procedure because inverter-only motors are different from currently covered electric motors that are operated from inverters (presumably inverter-capable) to operate continuous loads like pumps and fans. On the other hand, ABB noted that inverter-only motors are rated by the amount of torque they produce and are generally not used for continuous fixed loads; instead, they operate at widely varying loads or directions in applications such as sawmill carriage drives, machine tools and other high-performance machinery. ABB also commented that 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. 18 In contrast, in an induction electric motor, the average speed of the normal operation of the motor is not proportional to the frequency of the power supply to which the motor is connected. 19 For example, a 4-pole synchronous electric motor will rotate at 1800 rpm when connected to 60 Hz power even when the load varies while a 4-pole induction electric motor in the same setup will slow down as load increases. 18 NEMA MG 1-2016 Paragraph 1.17.3.4 defines a “synchronous machine,” as an “alternating-current machine in which the average speed of the normal operation is exactly proportional to the frequency of the system to which it is connected.” 19 NEMA MG 1-2016 Paragraph 1.17.3.3 defines an “induction machine,” as an “an asynchronous machine that comprises a magnetic circuit interlinked with two electric circuits or sets of circuits, rotating with respect to each other and in which power is transferred from one circuit to another by electromagnetic induction.” Synchronous electric motors can operate as either direct-on-line (connected directly to the power supply) or inverter-fed (connected to an inverter). Some inverter-fed electric motors require being connected to an inverter to operate ( i.e., inverter-only electric motors) while others are capable of operating both direct-on-line or connected to an inverter ( i.e., inverter-capable electric motors). In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that it identified new industry standards that apply to synchronous electric motors, and on the basis of this finding, proposed to include within the test procedure's scope synchronous electric motors with the following characteristics: 20 20 DOE notes that while the preamble section of the December 2021 NOPR proposed to specify that synchronous electric motors “are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC),” ( see 86 FR 71710, 71727) the proposed regulatory text of the notice did not include that requirement ( see 86 FR 71710, 71780). DOE is clarifying in this final rule that the regulatory text mistakenly excluded this requirement. Table III-3—Synchronous Electric Motors Proposed for Inclusion in Scope Criteria No. Description 1 Are not dedicated-purpose pool pump motors as defined at 10 CFR 431.483. 2 Are synchronous electric motors; 3 Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC); 4 Capable of operating on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz); sinusoidal line power (with or without an inverter); 5 Are rated 600 volts or less; 6 Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, 8-, 10-, or 12-pole configuration. 7 Produce at least 0.25 horsepower (hp) (0.18 kilowatt (kW)) but not greater than 750 hp (373 kW). 86 FR 71710, 71726-71727. Several stakeholders agreed with including synchronous electric motors in scope and with the proposed criteria. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2; NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) The Joint Advocates supported DOE's proposed expansion of scope to include synchronous motors. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at pp. 4-5) On the other hand, several commenters urged continuing to exempt synchronous electric motors from the test procedure's scope, with some suggesting that DOE evaluate these motors in a separate dedicated rulemaking. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 3; CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; AI Group, No. 25 at p. 4; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 8) Specifically, ABB commented that synchronous motors could be used in widely differing product categories, like AC servo motors, which are not used for continuous load applications but for incremental motion and positioning as on machine tools and industrial robots. It added that other larger synchronous motors are often used in freshwater pumps and fans, both extended products that have a DOE regulation in effect or in development. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 3) CEMEP also did not support the scope of the definition as it would include servo-motors. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2) AI Group stated that synchronous motors are not general purpose motors and have many different designs, characteristics, and definitions as to what constitutes a synchronous motor, and as such should be excluded from the scope of the test procedure. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 4) As already discussed in section III.A.1 and section III.A.7 of this document, EPCA, as amended through EISA 2007, provides statutory authority for the regulation of expanded scope of motors. EPCA does not limit “electric motors” to “general purpose.” In addition, the statute does not limit DOE's authority to regulate an electric motor with respect to whether they are stand-alone equipment items or are components of a covered product or covered equipment. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (providing that standards for electric motors be applied to electric motors manufactured “alone or as a component of another piece of equipment”) Whether synchronous electric motors fall outside the category of being general purpose ( i.e., being special purpose or definite purpose) or are used as components of other covered products and equipment have no bearing on DOE's authority to regulate these motors. Further, as DOE presented in the December 2021 NOPR, industry standards exist that apply to in-scope synchronous electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71726-71727. Establishing test procedures for these motors would allow for standardized representations of motor efficiency. DOE notes that these motors are typically used as higher efficiency replacements for single-speed induction motors that DOE currently regulates. Accordingly, establishing a test procedure for standardized representations of synchronous electric motors would reduce market confusion by providing comparable ratings for substitutable induction motors. As discussed in section III.E, DOE is requiring expanded scope motors, including synchronous electric motors, to be represented based on average full-load efficiency, similar to current in-scope electric motors. Accordingly, a test procedure for synchronous electric motors would ensure that end users are provided with ratings from a uniform test method that can be used to compare and select between electric motors of competing technologies that would ultimately be used in the same end-use applications. DOE notes that, as proposed in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE is only including within the test procedure's scope those synchronous motors that are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation. As a result, non-continuous duty synchronous electric motors would continue to remain out of scope. The following paragraphs summarize comments and responses regarding several specific criteria for synchronous electric motors that DOE proposed in the December 2021 NOPR (See Table III-3 describing the proposal). The Joint Advocates stated that DOE should clarify the definition of synchronous motors to more explicitly include inverter-fed synchronous motors. Specifically, the Joint Advocates noted potential concerns about whether the proposed definition could be interpreted as requiring a synchronous motor to start and run on sinusoidal line power ( i.e., not inverter-fed), which would conflict with their understanding that DOE intended to exclude only those synchronous motors that start and run directly from a DC power source. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at pp. 4-5) In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE's intention for the synchronous electric motor scope was to include those that operate either direct-on-line (connected directly to the power supply) or as inverter-fed (connected to an inverter). 86 FR 71710, 71727; See Criterion 4 in Table III.8. DOE acknowledged a number of inverter-fed synchronous electric motors that are not currently included in the test procedures for electric motors, including line start permanent magnet (“LSPM”); 21 permanent magnet AC (“PMAC,” also known as permanent magnet synchronous motor (“PMSM”) or brushless AC); switched reluctance (“SR”); synchronous reluctance motors (“SynRMs”); and electronically commutated motor (“ECMs”). 22 86 FR 71710, 71726. Accordingly, to clarify in this final rule, DOE has updated the description that motors used with an inverter that operate on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power are included in the synchronous electric motor scope. 21 Advanced Energy noted that LSPM motors are synchronous motors. Though these motors have a squirrel cage, they do not operate on the principle of induction as is attributed to regular induction motors. The cage is simply for starting the motor and these motors are essentially synchronous motors. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047; Advanced Energy, No. 25 at p. 3) This technology is described further in Chapter 3 of the technical support document accompanying the May 2014 Final Rule: During the motor transient start up, the squirrel cage in the rotor contributes to the production of enough torque to start the rotation of the rotor, albeit at an asynchronous speed. When the speed of the rotor approaches synchronous speed, the constant magnetic field of the permanent magnet locks to the rotating stator field, thereby pulling the rotor into synchronous operation. See DOE Technical Support Document (Electric Motors Standards Final Rule) (May 2014) (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0108). 22 All 5 topologies are referred to as “advanced motor technologies” and represent motor technologies that have been more recently introduced on the market and have variable speed capabilities. While Advanced Energy supported including synchronous motors in scope, it requested a modification to the proposed pole criteria. Advanced Energy explained that synchronous motors cannot be classified in the same manner as induction motors regarding magnetic pole configuration. It noted that some synchronous motors have significantly more poles than what designates the operating speed, and this designation may be present on the motor nameplate. Rather than pole count, Advanced Energy suggested DOE use rated speed. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 4) DOE's proposal to include the pole configuration in the synchronous electric motors description sought to maintain consistency with how DOE describes current in-scope electric motors in 10 CFR 431.25(g)(6). The synchronous speed of any electric motor is determined by the pole count and the input frequency to the motor. For direct-on-line induction motors, the input frequency is a fixed value determined by the electricity supply grid the motor is connected to, so the synchronous speed would then only vary as the pole count varies. For synchronous motors, the input frequency to the motor is not fixed because the inverter supplying power to the motor can supply different frequencies on command, allowing two synchronous motors with different pole counts to have the same synchronous speed. As such, DOE agrees with Advanced Energy that pole configuration is not as critical a characteristic of synchronous electric motor compared to induction motors. Because of this inconsistency between synchronous motors and induction motors, DOE no longer sees a need to maintain consistency on the pole count scope criterion between the two groups of electric motors. Since pole count is not nearly as critical to the operation of a synchronous motor, DOE is removing the proposed pole configuration requirement from the synchronous electric motor description. ebm-papst commented that synchronous air-over motors do not fit into the scope of NEMA MG 1-2016 Part 34's air-over electric motor test method. (ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 3) DOE clarifies in this final rule that DOE is not including in the test procedure's scope synchronous electric motors that are also air-over electric motors. DOE agrees that the test procedure for air-over electric motors is only specific to induction motors and not the synchronous electric motors at issue in this rulemaking. (See further discussion in section III.D.1 of this document). Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is defining synchronous electric motor as follows: 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; (c) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC); (d) Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; (e) Is rated 600 volts or less; and (f) Produces at least 0.25 hp (0.18 kW) but not greater than 750 hp (559 kW). 8. Submersible Electric Motors DOE defines a “submersible electric motor” as an electric motor that: (1) is intended to operate continuously only while submerged in liquid; (2) is capable of operation while submerged in liquid for an indefinite period of time; and (3) has been sealed to prevent ingress of liquid from contacting the motor's internal parts. 10 CFR 431.12. These motors are currently exempt from the energy conservation standards. 10 CFR 431.25(l)(4). In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include submersible electric motors within the test procedure's scope. 86 FR 71710, 71718-71719. DOE's proposal was informed in part by its initial determination that the air-over test methods developed by NEMA could be adapted as a test method for submersible electric motors either by using an external blower to cool the motor or without the need to submerge the motor in a liquid during testing to cool the motor. With this potential modification to the air-over test method in mind, DOE proposed to include submersible electric motors within the scope of DOE's test procedures. 86 FR 71710, 71749-71750. Several commenters suggested that the current definition of submersible electric motors is too broad for the purpose of adding them to the test procedure scope, in that the definition could cover a wide range of products, each of which have different design constraints and should be tested differently. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 2; HI, No. 30 at p. 1; WSC, No. 35 at p. 1) The CA IOUs recommended refining the definition of submersible electric motors based on appropriate classifications for different designs of submersible motors, and recommended DOE consider multiple industry definitions. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 18) Several commenters also raised concerns with having a single test procedure for all types of submersible electric motors. They noted that several different types of submersible motors exist, each having different technical performances and design constraints. Accordingly, they suggested that type-specific test procedures may be needed to provide accurate representations of efficiency. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 1; HI, No. 30 at p. 1; WSC, No. 35 at p. 1) NEMA questioned the merits of testing submersible motors in open air conditions, as these motors are designed to operate submerged. It noted that because the proposed test procedure does not require submersion for cooling, it is neither representative, nor accurate, nor repeatable. (NEMA, No 26 at p. 6) It stated that submersible motors are often designed with a much higher power density than open-air motors because the specific heat capacity of water is approximately 4 times that of air, allowing much more heat dissipation to be accounted for in the design. It noted that because of the design difference, in most cases it is not sufficient to rely on air flow to cool submersible electric motors with such high power densities. It provided motor performance modeling data for a 15 hp submersible motor built in a NEMA 184 frame. NEMA showed that using a typical value of minimum required air velocity for the manufacturer's air-over motors at the same frame size ( i.e., at 12 mph), the AEDM predicts that the maximum horsepower at which the motor would stabilize is at 12.5 hp, at which point the predicted average winding temperature rise would reach 442 °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 te [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2022-21891. Public record. Not legal advice.