Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors, 38455-38482 [2013-15132]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 78
Wednesday,
No. 123
June 26, 2013
Part II
Department of Energy
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors;
Proposed Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
38456
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP–0043]
RIN 1904–AC89
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedures for Electric Motors
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
This notice proposes to clarify
aspects of certain U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) energy efficiency
regulations related to electric motors.
DOE is considering establishing
definitions, specifying testing set-up
procedures necessary to test, and
extending DOE’s existing test
procedures for electric motors to certain
electric motor types that have not been
regulated by DOE. These actions are
being proposed to clarify the scope of
regulatory coverage for electric motors
and to ensure accurate and consistent
measurements when determining the
energy efficiency of various types of
electric motors. This notice seeks
comment on this proposal and requests
comments, data, and other information
to assist DOE in deciding whether to
finalize or modify these provisions.
DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting
on Tuesday, July 16, 2013, from 9 a.m.
to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The
meeting will also be broadcast as a
webinar. See section V, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ for webinar registration
information, participant instructions,
and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants.
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this NOPR before
and after the public meeting, but no
later than September 9, 2013. See
section V, ‘‘Public Participation.’’ for
details.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be
held at the U.S. Department of Energy,
Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585. To attend,
please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at
(202) 586–2945. For detailed
information regarding attendance and
participation at the public meeting, see
section V, ‘‘Public Participation.’’
Any comments submitted must
identify the NOPR for Test Procedures
for Electric Motors, and provide docket
number EERE–2012–BT–TP–0043 and/
or regulation identifier number (RIN)
number 1904–AC89. Comments may be
submitted using any of the following
methods:
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: ElectricMotors2012TP0043
@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
EERE–2012–BT–TP–0043 and/or RIN
1904–AC89 in the subject line of the
message.
3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J,
1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121. If
possible, please submit all items on a
compact disc. It is not necessary to
include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda
Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, 6th
Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW.,
Washington, DC 20024. Telephone:
(202) 586–2945. Please submit one
signed paper original.
For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see section V, ‘‘Public Participation.’’
Docket: The docket is available for
review at www.regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices,
public meeting attendee lists and
transcripts, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials.
A link to the docket Web page can be
found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/
rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/74.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, or participate
in the public meeting, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by
email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121. Email:
medium_electric_motors@ee.doe.gov
Ms. Ami Grace-Tardy, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC–71, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585. Telephone:
(202) 586–5709. Email: Ami.GraceTardy@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Summary of Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
III. Discussion
A. Proposed Effective Dates for the
Amended Test Procedures
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
B. Expanding the Scope of Coverage of
Energy Conservation Standards
C. Motor Type Definitions
1. National Electrical Manufacturers
Association Design A and Design C
Motors
2. International Electrotechnical
Commission Designs N and H Motors
3. Electric Motors with Sealed and
Moisture Resistant Windings
4. Inverter-Capable Electric Motors
5. Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated Electric
Motors
D. Electric Motor Types Requiring
Definitions and Test Procedure
Instructions
1. Immersible Electric Motors and Electric
Motors with Contact Seals
2. Integral and Non-Integral Brake Electric
Motors
3. Partial Electric Motors
E. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only
Test Procedure Instructions
1. Electric Motors with Non-Standard
Endshields or Flanges
2. Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors
and Electric Motors with Single or
Double Shaft Extensions of NonStandard Dimensions or Additions
3. Vertical Electric Motors
4. Electric Motor Bearings
F. General Clarification for Certain Electric
Motor Types
1. Electric Motors with Non-Standard
Bases, Feet or Mounting Configurations
G. Electric Motor Types DOE Proposes Not
to Regulate at This Time
1. Air-Over Electric Motor
2. Component Set of an Electric Motor
3. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motor
4. Submersible Electric Motor
5. Definite-Purpose Inverter-Fed Electric
Motors
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal
Energy Administration Act of 1974
V. Public Participation
a. Attendance at Public Meeting
b. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
c. Conduct of Public Meeting
d. Submission of Comments
e. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6291, et
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
seq., (‘‘EPCA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’) sets forth a
variety of provisions designed to
improve the energy efficiency of
products and commercial equipment.
(All references to EPCA refer to the
statute as amended through the
American Energy Manufacturing
Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA
2012), Public Law 112–210 (December
18, 2012)). Part C of Title III (42 U.S.C.
6311–6317), which was subsequently
redesignated as Part A–1 for editorial
reasons, establishes an energy
conservation program for certain
industrial equipment, which includes
electric motors, the subject of today’s
notice. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A), 6313(b))
B. Background
In the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
Public Law 102–486 (October 24, 1992)
(EPACT 1992), Congress amended EPCA
to establish energy conservation
standards, test procedures, compliance
certification, and labeling requirements
for certain electric motors. (When used
in context, the term ‘‘motor’’ refers to
‘‘electric motor’’ in this document.) On
October 5, 1999, DOE published in the
Federal Register, a final rule to
implement these requirements. 64 FR
54114. In 2007, section 313 of the
Energy Independence and Security Act
(EISA 2007) amended EPCA by: (1)
Striking the definition of ‘‘electric
motor,’’ (2) setting forth definitions for
‘‘general purpose electric motor
(subtype I)’’ and ‘‘general purpose
electric motor (subtype II),’’ and (3)
prescribing energy conservation
standards for ‘‘general purpose electric
motors (subtype I),’’ ‘‘general purpose
electric motors (subtype II), ‘‘fire pump
electric motors,’’ and ‘‘NEMA Design B
general purpose electric motors’’ with a
power rating of more than 200
horsepower but not greater than 500
horsepower. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13),
6313(b)). Consequently, on March 23,
2009, DOE updated the corresponding
regulations at 10 CFR part 431 with the
new definitions and energy
conservation standards. 74 FR 12058.
On December 22, 2008, DOE proposed
to update the test procedures under 10
CFR part 431 both for electric motors
and small electric motors. 73 FR 78220.
DOE finalized key provisions related to
small electric motor testing in a 2009
final rule at 74 FR 32059 (July 7, 2009),
and further updated test procedures for
electric motors and small electric
motors at 77 FR 26608 (May 4, 2012).
Today’s notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR) focuses on electric
motors and proposes to add the
aforementioned definitions and
additional testing set-up instructions
and clarifications to the current test
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
procedures under subpart B of 10 CFR
part 431 for a wider variety of electric
motor types than currently regulated.
Additionally, DOE is proposing to
extend the applicability of DOE’s
existing electric motor test procedure in
10 CFR part 431 to the wider scope of
currently unregulated motors. DOE is
proposing such amendments because
the additional testing set-up instructions
and clarifications are designed to help
manufacturers of certain types of motors
prepare them for testing under the
applicable test procedure. The proposed
steps are intended to enable a
manufacturer to consistently measure
the losses and determine the efficiency
of a wider variety of motors, and
potentially facilitate the application of
energy conservation standards to a
wider array of motors than what is
currently covered under 10 CFR part
431.1 In addition, DOE is considering
prescribing standards for some electric
motors addressed in this notice through
a parallel energy conservation
standards-related activity. See 77 FR
43015 (July 23, 2012). To ensure
consistency between the two
rulemakings, this test procedure NOPR
addresses scope of coverage and test
procedure issues raised in response to
DOE’s current electric motors energy
conservation standards rulemaking. See
76 FR 17577 (March 30, 2011); 77 FR
43015 (July 23, 2012). Finally, to
provide regulatory clarity and
consistency with existing regulations,
today’s proposed rule also defines
NEMA Design A motors, NEMA Design
C motors, International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) Design H motors and
IEC Design N motors, which are covered
under subpart B of 10 CFR part 431.
By way of background, DOE notes that
section 343(a)(5)(A) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(5)(A), initially required that the
test procedures to determine electric
motor efficiency shall be those
procedures specified in two documents:
National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA) Standards
Publication MG1–1987 2 and Institute of
1 EPCA, as amended by EPACT 1992, had
previously defined an ‘‘electric motor’’ as any motor
which is a general purpose T-frame, single-speed,
foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction
motor of the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association, Design A and B, continuous rated,
operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60 Hertz
line power as defined in NEMA Standards
Publication MG1–1987. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)
(1992)) Through subsequent amendments to EPCA
made by EISA 2007, Congress removed this
definition and added language denoting two new
subtypes of general purpose electric motors. (See 42
U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)–(B) (2012)).
2 NEMA MG1 does not contain the actual
methods and calculations needed to perform an
energy efficiency test but, rather, refers the reader
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38457
Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE) Standard 112 Test Method B for
motor efficiency, as in effect on the date
of enactment of EPACT 1992. Section
343(a)(5)(B)–(C) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(5)(B)–(C), provides in part that
if the NEMA- and IEEE-developed test
procedures are amended, the Secretary
of Energy shall so amend the test
procedures under 10 CFR part 431,
unless the Secretary determines, by rule,
that the amended industry procedures
would not meet the requirements for
test procedures to produce results that
reflect energy efficiency, energy use,
and estimated operating costs of the
tested motor, or would be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2)–(3), (a)(5)(B)) Subsequently,
as newer versions of the NEMA and
IEEE test procedures for electric motors
were published and used by industry,
DOE updated 10 CFR part 431. For
example, see 64 FR 54114 (October 5,
1999) that incorporated by reference
into 10 CFR part 431 applicable
provisions of NEMA Standards
Publication MG1–1993 and IEEE
Standard 112–1996, and codified them
at 10 CFR 431.16 and appendix B to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 431. DOE also
added the equivalent test procedure—
Canadian Standards Association (CSA)
CAN/CSA C390–93, ‘‘Energy Efficiency
Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction
Motors,’’ because NEMA added this
procedure to its Standards Publication,
MG1, when it was revised and updated
in 1993. See 61 FR 60440, 60446
(November 27, 1996).
On May 4, 2012, DOE incorporated by
reference the updated versions of the
above test procedures: NEMA MG1–
2009, IEEE 112–2004, and CAN/CSA
C390–10. 77 FR 26608, 26638 (the
‘‘2012 final test procedure.’’) DOE made
these updates to ensure consistency
between 10 CFR part 431 and current
industry procedures and related
practices. Since publication of the 2012
final test procedure, NEMA Standards
Publication MG1 has been updated to
MG1–2011. The text of the sections and
paragraphs of NEMA MG1–2009, which
is incorporated by reference under 10
CFR part 431.15, is identical to the text
of the relevant sections and paragraphs
of NEMA MG1–2011. The substance of
those NEMA MG1–2009 sections and
paragraphs incorporated by reference
into subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 were
subjected to public notice and comment
during the 2012 test procedure
rulemaking. DOE addressed its reasons
for incorporating the MG1–2009 text
into its regulations in its May 2012 final
to the proper industry methodologies in IEEE
Standard 112 and CSA C390–10.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
38458
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
rule. See 77 FR at 26616–26617. For all
the above reasons, DOE has
preliminarily chosen not to update its
regulations with NEMA MG1–2011, but
is accepting public comment on this
preliminary decision.
II. Summary of Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to:
(1) Define a variety of electric motor
configurations (i.e., types) that are
currently covered under 10 CFR 431.25
but are not currently defined under 10
CFR 431.12;
(2) Define a variety of electric motor
configurations (i.e., types) that are not
currently covered under 10 CFR 431.25
and are not currently defined under 10
CFR 431.12; and
(3) Clarify the necessary testing ‘‘setup’’ procedures to facilitate the testing
of the currently not covered motor types
under IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method
B) or CSA Standard C390–10.
Today’s NOPR was precipitated by
DOE’s ongoing electric motors standards
rulemaking. DOE published its
‘‘Framework Document for Commercial
and Industrial Electric Motors’’ (the
‘‘2010 framework document’’) (75 FR
59657) on September 28, 2010. Public
comments filed in response urged DOE
to consider regulating the efficiency of
certain definite and special purpose
motors. DOE, in turn, published a
request for information regarding
definite and special purpose motors (the
‘‘March 2011 RFI’’). See 76 FR 17577
(March 30, 2011). DOE is considering
whether to propose expanding the scope
of what its electric motor standards
regulate to include all continuous duty,
single speed, squirrel-cage, polyphase
alternating-current, induction motors,
with some narrowly defined
exemptions. See 77 FR 43015 (July 23,
2012). Today’s NOPR addresses and
solicits comment on test procedure
issues arising from potentially
expanding the scope of DOE’s energy
efficiency requirements to include
certain motor types that are not
currently required to meet energy
conservation standards. In particular,
today’s proposal includes definitions for
those motor types that DOE may
consider regulating and those types that
DOE is not considering regulating at this
time. DOE is coordinating today’s NOPR
with a parallel electric motor energy
conservation standards rulemaking. To
the extent possible, DOE will consider
all comments submitted in response to
the electric motors test procedure or
standards rulemaking in connection
with both activities.
In addition to proposing to include
new definitions, today’s notice proposes
to add certain steps to the applicable
test procedures contained in appendix B
to subpart B of 10 CFR part 431, to
accommodate setting those motors up
for testing that DOE is considering
regulating. Because the proposed
amendments are strictly limited to those
steps necessary to facilitate testing
under the currently incorporated test
procedures, DOE does not anticipate
that the proposal would affect the actual
measurement of losses and the
subsequent determination of efficiency
for any of the electric motors within the
scope of today’s proposed rulemaking.
The proposed revisions are
summarized in the table below and
addressed in detail in the following
sections. Note that all citations to
various sections of 10 CFR part 431
throughout this preamble refer to the
current version of 10 CFR part 431. The
proposed regulatory text follows the
preamble to this notice. DOE seeks
comments from interested parties on
each of the proposed revisions.
TABLE II–1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES PROPOSED IN THIS NOPR AND AFFECTED SECTIONS OF 10 CFR PART 431
Existing section in 10 CFR part 431
Summary of proposed modifications
Section 431.12—Definitions ......................................................................
• Adds new definitions for:
Æ Air-over electric motor.
Æ Component set.
Æ Definite-purpose inverter-fed electric motor.
Æ Electric motor with moisture resistant windings.
Æ Electric motor with sealed windings.
Æ IEC Design H motor.
Æ IEC Design N motor.
Æ Immersible electric motor.
Æ Integral brake electric motor.
Æ Inverter-capable electric motor.
Æ Liquid-cooled electric motor.
Æ NEMA Design A motor.
Æ NEMA Design C motor.
Æ Non-integral brake electrical motor.
Æ Partial electric motor.
Æ Submersible electric motor.
Æ Totally enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) electric motor.
• Updates test procedure set-up methods for:
Æ Close-coupled pump electric motors and electric motors with single or double shaft extensions of non-standard dimensions or additions.
Æ Electric motors with non-standard endshields or flanges.
Æ Immersible electric motors and electric motors with contact seals.
Æ Integral brake electric motors.
Æ Non-integral brake electric motors.
Æ Partial electric motors.
Æ Vertical electric motors and electric motors with bearings incapable of horizontal operation.
Æ Close-coupled pump electric motors.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Appendix B to Subpart B—Uniform Test Method for Measuring Nominal
Full Load Efficiency of Electric Motors.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:33 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
DOE developed today’s proposal after
considering public input, including
written comments, from a wide variety
of interested parties. All commenters,
along with their corresponding
abbreviations and affiliation, are listed
38459
in Table II.2 below. The issues raised by
these commenters are addressed in the
discussions that follow.3
TABLE II–2—SUMMARY OF NOPR COMMENTERS
Company or organization
Abbreviation
Affiliation
Appliance Standards Awareness Project .....................
Baldor Electric Co. .......................................................
Copper Development Association ................................
Motor Coalition * ...........................................................
National Electrical Manufacturers Association .............
ASAP .....................
Baldor ....................
CDA .......................
MC .........................
NEMA ....................
Energy Efficiency Advocate.
Manufacturer.
Trade Association.
Energy Efficiency Advocates, Trade Associations, Manufacturers.
Trade Association.
* The members of the Motor Coalition include: National Electrical Manufacturers Association, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Alliance to Save Energy, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council.
such representations are based on the
results of testing, or calculations from a
substantiated alternative efficiency
determination method (AEDM), that
reflect values of efficiency that would be
obtained through testing in accordance
with the amended test procedures. In
addition, 180 days after publication of
the final rule, both manufacturers of
currently regulated motors and
manufacturers of special and definite
purpose motors for which definitions or
testing set-up procedures are provided
would be required to comply with and
use the amended test procedures to
determine if the covered electric motor
types they manufacture comply with the
applicable energy conservation
standards.4 See 42 U.S.C. 6314(d).
A. Proposed Effective Dates for the
Amended Test Procedures
If adopted, the proposed amendments
would become effective 30 days after
the publication of the final rule. As
previously explained, today’s proposal
would primarily add a new section to
DOE’s test procedure with the steps that
the manufacturers of certain types of
special and definite purpose electric
motors would need to take before testing
a motor. Because these test procedure
changes would add only a new section
to the existing test procedure for motor
types that are not currently regulated
(i.e., special and definite purpose
motors), manufacturers of motors
currently covered by DOE regulations
(i.e., general purpose electric motors
(subtype I and subtype II), including fire
pump electric motors and NEMA Design
B motors with a power rating of more
than 200 horsepower but not greater
than 500 horsepower) can continue to
use the current test procedure until 180
days after publication of the final rule.
At 180 days after publication of the final
rule, both manufacturers of currently
regulated motors and manufacturers of
special and definite purpose motors for
which definitions or testing set-up
procedures are proposed in this rule
may not make any representations
regarding energy use or the cost of
energy use for all electric motors
addressed in today’s rulemaking unless
B. Expanding the Scope of Coverage of
Energy Conservation Standards
DOE has the authority to set energy
conservation standards for a wider range
of electric motors than those classified
as general purpose electric motors (e.g.,
definite or special purpose motors). The
EPACT 1992 amendments to EPCA had
defined ‘‘electric motor’’ to include a
certain type of ‘‘general purpose’’ motor
that Congress would eventually classify
as a general purpose electric motor
(subtype I). (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)
(1992)) Those amendments also defined
several other types of motors, including
definite purpose motors and special
purpose motors. (See 42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(C) and (D) (1992)) EPACT 1992
set energy conservation standards for
‘‘electric motors’’ (i.e., general purpose
electric motors (subtype I)) and
explicitly stated that the standards did
not apply to definite purpose or special
purpose motors.5 (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1))
(1992)) EISA 2007 struck the narrow
EPACT 1992 definition for ‘‘electric
motor’’ and replaced it with the heading
‘‘Electric motors.’’ As a result of these
changes, both definite and special
purpose motors fell under the broad
heading of ‘‘Electric motors’’ that
previously only applied to ‘‘general
purpose’’ motors. While EISA 2007 set
specific standards for general purpose
electric motors, it did not explicitly
apply these new requirements to
definite or special purpose motors. (See
generally 42 U.S.C. 6313(b) (2012))
Although DOE believes that EPCA, as
amended through EISA 2007, provides
sufficient statutory authority for the
regulation of special purpose and
definite purpose motors as ‘‘electric
motors,’’ DOE notes it has additional
authority provided under section 10 of
AEMTCA (to be codified at 42 U.S.C.
6311(2)(B)) to generally regulate ‘‘other
motors’’ as covered ‘‘industrial
equipment.’’ Therefore, even if special
and definite purpose motors were not
‘‘electric motors,’’ special and definite
purpose motors would be considered as
‘‘other motors’’ that EPCA already treats
as covered industrial equipment.6
3 As comments have not yet been submitted for
this test procedure rulemaking, all comments cited
in this NOPR can be found in the Electric Motors
Standards rulemaking docket with the number
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027.
4 DOE acknowledges that there are no current
energy conservation standards for the majority of
the motor types covered in today’s proposed rule.
If DOE establishes standards for these motor types,
manufacturers will be required to use the proposed
test procedure to certify compliance with these
standards.
5 For the most part, DOE understands that a fire
pump electric motor is a NEMA Design B motor,
except it does not have a thermal limit switch that
would otherwise preclude multiple starts. In other
words, a NEMA Design B electric motor has a
thermal limit switch that protects the motor,
whereas a fire pump electric motor does not have
such a thermal limit switch to ensure that the motor
will start and operate to pump water to extinguish
a fire.
6 EPCA specifies the types of industrial
equipment that can be classified as covered in
addition to the equipment enumerated in 42 U.S.C.
6311(1). This equipment includes ‘‘other motors’’
(to be codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)). Industrial
equipment must also, without regard to whether
such equipment is in fact distributed in commerce
for industrial or commercial use, be of a type that:
(1) In operation consumes, or is designed to
consume, energy in operation; (2) to any significant
extent, is distributed in commerce for industrial or
commercial use; and (3) is not a covered product
as defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(a)(2) of EPCA, other
than a component of a covered product with respect
to which there is in effect a determination under 42
U.S.C. 6312(c). (42 U.S.C. 6311 (2)(A)). Data from
the 2002 United States Industrial Electric Motor
Systems Market Opportunities Assessment
estimated total energy use from industrial motor
systems to be 747 billion kWh. Based on the
expansion of industrial activity, it is likely that
current annual electric motor energy use is higher
than this figure. Electric motors are distributed in
commerce for both the industrial and commercial
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
III. Discussion
Continued
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
38460
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Consistent with the changes made by
EISA 2007, DOE defined the term
‘‘electric motor’’ broadly. See 77 FR
26633 (May 4, 2012). That definition
covers ‘‘general purpose,’’ ‘‘special
purpose’’ and ‘‘definite purpose’’
electric motors (as defined by EPCA).
Previously, EPCA did not require either
‘‘special purpose’’ or ‘‘definite purpose’’
motor types to meet energy conservation
standards because they were not
considered ‘‘general purpose’’ under the
EPCA definition of ‘‘general purpose
motor’’—a necessary element to meet
the pre-EISA 2007 ‘‘electric motor’’
definition. See 77 FR 26612. Because of
the restrictive nature of the prior electric
motor definition, along with the
restrictive definition of the term
‘‘industrial equipment,’’ DOE would
have been unable to set standards for
such motors. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)
(limiting the scope of equipment
covered under EPCA)) In view of the
changes introduced by EISA 2007 and
the absence of current Federal energy
conservation standards for special
purpose and definite purpose motors, as
noted in chapter 2 of DOE’s July 2012
electric motors preliminary analysis
technical support document (TSD),7 it is
DOE’s view that both are categories of
‘‘electric motors’’ covered under EPCA,
as currently amended. Accordingly,
DOE is considering establishing
standards for certain definite purpose
and special purpose motors in the
context of a separate rulemaking. At this
time, DOE is considering setting energy
conservation standards for only those
motors that exhibit all of the following
nine characteristics:
• Is a single-speed, induction motor,
• Is rated for continuous duty (MG1)
operation or for duty type S1 (IEC),
sectors. According to data provided by the Motors
Coalition, the number of electric motors
manufactured in, or imported into, the United
States is over five million electric motors annually,
including special and definite purpose motors.
Finally, special and definite purpose motors are not
currently regulated under Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, part 430 (10 CFR part 430).
To classify equipment as covered commercial or
industrial equipment, the Secretary must also
determine that classifying the equipment as covered
equipment is necessary for the purposes of Part A–
1 of EPCA. The purpose of Part A–1 is to improve
the efficiency of electric motors, pumps and certain
other industrial equipment to conserve the energy
resources of the nation. (42 U.S.C. 6312(a)–(b)) In
today’s proposal, DOE has tentatively determined
that the regulation of special and definite purpose
motors is necessary to carry out the purposes of part
A–1 of EPCA because regulating these motors will
promote the conservation of energy supplies.
Efficiency standards that may result from coverage
would help to capture some portion of the potential
for improving the efficiency of special and definite
purpose motors.
7 The preliminary TSD published in July 2012 is
available at: https://www.regulations.gov/#
!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0023
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
• Contains a squirrel-cage (MG1) or
cage (IEC) rotor,
• Operates on polyphase alternating
current 60-hertz sinusoidal line power,
• Is rated 600 volts or less,
• Has a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole
configuration,
• Has a three-digit NEMA frame size
(or IEC metric equivalent) or an
enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC
metric equivalent),
• Is rated no more than 500
horsepower, but greater than or equal to
1 horsepower (or kilowatt equivalent),
and
• Meets all of the performance
requirements of one of the following
motor types: a NEMA Design A, B, or C
motor or an IEC design N or H motor.
Motor types that exhibit all of the
characteristics listed above, but that
DOE is declining to subject to energy
conservation standards at this time
because of the inability to test them for
efficiency in a repeatable manner,
would be identified by DOE through a
parallel notice of proposed rulemaking.
To prepare this test procedure NOPR,
DOE has incorporated feedback received
during the August 21, 2012, electric
motors standards preliminary analysis
public meeting, comments on the March
2011 RFI, and comments on the July
2012 electric motors preliminary
analysis (‘‘electric motors preliminary
analysis’’) as well as information
gleaned from discussions with testing
laboratories, manufacturers, and subject
matter experts (SMEs).
To facilitate the potential application
of energy conservation standards to
motors built in the configurations
described above, DOE proposes to first
define the motors and then provide
additional testing instructions to enable
them to be tested using the existing DOE
test method for electric motors. The
definitions under consideration would
address motors currently subject to
standards, certain motors DOE is
considering requiring to meet standards,
and certain other motors that DOE is, at
this time, considering not regulating
through energy conservation standards.
Some clarifying definitions, such as the
definitions for NEMA Design A and
NEMA Design C motors from NEMA
MG1–2009, would be added. However,
DOE understands that some motors,
such as partial motors and integral brake
motors, do not have standard, industryaccepted definitions. For such motor
types, DOE conducted its own
independent research and consulted
with SMEs, manufacturers, and the
Motor Coalition so that DOE could
create the working definitions that are
proposed in section III of this NOPR.
For the definitions of ‘‘electric motor
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
with moisture resistant windings’’ and
‘‘electric motor with sealed windings,’’
which reference certain subsections of
NEMA MG1–2009, DOE intends to
incorporate by reference the cited
sections of NEMA MG1–2009.
DOE believes that the existing IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method B) and CSA
C390–10 test procedures can be used to
accurately measure losses and
determine the energy efficiency for this
additional group (or ‘‘expanded scope’’)
of motors because all of the motor types
under consideration are single-speed,
polyphase induction motors with
electromechanical characteristics
similar to those currently subject to
energy conservation standards. While
some of these motor types require the
addition of testing step-up instructions
prior to testing, all can be tested using
the same methodology provided in
those industry-based procedures DOE
has already incorporated into its
regulations.
Testing an electric motor using IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA
C390–10 requires some basic electrical
connections and physical
configurations. To test an electric motor
under either procedure, the electric
motor is first mounted on a test bench
in a horizontal position. This means that
the motor shaft is horizontal to the test
bench and the motor is equipped with
antifriction bearings that can withstand
operation while in a horizontal
position.8 Instruments are then
connected to the power leads of the
motor to measure input power, voltage,
current, speed, torque, temperature, and
other input, output, and performance
characteristics. Thermocouples are
attached to the motor to facilitate
temperature measurement. Stator
winding resistance is measured while
the motor is at ambient, or room,
temperature. No-load measurements are
recorded while the motor is operating,
both temperature and input power have
stabilized, and the shaft extension is
free from any attachments. After
ambient temperature and no-load
measurements are taken, a
dynamometer is attached to the motor
shaft to take ‘‘loaded’’ measurements. A
dynamometer is a device that
simultaneously applies and measures
torque for a motor. The dynamometer
applies incremental loads to the shaft,
typically at 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, and 150
percent of the motor’s total rated output
horsepower. This allows the testing
laboratory to record motor performance
8 DOE is aware of some types of bearings that
cannot operate while the motor is in a horizontal
position. DOE addresses such bearings in later
sections of this NOPR.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
38461
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
criteria, such as power output and
torque, at each incremental load point.
Additional stator winding resistance
measurements are taken to record the
temperature at the different load points.
DOE believes that clarifying
instructions may be necessary to test
some of the expanded-scope motors that
DOE is considering and for which DOE
is conducting an energy conservation
standards rulemaking because some
motors may require modifications before
they can operate continuously and be
tested on a dynamometer in a manner
consistent with the current DOE test
procedure. For example, a partial
electric motor may be engineered for use
without one or both endshields,
including bearings, because it relies on
mechanical support from another piece
of equipment. Without these
components, the motor would be unable
to operate as a stand-alone piece of
equipment. Therefore, DOE is proposing
to add instructions to facilitate
consistent and repeatable procedures for
motors such as these. These additions
were based on testing and research
conducted by the Department along
with technical consultations with SMEs,
manufacturers, testing laboratories, and
various trade associations. Table III–1
lists those electric motors that are
covered under current energy
conservation standards or that DOE is
analyzing for potential new energy
conservation standards. In each case,
the table identifies whether DOE is
proposing to address a given motor
through the use of new definitions, test
procedure instructions, or both.
TABLE III–1—MOTOR TYPES CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION IN DOE PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURE AND STANDARDS
RULEMAKINGS
Motor type
Currently
subject to
standards?
Under
consideration
for potential
standards?
New definition
proposed?
NEMA Design A Motors ..............................................................................
NEMA Design C Motors ..............................................................................
IEC Design N Motors ..................................................................................
IEC Design H Motors ..................................................................................
Electric Motors with Moisture Resistant or Sealed Windings .....................
Inverter-Capable Electric Motors ................................................................
Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated Electric Motors ........................................
Immersible Electric Motors ..........................................................................
Electric Motors with Contact Seals .............................................................
Integral Brake Electric Motors .....................................................................
Non-Integral Brake Electric Motors .............................................................
Partial Electric Motors .................................................................................
Electric Motors with Non-Standard Endshields or Flanges ........................
Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors .........................................................
Electric Motors with Special Shafts ............................................................
Vertical Solid Shaft Motors .........................................................................
Vertical Hollow-Shaft Motors .......................................................................
Electric Motors with Thrust Bearings ..........................................................
Electric Motors with Sealed Bearings .........................................................
Electric Motors with Roller Bearings ...........................................................
Electric Motors with Sleeve Bearings .........................................................
Electric Motors with Non-Standard Bases ..................................................
Air-Over Electric Motors ..............................................................................
Component Sets .........................................................................................
Liquid-cooled Electric Motors ......................................................................
Submersible Electric Motors .......................................................................
Definite-Purpose Inverter-Fed Electric Motors ............................................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
No ...................
Yes .................
No ...................
No ...................
Yes .................
No ...................
Yes .................
No ...................
No ...................
Yes .................
No ...................
Yes .................
No ...................
No ...................
Yes .................
No ...................
Yes .................
No ...................
No ...................
No ...................
No ...................
No ...................
No ...................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
No ...................
No ...................
No ...................
No ...................
No ...................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
No ...................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
No ...................
No ...................
No ...................
No ...................
No ...................
No ...................
No ...................
No ...................
No ...................
No ...................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
Yes .................
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
C. Motor Type Definitions
During the course of the 2012 final
test procedure rulemaking, some
interested parties questioned why DOE
defined NEMA Design B motors but not
NEMA Design A or Design C motors.
DOE explained that it chose to adopt a
definition for ‘‘NEMA Design B’’ motor
because the application section in MG1
(MG1–1.19.1.2 in both MG1–2009 and
MG1–2011) contained a typographical
error that required correcting for
purposes of DOE’s regulations. DOE also
noted that it may incorporate a
corrected version of the ‘‘NEMA Design
C’’ motor definition in a future
rulemaking—that definition, which is
found in MG1–1.19.1.3, also contains a
typographical error. DOE did not intend
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
to add definitions for NEMA Design A
and IEC Design N, as the existing
definitions found in MG1 are correct as
published. 77 FR 26616, 26634 (May 4,
2012). In view of DOE’s intention to
consider regulating other types of
motors, DOE now believes it is
necessary to make clear the terms and
definitions for them as well. DOE
understands that many terms and
definitions applicable to motors and
used in common industry parlance for
voluntary standards and day-to-day
business communication are not
necessarily defined with sufficient
clarity for regulatory purposes. DOE
does not, at this time, propose to add
amendments related to such types of
motors other than to provide more
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Additional
set-up
instructions
proposed?
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
precise definitions for them to
sufficiently capture the particular
characteristics attributable to each and
aid the manufacturing community in
determining whether a particular basic
model is covered by DOE’s regulations
for electric motors.
1. National Electrical Manufacturers
Association Design A and Design C
Motors
NEMA MG1–2009 defines the
following three types of polyphase,
alternating current, induction motors:
NEMA Designs A, B, and C. NEMA
MG1–2009 establishes the same pull-up,
breakdown, and locked-rotor torque
requirements for both NEMA Design A
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
38462
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
and NEMA Design B motors.9 However,
a NEMA Design A motor must be
designed such that its locked-rotor
current exceeds the maximum lockedrotor current established for a NEMA
Design B motor. Unless the application
specifically requires the higher lockedrotor current capability offered by a
NEMA Design A motor, a NEMA Design
B motor (that has the same specified
minimum torque characteristics as the
NEMA Design A motor) is often used
instead because of the additional
convenience offered by these motors
when compared to Design A motors.
(See NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–
0027–0054 at 36 (noting the additional
convenience offered by Design B motors
over Design A motors with respect to
selecting disconnecting methods and in
satisfying National Electrical Code and
Underwriters Laboratory requirements.))
In addition, DOE understands that
NEMA Design B motors are frequently
preferred because the user can easily
select motor control and protection
equipment that meets the applicable
requirements of the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) National
Electrical Code (NFPA 70). These
motors are also listed by private testing,
safety, or certification organizations,
such as CSA International and
Underwriters Laboratory. (NEMA,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0054 at p.
36) A NEMA Design C motor requires a
minimum locked-rotor torque per
NEMA MG1–2009, Table 12–3, which is
higher than either the NEMA Design A
or Design B minimum locked-rotor
torque required per NEMA MG1–2009,
Table 12–2.
In view of the above, DOE is
proposing to incorporate a definition for
both ‘‘NEMA Design A motor’’ and
‘‘NEMA Design C motor’’ to improve
regulatory clarity. DOE notes it has
already adopted a definition for ‘‘NEMA
Design B motor’’ at 10 CFR 431.12. DOE
believes that providing definitions for
9 Locked-rotor torque is the torque that a motor
produces when it is at rest or zero speed and
initially turned on. A higher locked-rotor torque is
important for hard-to-start applications, such as
positive displacement pumps or compressors. A
lower locked-rotor torque can be accepted in
applications such as centrifugal fans or pumps
where the start load is low or close to zero. Pullup torque is the torque needed to cause a load to
reach its full rated speed. If a motor’s pull-up torque
is less than that required by its application load, the
motor will overheat and eventually stall.
Breakdown torque is the maximum torque a motor
can produce without abruptly losing motor speed.
High breakdown torque is necessary for
applications that may undergo frequent
overloading, such as a conveyor belt. Often,
conveyor belts have more product or materials
placed upon them than their rating allows. High
breakdown torque enables the conveyor to continue
operating under these conditions without causing
heat damage to the motor.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
Similar to NEMA, the European
International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) produces industry
standards that contain performance
requirements for electric motors.
Analogous to NEMA Designs B and C,
the IEC has design types N and H. IEC
Design N motors have similar
performance characteristics to NEMA
Design B motors, while IEC Design H
motors are similar to NEMA Design C
motors. Because many motors imported
into the U.S. are built to IEC
specifications instead of NEMA
specifications, DOE is proposing to
include a definition for IEC Design N
and IEC Design H motor types to ensure
that these functionally similar motors
are treated in a manner consistent with
equivalent NEMA-based electric motors
and to retain overall consistency with
the existing definitional framework.
DOE’s proposed definition for ‘‘IEC
Design N motor’’ incorporates language
from IEC Standard 60034–12 (2007 Ed.
2.1) (IEC 60034) with some
modifications that would make the
definition more comprehensive. IEC
60034 defines IEC Design N motors as
being ‘‘normal starting torque threephase cage induction motors intended
for direct-across the line starting, having
2, 4, 6 or 8 poles and rated from 0,4 kW
to 1 600 kW,’’ with torque
characteristics and locked-rotor
characteristics detailed in subsequent
tables of the standard.11 A similar
approach for IEC Design H motors is
taken in IEC 60034, but with references
to different sections and slightly
different wording. DOE is proposing to
include all references to tables for
torque characteristics and locked-rotor
characteristics as part of these
definitions to improve their
comprehensiveness. As detailed in the
proposed regulations below, today’s
proposed rule defines an ‘‘IEC Design N
motor’’ as an induction motor designed
for use with three-phase power with the
following characteristics: a cage rotor,
intended for direct-on-line starting,
having 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles, rated from 0.4
kW to 1600 kW, and conforming to IEC
specifications for torque characteristics,
locked rotor apparent power, and
starting. An ‘‘IEC Design H motor’’ is
defined as an induction motor designed
for use with three-phase power with the
following characteristics: a cage rotor,
intended for direct-on-line starting, with
4, 6, or 8 poles, rated from 0.4 kW to 160
kW, and conforming to IEC
specifications for starting torque, locked
rotor apparent power, and starting.
Electric motors that meet these
performance requirements and
10 In NEMA MG1–2009, the definition for NEMA
Design C refers the reader to paragraph 12.34.1 for
locked-rotor current limits for 60 hertz motors. The
appropriate paragraph appears to be 12.35.1.
11 Across-the-line (or direct-on-line) starting is the
ability of a motor to start directly when connected
to a polyphase sinusoidal power source without the
need for an inverter.
other motor types will provide
consistency in the treatment of all
considered motors. The proposed
definitions for NEMA Design A and
Design C motors are based on the
definitions in NEMA MG1–2009,
paragraphs 1.19.1.1 and 1.19.1.3,
respectively. DOE believes that the
NEMA MG1–2009 definition of ‘‘NEMA
Design A motor’’ is sufficiently clear
and concise and is proposing to add it
with minor clarifying elements. DOE is
proposing to incorporate the definition
of ‘‘NEMA Design C motor’’ from NEMA
MG1–2009, paragraph 1.19.1.3 with
some minor corrections because the
NEMA MG1–2009 definition appears to
contain typographical errors 10 with
regard to the tables referenced in the
definition. As detailed in the proposed
regulations below, a NEMA Design A
motor is defined as a squirrel-cage
motor designed to withstand full-voltage
starting and developing locked-rotor
torque, pull-up torque, breakdown
torque, and locked-rotor current as
specified in NEMA MG1–2009; and
with a slip at rated load of less than 5
percent for motors with fewer than 10
poles. A NEMA Design C motor is
defined as a squirrel-cage motor
designed to withstand full-voltage
starting and developing locked-rotor
torque for high-torque applications,
pull-up torque, breakdown torque, and
locked-rotor current as specified in
NEMA MG1–2009; and with a slip at
rated load of less than 5 percent.
As previously mentioned, DOE is
proposing these definitions to retain
consistency with other already
incorporated regulatory definitions.
General purpose electric motors that
meet the definition of NEMA Design A
and Design C motor and are rated
between 1 and 200 horsepower are
currently subject to energy conservation
standards. DOE is not aware of any
difficulties in testing either of these
motor design types using the current
procedures. Therefore, DOE is not
proposing any test procedure
amendments for these motor types at
this time. DOE requests comment on its
proposal to incorporate definitions for
NEMA Design A and NEMA Design C
motors based on the NEMA MG1–2009
definitions of these motor designs.
2. International Electrotechnical
Commission Designs N and H Motors
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
otherwise meet the definitions of
general purpose electric motor (subtype
I) or (subtype II) are already required to
satisfy DOE’s energy conservation
standards at specified horsepower
ranges. Because these IEC definitions
stipulate a set of performance
parameters that do not inhibit an
electric motor’s ability to be tested, DOE
is not proposing any additional test
procedure amendments at this time.
However, DOE requests comment on the
proposed definitions.
3. Electric Motors With Sealed and
Moisture Resistant Windings
All electric motors have ‘‘insulation
systems’’ that surround the various
copper winding components in the
stator. The insulation, such as a resin
coating or plastic sheets, serves two
purposes. First, it helps separate the
three electrical phases of the windings
from each other and, second, it
separates the copper windings from the
stator lamination steel. Electric motors
with encapsulated windings have
additional insulation that completely
encases the stator windings, which
protects them from condensation,
moisture, dirt, and debris. This
insulation typically consists of a special
material coating, such as epoxy or resin
that completely seals the stator’s
windings. Encapsulation is generally
found on open-frame motors, where the
possibility of contaminants getting
inside the motor is higher than for an
enclosed-frame motor.
In the electric motors preliminary
analysis TSD,12 DOE set forth a possible
definition for the term ‘‘encapsulated
electric motor.’’ The definition
presented was based upon a NEMA
definition for the term ‘‘Machine with
Sealed Windings’’ and was intended to
cover motors containing special
windings that could withstand exposure
to contaminants and moisture. As
highlighted in NEMA and Baldor’s
comments, NEMA MG1–2009 does not
specify a single term that encompasses
a motor with encapsulated windings.
Instead, NEMA MG1–2009 provides two
terms: one for a ‘‘Machine with Sealed
Windings’’ and one for a ‘‘Machine with
Moisture Resistant Windings.’’ A
definition for the term ‘‘Machine with
Encapsulated Windings’’ has not
appeared in MG1 since the 1967 edition.
Because of potential confusion, NEMA
asked DOE to clarify which type of
motor, or possibly both, DOE was
considering covering. (Baldor, Pub. Mtg.
Tr., EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0060 at
p 52; NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–
0027–0054 at p. 33)
After reviewing the two pertinent
definitions, the comments from Baldor
and NEMA, and DOE’s own research on
these types of motors, DOE believes that
motors that meet both definitions
should be covered by any proposed
definition and be included within its
expanded scope of coverage. The ability
for a motor’s windings to continue to
function properly when the motor is in
the presence of moisture, water, or
contaminants, as is the case when a
motor meets one of these two
definitions, does not affect its ability to
be connected to a dynamometer and be
tested for efficiency. Additionally, this
ability does not preclude a motor from
meeting the nine criteria that DOE is
preliminarily using to characterize the
electric motors that are within the scope
of DOE’s regulatory authority.
Therefore, DOE is proposing two
definitions based on the NEMA MG1—
2009 definitions of a ‘‘Machine with
Moisture Resistant Windings’’ and a
‘‘Machine with Sealed Windings.’’
DOE’s proposed definitions are based on
modified versions of the NEMA MG1—
2009 definitions in order to eliminate
potential confusion and ambiguities.
The proposed definitions emphasize the
ability of motors to pass the
conformance tests for moisture and
water resistance, thereby identifying
them as having special or definite
purpose characteristics. As detailed in
the proposed regulations below, today’s
proposed rule defines ‘‘electric motor
with moisture resistant’’ as an electric
motor engineered to pass the
conformance test for moisture resistance
as specified in NEMA MG1–2009. An
‘‘electric motor with sealed windings’’ is
defined as an electric motor engineered
to pass the conformance test for water
resistance as specified in NEMA MG1–
2009.
In addition to proposing a definition
for these motor types, DOE also
considered difficulties that may arise
during testing when following IEEE
Standard 112 Test Method B or CSA
C390–10 or any potential impacts on
efficiency caused by encapsulation of
the windings. While DOE received
comment advocating the regulation of
motors with special windings, it did not
receive any comments suggesting or
raising any necessary test procedure
changes that would need to be made as
a result of the stator winding
encapsulation. (NEMA, EERE–2010–
BT–STD–0027–0054 at p. 14)
Subsequently, DOE conducted its own
research and consulted with testing
laboratories and various industry
experts regarding any effects that
specially insulated windings may have
on testing or efficiency.
As a result of these discussions, DOE
does not believe that the presence of
specially insulated stator windings in an
electric motor would interfere with
DOE-prescribed test procedures. Also,
because temperature measurements are
taken by measuring the stator winding
resistance, DOE does not believe that
the insulation on the stator windings
themselves would interfere with
carrying out any part of IEEE Standard
112 (Test Method B) or CSA C390–10,
both of which require temperature
measurements to be taken during
testing. The modifications made to
stator windings have no impact on a
motor’s ability to be connected to a
dynamometer because they are
modifications to the internal portions of
the motor. Therefore, at this time, DOE
is not proposing any test procedure
amendments for electric motors with
moisture resistant windings or electric
motors with sealed windings.
DOE believes that the effects that
specially insulated windings may have
on an electric motor’s efficiency are
likely to be minimal. Although DOE
recognizes there could be a change in
the thermal characteristics of the motor,
DOE believes that the additional
treatment given to these specially
insulated windings could, in some
cases, improve heat dissipation. Again,
however, DOE does not believe that the
efficiency changes, whether positive or
negative, will be significant. DOE
requests any data, information, or
comments regarding the effects of
specially insulated stator windings on
electric motor efficiency.
DOE also seeks comment on its
proposed definition for motors with
moisture resistant windings and motors
with sealed windings and its
preliminary decision not to propose
additional testing instructions for these
motors types.
4. Inverter-Capable Electric Motors
DOE currently regulates single speed
motors with a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole
configuration. Each of these motors
operates at a constant rotational speed,
which is predicated by its pole
configuration. This means that the
motor shaft is engineered to rotate at the
same speed, regardless of its application
or required power. In addition to its
12 The preliminary TSD published in July 2012 is
available at: https://www.regulations.gov/#
!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0023.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38463
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
38464
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
frequency of its power source. The
equation determining a motor’s
theoretical maximum speed (or
synchronous speed) is:
Inverter drives (also called variablefrequency drives (VFDs), variable-speed
drives, adjustable frequency drives,
alternating-current drives, microdrives,
or vector drives) operate by changing
the frequency and voltage of the power
source that feeds into an electric motor.
The inverter is connected between the
power source and the motor and
provides a variable frequency power
source to the motor. The benefit of the
inverter is that it can control the
frequency of the power source fed to the
motor, which in turn controls the
rotational speed of the motor. This
allows the motor to operate at a reduced
speed when the full, nameplate-rated
speed is not needed. This practice can
save energy, particularly for fan and
pump applications that frequently
operate at reduced loading points.
Inverters can also control the start-up
characteristics of the motor, such as
locked-rotor current or locked-rotor
torque, which allows a motor to employ
higher-efficiency designs while still
attaining locked-rotor current or lockedrotor torque limits standardized in
NEMA MG1–2009.13
Currently, being suitable for use on an
inverter alone would not exempt a
motor from having to satisfy any
applicable energy conservation
requirements because it does not
preclude a motor from meeting the nine
design characteristics of electric motors
that will define regulatory coverage. In
today’s NOPR, DOE is maintaining this
approach. However, today’s NOPR seeks
to further clarify this position by
proposing a definition for the term
‘‘inverter-capable electric motor.’’
In its comments about the electric
motors preliminary analysis, NEMA
provided suggestions on how to define
inverter capable-electric motors. NEMA
agreed with DOE that these motors are
capable of both operating with or
without an inverter. However, NEMA
stressed that these electric motors are
primarily engineered to be used without
an inverter and, in its view, this fact
should be evident by the definition DOE
ultimately adopts. NEMA also provided
a suggested definition for the term
‘‘inverter-capable electric motor.’’
(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–
0054 at pp. 34–35) This definition,
similar in substance and meaning to the
definition that DOE presented in the
electric motors preliminary analysis but
including a few minor word changes, is
consistent with DOE’s understanding.
As detailed in the proposed regulations
below, today’s proposed rule defines an
‘‘inverter-capable electric motor’’ as an
electric motor designed to be directly
connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line
power, but that is also capable of
continuous operation on an inverter
drive over a limited speed range and
associated load.
Because this motor type operates like
a typical, general purpose electric motor
when not connected to an inverter, DOE
does not believe any test procedure
amendments are needed. Under DOE’s
proposed approach, an inverter-capable
electric motor would be tested without
the use of an inverter and rely on the
procedures used when testing a general
purpose electric motor. DOE requests
comments on its proposed definition
and its tentative decision not to specify
any test procedure instructions for this
motor type beyond that which is already
contained in the current procedure.
withstand the increased operating
temperatures. Extra frame material
allows for more surface area and mass
to dissipate heat, whereas higher-grade
stator winding insulation may be rated
to withstand the higher operating
temperatures.
In view of the statutory definitional
changes created by EISA 2007, and the
support expressed by both industry and
energy efficiency advocates, DOE is
analyzing TENV motors in the energy
conservation standards rulemaking.
(Motor Coalition, EERE–2010–BT–STD–
0027–0035 at p. 19) As part of this
effort, DOE proposes to add a definition
for this motor type based on the
definition of a ‘‘totally enclosed
nonventilated machine’’ in paragraph
1.26.1 of NEMA MG1–2009. DOE
tentatively concludes that this
definition is accurate and sufficiently
clear and concise and is proposing that
the definition be adopted with minor
alterations. As detailed in the proposed
regulations below, today’s proposed rule
defines a ‘‘TENV electric motor’’ as an
electric motor built in a frame-surface
cooled, totally enclosed configuration
that is designed and equipped to be
cooled only by free convection.
In addition to proposing a definition
for these motors, DOE considered
whether any modifications to the test
procedure may be necessary to test
TENV motors. Prior to the electric
motors preliminary analysis, ASAP and
NEMA submitted comments suggesting
that manufacturers could demonstrate
compliance with the applicable energy
conservation standards by testing
similar models. (ASAP and NEMA,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0012 at p.
7) Although NEMA and ASAP suggested
this was a possible way to test these
motors to demonstrate compliance, they
did not state that this was necessary
because of testing difficulties.
Subsequently, after DOE published its
electric motors preliminary analysis,
NEMA stated that it was not aware of
any changes that were required to use
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B)
when testing TENV motors. (NEMA,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0054 at p.
16) The Copper Development
Association (CDA) commented that DOE
may need to develop new test
procedures for these motor types but did
not explain why such a change would
13 Li, Harry. Impact of VFD, Starting Method and
Driven Load on Motor Efficiency. 2011. Siemens
Industry, Inc.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
5. Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated
Electric Motors
Most enclosed electric motors are
constructed with a fan attached to the
shaft, typically on the end opposite the
driven load, as a means of pushing air
over the surface of the motor enclosure,
which helps dissipate heat and reduce
the motor’s operating temperature.
Totally enclosed non-ventilated (TENV)
motors, however, have no fan blowing
air over the surface of the motor. These
motors rely, instead, on the conduction
and convection of the motor heat into
the surrounding environment for heat
removal, which results in a motor that
operates at higher temperatures than
motors with attached cooling fans.
TENV motors may be used in
environments where an external fan
could clog with dirt or dust, or
applications where the shaft operates at
too low of a speed to provide sufficient
cooling (i.e., a motor controlled by an
inverter to operate at very low
revolutions per minute). TENV motors
may employ additional frame material
as well as improved stator winding
insulation so that the motor may
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
EP26JN13.001</GPH>
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
pole configuration, a motor’s rotational
speed is partially determined by the
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
be necessary. (CDA, EERE–2010–BT–
STD–0027–0018 at p. 2) CDA did not
indicate whether the current procedures
could be modified to test these motors
or what specific steps would need to be
included to test these types of motors.
Additionally, DOE knows of no
technical reason why a TENV motor
could not be tested using either IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method B) or the
CSA–C390 procedure without
modification. In view of NEMA’s most
recent comments suggesting that IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method B) is an
appropriate means to determine the
efficiency of these motors, and the fact
that the CDA did not provide an
explanation of why changes would be
necessary, DOE is not proposing any test
procedure amendments for TENV
electric motors.
DOE requests comments on its
proposed definition and preliminary
decision not to propose any test
procedure amendments for TENV
electric motors.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
D. Electric Motor Types Requiring
Definitions and Test Procedure
Instructions
DOE is proposing to add definitions
for a number of electric motor types that
are already commonly understood, but
not necessarily clearly defined, by the
industry. DOE is also proposing
clarifying language for testing each of
these motor types.
1. Immersible Electric Motors and
Electric Motors With Contact Seals
Most electric motors are not
engineered to withstand immersion in
liquid (e.g., water, including
wastewater). If liquid enters an electric
motor’s stator frame, it could create
electrical faults between the different
electrical phases or electrical steel and
could impede rotor operation or corrode
internal components. Immersible motors
are electric motors that are capable of
withstanding immersion in a liquid
without causing damage to the motor.
Immersible motors can withstand
temporary operation in liquid,
sometimes up to two weeks, but also
run continuously outside of a liquid
environment because they do not rely
on the liquid to cool the motor.
According to test 7 in Table 5–4 of
NEMA MG1–2009, for a motor to be
marked as protected against the effects
of immersion, a motor must prevent the
ingress of water into the motor while
being completely submerged in water
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
for a continuous period of at least 30
minutes. Therefore, DOE interprets
‘‘temporary’’ to mean a period of time of
no less than 30 minutes. Immersible
motors can operate while temporarily
submerged because they have contact
seals that keep liquid and other
contaminants out of the motor.
Additionally, some immersible motors
may have pressurized oil inside the
motor enclosure, which is used in
conjunction with contact seals to
prevent the ingress of liquid during
immersion. Finally, immersible motors
are occasionally constructed in a
package that includes another, smaller
(e.g., 1⁄2 horsepower) motor that is used
to improve cooling when the immersible
motor is not submerged in water. In
these cases, the two motors are
constructed in a totally enclosed
blower-cooled (TEBC) frame and sold
together.
In responding to the October 15, 2010
framework document, NEMA and ASAP
commented that greater clarification is
needed with regard to immersible
motors and how to differentiate them
from liquid-cooled or submersible
motors. (NEMA and ASAP, EERE–2010–
BT–STD–0027–0012 at p. 9) DOE
understands the general differences to
be as follows:
1. Submersible motors are engineered
to operate only while completely
surrounded by liquid because they
require liquid for cooling purposes,
2. Liquid-cooled motors use liquid (or
liquid-filled components) to facilitate
heat dissipation but are not submerged
in liquid during operation, and
3. Immersible motors are capable of
operating temporarily while surrounded
by liquid, but are engineered to work
primarily out of liquid.
As a result, as detailed in the
proposed regulations below, today’s
proposed rule defines an immersible
electric motor as an electric motor
primarily designed to operate
continuously in free-air, but that is also
capable of withstanding complete
immersion in liquid for a continuous
period of no less than 30 minutes.
The contact seals used by immersible
motors to prevent the ingress of water or
other contaminants have an effect on
tested efficiency that generally changes
over time. New seals are stiff, and
provide higher levels of friction than
seals that have been used and
undergone an initial break-in period.14
14 Guide for the Use of Electric Motor Testing
Methods Based on IEC 60034–2–1. May 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38465
DOE understands that as the seals wearin they will loosen and become more
flexible, which will somewhat reduce
friction losses. In its comments on the
electric motors preliminary analysis,
NEMA stated that immersible motors
should be tested with their contact seals
removed. (NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–
STD–0027–0054 at p. 18)
DOE discussed testing immersible
electric motors with industry experts,
SMEs, and testing laboratories, all of
whom suggested that the seals should be
removed prior to testing to eliminate
any impacts on the tested efficiency.
Given the break-in period
considerations discussed above, DOE
sought to confirm the effects of contact
seals by conducting its own testing.
DOE procured a five-horsepower, twopole, TENV motor for this purpose.15
Upon receipt of the motor, DOE’s testing
laboratory followed IEEE Standard 112
(Test Method B) and tested the motor as
it was received, with the contact seals
in place (test 1). After completing that
initial test, the laboratory removed the
contact seals and tested the motor again
(test 2). Finally, the testing laboratory
reinstalled the seals, ran the motor for
an additional period of time such that
the motor had run for a total of 10 hours
with the contact seals installed
(including time from the initial test) and
then performed IEEE Standard 112 (Test
Method B) again (test 3).
DOE’s testing confirmed the
significant impact that contact seals can
have on demonstrated efficiency. In the
case of the five-horsepower, two-pole,
TENV motor, the motor performed
significantly better with the contact
seals removed, demonstrating a
reduction in motor losses of nearly 20
percent. DOE’s testing also
demonstrated a decaying effect of the
contact seals on motor losses as they
break-in over time. In this instance, the
effect of the contact seals on motor
losses was reduced, but not eliminated,
after 10 hours of running the motor. The
results of DOE’s immersible motor
testing are shown below.
Version 1.1. 4E, Electric Motors Systems, EMSA,
available at: https://www.motorsystems.org/files/
otherfiles/0000/0113/guide_to_iec60034-2-1_
may2011.pdf and Neal, Michael J. The Tribology
Handbook Second Edition. Page C26.5.
15 The immersible motor tested by DOE was also
a vertical, solid-shaft motor. The testing laboratory
was able to orient the motor horizontally without
any issues, thus being able to test the motor
properly per IEEE 112 Test Method B.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
38466
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III–2—RESULTS OF IMMERSIBLE MOTOR TESTING
Nameplate
efficiency
Test 1
(percent)
Test 2
(percent)
Test 3
(percent)
Immersible Motor (also TENV and a vertical solid-shaft motor) .....................
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Motor type
89.5
88.9
91.0
89.2
Although DOE’s testing confirmed
that the impacts from contact seals can
be significant and may reduce over time,
DOE is proposing test procedure
instructions that differ from the
recommendations offered by interested
parties. DOE believes testing with the
contact seals may better represent an
immersible motor’s installed efficiency.
DOE does not have specific data
showing how the impacts from contact
seals decay over time and DOE believes
this decay may vary by basic model of
immersible motor. In absence of such
data showing near equivalent
performance of immersible motors that
are tested without contact seals to those
that have contact seals that have been
broken in, DOE is proposing that these
motors be tested with the contact seals
in place. In addition, DOE is proposing
an allowance of a maximum run-in
period of 10 hours prior to performing
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B).
This run-in period is intended to allow
the contact seals a sufficient amount of
time to break-in such that test
conditions are equal or very similar to
normal operating conditions that will be
experienced by a user. DOE’s proposed
10-hour maximum is a preliminary
estimate obtained through discussions
with electric motors testing experts.
DOE may consider a longer run-in
period or potentially removing the seals
prior to testing in the final rule if data
are obtained from manufacturers that
substantiate the claim that an
immersible motor’s contact seals will
wear-in, early on during the motor’s
lifetime (i.e., 200 hours), and to the
point that the motor’s efficiency is not
affected. DOE is soliciting comments on
its 200 hour assumption in its early
motor lifetime estimate.
Finally, with regard to immersible
motors built in a TEBC configuration,
DOE is proposing instructions that
would require the testing laboratory to
power the smaller blower motor from an
alternate power source than the one
used for the electric motor being tested
for efficiency. This approach will allow
the testing laboratory to isolate the
performance of the motor under test
while continuing to provide the
necessary cooling from the blower
motor.
DOE requests comments concerning
its proposed definition for ‘‘immersible
electric motor,’’ especially with respect
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
to differentiating this motor type from
‘‘liquid-cooled’’ and ‘‘submersible’’
motors. Additionally, DOE invites
comment on its proposal to permit
manufacturers to run their motors for a
period of time prior to performing IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method B) to breakin any contact seals. In particular, DOE
requests comment and any data on the
appropriateness of the proposed 10-hour
time limit allowable for the run-in
period. Finally, DOE requests comment
on the appropriateness of allowing
manufacturers to use an alternative
power source to run the blower motor
while testing an immersible motor built
in a TEBC frame.
2. Integral and Non-Integral Brake
Electric Motors
In most applications, electric motors
are not required to stop immediately;
instead, electric motors typically slow
down and gradually stop after power is
removed from the motor, due to a
buildup of friction and windage from
the internal components of the motor.
However, some applications require
electric motors to stop quickly. Such
motors may employ a brake component
that, when engaged, abruptly slows or
stops shaft rotation. The brake
component attaches to one end of the
motor and surrounds a section of the
motor’s shaft. During normal operation
of the motor, the brake is disengaged
from the motor’s shaft—it neither
touches nor interferes with the motor’s
operation. However, under these
conditions, the brake is drawing power
from the electric motor’s power source
and may be contributing to windage
losses, because the brake is an
additional rotating component on the
motor’s shaft. When power is removed
from the electric motor (and brake
component), the brake component deenergizes and engages the motor shaft,
quickly slowing or stopping rotation of
the rotor and shaft components.
There are two general types of brake
motors—integral and non-integral brake
motors. An electric motor falls into one
of these two categories depending on
how its brake component is connected
to the motor. If the brake component is
integrated with other components of the
electric motor and not readily
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
detachable, it is usually considered 16 an
integral brake motor. Conversely, if the
brake component is connected
externally and is more readily
detachable, it is considered a nonintegral brake motor.
In its August 15, 2012 ‘‘Joint Petition
to Adopt Joint Stakeholder Proposal As
it Relates to the Rulemaking on Energy
Conservation Standards for Electric
Motors’’ (the Petition), the Motor
Coalition proposed a definition for the
term ‘‘integral brake electric motor.’’
That definition stated that an integral
brake electric motor is ‘‘an electric
motor containing a brake mechanism
either inside of the motor endshield or
between the motor fan and endshield
such that removal of the brake
component would require extensive
disassembly of the motor or motor
parts.’’ (Motor Coalition, EERE–2010–
BT–STD–0027–0035 at p. 19)
Subsequent to the submission of the
petition, DOE spoke with some of the
Motor Coalition’s manufacturers and its
own SMEs. Based on these
conversations, DOE believes that the
Motor Coalition’s definition is
consistent with DOE’s understanding of
the term. In the electric motors
preliminary analysis, DOE presented a
definition of the term ‘‘integral brake
motor’’ consistent with the definition
proposed by the Motor Coalition. (For
additional details, see Chapter 3 of the
electric motors preliminary analysis
Technical Support Document).
However, upon further consideration,
DOE believes that there may be
uncertainty regarding certain aspects of
the definition, particularly, what
constitutes ‘‘extensive disassembly of
the motor or motor parts.’’ Therefore,
DOE is proposing a new definition that
would remove this ambiguity. As
detailed in the proposed regulations
below, today’s proposed rule defines an
‘‘integral brake electric motor’’ as an
electric motor containing a brake
mechanism either inside of the motor
endshield or between the motor fan and
endshield.
Conversely, the brake component of a
non-integral brake motor is usually
external to the motor and can be easily
16 DOE’s proposed definitions for integral and
non-integral brake motors do not require a certain
manner of attachment of the brake rather, the
placement of the brake is the relevant distinctive
factor.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
detached without disassembly or
adversely affecting the motor’s
performance. However, as with the
definition of an ‘‘integral brake motor,’’
DOE reconsidered the definition it
presented in its electric motors
preliminary analysis TSD for ‘‘nonintegral brake electric motor.’’ Similarly,
DOE concluded that the previous
definition was ambiguous, particularly
with regards to detaching the brake
component. Therefore, in today’s notice,
DOE is proposing a new definition for
‘‘non-integral brake electric motor’’ that
parallels its proposed definition for
‘‘integral brake electric motor.’’ DOE
believes that the new definition is
clearer because it relies solely on the
placement of the brake and not what
level of effort is needed to remove it.
Additionally, DOE believes that the
structure of its two definitions
encompasses all brake motors by
requiring them to meet one definition or
the other. As detailed in the proposed
regulations below, DOE’s proposed
definition for a ‘‘non-integral brake
electric motor’’ is an electric motor
containing a brake mechanism outside
of the endshield, but not between the
motor fan and endshield.
DOE believes that a definition for both
integral and non-integral brake electric
motors is necessary to distinguish
between the two motor types because
DOE may consider requiring different
setup procedures for the two motor
types and holding them to different
efficiency levels.
In the electric motors preliminary
analysis, DOE stated that it had
preliminarily planned to include
integral brake motors in the scope of
expanded energy conservation. The
Motor Coalition suggested that DOE
continue to exclude these motors from
coverage because of potential
complications with testing. The group
explained that there are no test
standards for this motor type and that
removing the brake components from
the motor would affect the motor’s
performance and possibly leave the
motor inoperable because of the
integrated nature of the removed brake
components. The Motor Coalition added
that the efficiency losses from brake
componentry would not be uniform
38467
across the industry. (Motor Coalition,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0035 at p.
13)
When considering test procedures for
both brake motor types, DOE considered
all the recommendations from the Motor
Coalition and the results of its own
testing. DOE conducted its own testing
to gather information on the feasibility
of testing integral and non-integral brake
motors. During its investigation of
integral brake motors, DOE procured
and tested two motors: one fivehorsepower, four-pole, TEFC motor and
one one-horsepower, four-pole, TEFC
motor. For each of the motors, DOE
performed three tests. Each motor was
initially tested following IEEE Standard
112 (Test Method B) as the motor was
received (i.e., no modifications to the
brake components). Then, the test
laboratory removed the brake
components and retested the motor,
again following IEEE Standard 112 (Test
Method B). Finally, a third test was
conducted after the test laboratory
reattached the brake components. The
results of this testing are shown in Table
III–3.
TABLE III–3—RESULTS OF INTEGRAL BRAKE MOTOR TESTING
Nameplate
efficiency
(percent)
Motor type
Integral Brake Motor 1 .....................................................................................
Integral Brake Motor 2 .....................................................................................
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
For the two integral brake motors,
there was no consistent amount of
losses observed and attributable to the
brake component. However, the
decrease in motor losses that resulted
when the brake was removed reached as
high as 16 percent. While DOE
anticipated that brake losses would vary
based on motor horsepower and brake
type, it appears that such losses are
difficult to quantify in certain integral
brake motor configurations.
Additionally, while DOE found that the
testing laboratory was able to reconnect
the braking mechanisms after removal
and to make the motor operable again
after reconnecting the braking
mechanism, there was a slight change in
the performance of the two motors
tested.
Test 1
(percent)
87.5
82.5
DOE also sought to investigate the
feasibility of testing non-integral brake
motors. DOE procured two non-integral
brake motors, one five-horsepower, fourpole, TEFC motor and one 15horsepower, four-pole, TEFC motor.
When testing the motors, DOE’s testing
laboratory performed two tests on each
motor. Initially, the motors were to be
tested as they were received, following
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B);
however DOE’s test facility faced a few
complications. When attempting to test
the five-horsepower motor, the test
laboratory experienced complications
when trying to conduct the no-load test.
Because of the low voltage levels
required for the no-load test, the braking
mechanism would engage, stopping the
test. Therefore, the testing laboratory
86.4
77.4
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
87.2
80.3
Test 3
(percent)
86.0
78.0
spliced the electrical connections of the
braking mechanism and connected the
brake to an external power source. For
the 15-horsepower motor, the brake had
its own power connection and the test
laboratory elected to connect the brake
to an external power source (i.e.,
separate from what was supplied to the
motor itself). For both motors, the test
laboratory performed a second test in
which the brake component was
completely removed and the motor was
tested according to IEEE Standard 112
(Test Method B) again. Finally, for the
five-horsepower motor, the test
laboratory performed a third test with
the brake mechanism reattached.17 The
results of DOE’s non-integral brake
motor testing are shown below.
17 This motor was originally thought to be an
integral brake motor, which is why it was tested a
third time.
18 For this test, the brake would engage during the
no-load test, thus the testing laboratory connected
the brake to a separate power source for that test.
19 For this test, the laboratory connected the brake
to an external power source for the duration of the
test.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Test 2
(percent)
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
38468
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III–4—RESULTS OF NON-INTEGRAL BRAKE MOTOR TESTING
Nameplate
efficiency
(percent)
Motor type
Non-Integral Brake Motor 1 .............................................................................
Non-Integral Brake Motor 2 .............................................................................
DOE obtained much useful
information from both rounds of nonintegral brake motor testing. For the
five-horsepower motor (‘‘non-integral
brake motor 1’’), DOE obtained
additional test data that supports the
notion that removing and reattaching a
brake mechanism to a motor could affect
its performance. In this case, when the
brake was reattached, the demonstrated
efficiency of the motor decreased, albeit
a minimal amount that could simply be
due to testing variation. For the 15horsepower motor (‘‘non-integral brake
motor 2’’) DOE obtained the same tested
efficiency when the brake was powered
externally and when it was removed. In
Test 1
(percent)
18 87.3
87.5
89.5
this instance, this shows that there was
a negligible impact on friction and
windage losses due to the brake
mechanism. DOE understands that this
could have occurred for several reasons.
It could be because the significant
impacts on losses from brakes come
from the power consumed to keep the
brake disengaged. It could also be that
the design of this particular brake
mechanism was an anomaly and most
brake mechanisms would have a larger
impact on friction and windage. Finally,
it could be because the motor tested was
a 15-horsepower motor and the friction
and windage losses due to the brake
Test 2
(percent)
87.7
90.0
19 90.0
Test 3
(percent)
87.1
may have been small relative to other
losses in the motor.
In light of the test results of the 15
horsepower, non-integral brake motor,
DOE sought to investigate testing brake
motors with the brake powered
separately. Therefore, DOE conducted a
final set of tests for the other three
motors. During this testing the brake
component was attached, but powered
by a source separate from the motor.
This testing showed that powering the
brake component separately resulted in
demonstrated efficiencies equivalent to
testing a motor with the brake
component completely removed.
Results are shown in the Table below.
TABLE III–5—COMPARISON OF REMOVING BRAKE AND POWERING BRAKE SEPARATELY
Tested
efficiency
with brake
removed
(percent)
Motor tested
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Integral Brake Motor 1 .....................................................................................................................................
Integral Brake Motor 2 .....................................................................................................................................
Non-Integral Brake Motor 1 .............................................................................................................................
As a result of its testing of integral
and non-integral brake electric motors,
DOE is proposing the same test
instructions for both motors types in
today’s notice. DOE proposes to include
instructions that would require
manufacturers to keep the brake
mechanism attached to the motor, but to
power it externally while performing
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B).
DOE believes that this is the best
approach because it allows the test
laboratory to isolate the losses due to
the motor, which includes the friction
and windage produced by the rotating
brake mechanism. DOE believes that
powering the motor and the brake
mechanism separately during testing
would ensure that the power consumed
to keep the brake mechanism
disengaged is not counted against the
motor’s tested efficiency. The power
consumed to keep the brake mechanism
disengaged represents useful work
performed by the motor and should not
be construed as losses, but it should be
measured and reported. DOE believes
this information is pertinent for brake
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
motor consumers who wish to
understand the energy consumption of
their motor. Furthermore, when
conducting the testing, DOE’s test
laboratory was able to splice
connections and externally power the
brake on multiple integral and nonintegral brake motors, so DOE
preliminarily believes that this process
would not be unduly burdensome.
DOE requests comments on its
proposed definitions. Additionally, DOE
requests comments on its proposed
instructions for testing integral and nonintegral brake electric motors.
3. Partial Electric Motors
Most general purpose electric motors
have two endshields,20 which support
the bearings and shaft while also
allowing the shaft to rotate during
operation. DOE understands that
‘‘partial electric motors,’’ also called
‘‘partial 3⁄4 motors,’’ or ‘‘3⁄4 motors,’’ are
20 Endshields are metal plates on each end of the
motor that house the motor’s bearings and close off
the internal components of the motor from the
surrounding environment.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
87.2
80.3
87.7
Tested
efficiency
with brake
powered
separately
(percent)
87.6
80.4
87.7
motors that are sold without one or both
endshields and the accompanying
bearings. When partial electric motors
are installed in the field, they are
attached to another piece of equipment,
such as a pump or gearbox. The
equipment to which the motor is mated
usually provides support for the shaft,
thus allowing the shaft to rotate and
drive its intended equipment. The
equipment may also provide support for
a shaft. When a partial electric motor is
mated to another piece of equipment it
is often referred to as an ‘‘integral’’
motor.21 For example, an ‘‘integral
gearmotor’’ is the combination of a
partial electric motor mated to a
gearbox. The gearbox provides a bearing
or support structure that allows the
shaft to rotate.
DOE is aware that there are many
different industry terms used to describe
a partial electric motor and now that it
is considering covering special and
definite purpose electric motors in light
21 DOE notes that integral brake motors are not
considered integral or partial motors.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
of the EISA 2007 changes to EPCA, DOE
is proposing to define the term ‘‘partial
electric motor’’ to ensure clarity.
Additionally, because DOE considers
integral gearmotors to be a subset of
partial electric motors, this definition
would also apply to integral gearmotors.
Also, DOE does not wish to create
confusion regarding the difference
between a ‘‘component set’’ of an
electric motor (discussed below in
section III.G.2) and a ‘‘partial electric
motor.’’ Therefore, as detailed in the
proposed regulations below, today’s
proposed rule defines ‘‘partial electric
motor’’ as an assembly of motor
components necessitating the addition
of no more than two endshields,
including bearings, to create an operable
motor. The ‘‘operable motor’’ means an
electric motor engineered for performing
in accordance with the applicable
nameplate ratings.
DOE is aware that partial electric
motors require modifications before
they can be attached to a dynamometer
for testing purposes. DOE received
comments concerning potential testing
difficulties for partial motors. The CDA
indicated that a new test procedure may
be required for partial motors and that
DOE should consider developing a new
test procedure for these and other
motors. (CDA, No. 18 at p. 2) DOE has
also received feedback suggesting that
manufacturers could show compliance
by testing a similar model that could
more easily be attached to a
dynamometer. (ASAP and NEMA,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0012 at p.
9) In comments on the electric motors
preliminary analysis, NEMA
recommended that DOE require
endshields to be installed prior to
testing a partial motor. NEMA stated
this would be an appropriate approach
as long as the operating and cooling
characteristics of a particular motor
with endshields installed for testing is
similar to how the partial motor would
operate when connected to the driven
equipment.22 (NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–
STD–0027–0054 at p 16)
DOE discussed NEMA’s proposal and
additional testing options with SMEs,
testing laboratories, and motor industry
representatives. Some interested parties
suggested that the motor manufacturer
could supply generic or ‘‘dummy’’
endplates equipped with standard ball
38469
bearings, which would allow for testing
when connected to the partial electric
motor. Alternatively, testing laboratories
have considered machining the
‘‘dummy’’ endplates themselves, and
supplying the properly sized deepgroove, ball bearings for the testing.
Various testing laboratories have
indicated the ability to perform this
operation, but some added that they
would require design criteria for the
endplates from the original
manufacturer of the motor. These
laboratories noted that machining their
own endplates could create motor
performance variation between
laboratories because it may impact
airflow characteristics (and therefore
thermal characteristics) of the motor.
DOE procured an integral gearmotor
to determine the feasibility of testing
partial electric motors. For this
investigation, DOE purchased and tested
one five-horsepower, four-pole, TEFC
electric motor. DOE tested the motor
twice, first with an endplate obtained
from the manufacturer and second, with
an endplate machined in-house by the
testing laboratory. The results of these
tests are shown below.
TABLE III–6—RESULTS OF PARTIAL ELECTRIC MOTOR TESTING
Nameplate
efficiency
(percent)
Motor type
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Partial Electric Motor .......................................................................................................
Test 1
(percent)
81.0
83.5
Test 2
(percent)
82.9
that would affect a number of motor
types for which DOE is analyzing new
energy conservation standards. DOE is
not proposing any definitions for these
terms because DOE believes the terms
are self-explanatory or already readily
understood in the industry.
As stated by testing laboratories, DOE
found a variation in efficiency because
of the endplate used during testing. In
this case, DOE understands that the
variation seen in tested efficiency was
likely the result of varying the material
used for the endplate. The endplate
provided by the manufacturer was made
of cast iron, while the endplate
provided by the testing laboratory was
machined from steel. The testing
laboratory was not equipped to cast an
iron endshield and replace the
manufacturer’s endshield with one of
the same material. Additionally, DOE
knows of no testing laboratory (other
than a motor manufacturer), with such
capability. DOE understands that the
variance in the magnetic properties of
steel likely produced small eddy
currents in the endshield which
increased heat and, therefore, losses
within the motor.23 Consequently, DOE
believes that it is necessary to try and
maintain a consistency in frame
material, in order to prevent such
variances in future testing.
At this time, because of the possible
variance that DOE found through its
testing, DOE is proposing that an
endplate be provided by the
manufacturer of the motor and test with
that endplate in place. If bearings are
also needed, the test laboratory should
use what DOE views as a ‘‘standard
bearing’’—a 6000-series, open, singlerow, deep groove, radial ball bearing.
DOE selected this set of specifications
because it is common bearing type
capable of horizontal operation. DOE
requests comments on its proposed
testing instructions for partial electric
motors. In particular, DOE requests any
data regarding the variation in tested
efficiency likely to result from varying
an endplate and its material.
DOE is proposing to add additional
instructions to the DOE test procedure
Most electric motors are attached to a
mounting surface by ‘‘mounting feet’’ or
other hardware attached to the motor’s
housing, oftentimes on the bottom of the
motor. However, some motors are
mounted by directly attaching the
motor’s endshield, also called a
faceplate, to a piece of driven
equipment. If a motor’s endshield
protrudes forward to create a smooth
mounting surface it may also be referred
to as a flange, such as a Type D-flange
or Type P-flange motor, as described in
NEMA MG1–2009. Attaching a motor to
the shaft of the driven equipment in this
manner generally involves bolting the
22 Driven equipment is machinery that is run or
‘‘driven’’ by an electric motor.
23 Eddy currents are circulating currents induced
in conductors (e.g., steel) by changing magnetic
fields. They typically manifest themselves as heat,
which can increase losses within an electric motor.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
E. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only
Test Procedure Instructions
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1. Electric Motors With Non-Standard
Endshields or Flanges
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38470
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
motor to the equipment through
mounting holes in the flange or
faceplate of the motor.
NEMA MG1–2009, paragraphs 1.63.1,
1.63.2, and 1.63.3 designate Type C
face-mounting, Type D flange-mounting,
and Type P flange-mounting motors,
respectively. These definitions provide
reference figures in NEMA MG1–2009,
section I, part 4 titled ‘‘Dimensions,
Tolerances, and Mounting’’ that contain
specifications for the standard mounting
configurations and dimensions for these
three motor types. The dimensions
designate standard locations and
dimensions for mounting holes on the
faceplates or flanges of the motors. DOE
is aware that some electric motors may
have special or customer-defined
endshields, faceplates, or flanges with
mounting-hole locations or other
specifications that do not necessarily
conform to NEMA MG1–2009, Figure 4–
3, ‘‘Letter Symbols for Type C FaceMounting Foot or Footless Machines,’’
Figure 4–4, ‘‘Letter Symbols for Type D
Flange-Mounting Foot or Footless
Machines,’’ or Figure 4–5, ‘‘Letter
Symbols for Vertical Machines.’’
As previously explained DOE is
considering setting energy conservation
standards for special and definite
purpose electric motors such as those
motors with non-standard endshields.
This change to the scope of energy
conservation standards for electric
motors means that the dimensions of a
motor’s endshields or flanges—neither
of which impacts the efficiency or the
ability to measure the efficiency of the
motor—would no longer dictate
whether a given motor would be
required to meet energy conservation
standards. Hence, DOE believes that an
actual definition for such motors is
unnecessary.
In evaluating the possibility of
requiring these motor types to meet
potential energy conservation standards,
DOE is assessing whether these motors
can be tested using non-standard flanges
or endshields. DOE has received
comments concerning the testing of
these motor types. In response to the
March 2011 RFI (76 FR 17577), ASAP
and NEMA commented that motors with
customer-defined endshields and
flanged special motors should have their
efficiency verified by testing a model
motor with an equivalent electrical
design that could more easily be
attached to a dynamometer. (ASAP and
NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–
0020 at p. 4) NEMA added that testing
motors with non-standard endshields
may require a substitution of the special
endshields with more conventional
endshields. (NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–
STD–0027–0054 at p. 15)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
DOE understands that it may not be
possible to attach motors with nonstandard endshields to a testing
laboratory’s dynamometer. If such
situation arises and a test laboratory is
unable to reconfigure the motor without
removal of the endplate such that
attachment to a dynamometer is
possible, DOE proposes that the custom
endshield be replaced with one that has
standard (i.e., in compliance with
NEMA MG1) dimensions and mounting
configurations. As with partial electric
motors, such a replacement must be
obtained through the manufacturer and
be constructed of the same material as
the original endplate.
DOE requests comment on its
preliminary decision not to propose a
definition for these motor types. DOE
also requests comments on its proposed
instructions for testing motors with nonstandard endshields or flanges.
2. Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors
and Electric Motors With Single or
Double Shaft Extensions of NonStandard Dimensions or Additions
Close-coupled pump motors are
electric motors used in pump
applications where the impeller is
mounted directly on the motor shaft.
Such motors are typically built with
different shafts (usually longer) than
generic general-purpose electric motors.
Section I, part 4 of NEMA MG1–2009
and IEC Standard 60072–1 (1991)
specify standard tolerances for shaft
extensions, diameters, and keyseats that
relate to the fit between the shaft and
the device mounted to the shaft.
However, sometimes manufacturers
provide shafts with a special diameter,
length, or design because of a
customer’s special application. In 2011,
DOE proposed to clarify its treatment of
these types of motors and included a
table with allowable shaft variations. 76
FR 648, 671–72 (January 5, 2011) This
table was intended to enumerate the
deviations from standard shaft
dimensions that DOE would allow
while still considering the motor to be
a general purpose motor subject to
energy conservation standards.
The guidance was intended to
identify variations in shaft dimensions
for a motor that would be covered as a
general purpose electric motor under
EPCA. However, in view of the EISA
2007 and AEMTCA 2012 amendments,
DOE has preliminarily decided to
expand the scope of regulatory coverage
beyond the initial scope set by EPCA
prior to these two amendments. As
such, DOE believes that a motor’s shaft
alone, no matter what its dimensions or
type, is an insufficient reason to exclude
a motor from having to satisfy energy
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
conservation standards. Further, DOE
believes that it is not necessary to
explicitly define a close-coupled pump
electric motor or an electric motor with
a single or double shaft extension of
non-standard dimensions or additions
because whether a shaft is built within
the shaft tolerances defined by NEMA
and IEC is unambiguous.
In considering applying standards to
these types of motors, DOE is assessing
whether motors with non-standard shaft
dimensions or additions can be tested
using accepted and established
procedures. DOE received feedback
concerning the testing of these motor
types during and after the October 18,
2010, framework document public
meeting. NEMA and ASAP submitted a
joint comment noting that DOE could
allow testing of a ‘‘similar model’’ motor
with a standard shaft to enable the
motor to be more easily tested on a
dynamometer. (NEMA and ASAP,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0012 at p.
8) In its comments about the electric
motors preliminary analysis, NEMA
added that special couplings or adapters
may be needed to test motors with
special shaft extensions, but noted that
a motor’s shaft extension has little to no
effect on its efficiency. (NEMA, EERE–
2010–BT–STD–0027–0054 at p. 14)
DOE sought to investigate the
feasibility of using coupling adapters for
motors with extended shafts or shafts of
unique design. To do this, DOE
procured a close-coupled pump motor
with an extended shaft. When this
motor was received, DOE’s testing
laboratory had no problems attaching
the motor to its dynamometer. The use
of an adapter in this case, was not
needed. However, DOE also conferred
with experts at its testing laboratory and
learned that coupling adapters were
needed for motors with extended shafts
or shafts of unique design, which it had
tested in the past. As such, DOE is not
aware of any motor shaft design that has
prevented DOE’s test laboratory from
performing a proper test according to
IEEE 112 Test Method B. Therefore, at
this time, DOE agrees with the above
NEMA comment and is proposing to
include instructions for special
couplings or adapters. In other words, if
a testing facility cannot attach a motor
to its dynamometer because of the
motor’s shaft extension, that facility
should use a coupling or adapter to
mount and test the motor. DOE
understands that a motor’s shaft
configuration has minimal, if any,
impact on overall motor efficiency, and
believes that this approach is
technologically feasible and will not
result in any distortion of a motor’s
inherent efficiency when tested.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
DOE seeks comment on its tentative
approach declining to propose a
definition for motors with non-standard
shaft dimensions or additions. DOE also
requests comment on its proposed
instructions for testing such motors.
3. Vertical Electric Motors
Although most electric motors are
engineered to run while oriented
horizontally, some operate in
applications that require a vertical
orientation. A horizontally oriented
motor has a shaft parallel to the floor (or
perpendicular to the force of gravity),
while a vertically oriented motor has a
shaft perpendicular to the floor (or
parallel to the force of gravity). Relative
to horizontal motors, vertical motors
have different designs made with
different construction techniques so that
the electric motor can be operated in a
vertical position. These different
designs can include modifications to the
mounting configuration, bearing design,
and bearing lubrication (a discussion
regarding bearings can be found in the
following section, III.E.4). Additionally,
vertical motors can come with various
shaft configurations, including with a
solid or hollow shaft. An example of a
typical application requiring a vertical
motor is a pump used in a well or a pit.
At this time, DOE is not proposing a
definition for any terms related to
vertical electric motors. DOE believes
definitions are not needed because there
is no industry confusion or ambiguity in
whether an electric motor is a vertical
electric motor. Furthermore, whether an
electric motor has a solid shaft or a
hollow shaft is also unambiguous and
without need for DOE clarification.
Although defining a vertically mounted
electric motor does not appear
necessary, DOE believes instructions
detailing how to configure and mount a
vertical motor for testing in a horizontal
position, including the motor’s
orientation and shaft characteristics,
would be helpful in ensuring a proper
and consistent testing set-up.
EISA 2007 classified vertical solidshaft motors as subtype II motors and
required them to be tested in a
‘‘horizontal configuration.’’ (42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(B)(v)) NEMA, ASAP, and the
Motor Coalition submitted comments
agreeing with the EISA 2007 provision
and noted that vertical motors cannot be
tested on a standard dynamometer
because most dynamometers are
designed to operate in conjunction with
horizontally oriented electric motors.
(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–
0013 at p. 5; NEMA and ASAP, EERE–
2010–BT–STD–0027–0012 at p. 3; Motor
Coalition, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–
0035 at pp. 18 and 30) DOE confirmed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
this assertion with its test laboratory
and subject matter experts. In view of
the statutory requirement and current
dynamometer testing configuration
limits, DOE is proposing to test motors,
which are otherwise engineered to
operate vertically, in a horizontal
position when determining efficiency.
Another consideration is the shaft of
a vertical motor and whether it is solid
or hollow. If a vertical motor has a solid
shaft, then no further adjustments are
needed after considering orientation,
unless the motor contains a special
shaft. (See section III.E.2) If a vertical
motor has a hollow shaft, (i.e., an empty
cylinder that runs through the rotor and
typically attaches internally to the end
opposite the drive of the motor with a
special coupling) then additional
instructions would be needed prior to
testing for efficiency.
After publishing the preliminary
analysis, DOE did not receive any
public comments suggesting that the
testing of a vertical, hollow-shaft motor
in a horizontal position would be
technologically infeasible or unduly
burdensome, especially when compared
to the testing of a vertical solid-shaft
motor. DOE understands that vertical
hollow-shaft motors may not have a
shaft extension at the drive end of the
motor, which would be necessary for
attaching or coupling the motor to a
dynamometer for testing.
DOE conducted testing to gauge the
feasibility of testing a vertical, hollowshaft motor. For its investigation, DOE
purchased a five-horsepower, two-pole,
TEFC vertical motor with a hollow
shaft. Upon receipt of the motor, the
testing laboratory found that the motor’s
bearing construction was sufficient for
horizontal operation and no
replacement would be needed.
However, the motor did require a shaft
extension to be machined. After a solid
shaft was constructed, it was inserted
into the hollow shaft and attached via
welding to the lip of the hollow shaft.
The testing laboratory encountered no
further problems and was able to
properly test the motor according to
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B).
After conducting this testing, DOE
believes that, as long as the attached
solid-shaft maintains sufficient
clearance through the drive end of the
motor to enable the motor to be attached
to the dynamometer this is a feasible
approach to testing vertical hollow-shaft
motors. Aside from the addition of a
shaft extension, DOE does not believe
that testing a vertical hollow-shaft motor
in a horizontal configuration would add
undue testing burden when compared to
testing a solid-shaft vertical motor.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38471
In response to the March 2011 RFI,
NEMA suggested that vertical motors
rated 1–500 horsepower be tested
according to section 6.4 of IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method B—Inputoutput with segregation of losses and
indirect measurement of stray-load
loss), if bearing construction permits;
otherwise, it suggested testing vertical
motors according to section 6.6 of IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method E—Electric
power measurement under load with
segregation of losses and direct
measurement of stray-load loss), as
specified in NEMA MG1 paragraph
12.58.1 ‘‘Determination of Motor
Efficiency and Losses.’’ 24 (NEMA,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0019
at p. 4)
DOE consulted testing laboratories
about whether IEEE Standard 112 (Test
Method E) would be an appropriate
procedure to use when testing vertical
motors. DOE understands that the
primary difference between IEEE
Standard 112 Test Method B and Test
Method E is that Test Method E uses a
different method to calculate stray-load
loss relative to Test Method B. Test
Method B measures motor output power
and uses this number as part of the
calculation for stray-load loss. However,
Test Method E does not require the
measurement of output power, and,
therefore, uses a different measurement
method to directly find the stray-load
loss. By not requiring the measurement
of output power, Test Method E can be
conducted on motors installed in an
area or in equipment that cannot be
attached to a dynamometer. Although
Test Method E may reduce some testing
burden for vertical motors, DOE is
concerned that Test Method E could
produce results that are inconsistent
and inaccurate relative to testing
comparable motors under Test Method
B. Therefore, DOE is declining to
propose the use of Test Method E for
vertical motors. However, DOE requests
additional comments and test data that
demonstrate any differences in the
24 ‘‘Efficiency and losses shall be determined in
accordance with IEEE Std 112 or Canadian
Standards Association Standard C390. The
efficiency shall be determined at rated output,
voltage, and frequency. Unless otherwise specified,
horizontal polyphase, squirrel-cage medium motors
rated 1 to 500 horsepower shall be tested by
dynamometer (Method B) [Footnote: CSA Std C390
Method 1] as described in Section 6.4 of IEEE Std
112. Motor efficiency shall be calculated using form
B of IEEE Std 112 or the equivalent C390
calculation procedure. Vertical motors of this
horsepower range shall also be tested by Method B
if bearing construction permits; otherwise they shall
be tested by segregated losses (Method E) [Footnote:
CSA Std Method 2] as described in Section 6.6 of
IEEE Std 112, including direct measurement of
stray-loss load.’’ NEMA Standards Publication
MG1–2009, Motors and Generators, paragraph
12.58.1
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
38472
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
results of testing under Test Method E
and Test Method B for the same basic
model of vertical motor.
DOE requests comments on its
preliminary decision not to propose any
definitions for vertical motors. It also
requests comments on its proposed
instructions when addressing various
construction differences between
vertical and horizontal motors, in
particular, test methods for vertical
motors with hollow shafts.
4. Electric Motor Bearings
Electric motors usually employ
antifriction bearings that are housed
within the endshields to support the
motor’s shaft and provide a low-friction
means for shaft rotation. Antifriction
bearings contain rolling elements,
which are the components inside the
bearings that ‘‘roll’’ around the bearing
housing and provide the reducedfriction means of rotation. Rolling
elements can be spherical, cylindrical,
conical, or other shapes. The design of
the rolling element is selected based on
the type and amount of force the shaft
must be capable of withstanding. The
two primary types of loads imposed on
motor bearings are radial and thrust.
Radial loads are so named because the
load is applied along the radius of the
shaft (i.e., perpendicular to the shaft’s
axis of rotation). Bearings may be
subject to radial loads if the motor’s
shaft is horizontal to the floor (i.e.,
horizontally oriented). These bearings
are called ‘‘radial bearings.’’ ‘‘Thrust
bearings’’ are bearings capable of
withstanding thrust loads, which are
loads with forces parallel to the ‘‘axis’’
of the shaft (i.e., parallel to the shaft’s
axis of rotation) and may be
encountered when the shaft is vertical
to the floor (i.e., vertically oriented).
In addition to the type of force,
bearings are also chosen based on the
magnitude of the force they can
withstand. While most applications use
spherical rolling-elements, some motors
employ cylindrical-shaped rollingelements inside the bearings. These
cylindrical-shaped rolling elements are
called ‘‘rollers,’’ and this bearing type is
referred to as a ‘‘roller bearing.’’ Roller
bearings can withstand higher loads
than spherical ball bearings because the
cylindrically shaped rolling-element
provides a larger contact area for
transmitting forces. However, the larger
contact area of the rolling element with
the bearing housing also creates more
friction and, therefore, may cause more
losses during motor operation.
Regardless of the rolling element
used, bearings must be lubricated with
either grease or oil to further reduce
friction and prevent wear on the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
bearings. Open or shielded bearing
construction allows for the exchange of
grease or oil during motor operation.
Sealed bearings, unlike shielded or open
bearings, do not allow the free exchange
of grease or oil during operation. Sealed
bearings incorporate close-fitting seals
that prevent the exchange of oil or
grease during the bearing’s operational
lifetime. Such bearings may be referred
to as ‘‘lubed-for-life’’ bearings because
the user purchases the bearings with the
intention of replacing the bearing before
it requires re-lubrication. Shielded
bearings differ from open bearings in
that shielded bearings contain a cover,
called a ‘‘shield,’’ which allows the flow
of oil or grease into the inner portions
of the bearing casing, but restricts dirt
or debris from contacting the rolling
elements. Preventing dirt and debris
from contacting the bearing prevents
wear and increases the life of the
bearing.
DOE also understands that certain
vertical motors use oil-lubricated
bearings rather than the greaselubricated bearings that are typically
found in horizontal motors. If a vertical
motor contains an oil-lubricated system,
problems can occur when the motor is
reoriented into a horizontal position and
attached to a dynamometer for testing.
Because oil has a lower viscosity than
grease, it could pool in the bottom of the
now horizontally oriented (vertical
motor) bearing.25 Such pooling, or loss
of proper lubrication to the bearings,
could adversely affect the motor’s
performance, damage the motor, and
distort the results of testing.
Because of the various construction
and lubrication types, DOE understands
that motors may contain bearings only
capable of horizontal operation, vertical
operation, or, in some limited cases,
both horizontal and vertical operation.
For those motors equipped with thrust
bearings only capable of vertical
orientation, DOE understands that
reorienting the motor, as would be
necessary for testing, could cause
physical damage to the motor. For
motors equipped with such bearings,
DOE is proposing to add testing
instructions that would require the
testing laboratory to replace the thrust
bearing with a ‘‘standard bearing,’’
which shall be interpreted as a 6000
series, open, single-row, deep groove,
radial ball bearing, because that is the
most common type of bearing employed
on horizontally oriented motors. For any
electric motor equipped with bearings
25 Viscosity is the measure of a liquid’s resistivity
to being deformed. An example of a material with
high viscosity is molasses and an example of a
material with low viscosity is water.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that are capable of operating properly
(i.e., without damaging the motor) when
the motor is oriented horizontally, DOE
is proposing that the motor should be
tested as is, without replacing the
bearings. DOE believes that this is the
most appropriate approach because it
will provide the truest representation of
the energy use that will be experienced
by the user.
In response to the preliminary
analysis, DOE received comment
specifically about testing electric motors
with sleeve bearings. Sleeve bearings are
another type of bearing that do not use
typical rolling elements, but rather
consist of a lubricated bushing, or
‘‘sleeve,’’ inside of which the motor
shaft rotates. The shaft rotates on a film
of oil or grease, which reduces friction
during rotation. Sleeve bearings
generally have a longer life than antifriction ball bearings, but they are more
expensive than anti-friction ball
bearings for most horsepower ratings.26
Both ASAP and NEMA asserted that a
motor with sleeve bearings should have
its efficiency verified by testing a motor
of equivalent electrical design and
which employs standard bearings.27
(ASAP and NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–
STD–0027–0020 at p. 4) However,
NEMA later revised its position in
separately submitted comments to the
electric motors preliminary analysis
public meeting. NEMA stated that
further review of pertinent test data
indicated that sleeve bearings do not
significantly impact the efficiency of a
motor, and that a motor having sleeve
bearings is not sufficient reason to
exclude it from meeting energy
conservation standards. (NEMA, NEMA,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0054 at p.
17) NEMA also commented that it is not
aware of any reason that a motor cannot
be tested with sleeve bearings, but that
DOE should also provide the option to
test sleeve bearing motors with the
sleeve bearing swapped out for antifriction ball bearings. (NEMA, EERE–
2010–BT–STD–0027–0054 at p. 17)
DOE separately consulted with testing
laboratories, SMEs, and manufacturers
and reviewed a pertinent technical
paper.28 As a result of this collective
26 William R. Finley and Mark. M Hodowanec.
Sleeve Vs. Anti-Friction Bearings: Selection of the
Optimal Bearing for Induction Motors. 2001. IEEE.
USA.
27 Neither NEMA nor ASAP elaborated on what
‘‘standard’’ bearings are. DOE is interpreting
‘‘standard’’ bearings to mean spherical, radial ball
bearings, because this is the most common type of
bearing used for general purpose, horizontally
oriented motors.
28 William R. Finley and Mark. M Hodowanec.
Sleeve Vs. Anti-Friction Bearings: Selection of the
Optimal Bearing for Induction Motors. 2001. IEEE.
USA.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
research, DOE has tentatively
determined that sleeve bearings do not
significantly degrade efficiency when
compared to spherical, radial ball
bearings. More importantly, DOE does
not believe that it is any more difficult
to attach a motor with sleeve bearings to
a dynamometer than a standard, general
purpose electric motor equipped with
radial ball bearings. Additionally, DOE
believes that swapping sleeve bearings
with spherical, radial ball bearings may
be time consuming and otherwise
present unforeseen or undue difficulties
because of the overall design of the
motor that operates with the sleeve
bearings. Motors that employ sleeve
bearings have significantly different
bearing-support configurations than
motors that employ spherical, radial ball
bearings, and DOE is not certain that
sleeve bearings could be readily
swapped with standard ball bearings
without significant, costly motor
alterations. Therefore, because it may be
impracticable to swap them out with
other bearings, DOE is proposing that
motors with sleeve bearings be tested asis and with the sleeve bearings installed.
DOE requests comment regarding its
proposed approach to testing motors
with thrust bearings only capable of
vertical operation. DOE also requests
comment on its proposed approach to
testing motors with all types of bearings
that are capable of horizontal operation,
in particular, its proposed approach to
testing motors with sleeve bearings.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
F. General Clarification for Certain
Electric Motor Types
For some electric motor types, DOE is
neither proposing additions to the DOE
test procedure nor proposing to define
the motor types. However, DOE believes
that some general clarification is needed
for the following electric motor types to
ensure that the regulations have
sufficient clarity in detailing whether a
particular motor is covered by DOE’s
regulations.
1. Electric Motors With Non-Standard
Bases, Feet or Mounting Configurations
DOE has not yet regulated special or
definite purpose motors, or general
purpose motors with ‘‘special bases or
mounting feet,’’ because of the limits
prescribed by the previous statutory
definition of ‘‘electric motor.’’ That
definition included a variety of criteria
such as ‘‘foot-mounting’’ and being built
in accordance with NEMA ‘‘T-frame’’
dimensions, which all narrowed the
scope of what comprised an electric
motor under the statute. (See 42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(A) (1992)) As a result of EISA
2007 and related amendments that
established energy conservation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
standards for two subtypes of general
purpose electric motors (subtype I and
subtype II), among other motor types,
the statutory meaning of the term,
‘‘general purpose motor’’ was broadened
to include, for example, ‘‘footless
motors.’’ Similarly, because definite and
special purpose motors now fall under
the broad statutory heading of ‘‘electric
motors,’’ DOE is considering whether to
set standards for electric motors with
non-standard bases, feet, or mounting
configurations.
Part 4 of section I in NEMA MG1–
2009 provides general standards for
dimensions, tolerances, and mounting
for all types of electric motors. In that
section, figures 4–1 through 4–5 identify
the letter symbols associated with
specific dimensions of electric motors
with various bases, feet, and mounting
configurations. Accompanying these
figures are tables throughout part 4 of
section I that specify dimensions,
explain how a particular dimension is
measured and detail the applicable
measurement tolerances. This collective
information is used to standardize the
dimensions associated with specific
frame sizes, given a certain base, feet, or
mounting configuration. The IEC
provides similar information in its
standard, IEC Standard 60072–1,
‘‘Dimensions and output series for
rotating electrical machines.’’ Although
the majority of motors are built within
these specifications, DOE is aware that
some motors may have feet, bases, or
mounting configurations that do not
necessarily conform to the industry
standards. These are the motors—i.e.
those not conforming to NEMA or IEC
standards for bases, feet, or mounting
configurations—that DOE is considering
regulating.
DOE believes that a definition is not
needed for this particular type of
electric motor because whether a motor
has a mounting base, feet, or
configuration that is built within
compliance of the standard dimensions
laid out in NEMA MG1–2009 or IEC
Standard 60072–1 is unambiguous.
Also, DOE believes that additional
instructions for these types of electric
motors are not necessary because such
mounting characteristics are not
explicitly addressed either in IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA
C390–10, other than how mounting
conditions will affect the vibration of a
motor under IEEE Standard 112,
paragraph 9.6.2, ‘‘Mounting
configurations.’’
In response to the March 2011 RFI,
ASAP and NEMA asserted that a motor
with a special base or mounting feet, as
well as a motor of any mounting
configuration, should have its efficiency
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38473
verified by testing a model motor with
an equivalent electrical design that
could more easily be attached to a
dynamometer. (ASAP and NEMA,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0020 at p.
4)
DOE believes testing a ‘‘similar
model’’ to show compliance would
likely create difficulties in ensuring the
accuracy and equivalence of claimed
efficiency ratings. Additionally, DOE
believes that testing motors with nonstandard bases or mounting feet would
not present an undue burden or
insurmountable obstacle to testing. DOE
understands that the test benches used
for testing electric motors can have, for
example, adjustable heights to
accommodate the wide variety of motor
sizes and mechanical configurations
that commonly exist. Therefore, because
the mounting feet will not necessarily
affect how a motor is mounted to a
dynamometer, but simply the
positioning of the shaft extension, DOE
believes non-standard mounting feet
present no additional testing burdens.
As was done for the vertical electric
motor that DOE had tested and which
did not have a standard horizontal
mounting configuration, a testing
laboratory would likely treat these
motors as a typical general purpose
electric motor and adjust the test bench
as applicable for the unit under test.
Finally, DOE understands that an
electric motor’s mounting base, feet, or
configuration will have no impact on its
demonstrated efficiency. An electric
motor’s mounting base, feet, or
configuration does not affect a motor’s
operating characteristics because this is
a feature external to the core
components of the motor. It is also a
feature that will not impact friction and
windage losses because this feature does
not involve any rotating elements of the
motor. An electric motor’s mounting
base, feet, or mounting configuration
only affects how a motor is physically
installed in a piece of equipment.
DOE seeks comment about its
tentative decision declining to propose
a definition for ‘‘electric motors with
non-standard base, feet, or mounting
configurations.’’ DOE also requests
comment on any potential testing
difficulties that may arise from testing
these motor types and its preliminary
decision not to issue any specific
instructions related to testing such
electric motors. Finally, DOE requests
comment on its understanding that a
motor’s mounting base, feet, or
configuration will not impact its
demonstrated efficiency.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
38474
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
G. Electric Motor Types DOE Proposes
Not To Regulate at This Time
1. Air-Over Electric Motor
Most enclosed electric motors are
constructed with a fan attached to the
shaft, typically on the end opposite the
drive, as a means of providing cooling
air flow over the surface of the motor
frame. This air flow helps remove heat,
which reduces the motor’s operating
temperature. The reduction in operating
temperature prevents the motor from
overheating during continuous duty
operation and increases the life
expectancy of the motor.29 On the other
hand, air-over electric motors do not
have a factory-attached fan and,
therefore, require a separate and
external means of forcing air over the
frame of the motor. Without an external
means of cooling, an air-over electric
motor could overheat during continuous
operation and potentially degrade the
motor’s life. To prevent overheating, an
air-over electric motor may, for
example, operate in the airflow of an
industrial fan it is driving, or it may
operate in a ventilation shaft that
provides constant airflow. The
manufacturer typically specifies the
required volume of air that must flow
over the motor housing for the motor to
operate at the proper temperature.
After the enactment of the EISA 2007
amendments, DOE performed
independent research and consultation
with manufacturers and SMEs. Through
this work, DOE found that testing airover electric motors would be extremely
complex. IEEE Standard 112 (Test
Method B) and CSA C390–10 do not
provide standardized procedures for
preparing an air-over electric motor for
testing, which would otherwise require
an external cooling apparatus.
Additionally, DOE is not aware of any
standard test procedures that provide
guidance on how to test such motors.
Test procedure guidance that would
produce a consistent, repeatable test
method would likely require testing
laboratories to be capable of measuring
the cubic airflow of an external cooling
fan used to cool the motor during
testing. This is a capability that most
testing laboratories, at this time, do not
have. Without the ability to measure
airflow, one testing laboratory may
provide more airflow to the motor than
a different testing laboratory. Increasing
or decreasing airflow between tests
could impact the tested efficiency of the
29 The temperature at which a motor operates is
correlated to the motor’s efficiency. Generally, as
the operating temperature increases the efficiency
decreases. Additionally, motor components wear
our more slowly when operated at lower
temperatures.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
motor, which would provide
inconsistent test results. Because of this
difficulty, DOE has no plans to require
energy conservation standards for airover electric motors, making further test
procedure changes unnecessary.
Although DOE does not plan to apply
energy conservation standards to airover electric motors, it is proposing to
define them for clarity. DOE’s proposed
‘‘air-over electric motor’’ definition is
based on the NEMA MG1–2009
definition of a ‘‘totally enclosed air-over
machine,’’ with some modification to
that definition to include air-over
electric motors with open frames. DOE
believes air-over electric motors with
either totally enclosed or open frame
construction use the same methods for
heat dissipation and, therefore, should
be included in the same definition. DOE
requests comment on the broad
definition for air-over electric motor. As
detailed in the proposed regulations
below, today’s proposed rule defines
‘‘air-over electric motor’’ as an electric
motor designed to be cooled by a
ventilating means external to, and not
supplied with, the motor.
DOE believes that the difficulties
associated with testing air-over electric
motors—such as providing a standard
flow of cooling air from an external
source that provides a constant velocity
under defined ambient temperature and
barometric conditions over the motor—
are insurmountable at this time.
Therefore, DOE also requests comment
on its tentative decision not to require
air-over electric motors to meet energy
conservation standards at this time
given the difficulties in developing a
consistent, repeatable test method for
these motors.
2. Component Set of an Electric Motor
Electric motors are comprised of
several primary components that
include: a rotor, stator, stator windings,
stator frame, two endshields, two
bearings, and a shaft. A component set
of an electric motor is comprised of any
combination of these motor parts that
does not form an operable motor.30 For
example, a component set may consist
of a wound stator and rotor component
sold without a stator housing,
endshields, or shaft. These components
may be sold with the intention of having
the motor parts mounted inside a piece
30 A combination of wound stator, rotor, shaft,
and stator housing that is missing only one or both
endshields or bearings is not considered a
component set because this particular combination
of assembled components creates an operable
motor. A set of motor parts missing one or both
endshields or bearing components is considered a
‘‘partial electric motor’’ and is discussed earlier in
this NOPR.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of equipment, with the equipment
providing the necessary mounting and
rotor attachments for the components to
operate in a manner similar to a standalone electric motor. Component sets
may also be sold with the intention of
a third party using the components to
construct a complete, stand-alone
motor. In such cases, the end
manufacturer that ‘‘completes’’ the
motor’s construction must certify that
the motor meets any pertinent
standards. (See 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)(10)
(defining ‘‘manufacture’’ to include
manufacture, produce, assemble, or
import.)) This approach was supported
by NEMA in its comments on the
electric motors preliminary analysis.
(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–
0054 at pp. 15–16)
DOE is aware of some confusion
regarding what constitutes a
‘‘component set’’ of a motor, especially
about the difference between a
‘‘component set’’ and a ‘‘partial’’ motor.
DOE is aware that there is no definition
for either of these motor types in NEMA
MG1–2009 or any other standard.
Therefore, DOE is proposing a definition
for ‘‘component set’’ in view of
comments from SMEs, NEMA, and other
industry experts. Defining ‘‘component
set’’ is necessary to differentiate it from
a ‘‘partial electric motor,’’ addressed
previously in this NOPR. DOE requests
comment on its definition of
‘‘component set.’’ As detailed in the
proposed regulations below, today’s
proposed rule defines ‘‘component set’’
as a combination of motor parts that
require the addition of more than two
endshields to create an operable motor.
Under the definition, these parts may
consist of any combination of a stator
frame, wound stator, rotor, shaft, or
endshields and the term ‘‘operable
motor’’ means an electric motor
engineered for performing in accordance
with nameplate ratings.
DOE understands that a component
set does not constitute a complete, or
near-complete, motor that could be
tested under IEEE Standard 112 (Test
Method B) or CSA C390–10, because it
would require major modifications
before it can operate as a motor. In view
of its examination of motor component
sets, DOE understands that some of
them would require the addition of
costly and fundamental parts for the
motor to be capable of continuous-duty
operation, as would be required under
either test procedure. The parts that
would need to be added to the
component set, such as a wound stator
or rotor, are complex components that
directly affect the performance of a
motor and can only be provided by a
motor manufacturer. Without the
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
fundamental components, there is no
motor. Therefore, DOE believes that a
single testing laboratory would have
insurmountable difficulty machining
motor parts, assembling the parts into
an operable machine, and testing the
motor in a way that would be
manageable, consistent, and repeatable
by other testing laboratories. Because
DOE is not aware of any test procedures
or additional test procedure instructions
that would accommodate the testing of
a component set in a manageable,
consistent, and repeatable manner, it is
declining at this time to require them to
satisfy any energy conservations
standards.
DOE requests comment on its
proposed definition for ‘‘component
set.’’ DOE also requests comment on its
tentative decision to not require
component sets to meet any particular
energy conservation standards.
3. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motor
While most electric motors are cooled
by air and many use a fan attached to
the shaft on the end opposite the drive
to blow air over the surface of the motor
to dissipate heat during the motor’s
operation, liquid-cooled electric motors
rely on a special cooling apparatus that
pumps liquid into and around the motor
housing. The liquid is circulated around
the motor frame to dissipate heat and
prevent the motor from overheating
during continuous-duty operation. A
liquid-cooled electric motor may use
different liquids or liquids at different
temperatures, which could affect the
operating temperature of the motor and,
therefore, the efficiency of the motor.
This variability could present testing
consistency and reliability problems.
Neither IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method
B) nor CSA C390–10 provide a
standardized methodology for testing
the energy efficiency of a liquid-cooled
electric motor. Additionally, as NEMA
noted in its comments, these motors are
typically used in space-constrained
applications, such as mining
applications, and require a high power
density, which somewhat limits their
efficiency potential. (NEMA, NEMA,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0054 at p.
42) In view of these likely testing
consistency problems, DOE does not
intend to subject them to energy
conservation standards at this time.
NEMA and ASAP commented in
response to the October 15, 2010, energy
conservation standards framework
document, that greater clarification is
needed with regard to liquid-cooled
electric motors and how to differentiate
them from immersible or submersible
electric motors. (NEMA and ASAP,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0012 at p.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
9) DOE does not plan to subject these
motors to energy conservation
standards, but instead is proposing to
define ‘‘liquid-cooled electric motor’’ to
clarify its view of what motors fall
within this term. DOE’s proposed
definition is based on the definition of
a ‘‘totally enclosed water-cooled
machine’’ found in paragraph 1.26.5 of
NEMA MG1–2009. Further, DOE is
proposing to remove ‘‘totally enclosed’’
from the definition to prevent any
unintentional limitations of the
definition due to frame construction.
DOE also plans to replace the term
‘‘water’’ with ‘‘liquid’’ to cover the use
of any type of liquid as a coolant.
Finally, per comments from NEMA,
DOE is proposing to modify the term
‘‘water conductors’’ to ‘‘liquid-filled
conductors’’ to make it clear that the
conductors are not made of liquid.
(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–
0054 at p. 35) As detailed in the
proposed regulations below, today’s
proposed rule defines ‘‘liquid-cooled
electric motor’’ as a motor that is cooled
by circulating liquid with the liquid or
liquid-filled conductors coming into
direct contact with the machine parts.
DOE seeks comment on its proposed
definition for ‘‘liquid-cooled electric
motor’’ as well as its tentative decision
not to cover these motors because of
potential testing difficulties identified
above, along with the testing variables
that are introduced by an additional
coolant system and pump apparatus.
Nevertheless, DOE is open to comment
about any test procedure standards or
additional test procedure instructions
that would take into account all such
variables and allow this motor-type to
be tested in a consistent, manageable,
and repeatable manner.
4. Submersible Electric Motor
As previously addressed, most motors
are not engineered for operation while
under water. Any liquid inside a stator
frame could impede rotor operation and
corrode components of the motor.
However, a submersible electric motor
is capable of complete submersion in
liquid without damaging the motor. A
submersible electric motor uses special
seals to prevent the ingress of liquid
into its enclosure. Additionally, DOE
understands that a submersible electric
motor relies on the properties of the
surrounding liquid to cool the motor
during continuous-duty operation. That
is, submersible electric motors are only
capable of continuous duty operation
while completely submerged in liquid,
as NEMA clarified in its comments on
the preliminary analysis. (NEMA,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0054 at p.
37) Consequently, as detailed in the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38475
proposed regulations below, today’s
proposed rule defines ‘‘submersible
electric motor’’ as an electric motor
designed for continuous operation only
while submerged in liquid.
DOE does not plan to require
submersible electric motors to meet
energy conservation standards at this
time. DOE believes that testing
submersible electric motors would be
extremely difficult because the motor
must be submerged in a liquid to
properly operate. After having
discussions with manufacturers and
testing laboratories, DOE is not aware of
any industry test procedures or
potential modifications to the
procedures under 10 CFR 431.16 that
could test a motor that relies on
submersion in liquid for continuousduty operation. Additionally DOE is not
aware of any testing facilities that are
capable of testing a submerged motor.
Consequently, DOE has tentatively
decided not to propose specific
preparatory instructions for testing
submersible electric motors. DOE is
interested in whether there are facilities
capable of conducting energy efficiency
tests on submersible motors, along with
any specific procedures that these
facilities follow when attempting to rate
the energy efficiency of this equipment.
DOE seeks comment about its
proposed definition for ‘‘submersible
electric motor.’’ Additionally, DOE
seeks comment on its tentative decision
not to cover these motors because of
potential testing difficulties and the
number of testing concerns, such as the
availability of standard testing
procedures and testing facilities.
Nevertheless, DOE is open to comment
about any test procedure standards or
additional test procedure instructions
that would facilitate the testing of
submersible electric motors in a
consistent, manageable, and repeatable
manner.
5. Definite-Purpose Inverter-Fed Electric
Motors
DOE considers two types of electric
motors related to the use of inverters,
those that are engineered to work only
with an inverter and those that are
capable of working with an inverter, but
are otherwise capable of general,
continuous-duty operation without an
inverter. This section addresses the
former type of electric motors. Invertercapable electric motors are addressed in
section II.C.4.
In its electric motors preliminary
analysis TSD, DOE sought to clarify
that, in its view, inverter-only motors
were motors that can operate
continuously only by means of an
inverter drive. DOE also explained that
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38476
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
it preliminarily planned to continue to
exclude these motors from energy
conservation standards requirements, in
large part because of the difficulties that
were likely to arise from testing them.
NEMA agreed with DOE’s preliminary
approach to define such motors and not
require them to meet energy
conservation standards, but suggested a
more specific definition of ‘‘inverteronly motor,’’ based on NEMA MG1 part
31, ‘‘Definite-Purpose Inverter-Fed
Polyphase Motors,’’ in place of the one
previously considered by DOE. (NEMA,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0054 at p.
35) DOE examined the suggested
definition and is proposing to adopt it,
with minor modifications. At this time,
DOE is not proposing to require that a
motor be marked as a ‘‘definite-purpose,
inverter-fed electric motor,’’ but may
consider such a requirement in the
future. DOE believes the new definition
is more precise than what it previously
considered and understands that it is a
term currently recognized and used in
common industry parlance. As detailed
in the proposed regulations below,
today’s proposed rule defines ‘‘definitepurpose, inverter-fed electric motor’’ as
an electric motor that is designed for
operation solely with an inverter, and is
not intended for operation when
directly connected to polyphase,
sinusoidal line power.
Regarding testing a definite-purpose
inverter-fed motor, NEMA asserted that
the industry-based procedures, which
have already been incorporated by
reference in DOE’s regulations, require
that a tested motor be capable of acrossthe-line starting, but inverter-fed motors
are incapable of meeting this
requirement without the inverter. (See
NEMA, at EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–
0054 at p. 35 and NEMA MG1–2009,
part 31 at paragraph 31.4.3.1, which
elaborates that an ‘‘inverter-fed motor’’
cannot perform across-the-line starting
unless the motor is attached to the
inverter.) Otherwise, DOE is not aware
of an industry accepted test procedure
that specifies at which speed or torque
characteristics an inverter-fed motor
should be tested. Furthermore, DOE
does not believe it would be possible for
it to develop a standardized test
procedure for definite-purpose, inverterfed electric motors on its own. Because
inverters allow a motor to operate at a
wide array of speeds for many different
applications, there would be
considerable difficulties in developing a
single procedure that produced a fair
representation of the actual energy used
by all electric motors connected to an
inverter in the field. Additionally, a
single motor design may be paired with
a wide variety of inverters, so properly
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
selecting an inverter to use for the test
such that an accurate representation of
efficiency is obtained would prove
extremely difficult. Therefore, even if
DOE intended to regulate such motors,
testing them could be extremely
challenging using the currently accepted
industry test procedures.
DOE requests comment on its
proposed definition for ‘‘definitepurpose, inverter-fed electric motors’’
and its preliminary decision to exclude
such motors from any expanded energy
conservation standards for electric
motors.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
has determined that test procedure
rulemakings do not constitute
‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly,
this action was not subject to review
under the Executive Order by the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law
must be proposed for public comment,
unless the agency certifies that the rule,
if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As
required by Executive Order 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the DOE
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s Web site: www.gc.doe.gov.
As described in the preamble, today’s
proposal presents additional test
procedure set-up clarifications for
motors currently subject to Federal
energy conservation standards, new test
procedure set-up and test procedures for
motors not currently subject to Federal
energy conservation standards, and
additional clarifications of definitions
for certain key terms to aid
manufacturers in better understanding
DOE’s regulations. All of the proposals
are consistent with current industry
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
practices and, once adopted and
compliance is required, should be used
for making representations of energyefficiency of those covered electric
motors and for certifying compliance to
Federal energy conservation standards.
DOE certified to the Office of Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration
(SBA) that the proposed test procedures
for electric motors would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The factual basis for this certification is
as follows:
To estimate the number of small
businesses impacted by the rule, DOE
considered the size standards for a small
business listed by the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS)
code and description under 13 CFR
121.201. To be considered a small
business, a manufacturer of electric
motors and its affiliates may employ a
maximum of 1,000 employees. DOE
estimates that there are approximately
30 domestic motor manufacturers that
manufacture electric motors covered by
EPCA, and no more than 13 of these
manufacturers are small businesses
employing a maximum of 1,000
employees. The number of motor
manufacturers, including the number of
manufacturers qualifying as small
businesses, was estimated based on
interviews with motor manufacturers
and publicly available data.
To determine the anticipated
economic impact of the testing
requirements on small manufacturers,
DOE compared its proposal to current
industry practices regarding testing
procedures and representations for
energy efficiency along with those steps
DOE has taken in the design of the rule
to minimize the testing burden on
manufacturers. For motors that are
currently subject to Federal standards,
today’s procedures are largely
clarifications and would not change the
underlying DOE test procedure and
methodologies currently being
employed by industry to rate and certify
to the Department compliance with
Federal standards.
If DOE ultimately adopts the
additional definitions in this
rulemaking extending the existing test
procedures to motors that are not
currently subject to Federal energy
conservation standards, manufacturers
would only need to use the testing setup instructions, testing procedures, and
rating procedures if a manufacturer
elected to make voluntary
representations of energy-efficiency of
his or her basic models once compliance
with the final test procedure was
required. To better understand how the
proposal would impact small
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
manufacturers of electric motors, DOE
reviewed current industry practice
regarding the representations of energy
efficiency currently made for motors not
currently subject to energy conservation
standards and how the proposal may
impact current industry practice.
Specifically, DOE’s test procedures
would require that those manufacturers
of motors not currently subject to
standards who choose to make public
representations of efficiency to comply
with the proposed methods. DOE’s rule
would not require manufacturers who
do not currently make voluntary
representations to then begin making
public representations of efficiency.
DOE researched the catalogs and Web
sites of the 13 identified small
manufacturers and found that only four
of the small manufacturers clearly list
efficiency ratings for their equipment in
public disclosures. The remaining
manufacturers either build custom
products, which would not be subject to
the proposal, or do not list energy
efficiency in their motor specifications,
in part because it is not required. For
the manufacturers that currently do not
make any public representations of
energy efficiency of their motors, DOE
does not believe the proposal would
impact the current behavior of those
manufacturers that do not elect to make
voluntary representations. DOE does not
anticipate any burden accruing to these
manufacturers unless the agency was to
consider and set energy conservation
standards for those additional electric
motor types. Of the four manufacturers
that currently elect to make voluntary
representations of the electric motor
efficiency, DOE believes those
manufacturers will be minimally
impacted because they are already
basing those representations on
commonly used industry standards,
which are the same testing procedures
that are contained within DOE’s
proposals. DOE does not have any
reason to believe that the test set-up
clarifications proposed for adoption
would have any significant impact on
the current practice of these four
manufacturers.
In view of the foregoing, DOE certifies
that today’s proposal would not impose
significant economic impacts on a
substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
regulatory flexibility analysis for this
rulemaking. DOE has provided its
certification and supporting statement
of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for review under 5
U.S.C. 605(b).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of electric motors must
certify to DOE that their products
comply with any applicable energy
conservation standards. In certifying
compliance, manufacturers must test
their products according to the DOE test
procedures for electric motors,
including any amendments adopted for
those test procedures. The collection-ofinformation requirement for electric
motors certification and recordkeeping
is subject to review and approval by
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA). This requirement has been
approved by OMB under OMB control
number 1910–1400 that expires
February 13, 2014. Public reporting
burden for the certification is estimated
to average 20 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this proposed rule, DOE proposes
test procedure amendments that it
expects will be used to develop and
implement future energy conservation
standards for electric motors. DOE has
determined that this rule falls into a
class of actions that are categorically
excluded from review under the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part
1021. Specifically, this proposed rule
would amend the existing test
procedures without affecting the
amount, quality or distribution of
energy usage, and, therefore, would not
result in any environmental impacts.
Thus, this rulemaking is covered by
Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR
part 1021, subpart D, which applies to
any rulemaking that interprets or
amends an existing rule without
changing the environmental effect of
that rule. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38477
certain requirements on agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have Federalism implications. The
Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive Order also requires agencies
to have an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have Federalism implications. On
March 14, 2000, DOE published a
statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process
it will follow in the development of
such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has
examined this proposed rule and has
determined that it would not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. EPCA governs and
prescribes Federal preemption of State
regulations as to energy conservation for
the products that are the subject of
today’s proposed rule. States can
petition DOE for exemption from such
preemption to the extent, and based on
criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6297(d)) No further action is required by
Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996),
imposes on Federal agencies the general
duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; (3)
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of
Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that Executive agencies make
every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction; (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
38478
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires Executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE has completed the required
review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, the proposed
rule meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec.
201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
proposed regulatory action likely to
result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more
in any one year (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires
a Federal agency to publish a written
statement that estimates the resulting
costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b))
The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected
officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a proposed ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate,’’ and
requires an agency plan for giving notice
and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. On March 18,
1997, DOE published a statement of
policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under
UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at
www.gc.doe.gov. DOE examined today’s
proposed rule according to UMRA and
its statement of policy and determined
that today’s proposal contains neither
an intergovernmental mandate, nor a
mandate that may result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more in
any year, so these requirements do not
apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
proposal would not have any impact on
the autonomy or integrity of the family
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to
prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive
Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859
(March 18, 1988), that this proposal
would not result in any takings that
might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under guidelines established by
each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed today’s proposed rule under
the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with
applicable policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
proposed significant energy action. A
‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as
any action by an agency that
promulgated or is expected to lead to
promulgation of a final rule, and that:
(1) Is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866, or any
successor order; and (2) is likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy; or
(3) is designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action. For
any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today’s proposal to amend the test
procedure for measuring the energy
efficiency of electric motors is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it
would not, if adopted, have a significant
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, nor has it
been designated as a significant energy
action by the Administrator of OIRA.
Therefore, it is not a significant energy
action, and, accordingly, DOE has not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department
of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95–
91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply
with section 32 of the Federal Energy
Administration Act of 1974, as amended
by the Federal Energy Administration
Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C.
788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially
provides in relevant part that, where a
proposed rule authorizes or requires use
of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the
public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section
32(c) requires DOE to consult with the
Attorney General and the Chairman of
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
concerning the impact of the
commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The rule proposed in this notice
incorporates portions of the following
commercial standard as specified:
National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA) Standards
Publication MG1–2009 Section I (Part
4), Section II and Section II (Part 12).
Although other portions of NEMA
MG1–2009 are already incorporated by
reference into DOE regulations, portions
of Section I (Part 4) and Section II (Part
12) have yet to be incorporated. DOE
has evaluated these provisions and is
unable to conclude whether they fully
comply with the requirements of section
32(b) of the Federal Energy
Administration Act (i.e., that they were
developed in a manner that fully
provides for public participation,
comment, and review). DOE will
consult with the Attorney General and
the Chairman of the FTC about the
impact of this test procedure on
competition.
V. Public Participation
a. Attendance at Public Meeting
The time, date and location of the
public meeting are listed in the DATES
and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning
of this document. If you plan to attend
the public meeting, please notify Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
Any foreign national wishing to
participate in the meeting should advise
DOE as soon as possible by contacting
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Ms. Edwards to initiate the necessary
procedures. Please also note that those
wishing to bring laptop computers into
the Forrestal Building will be required
to obtain a property pass. Visitors
should avoid bringing laptop
computers, or allow an extra 45 minutes
for security screening. Persons can also
participate in the public meeting via
webinar. For more information, refer to
the Public Participation section near the
end of this notice.
In addition, you can attend the public
meeting via webinar. Webinar
registration information, participant
instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar
participants will be published on DOE’s
Web site https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/
rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/74. Participants
are responsible for ensuring their
systems are compatible with the
webinar software.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements For Distribution
Any person who has plans to present
a prepared general statement may
request that copies of his or her
statement be made available at the
public meeting. Such persons may
submit requests, along with an advance
electronic copy of their statement in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format, to the appropriate address
shown in the ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this notice. The request
and advance copy of statements must be
received at least one week before the
public meeting and may be emailed,
hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE
prefers to receive requests and advance
copies via email. Please include a
telephone number to enable DOE staff to
make a follow-up contact, if needed.
c. Conduct of Public Meeting
DOE will designate a DOE official to
preside at the public meeting and may
also use a professional facilitator to aid
discussion. The meeting will not be a
judicial or evidentiary-type public
hearing, but DOE will conduct it in
accordance with section 336 of EPCA
(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will
be present to record the proceedings and
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the
right to schedule the order of
presentations and to establish the
procedures governing the conduct of the
public meeting. After the public
meeting, interested parties may submit
further comments on the proceedings as
well as on any aspect of the rulemaking
until the end of the comment period.
The public meeting will be conducted
in an informal, conference style. DOE
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
will present summaries of comments
received before the public meeting,
allow time for prepared general
statements by participants, and
encourage all interested parties to share
their views on issues affecting this
rulemaking. Each participant will be
allowed to make a general statement
(within time limits determined by DOE),
before the discussion of specific topics.
DOE will permit, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any
general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements
on a topic, DOE will permit participants
to clarify their statements briefly and
comment on statements made by others.
Participants should be prepared to
answer questions by DOE and by other
participants concerning these issues.
DOE representatives may also ask
questions of participants concerning
other matters relevant to this
rulemaking. The official conducting the
public meeting will accept additional
comments or questions from those
attending, as time permits. The
presiding official will announce any
further procedural rules or modification
of the above procedures that may be
needed for the proper conduct of the
public meeting.
A transcript of the public meeting will
be included in the docket, which can be
viewed as described in the Docket
section at the beginning of this notice.
In addition, any person may buy a copy
of the transcript from the transcribing
reporter.
d. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rule before or after the public meeting,
but no later than the date provided in
the DATES section at the beginning of
this proposed rule. Interested parties
may submit comments using any of the
methods described in the ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this notice.
Submitting comments via
www.regulations.gov. The
regulations.gov Web page will require
you to provide your name and contact
information. Your contact information
will be viewable to DOE Building
Technologies staff only. Your contact
information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38479
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment or in any documents
attached to your comment. Any
information that you do not want to be
publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Persons viewing comments will see only
first and last names, organization
names, correspondence containing
comments, and any documents
submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to regulations.gov
information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(CBI)). Comments submitted through
regulations.gov cannot be claimed as
CBI. Comments received through the
Web site will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through regulations.gov before posting.
Normally, comments will be posted
within a few days of being submitted.
However, if large volumes of comments
are being processed simultaneously,
your comment may not be viewable for
up to several weeks. Please keep the
comment tracking number that
regulations.gov provides after you have
successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery, or mail. Comments and
documents submitted via email, hand
delivery, or mail also will be posted to
regulations.gov. If you do not want your
personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information on a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via mail or hand delivery, please
provide all items on a compact disk
(CD), if feasible. It is not necessary to
submit printed copies. No facsimiles
(faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, written in English and are free
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
38480
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
of any defects or viruses. Documents
should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible,
they should carry the electronic
signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he
or she believes to be confidential and
exempt by law from public disclosure
should submit via email, postal mail, or
hand delivery two well-marked copies:
one copy of the document marked
confidential including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
non-confidential with the information
believed to be confidential deleted.
Submit these documents via email or on
a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it
according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when
evaluating requests to treat submitted
information as confidential include: (1)
A description of the items; (2) whether
and why such items are customarily
treated as confidential within the
industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from
other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made
available to others without obligation
concerning its confidentiality; (5) an
explanation of the competitive injury to
the submitting person which would
result from public disclosure; (6) when
such information might lose its
confidential character due to the
passage of time; and (7) why disclosure
of the information would be contrary to
the public interest.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
e. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments
on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
1. DOE requests comment on the
decision to incorporate definitions for
NEMA Design A and NEMA Design C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
motors based on the NEMA MG1–2009
definitions of these motor designs.
2. DOE requests comment on the
proposed definitions for IEC Design N
and H motors.
3. DOE seeks comment on its
proposed definition for electric motors
with moisture resistant windings and
electric motors with sealed windings
and its preliminary decision to not
propose additional testing instructions
for these motors types.
4. DOE requests comments on its
proposed definition for inverter-capable
electric motors and its decision not to
provide any test procedure instructions
for this motor type.
5. DOE requests comments on its
proposed definition and preliminary
decision not to propose any clarifying
testing instructions for TENV electric
motors.
6. DOE requests comments on its
proposed definition of integral brake
electric motor and its preliminary
decision to include them in the scope of
these test procedures.
7. DOE requests comments on its
preliminary decision to test integral
brake electric motors and non-integral
brake electric motors without
disassembly but, rather, with their brake
components powered externally.
8. DOE requests comments concerning
its proposed definition for immersible
electric motor, especially with regards
to differentiating this motor type from
liquid-cooled electric and submersible
electric motors.
9. DOE invites comment on its
proposed test procedure instructions for
immersible electric motors, in
particular, the proposal to allow for a
maximum run-in period of 10 hours
prior to testing according to IEEE
Standard 112 Test Method B.
10. DOE requests comment on its
preliminary decision not to propose a
definition for electric motors with nonstandard endshields or bases
11. DOE invites comment on its
proposed instructions for testing electric
motors with non-standard endshields or
flanges.
12. DOE seeks comment on the
decision to not propose a definition for
electric motors with non-standard shaft
dimensions or additions.
13. DOE requests comment on it
proposed instructions for testing motors
with non-standard shaft dimensions or
additions.
14. DOE seeks comment regarding its
decision not to propose a definition for
electric motors with non-standard base,
feet, or mounting configurations.
15. DOE requests comment on its
instructions for testing electric motors
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
with non-standard base, feet, or
mounting configurations.
16. DOE seeks comment on any other
testing difficulties that may arise from
testing electric motors with nonstandard base, feet, or mounting
configurations.
17. DOE requests comment regarding
its proposed approach to testing electric
motors with bearings capable of
horizontal orientation. DOE also
requests comment on its proposed
approach to testing electric motors with
bearings not capable of horizontal
orientation.
18. DOE requests comments on its
preliminary decision not to propose any
definitions for vertical motors.
19. DOE seeks comments on its
proposed instructions for dealing with
the various construction differences
found between vertical and horizontal
motors.
20. DOE requests comment on its
decision not to propose additional test
procedure clarifications for motors with
sleeve bearings or a definition for these
motor types.
21. DOE requests comment regarding
the effect of sleeve bearings on a motor’s
tested efficiency.
22. DOE requests comment on its
proposed definition for air-over electric
motor, and the decision to include both
open and enclosed frame motors under
the same definition.
23. DOE requests comment on the
decision to not require air-over electric
motors to meet energy conservation
standards at this time.
24. DOE requests comment on its
proposed definition of component set of
an electric motor.
25. DOE is open to comment on its
tentative decision to not require
component sets of electric motors to
meet any particular energy conservation
standards.
26. DOE seeks feedback on its
proposed definition for liquid-cooled
electric motors.
27. DOE seeks comment on its
tentative decision not to cover liquidcooled electric motors, primarily
because of the testing difficulties
encountered when testing them, namely
the number of testing variables that are
introduced by the additional coolant
system and pump apparatus.
28. DOE is open to comment
regarding any test procedure standards
or additional test procedure guidance
language that would take into account
all variables involved in testing liquidcooled motors and allows this motor
type to be tested in a consistent,
manageable, and repeatable manner.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
29. DOE requests comment on its
proposed definition of submersible
electric motor.
30. DOE requests comment on
whether it is correct that there are no
test facilities capable of conducting
performance tests on submersible
electric motors.
31. DOE requests comment on its
proposed definition for definitepurpose, inverter-fed electric motors.
32. DOE seeks comment on its
preliminary decision to continue to not
require definite-purpose, inverter-fed
electric motors to meet any expanded
energy conservation standards for
electric motors.
VI. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practices and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 19,
2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE proposes to amend part
431 of chapter II of title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below.
PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.
2. Section 431.12 is amended by:
a. Removing the reserved terms ‘‘Fire
pump motors’’ and ‘‘NEMA design B
general purpose electric motor;’’ and
■ b. Adding in alphabetical order,
definitions for: ‘‘air-over electric
motor,’’ ‘‘component set,’’ ‘‘definitepurpose, inverter-fed electric motor,’’
‘‘electric motor with moisture resistant
windings,’’ ‘‘electric motor with sealed
windings,’’ ‘‘IEC Design H motor,’’ ‘‘IEC
Design N motor,’’ ‘‘immersible electric
motor,’’ ‘‘integral brake electric motor,’’
‘‘inverter-capable electric motor,’’
‘‘liquid-cooled electric motor,’’ ‘‘NEMA
Design A motor,’’ ‘‘NEMA Design C
motor,’’ ‘‘non-integral brake electric
motor,’’ ‘‘partial electric motor,’’
‘‘submersible electric motor,’’ ‘‘totally
enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) electric
motor.’’
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
■
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
The additions read as follows:
§ 431.12
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Air-over electric motor means an
electric motor designed to be cooled by
a ventilating means external to, and not
supplied with, the motor.
*
*
*
*
*
Component set means a combination
of motor parts that require the addition
of more than two endshields to create an
operable motor. These parts may consist
of any combination of a stator frame,
wound stator, rotor, shaft, or endshields.
For the purpose of this definition, the
term ‘‘operable motor’’ means an
electric motor engineered for performing
in accordance with nameplate ratings.
*
*
*
*
*
Definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric
motor means an electric motor that is
designed for operation solely with an
inverter, and is not intended for
operation when directly connected to
polyphase, sinusoidal line power.
*
*
*
*
*
Electric motor with moisture resistant
windings means an electric motor that is
engineered for passing the conformance
test for moisture resistance described in
NEMA MG1–2009, paragraph 12.63,
(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15)
as demonstrated on a representative
sample or prototype.
Electric motor with sealed windings
means an electric motor that is
engineered for passing the conformance
test for water resistance described in
NEMA MG1–2009, paragraph 12.62,
(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15)
as demonstrated on a representative
sample or prototype.
*
*
*
*
*
IEC Design H motor means an electric
motor that
(1) Is an induction motor designed for
use with three-phase power;
(2) Contains a cage rotor;
(3) Is intended for direct-on-line
starting (as demonstrated by the motor’s
ability to operate without an inverter)
(4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 160 kW at
a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to sections 8.1, 8.2, and
8.3 of the IEC 60034–12 edition 2.1
(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15)
requirements for starting torque, locked
rotor apparent power, and starting.
IEC Design N motor means an electric
motor that:
(1) Is an induction motor designed for
use with three-phase power;
(2) Contains a cage rotor;
(3) Is intended for direct-on-line
starting (as demonstrated by the motor’s
ability to operate without an inverter);
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38481
(4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW;
and
(6) Conforms to sections 6.1, 6.2, and
6.3 of the IEC 60034–12 edition 2.1
(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15)
requirements for torque characteristics,
locked rotor apparent power, and
starting.
*
*
*
*
*
Immersible electric motor means an
electric motor primarily designed to
operate continuously in free-air, but is
also capable of withstanding complete
immersion in liquid for a continuous
period of no less than 30 minutes.
Integral brake electric motor means an
electric motor containing a brake
mechanism either inside of the motor
endshield or between the motor fan and
endshield.
Inverter-capable electric motor means
an electric motor designed to be directly
connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line
power, but that is also capable of
continuous operation on an inverter
drive over a limited speed range and
associated load.
Liquid-cooled electric motor means a
motor that is cooled by circulating
liquid with the liquid or liquid-filled
conductors coming into direct contact
with the machine parts.
*
*
*
*
*
NEMA Design A motor means a
squirrel-cage motor that:
(1) Is Designed to withstand fullvoltage starting and developing lockedrotor torque as shown in NEMA MG1–
2009, paragraph 12.38 (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.15);
(2) Has pull-up torque as shown in
NEMA MG1–2009, paragraph 12.40;
(3) Has breakdown torque as shown in
NEMA MG1–2009, paragraph 12.39;
(4) Has a locked-rotor current higher
than the values shown in NEMA MG1–
2009, paragraph 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and
NEMA MG1–2009, paragraph 12.35.2
for 50 hertz; and
(5) Has a slip at rated load of less than
5 percent for motors with fewer than 10
poles.
*
*
*
*
*
NEMA Design C motor means a
squirrel-cage motor that:
1. Is Designed to withstand fullvoltage starting and developing lockedrotor torque for high-torque applications
up to the values shown in NEMA MG1–
2009, paragraph 12.38 (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.15);
2. Has pull-up torque as shown in
NEMA MG1–2009, paragraph 12.40;
3. Has breakdown torque up to the
values shown in NEMA MG1–2009,
paragraph 12.39;
4. Has a locked-rotor current not to
exceed the values shown in NEMA
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
38482
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
MG1–2009, paragraphs 12.35.1 for 60
hertz and 12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and
5. Has a slip at rated load of less than
5 percent.
Non-integral brake electric motor
means an electric motor containing a
brake mechanism outside of the
endshield, but not between the motor
fan and endshield.
*
*
*
*
*
Partial electric motor means an
assembly of motor components
necessitating the addition of no more
than two endshields, including
bearings, to create an operable motor.
For the purpose of this definition, the
term ‘‘operable motor’’ means an
electric motor engineered for performing
in accordance with the applicable
nameplate ratings.
*
*
*
*
*
Submersible electric motor means an
electric motor designed for continuous
operation only while submerged in
liquid.
*
*
*
*
*
Totally enclosed non-ventilated
(TENV) electric motor means an electric
motor that is built in a frame-surface
cooled, totally enclosed configuration
that is designed and equipped to be
cooled only by free convection.
■ 3. Appendix B to Subpart B of Part
431 is amended by adding an
introductory note and section 4 to read
as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431—
Uniform Test Method for Measuring
Nominal Full-Load Efficiency of
Electric Motors
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Note: Any representation made after [date
180 days after publication of the final rule
will be inserted here] related to special and
definite purpose motor types for which
definitions are provided at § 431.12, or for
which specific testing procedures are
provided in this appendix, must be based
upon results generated under this test
procedure. Upon the compliance date(s) of
any energy conservation standard(s) for
special and definite purpose motor types, use
of the applicable provisions of this test
procedure to demonstrate compliance with
the energy conservation standard will also be
required.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
Any representation, including
demonstrations of compliance, related to
general purpose electric motors (subtype I or
II) made after [date 180 days after publication
of the final rule will be inserted here] must
be based upon results generated under this
test procedure.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Procedures for the Testing of Certain
Electric Motor Types.
Prior to testing according to IEEE Standard
112 (Test Method B) or CSA C390–10
(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15),
each basic model of the electric motor types
listed below must be prepared in accordance
with the instructions of this section to ensure
consistent test results. These steps are
designed to enable a motor to be attached to
a dynamometer and run continuously for
testing purposes. For the purposes of this
appendix, a ‘‘standard bearing’’ is a 6000
series, open, single-row, deep groove, radial
ball bearing.
4.1 Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors
and Electric Motors with Single or Double
Shaft Extensions of Non-Standard
Dimensions or Additions:
To attach the unit under test to a
dynamometer, close-coupled pump electric
motors and electric motors with single or
double shaft extensions of non-standard
dimensions or additions must be tested using
a special coupling adapter.
4.2 Electric Motors with Non-Standard
Endshields or Flanges:
If it is not possible to connect the electric
motor to a dynamometer without removing
the endplate, the testing laboratory shall
replace the non-standard endshield or flange
with an endshield or flange meeting NEMA
or IEC specifications. The NEMA
specifications are found in NEMA MG–1
(2009) in Section I, Part 4, paragraphs 4.1,
4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, and
4.4.6, Figures 4–1, 4–2, 4–3, 4–4, and 4–5,
and Table 4–2 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.15). The IEC specifications are found in
IEC 60072–1 (1991) (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.15). If this is necessary,
the replacement endshield or flange shall be
obtained through the manufacturer, either by
request or purchased as a replacement part;
any such replacement endshield or flange
must be constructed of the same material as
the original endplate.
4.3 Immersible Electric Motors and
Electric Motors with Contact Seals:
Immersible electric motors shall be tested
with all contact seals installed as the motor
is received. A manufacturer or test laboratory
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
may run the electric motor being tested for
a period of no more than 10 hours in order
to break in the contact seals prior to testing.
For immersible motors built in a totally
enclosed blower cooled construction, the
smaller, cooling motor shall be powered by
a source separate from the source powering
the electric motor under test.
4.4 Integral Brake Electric Motors:
Integral brake electric motors shall be
tested with the integral brake component
powered by a source separate from the source
powering the electric motor under test.
Additionally, for any 10 minute period
during the test and while the brake is being
powered such that it remains disengaged
from the motor shaft, record the power
consumed (i.e., watts).
4.5 Non-Integral Brake Electric Motors:
Non-integral brake electric motors shall be
tested with the non-integral brake component
powered by a source separate from the source
powering the electric motor under test.
Additionally, for any 10 minute period
during the test and while the brake is being
powered such that it remains disengaged
from the motor shaft, record the power
consumed (i.e., watts).
4.6 Partial Electric Motors:
Partial electric motors shall be
disconnected from their mated piece of
equipment. After disconnection from the
equipment, standard bearings and/or
endshields shall be added to the motor, such
that it is capable of operation. If an endshield
is necessary, an endshield meeting NEMA or
IEC specifications shall be obtained through
the manufacturer, either by request or
purchased as a replacement part.
4.7 Vertical Electric Motors and Electric
Motors with Bearings Incapable of Horizontal
Operation:
Vertical electric motors and electric motors
with thrust bearings shall be tested in a
horizontal configuration. If the unit under
test cannot be reoriented horizontally due to
its bearing construction, the electric motor’s
bearings shall be removed and replaced with
standard bearings. If the unit under test
contains oil-lubricated bearings, its bearings
shall be removed and replaced with standard
bearings. Finally, if the unit under test
contains a hollow-shaft, a solid-shaft shall be
inserted, bolted to the non-drive end of the
motor and welded on the drive end. Enough
clearance shall be maintained such that
attachment to a dynamometer is possible.
[FR Doc. 2013–15132 Filed 6–25–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\26JNP2.SGM
26JNP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38455-38482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15132]
[[Page 38455]]
Vol. 78
Wednesday,
No. 123
June 26, 2013
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 38456]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0043]
RIN 1904-AC89
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to clarify aspects of certain U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) energy efficiency regulations related to
electric motors. DOE is considering establishing definitions,
specifying testing set-up procedures necessary to test, and extending
DOE's existing test procedures for electric motors to certain electric
motor types that have not been regulated by DOE. These actions are
being proposed to clarify the scope of regulatory coverage for electric
motors and to ensure accurate and consistent measurements when
determining the energy efficiency of various types of electric motors.
This notice seeks comment on this proposal and requests comments, data,
and other information to assist DOE in deciding whether to finalize or
modify these provisions.
DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, July 16, 2013, from 9
a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast
as a webinar. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for webinar
registration information, participant instructions, and information
about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR
before and after the public meeting, but no later than September 9,
2013. See section V, ``Public Participation.'' for details.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at
(202) 586-2945. For detailed information regarding attendance and
participation at the public meeting, see section V, ``Public
Participation.''
Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Test Procedures
for Electric Motors, and provide docket number EERE-2012-BT-TP-0043
and/or regulation identifier number (RIN) number 1904-AC89. Comments
may be submitted using any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: ElectricMotors2012TP0043@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket
number EERE-2012-BT-TP-0043 and/or RIN 1904-AC89 in the subject line of
the message.
3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a
compact disc. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza
SW., Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one
signed paper original.
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see section V, ``Public
Participation.''
Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and
transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/74.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0121. Email: medium_electric_motors@ee.doe.gov
Ms. Ami Grace-Tardy, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20585. Telephone: (202) 586-5709. Email: Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
A. Proposed Effective Dates for the Amended Test Procedures
B. Expanding the Scope of Coverage of Energy Conservation
Standards
C. Motor Type Definitions
1. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Design A and
Design C Motors
2. International Electrotechnical Commission Designs N and H
Motors
3. Electric Motors with Sealed and Moisture Resistant Windings
4. Inverter-Capable Electric Motors
5. Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated Electric Motors
D. Electric Motor Types Requiring Definitions and Test Procedure
Instructions
1. Immersible Electric Motors and Electric Motors with Contact
Seals
2. Integral and Non-Integral Brake Electric Motors
3. Partial Electric Motors
E. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only Test Procedure
Instructions
1. Electric Motors with Non-Standard Endshields or Flanges
2. Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors and Electric Motors with
Single or Double Shaft Extensions of Non-Standard Dimensions or
Additions
3. Vertical Electric Motors
4. Electric Motor Bearings
F. General Clarification for Certain Electric Motor Types
1. Electric Motors with Non-Standard Bases, Feet or Mounting
Configurations
G. Electric Motor Types DOE Proposes Not to Regulate at This
Time
1. Air-Over Electric Motor
2. Component Set of an Electric Motor
3. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motor
4. Submersible Electric Motor
5. Definite-Purpose Inverter-Fed Electric Motors
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
V. Public Participation
a. Attendance at Public Meeting
b. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
c. Conduct of Public Meeting
d. Submission of Comments
e. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C.
6291, et
[[Page 38457]]
seq., (``EPCA'' or ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve the energy efficiency of products and commercial
equipment. (All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended
through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act
(AEMTCA 2012), Public Law 112-210 (December 18, 2012)). Part C of Title
III (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), which was subsequently redesignated as Part
A-1 for editorial reasons, establishes an energy conservation program
for certain industrial equipment, which includes electric motors, the
subject of today's notice. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A), 6313(b))
B. Background
In the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486 (October 24,
1992) (EPACT 1992), Congress amended EPCA to establish energy
conservation standards, test procedures, compliance certification, and
labeling requirements for certain electric motors. (When used in
context, the term ``motor'' refers to ``electric motor'' in this
document.) On October 5, 1999, DOE published in the Federal Register, a
final rule to implement these requirements. 64 FR 54114. In 2007,
section 313 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA 2007)
amended EPCA by: (1) Striking the definition of ``electric motor,'' (2)
setting forth definitions for ``general purpose electric motor (subtype
I)'' and ``general purpose electric motor (subtype II),'' and (3)
prescribing energy conservation standards for ``general purpose
electric motors (subtype I),'' ``general purpose electric motors
(subtype II), ``fire pump electric motors,'' and ``NEMA Design B
general purpose electric motors'' with a power rating of more than 200
horsepower but not greater than 500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13),
6313(b)). Consequently, on March 23, 2009, DOE updated the
corresponding regulations at 10 CFR part 431 with the new definitions
and energy conservation standards. 74 FR 12058. On December 22, 2008,
DOE proposed to update the test procedures under 10 CFR part 431 both
for electric motors and small electric motors. 73 FR 78220. DOE
finalized key provisions related to small electric motor testing in a
2009 final rule at 74 FR 32059 (July 7, 2009), and further updated test
procedures for electric motors and small electric motors at 77 FR 26608
(May 4, 2012).
Today's notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) focuses on electric
motors and proposes to add the aforementioned definitions and
additional testing set-up instructions and clarifications to the
current test procedures under subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 for a wider
variety of electric motor types than currently regulated. Additionally,
DOE is proposing to extend the applicability of DOE's existing electric
motor test procedure in 10 CFR part 431 to the wider scope of currently
unregulated motors. DOE is proposing such amendments because the
additional testing set-up instructions and clarifications are designed
to help manufacturers of certain types of motors prepare them for
testing under the applicable test procedure. The proposed steps are
intended to enable a manufacturer to consistently measure the losses
and determine the efficiency of a wider variety of motors, and
potentially facilitate the application of energy conservation standards
to a wider array of motors than what is currently covered under 10 CFR
part 431.\1\ In addition, DOE is considering prescribing standards for
some electric motors addressed in this notice through a parallel energy
conservation standards-related activity. See 77 FR 43015 (July 23,
2012). To ensure consistency between the two rulemakings, this test
procedure NOPR addresses scope of coverage and test procedure issues
raised in response to DOE's current electric motors energy conservation
standards rulemaking. See 76 FR 17577 (March 30, 2011); 77 FR 43015
(July 23, 2012). Finally, to provide regulatory clarity and consistency
with existing regulations, today's proposed rule also defines NEMA
Design A motors, NEMA Design C motors, International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) Design H motors and IEC Design N motors, which are
covered under subpart B of 10 CFR part 431.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPCA, as amended by EPACT 1992, had previously defined an
``electric motor'' as any motor which is a general purpose T-frame,
single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction motor
of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Design A and
B, continuous rated, operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60
Hertz line power as defined in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (1992)) Through subsequent amendments to EPCA
made by EISA 2007, Congress removed this definition and added
language denoting two new subtypes of general purpose electric
motors. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)-(B) (2012)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By way of background, DOE notes that section 343(a)(5)(A) of EPCA,
42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A), initially required that the test procedures to
determine electric motor efficiency shall be those procedures specified
in two documents: National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
Standards Publication MG1-1987 \2\ and Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 112 Test Method B for motor
efficiency, as in effect on the date of enactment of EPACT 1992.
Section 343(a)(5)(B)-(C) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B)-(C), provides
in part that if the NEMA- and IEEE-developed test procedures are
amended, the Secretary of Energy shall so amend the test procedures
under 10 CFR part 431, unless the Secretary determines, by rule, that
the amended industry procedures would not meet the requirements for
test procedures to produce results that reflect energy efficiency,
energy use, and estimated operating costs of the tested motor, or would
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3), (a)(5)(B))
Subsequently, as newer versions of the NEMA and IEEE test procedures
for electric motors were published and used by industry, DOE updated 10
CFR part 431. For example, see 64 FR 54114 (October 5, 1999) that
incorporated by reference into 10 CFR part 431 applicable provisions of
NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993 and IEEE Standard 112-1996, and
codified them at 10 CFR 431.16 and appendix B to subpart B of 10 CFR
part 431. DOE also added the equivalent test procedure--Canadian
Standards Association (CSA) CAN/CSA C390-93, ``Energy Efficiency Test
Methods for Three-Phase Induction Motors,'' because NEMA added this
procedure to its Standards Publication, MG1, when it was revised and
updated in 1993. See 61 FR 60440, 60446 (November 27, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NEMA MG1 does not contain the actual methods and
calculations needed to perform an energy efficiency test but,
rather, refers the reader to the proper industry methodologies in
IEEE Standard 112 and CSA C390-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 4, 2012, DOE incorporated by reference the updated versions
of the above test procedures: NEMA MG1-2009, IEEE 112-2004, and CAN/CSA
C390-10. 77 FR 26608, 26638 (the ``2012 final test procedure.'') DOE
made these updates to ensure consistency between 10 CFR part 431 and
current industry procedures and related practices. Since publication of
the 2012 final test procedure, NEMA Standards Publication MG1 has been
updated to MG1-2011. The text of the sections and paragraphs of NEMA
MG1-2009, which is incorporated by reference under 10 CFR part 431.15,
is identical to the text of the relevant sections and paragraphs of
NEMA MG1-2011. The substance of those NEMA MG1-2009 sections and
paragraphs incorporated by reference into subpart B of 10 CFR part 431
were subjected to public notice and comment during the 2012 test
procedure rulemaking. DOE addressed its reasons for incorporating the
MG1-2009 text into its regulations in its May 2012 final
[[Page 38458]]
rule. See 77 FR at 26616-26617. For all the above reasons, DOE has
preliminarily chosen not to update its regulations with NEMA MG1-2011,
but is accepting public comment on this preliminary decision.
II. Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to:
(1) Define a variety of electric motor configurations (i.e., types)
that are currently covered under 10 CFR 431.25 but are not currently
defined under 10 CFR 431.12;
(2) Define a variety of electric motor configurations (i.e., types)
that are not currently covered under 10 CFR 431.25 and are not
currently defined under 10 CFR 431.12; and
(3) Clarify the necessary testing ``set-up'' procedures to
facilitate the testing of the currently not covered motor types under
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA Standard C390-10.
Today's NOPR was precipitated by DOE's ongoing electric motors
standards rulemaking. DOE published its ``Framework Document for
Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors'' (the ``2010 framework
document'') (75 FR 59657) on September 28, 2010. Public comments filed
in response urged DOE to consider regulating the efficiency of certain
definite and special purpose motors. DOE, in turn, published a request
for information regarding definite and special purpose motors (the
``March 2011 RFI''). See 76 FR 17577 (March 30, 2011). DOE is
considering whether to propose expanding the scope of what its electric
motor standards regulate to include all continuous duty, single speed,
squirrel-cage, polyphase alternating-current, induction motors, with
some narrowly defined exemptions. See 77 FR 43015 (July 23, 2012).
Today's NOPR addresses and solicits comment on test procedure issues
arising from potentially expanding the scope of DOE's energy efficiency
requirements to include certain motor types that are not currently
required to meet energy conservation standards. In particular, today's
proposal includes definitions for those motor types that DOE may
consider regulating and those types that DOE is not considering
regulating at this time. DOE is coordinating today's NOPR with a
parallel electric motor energy conservation standards rulemaking. To
the extent possible, DOE will consider all comments submitted in
response to the electric motors test procedure or standards rulemaking
in connection with both activities.
In addition to proposing to include new definitions, today's notice
proposes to add certain steps to the applicable test procedures
contained in appendix B to subpart B of 10 CFR part 431, to accommodate
setting those motors up for testing that DOE is considering regulating.
Because the proposed amendments are strictly limited to those steps
necessary to facilitate testing under the currently incorporated test
procedures, DOE does not anticipate that the proposal would affect the
actual measurement of losses and the subsequent determination of
efficiency for any of the electric motors within the scope of today's
proposed rulemaking.
The proposed revisions are summarized in the table below and
addressed in detail in the following sections. Note that all citations
to various sections of 10 CFR part 431 throughout this preamble refer
to the current version of 10 CFR part 431. The proposed regulatory text
follows the preamble to this notice. DOE seeks comments from interested
parties on each of the proposed revisions.
Table II-1--Summary of Changes Proposed in This NOPR and Affected
Sections of 10 CFR Part 431
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing section in 10 CFR part 431 Summary of proposed modifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 431.12--Definitions........ Adds new definitions for:
[cir] Air-over electric motor.
[cir] Component set.
[cir] Definite-purpose inverter-
fed electric motor.
[cir] Electric motor with
moisture resistant windings.
[cir] Electric motor with sealed
windings.
[cir] IEC Design H motor.
[cir] IEC Design N motor.
[cir] Immersible electric motor.
[cir] Integral brake electric
motor.
[cir] Inverter-capable electric
motor.
[cir] Liquid-cooled electric
motor.
[cir] NEMA Design A motor.
[cir] NEMA Design C motor.
[cir] Non-integral brake
electrical motor.
[cir] Partial electric motor.
[cir] Submersible electric motor.
[cir] Totally enclosed non-
ventilated (TENV) electric motor.
Appendix B to Subpart B--Uniform Updates test procedure set-
Test Method for Measuring Nominal up methods for:
Full Load Efficiency of Electric [cir] Close-coupled pump electric
Motors. motors and electric motors with
single or double shaft extensions
of non-standard dimensions or
additions.
[cir] Electric motors with non-
standard endshields or flanges.
[cir] Immersible electric motors
and electric motors with contact
seals.
[cir] Integral brake electric
motors.
[cir] Non-integral brake electric
motors.
[cir] Partial electric motors.
[cir] Vertical electric motors
and electric motors with bearings
incapable of horizontal operation.
[cir] Close-coupled pump electric
motors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 38459]]
DOE developed today's proposal after considering public input,
including written comments, from a wide variety of interested parties.
All commenters, along with their corresponding abbreviations and
affiliation, are listed in Table II.2 below. The issues raised by these
commenters are addressed in the discussions that follow.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As comments have not yet been submitted for this test
procedure rulemaking, all comments cited in this NOPR can be found
in the Electric Motors Standards rulemaking docket with the number
EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027.
Table II-2--Summary of NOPR Commenters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company or organization Abbreviation Affiliation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness Project... ASAP................................ Energy Efficiency Advocate.
Baldor Electric Co...................... Baldor.............................. Manufacturer.
Copper Development Association.......... CDA................................. Trade Association.
Motor Coalition *....................... MC.................................. Energy Efficiency Advocates,
Trade Associations,
Manufacturers.
National Electrical Manufacturers NEMA................................ Trade Association.
Association.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The members of the Motor Coalition include: National Electrical Manufacturers Association, American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Alliance to Save Energy, Earthjustice,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Northeast Energy Efficiency
Partnerships, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council.
III. Discussion
A. Proposed Effective Dates for the Amended Test Procedures
If adopted, the proposed amendments would become effective 30 days
after the publication of the final rule. As previously explained,
today's proposal would primarily add a new section to DOE's test
procedure with the steps that the manufacturers of certain types of
special and definite purpose electric motors would need to take before
testing a motor. Because these test procedure changes would add only a
new section to the existing test procedure for motor types that are not
currently regulated (i.e., special and definite purpose motors),
manufacturers of motors currently covered by DOE regulations (i.e.,
general purpose electric motors (subtype I and subtype II), including
fire pump electric motors and NEMA Design B motors with a power rating
of more than 200 horsepower but not greater than 500 horsepower) can
continue to use the current test procedure until 180 days after
publication of the final rule. At 180 days after publication of the
final rule, both manufacturers of currently regulated motors and
manufacturers of special and definite purpose motors for which
definitions or testing set-up procedures are proposed in this rule may
not make any representations regarding energy use or the cost of energy
use for all electric motors addressed in today's rulemaking unless such
representations are based on the results of testing, or calculations
from a substantiated alternative efficiency determination method
(AEDM), that reflect values of efficiency that would be obtained
through testing in accordance with the amended test procedures. In
addition, 180 days after publication of the final rule, both
manufacturers of currently regulated motors and manufacturers of
special and definite purpose motors for which definitions or testing
set-up procedures are provided would be required to comply with and use
the amended test procedures to determine if the covered electric motor
types they manufacture comply with the applicable energy conservation
standards.\4\ See 42 U.S.C. 6314(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOE acknowledges that there are no current energy
conservation standards for the majority of the motor types covered
in today's proposed rule. If DOE establishes standards for these
motor types, manufacturers will be required to use the proposed test
procedure to certify compliance with these standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Expanding the Scope of Coverage of Energy Conservation Standards
DOE has the authority to set energy conservation standards for a
wider range of electric motors than those classified as general purpose
electric motors (e.g., definite or special purpose motors). The EPACT
1992 amendments to EPCA had defined ``electric motor'' to include a
certain type of ``general purpose'' motor that Congress would
eventually classify as a general purpose electric motor (subtype I).
(42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (1992)) Those amendments also defined several
other types of motors, including definite purpose motors and special
purpose motors. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(C) and (D) (1992)) EPACT 1992
set energy conservation standards for ``electric motors'' (i.e.,
general purpose electric motors (subtype I)) and explicitly stated that
the standards did not apply to definite purpose or special purpose
motors.\5\ (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1)) (1992)) EISA 2007 struck the narrow
EPACT 1992 definition for ``electric motor'' and replaced it with the
heading ``Electric motors.'' As a result of these changes, both
definite and special purpose motors fell under the broad heading of
``Electric motors'' that previously only applied to ``general purpose''
motors. While EISA 2007 set specific standards for general purpose
electric motors, it did not explicitly apply these new requirements to
definite or special purpose motors. (See generally 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)
(2012))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For the most part, DOE understands that a fire pump electric
motor is a NEMA Design B motor, except it does not have a thermal
limit switch that would otherwise preclude multiple starts. In other
words, a NEMA Design B electric motor has a thermal limit switch
that protects the motor, whereas a fire pump electric motor does not
have such a thermal limit switch to ensure that the motor will start
and operate to pump water to extinguish a fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although DOE believes that EPCA, as amended through EISA 2007,
provides sufficient statutory authority for the regulation of special
purpose and definite purpose motors as ``electric motors,'' DOE notes
it has additional authority provided under section 10 of AEMTCA (to be
codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)) to generally regulate ``other
motors'' as covered ``industrial equipment.'' Therefore, even if
special and definite purpose motors were not ``electric motors,''
special and definite purpose motors would be considered as ``other
motors'' that EPCA already treats as covered industrial equipment.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPCA specifies the types of industrial equipment that can be
classified as covered in addition to the equipment enumerated in 42
U.S.C. 6311(1). This equipment includes ``other motors'' (to be
codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)). Industrial equipment must also,
without regard to whether such equipment is in fact distributed in
commerce for industrial or commercial use, be of a type that: (1) In
operation consumes, or is designed to consume, energy in operation;
(2) to any significant extent, is distributed in commerce for
industrial or commercial use; and (3) is not a covered product as
defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(a)(2) of EPCA, other than a component of a
covered product with respect to which there is in effect a
determination under 42 U.S.C. 6312(c). (42 U.S.C. 6311 (2)(A)). Data
from the 2002 United States Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market
Opportunities Assessment estimated total energy use from industrial
motor systems to be 747 billion kWh. Based on the expansion of
industrial activity, it is likely that current annual electric motor
energy use is higher than this figure. Electric motors are
distributed in commerce for both the industrial and commercial
sectors. According to data provided by the Motors Coalition, the
number of electric motors manufactured in, or imported into, the
United States is over five million electric motors annually,
including special and definite purpose motors. Finally, special and
definite purpose motors are not currently regulated under Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 430 (10 CFR part 430).
To classify equipment as covered commercial or industrial
equipment, the Secretary must also determine that classifying the
equipment as covered equipment is necessary for the purposes of Part
A-1 of EPCA. The purpose of Part A-1 is to improve the efficiency of
electric motors, pumps and certain other industrial equipment to
conserve the energy resources of the nation. (42 U.S.C. 6312(a)-(b))
In today's proposal, DOE has tentatively determined that the
regulation of special and definite purpose motors is necessary to
carry out the purposes of part A-1 of EPCA because regulating these
motors will promote the conservation of energy supplies. Efficiency
standards that may result from coverage would help to capture some
portion of the potential for improving the efficiency of special and
definite purpose motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 38460]]
Consistent with the changes made by EISA 2007, DOE defined the term
``electric motor'' broadly. See 77 FR 26633 (May 4, 2012). That
definition covers ``general purpose,'' ``special purpose'' and
``definite purpose'' electric motors (as defined by EPCA). Previously,
EPCA did not require either ``special purpose'' or ``definite purpose''
motor types to meet energy conservation standards because they were not
considered ``general purpose'' under the EPCA definition of ``general
purpose motor''--a necessary element to meet the pre-EISA 2007
``electric motor'' definition. See 77 FR 26612. Because of the
restrictive nature of the prior electric motor definition, along with
the restrictive definition of the term ``industrial equipment,'' DOE
would have been unable to set standards for such motors. (See 42 U.S.C.
6311(2)(B) (limiting the scope of equipment covered under EPCA)) In
view of the changes introduced by EISA 2007 and the absence of current
Federal energy conservation standards for special purpose and definite
purpose motors, as noted in chapter 2 of DOE's July 2012 electric
motors preliminary analysis technical support document (TSD),\7\ it is
DOE's view that both are categories of ``electric motors'' covered
under EPCA, as currently amended. Accordingly, DOE is considering
establishing standards for certain definite purpose and special purpose
motors in the context of a separate rulemaking. At this time, DOE is
considering setting energy conservation standards for only those motors
that exhibit all of the following nine characteristics:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The preliminary TSD published in July 2012 is available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-
0023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is a single-speed, induction motor,
Is rated for continuous duty (MG1) operation or for duty
type S1 (IEC),
Contains a squirrel-cage (MG1) or cage (IEC) rotor,
Operates on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz
sinusoidal line power,
Is rated 600 volts or less,
Has a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration,
Has a three-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric
equivalent) or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric
equivalent),
Is rated no more than 500 horsepower, but greater than or
equal to 1 horsepower (or kilowatt equivalent), and
Meets all of the performance requirements of one of the
following motor types: a NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC design
N or H motor.
Motor types that exhibit all of the characteristics listed above,
but that DOE is declining to subject to energy conservation standards
at this time because of the inability to test them for efficiency in a
repeatable manner, would be identified by DOE through a parallel notice
of proposed rulemaking. To prepare this test procedure NOPR, DOE has
incorporated feedback received during the August 21, 2012, electric
motors standards preliminary analysis public meeting, comments on the
March 2011 RFI, and comments on the July 2012 electric motors
preliminary analysis (``electric motors preliminary analysis'') as well
as information gleaned from discussions with testing laboratories,
manufacturers, and subject matter experts (SMEs).
To facilitate the potential application of energy conservation
standards to motors built in the configurations described above, DOE
proposes to first define the motors and then provide additional testing
instructions to enable them to be tested using the existing DOE test
method for electric motors. The definitions under consideration would
address motors currently subject to standards, certain motors DOE is
considering requiring to meet standards, and certain other motors that
DOE is, at this time, considering not regulating through energy
conservation standards. Some clarifying definitions, such as the
definitions for NEMA Design A and NEMA Design C motors from NEMA MG1-
2009, would be added. However, DOE understands that some motors, such
as partial motors and integral brake motors, do not have standard,
industry-accepted definitions. For such motor types, DOE conducted its
own independent research and consulted with SMEs, manufacturers, and
the Motor Coalition so that DOE could create the working definitions
that are proposed in section III of this NOPR. For the definitions of
``electric motor with moisture resistant windings'' and ``electric
motor with sealed windings,'' which reference certain subsections of
NEMA MG1-2009, DOE intends to incorporate by reference the cited
sections of NEMA MG1-2009.
DOE believes that the existing IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B)
and CSA C390-10 test procedures can be used to accurately measure
losses and determine the energy efficiency for this additional group
(or ``expanded scope'') of motors because all of the motor types under
consideration are single-speed, polyphase induction motors with
electromechanical characteristics similar to those currently subject to
energy conservation standards. While some of these motor types require
the addition of testing step-up instructions prior to testing, all can
be tested using the same methodology provided in those industry-based
procedures DOE has already incorporated into its regulations.
Testing an electric motor using IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B)
or CSA C390-10 requires some basic electrical connections and physical
configurations. To test an electric motor under either procedure, the
electric motor is first mounted on a test bench in a horizontal
position. This means that the motor shaft is horizontal to the test
bench and the motor is equipped with antifriction bearings that can
withstand operation while in a horizontal position.\8\ Instruments are
then connected to the power leads of the motor to measure input power,
voltage, current, speed, torque, temperature, and other input, output,
and performance characteristics. Thermocouples are attached to the
motor to facilitate temperature measurement. Stator winding resistance
is measured while the motor is at ambient, or room, temperature. No-
load measurements are recorded while the motor is operating, both
temperature and input power have stabilized, and the shaft extension is
free from any attachments. After ambient temperature and no-load
measurements are taken, a dynamometer is attached to the motor shaft to
take ``loaded'' measurements. A dynamometer is a device that
simultaneously applies and measures torque for a motor. The dynamometer
applies incremental loads to the shaft, typically at 25, 50, 75, 100,
125, and 150 percent of the motor's total rated output horsepower. This
allows the testing laboratory to record motor performance
[[Page 38461]]
criteria, such as power output and torque, at each incremental load
point. Additional stator winding resistance measurements are taken to
record the temperature at the different load points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ DOE is aware of some types of bearings that cannot operate
while the motor is in a horizontal position. DOE addresses such
bearings in later sections of this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE believes that clarifying instructions may be necessary to test
some of the expanded-scope motors that DOE is considering and for which
DOE is conducting an energy conservation standards rulemaking because
some motors may require modifications before they can operate
continuously and be tested on a dynamometer in a manner consistent with
the current DOE test procedure. For example, a partial electric motor
may be engineered for use without one or both endshields, including
bearings, because it relies on mechanical support from another piece of
equipment. Without these components, the motor would be unable to
operate as a stand-alone piece of equipment. Therefore, DOE is
proposing to add instructions to facilitate consistent and repeatable
procedures for motors such as these. These additions were based on
testing and research conducted by the Department along with technical
consultations with SMEs, manufacturers, testing laboratories, and
various trade associations. Table III-1 lists those electric motors
that are covered under current energy conservation standards or that
DOE is analyzing for potential new energy conservation standards. In
each case, the table identifies whether DOE is proposing to address a
given motor through the use of new definitions, test procedure
instructions, or both.
Table III-1--Motor Types Considered for Regulation in DOE Proposed Test Procedure and Standards Rulemakings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under consideration
Motor type Currently subject to for potential New definition Additional set-up
standards? standards? proposed? instructions proposed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA Design A Motors........................... Yes...................... Yes..................... Yes..................... No.
NEMA Design C Motors........................... Yes...................... Yes..................... Yes..................... No.
IEC Design N Motors............................ Yes...................... Yes..................... Yes..................... No.
IEC Design H Motors............................ Yes...................... Yes..................... Yes..................... No.
Electric Motors with Moisture Resistant or No....................... Yes..................... Yes..................... No.
Sealed Windings.
Inverter-Capable Electric Motors............... Yes...................... Yes..................... Yes..................... No.
Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated Electric Motors No....................... Yes..................... Yes..................... No.
Immersible Electric Motors..................... No....................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes.
Electric Motors with Contact Seals............. Yes...................... Yes..................... No...................... Yes.
Integral Brake Electric Motors................. No....................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes.
Non-Integral Brake Electric Motors............. Yes...................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes.
Partial Electric Motors........................ No....................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes.
Electric Motors with Non-Standard Endshields or No....................... Yes..................... No...................... Yes.
Flanges.
Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors............. Yes...................... Yes..................... No...................... Yes.
Electric Motors with Special Shafts............ No....................... Yes..................... No...................... Yes.
Vertical Solid Shaft Motors.................... Yes...................... Yes..................... No...................... Yes.
Vertical Hollow-Shaft Motors................... No....................... Yes..................... No...................... Yes.
Electric Motors with Thrust Bearings........... No....................... Yes..................... No...................... Yes.
Electric Motors with Sealed Bearings........... Yes...................... Yes..................... No...................... Yes.
Electric Motors with Roller Bearings........... No....................... Yes..................... No...................... Yes.
Electric Motors with Sleeve Bearings........... Yes...................... Yes..................... No...................... Yes.
Electric Motors with Non-Standard Bases........ No....................... Yes..................... No...................... No.
Air-Over Electric Motors....................... No....................... No...................... Yes..................... No.
Component Sets................................. No....................... No...................... Yes..................... No.
Liquid-cooled Electric Motors.................. No....................... No...................... Yes..................... No.
Submersible Electric Motors.................... No....................... No...................... Yes..................... No.
Definite-Purpose Inverter-Fed Electric Motors.. No....................... No...................... Yes..................... No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Motor Type Definitions
During the course of the 2012 final test procedure rulemaking, some
interested parties questioned why DOE defined NEMA Design B motors but
not NEMA Design A or Design C motors. DOE explained that it chose to
adopt a definition for ``NEMA Design B'' motor because the application
section in MG1 (MG1-1.19.1.2 in both MG1-2009 and MG1-2011) contained a
typographical error that required correcting for purposes of DOE's
regulations. DOE also noted that it may incorporate a corrected version
of the ``NEMA Design C'' motor definition in a future rulemaking--that
definition, which is found in MG1-1.19.1.3, also contains a
typographical error. DOE did not intend to add definitions for NEMA
Design A and IEC Design N, as the existing definitions found in MG1 are
correct as published. 77 FR 26616, 26634 (May 4, 2012). In view of
DOE's intention to consider regulating other types of motors, DOE now
believes it is necessary to make clear the terms and definitions for
them as well. DOE understands that many terms and definitions
applicable to motors and used in common industry parlance for voluntary
standards and day-to-day business communication are not necessarily
defined with sufficient clarity for regulatory purposes. DOE does not,
at this time, propose to add amendments related to such types of motors
other than to provide more precise definitions for them to sufficiently
capture the particular characteristics attributable to each and aid the
manufacturing community in determining whether a particular basic model
is covered by DOE's regulations for electric motors.
1. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Design A and Design C
Motors
NEMA MG1-2009 defines the following three types of polyphase,
alternating current, induction motors: NEMA Designs A, B, and C. NEMA
MG1-2009 establishes the same pull-up, breakdown, and locked-rotor
torque requirements for both NEMA Design A
[[Page 38462]]
and NEMA Design B motors.\9\ However, a NEMA Design A motor must be
designed such that its locked-rotor current exceeds the maximum locked-
rotor current established for a NEMA Design B motor. Unless the
application specifically requires the higher locked-rotor current
capability offered by a NEMA Design A motor, a NEMA Design B motor
(that has the same specified minimum torque characteristics as the NEMA
Design A motor) is often used instead because of the additional
convenience offered by these motors when compared to Design A motors.
(See NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at 36 (noting the additional
convenience offered by Design B motors over Design A motors with
respect to selecting disconnecting methods and in satisfying National
Electrical Code and Underwriters Laboratory requirements.)) In
addition, DOE understands that NEMA Design B motors are frequently
preferred because the user can easily select motor control and
protection equipment that meets the applicable requirements of the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) National Electrical Code
(NFPA 70). These motors are also listed by private testing, safety, or
certification organizations, such as CSA International and Underwriters
Laboratory. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 36) A NEMA Design C
motor requires a minimum locked-rotor torque per NEMA MG1-2009, Table
12-3, which is higher than either the NEMA Design A or Design B minimum
locked-rotor torque required per NEMA MG1-2009, Table 12-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Locked-rotor torque is the torque that a motor produces when
it is at rest or zero speed and initially turned on. A higher
locked-rotor torque is important for hard-to-start applications,
such as positive displacement pumps or compressors. A lower locked-
rotor torque can be accepted in applications such as centrifugal
fans or pumps where the start load is low or close to zero. Pull-up
torque is the torque needed to cause a load to reach its full rated
speed. If a motor's pull-up torque is less than that required by its
application load, the motor will overheat and eventually stall.
Breakdown torque is the maximum torque a motor can produce without
abruptly losing motor speed. High breakdown torque is necessary for
applications that may undergo frequent overloading, such as a
conveyor belt. Often, conveyor belts have more product or materials
placed upon them than their rating allows. High breakdown torque
enables the conveyor to continue operating under these conditions
without causing heat damage to the motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In view of the above, DOE is proposing to incorporate a definition
for both ``NEMA Design A motor'' and ``NEMA Design C motor'' to improve
regulatory clarity. DOE notes it has already adopted a definition for
``NEMA Design B motor'' at 10 CFR 431.12. DOE believes that providing
definitions for other motor types will provide consistency in the
treatment of all considered motors. The proposed definitions for NEMA
Design A and Design C motors are based on the definitions in NEMA MG1-
2009, paragraphs 1.19.1.1 and 1.19.1.3, respectively. DOE believes that
the NEMA MG1-2009 definition of ``NEMA Design A motor'' is sufficiently
clear and concise and is proposing to add it with minor clarifying
elements. DOE is proposing to incorporate the definition of ``NEMA
Design C motor'' from NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 1.19.1.3 with some minor
corrections because the NEMA MG1-2009 definition appears to contain
typographical errors \10\ with regard to the tables referenced in the
definition. As detailed in the proposed regulations below, a NEMA
Design A motor is defined as a squirrel-cage motor designed to
withstand full-voltage starting and developing locked-rotor torque,
pull-up torque, breakdown torque, and locked-rotor current as specified
in NEMA MG1-2009; and with a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent
for motors with fewer than 10 poles. A NEMA Design C motor is defined
as a squirrel-cage motor designed to withstand full-voltage starting
and developing locked-rotor torque for high-torque applications, pull-
up torque, breakdown torque, and locked-rotor current as specified in
NEMA MG1-2009; and with a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In NEMA MG1-2009, the definition for NEMA Design C refers
the reader to paragraph 12.34.1 for locked-rotor current limits for
60 hertz motors. The appropriate paragraph appears to be 12.35.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously mentioned, DOE is proposing these definitions to
retain consistency with other already incorporated regulatory
definitions. General purpose electric motors that meet the definition
of NEMA Design A and Design C motor and are rated between 1 and 200
horsepower are currently subject to energy conservation standards. DOE
is not aware of any difficulties in testing either of these motor
design types using the current procedures. Therefore, DOE is not
proposing any test procedure amendments for these motor types at this
time. DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate definitions
for NEMA Design A and NEMA Design C motors based on the NEMA MG1-2009
definitions of these motor designs.
2. International Electrotechnical Commission Designs N and H Motors
Similar to NEMA, the European International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) produces industry standards that contain performance
requirements for electric motors. Analogous to NEMA Designs B and C,
the IEC has design types N and H. IEC Design N motors have similar
performance characteristics to NEMA Design B motors, while IEC Design H
motors are similar to NEMA Design C motors. Because many motors
imported into the U.S. are built to IEC specifications instead of NEMA
specifications, DOE is proposing to include a definition for IEC Design
N and IEC Design H motor types to ensure that these functionally
similar motors are treated in a manner consistent with equivalent NEMA-
based electric motors and to retain overall consistency with the
existing definitional framework.
DOE's proposed definition for ``IEC Design N motor'' incorporates
language from IEC Standard 60034-12 (2007 Ed. 2.1) (IEC 60034) with
some modifications that would make the definition more comprehensive.
IEC 60034 defines IEC Design N motors as being ``normal starting torque
three-phase cage induction motors intended for direct-across the line
starting, having 2, 4, 6 or 8 poles and rated from 0,4 kW to 1 600
kW,'' with torque characteristics and locked-rotor characteristics
detailed in subsequent tables of the standard.\11\ A similar approach
for IEC Design H motors is taken in IEC 60034, but with references to
different sections and slightly different wording. DOE is proposing to
include all references to tables for torque characteristics and locked-
rotor characteristics as part of these definitions to improve their
comprehensiveness. As detailed in the proposed regulations below,
today's proposed rule defines an ``IEC Design N motor'' as an induction
motor designed for use with three-phase power with the following
characteristics: a cage rotor, intended for direct-on-line starting,
having 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles, rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW, and
conforming to IEC specifications for torque characteristics, locked
rotor apparent power, and starting. An ``IEC Design H motor'' is
defined as an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power
with the following characteristics: a cage rotor, intended for direct-
on-line starting, with 4, 6, or 8 poles, rated from 0.4 kW to 160 kW,
and conforming to IEC specifications for starting torque, locked rotor
apparent power, and starting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Across-the-line (or direct-on-line) starting is the ability
of a motor to start directly when connected to a polyphase
sinusoidal power source without the need for an inverter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric motors that meet these performance requirements and
[[Page 38463]]
otherwise meet the definitions of general purpose electric motor
(subtype I) or (subtype II) are already required to satisfy DOE's
energy conservation standards at specified horsepower ranges. Because
these IEC definitions stipulate a set of performance parameters that do
not inhibit an electric motor's ability to be tested, DOE is not
proposing any additional test procedure amendments at this time.
However, DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions.
3. Electric Motors With Sealed and Moisture Resistant Windings
All electric motors have ``insulation systems'' that surround the
various copper winding components in the stator. The insulation, such
as a resin coating or plastic sheets, serves two purposes. First, it
helps separate the three electrical phases of the windings from each
other and, second, it separates the copper windings from the stator
lamination steel. Electric motors with encapsulated windings have
additional insulation that completely encases the stator windings,
which protects them from condensation, moisture, dirt, and debris. This
insulation typically consists of a special material coating, such as
epoxy or resin that completely seals the stator's windings.
Encapsulation is generally found on open-frame motors, where the
possibility of contaminants getting inside the motor is higher than for
an enclosed-frame motor.
In the electric motors preliminary analysis TSD,\12\ DOE set forth
a possible definition for the term ``encapsulated electric motor.'' The
definition presented was based upon a NEMA definition for the term
``Machine with Sealed Windings'' and was intended to cover motors
containing special windings that could withstand exposure to
contaminants and moisture. As highlighted in NEMA and Baldor's
comments, NEMA MG1-2009 does not specify a single term that encompasses
a motor with encapsulated windings. Instead, NEMA MG1-2009 provides two
terms: one for a ``Machine with Sealed Windings'' and one for a
``Machine with Moisture Resistant Windings.'' A definition for the term
``Machine with Encapsulated Windings'' has not appeared in MG1 since
the 1967 edition. Because of potential confusion, NEMA asked DOE to
clarify which type of motor, or possibly both, DOE was considering
covering. (Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0060 at p 52;
NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 33)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The preliminary TSD published in July 2012 is available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-
0023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing the two pertinent definitions, the comments from
Baldor and NEMA, and DOE's own research on these types of motors, DOE
believes that motors that meet both definitions should be covered by
any proposed definition and be included within its expanded scope of
coverage. The ability for a motor's windings to continue to function
properly when the motor is in the presence of moisture, water, or
contaminants, as is the case when a motor meets one of these two
definitions, does not affect its ability to be connected to a
dynamometer and be tested for efficiency. Additionally, this ability
does not preclude a motor from meeting the nine criteria that DOE is
preliminarily using to characterize the electric motors that are within
the scope of DOE's regulatory authority. Therefore, DOE is proposing
two definitions based on the NEMA MG1--2009 definitions of a ``Machine
with Moisture Resistant Windings'' and a ``Machine with Sealed
Windings.'' DOE's proposed definitions are based on modified versions
of the NEMA MG1--2009 definitions in order to eliminate potential
confusion and ambiguities. The proposed definitions emphasize the
ability of motors to pass the conformance tests for moisture and water
resistance, thereby identifying them as having special or definite
purpose characteristics. As detailed in the proposed regulations below,
today's proposed rule defines ``electric motor with moisture
resistant'' as an electric motor engineered to pass the conformance
test for moisture resistance as specified in NEMA MG1-2009. An
``electric motor with sealed windings'' is defined as an electric motor
engineered to pass the conformance test for water resistance as
specified in NEMA MG1-2009.
In addition to proposing a definition for these motor types, DOE
also considered difficulties that may arise during testing when
following IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B or CSA C390-10 or any
potential impacts on efficiency caused by encapsulation of the
windings. While DOE received comment advocating the regulation of
motors with special windings, it did not receive any comments
suggesting or raising any necessary test procedure changes that would
need to be made as a result of the stator winding encapsulation. (NEMA,
EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 14) Subsequently, DOE conducted its
own research and consulted with testing laboratories and various
industry experts regarding any effects that specially insulated
windings may have on testing or efficiency.
As a result of these discussions, DOE does not believe that the
presence of specially insulated stator windings in an electric motor
would interfere with DOE-prescribed test procedures. Also, because
temperature measurements are taken by measuring the stator winding
resistance, DOE does not believe that the insulation on the stator
windings themselves would interfere with carrying out any part of IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA C390-10, both of which require
temperature measurements to be taken during testing. The modifications
made to stator windings have no impact on a motor's ability to be
connected to a dynamometer because they are modifications to the
internal portions of the motor. Therefore, at this time, DOE is not
proposing any test procedure amendments for electric motors with
moisture resistant windings or electric motors with sealed windings.
DOE believes that the effects that specially insulated windings may
have on an electric motor's efficiency are likely to be minimal.
Although DOE recognizes there could be a change in the thermal
characteristics of the motor, DOE believes that the additional
treatment given to these specially insulated windings could, in some
cases, improve heat dissipation. Again, however, DOE does not believe
that the efficiency changes, whether positive or negative, will be
significant. DOE requests any data, information, or comments regarding
the effects of specially insulated stator windings on electric motor
efficiency.
DOE also seeks comment on its proposed definition for motors with
moisture resistant windings and motors with sealed windings and its
preliminary decision not to propose additional testing instructions for
these motors types.
4. Inverter-Capable Electric Motors
DOE currently regulates single speed motors with a 2-, 4-, 6-, or
8-pole configuration. Each of these motors operates at a constant
rotational speed, which is predicated by its pole configuration. This
means that the motor shaft is engineered to rotate at the same speed,
regardless of its application or required power. In addition to its
[[Page 38464]]
pole configuration, a motor's rotational speed is partially determined
by the frequency of its power source. The equation determining a
motor's theoretical maximum speed (or synchronous speed) is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JN13.001
Inverter drives (also called variable-frequency drives (VFDs),
variable-speed drives, adjustable frequency drives, alternating-current
drives, microdrives, or vector drives) operate by changing the
frequency and voltage of the power source that feeds into an electric
motor. The inverter is connected between the power source and the motor
and provides a variable frequency power source to the motor. The
benefit of the inverter is that it can control the frequency of the
power source fed to the motor, which in turn controls the rotational
speed of the motor. This allows the motor to operate at a reduced speed
when the full, nameplate-rated speed is not needed. This practice can
save energy, particularly for fan and pump applications that frequently
operate at reduced loading points. Inverters can also control the
start-up characteristics of the motor, such as locked-rotor current or
locked-rotor torque, which allows a motor to employ higher-efficiency
designs while still attaining locked-rotor current or locked-rotor
torque limits standardized in NEMA MG1-2009.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Li, Harry. Impact of VFD, Starting Method and Driven Load
on Motor Efficiency. 2011. Siemens Industry, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, being suitable for use on an inverter alone would not
exempt a motor from having to satisfy any applicable energy
conservation requirements because it does not preclude a motor from
meeting the nine design characteristics of electric motors that will
define regulatory coverage. In today's NOPR, DOE is maintaining this
approach. However, today's NOPR seeks to further clarify this position
by proposing a definition for the term ``inverter-capable electric
motor.''
In its comments about the electric motors preliminary analysis,
NEMA provided suggestions on how to define inverter capable-electric
motors. NEMA agreed with DOE that these motors are capable of both
operating with or without an inverter. However, NEMA stressed that
these electric motors are primarily engineered to be used without an
inverter and, in its view, this fact should be evident by the
definition DOE ultimately adopts. NEMA also provided a suggested
definition for the term ``inverter-capable electric motor.'' (NEMA,
EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at pp. 34-35) This definition, similar in
substance and meaning to the definition that DOE presented in the
electric motors preliminary analysis but including a few minor word
changes, is consistent with DOE's understanding. As detailed in the
proposed regulations below, today's proposed rule defines an
``inverter-capable electric motor'' as an electric motor designed to be
directly connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line power, but that is
also capable of continuous operation on an inverter drive over a
limited speed range and associated load.
Because this motor type operates like a typical, general purpose
electric motor when not connected to an inverter, DOE does not believe
any test procedure amendments are needed. Under DOE's proposed
approach, an inverter-capable electric motor would be tested without
the use of an inverter and rely on the procedures used when testing a
general purpose electric motor. DOE requests comments on its proposed
definition and its tentative decision not to specify any test procedure
instructions for this motor type beyond that which is already contained
in the current procedure.
5. Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated Electric Motors
Most enclosed electric motors are constructed with a fan attached
to the shaft, typically on the end opposite the driven load, as a means
of pushing air over the surface of the motor enclosure, which helps
dissipate heat and reduce the motor's operating temperature. Totally
enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) motors, however, have no fan blowing air
over the surface of the motor. These motors rely, instead, on the
conduction and convection of the motor heat into the surrounding
environment for heat removal, which results in a motor that operates at
higher temperatures than motors with attached cooling fans. TENV motors
may be used in environments where an external fan could clog with dirt
or dust, or applications where the shaft operates at too low of a speed
to provide sufficient cooling (i.e., a motor controlled by an inverter
to operate at very low revolutions per minute). TENV motors may employ
additional frame material as well as improved stator winding insulation
so that the motor may withstand the increased operating temperatures.
Extra frame material allows for more surface area and mass to dissipate
heat, whereas higher-grade stator winding insulation may be rated to
withstand the higher operating temperatures.
In view of the statutory definitional changes created by EISA 2007,
and the support expressed by both industry and energy efficiency
advocates, DOE is analyzing TENV motors in the energy conservation
standards rulemaking. (Motor Coalition, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0035 at
p. 19) As part of this effort, DOE proposes to add a definition for
this motor type based on the definition of a ``totally enclosed
nonventilated machine'' in paragraph 1.26.1 of NEMA MG1-2009. DOE
tentatively concludes that this definition is accurate and sufficiently
clear and concise and is proposing that the definition be adopted with
minor alterations. As detailed in the proposed regulations below,
today's proposed rule defines a ``TENV electric motor'' as an electric
motor built in a frame-surface cooled, totally enclosed configuration
that is designed and equipped to be cooled only by free convection.
In addition to proposing a definition for these motors, DOE
considered whether any modifications to the test procedure may be
necessary to test TENV motors. Prior to the electric motors preliminary
analysis, ASAP and NEMA submitted comments suggesting that
manufacturers could demonstrate compliance with the applicable energy
conservation standards by testing similar models. (ASAP and NEMA, EERE-
2010-BT-STD-0027-0012 at p. 7) Although NEMA and ASAP suggested this
was a possible way to test these motors to demonstrate compliance, they
did not state that this was necessary because of testing difficulties.
Subsequently, after DOE published its electric motors preliminary
analysis, NEMA stated that it was not aware of any changes that were
required to use IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) when testing TENV
motors. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 16) The Copper
Development Association (CDA) commented that DOE may need to develop
new test procedures for these motor types but did not explain why such
a change would
[[Page 38465]]
be necessary. (CDA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0018 at p. 2) CDA did not
indicate whether the current procedures could be modified to test these
motors or what specific steps would need to be included to test these
types of motors. Additionally, DOE knows of no technical reason why a
TENV motor could not be tested using either IEEE Standard 112 (Test
Method B) or the CSA-C390 procedure without modification. In view of
NEMA's most recent comments suggesting that IEEE Standard 112 (Test
Method B) is an appropriate means to determine the efficiency of these
motors, and the fact that the CDA did not provide an explanation of why
changes would be necessary, DOE is not proposing any test procedure
amendments for TENV electric motors.
DOE requests comments on its proposed definition and preliminary
decision not to propose any test procedure amendments for TENV electric
motors.
D. Electric Motor Types Requiring Definitions and Test Procedure
Instructions
DOE is proposing to add definitions for a number of electric motor
types that are already commonly understood, but not necessarily clearly
defined, by the industry. DOE is also proposing clarifying language for
testing each of these motor types.
1. Immersible Electric Motors and Electric Motors With Contact Seals
Most electric motors are not engineered to withstand immersion in
liquid (e.g., water, including wastewater). If liquid enters an
electric motor's stator frame, it could create electrical faults
between the different electrical phases or electrical steel and could
impede rotor operation or corrode internal components. Immersible
motors are electric motors that are capable of withstanding immersion
in a liquid without causing damage to the motor. Immersible motors can
withstand temporary operation in liquid, sometimes up to two weeks, but
also run continuously outside of a liquid environment because they do
not rely on the liquid to cool the motor. According to test 7 in Table
5-4 of NEMA MG1-2009, for a motor to be marked as protected against the
effects of immersion, a motor must prevent the ingress of water into
the motor while being completely submerged in water for a continuous
period of at least 30 minutes. Therefore, DOE interprets ``temporary''
to mean a period of time of no less than 30 minutes. Immersible motors
can operate while temporarily submerged because they have contact seals
that keep liquid and other contaminants out of the motor. Additionally,
some immersible motors may have pressurized oil inside the motor
enclosure, which is used in conjunction with contact seals to prevent
the ingress of liquid during immersion. Finally, immersible motors are
occasionally constructed in a package that includes another, smaller
(e.g., \1/2\ horsepower) motor that is used to improve cooling when the
immersible motor is not submerged in water. In these cases, the two
motors are constructed in a totally enclosed blower-cooled (TEBC) frame
and sold together.
In responding to the October 15, 2010 framework document, NEMA and
ASAP commented that greater clarification is needed with regard to
immersible motors and how to differentiate them from liquid-cooled or
submersible motors. (NEMA and ASAP, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0012 at p. 9)
DOE understands the general differences to be as follows:
1. Submersible motors are engineered to operate only while
completely surrounded by liquid because they require liquid for cooling
purposes,
2. Liquid-cooled motors use liquid (or liquid-filled components) to
facilitate heat dissipation but are not submerged in liquid during
operation, and
3. Immersible motors are capable of operating temporarily while
surrounded by liquid, but are engineered to work primarily out of
liquid.
As a result, as detailed in the proposed regulations below, today's
proposed rule defines an immersible electric motor as an electric motor
primarily designed to operate continuously in free-air, but that is
also capable of withstanding complete immersion in liquid for a
continuous period of no less than 30 minutes.
The contact seals used by immersible motors to prevent the ingress
of water or other contaminants have an effect on tested efficiency that
generally changes over time. New seals are stiff, and provide higher
levels of friction than seals that have been used and undergone an
initial break-in period.\14\ DOE understands that as the seals wear-in
they will loosen and become more flexible, which will somewhat reduce
friction losses. In its comments on the electric motors preliminary
analysis, NEMA stated that immersible motors should be tested with
their contact seals removed. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p.
18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Guide for the Use of Electric Motor Testing Methods Based
on IEC 60034-2-1. May 2011. Version 1.1. 4E, Electric Motors
Systems, EMSA, available at: https://www.motorsystems.org/files/otherfiles/0000/0113/guide_to_iec60034-2-1_may2011.pdf and Neal,
Michael J. The Tribology Handbook Second Edition. Page C26.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE discussed testing immersible electric motors with industry
experts, SMEs, and testing laboratories, all of whom suggested that the
seals should be removed prior to testing to eliminate any impacts on
the tested efficiency. Given the break-in period considerations
discussed above, DOE sought to confirm the effects of contact seals by
conducting its own testing. DOE procured a five-horsepower, two-pole,
TENV motor for this purpose.\15\ Upon receipt of the motor, DOE's
testing laboratory followed IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) and
tested the motor as it was received, with the contact seals in place
(test 1). After completing that initial test, the laboratory removed
the contact seals and tested the motor again (test 2). Finally, the
testing laboratory reinstalled the seals, ran the motor for an
additional period of time such that the motor had run for a total of 10
hours with the contact seals installed (including time from the initial
test) and then performed IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) again (test
3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The immersible motor tested by DOE was also a vertical,
solid-shaft motor. The testing laboratory was able to orient the
motor horizontally without any issues, thus being able to test the
motor properly per IEEE 112 Test Method B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's testing confirmed the significant impact that contact seals
can have on demonstrated efficiency. In the case of the five-
horsepower, two-pole, TENV motor, the motor performed significantly
better with the contact seals removed, demonstrating a reduction in
motor losses of nearly 20 percent. DOE's testing also demonstrated a
decaying effect of the contact seals on motor losses as they break-in
over time. In this instance, the effect of the contact seals on motor
losses was reduced, but not eliminated, after 10 hours of running the
motor. The results of DOE's immersible motor testing are shown below.
[[Page 38466]]
Table III-2--Results of Immersible Motor Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nameplate Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
Motor type efficiency (percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immersible Motor (also TENV and a vertical 89.5 88.9 91.0 89.2
solid-shaft motor).........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although DOE's testing confirmed that the impacts from contact
seals can be significant and may reduce over time, DOE is proposing
test procedure instructions that differ from the recommendations
offered by interested parties. DOE believes testing with the contact
seals may better represent an immersible motor's installed efficiency.
DOE does not have specific data showing how the impacts from contact
seals decay over time and DOE believes this decay may vary by basic
model of immersible motor. In absence of such data showing near
equivalent performance of immersible motors that are tested without
contact seals to those that have contact seals that have been broken
in, DOE is proposing that these motors be tested with the contact seals
in place. In addition, DOE is proposing an allowance of a maximum run-
in period of 10 hours prior to performing IEEE Standard 112 (Test
Method B). This run-in period is intended to allow the contact seals a
sufficient amount of time to break-in such that test conditions are
equal or very similar to normal operating conditions that will be
experienced by a user. DOE's proposed 10-hour maximum is a preliminary
estimate obtained through discussions with electric motors testing
experts. DOE may consider a longer run-in period or potentially
removing the seals prior to testing in the final rule if data are
obtained from manufacturers that substantiate the claim that an
immersible motor's contact seals will wear-in, early on during the
motor's lifetime (i.e., 200 hours), and to the point that the motor's
efficiency is not affected. DOE is soliciting comments on its 200 hour
assumption in its early motor lifetime estimate.
Finally, with regard to immersible motors built in a TEBC
configuration, DOE is proposing instructions that would require the
testing laboratory to power the smaller blower motor from an alternate
power source than the one used for the electric motor being tested for
efficiency. This approach will allow the testing laboratory to isolate
the performance of the motor under test while continuing to provide the
necessary cooling from the blower motor.
DOE requests comments concerning its proposed definition for
``immersible electric motor,'' especially with respect to
differentiating this motor type from ``liquid-cooled'' and
``submersible'' motors. Additionally, DOE invites comment on its
proposal to permit manufacturers to run their motors for a period of
time prior to performing IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) to break-in
any contact seals. In particular, DOE requests comment and any data on
the appropriateness of the proposed 10-hour time limit allowable for
the run-in period. Finally, DOE requests comment on the appropriateness
of allowing manufacturers to use an alternative power source to run the
blower motor while testing an immersible motor built in a TEBC frame.
2. Integral and Non-Integral Brake Electric Motors
In most applications, electric motors are not required to stop
immediately; instead, electric motors typically slow down and gradually
stop after power is removed from the motor, due to a buildup of
friction and windage from the internal components of the motor.
However, some applications require electric motors to stop quickly.
Such motors may employ a brake component that, when engaged, abruptly
slows or stops shaft rotation. The brake component attaches to one end
of the motor and surrounds a section of the motor's shaft. During
normal operation of the motor, the brake is disengaged from the motor's
shaft--it neither touches nor interferes with the motor's operation.
However, under these conditions, the brake is drawing power from the
electric motor's power source and may be contributing to windage
losses, because the brake is an additional rotating component on the
motor's shaft. When power is removed from the electric motor (and brake
component), the brake component de-energizes and engages the motor
shaft, quickly slowing or stopping rotation of the rotor and shaft
components.
There are two general types of brake motors--integral and non-
integral brake motors. An electric motor falls into one of these two
categories depending on how its brake component is connected to the
motor. If the brake component is integrated with other components of
the electric motor and not readily detachable, it is usually considered
\16\ an integral brake motor. Conversely, if the brake component is
connected externally and is more readily detachable, it is considered a
non-integral brake motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ DOE's proposed definitions for integral and non-integral
brake motors do not require a certain manner of attachment of the
brake rather, the placement of the brake is the relevant distinctive
factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its August 15, 2012 ``Joint Petition to Adopt Joint Stakeholder
Proposal As it Relates to the Rulemaking on Energy Conservation
Standards for Electric Motors'' (the Petition), the Motor Coalition
proposed a definition for the term ``integral brake electric motor.''
That definition stated that an integral brake electric motor is ``an
electric motor containing a brake mechanism either inside of the motor
endshield or between the motor fan and endshield such that removal of
the brake component would require extensive disassembly of the motor or
motor parts.'' (Motor Coalition, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0035 at p. 19)
Subsequent to the submission of the petition, DOE spoke with some of
the Motor Coalition's manufacturers and its own SMEs. Based on these
conversations, DOE believes that the Motor Coalition's definition is
consistent with DOE's understanding of the term. In the electric motors
preliminary analysis, DOE presented a definition of the term ``integral
brake motor'' consistent with the definition proposed by the Motor
Coalition. (For additional details, see Chapter 3 of the electric
motors preliminary analysis Technical Support Document). However, upon
further consideration, DOE believes that there may be uncertainty
regarding certain aspects of the definition, particularly, what
constitutes ``extensive disassembly of the motor or motor parts.''
Therefore, DOE is proposing a new definition that would remove this
ambiguity. As detailed in the proposed regulations below, today's
proposed rule defines an ``integral brake electric motor'' as an
electric motor containing a brake mechanism either inside of the motor
endshield or between the motor fan and endshield.
Conversely, the brake component of a non-integral brake motor is
usually external to the motor and can be easily
[[Page 38467]]
detached without disassembly or adversely affecting the motor's
performance. However, as with the definition of an ``integral brake
motor,'' DOE reconsidered the definition it presented in its electric
motors preliminary analysis TSD for ``non-integral brake electric
motor.'' Similarly, DOE concluded that the previous definition was
ambiguous, particularly with regards to detaching the brake component.
Therefore, in today's notice, DOE is proposing a new definition for
``non-integral brake electric motor'' that parallels its proposed
definition for ``integral brake electric motor.'' DOE believes that the
new definition is clearer because it relies solely on the placement of
the brake and not what level of effort is needed to remove it.
Additionally, DOE believes that the structure of its two definitions
encompasses all brake motors by requiring them to meet one definition
or the other. As detailed in the proposed regulations below, DOE's
proposed definition for a ``non-integral brake electric motor'' is an
electric motor containing a brake mechanism outside of the endshield,
but not between the motor fan and endshield.
DOE believes that a definition for both integral and non-integral
brake electric motors is necessary to distinguish between the two motor
types because DOE may consider requiring different setup procedures for
the two motor types and holding them to different efficiency levels.
In the electric motors preliminary analysis, DOE stated that it had
preliminarily planned to include integral brake motors in the scope of
expanded energy conservation. The Motor Coalition suggested that DOE
continue to exclude these motors from coverage because of potential
complications with testing. The group explained that there are no test
standards for this motor type and that removing the brake components
from the motor would affect the motor's performance and possibly leave
the motor inoperable because of the integrated nature of the removed
brake components. The Motor Coalition added that the efficiency losses
from brake componentry would not be uniform across the industry. (Motor
Coalition, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0035 at p. 13)
When considering test procedures for both brake motor types, DOE
considered all the recommendations from the Motor Coalition and the
results of its own testing. DOE conducted its own testing to gather
information on the feasibility of testing integral and non-integral
brake motors. During its investigation of integral brake motors, DOE
procured and tested two motors: one five-horsepower, four-pole, TEFC
motor and one one-horsepower, four-pole, TEFC motor. For each of the
motors, DOE performed three tests. Each motor was initially tested
following IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) as the motor was received
(i.e., no modifications to the brake components). Then, the test
laboratory removed the brake components and retested the motor, again
following IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B). Finally, a third test was
conducted after the test laboratory reattached the brake components.
The results of this testing are shown in Table III-3.
Table III-3--Results of Integral Brake Motor Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nameplate
Motor type efficiency Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integral Brake Motor 1.......................... 87.5 86.4 87.2 86.0
Integral Brake Motor 2.......................... 82.5 77.4 80.3 78.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the two integral brake motors, there was no consistent amount
of losses observed and attributable to the brake component. However,
the decrease in motor losses that resulted when the brake was removed
reached as high as 16 percent. While DOE anticipated that brake losses
would vary based on motor horsepower and brake type, it appears that
such losses are difficult to quantify in certain integral brake motor
configurations. Additionally, while DOE found that the testing
laboratory was able to reconnect the braking mechanisms after removal
and to make the motor operable again after reconnecting the braking
mechanism, there was a slight change in the performance of the two
motors tested.
DOE also sought to investigate the feasibility of testing non-
integral brake motors. DOE procured two non-integral brake motors, one
five-horsepower, four-pole, TEFC motor and one 15-horsepower, four-
pole, TEFC motor. When testing the motors, DOE's testing laboratory
performed two tests on each motor. Initially, the motors were to be
tested as they were received, following IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method
B); however DOE's test facility faced a few complications. When
attempting to test the five-horsepower motor, the test laboratory
experienced complications when trying to conduct the no-load test.
Because of the low voltage levels required for the no-load test, the
braking mechanism would engage, stopping the test. Therefore, the
testing laboratory spliced the electrical connections of the braking
mechanism and connected the brake to an external power source. For the
15-horsepower motor, the brake had its own power connection and the
test laboratory elected to connect the brake to an external power
source (i.e., separate from what was supplied to the motor itself). For
both motors, the test laboratory performed a second test in which the
brake component was completely removed and the motor was tested
according to IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) again. Finally, for the
five-horsepower motor, the test laboratory performed a third test with
the brake mechanism reattached.\17\ The results of DOE's non-integral
brake motor testing are shown below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ This motor was originally thought to be an integral brake
motor, which is why it was tested a third time.
\18\ For this test, the brake would engage during the no-load
test, thus the testing laboratory connected the brake to a separate
power source for that test.
\19\ For this test, the laboratory connected the brake to an
external power source for the duration of the test.
[[Page 38468]]
Table III-4--Results of Non-Integral Brake Motor Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nameplate
Motor type efficiency Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Integral Brake Motor 1...................... 87.5 \18\ 87.3 87.7 87.1
Non-Integral Brake Motor 2...................... 89.5 \19\ 90.0 90.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE obtained much useful information from both rounds of non-
integral brake motor testing. For the five-horsepower motor (``non-
integral brake motor 1''), DOE obtained additional test data that
supports the notion that removing and reattaching a brake mechanism to
a motor could affect its performance. In this case, when the brake was
reattached, the demonstrated efficiency of the motor decreased, albeit
a minimal amount that could simply be due to testing variation. For the
15-horsepower motor (``non-integral brake motor 2'') DOE obtained the
same tested efficiency when the brake was powered externally and when
it was removed. In this instance, this shows that there was a
negligible impact on friction and windage losses due to the brake
mechanism. DOE understands that this could have occurred for several
reasons. It could be because the significant impacts on losses from
brakes come from the power consumed to keep the brake disengaged. It
could also be that the design of this particular brake mechanism was an
anomaly and most brake mechanisms would have a larger impact on
friction and windage. Finally, it could be because the motor tested was
a 15-horsepower motor and the friction and windage losses due to the
brake may have been small relative to other losses in the motor.
In light of the test results of the 15 horsepower, non-integral
brake motor, DOE sought to investigate testing brake motors with the
brake powered separately. Therefore, DOE conducted a final set of tests
for the other three motors. During this testing the brake component was
attached, but powered by a source separate from the motor. This testing
showed that powering the brake component separately resulted in
demonstrated efficiencies equivalent to testing a motor with the brake
component completely removed. Results are shown in the Table below.
Table III-5--Comparison of Removing Brake and Powering Brake Separately
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tested
Tested efficiency with
Motor tested efficiency with brake powered
brake removed separately
(percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integral Brake Motor 1.............. 87.2 87.6
Integral Brake Motor 2.............. 80.3 80.4
Non-Integral Brake Motor 1.......... 87.7 87.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of its testing of integral and non-integral brake
electric motors, DOE is proposing the same test instructions for both
motors types in today's notice. DOE proposes to include instructions
that would require manufacturers to keep the brake mechanism attached
to the motor, but to power it externally while performing IEEE Standard
112 (Test Method B). DOE believes that this is the best approach
because it allows the test laboratory to isolate the losses due to the
motor, which includes the friction and windage produced by the rotating
brake mechanism. DOE believes that powering the motor and the brake
mechanism separately during testing would ensure that the power
consumed to keep the brake mechanism disengaged is not counted against
the motor's tested efficiency. The power consumed to keep the brake
mechanism disengaged represents useful work performed by the motor and
should not be construed as losses, but it should be measured and
reported. DOE believes this information is pertinent for brake motor
consumers who wish to understand the energy consumption of their motor.
Furthermore, when conducting the testing, DOE's test laboratory was
able to splice connections and externally power the brake on multiple
integral and non-integral brake motors, so DOE preliminarily believes
that this process would not be unduly burdensome.
DOE requests comments on its proposed definitions. Additionally,
DOE requests comments on its proposed instructions for testing integral
and non-integral brake electric motors.
3. Partial Electric Motors
Most general purpose electric motors have two endshields,\20\ which
support the bearings and shaft while also allowing the shaft to rotate
during operation. DOE understands that ``partial electric motors,''
also called ``partial \3/4\ motors,'' or ``\3/4\ motors,'' are motors
that are sold without one or both endshields and the accompanying
bearings. When partial electric motors are installed in the field, they
are attached to another piece of equipment, such as a pump or gearbox.
The equipment to which the motor is mated usually provides support for
the shaft, thus allowing the shaft to rotate and drive its intended
equipment. The equipment may also provide support for a shaft. When a
partial electric motor is mated to another piece of equipment it is
often referred to as an ``integral'' motor.\21\ For example, an
``integral gearmotor'' is the combination of a partial electric motor
mated to a gearbox. The gearbox provides a bearing or support structure
that allows the shaft to rotate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Endshields are metal plates on each end of the motor that
house the motor's bearings and close off the internal components of
the motor from the surrounding environment.
\21\ DOE notes that integral brake motors are not considered
integral or partial motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is aware that there are many different industry terms used to
describe a partial electric motor and now that it is considering
covering special and definite purpose electric motors in light
[[Page 38469]]
of the EISA 2007 changes to EPCA, DOE is proposing to define the term
``partial electric motor'' to ensure clarity. Additionally, because DOE
considers integral gearmotors to be a subset of partial electric
motors, this definition would also apply to integral gearmotors. Also,
DOE does not wish to create confusion regarding the difference between
a ``component set'' of an electric motor (discussed below in section
III.G.2) and a ``partial electric motor.'' Therefore, as detailed in
the proposed regulations below, today's proposed rule defines ``partial
electric motor'' as an assembly of motor components necessitating the
addition of no more than two endshields, including bearings, to create
an operable motor. The ``operable motor'' means an electric motor
engineered for performing in accordance with the applicable nameplate
ratings.
DOE is aware that partial electric motors require modifications
before they can be attached to a dynamometer for testing purposes. DOE
received comments concerning potential testing difficulties for partial
motors. The CDA indicated that a new test procedure may be required for
partial motors and that DOE should consider developing a new test
procedure for these and other motors. (CDA, No. 18 at p. 2) DOE has
also received feedback suggesting that manufacturers could show
compliance by testing a similar model that could more easily be
attached to a dynamometer. (ASAP and NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0012
at p. 9) In comments on the electric motors preliminary analysis, NEMA
recommended that DOE require endshields to be installed prior to
testing a partial motor. NEMA stated this would be an appropriate
approach as long as the operating and cooling characteristics of a
particular motor with endshields installed for testing is similar to
how the partial motor would operate when connected to the driven
equipment.\22\ (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p 16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Driven equipment is machinery that is run or ``driven'' by
an electric motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE discussed NEMA's proposal and additional testing options with
SMEs, testing laboratories, and motor industry representatives. Some
interested parties suggested that the motor manufacturer could supply
generic or ``dummy'' endplates equipped with standard ball bearings,
which would allow for testing when connected to the partial electric
motor. Alternatively, testing laboratories have considered machining
the ``dummy'' endplates themselves, and supplying the properly sized
deep-groove, ball bearings for the testing. Various testing
laboratories have indicated the ability to perform this operation, but
some added that they would require design criteria for the endplates
from the original manufacturer of the motor. These laboratories noted
that machining their own endplates could create motor performance
variation between laboratories because it may impact airflow
characteristics (and therefore thermal characteristics) of the motor.
DOE procured an integral gearmotor to determine the feasibility of
testing partial electric motors. For this investigation, DOE purchased
and tested one five-horsepower, four-pole, TEFC electric motor. DOE
tested the motor twice, first with an endplate obtained from the
manufacturer and second, with an endplate machined in-house by the
testing laboratory. The results of these tests are shown below.
Table III-6--Results of Partial Electric Motor Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nameplate
Motor type efficiency Test 1 Test 2
(percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial Electric Motor.................................... 81.0 83.5 82.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated by testing laboratories, DOE found a variation in
efficiency because of the endplate used during testing. In this case,
DOE understands that the variation seen in tested efficiency was likely
the result of varying the material used for the endplate. The endplate
provided by the manufacturer was made of cast iron, while the endplate
provided by the testing laboratory was machined from steel. The testing
laboratory was not equipped to cast an iron endshield and replace the
manufacturer's endshield with one of the same material. Additionally,
DOE knows of no testing laboratory (other than a motor manufacturer),
with such capability. DOE understands that the variance in the magnetic
properties of steel likely produced small eddy currents in the
endshield which increased heat and, therefore, losses within the
motor.\23\ Consequently, DOE believes that it is necessary to try and
maintain a consistency in frame material, in order to prevent such
variances in future testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Eddy currents are circulating currents induced in
conductors (e.g., steel) by changing magnetic fields. They typically
manifest themselves as heat, which can increase losses within an
electric motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this time, because of the possible variance that DOE found
through its testing, DOE is proposing that an endplate be provided by
the manufacturer of the motor and test with that endplate in place. If
bearings are also needed, the test laboratory should use what DOE views
as a ``standard bearing''--a 6000-series, open, single-row, deep
groove, radial ball bearing. DOE selected this set of specifications
because it is common bearing type capable of horizontal operation. DOE
requests comments on its proposed testing instructions for partial
electric motors. In particular, DOE requests any data regarding the
variation in tested efficiency likely to result from varying an
endplate and its material.
E. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only Test Procedure Instructions
DOE is proposing to add additional instructions to the DOE test
procedure that would affect a number of motor types for which DOE is
analyzing new energy conservation standards. DOE is not proposing any
definitions for these terms because DOE believes the terms are self-
explanatory or already readily understood in the industry.
1. Electric Motors With Non-Standard Endshields or Flanges
Most electric motors are attached to a mounting surface by
``mounting feet'' or other hardware attached to the motor's housing,
oftentimes on the bottom of the motor. However, some motors are mounted
by directly attaching the motor's endshield, also called a faceplate,
to a piece of driven equipment. If a motor's endshield protrudes
forward to create a smooth mounting surface it may also be referred to
as a flange, such as a Type D-flange or Type P-flange motor, as
described in NEMA MG1-2009. Attaching a motor to the shaft of the
driven equipment in this manner generally involves bolting the
[[Page 38470]]
motor to the equipment through mounting holes in the flange or
faceplate of the motor.
NEMA MG1-2009, paragraphs 1.63.1, 1.63.2, and 1.63.3 designate Type
C face-mounting, Type D flange-mounting, and Type P flange-mounting
motors, respectively. These definitions provide reference figures in
NEMA MG1-2009, section I, part 4 titled ``Dimensions, Tolerances, and
Mounting'' that contain specifications for the standard mounting
configurations and dimensions for these three motor types. The
dimensions designate standard locations and dimensions for mounting
holes on the faceplates or flanges of the motors. DOE is aware that
some electric motors may have special or customer-defined endshields,
faceplates, or flanges with mounting-hole locations or other
specifications that do not necessarily conform to NEMA MG1-2009, Figure
4-3, ``Letter Symbols for Type C Face-Mounting Foot or Footless
Machines,'' Figure 4-4, ``Letter Symbols for Type D Flange-Mounting
Foot or Footless Machines,'' or Figure 4-5, ``Letter Symbols for
Vertical Machines.''
As previously explained DOE is considering setting energy
conservation standards for special and definite purpose electric motors
such as those motors with non-standard endshields. This change to the
scope of energy conservation standards for electric motors means that
the dimensions of a motor's endshields or flanges--neither of which
impacts the efficiency or the ability to measure the efficiency of the
motor--would no longer dictate whether a given motor would be required
to meet energy conservation standards. Hence, DOE believes that an
actual definition for such motors is unnecessary.
In evaluating the possibility of requiring these motor types to
meet potential energy conservation standards, DOE is assessing whether
these motors can be tested using non-standard flanges or endshields.
DOE has received comments concerning the testing of these motor types.
In response to the March 2011 RFI (76 FR 17577), ASAP and NEMA
commented that motors with customer-defined endshields and flanged
special motors should have their efficiency verified by testing a model
motor with an equivalent electrical design that could more easily be
attached to a dynamometer. (ASAP and NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0020
at p. 4) NEMA added that testing motors with non-standard endshields
may require a substitution of the special endshields with more
conventional endshields. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 15)
DOE understands that it may not be possible to attach motors with
non-standard endshields to a testing laboratory's dynamometer. If such
situation arises and a test laboratory is unable to reconfigure the
motor without removal of the endplate such that attachment to a
dynamometer is possible, DOE proposes that the custom endshield be
replaced with one that has standard (i.e., in compliance with NEMA MG1)
dimensions and mounting configurations. As with partial electric
motors, such a replacement must be obtained through the manufacturer
and be constructed of the same material as the original endplate.
DOE requests comment on its preliminary decision not to propose a
definition for these motor types. DOE also requests comments on its
proposed instructions for testing motors with non-standard endshields
or flanges.
2. Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors and Electric Motors With Single
or Double Shaft Extensions of Non-Standard Dimensions or Additions
Close-coupled pump motors are electric motors used in pump
applications where the impeller is mounted directly on the motor shaft.
Such motors are typically built with different shafts (usually longer)
than generic general-purpose electric motors. Section I, part 4 of NEMA
MG1-2009 and IEC Standard 60072-1 (1991) specify standard tolerances
for shaft extensions, diameters, and keyseats that relate to the fit
between the shaft and the device mounted to the shaft. However,
sometimes manufacturers provide shafts with a special diameter, length,
or design because of a customer's special application. In 2011, DOE
proposed to clarify its treatment of these types of motors and included
a table with allowable shaft variations. 76 FR 648, 671-72 (January 5,
2011) This table was intended to enumerate the deviations from standard
shaft dimensions that DOE would allow while still considering the motor
to be a general purpose motor subject to energy conservation standards.
The guidance was intended to identify variations in shaft
dimensions for a motor that would be covered as a general purpose
electric motor under EPCA. However, in view of the EISA 2007 and AEMTCA
2012 amendments, DOE has preliminarily decided to expand the scope of
regulatory coverage beyond the initial scope set by EPCA prior to these
two amendments. As such, DOE believes that a motor's shaft alone, no
matter what its dimensions or type, is an insufficient reason to
exclude a motor from having to satisfy energy conservation standards.
Further, DOE believes that it is not necessary to explicitly define a
close-coupled pump electric motor or an electric motor with a single or
double shaft extension of non-standard dimensions or additions because
whether a shaft is built within the shaft tolerances defined by NEMA
and IEC is unambiguous.
In considering applying standards to these types of motors, DOE is
assessing whether motors with non-standard shaft dimensions or
additions can be tested using accepted and established procedures. DOE
received feedback concerning the testing of these motor types during
and after the October 18, 2010, framework document public meeting. NEMA
and ASAP submitted a joint comment noting that DOE could allow testing
of a ``similar model'' motor with a standard shaft to enable the motor
to be more easily tested on a dynamometer. (NEMA and ASAP, EERE-2010-
BT-STD-0027-0012 at p. 8) In its comments about the electric motors
preliminary analysis, NEMA added that special couplings or adapters may
be needed to test motors with special shaft extensions, but noted that
a motor's shaft extension has little to no effect on its efficiency.
(NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 14)
DOE sought to investigate the feasibility of using coupling
adapters for motors with extended shafts or shafts of unique design. To
do this, DOE procured a close-coupled pump motor with an extended
shaft. When this motor was received, DOE's testing laboratory had no
problems attaching the motor to its dynamometer. The use of an adapter
in this case, was not needed. However, DOE also conferred with experts
at its testing laboratory and learned that coupling adapters were
needed for motors with extended shafts or shafts of unique design,
which it had tested in the past. As such, DOE is not aware of any motor
shaft design that has prevented DOE's test laboratory from performing a
proper test according to IEEE 112 Test Method B. Therefore, at this
time, DOE agrees with the above NEMA comment and is proposing to
include instructions for special couplings or adapters. In other words,
if a testing facility cannot attach a motor to its dynamometer because
of the motor's shaft extension, that facility should use a coupling or
adapter to mount and test the motor. DOE understands that a motor's
shaft configuration has minimal, if any, impact on overall motor
efficiency, and believes that this approach is technologically feasible
and will not result in any distortion of a motor's inherent efficiency
when tested.
[[Page 38471]]
DOE seeks comment on its tentative approach declining to propose a
definition for motors with non-standard shaft dimensions or additions.
DOE also requests comment on its proposed instructions for testing such
motors.
3. Vertical Electric Motors
Although most electric motors are engineered to run while oriented
horizontally, some operate in applications that require a vertical
orientation. A horizontally oriented motor has a shaft parallel to the
floor (or perpendicular to the force of gravity), while a vertically
oriented motor has a shaft perpendicular to the floor (or parallel to
the force of gravity). Relative to horizontal motors, vertical motors
have different designs made with different construction techniques so
that the electric motor can be operated in a vertical position. These
different designs can include modifications to the mounting
configuration, bearing design, and bearing lubrication (a discussion
regarding bearings can be found in the following section, III.E.4).
Additionally, vertical motors can come with various shaft
configurations, including with a solid or hollow shaft. An example of a
typical application requiring a vertical motor is a pump used in a well
or a pit.
At this time, DOE is not proposing a definition for any terms
related to vertical electric motors. DOE believes definitions are not
needed because there is no industry confusion or ambiguity in whether
an electric motor is a vertical electric motor. Furthermore, whether an
electric motor has a solid shaft or a hollow shaft is also unambiguous
and without need for DOE clarification. Although defining a vertically
mounted electric motor does not appear necessary, DOE believes
instructions detailing how to configure and mount a vertical motor for
testing in a horizontal position, including the motor's orientation and
shaft characteristics, would be helpful in ensuring a proper and
consistent testing set-up.
EISA 2007 classified vertical solid-shaft motors as subtype II
motors and required them to be tested in a ``horizontal
configuration.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(B)(v)) NEMA, ASAP, and the Motor
Coalition submitted comments agreeing with the EISA 2007 provision and
noted that vertical motors cannot be tested on a standard dynamometer
because most dynamometers are designed to operate in conjunction with
horizontally oriented electric motors. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-
0013 at p. 5; NEMA and ASAP, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0012 at p. 3; Motor
Coalition, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0035 at pp. 18 and 30) DOE confirmed
this assertion with its test laboratory and subject matter experts. In
view of the statutory requirement and current dynamometer testing
configuration limits, DOE is proposing to test motors, which are
otherwise engineered to operate vertically, in a horizontal position
when determining efficiency.
Another consideration is the shaft of a vertical motor and whether
it is solid or hollow. If a vertical motor has a solid shaft, then no
further adjustments are needed after considering orientation, unless
the motor contains a special shaft. (See section III.E.2) If a vertical
motor has a hollow shaft, (i.e., an empty cylinder that runs through
the rotor and typically attaches internally to the end opposite the
drive of the motor with a special coupling) then additional
instructions would be needed prior to testing for efficiency.
After publishing the preliminary analysis, DOE did not receive any
public comments suggesting that the testing of a vertical, hollow-shaft
motor in a horizontal position would be technologically infeasible or
unduly burdensome, especially when compared to the testing of a
vertical solid-shaft motor. DOE understands that vertical hollow-shaft
motors may not have a shaft extension at the drive end of the motor,
which would be necessary for attaching or coupling the motor to a
dynamometer for testing.
DOE conducted testing to gauge the feasibility of testing a
vertical, hollow-shaft motor. For its investigation, DOE purchased a
five-horsepower, two-pole, TEFC vertical motor with a hollow shaft.
Upon receipt of the motor, the testing laboratory found that the
motor's bearing construction was sufficient for horizontal operation
and no replacement would be needed. However, the motor did require a
shaft extension to be machined. After a solid shaft was constructed, it
was inserted into the hollow shaft and attached via welding to the lip
of the hollow shaft. The testing laboratory encountered no further
problems and was able to properly test the motor according to IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method B).
After conducting this testing, DOE believes that, as long as the
attached solid-shaft maintains sufficient clearance through the drive
end of the motor to enable the motor to be attached to the dynamometer
this is a feasible approach to testing vertical hollow-shaft motors.
Aside from the addition of a shaft extension, DOE does not believe that
testing a vertical hollow-shaft motor in a horizontal configuration
would add undue testing burden when compared to testing a solid-shaft
vertical motor.
In response to the March 2011 RFI, NEMA suggested that vertical
motors rated 1-500 horsepower be tested according to section 6.4 of
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B--Input-output with segregation of
losses and indirect measurement of stray-load loss), if bearing
construction permits; otherwise, it suggested testing vertical motors
according to section 6.6 of IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method E--Electric
power measurement under load with segregation of losses and direct
measurement of stray-load loss), as specified in NEMA MG1 paragraph
12.58.1 ``Determination of Motor Efficiency and Losses.'' \24\ (NEMA,
EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0019 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ ``Efficiency and losses shall be determined in accordance
with IEEE Std 112 or Canadian Standards Association Standard C390.
The efficiency shall be determined at rated output, voltage, and
frequency. Unless otherwise specified, horizontal polyphase,
squirrel-cage medium motors rated 1 to 500 horsepower shall be
tested by dynamometer (Method B) [Footnote: CSA Std C390 Method 1]
as described in Section 6.4 of IEEE Std 112. Motor efficiency shall
be calculated using form B of IEEE Std 112 or the equivalent C390
calculation procedure. Vertical motors of this horsepower range
shall also be tested by Method B if bearing construction permits;
otherwise they shall be tested by segregated losses (Method E)
[Footnote: CSA Std Method 2] as described in Section 6.6 of IEEE Std
112, including direct measurement of stray-loss load.'' NEMA
Standards Publication MG1-2009, Motors and Generators, paragraph
12.58.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE consulted testing laboratories about whether IEEE Standard 112
(Test Method E) would be an appropriate procedure to use when testing
vertical motors. DOE understands that the primary difference between
IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B and Test Method E is that Test Method E
uses a different method to calculate stray-load loss relative to Test
Method B. Test Method B measures motor output power and uses this
number as part of the calculation for stray-load loss. However, Test
Method E does not require the measurement of output power, and,
therefore, uses a different measurement method to directly find the
stray-load loss. By not requiring the measurement of output power, Test
Method E can be conducted on motors installed in an area or in
equipment that cannot be attached to a dynamometer. Although Test
Method E may reduce some testing burden for vertical motors, DOE is
concerned that Test Method E could produce results that are
inconsistent and inaccurate relative to testing comparable motors under
Test Method B. Therefore, DOE is declining to propose the use of Test
Method E for vertical motors. However, DOE requests additional comments
and test data that demonstrate any differences in the
[[Page 38472]]
results of testing under Test Method E and Test Method B for the same
basic model of vertical motor.
DOE requests comments on its preliminary decision not to propose
any definitions for vertical motors. It also requests comments on its
proposed instructions when addressing various construction differences
between vertical and horizontal motors, in particular, test methods for
vertical motors with hollow shafts.
4. Electric Motor Bearings
Electric motors usually employ antifriction bearings that are
housed within the endshields to support the motor's shaft and provide a
low-friction means for shaft rotation. Antifriction bearings contain
rolling elements, which are the components inside the bearings that
``roll'' around the bearing housing and provide the reduced-friction
means of rotation. Rolling elements can be spherical, cylindrical,
conical, or other shapes. The design of the rolling element is selected
based on the type and amount of force the shaft must be capable of
withstanding. The two primary types of loads imposed on motor bearings
are radial and thrust. Radial loads are so named because the load is
applied along the radius of the shaft (i.e., perpendicular to the
shaft's axis of rotation). Bearings may be subject to radial loads if
the motor's shaft is horizontal to the floor (i.e., horizontally
oriented). These bearings are called ``radial bearings.'' ``Thrust
bearings'' are bearings capable of withstanding thrust loads, which are
loads with forces parallel to the ``axis'' of the shaft (i.e., parallel
to the shaft's axis of rotation) and may be encountered when the shaft
is vertical to the floor (i.e., vertically oriented).
In addition to the type of force, bearings are also chosen based on
the magnitude of the force they can withstand. While most applications
use spherical rolling-elements, some motors employ cylindrical-shaped
rolling-elements inside the bearings. These cylindrical-shaped rolling
elements are called ``rollers,'' and this bearing type is referred to
as a ``roller bearing.'' Roller bearings can withstand higher loads
than spherical ball bearings because the cylindrically shaped rolling-
element provides a larger contact area for transmitting forces.
However, the larger contact area of the rolling element with the
bearing housing also creates more friction and, therefore, may cause
more losses during motor operation.
Regardless of the rolling element used, bearings must be lubricated
with either grease or oil to further reduce friction and prevent wear
on the bearings. Open or shielded bearing construction allows for the
exchange of grease or oil during motor operation. Sealed bearings,
unlike shielded or open bearings, do not allow the free exchange of
grease or oil during operation. Sealed bearings incorporate close-
fitting seals that prevent the exchange of oil or grease during the
bearing's operational lifetime. Such bearings may be referred to as
``lubed-for-life'' bearings because the user purchases the bearings
with the intention of replacing the bearing before it requires re-
lubrication. Shielded bearings differ from open bearings in that
shielded bearings contain a cover, called a ``shield,'' which allows
the flow of oil or grease into the inner portions of the bearing
casing, but restricts dirt or debris from contacting the rolling
elements. Preventing dirt and debris from contacting the bearing
prevents wear and increases the life of the bearing.
DOE also understands that certain vertical motors use oil-
lubricated bearings rather than the grease-lubricated bearings that are
typically found in horizontal motors. If a vertical motor contains an
oil-lubricated system, problems can occur when the motor is reoriented
into a horizontal position and attached to a dynamometer for testing.
Because oil has a lower viscosity than grease, it could pool in the
bottom of the now horizontally oriented (vertical motor) bearing.\25\
Such pooling, or loss of proper lubrication to the bearings, could
adversely affect the motor's performance, damage the motor, and distort
the results of testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Viscosity is the measure of a liquid's resistivity to being
deformed. An example of a material with high viscosity is molasses
and an example of a material with low viscosity is water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the various construction and lubrication types, DOE
understands that motors may contain bearings only capable of horizontal
operation, vertical operation, or, in some limited cases, both
horizontal and vertical operation. For those motors equipped with
thrust bearings only capable of vertical orientation, DOE understands
that reorienting the motor, as would be necessary for testing, could
cause physical damage to the motor. For motors equipped with such
bearings, DOE is proposing to add testing instructions that would
require the testing laboratory to replace the thrust bearing with a
``standard bearing,'' which shall be interpreted as a 6000 series,
open, single-row, deep groove, radial ball bearing, because that is the
most common type of bearing employed on horizontally oriented motors.
For any electric motor equipped with bearings that are capable of
operating properly (i.e., without damaging the motor) when the motor is
oriented horizontally, DOE is proposing that the motor should be tested
as is, without replacing the bearings. DOE believes that this is the
most appropriate approach because it will provide the truest
representation of the energy use that will be experienced by the user.
In response to the preliminary analysis, DOE received comment
specifically about testing electric motors with sleeve bearings. Sleeve
bearings are another type of bearing that do not use typical rolling
elements, but rather consist of a lubricated bushing, or ``sleeve,''
inside of which the motor shaft rotates. The shaft rotates on a film of
oil or grease, which reduces friction during rotation. Sleeve bearings
generally have a longer life than anti-friction ball bearings, but they
are more expensive than anti-friction ball bearings for most horsepower
ratings.\26\ Both ASAP and NEMA asserted that a motor with sleeve
bearings should have its efficiency verified by testing a motor of
equivalent electrical design and which employs standard bearings.\27\
(ASAP and NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0020 at p. 4) However, NEMA later
revised its position in separately submitted comments to the electric
motors preliminary analysis public meeting. NEMA stated that further
review of pertinent test data indicated that sleeve bearings do not
significantly impact the efficiency of a motor, and that a motor having
sleeve bearings is not sufficient reason to exclude it from meeting
energy conservation standards. (NEMA, NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054
at p. 17) NEMA also commented that it is not aware of any reason that a
motor cannot be tested with sleeve bearings, but that DOE should also
provide the option to test sleeve bearing motors with the sleeve
bearing swapped out for anti-friction ball bearings. (NEMA, EERE-2010-
BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ William R. Finley and Mark. M Hodowanec. Sleeve Vs. Anti-
Friction Bearings: Selection of the Optimal Bearing for Induction
Motors. 2001. IEEE. USA.
\27\ Neither NEMA nor ASAP elaborated on what ``standard''
bearings are. DOE is interpreting ``standard'' bearings to mean
spherical, radial ball bearings, because this is the most common
type of bearing used for general purpose, horizontally oriented
motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE separately consulted with testing laboratories, SMEs, and
manufacturers and reviewed a pertinent technical paper.\28\ As a result
of this collective
[[Page 38473]]
research, DOE has tentatively determined that sleeve bearings do not
significantly degrade efficiency when compared to spherical, radial
ball bearings. More importantly, DOE does not believe that it is any
more difficult to attach a motor with sleeve bearings to a dynamometer
than a standard, general purpose electric motor equipped with radial
ball bearings. Additionally, DOE believes that swapping sleeve bearings
with spherical, radial ball bearings may be time consuming and
otherwise present unforeseen or undue difficulties because of the
overall design of the motor that operates with the sleeve bearings.
Motors that employ sleeve bearings have significantly different
bearing-support configurations than motors that employ spherical,
radial ball bearings, and DOE is not certain that sleeve bearings could
be readily swapped with standard ball bearings without significant,
costly motor alterations. Therefore, because it may be impracticable to
swap them out with other bearings, DOE is proposing that motors with
sleeve bearings be tested as-is and with the sleeve bearings installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ William R. Finley and Mark. M Hodowanec. Sleeve Vs. Anti-
Friction Bearings: Selection of the Optimal Bearing for Induction
Motors. 2001. IEEE. USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment regarding its proposed approach to testing
motors with thrust bearings only capable of vertical operation. DOE
also requests comment on its proposed approach to testing motors with
all types of bearings that are capable of horizontal operation, in
particular, its proposed approach to testing motors with sleeve
bearings.
F. General Clarification for Certain Electric Motor Types
For some electric motor types, DOE is neither proposing additions
to the DOE test procedure nor proposing to define the motor types.
However, DOE believes that some general clarification is needed for the
following electric motor types to ensure that the regulations have
sufficient clarity in detailing whether a particular motor is covered
by DOE's regulations.
1. Electric Motors With Non-Standard Bases, Feet or Mounting
Configurations
DOE has not yet regulated special or definite purpose motors, or
general purpose motors with ``special bases or mounting feet,'' because
of the limits prescribed by the previous statutory definition of
``electric motor.'' That definition included a variety of criteria such
as ``foot-mounting'' and being built in accordance with NEMA ``T-
frame'' dimensions, which all narrowed the scope of what comprised an
electric motor under the statute. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (1992)) As
a result of EISA 2007 and related amendments that established energy
conservation standards for two subtypes of general purpose electric
motors (subtype I and subtype II), among other motor types, the
statutory meaning of the term, ``general purpose motor'' was broadened
to include, for example, ``footless motors.'' Similarly, because
definite and special purpose motors now fall under the broad statutory
heading of ``electric motors,'' DOE is considering whether to set
standards for electric motors with non-standard bases, feet, or
mounting configurations.
Part 4 of section I in NEMA MG1-2009 provides general standards for
dimensions, tolerances, and mounting for all types of electric motors.
In that section, figures 4-1 through 4-5 identify the letter symbols
associated with specific dimensions of electric motors with various
bases, feet, and mounting configurations. Accompanying these figures
are tables throughout part 4 of section I that specify dimensions,
explain how a particular dimension is measured and detail the
applicable measurement tolerances. This collective information is used
to standardize the dimensions associated with specific frame sizes,
given a certain base, feet, or mounting configuration. The IEC provides
similar information in its standard, IEC Standard 60072-1, ``Dimensions
and output series for rotating electrical machines.'' Although the
majority of motors are built within these specifications, DOE is aware
that some motors may have feet, bases, or mounting configurations that
do not necessarily conform to the industry standards. These are the
motors--i.e. those not conforming to NEMA or IEC standards for bases,
feet, or mounting configurations--that DOE is considering regulating.
DOE believes that a definition is not needed for this particular
type of electric motor because whether a motor has a mounting base,
feet, or configuration that is built within compliance of the standard
dimensions laid out in NEMA MG1-2009 or IEC Standard 60072-1 is
unambiguous. Also, DOE believes that additional instructions for these
types of electric motors are not necessary because such mounting
characteristics are not explicitly addressed either in IEEE Standard
112 (Test Method B) or CSA C390-10, other than how mounting conditions
will affect the vibration of a motor under IEEE Standard 112, paragraph
9.6.2, ``Mounting configurations.''
In response to the March 2011 RFI, ASAP and NEMA asserted that a
motor with a special base or mounting feet, as well as a motor of any
mounting configuration, should have its efficiency verified by testing
a model motor with an equivalent electrical design that could more
easily be attached to a dynamometer. (ASAP and NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-
0027-0020 at p. 4)
DOE believes testing a ``similar model'' to show compliance would
likely create difficulties in ensuring the accuracy and equivalence of
claimed efficiency ratings. Additionally, DOE believes that testing
motors with non-standard bases or mounting feet would not present an
undue burden or insurmountable obstacle to testing. DOE understands
that the test benches used for testing electric motors can have, for
example, adjustable heights to accommodate the wide variety of motor
sizes and mechanical configurations that commonly exist. Therefore,
because the mounting feet will not necessarily affect how a motor is
mounted to a dynamometer, but simply the positioning of the shaft
extension, DOE believes non-standard mounting feet present no
additional testing burdens. As was done for the vertical electric motor
that DOE had tested and which did not have a standard horizontal
mounting configuration, a testing laboratory would likely treat these
motors as a typical general purpose electric motor and adjust the test
bench as applicable for the unit under test.
Finally, DOE understands that an electric motor's mounting base,
feet, or configuration will have no impact on its demonstrated
efficiency. An electric motor's mounting base, feet, or configuration
does not affect a motor's operating characteristics because this is a
feature external to the core components of the motor. It is also a
feature that will not impact friction and windage losses because this
feature does not involve any rotating elements of the motor. An
electric motor's mounting base, feet, or mounting configuration only
affects how a motor is physically installed in a piece of equipment.
DOE seeks comment about its tentative decision declining to propose
a definition for ``electric motors with non-standard base, feet, or
mounting configurations.'' DOE also requests comment on any potential
testing difficulties that may arise from testing these motor types and
its preliminary decision not to issue any specific instructions related
to testing such electric motors. Finally, DOE requests comment on its
understanding that a motor's mounting base, feet, or configuration will
not impact its demonstrated efficiency.
[[Page 38474]]
G. Electric Motor Types DOE Proposes Not To Regulate at This Time
1. Air-Over Electric Motor
Most enclosed electric motors are constructed with a fan attached
to the shaft, typically on the end opposite the drive, as a means of
providing cooling air flow over the surface of the motor frame. This
air flow helps remove heat, which reduces the motor's operating
temperature. The reduction in operating temperature prevents the motor
from overheating during continuous duty operation and increases the
life expectancy of the motor.\29\ On the other hand, air-over electric
motors do not have a factory-attached fan and, therefore, require a
separate and external means of forcing air over the frame of the motor.
Without an external means of cooling, an air-over electric motor could
overheat during continuous operation and potentially degrade the
motor's life. To prevent overheating, an air-over electric motor may,
for example, operate in the airflow of an industrial fan it is driving,
or it may operate in a ventilation shaft that provides constant
airflow. The manufacturer typically specifies the required volume of
air that must flow over the motor housing for the motor to operate at
the proper temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The temperature at which a motor operates is correlated to
the motor's efficiency. Generally, as the operating temperature
increases the efficiency decreases. Additionally, motor components
wear our more slowly when operated at lower temperatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the enactment of the EISA 2007 amendments, DOE performed
independent research and consultation with manufacturers and SMEs.
Through this work, DOE found that testing air-over electric motors
would be extremely complex. IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) and CSA
C390-10 do not provide standardized procedures for preparing an air-
over electric motor for testing, which would otherwise require an
external cooling apparatus. Additionally, DOE is not aware of any
standard test procedures that provide guidance on how to test such
motors. Test procedure guidance that would produce a consistent,
repeatable test method would likely require testing laboratories to be
capable of measuring the cubic airflow of an external cooling fan used
to cool the motor during testing. This is a capability that most
testing laboratories, at this time, do not have. Without the ability to
measure airflow, one testing laboratory may provide more airflow to the
motor than a different testing laboratory. Increasing or decreasing
airflow between tests could impact the tested efficiency of the motor,
which would provide inconsistent test results. Because of this
difficulty, DOE has no plans to require energy conservation standards
for air-over electric motors, making further test procedure changes
unnecessary.
Although DOE does not plan to apply energy conservation standards
to air-over electric motors, it is proposing to define them for
clarity. DOE's proposed ``air-over electric motor'' definition is based
on the NEMA MG1-2009 definition of a ``totally enclosed air-over
machine,'' with some modification to that definition to include air-
over electric motors with open frames. DOE believes air-over electric
motors with either totally enclosed or open frame construction use the
same methods for heat dissipation and, therefore, should be included in
the same definition. DOE requests comment on the broad definition for
air-over electric motor. As detailed in the proposed regulations below,
today's proposed rule defines ``air-over electric motor'' as an
electric motor designed to be cooled by a ventilating means external
to, and not supplied with, the motor.
DOE believes that the difficulties associated with testing air-over
electric motors--such as providing a standard flow of cooling air from
an external source that provides a constant velocity under defined
ambient temperature and barometric conditions over the motor--are
insurmountable at this time. Therefore, DOE also requests comment on
its tentative decision not to require air-over electric motors to meet
energy conservation standards at this time given the difficulties in
developing a consistent, repeatable test method for these motors.
2. Component Set of an Electric Motor
Electric motors are comprised of several primary components that
include: a rotor, stator, stator windings, stator frame, two
endshields, two bearings, and a shaft. A component set of an electric
motor is comprised of any combination of these motor parts that does
not form an operable motor.\30\ For example, a component set may
consist of a wound stator and rotor component sold without a stator
housing, endshields, or shaft. These components may be sold with the
intention of having the motor parts mounted inside a piece of
equipment, with the equipment providing the necessary mounting and
rotor attachments for the components to operate in a manner similar to
a stand-alone electric motor. Component sets may also be sold with the
intention of a third party using the components to construct a
complete, stand-alone motor. In such cases, the end manufacturer that
``completes'' the motor's construction must certify that the motor
meets any pertinent standards. (See 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)(10) (defining
``manufacture'' to include manufacture, produce, assemble, or import.))
This approach was supported by NEMA in its comments on the electric
motors preliminary analysis. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at pp.
15-16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ A combination of wound stator, rotor, shaft, and stator
housing that is missing only one or both endshields or bearings is
not considered a component set because this particular combination
of assembled components creates an operable motor. A set of motor
parts missing one or both endshields or bearing components is
considered a ``partial electric motor'' and is discussed earlier in
this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is aware of some confusion regarding what constitutes a
``component set'' of a motor, especially about the difference between a
``component set'' and a ``partial'' motor. DOE is aware that there is
no definition for either of these motor types in NEMA MG1-2009 or any
other standard. Therefore, DOE is proposing a definition for
``component set'' in view of comments from SMEs, NEMA, and other
industry experts. Defining ``component set'' is necessary to
differentiate it from a ``partial electric motor,'' addressed
previously in this NOPR. DOE requests comment on its definition of
``component set.'' As detailed in the proposed regulations below,
today's proposed rule defines ``component set'' as a combination of
motor parts that require the addition of more than two endshields to
create an operable motor. Under the definition, these parts may consist
of any combination of a stator frame, wound stator, rotor, shaft, or
endshields and the term ``operable motor'' means an electric motor
engineered for performing in accordance with nameplate ratings.
DOE understands that a component set does not constitute a
complete, or near-complete, motor that could be tested under IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA C390-10, because it would require
major modifications before it can operate as a motor. In view of its
examination of motor component sets, DOE understands that some of them
would require the addition of costly and fundamental parts for the
motor to be capable of continuous-duty operation, as would be required
under either test procedure. The parts that would need to be added to
the component set, such as a wound stator or rotor, are complex
components that directly affect the performance of a motor and can only
be provided by a motor manufacturer. Without the
[[Page 38475]]
fundamental components, there is no motor. Therefore, DOE believes that
a single testing laboratory would have insurmountable difficulty
machining motor parts, assembling the parts into an operable machine,
and testing the motor in a way that would be manageable, consistent,
and repeatable by other testing laboratories. Because DOE is not aware
of any test procedures or additional test procedure instructions that
would accommodate the testing of a component set in a manageable,
consistent, and repeatable manner, it is declining at this time to
require them to satisfy any energy conservations standards.
DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for ``component
set.'' DOE also requests comment on its tentative decision to not
require component sets to meet any particular energy conservation
standards.
3. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motor
While most electric motors are cooled by air and many use a fan
attached to the shaft on the end opposite the drive to blow air over
the surface of the motor to dissipate heat during the motor's
operation, liquid-cooled electric motors rely on a special cooling
apparatus that pumps liquid into and around the motor housing. The
liquid is circulated around the motor frame to dissipate heat and
prevent the motor from overheating during continuous-duty operation. A
liquid-cooled electric motor may use different liquids or liquids at
different temperatures, which could affect the operating temperature of
the motor and, therefore, the efficiency of the motor. This variability
could present testing consistency and reliability problems. Neither
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) nor CSA C390-10 provide a
standardized methodology for testing the energy efficiency of a liquid-
cooled electric motor. Additionally, as NEMA noted in its comments,
these motors are typically used in space-constrained applications, such
as mining applications, and require a high power density, which
somewhat limits their efficiency potential. (NEMA, NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-
STD-0027-0054 at p. 42) In view of these likely testing consistency
problems, DOE does not intend to subject them to energy conservation
standards at this time.
NEMA and ASAP commented in response to the October 15, 2010, energy
conservation standards framework document, that greater clarification
is needed with regard to liquid-cooled electric motors and how to
differentiate them from immersible or submersible electric motors.
(NEMA and ASAP, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0012 at p. 9) DOE does not plan
to subject these motors to energy conservation standards, but instead
is proposing to define ``liquid-cooled electric motor'' to clarify its
view of what motors fall within this term. DOE's proposed definition is
based on the definition of a ``totally enclosed water-cooled machine''
found in paragraph 1.26.5 of NEMA MG1-2009. Further, DOE is proposing
to remove ``totally enclosed'' from the definition to prevent any
unintentional limitations of the definition due to frame construction.
DOE also plans to replace the term ``water'' with ``liquid'' to cover
the use of any type of liquid as a coolant. Finally, per comments from
NEMA, DOE is proposing to modify the term ``water conductors'' to
``liquid-filled conductors'' to make it clear that the conductors are
not made of liquid. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 35) As
detailed in the proposed regulations below, today's proposed rule
defines ``liquid-cooled electric motor'' as a motor that is cooled by
circulating liquid with the liquid or liquid-filled conductors coming
into direct contact with the machine parts.
DOE seeks comment on its proposed definition for ``liquid-cooled
electric motor'' as well as its tentative decision not to cover these
motors because of potential testing difficulties identified above,
along with the testing variables that are introduced by an additional
coolant system and pump apparatus. Nevertheless, DOE is open to comment
about any test procedure standards or additional test procedure
instructions that would take into account all such variables and allow
this motor-type to be tested in a consistent, manageable, and
repeatable manner.
4. Submersible Electric Motor
As previously addressed, most motors are not engineered for
operation while under water. Any liquid inside a stator frame could
impede rotor operation and corrode components of the motor. However, a
submersible electric motor is capable of complete submersion in liquid
without damaging the motor. A submersible electric motor uses special
seals to prevent the ingress of liquid into its enclosure.
Additionally, DOE understands that a submersible electric motor relies
on the properties of the surrounding liquid to cool the motor during
continuous-duty operation. That is, submersible electric motors are
only capable of continuous duty operation while completely submerged in
liquid, as NEMA clarified in its comments on the preliminary analysis.
(NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 37) Consequently, as detailed
in the proposed regulations below, today's proposed rule defines
``submersible electric motor'' as an electric motor designed for
continuous operation only while submerged in liquid.
DOE does not plan to require submersible electric motors to meet
energy conservation standards at this time. DOE believes that testing
submersible electric motors would be extremely difficult because the
motor must be submerged in a liquid to properly operate. After having
discussions with manufacturers and testing laboratories, DOE is not
aware of any industry test procedures or potential modifications to the
procedures under 10 CFR 431.16 that could test a motor that relies on
submersion in liquid for continuous-duty operation. Additionally DOE is
not aware of any testing facilities that are capable of testing a
submerged motor. Consequently, DOE has tentatively decided not to
propose specific preparatory instructions for testing submersible
electric motors. DOE is interested in whether there are facilities
capable of conducting energy efficiency tests on submersible motors,
along with any specific procedures that these facilities follow when
attempting to rate the energy efficiency of this equipment.
DOE seeks comment about its proposed definition for ``submersible
electric motor.'' Additionally, DOE seeks comment on its tentative
decision not to cover these motors because of potential testing
difficulties and the number of testing concerns, such as the
availability of standard testing procedures and testing facilities.
Nevertheless, DOE is open to comment about any test procedure standards
or additional test procedure instructions that would facilitate the
testing of submersible electric motors in a consistent, manageable, and
repeatable manner.
5. Definite-Purpose Inverter-Fed Electric Motors
DOE considers two types of electric motors related to the use of
inverters, those that are engineered to work only with an inverter and
those that are capable of working with an inverter, but are otherwise
capable of general, continuous-duty operation without an inverter. This
section addresses the former type of electric motors. Inverter-capable
electric motors are addressed in section II.C.4.
In its electric motors preliminary analysis TSD, DOE sought to
clarify that, in its view, inverter-only motors were motors that can
operate continuously only by means of an inverter drive. DOE also
explained that
[[Page 38476]]
it preliminarily planned to continue to exclude these motors from
energy conservation standards requirements, in large part because of
the difficulties that were likely to arise from testing them.
NEMA agreed with DOE's preliminary approach to define such motors
and not require them to meet energy conservation standards, but
suggested a more specific definition of ``inverter-only motor,'' based
on NEMA MG1 part 31, ``Definite-Purpose Inverter-Fed Polyphase
Motors,'' in place of the one previously considered by DOE. (NEMA,
EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 35) DOE examined the suggested
definition and is proposing to adopt it, with minor modifications. At
this time, DOE is not proposing to require that a motor be marked as a
``definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric motor,'' but may consider
such a requirement in the future. DOE believes the new definition is
more precise than what it previously considered and understands that it
is a term currently recognized and used in common industry parlance. As
detailed in the proposed regulations below, today's proposed rule
defines ``definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric motor'' as an
electric motor that is designed for operation solely with an inverter,
and is not intended for operation when directly connected to polyphase,
sinusoidal line power.
Regarding testing a definite-purpose inverter-fed motor, NEMA
asserted that the industry-based procedures, which have already been
incorporated by reference in DOE's regulations, require that a tested
motor be capable of across-the-line starting, but inverter-fed motors
are incapable of meeting this requirement without the inverter. (See
NEMA, at EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 35 and NEMA MG1-2009, part 31
at paragraph 31.4.3.1, which elaborates that an ``inverter-fed motor''
cannot perform across-the-line starting unless the motor is attached to
the inverter.) Otherwise, DOE is not aware of an industry accepted test
procedure that specifies at which speed or torque characteristics an
inverter-fed motor should be tested. Furthermore, DOE does not believe
it would be possible for it to develop a standardized test procedure
for definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric motors on its own. Because
inverters allow a motor to operate at a wide array of speeds for many
different applications, there would be considerable difficulties in
developing a single procedure that produced a fair representation of
the actual energy used by all electric motors connected to an inverter
in the field. Additionally, a single motor design may be paired with a
wide variety of inverters, so properly selecting an inverter to use for
the test such that an accurate representation of efficiency is obtained
would prove extremely difficult. Therefore, even if DOE intended to
regulate such motors, testing them could be extremely challenging using
the currently accepted industry test procedures.
DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for ``definite-
purpose, inverter-fed electric motors'' and its preliminary decision to
exclude such motors from any expanded energy conservation standards for
electric motors.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that test
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's Web site: www.gc.doe.gov.
As described in the preamble, today's proposal presents additional
test procedure set-up clarifications for motors currently subject to
Federal energy conservation standards, new test procedure set-up and
test procedures for motors not currently subject to Federal energy
conservation standards, and additional clarifications of definitions
for certain key terms to aid manufacturers in better understanding
DOE's regulations. All of the proposals are consistent with current
industry practices and, once adopted and compliance is required, should
be used for making representations of energy-efficiency of those
covered electric motors and for certifying compliance to Federal energy
conservation standards. DOE certified to the Office of Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA) that the proposed test procedures
for electric motors would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this
certification is as follows:
To estimate the number of small businesses impacted by the rule,
DOE considered the size standards for a small business listed by the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and
description under 13 CFR 121.201. To be considered a small business, a
manufacturer of electric motors and its affiliates may employ a maximum
of 1,000 employees. DOE estimates that there are approximately 30
domestic motor manufacturers that manufacture electric motors covered
by EPCA, and no more than 13 of these manufacturers are small
businesses employing a maximum of 1,000 employees. The number of motor
manufacturers, including the number of manufacturers qualifying as
small businesses, was estimated based on interviews with motor
manufacturers and publicly available data.
To determine the anticipated economic impact of the testing
requirements on small manufacturers, DOE compared its proposal to
current industry practices regarding testing procedures and
representations for energy efficiency along with those steps DOE has
taken in the design of the rule to minimize the testing burden on
manufacturers. For motors that are currently subject to Federal
standards, today's procedures are largely clarifications and would not
change the underlying DOE test procedure and methodologies currently
being employed by industry to rate and certify to the Department
compliance with Federal standards.
If DOE ultimately adopts the additional definitions in this
rulemaking extending the existing test procedures to motors that are
not currently subject to Federal energy conservation standards,
manufacturers would only need to use the testing set-up instructions,
testing procedures, and rating procedures if a manufacturer elected to
make voluntary representations of energy-efficiency of his or her basic
models once compliance with the final test procedure was required. To
better understand how the proposal would impact small
[[Page 38477]]
manufacturers of electric motors, DOE reviewed current industry
practice regarding the representations of energy efficiency currently
made for motors not currently subject to energy conservation standards
and how the proposal may impact current industry practice.
Specifically, DOE's test procedures would require that those
manufacturers of motors not currently subject to standards who choose
to make public representations of efficiency to comply with the
proposed methods. DOE's rule would not require manufacturers who do not
currently make voluntary representations to then begin making public
representations of efficiency.
DOE researched the catalogs and Web sites of the 13 identified
small manufacturers and found that only four of the small manufacturers
clearly list efficiency ratings for their equipment in public
disclosures. The remaining manufacturers either build custom products,
which would not be subject to the proposal, or do not list energy
efficiency in their motor specifications, in part because it is not
required. For the manufacturers that currently do not make any public
representations of energy efficiency of their motors, DOE does not
believe the proposal would impact the current behavior of those
manufacturers that do not elect to make voluntary representations. DOE
does not anticipate any burden accruing to these manufacturers unless
the agency was to consider and set energy conservation standards for
those additional electric motor types. Of the four manufacturers that
currently elect to make voluntary representations of the electric motor
efficiency, DOE believes those manufacturers will be minimally impacted
because they are already basing those representations on commonly used
industry standards, which are the same testing procedures that are
contained within DOE's proposals. DOE does not have any reason to
believe that the test set-up clarifications proposed for adoption would
have any significant impact on the current practice of these four
manufacturers.
In view of the foregoing, DOE certifies that today's proposal would
not impose significant economic impacts on a substantial number of
small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory
flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE has provided its
certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of electric motors must certify to DOE that their
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In
certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according
to the DOE test procedures for electric motors, including any
amendments adopted for those test procedures. The collection-of-
information requirement for electric motors certification and
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by
OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400 that expires February 13, 2014.
Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average
20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this proposed rule, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy
conservation standards for electric motors. DOE has determined that
this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded
from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part
1021. Specifically, this proposed rule would amend the existing test
procedures without affecting the amount, quality or distribution of
energy usage, and, therefore, would not result in any environmental
impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5
under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that
interprets or amends an existing rule without changing the
environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has
determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of today's proposed rule. States can
petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further
action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
[[Page 38478]]
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order
12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at www.gc.doe.gov. DOE examined today's proposed rule according to UMRA
and its statement of policy and determined that today's proposal
contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may
result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these
requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposal would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of
the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is
not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposal would not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002),
and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002).
DOE has reviewed today's proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines
and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in
those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's proposal to amend the test procedure for measuring the
energy efficiency of electric motors is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not, if adopted,
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by
the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy
action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy
Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA)
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The rule proposed in this notice incorporates portions of the
following commercial standard as specified: National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Standards Publication MG1-2009 Section
I (Part 4), Section II and Section II (Part 12). Although other
portions of NEMA MG1-2009 are already incorporated by reference into
DOE regulations, portions of Section I (Part 4) and Section II (Part
12) have yet to be incorporated. DOE has evaluated these provisions and
is unable to conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements
of section 32(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act (i.e., that
they were developed in a manner that fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review). DOE will consult with the Attorney
General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact of this test
procedure on competition.
V. Public Participation
a. Attendance at Public Meeting
The time, date and location of the public meeting are listed in the
DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this document. If you
plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at
(202) 586-2945 or Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
Any foreign national wishing to participate in the meeting should
advise DOE as soon as possible by contacting
[[Page 38479]]
Ms. Edwards to initiate the necessary procedures. Please also note that
those wishing to bring laptop computers into the Forrestal Building
will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid
bringing laptop computers, or allow an extra 45 minutes for security
screening. Persons can also participate in the public meeting via
webinar. For more information, refer to the Public Participation
section near the end of this notice.
In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar
registration information, participant instructions, and information
about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be
published on DOE's Web site https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/74. Participants are
responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar
software.
b. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements For
Distribution
Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement
may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at
the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an
advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred),
Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to
the appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning
of this notice. The request and advance copy of statements must be
received at least one week before the public meeting and may be
emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive
requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone
number to enable DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, if needed.
c. Conduct of Public Meeting
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting
and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The
meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but
DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of
the public meeting. After the public meeting, interested parties may
submit further comments on the proceedings as well as on any aspect of
the rulemaking until the end of the comment period.
The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference
style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the
public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views
on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed
to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE),
before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time
permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general
statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE
representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other
matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public
meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those
attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any
further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that
may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket,
which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning
of this notice. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the
transcript from the transcribing reporter.
d. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed
rule. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The regulations.gov
Web page will require you to provide your name and contact information.
Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies
staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable
except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not
processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE
may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure
is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or
financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business
Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive
any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on
submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be
posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand
delivery, please provide all items on a compact disk (CD), if feasible.
It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes)
will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and are free
[[Page 38480]]
of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should
carry the electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: one copy
of the document marked confidential including all the information
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-
confidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted.
Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
e. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
1. DOE requests comment on the decision to incorporate definitions
for NEMA Design A and NEMA Design C motors based on the NEMA MG1-2009
definitions of these motor designs.
2. DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for IEC Design
N and H motors.
3. DOE seeks comment on its proposed definition for electric motors
with moisture resistant windings and electric motors with sealed
windings and its preliminary decision to not propose additional testing
instructions for these motors types.
4. DOE requests comments on its proposed definition for inverter-
capable electric motors and its decision not to provide any test
procedure instructions for this motor type.
5. DOE requests comments on its proposed definition and preliminary
decision not to propose any clarifying testing instructions for TENV
electric motors.
6. DOE requests comments on its proposed definition of integral
brake electric motor and its preliminary decision to include them in
the scope of these test procedures.
7. DOE requests comments on its preliminary decision to test
integral brake electric motors and non-integral brake electric motors
without disassembly but, rather, with their brake components powered
externally.
8. DOE requests comments concerning its proposed definition for
immersible electric motor, especially with regards to differentiating
this motor type from liquid-cooled electric and submersible electric
motors.
9. DOE invites comment on its proposed test procedure instructions
for immersible electric motors, in particular, the proposal to allow
for a maximum run-in period of 10 hours prior to testing according to
IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B.
10. DOE requests comment on its preliminary decision not to propose
a definition for electric motors with non-standard endshields or bases
11. DOE invites comment on its proposed instructions for testing
electric motors with non-standard endshields or flanges.
12. DOE seeks comment on the decision to not propose a definition
for electric motors with non-standard shaft dimensions or additions.
13. DOE requests comment on it proposed instructions for testing
motors with non-standard shaft dimensions or additions.
14. DOE seeks comment regarding its decision not to propose a
definition for electric motors with non-standard base, feet, or
mounting configurations.
15. DOE requests comment on its instructions for testing electric
motors with non-standard base, feet, or mounting configurations.
16. DOE seeks comment on any other testing difficulties that may
arise from testing electric motors with non-standard base, feet, or
mounting configurations.
17. DOE requests comment regarding its proposed approach to testing
electric motors with bearings capable of horizontal orientation. DOE
also requests comment on its proposed approach to testing electric
motors with bearings not capable of horizontal orientation.
18. DOE requests comments on its preliminary decision not to
propose any definitions for vertical motors.
19. DOE seeks comments on its proposed instructions for dealing
with the various construction differences found between vertical and
horizontal motors.
20. DOE requests comment on its decision not to propose additional
test procedure clarifications for motors with sleeve bearings or a
definition for these motor types.
21. DOE requests comment regarding the effect of sleeve bearings on
a motor's tested efficiency.
22. DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for air-over
electric motor, and the decision to include both open and enclosed
frame motors under the same definition.
23. DOE requests comment on the decision to not require air-over
electric motors to meet energy conservation standards at this time.
24. DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of component
set of an electric motor.
25. DOE is open to comment on its tentative decision to not require
component sets of electric motors to meet any particular energy
conservation standards.
26. DOE seeks feedback on its proposed definition for liquid-cooled
electric motors.
27. DOE seeks comment on its tentative decision not to cover
liquid-cooled electric motors, primarily because of the testing
difficulties encountered when testing them, namely the number of
testing variables that are introduced by the additional coolant system
and pump apparatus.
28. DOE is open to comment regarding any test procedure standards
or additional test procedure guidance language that would take into
account all variables involved in testing liquid-cooled motors and
allows this motor type to be tested in a consistent, manageable, and
repeatable manner.
[[Page 38481]]
29. DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of submersible
electric motor.
30. DOE requests comment on whether it is correct that there are no
test facilities capable of conducting performance tests on submersible
electric motors.
31. DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for definite-
purpose, inverter-fed electric motors.
32. DOE seeks comment on its preliminary decision to continue to
not require definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric motors to meet any
expanded energy conservation standards for electric motors.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practices and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Incorporation by reference, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 19, 2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend part
431 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as set
forth below.
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
0
2. Section 431.12 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the reserved terms ``Fire pump motors'' and ``NEMA design B
general purpose electric motor;'' and
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order, definitions for: ``air-over electric
motor,'' ``component set,'' ``definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric
motor,'' ``electric motor with moisture resistant windings,''
``electric motor with sealed windings,'' ``IEC Design H motor,'' ``IEC
Design N motor,'' ``immersible electric motor,'' ``integral brake
electric motor,'' ``inverter-capable electric motor,'' ``liquid-cooled
electric motor,'' ``NEMA Design A motor,'' ``NEMA Design C motor,''
``non-integral brake electric motor,'' ``partial electric motor,''
``submersible electric motor,'' ``totally enclosed non-ventilated
(TENV) electric motor.''
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 431.12 Definitions.
* * * * *
Air-over electric motor means an electric motor designed to be
cooled by a ventilating means external to, and not supplied with, the
motor.
* * * * *
Component set means a combination of motor parts that require the
addition of more than two endshields to create an operable motor. These
parts may consist of any combination of a stator frame, wound stator,
rotor, shaft, or endshields. For the purpose of this definition, the
term ``operable motor'' means an electric motor engineered for
performing in accordance with nameplate ratings.
* * * * *
Definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric motor means an electric
motor that is designed for operation solely with an inverter, and is
not intended for operation when directly connected to polyphase,
sinusoidal line power.
* * * * *
Electric motor with moisture resistant windings means an electric
motor that is engineered for passing the conformance test for moisture
resistance described in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.63, (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 431.15) as demonstrated on a representative
sample or prototype.
Electric motor with sealed windings means an electric motor that is
engineered for passing the conformance test for water resistance
described in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.62, (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.15) as demonstrated on a representative sample
or prototype.
* * * * *
IEC Design H motor means an electric motor that
(1) Is an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power;
(2) Contains a cage rotor;
(3) Is intended for direct-on-line starting (as demonstrated by the
motor's ability to operate without an inverter)
(4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 160 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to sections 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 of the IEC 60034-12
edition 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15) requirements
for starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and starting.
IEC Design N motor means an electric motor that:
(1) Is an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power;
(2) Contains a cage rotor;
(3) Is intended for direct-on-line starting (as demonstrated by the
motor's ability to operate without an inverter);
(4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW; and
(6) Conforms to sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of the IEC 60034-12
edition 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15) requirements
for torque characteristics, locked rotor apparent power, and starting.
* * * * *
Immersible electric motor means an electric motor primarily
designed to operate continuously in free-air, but is also capable of
withstanding complete immersion in liquid for a continuous period of no
less than 30 minutes.
Integral brake electric motor means an electric motor containing a
brake mechanism either inside of the motor endshield or between the
motor fan and endshield.
Inverter-capable electric motor means an electric motor designed to
be directly connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line power, but that is
also capable of continuous operation on an inverter drive over a
limited speed range and associated load.
Liquid-cooled electric motor means a motor that is cooled by
circulating liquid with the liquid or liquid-filled conductors coming
into direct contact with the machine parts.
* * * * *
NEMA Design A motor means a squirrel-cage motor that:
(1) Is Designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing
locked-rotor torque as shown in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.38
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15);
(2) Has pull-up torque as shown in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.40;
(3) Has breakdown torque as shown in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph
12.39;
(4) Has a locked-rotor current higher than the values shown in NEMA
MG1-2009, paragraph 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph
12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and
(5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for motors with
fewer than 10 poles.
* * * * *
NEMA Design C motor means a squirrel-cage motor that:
1. Is Designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing
locked-rotor torque for high-torque applications up to the values shown
in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.38 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.15);
2. Has pull-up torque as shown in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.40;
3. Has breakdown torque up to the values shown in NEMA MG1-2009,
paragraph 12.39;
4. Has a locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in
NEMA
[[Page 38482]]
MG1-2009, paragraphs 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and 12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and
5. Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent.
Non-integral brake electric motor means an electric motor
containing a brake mechanism outside of the endshield, but not between
the motor fan and endshield.
* * * * *
Partial electric motor means an assembly of motor components
necessitating the addition of no more than two endshields, including
bearings, to create an operable motor. For the purpose of this
definition, the term ``operable motor'' means an electric motor
engineered for performing in accordance with the applicable nameplate
ratings.
* * * * *
Submersible electric motor means an electric motor designed for
continuous operation only while submerged in liquid.
* * * * *
Totally enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) electric motor means an
electric motor that is built in a frame-surface cooled, totally
enclosed configuration that is designed and equipped to be cooled only
by free convection.
0
3. Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431 is amended by adding an
introductory note and section 4 to read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
Nominal Full-Load Efficiency of Electric Motors
Note: Any representation made after [date 180 days after
publication of the final rule will be inserted here] related to
special and definite purpose motor types for which definitions are
provided at Sec. 431.12, or for which specific testing procedures
are provided in this appendix, must be based upon results generated
under this test procedure. Upon the compliance date(s) of any energy
conservation standard(s) for special and definite purpose motor
types, use of the applicable provisions of this test procedure to
demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standard will
also be required.
Any representation, including demonstrations of compliance,
related to general purpose electric motors (subtype I or II) made
after [date 180 days after publication of the final rule will be
inserted here] must be based upon results generated under this test
procedure.
* * * * *
4. Procedures for the Testing of Certain Electric Motor Types.
Prior to testing according to IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B)
or CSA C390-10 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15), each
basic model of the electric motor types listed below must be
prepared in accordance with the instructions of this section to
ensure consistent test results. These steps are designed to enable a
motor to be attached to a dynamometer and run continuously for
testing purposes. For the purposes of this appendix, a ``standard
bearing'' is a 6000 series, open, single-row, deep groove, radial
ball bearing.
4.1 Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors and Electric Motors with
Single or Double Shaft Extensions of Non-Standard Dimensions or
Additions:
To attach the unit under test to a dynamometer, close-coupled
pump electric motors and electric motors with single or double shaft
extensions of non-standard dimensions or additions must be tested
using a special coupling adapter.
4.2 Electric Motors with Non-Standard Endshields or Flanges:
If it is not possible to connect the electric motor to a
dynamometer without removing the endplate, the testing laboratory
shall replace the non-standard endshield or flange with an endshield
or flange meeting NEMA or IEC specifications. The NEMA
specifications are found in NEMA MG-1 (2009) in Section I, Part 4,
paragraphs 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, and 4.4.6,
Figures 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5, and Table 4-2 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.15). The IEC specifications are found in
IEC 60072-1 (1991) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15). If
this is necessary, the replacement endshield or flange shall be
obtained through the manufacturer, either by request or purchased as
a replacement part; any such replacement endshield or flange must be
constructed of the same material as the original endplate.
4.3 Immersible Electric Motors and Electric Motors with Contact
Seals:
Immersible electric motors shall be tested with all contact
seals installed as the motor is received. A manufacturer or test
laboratory may run the electric motor being tested for a period of
no more than 10 hours in order to break in the contact seals prior
to testing. For immersible motors built in a totally enclosed blower
cooled construction, the smaller, cooling motor shall be powered by
a source separate from the source powering the electric motor under
test.
4.4 Integral Brake Electric Motors:
Integral brake electric motors shall be tested with the integral
brake component powered by a source separate from the source
powering the electric motor under test. Additionally, for any 10
minute period during the test and while the brake is being powered
such that it remains disengaged from the motor shaft, record the
power consumed (i.e., watts).
4.5 Non-Integral Brake Electric Motors:
Non-integral brake electric motors shall be tested with the non-
integral brake component powered by a source separate from the
source powering the electric motor under test. Additionally, for any
10 minute period during the test and while the brake is being
powered such that it remains disengaged from the motor shaft, record
the power consumed (i.e., watts).
4.6 Partial Electric Motors:
Partial electric motors shall be disconnected from their mated
piece of equipment. After disconnection from the equipment, standard
bearings and/or endshields shall be added to the motor, such that it
is capable of operation. If an endshield is necessary, an endshield
meeting NEMA or IEC specifications shall be obtained through the
manufacturer, either by request or purchased as a replacement part.
4.7 Vertical Electric Motors and Electric Motors with Bearings
Incapable of Horizontal Operation:
Vertical electric motors and electric motors with thrust
bearings shall be tested in a horizontal configuration. If the unit
under test cannot be reoriented horizontally due to its bearing
construction, the electric motor's bearings shall be removed and
replaced with standard bearings. If the unit under test contains
oil-lubricated bearings, its bearings shall be removed and replaced
with standard bearings. Finally, if the unit under test contains a
hollow-shaft, a solid-shaft shall be inserted, bolted to the non-
drive end of the motor and welded on the drive end. Enough clearance
shall be maintained such that attachment to a dynamometer is
possible.
[FR Doc. 2013-15132 Filed 6-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
