Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors, 75961-75995 [2013-29677]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 78
Friday,
No. 240
December 13, 2013
Part II
Department of Energy
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors;
Final Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
75962
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP–0043]
RIN 1904–AC89
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedures for Electric Motors
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is amending the energy
efficiency test procedures for electric
motors to allow currently unregulated
motors to be tested by clarifying the test
setup requirements that are needed to
facilitate testing of these types of
electric motors. In addition, DOE is
adopting definitions, which will
determine the applicability of DOE’s
regulations to various types of electric
motors. The amendments would clarify
the scope of coverage for electric motors
and not otherwise affect the test
procedure.
SUMMARY:
The effective date of this rule is
January 13, 2014.
The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in this rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on January 13, 2014. The
incorporation by reference of other
publications listed in this rule were
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on May 4, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the
index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
A link to the docket Web page can be
found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/
rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/74. This Web
page will contain a link to the docket for
this notice on the regulations.gov site.
The regulations.gov Web page will
contain simple instructions on how to
access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to
review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda
Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–8654. Email:
medium_electric_motors@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Ami Grace-Tardy, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC–71, 1000 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–
0121. Telephone: (202) 586–5709.
Email: Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final
rule incorporates by reference into
subpart B of 10 CFR part 431, the
following industry standards:
NEMA Standards Publication MG
1–2009 (‘‘NEMA MG 1–2009’’), Motors
and Generators, 2009, Paragraphs 12.62
and 12.63.
Copies of NEMA MG 1–2009 can be
obtained from the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association, 1300 17th
St. N., Suite 900, Arlington, VA 22209,
(703) 841–3200, or https://
www.nema.org.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Expanding the Scope of Coverage of
Energy Conservation Standards
B. Electric Motor Types for Which DOE Is
Not Amending Existing Definitions
C. International Electrotechnical
Commission IP and IC Codes
D. Motor Type Definitions and Testing SetUp Instructions
1. National Electrical Manufacturers
Association Design A and Design C
Motors
2. International Electrotechnical
Commission Designs N and H Motors
3. Electric Motors With Moisture-Resistant,
Sealed or Encapsulated Windings
4. Inverter-Capable Electric Motors
5. Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated Electric
Motors
6. Air-Over Electric Motor
E. Electric Motor Types Requiring
Definitions and Test Procedure
Instructions
1. Immersible Electric Motors
2. Brake Electric Motors
3. Partial Electric Motors
F. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only
Test Procedure Instructions
1. Electric Motors With Non-Standard
Endshields or Flanges
2. Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors
and Electric Motors With Single or
Double Shaft Extensions of NonStandard Dimensions or Design
3. Vertical Electric Motors
4. Electric Motor Bearings
5. Electric Motors With Non-Standard
Bases, Feet or Mounting Configurations
6. Electric Motors With SeparatelyPowered Blowers
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
G. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only
Definitions
1. Component Set of an Electric Motor
2. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motor
3. Submersible Electric Motor
4. Inverter-Only Electric Motor
H. Effective Dates for the Amended Test
Procedures and Other Issues
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal
Energy Administration Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C.
6291, et seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’) sets forth a
variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. (All
references to EPCA refer to the statute
as amended through the American
Energy Manufacturing Technical
Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law
112–210 (December 18, 2012)). Part C of
title III, which for editorial reasons was
redesignated as Part A–1 upon
incorporation into the U.S. Code,
establishes an energy conservation
program for certain industrial
equipment, which includes electric
motors, the subject of today’s notice. (42
U.S.C. 6311(1)(A), 6313(b)).
Under EPCA, the energy conservation
program consists essentially of four
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3)
Federal energy conservation standards,
and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. The testing requirements
consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must
use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to the
Department of Energy (DOE) that their
products comply with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted
under EPCA, and (2) making
representations about the energy or
water consumption of those products.
Similarly, DOE must use these test
procedures when testing products to
determine whether they comply with
the applicable standards promulgated
pursuant to EPCA.
In the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
Public Law 102–486 (October 24, 1992)
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
(EPACT 1992), Congress amended EPCA
to establish energy conservation
standards, test procedures, compliance
certification, and labeling requirements
for certain electric motors. (When used
in context, the term ‘‘motor’’ refers to
‘‘electric motor’’ in this document.) On
October 5, 1999, DOE published a final
rule to implement these requirements.
64 FR 54114. In 2007, section 313 of the
Energy Independence and Security Act
(EISA 2007) amended EPCA by: (1)
Striking the definition of ‘‘electric
motor,’’ (2) setting forth definitions for
‘‘general purpose electric motor
(subtype I)’’ and ‘‘general purpose
electric motor (subtype II),’’ and (3)
prescribing energy conservation
standards for ‘‘general purpose electric
motors (subtype I),’’ ‘‘general purpose
electric motors (subtype II), ‘‘fire pump
electric motors,’’ and ‘‘NEMA Design B
general purpose electric motors’’ with a
power rating of more than 200
horsepower but not greater than 500
horsepower. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13) and
6313(b)). Consequently, on March 23,
2009, DOE updated the corresponding
regulations at 10 CFR part 431
consistent with these changes. 74 FR
12058. On December 22, 2008, DOE
proposed to update the test procedures
under Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, part 431 (10 CFR part 431)
for both electric motors and small
electric motors. 73 FR 78220. After
considering comments from interested
parties, DOE finalized key provisions
related to small electric motor testing in
a 2009 final rule (see 74 FR 32059 (July
7, 2009)) and further updated the test
procedures for electric motors and small
electric motors. See 77 FR 26608 (May
4, 2012).
On June 26, 2013, DOE published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR)
focused on electric motors that
proposed adding certain definitions
along with specific testing set-up
instructions and clarifications to the
current test procedures under subpart B
of 10 CFR part 431 that would address
a wider variety of electric motor
categories (or types) than what DOE
currently regulates. 78 FR 38456. DOE
proposed these amendments because
the additional testing set-up instructions
and clarifications were designed to
permit manufacturers of these
‘‘unregulated’’ motors to test these
motors using one of the prescribed test
methods listed in 10 CFR part 431. The
addition of these set-up instructions
will more readily enable a manufacturer
to consistently measure the losses and
determine the efficiency of a wider
variety of motor categories than what is
regulated under the current energy
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
conservation standards laid out in 10
CFR 431.25.1 Related to today’s
rulemaking, DOE is also considering
prescribing standards for some electric
motor categories addressed in this
notice through a parallel energy
conservation standards-related activity.
See 78 FR 73590 (Dec. 6, 2013). See also
76 FR 17577 (March 30, 2011) (detailing
DOE’s request for information regarding
electric motor coverage) and 77 FR
43015 (July 23, 2012) (announcing
DOE’s preliminary analysis for potential
standards related to electric motors).
By way of background, DOE notes that
section 343(a)(5)(A) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(5)(A), initially required that the
test procedures to determine electric
motor efficiency shall be those
procedures specified in two documents:
National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA) Standards
Publication MG 1–1987 2 and Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE) Standard 112 (Test Method B) for
motor efficiency, as in effect on the date
of enactment of EPACT 1992. Section
343(a)(5)(B)–(C) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(5)(B)–(C), provides in part that
if the NEMA- and IEEE-developed test
procedures are amended, the Secretary
of Energy (the Secretary) shall so amend
the test procedures under 10 CFR part
431, unless the Secretary determines, by
rule, that the amended industry
procedures would not meet the
requirements for test procedures to
produce results that reflect energy
efficiency, energy use, and estimated
operating costs of the tested motor, or
would be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)–(3),
(a)(5)(B)) DOE has updated 10 CFR part
431 consistent with this requirement as
newer versions of the NEMA and IEEE
test procedures for electric motors were
published and used by industry. See,
e.g. 64 FR 54114 (October 5, 1999)
(reflecting changes introduced by MG 1–
1993 and IEEE Standard 112–1996).
DOE also added Canadian Standards
Association (CSA) CAN/CSA C390–93,
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
to the proper industry methodologies in IEEE
Standard 112 and CSA C390–10.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75963
‘‘Energy Efficiency Test Methods for
Three-Phase Induction Motors’’ as an
equivalent and acceptable test method,
which aligns with industry practices. Id.
Further, on May 4, 2012, DOE
incorporated by reference the updated
versions of NEMA MG 1–2009, IEEE
112–2004, and CAN/CSA C390–10. 77
FR 26608, 26638 (the ‘‘2012 final test
procedure’’). DOE made the updates to
ensure consistency between 10 CFR part
431 and current industry procedures
and related practices. Since publication
of the 2012 final test procedure, NEMA
Standards Publication MG 1 has been
updated to MG 1–2011. The updates,
however, did not affect the sections that
DOE had proposed to incorporate by
reference from MG 1–2009 and,
subsequently, declines to adopt MG 1–
2011.
II. Summary of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE:
(1) Defines a variety of electric motor
configurations (i.e., types) that are
currently regulated under 10 CFR
431.25, but are not currently defined
under 10 CFR part 431.12;
(2) Defines a variety of electric motor
configurations (i.e., types) that are not
currently regulated under 10 CFR
431.25 and are not currently defined
under 10 CFR 431.12; and
(3) Clarifies the necessary testing ‘‘setup’’ procedures to facilitate the testing
of certain motor types that are not
currently regulated for energy efficiency
by DOE.
This final rule was precipitated by
DOE’s ongoing electric motors standards
rulemaking. DOE published its
‘‘Framework Document for Commercial
and Industrial Electric Motors’’ (the
‘‘2010 framework document’’) (75 FR
59657) on September 28, 2010. Public
comments filed in response urged DOE
to consider regulating the efficiency of
certain definite and special purpose
motors. DOE, in turn, published an
Request for Information (RFI) seeking
information regarding definite and
special purpose motors (the ‘‘March
2011 RFI’’). See 76 FR 17577 (March 30,
2011). In its December 6, 2013 energy
conservation standards NOPR, DOE
proposed expanding the scope of its
regulatory program to include all
continuous duty, single speed, squirrelcage, polyphase alternating-current,
induction motors, with some narrowly
defined exceptions. See 78 FR 73589.
Today’s final rule addresses test
procedure issues potentially arising
from the proposed scope of DOE’s
energy efficiency requirements to
include certain motor types that are not
currently required to meet energy
conservation standards. In particular,
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
75964
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
today’s final rule includes, among other
things, definitions for those motor types
that DOE may consider regulating. DOE
has coordinated today’s test procedure
final rule with its parallel efforts to
examine proposed energy conservation
standards for electric motors. To the
extent possible, DOE has considered all
relevant comments pertaining to these
activities.3
In addition to including new
definitions, today’s final rule adds set-
up procedures for the applicable test
procedures contained in appendix B to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 431, to
accommodate certain electric motors
that DOE has proposed to regulate.
Because the amendments are limited to
those steps necessary to facilitate testing
under the currently incorporated test
procedures found at 10 CFR 431.16,
DOE does not anticipate that this rule
would affect the actual measurement of
losses and the subsequent determination
of efficiency for any of the electric
motors within the scope of the
conservation standards rulemaking.
The revisions are summarized in the
table below and addressed in detail in
the following sections. Note that all
citations to various sections of 10 CFR
part 431 throughout this preamble refer
to the current version of 10 CFR part
431. The regulatory text follows the
preamble to this final rule.
TABLE II–1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES AND AFFECTED SECTIONS OF 10 CFR PART 431
Existing section in 10 CFR part 431
Summary of proposed modifications
Section 431.12—Definitions ............
• Adds new definitions for:
Æ Air-over electric motor.
Æ Brake electric motor.
Æ Component set.
Æ Electric motor with moisture resistant, sealed or encapsulated windings.
Æ IEC Design H motor.
Æ IEC Design N motor.
Æ Immersible electric motor.
Æ Inverter-capable electric motor.
Æ Inverter-only electric motor.
Æ Liquid-cooled electric motor.
Æ NEMA Design A motor.
Æ NEMA Design C motor.
Æ Partial electric motor.
Æ Submersible electric motor.
Æ Totally enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) electric motor.
• Updates test procedure set-up methods for:
Æ Brake Electric motors.
Æ Close-coupled pump electric motors and electric motors with single or double shaft extensions of
non-standard dimensions or design.
Æ Electric motors with non-standard endshields or flanges.
Æ Electric motors with non-standard bases, feet or mounting configurations.
Æ Electric motors with separately powered blowers.
Æ Immersible electric motors.
Æ Partial electric motors.
Æ Vertical electric motors and electric motors with bearings incapable of horizontal operation.
Appendix B to Subpart B—Uniform
Test Method for Measuring Nominal Full Load Efficiency of Electric Motors.
DOE developed today’s final rule after
considering public input, including
written comments, from a wide variety
of interested parties. All commenters,
along with their corresponding
abbreviations and affiliation, are listed
in Table II.2 below. The issues raised by
these commenters are addressed in the
discussions that follow.
TABLE II–2—SUMMARY OF FINAL RULE COMMENTERS
Abbreviation
Affiliation
Advanced Energy ........................................................
Appliance Standards Awareness Project ....................
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ...
Alliance to Save Energy ..............................................
Baldor Electric Co. ......................................................
Bluffton Motor Works ..................................................
California Investor Owned Utilities ..............................
Copper Development Association ...............................
Motor Coalition * ..........................................................
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Company or organization
AE ..................................................
ASAP .............................................
ACEEE ...........................................
ASE ................................................
Baldor ............................................
Bluffton ...........................................
CA IOUs ........................................
CDA ...............................................
MC .................................................
National Electrical Manufacturers Association ............
Natural Resource Defense Council ............................
Nidec Motor Corporation .............................................
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance .........................
Regal Beloit .................................................................
SEW–EURODRIVE, Inc. .............................................
Siemens ......................................................................
NEMA ............................................
NRDC ............................................
Nidec ..............................................
NEEA .............................................
Regal Beloit ...................................
SEWEUR .......................................
Siemens .........................................
Testing Laboratory.
Energy Efficiency Advocate.
Energy Efficiency Advocate.
Energy Efficiency Advocate.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Utilities.
Trade Association.
Energy Efficiency Advocates, Manufacturer Trade
Association.
Trade Association.
Energy Efficiency Advocate.
Manufacturer.
Energy Efficiency Advocate.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
3 See dockets at: https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027 and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE2012-BT-TP-0043.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
75965
TABLE II–2—SUMMARY OF FINAL RULE COMMENTERS—Continued
Company or organization
Abbreviation
Affiliation
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. ...................................
WEG Electric Corp. .....................................................
UL ..................................................
WEG ..............................................
Testing Laboratory.
Manufacturer.
* The members of the Motor Coalition include: National Electrical Manufacturers Association, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Alliance to Save Energy, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council.
III. Discussion
A. Expanding the Scope of Coverage of
Energy Conservation Standards
As noted in DOE’s recent energy
conservation standards rulemaking
proposal, changes brought about by the
Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (Pub. L. 110–140 (Dec. 19, 2007)
and the American Energy
Manufacturing Technical Corrections
Act. Public Law 112–210, Sec. 10 (Dec.
18, 2012) have enabled the Agency to
consider an expanded scope of motors
for regulatory coverage. See 78 FR at
73603.
Based on its analysis of this discrete
group of ‘‘expanded-scope’’ motors,
DOE believes that the existing IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method B) and CSA
C390–10 test procedures can be used to
accurately measure their losses and
determine their energy efficiency
because all of the motor types under
consideration are single-speed,
polyphase induction motors with
electromechanical characteristics
similar to those currently subject to
energy conservation standards. While
some of these motor types require
additional testing set-up instructions
prior to testing, all can be tested using
the same methodology provided in
those industry-based procedures DOE
has already incorporated into its
regulations.
Testing an electric motor using IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA
C390–10 requires some basic electrical
connections and physical
configurations. To test an electric motor
under either procedure, the electric
motor is first mounted on a test bench,
generally in a horizontal position. In
this orientation, this means that the
motor shaft is horizontal to the test
bench and the motor is equipped with
antifriction bearings that can withstand
operation while in a horizontal
position.4 Instruments are then
connected to the power leads of the
motor to measure input power, voltage,
current, speed, torque, temperature, and
other input, output, and performance
characteristics. Thermocouples are
attached to the motor to facilitate
temperature measurement. Stator
winding resistance is measured while
the motor is at ambient, or room,
temperature. No-load measurements are
recorded while the motor is operating,
both temperature and input power have
stabilized, and the shaft extension is
free from any attachments. After
ambient temperature and no-load
measurements are taken, a
dynamometer is attached to the motor
shaft to take ‘‘loaded’’ measurements. A
dynamometer is a device that
simultaneously applies and measures
torque for a motor. The dynamometer
applies incremental loads to the shaft,
typically at 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, and 150
percent of the motor’s total rated output
horsepower. This allows the testing
laboratory to record motor performance
criteria, such as power output and
torque, at each incremental load point.
Additional stator winding resistance
measurements are taken to record the
temperature at the different load points.
In this final rule, DOE has added
clarifying instructions it believes are
necessary to test some of the expandedscope motors should DOE decide at
some point to set standards for these
motors. Some motors will require
modifications before they can operate
continuously and be tested on a
dynamometer in a manner consistent
with the current DOE test procedure.
For example, a partial electric motor
may be engineered for use without one
or both endshields, including bearings,
because it relies on mechanical support
from another piece of equipment.
Without these components, the motor
would be unable to operate as a standalone piece of equipment. To address
this issue, DOE has added instructions
to facilitate consistent and repeatable
procedures for motors such as these.
These additions are based on testing and
research conducted by DOE along with
technical consultations with subject
matter experts (SMEs), manufacturers,
testing laboratories, various trade
associations, and comments from
stakeholders in response to the June
2013 NOPR. Table III–7 lists those
electric motors that are covered under
current energy conservation standards
or that DOE is analyzing for potential
new energy conservation standards. In
each case, the table identifies whether
DOE is addressing a given motor
through the use of new definitions, test
procedure instructions, or both.
TABLE III–1—MOTOR TYPES CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION IN DOE PROPOSED STANDARDS RULEMAKING
Under
consideration
for potential
standards?
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Motor type
Currently subject
to standards?
NEMA Design A Motors .......................................................................
NEMA Design C Motors ......................................................................
IEC Design N Motors ...........................................................................
IEC Design H Motors ...........................................................................
Electric Motors with Moisture-resistant, Sealed, or Encapsulated
Windings.
Inverter-Capable Electric Motors .........................................................
Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated Electric Motors ................................
Immersible Electric Motors ..................................................................
Electric Motors with Contact Seals ......................................................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
No .....................
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes ...................
No .....................
No .....................
Yes ...................
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
...................
...................
...................
...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
No .....................
4 DOE is aware of some types of bearings that
cannot operate while the motor is in a horizontal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
New definition
established?
position. DOE addresses such bearings in later
sections of this notice.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
Additional set-up
instructions
established?
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
No.
75966
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE III–1—MOTOR TYPES CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION IN DOE PROPOSED STANDARDS RULEMAKING—Continued
Currently subject
to standards?
Under
consideration
for potential
standards?
New definition
established?
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 ................................................................
Inverter-Only Electric Motors ...............................................................
Electric Motors with Separately Powered Blowers ..............................
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Motor type
Yes 5 .................
No .....................
No .....................
Yes ...................
No .....................
Yes ...................
No .....................
No .....................
Yes ...................
No .....................
Yes ...................
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
No .....................
On the scope of coverage, the
advocates commented that the NOPR
shows that DOE takes the August 2012
Motor Coalition ‘‘Joint Petition to Adopt
Joint Stakeholder Proposal As it Relates
to the Rulemaking on Energy
Conservation Standards for Electric
Motors’’ (the ‘‘Petition’’),6 seriously and
contemplates proposing standards based
on the Petition. (ASAP et al., No. 12 at
p. 1) CDA strongly supported DOE’s
intention to expand the scope of
covered electric motors described in the
written Joint Petition and proposed in
the NOPR. However, CDA urged DOE to
consider including electric motors
greater than 500 hp in the future
standards rulemaking since they
account for 27% of total power
consumption in the U.S. (CDA, No. 9 at
p. 3) Conversely, Regal Beloit suggested
that the definitions and test procedures
in this rulemaking be extended to
include small electric motors. (Pub. Mtg.
Tr., No. 7 at pp. 166–168).
DOE notes that its final rule simply
provides a standardized means to test
certain other types of electric motors
that DOE does not currently regulate.
The applicability of the proposed energy
conservation standards was discussed in
the NOPR and will be determined as
part of that rulemaking. Any basic
model of electric motors distributed in
commerce that is subject to DOE’s
current or amended energy conservation
standards will need to be tested in
5 Some motors (i.e., ‘‘non-integral’’) that fall
under the new definition for ‘‘brake electric
motors’’ are currently required to meet standards
and others (i.e., ‘‘integral’’) are not.
6 Motor Coalition, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–
0035.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
accordance with the test methods being
adopted in this final rule. See the
effective date discussion below
regarding the timing requirements for
representations and compliance.
B. Electric Motor Types for Which DOE
Is Not Amending Existing Definitions
Prior to EISA 2007, section 340(13)(A)
of EPCA, as amended, defined the term
‘‘electric motor’’ as any motor which is
a general purpose T-frame, single-speed,
foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage
induction motor of the National
Electrical Manufacturers Association,
Design A and B, continuous rated,
operating on 230/460 volts and constant
60 Hertz line power as defined in
NEMA Standards Publication MG 1–
1987. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13) (2006)) EISA
2007, section 313(a)(2) struck out that
definition, replacing it with an ‘‘electric
motor’’ heading, and adding two
subtypes of electric motors: General
purpose electric motor (subtype I) and
general purpose electric motor (subtype
II). (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)). Additionally,
section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007
established energy conservation
standards for four types of electric
motors: General purpose electric motor
(subtype I) with a power rating of 1 to
200 horsepower; fire pump motors 7;
general purpose electric motor (subtype
II) with a power rating of 1 to 200
7 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Additional set-up
instructions
established?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
horsepower; and NEMA Design B,
general purpose electric motors with a
power rating of more than 200
horsepower, but less than or equal to
500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2))
The term ‘‘electric motor’’ was left
undefined at this point.
On May 4, 2012 DOE published a
final rule test procedure for electric
motors that further updated the
definitional structure for electric
motors. 77 FR 26608. DOE noted that
while EISA 2007 struck the definition
for electric motor, EPCA, as amended by
EISA, continued to reference ‘‘electric
motors,’’ causing confusion and
ambiguity. As DOE has the statutory
authority to regulate motors beyond the
subtypes of motors for which Congress
had established energy conservation
standards in EISA 2007, DOE chose to
define ‘‘electric motor’’ broadly,
eliminating the process of having to
continually update the definition each
time the Department set energy
conservation standards for a new subset
of motors. The 2012 final test procedure
defined ‘‘electric motor’’ as ‘‘a machine
that converts electrical power into
rotational mechanical power.’’ 77 FR
26633.
EISA 2007 also established definitions
for ‘‘general purpose electric motor
(subtype I)’’ and ‘‘general purpose
electric motor (subtype II).’’ (42 U.S.C.
6311(13)) During the last test procedure
rulemaking process, DOE made some
clarifying changes to these definitions,
noting that electric motors built
according to International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
standards and that otherwise meet the
proposed definition of ‘‘general purpose
electric motor (subtype I),’’ are covered
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
motors under EPCA, as amended by
EISA 2007, even though the NEMAequivalent frame size was discontinued.
Outside of these small changes, the
definitions for subtype I and subtype II
motors have remained largely
unchanged.
In the 2012 final test procedure, DOE
also amended the definition of ‘‘general
purpose motor’’ in 10 CFR part 431 by
adding the word ‘‘electric’’ to clarify
that a general purpose motor is a type
of electric motor. 77 FR 26633.
In the June 2013 NOPR, DOE
proposed a number of new definitions
for types of motors that it is considering
regulating in its concurrent standards
rulemaking. While many of these motors
are ‘‘special purpose’’ or ‘‘definite
purpose’’ motors, DOE did not alter
these definitions in its regulations.
Furthermore, DOE did not update its
definitions for ‘‘electric motor,’’
‘‘general purpose electric motor,’’
‘‘general purpose electric motor
(subtype I),’’ or ‘‘general purpose
electric motor (subtype II).’’ Rather, it
laid out the nine criteria mentioned
earlier in this rulemaking (i.e., singlespeed, polyphase, etc.), that a motor
must meet to be considered for coverage
in DOE’s concurrent standards
rulemaking process, regardless of
whether a given motor is special
purpose, definite purpose, etc. 78 FR
38460.
DOE chose the definition structure
that it chose because the now proposed
standards rulemaking develops a
coverage structure based on a motor
meeting both the simple ‘‘electric
motors’’ definition and the nine
referenced criteria. Because the
standards NOPR was under initial
development at the time of the final test
procedure development, DOE could not
share this now proposed coverage
structure. Therefore, many of NEMA’s
comments on electric motor definitions
are made irrelevant by the recent
standards NOPR. Nevertheless, NEMA’s
definitional concerns are listed here as
they were provided as comments on the
test procedure rulemaking.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA
urged DOE to add clarity to the
definition of ‘‘electric motor’’ and
‘‘general purpose electric motor subtype
I,’’ and add new definitions for ‘‘motor,’’
‘‘definite purpose electric motor,’’ and
‘‘special purpose electric motor.’’ NEMA
pointed out that the term ‘‘motor’’ has
not been defined in the NOPR. (Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 76–77). NEMA
recommended defining ‘‘motor’’ as ‘‘a
machine that converts electrical power
into rotational mechanical power.’’
(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 7) Further, NEMA
noted that the definition of ‘‘electric
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
motor’’ needs to be clearer and more
complete for regulatory purposes and
suggested that the proposed definition
of electric motor should include the
nine characteristics describing
construction and performance of the
motor. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 15–
22; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 76; NEMA,
No. 10 at pp. 2,3,6,7) NEMA stated that
if these characteristics are not included
in the definition of ‘‘electric motor’’,
then these would need to be included in
the definitions of all electric motor
types such as ‘‘special purpose electric
motor with moisture resistant
windings,’’ ‘‘special purpose electric
motor with encapsulated windings,’’
and ‘‘special purpose electric motor
with sealed windings.’’ (NEMA, No. 10
at p. 15). With that in mind, NEMA
suggested that an electric motor be
defined as a motor that:
(1) Is a single-speed, induction motor;
(2) Is rated for continuous duty (MG
1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);
(3) Contains a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or
cage (IEC) rotor;
(4)(i) Is built in accordance with
NEMA T-frame dimensions or their IEC
metric equivalents, including a NEMA
frame size that is between two
consecutive NEMA T-frames or their
IEC metric equivalents; or
(ii) Is built in an enclosed 56 NEMA
frame size (or IEC metric equivalent);
(5) Has performance in accordance
with NEMA Design A (MG 1) or B (MG
1) characteristics or equivalent designs
such as IEC Design N (IEC); and
(6) Operates on polyphase alternating
current 60-hertz sinusoidal power.
(NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 2, 3, 6, 7)
NEMA recommended changing the
definition of ‘‘general purpose electric
motor (subtype I)’’ as a general purpose
electric motor that:
(1) Has foot-mounting that may
include foot-mounting with flanges or
detachable feet;
(2)(i) Is rated at 230 or 460 volts (or
both) including motors rated at multiple
voltages that include 230 or 460 volts
(or both), or
(ii) Can be operated on 230 or 460
volts (or both); and
(3) Includes, but is not limited to,
explosion-proof construction.’’(NEMA,
No. 10 at p. 7)
DOE understands the intention of
NEMA’s proposal was to establish a
definitional structure that would clearly
delineate which motors were covered
and which motors were excluded from
coverage. By essentially using pulling
the nine criteria DOE laid out in the
June 2013 NOPR for the definition for
‘‘electric motor,’’ NEMA is proposing
that any motor that falls under the
definition of ‘‘electric motor’’ would be
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75967
a covered motor. But following the
approach suggested by NEMA would
undercut the long-term stability that
DOE had sought to provide when it
developed a broad definition for the
term ‘‘electric motor’’ by requiring DOE
to continually update the definition
each time DOE updates its scope of
coverage. In addition, as is evident in
the standards NOPR, the nine criteria
that NEMA is suggesting for the
‘‘electric motor’’ definition are the same
criteria that DOE proposes using to
define the scope of coverage in its
proposed standards rulemaking so, in
effect, DOE’s proposal has the same
effect as NEMA’s ‘‘electric motor’’
definition as far as defining broadly the
motor types that DOE is considering for
coverage (as well as those that are
already covered.)
Retaining the definition for ‘‘electric
motor’’ renders unnecessary NEMA’s
suggestion to add a definition for
‘‘motor;’’ this suggestion would simply
reclassify what are currently defined as
‘‘electric motors’’ to be ‘‘motors.’’
NEMA’s recommended that DOE
retain the definitions for ‘‘general
purpose electric motor’’ and ‘‘general
purpose electric motor (subtype II).’’
DOE agrees that changes to these
definitions are unnecessary and has
made no changes to these definitions for
the final rule.
NEMA recommended that the
definition for ‘‘general purpose electric
motor (subtype I)’’ be modified by
removing clauses from that definition
that would overlap with the criteria that
DOE listed earlier in this rule,8 and
which NEMA proposed be added to the
definition of ‘‘electric motor.’’ However,
as DOE is choosing not to change the
definition of ‘‘electric motor’’ at this
time, DOE believes it is essential to
leave these clauses in the definition for
‘‘general purpose electric motor
(subtype I)’’ to fully define this type of
motor. Therefore, DOE has elected to
not update the definition for ‘‘general
purpose electric motor (subtype I)’’ at
this time.
NEMA also suggested editing the
existing definitions of special and
definite purpose motors. NEMA
suggested that DOE define a ‘‘definite
purpose electric motor’’ as any electric
motor that:
(1) Is rated at 600 volts or less; and
(2) Cannot be used in most general
purpose applications and is designed
either:
(i) To standard ratings with standard
operating characteristics or standard
mechanical construction for use under
8 E.g., single-speed, induction, continuous-duty,
squirrel-cage rotor, etc.
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
75968
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
service conditions other than usual,
such as those specified in NEMA MG 1–
2009, paragraph 14.3, ‘‘Unusual Service
Conditions,’’ (incorporated by reference,
see 431.15); or
(ii) For use on a particular type of
application.’’ (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 8)
NEMA suggested defining a ‘‘special
purpose electric motor’’ as any electric
motor, other than a general purpose
electric motor or definite purpose
electric motor, that:
(1) Is rated at 600 volts or less; and
(2) Has special operating
characteristics or special mechanical
construction, or both, designed for a
particular application.’’ (NEMA, No. 10
at p. 8)
DOE had opted not to update the
definitions for ‘‘special purpose motor’’
and ‘‘definite purpose motor’’ in the
NOPR because these definitions would
apply broadly to cover a group of
motors, irrespective of whether each
motor category within that group is
required to meet energy conservation
standards. However, DOE does agree
with NEMA that ‘‘special purpose
motors’’ and ‘‘definite purpose motors’’
should be defined within the context of
the broader term ‘‘electric motors.’’ In
the 2012 final rule test procedure for
electric motors DOE made a similar
decision to update the term ‘‘fire pump
motor’’ to ‘‘fire pump electric motor.’’
77 FR 26616. For this final rule, DOE
has therefore revised the terms ‘‘special
purpose motor’’ and ‘‘definite purpose
motor’’ to be ‘‘special purpose electric
motor’’ and ‘‘definite purpose electric
motor’’ 9 while retaining the previously
established definitions.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
C. International Electrotechnical
Commission IP and IC Codes
As discussed in section III.A.2,
International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC), similar to NEMA,
produces industry standards that
contain performance requirements for
electric motors. In the NOPR, DOE
incorporated the term ‘IEC motor
equivalents’ in the proposed definitions
of NEMA-based electric motor types
included in 10 CFR part 431 to ensure
that IEC motors equivalents would be
treated in a similar and consistent
manner as NEMA-based electric motors.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA
raised concerns that the IEC does not
9 In the recent standards NOPR, the special or
definite purpose distinctions evaporate based on
the proposed regulatory structure. Therefore, at
some point in the future, DOE intends to remove
these definitions from DOE regulations. DOE is
retaining the definitions for now to help
manufacturer’s meet the current energy
conservation standards and delineating between
general purpose versus definite or special purpose
electric motors.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
use the same identifiers as NEMA to
characterize the motor types. Instead,
IEC generally uses specific ‘‘IP’’
(protection provided by enclosure) and
‘‘IC’’ codes (method of cooling) to
identify the motor types. Therefore,
NEMA requested that DOE include
appropriate IP and IC codes to properly
include IEC-equivalent electric motors
within the proposed definitions (NEMA,
No. 10 at p. 9)
DOE will consider issuing separate
guidance regarding these codes and
their interplay with those motors built
in accordance with NEMA
specifications. As part of that process,
the agency will afford the public with
an opportunity to comment on any
proposed guidance that the agency
decides to issue.
D. Motor Type Definitions and Testing
Set-Up Instructions
In the course of the 2012 final test
procedure rulemaking, some interested
parties questioned why DOE defined the
term ‘‘NEMA Design B motor’’ but not
‘‘NEMA Design A motor’’ or ‘‘NEMA
Design C motor.’’ DOE explained at the
time that a definition for ‘‘NEMA Design
B motor’’ was necessary because the
application section in MG 1 (paragraph
1.19.1.2 in both MG 1–2009 and MG 1–
2011) contained a typographical error
that required correcting for purposes of
DOE’s regulations, which exactly
implemented a standard for NEMA
Design B motors that are general
purpose electric motors with a power
rating of more than 200 horsepower, but
less than or equal to 500 horsepower.
See 10 CFR 431.25(d). At that time, DOE
also noted that it may incorporate a
corrected version of the ‘‘NEMA Design
C motor’’ definition in a future
rulemaking because that definition,
which is found in NEMA MG 1–2009,
paragraph 1.19.1.3, also contains a
typographical error. DOE did not,
however, intend to add definitions for
NEMA Design A and IEC Design N, as
the existing definitions found in MG 1
are correct as published. 77 FR at 26616
and 26634 (May 4, 2012).
Given DOE’s current intention to
consider establishing energy
conservation standards for an expanded
scope of motors, however, DOE now
believes it is necessary to clarify the
terms and definitions pertaining to
Design A and Design N motors as well.
DOE understands that many terms and
definitions applicable to motors are
used in common industry parlance for
voluntary standards and day-to-day
business communication but are not
necessarily defined with sufficient
clarity for regulatory purposes. At this
time, DOE is making changes designed
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
to provide more precise definitions for
these terms to sufficiently capture the
particular characteristics attributable to
each definition. Both DOE and
manufacturers should use these
definitions to determine whether a
particular basic model is covered by
DOE’s regulations for electric motors.
DOE notes, however, that the presence
of a given definition in this document
does not obligate DOE to establish
energy conservation standards for the
motor type defined.
1. National Electrical Manufacturers
Association Design A and Design C
Motors
NEMA MG 1–2009’s definitions
include the following three types of
polyphase, alternating current,
induction motors: NEMA Designs A, B,
and C. NEMA MG 1–2009 establishes
the same pull-up, breakdown, and
locked-rotor torque requirements for
both NEMA Design A and NEMA Design
B motors.10 However, a NEMA Design A
motor must be designed such that its
locked-rotor current exceeds the
maximum locked-rotor current
established for a NEMA Design B motor.
Unless the application specifically
requires the higher locked-rotor current
capability offered by a NEMA Design A
motor, a NEMA Design B motor (which
has the same specified minimum torque
characteristics as the NEMA Design A
motor) is often used instead because of
the additional convenience offered by
these motors when compared to Design
A motors. (See NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–
STD–0027–0054 at 36 (noting the
additional convenience offered by
Design B motors over Design A motors
with respect to selecting disconnecting
methods and in satisfying National
Electrical Code and UL requirements.))
In addition, DOE understands that
NEMA Design B motors are frequently
preferred because the user can easily
select the motor control and protection
10 Locked-rotor torque is the torque that a motor
produces when it is at rest or zero speed and
initially turned on. A higher locked-rotor torque is
important for hard-to-start applications, such as
positive displacement pumps or compressors. A
lower locked-rotor torque can be accepted in
applications such as centrifugal fans or pumps
where the start load is low or close to zero. Pullup torque is the torque needed to cause a load to
reach its full rated speed. If a motor’s pull-up torque
is less than that required by its application load, the
motor will overheat and eventually stall.
Breakdown torque is the maximum torque a motor
can produce without abruptly losing motor speed.
High breakdown torque is necessary for
applications that may undergo frequent
overloading, such as a conveyor belt. Often,
conveyor belts have more product or materials
placed upon them than their rating allows. High
breakdown torque enables the conveyor to continue
operating under these conditions without causing
heat damage to the motor.
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
equipment that meets the applicable
requirements of the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) National
Electrical Code (NFPA 70). These
motors are also listed by private testing,
safety, or certification organizations,
such as CSA International or UL.
(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–
0054 at p. 36)
Unlike NEMA Design A and B motors,
a NEMA Design C motor requires a
minimum locked-rotor torque per
NEMA MG 1–2009, Table 12–3, which
is higher than either the NEMA Design
A or Design B minimum locked-rotor
torque required per NEMA MG 1–2009,
Table 12–2.
In view of the above, DOE proposed
to incorporate a definition for both
‘‘NEMA Design A motor’’ and ‘‘NEMA
Design C motor’’ to improve the clarity
between these two terms. As DOE had
already adopted a definition for ‘‘NEMA
Design B motor’’ at 10 CFR 431.12, it
believed that providing definitions for
other motor types would provide
consistency in the treatment of all
considered motors. 78 FR 38462. The
proposed definitions for NEMA Design
A and Design C motors were based on
the definitions in NEMA MG 1–2009,
paragraphs 1.19.1.1 and 1.19.1.3,
respectively. DOE proposed to define a
‘‘NEMA Design A motor’’ as ‘‘a squirrelcage motor designed to withstand fullvoltage starting and that develops
locked-rotor torque, pull-up torque,
breakdown torque, and locked-rotor
current as specified in NEMA MG 1–
2009–and with a slip at rated load of
less than 5 percent for motors with
fewer than 10 poles.’’ DOE also
proposed to define a ‘‘NEMA Design C
motor’’ as ‘‘a squirrel-cage motor
designed to withstand full-voltage
starting and that develops locked-rotor
torque for high-torque applications,
pull-up torque, breakdown torque, and
locked-rotor current as specified in
NEMA MG 1–2009—and with a slip at
rated load of less than 5 percent.’’
NEMA requested that DOE modify its
proposed definitions of NEMA Design A
and Design C motors and urged that the
definitions be consistent when
referencing to the NEMA MG 1–2009
tables. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 41, 44,
45) 11 NEMA acknowledged an error in
the definition of NEMA Design C in
NEMA MG 1–2009, paragraph 1.19.1.3
and suggested that the phrase ‘‘up to the
values’’ in reference to the level of
11 (In this and subsequent citations, the document
number refers to the number of the comment in the
Docket for the DOE rulemaking on test procedures
for electric motors, Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP–
0043; and the page references refer to the place in
the document where the statement preceding
appears.)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
locked rotor torque and breakdown
torque should be replaced with ‘‘not less
than the values’’ because the limits in
the referenced tables are the minimum
values. NEMA suggested that the proper
statements can be found in the actual
standards in the referenced clauses of
NEMA MG 1–2009 paragraph 12.37 and
NEMA MG 1–2009 paragraph 12.39.
(NEMA, No.10 at p. 13) WEG asserted
that since DOE’s procedure would apply
only to 60 Hertz (Hz) motors, DOE
should omit references to 50 Hz motors
in the definitions. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7
at p. 43)
DOE has re-evaluated its proposed
definitions for NEMA Design A motors
and NEMA Design C motors after
receiving the comments above.
Regarding the NEMA Design C
definition, DOE recognizes the error in
its proposed definition and is modifying
the definition to read ‘‘not less than the
values’’ instead of ‘‘up to the values.’’
The remainder of the proposed Design
C definition is being adopted. DOE did
not receive any other specific comments
regarding the definition of NEMA
Design A motors, so DOE is adopting the
definition proposed in the NOPR
without modifications. Regarding the
clause for ‘‘50 Hz’’ motors, DOE notes
that the definition for NEMA Design B
motors already present in 10 CFR part
431 contains this phrase, and to
maintain consistency between the three
definitions, DOE has retained it for the
NEMA Design A and NEMA Design C
definitions. DOE also notes that NEMA’s
MG 1–2009 includes both 60 Hz and 50
Hz in its Design A, B and C definitions.
Under the regulatory scheme outlined in
the standards NOPR, however, DOE’s
proposed standards would only apply to
60 Hz motors because of the nine
criteria that define the scope of
coverage.
2. International Electrotechnical
Commission Designs N and H Motors
The European International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC),
produces industry standards that
contain performance requirements for
electric motors similar to those
produced by NEMA. Analogous to
NEMA Designs B and C are IEC Designs
N and H. IEC Design N motors have
similar performance characteristics to
NEMA Design B motors, while IEC
Design H motors are similar to NEMA
Design C motors. Because many motors
imported into the U.S. are built to IEC
specifications instead of NEMA
specifications, DOE proposed to include
a definition for IEC Design N and IEC
Design H motor types to ensure that
these functionally similar motors were
treated in a manner consistent with
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75969
equivalent NEMA-based electric motors
and to retain overall consistency with
the existing definitional framework.
DOE’s proposed definition for ‘‘IEC
Design N motor’’ incorporated language
from IEC Standard 60034–12 (2007 Ed.
2.1) (IEC 60034) with some
modifications that would make the
definition more comprehensive. IEC
60034 defines IEC Design N motors as
being ‘‘normal starting torque threephase cage induction motors intended
for direct-across the line starting, having
2, 4, 6 or 8 poles and rated from 0.4 kW
to 1600 kW,’’ with torque characteristics
and locked-rotor characteristics detailed
in subsequent tables of the standard.12
A similar approach for IEC Design H
motors is taken in IEC 60034, but with
references to different sections and
slightly different wording. DOE
proposed including all references to
tables for torque characteristics and
locked-rotor characteristics as part of
these definitions to improve their
comprehensiveness. As detailed in the
NOPR, DOE proposed to define an ‘‘IEC
Design N motor’’ as ‘‘an induction motor
designed for use with three-phase power
with the following characteristics: A
cage rotor, intended for direct-on-line
starting, having 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles, rated
from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW at a frequency
of 60 Hz, and conforming to IEC
specifications for torque characteristics,
locked rotor apparent power, and
starting.’’ DOE proposed to define a
‘‘IEC Design H motor’’ as ‘‘an induction
motor designed for use with three-phase
power with the following
characteristics: A cage rotor, intended
for direct-on-line starting, with 4, 6, or
8 poles, rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW,
and conforming to IEC specifications for
starting torque, locked rotor apparent
power, and starting.’’
In response to these proposed
definitions, interested parties made
several suggestions. NEMA requested
removal of the parenthetical statement
‘‘(as demonstrated by the motor’s ability
to operate without an inverter)’’
because, in its view, it is unnecessary
and not included in the present
definition of NEMA Design B motor nor
in the proposed definitions of NEMA
Designs A and C motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr.,
No. 7 at p. 45, 46) NEMA further
suggested that the rating range of 0.4 kW
to 1600 kW be replaced with 0.75 kW
to 373 kW as applicable to all defined
electric motors and as given in the
12 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.
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75970
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
present 10 CFR 431.25.13 Baldor
commented that the 1 to 500
horsepower range should be included in
the definition, which presumably would
align with the scope of coverage
proposed in DOE’s standards NOPR.
(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 52) SEW
pointed out that the definition for IEC
Design H includes ‘‘at a frequency of 60
Hz’’ while the definition for IEC design
N does not include it. (Pub. Mtg. Tr.,
No. 7 at p. 52)
NEMA commented that, depending
on the level of apparent locked rotor
power, an IEC Design N electric motor
may be equivalent to a NEMA Design B
or NEMA Design A electric motor.
Moreover, the marking requirements in
IEC 60034–1 do not require that a design
type or locked rotor apparent power be
marked on IEC design motors.
Therefore, NEMA requested that DOE
consider these factors (but made no
specific suggestions on how) while
including IEC standards in terms of the
level of equivalency to the NEMA MG
1 standard in the proposed definitions.
(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 13) Regal Beloit
requested that DOE address the scope
and design of IEC Design N motors with
high inrush locked rotor current. (Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 166–168).
DOE notes that its objective in
defining IEC Design H and IEC Design
N motors is to define what
characteristics and features comprise
these types of motors, so that
manufacturers designing to the IEC
standards can easily tell whether their
motor is subject to DOE’s regulatory
requirements. While DOE currently
regulates motors that have a power
rating between 0.75 kW to 373 kW, DOE
does not believe it needs to limit the
definitions to this power range to
describe whether a given motor falls
under Design H or Design N. DOE agrees
with NEMA regarding the need to
provide additional clarity about how to
determine NEMA and IEC equivalent
motors to determine the applicability of
DOE’s regulations to IEC-rated motors.
Consequently, DOE intends to issue a
separate guidance document that will
help describe the process that both DOE
and manufacturers should use to
determine whether IEC-rated motors are
subject to DOE’s regulations.
As Baldor noted, DOE also
acknowledges that its inclusion of the
clause ‘‘at a frequency of 60 hz’’ in the
definition for IEC Design H motor and
not for IEC Design N may create some
ambiguity. For the final rule, DOE is
modifying the definition of an IEC
Design N motor and maintaining the
13 These are the metric figures for 1 and 500
horsepower, respectively.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
definition of an IEC Design H motors,
both to specify applicability to motors at
a frequency of 60 hz.
DOE generally agrees that removing
the parenthetical statement ‘‘(as
demonstrated by the motor’s ability to
operate without an inverter)’’ from the
definition of IEC Design H and IEC
Design N motors is unnecessary, and
has rewritten the definition such that it
is not needed. DOE understands that the
coverage of IEC motors and NEMA
motors should comport with one
another to help ensure that
manufacturers follow a consistent set of
requirements. It does not make sense to
have a clause for the definitions of IEC
Design H and IEC Design N motors and
not have it for definitions of NEMA
Design A and B. In an effort to maintain
consistency with DOE’s existing,
NEMA-based definitions, DOE has
removed the clause ‘‘as demonstrated by
the motor’s ability to operate without an
inverter’’ from the two IEC definitions
DOE has also replaced the term
‘‘intended’’ with ‘‘capable’’ because the
former does not definitively establish
the capability of motor for direct online
starting.
Electric motors that meet the IEC
Design N or Design H requirements and
otherwise meet the definitions of
general purpose electric motor (subtype
I) or (subtype II) are already required to
satisfy DOE’s energy conservation
standards at the specified horsepower
ranges prescribed in 10 CFR 431.25.
Because these IEC definitions stipulate
a set of performance parameters that do
not inhibit an electric motor’s ability to
be tested, DOE did not propose any
additional test procedure amendments
in the NOPR.
At the NOPR public meeting, Regal
Beloit suggested that DOE add an
alternate test plan per the IEC 60034–2–
1 because even though there are slight
differences relative to IEEE 112 (Test
Method B), industry accepts it as
equivalent. It pointed out that this test
plan would be the IEC equivalent of
IEEE 112 (Test Method B) and, because
DOE was opting to define IEC motor
types, it would seem pertinent to
include an IEC test method. (Pub. Mtg.
Tr., No. 7 at p. 166–168). While DOE
understands Regal Beloit’s view, the
inclusion of IEC motors that are
equivalent to motors built in accordance
with NEMA specifications is not a new
concept. These ‘‘IEC-equivalent’’ motors
are already subject to regulation are
currently subject to standards. To date,
DOE is unaware of any difficulties in
testing IEC-equivalent motors but will
consider any appropriate changes to its
procedures if any such problems arise.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3. Electric Motors With Moistureresistant, Sealed or Encapsulated
Windings
All electric motors have ‘‘insulation
systems’’ that surround the various
copper winding components in the
stator. The insulation, such as a resin
coating or plastic sheets, serves two
purposes. First, it helps separate the
three electrical phases of the windings
from each other and, second, it
separates the copper windings from the
stator lamination steel. Electric motors
with encapsulated windings have
additional insulation that completely
encases the stator windings, which
protects them from condensation,
moisture, dirt, and debris. This
insulation typically consists of a special
material coating, such as epoxy or resin
that completely seals the stator’s
windings. Encapsulation is generally
found on open-frame motors, where the
possibility of contaminants getting
inside the motor is higher than for an
enclosed-frame motor.
In the electric motors preliminary
analysis TSD,14 DOE set forth a possible
definition for the term ‘‘encapsulated
electric motor’’ that was based on a
NEMA’s definition for the term
‘‘Machine with Sealed Windings.’’ DOE
intended to address those motors
containing special windings that could
withstand exposure to contaminants
and moisture—and whose efficiency is
currently unregulated. Commenting on
this approach, NEMA and Baldor noted
that NEMA MG 1–2009 does not specify
a single term that encompasses a motor
with encapsulated windings. Instead,
NEMA MG 1–2009 provides two terms:
one for a ‘‘Machine with Sealed
Windings’’ and one for a ‘‘Machine with
Moisture Resistant Windings.’’ A
definition for the term ‘‘Machine with
Encapsulated Windings’’ has not
appeared in MG 1 since the 1967
edition.
After reviewing the two pertinent
definitions, the comments from Baldor
and NEMA, and DOE’s own research on
these types of motors, DOE proposed
that motors meeting either definition
would be addressed by the expanded
scope of the test procedure and
accompanying definitions under
consideration. The ability for a motor’s
windings to continue to function
properly when the motor is in the
presence of moisture, water, or
contaminants, as is the case when a
motor meets one of these two
definitions, does not affect its ability to
14 The preliminary TSD published in July 2012 is
available at: https://www.regulations.gov/
#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-00270023.
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
be connected to a dynamometer and be
tested for efficiency. Additionally, this
ability does not preclude a motor from
meeting the nine criteria that DOE
preliminarily used to characterize those
electric motors whose energy efficiency
are not currently regulated but that fall
within the scope of DOE’s regulatory
authority. Therefore, in the NOPR, DOE
proposed two definitions based on the
NEMA MG 1–2009 definitions of a
‘‘Machine with Moisture Resistant
Windings’’ and a ‘‘Machine with Sealed
Windings.’’
DOE’s proposed definitions were
based on modified versions of the
NEMA MG 1–2009 definitions in order
to eliminate potential confusion and
ambiguities. The proposed definitions
emphasized the ability of motors to pass
the conformance tests for moisture and
water resistance, thereby identifying
them as having special or definite
purpose characteristics. As detailed in
the NOPR analysis, DOE proposed to
define ‘‘electric motor with moisture
resistant windings’’ as ‘‘an electric
motor engineered to pass the
conformance test for moisture resistance
as specified in NEMA MG 1–2009.’’
DOE proposed to define an ‘‘electric
motor with sealed windings’’ as ‘‘an
electric motor engineered to pass the
conformance test for water resistance as
specified in NEMA MG 1–2009.’’ 78 FR
38455.
In response to the June 2013 NOPR,
NEMA pointed out that the proposed
definitions refer to NEMA MG 1–2009,
paragraphs 12.62 and 12.63 as
incorporated by reference in 10 CFR
431.15. DOE’s regulations currently do
not include references to these
paragraphs and DOE did not propose to
add them. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 54;
NEMA, No. 10 at p. 13) As suggested by
NEMA, however, DOE is incorporating
these two paragraphs into 10 CFR
431.15, since both paragraphs are
necessary to these definitions. DOE
notes that no interested parties at either
the public meeting or in written
comments opposed this suggested
approach.
In the proposed definitions of electric
motor with moisture resistant windings
and electric motor with sealed
windings, NEMA commented that the
phrase ‘‘engineered for passing,’’ should
be replaced with ‘‘capable of passing’’ as
stated in the NEMA MG 1–2009
standard. Finally NEMA suggested that
DOE define an ‘‘electric motor with
moisture resistant windings’’ based on
paragraph 1.27.1 of NEMA MG 1–2009:
‘‘Special purpose electric motor with
moisture resistant windings means a
special purpose electric motor that has
motor windings that have been treated
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
such that exposure to a moist
atmosphere will not readily cause
malfunction. This type of machine is
intended for exposure to moisture
conditions that are more excessive than
the usual insulation system can
withstand. A motor with moisture
resistant windings is capable of passing
the conformance test for moisture
resistance described in NEMA MG 1–
2009, paragraph 12.63, (incorporated by
reference, see 431.15) as demonstrated
on a representative sample or
prototype.’’
Based on paragraph 1.27.2 of NEMA
MG 1–2009, NEMA proposed that the
definition for special purpose electric
motor with sealed windings be:
‘‘Special purpose electric motor with
sealed windings means a special
purpose electric motor that has an
insulation system which, through the
use of materials, processes, or a
combination of materials and processes,
results in windings and connections
that are sealed against contaminants.
This type of machine is intended for
environmental conditions that are more
severe than the usual insulation system
can withstand. A motor with sealed
windings is capable of passing the
conformance test for water resistance
described in NEMA MG 1–2009,
paragraph 12.62, (incorporated by
reference, see 431.15) as demonstrated
on a representative sample or
prototype.’’ (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 13–14)
NEMA and Baldor requested that DOE
consider an additional third type of
motors—‘‘special purpose electric motor
with encapsulated windings.’’ These
motors are included in NEMA MG 1–
2009, paragraph 12.62 and also
identified in DOE’s 1997 policy
statement. NEMA proposed that the
following definition of this type be
considered for 10 CFR 431.12: ‘‘Special
purpose electric motor with
encapsulated windings means a special
purpose electric motor that has motor
windings that are fully enclosed in an
insulating material that protects the
windings from detrimental operating
environments (moisture, dust, dirt,
contamination, etc.). The encapsulate
material may fully enclose not only the
motor windings but the wound stator
core. A motor with encapsulated
windings is capable of passing the
conformance test for water resistance
described in NEMA MG 1–2009,
paragraph 12.62, (incorporated by
reference, see 10 CFR Part 431.15) as
demonstrated on a representative
sample or prototype.’’ (NEMA, No. 10 at
p. 14, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 55)
DOE has evaluated the suggestions
made on these definitions. DOE notes
that while a motor may be engineered to
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75971
comply with a parameter, the final
product may not meet the standards. To
address this issue, DOE has adjusted
these two definitions to read as ‘‘capable
of passing’’ rather than ‘‘engineered for
passing.’’ DOE prefers to leave the
definition broad, incorporating all
motors that pass the conformance tests
in NEMA MG 1–2009 paragraphs 12.62
and 12.63, rather than further
specifying, as NEMA suggested in its
definition. However, DOE has decided
to avoid any confusion regarding these
motors types and, therefore, has adopted
three definitions.
For the final rule, DOE is adopting the
following definition: ‘‘Electric motor
with moisture-resistant windings means
an electric motor that is capable of
passing the conformance test for
moisture resistance generally described
in NEMA MG 1–2009, paragraph 12.63
(incorporated by reference, see 431.15).’’
DOE is also adopting the following
definition for ‘‘Electric motor with
sealed windings’’ and for ‘‘Electric
motor with encapsulated windings’’:
‘‘. . . an electric motor capable of
passing the conformance test for water
resistance described in NEMA MG 1–
2009, paragraph 12.62 (incorporated by
reference, see 431.15).’’
In addition to proposing a definition
for these motor types, DOE also
considered difficulties that may arise
during testing when following IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA
C390–10 or any potential impacts on
efficiency caused by encapsulation of
the windings. Prior to the NOPR, DOE
conducted its own research and found
no evidence that electric motors with
specially insulated windings could not
be tested using the existing DOE test
procedures without further
modification.. Therefore, DOE did not
propose any test procedure amendments
tailored for electric motors with
moisture resistant windings or electric
motors with sealed windings in the
NOPR.
Bluffton Motors highlighted the
challenges associated with testing
encapsulated windings motors in its
comments. Bluffton commented that the
thermocouples cannot be used to
measure winding temperature and that
measuring the temperature through
winding resistance is a difficult process,
thus consistent, repeatable results may
not be obtained. (Bluffton, No. 11 at
p. 1)
Advanced Energy agreed with DOE’s
decision not to propose additional test
procedures for electric motors with
moisture resistant windings and electric
motors with sealed windings. Advanced
Energy commented that they could be
fully tested using existing standard
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
procedures. (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at
p. 2)
DOE understands the comments made
regarding testing motors with
encapsulated windings. As a result of
discussions with subject matter experts
(SMEs) prior to the NOPR, and research
performed after, DOE does not believe
that the presence of specially insulated
stator windings in an electric motor
would interfere with DOE-prescribed
test procedures. Because temperature
measurements are taken by measuring
the stator winding resistance, DOE does
not believe that the insulation on the
stator windings themselves will
interfere with carrying out any part of
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) or
CSA C390–10, both of which require
temperature measurements to be taken
during testing. The modifications made
to stator windings have no impact on a
motor’s ability to be connected to a
dynamometer because they are
modifications to the internal portions of
the motor. Therefore, DOE has retained
the approach proposed in the NOPR and
is not adopting an alternative test plan
for these motor types.
Inverter drives (also called variablefrequency drives (VFDs), variable-speed
drives, adjustable frequency drives,
alternating-current drives, microdrives,
or vector drives) operate by changing
the frequency and voltage of the power
source that feeds into an electric motor.
The inverter is connected between the
power source and the motor and
provides a variable frequency power
source to the motor. The benefit of the
inverter is that it can control the
frequency of the power source fed to the
motor, which in turn controls the
rotational speed of the motor. This
allows the motor to operate at a reduced
speed when the full, nameplate-rated
speed is not needed. This practice can
save energy, particularly for fan and
pump applications that frequently
operate at reduced loading points.
Inverters can also control the start-up
characteristics of the motor, such as
locked-rotor current or locked-rotor
torque, which allows a motor to employ
higher-efficiency designs while still
attaining locked-rotor current or lockedrotor torque limits standardized in
NEMA MG 1–2009.15
DOE did not propose to exempt a
motor suitable for use on an inverter
from any applicable energy conservation
standards because this type of motor
operates like a typical, general purpose
electric motor when not connected to an
inverter. As detailed in the NOPR, DOE
proposed to define an ‘‘inverter-capable
electric motor’’ as an electric motor
designed to be directly connected to
polyphase, sinusoidal line power, but
that is also capable of continuous
operation on an inverter drive over a
limited speed range and associated load.
Because this motor type operates like a
typical, general purpose electric motor
when not connected to an inverter, DOE
did not believe any test procedure
amendments were needed. Under DOE’s
proposed approach, an inverter-capable
electric motor would be tested without
the use of an inverter and rely on the
set-ups used when testing a general
purpose electric motor.
In response to the NOPR, interested
parties raised concerns regarding the
proposed definition for inverter-capable
electric motors. NEMA commented that
the current definition is neither
complete nor clear, noting that the
definition is fairly wide open as far as
the type of three-phase motors that
could be connected to an inverter (Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 58–59 ; NEMA, No.
10 at p. 15). CA IOUs requested that the
definition for inverter-capable electric
motor be specifically constrained to
polyphase motors, but NEMA noted that
if the definition for electric motor refers
to polyphase, as it recommended in its
comments, then the term ‘‘polyphase’’
need not be included in the definition
of inverter-capable electric motors. (Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 58; Pub. Mtg. Tr.,
No. 7 at p. 59). Finally, NEMA proposed
that the following definition be adopted
instead: ‘‘Inverter-capable electric motor
means a general purpose electric motor
(subtype I) or general purpose electric
motor (subtype II) that is also capable of
continuous operation on an inverter
control over a limited speed range and
associated load.’’ (NEMA, No. 10 at p.
15)
DOE does not agree with NEMA’s
suggestion to further limit the definition
proposed in the NOPR. Specifically,
DOE’s intent with the proposed
15 Li, Harry. Impact of VFD, Starting Method and
Driven Load on Motor Efficiency. 2011.Siemens
Industry, Inc.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
4. Inverter-Capable Electric Motors
Current standards for electric motors
apply to single speed motors with a
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration. 10
CFR 431.25. Each of these motors
operates at a constant rotational speed,
which is predicated by its pole
configuration. This means that the
motor shaft is engineered to rotate at the
same speed, regardless of its application
or required power. In addition to its
pole configuration, a motor’s rotational
speed is partially determined by the
frequency of its power source. The
equation determining a motor’s
theoretical maximum speed (or
synchronous speed) is:
definition was to include all types of
electric motors that were capable of
working with an inverter, which
encompass a wide variety of three-phase
electric motors. These definitions
should help manufacturers determine if
a given basic model is covered and
subject to DOE’s regulations. DOE
believes that NEMA is primarily
concerned as to whether certain types of
inverter capable motors will ultimately
be subject to amended energy
conservation standards. Whether a
motor meets one of the definitions
finalized today, however, does not
necessarily mean that the motor type’s
efficiency will be regulated by DOE. For
these reasons, DOE has maintained the
proposed definition for ‘‘invertercapable electric motor’’ in the final rule
and NEMA should provide further
comment in the standards rulemaking
about the applicability of the proposed
standards to these types of motors.
5. Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated
Electric Motors
Most enclosed electric motors are
constructed with a fan attached to the
shaft, typically on the end opposite the
driven load, as a means of pushing air
over the surface of the motor enclosure,
which helps dissipate heat and reduce
the motor’s operating temperature.
Totally enclosed non-ventilated (TENV)
motors, however, have no fan blowing
air over the surface of the motor. These
motors rely, instead, on the conduction
and convection of the motor heat into
the surrounding environment for heat
removal, which results in a motor that
operates at higher temperatures than
motors with attached cooling fans.
TENV motors may be used in
environments where an external fan
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
ER13DE13.000</GPH>
75972
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
could clog with dirt or dust, or
applications where the shaft operates at
too low of a speed to provide sufficient
cooling (i.e., a motor controlled by an
inverter to operate at very low
revolutions per minute). TENV motors
may employ additional frame material
as well as improved stator winding
insulation so that the motor may
withstand the increased operating
temperatures. Extra frame material
allows for more surface area and mass
to dissipate heat, whereas higher-grade
stator winding insulation may be rated
to withstand the higher operating
temperatures.
In view of the statutory definitional
changes created by EISA 2007, and the
support expressed by both industry and
energy efficiency advocates in the Joint
Petition submitted by the Motor
Coalition, DOE is addressing TENV
motors in the energy conservation
standards rulemaking. (Motor Coalition,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0035 at p.
19) As part of this effort, in the June
2013 NOPR, DOE proposed to add a
definition for this motor type based on
the definition of a ‘‘totally enclosed
nonventilated machine’’ in paragraph
1.26.1 of NEMA MG 1–2009. DOE
tentatively concluded that this
definition is accurate and sufficiently
clear and concise and proposed that the
definition be adopted with minor
alterations. The NOPR proposed to
define a ‘‘TENV electric motor’’ as an
electric motor built in a frame-surface
cooled, totally enclosed configuration
that is designed and equipped to be
cooled only by free convection.
In addition to proposing a definition
for these motors, DOE considered
whether any test procedure set-up
instructions would be necessary to test
TENV motors. In response to the
framework document,16 ASAP and
NEMA submitted comments suggesting
that manufacturers could demonstrate
compliance with the applicable energy
conservation standards by testing
similar models. (ASAP and NEMA,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0012 at p.
7) Although NEMA and ASAP suggested
this was a possible way to test these
motors to demonstrate compliance, they
did not state that this was necessary
method because of difficulties testing
these types of motors. Subsequently,
after DOE published its electric motors
preliminary analysis, NEMA stated that
it was not aware of any changes that
were required to use IEEE Standard 112
(Test Method B) when testing TENV
motors. (NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–
16 https://www.regulations.gov/
#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-00270002.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
0027–0054 at p. 16) Also, in response to
the preliminary analysis, the Copper
Development Association (CDA)
commented that DOE may need to
develop new test procedures for these
motor types but did not explain why
such a change would be necessary.
(CDA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0018
at p. 2) CDA did not indicate whether
the current procedures could be
modified to test these motors or what
specific steps would need to be
included to test these types of motors.
Additionally, DOE knew of no technical
reason why a TENV motor could not be
tested using either IEEE Standard 112
(Test Method B) or the CSA C390–10
procedure without modification. In
view of NEMA’s most recent comments
suggesting that IEEE Standard 112 (Test
Method B) was an appropriate means to
determine the efficiency of these
motors, and the fact that the CDA did
not provide an explanation of why
changes would be necessary, DOE did
not propose any test procedure
amendments for TENV electric motors
in the NOPR.
In response to the June 2013 NOPR,
Advanced Energy agreed with the
proposed definition for TENV electric
motors and with DOE’s decision not to
propose any clarifying set-up procedure.
(Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 2)
However, NEMA asserted that the
proposed definition is inadequate.
NEMA suggested that if DOE accepts
NEMA’s earlier recommendations on
modifying the definition for ‘‘motor’’
and ‘‘electric motor,’’ the definition of
TENV would be a ‘‘totally enclosed nonventilated (TENV) definite purpose
electric motor means a definite purpose
electric motor that is built in a framesurface cooled, totally enclosed
configuration that is designed and
equipped to be cooled only by free
convection.’’ (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 15).
NEMA further requested that DOE
consider including IEC equivalents
along with relevant IC and IP codes.
(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 79; NEMA,
No. 10 at p. 15–16)
During the NOPR public meeting, the
CA IOUs noted that DOE’s proposed
definition for TENVs would overlap
with the State of California’s regulations
pertaining to pool pump motors. Those
regulations, in relevant part, prescribe
an energy conservation standard for
pool pump motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No.
7 at p. 61–64). Regal Beloit indicated in
response during the public meeting that
the proposed test procedures may not
apply to pool pump motors since the
majority of those motors are singlephase motors; in contrast, TENV motors
operate on polyphase power. (Pub. Mtg.
Tr., No. 7 at p. 61–65)
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75973
DOE has addressed the addition of
phrases such as ‘‘definite purpose
electric motor’’ to the individual motors
definitions in section G, and for the
reasons discussed there, will not be
adding this phrase to the definition for
TENV motors. Outside of this change,
NEMA’s proposal matches that which
was proposed by DOE in the NOPR.
Based on this, DOE has maintained the
NOPR proposed definition for this final
rule. Having received no negative
feedback on its proposal to not require
set-up procedures for the testing of
TENV motors, DOE is maintaining this
approach in the final rule.
DOE understands NEMA’s concerns
about IEC equivalency and recognizes
that including IP and IC codes for IECequivalent motors may help eliminate
any ambiguity in the proposed
definitions. As noted earlier in the
section H, DOE conducted its own
independent research and consulted
with SMEs to identify proper IP and IC
codes for IEC motors equivalents to the
motor types that were proposed to be
defined in 10 CFR part 431 in the NOPR
and intends to develop guidance
regarding the appropriate codes.
Regarding pool pump motors, DOE
notes that, by statute, any electric motor
could be regulated by DOE for energy
efficiency. DOE is considering setting
energy conservation standards as part of
its ongoing standards rulemaking effort
for a wider variety of motors than are
currently covered. To the extent that
those efforts lead to the promulgation of
standards that would affect an electric
motor used in a pool pump, those
standards would preempt any State
standards that are currently in effect.
6. Air-Over Electric Motor
Most enclosed electric motors are
constructed with a fan attached to the
shaft, typically on the end opposite the
drive, as a means of providing cooling
airflow over the surface of the motor
frame. This airflow helps remove heat,
which reduces the motor’s operating
temperature. The reduction in operating
temperature prevents the motor from
overheating during continuous duty
operation and increases the life
expectancy of the motor.17 On the other
hand, air-over electric motors do not
have a factory-attached fan and,
therefore, require a separate, external
means of forcing air over the frame of
the motor. Without an external means of
cooling, an air-over electric motor could
17 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.
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75974
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
overheat during continuous operation
and potentially degrade the motor’s life.
To prevent overheating, an air-over
electric motor may, for example, operate
in the airflow of an industrial fan it is
driving, or it may operate in a
ventilation shaft that provides constant
airflow. The manufacturer typically
specifies the required volume of air that
must flow over the motor housing for
the motor to operate at the proper
temperature.
After the enactment of the EISA 2007
amendments, DOE performed
independent research and consultation
with manufacturers and SMEs. Through
this work, DOE found that testing airover electric motors would be complex.
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) and
CSA C390–10 do not provide
standardized procedures for preparing
an air-over electric motor for testing,
which would otherwise require an
external cooling apparatus.
Additionally, DOE was not aware of any
standard test procedures that provide
guidance on how to test such motors.
Test procedure guidance that would
produce a consistent, repeatable test
method would likely require testing
laboratories to be capable of measuring
the cubic airflow of an external cooling
fan used to cool the motor during
testing. At the time of the NOPR
publication, DOE believed that this is a
capability that most testing laboratories
do not have. Without the ability to
measure airflow, one testing laboratory
may provide more airflow to the motor
than a different testing laboratory.
Increasing or decreasing airflow
between tests could impact the tested
efficiency of the motor, which would
provide inconsistent test results.
Because of this difficulty, DOE stated
that it has no plans to require energy
conservation standards for air-over
electric motors, making further test
procedure changes unnecessary. 78 FR
38461.
Although DOE did not plan to apply
energy conservation standards to airover electric motors, it proposed to
define them for clarity. DOE’s proposed
‘‘air-over electric motor’’ definition was
based on the NEMA MG 1–2009
definition of a ‘‘totally enclosed air-over
machine,’’ with some modification to
that definition to include air-over
electric motors with open frames. DOE
believed that air-over electric motors
with either totally enclosed or open
frame construction use the same
methods for heat dissipation and,
therefore, should be included in the
same definition. As detailed in the
NOPR, DOE proposed to define ‘‘airover electric motor’’ as ‘‘an electric
motor designed to be cooled by a
ventilating means external to, and not
supplied with, the motor.’’ 78 FR 38481.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA and
ASAP commented that the proposed
definition of air-over electric motor is
inadequate. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p.
70; NEMA, No. 10 at p. 33) NEMA
commented that DOE’s definition for
air-over electric motor does not
distinguish between air-over machines
and pipe-ventilated machines, in which
the ventilating means is external to the
machine, but the air is ducted to and
from and circulated through the
machine. NEMA stated that the
proposed definition should refer to the
air as being free-flowing, which could
be over an enclosed electric motor or
through an open electric motor.
Therefore, NEMA suggested that DOE
define these motors as: ‘‘[a]ir-over
definite purpose motor means a definite
purpose motor that is designed to be
cooled by a free flow of air provided by
a ventilating means external to, and not
supplied with, the motor.’’ (NEMA, No.
10 at p. 33) NEMA further commented
that there is no need for any definition
of ‘‘air-over definite purpose motor’’ or
‘‘air-over definite purpose electric
motor’’ if efficiency standards are not
established. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 34)
DOE believes that NEMA’s suggestion
provides a useful conceptual starting
point, but has concern that without
more specificity, the suggestion could
create an incentive to sell motors
intended for general purpose use but
labeled as air-over. DOE understands
that most, or all, air-over motors are
used in applications where they drive a
fan or blower that provides airflow to a
certain application. Rather that having
traditional cooling fans, air-over motors
depend on the larger airstream to
stabilize temperature. Maintaining
NEMA’s suggestion to specify that the
source of the cooling air not be supplied
with the motor, DOE adopts the
following definition for today’s rule:
‘‘An air-over motor is an electric motor
rated to operate in and be cooled by the
airstream of a fan or blower that is not
supplied with the motor and whose
primary purpose is providing airflow to
an application other than the motor
driving it.’’
Regarding NEMA’s contention that
DOE does not need to define this motor
type, as noted earlier, DOE does not
intend to define only motors that it
intends to regulate via the standards
rulemaking.
DOE believed that the difficulties
associated with testing air-over electric
motors such as providing a standard
flow of cooling air from an external
source that provides a constant velocity
under defined ambient temperature and
barometric conditions over the motor
were insurmountable at this time of the
NOPR, and therefore, did not propose a
test plan for these motors and did not
plan to subject this motor type to
standards in the standards rulemaking.
In response to the June 2013 test
procedure NOPR, NEMA agreed with
DOE’s proposal to not require air-over
electric motors to meet energy
conservation standards, noting that the
difficulties of testing to determine the
efficiency of an air-over motor make the
establishment of efficiency standards
impractical. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 34)
On the other hand, Advanced Energy
urged DOE to consider implementing
standards for air over electric motors.
Advanced Energy expressed concern
that if TENV motors are regulated and
TEAO motors are not regulated, TENV
motors that did not meet standards
could be labeled and sold as TEAO
motors. (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at
p. 5)
In its NOPR comments, Advanced
Energy recognized the following
challenges with the testing of air-over
motors: (1) Unstable temperature due to
heat run,18 (2) requirement of additional
equipment to test airflow to motor, and
(3) inconsistency in test results by
different labs due to variation in the
airflow. Advanced Energy suggested
testing air-over motors by making
modifications in the instructions for
CSA 747–2009 and IEEE 114–2010. Both
standards require test measurements at
temperature within 70 °C–80 °C.
(Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 6)
In an effort to substantiate its claims,
Advanced Energy tested a 5hp, 4-pole
TEFC motor following the IEEE 112
(Test Method B) procedure. The
following six tests were conducted: Test
A: With fan; Test B: Without fan and
without blower; Test F: Without fan and
with blower; Test E: With fan and a 1.25
service factor; Test D: Without fan,
without blower and with a 1.25 service
factor; and Test C: Without fan, with
blower and with a 1.25 service factor.
Advanced Energy observed the
following results, shown in table Table
III–2. (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at pp.
6–7)
18 In other words, the winding temperature does
not stabilize without a cooling, external airflow in
which air-over motors are designed to operate.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
75975
TABLE III–2—TEST RESULTS OF TEFC MOTOR TESTING
Baseline (Test A) ...................................................................................................................................................
Without Fan, Without Blower (Test B) ...................................................................................................................
Without Fan, With Blower (Test F) ........................................................................................................................
Baseline (Test E) ...................................................................................................................................................
Without Fan, Without Blower (Test D) ..................................................................................................................
Without Fan, With Blower (Test C) .......................................................................................................................
Advanced Energy observed that the
efficiency of the motor in tests B, C, D,
and F increased compared to the
respective baseline tests—tests A and E.
It believes that the tests show that the
standard test procedures can be
modified to test air-over electric motors,
especially when comparing tests D to C,
or test B to F. Advanced Energy noted
that the test without a fan (Test B), in
which the thermal run was stopped to
test between 70 degrees and 80 degrees
Celsius, resulted in a measured
efficiency comparable to the test where
a blower was used to provide cooling
airflow (Test F). (Advanced Energy, No.
8 at pp. 6–7)
Advanced Energy requested that DOE
further investigate the test instructions
for air-over electric motors and
proposed test instructions stating: ‘‘Airover motors shall be tested at their rated
conditions (horsepower, speed, voltage)
by providing air from external means
such that the motor winding
temperature shall be between 70 °C–80
°C.’’ (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 8)
While DOE has considered the test
data, DOE does not believe it has
sufficient information at this time to
support establishment of a test method
for measuring air-over motor efficiency
for regulatory purposes. DOE intends,
however, to research other test
procedure options for air-over electric
motors to determine whether, in a
future, separate rulemaking, DOE might
propose a test procedure set-up for airover electric motors and, possibly, an
energy conservation standard for such
motors.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
E. Electric Motor Types Requiring
Definitions and Test Procedure
Instructions
In the June 2013 NOPR, DOE
proposed define a number of electric
motor types that were already,
apparently, commonly understood, but
not necessarily clearly defined, by the
industry. DOE also proposed clarifying
language for testing each of these motor
types.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
1. Immersible Electric Motors
Most electric motors are not
engineered to withstand immersion in
liquid (e.g., water, including
wastewater). If liquid enters an electric
motor’s stator frame, it could create
electrical faults between the different
electrical phases or electrical steel and
could impede rotor operation or corrode
internal components. Immersible motors
are electric motors that are capable of
withstanding immersion in a liquid
without causing damage to the motor.
Immersible motors can withstand
temporary operation in liquid,
sometimes up to two weeks, but also
run continuously outside of a liquid
environment because they do not rely
on the liquid to cool the motor.
According to test 7 in Table 5–4 of
NEMA MG 1–2009, for a motor to be
marked as protected against the effects
of immersion, a motor must prevent the
ingress of water into the motor while
being completely submerged in water
for a continuous period of at least 30
minutes. Therefore, DOE has interpreted
‘‘temporary’’ to mean a period of time of
no less than 30 minutes. Immersible
motors can operate while temporarily
submerged because they have contact
seals that keep liquid and other
contaminants out of the motor.
Additionally, some immersible motors
may have pressurized oil inside the
motor enclosure, which is used in
conjunction with contact seals to
prevent the ingress of liquid during
immersion. Finally, immersible motors
are occasionally constructed in a
package that includes another, smaller
(e.g., 1⁄2 horsepower) motor that is used
to improve cooling when the immersible
motor is not submerged in water. In
these cases, the two motors are
constructed in a totally enclosed
blower-cooled (TEBC) frame and sold
together. The electric motors with
separately powered blowers are
discussed in a separate section III.F.6.
In responding to the October 15, 2010
framework document, NEMA and ASAP
commented that greater clarification is
needed with regard to immersible
motors and how to differentiate them
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Efficiency
@ rated load
(%)
Rated
load
Test
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5
5
5
6.25
6.25
6.25
89.3
89.9
90.2
88.1
89.0
88.6
from liquid-cooled or submersible
motors. (NEMA and ASAP, EERE–2010–
BT–STD–0027–0012 at p. 9) DOE
understands the general differences to
be as follows:
1. Submersible motors are engineered
to operate only while completely
surrounded by liquid because they
require liquid for cooling purposes;
2. liquid-cooled motors use liquid (or
liquid-filled components) to facilitate
heat dissipation but are not submerged
in liquid during operation; and
3. immersible motors are capable of
operating temporarily while surrounded
by liquid, but are engineered to work
primarily out of liquid.
In the June 2013 NOPR, DOE
proposed to define an immersible
electric motor as an electric motor
primarily designed to operate
continuously in free-air, but that is also
capable of withstanding complete
immersion in liquid for a continuous
period of no less than 30 minutes.
In response to the definition for
immersible electric motor proposed in
NOPR, interested parties expressed
several concerns. Advanced Energy
commented that the phrase ‘‘capable of
withstanding complete immersion in a
liquid for a continuous period of no less
than 30 minutes’’ implies that the motor
can be put in the liquid indefinitely,
stating that this phrase is more
appropriate for test instruction but not
for definition. Thus, Advanced Energy
suggested that this phrase be modified
with the word ‘‘temporarily’’ or an
upper limit (e.g., two weeks) be
provided for immersion. (Pub. Mtg. Tr.,
No. 7 at p. 135; Advanced Energy, No.
8 at p. 2). ASAP responded that since
immersible electric motor is a covered
motor, the temporal upper limit is not
needed. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 135–
136). WEG commented that the
definition of immersible motors needs
further addition, such as ‘‘no less than
14 days,’’ to differentiate it from the
submersible motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No.
7 at p. 137) NEMA commented that the
proposed definition is inadequate as it
is neither sufficiently complete nor
clear. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 20)
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
75976
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Finally, Advanced Energy proposed
that the definition be modified to
describe these motors as those that are
‘‘primarily designed to operate
continuously in free-air’’ but that can
‘‘temporarily withstand complete
immersion in liquid for a continuous
period of no less than 30 minutes.’’
(Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 2) On the
other hand, NEMA proposed to define
this term as ‘‘a definite purpose electric
motor that is primarily designed to
operate continuously in free-air, but is
also capable of withstanding complete
immersion in liquid for a continuous
period of no less than 30 minutes,
during which time any operation may or
may not be inhibited.’’ (NEMA, No. 10
at p. 20)
DOE’s intention in the NOPR was to
fully differentiate between three types of
motors: Submersible, immersible, and
liquid-cooled. DOE recognizes that
without an upper limit on the
submersion in liquid, the definition for
immersible motors is very similar to that
of submersible motors. However, as it
noted in the proposal, immersible
motors are ‘‘primarily designed to
operate continuously in free-air,’’ while
submersible motors are ‘‘designed for
operation only while submerged in
liquid.’’ DOE believes that these clauses
should sufficiently differentiate between
the two types of motors, but in an effort
to further eliminate any confusion, DOE
has added the word ‘‘temporary’’ to the
definition, as suggested by Advanced
Energy and defining an ‘‘immersible
electric motor’’ as an electric motor
‘‘primarily designed to operate
continuously in free-air, but that is also
capable of temporarily withstanding
complete immersion in liquid for a
continuous period of no less than 30
minutes.’’
Regarding immersible motor testing,
the contact seals used by immersible
motors to prevent the ingress of water or
other contaminants have an effect on
tested efficiency that generally changes
over time. New seals are stiff, and
provide higher levels of friction than
seals that have been used and
undergone an initial break-in period.19
DOE understands that as the seals wearin, they will loosen and become more
flexible, which will somewhat reduce
friction losses. In its comments on the
electric motors preliminary analysis,
NEMA stated that immersible motors
should be tested with their contact seals
removed. (NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–
STD–0027–0054 at p. 18)
DOE had previously discussed testing
immersible electric motors with
industry experts, SMEs, and testing
laboratories, all of whom suggested that
the seals should be removed prior to
testing to eliminate any impacts on the
tested efficiency. DOE sought to confirm
the effects of contact seals by
conducting its own testing. DOE
procured a five-horsepower, two-pole,
TENV motor for this purpose.20 Upon
receipt of the motor, DOE’s testing
laboratory followed IEEE Standard 112
(Test Method B) and tested the motor in
the same condition as it was received,
with the contact seals in place (test 1).
After completing that initial test, the
laboratory removed the contact seals
and tested the motor again (test 2).
Finally, the testing laboratory
reinstalled the seals, ran the motor for
an additional period of time such that
the motor had run for a total of 10 hours
with the contact seals installed
(including time from the initial test) and
then performed IEEE Standard 112 (Test
Method B) again (test 3).
DOE’s testing showed the potential
impact that contact seals can have on
demonstrated efficiency. In the case of
the five-horsepower, two-pole, TENV
motor, the motor performed with a
higher efficiency with the contact seals
removed, demonstrating a reduction in
motor losses of nearly 20 percent. DOE’s
testing also demonstrated a decaying
effect of the contact seals on motor
losses as they break-in over time. In this
instance, the effect of the contact seals
on motor losses was reduced, but not
eliminated, after 10 hours of running the
motor. The results of DOE’s immersible
motor testing are shown below.
TABLE III–3—RESULTS OF IMMERSIBLE MOTOR TESTING
Nameplate
efficiency
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Immersible Motor (also TENV and a vertical solid-shaft motor) .....................
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Motor type
89.5%
88.9%
91.0%
89.2%
Based on the limited testing
conducted by DOE which showed that
seals may have an impact on the tested
efficiency of a given motor, DOE
proposed that these motors be tested
with the contact seals in place. In
addition, DOE proposed an allowance of
a maximum run-in period of 10 hours
prior to performing IEEE Standard 112
(Test Method B). This run-in period was
intended to allow the contact seals a
sufficient amount of time to break-in
such that test conditions were equal or
very similar to normal operating
conditions that would be experienced
by a user. DOE’s proposed 10-hour
maximum was a preliminary estimate
obtained through discussions with
electric motors testing experts.
In response to the NOPR, several
interested parties expressed concern
with the proposed test procedure.
Advanced Energy noted that the effect
of a seal on motor efficiency, as well as
its ‘‘run-in’’ time, would vary by motor,
depending on the motor and type of seal
used. Advanced Energy commented that
there is no guarantee that a given motor
will break-in within a specified time
period of 10 hours, which is small
compared to the lifetime of a motor.
Based on these conditions, it continued
to recommend that seals be removed
during initial testing to verify the
efficiency of the motor. (Advanced
Energy, No. 8 at p. 3)
NEMA noted that DOE’s tests on a
sample immersible motor as received for
testing, after an extended time of
operation, and with the seals removed,
illustrate the difficulty of determining
the efficiency of electric motors relative
to operating time with various types of
seals. Therefore, NEMA continued to
recommend that contact seals be
removed prior to testing. In the
alternative, NEMA asserted that
efficiency standards for electric motors
with contact seals or sealed bearings
would need to be lower than those for
the motors without contact seals or
sealed bearings. It added that different
standard levels may also be needed
based on the different types of contact
seals and sealed bearings used in a
given motor. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 21–
23)
19 Guide for the Use of Electric Motor Testing
Methods Based on IEC 60034–2–1. May 2011.
Version 1.1. 4E, Electric Motors Systems, EMSA,
available at: 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.
20 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, enabling the lab to test the motor per
IEEE 112 Test Method B.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
NEMA noted that the NOPR refers to
200 hours as the possible time during
which the efficiency losses from seals
will continue to decrease. NEMA
commented that the run-in time
depends on the type of contact seals
used. However, it commented that 200
hours would seem to be a short run-in
estimate for a continuous duty electric
motor that DOE assumed in its testing
has an average mechanical lifetime of
up to 108,398 hours. NEMA expressed
concern with the proposed requirement
of a 10-hour run-in period to represent
the efficiency level of the electric motor
with seals when averaged over the total
period of use. It also pointed out that for
labs that operate on a standard eighthour workday, a 10-hour run-in period
could place undue hardship on the lab,
or require unmonitored conditions.
NEMA further pointed out that DOE
does not indicate if the run-in testing is
to be performed with the motor
unloaded or at its rated load. NEMA
continued to recommend that the
contact seals be removed prior to
testing. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 22–23;
Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 138–139)
Bluffton commented that motors with
seals in them should be tested without
the seals because of the inability to
obtain consistent results from motor to
motor because of the difference in
mechanical pressure on the seal from
one motor to the next. It noted that if the
goal is to reduce power consumption on
an overall basis, the differential will be
the same regardless of whether the
starting point is with or without seals.
Moreover, the friction of the seal may
change over the entire life of the motor.
Thus, testing with seals may not give
consistent and repeatable
measurements. (Bluffton, No. 11 at p. 1)
WEG and Nidec also recommended
that the seals be removed for testing
(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 139–140;
Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 143) CDA
acknowledged that there are valid
arguments for both the inclusion and
the exclusion of seals during testing. It
suggested an additional allowance for
these seal losses be included within the
allowable testing results in these
specific categories. (CDA, No. 9 at p. 2)
Based on the responses to the NOPR,
and additional investigation following
publication, DOE has reconsidered its
NOPR proposal. At this time, DOE does
not believe it has enough information to
determine the extent of the impact seals
may have on a motor’s efficiency when
installed in the field over time. Seals
can be made of rubber (with varying
degrees of hardness and pliability),
ceramic material, or metal. Each of these
materials has a different impact on an
electric motor’s performance and may or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
may not ‘‘break in’’ over time to reduce
the overall level of friction that a motor
may encounter while operating. Due to
the variety of designs and materials
offered and used by motor
manufacturers, and the variety of
impacts that these differences may have,
DOE is unable at this time to quantify
a specific break-in period to help
determine the point in time where the
losses contributed by the seals would be
considered ‘‘representative.’’
Furthermore, DOE understands that
each motor type, size, and configuration
will be affected differently by seals, and
various types of seals can be used.
Without additional data, applying a
particular break-in period or adjustment
factor to account for the additional
friction added by seals would be
premature. Therefore, in light of this
uncertainty, DOE is, at this time,
requiring that test labs remove seals
when testing immersible motors but
make no other modifications. This
approach is also consistent with the
suggestions made by NEMA and the
energy efficiency advocates. DOE may
continue to explore the effect of seals on
motor performance and may revise this
requirement in the future.
NEMA also noted that even though
the title of the proposed 4.3 in
Appendix B to Subpart B is ‘‘Immersible
Electric Motors and Electric Motors with
Contact Seals,’’ the actual test procedure
appears to apply to immersible electric
motors only. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 23)
In response to NEMA’s comment DOE
has adjusted the heading of this section
to read ‘‘Immersible Electric Motors’’ for
clarification purposes.
2. Brake Electric Motors
In most applications, electric motors
are not required to stop immediately;
instead, electric motors typically slow
down and gradually stop after power is
removed from the motor, due to a
buildup of friction and windage from
the internal components of the motor.
However, some applications require
electric motors to stop quickly. Such
motors may employ a brake component
that, when engaged, abruptly slows or
stops shaft rotation. The brake
component attaches to one end of the
motor and surrounds a section of the
motor’s shaft. During normal operation
of the motor, the brake is disengaged
from the motor’s shaft—it neither
touches nor interferes with the motor’s
operation. However, under these
conditions, the brake is drawing power
from the electric motor’s power source
and may be contributing to windage
losses, because the brake is an
additional rotating component on the
motor’s shaft. When power is removed
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75977
from the electric motor (and brake
component), the brake component deenergizes and engages the motor shaft,
quickly slowing or stopping rotation of
the rotor and shaft components.
In its Joint Petition, the Motor
Coalition proposed to define the term
‘‘integral brake electric motor’’ as ‘‘an
electric motor containing a brake
mechanism either inside of the motor
endshield or between the motor fan and
endshield such that removal of the
brake component would require
extensive disassembly of the motor or
motor parts.’’ (Motor Coalition, EERE–
2010–BT–STD–0027–0035 at p. 19)
After receiving the petition, DOE spoke
with some of the Motor Coalition’s
manufacturers and its own SMEs. Based
on these conversations, DOE believed
that the Motor Coalition’s definition is
consistent with DOE’s understanding of
the term. In the electric motors
preliminary analysis, DOE presented a
definition of the term ‘‘integral brake
motor’’ consistent with the definition
proposed by the Motor Coalition. (For
additional details, see Chapter 3 of the
electric motors preliminary analysis
Technical Support Document).
However, upon further consideration,
DOE believed that there may be
uncertainty regarding certain aspects of
the definition, particularly, what
constitutes ‘‘extensive disassembly of
the motor or motor parts.’’ Therefore, in
the NOPR, DOE proposed a new
definition that would remove this
ambiguity. The proposed rule defined
an ‘‘integral brake electric motor’’ as an
electric motor containing a brake
mechanism either inside of the motor
endshield or between the motor fan and
endshield.
Conversely, the brake component of a
non-integral brake motor is usually
external to the motor and can be easily
detached without disassembly or
adversely affecting the motor’s
performance. DOE proposed a new
definition for ‘‘non-integral brake
electric motor’’ that paralleled its
proposed definition for ‘‘integral brake
electric motor.’’ DOE believed that the
new definition was clearer because it
relied solely on the placement of the
brake and not what level of effort is
needed to remove it. Additionally, DOE
believed that the structure of its two
definitions encompassed all brake
motors by requiring them to meet one
definition or the other. As detailed in
the NOPR, DOE’s proposed definition
for a ‘‘non-integral brake electric motor’’
was an electric motor containing a brake
mechanism outside of the endshield,
but not between the motor fan and
endshield.
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75978
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
As discussed in the NOPR, DOE
conducted its own testing on both
integral and non-integral brake motors.
DOE described the details of this testing
in the NOPR along with the results. DOE
generally found that testing the brake
component attached, but powered by a
source separate from the motor, resulted
in demonstrated efficiencies equivalent
to testing a motor with the brake
component completely removed. As a
result of its testing of integral and nonintegral brake electric motors, DOE
proposed the same test instructions for
both motors types. DOE proposed to
include instructions that would require
manufacturers to keep the brake
mechanism attached to the motor, but to
power it externally while performing
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B).
DOE believed that this was the best
approach because it allows the test
laboratory to isolate the motor losses,
which includes the friction and windage
produced by the rotating brake
mechanism. DOE believed that
powering the motor and the brake
mechanism separately during testing
would ensure that the power consumed
to keep the brake mechanism
disengaged is not counted against the
motor’s tested efficiency. The power
consumed to keep the brake mechanism
disengaged represents useful work
performed by the motor and should not
be construed as losses, but it should be
measured and reported. DOE believed
this information is pertinent for brake
motor consumers who wish to
understand the energy consumption of
their motor. Furthermore, when
conducting the testing, DOE’s test
laboratory was able to splice
connections and externally power the
brake on multiple integral and nonintegral brake motors, so DOE
preliminarily believed that this process
would not be unduly burdensome. 78
FR 38468.
In response to the June 2013 NOPR,
NEMA noted in its comments that as
DOE is proposing the same test plan for
both types of motors, the location of the
brake assembly is not important in
determining the efficiency of the motor.
NEMA suggested that DOE use a single
definition of ‘‘special purpose electric
motor with brake’’ that would refer to ‘‘a
special purpose electric motor that
contains a brake mechanism either
within the motor enclosure or external
to the motor enclosure.’’ NEMA stated
that it understood that defining both
types of brake motors into a single
definition would include integral brake
electric motors as covered products,
whereas the Joint Petition suggested that
these motors continue to be exempted
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
from any testing or efficiency
requirements. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 16).
In the alternative, NEMA suggested
that if DOE used two separate
definitions, the two proposed
definitions should be modified. (Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 144 ; NEMA, No.
10 at p. 16) NEMA suggested that DOE
re-classify and define integral brake
electric motor as an ‘‘integral brake
special purpose electric motor’’ and
define it as ‘‘a special purpose electric
motor that contains a brake mechanism
either within the motor enclosure or
between a motor fan, when present, and
the nearest endshield.’’ (NEMA, No. 10
at p. 17; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p.149)
NEMA suggested that a non-integral
brake motor be classified as a ‘‘nonintegral brake special purpose electric
motor’’ which would be defined as ‘‘a
special purpose electric motor that
contains a brake mechanism outside of
the endshield, but not between the
motor fan and endshield.’’ (NEMA, No.
10 at p. 17)
As addressed previously, the facts
available to DOE indicate that it is
unnecessary to note that these motors
are special purpose because whether a
motor is special or definite purpose
does not exclude it from consideration
under DOE’s standards rulemaking.
However, DOE does agree that two
separate definitions are unnecessary
because DOE is adopting the same test
procedure for both motors. The test
results include mechanical losses of the
brake components which are not
impacted by the location of the brake. A
single definition for brake motors will
avoid any confusion. Therefore, for the
final rule DOE is adopting the following
definition: ‘‘Brake electric motor means
a motor that contains a dedicated
mechanism for speed reduction, such as
a brake, either within or external to the
motor enclosure.’’
Regarding the proposed test
procedure, Advanced Energy agreed
with DOE’s proposed approach for both
motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 147;
Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 2)
Advanced Energy commented that by
powering the brake through external
means, the brake will have no impact on
the power consumption and avoid the
potential difficulties during no-load
testing and the risk associated
withimproper re-assembly of the motor.
(Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 2)
Highlighting that this proposed method
for testing brake motors deviated from
the earlier Joint Petition, the advocates
agreed with DOE’s proposal that integral
and non-integral brake motors be tested
in the same manner. The advocates
stated that this approach will enable the
coverage of integral brake motors,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
further increasing the scope of covered
motors. (ASAP et al., No. 12 at
pp. 1–2)
However, NEMA expressed concern
with the proposed test procedure for
integral and non-integral brake electric
motors. It commented that the test
procedure needs to clearly state that the
efficiency determined for the electric
motor is not to include any power that
may be required to disengage the brake.
The test procedure should also provide
for manually releasing the brake when
such an option is available. NEMA
commented that when developing the
energy conservation standards for
electric motors, any testing DOE
conducts with the brakes in place as
proposed, should take into account the
mechanical losses of the brake
components which are significant
relative to the losses of the motor
components. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 16)
If NEMA’s earlier proposal to have a
single definition for ‘‘integral brake
special purpose electric motor’’ and
‘‘non-integral brake special purpose
electric motor’’ is accepted, then NEMA
suggested a single test procedure for a
‘‘special purpose electric motor with
brake.’’ NEMA commented that DOE
should not require that the testing lab
measure electrical power to the brake in
10-minute intervals. It suggested that
the determination of efficiency of the
electric motor should be based on
measurements of the electrical input
power to just the electric motor and
should not include any power which
may be supplied to the brake. NEMA
suggested that the connections need to
be separated in those cases where the
power leads for the brake are
interconnected with the stator winding
or electric motor leads. The brake
should be disengaged during testing by
either supplying electrical power to the
brake at its rated voltage or through the
use of a mechanical release, when
available. The required power should be
measured and recorded when electrical
power is supplied to the brake for the
purpose of disengaging the brake.
(NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 17–18)
DOE’s own testing showed that during
normal operation the brake will not be
engaged—and will not significantly
impact energy consumption. Under the
approach laid out in the final rule,
testing must be performed with the
brake powered separately from the
motor such that it does not activate
during testing. Only power used to drive
the motor is included in the efficiency
calculation; power supplied to prevent
the brake from engaging is not used. The
rule provides that if the brake may be
disengaged mechanically, if such a
mechanism exists and if the use of this
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
mechanism does not yield a different
efficiency value than when separately
powering the brake electrically.
3. Partial Electric Motors
Most general purpose electric motors
have two endshields,21 which support
the bearings and shaft while also
allowing the shaft to rotate during
operation. DOE understands that
‘‘partial electric motors,’’ also called
‘‘partial 3⁄4 motors,’’ or ‘‘3⁄4 motors,’’ are
motors that are sold without one or both
endshields and the accompanying
bearings. When partial electric motors
are installed in the field, they are
attached to another piece of equipment,
such as a pump or gearbox. The
equipment to which the motor is mated
usually provides support for the shaft,
allowing the shaft to rotate and drive its
intended equipment. The equipment
may also provide support for a shaft.
When a partial electric motor is mated
to another piece of equipment it is often
referred to as an ‘‘integral’’ motor.22 For
example, an ‘‘integral gearmotor’’ is the
combination of a partial electric motor
mated to a gearbox. The gearbox
provides a bearing or support structure
that allows the shaft to rotate.
DOE is aware that there are many
different industry terms used to describe
a partial electric motor. DOE proposed
to define the term ‘‘partial electric
motor’’ in the NOPR to distinguish them
from component sets, which, alone, do
not comprise an operable electric motor.
See Section III.D.1. Additionally,
because DOE considered integral
gearmotors to be a subset of partial
electric motors, this definition also
applied to integral gearmotors.
Therefore, the NOPR defined ‘‘partial
electric motor’’ as an assembly of motor
components necessitating the addition
of no more than two endshields,
including bearings, to create an operable
motor. The term ‘‘operable motor’’
means an electric motor engineered for
performing in accordance with the
applicable nameplate ratings.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA
suggested that DOE include the concept
of ‘‘partial’’ as a design element within
other definitions rather than as a
separate type of electric motor. NEMA
commented that the definition should
be for ‘‘partial motor,’’ rather than a
‘‘partial electric motor.’’ NEMA
commented that the phrase ‘‘engineered
for performing’’ in the proposed
definition should be replaced with
‘‘capable of operation’’ because the
engineering of a motor does not imply
that a motor can operate. Therefore,
NEMA suggested that partial motor
means an assembly of motor
components necessitating the addition
of no more than two endshields,
including bearings, to create an operable
motor. For the purpose of this
definition, the term ‘‘operable motor’’
means a motor capable of operation in
accordance with the applicable
nameplate ratings. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp.
18–19)
DOE explains in section III.B of this
document why it will not change the
definition of ‘‘electric motor’’ and DOE
is declining to adopt NEMA’s
suggestion. Furthermore, while it
recognizes that adding this clause
would, as NEMA pointed out, cover
partial motors of all types of motors that
are a part of NEMA’s proposal, the
proposed definition would permit a
‘‘partial motor’’ to be any type of electric
motor. Consequently, a partial motor, by
definition, could be any type of electric
motor (e.g. multispeed, single speed,
polyphase, etc.). While DOE’s approach
is a broad one, it does not signal DOE’s
intention to regulate the efficiency of all
types of partial motors. The types of
electric motors whose efficiency DOE
intends to regulate will be addressed in
the energy conservation standards
rulemaking.
DOE has, however, adjusted the
phrase ‘‘engineered for performing’’ as it
understands the ambiguity related with
this phrase; it is difficult to establish
conclusively what, exactly, a motor is
75979
engineered for and is clearer to discuss
what a motor is ‘‘capable of’’ or its
rating. For this final rule, DOE is
adopting the following definition:
‘‘partial electric motor means an
assembly of motor components
necessitating the addition of no more
than two endshields, including
bearings, to create an electric motor
capable of operation in accordance with
the applicable nameplate ratings.’’
DOE is aware that partial electric
motors require modifications before
they can be attached to a dynamometer
for testing. Prior to the NOPR, DOE
discussed stakeholder comments and
additional testing options with SMEs,
testing laboratories, and motor industry
representatives. Some interested parties
suggested that the motor manufacturer
could supply generic or ‘‘dummy’’
endplates equipped with standard ball
bearings, which would allow for testing
when connected to the partial electric
motor. Alternatively, testing laboratories
had considered machining the
‘‘dummy’’ endplates themselves, and
supplying the properly sized deepgroove, ball bearings for the testing.
Various testing laboratories indicated
they had the ability to perform this
operation, but some added that they
would require design criteria for the
endplates from the original
manufacturer of the motor. These
laboratories noted that machining their
own endplates could create motor
performance variation between
laboratories because it may impact
airflow characteristics (and therefore
thermal characteristics) of the motor.
DOE procured an integral gearmotor
to determine the feasibility of testing
partial electric motors. For this
investigation, DOE purchased and tested
one five-horsepower, four-pole, TEFC
electric motor. DOE tested the motor
twice, first with an endplate obtained
from the manufacturer and second with
an endplate machined in-house by the
testing laboratory. The results of these
tests are shown below.
TABLE III–4—RESULTS OF PARTIAL ELECTRIC MOTOR TESTING
Nameplate
efficiency
Test 1
Test 2
Partial Electric Motor ...................................................................................................................
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Motor type
81.0%
83.5%
82.9%
DOE found a variation in efficiency
because of the endplate used during
testing. DOE believes that the variation
seen in tested efficiency was likely the
result of varying the material used for
the endplate. The endplate provided by
the manufacturer was made of cast iron,
while the endplate provided by the
testing laboratory was machined from
steel. The testing laboratory was not
equipped to cast an iron endshield and
thus was not able to replace the
21 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.
22 DOE notes that integral brake motors are not
considered integral or partial motors.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75980
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
manufacturer’s endshield with one of
the original material. Additionally, DOE
knows of no testing laboratory (other
than a motor manufacturer), with such
capability. DOE believes that the
variance in the magnetic properties of
steel likely produced small eddy
currents in the endshield which
resulted in added losses within the
motor.23 Consequently, DOE believes
that frame material consistency is
needed in order to prevent such
variances in future testing.
At the time of the NOPR, because of
the possible variance that DOE found
through its testing, DOE proposed that
an endplate be provided by the
manufacturer of the motor and that the
motor be tested with that endplate in
place. If bearings are also needed, the
test laboratory would use what DOE
views as a ‘‘standard bearing,’’ a 6000series, open, single-row, deep groove,
radial ball bearing. DOE selected this set
of specifications because it is a common
bearing type capable of horizontal
operation.
In response to DOE’s proposal on
endshields required for testing, NEMA
suggested that the manufacturer should
not be required to provide endshields
that they may not normally produce,
use, nor easily obtain, especially if the
manufacturer is an importer. See 42
U.S.C. 6311(5), (7) and 6291(10)
(treating importers as manufacturers for
purposes of EPCA). Instead, the
manufacturer should be given the
option to provide the endshields, if
possible. If the manufacturer declined to
do so and instead agreed to let the test
laboratory provide the endshields, then
the test laboratory should provide the
endshields for testing and consult with
the manufacturer to determine the
critical characteristics of the endshields.
(NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 19–20)
DOE has considered NEMA’s
suggestion and has decided to allow the
manufacturer to authorize the lab to
machine endplates for testing of partial
motors if the manufacturer chooses not
to provide the endplate. The lab should
consult with the manufacturer before
constructing the endshields to
determine the endshields’ critical
characteristics. Manufacturers should of
course realize that the use of any lab
machined endplate is likely to result in
more losses than one machined by the
manufacturer given the limited
availability of certain materials (e.g. cast
iron) at labs that a manufacturer may
have more readily available on-hand.
DOE notes that endshield specifications
23 Eddy currents are circulating currents induced
in conductors (e.g., steel) by changing magnetic
fields.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
are found in NEMA MG–1 (2009)
Section I, Part 4—see paragraphs 4.1,
4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.3, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5,
and 4.4.6; Figures 4–1, 4–2, 4–3, 4–4, 4–
5, and 4–6; and Table 4–2—and in IEC
60072–1 (1991).
F. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only
Test Procedure Instructions
DOE proposed to add additional
instructions to its test procedure that
would affect a number of motor types
for which DOE is considering new
energy conservation standards. DOE did
not propose any definitions for these
terms because DOE believed the terms
were self-explanatory or already readily
understood in the industry. These motor
types are discussed below.
1. Electric Motors With Non-Standard
Endshields or Flanges
Most electric motors are attached to a
mounting surface by ‘‘mounting feet’’ or
other hardware attached to the motor’s
housing, oftentimes on the bottom of the
motor. However, some motors are
mounted by directly attaching the
motor’s endshield, also called a
faceplate, to a piece of driven
equipment. If a motor’s endshield
protrudes forward to create a smooth
mounting surface it may also be referred
to as a flange, such as a Type D-flange
or Type P-flange motor, as described in
NEMA MG 1–2009. Attaching a motor to
the shaft of the driven equipment in this
manner generally involves bolting the
motor to the equipment through
mounting holes in the flange or
faceplate of the motor.
NEMA MG 1–2009, paragraphs 1.63.1,
1.63.2, and 1.63.3 define Type C facemounting, Type D flange-mounting, and
Type P flange-mounting motors,
respectively. These definitions provide
reference figures in NEMA MG 1–2009,
section I, part 4 (‘‘Dimensions,
Tolerances, and Mounting’’) that
contain specifications for the standard
mounting configurations and
dimensions for these three motor types.
The dimensions designate standard
locations and dimensions for mounting
holes on the faceplates or flanges of the
motors. DOE is aware that some electric
motors may have special or customerdefined endshields, faceplates, or
flanges with mounting-hole locations or
other specifications that do not
necessarily conform to NEMA MG
1–2009, Figure 4–3, ‘‘Letter Symbols for
Type C Face-Mounting Foot or Footless
Machines,’’ Figure 4–4, ‘‘Letter Symbols
for Type D Flange-Mounting Foot or
Footless Machines,’’ or Figure 4–5,
‘‘Letter Symbols for Vertical Machines.’’
As previously explained, DOE is
considering setting energy conservation
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
standards for electric motors with nonstandard endshields. This potential
change to the scope of energy
conservation standards for electric
motors would mean that the dimensions
of a motor’s endshields or flanges—
neither of which impacts the efficiency
or the ability to measure the efficiency
of the motor—would no longer dictate
whether a given motor would be
required to meet energy conservation
standards. Hence, DOE believed that an
actual definition for such motors would
be unnecessary.
In evaluating the possibility of
requiring these motor types to meet
potential energy conservation standards,
DOE assessed whether these motors
could be tested using non-standard
flanges or endshields. DOE had received
comments concerning the testing of
these motor types. In response to the
March 2011 RFI (76 FR 17577), ASAP
and NEMA commented that motors with
customer-defined endshields and
flanged special motors should have their
efficiency verified by testing a motor
with an equivalent electrical design that
could more easily be attached to a
dynamometer. (ASAP and NEMA,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0020 at p.
4) NEMA added that testing motors with
non-standard endshields may require a
substitution of the special endshields
with more conventional endshields.
(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–
0054 at p. 15)
In the NOPR, DOE recognized that it
may not be possible to attach motors
with non-standard endshields to a
testing laboratory’s dynamometer. If
such occurs and a test laboratory is
unable to reconfigure the motor without
removal of the endplate such that
attachment to a dynamometer is
possible, DOE proposed that the custom
endshield be replaced with one that has
standard (i.e., in compliance with
NEMA MG–1) dimensions and
mounting configurations. DOE proposed
that, as with partial electric motors,
such a replacement would be required
to be obtained through the manufacturer
and be constructed of the same material
as the original endplate.
In response to the NOPR, several
interested parties raised concerns that
requiring a manufacturer to provide a
‘‘standard endshield in compliance with
NEMA MG 1,’’ of the same material as
the ‘‘original end-plate’’ may place an
undue burden on the manufacturer.
(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 105–107,
111,116–118; Advanced Energy, No. 8 at
p. 4; NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 24–25) NEMA
noted that the proposed test plan may
have several difficulties: (1) A
manufacturer may not have (or be
unable to make available) end shields of
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
the appropriate design; (2) in the case of
imported motors, it is unlikely that the
importer could provide the required
endshield or flange; (3) it may not be
possible to obtain an endshield or flange
of the same material, especially if the
motor is made of a special material; and
(4) replacing the original endshield with
a standard dimension endshield may
require different shaft construction,
resulting in a completely new assembly
of shaft and rotor. For situations where
an electric motor with a non-standard
enshield or flange cannot be connected
to the dynamometer, NEMA
recommended that DOE permit a testing
lab to use an endshield or flange that
meets the NEMA or the IEC
specifications. NEMA further suggested
that the manufacturer should be
contacted to determine the
appropriateness of replacement
endshield or flange. If the replacement
endshield or flange is not available then
the testing laboratory may construct the
same in consultation with the
manufacturer. NEMA also argued that
the test procedure should also allow
testing of a general purpose electric
motor of equivalent electrical design
and enclosure, as an alternative.
(NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 24–25)
Advanced Energy agreed with DOE
that non-standard endshields and
flanges be replaced with standard ones
for testing purposes. However,
Advanced Energy noted that the term
‘‘original’’ in the proposed test
procedure is ambiguous because it
indicated that the motor was initially
designed with an endshield, which may
not be the case. It suggested that the
term ‘‘original’’ be replaced with
‘‘conventional.’’ Advanced Energy also
expressed concern that requiring a
manufacturer to provide a ‘‘standard
endshield in compliance with NEMA
MG 1’’ of the same material as ‘‘original
endplate’’ is too strict. It suggested that
manufacturers be allowed to use an
alternative material for the endshield
that will not impact the airflow and
energy performance. It also commented
that a provision should be included that
allows test labs the option of fabricating
suitable endshields if the need arises.
(Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 4). UL
requested that DOE consider modifying
the proposed language to permit the
endshield to be modified or fabricated
as necessary to facilitate coupling to the
dynamometer without affecting the
results.’’ (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp.
105–107; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 111)
WEG suggested that in situations where
the motor cannot be tested at all, an
equivalent motor with similar electrical
design and a standard endshield can be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
tested. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 114–
115) CDA opined that the customers can
provide end covers for testing to match
actual use conditions and that
allowance for additional friction should
be allowed for accuracy in test results.
(CDA, No. 9 at p. 2)
DOE has considered these comments
and decided to take slightly differing
approaches for testing conducted on
behalf of manufacturers (for purposes of
representations and certification of
compliance) and for DOE-initiated
testing (for purposes of determining
compliance). In both instances, if it is
not possible to connect the electric
motor to a dynamometer with the nonstandard endshield or flange in place,
the testing laboratory shall replace the
non-standard endshield or flange with
an endshield or flange that meets the
NEMA or IEC endshield specifications.
DOE notes that endshield specifications
are found in NEMA MG–1 (2009)
Section I, Part 4—see paragraphs 4.1,
4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.3, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5,
and 4.4.6; Figures 4–1, 4–2, 4–3, 4–4, 4–
5, and 4–6; and Table 4–2—and in IEC
60072–1 (1991). If possible, the
manufacturer should provide the
endshield or flange. The manufacturer
may authorize the lab to machine
replacement endplates or flanges for
testing if the manufacturer chooses not
to provide it. The lab should consult
with the manufacturer before
constructing these components to
determine their critical characteristics.
2. Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors
and Electric Motors With Single or
Double Shaft Extensions of NonStandard Dimensions or Design
Close-coupled pump motors are
electric motors used in pump
applications where the impeller is
mounted directly on the motor shaft.
Such motors are typically built with
different shafts (usually longer) than
generic general-purpose electric motors.
Section I, part 4 of NEMA MG 1–2009
and IEC Standard 60072–1 (1991)
specify standard tolerances for shaft
extensions, diameters, and keyseats that
relate to the fit between the shaft and
the device mounted to the shaft.
However, sometimes manufacturers
provide shafts with a special diameter,
length, or design because of a
customer’s application.24 In 2011, DOE
considered clarifying its treatment of
these types of motors and included a
table with allowable shaft variations. 76
FR 648, 671–72 (January 5, 2011) This
guidance table was intended to
24 For example, see Baldor’s marketing materials
at: https://www.baldor.com/support/Literature/
Load.ashx/BR401?LitNumber=BR401.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75981
enumerate the deviations from standard
shaft dimensions that DOE would allow
while still considering the motor to be
a general purpose motor subject to
energy conservation standards.
However, in view of the EISA 2007
and AEMTCA 2012 amendments, DOE’s
scope of regulatory coverage extends
beyond the initial scope set by EPCA
prior to these two amendments. DOE
believes that a motor’s shaft alone, no
matter what its dimensions or type, does
not exclude a motor from having to
satisfy any applicable energy
conservation standards. Further, DOE
believes that it is not necessary to
explicitly define a close-coupled pump
electric motor or an electric motor with
a single or double shaft extension of
non-standard dimensions or additions
because whether a shaft is built within
the shaft tolerances defined by NEMA
and IEC is unambiguous.
In considering applying standards to
these types of motors, DOE assessed
whether motors with non-standard shaft
dimensions or additions can be tested
using accepted and established
procedures. DOE received feedback
concerning the testing of these motor
types during and after the October 18,
2010, framework document public
meeting. NEMA and ASAP submitted a
joint comment noting that DOE could
allow testing of a ‘‘similar model’’ motor
with a standard shaft to enable the
motor to be more easily tested on a
dynamometer. (NEMA and ASAP,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0012 at p.
8) In its comments about the electric
motors preliminary analysis, NEMA
added that special couplings or adapters
may be needed to test motors with
special shaft extensions, but noted that
a motor’s shaft extension has little to no
effect on its efficiency. (NEMA, EERE–
2010–BT–STD–0027–0054 at p. 14)
DOE investigated the feasibility of
using coupling adapters for motors with
extended shafts or shafts of unique
design. To do this, DOE procured a
close-coupled pump motor with an
extended shaft. When this motor was
received, DOE’s testing laboratory had
no problems attaching the motor to its
dynamometer. The use of an adapter
was not needed in this case. However,
DOE also conferred with experts at its
testing laboratory and learned that
coupling adapters were needed for
motors with extended shafts or shafts of
unique design, which it had tested in
the past. As such, DOE is not aware of
any motor shaft design that has
prevented DOE’s test laboratory from
performing a proper test according to
IEEE 112 (Test Method B). Therefore,
DOE proposed to include instructions
for special couplings or adapters. In
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
75982
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
other words, if a testing facility cannot
attach a motor to its dynamometer
because of the motor’s shaft extension,
that facility should use a coupling or
adapter to mount and test the motor.
DOE understood that a motor’s shaft
configuration has minimal, if any,
impact on overall motor efficiency, and
believed that this approach was
technologically feasible and would not
result in any distortion of a motor’s
inherent efficiency when tested.
In response to the NOPR, the
interested parties agreed with DOE’s
decision to not define motors with nonstandard shaft dimensions or additions.
However, NEMA suggested replacing
the term ‘‘additions’’ with ‘‘nonstandard designs’’ to provide better
clarity. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 26)
To avoid any ambiguity regarding this
motor type, DOE has modified the term
to be ‘‘Electric Motors with Single or
Double Shaft Extensions of NonStandard Dimensions or Design.’’ DOE
believes that this change to the
description of this motor type is broad
enough to characterize all electric
motors with non-standard shafts
without unintentionally limiting this
motor type to those with shaft additions.
In view of its own research and
consensus among interested parties,
DOE is continuing to not define these
electric motor types.
3. Vertical Electric Motors
Although most electric motors are
engineered to run while oriented
horizontally, some operate in
applications that require a vertical
orientation. A horizontally oriented
motor has a shaft parallel to the floor (or
perpendicular to the force of gravity),
while a vertically oriented motor has a
shaft perpendicular to the floor (or
parallel to the force of gravity). Relative
to horizontal motors, vertical motors
have different designs made with
different construction techniques so that
the electric motor can be operated in a
vertical position. These different
designs can include modifications to the
mounting configuration, bearing design,
and bearing lubrication (a discussion
regarding bearings can be found in the
following section, III.F.4). Additionally,
vertical motors can come with various
shaft configurations, including with a
solid or hollow shaft. An example of a
typical application requiring a vertical
motor is a pump used in a well or a pit.
DOE did not propose a definition for
any terms related to vertical electric
motors. DOE believed definitions were
not needed because there is no industry
confusion or ambiguity in whether an
electric motor is a vertical electric
motor. Furthermore, whether an electric
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
motor has a solid shaft or a hollow shaft
is also unambiguous and unnecessary to
clarify. Although defining a vertically
mounted electric motor did not appear
necessary, DOE believed instructions
detailing how to configure and mount a
vertical motor for testing in a horizontal
position, including the motor’s
orientation and shaft characteristics,
would be helpful in ensuring a proper
and consistent testing set-up.
EISA 2007 classified vertical solidshaft motors as subtype II motors and
required them to be tested in a
‘‘horizontal configuration.’’ (42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(B)(v)) Prior to the NOPR,
NEMA, ASAP, and the Motor Coalition
submitted comments, noting that
vertical motors cannot be tested on a
standard dynamometer because most
dynamometers are designed to test
electric motors in horizontal orientation.
(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–
0013 at p. 5; NEMA and ASAP, EERE–
2010–BT–STD–0027–0012 at p. 3; Motor
Coalition, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–
0035 at pp. 18 and 30) DOE confirmed
this assertion with its test laboratory
and SMEs. In view of the statutory
requirement and current dynamometer
testing configuration limits, DOE
proposed in the NOPR to test motors,
which are otherwise engineered to
operate vertically, in a horizontal
position when determining efficiency.
Another consideration was the shaft
of a vertical motor and whether it was
solid or hollow. If a vertical motor has
a solid shaft, DOE proposed no further
adjustments after considering
orientation, unless the motor contained
a special shaft. For vertical motors with
a hollow shaft, (i.e., an empty cylinder
that runs through the rotor and typically
attaches internally to the end opposite
the drive of the motor with a special
coupling) additional instructions were
proposed.
DOE conducted testing prior to the
NOPR publication to gauge the
feasibility of testing a vertical, hollowshaft motor. For its investigation, DOE
purchased a five-horsepower, two-pole,
TEFC vertical motor with a hollow
shaft. Upon receipt of the motor, the
testing laboratory found that the motor’s
bearing construction was sufficient for
horizontal operation and no
replacement would be needed.
However, the motor did require a shaft
extension to be machined. After a solid
shaft was constructed, it was inserted
into the hollow shaft and attached via
welding to the lip of the hollow shaft.
The testing laboratory encountered no
further problems and was able to
properly test the motor according to
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B).
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
After conducting this testing, DOE
believed that, as long as the attached
solid-shaft maintained sufficient
clearance through the drive end of the
motor to enable the motor to be attached
to the dynamometer, this approach
would be feasible to test vertical hollowshaft motors. Aside from the addition of
a shaft extension, DOE did not believe
that testing a vertical hollow-shaft motor
in a horizontal configuration would add
undue testing burden when compared to
testing a solid-shaft vertical motor.
In response to the March 2011 RFI,
NEMA suggested that vertical motors
rated 1–500 horsepower be tested
according to section 6.4 of IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method B—Inputoutput with segregation of losses and
indirect measurement of stray-load
loss), if bearing construction permits;
otherwise, it suggested testing vertical
motors according to section 6.6 of IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method E—Electric
power measurement under load with
segregation of losses and direct
measurement of stray-load loss), as
specified in NEMA MG 1–2009
paragraph 12.58.1 ‘‘Determination of
Motor Efficiency and Losses.’’ 25
(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–
0019 at p. 4)
DOE consulted with testing
laboratories about whether IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method E) would be
an appropriate procedure to use when
testing vertical motors. DOE understood
that the primary difference between
IEEE Standard 112’s Test Method B and
Test Method E is that Test Method E
uses a different method to calculate
stray-load loss relative to Test Method
B. Test Method B measures motor
output power and uses this number as
part of the calculation for stray-load
loss. However, Test Method E does not
require the measurement of output
power, and, therefore, uses a different
method to find the stray-load loss. By
not requiring the measurement of output
power, Test Method E can be conducted
on motors installed in an area or in
25 ‘‘Efficiency and losses shall be determined in
accordance with IEEE Std 112 or Canadian
Standards Association Standard C390. The
efficiency shall be determined at rated output,
voltage, and frequency. Unless otherwise specified,
horizontal polyphase, squirrel-cage medium motors
rated 1 to 500 horsepower shall be tested by
dynamometer (Method B) (or CSA Std C390 Method
1) as described in Section 6.4 of IEEE Std 112.
Motor efficiency shall be calculated using form B
of IEEE Std 112 or the equivalent C390 calculation
procedure. Vertical motors of this horsepower range
shall also be tested by Method B if bearing
construction permits; otherwise they shall be tested
by segregated losses (Method E) (or CSA Std
Method 2) as described in Section 6.6 of IEEE Std
112, including direct measurement of stray-loss
load.’’ NEMA Standards Publication MG1—2009,
Motors and Generators, paragraph 12.58.1.
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
equipment that cannot be attached to a
dynamometer. Although Test Method E
may reduce some testing burden for
manufacturers of vertical motors, DOE
was concerned that Test Method E
could produce results that were
inconsistent and inaccurate relative to
testing comparable motors under Test
Method B. Therefore, DOE declined to
propose the use of Test Method E for
vertical motors.
In response to the NOPR, there were
several comments regarding the
definitions and test setups for vertical
motors. Assuming that DOE intended to
set standards eventually for vertical
motors generally (beyond those already
applicable to general purpose subtype II
motors), NEMA suggested that newlycovered vertical motors be considered as
either definite purpose electric motors
or special purpose electric motors and
their features be incorporated in a
definition for vertical motors to clearly
identify the type included in the
covered electric motors. (NEMA, No. 10
at p. 29)
As described earlier, in the NOPR,
DOE did not intend to define ‘‘covered
motors.’’ Rather, it was DOE’s intention
to define subsets of motors that would
have the potential to be covered in a
standards rulemaking. In the case of
vertical motors, DOE did not believe
that a definition was necessary because
it is always obvious whether a motor is
intended for vertical operation. Being
defined as a vertical motor would not,
then, necessarily mean a vertical motor
was subject to energy conservation
standards. The current energy
conservation standards rulemaking is
intended to determine coverage
parameters for defined motor types.
Based on these facts, DOE does not
believe it is necessary to state whether
a vertical motor is special or definite
purpose (as neither distinction would
change the fact that the motor is
vertical), and has not updated its
decision from the NOPR to leave
vertical motors undefined.
In regard to testing, NEMA
commented that IEEE 112 (Test Method
E) is a standard method for testing
vertical motors when the vertical motor
cannot be tested in horizontal position
due to bearing construction (which may
require that vertical load be exerted on
the bearings). NEMA suggested that
because vertical electric motors other
than vertical solid shaft normal thrust
general purpose electric motors (subtype
II) would be included in the scope of
covered products (and which may
require testing in vertical orientation),
IEEE 112 (Test Method E) be added as
a valid test procedure in paragraph 2 of
Appendix B to Subpart B and all other
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
paragraphs in Subparts B and U where
it is necessary to identify the applicable
test standards for vertical motors.
(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 32) NEMA noted
that there will be a difference in
efficiency when a vertical motor is
tested in vertical position with no
modification as compared to the vertical
motor tested in horizontal position after
changing the bearings. NEMA suggested
that this difference in efficiency levels
should be considered while establishing
standards for vertical motors. (NEMA,
No. 10 at pp. 31–32)
Based on the present definitions in 10
CFR 431.12, and those proposed in the
NOPR, and assuming that vertical
motors of various types are to be
included, NEMA recommended that the
proposed test procedure be revised to
permit the testing of vertical electric
motors in a horizontal or vertical
configuration according to the
equipment available at the testing
facility and the construction of the
motor. If the vertical motor cannot
operate in a horizontal position due to
its bearing construction or due to the
requirement that a vertical load be
applied to the shaft, then the bearings
should be replaced with the standard
bearings during testing. NEMA further
suggested that a coupling or other
adapter may be required to connect the
vertical electric motor to the test
equipment to provide sufficient
clearance. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 32)
DOE has reevaluated its test
instructions for vertical electric motors
following the comments received in
response to the NOPR. It understands
that there was confusion prior to the
NOPR regarding which types of vertical
motors were being defined, and earlier
comments were based on this
misunderstanding. After the NOPR,
DOE verified the claims in the
comments with SMEs and determined
that testing vertically and testing
horizontally would result in similar
efficiencies. However, for reasons stated
earlier, DOE continues to decline the
use of IEEE 112 (Test Method E). For
this final rule, while vertical solid shaft
normal thrust general purpose electric
motors (subtype II) shall be tested in a
horizontal configuration in accordance
with IEEE 112 (Test Method B), the test
instructions for other types of vertical
electric motors are amended to allow
test labs to choose between vertical and
horizontal orientation for testing, as
provided for by the lab’s equipment,
with preference given to testing in the
motor’s native orientation when either
is possible.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75983
4. Electric Motor Bearings
Electric motors usually employ antifriction bearings that are housed within
the endshields to support the motor’s
shaft and provide a low-friction means
for shaft rotation. Anti-friction bearings
contain rolling elements, which are the
components inside the bearings that
‘‘roll’’ around the bearing housing and
provide the reduced-friction means of
rotation. Rolling elements can be
spherical, cylindrical, conical, or other
shapes. The design of the rolling
element is selected based on the type
and amount of force the shaft must be
capable of withstanding. The two
primary types of loads imposed on
motor bearings are radial and thrust.
Radial loads are so named because the
load is applied along the radius of the
shaft (i.e., perpendicular to the shaft’s
axis of rotation). Bearings may be
subject to radial loads if the motor’s
shaft is horizontal to the floor (i.e.,
horizontally oriented). These bearings
are called ‘‘radial bearings.’’ ‘‘Thrust
bearings’’ are bearings capable of
withstanding thrust loads, which are
loads with forces parallel to the ‘‘axis’’
of the shaft (i.e., parallel to the shaft’s
axis of rotation) and may be
encountered when the shaft is vertical
to the floor (i.e., vertically oriented).
However, either radial or axial shaft
loads can be encountered in any
orientation.
In addition to the type of force,
bearings are also chosen based on the
magnitude of the force they can
withstand. While most applications use
spherical rolling-elements, some motors
employ cylindrical-shaped rollingelements inside the bearings. These
cylindrical-shaped rolling elements are
called ‘‘rollers,’’ and this bearing type is
referred to as a ‘‘roller bearing.’’ Roller
bearings can withstand higher loads
than spherical ball bearings because the
cylindrically shaped rolling-element
provides a larger contact area for
transmitting forces. However, the larger
contact area of the rolling element with
the bearing housing also creates more
friction and, therefore, may cause more
losses during motor operation.
Regardless of the rolling element
used, bearings must be lubricated with
either grease or oil to further reduce
friction and prevent wear on the
bearings. Open or shielded bearing
construction allows for the exchange of
grease or oil during motor operation.
Sealed bearings, unlike shielded or open
bearings, do not allow the free exchange
of grease or oil during operation. Sealed
bearings incorporate close-fitting seals
that prevent the exchange of oil or
grease during the bearing’s operational
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75984
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
lifetime. Such bearings may be referred
to as ‘‘lubed-for-life’’ bearings because
the user purchases the bearings with the
intention of replacing the bearing before
it requires re-lubrication. Shielded
bearings differ from open bearings in
that shielded bearings contain a cover,
called a ‘‘shield,’’ which allows the flow
of oil or grease into the inner portions
of the bearing casing, but restricts dirt
or debris from contacting the rolling
elements. Preventing dirt and debris
from contacting the bearing prevents
wear and increases the life of the
bearing.
Certain vertical motors use oillubricated bearings rather than the
grease-lubricated bearings that are
typically found in horizontal motors. If
a vertical motor contains an oillubricated system, problems can occur
when the motor is reoriented into a
horizontal position and attached to a
dynamometer for testing. Because oil
has a lower viscosity than grease, it
could pool in the bottom of the now
horizontally oriented (vertical motor)
bearing.26 Such pooling, or loss of
proper lubrication to the bearings, could
adversely affect the motor’s
performance, damage the motor, and
distort the results of testing.
Because of the various construction
and lubrication types, DOE understands
that motors may contain bearings only
capable of horizontal operation, vertical
operation, or, in some limited cases,
both horizontal and vertical operation.
For those motors equipped with thrust
bearings only capable of vertical
orientation, DOE stated in the NOPR
that reorienting the motor could cause
physical damage to the motor. For
motors equipped with such bearings,
DOE proposed to add testing
instructions that would require the
testing laboratory to replace the thrust
bearing with a ‘‘standard bearing,’’
which DOE defined as a 6000 series,
open, single-row, deep groove, radial
ball bearing, because that is the most
common type of bearing employed on
horizontally oriented motors. For any
electric motor equipped with bearings
that are capable of operating properly
(i.e., without damaging the motor) when
the motor is oriented horizontally, DOE
proposed that the motor should be
tested as is, without replacing the
bearings. DOE believed that this was the
most appropriate approach because it
would provide the truest representation
of the energy use that will be
experienced by the user.
26 Viscosity is the measure of a liquid’s resistivity
to being deformed. An example of a material with
high viscosity is molasses and an example of a
material with low viscosity is water.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
NEMA agreed that thrust bearings
should be replaced with standard
bearings if the motor is tested in an
orientation different from the normal
one. However, NEMA stated that the
motor manufacturer should be
consulted before any modification is
made. This is because some bearings
may require oil or other lubricants for
normal use. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 28,
32–33)
Advanced Energy agreed with the
proposed approach of testing electric
motors with bearings capable of
horizontal orientation. However, for
motors with bearings not capable of
horizontal orientation, Advanced
Energy proposed that thrust bearings be
replaced with shielded bearings with
already packed grease to prevent overfilling of grease and to reduce lead time
of installation of bearings. (Advanced
Energy, No. 8 at p. 5) Advanced Energy
requested that DOE replace ‘‘should’’
with ‘‘may,’’ in the proposed testing
instruction for ‘‘electric motors with
bearings incapable of horizontal
operation’’ so that the testing instruction
for states: ‘‘may replace the thrust
bearing’’ and ‘‘may be tested as is’’.
(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 130)
DOE notes NEMA’s and Advanced
Energy’s comment that different
bearings may require different
lubricants (e.g., oil, grease), which
should be considered when the bearings
of a motor are replaced with standard
bearings for testing. Considering
NEMA’s and Advanced Energy’s
comments, DOE has modified the
definition of standard bearings to
include a grease lubricated double
shielded bearing. Furthermore, while
DOE understands Advanced Energy’s
suggestions regarding the language, the
language is written such that only
motors whose bearings cannot be
operated horizontally ‘‘shall be’’
replaced for testing. DOE believes that
this renders this suggested wording
change unnecessary. Motors whose
bearings do not permit horizontal
operation but which must be tested
horizontally due to test equipment
availability must have their bearings
replaced in order to yield accurate
results.
In response to the preliminary
analysis, DOE received comment
specifically about testing electric motors
with sleeve bearings. Sleeve bearings are
another type of bearing that do not use
typical rolling elements, but rather
consist of a lubricated bushing, or
‘‘sleeve,’’ inside of which the motor
shaft rotates. The shaft rotates on a film
of oil or grease, which reduces friction
during rotation. Sleeve bearings
generally have a longer life than anti-
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
friction ball bearings, but they are more
expensive than anti-friction ball
bearings for most horsepower ratings.27
Both ASAP and NEMA asserted that a
motor with sleeve bearings should have
its efficiency verified by testing a motor
of equivalent electrical design and that
employs standard bearings.28 (ASAP
and NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–
0027–0020 at p. 4) However, NEMA
later revised its position in separately
submitted comments to the electric
motors preliminary analysis public
meeting. NEMA stated that further
review of pertinent test data indicated
that sleeve bearings do not significantly
impact the efficiency of a motor, and
that a motor having sleeve bearings is
not sufficient reason to exclude it from
meeting energy conservation standards.
(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–
0054 at p. 17) NEMA also commented
that it is not aware of any reason that
a motor cannot be tested with sleeve
bearings, but that DOE should also
provide the option to test sleeve bearing
motors with the sleeve bearing swapped
out for anti-friction ball bearings.
(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–
0054 at p. 17)
DOE separately consulted with testing
laboratories, SMEs, and manufacturers
and reviewed a pertinent technical
paper.29 As a result of this collective
research, at the time of the NOPR, DOE
tentatively determined that sleeve
bearings do not significantly degrade
efficiency when compared to spherical,
radial ball bearings. DOE also did not
believe that it was more difficult to
attach a motor with sleeve bearings to a
dynamometer than a standard, general
purpose electric motor equipped with
radial ball bearings. Additionally, DOE
believed that swapping sleeve bearings
with spherical, radial ball bearings may
be time consuming and otherwise
present unforeseen or undue difficulties
because of the overall design of the
motor that operates with the sleeve
bearings. Motors that employ sleeve
bearings have significantly different
bearing-support configurations than
motors that employ spherical, radial ball
bearings, and DOE was not certain that
sleeve bearings could be readily
27 William R. Finley and Mark M. Hodowanec.
Sleeve Vs. Anti-Friction Bearings: Selection of the
Optimal Bearing for Induction Motors. 2001. IEEE.
USA.
28 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.
29 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\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
swapped with standard ball bearings
without significant, costly motor
alterations. Therefore, because it may be
impracticable to swap them out with
other bearings, DOE proposed that
motors with sleeve bearings be tested asis and with the sleeve bearings installed.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA
agreed with DOE’s proposal to test
motors with sleeve bearings intact.
NEMA stated that testing the motor with
sleeve bearings in place will result in a
decrease of efficiency due to losses
associated with sleeve bearings. In its
view, the efficiency measure will thus
represent normal consumer operation.
NEMA further added that the normal
IEEE 112 (Test Method B) or (Test
Method E), where applicable, is
sufficient for testing electric motors
with sleeve bearings. (NEMA, No. 10 at
pp. 27–28, 32–33)
As no stakeholders presented reasons
why motors with sleeve bearings should
not be tested with the bearings in place,
and the available facts indicate that the
presence of sleeve bearings does not
affect efficiency testing, DOE has
retained this approach for this final
rule.30 As these sleeve bearings will
already be in place when the motor
arrives for testing, and the bearings will
not be replaced, if the shield bearings
are not already have packed grease in
place, it will not be used for testing.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
5. Electric Motors With Non-Standard
Bases, Feet or Mounting Configurations
DOE has not yet regulated special or
definite purpose motors, or general
purpose motors with ‘‘special bases or
mounting feet,’’ because of the limits
prescribed by the previous statutory
definition of ‘‘electric motor.’’ That
definition included a variety of criteria
such as ‘‘foot-mounting’’ and being built
in accordance with NEMA ‘‘T-frame’’
dimensions, which all narrowed the
scope of what comprised an electric
motor under the statute. (See 42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(A) (1992)) As a result of EISA
2007 and related amendments that
established energy conservation
standards for two subtypes of general
purpose electric motors (subtype I and
subtype II), among other motor types,
the statutory meaning of the term
‘‘general purpose motor’’ was broadened
to include, for example, ‘‘footless
motors.’’ Similarly, because definite and
special purpose motors now fall under
the broad statutory heading of ‘‘electric
motors,’’ DOE is now considering
whether to set standards for electric
30 William R. Finley and Mark M. Hodowanec.
Sleeve Vs. Anti-Friction Bearings: Selection of the
Optimal Bearing for Induction Motors. 2001. IEEE.
USA.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
motors with non-standard bases, feet, or
mounting configurations in the
standards rulemaking.
Part 4 of section I in NEMA MG 1–
2009 provides general standards for
dimensions, tolerances, and mounting
for all types of electric motors. In that
section, figures 4–1 through 4–5 identify
the letter symbols associated with
specific dimensions of electric motors
with various bases, feet, and mounting
configurations. Accompanying these
figures are tables throughout part 4 of
section I that specify dimensions,
explain how a particular dimension is
measured and detail the applicable
measurement tolerances. This collective
information is used to standardize the
dimensions associated with specific
frame sizes, given a certain base, feet, or
mounting configuration. The IEC
provides similar information in its
standard, IEC Standard 60072–1,
‘‘Dimensions and output series for
rotating electrical machines.’’ Although
the majority of motors are built within
these specifications, DOE is aware that
some motors may have feet, bases, or
mounting configurations that do not
necessarily conform to the industry
standards. These are the motors—i.e.
those not conforming to NEMA or IEC
standards for bases, feet, or mounting
configurations—that DOE is considering
regulating under the standards NOPR.
DOE believed that a definition was
not needed for this particular type of
electric motor because whether a motor
has a mounting base, feet, or
configuration that is built in compliance
with the standard dimensions laid out
in NEMA MG 1–2009 or IEC Standard
60072–1 was unambiguous. Also, DOE
believed that additional testing set-up
instructions for these types of electric
motors were not necessary because such
mounting characteristics are not
explicitly addressed either in IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA
C390–10, other than how mounting
conditions will affect the vibration of a
motor under IEEE Standard 112,
paragraph 9.6.2, ‘‘Mounting
configurations.’’
In response to the March 2011 RFI,
ASAP and NEMA asserted that a motor
with a special base or mounting feet, as
well as a motor of any mounting
configuration, should have its efficiency
verified by testing a model motor with
an equivalent electrical design that
could more easily be attached to a
dynamometer. (ASAP and NEMA,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0020 at
p. 4)
DOE believed testing a ‘‘similar
model’’ to show compliance would
likely create difficulties in ensuring the
accuracy and equivalence of claimed
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75985
efficiency ratings. Additionally, DOE
believed that testing motors with nonstandard bases or mounting feet would
not present an undue burden or
insurmountable obstacle to testing. The
test benches used for testing electric
motors can have, for example,
adjustable heights to accommodate the
wide variety of motor sizes and
mechanical configurations that
commonly exist. Therefore, because the
mounting feet will not necessarily affect
how a motor is mounted to a
dynamometer, but simply the
positioning of the shaft extension, DOE
believed non-standard mounting feet
would present no additional testing
burdens. As was done for the vertical
electric motor that DOE had tested and
which did not have a standard
horizontal mounting configuration, a
testing laboratory would likely treat
these motors as a typical general
purpose electric motor and adjust the
test bench as applicable for the unit
under test.
Finally, DOE understood that an
electric motor’s mounting base, feet, or
configuration would have no impact on
its demonstrated efficiency. An electric
motor’s mounting base, feet, or
configuration does not affect a motor’s
operating characteristics because this is
a feature external to the core
components of the motor. It is also a
feature that will not impact friction and
windage losses because this feature does
not involve any rotating elements of the
motor. An electric motor’s mounting
base, feet, or mounting configuration
only affects how a motor is physically
installed in a piece of equipment. DOE’s
approach was premised on these facts.
While NEMA agreed with DOE’s
proposed approach not to define electric
motors with non-standard base, feet or
mounting configurations, it suggested
that additional test instructions for these
electric motor types were needed in
view of testing difficulties. (NEMA, No.
10 at p. 26) In the case of special
mounting configurations or footless
motors, particularly TENV types, NEMA
stated that mounting configuration may
affect the free convection cooling of the
motor. For instance, some testing
facilities may use a V-shape or U-shape
block with straps to hold the movement
of a footless motor. The design of the
block(s) can inhibit free convection over
TENV motor and can cover ventilation
openings in case of open motors. Thus,
NEMA recommended that DOE consider
adding language for testing of an electric
motor with non-standard bases, feet, or
mounting configurations to ensure that
the method of mounting ‘‘does not have
an adverse effect on the performance of
the electric motor’’ particularly on
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
75986
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
cooling of the motor due to use of
adaptive mounting fixtures. (NEMA, No.
10 at p. 27).
DOE notes NEMA’s concern and
understands that the current procedures
to test electric motors with a nonstandard base, feet, or mounting
configuration, as described by NEMA,
may affect the cooling of the motor and
impact the efficiency ratings of the
motor. In order to achieve accuracy in
the efficiency measures, because bases,
feet, and mounting arrangements can
alter tested efficiency, DOE has adopted
the following test procedure for electric
motors with a non-standard base, feet,
or mounting configuration: ‘‘Some
adaptive fixtures may be required to
mount a motor on the test equipment
when testing an electric motor with a
non-standard base, feet, or mounting
configuration. The method of mounting
or use of adaptive mounting fixtures
should not have an adverse impact on
the performance of the electric motor,
particularly on the cooling of the
motor.’’
6. Electric Motors With SeparatelyPowered Blowers
In the NOPR, DOE addressed a subset
of immersible motors it referred to as
being built in a ‘‘TEBC’’ (totally
enclosed blower cooled—i.e., with
cooling airflow provided by a separate
blower driven by a separate, auxiliary
motor) configuration. These motors
were not only immersible, but had a
separately powered blower as part of
their assembly. For these motors, DOE
proposed requiring the testing
laboratory to power the smaller blower
motor from a power source separate
from the one used for the electric motor
being tested for efficiency. Following
this approach would allow the testing
laboratory to isolate the performance of
the motor under test while continuing to
provide the necessary cooling from the
blower motor.
Advanced Energy concurred with
separately powering the blower motor of
an immersible motor configured in a
TEBC configuration. (Advanced Energy,
No. 8 at p. 3) However, NEMA requested
that DOE reconsider the requirement of
‘‘separate power source’’ in the
proposed definition because a test
facility may have only one power
source. NEMA also stated that this
requirement is not necessary because all
that matters is that the test equipment
used to measure the electrical power
flowing into the motor is connected
only to the motor leads and not to both
the motor leads and blower leads. Also,
in its view, the proper voltage should be
applied to the blower when the voltage
to the motor is to be reduced as a part
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
of the IEEE 112 Method B or Method E
test procedure. NEMA commented that
it was unclear why the requirement to
exclude the input power to the blower
in the measurement of the motor power
would apply only to blower cooled
‘‘immersible’’ motors if the test
procedure is intended to apply to any
electric motor with contact seals. The
test procedure should also clearly state
that the input power to the separately
powered blower is not to be included in
the determination of the efficiency of
the immersible definite purpose electric
motor, or, in general, for any electric
motor with a separately powered blower
furnished as a part of the total assembly.
(NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 23–24)
Following the NOPR, DOE raised this
issue with stakeholders and SMEs. From
those discussions, DOE acknowledges
that at least some non-immersible
motors that were furnished with
separately-powered blowers exist would
also meet the nine criteria that DOE is
considering applying with respect to its
standards rulemaking efforts. It was not
DOE’s intention to omit guidance on
testing these motors; DOE agrees with
NEMA that a test plan for ‘‘blowercooled’’ electric motors should not be
limited only to those motors that are
also immersible. Therefore, in this final
rule, DOE is adding separate test set-up
instructions for an ‘‘electric motor with
a separately-powered blower.’’ This setup will be applicable to any electric
motor that has this particular design
element, regardless of whether this
electric motor is also immersible. As
DOE did not receive comments in the
NOPR asking DOE to define this motor
type, the Department believes that
stakeholders understand what motor
types were covered by this test set-up,
and DOE has opted not to define this
motor type at this time.
Regarding the use of the term
‘‘separate power source,’’ DOE
recognizes that test labs may use a
variety of power supplies to facilitate
testing. DOE believes that NEMA’s
suggested plan of measuring the two
sources of power separately (rather than
powering them separately) can work,
provided it is done such that it
accurately characterizes the power going
into the tested motor. In either
arrangement, the objective is to exclude
the power to the blower’s motor from
any calculations of efficiency for the
tested motor. For these reasons and
based on the comments received, DOE
has added instructions to the procedure
to exclude the losses attributable to the
motor powering a separately-powered
blower. Under this change, the blower’s
motor can be powered by a source
separate from the source powering the
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
electric motor under test or by
connecting leads such that they only
measure the power of the motor under
test. This instruction follows from
DOE’s proposal ‘‘to isolate the
performance of the motor under test
while continuing to provide the
necessary cooling from the blower
motor.’’ 78 FR 38466. In this final rule,
DOE extends those instructions to all
motors with separately-powered
blowers rather than limiting it to
immersible motors in recognition of the
fact that the qualities of being
immersible and having a separatelypowered blower are technologically
independent and should be treated as
such.
G. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only
Definitions
There are several electric motor types
whose energy efficiency DOE is not
proposing to regulate as part of the
recently published energy conservation
standards proposal but that DOE is
defining in today’s rule to provide
manufacturers regulatory clarity when
the final standards rule is published.
More details regarding the specific
motor types are discussed below.
1. Component Set of an Electric Motor
Electric motors are comprised of
several primary components that
include: A rotor, stator, stator windings,
stator frame, two endshields, two
bearings, and a shaft. As described in
the NOPR, a component set of an
electric motor comprises any
combination of these motor parts that
does not form an operable motor. 78 FR
38466. For example, a component set
may consist of a wound stator and rotor
component sold without a stator
housing, endshields, or shaft. These
components may be sold with the
intention of having the motor parts
mounted inside other equipment, with
the equipment providing the necessary
mounting and rotor attachments for the
components to operate in a manner
similar to a stand-alone electric motor.
Component sets may also be sold with
the intention of a third party using the
components to construct a complete,
stand-alone motor. In such cases, the
end manufacturer that ‘‘completes’’ the
motor’s construction must certify that
the motor meets any pertinent
standards. (See 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)(10)
(defining ‘‘manufacture’’ to include
manufacture, produce, assemble, or
import.)) This approach was supported
by NEMA in its comments on the
electric motors preliminary analysis.
(NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–
0054 at pp. 15–16)
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
DOE understands that a component
set does not constitute a complete, or
near-complete, motor that could be
tested under IEEE Standard 112 (Test
Method B) or CSA C390–10, because it
would require major modifications
before it can operate as a motor. In view
of its examination of motor component
sets, DOE understands that some of
them would require the addition of
costly and fundamental parts for the
motor to be capable of continuous-duty
operation, as would be required under
either test procedure. The parts that
would need to be added to the
component set, such as a wound stator
or rotor, are complex components that
directly affect the performance of a
motor and can only be provided by a
motor manufacturer. Without the
fundamental components, there is no
motor. Therefore, DOE believes that a
single testing laboratory would have
insurmountable difficulty machining
motor parts, assembling the parts into
an operable machine, and testing the
motor in a way that would be
manageable, consistent, and repeatable
by other testing laboratories. Because
DOE is not aware of any test procedures
or additional test procedure instructions
that would accommodate the testing of
a component set in a manageable,
consistent, and repeatable manner, it
declined to consider component sets for
energy conservations standards in the
NOPR.
In terms of defining a ‘‘component
set,’’ DOE was aware of some confusion
regarding what constitutes a
‘‘component set’’ of a motor, especially
about the difference between a
‘‘component set’’ and a ‘‘partial’’ motor.
No technical standard currently defines
these terms. To bring a common
definition for these generally
understood, but undefined, concepts,
DOE proposed to define a ‘‘component
set’’ as a ‘‘combination of motor parts
that require the addition of more than
two endshields to create an operable
motor.’’ 78 FR 38469. Under the
proposed definition, these parts may
consist of any combination of a stator
frame, wound stator, rotor, shaft, or
endshields and the term ‘‘operable
motor’’ would refer to an electric motor
engineered for performing in accordance
with nameplate ratings. 78 FR 38469.
In response to the NOPR, Nidec
suggested that the definition of
component set be clearer so that it can
be differentiated from a partial motor. It
criticized the proposed definition for
not being clear enough to distinguish a
component set from a partial motor.
(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 31) NEMA,
on the other hand, recommended that
DOE not define this term, noting that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
the clearer definition of partial motor
should be sufficient to distinguish it
from a component set. (NEMA, No. 10
at p. 34)
In DOE’s view, defining what a
‘‘component set’’ is, and distinguishing
it from a ‘‘partial electric motor’’ is
critical. Furthermore, as explained
earlier, DOE does not intend to define
only those motors for which it is
proposing energy conservation
standards in the parallel rulemaking.
Rather, motors that need to be defined
in order to clearly outline coverage in
the standards rulemaking will be
defined. By defining a ‘‘component set,’’
DOE can clearly state whether a given
motor would be affected in a particular
standards rulemaking.
Nidec also raised concerns regarding
where bearings fit into the definition
(i.e. whether the presence or absence of
bearings factored into the classification
of equipment as a compenent set or
partial electric motor), In recognition of
the fact that bearings are often
specifically designed to match
endplates, DOE is modifying its
proposed definition by adding the
phrase ‘‘and their associated bearings’’
to the ‘‘component set’’ definition. to
better distinguish it from a partial
motor. To mitigate the risk of confusion,
DOE is defining a component set as
referring to ‘‘a combination of motor
parts that require the addition of critical
componentry in excess of two
endshields (and their associated
bearings) to create an operable motor.’’
In view of its own research and
consensus among interested parties,
DOE is maintaining its NOPR proposal.
2. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motor
While most electric motors are aircooled and many use a fan attached to
the shaft on the end opposite the drive
to blow air over the surface of the motor
to dissipate heat during the motor’s
operation, liquid-cooled electric motors
rely on a special cooling apparatus that
pumps liquid into and around the motor
housing. The liquid is circulated around
the motor frame to dissipate heat and
prevent the motor from overheating
during continuous-duty operation. A
liquid-cooled electric motor may use
different liquids or liquids at different
temperatures, which could affect the
operating temperature of the motor and,
therefore, the efficiency of the motor.
This variability could present testing
consistency and reliability problems.
Neither IEEE Standard 112 (Test
Method B) nor CSA C390–10 provide a
standardized methodology for testing
the energy efficiency of a liquid-cooled
electric motor. Additionally, as NEMA
noted in its comments, these motors are
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75987
typically used in space-constrained
applications, such as mining
applications, and require a high power
density, which somewhat limits their
efficiency potential. (NEMA, NEMA,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0054 at p.
42) In view of these likely testing
consistency problems, DOE noted its
intent to not propose energy
conservation standards for these motors
at this time. 78 FR 38475.
At least two key issues were raised in
the context of these motors: First, how
to test them while accounting for
temperature differences and second,
how to differentiate these motors from
certain other motor types.
a. Temperature Conditions
In response to the NOPR, NEMA
commented that it is very difficult to
simulate the various environments in a
testing facility where the tested motor is
required to be connected to a
dynamometer. In order to maintain
acceptable temperature levels, some
motors operating in an open
environment may rely on both free
convection and liquid cooling, motors
operating in a confined space may rely
only on liquid cooling and other motors
may be operated in an area with
externally supplied ventilating air and
liquid cooling. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 36).
Thus, NEMA argued that energy
conservation standards should not be
established for liquid-cooled electric
motors. As noted earlier, NEMA
commented that the liquid-cooled
electric motors are used in specialized
applications that require high power
density within a limited size. Different
physical sizes may be used for the same
power rating for different applications
for different speed-torque performance,
as needed. This fact also makes it
difficult to establish any particular
energy conservation standard for a
rating. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 35–36).
No standardized methodology for
testing the energy efficiency of a liquidcooled electric motor, the consensus
among stakeholders on how to treat
these motors, and liquid-cooled electric
motors are likely to be used in
specialized applications with high
power density requirements. Because of
that, it is difficult to established a
procedure that can be confidently said
to be representative of energy use
experienced by consumers. For that
reason, DOE is not establishing energy
conservation standards for liquid-cooled
electric motors at this time.
b. Differentiating From Other Motor
Types
In response to the October 15, 2010
energy conservation standards
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75988
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
framework document, NEMA and ASAP
commented that greater clarification is
needed with regard to liquid-cooled
electric motors and how to differentiate
them from immersible or submersible
electric motors. (NEMA and ASAP,
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0012 at p.
9) DOE proposed to define ‘‘liquidcooled electric motor’’ to clarify DOE’s
view of which motors would be covered
by this term but did not indicate it
planned to set standards for them.
DOE’s proposed definition was based on
the definition of a ‘‘totally enclosed
water-cooled machine’’ found in
paragraph 1.26.5 of NEMA MG 1–2009.
Further, DOE proposed to remove
‘‘totally enclosed’’ from the definition to
prevent any unintentional limitations of
the definition due to frame construction;
liquid-cooling may exist independently
of degree of frame enclosure. DOE also
planned to replace the term ‘‘water’’
with ‘‘liquid’’ to cover the use of any
type of liquid as a coolant. Finally, per
comments from NEMA, DOE proposed
to modify the term ‘‘water conductors’’
to ‘‘liquid-filled conductors’’ to clarify
that the conductors, themselves, are not
made of liquid. (NEMA, EERE–2010–
BT–STD–0027–0054 at p. 35)
Consequently, DOEe proposed to define
‘‘liquid-cooled electric motor’’ as ‘‘a
motor that is cooled by circulating
liquid with the liquid or liquid-filled
conductors coming into direct contact
with the machine parts.’’
In response to the NOPR, NEMA
commented that it does not see a need
for a definition of ‘‘liquid-cooled
electric motor’’ because these motor
types are not covered under regulation.
However, if DOE still decided there was
a need to include a definition, NEMA
suggested using and defining the term
‘‘liquid-cooled definite purpose motor’’
rather than ‘‘liquid-cooled definite
purpose electric motor’’. In order to
remove any confusion related to ‘‘liquid
filled conductors’’, NEMA
recommended the definition, if needed,
be modified as: ‘‘Liquid-cooled definite
purpose motor means a motor that is
cooled by circulating liquid with the
liquid coming into direct contact with
machine parts, typically the enclosure.’’
(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 35)
As stated earlier, even if these motor
types are not currently regulated, DOE
intends to define these motor types for
clarity. This decision is further
described in section G. DOE has also
considered NEMA’s proposed addition
to the definition of ‘‘typically the
enclosure’’ and removal of the term
‘‘liquid-filled conductors.’’ For the final
rule, DOE is maintaining the term
‘‘liquid-filled conductors’’ to maintain
the broadness of the original definition
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
and not limit the definition to only
circulating liquid. Furthermore, DOE is
opting not to add the term ‘‘typically the
enclosure’’ as it does not believe that
this phrase adds to the content of the
definition and may only add confusion.
DOE is including the term ‘‘designated
cooling apparatus’’ to bring more clarity.
For this final rule, DOE adopts the
definition of ‘‘liquid-cooled electric
motor’’ as ‘‘a motor that is cooled by
liquid circulated using a designated
cooling apparatus such that the liquid or
liquid-filled conductors come into
direct contact with the parts of the
motor.’’
3. Submersible Electric Motor
As previously addressed, most motors
are not engineered to operate while
under water. Any liquid inside a stator
frame could impede rotor operation and
corrode components of the motor.
However, a submersible electric motor
is capable of complete submersion in
liquid without damaging the motor. A
submersible electric motor uses special
seals to prevent the ingress of liquid
into its enclosure. Additionally, DOE
understands that a submersible electric
motor relies on the properties of the
surrounding liquid to cool the motor
during continuous-duty operation. That
is, submersible electric motors are only
capable of continuous duty operation
while completely submerged in liquid,
as NEMA clarified in its comments on
the energy conservation standards
preliminary analysis. (NEMA, EERE–
2010–BT–STD–0027–0054 at p. 37)
Consequently, as detailed in the NOPR,
DOE defined ‘‘submersible electric
motor’’ as an electric motor designed for
continuous operation only while
submerged in liquid.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA
commented that no definition of
‘‘submersible electric motor’’ is needed
because these motor types are not
covered under DOE’s regulations.
However, if DOE still decided there was
a need to include a definition, in
NEMA’s view, the definition should be
for that of a ‘‘submersible definite
purpose motor’’ and not a ‘‘submersible
definite purpose electric motor.’’ NEMA
claimed that the term ‘‘continuous’’ was
unnecessary as part of the definition
since the motor is not intended to be
operated outside of the liquid for any
period of time. NEMA suggested that the
term be defined as referring to a motor
‘‘designed for operation only while
submerged in liquid.’’ (NEMA, No. 10 at
p. 36)
As explained above, DOE is not
adding the term ‘‘definite purpose’’ to
any individual motor definitions at this
time. However, DOE recognizes that it is
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
necessary to distinguish submersible
electric motors from electric motors
with moisture-resistant, sealed or
encapsulated windings. To clarify this
distinction, in this final rule, DOE is
defining ‘‘submersible electric motor’’ as
an ‘‘electric motor that (1) is intended to
operate continuously only while
submerged in liquid, (2) is capable of
operation while submerged in liquid for
an indefinite period of time, and (3) has
been sealed to prevent ingress of liquid
from contacting the motor’s internal
parts.’’
At the time of the NOPR, DOE
believed that testing submersible
electric motors would be difficult
because the motor must be submerged
in a liquid to properly operate. After
discussions with manufacturers and
testing laboratories, DOE confirmed that
no industry test procedures or potential
modifications to the procedures
currently under 10 CFR 431.16 could be
used to consistently test (and reliably
measure) a motor that relies on
submersion in liquid for continuousduty operation. Additionally, DOE was
not aware of any testing facilities that
are capable of testing a submerged
motor. Consequently, DOE decided not
to propose specific preparatory
instructions for testing submersible
electric motors in the NOPR. DOE
requested stakeholder comment on
whether there are facilities capable of
conducting energy efficiency tests on
submersible motors, along with any
specific procedures that these facilities
follow when attempting to rate the
energy efficiency of this equipment. In
its written comments, NEMA affirmed
that they were unaware of any test
facilities available for conducting an
IEEE 112 (Method B) test on a motor
while submerged in liquid. (NEMA, No.
10 at p. 37)
Therefore, DOE is only adopting a
definition in today’s final rule, which is
consistent with DOE’s continuing
intention to exclude these motors from
the proposed energy conservation
standards.
4. Inverter-Only Electric Motor
DOE considered two types of electric
motors related to the use of inverters,
those that are engineered to work only
with an inverter and those that are
capable of working with an inverter, but
also capable of general, continuous-duty
operation without an inverter. This
section addresses the former. Invertercapable electric motors are addressed in
section III.A.4.
In its electric motors preliminary
analysis TSD, DOE sought to clarify
that, in its view, inverter-only motors
were motors that can operate
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
continuously only by means of an
inverter drive. DOE also explained that
it preliminarily planned to continue to
exclude these motors from energy
conservation standards requirements, in
large part because of the difficulties that
were likely to arise from testing them.
One such difficulty is the fact that they
can be operated at a continuum of
speeds with no established speed testing
profile. Another is that motors may be
optimized for different waveforms,
which also have no established testing
standards. It would be difficult to
generate meaningful test results for
products which may be designed for a
wide variety of operating inputs. The
breadth of specifications resists
treatment with a single test procedure
without extensive study. Additonally,
the high frequency power signals may
be difficult to measure accurately
without specialized equipment that
testing laboratories may not possess.
NEMA agreed with DOE’s preliminary
approach to define such motors but not
require them, for the time being, to meet
energy conservation standards. It
suggested a more specific definition of
an ‘‘inverter-only motor,’’ based on
NEMA MG 1 part 31, ‘‘Definite-Purpose
Inverter-Fed Polyphase Motors,’’ in
place of the one previously considered
by DOE. (NEMA, EERE–2010–BT–STD–
0027–0054 at p. 35) DOE examined the
suggested definition and proposed to
adopt it, with minor modifications. DOE
proposed not to require that a motor be
marked as a ‘‘definite-purpose, inverterfed electric motor,’’ but stated that it
may consider such a requirement in the
future. DOE also noted NEMA’s concern
with the characterization of these
motors and changed the term to read as
an ‘‘inverter-only electric motor.’’ DOE
proposed to define an ‘‘inverter-only
electric motor’’ as ‘‘an electric motor
that is designed for operation solely
with an inverter, and is not intended for
operation when directly connected to
polyphase, sinusoidal line power.’’
In response to the NOPR, NEMA
contended that no definition is needed
for ‘‘definite purpose inverter fed
electric motor’’ because, in its view, a
definition would be needed only if there
was a clear indication that a motor
designed for operation on inverter
power appears to meet the definition of
‘‘electric motor’’ as recommended by
NEMA. If DOE still needed to include a
definition, NEMA asserted that the
definition should be for an ‘‘inverter-fed
definite purpose motor’’ and not a
‘‘definite purpose inverter-fed electric
motor.’’ If, upon further consideration,
DOE did decide that a definition was
needed, NEMA recommended that DOE
use the term ‘‘inverter-fed definite-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
purpose motor’’, which would refer to
‘‘a definite purpose motor that is
designed for operation solely with an
inverter, and is not defined for acrossthe-line starting when directly
connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line
power.’’ (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 37)
As noted earlier, DOE intends to
define these motor types to clarify these
terms. DOE has also explained that it is
not including the terms definite purpose
or special purpose in its individual
motors definitions, even though
‘‘definite-purpose’’ was initially used in
the definition of these motors, because
‘‘definite-purpose’’ is a term that has
meaning in the context of many other
motor types which DOE does not wish
to be confused with those requiring
inverters. DOE also wishes to define
these motors in terms of their actual
capabilities instead of design intent.
Therefore, to clear up any confusion
surrounding the use of the phrase
‘‘definite-purpose’’, DOE is changing the
name of this motor type to be ‘‘inverteronly electric motor.’’ As a result, DOE
is adopting the definition of ‘‘inverteronly electric motor’’ as ‘‘an electric
motor that is capable of rated operation
solely with an inverter, and is not
intended for operation when directly
connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line
power.’’
As for testing an inverter-only electric
motor, NEMA asserted that the industrybased procedures, which have already
been incorporated by reference in DOE’s
regulations, require that a tested motor
be capable of across-the-line starting.
Inverter-only motors are incapable of
meeting this requirement without the
inverter. (See NEMA, at EERE–2010–
BT–STD–0027–0054 at p. 35 and NEMA
MG 1–2009, part 31 at paragraph
31.4.3.1, which elaborates that an
‘‘inverter-only electric motor’’ cannot
perform across-the-line starting unless
the motor is attached to the inverter.) In
the NOPR, DOE noted it was not aware
of an industry accepted test procedure
specifying the speed or torque
characteristics to use when testing an
inverter-only motor. Furthermore, DOE
was unable to develop a standardized
test procedure for inverter-only electric
motors at this time. Because inverters
allow a motor to operate at a wide array
of speeds for many different
applications, there would be
considerable difficulties in developing a
single test procedure that produced a
fair representation of the actual energy
used by all electric motors connected to
an inverter in the field.
Additionally, a single motor design
may be paired with a wide variety of
inverters, so properly selecting an
inverter to use for the test such that an
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75989
accurate representation of efficiency is
obtained would prove extremely
difficult. Inverters may also operate at
frequencies that make accurate
measurement of power difficult with the
type of equipment used for conventional
motors. Even if DOE intended to
regulate such motors, testing them could
be extremely challenging using the
currently accepted industry test
procedures. Therefore, DOE proposed to
exclude these motors from
consideration for energy conservation
standards.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA and
Regal Beloit agreed with DOE’s decision
not to establish energy conservation
standards for motors intended for
operation solely with an inverter.
(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 38; Pub. Mtg. Tr.,
No. 7 at p. 78).
As noted earlier, one difficulty in
testing inverter-only motors is the fact
that they can be operated at a
continuum of speeds with no
established speed testing profile.
Another is that motors may be
optimized for different waveforms,
which also have no established testing
standards. It would be difficult to
generate meaningful test results for
products which may be designed for a
wide variety of operating inputs. The
breadth of specifications resists
treatment with a single test procedure
without extensive study. Additonally,
the high frequency power signals may
be difficult to measure accurately
without specialized equipment that
testing laboratories may not possess. In
view of this consensus and DOE’s own
conclusions regarding test procedure
difficulties, DOE has maintained this
approach for the final rule and is not
adopting a test procedure set-up for
these motors, nor will these motors be
considered for energy conservation
standards at this time.
H. Effective Dates for the Amended Test
Procedures and Other Issues
In the June 26, 2013 NOPR (78 FR
38455), DOE proposed that the
amendments described in the sections
below become effective 30 days after the
publication of the final rule.
Furthermore, at 180 days after
publication, the NOPR stated that the
manufacturers of those motors that
would be affected by the proposal
would need to make representations
regarding energy efficiency based on
results obtained through testing in
accordance with the proposed
amendments. Calculations based on a
substantiated alternative efficiency
determination method (AEDM) would
also need to need reflect the same
approach, as would any certifications of
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
75990
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
compliance with the applicable energy
conservation standards.31
Responding to the proposal, NEMA
commented that the effective date of any
change in test procedures should
coincide with the effective date of any
remedial change in the standards
provided to rectify the effect of the
changes in the test procedures on the
tested efficiency. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp.
11–13) 32 DOE understands NEMA’s
concern. Per DOE’s ‘‘Process Rule’’ at
appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part
430 and the requirements at 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3) and (r), DOE usually tries to
finalize its test procedures before its
energy conservation standards. This
timeframe allows stakeholders to
understand how the proposed standard
will be calculated to apply to the
covered equipment.
NEMA was also concerned that the
test procedure effective date would
mean that the test procedure applies to
motor types that are to be covered under
the parallel standards rulemaking over a
year before standards are finalized for
such motor types. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp.
11–13). It also made a number of
miscellaneous comments related to
clarifying the proposed requirements.
As described in the ‘‘Note’’ to
Appendix B to Subpart B and consistent
with 42 U.S.C. 6314(d), any
representations of energy efficiency or
energy consumption of motors for
which energy conservation standards
are currently provided at 10 CFR 431.25
must be based on any final amended
procedures in appendix B to subpart B
of part 431 starting 180 days after the
publication of any final amended test
procedures. Until that time,
manufacturers of motors for which
energy conservation standards are
currently provided at 10 CFR 431.25
may make such representations based
either on the final amended test
procedures or on the previous test
procedures, set forth at 10 CFR part 431,
subpart B, appendix B as contained in
the 10 CFR parts 200 to 499 edition
revised as of January 1, 2013.
For any other electric motor type that
is not currently covered by the energy
conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25
31 DOE acknowledged that, at the time, there are
were no current energy conservation standards for
the majority of the motor types covered in the
NOPR. DOE stated that if it establishes standards for
these motor types, manufacturers will be required
to use the proposed test procedure to certify
compliance with these standards.
32 In this and subsequent citations, the document
number refers to the number of the comment in the
Docket for the DOE rulemaking on test procedures
for electric motors, Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP–
0043; and the page references refer to the place in
the document where the statement preceding
appears.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
but may become covered by standards
under the standards rulemaking for
which a proposed rule is currently open
for comment (see 78 FR 73589 (Dec. 6,
2013), manufacturers of this equipment
would need to use Appendix B 180 days
after the effective date of the final rule
adopting energy conservation standards
for these motors. DOE would publish a
notice upon publication of a final rule
in that standards rulemaking
announcing the specific date and
amending the Note regarding
compliance with test procedures that
the today’s final rule codifies in
Appendix B.
NEMA also suggested that the test
procedures should be applicable only to
those general purpose, definite purpose
and special purpose electric motors for
which energy conservation standards
apply. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 10) DOE
disagrees. For the motor types defined
in 10 CFR part 431, and to the extent to
which any representations of energy
efficiency are made, manufacturers must
follow the given test procedures even if
they are currently exempt from energy
conservation standards. This approach
follows from DOE’s intention to
standardize the way the motors are
tested and energy efficiency is reported.
NEMA asserted that the proposed
‘‘note’’ limits the use of Appendix B to
Subpart B for purposes related to
representation of efficiency and
demonstration of compliance and would
not apply to the test procedures for the
enforcement process. (NEMA, No. 10 at
p. 11) Again, DOE disagrees. The note
lays out the test procedures that a
manufacturer would use to determine
that any applicable energy conservation
requirements are met. Those procedures
would be followed by DOE as part of
any enforcement action against a given
manufacturer.
NEMA suggested that any provisional
requirements included in the final rule
should be within the appropriate
requirements in 10 CFR 431.16 or 10
CFR 431.17. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 10–
13). DOE takes note of NEMA’s
suggestions and has ensured that today’s
final rule meets the requirements in 10
CFR 431.16 or 10 CFR 431.17.
NEMA suggested replacing the term
‘‘open bearing’’ with ‘‘grease lubricated
double shielded bearing’’ in the
proposed definition of standard bearing
in paragraph 4 of Appendix B to
Subpart B because, in its view, bearings
require lubrication during operation and
not all endshields have the ability to
contain lubricating material. (NEMA,
No. 10 at p. 38) DOE notes NEMA’s
concern that some endshields may not
be able to contain grease or lubricating
material and thus would require grease-
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
lubricated bearings instead of open
bearings. Therefore, DOE has amended
the definition to allow the use of greaselubricated double shielded bearing.
As for other concerns raised by NEMA
suggesting that the test procedures be
structured to limit their application to
special and definit purpose electric
motors, DOE notes that the procedures
are to apply to electric motors as a
whole. There is no need to insert
limiting language that would narrow the
application of the procedure. DOE
further notes that it chose the proposed
(and now final) definitional structure
because the now-proposed standards
rulemaking develops a coverage
structure based on a motor satisfying
both the broad ‘‘electric motors’’
definition and the nine referenced
criteria. With the release of this
standards proposal, many, if not all, of
NEMA’s comments on electric motor
definitions are resolved. Any further
comments that interested parties may
have on this structure can be submitted
for consideration as part of the ongoing
energy conservation standards
rulemaking.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that test
procedure rulemakings do not constitute
‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under
the Executive Order by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IFRA) for any rule that by law
must be proposed for public comment,
unless the agency certifies that the rule,
if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As
required by Executive Order 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the DOE
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Counsel’s Web site: https://energy.gov/
gc/office-general-counsel.
As described in the preamble, today’s
final rule presents additional test
procedure set-up clarifications for
motors currently subject to Federal
energy conservation standards, new test
procedure set-up and test procedures for
motors not currently subject to Federal
energy conservation standards, and
additional clarifications of definitions
for certain key terms to aid
manufacturers in better understanding
DOE’s regulations. All of the additions
are consistent with current industry
practices and, once compliance is
required, should be used for making
representations of energy-efficiency of
those covered electric motors and for
certifying compliance with any
applicable Federal energy conservation
standards. DOE certified to the Office of
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA) that the
additional test procedures and
definitions for electric motors would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The factual basis for this certification
follows.
To estimate the number of small
businesses impacted by the rule, DOE
considered the size standards for a small
business listed by the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS)
code and description under 13 CFR
121.201. To be considered a small
business, a manufacturer of electric
motors and its affiliates may employ a
maximum of 1,000 employees. DOE
estimates that there are approximately
30 domestic motor manufacturers that
manufacture electric motors covered by
EPCA, and no more than 13 of these
manufacturers are small businesses
employing a maximum of 1,000
employees. The number of motor
manufacturers, including the number of
manufacturers qualifying as small
businesses, was estimated based on
interviews with motor manufacturers
and publicly available data.
To determine the anticipated
economic impact of the testing
requirements on small manufacturers,
DOE compared this final rule to current
industry practices regarding testing
procedures and representations for
energy efficiency along with those steps
DOE has taken in the design of the rule
to minimize the testing burden on
manufacturers. For motors that are
currently subject to Federal standards,
today’s procedures are largely
clarifications and will not change the
underlying DOE test procedure and
methodologies currently being
employed by industry to rate and certify
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
to the Department compliance with
Federal standards.
For motors that are not currently
subject to Federal standards,
manufacturers of such unregulated
electric motors would only need to use
the testing set-up instructions, testing
procedures, and rating procedures
provided in today’s rule 180 days after
the effective date of any relevant energy
conservation standards final rule if a
manufacturer elected to make voluntary
representations of energy-efficiency of
its basic models. To better understand
how this rule will impact small
manufacturers of electric motors, DOE
reviewed current industry practice
regarding the representations of energy
efficiency made for motors not subject
to energy conservation standards and
how the rulemaking will impact current
industry practice. Specifically, DOE’s
test procedures require that those
manufacturers of regulated motors not
currently subject to standards who
choose to make public representations
of efficiency to follow the methods
prescribed in this rule. DOE’s rule does
not require manufacturers who do not
currently make voluntary
representations to then begin making
public representations of efficiency.
DOE researched the catalogs and Web
sites of the 13 identified small
manufacturers and found that only four
of these manufacturers clearly list
efficiency ratings for their equipment in
public disclosures. The remaining
manufacturers either build custom
equipment, which are not subject to the
changes made in this rule, or do not list
energy efficiency in their motor
specifications, in part because it is not
required. For the manufacturers that
currently do not voluntarily make any
public representations of energy
efficiency for their motors, DOE does
not believe this rule will impact their
current practice. DOE does not
anticipate any burden accruing to these
manufacturers unless the agency
considered and set energy conservation
standards for those additional electric
motor types. Of the four manufacturers
that currently elect to make voluntary
representations of the electric motor
efficiency, DOE believes those
manufacturers will be minimally
impacted because they are already
basing those representations on
commonly used industry standards,
which are the same testing procedures
incorporated by this rule. DOE does not
have any reason to believe that the test
set-up clarifications adopted in today’s
rule would have any significant impact
on the current practice of these four
manufacturers.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
75991
In view of the foregoing, DOE certifies
that today’s final rule will not impose
significant economic impacts on a
substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
regulatory flexibility analysis for this
rulemaking. DOE has provided its
certification and supporting statement
of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for review under 5
U.S.C. 605(b).
In response to the regulatory
flexibility analysis in the NOPR,
Bluffton stated that while it agrees that
the test procedure being proposed
would not have a significant impact on
small electric motor manufacturers, if
energy conservation standards are
applied to newly-defined electric motor
types and special and definite purpose
electric motors, as extended to 56-frame
motors, there would be a major impact
to small electric motor manufacturers.
Bringing these electric motors types into
compliance using the proposed test
procedure could put a small electric
motor manufacturer’s existence in
jeopardy. (Bluffton, No. 11 at pp. 1–2)
DOE acknowledges that expanding
the scope of the existing energy
conservation standards to include
additional electric motor types, such as
special and definite purpose electric
motors and 56-frame motors, could
disproportionally impact small electric
motor manufacturers that specialize in
producing these types of motors. DOE
further notes that in the final test
procedure rule that manufacturers of
electric motors whose energy efficiency
is not currently regulated will not need
to use the test procedure until energy
conservation standards are set for those
electric motor types. Bluffton also
commented that since a number of
suppliers would also be considered
small businesses, they could also be
adversely affected by an expanded
scope for standards since they could
potentially lose customers of their
products. Bluffton also stated that
expanding the scope of standards could
also prove to be a significant impact on
the many small businesses that are
customers of small electric motor
manufacturers because their customers
would have to redesign and re-tool their
units to accommodate potentially larger
new designs. (Bluffton, No. 11 at pp. 1–
2) For purposes of the Regulatory
Flexibilty Act, DOE notes that it is
required to focus its analysis on the
direct impact of the current rule on
those small businesses that manufacture
electric motors as part of the regulatory
flexibility analysis. DOE will address
the impacts of any proposed standards
on small manufacturers of electric
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
75992
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
motors in the Review Under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of the related
electric motor standards’ rulemaking.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of electric motors must
certify to DOE that their products
comply with any applicable energy
conservation standards. In certifying
compliance, manufacturers must test
their products according to the DOE test
procedures for electric motors,
including any amendments adopted for
those test procedures. DOE has
established regulations for the
certification and recordkeeping
requirements for all covered consumer
products and commercial equipment,
including electric motors. (76 FR 12422
(March 7, 2011). The collection-ofinformation requirement for
certification and recordkeeping is
subject to review and approval by OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA). This requirement has been
approved by OMB under OMB control
number 1910–1400. Public reporting
burden for the certification is estimated
to average 20 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE amends its test
procedure for electric motors. DOE has
determined that this rule falls into a
class of actions that are categorically
excluded from review under the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part
1021. Specifically, this rule amends an
existing rule without affecting the
amount, quality or distribution of
energy usage, and, therefore, will not
result in any environmental impacts.
Thus, this rulemaking is covered by
Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR
part 1021, subpart D, which applies to
any rulemaking that interprets or
amends an existing rule without
changing the environmental effect of
that rule. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes
certain requirements on agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have Federalism implications. The
Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive Order also requires agencies
to have an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have Federalism implications. On
March 14, 2000, DOE published a
statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process
it will follow in the development of
such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE
examined this final rule and determined
that it will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State energy conservation
regulations for the equipment subject to
today’s final rule. States can petition
DOE for exemption from such
preemption to the extent, and based on
criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6297(d)) No further action is required by
Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996),
imposes on Federal agencies the general
duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; (3)
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of
Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that Executive agencies make
every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction; (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires Executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE has completed the required
review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this final rule
meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law104–4, sec.
201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
regulatory action resulting in a rule that
may cause the expenditure by State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section
202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency
to publish a written statement that
estimates the resulting costs, benefits,
and other effects on the national
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The
UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit
timely input by elected officers of State,
local, and Tribal governments on a
proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental
mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan
for giving notice and opportunity for
timely input to potentially affected
small governments before establishing
any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its
process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR
12820; also available at https://
energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE examined today’s final rule
according to UMRA and its statement of
policy and determined that the rule
contains neither an intergovernmental
mandate, nor a mandate that may result
in the expenditure of $100 million or
more in any year, so these requirements
do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
that may affect family well-being.
Today’s final rule will not have any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of
the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive
Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859
(March 18, 1988), that this regulation
will not result in any takings that might
require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note)
provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under guidelines established by
each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed
today’s final rule under the OMB and
DOE guidelines and has concluded that
it is consistent with applicable policies
in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
significant energy action. A ‘‘significant
energy action’’ is defined as any action
by an agency that promulgated or is
expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, or any successor order; and (2)
is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant
energy action. For any significant energy
action, the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use if the
regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and
their expected benefits on energy
supply, distribution, and use.
Today’s regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it
would not have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
75993
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.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
L. Review Under Section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 6,
2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
Under section 301 of the Department
of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95–
91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply
with section 32 of the Federal Energy
Administration Act of 1974, as amended
by the Federal Energy Administration
Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C.
788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially
provides in relevant part that, where a
proposed rule authorizes or requires use
of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the
public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section
32(c) requires DOE to consult with the
Attorney General and the Chairman of
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
concerning the impact of the
commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The modifications DOE addressed in
this action incorporate testing methods
followed by industry when evaluating
the energy efficiency of electric motors.
DOE’s rule establishes the necessary
testing set-up to facilitate consistency
and repeatability when conducting a
test in accordance with one of the
prescribed test procedures incorporated
into DOE’s regulations. These methods,
as described earlier in the preamble
discussion above, would be used in
instances where an electric motor
manufacturer makes representations of
energy efficiency regarding its motors.
DOE has consulted with both the
Attorney General and the Chairman of
the FTC about the impact on
competition of using the methods
contained in these standards and has
received no comments objecting to their
use.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
of today’s final rule before its effective
date. The report will state that it has
been determined that the rule is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
N. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE amends part 431 of
chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations as set forth below:
PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.
2. Amend § 431.12 by:
a. Removing the reserved terms ‘‘Fire
pump motor’’ and ‘‘NEMA design B
general purpose electric motor;’’ and
■ b. Adding in alphabetical order,
definitions for: ‘‘air-over electric
motor,’’ ‘‘brake electric motor,’’
‘‘component set,’’ ‘‘definite purpose
electric motor,’’ ‘‘electric motor with
encapsulated windings,’’ ‘‘electric motor
with moisture resistant windings,’’
‘‘electric motor with sealed windings,’’
‘‘IEC Design H motor,’’ ‘‘IEC Design N
motor,’’ ‘‘immersible electric motor,’’
‘‘inverter-capable electric motor,’’
‘‘inverter-only electric motor,’’ ‘‘liquidcooled electric motor,’’ ‘‘NEMA Design
A motor,’’ ‘‘NEMA Design C motor,’’
‘‘partial electric motor,’’ ‘‘special
purpose electric motor,’’ ‘‘submersible
electric motor,’’ ‘‘totally enclosed nonventilated (TENV) electric motor.’’
The additions read as follows:
■
■
§ 431.12
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Air-over electric motor means an
electric motor rated to operate in and be
cooled by the airstream of a fan or
blower that is not supplied with the
motor and whose primary purpose is
providing airflow to an application
other than the motor driving it.
*
*
*
*
*
Brake electric motor means a motor
that contains a dedicated mechanism for
speed reduction, such as a brake, either
within or external to the motor
enclosure
*
*
*
*
*
Component set means a combination
of motor parts that require the addition
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75994
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
of more than two endshields (and their
associated bearings) to create an
operable motor. These parts may consist
of any combination of a stator frame,
wound stator, rotor, shaft, or endshields.
For the purpose of this definition, the
term ‘‘operable motor’’ means an
electric motor engineered for performing
in accordance with nameplate ratings.
*
*
*
*
*
Definite purpose electric motor means
any electric motor that cannot be used
in most general purpose applications
and is designed either:
(1) To standard ratings with standard
operating characteristics or standard
mechanical construction for use under
service conditions other than usual,
such as those specified in NEMA MG1–
2009, paragraph 14.3, ‘‘Unusual Service
Conditions,’’ (incorporated by reference,
see § 431.15); or
(2) For use on a particular type of
application.
*
*
*
*
*
Electric motor with encapsulated
windings means an electric motor
capable of passing the conformance test
for water resistance described in NEMA
MG 1–2009, paragraph 12.62
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.15).
*
*
*
*
*
Electric motor with moisture resistant
windings means an electric motor that is
capable of passing the conformance test
for moisture resistance generally
described in NEMA MG 1–2009,
paragraph 12.63 (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.15).
*
*
*
*
*
Electric motor with sealed windings
means an electric motor capable of
passing the conformance test for water
resistance described in NEMA MG 1–
2009, paragraph 12.62 (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.15).
*
*
*
*
*
IEC Design H motor means an electric
motor that
(1) Is an induction motor designed for
use with three-phase power;
(2) Contains a cage rotor;
(3) Is capable of direct-on-line starting
(4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW
at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to sections 8.1, 8.2, and
8.3 of the IEC 60034–12 edition 2.1
(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15)
requirements for starting torque, locked
rotor apparent power, and starting.
*
*
*
*
*
IEC Design N motor means an electric
motor that:
(1) Is an induction motor designed for
use with three-phase power;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
(2) Contains a cage rotor;
(3) Is capable of direct-on-line
starting;
(4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW
at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to sections 6.1, 6.2, and
6.3 of the IEC 60034–12 edition 2.1
(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15)
requirements for torque characteristics,
locked rotor apparent power, and
starting.
*
*
*
*
*
Immersible electric motor means an
electric motor primarily designed to
operate continuously in free-air, but is
also capable of temporarily
withstanding complete immersion in
liquid for a continuous period of no less
than 30 minutes.
*
*
*
*
*
Inverter-capable electric motor means
an electric motor designed to be directly
connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line
power, but that is also capable of
continuous operation on an inverter
drive over a limited speed range and
associated load.
*
*
*
*
*
Inverter-only electric motor means an
electric motor that is capable of rated
operation solely with an inverter, and is
not intended for operation when
directly connected to polyphase,
sinusoidal line power.
*
*
*
*
*
Liquid-cooled electric motor means a
motor that is cooled by liquid circulated
using a designated cooling apparatus
such that the liquid or liquid-filled
conductors come into direct contact
with the parts of the motor.
*
*
*
*
*
NEMA Design A motor means a
squirrel-cage motor that:
(1) Is Designed to withstand fullvoltage starting and developing lockedrotor torque as shown in NEMA MG1–
2009, paragraph 12.38.1 (incorporated
by reference, see § 431.15);
(2) Has pull-up torque not less than
the values shown in NEMA MG1–2009,
paragraph 12.40.1;
(3) Has breakdown torque not less
than the values shown in NEMA MG1–
2009, paragraph 12.39.1;
(4) Has a locked-rotor current not to
exceed the values shown in NEMA
MG1–2009, paragraph 12.35.1 for 60
hertz and NEMA MG1–2009, paragraph
12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and
(5) Has a slip at rated load of less than
5 percent for motors with fewer than 10
poles.
*
*
*
*
*
NEMA Design C motor means a
squirrel-cage motor that:
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(1) Is Designed to withstand fullvoltage starting and developing lockedrotor torque for high-torque applications
up to the values shown in NEMA MG1–
2009, paragraph 12.38.2 (incorporated
by reference, see § 431.15);
(2) Has pull-up torque not less than
the values shown in NEMA MG1–2009,
paragraph 12.40.2;
(3) Has breakdown torque not less
than the values shown in NEMA MG1–
2009, paragraph 12.39.2;
(4) Has a locked-rotor current not to
exceed the values shown in NEMA
MG1–2009, paragraphs 12.35.1 for 60
hertz and 12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and
(5) Has a slip at rated load of less than
5 percent.
*
*
*
*
*
Partial electric motor means an
assembly of motor components
necessitating the addition of no more
than two endshields, including
bearings, to create an an electric motor
capable of operation in accordance with
the applicable nameplate ratings.
*
*
*
*
*
Special purpose electric motor means
any electric motor, other than a general
purpose motor or definite electric
purpose motor, which has special
operating characteristics or special
mechanical construction, or both,
designed for a particular application.
*
*
*
*
*
Submersible electric motor means an
electric motor that:
(1) Is intended to operate
continuously only while submerged in
liquid;
(2) Is capable of operation while
submerged in liquid for an indefinite
period of time; and
(3) Has been sealed to prevent ingress
of liquid from contacting the motor’s
internal parts.
*
*
*
*
*
Totally enclosed non-ventilated
(TENV) electric motor means an electric
motor that is built in a frame-surface
cooled, totally enclosed configuration
that is designed and equipped to be
cooled only by free convection.
■ 3. Amend § 431.15 by adding
paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(D) to read as
follows:
§ 431.15 Materials incorporated by
reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(D) Paragraphs 12.62 and 12.63, IBR
approved for § 431.12.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Appendix B to Subpart B of Part
431 is amended by adding an
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
introductory note and section 4 to read
as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431—
Uniform Test Method for Measuring
Nominal Full-Load Efficiency of
Electric Motors
Note: After June 11, 2014, any
representations made with respect to the
energy use or efficiency of electric motors for
which energy conservation standards are
currently provided at 10 CFR 431.25 must be
made in accordance with the results of
testing pursuant to this appendix.
For manufacturers conducting tests of
motors for which energy conservation
standards are provided at 10 CFR 431.25,
after January 13, 2014 and prior to June 11,
2014, manufacturers must conduct such test
in accordance with either this appendix or
appendix B as it appeared at 10 CFR Part 431,
subpart B, appendix B, in the 10 CFR Parts
200 to 499 edition revised as of January 1,
2013. Any representations made with respect
to the energy use or efficiency of such
electric motors must be in accordance with
whichever version is selected. Given that
after June 11, 2014 representations with
respect to the energy use or efficiency of
electric motors must be made in accordance
with tests conducted pursuant to this
appendix, manufacturers may wish to begin
using this test procedure as soon as possible.
For any other electric motor type that is not
currently covered by the energy conservation
standards at 10 CFR 431.25, manufacturers of
this equipment will need to use Appendix B
180 days after the effective date of the final
rule adopting energy conservation standards
for these motors.
*
*
*
*
*
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4. Procedures for the Testing of Certain
Electric Motor Types.
Prior to testing according to IEEE Std 112–
2004 (Test Method B) or CSA C390–10
(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15),
each basic model of the electric motor types
listed below must be set up in accordance
with the instructions of this section to ensure
consistent test results. These steps are
designed to enable a motor to be attached to
a dynamometer and run continuously for
testing purposes. For the purposes of this
appendix, a ‘‘standard bearing’’ is a 6000
series, either open or grease-lubricated
double-shielded, single-row, deep groove,
radial ball bearing.
4.1 Brake Electric Motors:
Brake electric motors shall be tested with
the brake component powered separately
from the motor such that it does not activate
during testing. Additionally, for any 10minute period during the test and while the
brake is being powered such that it remains
disengaged from the motor shaft, record the
power consumed (i.e., watts). Only power
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
used to drive the motor is to be included in
the efficiency calculation; power supplied to
prevent the brake from engaging is not
included in this calculation. In lieu of
powering the brake separately, the brake may
be disengaged mechanically, if such a
mechanism exists and if the use of this
mechanism does not yield a different
efficiency value than separately powering the
brake electrically.
4.2 Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors
and Electric Motors with Single or Double
Shaft Extensions of Non-Standard
Dimensions or Design:
To attach the unit under test to a
dynamometer, close-coupled pump electric
motors and electric motors with single or
double shaft extensions of non-standard
dimensions or design must be tested using a
special coupling adapter.
4.3 Electric Motors with Non-Standard
Endshields or Flanges:
If it is not possible to connect the electric
motor to a dynamometer with the nonstandard endshield or flange in place, the
testing laboratory shall replace the nonstandard endshield or flange with an
endshield or flange meeting NEMA or IEC
specifications. The replacement component
should be obtained from the manufacturer or,
if the manufacturer chooses, machined by the
testing laboratory after consulting with the
manufacturer regarding the critical
characteristics of the endshield.
4.4 Electric Motors with Non-Standard
Bases, Feet or Mounting Configurations
An electric motor with a non-standard
base, feet, or mounting configuration may be
mounted on the test equipment using
adaptive fixtures for testing as long as the
mounting or use of adaptive mounting
fixtures does not have an adverse impact on
the performance of the electric motor,
particularly on the cooling of the motor.
4.5 Electric Motors with a Separatelypowered Blower:
For electric motors furnished with a
separately-powered blower, the losses from
the blower’s motor should not be included in
any efficiency calculation. This can be done
either by powering the blower’s motor by a
source separate from the source powering the
electric motor under test or by connecting
leads such that they only measure the power
of the motor under test.
4.6 Immersible Electric Motors
Immersible electric motors shall be tested
with all contact seals removed but be
otherwise unmodified.
4.7 Partial Electric Motors:
Partial electric motors shall be
disconnected from their mated piece of
equipment. After disconnection from the
equipment, standard bearings and/or
endshields shall be added to the motor, such
that it is capable of operation. If an endshield
is necessary, an endshield meeting NEMA or
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
75995
IEC specifications should be obtained from
the manufacturer or, if the manufacturer
chooses, machined by the testing laboratory
after consulting with the manufacturer
regarding the critical characteristics of the
endshield.
4.8 Vertical Electric Motors and Electric
Motors with Bearings Incapable of Horizontal
Operation:
Vertical electric motors and electric motors
with thrust bearings shall be tested in a
horizontal or vertical configuration in
accordance with IEEE 112 (Test Method B),
depending on the testing facility’s
capabilities and construction of the motor,
except if the motor is a vertical solid shaft
normal thrust general purpose electric motor
(subtype II), in which case it shall be tested
in a horizontal configuration in accordance
with IEEE 112 (Test Method B). Preference
shall be given to testing a motor in its native
orientation. If the unit under test cannot be
reoriented horizontally due to its bearing
construction, the electric motor’s bearing(s)
shall be removed and replaced with standard
bearings. If the unit under test contains oillubricated bearings, its bearings shall be
removed and replaced with standard
bearings. Finally, if the unit under test
contains a hollow shaft, a solid shaft shall be
inserted, bolted to the non-drive end of the
motor and welded on the drive end. Enough
clearance shall be maintained such that
attachment to a dynamometer is possible.
5. Amend § 431.383 by adding
paragraph (e)(4) to read as follows:
■
§ 431.383
motors.
Enforcement process for electric
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(4)(i) Non-standard endshields or
flanges. For purposes of DOE-initiated
testing of electric motors with nonstandard endshields or flanges, the
Department will have the discretion to
determine whether the lab should test a
general purpose electric motor of
equivalent electrical design and
enclosure rather than replacing the
nonstandard flange or endshield.
(ii) Partial electric motors. For
purposes of DOE-initiated testing, the
Department has the discretion to
determine whether the lab should test a
general purpose electric motor of
equivalent electrical design and
enclosure rather than machining and
attaching an endshield.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–29677 Filed 12–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM
13DER2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75961-75995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29677]
[[Page 75961]]
Vol. 78
Friday,
No. 240
December 13, 2013
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 75962]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0043]
RIN 1904-AC89
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is amending the energy
efficiency test procedures for electric motors to allow currently
unregulated motors to be tested by clarifying the test setup
requirements that are needed to facilitate testing of these types of
electric motors. In addition, DOE is adopting definitions, which will
determine the applicability of DOE's regulations to various types of
electric motors. The amendments would clarify the scope of coverage for
electric motors and not otherwise affect the test procedure.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 13, 2014.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on
January 13, 2014. The incorporation by reference of other publications
listed in this rule were approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on May 4, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those
containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not
be publicly available.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/74. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this
notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will
contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including
public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202)
586-8654. Email: medium_electric_motors@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Ami Grace-Tardy, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-5709. Email: Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference
into subpart B of 10 CFR part 431, the following industry standards:
NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-2009 (``NEMA MG 1-2009''), Motors
and Generators, 2009, Paragraphs 12.62 and 12.63.
Copies of NEMA MG 1-2009 can be obtained from the National
Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 17th St. N., Suite 900,
Arlington, VA 22209, (703) 841-3200, or https://www.nema.org.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Expanding the Scope of Coverage of Energy Conservation
Standards
B. Electric Motor Types for Which DOE Is Not Amending Existing
Definitions
C. International Electrotechnical Commission IP and IC Codes
D. Motor Type Definitions and Testing Set-Up Instructions
1. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Design A and
Design C Motors
2. International Electrotechnical Commission Designs N and H
Motors
3. Electric Motors With Moisture-Resistant, Sealed or
Encapsulated Windings
4. Inverter-Capable Electric Motors
5. Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated Electric Motors
6. Air-Over Electric Motor
E. Electric Motor Types Requiring Definitions and Test Procedure
Instructions
1. Immersible Electric Motors
2. Brake Electric Motors
3. Partial Electric Motors
F. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only Test Procedure
Instructions
1. Electric Motors With Non-Standard Endshields or Flanges
2. Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors and Electric Motors With
Single or Double Shaft Extensions of Non-Standard Dimensions or
Design
3. Vertical Electric Motors
4. Electric Motor Bearings
5. Electric Motors With Non-Standard Bases, Feet or Mounting
Configurations
6. Electric Motors With Separately-Powered Blowers
G. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only Definitions
1. Component Set of an Electric Motor
2. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motor
3. Submersible Electric Motor
4. Inverter-Only Electric Motor
H. Effective Dates for the Amended Test Procedures and Other
Issues
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'') sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer to
the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing
Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (December 18,
2012)). Part C of title III, which for editorial reasons was
redesignated as Part A-1 upon incorporation into the U.S. Code,
establishes an energy conservation program for certain industrial
equipment, which includes electric motors, the subject of today's
notice. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A), 6313(b)).
Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The
testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of
covered products must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to the
Department of Energy (DOE) that their products comply with the
applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and (2)
making representations about the energy or water consumption of those
products. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures when testing
products to determine whether they comply with the applicable standards
promulgated pursuant to EPCA.
In the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486 (October 24,
1992)
[[Page 75963]]
(EPACT 1992), Congress amended EPCA to establish energy conservation
standards, test procedures, compliance certification, and labeling
requirements for certain electric motors. (When used in context, the
term ``motor'' refers to ``electric motor'' in this document.) On
October 5, 1999, DOE published a final rule to implement these
requirements. 64 FR 54114. In 2007, section 313 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA 2007) amended EPCA by: (1) Striking
the definition of ``electric motor,'' (2) setting forth definitions for
``general purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' and ``general purpose
electric motor (subtype II),'' and (3) prescribing energy conservation
standards for ``general purpose electric motors (subtype I),''
``general purpose electric motors (subtype II), ``fire pump electric
motors,'' and ``NEMA Design B general purpose electric motors'' with a
power rating of more than 200 horsepower but not greater than 500
horsepower. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13) and 6313(b)). Consequently, on March
23, 2009, DOE updated the corresponding regulations at 10 CFR part 431
consistent with these changes. 74 FR 12058. On December 22, 2008, DOE
proposed to update the test procedures under Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, part 431 (10 CFR part 431) for both electric
motors and small electric motors. 73 FR 78220. After considering
comments from interested parties, DOE finalized key provisions related
to small electric motor testing in a 2009 final rule (see 74 FR 32059
(July 7, 2009)) and further updated the test procedures for electric
motors and small electric motors. See 77 FR 26608 (May 4, 2012).
On June 26, 2013, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NOPR) focused on electric motors that proposed adding certain
definitions along with specific testing set-up instructions and
clarifications to the current test procedures under subpart B of 10 CFR
part 431 that would address a wider variety of electric motor
categories (or types) than what DOE currently regulates. 78 FR 38456.
DOE proposed these amendments because the additional testing set-up
instructions and clarifications were designed to permit manufacturers
of these ``unregulated'' motors to test these motors using one of the
prescribed test methods listed in 10 CFR part 431. The addition of
these set-up instructions will more readily enable a manufacturer to
consistently measure the losses and determine the efficiency of a wider
variety of motor categories than what is regulated under the current
energy conservation standards laid out in 10 CFR 431.25.\1\ Related to
today's rulemaking, DOE is also considering prescribing standards for
some electric motor categories addressed in this notice through a
parallel energy conservation standards-related activity. See 78 FR
73590 (Dec. 6, 2013). See also 76 FR 17577 (March 30, 2011) (detailing
DOE's request for information regarding electric motor coverage) and 77
FR 43015 (July 23, 2012) (announcing DOE's preliminary analysis for
potential standards related to electric motors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 MG 1-1987 \2\ and Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 112 (Test Method B) for motor
efficiency, as in effect on the date of enactment of EPACT 1992.
Section 343(a)(5)(B)-(C) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B)-(C), provides
in part that if the NEMA- and IEEE-developed test procedures are
amended, the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary) shall so amend the
test procedures under 10 CFR part 431, unless the Secretary determines,
by rule, that the amended industry procedures would not meet the
requirements for test procedures to produce results that reflect energy
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of the tested
motor, or would be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-
(3), (a)(5)(B)) DOE has updated 10 CFR part 431 consistent with this
requirement as newer versions of the NEMA and IEEE test procedures for
electric motors were published and used by industry. See, e.g. 64 FR
54114 (October 5, 1999) (reflecting changes introduced by MG 1-1993 and
IEEE Standard 112-1996). DOE also added Canadian Standards Association
(CSA) CAN/CSA C390-93, ``Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Three-Phase
Induction Motors'' as an equivalent and acceptable test method, which
aligns with industry practices. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, on May 4, 2012, DOE incorporated by reference the updated
versions of NEMA MG 1-2009, IEEE 112-2004, and CAN/CSA C390-10. 77 FR
26608, 26638 (the ``2012 final test procedure''). DOE made the updates
to ensure consistency between 10 CFR part 431 and current industry
procedures and related practices. Since publication of the 2012 final
test procedure, NEMA Standards Publication MG 1 has been updated to MG
1-2011. The updates, however, did not affect the sections that DOE had
proposed to incorporate by reference from MG 1-2009 and, subsequently,
declines to adopt MG 1-2011.
II. Summary of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE:
(1) Defines a variety of electric motor configurations (i.e.,
types) that are currently regulated under 10 CFR 431.25, but are not
currently defined under 10 CFR part 431.12;
(2) Defines a variety of electric motor configurations (i.e.,
types) that are not currently regulated under 10 CFR 431.25 and are not
currently defined under 10 CFR 431.12; and
(3) Clarifies the necessary testing ``set-up'' procedures to
facilitate the testing of certain motor types that are not currently
regulated for energy efficiency by DOE.
This final rule was precipitated by DOE's ongoing electric motors
standards rulemaking. DOE published its ``Framework Document for
Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors'' (the ``2010 framework
document'') (75 FR 59657) on September 28, 2010. Public comments filed
in response urged DOE to consider regulating the efficiency of certain
definite and special purpose motors. DOE, in turn, published an Request
for Information (RFI) seeking information regarding definite and
special purpose motors (the ``March 2011 RFI''). See 76 FR 17577 (March
30, 2011). In its December 6, 2013 energy conservation standards NOPR,
DOE proposed expanding the scope of its regulatory program to include
all continuous duty, single speed, squirrel-cage, polyphase
alternating-current, induction motors, with some narrowly defined
exceptions. See 78 FR 73589. Today's final rule addresses test
procedure issues potentially arising from the proposed scope of DOE's
energy efficiency requirements to include certain motor types that are
not currently required to meet energy conservation standards. In
particular,
[[Page 75964]]
today's final rule includes, among other things, definitions for those
motor types that DOE may consider regulating. DOE has coordinated
today's test procedure final rule with its parallel efforts to examine
proposed energy conservation standards for electric motors. To the
extent possible, DOE has considered all relevant comments pertaining to
these activities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See dockets at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027 and https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-TP-0043.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to including new definitions, today's final rule adds
set-up procedures for the applicable test procedures contained in
appendix B to subpart B of 10 CFR part 431, to accommodate certain
electric motors that DOE has proposed to regulate. Because the
amendments are limited to those steps necessary to facilitate testing
under the currently incorporated test procedures found at 10 CFR
431.16, DOE does not anticipate that this rule would affect the actual
measurement of losses and the subsequent determination of efficiency
for any of the electric motors within the scope of the conservation
standards rulemaking.
The revisions are summarized in the table below and addressed in
detail in the following sections. Note that all citations to various
sections of 10 CFR part 431 throughout this preamble refer to the
current version of 10 CFR part 431. The regulatory text follows the
preamble to this final rule.
Table II-1--Summary of Changes and Affected Sections of 10 CFR Part 431
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing section in 10 CFR part
431 Summary of proposed modifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 431.12--Definitions....... Adds new definitions for:
[cir] Air-over electric motor.
[cir] Brake electric motor.
[cir] Component set.
[cir] Electric motor with
moisture resistant, sealed or
encapsulated windings.
[cir] IEC Design H motor.
[cir] IEC Design N motor.
[cir] Immersible electric motor.
[cir] Inverter-capable electric
motor.
[cir] Inverter-only electric
motor.
[cir] Liquid-cooled electric
motor.
[cir] NEMA Design A motor.
[cir] NEMA Design C 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] Brake Electric motors.
Motors. [cir] Close-coupled pump electric
motors and electric motors with
single or double shaft extensions
of non-standard dimensions or
design.
[cir] Electric motors with non-
standard endshields or flanges.
[cir] Electric motors with non-
standard bases, feet or mounting
configurations.
[cir] Electric motors with
separately powered blowers.
[cir] Immersible electric motors.
[cir] Partial electric motors.
[cir] Vertical electric motors
and electric motors with
bearings incapable of horizontal
operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE developed today's final rule after considering public input,
including written comments, from a wide variety of interested parties.
All commenters, along with their corresponding abbreviations and
affiliation, are listed in Table II.2 below. The issues raised by these
commenters are addressed in the discussions that follow.
Table II-2--Summary of Final Rule Commenters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company or organization Abbreviation Affiliation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Energy................. AE................ Testing
Laboratory.
Appliance Standards Awareness ASAP.............. Energy Efficiency
Project. Advocate.
American Council for an Energy- ACEEE............. Energy Efficiency
Efficient Economy. Advocate.
Alliance to Save Energy......... ASE............... Energy Efficiency
Advocate.
Baldor Electric Co.............. Baldor............ Manufacturer.
Bluffton Motor Works............ Bluffton.......... Manufacturer.
California Investor Owned CA IOUs........... Utilities.
Utilities.
Copper Development Association.. CDA............... Trade Association.
Motor Coalition *............... MC................ Energy Efficiency
Advocates,
Manufacturer
Trade
Association.
National Electrical NEMA.............. Trade Association.
Manufacturers Association.
Natural Resource Defense Council NRDC.............. Energy Efficiency
Advocate.
Nidec Motor Corporation......... Nidec............. Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency NEEA.............. Energy Efficiency
Alliance. Advocate.
Regal Beloit.................... Regal Beloit...... Manufacturer.
SEW-EURODRIVE, Inc.............. SEWEUR............ Manufacturer.
Siemens......................... Siemens........... Manufacturer.
[[Page 75965]]
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.. UL................ Testing
Laboratory.
WEG Electric Corp............... WEG............... Manufacturer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The members of the Motor Coalition include: National Electrical
Manufacturers Association, American Council for an
Energy[hyphen]Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness
Project, Alliance to Save Energy, Earthjustice, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Northeast
Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and Northwest Power and Conservation
Council.
III. Discussion
A. Expanding the Scope of Coverage of Energy Conservation Standards
As noted in DOE's recent energy conservation standards rulemaking
proposal, changes brought about by the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007) and the American Energy
Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act. Public Law 112-210, Sec. 10
(Dec. 18, 2012) have enabled the Agency to consider an expanded scope
of motors for regulatory coverage. See 78 FR at 73603.
Based on its analysis of this discrete group of ``expanded-scope''
motors, DOE believes that the existing IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method
B) and CSA C390-10 test procedures can be used to accurately measure
their losses and determine their energy efficiency because all of the
motor types under consideration are single-speed, polyphase induction
motors with electromechanical characteristics similar to those
currently subject to energy conservation standards. While some of these
motor types require additional testing set-up instructions prior to
testing, all can be tested using the same methodology provided in those
industry-based procedures DOE has already incorporated into its
regulations.
Testing an electric motor using IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B)
or CSA C390-10 requires some basic electrical connections and physical
configurations. To test an electric motor under either procedure, the
electric motor is first mounted on a test bench, generally in a
horizontal position. In this orientation, this means that the motor
shaft is horizontal to the test bench and the motor is equipped with
antifriction bearings that can withstand operation while in a
horizontal position.\4\ Instruments are then connected to the power
leads of the motor to measure input power, voltage, current, speed,
torque, temperature, and other input, output, and performance
characteristics. Thermocouples are attached to the motor to facilitate
temperature measurement. Stator winding resistance is measured while
the motor is at ambient, or room, temperature. No-load measurements are
recorded while the motor is operating, both temperature and input power
have stabilized, and the shaft extension is free from any attachments.
After ambient temperature and no-load measurements are taken, a
dynamometer is attached to the motor shaft to take ``loaded''
measurements. A dynamometer is a device that simultaneously applies and
measures torque for a motor. The dynamometer applies incremental loads
to the shaft, typically at 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, and 150 percent of the
motor's total rated output horsepower. This allows the testing
laboratory to record motor performance criteria, such as power output
and torque, at each incremental load point. Additional stator winding
resistance measurements are taken to record the temperature at the
different load points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOE is aware of some types of bearings that cannot operate
while the motor is in a horizontal position. DOE addresses such
bearings in later sections of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this final rule, DOE has added clarifying instructions it
believes are necessary to test some of the expanded-scope motors should
DOE decide at some point to set standards for these motors. Some motors
will require modifications before they can operate continuously and be
tested on a dynamometer in a manner consistent with the current DOE
test procedure. For example, a partial electric motor may be engineered
for use without one or both endshields, including bearings, because it
relies on mechanical support from another piece of equipment. Without
these components, the motor would be unable to operate as a stand-alone
piece of equipment. To address this issue, DOE has added instructions
to facilitate consistent and repeatable procedures for motors such as
these. These additions are based on testing and research conducted by
DOE along with technical consultations with subject matter experts
(SMEs), manufacturers, testing laboratories, various trade
associations, and comments from stakeholders in response to the June
2013 NOPR. Table III-7 lists those electric motors that are covered
under current energy conservation standards or that DOE is analyzing
for potential new energy conservation standards. In each case, the
table identifies whether DOE is addressing a given motor through the
use of new definitions, test procedure instructions, or both.
Table III-1--Motor Types Considered for Regulation in DOE Proposed Standards Rulemaking
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently subject to Under consideration for Additional set-up
Motor type standards? potential standards? New definition established? instructions established?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA Design A Motors................ Yes........................ Yes........................ Yes........................ No.
NEMA Design C Motors................ Yes........................ Yes........................ Yes........................ No.
IEC Design N Motors................. Yes........................ Yes........................ Yes........................ No.
IEC Design H Motors................. Yes........................ Yes........................ Yes........................ No.
Electric Motors with Moisture- No......................... Yes........................ Yes........................ No.
resistant, Sealed, or Encapsulated
Windings.
Inverter-Capable Electric Motors.... Yes........................ Yes........................ Yes........................ No.
Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated No......................... Yes........................ Yes........................ No.
Electric Motors.
Immersible Electric Motors.......... No......................... Yes........................ Yes........................ Yes.
Electric Motors with Contact Seals.. Yes........................ Yes........................ No......................... No.
[[Page 75966]]
Brake Electric Motors............... Yes \5\.................... Yes........................ Yes........................ Yes.
Partial Electric Motors............. No......................... Yes........................ Yes........................ Yes.
Electric Motors with Non-Standard No......................... Yes........................ No......................... Yes.
Endshields or 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 No......................... Yes........................ No......................... No.
Bases.
Air-Over Electric Motors............ No......................... No......................... Yes........................ No.
Component Sets...................... No......................... No......................... Yes........................ No.
Liquid-cooled Electric Motors....... No......................... No......................... Yes........................ No.
Submersible Electric Motors......... No......................... No......................... Yes........................ No.
Inverter-Only Electric Motors....... No......................... No......................... Yes........................ No.
Electric Motors with Separately No......................... Yes........................ No......................... Yes.
Powered Blowers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Some motors (i.e., ``non-integral'') that fall under the new
definition for ``brake electric motors'' are currently required to
meet standards and others (i.e., ``integral'') are not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the scope of coverage, the advocates commented that the NOPR
shows that DOE takes the August 2012 Motor Coalition ``Joint Petition
to Adopt Joint Stakeholder Proposal As it Relates to the Rulemaking on
Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors'' (the
``Petition''),\6\ seriously and contemplates proposing standards based
on the Petition. (ASAP et al., No. 12 at p. 1) CDA strongly supported
DOE's intention to expand the scope of covered electric motors
described in the written Joint Petition and proposed in the NOPR.
However, CDA urged DOE to consider including electric motors greater
than 500 hp in the future standards rulemaking since they account for
27% of total power consumption in the U.S. (CDA, No. 9 at p. 3)
Conversely, Regal Beloit suggested that the definitions and test
procedures in this rulemaking be extended to include small electric
motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 166-168).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Motor Coalition, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that its final rule simply provides a standardized means
to test certain other types of electric motors that DOE does not
currently regulate. The applicability of the proposed energy
conservation standards was discussed in the NOPR and will be determined
as part of that rulemaking. Any basic model of electric motors
distributed in commerce that is subject to DOE's current or amended
energy conservation standards will need to be tested in accordance with
the test methods being adopted in this final rule. See the effective
date discussion below regarding the timing requirements for
representations and compliance.
B. Electric Motor Types for Which DOE Is Not Amending Existing
Definitions
Prior to EISA 2007, section 340(13)(A) of EPCA, as amended, defined
the term ``electric motor'' as any motor which is a general purpose T-
frame, single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction
motor of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Design A
and B, continuous rated, operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60
Hertz line power as defined in NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-1987.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(13) (2006)) EISA 2007, section 313(a)(2) struck out
that definition, replacing it with an ``electric motor'' heading, and
adding two subtypes of electric motors: General purpose electric motor
(subtype I) and general purpose electric motor (subtype II). (42 U.S.C.
6311(13)). Additionally, section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 established
energy conservation standards for four types of electric motors:
General purpose electric motor (subtype I) with a power rating of 1 to
200 horsepower; fire pump motors \7\; general purpose electric motor
(subtype II) with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; and NEMA
Design B, general purpose electric motors with a power rating of more
than 200 horsepower, but less than or equal to 500 horsepower. (42
U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) The term ``electric motor'' was left undefined at
this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 4, 2012 DOE published a final rule test procedure for
electric motors that further updated the definitional structure for
electric motors. 77 FR 26608. DOE noted that while EISA 2007 struck the
definition for electric motor, EPCA, as amended by EISA, continued to
reference ``electric motors,'' causing confusion and ambiguity. As DOE
has the statutory authority to regulate motors beyond the subtypes of
motors for which Congress had established energy conservation standards
in EISA 2007, DOE chose to define ``electric motor'' broadly,
eliminating the process of having to continually update the definition
each time the Department set energy conservation standards for a new
subset of motors. The 2012 final test procedure defined ``electric
motor'' as ``a machine that converts electrical power into rotational
mechanical power.'' 77 FR 26633.
EISA 2007 also established definitions for ``general purpose
electric motor (subtype I)'' and ``general purpose electric motor
(subtype II).'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)) During the last test procedure
rulemaking process, DOE made some clarifying changes to these
definitions, noting that electric motors built according to
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards and that
otherwise meet the proposed definition of ``general purpose electric
motor (subtype I),'' are covered
[[Page 75967]]
motors under EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, even though the NEMA-
equivalent frame size was discontinued. Outside of these small changes,
the definitions for subtype I and subtype II motors have remained
largely unchanged.
In the 2012 final test procedure, DOE also amended the definition
of ``general purpose motor'' in 10 CFR part 431 by adding the word
``electric'' to clarify that a general purpose motor is a type of
electric motor. 77 FR 26633.
In the June 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed a number of new definitions for
types of motors that it is considering regulating in its concurrent
standards rulemaking. While many of these motors are ``special
purpose'' or ``definite purpose'' motors, DOE did not alter these
definitions in its regulations. Furthermore, DOE did not update its
definitions for ``electric motor,'' ``general purpose electric motor,''
``general purpose electric motor (subtype I),'' or ``general purpose
electric motor (subtype II).'' Rather, it laid out the nine criteria
mentioned earlier in this rulemaking (i.e., single-speed, polyphase,
etc.), that a motor must meet to be considered for coverage in DOE's
concurrent standards rulemaking process, regardless of whether a given
motor is special purpose, definite purpose, etc. 78 FR 38460.
DOE chose the definition structure that it chose because the now
proposed standards rulemaking develops a coverage structure based on a
motor meeting both the simple ``electric motors'' definition and the
nine referenced criteria. Because the standards NOPR was under initial
development at the time of the final test procedure development, DOE
could not share this now proposed coverage structure. Therefore, many
of NEMA's comments on electric motor definitions are made irrelevant by
the recent standards NOPR. Nevertheless, NEMA's definitional concerns
are listed here as they were provided as comments on the test procedure
rulemaking.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA urged DOE to add clarity to the
definition of ``electric motor'' and ``general purpose electric motor
subtype I,'' and add new definitions for ``motor,'' ``definite purpose
electric motor,'' and ``special purpose electric motor.'' NEMA pointed
out that the term ``motor'' has not been defined in the NOPR. (Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 76-77). NEMA recommended defining ``motor'' as
``a machine that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical
power.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 7) Further, NEMA noted that the definition
of ``electric motor'' needs to be clearer and more complete for
regulatory purposes and suggested that the proposed definition of
electric motor should include the nine characteristics describing
construction and performance of the motor. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp.
15-22; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 76; NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 2,3,6,7) NEMA
stated that if these characteristics are not included in the definition
of ``electric motor'', then these would need to be included in the
definitions of all electric motor types such as ``special purpose
electric motor with moisture resistant windings,'' ``special purpose
electric motor with encapsulated windings,'' and ``special purpose
electric motor with sealed windings.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 15). With
that in mind, NEMA suggested that an electric motor be defined as a
motor that:
(1) Is a single-speed, induction motor;
(2) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type
S1 (IEC);
(3) Contains a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
(4)(i) Is built in accordance with NEMA T-frame dimensions or their
IEC metric equivalents, including a NEMA frame size that is between two
consecutive NEMA T-frames or their IEC metric equivalents; or
(ii) Is built in an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric
equivalent);
(5) Has performance in accordance with NEMA Design A (MG 1) or B
(MG 1) characteristics or equivalent designs such as IEC Design N
(IEC); and
(6) Operates on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal
power. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 2, 3, 6, 7)
NEMA recommended changing the definition of ``general purpose
electric motor (subtype I)'' as a general purpose electric motor that:
(1) Has foot-mounting that may include foot-mounting with flanges
or detachable feet;
(2)(i) Is rated at 230 or 460 volts (or both) including motors
rated at multiple voltages that include 230 or 460 volts (or both), or
(ii) Can be operated on 230 or 460 volts (or both); and
(3) Includes, but is not limited to, explosion-proof
construction.''(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 7)
DOE understands the intention of NEMA's proposal was to establish a
definitional structure that would clearly delineate which motors were
covered and which motors were excluded from coverage. By essentially
using pulling the nine criteria DOE laid out in the June 2013 NOPR for
the definition for ``electric motor,'' NEMA is proposing that any motor
that falls under the definition of ``electric motor'' would be a
covered motor. But following the approach suggested by NEMA would
undercut the long-term stability that DOE had sought to provide when it
developed a broad definition for the term ``electric motor'' by
requiring DOE to continually update the definition each time DOE
updates its scope of coverage. In addition, as is evident in the
standards NOPR, the nine criteria that NEMA is suggesting for the
``electric motor'' definition are the same criteria that DOE proposes
using to define the scope of coverage in its proposed standards
rulemaking so, in effect, DOE's proposal has the same effect as NEMA's
``electric motor'' definition as far as defining broadly the motor
types that DOE is considering for coverage (as well as those that are
already covered.)
Retaining the definition for ``electric motor'' renders unnecessary
NEMA's suggestion to add a definition for ``motor;'' this suggestion
would simply reclassify what are currently defined as ``electric
motors'' to be ``motors.''
NEMA's recommended that DOE retain the definitions for ``general
purpose electric motor'' and ``general purpose electric motor (subtype
II).'' DOE agrees that changes to these definitions are unnecessary and
has made no changes to these definitions for the final rule.
NEMA recommended that the definition for ``general purpose electric
motor (subtype I)'' be modified by removing clauses from that
definition that would overlap with the criteria that DOE listed earlier
in this rule,\8\ and which NEMA proposed be added to the definition of
``electric motor.'' However, as DOE is choosing not to change the
definition of ``electric motor'' at this time, DOE believes it is
essential to leave these clauses in the definition for ``general
purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' to fully define this type of
motor. Therefore, DOE has elected to not update the definition for
``general purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ E.g., single-speed, induction, continuous-duty, squirrel-
cage rotor, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA also suggested editing the existing definitions of special and
definite purpose motors. NEMA suggested that DOE define a ``definite
purpose electric motor'' as any electric motor that:
(1) Is rated at 600 volts or less; and
(2) Cannot be used in most general purpose applications and is
designed either:
(i) To standard ratings with standard operating characteristics or
standard mechanical construction for use under
[[Page 75968]]
service conditions other than usual, such as those specified in NEMA MG
1-2009, paragraph 14.3, ``Unusual Service Conditions,'' (incorporated
by reference, see 431.15); or
(ii) For use on a particular type of application.'' (NEMA, No. 10
at p. 8)
NEMA suggested defining a ``special purpose electric motor'' as any
electric motor, other than a general purpose electric motor or definite
purpose electric motor, that:
(1) Is rated at 600 volts or less; and
(2) Has special operating characteristics or special mechanical
construction, or both, designed for a particular application.'' (NEMA,
No. 10 at p. 8)
DOE had opted not to update the definitions for ``special purpose
motor'' and ``definite purpose motor'' in the NOPR because these
definitions would apply broadly to cover a group of motors,
irrespective of whether each motor category within that group is
required to meet energy conservation standards. However, DOE does agree
with NEMA that ``special purpose motors'' and ``definite purpose
motors'' should be defined within the context of the broader term
``electric motors.'' In the 2012 final rule test procedure for electric
motors DOE made a similar decision to update the term ``fire pump
motor'' to ``fire pump electric motor.'' 77 FR 26616. For this final
rule, DOE has therefore revised the terms ``special purpose motor'' and
``definite purpose motor'' to be ``special purpose electric motor'' and
``definite purpose electric motor'' \9\ while retaining the previously
established definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In the recent standards NOPR, the special or definite
purpose distinctions evaporate based on the proposed regulatory
structure. Therefore, at some point in the future, DOE intends to
remove these definitions from DOE regulations. DOE is retaining the
definitions for now to help manufacturer's meet the current energy
conservation standards and delineating between general purpose
versus definite or special purpose electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. International Electrotechnical Commission IP and IC Codes
As discussed in section III.A.2, International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC), similar to NEMA, produces industry standards that
contain performance requirements for electric motors. In the NOPR, DOE
incorporated the term `IEC motor equivalents' in the proposed
definitions of NEMA-based electric motor types included in 10 CFR part
431 to ensure that IEC motors equivalents would be treated in a similar
and consistent manner as NEMA-based electric motors.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA raised concerns that the IEC does not
use the same identifiers as NEMA to characterize the motor types.
Instead, IEC generally uses specific ``IP'' (protection provided by
enclosure) and ``IC'' codes (method of cooling) to identify the motor
types. Therefore, NEMA requested that DOE include appropriate IP and IC
codes to properly include IEC-equivalent electric motors within the
proposed definitions (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 9)
DOE will consider issuing separate guidance regarding these codes
and their interplay with those motors built in accordance with NEMA
specifications. As part of that process, the agency will afford the
public with an opportunity to comment on any proposed guidance that the
agency decides to issue.
D. Motor Type Definitions and Testing Set-Up Instructions
In the course of the 2012 final test procedure rulemaking, some
interested parties questioned why DOE defined the term ``NEMA Design B
motor'' but not ``NEMA Design A motor'' or ``NEMA Design C motor.'' DOE
explained at the time that a definition for ``NEMA Design B motor'' was
necessary because the application section in MG 1 (paragraph 1.19.1.2
in both MG 1-2009 and MG 1-2011) contained a typographical error that
required correcting for purposes of DOE's regulations, which exactly
implemented a standard for NEMA Design B motors that are general
purpose electric motors with a power rating of more than 200
horsepower, but less than or equal to 500 horsepower. See 10 CFR
431.25(d). At that time, DOE also noted that it may incorporate a
corrected version of the ``NEMA Design C motor'' definition in a future
rulemaking because that definition, which is found in NEMA MG 1-2009,
paragraph 1.19.1.3, also contains a typographical error. DOE did not,
however, intend to add definitions for NEMA Design A and IEC Design N,
as the existing definitions found in MG 1 are correct as published. 77
FR at 26616 and 26634 (May 4, 2012).
Given DOE's current intention to consider establishing energy
conservation standards for an expanded scope of motors, however, DOE
now believes it is necessary to clarify the terms and definitions
pertaining to Design A and Design N motors as well. DOE understands
that many terms and definitions applicable to motors are used in common
industry parlance for voluntary standards and day-to-day business
communication but are not necessarily defined with sufficient clarity
for regulatory purposes. At this time, DOE is making changes designed
to provide more precise definitions for these terms to sufficiently
capture the particular characteristics attributable to each definition.
Both DOE and manufacturers should use these definitions to determine
whether a particular basic model is covered by DOE's regulations for
electric motors. DOE notes, however, that the presence of a given
definition in this document does not obligate DOE to establish energy
conservation standards for the motor type defined.
1. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Design A and Design C
Motors
NEMA MG 1-2009's definitions include the following three types of
polyphase, alternating current, induction motors: NEMA Designs A, B,
and C. NEMA MG 1-2009 establishes the same pull-up, breakdown, and
locked-rotor torque requirements for both NEMA Design A and NEMA Design
B motors.\10\ However, a NEMA Design A motor must be designed such that
its locked-rotor current exceeds the maximum locked-rotor current
established for a NEMA Design B motor. Unless the application
specifically requires the higher locked-rotor current capability
offered by a NEMA Design A motor, a NEMA Design B motor (which has the
same specified minimum torque characteristics as the NEMA Design A
motor) is often used instead because of the additional convenience
offered by these motors when compared to Design A motors. (See NEMA,
EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at 36 (noting the additional convenience
offered by Design B motors over Design A motors with respect to
selecting disconnecting methods and in satisfying National Electrical
Code and UL requirements.)) In addition, DOE understands that NEMA
Design B motors are frequently preferred because the user can easily
select the motor control and protection
[[Page 75969]]
equipment that meets the applicable requirements of the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) National Electrical Code (NFPA 70). These
motors are also listed by private testing, safety, or certification
organizations, such as CSA International or UL. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-
STD-0027-0054 at p. 36)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Locked-rotor torque is the torque that a motor produces
when it is at rest or zero speed and initially turned on. A higher
locked-rotor torque is important for hard-to-start applications,
such as positive displacement pumps or compressors. A lower locked-
rotor torque can be accepted in applications such as centrifugal
fans or pumps where the start load is low or close to zero. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike NEMA Design A and B motors, a NEMA Design C motor requires a
minimum locked-rotor torque per NEMA MG 1-2009, Table 12-3, which is
higher than either the NEMA Design A or Design B minimum locked-rotor
torque required per NEMA MG 1-2009, Table 12-2.
In view of the above, DOE proposed to incorporate a definition for
both ``NEMA Design A motor'' and ``NEMA Design C motor'' to improve the
clarity between these two terms. As DOE had already adopted a
definition for ``NEMA Design B motor'' at 10 CFR 431.12, it believed
that providing definitions for other motor types would provide
consistency in the treatment of all considered motors. 78 FR 38462. The
proposed definitions for NEMA Design A and Design C motors were based
on the definitions in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraphs 1.19.1.1 and 1.19.1.3,
respectively. DOE proposed to define a ``NEMA Design A motor'' as ``a
squirrel-cage motor designed to withstand full-voltage starting and
that develops locked-rotor torque, pull-up torque, breakdown torque,
and locked-rotor current as specified in NEMA MG 1-2009-and with a slip
at rated load of less than 5 percent for motors with fewer than 10
poles.'' DOE also proposed to define a ``NEMA Design C motor'' as ``a
squirrel-cage motor designed to withstand full-voltage starting and
that develops locked-rotor torque for high-torque applications, pull-up
torque, breakdown torque, and locked-rotor current as specified in NEMA
MG 1-2009--and with a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent.''
NEMA requested that DOE modify its proposed definitions of NEMA
Design A and Design C motors and urged that the definitions be
consistent when referencing to the NEMA MG 1-2009 tables. (Pub. Mtg.
Tr., No. 7 at p. 41, 44, 45) \11\ NEMA acknowledged an error in the
definition of NEMA Design C in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph 1.19.1.3 and
suggested that the phrase ``up to the values'' in reference to the
level of locked rotor torque and breakdown torque should be replaced
with ``not less than the values'' because the limits in the referenced
tables are the minimum values. NEMA suggested that the proper
statements can be found in the actual standards in the referenced
clauses of NEMA MG 1-2009 paragraph 12.37 and NEMA MG 1-2009 paragraph
12.39. (NEMA, No.10 at p. 13) WEG asserted that since DOE's procedure
would apply only to 60 Hertz (Hz) motors, DOE should omit references to
50 Hz motors in the definitions. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 43)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ (In this and subsequent citations, the document number
refers to the number of the comment in the Docket for the DOE
rulemaking on test procedures for electric motors, Docket No. EERE-
2012-BT-TP-0043; and the page references refer to the place in the
document where the statement preceding appears.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has re-evaluated its proposed definitions for NEMA Design A
motors and NEMA Design C motors after receiving the comments above.
Regarding the NEMA Design C definition, DOE recognizes the error in its
proposed definition and is modifying the definition to read ``not less
than the values'' instead of ``up to the values.'' The remainder of the
proposed Design C definition is being adopted. DOE did not receive any
other specific comments regarding the definition of NEMA Design A
motors, so DOE is adopting the definition proposed in the NOPR without
modifications. Regarding the clause for ``50 Hz'' motors, DOE notes
that the definition for NEMA Design B motors already present in 10 CFR
part 431 contains this phrase, and to maintain consistency between the
three definitions, DOE has retained it for the NEMA Design A and NEMA
Design C definitions. DOE also notes that NEMA's MG 1-2009 includes
both 60 Hz and 50 Hz in its Design A, B and C definitions. Under the
regulatory scheme outlined in the standards NOPR, however, DOE's
proposed standards would only apply to 60 Hz motors because of the nine
criteria that define the scope of coverage.
2. International Electrotechnical Commission Designs N and H Motors
The European International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC),
produces industry standards that contain performance requirements for
electric motors similar to those produced by NEMA. Analogous to NEMA
Designs B and C are IEC Designs N and H. IEC Design N motors have
similar performance characteristics to NEMA Design B motors, while IEC
Design H motors are similar to NEMA Design C motors. Because many
motors imported into the U.S. are built to IEC specifications instead
of NEMA specifications, DOE proposed to include a definition for IEC
Design N and IEC Design H motor types to ensure that these functionally
similar motors were treated in a manner consistent with equivalent
NEMA-based electric motors and to retain overall consistency with the
existing definitional framework.
DOE's proposed definition for ``IEC Design N motor'' incorporated
language from IEC Standard 60034-12 (2007 Ed. 2.1) (IEC 60034) with
some modifications that would make the definition more comprehensive.
IEC 60034 defines IEC Design N motors as being ``normal starting torque
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 1600 kW,''
with torque characteristics and locked-rotor characteristics detailed
in subsequent tables of the standard.\12\ A similar approach for IEC
Design H motors is taken in IEC 60034, but with references to different
sections and slightly different wording. DOE proposed including all
references to tables for torque characteristics and locked-rotor
characteristics as part of these definitions to improve their
comprehensiveness. As detailed in the NOPR, DOE proposed to define an
``IEC Design N motor'' as ``an induction motor designed for use with
three-phase power with the following characteristics: A cage rotor,
intended for direct-on-line starting, having 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles, rated
from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz, and conforming to IEC
specifications for torque characteristics, locked rotor apparent power,
and starting.'' DOE proposed to define a ``IEC Design H motor'' as ``an
induction motor designed for use with three-phase power with the
following characteristics: A cage rotor, intended for direct-on-line
starting, with 4, 6, or 8 poles, rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW, and
conforming to IEC specifications for starting torque, locked rotor
apparent power, and starting.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to these proposed definitions, interested parties made
several suggestions. NEMA requested removal of the parenthetical
statement ``(as demonstrated by the motor's ability to operate without
an inverter)'' because, in its view, it is unnecessary and not included
in the present definition of NEMA Design B motor nor in the proposed
definitions of NEMA Designs A and C motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p.
45, 46) NEMA further suggested that the rating range of 0.4 kW to 1600
kW be replaced with 0.75 kW to 373 kW as applicable to all defined
electric motors and as given in the
[[Page 75970]]
present 10 CFR 431.25.\13\ Baldor commented that the 1 to 500
horsepower range should be included in the definition, which presumably
would align with the scope of coverage proposed in DOE's standards
NOPR. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 52) SEW pointed out that the
definition for IEC Design H includes ``at a frequency of 60 Hz'' while
the definition for IEC design N does not include it. (Pub. Mtg. Tr.,
No. 7 at p. 52)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ These are the metric figures for 1 and 500 horsepower,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA commented that, depending on the level of apparent locked
rotor power, an IEC Design N electric motor may be equivalent to a NEMA
Design B or NEMA Design A electric motor. Moreover, the marking
requirements in IEC 60034-1 do not require that a design type or locked
rotor apparent power be marked on IEC design motors. Therefore, NEMA
requested that DOE consider these factors (but made no specific
suggestions on how) while including IEC standards in terms of the level
of equivalency to the NEMA MG 1 standard in the proposed definitions.
(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 13) Regal Beloit requested that DOE address the
scope and design of IEC Design N motors with high inrush locked rotor
current. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 166-168).
DOE notes that its objective in defining IEC Design H and IEC
Design N motors is to define what characteristics and features comprise
these types of motors, so that manufacturers designing to the IEC
standards can easily tell whether their motor is subject to DOE's
regulatory requirements. While DOE currently regulates motors that have
a power rating between 0.75 kW to 373 kW, DOE does not believe it needs
to limit the definitions to this power range to describe whether a
given motor falls under Design H or Design N. DOE agrees with NEMA
regarding the need to provide additional clarity about how to determine
NEMA and IEC equivalent motors to determine the applicability of DOE's
regulations to IEC-rated motors. Consequently, DOE intends to issue a
separate guidance document that will help describe the process that
both DOE and manufacturers should use to determine whether IEC-rated
motors are subject to DOE's regulations.
As Baldor noted, DOE also acknowledges that its inclusion of the
clause ``at a frequency of 60 hz'' in the definition for IEC Design H
motor and not for IEC Design N may create some ambiguity. For the final
rule, DOE is modifying the definition of an IEC Design N motor and
maintaining the definition of an IEC Design H motors, both to specify
applicability to motors at a frequency of 60 hz.
DOE generally agrees that removing the parenthetical statement
``(as demonstrated by the motor's ability to operate without an
inverter)'' from the definition of IEC Design H and IEC Design N motors
is unnecessary, and has rewritten the definition such that it is not
needed. DOE understands that the coverage of IEC motors and NEMA motors
should comport with one another to help ensure that manufacturers
follow a consistent set of requirements. It does not make sense to have
a clause for the definitions of IEC Design H and IEC Design N motors
and not have it for definitions of NEMA Design A and B. In an effort to
maintain consistency with DOE's existing, NEMA-based definitions, DOE
has removed the clause ``as demonstrated by the motor's ability to
operate without an inverter'' from the two IEC definitions DOE has also
replaced the term ``intended'' with ``capable'' because the former does
not definitively establish the capability of motor for direct online
starting.
Electric motors that meet the IEC Design N or Design H requirements
and otherwise meet the definitions of general purpose electric motor
(subtype I) or (subtype II) are already required to satisfy DOE's
energy conservation standards at the specified horsepower ranges
prescribed in 10 CFR 431.25. Because these IEC definitions stipulate a
set of performance parameters that do not inhibit an electric motor's
ability to be tested, DOE did not propose any additional test procedure
amendments in the NOPR.
At the NOPR public meeting, Regal Beloit suggested that DOE add an
alternate test plan per the IEC 60034-2-1 because even though there are
slight differences relative to IEEE 112 (Test Method B), industry
accepts it as equivalent. It pointed out that this test plan would be
the IEC equivalent of IEEE 112 (Test Method B) and, because DOE was
opting to define IEC motor types, it would seem pertinent to include an
IEC test method. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 166-168). While DOE
understands Regal Beloit's view, the inclusion of IEC motors that are
equivalent to motors built in accordance with NEMA specifications is
not a new concept. These ``IEC-equivalent'' motors are already subject
to regulation are currently subject to standards. To date, DOE is
unaware of any difficulties in testing IEC-equivalent motors but will
consider any appropriate changes to its procedures if any such problems
arise.
3. Electric Motors With Moisture-resistant, Sealed or Encapsulated
Windings
All electric motors have ``insulation systems'' that surround the
various copper winding components in the stator. The insulation, such
as a resin coating or plastic sheets, serves two purposes. First, it
helps separate the three electrical phases of the windings from each
other and, second, it separates the copper windings from the stator
lamination steel. Electric motors with encapsulated windings have
additional insulation that completely encases the stator windings,
which protects them from condensation, moisture, dirt, and debris. This
insulation typically consists of a special material coating, such as
epoxy or resin that completely seals the stator's windings.
Encapsulation is generally found on open-frame motors, where the
possibility of contaminants getting inside the motor is higher than for
an enclosed-frame motor.
In the electric motors preliminary analysis TSD,\14\ DOE set forth
a possible definition for the term ``encapsulated electric motor'' that
was based on a NEMA's definition for the term ``Machine with Sealed
Windings.'' DOE intended to address those motors containing special
windings that could withstand exposure to contaminants and moisture--
and whose efficiency is currently unregulated. Commenting on this
approach, NEMA and Baldor noted that NEMA MG 1-2009 does not specify a
single term that encompasses a motor with encapsulated windings.
Instead, NEMA MG 1-2009 provides two terms: one for a ``Machine with
Sealed Windings'' and one for a ``Machine with Moisture Resistant
Windings.'' A definition for the term ``Machine with Encapsulated
Windings'' has not appeared in MG 1 since the 1967 edition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 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
proposed that motors meeting either definition would be addressed by
the expanded scope of the test procedure and accompanying definitions
under consideration. The ability for a motor's windings to continue to
function properly when the motor is in the presence of moisture, water,
or contaminants, as is the case when a motor meets one of these two
definitions, does not affect its ability to
[[Page 75971]]
be connected to a dynamometer and be tested for efficiency.
Additionally, this ability does not preclude a motor from meeting the
nine criteria that DOE preliminarily used to characterize those
electric motors whose energy efficiency are not currently regulated but
that fall within the scope of DOE's regulatory authority. Therefore, in
the NOPR, DOE proposed two definitions based on the NEMA MG 1-2009
definitions of a ``Machine with Moisture Resistant Windings'' and a
``Machine with Sealed Windings.''
DOE's proposed definitions were based on modified versions of the
NEMA MG 1-2009 definitions in order to eliminate potential confusion
and ambiguities. The proposed definitions emphasized the ability of
motors to pass the conformance tests for moisture and water resistance,
thereby identifying them as having special or definite purpose
characteristics. As detailed in the NOPR analysis, DOE proposed to
define ``electric motor with moisture resistant windings'' as ``an
electric motor engineered to pass the conformance test for moisture
resistance as specified in NEMA MG 1-2009.'' DOE proposed to define an
``electric motor with sealed windings'' as ``an electric motor
engineered to pass the conformance test for water resistance as
specified in NEMA MG 1-2009.'' 78 FR 38455.
In response to the June 2013 NOPR, NEMA pointed out that the
proposed definitions refer to NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraphs 12.62 and
12.63 as incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 431.15. DOE's regulations
currently do not include references to these paragraphs and DOE did not
propose to add them. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 54; NEMA, No. 10 at p.
13) As suggested by NEMA, however, DOE is incorporating these two
paragraphs into 10 CFR 431.15, since both paragraphs are necessary to
these definitions. DOE notes that no interested parties at either the
public meeting or in written comments opposed this suggested approach.
In the proposed definitions of electric motor with moisture
resistant windings and electric motor with sealed windings, NEMA
commented that the phrase ``engineered for passing,'' should be
replaced with ``capable of passing'' as stated in the NEMA MG 1-2009
standard. Finally NEMA suggested that DOE define an ``electric motor
with moisture resistant windings'' based on paragraph 1.27.1 of NEMA MG
1-2009:
``Special purpose electric motor with moisture resistant windings
means a special purpose electric motor that has motor windings that
have been treated such that exposure to a moist atmosphere will not
readily cause malfunction. This type of machine is intended for
exposure to moisture conditions that are more excessive than the usual
insulation system can withstand. A motor with moisture resistant
windings is capable of passing the conformance test for moisture
resistance described in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph 12.63, (incorporated
by reference, see 431.15) as demonstrated on a representative sample or
prototype.''
Based on paragraph 1.27.2 of NEMA MG 1-2009, NEMA proposed that the
definition for special purpose electric motor with sealed windings be:
``Special purpose electric motor with sealed windings means a
special purpose electric motor that has an insulation system which,
through the use of materials, processes, or a combination of materials
and processes, results in windings and connections that are sealed
against contaminants. This type of machine is intended for
environmental conditions that are more severe than the usual insulation
system can withstand. A motor with sealed windings is capable of
passing the conformance test for water resistance described in NEMA MG
1-2009, paragraph 12.62, (incorporated by reference, see 431.15) as
demonstrated on a representative sample or prototype.'' (NEMA, No. 10
at p. 13-14)
NEMA and Baldor requested that DOE consider an additional third
type of motors--``special purpose electric motor with encapsulated
windings.'' These motors are included in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph
12.62 and also identified in DOE's 1997 policy statement. NEMA proposed
that the following definition of this type be considered for 10 CFR
431.12: ``Special purpose electric motor with encapsulated windings
means a special purpose electric motor that has motor windings that are
fully enclosed in an insulating material that protects the windings
from detrimental operating environments (moisture, dust, dirt,
contamination, etc.). The encapsulate material may fully enclose not
only the motor windings but the wound stator core. A motor with
encapsulated windings is capable of passing the conformance test for
water resistance described in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph 12.62,
(incorporated by reference, see 10 CFR Part 431.15) as demonstrated on
a representative sample or prototype.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 14, Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 55)
DOE has evaluated the suggestions made on these definitions. DOE
notes that while a motor may be engineered to comply with a parameter,
the final product may not meet the standards. To address this issue,
DOE has adjusted these two definitions to read as ``capable of
passing'' rather than ``engineered for passing.'' DOE prefers to leave
the definition broad, incorporating all motors that pass the
conformance tests in NEMA MG 1-2009 paragraphs 12.62 and 12.63, rather
than further specifying, as NEMA suggested in its definition. However,
DOE has decided to avoid any confusion regarding these motors types
and, therefore, has adopted three definitions.
For the final rule, DOE is adopting the following definition:
``Electric motor with moisture-resistant windings means an electric
motor that is capable of passing the conformance test for moisture
resistance generally described in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph 12.63
(incorporated by reference, see 431.15).'' DOE is also adopting the
following definition for ``Electric motor with sealed windings'' and
for ``Electric motor with encapsulated windings'': ``. . . an electric
motor capable of passing the conformance test for water resistance
described in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph 12.62 (incorporated by
reference, see 431.15).''
In addition to proposing a definition for these motor types, DOE
also considered difficulties that may arise during testing when
following IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA C390-10 or any
potential impacts on efficiency caused by encapsulation of the
windings. Prior to the NOPR, DOE conducted its own research and found
no evidence that electric motors with specially insulated windings
could not be tested using the existing DOE test procedures without
further modification.. Therefore, DOE did not propose any test
procedure amendments tailored for electric motors with moisture
resistant windings or electric motors with sealed windings in the NOPR.
Bluffton Motors highlighted the challenges associated with testing
encapsulated windings motors in its comments. Bluffton commented that
the thermocouples cannot be used to measure winding temperature and
that measuring the temperature through winding resistance is a
difficult process, thus consistent, repeatable results may not be
obtained. (Bluffton, No. 11 at p. 1)
Advanced Energy agreed with DOE's decision not to propose
additional test procedures for electric motors with moisture resistant
windings and electric motors with sealed windings. Advanced Energy
commented that they could be fully tested using existing standard
[[Page 75972]]
procedures. (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 2)
DOE understands the comments made regarding testing motors with
encapsulated windings. As a result of discussions with subject matter
experts (SMEs) prior to the NOPR, and research performed after, DOE
does not believe that the presence of specially insulated stator
windings in an electric motor would interfere with DOE-prescribed test
procedures. Because temperature measurements are taken by measuring the
stator winding resistance, DOE does not believe that the insulation on
the stator windings themselves will interfere with carrying out any
part of IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA C390-10, both of which
require temperature measurements to be taken during testing. The
modifications made to stator windings have no impact on a motor's
ability to be connected to a dynamometer because they are modifications
to the internal portions of the motor. Therefore, DOE has retained the
approach proposed in the NOPR and is not adopting an alternative test
plan for these motor types.
4. Inverter-Capable Electric Motors
Current standards for electric motors apply to single speed motors
with a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration. 10 CFR 431.25. Each of
these motors operates at a constant rotational speed, which is
predicated by its pole configuration. This means that the motor shaft
is engineered to rotate at the same speed, regardless of its
application or required power. In addition to its pole configuration, a
motor's rotational speed is partially determined by the frequency of
its power source. The equation determining a motor's theoretical
maximum speed (or synchronous speed) is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13DE13.000
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 MG 1-2009.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Li, Harry. Impact of VFD, Starting Method and Driven Load
on Motor Efficiency. 2011.Siemens Industry, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE did not propose to exempt a motor suitable for use on an
inverter from any applicable energy conservation standards because this
type of motor operates like a typical, general purpose electric motor
when not connected to an inverter. As detailed in the NOPR, DOE
proposed to define an ``inverter-capable electric motor'' as an
electric motor designed to be directly connected to polyphase,
sinusoidal line power, but that is also capable of continuous operation
on an inverter drive over a limited speed range and associated load.
Because this motor type operates like a typical, general purpose
electric motor when not connected to an inverter, DOE did not believe
any test procedure amendments were needed. Under DOE's proposed
approach, an inverter-capable electric motor would be tested without
the use of an inverter and rely on the set-ups used when testing a
general purpose electric motor.
In response to the NOPR, interested parties raised concerns
regarding the proposed definition for inverter-capable electric motors.
NEMA commented that the current definition is neither complete nor
clear, noting that the definition is fairly wide open as far as the
type of three-phase motors that could be connected to an inverter (Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 58-59 ; NEMA, No. 10 at p. 15). CA IOUs requested
that the definition for inverter-capable electric motor be specifically
constrained to polyphase motors, but NEMA noted that if the definition
for electric motor refers to polyphase, as it recommended in its
comments, then the term ``polyphase'' need not be included in the
definition of inverter-capable electric motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7
at p. 58; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 59). Finally, NEMA proposed that
the following definition be adopted instead: ``Inverter-capable
electric motor means a general purpose electric motor (subtype I) or
general purpose electric motor (subtype II) that is also capable of
continuous operation on an inverter control over a limited speed range
and associated load.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 15)
DOE does not agree with NEMA's suggestion to further limit the
definition proposed in the NOPR. Specifically, DOE's intent with the
proposed definition was to include all types of electric motors that
were capable of working with an inverter, which encompass a wide
variety of three-phase electric motors. These definitions should help
manufacturers determine if a given basic model is covered and subject
to DOE's regulations. DOE believes that NEMA is primarily concerned as
to whether certain types of inverter capable motors will ultimately be
subject to amended energy conservation standards. Whether a motor meets
one of the definitions finalized today, however, does not necessarily
mean that the motor type's efficiency will be regulated by DOE. For
these reasons, DOE has maintained the proposed definition for
``inverter-capable electric motor'' in the final rule and NEMA should
provide further comment in the standards rulemaking about the
applicability of the proposed standards to these types of motors.
5. Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated Electric Motors
Most enclosed electric motors are constructed with a fan attached
to the shaft, typically on the end opposite the driven load, as a means
of pushing air over the surface of the motor enclosure, which helps
dissipate heat and reduce the motor's operating temperature. Totally
enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) motors, however, have no fan blowing air
over the surface of the motor. These motors rely, instead, on the
conduction and convection of the motor heat into the surrounding
environment for heat removal, which results in a motor that operates at
higher temperatures than motors with attached cooling fans. TENV motors
may be used in environments where an external fan
[[Page 75973]]
could clog with dirt or dust, or applications where the shaft operates
at too low of a speed to provide sufficient cooling (i.e., a motor
controlled by an inverter to operate at very low revolutions per
minute). TENV motors may employ additional frame material as well as
improved stator winding insulation so that the motor may withstand the
increased operating temperatures. Extra frame material allows for more
surface area and mass to dissipate heat, whereas higher-grade stator
winding insulation may be rated to withstand the higher operating
temperatures.
In view of the statutory definitional changes created by EISA 2007,
and the support expressed by both industry and energy efficiency
advocates in the Joint Petition submitted by the Motor Coalition, DOE
is addressing TENV motors in the energy conservation standards
rulemaking. (Motor Coalition, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0035 at p. 19) As
part of this effort, in the June 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed to add a
definition for this motor type based on the definition of a ``totally
enclosed nonventilated machine'' in paragraph 1.26.1 of NEMA MG 1-2009.
DOE tentatively concluded that this definition is accurate and
sufficiently clear and concise and proposed that the definition be
adopted with minor alterations. The NOPR proposed to define a ``TENV
electric motor'' as an electric motor built in a frame-surface cooled,
totally enclosed configuration that is designed and equipped to be
cooled only by free convection.
In addition to proposing a definition for these motors, DOE
considered whether any test procedure set-up instructions would be
necessary to test TENV motors. In response to the framework
document,\16\ ASAP and NEMA submitted comments suggesting that
manufacturers could demonstrate compliance with the applicable energy
conservation standards by testing similar models. (ASAP and NEMA, EERE-
2010-BT-STD-0027-0012 at p. 7) Although NEMA and ASAP suggested this
was a possible way to test these motors to demonstrate compliance, they
did not state that this was necessary method because of difficulties
testing these types of motors. Subsequently, after DOE published its
electric motors preliminary analysis, NEMA stated that it was not aware
of any changes that were required to use IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method
B) when testing TENV motors. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p.
16) Also, in response to the preliminary analysis, the Copper
Development Association (CDA) commented that DOE may need to develop
new test procedures for these motor types but did not explain why such
a change would be necessary. (CDA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0018 at p. 2)
CDA did not indicate whether the current procedures could be modified
to test these motors or what specific steps would need to be included
to test these types of motors. Additionally, DOE knew of no technical
reason why a TENV motor could not be tested using either IEEE Standard
112 (Test Method B) or the CSA C390-10 procedure without modification.
In view of NEMA's most recent comments suggesting that IEEE Standard
112 (Test Method B) was an appropriate means to determine the
efficiency of these motors, and the fact that the CDA did not provide
an explanation of why changes would be necessary, DOE did not propose
any test procedure amendments for TENV electric motors in the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-
STD-0027-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the June 2013 NOPR, Advanced Energy agreed with the
proposed definition for TENV electric motors and with DOE's decision
not to propose any clarifying set-up procedure. (Advanced Energy, No. 8
at p. 2) However, NEMA asserted that the proposed definition is
inadequate. NEMA suggested that if DOE accepts NEMA's earlier
recommendations on modifying the definition for ``motor'' and
``electric motor,'' the definition of TENV would be a ``totally
enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) definite purpose electric motor means a
definite purpose 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.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 15). NEMA
further requested that DOE consider including IEC equivalents along
with relevant IC and IP codes. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 79; NEMA,
No. 10 at p. 15-16)
During the NOPR public meeting, the CA IOUs noted that DOE's
proposed definition for TENVs would overlap with the State of
California's regulations pertaining to pool pump motors. Those
regulations, in relevant part, prescribe an energy conservation
standard for pool pump motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 61-64).
Regal Beloit indicated in response during the public meeting that the
proposed test procedures may not apply to pool pump motors since the
majority of those motors are single-phase motors; in contrast, TENV
motors operate on polyphase power. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 61-65)
DOE has addressed the addition of phrases such as ``definite
purpose electric motor'' to the individual motors definitions in
section G, and for the reasons discussed there, will not be adding this
phrase to the definition for TENV motors. Outside of this change,
NEMA's proposal matches that which was proposed by DOE in the NOPR.
Based on this, DOE has maintained the NOPR proposed definition for this
final rule. Having received no negative feedback on its proposal to not
require set-up procedures for the testing of TENV motors, DOE is
maintaining this approach in the final rule.
DOE understands NEMA's concerns about IEC equivalency and
recognizes that including IP and IC codes for IEC-equivalent motors may
help eliminate any ambiguity in the proposed definitions. As noted
earlier in the section H, DOE conducted its own independent research
and consulted with SMEs to identify proper IP and IC codes for IEC
motors equivalents to the motor types that were proposed to be defined
in 10 CFR part 431 in the NOPR and intends to develop guidance
regarding the appropriate codes.
Regarding pool pump motors, DOE notes that, by statute, any
electric motor could be regulated by DOE for energy efficiency. DOE is
considering setting energy conservation standards as part of its
ongoing standards rulemaking effort for a wider variety of motors than
are currently covered. To the extent that those efforts lead to the
promulgation of standards that would affect an electric motor used in a
pool pump, those standards would preempt any State standards that are
currently in effect.
6. Air-Over Electric Motor
Most enclosed electric motors are constructed with a fan attached
to the shaft, typically on the end opposite the drive, as a means of
providing cooling airflow over the surface of the motor frame. This
airflow helps remove heat, which reduces the motor's operating
temperature. The reduction in operating temperature prevents the motor
from overheating during continuous duty operation and increases the
life expectancy of the motor.\17\ On the other hand, air-over electric
motors do not have a factory-attached fan and, therefore, require a
separate, external means of forcing air over the frame of the motor.
Without an external means of cooling, an air-over electric motor could
[[Page 75974]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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 complex. IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) and CSA C390-10 do
not provide standardized procedures for preparing an air-over electric
motor for testing, which would otherwise require an external cooling
apparatus. Additionally, DOE was not aware of any standard test
procedures that provide guidance on how to test such motors. Test
procedure guidance that would produce a consistent, repeatable test
method would likely require testing laboratories to be capable of
measuring the cubic airflow of an external cooling fan used to cool the
motor during testing. At the time of the NOPR publication, DOE believed
that this is a capability that most testing laboratories do not have.
Without the ability to measure airflow, one testing laboratory may
provide more airflow to the motor than a different testing laboratory.
Increasing or decreasing airflow between tests could impact the tested
efficiency of the motor, which would provide inconsistent test results.
Because of this difficulty, DOE stated that it has no plans to require
energy conservation standards for air-over electric motors, making
further test procedure changes unnecessary. 78 FR 38461.
Although DOE did not plan to apply energy conservation standards to
air-over electric motors, it proposed to define them for clarity. DOE's
proposed ``air-over electric motor'' definition was based on the NEMA
MG 1-2009 definition of a ``totally enclosed air-over machine,'' with
some modification to that definition to include air-over electric
motors with open frames. DOE believed that air-over electric motors
with either totally enclosed or open frame construction use the same
methods for heat dissipation and, therefore, should be included in the
same definition. As detailed in the NOPR, DOE proposed to define ``air-
over electric motor'' as ``an electric motor designed to be cooled by a
ventilating means external to, and not supplied with, the motor.'' 78
FR 38481.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA and ASAP commented that the proposed
definition of air-over electric motor is inadequate. (Pub. Mtg. Tr.,
No. 7 at p. 70; NEMA, No. 10 at p. 33) NEMA commented that DOE's
definition for air-over electric motor does not distinguish between
air-over machines and pipe-ventilated machines, in which the
ventilating means is external to the machine, but the air is ducted to
and from and circulated through the machine. NEMA stated that the
proposed definition should refer to the air as being free-flowing,
which could be over an enclosed electric motor or through an open
electric motor. Therefore, NEMA suggested that DOE define these motors
as: ``[a]ir-over definite purpose motor means a definite purpose motor
that is designed to be cooled by a free flow of air provided by a
ventilating means external to, and not supplied with, the motor.''
(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 33) NEMA further commented that there is no need
for any definition of ``air-over definite purpose motor'' or ``air-over
definite purpose electric motor'' if efficiency standards are not
established. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 34)
DOE believes that NEMA's suggestion provides a useful conceptual
starting point, but has concern that without more specificity, the
suggestion could create an incentive to sell motors intended for
general purpose use but labeled as air-over. DOE understands that most,
or all, air-over motors are used in applications where they drive a fan
or blower that provides airflow to a certain application. Rather that
having traditional cooling fans, air-over motors depend on the larger
airstream to stabilize temperature. Maintaining NEMA's suggestion to
specify that the source of the cooling air not be supplied with the
motor, DOE adopts the following definition for today's rule: ``An air-
over motor is an electric motor rated to operate in and be cooled by
the airstream of a fan or blower that is not supplied with the motor
and whose primary purpose is providing airflow to an application other
than the motor driving it.''
Regarding NEMA's contention that DOE does not need to define this
motor type, as noted earlier, DOE does not intend to define only motors
that it intends to regulate via the standards rulemaking.
DOE believed that the difficulties associated with testing air-over
electric motors such as providing a standard flow of cooling air from
an external source that provides a constant velocity under defined
ambient temperature and barometric conditions over the motor were
insurmountable at this time of the NOPR, and therefore, did not propose
a test plan for these motors and did not plan to subject this motor
type to standards in the standards rulemaking.
In response to the June 2013 test procedure NOPR, NEMA agreed with
DOE's proposal to not require air-over electric motors to meet energy
conservation standards, noting that the difficulties of testing to
determine the efficiency of an air-over motor make the establishment of
efficiency standards impractical. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 34)
On the other hand, Advanced Energy urged DOE to consider
implementing standards for air over electric motors. Advanced Energy
expressed concern that if TENV motors are regulated and TEAO motors are
not regulated, TENV motors that did not meet standards could be labeled
and sold as TEAO motors. (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 5)
In its NOPR comments, Advanced Energy recognized the following
challenges with the testing of air-over motors: (1) Unstable
temperature due to heat run,\18\ (2) requirement of additional
equipment to test airflow to motor, and (3) inconsistency in test
results by different labs due to variation in the airflow. Advanced
Energy suggested testing air-over motors by making modifications in the
instructions for CSA 747-2009 and IEEE 114-2010. Both standards require
test measurements at temperature within 70 [deg]C-80 [deg]C. (Advanced
Energy, No. 8 at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In other words, the winding temperature does not stabilize
without a cooling, external airflow in which air-over motors are
designed to operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to substantiate its claims, Advanced Energy tested a
5hp, 4-pole TEFC motor following the IEEE 112 (Test Method B)
procedure. The following six tests were conducted: Test A: With fan;
Test B: Without fan and without blower; Test F: Without fan and with
blower; Test E: With fan and a 1.25 service factor; Test D: Without
fan, without blower and with a 1.25 service factor; and Test C: Without
fan, with blower and with a 1.25 service factor. Advanced Energy
observed the following results, shown in table Table III-2. (Advanced
Energy, No. 8 at pp. 6-7)
[[Page 75975]]
Table III-2--Test Results of TEFC Motor Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency @
Test Rated load rated load (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (Test A)....................... 5 89.3
Without Fan, Without Blower (Test B).... 5 89.9
Without Fan, With Blower (Test F)....... 5 90.2
Baseline (Test E)....................... 6.25 88.1
Without Fan, Without Blower (Test D).... 6.25 89.0
Without Fan, With Blower (Test C)....... 6.25 88.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Energy observed that the efficiency of the motor in tests
B, C, D, and F increased compared to the respective baseline tests--
tests A and E. It believes that the tests show that the standard test
procedures can be modified to test air-over electric motors, especially
when comparing tests D to C, or test B to F. Advanced Energy noted that
the test without a fan (Test B), in which the thermal run was stopped
to test between 70 degrees and 80 degrees Celsius, resulted in a
measured efficiency comparable to the test where a blower was used to
provide cooling airflow (Test F). (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at pp. 6-7)
Advanced Energy requested that DOE further investigate the test
instructions for air-over electric motors and proposed test
instructions stating: ``Air-over motors shall be tested at their rated
conditions (horsepower, speed, voltage) by providing air from external
means such that the motor winding temperature shall be between 70
[deg]C-80 [deg]C.'' (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 8)
While DOE has considered the test data, DOE does not believe it has
sufficient information at this time to support establishment of a test
method for measuring air-over motor efficiency for regulatory purposes.
DOE intends, however, to research other test procedure options for air-
over electric motors to determine whether, in a future, separate
rulemaking, DOE might propose a test procedure set-up for air-over
electric motors and, possibly, an energy conservation standard for such
motors.
E. Electric Motor Types Requiring Definitions and Test Procedure
Instructions
In the June 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed define a number of electric
motor types that were already, apparently, commonly understood, but not
necessarily clearly defined, by the industry. DOE also proposed
clarifying language for testing each of these motor types.
1. Immersible Electric Motors
Most electric motors are not engineered to withstand immersion in
liquid (e.g., water, including wastewater). If liquid enters an
electric motor's stator frame, it could create electrical faults
between the different electrical phases or electrical steel and could
impede rotor operation or corrode internal components. Immersible
motors are electric motors that are capable of withstanding immersion
in a liquid without causing damage to the motor. Immersible motors can
withstand temporary operation in liquid, sometimes up to two weeks, but
also run continuously outside of a liquid environment because they do
not rely on the liquid to cool the motor. According to test 7 in Table
5-4 of NEMA MG 1-2009, for a motor to be marked as protected against
the effects of immersion, a motor must prevent the ingress of water
into the motor while being completely submerged in water for a
continuous period of at least 30 minutes. Therefore, DOE has
interpreted ``temporary'' to mean a period of time of no less than 30
minutes. Immersible motors can operate while temporarily submerged
because they have contact seals that keep liquid and other contaminants
out of the motor. Additionally, some immersible motors may have
pressurized oil inside the motor enclosure, which is used in
conjunction with contact seals to prevent the ingress of liquid during
immersion. Finally, immersible motors are occasionally constructed in a
package that includes another, smaller (e.g., \1/2\ horsepower) motor
that is used to improve cooling when the immersible motor is not
submerged in water. In these cases, the two motors are constructed in a
totally enclosed blower-cooled (TEBC) frame and sold together. The
electric motors with separately powered blowers are discussed in a
separate section III.F.6.
In responding to the October 15, 2010 framework document, NEMA and
ASAP commented that greater clarification is needed with regard to
immersible motors and how to differentiate them from liquid-cooled or
submersible motors. (NEMA and ASAP, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0012 at p. 9)
DOE understands the general differences to be as follows:
1. Submersible motors are engineered to operate only while
completely surrounded by liquid because they require liquid for cooling
purposes;
2. liquid-cooled motors use liquid (or liquid-filled components) to
facilitate heat dissipation but are not submerged in liquid during
operation; and
3. immersible motors are capable of operating temporarily while
surrounded by liquid, but are engineered to work primarily out of
liquid.
In the June 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed to define an immersible
electric motor as an electric motor primarily designed to operate
continuously in free-air, but that is also capable of withstanding
complete immersion in liquid for a continuous period of no less than 30
minutes.
In response to the definition for immersible electric motor
proposed in NOPR, interested parties expressed several concerns.
Advanced Energy commented that the phrase ``capable of withstanding
complete immersion in a liquid for a continuous period of no less than
30 minutes'' implies that the motor can be put in the liquid
indefinitely, stating that this phrase is more appropriate for test
instruction but not for definition. Thus, Advanced Energy suggested
that this phrase be modified with the word ``temporarily'' or an upper
limit (e.g., two weeks) be provided for immersion. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No.
7 at p. 135; Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 2). ASAP responded that since
immersible electric motor is a covered motor, the temporal upper limit
is not needed. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 135-136). WEG commented
that the definition of immersible motors needs further addition, such
as ``no less than 14 days,'' to differentiate it from the submersible
motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 137) NEMA commented that the
proposed definition is inadequate as it is neither sufficiently
complete nor clear. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 20)
[[Page 75976]]
Finally, Advanced Energy proposed that the definition be modified
to describe these motors as those that are ``primarily designed to
operate continuously in free-air'' but that can ``temporarily withstand
complete immersion in liquid for a continuous period of no less than 30
minutes.'' (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 2) On the other hand, NEMA
proposed to define this term as ``a definite purpose electric motor
that is primarily designed to operate continuously in free-air, but is
also capable of withstanding complete immersion in liquid for a
continuous period of no less than 30 minutes, during which time any
operation may or may not be inhibited.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 20)
DOE's intention in the NOPR was to fully differentiate between
three types of motors: Submersible, immersible, and liquid-cooled. DOE
recognizes that without an upper limit on the submersion in liquid, the
definition for immersible motors is very similar to that of submersible
motors. However, as it noted in the proposal, immersible motors are
``primarily designed to operate continuously in free-air,'' while
submersible motors are ``designed for operation only while submerged in
liquid.'' DOE believes that these clauses should sufficiently
differentiate between the two types of motors, but in an effort to
further eliminate any confusion, DOE has added the word ``temporary''
to the definition, as suggested by Advanced Energy and defining an
``immersible electric motor'' as an electric motor ``primarily designed
to operate continuously in free-air, but that is also capable of
temporarily withstanding complete immersion in liquid for a continuous
period of no less than 30 minutes.''
Regarding immersible motor testing, the contact seals used by
immersible motors to prevent the ingress of water or other contaminants
have an effect on tested efficiency that generally changes over time.
New seals are stiff, and provide higher levels of friction than seals
that have been used and undergone an initial break-in period.\19\ DOE
understands that as the seals 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Guide for the Use of Electric Motor Testing Methods Based
on IEC 60034-2-1. May 2011. Version 1.1. 4E, Electric Motors
Systems, EMSA, available at: 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 had previously discussed testing immersible electric motors
with industry experts, SMEs, and testing laboratories, all of whom
suggested that the seals should be removed prior to testing to
eliminate any impacts on the tested efficiency. DOE sought to confirm
the effects of contact seals by conducting its own testing. DOE
procured a five-horsepower, two-pole, TENV motor for this purpose.\20\
Upon receipt of the motor, DOE's testing laboratory followed IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method B) and tested the motor in the same condition
as it was received, with the contact seals in place (test 1). After
completing that initial test, the laboratory removed the contact seals
and tested the motor again (test 2). Finally, the testing laboratory
reinstalled the seals, ran the motor for an additional period of time
such that the motor had run for a total of 10 hours with the contact
seals installed (including time from the initial test) and then
performed IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) again (test 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 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, enabling the lab to test the
motor per IEEE 112 Test Method B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's testing showed the potential impact that contact seals can
have on demonstrated efficiency. In the case of the five-horsepower,
two-pole, TENV motor, the motor performed with a higher efficiency with
the contact seals removed, demonstrating a reduction in motor losses of
nearly 20 percent. DOE's testing also demonstrated a decaying effect of
the contact seals on motor losses as they break-in over time. In this
instance, the effect of the contact seals on motor losses was reduced,
but not eliminated, after 10 hours of running the motor. The results of
DOE's immersible motor testing are shown below.
Table III-3--Results of Immersible Motor Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nameplate
Motor type efficiency Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immersible Motor (also TENV and a vertical 89.5% 88.9% 91.0% 89.2%
solid-shaft motor).........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the limited testing conducted by DOE which showed that
seals may have an impact on the tested efficiency of a given motor, DOE
proposed that these motors be tested with the contact seals in place.
In addition, DOE proposed an allowance of a maximum run-in period of 10
hours prior to performing IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B). This run-
in period was intended to allow the contact seals a sufficient amount
of time to break-in such that test conditions were equal or very
similar to normal operating conditions that would be experienced by a
user. DOE's proposed 10-hour maximum was a preliminary estimate
obtained through discussions with electric motors testing experts.
In response to the NOPR, several interested parties expressed
concern with the proposed test procedure. Advanced Energy noted that
the effect of a seal on motor efficiency, as well as its ``run-in''
time, would vary by motor, depending on the motor and type of seal
used. Advanced Energy commented that there is no guarantee that a given
motor will break-in within a specified time period of 10 hours, which
is small compared to the lifetime of a motor. Based on these
conditions, it continued to recommend that seals be removed during
initial testing to verify the efficiency of the motor. (Advanced
Energy, No. 8 at p. 3)
NEMA noted that DOE's tests on a sample immersible motor as
received for testing, after an extended time of operation, and with the
seals removed, illustrate the difficulty of determining the efficiency
of electric motors relative to operating time with various types of
seals. Therefore, NEMA continued to recommend that contact seals be
removed prior to testing. In the alternative, NEMA asserted that
efficiency standards for electric motors with contact seals or sealed
bearings would need to be lower than those for the motors without
contact seals or sealed bearings. It added that different standard
levels may also be needed based on the different types of contact seals
and sealed bearings used in a given motor. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 21-23)
[[Page 75977]]
NEMA noted that the NOPR refers to 200 hours as the possible time
during which the efficiency losses from seals will continue to
decrease. NEMA commented that the run-in time depends on the type of
contact seals used. However, it commented that 200 hours would seem to
be a short run-in estimate for a continuous duty electric motor that
DOE assumed in its testing has an average mechanical lifetime of up to
108,398 hours. NEMA expressed concern with the proposed requirement of
a 10-hour run-in period to represent the efficiency level of the
electric motor with seals when averaged over the total period of use.
It also pointed out that for labs that operate on a standard eight-hour
workday, a 10-hour run-in period could place undue hardship on the lab,
or require unmonitored conditions. NEMA further pointed out that DOE
does not indicate if the run-in testing is to be performed with the
motor unloaded or at its rated load. NEMA continued to recommend that
the contact seals be removed prior to testing. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 22-
23; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 138-139)
Bluffton commented that motors with seals in them should be tested
without the seals because of the inability to obtain consistent results
from motor to motor because of the difference in mechanical pressure on
the seal from one motor to the next. It noted that if the goal is to
reduce power consumption on an overall basis, the differential will be
the same regardless of whether the starting point is with or without
seals. Moreover, the friction of the seal may change over the entire
life of the motor. Thus, testing with seals may not give consistent and
repeatable measurements. (Bluffton, No. 11 at p. 1)
WEG and Nidec also recommended that the seals be removed for
testing (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 139-140; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at
p. 143) CDA acknowledged that there are valid arguments for both the
inclusion and the exclusion of seals during testing. It suggested an
additional allowance for these seal losses be included within the
allowable testing results in these specific categories. (CDA, No. 9 at
p. 2)
Based on the responses to the NOPR, and additional investigation
following publication, DOE has reconsidered its NOPR proposal. At this
time, DOE does not believe it has enough information to determine the
extent of the impact seals may have on a motor's efficiency when
installed in the field over time. Seals can be made of rubber (with
varying degrees of hardness and pliability), ceramic material, or
metal. Each of these materials has a different impact on an electric
motor's performance and may or may not ``break in'' over time to reduce
the overall level of friction that a motor may encounter while
operating. Due to the variety of designs and materials offered and used
by motor manufacturers, and the variety of impacts that these
differences may have, DOE is unable at this time to quantify a specific
break-in period to help determine the point in time where the losses
contributed by the seals would be considered ``representative.''
Furthermore, DOE understands that each motor type, size, and
configuration will be affected differently by seals, and various types
of seals can be used. Without additional data, applying a particular
break-in period or adjustment factor to account for the additional
friction added by seals would be premature. Therefore, in light of this
uncertainty, DOE is, at this time, requiring that test labs remove
seals when testing immersible motors but make no other modifications.
This approach is also consistent with the suggestions made by NEMA and
the energy efficiency advocates. DOE may continue to explore the effect
of seals on motor performance and may revise this requirement in the
future.
NEMA also noted that even though the title of the proposed 4.3 in
Appendix B to Subpart B is ``Immersible Electric Motors and Electric
Motors with Contact Seals,'' the actual test procedure appears to apply
to immersible electric motors only. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 23)
In response to NEMA's comment DOE has adjusted the heading of this
section to read ``Immersible Electric Motors'' for clarification
purposes.
2. Brake Electric Motors
In most applications, electric motors are not required to stop
immediately; instead, electric motors typically slow down and gradually
stop after power is removed from the motor, due to a buildup of
friction and windage from the internal components of the motor.
However, some applications require electric motors to stop quickly.
Such motors may employ a brake component that, when engaged, abruptly
slows or stops shaft rotation. The brake component attaches to one end
of the motor and surrounds a section of the motor's shaft. During
normal operation of the motor, the brake is disengaged from the motor's
shaft--it neither touches nor interferes with the motor's operation.
However, under these conditions, the brake is drawing power from the
electric motor's power source and may be contributing to windage
losses, because the brake is an additional rotating component on the
motor's shaft. When power is removed from the electric motor (and brake
component), the brake component de-energizes and engages the motor
shaft, quickly slowing or stopping rotation of the rotor and shaft
components.
In its Joint Petition, the Motor Coalition proposed to define the
term ``integral brake electric motor'' as ``an electric motor
containing a brake mechanism either inside of the motor endshield or
between the motor fan and endshield such that removal of the brake
component would require extensive disassembly of the motor or motor
parts.'' (Motor Coalition, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0035 at p. 19) After
receiving the petition, DOE spoke with some of the Motor Coalition's
manufacturers and its own SMEs. Based on these conversations, DOE
believed that the Motor Coalition's definition is consistent with DOE's
understanding of the term. In the electric motors preliminary analysis,
DOE presented a definition of the term ``integral brake motor''
consistent with the definition proposed by the Motor Coalition. (For
additional details, see Chapter 3 of the electric motors preliminary
analysis Technical Support Document). However, upon further
consideration, DOE believed that there may be uncertainty regarding
certain aspects of the definition, particularly, what constitutes
``extensive disassembly of the motor or motor parts.'' Therefore, in
the NOPR, DOE proposed a new definition that would remove this
ambiguity. The proposed rule defined an ``integral brake electric
motor'' as an electric motor containing a brake mechanism either inside
of the motor endshield or between the motor fan and endshield.
Conversely, the brake component of a non-integral brake motor is
usually external to the motor and can be easily detached without
disassembly or adversely affecting the motor's performance. DOE
proposed a new definition for ``non-integral brake electric motor''
that paralleled its proposed definition for ``integral brake electric
motor.'' DOE believed that the new definition was clearer because it
relied solely on the placement of the brake and not what level of
effort is needed to remove it. Additionally, DOE believed that the
structure of its two definitions encompassed all brake motors by
requiring them to meet one definition or the other. As detailed in the
NOPR, DOE's proposed definition for a ``non-integral brake electric
motor'' was an electric motor containing a brake mechanism outside of
the endshield, but not between the motor fan and endshield.
[[Page 75978]]
As discussed in the NOPR, DOE conducted its own testing on both
integral and non-integral brake motors. DOE described the details of
this testing in the NOPR along with the results. DOE generally found
that testing the brake component attached, but powered by a source
separate from the motor, resulted in demonstrated efficiencies
equivalent to testing a motor with the brake component completely
removed. As a result of its testing of integral and non-integral brake
electric motors, DOE proposed the same test instructions for both
motors types. DOE proposed to include instructions that would require
manufacturers to keep the brake mechanism attached to the motor, but to
power it externally while performing IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B).
DOE believed that this was the best approach because it allows the test
laboratory to isolate the motor losses, which includes the friction and
windage produced by the rotating brake mechanism. DOE believed that
powering the motor and the brake mechanism separately during testing
would ensure that the power consumed to keep the brake mechanism
disengaged is not counted against the motor's tested efficiency. The
power consumed to keep the brake mechanism disengaged represents useful
work performed by the motor and should not be construed as losses, but
it should be measured and reported. DOE believed this information is
pertinent for brake motor consumers who wish to understand the energy
consumption of their motor. Furthermore, when conducting the testing,
DOE's test laboratory was able to splice connections and externally
power the brake on multiple integral and non-integral brake motors, so
DOE preliminarily believed that this process would not be unduly
burdensome. 78 FR 38468.
In response to the June 2013 NOPR, NEMA noted in its comments that
as DOE is proposing the same test plan for both types of motors, the
location of the brake assembly is not important in determining the
efficiency of the motor. NEMA suggested that DOE use a single
definition of ``special purpose electric motor with brake'' that would
refer to ``a special purpose electric motor that contains a brake
mechanism either within the motor enclosure or external to the motor
enclosure.'' NEMA stated that it understood that defining both types of
brake motors into a single definition would include integral brake
electric motors as covered products, whereas the Joint Petition
suggested that these motors continue to be exempted from any testing or
efficiency requirements. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 16).
In the alternative, NEMA suggested that if DOE used two separate
definitions, the two proposed definitions should be modified. (Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 144 ; NEMA, No. 10 at p. 16) NEMA suggested that
DOE re-classify and define integral brake electric motor as an
``integral brake special purpose electric motor'' and define it as ``a
special purpose electric motor that contains a brake mechanism either
within the motor enclosure or between a motor fan, when present, and
the nearest endshield.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 17; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7
at p.149) NEMA suggested that a non-integral brake motor be classified
as a ``non-integral brake special purpose electric motor'' which would
be defined as ``a special purpose electric motor that contains a brake
mechanism outside of the endshield, but not between the motor fan and
endshield.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 17)
As addressed previously, the facts available to DOE indicate that
it is unnecessary to note that these motors are special purpose because
whether a motor is special or definite purpose does not exclude it from
consideration under DOE's standards rulemaking. However, DOE does agree
that two separate definitions are unnecessary because DOE is adopting
the same test procedure for both motors. The test results include
mechanical losses of the brake components which are not impacted by the
location of the brake. A single definition for brake motors will avoid
any confusion. Therefore, for the final rule DOE is adopting the
following definition: ``Brake electric motor means a motor that
contains a dedicated mechanism for speed reduction, such as a brake,
either within or external to the motor enclosure.''
Regarding the proposed test procedure, Advanced Energy agreed with
DOE's proposed approach for both motors. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p.
147; Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 2) Advanced Energy commented that by
powering the brake through external means, the brake will have no
impact on the power consumption and avoid the potential difficulties
during no-load testing and the risk associated withimproper re-assembly
of the motor. (Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 2) Highlighting that this
proposed method for testing brake motors deviated from the earlier
Joint Petition, the advocates agreed with DOE's proposal that integral
and non-integral brake motors be tested in the same manner. The
advocates stated that this approach will enable the coverage of
integral brake motors, further increasing the scope of covered motors.
(ASAP et al., No. 12 at pp. 1-2)
However, NEMA expressed concern with the proposed test procedure
for integral and non-integral brake electric motors. It commented that
the test procedure needs to clearly state that the efficiency
determined for the electric motor is not to include any power that may
be required to disengage the brake. The test procedure should also
provide for manually releasing the brake when such an option is
available. NEMA commented that when developing the energy conservation
standards for electric motors, any testing DOE conducts with the brakes
in place as proposed, should take into account the mechanical losses of
the brake components which are significant relative to the losses of
the motor components. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 16)
If NEMA's earlier proposal to have a single definition for
``integral brake special purpose electric motor'' and ``non-integral
brake special purpose electric motor'' is accepted, then NEMA suggested
a single test procedure for a ``special purpose electric motor with
brake.'' NEMA commented that DOE should not require that the testing
lab measure electrical power to the brake in 10-minute intervals. It
suggested that the determination of efficiency of the electric motor
should be based on measurements of the electrical input power to just
the electric motor and should not include any power which may be
supplied to the brake. NEMA suggested that the connections need to be
separated in those cases where the power leads for the brake are
interconnected with the stator winding or electric motor leads. The
brake should be disengaged during testing by either supplying
electrical power to the brake at its rated voltage or through the use
of a mechanical release, when available. The required power should be
measured and recorded when electrical power is supplied to the brake
for the purpose of disengaging the brake. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 17-18)
DOE's own testing showed that during normal operation the brake
will not be engaged--and will not significantly impact energy
consumption. Under the approach laid out in the final rule, testing
must be performed with the brake powered separately from the motor such
that it does not activate during testing. Only power used to drive the
motor is included in the efficiency calculation; power supplied to
prevent the brake from engaging is not used. The rule provides that if
the brake may be disengaged mechanically, if such a mechanism exists
and if the use of this
[[Page 75979]]
mechanism does not yield a different efficiency value than when
separately powering the brake electrically.
3. Partial Electric Motors
Most general purpose electric motors have two endshields,\21\ which
support the bearings and shaft while also allowing the shaft to rotate
during operation. DOE understands that ``partial electric motors,''
also called ``partial \3/4\ motors,'' or ``\3/4\ motors,'' are motors
that are sold without one or both endshields and the accompanying
bearings. When partial electric motors are installed in the field, they
are attached to another piece of equipment, such as a pump or gearbox.
The equipment to which the motor is mated usually provides support for
the shaft, allowing the shaft to rotate and drive its intended
equipment. The equipment may also provide support for a shaft. When a
partial electric motor is mated to another piece of equipment it is
often referred to as an ``integral'' motor.\22\ For example, an
``integral gearmotor'' is the combination of a partial electric motor
mated to a gearbox. The gearbox provides a bearing or support structure
that allows the shaft to rotate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 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.
\22\ 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. DOE proposed to define the term
``partial electric motor'' in the NOPR to distinguish them from
component sets, which, alone, do not comprise an operable electric
motor. See Section III.D.1. Additionally, because DOE considered
integral gearmotors to be a subset of partial electric motors, this
definition also applied to integral gearmotors. Therefore, the NOPR
defined ``partial electric motor'' as an assembly of motor components
necessitating the addition of no more than two endshields, including
bearings, to create an operable motor. The term ``operable motor''
means an electric motor engineered for performing in accordance with
the applicable nameplate ratings.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA suggested that DOE include the
concept of ``partial'' as a design element within other definitions
rather than as a separate type of electric motor. NEMA commented that
the definition should be for ``partial motor,'' rather than a ``partial
electric motor.'' NEMA commented that the phrase ``engineered for
performing'' in the proposed definition should be replaced with
``capable of operation'' because the engineering of a motor does not
imply that a motor can operate. Therefore, NEMA suggested that partial
motor means an assembly of motor components necessitating the addition
of no more than two endshields, including bearings, to create an
operable motor. For the purpose of this definition, the term ``operable
motor'' means a motor capable of operation in accordance with the
applicable nameplate ratings. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 18-19)
DOE explains in section III.B of this document why it will not
change the definition of ``electric motor'' and DOE is declining to
adopt NEMA's suggestion. Furthermore, while it recognizes that adding
this clause would, as NEMA pointed out, cover partial motors of all
types of motors that are a part of NEMA's proposal, the proposed
definition would permit a ``partial motor'' to be any type of electric
motor. Consequently, a partial motor, by definition, could be any type
of electric motor (e.g. multispeed, single speed, polyphase, etc.).
While DOE's approach is a broad one, it does not signal DOE's intention
to regulate the efficiency of all types of partial motors. The types of
electric motors whose efficiency DOE intends to regulate will be
addressed in the energy conservation standards rulemaking.
DOE has, however, adjusted the phrase ``engineered for performing''
as it understands the ambiguity related with this phrase; it is
difficult to establish conclusively what, exactly, a motor is
engineered for and is clearer to discuss what a motor is ``capable of''
or its rating. For this final rule, DOE is adopting the following
definition: ``partial electric motor means an assembly of motor
components necessitating the addition of no more than two endshields,
including bearings, to create an electric motor capable of operation in
accordance with the applicable nameplate ratings.''
DOE is aware that partial electric motors require modifications
before they can be attached to a dynamometer for testing. Prior to the
NOPR, DOE discussed stakeholder comments and additional testing options
with SMEs, testing laboratories, and motor industry representatives.
Some interested parties suggested that the motor manufacturer could
supply generic or ``dummy'' endplates equipped with standard ball
bearings, which would allow for testing when connected to the partial
electric motor. Alternatively, testing laboratories had considered
machining the ``dummy'' endplates themselves, and supplying the
properly sized deep-groove, ball bearings for the testing. Various
testing laboratories indicated they had the ability to perform this
operation, but some added that they would require design criteria for
the endplates from the original manufacturer of the motor. These
laboratories noted that machining their own endplates could create
motor performance variation between laboratories because it may impact
airflow characteristics (and therefore thermal characteristics) of the
motor.
DOE procured an integral gearmotor to determine the feasibility of
testing partial electric motors. For this investigation, DOE purchased
and tested one five-horsepower, four-pole, TEFC electric motor. DOE
tested the motor twice, first with an endplate obtained from the
manufacturer and second with an endplate machined in-house by the
testing laboratory. The results of these tests are shown below.
Table III-4--Results of Partial Electric Motor Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nameplate
Motor type efficiency Test 1 Test 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial Electric Motor....................................... 81.0% 83.5% 82.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE found a variation in efficiency because of the endplate used
during testing. DOE believes that the variation seen in tested
efficiency was likely the result of varying the material used for the
endplate. The endplate provided by the manufacturer was made of cast
iron, while the endplate provided by the testing laboratory was
machined from steel. The testing laboratory was not equipped to cast an
iron endshield and thus was not able to replace the
[[Page 75980]]
manufacturer's endshield with one of the original material.
Additionally, DOE knows of no testing laboratory (other than a motor
manufacturer), with such capability. DOE believes that the variance in
the magnetic properties of steel likely produced small eddy currents in
the endshield which resulted in added losses within the motor.\23\
Consequently, DOE believes that frame material consistency is needed in
order to prevent such variances in future testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Eddy currents are circulating currents induced in
conductors (e.g., steel) by changing magnetic fields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time of the NOPR, because of the possible variance that DOE
found through its testing, DOE proposed that an endplate be provided by
the manufacturer of the motor and that the motor be tested with that
endplate in place. If bearings are also needed, the test laboratory
would use what DOE views as a ``standard bearing,'' a 6000-series,
open, single-row, deep groove, radial ball bearing. DOE selected this
set of specifications because it is a common bearing type capable of
horizontal operation.
In response to DOE's proposal on endshields required for testing,
NEMA suggested that the manufacturer should not be required to provide
endshields that they may not normally produce, use, nor easily obtain,
especially if the manufacturer is an importer. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(5),
(7) and 6291(10) (treating importers as manufacturers for purposes of
EPCA). Instead, the manufacturer should be given the option to provide
the endshields, if possible. If the manufacturer declined to do so and
instead agreed to let the test laboratory provide the endshields, then
the test laboratory should provide the endshields for testing and
consult with the manufacturer to determine the critical characteristics
of the endshields. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 19-20)
DOE has considered NEMA's suggestion and has decided to allow the
manufacturer to authorize the lab to machine endplates for testing of
partial motors if the manufacturer chooses not to provide the endplate.
The lab should consult with the manufacturer before constructing the
endshields to determine the endshields' critical characteristics.
Manufacturers should of course realize that the use of any lab machined
endplate is likely to result in more losses than one machined by the
manufacturer given the limited availability of certain materials (e.g.
cast iron) at labs that a manufacturer may have more readily available
on-hand. DOE notes that endshield specifications are found in NEMA MG-1
(2009) Section I, Part 4--see paragraphs 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.3, 4.4.1,
4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, and 4.4.6; Figures 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, and 4-
6; and Table 4-2--and in IEC 60072-1 (1991).
F. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only Test Procedure Instructions
DOE proposed to add additional instructions to its test procedure
that would affect a number of motor types for which DOE is considering
new energy conservation standards. DOE did not propose any definitions
for these terms because DOE believed the terms were self-explanatory or
already readily understood in the industry. These motor types are
discussed below.
1. Electric Motors With Non-Standard Endshields or Flanges
Most electric motors are attached to a mounting surface by
``mounting feet'' or other hardware attached to the motor's housing,
oftentimes on the bottom of the motor. However, some motors are mounted
by directly attaching the motor's endshield, also called a faceplate,
to a piece of driven equipment. If a motor's endshield protrudes
forward to create a smooth mounting surface it may also be referred to
as a flange, such as a Type D-flange or Type P-flange motor, as
described in NEMA MG 1-2009. Attaching a motor to the shaft of the
driven equipment in this manner generally involves bolting the motor to
the equipment through mounting holes in the flange or faceplate of the
motor.
NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraphs 1.63.1, 1.63.2, and 1.63.3 define Type C
face-mounting, Type D flange-mounting, and Type P flange-mounting
motors, respectively. These definitions provide reference figures in
NEMA MG 1-2009, section I, part 4 (``Dimensions, Tolerances, and
Mounting'') that contain specifications for the standard mounting
configurations and dimensions for these three motor types. The
dimensions designate standard locations and dimensions for mounting
holes on the faceplates or flanges of the motors. DOE is aware that
some electric motors may have special or customer-defined endshields,
faceplates, or flanges with mounting-hole locations or other
specifications that do not necessarily conform to NEMA MG 1-2009,
Figure 4-3, ``Letter Symbols for Type C Face-Mounting Foot or Footless
Machines,'' Figure 4-4, ``Letter Symbols for Type D Flange-Mounting
Foot or Footless Machines,'' or Figure 4-5, ``Letter Symbols for
Vertical Machines.''
As previously explained, DOE is considering setting energy
conservation standards for electric motors with non-standard
endshields. This potential change to the scope of energy conservation
standards for electric motors would mean that the dimensions of a
motor's endshields or flanges--neither of which impacts the efficiency
or the ability to measure the efficiency of the motor--would no longer
dictate whether a given motor would be required to meet energy
conservation standards. Hence, DOE believed that an actual definition
for such motors would be unnecessary.
In evaluating the possibility of requiring these motor types to
meet potential energy conservation standards, DOE assessed whether
these motors could be tested using non-standard flanges or endshields.
DOE had received comments concerning the testing of these motor types.
In response to the March 2011 RFI (76 FR 17577), ASAP and NEMA
commented that motors with customer-defined endshields and flanged
special motors should have their efficiency verified by testing a motor
with an equivalent electrical design that could more easily be attached
to a dynamometer. (ASAP and NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0020 at p. 4)
NEMA added that testing motors with non-standard endshields may require
a substitution of the special endshields with more conventional
endshields. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 15)
In the NOPR, DOE recognized that it may not be possible to attach
motors with non-standard endshields to a testing laboratory's
dynamometer. If such occurs and a test laboratory is unable to
reconfigure the motor without removal of the endplate such that
attachment to a dynamometer is possible, DOE proposed that the custom
endshield be replaced with one that has standard (i.e., in compliance
with NEMA MG-1) dimensions and mounting configurations. DOE proposed
that, as with partial electric motors, such a replacement would be
required to be obtained through the manufacturer and be constructed of
the same material as the original endplate.
In response to the NOPR, several interested parties raised concerns
that requiring a manufacturer to provide a ``standard endshield in
compliance with NEMA MG 1,'' of the same material as the ``original
end-plate'' may place an undue burden on the manufacturer. (Pub. Mtg.
Tr., No. 7 at p. 105-107, 111,116-118; Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 4;
NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 24-25) NEMA noted that the proposed test plan may
have several difficulties: (1) A manufacturer may not have (or be
unable to make available) end shields of
[[Page 75981]]
the appropriate design; (2) in the case of imported motors, it is
unlikely that the importer could provide the required endshield or
flange; (3) it may not be possible to obtain an endshield or flange of
the same material, especially if the motor is made of a special
material; and (4) replacing the original endshield with a standard
dimension endshield may require different shaft construction, resulting
in a completely new assembly of shaft and rotor. For situations where
an electric motor with a non-standard enshield or flange cannot be
connected to the dynamometer, NEMA recommended that DOE permit a
testing lab to use an endshield or flange that meets the NEMA or the
IEC specifications. NEMA further suggested that the manufacturer should
be contacted to determine the appropriateness of replacement endshield
or flange. If the replacement endshield or flange is not available then
the testing laboratory may construct the same in consultation with the
manufacturer. NEMA also argued that the test procedure should also
allow testing of a general purpose electric motor of equivalent
electrical design and enclosure, as an alternative. (NEMA, No. 10 at
pp. 24-25)
Advanced Energy agreed with DOE that non-standard endshields and
flanges be replaced with standard ones for testing purposes. However,
Advanced Energy noted that the term ``original'' in the proposed test
procedure is ambiguous because it indicated that the motor was
initially designed with an endshield, which may not be the case. It
suggested that the term ``original'' be replaced with ``conventional.''
Advanced Energy also expressed concern that requiring a manufacturer to
provide a ``standard endshield in compliance with NEMA MG 1'' of the
same material as ``original endplate'' is too strict. It suggested that
manufacturers be allowed to use an alternative material for the
endshield that will not impact the airflow and energy performance. It
also commented that a provision should be included that allows test
labs the option of fabricating suitable endshields if the need arises.
(Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 4). UL requested that DOE consider
modifying the proposed language to permit the endshield to be modified
or fabricated as necessary to facilitate coupling to the dynamometer
without affecting the results.'' (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at pp. 105-107;
Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 111) WEG suggested that in situations where
the motor cannot be tested at all, an equivalent motor with similar
electrical design and a standard endshield can be tested. (Pub. Mtg.
Tr., No. 7 at pp. 114-115) CDA opined that the customers can provide
end covers for testing to match actual use conditions and that
allowance for additional friction should be allowed for accuracy in
test results. (CDA, No. 9 at p. 2)
DOE has considered these comments and decided to take slightly
differing approaches for testing conducted on behalf of manufacturers
(for purposes of representations and certification of compliance) and
for DOE-initiated testing (for purposes of determining compliance). In
both instances, if it is not possible to connect the electric motor to
a dynamometer with the non-standard endshield or flange in place, the
testing laboratory shall replace the non-standard endshield or flange
with an endshield or flange that meets the NEMA or IEC endshield
specifications. DOE notes that endshield specifications are found in
NEMA MG-1 (2009) Section I, Part 4--see paragraphs 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2,
4.3, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, and 4.4.6; Figures 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4,
4-5, and 4-6; and Table 4-2--and in IEC 60072-1 (1991). If possible,
the manufacturer should provide the endshield or flange. The
manufacturer may authorize the lab to machine replacement endplates or
flanges for testing if the manufacturer chooses not to provide it. The
lab should consult with the manufacturer before constructing these
components to determine their critical characteristics.
2. Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors and Electric Motors With Single
or Double Shaft Extensions of Non-Standard Dimensions or Design
Close-coupled pump motors are electric motors used in pump
applications where the impeller is mounted directly on the motor shaft.
Such motors are typically built with different shafts (usually longer)
than generic general-purpose electric motors. Section I, part 4 of NEMA
MG 1-2009 and IEC Standard 60072-1 (1991) specify standard tolerances
for shaft extensions, diameters, and keyseats that relate to the fit
between the shaft and the device mounted to the shaft. However,
sometimes manufacturers provide shafts with a special diameter, length,
or design because of a customer's application.\24\ In 2011, DOE
considered clarifying its treatment of these types of motors and
included a table with allowable shaft variations. 76 FR 648, 671-72
(January 5, 2011) This guidance table was intended to enumerate the
deviations from standard shaft dimensions that DOE would allow while
still considering the motor to be a general purpose motor subject to
energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ For example, see Baldor's marketing materials at: https://www.baldor.com/support/Literature/Load.ashx/BR401?LitNumber=BR401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, in view of the EISA 2007 and AEMTCA 2012 amendments, DOE's
scope of regulatory coverage extends beyond the initial scope set by
EPCA prior to these two amendments. DOE believes that a motor's shaft
alone, no matter what its dimensions or type, does not exclude a motor
from having to satisfy any applicable energy conservation standards.
Further, DOE believes that it is not necessary to explicitly define a
close-coupled pump electric motor or an electric motor with a single or
double shaft extension of non-standard dimensions or additions because
whether a shaft is built within the shaft tolerances defined by NEMA
and IEC is unambiguous.
In considering applying standards to these types of motors, DOE
assessed whether motors with non-standard shaft dimensions or additions
can be tested using accepted and established procedures. DOE received
feedback concerning the testing of these motor types during and after
the October 18, 2010, framework document public meeting. NEMA and ASAP
submitted a joint comment noting that DOE could allow testing of a
``similar model'' motor with a standard shaft to enable the motor to be
more easily tested on a dynamometer. (NEMA and ASAP, EERE-2010-BT-STD-
0027-0012 at p. 8) In its comments about the electric motors
preliminary analysis, NEMA added that special couplings or adapters may
be needed to test motors with special shaft extensions, but noted that
a motor's shaft extension has little to no effect on its efficiency.
(NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 14)
DOE investigated the feasibility of using coupling adapters for
motors with extended shafts or shafts of unique design. To do this, DOE
procured a close-coupled pump motor with an extended shaft. When this
motor was received, DOE's testing laboratory had no problems attaching
the motor to its dynamometer. The use of an adapter was not needed in
this case. However, DOE also conferred with experts at its testing
laboratory and learned that coupling adapters were needed for motors
with extended shafts or shafts of unique design, which it had tested in
the past. As such, DOE is not aware of any motor shaft design that has
prevented DOE's test laboratory from performing a proper test according
to IEEE 112 (Test Method B). Therefore, DOE proposed to include
instructions for special couplings or adapters. In
[[Page 75982]]
other words, if a testing facility cannot attach a motor to its
dynamometer because of the motor's shaft extension, that facility
should use a coupling or adapter to mount and test the motor. DOE
understood that a motor's shaft configuration has minimal, if any,
impact on overall motor efficiency, and believed that this approach was
technologically feasible and would not result in any distortion of a
motor's inherent efficiency when tested.
In response to the NOPR, the interested parties agreed with DOE's
decision to not define motors with non-standard shaft dimensions or
additions. However, NEMA suggested replacing the term ``additions''
with ``non-standard designs'' to provide better clarity. (NEMA, No. 10
at p. 26)
To avoid any ambiguity regarding this motor type, DOE has modified
the term to be ``Electric Motors with Single or Double Shaft Extensions
of Non-Standard Dimensions or Design.'' DOE believes that this change
to the description of this motor type is broad enough to characterize
all electric motors with non-standard shafts without unintentionally
limiting this motor type to those with shaft additions. In view of its
own research and consensus among interested parties, DOE is continuing
to not define these electric motor types.
3. Vertical Electric Motors
Although most electric motors are engineered to run while oriented
horizontally, some operate in applications that require a vertical
orientation. A horizontally oriented motor has a shaft parallel to the
floor (or perpendicular to the force of gravity), while a vertically
oriented motor has a shaft perpendicular to the floor (or parallel to
the force of gravity). Relative to horizontal motors, vertical motors
have different designs made with different construction techniques so
that the electric motor can be operated in a vertical position. These
different designs can include modifications to the mounting
configuration, bearing design, and bearing lubrication (a discussion
regarding bearings can be found in the following section, III.F.4).
Additionally, vertical motors can come with various shaft
configurations, including with a solid or hollow shaft. An example of a
typical application requiring a vertical motor is a pump used in a well
or a pit.
DOE did not propose a definition for any terms related to vertical
electric motors. DOE believed definitions were not needed because there
is no industry confusion or ambiguity in whether an electric motor is a
vertical electric motor. Furthermore, whether an electric motor has a
solid shaft or a hollow shaft is also unambiguous and unnecessary to
clarify. Although defining a vertically mounted electric motor did not
appear necessary, DOE believed instructions detailing how to configure
and mount a vertical motor for testing in a horizontal position,
including the motor's orientation and shaft characteristics, would be
helpful in ensuring a proper and consistent testing set-up.
EISA 2007 classified vertical 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)) Prior to the NOPR, NEMA,
ASAP, and the Motor Coalition submitted comments, noting that vertical
motors cannot be tested on a standard dynamometer because most
dynamometers are designed to test electric motors in horizontal
orientation. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0013 at p. 5; NEMA and ASAP,
EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0012 at p. 3; Motor Coalition, EERE-2010-BT-STD-
0027-0035 at pp. 18 and 30) DOE confirmed this assertion with its test
laboratory and SMEs. In view of the statutory requirement and current
dynamometer testing configuration limits, DOE proposed in the NOPR to
test motors, which are otherwise engineered to operate vertically, in a
horizontal position when determining efficiency.
Another consideration was the shaft of a vertical motor and whether
it was solid or hollow. If a vertical motor has a solid shaft, DOE
proposed no further adjustments after considering orientation, unless
the motor contained a special shaft. For vertical motors with a hollow
shaft, (i.e., an empty cylinder that runs through the rotor and
typically attaches internally to the end opposite the drive of the
motor with a special coupling) additional instructions were proposed.
DOE conducted testing prior to the NOPR publication to gauge the
feasibility of testing a vertical, 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 believed that, as long as the
attached solid-shaft maintained sufficient clearance through the drive
end of the motor to enable the motor to be attached to the dynamometer,
this approach would be feasible to test vertical hollow-shaft motors.
Aside from the addition of a shaft extension, DOE did not believe that
testing a vertical hollow-shaft motor in a horizontal configuration
would add undue testing burden when compared to testing a solid-shaft
vertical motor.
In response to the March 2011 RFI, NEMA suggested that vertical
motors rated 1-500 horsepower be tested according to section 6.4 of
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B--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 MG 1-2009
paragraph 12.58.1 ``Determination of Motor Efficiency and Losses.''
\25\ (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0019 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ ``Efficiency and losses shall be determined in accordance
with IEEE Std 112 or Canadian Standards Association Standard C390.
The efficiency shall be determined at rated output, voltage, and
frequency. Unless otherwise specified, horizontal polyphase,
squirrel-cage medium motors rated 1 to 500 horsepower shall be
tested by dynamometer (Method B) (or CSA Std C390 Method 1) as
described in Section 6.4 of IEEE Std 112. Motor efficiency shall be
calculated using form B of IEEE Std 112 or the equivalent C390
calculation procedure. Vertical motors of this horsepower range
shall also be tested by Method B if bearing construction permits;
otherwise they shall be tested by segregated losses (Method E) (or
CSA Std Method 2) as described in Section 6.6 of IEEE Std 112,
including direct measurement of stray-loss load.'' NEMA Standards
Publication MG1--2009, Motors and Generators, paragraph 12.58.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE consulted with testing laboratories about whether IEEE Standard
112 (Test Method E) would be an appropriate procedure to use when
testing vertical motors. DOE understood that the primary difference
between IEEE Standard 112's Test Method B and Test Method E is that
Test Method E uses a different method to calculate stray-load loss
relative to Test Method B. Test Method B measures motor output power
and uses this number as part of the calculation for stray-load loss.
However, Test Method E does not require the measurement of output
power, and, therefore, uses a different method to find the stray-load
loss. By not requiring the measurement of output power, Test Method E
can be conducted on motors installed in an area or in
[[Page 75983]]
equipment that cannot be attached to a dynamometer. Although Test
Method E may reduce some testing burden for manufacturers of vertical
motors, DOE was concerned that Test Method E could produce results that
were inconsistent and inaccurate relative to testing comparable motors
under Test Method B. Therefore, DOE declined to propose the use of Test
Method E for vertical motors.
In response to the NOPR, there were several comments regarding the
definitions and test setups for vertical motors. Assuming that DOE
intended to set standards eventually for vertical motors generally
(beyond those already applicable to general purpose subtype II motors),
NEMA suggested that newly-covered vertical motors be considered as
either definite purpose electric motors or special purpose electric
motors and their features be incorporated in a definition for vertical
motors to clearly identify the type included in the covered electric
motors. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 29)
As described earlier, in the NOPR, DOE did not intend to define
``covered motors.'' Rather, it was DOE's intention to define subsets of
motors that would have the potential to be covered in a standards
rulemaking. In the case of vertical motors, DOE did not believe that a
definition was necessary because it is always obvious whether a motor
is intended for vertical operation. Being defined as a vertical motor
would not, then, necessarily mean a vertical motor was subject to
energy conservation standards. The current energy conservation
standards rulemaking is intended to determine coverage parameters for
defined motor types. Based on these facts, DOE does not believe it is
necessary to state whether a vertical motor is special or definite
purpose (as neither distinction would change the fact that the motor is
vertical), and has not updated its decision from the NOPR to leave
vertical motors undefined.
In regard to testing, NEMA commented that IEEE 112 (Test Method E)
is a standard method for testing vertical motors when the vertical
motor cannot be tested in horizontal position due to bearing
construction (which may require that vertical load be exerted on the
bearings). NEMA suggested that because vertical electric motors other
than vertical solid shaft normal thrust general purpose electric motors
(subtype II) would be included in the scope of covered products (and
which may require testing in vertical orientation), IEEE 112 (Test
Method E) be added as a valid test procedure in paragraph 2 of Appendix
B to Subpart B and all other paragraphs in Subparts B and U where it is
necessary to identify the applicable test standards for vertical
motors. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 32) NEMA noted that there will be a
difference in efficiency when a vertical motor is tested in vertical
position with no modification as compared to the vertical motor tested
in horizontal position after changing the bearings. NEMA suggested that
this difference in efficiency levels should be considered while
establishing standards for vertical motors. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 31-32)
Based on the present definitions in 10 CFR 431.12, and those
proposed in the NOPR, and assuming that vertical motors of various
types are to be included, NEMA recommended that the proposed test
procedure be revised to permit the testing of vertical electric motors
in a horizontal or vertical configuration according to the equipment
available at the testing facility and the construction of the motor. If
the vertical motor cannot operate in a horizontal position due to its
bearing construction or due to the requirement that a vertical load be
applied to the shaft, then the bearings should be replaced with the
standard bearings during testing. NEMA further suggested that a
coupling or other adapter may be required to connect the vertical
electric motor to the test equipment to provide sufficient clearance.
(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 32)
DOE has reevaluated its test instructions for vertical electric
motors following the comments received in response to the NOPR. It
understands that there was confusion prior to the NOPR regarding which
types of vertical motors were being defined, and earlier comments were
based on this misunderstanding. After the NOPR, DOE verified the claims
in the comments with SMEs and determined that testing vertically and
testing horizontally would result in similar efficiencies. However, for
reasons stated earlier, DOE continues to decline the use of IEEE 112
(Test Method E). For this final rule, while vertical solid shaft normal
thrust general purpose electric motors (subtype II) shall be tested in
a horizontal configuration in accordance with IEEE 112 (Test Method B),
the test instructions for other types of vertical electric motors are
amended to allow test labs to choose between vertical and horizontal
orientation for testing, as provided for by the lab's equipment, with
preference given to testing in the motor's native orientation when
either is possible.
4. Electric Motor Bearings
Electric motors usually employ anti-friction bearings that are
housed within the endshields to support the motor's shaft and provide a
low-friction means for shaft rotation. Anti-friction bearings contain
rolling elements, which are the components inside the bearings that
``roll'' around the bearing housing and provide the reduced-friction
means of rotation. Rolling elements can be spherical, cylindrical,
conical, or other shapes. The design of the rolling element is selected
based on the type and amount of force the shaft must be capable of
withstanding. The two primary types of loads imposed on motor bearings
are radial and thrust. Radial loads are so named because the load is
applied along the radius of the shaft (i.e., perpendicular to the
shaft's axis of rotation). Bearings may be subject to radial loads if
the motor's shaft is horizontal to the floor (i.e., horizontally
oriented). These bearings are called ``radial bearings.'' ``Thrust
bearings'' are bearings capable of withstanding thrust loads, which are
loads with forces parallel to the ``axis'' of the shaft (i.e., parallel
to the shaft's axis of rotation) and may be encountered when the shaft
is vertical to the floor (i.e., vertically oriented). However, either
radial or axial shaft loads can be encountered in any orientation.
In addition to the type of force, bearings are also chosen based on
the magnitude of the force they can withstand. While most applications
use spherical rolling-elements, some motors employ cylindrical-shaped
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
[[Page 75984]]
lifetime. Such bearings may be referred to as ``lubed-for-life''
bearings because the user purchases the bearings with the intention of
replacing the bearing before it requires re-lubrication. Shielded
bearings differ from open bearings in that shielded bearings contain a
cover, called a ``shield,'' which allows the flow of oil or grease into
the inner portions of the bearing casing, but restricts dirt or debris
from contacting the rolling elements. Preventing dirt and debris from
contacting the bearing prevents wear and increases the life of the
bearing.
Certain vertical motors use 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.\26\ Such pooling, or
loss of proper lubrication to the bearings, could adversely affect the
motor's performance, damage the motor, and distort the results of
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Viscosity is the measure of a liquid's resistivity to being
deformed. An example of a material with high viscosity is molasses
and an example of a material with low viscosity is water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the various construction and lubrication types, DOE
understands that motors may contain bearings only capable of horizontal
operation, vertical operation, or, in some limited cases, both
horizontal and vertical operation. For those motors equipped with
thrust bearings only capable of vertical orientation, DOE stated in the
NOPR that reorienting the motor could cause physical damage to the
motor. For motors equipped with such bearings, DOE proposed to add
testing instructions that would require the testing laboratory to
replace the thrust bearing with a ``standard bearing,'' which DOE
defined as a 6000 series, open, single-row, deep groove, radial ball
bearing, because that is the most common type of bearing employed on
horizontally oriented motors. For any electric motor equipped with
bearings that are capable of operating properly (i.e., without damaging
the motor) when the motor is oriented horizontally, DOE proposed that
the motor should be tested as is, without replacing the bearings. DOE
believed that this was the most appropriate approach because it would
provide the truest representation of the energy use that will be
experienced by the user.
NEMA agreed that thrust bearings should be replaced with standard
bearings if the motor is tested in an orientation different from the
normal one. However, NEMA stated that the motor manufacturer should be
consulted before any modification is made. This is because some
bearings may require oil or other lubricants for normal use. (NEMA, No.
10 at pp. 28, 32-33)
Advanced Energy agreed with the proposed approach of testing
electric motors with bearings capable of horizontal orientation.
However, for motors with bearings not capable of horizontal
orientation, Advanced Energy proposed that thrust bearings be replaced
with shielded bearings with already packed grease to prevent over-
filling of grease and to reduce lead time of installation of bearings.
(Advanced Energy, No. 8 at p. 5) Advanced Energy requested that DOE
replace ``should'' with ``may,'' in the proposed testing instruction
for ``electric motors with bearings incapable of horizontal operation''
so that the testing instruction for states: ``may replace the thrust
bearing'' and ``may be tested as is''. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 130)
DOE notes NEMA's and Advanced Energy's comment that different
bearings may require different lubricants (e.g., oil, grease), which
should be considered when the bearings of a motor are replaced with
standard bearings for testing. Considering NEMA's and Advanced Energy's
comments, DOE has modified the definition of standard bearings to
include a grease lubricated double shielded bearing. Furthermore, while
DOE understands Advanced Energy's suggestions regarding the language,
the language is written such that only motors whose bearings cannot be
operated horizontally ``shall be'' replaced for testing. DOE believes
that this renders this suggested wording change unnecessary. Motors
whose bearings do not permit horizontal operation but which must be
tested horizontally due to test equipment availability must have their
bearings replaced in order to yield accurate results.
In response to the preliminary analysis, DOE received comment
specifically about testing electric motors with sleeve bearings. Sleeve
bearings are another type of bearing that do not use typical rolling
elements, but rather consist of a lubricated bushing, or ``sleeve,''
inside of which the motor shaft rotates. The shaft rotates on a film of
oil or grease, which reduces friction during rotation. Sleeve bearings
generally have a longer life than anti-friction ball bearings, but they
are more expensive than anti-friction ball bearings for most horsepower
ratings.\27\ Both ASAP and NEMA asserted that a motor with sleeve
bearings should have its efficiency verified by testing a motor of
equivalent electrical design and that employs standard bearings.\28\
(ASAP and NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0020 at p. 4) However, NEMA later
revised its position in separately submitted comments to the electric
motors preliminary analysis public meeting. NEMA stated that further
review of pertinent test data indicated that sleeve bearings do not
significantly impact the efficiency of a motor, and that a motor having
sleeve bearings is not sufficient reason to exclude it from meeting
energy conservation standards. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p.
17) NEMA also commented that it is not aware of any reason that a motor
cannot be tested with sleeve bearings, but that DOE should also provide
the option to test sleeve bearing motors with the sleeve bearing
swapped out for anti-friction ball bearings. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-
0027-0054 at p. 17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ William R. Finley and Mark M. Hodowanec. Sleeve Vs. Anti-
Friction Bearings: Selection of the Optimal Bearing for Induction
Motors. 2001. IEEE. USA.
\28\ 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.\29\ As a result
of this collective research, at the time of the NOPR, DOE tentatively
determined that sleeve bearings do not significantly degrade efficiency
when compared to spherical, radial ball bearings. DOE also did not
believe that it was more difficult to attach a motor with sleeve
bearings to a dynamometer than a standard, general purpose electric
motor equipped with radial ball bearings. Additionally, DOE believed
that swapping sleeve bearings with spherical, radial ball bearings may
be time consuming and otherwise present unforeseen or undue
difficulties because of the overall design of the motor that operates
with the sleeve bearings. Motors that employ sleeve bearings have
significantly different bearing-support configurations than motors that
employ spherical, radial ball bearings, and DOE was not certain that
sleeve bearings could be readily
[[Page 75985]]
swapped with standard ball bearings without significant, costly motor
alterations. Therefore, because it may be impracticable to swap them
out with other bearings, DOE proposed that motors with sleeve bearings
be tested as-is and with the sleeve bearings installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ William R. Finley and Mark M. Hodowanec. Sleeve Vs. Anti-
Friction Bearings: Selection of the Optimal Bearing for Induction
Motors. 2001. IEEE. USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the NOPR, NEMA agreed with DOE's proposal to test
motors with sleeve bearings intact. NEMA stated that testing the motor
with sleeve bearings in place will result in a decrease of efficiency
due to losses associated with sleeve bearings. In its view, the
efficiency measure will thus represent normal consumer operation. NEMA
further added that the normal IEEE 112 (Test Method B) or (Test Method
E), where applicable, is sufficient for testing electric motors with
sleeve bearings. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 27-28, 32-33)
As no stakeholders presented reasons why motors with sleeve
bearings should not be tested with the bearings in place, and the
available facts indicate that the presence of sleeve bearings does not
affect efficiency testing, DOE has retained this approach for this
final rule.\30\ As these sleeve bearings will already be in place when
the motor arrives for testing, and the bearings will not be replaced,
if the shield bearings are not already have packed grease in place, it
will not be used for testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ William R. Finley and Mark M. Hodowanec. Sleeve Vs. Anti-
Friction Bearings: Selection of the Optimal Bearing for Induction
Motors. 2001. IEEE. USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Electric Motors With Non-Standard Bases, Feet or Mounting
Configurations
DOE has not yet regulated special or definite purpose motors, or
general purpose motors with ``special bases or mounting feet,'' because
of the limits prescribed by the previous statutory definition of
``electric motor.'' That definition included a variety of criteria such
as ``foot-mounting'' and being built in accordance with NEMA ``T-
frame'' dimensions, which all narrowed the scope of what comprised an
electric motor under the statute. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (1992)) As
a result of EISA 2007 and related amendments that established energy
conservation standards for two subtypes of general purpose electric
motors (subtype I and subtype II), among other motor types, the
statutory meaning of the term ``general purpose motor'' was broadened
to include, for example, ``footless motors.'' Similarly, because
definite and special purpose motors now fall under the broad statutory
heading of ``electric motors,'' DOE is now considering whether to set
standards for electric motors with non-standard bases, feet, or
mounting configurations in the standards rulemaking.
Part 4 of section I in NEMA MG 1-2009 provides general standards
for dimensions, tolerances, and mounting for all types of electric
motors. In that section, figures 4-1 through 4-5 identify the letter
symbols associated with specific dimensions of electric motors with
various bases, feet, and mounting configurations. Accompanying these
figures are tables throughout part 4 of section I that specify
dimensions, explain how a particular dimension is measured and detail
the applicable measurement tolerances. This collective information is
used to standardize the dimensions associated with specific frame
sizes, given a certain base, feet, or mounting configuration. The IEC
provides similar information in its standard, IEC Standard 60072-1,
``Dimensions and output series for rotating electrical machines.''
Although the majority of motors are built within these specifications,
DOE is aware that some motors may have feet, bases, or mounting
configurations that do not necessarily conform to the industry
standards. These are the motors--i.e. those not conforming to NEMA or
IEC standards for bases, feet, or mounting configurations--that DOE is
considering regulating under the standards NOPR.
DOE believed that a definition was not needed for this particular
type of electric motor because whether a motor has a mounting base,
feet, or configuration that is built in compliance with the standard
dimensions laid out in NEMA MG 1-2009 or IEC Standard 60072-1 was
unambiguous. Also, DOE believed that additional testing set-up
instructions for these types of electric motors were not necessary
because such mounting characteristics are not explicitly addressed
either in IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA C390-10, other than
how mounting conditions will affect the vibration of a motor under IEEE
Standard 112, paragraph 9.6.2, ``Mounting configurations.''
In response to the March 2011 RFI, ASAP and NEMA asserted that a
motor with a special base or mounting feet, as well as a motor of any
mounting configuration, should have its efficiency verified by testing
a model motor with an equivalent electrical design that could more
easily be attached to a dynamometer. (ASAP and NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-
0027-0020 at p. 4)
DOE believed testing a ``similar model'' to show compliance would
likely create difficulties in ensuring the accuracy and equivalence of
claimed efficiency ratings. Additionally, DOE believed that testing
motors with non-standard bases or mounting feet would not present an
undue burden or insurmountable obstacle to testing. The test benches
used for testing electric motors can have, for example, adjustable
heights to accommodate the wide variety of motor sizes and mechanical
configurations that commonly exist. Therefore, because the mounting
feet will not necessarily affect how a motor is mounted to a
dynamometer, but simply the positioning of the shaft extension, DOE
believed non-standard mounting feet would present no additional testing
burdens. As was done for the vertical electric motor that DOE had
tested and which did not have a standard horizontal mounting
configuration, a testing laboratory would likely treat these motors as
a typical general purpose electric motor and adjust the test bench as
applicable for the unit under test.
Finally, DOE understood that an electric motor's mounting base,
feet, or configuration would have no impact on its demonstrated
efficiency. An electric motor's mounting base, feet, or configuration
does not affect a motor's operating characteristics because this is a
feature external to the core components of the motor. It is also a
feature that will not impact friction and windage losses because this
feature does not involve any rotating elements of the motor. An
electric motor's mounting base, feet, or mounting configuration only
affects how a motor is physically installed in a piece of equipment.
DOE's approach was premised on these facts.
While NEMA agreed with DOE's proposed approach not to define
electric motors with non-standard base, feet or mounting
configurations, it suggested that additional test instructions for
these electric motor types were needed in view of testing difficulties.
(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 26) In the case of special mounting configurations
or footless motors, particularly TENV types, NEMA stated that mounting
configuration may affect the free convection cooling of the motor. For
instance, some testing facilities may use a V-shape or U-shape block
with straps to hold the movement of a footless motor. The design of the
block(s) can inhibit free convection over TENV motor and can cover
ventilation openings in case of open motors. Thus, NEMA recommended
that DOE consider adding language for testing of an electric motor with
non-standard bases, feet, or mounting configurations to ensure that the
method of mounting ``does not have an adverse effect on the performance
of the electric motor'' particularly on
[[Page 75986]]
cooling of the motor due to use of adaptive mounting fixtures. (NEMA,
No. 10 at p. 27).
DOE notes NEMA's concern and understands that the current
procedures to test electric motors with a non-standard base, feet, or
mounting configuration, as described by NEMA, may affect the cooling of
the motor and impact the efficiency ratings of the motor. In order to
achieve accuracy in the efficiency measures, because bases, feet, and
mounting arrangements can alter tested efficiency, DOE has adopted the
following test procedure for electric motors with a non-standard base,
feet, or mounting configuration: ``Some adaptive fixtures may be
required to mount a motor on the test equipment when testing an
electric motor with a non-standard base, feet, or mounting
configuration. The method of mounting or use of adaptive mounting
fixtures should not have an adverse impact on the performance of the
electric motor, particularly on the cooling of the motor.''
6. Electric Motors With Separately-Powered Blowers
In the NOPR, DOE addressed a subset of immersible motors it
referred to as being built in a ``TEBC'' (totally enclosed blower
cooled--i.e., with cooling airflow provided by a separate blower driven
by a separate, auxiliary motor) configuration. These motors were not
only immersible, but had a separately powered blower as part of their
assembly. For these motors, DOE proposed requiring the testing
laboratory to power the smaller blower motor from a power source
separate from the one used for the electric motor being tested for
efficiency. Following this approach would allow the testing laboratory
to isolate the performance of the motor under test while continuing to
provide the necessary cooling from the blower motor.
Advanced Energy concurred with separately powering the blower motor
of an immersible motor configured in a TEBC configuration. (Advanced
Energy, No. 8 at p. 3) However, NEMA requested that DOE reconsider the
requirement of ``separate power source'' in the proposed definition
because a test facility may have only one power source. NEMA also
stated that this requirement is not necessary because all that matters
is that the test equipment used to measure the electrical power flowing
into the motor is connected only to the motor leads and not to both the
motor leads and blower leads. Also, in its view, the proper voltage
should be applied to the blower when the voltage to the motor is to be
reduced as a part of the IEEE 112 Method B or Method E test procedure.
NEMA commented that it was unclear why the requirement to exclude the
input power to the blower in the measurement of the motor power would
apply only to blower cooled ``immersible'' motors if the test procedure
is intended to apply to any electric motor with contact seals. The test
procedure should also clearly state that the input power to the
separately powered blower is not to be included in the determination of
the efficiency of the immersible definite purpose electric motor, or,
in general, for any electric motor with a separately powered blower
furnished as a part of the total assembly. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 23-24)
Following the NOPR, DOE raised this issue with stakeholders and
SMEs. From those discussions, DOE acknowledges that at least some non-
immersible motors that were furnished with separately-powered blowers
exist would also meet the nine criteria that DOE is considering
applying with respect to its standards rulemaking efforts. It was not
DOE's intention to omit guidance on testing these motors; DOE agrees
with NEMA that a test plan for ``blower-cooled'' electric motors should
not be limited only to those motors that are also immersible.
Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is adding separate test set-up
instructions for an ``electric motor with a separately-powered
blower.'' This set-up will be applicable to any electric motor that has
this particular design element, regardless of whether this electric
motor is also immersible. As DOE did not receive comments in the NOPR
asking DOE to define this motor type, the Department believes that
stakeholders understand what motor types were covered by this test set-
up, and DOE has opted not to define this motor type at this time.
Regarding the use of the term ``separate power source,'' DOE
recognizes that test labs may use a variety of power supplies to
facilitate testing. DOE believes that NEMA's suggested plan of
measuring the two sources of power separately (rather than powering
them separately) can work, provided it is done such that it accurately
characterizes the power going into the tested motor. In either
arrangement, the objective is to exclude the power to the blower's
motor from any calculations of efficiency for the tested motor. For
these reasons and based on the comments received, DOE has added
instructions to the procedure to exclude the losses attributable to the
motor powering a separately-powered blower. Under this change, the
blower's motor can be powered by a source separate from the source
powering the electric motor under test or by connecting leads such that
they only measure the power of the motor under test. This instruction
follows from DOE's proposal ``to isolate the performance of the motor
under test while continuing to provide the necessary cooling from the
blower motor.'' 78 FR 38466. In this final rule, DOE extends those
instructions to all motors with separately-powered blowers rather than
limiting it to immersible motors in recognition of the fact that the
qualities of being immersible and having a separately-powered blower
are technologically independent and should be treated as such.
G. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only Definitions
There are several electric motor types whose energy efficiency DOE
is not proposing to regulate as part of the recently published energy
conservation standards proposal but that DOE is defining in today's
rule to provide manufacturers regulatory clarity when the final
standards rule is published. More details regarding the specific motor
types are discussed below.
1. Component Set of an Electric Motor
Electric motors are comprised of several primary components that
include: A rotor, stator, stator windings, stator frame, two
endshields, two bearings, and a shaft. As described in the NOPR, a
component set of an electric motor comprises any combination of these
motor parts that does not form an operable motor. 78 FR 38466. For
example, a component set may consist of a wound stator and rotor
component sold without a stator housing, endshields, or shaft. These
components may be sold with the intention of having the motor parts
mounted inside other equipment, with the equipment providing the
necessary mounting and rotor attachments for the components to operate
in a manner similar to a stand-alone electric motor. Component sets may
also be sold with the intention of a third party using the components
to construct a complete, stand-alone motor. In such cases, the end
manufacturer that ``completes'' the motor's construction must certify
that the motor meets any pertinent standards. (See 42 U.S.C.
6291(1)(10) (defining ``manufacture'' to include manufacture, produce,
assemble, or import.)) This approach was supported by NEMA in its
comments on the electric motors preliminary analysis. (NEMA, EERE-2010-
BT-STD-0027-0054 at pp. 15-16)
[[Page 75987]]
DOE understands that a component set does not constitute a
complete, or near-complete, motor that could be tested under IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA C390-10, because it would require
major modifications before it can operate as a motor. In view of its
examination of motor component sets, DOE understands that some of them
would require the addition of costly and fundamental parts for the
motor to be capable of continuous-duty operation, as would be required
under either test procedure. The parts that would need to be added to
the component set, such as a wound stator or rotor, are complex
components that directly affect the performance of a motor and can only
be provided by a motor manufacturer. Without the fundamental
components, there is no motor. Therefore, DOE believes that a single
testing laboratory would have insurmountable difficulty machining motor
parts, assembling the parts into an operable machine, and testing the
motor in a way that would be manageable, consistent, and repeatable by
other testing laboratories. Because DOE is not aware of any test
procedures or additional test procedure instructions that would
accommodate the testing of a component set in a manageable, consistent,
and repeatable manner, it declined to consider component sets for
energy conservations standards in the NOPR.
In terms of defining a ``component set,'' DOE was aware of some
confusion regarding what constitutes a ``component set'' of a motor,
especially about the difference between a ``component set'' and a
``partial'' motor. No technical standard currently defines these terms.
To bring a common definition for these generally understood, but
undefined, concepts, DOE proposed to define a ``component set'' as a
``combination of motor parts that require the addition of more than two
endshields to create an operable motor.'' 78 FR 38469. Under the
proposed definition, these parts may consist of any combination of a
stator frame, wound stator, rotor, shaft, or endshields and the term
``operable motor'' would refer to an electric motor engineered for
performing in accordance with nameplate ratings. 78 FR 38469.
In response to the NOPR, Nidec suggested that the definition of
component set be clearer so that it can be differentiated from a
partial motor. It criticized the proposed definition for not being
clear enough to distinguish a component set from a partial motor. (Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 31) NEMA, on the other hand, recommended that DOE
not define this term, noting that the clearer definition of partial
motor should be sufficient to distinguish it from a component set.
(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 34)
In DOE's view, defining what a ``component set'' is, and
distinguishing it from a ``partial electric motor'' is critical.
Furthermore, as explained earlier, DOE does not intend to define only
those motors for which it is proposing energy conservation standards in
the parallel rulemaking. Rather, motors that need to be defined in
order to clearly outline coverage in the standards rulemaking will be
defined. By defining a ``component set,'' DOE can clearly state whether
a given motor would be affected in a particular standards rulemaking.
Nidec also raised concerns regarding where bearings fit into the
definition (i.e. whether the presence or absence of bearings factored
into the classification of equipment as a compenent set or partial
electric motor), In recognition of the fact that bearings are often
specifically designed to match endplates, DOE is modifying its proposed
definition by adding the phrase ``and their associated bearings'' to
the ``component set'' definition. to better distinguish it from a
partial motor. To mitigate the risk of confusion, DOE is defining a
component set as referring to ``a combination of motor parts that
require the addition of critical componentry in excess of two
endshields (and their associated bearings) to create an operable
motor.'' In view of its own research and consensus among interested
parties, DOE is maintaining its NOPR proposal.
2. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motor
While most electric motors are air-cooled and many use a fan
attached to the shaft on the end opposite the drive to blow air over
the surface of the motor to dissipate heat during the motor's
operation, liquid-cooled electric motors rely on a special cooling
apparatus that pumps liquid into and around the motor housing. The
liquid is circulated around the motor frame to dissipate heat and
prevent the motor from overheating during continuous-duty operation. A
liquid-cooled electric motor may use different liquids or liquids at
different temperatures, which could affect the operating temperature of
the motor and, therefore, the efficiency of the motor. This variability
could present testing consistency and reliability problems.
Neither IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) nor CSA C390-10 provide a
standardized methodology for testing the energy efficiency of a liquid-
cooled electric motor. Additionally, as NEMA noted in its comments,
these motors are typically used in space-constrained applications, such
as mining applications, and require a high power density, which
somewhat limits their efficiency potential. (NEMA, NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-
STD-0027-0054 at p. 42) In view of these likely testing consistency
problems, DOE noted its intent to not propose energy conservation
standards for these motors at this time. 78 FR 38475.
At least two key issues were raised in the context of these motors:
First, how to test them while accounting for temperature differences
and second, how to differentiate these motors from certain other motor
types.
a. Temperature Conditions
In response to the NOPR, NEMA commented that it is very difficult
to simulate the various environments in a testing facility where the
tested motor is required to be connected to a dynamometer. In order to
maintain acceptable temperature levels, some motors operating in an
open environment may rely on both free convection and liquid cooling,
motors operating in a confined space may rely only on liquid cooling
and other motors may be operated in an area with externally supplied
ventilating air and liquid cooling. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 36). Thus, NEMA
argued that energy conservation standards should not be established for
liquid-cooled electric motors. As noted earlier, NEMA commented that
the liquid-cooled electric motors are used in specialized applications
that require high power density within a limited size. Different
physical sizes may be used for the same power rating for different
applications for different speed-torque performance, as needed. This
fact also makes it difficult to establish any particular energy
conservation standard for a rating. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 35-36).
No standardized methodology for testing the energy efficiency of a
liquid-cooled electric motor, the consensus among stakeholders on how
to treat these motors, and liquid-cooled electric motors are likely to
be used in specialized applications with high power density
requirements. Because of that, it is difficult to established a
procedure that can be confidently said to be representative of energy
use experienced by consumers. For that reason, DOE is not establishing
energy conservation standards for liquid-cooled electric motors at this
time.
b. Differentiating From Other Motor Types
In response to the October 15, 2010 energy conservation standards
[[Page 75988]]
framework document, NEMA and ASAP commented that greater clarification
is needed with regard to liquid-cooled electric motors and how to
differentiate them from immersible or submersible electric motors.
(NEMA and ASAP, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0012 at p. 9) DOE proposed to
define ``liquid-cooled electric motor'' to clarify DOE's view of which
motors would be covered by this term but did not indicate it planned to
set standards for them. DOE's proposed definition was based on the
definition of a ``totally enclosed water-cooled machine'' found in
paragraph 1.26.5 of NEMA MG 1-2009. Further, DOE proposed to remove
``totally enclosed'' from the definition to prevent any unintentional
limitations of the definition due to frame construction; liquid-cooling
may exist independently of degree of frame enclosure. DOE also planned
to replace the term ``water'' with ``liquid'' to cover the use of any
type of liquid as a coolant. Finally, per comments from NEMA, DOE
proposed to modify the term ``water conductors'' to ``liquid-filled
conductors'' to clarify that the conductors, themselves, are not made
of liquid. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 35) Consequently,
DOEe proposed to define ``liquid-cooled electric motor'' as ``a motor
that is cooled by circulating liquid with the liquid or liquid-filled
conductors coming into direct contact with the machine parts.''
In response to the NOPR, NEMA commented that it does not see a need
for a definition of ``liquid-cooled electric motor'' because these
motor types are not covered under regulation. However, if DOE still
decided there was a need to include a definition, NEMA suggested using
and defining the term ``liquid-cooled definite purpose motor'' rather
than ``liquid-cooled definite purpose electric motor''. In order to
remove any confusion related to ``liquid filled conductors'', NEMA
recommended the definition, if needed, be modified as: ``Liquid-cooled
definite purpose motor means a motor that is cooled by circulating
liquid with the liquid coming into direct contact with machine parts,
typically the enclosure.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 35)
As stated earlier, even if these motor types are not currently
regulated, DOE intends to define these motor types for clarity. This
decision is further described in section G. DOE has also considered
NEMA's proposed addition to the definition of ``typically the
enclosure'' and removal of the term ``liquid-filled conductors.'' For
the final rule, DOE is maintaining the term ``liquid-filled
conductors'' to maintain the broadness of the original definition and
not limit the definition to only circulating liquid. Furthermore, DOE
is opting not to add the term ``typically the enclosure'' as it does
not believe that this phrase adds to the content of the definition and
may only add confusion. DOE is including the term ``designated cooling
apparatus'' to bring more clarity. For this final rule, DOE adopts the
definition of ``liquid-cooled electric motor'' as ``a motor that is
cooled by liquid circulated using a designated cooling apparatus such
that the liquid or liquid-filled conductors come into direct contact
with the parts of the motor.''
3. Submersible Electric Motor
As previously addressed, most motors are not engineered to operate
while under water. Any liquid inside a stator frame could impede rotor
operation and corrode components of the motor. However, a submersible
electric motor is capable of complete submersion in liquid without
damaging the motor. A submersible electric motor uses special seals to
prevent the ingress of liquid into its enclosure. Additionally, DOE
understands that a submersible electric motor relies on the properties
of the surrounding liquid to cool the motor during continuous-duty
operation. That is, submersible electric motors are only capable of
continuous duty operation while completely submerged in liquid, as NEMA
clarified in its comments on the energy conservation standards
preliminary analysis. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 37)
Consequently, as detailed in the NOPR, DOE defined ``submersible
electric motor'' as an electric motor designed for continuous operation
only while submerged in liquid.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA commented that no definition of
``submersible electric motor'' is needed because these motor types are
not covered under DOE's regulations. However, if DOE still decided
there was a need to include a definition, in NEMA's view, the
definition should be for that of a ``submersible definite purpose
motor'' and not a ``submersible definite purpose electric motor.'' NEMA
claimed that the term ``continuous'' was unnecessary as part of the
definition since the motor is not intended to be operated outside of
the liquid for any period of time. NEMA suggested that the term be
defined as referring to a motor ``designed for operation only while
submerged in liquid.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 36)
As explained above, DOE is not adding the term ``definite purpose''
to any individual motor definitions at this time. However, DOE
recognizes that it is necessary to distinguish submersible electric
motors from electric motors with moisture-resistant, sealed or
encapsulated windings. To clarify this distinction, in this final rule,
DOE is defining ``submersible electric motor'' as an ``electric motor
that (1) is intended to operate continuously only while submerged in
liquid, (2) is capable of operation while submerged in liquid for an
indefinite period of time, and (3) has been sealed to prevent ingress
of liquid from contacting the motor's internal parts.''
At the time of the NOPR, DOE believed that testing submersible
electric motors would be difficult because the motor must be submerged
in a liquid to properly operate. After discussions with manufacturers
and testing laboratories, DOE confirmed that no industry test
procedures or potential modifications to the procedures currently under
10 CFR 431.16 could be used to consistently test (and reliably measure)
a motor that relies on submersion in liquid for continuous-duty
operation. Additionally, DOE was not aware of any testing facilities
that are capable of testing a submerged motor. Consequently, DOE
decided not to propose specific preparatory instructions for testing
submersible electric motors in the NOPR. DOE requested stakeholder
comment on whether there are facilities capable of conducting energy
efficiency tests on submersible motors, along with any specific
procedures that these facilities follow when attempting to rate the
energy efficiency of this equipment. In its written comments, NEMA
affirmed that they were unaware of any test facilities available for
conducting an IEEE 112 (Method B) test on a motor while submerged in
liquid. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 37)
Therefore, DOE is only adopting a definition in today's final rule,
which is consistent with DOE's continuing intention to exclude these
motors from the proposed energy conservation standards.
4. Inverter-Only Electric Motor
DOE considered two types of electric motors related to the use of
inverters, those that are engineered to work only with an inverter and
those that are capable of working with an inverter, but also capable of
general, continuous-duty operation without an inverter. This section
addresses the former. Inverter-capable electric motors are addressed in
section III.A.4.
In its electric motors preliminary analysis TSD, DOE sought to
clarify that, in its view, inverter-only motors were motors that can
operate
[[Page 75989]]
continuously only by means of an inverter drive. DOE also explained
that it preliminarily planned to continue to exclude these motors from
energy conservation standards requirements, in large part because of
the difficulties that were likely to arise from testing them. One such
difficulty is the fact that they can be operated at a continuum of
speeds with no established speed testing profile. Another is that
motors may be optimized for different waveforms, which also have no
established testing standards. It would be difficult to generate
meaningful test results for products which may be designed for a wide
variety of operating inputs. The breadth of specifications resists
treatment with a single test procedure without extensive study.
Additonally, the high frequency power signals may be difficult to
measure accurately without specialized equipment that testing
laboratories may not possess.
NEMA agreed with DOE's preliminary approach to define such motors
but not require them, for the time being, to meet energy conservation
standards. It suggested a more specific definition of an ``inverter-
only motor,'' based on NEMA MG 1 part 31, ``Definite-Purpose Inverter-
Fed Polyphase Motors,'' in place of the one previously considered by
DOE. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 35) DOE examined the
suggested definition and proposed to adopt it, with minor
modifications. DOE proposed not to require that a motor be marked as a
``definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric motor,'' but stated that it
may consider such a requirement in the future. DOE also noted NEMA's
concern with the characterization of these motors and changed the term
to read as an ``inverter-only electric motor.'' DOE proposed to define
an ``inverter-only electric motor'' as ``an electric motor that is
designed for operation solely with an inverter, and is not intended for
operation when directly connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line
power.''
In response to the NOPR, NEMA contended that no definition is
needed for ``definite purpose inverter fed electric motor'' because, in
its view, a definition would be needed only if there was a clear
indication that a motor designed for operation on inverter power
appears to meet the definition of ``electric motor'' as recommended by
NEMA. If DOE still needed to include a definition, NEMA asserted that
the definition should be for an ``inverter-fed definite purpose motor''
and not a ``definite purpose inverter-fed electric motor.'' If, upon
further consideration, DOE did decide that a definition was needed,
NEMA recommended that DOE use the term ``inverter-fed definite-purpose
motor'', which would refer to ``a definite purpose motor that is
designed for operation solely with an inverter, and is not defined for
across-the-line starting when directly connected to polyphase,
sinusoidal line power.'' (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 37)
As noted earlier, DOE intends to define these motor types to
clarify these terms. DOE has also explained that it is not including
the terms definite purpose or special purpose in its individual motors
definitions, even though ``definite-purpose'' was initially used in the
definition of these motors, because ``definite-purpose'' is a term that
has meaning in the context of many other motor types which DOE does not
wish to be confused with those requiring inverters. DOE also wishes to
define these motors in terms of their actual capabilities instead of
design intent. Therefore, to clear up any confusion surrounding the use
of the phrase ``definite-purpose'', DOE is changing the name of this
motor type to be ``inverter-only electric motor.'' As a result, DOE is
adopting the definition of ``inverter-only electric motor'' as ``an
electric motor that is capable of rated operation solely with an
inverter, and is not intended for operation when directly connected to
polyphase, sinusoidal line power.''
As for testing an inverter-only electric 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. Inverter-only motors are incapable of
meeting this requirement without the inverter. (See NEMA, at EERE-2010-
BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 35 and NEMA MG 1-2009, part 31 at paragraph
31.4.3.1, which elaborates that an ``inverter-only electric motor''
cannot perform across-the-line starting unless the motor is attached to
the inverter.) In the NOPR, DOE noted it was not aware of an industry
accepted test procedure specifying the speed or torque characteristics
to use when testing an inverter-only motor. Furthermore, DOE was unable
to develop a standardized test procedure for inverter-only electric
motors at this time. Because inverters allow a motor to operate at a
wide array of speeds for many different applications, there would be
considerable difficulties in developing a single test procedure that
produced a fair representation of the actual energy used by all
electric motors connected to an inverter in the field.
Additionally, a single motor design may be paired with a wide
variety of inverters, so properly selecting an inverter to use for the
test such that an accurate representation of efficiency is obtained
would prove extremely difficult. Inverters may also operate at
frequencies that make accurate measurement of power difficult with the
type of equipment used for conventional motors. Even if DOE intended to
regulate such motors, testing them could be extremely challenging using
the currently accepted industry test procedures. Therefore, DOE
proposed to exclude these motors from consideration for energy
conservation standards.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA and Regal Beloit agreed with DOE's
decision not to establish energy conservation standards for motors
intended for operation solely with an inverter. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 38;
Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 7 at p. 78).
As noted earlier, one difficulty in testing inverter-only motors is
the fact that they can be operated at a continuum of speeds with no
established speed testing profile. Another is that motors may be
optimized for different waveforms, which also have no established
testing standards. It would be difficult to generate meaningful test
results for products which may be designed for a wide variety of
operating inputs. The breadth of specifications resists treatment with
a single test procedure without extensive study. Additonally, the high
frequency power signals may be difficult to measure accurately without
specialized equipment that testing laboratories may not possess. In
view of this consensus and DOE's own conclusions regarding test
procedure difficulties, DOE has maintained this approach for the final
rule and is not adopting a test procedure set-up for these motors, nor
will these motors be considered for energy conservation standards at
this time.
H. Effective Dates for the Amended Test Procedures and Other Issues
In the June 26, 2013 NOPR (78 FR 38455), DOE proposed that the
amendments described in the sections below become effective 30 days
after the publication of the final rule. Furthermore, at 180 days after
publication, the NOPR stated that the manufacturers of those motors
that would be affected by the proposal would need to make
representations regarding energy efficiency based on results obtained
through testing in accordance with the proposed amendments.
Calculations based on a substantiated alternative efficiency
determination method (AEDM) would also need to need reflect the same
approach, as would any certifications of
[[Page 75990]]
compliance with the applicable energy conservation standards.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ DOE acknowledged that, at the time, there are were no
current energy conservation standards for the majority of the motor
types covered in the NOPR. DOE stated that if it establishes
standards for these motor types, manufacturers will be required to
use the proposed test procedure to certify compliance with these
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responding to the proposal, NEMA commented that the effective date
of any change in test procedures should coincide with the effective
date of any remedial change in the standards provided to rectify the
effect of the changes in the test procedures on the tested efficiency.
(NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 11-13) \32\ DOE understands NEMA's concern. Per
DOE's ``Process Rule'' at appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430
and the requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and (r), DOE usually tries
to finalize its test procedures before its energy conservation
standards. This timeframe allows stakeholders to understand how the
proposed standard will be calculated to apply to the covered equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ In this and subsequent citations, the document number
refers to the number of the comment in the Docket for the DOE
rulemaking on test procedures for electric motors, Docket No. EERE-
2012-BT-TP-0043; and the page references refer to the place in the
document where the statement preceding appears.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA was also concerned that the test procedure effective date
would mean that the test procedure applies to motor types that are to
be covered under the parallel standards rulemaking over a year before
standards are finalized for such motor types. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 11-
13). It also made a number of miscellaneous comments related to
clarifying the proposed requirements.
As described in the ``Note'' to Appendix B to Subpart B and
consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6314(d), any representations of energy
efficiency or energy consumption of motors for which energy
conservation standards are currently provided at 10 CFR 431.25 must be
based on any final amended procedures in appendix B to subpart B of
part 431 starting 180 days after the publication of any final amended
test procedures. Until that time, manufacturers of motors for which
energy conservation standards are currently provided at 10 CFR 431.25
may make such representations based either on the final amended test
procedures or on the previous test procedures, set forth at 10 CFR part
431, subpart B, appendix B as contained in the 10 CFR parts 200 to 499
edition revised as of January 1, 2013.
For any other electric motor type that is not currently covered by
the energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25 but may become
covered by standards under the standards rulemaking for which a
proposed rule is currently open for comment (see 78 FR 73589 (Dec. 6,
2013), manufacturers of this equipment would need to use Appendix B 180
days after the effective date of the final rule adopting energy
conservation standards for these motors. DOE would publish a notice
upon publication of a final rule in that standards rulemaking
announcing the specific date and amending the Note regarding compliance
with test procedures that the today's final rule codifies in Appendix
B.
NEMA also suggested that the test procedures should be applicable
only to those general purpose, definite purpose and special purpose
electric motors for which energy conservation standards apply. (NEMA,
No. 10 at p. 10) DOE disagrees. For the motor types defined in 10 CFR
part 431, and to the extent to which any representations of energy
efficiency are made, manufacturers must follow the given test
procedures even if they are currently exempt from energy conservation
standards. This approach follows from DOE's intention to standardize
the way the motors are tested and energy efficiency is reported.
NEMA asserted that the proposed ``note'' limits the use of Appendix
B to Subpart B for purposes related to representation of efficiency and
demonstration of compliance and would not apply to the test procedures
for the enforcement process. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 11) Again, DOE
disagrees. The note lays out the test procedures that a manufacturer
would use to determine that any applicable energy conservation
requirements are met. Those procedures would be followed by DOE as part
of any enforcement action against a given manufacturer.
NEMA suggested that any provisional requirements included in the
final rule should be within the appropriate requirements in 10 CFR
431.16 or 10 CFR 431.17. (NEMA, No. 10 at pp. 10-13). DOE takes note of
NEMA's suggestions and has ensured that today's final rule meets the
requirements in 10 CFR 431.16 or 10 CFR 431.17.
NEMA suggested replacing the term ``open bearing'' with ``grease
lubricated double shielded bearing'' in the proposed definition of
standard bearing in paragraph 4 of Appendix B to Subpart B because, in
its view, bearings require lubrication during operation and not all
endshields have the ability to contain lubricating material. (NEMA, No.
10 at p. 38) DOE notes NEMA's concern that some endshields may not be
able to contain grease or lubricating material and thus would require
grease-lubricated bearings instead of open bearings. Therefore, DOE has
amended the definition to allow the use of grease-lubricated double
shielded bearing.
As for other concerns raised by NEMA suggesting that the test
procedures be structured to limit their application to special and
definit purpose electric motors, DOE notes that the procedures are to
apply to electric motors as a whole. There is no need to insert
limiting language that would narrow the application of the procedure.
DOE further notes that it chose the proposed (and now final)
definitional structure because the now-proposed standards rulemaking
develops a coverage structure based on a motor satisfying both the
broad ``electric motors'' definition and the nine referenced criteria.
With the release of this standards proposal, many, if not all, of
NEMA's comments on electric motor definitions are resolved. Any further
comments that interested parties may have on this structure can be
submitted for consideration as part of the ongoing energy conservation
standards rulemaking.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) for
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
[[Page 75991]]
Counsel's Web site: https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
As described in the preamble, today's final rule presents
additional test procedure set-up clarifications for motors currently
subject to Federal energy conservation standards, new test procedure
set-up and test procedures for motors not currently subject to Federal
energy conservation standards, and additional clarifications of
definitions for certain key terms to aid manufacturers in better
understanding DOE's regulations. All of the additions are consistent
with current industry practices and, once compliance is required,
should be used for making representations of energy-efficiency of those
covered electric motors and for certifying compliance with any
applicable Federal energy conservation standards. DOE certified to the
Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that the
additional test procedures and definitions for electric motors would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The factual basis for this certification follows.
To estimate the number of small businesses impacted by the rule,
DOE considered the size standards for a small business listed by the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and
description under 13 CFR 121.201. To be considered a small business, a
manufacturer of electric motors and its affiliates may employ a maximum
of 1,000 employees. DOE estimates that there are approximately 30
domestic motor manufacturers that manufacture electric motors covered
by EPCA, and no more than 13 of these manufacturers are small
businesses employing a maximum of 1,000 employees. The number of motor
manufacturers, including the number of manufacturers qualifying as
small businesses, was estimated based on interviews with motor
manufacturers and publicly available data.
To determine the anticipated economic impact of the testing
requirements on small manufacturers, DOE compared this final rule to
current industry practices regarding testing procedures and
representations for energy efficiency along with those steps DOE has
taken in the design of the rule to minimize the testing burden on
manufacturers. For motors that are currently subject to Federal
standards, today's procedures are largely clarifications and will not
change the underlying DOE test procedure and methodologies currently
being employed by industry to rate and certify to the Department
compliance with Federal standards.
For motors that are not currently subject to Federal standards,
manufacturers of such unregulated electric motors would only need to
use the testing set-up instructions, testing procedures, and rating
procedures provided in today's rule 180 days after the effective date
of any relevant energy conservation standards final rule if a
manufacturer elected to make voluntary representations of energy-
efficiency of its basic models. To better understand how this rule will
impact small manufacturers of electric motors, DOE reviewed current
industry practice regarding the representations of energy efficiency
made for motors not subject to energy conservation standards and how
the rulemaking will impact current industry practice. Specifically,
DOE's test procedures require that those manufacturers of regulated
motors not currently subject to standards who choose to make public
representations of efficiency to follow the methods prescribed in this
rule. DOE's rule does not require manufacturers who do not currently
make voluntary representations to then begin making public
representations of efficiency.
DOE researched the catalogs and Web sites of the 13 identified
small manufacturers and found that only four of these manufacturers
clearly list efficiency ratings for their equipment in public
disclosures. The remaining manufacturers either build custom equipment,
which are not subject to the changes made in this rule, or do not list
energy efficiency in their motor specifications, in part because it is
not required. For the manufacturers that currently do not voluntarily
make any public representations of energy efficiency for their motors,
DOE does not believe this rule will impact their current practice. DOE
does not anticipate any burden accruing to these manufacturers unless
the agency considered and set energy conservation standards for those
additional electric motor types. Of the four manufacturers that
currently elect to make voluntary representations of the electric motor
efficiency, DOE believes those manufacturers will be minimally impacted
because they are already basing those representations on commonly used
industry standards, which are the same testing procedures incorporated
by this rule. DOE does not have any reason to believe that the test
set-up clarifications adopted in today's rule would have any
significant impact on the current practice of these four manufacturers.
In view of the foregoing, DOE certifies that today's final rule
will not impose significant economic impacts on a substantial number of
small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory
flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE has provided its
certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
In response to the regulatory flexibility analysis in the NOPR,
Bluffton stated that while it agrees that the test procedure being
proposed would not have a significant impact on small electric motor
manufacturers, if energy conservation standards are applied to newly-
defined electric motor types and special and definite purpose electric
motors, as extended to 56-frame motors, there would be a major impact
to small electric motor manufacturers. Bringing these electric motors
types into compliance using the proposed test procedure could put a
small electric motor manufacturer's existence in jeopardy. (Bluffton,
No. 11 at pp. 1-2)
DOE acknowledges that expanding the scope of the existing energy
conservation standards to include additional electric motor types, such
as special and definite purpose electric motors and 56-frame motors,
could disproportionally impact small electric motor manufacturers that
specialize in producing these types of motors. DOE further notes that
in the final test procedure rule that manufacturers of electric motors
whose energy efficiency is not currently regulated will not need to use
the test procedure until energy conservation standards are set for
those electric motor types. Bluffton also commented that since a number
of suppliers would also be considered small businesses, they could also
be adversely affected by an expanded scope for standards since they
could potentially lose customers of their products. Bluffton also
stated that expanding the scope of standards could also prove to be a
significant impact on the many small businesses that are customers of
small electric motor manufacturers because their customers would have
to redesign and re-tool their units to accommodate potentially larger
new designs. (Bluffton, No. 11 at pp. 1-2) For purposes of the
Regulatory Flexibilty Act, DOE notes that it is required to focus its
analysis on the direct impact of the current rule on those small
businesses that manufacture electric motors as part of the regulatory
flexibility analysis. DOE will address the impacts of any proposed
standards on small manufacturers of electric
[[Page 75992]]
motors in the Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of the
related electric motor standards' rulemaking.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of electric motors must certify to DOE that their
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In
certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according
to the DOE test procedures for electric motors, including any
amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including
electric motors. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-
information requirement for certification and recordkeeping is subject
to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number
1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated
to average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for electric
motors. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions
that are categorically excluded from review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this rule
amends an existing rule without affecting the amount, quality or
distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will not result in any
environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical
Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any
rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing
the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined
that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State
energy conservation regulations for the equipment subject to today's
final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption
to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined today's
final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined
that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a
mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in
any year, so these requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
[[Page 75993]]
that may affect family well-being. Today's final rule will not have any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a
Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed today's final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA)
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The modifications DOE addressed in this action incorporate testing
methods followed by industry when evaluating the energy efficiency of
electric motors. DOE's rule establishes the necessary testing set-up to
facilitate consistency and repeatability when conducting a test in
accordance with one of the prescribed test procedures incorporated into
DOE's regulations. These methods, as described earlier in the preamble
discussion above, would be used in instances where an electric motor
manufacturer makes representations of energy efficiency regarding its
motors. DOE has consulted with both the Attorney General and the
Chairman of the FTC about the impact on competition of using the
methods contained in these standards and has received no comments
objecting to their use.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of today's final rule before its effective date. The
report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Incorporation by reference, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 6, 2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 431 of
chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
0
2. Amend Sec. 431.12 by:
0
a. Removing the reserved terms ``Fire pump motor'' and ``NEMA design B
general purpose electric motor;'' and
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order, definitions for: ``air-over electric
motor,'' ``brake electric motor,'' ``component set,'' ``definite
purpose electric motor,'' ``electric motor with encapsulated
windings,'' ``electric motor with moisture resistant windings,''
``electric motor with sealed windings,'' ``IEC Design H motor,'' ``IEC
Design N motor,'' ``immersible electric motor,'' ``inverter-capable
electric motor,'' ``inverter-only electric motor,'' ``liquid-cooled
electric motor,'' ``NEMA Design A motor,'' ``NEMA Design C motor,''
``partial electric motor,'' ``special purpose 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 rated to operate in
and be cooled by the airstream of a fan or blower that is not supplied
with the motor and whose primary purpose is providing airflow to an
application other than the motor driving it.
* * * * *
Brake electric motor means a motor that contains a dedicated
mechanism for speed reduction, such as a brake, either within or
external to the motor enclosure
* * * * *
Component set means a combination of motor parts that require the
addition
[[Page 75994]]
of more than two endshields (and their associated bearings) to create
an operable motor. These parts may consist of any combination of a
stator frame, wound stator, rotor, shaft, or endshields. For the
purpose of this definition, the term ``operable motor'' means an
electric motor engineered for performing in accordance with nameplate
ratings.
* * * * *
Definite purpose electric motor means any electric motor that
cannot be used in most general purpose applications and is designed
either:
(1) To standard ratings with standard operating characteristics or
standard mechanical construction for use under service conditions other
than usual, such as those specified in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 14.3,
``Unusual Service Conditions,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.15); or
(2) For use on a particular type of application.
* * * * *
Electric motor with encapsulated windings means an electric motor
capable of passing the conformance test for water resistance described
in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph 12.62 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.15).
* * * * *
Electric motor with moisture resistant windings means an electric
motor that is capable of passing the conformance test for moisture
resistance generally described in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph 12.63
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15).
* * * * *
Electric motor with sealed windings means an electric motor capable
of passing the conformance test for water resistance described in NEMA
MG 1-2009, paragraph 12.62 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.15).
* * * * *
IEC Design H motor means an electric motor that
(1) Is an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power;
(2) Contains a cage rotor;
(3) Is capable of direct-on-line starting
(4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to sections 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 of the IEC 60034-12
edition 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see 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 capable of direct-on-line starting;
(4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of the IEC 60034-12
edition 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see 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
temporarily withstanding complete immersion in liquid for a continuous
period of no less than 30 minutes.
* * * * *
Inverter-capable electric motor means an electric motor designed to
be directly connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line power, but that is
also capable of continuous operation on an inverter drive over a
limited speed range and associated load.
* * * * *
Inverter-only electric motor means an electric motor that is
capable of rated operation solely with an inverter, and is not intended
for operation when directly connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line
power.
* * * * *
Liquid-cooled electric motor means a motor that is cooled by liquid
circulated using a designated cooling apparatus such that the liquid or
liquid-filled conductors come into direct contact with the parts of the
motor.
* * * * *
NEMA Design A motor means a squirrel-cage motor that:
(1) Is Designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing
locked-rotor torque as shown in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.38.1
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15);
(2) Has pull-up torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG1-
2009, paragraph 12.40.1;
(3) Has breakdown torque not less than the values shown in NEMA
MG1-2009, paragraph 12.39.1;
(4) Has a locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in
NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and NEMA MG1-2009,
paragraph 12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and
(5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for motors with
fewer than 10 poles.
* * * * *
NEMA Design C motor means a squirrel-cage motor that:
(1) Is Designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing
locked-rotor torque for high-torque applications up to the values shown
in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.38.2 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.15);
(2) Has pull-up torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG1-
2009, paragraph 12.40.2;
(3) Has breakdown torque not less than the values shown in NEMA
MG1-2009, paragraph 12.39.2;
(4) Has a locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in
NEMA MG1-2009, paragraphs 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and 12.35.2 for 50
hertz; and
(5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent.
* * * * *
Partial electric motor means an assembly of motor components
necessitating the addition of no more than two endshields, including
bearings, to create an an electric motor capable of operation in
accordance with the applicable nameplate ratings.
* * * * *
Special purpose electric motor means any electric motor, other than
a general purpose motor or definite electric purpose motor, which has
special operating characteristics or special mechanical construction,
or both, designed for a particular application.
* * * * *
Submersible electric motor means an electric motor that:
(1) Is intended to operate continuously only while submerged in
liquid;
(2) Is capable of operation while submerged in liquid for an
indefinite period of time; and
(3) Has been sealed to prevent ingress of liquid from contacting
the motor's internal parts.
* * * * *
Totally enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) electric motor means an
electric motor that is built in a frame-surface cooled, totally
enclosed configuration that is designed and equipped to be cooled only
by free convection.
0
3. Amend Sec. 431.15 by adding paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(D) to read as
follows:
Sec. 431.15 Materials incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(D) Paragraphs 12.62 and 12.63, IBR approved for Sec. 431.12.
* * * * *
0
4. Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431 is amended by adding an
[[Page 75995]]
introductory note and section 4 to read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
Nominal Full-Load Efficiency of Electric Motors
Note: After June 11, 2014, any representations made with respect
to the energy use or efficiency of electric motors for which energy
conservation standards are currently provided at 10 CFR 431.25 must
be made in accordance with the results of testing pursuant to this
appendix.
For manufacturers conducting tests of motors for which energy
conservation standards are provided at 10 CFR 431.25, after January
13, 2014 and prior to June 11, 2014, manufacturers must conduct such
test in accordance with either this appendix or appendix B as it
appeared at 10 CFR Part 431, subpart B, appendix B, in the 10 CFR
Parts 200 to 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2013. Any
representations made with respect to the energy use or efficiency of
such electric motors must be in accordance with whichever version is
selected. Given that after June 11, 2014 representations with
respect to the energy use or efficiency of electric motors must be
made in accordance with tests conducted pursuant to this appendix,
manufacturers may wish to begin using this test procedure as soon as
possible.
For any other electric motor type that is not currently covered
by the energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25, manufacturers
of this equipment will need to use Appendix B 180 days after the
effective date of the final rule adopting energy conservation
standards for these motors.
* * * * *
4. Procedures for the Testing of Certain Electric Motor Types.
Prior to testing according to IEEE Std 112-2004 (Test Method B)
or CSA C390-10 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15), each
basic model of the electric motor types listed below must be set up
in accordance with the instructions of this section to ensure
consistent test results. These steps are designed to enable a motor
to be attached to a dynamometer and run continuously for testing
purposes. For the purposes of this appendix, a ``standard bearing''
is a 6000 series, either open or grease-lubricated double-shielded,
single-row, deep groove, radial ball bearing.
4.1 Brake Electric Motors:
Brake electric motors shall be tested with the brake component
powered separately from the motor such that it does not activate
during testing. Additionally, for any 10-minute period during the
test and while the brake is being powered such that it remains
disengaged from the motor shaft, record the power consumed (i.e.,
watts). Only power used to drive the motor is to be included in the
efficiency calculation; power supplied to prevent the brake from
engaging is not included in this calculation. In lieu of powering
the brake separately, the brake may be disengaged mechanically, if
such a mechanism exists and if the use of this mechanism does not
yield a different efficiency value than separately powering the
brake electrically.
4.2 Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors and Electric Motors with
Single or Double Shaft Extensions of Non-Standard Dimensions or
Design:
To attach the unit under test to a dynamometer, close-coupled
pump electric motors and electric motors with single or double shaft
extensions of non-standard dimensions or design must be tested using
a special coupling adapter.
4.3 Electric Motors with Non-Standard Endshields or Flanges:
If it is not possible to connect the electric motor to a
dynamometer with the non-standard endshield or flange in place, the
testing laboratory shall replace the non-standard endshield or
flange with an endshield or flange meeting NEMA or IEC
specifications. The replacement component should be obtained from
the manufacturer or, if the manufacturer chooses, machined by the
testing laboratory after consulting with the manufacturer regarding
the critical characteristics of the endshield.
4.4 Electric Motors with Non-Standard Bases, Feet or Mounting
Configurations
An electric motor with a non-standard base, feet, or mounting
configuration may be mounted on the test equipment using adaptive
fixtures for testing as long as the mounting or use of adaptive
mounting fixtures does not have an adverse impact on the performance
of the electric motor, particularly on the cooling of the motor.
4.5 Electric Motors with a Separately-powered Blower:
For electric motors furnished with a separately-powered blower,
the losses from the blower's motor should not be included in any
efficiency calculation. This can be done either by powering the
blower's motor by a source separate from the source powering the
electric motor under test or by connecting leads such that they only
measure the power of the motor under test.
4.6 Immersible Electric Motors
Immersible electric motors shall be tested with all contact
seals removed but be otherwise unmodified.
4.7 Partial Electric Motors:
Partial electric motors shall be disconnected from their mated
piece of equipment. After disconnection from the equipment, standard
bearings and/or endshields shall be added to the motor, such that it
is capable of operation. If an endshield is necessary, an endshield
meeting NEMA or IEC specifications should be obtained from the
manufacturer or, if the manufacturer chooses, machined by the
testing laboratory after consulting with the manufacturer regarding
the critical characteristics of the endshield.
4.8 Vertical Electric Motors and Electric Motors with Bearings
Incapable of Horizontal Operation:
Vertical electric motors and electric motors with thrust
bearings shall be tested in a horizontal or vertical configuration
in accordance with IEEE 112 (Test Method B), depending on the
testing facility's capabilities and construction of the motor,
except if the motor is a vertical solid shaft normal thrust general
purpose electric motor (subtype II), in which case it shall be
tested in a horizontal configuration in accordance with IEEE 112
(Test Method B). Preference shall be given to testing a motor in its
native orientation. If the unit under test cannot be reoriented
horizontally due to its bearing construction, the electric motor's
bearing(s) shall be removed and replaced with standard bearings. If
the unit under test contains 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.
0
5. Amend Sec. 431.383 by adding paragraph (e)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 431.383 Enforcement process for electric motors.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(4)(i) Non-standard endshields or flanges. For purposes of DOE-
initiated testing of electric motors with non-standard endshields or
flanges, the Department will have the discretion to determine whether
the lab should test a general purpose electric motor of equivalent
electrical design and enclosure rather than replacing the nonstandard
flange or endshield.
(ii) Partial electric motors. For purposes of DOE-initiated
testing, the Department has the discretion to determine whether the lab
should test a general purpose electric motor of equivalent electrical
design and enclosure rather than machining and attaching an endshield.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-29677 Filed 12-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
