Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Electric Motors, 63588-63660 [2022-21891]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
63588
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[EERE–2020–BT–TP–0011]
RIN 1904–AE62
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedure for Electric Motors
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule amends the
existing scope of the U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’) test procedures for
electric motors consistent with related
updates to the relevant industry testing
standard (i.e., for air-over electric
motors, electric motors greater than 500
horsepower, electric motors considered
small, inverter-only electric motors, and
synchronous electric motors); adds test
procedures, an appropriate metric, and
supporting definitions for additional
electric motors covered under the
amended scope; and updates references
to industry standards to reference
current versions. Furthermore, DOE is
adopting certain industry provisions
related to the prescribed test conditions
to further ensure the comparability of
test results. DOE is also amending
provisions pertaining to certification
testing and the determination of
represented values for electric motors
other than dedicated-purpose pool
pump motors, and re-locating such
provisions consistent with the location
of the certification requirements for
other covered products and equipment.
Finally, DOE is adding provisions
pertaining to certification testing and
the determination of represented values
for dedicated-purpose pool pump
motors.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is
November 18, 2022. The final rule
changes will be mandatory for product
testing starting April 17, 2023. The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on November 18, 2022. The
incorporation by reference of certain
other publications listed in the rule was
approved by the Director as of June 4,
2012 and February 3, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, webinar
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
A link to the docket web page can be
found at www.regulations.gov/
docket?D=EERE-2020-BT-TP-0011. The
docket web page contains instructions
on how to access all documents,
including public comments, in the
docket.
For further information on how to
review the docket contact the Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program staff
at (202) 287–1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Mr.
Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–
9870. Email
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC, 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email:
Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE
maintains standards previously
approved for incorporation by reference
and incorporates by reference the
following industry standards into part
431:
CSA C390:10 (reaffirmed 2019), ‘‘Test
methods, marking requirements, and
energy efficiency levels for three-phase
induction motors,’’ including Updates
No. 1 through 3, Revised January 2020
(‘‘CSA C390–10’’).
CSA C747–09 (reaffirmed 2019),
‘‘Energy Efficiency Test Methods for
Small Motors,’’ including Update No. 1
(August 2016), dated October 2009
(‘‘CSA C747–09’’).
Copies of CSA C390–10 and CSA
C747–09 can be obtained from Canadian
Standards Association (‘‘CSA’’), Sales
Department, 5060 Spectrum Way, Suite
100, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5N6,
Canada, 1–800–463–6727, or by visiting
www.shopcsa.ca/onlinestore/
welcome.asp.
IEC 60034–12:2016, Edition 3.0 2016–
11, ‘‘Rotating Electrical Machines, Part
12: Starting Performance of SingleSpeed Three-Phase Cage Induction
Motors,’’ Published November 23, 2016
(‘‘IEC 60034–12:2016’’).
IEC 60072–1, ‘‘Dimensions and
Output Series for Rotating Electrical
Machines—Part 1: Frame numbers 56 to
400 and flange numbers 55 to 1080,’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Sixth Edition, 1991–02, clauses 2, 3, 4.1,
6.1, 7, and 10, and Tables 1, 2 and 4.
(‘‘IEC 60072–1’’)
IEC 60079–7:2015, Edition 5.0 2015–
06, ‘‘Explosive atmospheres—Part 7:
Equipment protection by increased
safety ‘e,’ ’’ Published June 26, 2015
(‘‘IEC 60079–7:2015’’).
IEC 61800–9–2:2017, ‘‘Adjustable
speed electrical power drive systems—
Part 9–2: Ecodesign for power drive
systems, motor starters, power
electronics and their driven
applications—Energy efficiency
indicators for power drive systems and
motor starters,’’ Edition 1.0, March 2017
(‘‘IEC 61800–9–2:2017’’).
Copies of IEC 60034–12:2016, IEC
60079–7:2015 and IEC 61800–9–2:2017
may be purchased from International
Electrotechnical Commission (‘‘IEC’’), 3
rue de Varembe´, 1st floor, P.O. Box 131,
CH–1211 Geneva 20–Switzerland, +41
22 919 02 11, or by visiting https://
webstore.iec.ch/home.
IEEE 114–2010, ‘‘Test Procedure for
Single-Phase Induction Motors,’’
December 23, 2010 (‘‘IEEE 114–2010’’).
Copies of IEEE 114–2010 can be
obtained from: Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (‘‘IEEE’’), 445
Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway,
NJ 08855–1331, (732) 981–0060, or by
visiting www.ieee.org.
ANSI/NEMA MG 1–2016 (Revision 1,
2018), ‘‘Motors and Generators,’’ ANSI
approved June 15, 2021 (‘‘NEMA MG 1–
2016’’).
Copies of NEMA MG 1–2016 may be
purchased from National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (‘‘NEMA’’),
1300 North 17th Street, Suite 900,
Arlington, Virginia 22209, +1 703 841
3200, or by visiting /www.nema.org.
National Fire Protection Association
(‘‘NFPA’’) 20, 2022 Edition, ‘‘Standard
for the Installation of Stationary Pumps
for Fire Protection,’’ Approved by ANSI
on April 8, 2021 (‘‘NFPA 20–2022’’).
Copies of NFPA 20–2022 may be
purchased from National Fire Protection
Association, 1 Batterymarch Park,
Quincy, MA 02169, +1 800 344 3555, or
by visiting www.nfpa.org.
See section IV.N of this document for
a further discussion of these standards.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
1. Motor Used as a Component of a
Covered Product or Equipment
2. ‘‘E’’ and ‘‘Y’’ Designations of IEC Design
N and H Motors
3. Air-Over Electric Motors
4. AC Induction Electric Motors Greater
Than 500 Horsepower
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
5. SNEMs
6. AC Induction Inverter-Only Electric
Motors
7. Synchronous Electric Motors
8. Submersible Electric Motors
9. Other Exemptions
B. Definitions
1. Updating IEC Design N and H Motors
Definitions and Including New
Definitions for IEC Design N and H ‘‘E’’
and ‘‘Y’’ Designations
2. Updating Definitions to Reference
Current NEMA MG 1–2016
3. Inverter, Inverter-Only, and InverterCapable
4. Air-Over Electric Motors
5. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motors
6. Basic Model and Equipment Class
C. Updates to Industry Standards Currently
Incorporated by Reference
D. Industry Standards Incorporated By
Reference
1. Test Procedures for Air-Over Electric
Motors
2. Test Procedures for SNEMs
3. Test Procedures for AC Induction
Inverter-Only Electric Motors and
Synchronous Electric Motors
E. Metric
F. Rated Output Power and Breakdown
Torque of Electric Motors
G. Rated Values Specified for Testing
1. Rated Frequency
2. Rated Load
3. Rated Voltage
H. Contact Seals Requirement
I. Vertical Electric Motors Testing
J. Proposed Testing Instructions for Those
Electric Motors Being Added to the
Scope of Appendix B
K. Testing Instructions for Brake Electric
Motors
L. Transition to 10 CFR part 429
M. Certification of Electric Motors
1. Independent Testing
2. Certification Process for Electric Motors
N. Determination of Represented Values
1. Nominal Full-Load Efficiency
2. Testing: Use of an Accredited Laboratory
3. Testing: Use of a Nationally Recognized
Certification Program
4. Use of an AEDM
O. Certification, Sampling Plans and
AEDM Provisions for Dedicated-Purpose
Pool Pump Motors
P. Effective and Compliance Dates
Q. Test Procedure Costs
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impacts
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
R. Compliance Date
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is
Being Considered
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description and Estimate of Small
Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance
Requirements
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With
Other Rules and Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
1. Description of the Requirements
2. Method of Collection
3. Data
4. Conclusion
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal
Energy Administration Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by
Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Electric motors are included in the list
of ‘‘covered equipment’’ for which the
U.S. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is
authorized to establish and amend
energy conservation standards and test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
DOE’s energy conservation standards
and test procedures for electric motors
are currently prescribed at 10 CFR
431.25 and appendix B to subpart B of
10 CFR part 431 (‘‘appendix B’’),
respectively. The following sections
discuss DOE’s authority to establish test
procedures for electric motors and
relevant background information
regarding DOE’s consideration of test
procedures for this equipment.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes
DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of
a number of consumer products and
certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6291–6317) Title III, Part C 2 of EPCA,
added by the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act, Pub. L. 95–
619, Title IV, section 441(a), established
the Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, which
sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency.
These equipment include electric
motors, the subject of this document.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
The energy conservation program
under EPCA consists essentially of four
parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4)
certification and enforcement
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy Act
of 2020, Pub. L. 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which
reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A–1 of EPCA.
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63589
procedures. Relevant provisions of
EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315),
energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to
require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42
U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements
consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered equipment
must use as the basis for: (1) certifying
to DOE that their equipment complies
with the applicable energy conservation
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and
(2) making other representations about
the efficiency of that equipment (42
U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must
use these test procedures to determine
whether the equipment complies with
relevant standards promulgated under
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C.
6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption for particular
State laws or regulations, in accordance
with the procedures and other
provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6316(b)(2)(D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth
the criteria and procedures DOE must
follow when prescribing or amending
test procedures for covered equipment.
EPCA requires that any test procedures
prescribed or amended under this
section must be reasonably designed to
produce test results which reflect energy
efficiency, energy use or estimated
annual operating cost of a given type of
covered equipment during a
representative average use cycle (as
determined by the Secretary) and
requires that test procedures not be
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
EPCA, pursuant to amendments made
by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub.
L. 102–486 (Oct. 24, 1992) (‘‘EPACT
1992’’), specifies that the test
procedures for electric motors subject to
the standards prescribed in 42 U.S.C.
6313 shall be those specified in National
Electrical Manufacturers Association
(‘‘NEMA’’) Standards Publication MG1–
1987 and the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (‘‘IEEE’’) Standard
112 Test Method B, as in effect on
October 24, 1992. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(5)(A)). If these industry test
procedures are amended, DOE must
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63590
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
amend its own test procedures to
conform to such amended test
procedure requirements, unless DOE
determines by rule, published in the
Federal Register and supported by clear
and convincing evidence, that to do so
would not meet the statutory
requirements related to the test
procedure representativeness and
burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B))
EPCA also requires that, at least once
every 7 years, DOE evaluate test
procedures for each type of covered
equipment, including electric motors, to
determine whether amended test
procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements for
the test procedures to not be unduly
burdensome to conduct and be
reasonably designed to produce test
results that reflect energy efficiency,
energy use, and estimated operating
costs during a representative average
use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
In addition, if the Secretary
determines that a test procedure
amendment is warranted, the Secretary
must publish proposed test procedures
in the Federal Register, and afford
interested persons an opportunity (of
not less than 45 days’ duration) to
present oral and written data, views,
and arguments on the proposed test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)). If DOE
determines that test procedure revisions
are not appropriate, DOE must publish
its determination not to amend the test
procedures.
DOE is publishing this final rule in
satisfaction of its statutory obligations
specified in EPCA.
B. Background
On December 17, 2021, DOE
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) for the electric
motors test procedure. 86 FR 71710
(‘‘December 2021 NOPR’’). In the
December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to
revise the current scope of the test
procedures to add additional electric
motors and implement related updates
needed for supporting definitions and
metric requirements as a result of this
expanded scope; incorporate by
reference the most recent versions of the
referenced industry standards;
incorporate by reference additional
industry standards used to test
additional electric motors that DOE had
proposed to include within its scope;
clarify the current test procedure’s
scope and test instructions by adding
definitions for specific terms; revise the
current vertical motor testing
instructions to reduce manufacturer test
burden; clarify that the current test
procedure permits removal of contact
seals for immersible electric motors
only; revise the provisions pertaining to
certification testing and determination
of represented values; and add
provisions pertaining to certification
testing and determination of represented
values for dedicated purpose pool pump
(‘‘DPPP’’) motors. Id The NOPR
provided an opportunity for submitting
written comments, data, and
information on the proposal by February
15, 2022.
On February 4, 2022, DOE published
a notice granting an extension of the
public comment period to allow public
comments to be submitted until
February 28, 2022. 87 FR 6436.
DOE received comments in response
to the December 2021 NOPR from the
interested parties listed in Table II.1.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
TABLE II.1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE DECEMBER 2021 NOPR
Commenter(s)
Reference in this
final rule
ABB Motors and Mechanical Inc ..............................................
Air Movement and Control Association International ...............
American Gear Manufacturers Association ..............................
ABB ........................
AMCA .....................
AGMA .....................
18
21
14
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers; Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute.
The Australian Industry Group i ................................................
ebm-papst Inc ...........................................................................
European Committee of Manufacturers of Electrical Machines
and Power Electronics.
Franklin Electric Co, Inc ...........................................................
Grundfos Americas Corporation ...............................................
Hydraulics Institute ...................................................................
International Electrotechnical Commission ...............................
Johnson Controls ......................................................................
Lennox International .................................................................
National Electrical Manufacturers Association .........................
North Carolina Advanced Energy Corporation .........................
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), Northwest
Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC).
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas
and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison
(SCE).
Regal Rexnord ..........................................................................
Sumitomo Machinery Corporation of America .........................
Trane Technologies ..................................................................
Water Systems Council ............................................................
Joint Advocates ......
27
Manufacturer.
Industry Motor Trade Association.
Industry Gear Manufacturer Trade Association.
Efficiency Organizations.
AHAM and AHRI ....
36
Industry OEM Trade Association.
AI Group .................
ebm-papst ...............
CEMEP ...................
25
23
19
Franklin Electric ......
Grundfos .................
HI ............................
IEC ..........................
JCI ..........................
Lennox ....................
NEMA .....................
Advanced Energy ...
NEEA/NWPCC .......
22
29
30
20
34
24
26
33
37
CA IOUs .................
32.1 and 32.2
Industry Motor Trade Association.
Manufacturer.
Industry Electrical Machines and Power
Electronics Trade Association.
Manufacturer.
OEM/Pump manufacturer.
Industry Pump Trade Association.
Industry Standards Organization.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Industry Trade Association.
Independent Testing Laboratory.
Non-profit organization/interstate compact agency.
Utilities.
Regal ......................
Sumitomo ...............
Trane ......................
WSC .......................
28
17
31
35
Docket No.
Commenter type
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
OEM.
Industry Trade Association.
i The AI group submitted multiple comments to the docket. One comment was an email cover letter, while the other two were preliminary and
final submission of their comments. In their cover letter, the AI group attested that there were no changes between the final and preliminary submissions. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE’s reference to AI group’s comment submission is the final submission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
To the extent that DOE received
comments relating to the energy
conservation standards for electric
motors subject to DOE’s proposal to
expand the test procedure’s scope, those
comments fall outside of the focus of
this rulemaking, which addresses only
the test procedure itself. Comments
related to any potential standards that
DOE may consider for electric motors
will be discussed in the separate energy
conservation standards rulemaking
docket (EERE–2020–BT–STD–0007).3
Regarding the general rulemaking
timeline, ABB requested that DOE issue
a Supplemental NOPR and schedule a
meeting to discuss the test procedure
before a final rule is issued. (ABB, No.
18 at p. 3) NEMA requested a
Supplemental NOPR be added to this
rulemaking asserting that significant
changes to the scope and test methods
are needed to ensure the test procedure
is reasonable, accurate, and repeatable.
(NEMA, No. 26 at p. 6) CA IOUs
suggested that DOE consider forming an
ASRAC Working Group to engage on
cross-segment electric motor topics. (CA
IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 50)
As discussed in this final rule, DOE
is amending the scope of the test
procedure and adopting corresponding
test procedure provisions consistent
with the most current applicable
industry test standard. The test
procedure adopted in this final rule is
generally consistent with the test
procedure proposed in the December
2021 NOPR. Therefore, DOE has
determined that additional actions such
as an SNOPR or ASRAC Working Group
are not appropriate and is proceeding
with this final rule. Additionally, as
stated, EPCA requires DOE to evaluate
the test procedures at least once every
seven years to determine whether
amendments to the test procedure are
needed to more fully meet the statutory
requirement that the test procedure be
representative of an average use cycle
without being unduly burdensome. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) Accordingly, DOE is
proceeding with a final rule as
discussed in the following sections.
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE amends the test
procedure as follows:
(1) Update the existing definitions for
IEC Design N and H motors to reflect
industry standard updates; amend the
existing scope to reflect updates in
industry nomenclature, specifically for
new industry motor design designations
IEC Design NE, HE, NEY and HEY, and
include corresponding definitions;
(2) Amend the definition of ‘‘basic
model’’ to rely on the term ‘‘equipment
class’’ and add a definition for
‘‘equipment class’’ to make the electric
motor provisions consistent with the
provisions for other DOE-regulated
products and equipment;
(3) Add test procedures, a full-load
efficiency metric, and supporting
definitions for air-over electric motors;
electric motors greater than 500
horsepower (‘‘hp’’); electric motors
considered small (i.e., SNEMs); inverteronly electric motors, and synchronous
electric motors;
(4) Incorporate by reference the most
recent versions of NEMA MG 1 (i.e.,
NEMA MG 1–2016 (Revision 1, 2018)
ANSI-approved 2021) and CSA C390–10
(i.e., reaffirmed 2019), as well as other
referenced industry standards i.e., IEC
60034–12:2016, Edition 3.0 2016–11,
‘‘Rotating Electrical Machines, Part 12:
Starting Performance of Single-Speed
Three-Phase Cage Induction Motors,’’;
IEC 60079–7:2015, Edition 5.0 2015–06,
‘‘Explosive atmospheres—Part 7:
Equipment protection by increased
safety ‘e,’ ’’, which is referenced within
IEC 60034–12:2016 and is necessary for
the test procedure; and NFPA 20
‘‘Standard for the Installation of
Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection’’
2022 Edition (‘‘NFPA 20–2022’’);
(5) Incorporate by reference additional
industry test standards and test
instructions to support testing of the
additional motors included in the
amended test procedure scope: CSA
C747–09 (reaffirmed 2019) (‘‘CSA C747–
09’’), IEEE 114–2010, and IEC 61800–9–
2:2017;
(6) Provide additional detail in the
test instructions for electric motors by
adding definitions for the terms ‘‘rated
frequency’’ and ‘‘rated voltage;’’
(7) Update the testing instructions for
vertical electric motors to reduce
manufacturer test burden;
63591
(8) Add a definition of ‘‘independent’’
as it relates to nationally recognized
certification and accreditation programs;
(9) Permit manufacturers to certify an
electric motor’s energy efficiency using
one of three options: (i) testing the
electric motor at an accredited
laboratory and then certifying on its
own behalf or having a third-party
submit the manufacturer’s certification
report; (ii) testing the electric motor at
a testing laboratory other than an
accredited laboratory and then having a
nationally recognized certification
program certify the efficiency of the
electric motor; or (iii) using an
alternative efficiency determination
method (‘‘AEDM’’) and then having a
third-party nationally recognized
certification program certify the
efficiency of the electric motor. Using
these provisions would be required for
certification starting on the compliance
date for any new or amended standards
for electric motors published after
January 1, 2022;
(10) Revise the provisions pertaining
to the determination of represented
values applied starting on the
compliance date of the next final rule
adopting new or amended energy
conservation standards for electric
motors;
(11) Revise the AEDM provisions for
electric motors and apply them to all
electric motors covered in the scope of
the test procedure;
(12) Revise the procedures for
recognition and withdrawal of
recognition of accreditation bodies and
certification programs as applied to
electric motors and apply these
provisions to all electric motors covered
in the scope of the test procedure;
(13) Move provisions pertaining to
certification testing, AEDM, and
determination of represented values
from 10 CFR part 431 to 10 CFR part
429; and
(14) Add provisions pertaining to
certification testing and determination
of represented values for DPPP motors.
The adopted amendments are
summarized in Table II–1 compared to
the test procedure provision prior to the
amendment, as well as the reason for
the adopted change.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
TABLE II–1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE AMENDED TEST PROCEDURE
Current DOE test procedure
Amended test procedure
Attribution
Applies to Design N and H motors
defined at 10 CFR 431.12.
Reflects updates in industry nomenclature, specifically, new motor
design designations IEC Design HE, HY, HEY, NE, NY and NEY,
and includes corresponding definitions.
Update to industry testing standard IEC 60034–12.
3 The parenthetical reference provides a reference
for information located in the docket of DOE’s
rulemaking to develop test procedures for electric
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
motors. (Docket No. EERE–2020–BT–TP–0011,
which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
name, comment docket ID number, page of that
document).
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63592
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE II–1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE AMENDED TEST PROCEDURE—Continued
Current DOE test procedure
Amended test procedure
Attribution
Exempts air-over electric motors .....
Includes test methods, full-load efficiency metric, and supporting definitions for air-over electric motors.
Includes electric motors with a
horsepower equal to or less than
500 hp.
Includes electric motors with a
horsepower equal to or greater
than 1 hp.
Exempts inverter-only electric motors.
Includes electric motors that are induction motors only.
Includes test methods and full-load efficiency metric for electric motors with a horsepower greater than 500 and equal to or less than
750 hp.
Includes test methods and full-load efficiency metric for electric motors considered small (i.e., small non-small-electric-motor electric
motors, or SNEMs).
Includes test methods, full-load efficiency metric, and supporting definitions for inverter-only electric motors.
Includes test methods, full-load efficiency metric, and supporting definitions for certain synchronous electric motors.
Incorporates by reference NEMA
MG 1–2009, CSA 390–10, IEC
60034–12 Edition 2.1 2007–09,
and NFPA 20–2010.
Incorporates by reference the most recent versions of NEMA MG 1
(i.e., NEMA MG 1–2016), CSA 390 (i.e., CSA C390–10), as well
as other referenced industry standards (i.e., IEC 60034–12 Edition
3.0 2016 and NFPA 20–2022). In addition, incorporates by reference IEC 60079–7:2015, which is referenced within IEC 60034–
12:2016 and is necessary for the test procedure.
Incorporates by reference additional industry test standards and testing instructions to support testing of the additional motors included
in scope: CSA C747–09, IEEE 114–2010, and IEC 61800–9–
2:2017.
Provides additional detail in the test instructions for electric motors by
adding definitions for the terms ‘‘rated frequency,’’ and ‘‘rated voltage’’.
Update to industry testing standard NEMA MG 1 2016 with revisions through 2021 which include a test method for air-over
electric motors.
Statute allowance to extend applicability of the test procedure to
these electric motors.
Statute allowance to extend applicability of the test procedure to
these electric motors.
New industry testing standard
(IEC 61800–9–2:2017).
New developments in motor technologies and new industry testing standard (IEC 61800–9–
2:2017).
Updates to industry testing standards NEMA MG 1, CSA 390,
IEC 60034–12 and NFPA 20–
209.
Incorporates
industry
standards for additional motors
included in scope.
Specifies testing at rated frequency,
and rated voltage but does not
define these terms.
Specifies one method of connecting
the dynamometer to vertical electric motors.
Includes a description of ‘‘independent’’ at 10 CFR 431.19(b)(2),
431.19(c)(2), 431.20(b)(2) and
431.20(c)(2).
Allows a manufacturer to both test
in its own accredited laboratories
and directly submit the certification of compliance to DOE for
its own electric motors.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Includes provisions pertaining to the
determination of the represented
value at 10 CFR 431.17.
Includes AEDM provisions at 10
CFR 431.17.
Includes provisions pertaining to nationally recognized accreditation
bodies and certification programs
at 10 CFR 431.19, 431.20, and
431.21.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Updates the vertical electric motor testing requirements to allow alternative methods for connecting to the dynamometer.
Adds a definition for ‘‘independent’’ as it relates to nationally recognized certification and accreditation programs and replace the descriptions of ‘‘independent’’ at 10 CFR 431.19(b)(2), 431.19(c)(2),
431.20(b)(2) and 431.20(c)(2) by this definition.
Continues to allow a manufacturer to both test in its own accredited
laboratories and directly submit the certification of compliance to
DOE for its own electric motors. Also now permits certification of
compliance using one of three options: (1) a manufacturer can
have the electric motor tested using an accredited laboratory and
then certify on its own behalf or have a third-party submit the manufacturer’s certification report; (2) a manufacturer can test the electric motor at a testing laboratory other than an accredited laboratory and then have a nationally recognized certification program
certify the efficiency of the electric motor; or (3) a manufacturer
can use an alternative efficiency determination method and then
have a third-party nationally recognized certification program certify
the efficiency of the electric motor. DOE adopts to require these
provisions on or after the compliance date for any new or amended standards for electric motors published after January 1, 2021.
Revises the provisions pertaining to the determination of the represented values (i.e., nominal full-load efficiency and average fullload efficiency) and requires use of these provisions for all electric
motors subject to energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431,
subpart B, on or after the compliance date of the final rule adopting new or amended energy conservation standards for electric
motors. Moves the provisions to 10 CFR 429.64. Applies these
provisions to all electric motors included in the scope of the test
procedure.
Revises the AEDM provisions and applies these provisions to all
electric motors included in the scope of the test procedure.
Revises the procedures for recognition and withdrawal of recognition
of accreditation bodies and certification programs as applied to
electric motors. Applies these provisions to all electric motors included in the scope of the test procedure.
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
Harmonizes with definitions from
NEMA MG 1 and improves the
repeatability of the test procedure.
Reduce manufacturer testing burden.
Required by 42 U.S.C. 6316(c).
Required by 42 U.S.C. 6316(c).
Align the determination of the average and nominal full-load efficiency with the definitions at 10
CFR 431.12. Harmonizes sampling requirements with other
covered equipment and covered
products at 10 CFR 429.70.
Harmonizes the AEDM requirements with other covered equipment and covered products at
10 CFR 429.70.
Transfer provisions related to certification at 10 CFR part 429.
19OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
63593
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
TABLE II–1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE AMENDED TEST PROCEDURE—Continued
Current DOE test procedure
Amended test procedure
Attribution
Includes a definition of basic model
that relies on the term ‘‘rating’’.
Amends the definition of ‘‘basic model’’ to rely on the term ‘‘equipment class.’’ Adds a definition for ‘‘equipment class’’.
Does not include any certification,
sampling plans, or AEDM provisions for DPPP Motors.
Adds certification, sampling plans, and AEDM provisions for DPPP
Motors.
Align the definition of basic model
with other DOE-regulated products and equipment and eliminate the ambiguity of the term
‘‘rating.’’
Aligns DPPP motor provisions with
the provisions for electric motors
subject to the requirements in
subpart B of 10 CFR part 431.
DOE has determined that the
amendments described in section III of
this final rule would not alter the
measured efficiency of those electric
motors that are currently within the
scope of the test procedure and that are
currently required to comply with
energy conservation standards.
The effective date for the amended
test procedures adopted in this final
rule is 30 days after publication of this
document in the Federal Register.
Representations of energy use or energy
efficiency must be based on testing in
accordance with the amended test
procedures beginning 180 days after the
publication of this final rule. DOE notes
that manufacturers of electric motors
that have been added to the scope of the
test procedure per this final rule are not
required to use the test procedure for
Federal certification or labeling
purposes until such time as energy
conservation standards are established
for such electric motors. But, if
manufacturers, distributors, retailers,
and private labelers choose to make any
representations respecting the energy
consumption or cost of energy
consumed by such motors, then such
voluntary representations must be made
in accordance with the test procedure
and sampling requirements, and such
representation must also fairly disclose
the results of such testing. In addition,
manufacturers of electric motors subject
to energy conservation standards at 10
CFR part 431, subpart B, will be
required to follow the newly adopted
certification provisions at 10 CFR
429.64(d) through (f) beginning on the
compliance date of the final rule
adopting new or amended energy
conservation standards for electric
motors.
Similarly, DOE notes that
manufacturers of dedicated-purpose
pool pump motors falling within the
scope of the test procedure at 10 CFR
431.484 are not required to use the test
procedure for Federal certification or
labeling purposes until such time as
energy conservation standards are
established for those motors. But, if
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
manufacturers, distributors, retailers,
and private labelers choose to make any
representations respecting the energy
consumption or cost of energy
consumed by such motors, then such
voluntary representations must be made
in accordance with the test procedure
and sampling requirements, and such
representation must also fairly disclose
the results of such testing. In addition,
manufacturers of dedicated-purpose
pool pump motors subject to any energy
conservation standards at 10 CFR part
431, subpart Z, will be required to
follow the newly adopted certification
provisions at 10 CFR 429.65 starting on
the compliance date of the final rule
adopting new energy conservation
standards for these motors.
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
The term ‘‘electric motor’’ is defined
as ‘‘a machine that converts electrical
power into rotational mechanical
power.’’ 10 CFR 431.12. Manufacturers
are required to test those electric motors
subject to energy conservation standards
according to the test procedure in
appendix B.4 (See generally 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(5)(A); see also the introductory
paragraph to 10 CFR part 431, subpart
B, appendix B) Currently, energy
conservation standards apply to certain
categories of electric motors provided
that they meet the criteria specified at
10 CFR 431.25(g). These categories of
electric motors are NEMA Design A
4 The amendments do not address small electric
motors, which are covered separately under 10 CFR
part 431, subpart X. A small electric motor is ‘‘a
NEMA general purpose alternating current singlespeed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame
number series in accordance with NEMA Standards
Publication MG1–1987, including IEC metric
equivalent motors.’’ 10 CFR 431.442.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
motors,5 NEMA Design B motors,6
NEMA Design C motors,7 IEC Design N
motors,8 IEC Design H motors,9 and fire
5 ‘‘NEMA Design A’’ motor means a squirrel-cage
motor that: (1) Is designed to withstand full-voltage
starting and developing locked-rotor torque as
shown in NEMA MG 1–2009, Paragraph 12.38.1
(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15); (2) Has
pull-up torque not less than the values shown in
NEMA MG 1–2009, Paragraph 12.40.1; (3) Has
breakdown torque not less than the values shown
in NEMA MG 1–2009, Paragraph 12.39.1; (4) Has a
locked-rotor current higher than the values shown
in NEMA MG 1–2009, Paragraph 12.35.1 for 60
hertz and NEMA MG 1–2009, Paragraph 12.35.2 for
50 hertz; and (5) Has a slip at rated load of less than
5 percent for motors with fewer than 10 poles. 10
CFR 430.12.
6 ‘‘NEMA Design B motor’’ means a squirrel-cage
motor that is: (1) Designed to withstand full-voltage
starting; (2) Develops locked-rotor, breakdown, and
pull-up torques adequate for general application as
specified in Paragraphs 12.38, 12.39 and 12.40 of
NEMA MG1–2009 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.15); (3) Draws locked-rotor current not to
exceed the values shown in Paragraph 12.35.1 for
60 hertz and 12.35.2 for 50 hertz of NEMA MG1–
2009; and (4) Has a slip at rated load of less than
5 percent for motors with fewer than 10 poles. Id.
7 ‘‘NEMA Design C’’ motor means a squirrel-cage
motor that: (1) Is Designed to withstand full-voltage
starting and developing locked-rotor torque for
high-torque applications up to the values shown in
NEMA MG1–2009, Paragraph 12.38.2 (incorporated
by reference, see § 431.15); (2) Has pull-up torque
not less than the values shown in NEMA MG1–
2009, Paragraph 12.40.2; (3) Has breakdown torque
not less than the values shown in NEMA MG1–
2009, Paragraph 12.39.2; (4) Has a locked-rotor
current not to exceed the values shown in NEMA
MG1–2009, Paragraphs 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and
12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and (5) Has a slip at rated load
of less than 5 percent. Id.
8 IEC Design N motor means an electric motor
that: (1) Is an induction motor designed for use with
three-phase power; (2) Contains a cage rotor; (3) Is
capable of direct-on-line starting; (4) Has 2, 4, 6, or
8 poles; (5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW at a
frequency of 60 Hz; and (6) Conforms to Sections
6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of the IEC 60034–12 edition 2.1
(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15)
requirements for torque characteristics, locked rotor
apparent power, and starting. Id.
9 IEC Design H motor means an electric motor that
(1) Is an induction motor designed for use with
three-phase power; (2) Contains a cage rotor; (3) Is
capable of direct-on-line starting (4) Has 4, 6, or 8
poles; (5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 160 kW at a
frequency of 60 Hz; and (6) Conforms to Sections
8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 of the IEC 60034–12 edition 2.1
(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15)
requirements for starting torque, locked rotor
apparent power, and starting. Id.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
63594
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
pump electric motors.10 See 10 CFR
431.25(h)–(j). The current energy
conservation standards apply to electric
motors within the identified categories
only if they:
(1) Are single-speed, induction
motors;
(2) Are rated for continuous duty (MG
1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);
(3) Contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or
cage (IEC) rotor;
(4) Operate on polyphase alternating
current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line
power;
(5) Are rated 600 volts or less;
(6) Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole
configuration;
(7) Are built in a three-digit or fourdigit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric
equivalent), including those designs
between two consecutive NEMA frame
sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an
enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC
metric equivalent);
(8) Produce at least one horsepower
(hp) (0.746 kilowatt (kW)) but not
greater than 500 hp (373 kW), and
(9) Meet all of the performance
requirements of one of the following
motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or
C motor or an IEC Design N or H motor.
10 CFR 431.25(g).
In the test procedure final rule
published on December 13, 2013
(‘‘December 2013 Final Rule’’), DOE
identified certain categories of motors
that meet the definition of ‘‘electric
motor’’ but for which DOE determined
the referenced industry test procedures
do not provide a standardized test
method for determining the energy
efficiency. 78 FR 75962, 75975, 75987–
75989. Motors that fall into this
grouping are not currently regulated by
DOE and consist of the following
categories:
• Air-over electric motors;
• Component sets of an electric
motor;
• Liquid-cooled electric motors;
• Submersible electric motors; and
• Inverter-only electric motors.
10 CFR 431.25(l).
In this final rule, DOE is clarifying
that certain equipment that are
designated with IEC Design letters NE,
HE, NY, NEY, HY, and HEY are within
the scope of the current electric motors
test procedure. Furthermore, DOE is
establishing test procedure requirements
for certain categories of electric motors
not currently subject to energy
conservation standards. These
categories are (1) air-over electric
10 ‘‘Fire pump electric motor’’ means an electric
motor, including any IEC-equivalent motor, that
meets the requirements of Section 9.5 of NFPA 20.
Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
motors; (2) certain electric motors
greater than 500 hp; (3) electric motors
considered small (i.e., small not-smallelectric-motor electric motors or
‘‘SNEMs’’); and (4) inverter-only electric
motors. Finally, DOE is also including
within the scope of the test procedure
synchronous electric motors. DOE is
covering these motors under its ‘‘electric
motors’’ authority. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(A))
DOE notes that manufacturers of
electric motors for which DOE is
including within the scope of the test
procedure, but that are not currently
subject to an energy conservation
standard, are not required to use the test
procedure for Federal certification or
labeling purposes until such time as
amended or new energy conservation
standards are established for such
electric motors. However, any voluntary
representations by manufacturers,
distributors, retailers, or private labelers
about the energy consumption or cost of
energy for these motors must be based
on the use of the test procedure
beginning 180 days following
publication of this final rule, and such
representation must also fairly disclose
the results of such testing. DOE’s rule
does not require manufacturers who do
not currently make voluntary
representations to then begin making
public representations of efficiency. (42
U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) Manufacturers not
currently making representations of
efficiency would be required to test
such motors in accordance with the test
procedure only when compliance is
required with a labeling or energy
conservation standard requirement if
such a requirement should be
established. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b); 42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed an amended scope for the
electric motors test procedure that is
generally consistent with the
amendments established in this final
rule and also proposed to include
submersible electric motors. 86 FR
71710, 71716. In general, NEEA/NWPCC
supported DOE’s proposed changes to
expand the scope of the electric motors
test procedure to include additional
motor sizes and topologies. They stated
that the current test procedure is limited
to one category of motor, excluding
many commonly used general purpose
motors, and most advanced motor
technologies. NEEA/NWPCC
recommended the electric motors test
procedure apply to as broad a range of
motor technologies, designs, and
categories as possible to enable
consumers to make fair comparisons
and informed decisions. NEEA/NWPCC
commented that these motors are
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
installed in the same applications as
regulated motors, yet are not subject to
the same test procedure and standard.
(NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 2) DOE
also received a number of specific
comments on each category of electric
motor included in the scope of the test
procedure, which are discussed in the
following sections.
1. Motor Used as a Component of a
Covered Product or Equipment
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed not to exclude motors used as
a component of a covered product or
covered equipment from the test
procedure scope. This includes any
proposed expanded scope electric
motors. Specifically, DOE noted that the
current electric motors test procedure
applies to definite purpose and special
purpose electric motors, and DOE is not
aware of any technical issues with
testing such motors using the current
DOE test procedure. 86 FR 71710,
71728. In response, DOE received a
number of comments, many of whom
objected to DOE’s approach.
AHAM and AHRI filed joint
comments opposing DOE’s proposed
expansion of the test procedure’s scope
of coverage to include special-and
definite-purpose electric motors,
specifically air-over electric motors,
inverter-only electric motors,
synchronous motors, and SNEMs. They
explained that Original Equipment
Manufacturer (‘‘OEM’’) products have
been built around special/definite
purpose motors or that these motors are
specially built to be installed inside
OEM products. AHAM and AHRI stated
that those finished products are already
regulated by DOE and many
manufacturers turn to more efficient
designs that include components such
as more efficient motors to meet more
stringent energy conservation standards.
(AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 1–3)
AHAM and AHRI added that special
purpose and definite purpose motors are
distinct and different from general
purpose motors and noted that despite
the reworking of the ‘‘electric motor’’
definition in the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007, special
purpose and definite purpose motors are
still defined separately. Id.
AHAM and AHRI commented that
efficient electric motors destined for
finished products are already a major
part of the energy equation when OEMs
consider which design options to apply
to meet new standards and added that
DOE’s proposed test procedure, which
would rate motor efficiency at full-load,
fails to adequately capture
representative load conditions for
finished products and equipment that
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
are largely optimized for, and regulated
on, part-load performance. AHAM and
AHRI commented that regulating special
and definite purpose motors,
particularly with the proposed thirdparty nationally recognized certification
program requirements, will add cost,
reduce market choices, and do little, if
anything, to realize further energy
savings over time. AHRI and AHAM
asserted that in the near-term, the
proposed rules will counter intuitively
create a recipe for setbacks in energy
savings. They stated that the timing of
these proposed changes will also
exacerbate supply chain disruption,
further delaying products reaching U.S.
consumers and inflating the cost of
finished goods. Id.
AHAM and AHRI provided
information on the market size
represented by their respective member
companies, stating that it represents a
significant segment of the economy.
AHRI and AHAM commented that
regulation of a single component
product can have ramifications to other
components throughout the product.
AHAM and AHRI stated that durable
products work as a system to achieve
their purpose for the consumer and as
such, requested DOE carefully consider
the perspective of the end-purchasers
and users of the categories of small
electric motors (‘‘SEMs’’) that would be
governed by the proposed regulation.
(AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 1–3)
Further, AHAM and AHRI
commented that small electric motors
that are components of covered
equipment are, and should continue to
be, appropriately afforded an exemption
from energy conservation standards and
test method, and SNEMs should be
given similar treatment. AHAM and
AHRI stated that DOE’s proposal to not
exclude motors that are components of
regulated products was contrary to
DOE’s previously published public
opinion (regarding SEMs) and the intent
of Congress as expressed in the EPCA
Amendments of 1992. (AHAM and
AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 3–5) AHAM and
AHRI further commented that in the
April 2020 Small Electric Motors
Proposed Determination (see 85 FR
24146, 24152 (April 30, 2020)), DOE
acknowledged, ‘‘the term ‘small electric
motor’ has a specific meaning under
EPCA,’’ codified in 42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(G) and 10 CFR 431.442.
AHAM and AHRI commented that
DOE’s preliminary findings, outlined in
the 2011 RFI for Increased Scope of
Coverage for Electric Motors (see 76 FR
17577, 17578 (March 30, 2011)), noted
explicitly that many of the motors
contemplated for coverage by DOE’s
proposed test procedure require
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
separate analysis from general purpose
motors. AHAM and AHRI commented
that the notable exceptions from scope
outlined in the final rule published May
29, 2014, Energy Conservation
Standards for Commercial and
Industrial Electric Motors Final Rule (79
FR 30934 (‘‘May 2014 Final Rule’’), are
fractional horsepower motors. They
agreed with DOE’s previous
determination related to small electric
motors (81 FR 41378, 41394–41395) in
which the agency recognized that
Congress intentionally excluded these
motors from coverage by DOE regulation
when such motors are used as
components of products and equipment
that are already subject to DOE
regulation. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at
pp. 3–5)
AHAM and AHRI commented that
regulating SNEMs directly conflicts
with Congress’s vision that components
of EPCA-covered products and
equipment remain unregulated. AHAM
and AHRI commented that given DOE’s
claimed similarities between small
electric motors and the SNEMs category,
DOE nevertheless proposes to deny to
SNEMs a key exemption that Congress
expressly provided for small electric
motors. AHAM and AHRI stated that
when Congress amended EPCA through
the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and
defined ‘‘small electric motors,’’ it
expressly required that energy
conservation standards ‘‘shall not apply
to any small electric motor which is a
component of a covered product under
section 6292(a) of this title or covered
equipment under section 6311 of this
title.’’ 42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3) (emphasis
added). AHAM and AHRI commented
that DOE provides no rationale or
explanation for the disparate treatment
of small electric motors and SNEMs
when it comes to their use as
components. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36
at pp. 3–5)
Similarly, Lennox stated that the
exemption for SEMs that are
components of larger regulated
equipment (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) should
also apply to SNEMs, particularly with
respect to the heating, ventilation, airconditioning, and refrigeration
(‘‘HVACR’’) context. (Lennox, No. 24 at
pp. 5–6)
AI Group stated that SNEMs often go
into regulated equipment and that
double regulation should be avoided.
(AI Group, No. 25 at p. 3) NEMA argued
that the creation of the SNEM category
violated the intent of 42 U.S.C.
6317(b)(3)’s prohibition against
applying the SEM standards to an SEM
that is used as a component in another
regulated product. (NEMA, No. 26 at p.
5) NEMA also stated that much of the
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63595
SNEM expanded scope includes definite
and special-purpose motors that have
been designed for specific applications.
(NEMA, No. 26 at p. 5) Trane
commented that SNEMs are designed
for end-product performance
requirements and that applying
efficiency standards to the motor
specifically would add burden without
providing energy savings, and on that
basis opposed including them in the
scope of the test procedure. (Trane, No.
31 at p. 3)
In addition, JCI generally opposed the
proposed scope expansion to mandate
new test procedures to include special
and definite purpose motors—which
specifically includes air-over, inverter,
synchronous as well as SNEMs—
because these motors are already being
regulated at the system level and are, in
its view, clearly exempted under 42
U.S.C. 6317(b)(3). (JCI, No. 34 at p. 1) JCI
commented that component level
regulations will not result in significant
savings or performance benefits to
consumers, and that consumers do not
inquire about component level
efficiency and only are concerned with
system-level efficiency. In its view, this
double regulation stifles design and
limits improvements because of the
higher constraints without benefit. It
stated that the motor is typically not the
least efficient component with air
conditioners, heat pumps, or furnaces
and double regulation only serves to
add unnecessary cost. (JCI, No. 34 at p.
1)
In contrast, the Joint Advocates and
the CA IOUs supported including
motors falling within the scope of the
test procedure that are installed into
other DOE covered products. (Joint
Advocates, No. 27 at p. 5; CA IOUs, No.
32.1 at p. 45) The CA IOUs cautioned,
however, that DOE consider the
manufacturer burdens associated with
regulation, and to not push
manufacturers towards offering less
diverse product lines. (CA IOUs, No.
32.1 at pp. 45–46)
In their joint comments, NEEA/
NWPCC recommended that DOE
include all electric motors that directly
compete against each other in this test
procedure so that they can be fairly
compared against other motor designs.
NEEA/NWPCC noted that some of these
motor categories and designs are known
for having low efficiencies but are
commonly chosen by consumers and
OEMs because they are cheaper than
other motors. They added that because
of the incomplete coverage of the
current test procedure and standard,
unregulated inefficient motor categories
have a competitive advantage compared
to more efficient motors and—in spite of
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
63596
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
their cheaper initial costs—result in
increased operating costs for consumers.
(NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3)
DOE is not addressing any potential
standards in this rulemaking; standards
for electric motors are addressed in a
separate rulemaking procedure (see
docket number EERE–2020–BT–STD–
0007). Rather, this rulemaking addresses
only the scope of the test procedure.
As discussed in the final rule
published on May 4, 2012 (the ‘‘May
2012 Final Rule’’), EPCA, as amended
through EISA 2007, provides DOE with
the authority to regulate the expanded
scope of motors addressed in this rule.
77 FR 26608, 26612–26613. Before the
enactment of EISA 2007, EPCA defined
the term ‘‘electric motor’’ as any motor
that is a general purpose T-frame,
single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase
squirrel-cage induction motor of the
NEMA, Design A and B, continuous
rated, operating on 230/460 volts and
constant 60 Hertz line power as defined
in NEMA Standards Publication MG1–
1987. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (2006))
Section 313(a)(2) of EISA 2007 removed
that definition and the prior limits that
narrowly defined what types of motors
would be considered as electric motors.
In its place, EISA 2007 inserted a new
‘‘Electric motors’’ heading, and created
two new subtypes of electric motors:
General purpose electric motor (subtype
I) and general purpose electric motor
(subtype II). (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)–(B)
(2011)) In addition, section 313(b)(2) of
EISA 2007 established energy
conservation standards for four types of
electric motors: general purpose electric
motors (subtype I) (i.e., subtype I
motors) with a power rating of 1 to 200
horsepower; fire pump motors; general
purpose electric motor (subtype II) (i.e.,
subtype II motors) with a power rating
of 1 to 200 horsepower; and NEMA
Design B, general purpose electric
motors with a power rating of more than
200 horsepower, but less than or equal
to 500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C.
6313(b)(2)) The term ‘‘electric motor’’
was left undefined.
As described in the May 2012 Final
Rule, a regulatory definition for
‘‘electric motor’’ was necessary, and
therefore DOE adopted the broader
definition of ‘‘electric motor’’ currently
found in 10 CFR 431.12. Specifically,
DOE noted that the absence of a
definition may cause confusion about
which electric motors are required to
comply with mandatory test procedures
and energy conservation standards. 77
FR 26608, 26613. Further, in the May
2012 Final Rule, DOE noted that this
broader approach would allow DOE to
fill the definitional gap created by the
EISA 2007 amendments while providing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
DOE with the flexibility to set energy
conservation standards for other types
of electric motors without having to
continuously update the definition of
‘‘electric motors’’ each time DOE sets
energy conservation standards for a new
subset of electric motors. Id.
Congress specifically defined what
equipment comprises an SEM—
specifically, ‘‘a NEMA general purpose
alternating current single-speed
induction motor, built in a two-digit
frame number series in accordance with
NEMA Standards Publication MG1–
1987.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) (DOE
clarified, at industry’s urging, that the
definition also includes motors that are
IEC metric equivalents to the specified
NEMA motors prescribed by the statute.
See 74 FR 32059, 32061–32062; 10 CFR
431.442)) In conjunction with this
definition, Congress also exempted any
SEM that is a component of a covered
product or a covered equipment from
the standards that DOE was required to
establish under 42 U.S.C. 6317(b).
Congress did not, however, similarly
restrict electric motors.
SNEMs, which are electric motors, are
not SEMs because they do not satisfy
the more specific statutory SEM
definition—or even the arguably broader
clarifying definition that DOE adopted
to accommodate electric motors that
were IEC metric equivalents of the
NEMA motors falling under the SEM
definition of that term and therefore not
subject to the exclusion explicitly
established for SEMs. Accordingly, DOE
is declining to adopt the suggestions
offered by commenters to exclude
SNEMs installed as components in other
DOE regulated products and equipment
from the test procedure being
promulgated in this final rule.
DOE is not establishing energy
conservation standards for SNEMs in
this final rule. Were DOE to consider
energy conservation standards for
SNEMs, DOE would evaluate the
efficiency of SNEMs on the market for
their various applications, as well as
opportunities for improved efficiency
while still being able to serve those
applications.
DOE is also including in the scope of
the test procedure special purpose and
definite purpose motors.
DOE notes that manufacturers of
electric motors for which DOE is
including within the scope of the test
procedure, but that are not currently
subject to an energy conservation
standard, would not be required to use
the test procedure for Federal
certification or labeling purposes until
such time as amended or new energy
conservation standards are established
for such electric motors.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Further discussion on each of the
expanded scope categories are provided
in the following sections. Discussion on
maintaining the full-load metric in this
test procedure is provided in section
III.E. of this document.
2. ‘‘E’’ and ‘‘Y’’ Designations of IEC
Design N and H Motors
Currently regulated electric motors
include those motors designated as IEC
Design N and IEC Design H motors. In
the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
discussed that IEC 60034–12:2016
includes industry nomenclature updates
to IEC Design N and IEC Design H
motors, whose designations are
augmented with the designations IEC
Design NE, HE, NY, NEY, HY, and HEY.
86 FR 71710, 71716–71717. DOE stated
that all six additional categories are
described as electric motors that are
variants of IEC Design N and IEC Design
H electric motors that DOE currently
regulates, with the only differences
being the premium efficiency attribute
(indicated by the letter ‘‘E’’), and
starting configuration 11 (‘‘star-delta’’
starter 12 indicated by the letter ‘‘Y’’). Id.
Accordingly, DOE proposed to revise 10
CFR 431.25 to reflect the inclusion of
IEC Design NE, NEY, and NY motors as
IEC Design N motors and to make a
similar set of revisions to reflect the
inclusion of IEC Design HE, HEY, and
HY motors as IEC Design H motors. DOE
clarified that to the extent IEC Design N
and IEC Design H motors are subject to
the DOE regulations for electric motors,
such coverage already includes IEC
Design NE, NY, NEY, HE, HY and HEY
motors. Id.
In response, CEMEP, NEMA and
Grundfos supported DOE’s proposed
clarification regarding the additional
IEC designations. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p.
1; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 6; Grundfos, No.
29 at p. 1) For the reasons discussed in
the previous paragraph, DOE is adopting
its proposal to reflect the inclusion of
IEC Design NE, NEY, and NY motors as
IEC Design N motors and to make a
similar set of revisions to reflect the
11 For induction motors, the starting configuration
refers to the manner in which the three-phase input
terminals are connected to each other, and the star
configuration results in a lower line-to-line voltage
than the delta configuration. See Sections 2.62 and
2.64 of NEMA MG 1–2016 (with 2018 Supplements)
and 2021 updates for further detail.
12 A ‘‘star-delta starter’’ refers to a reduced voltage
starter system arranged by connecting the supply
with the primary motor winding initially in star
(‘‘wye’’ or ‘‘Y’’) configuration, then reconnected in
a delta configuration for running operation. In the
star configuration, all three supply lines are
connected at a single point and the circuit diagram
resembles the letter Y. In the delta configuration
each supply line is connected at one end with the
next supply line and the circuit diagram resembles
the Greek letter delta (D).
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
inclusion of IEC Design HE, HEY, and
HY motors as IEC Design H motors. In
this final rule, DOE is revising 10 CFR
431.25(g)–(i) to reflect the inclusion of
IEC Design N and H variants as it relates
to current energy conservation
standards.
DOE received comments regarding the
definitions proposed for the IEC Design
designations, which are addressed
separately in section III.B.1. of this
document.
3. Air-Over Electric Motors
DOE defines an ‘‘air-over electric
motor’’ as an electric motor rated to
operate in and be cooled by the
airstream of a fan or blower that is not
supplied with the motor and whose
primary purpose is providing airflow to
an application other than the motor
driving it. 10 CFR 431.12. These motors
are currently exempt from the energy
conservation standards. 10 CFR
431.25(l)(4). In the December 2021
NOPR, DOE reviewed NEMA MG 1–
2016, Part 34: Air-Over Motor Efficiency
Test Method, as well as Section 8.2.1 of
IEEE 114–2010 and Section 5 of CSA
C747–09, and initially determined that
sufficient information was available to
propose a test method for air-over
electric motors, and therefore proposed
to include air-over electric motors in the
scope of the test procedure. 86 FR
71710, 71718. Further, DOE also
proposed an amended definition for airover electric motors (86 FR 71710,
71730–71731), which is discussed
further in section III.B.4 of this
rulemaking. Accordingly, DOE
requested comment on its proposal to
add air-over electric motors in scope. Id.
In response to the expanded scope
proposal, a number of stakeholders
supported the inclusion of air-over
electric motors. (AMCA, No. 21 at p. 2;
ebm-papst, No. 23 at pp. 2, 6; CA IOUs,
No. 32.1 at p. 10) NEMA agreed with the
proposal in concept, but disagreed with
several testing provisions, which are
discussed further in section III.D.1 of
this document. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 6)
Lennox opposed the inclusion of airover motors, citing that component-level
regulation should be avoided when
system-level regulation is possible.
Lennox stated that the cost of
component-level regulation outweighs
the benefit when DOE could more
effectively use system-level regulation
(HVAC in this case). (Lennox, No. 24 at
p. 1–2) Regal opposed including air-over
motors to the scope of test procedure,
explaining that it already tests the
motors according to DOE requirements
for the equipment into which these
motors would be installed, and that
regulating these motors separately
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
would increase costs while yielding no
benefit. (Regal, No. 28 at p. 1) AI Group
referenced a 2019 Australian testing
standard for three-phase cage induction
motors that includes testing
requirements for totally enclosed airover motors. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 3)
DOE is covering air-over electric
motors under its ‘‘electric motors’’
authority. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) As
discussed in section III.A of this
document, the statute does not limit
DOE’s authority to regulate an electric
motor with respect to whether they are
stand-alone equipment items or as
components of a covered product or
covered equipment. See 42 U.S.C.
6313(b)(1) (providing that standards for
electric motors be applied to electric
motors manufactured ‘‘alone or as a
component of another piece of
equipment’’) DOE’s previous
determination in the December 2013
Final Rule to exclude air-over electric
motors from scope was due to
insufficient information available to
DOE at the time to support
establishment of a test method. 78 FR
75962, 75974–75975. Since that time,
NEMA published a test standard for airover motors in Section IV, ‘‘Performance
Standards Applying to All Machines,’’
Part 34 ‘‘Air-Over Motor Efficiency Test
Method’’ of NEMA MG 1–2016 (‘‘NEMA
Air-over Motor Efficiency Test
Method’’). The air-over method was
originally published as part of the 2017
NEMA MG–1 Supplements and is also
included in the latest version of NEMA
MG 1–2016. Therefore, DOE does not
consider including air-over electric
motors within its test procedure scope
significantly burdensome because the
NEMA test method (which is an
industry-accepted method) has existed
since 2017. Further, based on a general
market review, DOE notes that several
manufacturers have already been
representing the performance of their
air-over electric motors in marketing
materials. Based on the additional
information and the development of an
industry standard appropriate for airover electric motors, DOE is including
air-over electric motors within scope of
the test procedure. DOE believes that
including such a test procedure within
its regulations will provide consistent
and comparable efficiency ratings for
consumers and provide manufacturers
with a level playing field.
DOE notes that air-over electric
motors are not currently subject to
energy conservation standards in 10
CFR 431.25(l)(1). Manufacturers would
not be required to use the test procedure
for certification, until such time as a
standard is established. If a
manufacturer voluntarily chooses to
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63597
make representations about the energy
consumption or cost of energy for these
motors such representations must be
based on the use of that test procedure
beginning 180 days following
publication of a final rule. DOE’s
amendments do not require
manufacturers who do not currently
make voluntary representations to then
begin making public representations of
efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1))
Manufacturers would be required to test
such motors in accordance with the
DOE test procedure at such time as
compliance is required with a labeling
or energy conservation standard
requirement should such a requirement
be established. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b); 42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
In addition, DOE notes that the
industry test procedure incorporated by
reference (see section III.D.1) are only
applicable to air-over motors that are
induction motors and capable of
operating without an inverter. As such,
they are not applicable to air-over
electric motors that are synchronous
electric motors and to air-over electric
motors that are inverter-only.
Accordingly, DOE clarifies that it did
not propose and is not adopting to
include air-over electric motors that are
synchronous electric motors and airover electric motors that are inverteronly in the scope of the test procedure.
DOE adopts to add a clarification in the
scope section of the test procedure in
appendix B to subpart B to specify
which air-over electric motors are
included in the test procedure.
DOE also received a number of
comments on the air-over electric motor
definition and test method, which are
discussed in section III.B.4 and section
III.D.1 of this document, respectively.
4. AC Induction Electric Motors Greater
Than 500 Horsepower
DOE currently specifies that its test
procedures and energy conservation
standards for electric motors do not
apply to motors that produce greater
than 500 horsepower (373 kW). 10 CFR
431.25(g)(8); appendix B, Note.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to expand the scope of the test
procedure to include induction electric
motors with a horsepower rating greater
than 500 hp and up to 750 hp, that
otherwise meet the criteria provided in
10 CFR 431.25(g) and are not currently
listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l)(2)–(4). 86 FR
71710, 71719.
In response, CEMEP supported
expanding the test procedure’s scope to
include motors between 500 and 750 hp
that otherwise meet the conditions of 10
CFR 431.25(g). (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2)
NEMA supported adding motors
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63598
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
between 500 and 750 hp to the energy
conservation standards but noted there
are currently no NEMA Design A, B, or
C performance requirements for this
horsepower range, and that these
requirements would need to be
developed. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7) The
CA IOUs supported DOE’s inclusion of
500+ hp motors to the test procedure.
(CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 46) The Joint
Advocates supported expanding the
scope beyond 500 hp and suggested the
upper limit should be 1000 hp and
identified models that they asserted
would be included in scope even with
a limit of 600V input voltage. (Joint
Advocates, No. 27 at p. 3) Grundfos
questioned how many motors were sold
in this range and what energy savings
could be captured by including 500 to
750 hp motors into the scope of the test
procedure. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2)
Advanced Energy stated that motors of
this size are outside of its lab test
capabilities, but as a nationally
recognized certification program for
electric and small electric motor
efficiency, its certification scheme
allows it to certify motors of this size by
witnessing testing in manufacturer’s
accredited labs. Accordingly, they
commented that they offer certification
services for covered motor products
above 250 hp. (Advanced Energy, No. 33
at p. 3)
As discussed in the December 2021
NOPR, DOE’s review of catalog offerings
identified large induction motors rated
up to 750 hp currently being sold in the
market, and the majority of the models
identified listed full-load efficiencies
even though DOE currently does not
regulate electric motors greater than 500
hp. 86 FR 71710, 71719. Based on
discussions with a subject matter expert,
DOE understands that most of these
large motors rely on the alternative
efficiency determination method
(‘‘AEDM’’) permitted under 10 CFR
431.17 to determine full-load
efficiencies for regulated electric motors
at and under 500 hp.13 Id. Accordingly,
DOE understands that there are motors
sold in the range between 500 and 750
hp. DOE was unable to identify any
motors for sale greater than 750 hp with
input voltages up to 600 volts.
Accordingly, DOE will not be expanding
the horsepower limit of the test
procedure beyond 750 hp. While there
may be motors available at input
voltages greater than 600 volts, in this
final rule, DOE is maintaining the
approach from the December 2021
NOPR proposal to limit the voltage to
600 volts, consistent with other in-scope
electric motors defined by 10 CFR
431.25(g).
DOE notes that the proposed
expanded scope would have required
that an electric motor meet all of the
performance requirements of one of the
following motor types: A NEMA Design
A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design N or
H motor. 10 CFR 431.25(g)(9) While
DOE agrees with NEMA’s comment that
there are no NEMA Design A, B, or C
performance requirements for motors
greater than 500 hp, there are
performance requirements for IEC
Design N or H motors for the same
range. As such, the IEC Design N or H
performance requirements would be
applicable for this horsepower range
instead of the NEMA Design A, B, or C
performance requirements.
Accordingly, consistent with the
proposed scope expansion and related
discussion from the December 2021
NOPR and the reasons set forth in the
preceding paragraphs, DOE is
expanding the scope of the test
procedure to include induction electric
motors with a horsepower rating greater
than 500 hp and up to 750 hp that
otherwise meet the criteria provided in
10 CFR 431.25(g) and are not currently
listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l)(2)–(4).
5. SNEMs
An SEM is a NEMA general purpose
AC single-speed induction motor, built
in a two-digit frame number series in
accordance with NEMA Standards
Publication MG1–1987, including IEC
metric equivalent motors. See 42 U.S.C.
6311(G); see also 10 CFR 431.442
(clarifying that the statutory definition
for ‘‘small electric motor’’ includes IEC
metric equivalent motors). Table III–1
and Table III–2 provide a general
description of currently regulated small
electric motors and electric motors.
TABLE III–1—GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SINGLE-PHASE INDUCTION MOTORS CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO ENERGY
CONSERVATION STANDARDS AND TEST PROCEDURES
NEMA frame size
Motor enclosure
construction
2-Digit NEMA frame size
Open ............................
NEMA general purpose capacitor-start induction run, capacitor-start capacitor run motors between 0.25 and 3 hp.
None ............................................................................................................................................
Enclosed ......................
3-Digit NEMA frame
size or above
None.
None.
Note: this table provides a high-level description. Full description of motors currently subject to energy conservation standards and test procedures available at 10 CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X.
TABLE III—2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF POLYPHASE PHASE INDUCTION MOTORS CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO ENERGY
CONSERVATION STANDARDS AND TEST PROCEDURES
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
NEMA frame size
Motor enclosure
construction
2-Digit NEMA frame size
Open ............................
Enclosed ......................
NEMA general purpose motor between 0.25 and 3 hp ..............................................................
NEMA 56-frame size only between 1–500 hp ............................................................................
3-Digit NEMA frame
size or above
Between 1–500 hp.
Between 1–500 hp.
Note: this table provides a high-level description. Full description of motors currently subject to energy conservation standards and test procedures in available at 10 CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X.
13 An AEDM may be used to determine the
average full-load efficiency of one or more of a
manufacturer’s basic models if the average full-load
efficiency of at least five of its other basic models
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
is determined through testing. 10 CFR 431.17(a)(1).
An AEDM applied to a basic model must be: (i)
derived from a mathematical model that represents
the mechanical and electrical characteristics of that
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
basic model, and (ii) based on engineering or
statistical analysis, computer simulation or
modeling, or other analytic evaluation of
performance data. 10 CFR 431.17(a)(2).
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
This section addresses electric motors
that do not fall within the SEM
definition as described above but that
are generally considered ‘‘small’’ by
industry (i.e., ‘‘small, non-smallelectric-motor electric motor,’’ or
‘‘SNEM’’). In this section, DOE
specifically discusses SNEMs that are
induction motors. Some of these motors
are marketed as general purpose by
manufacturers, although they do not
meet the definition of small electric
motor at 10 CFR 431.442.14 Noninduction motor topologies (specifically
certain synchronous electric motors) are
discussed in section III.A.7 of this
document.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to include test procedures for
additional electric motors not covered
under the current electric motors test
procedure and that do not meet the
definition of small electric motors in 10
CFR part 431, subpart X, but are
nonetheless considered ‘‘small,’’ i.e.,
SNEMs. 86 FR 71710, 71719–71725.
DOE proposed to distinguish SNEMs
from SEMs by specifying combinations
of frame size, rated motor horsepower,
enclosure construction, and additional
performance criteria that are not
currently included in the existing
electric motors and small electric
motors regulations at 10 CFR part 431
subpart B and subpart X (See Table III–
1 and Table III–2 for electric motors and
small electric motors that are currently
regulated). Id.
Accordingly, DOE proposed the
following definition for this expanded
scope in the December 2021 NOPR:
Small non-small-electric-motor electric
motor (‘‘SNEMs’’) means an electric motor
that:
(a) Is not a small electric motor, as defined
at § 431.442 and is not dedicated-purpose
pool pump motors as defined at § 431.483;
(b) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1)
operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);
(c) Is capable of operating on polyphase or
single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz)
sinusoidal line power (with or without an
inverter);
(d) Is rated for 600 volts or less;
(e) Is a single-speed induction motor;
(f) Produces a rated motor horsepower
greater than or equal to 0.25 horsepower
(0.18 kW); and
(g) Is built in the following frame sizes: any
frame sizes if the motor operates on singlephase power; any frame size if the motor
operates on polyphase power, and has a rated
motor horsepower less than 1 horsepower
(0.75 kW); or a two-digit NEMA frame size
(or IEC metric equivalent), if the motor
operates on polyphase power, has a rated
14 Based on DOE review of catalogs from four
major manufacturers, out of 3262 SNEMs in scope
identified, 1300 were marketed either general
(1128) or definite purpose (172).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
motor horsepower equal to or greater than 1
horsepower (0.75 kW), and is not an enclosed
56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric
equivalent).
86 FR 71710, 71780.
DOE received a number of comments
on how the criteria for SNEMs was
defined. Some commenters supported
including SNEMs in the scope of the
test procedure as proposed. Commenters
noted that these motors are very similar
in application, construction, and
performance to existing covered
equipment, and therefore should be
covered. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p.
3; NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3)
Further, NEEA/NWPCC encouraged
DOE to include all motors that directly
compete against each other in the test
procedure so that they can be fairly
compared against other motor designs.
(NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) Other
commenters, however, criticized DOE’s
approach. ABB stated that the criteria
for establishing if a product is in the
proposed scope as an SNEM are not
adequately defined, and recommended
that DOE list the criteria that an SNEM
must satisfy, citing the nine criteria DOE
has already listed for electric motors in
10 CFR 431.25. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 1)
NEMA added that the proposed SNEM
definition needs to be clearer since it
does not allow manufacturers to clearly
identify what motors in their inventory
would fall within the SNEM category.
NEMA requested that DOE provide
specific examples of SNEMs and better
identify whether an electric motors is an
SNEM. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7) HI
offered a similar view, noting that the
proposed SNEM scope is too broad and
that the proposed definition’s overlybroad nature prevented HI from
identifying areas of concern. (HI, No. 30
at p. 2)
DOE proposed to distinguish SNEMs
by specifying combinations of frame
sizes, rated motor horsepower,
enclosure construction, and additional
performance criteria that are not
currently included in the existing
electric motors and small electric
motors regulations at 10 CFR part 431
subpart B and subpart X (See Table III–
1 and Table III–2, and proposed
definition for SNEM earlier in this
section). DOE proposed seven specific
criteria to identify whether an electric
motor is a SNEM, an approach similar
to how DOE identifies those electric
motors that are subject to the standards
at 10 CFR 431.25. If an electric motor
meets the seven proposed criteria, then
it is an SNEM. ABB recommended
listing criteria to identify the
appropriate scope (ABB, No. 18 at p. 1),
which DOE notes is consistent with the
approach DOE proposed in the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63599
December 2021 NOPR and is consistent
with how specifications are provided for
motors currently in scope in 10 CFR
431.25(g). Further, other commenters
did not identify any specific areas of
confusion. In the December 2021 NOPR,
DOE provided a detailed description on
how the SNEM scope was determined
based on the current SEM and electric
motor scope. 86 FR 71710, 71719–
71725. In all, it is DOE’s understanding
that the proposed specifications are
sufficient to specify the SNEM scope.
DOE is, however, clarifying some of the
proposed criteria related to frame size,
speed, and power supply in response to
other comments.
For example, the Joint Advocates
suggested that multi-speed SNEMs
should be included in the scope as well,
and that including only single-speed
SNEMs is inconsistent with the
proposed broader test procedure scope
that includes variable-speed motors.
They raised the concern of a loophole
with inefficient multi-speed SNEMs
replacing more efficient single-speed
SNEMs. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at pp.
3–4) The CA IOUs recommended
including multi-speed SNEMs to the test
procedure’s scope, citing as support the
scenario where a consumer seeks to
replace a failed variable-speed
electrically commutated motor (‘‘ECM’’)
in a residential furnace fan with a lower
first cost, less efficient, multi-speed
permanent split capacitor (‘‘PSC’’)
motor. They also stated that multi-speed
PSC and shaded-pole motors are in
widespread use. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at
p. 42)
After careful consideration of these
comments, DOE has decided at this time
to retain its single-speed limitation for
SNEMs. As explained, DOE is taking
this step to ensure coverage of those
motors that are generally considered
small by industry that have similarities
to motors that DOE currently regulates
as SEMs at 10 CFR part 431 subpart X—
the scope of which only includes singlespeed induction motors. See 10 CFR
431.442.
Commenters also had some concerns
with the inclusion of the clause ‘‘with
or without an inverter’’ within the
SNEM definition. Specifically, Grundfos
stated that the proposed SNEM
definition is confusing and that DOE
should clarify the intent with the
‘‘single speed’’ and ‘‘with or without an
inverter’’ requirements to remove any
ambiguity on the intention. (Grundfos,
No. 29 at p. 2) HI stated that for clarity,
the clause ‘‘with or without an inverter’’
should be removed from the criteria.
(HI, No. 30 at p. 2) DOE re-evaluated the
proposed text relevant to inverters.
DOE’s intention with the proposal was
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
63600
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
to ensure that in-scope electric motors
that satisfy the SNEM definition would
be either: (1) single-speed and capable
of operating without an inverter; or (2)
inverter-only electric motors operating
with an inverter and capable of varying
speed.15 Therefore, to clarify this intent,
DOE is revising the language used to
describe SNEMs to state this more
directly. First, to add clarity, DOE is
replacing the proposed criteria ‘‘Is
capable of operating on polyphase or
single-phase alternating current 60-hertz
(Hz) sinusoidal line power (with or
without an inverter)’’ with ‘‘Operates on
polyphase or single-phase alternating
current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line
power; or is used with an inverter that
operates on polyphase or single-phase
alternating current 60-hertz (Hz)
sinusoidal line power.’’ Second, to
clarify its intent, DOE is replacing the
proposed criterion ‘‘Is a single-speed
induction motor’’ with a revised one
that accounts for inverter-only electric
motors as follows: ‘‘Is a single-speed
induction motor capable of operating
without an inverter or is an inverteronly electric motor.’’
Separately, HI had concerns regarding
how the frame sizes should be identified
within the SNEM definition. HI
commented that DOE should explicitly
list the NEMA and IEC equivalents
frame sizes that are covered. (HI, No. 30
at p. 2) Further, HI noted that the
proposed phase ‘‘any frame size’’ in the
SNEM definition is not defined, and
could imply a motor of any dimensions,
or a motor of any defined NEMA or IEC
frame size is covered. They suggested
that this ambiguity needs to be
remedied. Id. DOE clarifies in this final
rule that the proposed ‘‘any frame size’’
is intended to designate ‘‘any NEMA or
IEC-equivalent’’ frame size. As such, in
this final rule, DOE is modifying the
term ‘‘any frame size’’ to ‘‘any two-, or
three- digit NEMA frame size (or IECequivalent).’’ DOE notes that there are
no four-digit frames sizes that qualify as
SNEMs.
Finally, DOE also received comments
regarding the proposed term ‘‘small
non-small-electric-motor electric
motor,’’ or ‘‘SNEM’’. NEEA/NWPCC
recommended that DOE reconsider the
use of the term ‘‘small non-smallelectric-motor electric motor’’ because it
is a confusing term for these motors.
NEEA/NWPCC suggested ‘‘Other Small
HP Motors (OSHM)’’ or ‘‘Other Small
Electric Motors (OSEM)’’ as two
possible options. (NEEA/NWPCC, No.
37 at p. 3) Grundfos stated that the DOE
should identify a more suitable, and less
15 See discussion of the term ‘‘inverter-only
electric motor’’ in section III.B.3 of this document.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
confusing name for this class of motors.
(Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2) DOE did not
receive any other recommendations
regarding an alternate to the proposed
‘‘SNEM’’ term. DOE notes that the term
explicitly states that it is a ‘‘non-smallelectric-motor.’’ This specifies that
SEMs, as defined in 10 CFR 431.442, are
not part of this scope. Accordingly, DOE
is maintaining the term ‘‘SNEM’’ in this
final rule.
Accordingly, DOE is finalizing the
scope to cover SNEMs, which DOE is
defining as:
Small non-small-electric-motor
electric motor (‘‘SNEM’’) means an
electric motor that:
(a) Is not a small electric motor, as
defined § 431.442 and is not a
dedicated-purpose pool pump motor as
defined at § 431.483;
(b) Is rated for continuous duty (MG
1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);
(c) Operates on polyphase or singlephase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz)
sinusoidal line power; or is used with
an inverter that operates on polyphase
or single-phase alternating current 60hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power;
(d) Is rated for 600 volts or less;
(e) Is a single-speed induction motor
capable of operating without an inverter
or is an inverter-only electric motor;
(f) Produces a rated motor horsepower
greater than or equal to 0.25 horsepower
(0.18 kW); and
(g) Is built in the following frame
sizes: any two-, or three- digit NEMA
frame size (or IEC metric equivalent) if
the motor operates on single-phase
power; any two-, or three-digit NEMA
frame size (or IEC metric equivalent) if
the motor operates on polyphase power,
and has a rated motor horsepower less
than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW); or a twodigit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric
equivalent), if the motor operates on
polyphase power, has a rated motor
horsepower equal to or greater than 1
horsepower (0.75 kW), and is not an
enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC
metric equivalent).
6. AC Induction Inverter-Only Electric
Motors
The current electric motor test
procedures apply to AC induction
motors except for those AC induction
motors that are ‘‘inverter-only electric
motors.’’ 16 These motors are an
16 NEMA
MG–1 2016, Paragraph 30.2.1.5 defines
the term ‘‘control’’ for motors receiving AC power,
as ‘‘devices that are also called inverters and
converters. These are ‘‘electronic devices that
convert an input AC or DC power into a controlled
output AC voltage or current..’’.’’ Converters can
also be found in motors that receive DC power and
include electronic devices that convert an AC or DC
power input into a controlled output DC voltage or
current. See section III.B.3 of this final rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
exempted category of electric motors
listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l)(5).17 As it
noted in its May 2014 Final Rule, DOE
exempted these electric motors from its
standards at 10 CFR 431.25 in the
absence of a reliable and repeatable
method to test their efficiency. 79 FR
30934, 30945. In the December 2021
NOPR, DOE noted that in the interim
since its 2014 rule was published, the
industry has developed several methods
to test inverter-only motors. As a result
of this development, DOE proposed to
include within the electric motor test
procedure’s scope those AC induction
inverter-only electric motors that meet
both the criteria listed at 10 CFR
431.25(g) and the proposed SNEM
scope. 86 FR 71710, 71725–71726.
Further, as discussed in section III.A.4
of this section, DOE also separately
proposed to include within the test
procedure’s scope those induction
electric motors with a horsepower rating
greater than 500 hp and up to 750 hp
that otherwise meet the criteria
provided in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and are
not currently listed as exempt at 10 CFR
431.25(l)(2)–(4). 86 FR 71710, 71719.
In response, several stakeholders
objected to the inclusion of inverteronly electric motors and suggested that
DOE continue to exempt them from
coverage under the test procedure.
(NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7; CEMEP, No. 19
at p. 2; Lennox, No. 24 at p. 6; AI Group,
No. 25 at p. 4; Regal, No. 28 at p. 1;
Trane, No. 31 at pp. 3, 5–6) Further,
CEMEP suggested that DOE address
inverter-only electric motors in a
separate (presumably dedicated)
rulemaking. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2)
ABB supported NEMA’s request that
inverter-only motors be excluded from
the test procedure because inverter-only
motors are different from currently
covered electric motors that are
operated from inverters (presumably
inverter-capable) to operate continuous
loads like pumps and fans. On the other
hand, ABB noted that inverter-only
motors are rated by the amount of
torque they produce and are generally
not used for continuous fixed loads;
instead, they operate at widely varying
loads or directions in applications such
as sawmill carriage drives, machine
tools and other high-performance
machinery. ABB also commented that
17 DOE defines an ‘‘inverter-only electric motor’’
as an electric motor that is capable of rated
operation solely with an inverter, and is not
intended for operation when directly connected to
polyphase, sinusoidal line power.’’ 10 CFR 431.12
DOE notes that more generally, the requirement to
operate with an inverter also means that that
inverter-only motors are not intended for operation
when directly connected to single-phase, sinusoidal
line power or to DC power. See section III.B.3 of
this final rule.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
inverter-only motors may have a special
voltage/frequency combination that
allows them to operate at very high
speeds with up to 400 Hz input, and
these motors are normally cooled by
separately powered fans and may have
their laminations exposed with no
external frame. Finally, regarding
inverters, ABB stated that inverters may
vary from micro designs to very large
drives with widely varying topography,
and some newer drive topographies may
result in a more efficient drive but at the
expense of producing additional
harmonics, heating, and reduced
efficiency from the motor. (ABB, No. 18
at pp. 2–3) AI Group stated that
inverter-only motors are rarely generalpurpose motors and have noncontinuous duty applications with high
cycling and high-performance demands.
In its view, these special characteristics
and the low volume of sales for inverteronly motors favor excluding them from
the scope of the test procedure. (AI
Group, No. 25 at p. 4)
Similarly, NEMA, along with a
number of individual electric motor
manufacturers, also supported
excluding inverter-only motors from the
test procedure’s scope. It explained that
the motor and drive combination
required to operate is a ‘‘motor-drive
system’’—not an electric motor—and
should not fall within the scope of an
electric motor test procedure. It further
stated that inverter-only motors are not
general purpose and have unique
performance requirements that
complicate expressions of efficiency.
(NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7) Regal also
opposed including inverter-only motors
within the scope of DOE’s test
procedure. They stated that they already
test the motors according to DOE
requirements for the equipment into
which these motors are installed, and
that regulating these motors separately
would increase costs for no benefit.
(Regal, No. 28 at p. 1) Trane commented
that inverter-only motors should not be
included in the scope because, in its
view, there are no energy savings gained
and that testing related to these electric
motors should occur as part of the
overall system in which they are
installed. (Trane, No. 31 at pp. 3, 5–6)
In contrast, several stakeholders
supported the inclusion of inverter-only
electric motors as part of the test
procedure’s scope. (Joint Advocates, No.
27 at p. 4; Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2; CA
IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 19; Advanced
Energy, No. 33 at pp. 3–4; NEEA/
NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) The CA IOUs
commented that the inclusion of
inverter-only motors will provide endusers with a representative method to
compare these motors with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
conventional induction motors
combined with variable-frequency
drives. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 19) The
CA IOUs also provided examples of case
studies where inverter-only motors have
successfully substituted conventional
induction motors combined with VFDs.
(CA IOUs, No. 32.2 at pp. 1–15) The
Joint Advocates commented that
inverter-only motors with variablespeed capabilities may serve as more
energy efficient replacements for
currently covered and newly included
(e.g., SNEM) AC induction motors, and
that inclusion of these more energy
efficient motor types may unlock
significant potential energy savings.
(Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 4)
Advanced Energy stated that in the past,
DOE excluded inverter-only motors
because these motors can only be
operated continuously when connected
to an inverter, and there may be
difficulty testing the combined motor
and inverter. However, it noted that in
practice, there are induction machines
marked as ‘‘inverter-only’’ that can be
relatively more easily tested than
synchronous motors. (Advanced Energy,
No. 33 at pp. 3–4)
As discussed in section III.A.1, EPCA
previously defined the term ‘‘electric
motor’’ as encompassing specific motors
that are general purpose. (See 42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(A) (2006)) Section 313(a)(2) of
EISA 2007 removed that definition and
the prior limits that narrowly defined
what types of motors would be
considered as electric motors. Further,
section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007
established energy conservation
standards for four types of electric
motors (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) The term
‘‘electric motor’’ was left undefined.
EPCA does not limit ‘‘electric motors’’
to ‘‘general purpose.’’
In the May 2012 Final Rule, DOE
determined a regulatory definition for
‘‘electric motor’’ was necessary, and
therefore DOE adopted the broader
definition of ‘‘electric motor’’ currently
found in 10 CFR 431.12. Specifically,
DOE noted that the absence of a
definition may cause confusion about
which electric motors are required to
comply with mandatory test procedures
and energy conservation standards. 77
FR 26608, 26613. Further, DOE noted
that this broader approach would allow
DOE to fill the definitional gap created
by the EISA 2007 amendments while
providing DOE with the flexibility to set
energy conservation standards for other
types of electric motors without having
to continuously update the definition of
‘‘electric motors’’ each time DOE sets
energy conservation standards for a new
subset of electric motors. Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63601
In addition, the statute does not limit
DOE’s authority to regulate an electric
motor with respect to whether ‘‘electric
motors’’ are stand-alone equipment
items or components of a covered
product or covered equipment. See 42
U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (providing that
standards for electric motors be applied
to electric motors manufactured ‘‘alone
or as a component of another piece of
equipment’’) As such, inverter-only
electric motors not being general
purpose or components of another
covered product or equipment have no
bearing on whether DOE may regulate
these motors.
Further, an inverter-only electric
motor requiring an inverter to operate
also has no bearing on whether DOE
may regulate these motors. An electric
motor is defined as a machine that
converts electrical power into rotational
mechanical power. 10 CFR 431.12.
Inverter-only electric motors require the
inverter to operate in the field to convert
electrical power into rotational
mechanical power. Inverter-only motors
cannot be run continuously when
directly connected to a 60-hertz, AC
polyphase sinusoidal power source.
Therefore, a separate, special electronic
controller, called an inverter, is used to
alter the power signal to the motor. The
inverter can be physically combined
with the motor into a single unit, may
be physically separate from the motor,
or may not be included in the motor, but
the motor is unable to operate without
a drive. As such, this electric motor
would remain inoperable if it does not
include an inverter and would need to
include both the inverter-only electric
motor and the inverter-component to
convert electrical power into rotational
mechanical power. For this reason, the
combination of these two components,
in DOE’s view, meets the definition of
an electric motor and DOE has included
this combination within the scope of its
test procedure.
In the December 2013 Final Rule,
DOE considered inverter-only electric
motors as part of the scope and only
excluded these motors from the test
procedure due to the absence of a
reliable and repeatable method to test
them for efficiency. 78 FR 75962, 75989.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE noted
that in the interim since the December
2013 Final Rule, the industry has
developed several methods to test
inverter-only motors. 86 FR 71710,
71725–71726. These industry test
methods are discussed further in section
III.D.3.
Accordingly, DOE is including
inverter-only electric motors within the
scope of this test procedure.
Establishing test procedures for these
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63602
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
motors would allow for standardized
representations of efficiency of motors.
As proposed in the December 2021
NOPR, DOE will only be including
within scope the following inverter-only
electric motors: (1) AC induction
inverter-only electric motors that meet
the criteria listed at 10 CFR 431.25(g);
and (2) Inverter-only motors that meet
the SNEM definition. In addition, as
discussed in section III.A.3 of this
document, DOE is not including air-over
inverter-only electric motors. In
response to stakeholder comments, DOE
is clarifying some of the requirements.
First, the criteria in 10 CFR 431.25(g)
and the SNEM scope presented in
section III.A.5 both require that the
motor be rated for continuous duty.
Therefore, non-continuous duty motors
are not included. Second, per 10 CFR
431.25(g) and the SNEM definition, inscope inverter-only electric motors
would be those motors built using
certain NEMA (or IEC equivalent) frame
sizes. Third, DOE is requiring that the
rated frequency be limited to 60 Hz (see
section III.G.1). As such, the scope of
the test procedure is limited to inverteronly electric motors with a rated
frequency of 60 Hz, where the rated
frequency corresponds to the frequency
of the electricity supplied to the inverter
(see section III.G.1). Finally, DOE is
requiring that inverter-only electric
motors be tested with an inverter (see
section III.D.3); therefore, the efficiency
determined would be a combined
efficiency of the motor and inverter, not
just the efficiency of the motor or the
inverter measured individually and
would account for any interactions
between the motor and the inverter (e.g.
increase in harmonics). As such, only
inverter-only electric motors that meet
the specific requirements in 10 CFR
431.25(g) and are SNEMs, including
those discussed in this paragraph,
would be included in scope of the test
procedure.
In this final rule, DOE is incorporating
the proposed inverter-only electric
motors in scope. Further discussion on
the test procedure is provided in section
III.D.3 of this document, and discussion
of the metric is provided in section III.E.
of this document.
7. Synchronous Electric Motors
The current electric motor test
procedures apply only to induction
electric motors. 10 CFR 431.25(g)(1),
appendix B, Note.
The ‘‘induction motor’’ criteria
exclude synchronous electric motors
from the scope. A ‘‘synchronous electric
motor’’ is an electric motor in which the
average speed of the normal operation of
the motor is exactly proportional to the
frequency of the power supply to which
it is connected, regardless of load.18 In
contrast, in an induction electric motor,
the average speed of the normal
operation of the motor is not
proportional to the frequency of the
power supply to which the motor is
connected.19 For example, a 4-pole
synchronous electric motor will rotate at
1800 rpm when connected to 60 Hz
power even when the load varies while
a 4-pole induction electric motor in the
same setup will slow down as load
increases.
Synchronous electric motors can
operate as either direct-on-line
(connected directly to the power
supply) or inverter-fed (connected to an
inverter). Some inverter-fed electric
motors require being connected to an
inverter to operate (i.e., inverter-only
electric motors) while others are capable
of operating both direct-on-line or
connected to an inverter (i.e., invertercapable electric motors).
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
stated that it identified new industry
standards that apply to synchronous
electric motors, and on the basis of this
finding, proposed to include within the
test procedure’s scope synchronous
electric motors with the following
characteristics: 20
TABLE III–3—SYNCHRONOUS ELECTRIC MOTORS PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION IN SCOPE
Criteria No.
1
2
3
4
Description
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
5 ......................................................
6 ......................................................
7 ......................................................
Are not dedicated-purpose pool pump motors as defined at 10 CFR 431.483.
Are synchronous electric motors;
Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);
Capable of operating on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz); sinusoidal line power
(with or without an inverter);
Are rated 600 volts or less;
Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, 8-, 10-, or 12-pole configuration.
Produce at least 0.25 horsepower (hp) (0.18 kilowatt (kW)) but not greater than 750 hp (373 kW).
86 FR 71710, 71726–71727.
Several stakeholders agreed with
including synchronous electric motors
in scope and with the proposed criteria.
(Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2; NEEA/
NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) The Joint
Advocates supported DOE’s proposed
expansion of scope to include
synchronous motors. (Joint Advocates,
No. 27 at pp. 4–5)
On the other hand, several
commenters urged continuing to exempt
synchronous electric motors from the
test procedure’s scope, with some
suggesting that DOE evaluate these
motors in a separate dedicated
rulemaking. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 3;
CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; AI Group, No.
25 at p. 4; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 8)
Specifically, ABB commented that
synchronous motors could be used in
widely differing product categories, like
AC servo motors, which are not used for
continuous load applications but for
incremental motion and positioning as
on machine tools and industrial robots.
It added that other larger synchronous
motors are often used in freshwater
pumps and fans, both extended
products that have a DOE regulation in
effect or in development. (ABB, No. 18
at p. 3) CEMEP also did not support the
scope of the definition as it would
include servo-motors. (CEMEP, No. 19
at p. 2) AI Group stated that
synchronous motors are not general
purpose motors and have many different
designs, characteristics, and definitions
as to what constitutes a synchronous
18 NEMA MG 1–2016 Paragraph 1.17.3.4 defines
a ‘‘synchronous machine,’’ as an ‘‘alternatingcurrent machine in which the average speed of the
normal operation is exactly proportional to the
frequency of the system to which it is connected.’’
19 NEMA MG 1–2016 Paragraph 1.17.3.3 defines
an ‘‘induction machine,’’ as an ‘‘an asynchronous
machine that comprises a magnetic circuit
interlinked with two electric circuits or sets of
circuits, rotating with respect to each other and in
which power is transferred from one circuit to
another by electromagnetic induction.’’
20 DOE notes that while the preamble section of
the December 2021 NOPR proposed to specify that
synchronous electric motors ‘‘are rated for
continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type
S1 (IEC),’’ (see 86 FR 71710, 71727) the proposed
regulatory text of the notice did not include that
requirement (see 86 FR 71710, 71780). DOE is
clarifying in this final rule that the regulatory text
mistakenly excluded this requirement.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
motor, and as such should be excluded
from the scope of the test procedure. (AI
Group, No. 25 at p. 4)
As already discussed in section III.A.1
and section III.A.7 of this document,
EPCA, as amended through EISA 2007,
provides statutory authority for the
regulation of expanded scope of motors.
EPCA does not limit ‘‘electric motors’’
to ‘‘general purpose.’’ In addition, the
statute does not limit DOE’s authority to
regulate an electric motor with respect
to whether they are stand-alone
equipment items or are components of
a covered product or covered
equipment. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1)
(providing that standards for electric
motors be applied to electric motors
manufactured ‘‘alone or as a component
of another piece of equipment’’)
Whether synchronous electric motors
fall outside the category of being general
purpose (i.e., being special purpose or
definite purpose) or are used as
components of other covered products
and equipment have no bearing on
DOE’s authority to regulate these
motors.
Further, as DOE presented in the
December 2021 NOPR, industry
standards exist that apply to in-scope
synchronous electric motors. 86 FR
71710, 71726–71727. Establishing test
procedures for these motors would
allow for standardized representations
of motor efficiency. DOE notes that
these motors are typically used as
higher efficiency replacements for
single-speed induction motors that DOE
currently regulates. Accordingly,
establishing a test procedure for
standardized representations of
synchronous electric motors would
reduce market confusion by providing
comparable ratings for substitutable
induction motors. As discussed in
section III.E, DOE is requiring expanded
scope motors, including synchronous
electric motors, to be represented based
on average full-load efficiency, similar
to current in-scope electric motors.
Accordingly, a test procedure for
synchronous electric motors would
ensure that end users are provided with
ratings from a uniform test method that
can be used to compare and select
between electric motors of competing
technologies that would ultimately be
used in the same end-use applications.
DOE notes that, as proposed in the
December 2021 NOPR, DOE is only
including within the test procedure’s
scope those synchronous motors that are
rated for continuous duty (MG 1)
operation. As a result, non-continuous
duty synchronous electric motors would
continue to remain out of scope.
The following paragraphs summarize
comments and responses regarding
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
several specific criteria for synchronous
electric motors that DOE proposed in
the December 2021 NOPR (See Table
III–3 describing the proposal).
The Joint Advocates stated that DOE
should clarify the definition of
synchronous motors to more explicitly
include inverter-fed synchronous
motors. Specifically, the Joint Advocates
noted potential concerns about whether
the proposed definition could be
interpreted as requiring a synchronous
motor to start and run on sinusoidal line
power (i.e., not inverter-fed), which
would conflict with their understanding
that DOE intended to exclude only those
synchronous motors that start and run
directly from a DC power source. (Joint
Advocates, No. 27 at pp. 4–5) In the
December 2021 NOPR, DOE’s intention
for the synchronous electric motor
scope was to include those that operate
either direct-on-line (connected directly
to the power supply) or as inverter-fed
(connected to an inverter). 86 FR 71710,
71727; See Criterion 4 in Table III.8.
DOE acknowledged a number of
inverter-fed synchronous electric motors
that are not currently included in the
test procedures for electric motors,
including line start permanent magnet
(‘‘LSPM’’); 21 permanent magnet AC
(‘‘PMAC,’’ also known as permanent
magnet synchronous motor (‘‘PMSM’’)
or brushless AC); switched reluctance
(‘‘SR’’); synchronous reluctance motors
(‘‘SynRMs’’); and electronically
commutated motor (‘‘ECMs’’).22 86 FR
71710, 71726. Accordingly, to clarify in
this final rule, DOE has updated the
description that motors used with an
inverter that operate on polyphase or
single-phase alternating current 60-hertz
(Hz) sinusoidal line power are included
in the synchronous electric motor scope.
While Advanced Energy supported
including synchronous motors in scope,
21 Advanced Energy noted that LSPM motors are
synchronous motors. Though these motors have a
squirrel cage, they do not operate on the principle
of induction as is attributed to regular induction
motors. The cage is simply for starting the motor
and these motors are essentially synchronous
motors. (Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–TP–0047;
Advanced Energy, No. 25 at p. 3) This technology
is described further in Chapter 3 of the technical
support document accompanying the May 2014
Final Rule: During the motor transient start up, the
squirrel cage in the rotor contributes to the
production of enough torque to start the rotation of
the rotor, albeit at an asynchronous speed. When
the speed of the rotor approaches synchronous
speed, the constant magnetic field of the permanent
magnet locks to the rotating stator field, thereby
pulling the rotor into synchronous operation. See
DOE Technical Support Document (Electric Motors
Standards Final Rule) (May 2014) (Docket No.
EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027–0108).
22 All 5 topologies are referred to as ‘‘advanced
motor technologies’’ and represent motor
technologies that have been more recently
introduced on the market and have variable speed
capabilities.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63603
it requested a modification to the
proposed pole criteria. Advanced
Energy explained that synchronous
motors cannot be classified in the same
manner as induction motors regarding
magnetic pole configuration. It noted
that some synchronous motors have
significantly more poles than what
designates the operating speed, and this
designation may be present on the
motor nameplate. Rather than pole
count, Advanced Energy suggested DOE
use rated speed. (Advanced Energy, No.
33 at p. 4)
DOE’s proposal to include the pole
configuration in the synchronous
electric motors description sought to
maintain consistency with how DOE
describes current in-scope electric
motors in 10 CFR 431.25(g)(6). The
synchronous speed of any electric motor
is determined by the pole count and the
input frequency to the motor. For directon-line induction motors, the input
frequency is a fixed value determined
by the electricity supply grid the motor
is connected to, so the synchronous
speed would then only vary as the pole
count varies. For synchronous motors,
the input frequency to the motor is not
fixed because the inverter supplying
power to the motor can supply different
frequencies on command, allowing two
synchronous motors with different pole
counts to have the same synchronous
speed. As such, DOE agrees with
Advanced Energy that pole
configuration is not as critical a
characteristic of synchronous electric
motor compared to induction motors.
Because of this inconsistency between
synchronous motors and induction
motors, DOE no longer sees a need to
maintain consistency on the pole count
scope criterion between the two groups
of electric motors. Since pole count is
not nearly as critical to the operation of
a synchronous motor, DOE is removing
the proposed pole configuration
requirement from the synchronous
electric motor description.
ebm-papst commented that
synchronous air-over motors do not fit
into the scope of NEMA MG 1–2016 Part
34’s air-over electric motor test method.
(ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 3) DOE clarifies
in this final rule that DOE is not
including in the test procedure’s scope
synchronous electric motors that are
also air-over electric motors. DOE agrees
that the test procedure for air-over
electric motors is only specific to
induction motors and not the
synchronous electric motors at issue in
this rulemaking. (See further discussion
in section III.D.1 of this document).
Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is
defining synchronous electric motor as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63604
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
A Synchronous Electric Motor means
an electric motor that:
(a) Is not a dedicated pool pump
motor as defined at § 431.483, or is not
an air-over electric motor;
(b) Is a synchronous electric motor;
(c) Is rated for continuous duty (MG
1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);
(d) Operates on polyphase or singlephase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz)
sinusoidal line power; or is used with
an inverter that operates on polyphase
or single-phase alternating current 60hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power;
(e) Is rated 600 volts or less; and
(f) Produces at least 0.25 hp (0.18 kW)
but not greater than 750 hp (559 kW).
8. Submersible Electric Motors
DOE defines a ‘‘submersible electric
motor’’ as an electric motor that: (1) is
intended to operate continuously only
while submerged in liquid; (2) is
capable of operation while submerged
in liquid for an indefinite period of
time; and (3) has been sealed to prevent
ingress of liquid from contacting the
motor’s internal parts. 10 CFR 431.12.
These motors are currently exempt from
the energy conservation standards. 10
CFR 431.25(l)(4). In the December 2021
NOPR, DOE proposed to include
submersible electric motors within the
test procedure’s scope. 86 FR 71710,
71718–71719. DOE’s proposal was
informed in part by its initial
determination that the air-over test
methods developed by NEMA could be
adapted as a test method for
submersible electric motors either by
using an external blower to cool the
motor or without the need to submerge
the motor in a liquid during testing to
cool the motor. With this potential
modification to the air-over test method
in mind, DOE proposed to include
submersible electric motors within the
scope of DOE’s test procedures. 86 FR
71710, 71749–71750.
Several commenters suggested that
the current definition of submersible
electric motors is too broad for the
purpose of adding them to the test
procedure scope, in that the definition
could cover a wide range of products,
each of which have different design
constraints and should be tested
differently. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2;
Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 2; HI, No.
30 at p. 1; WSC, No. 35 at p. 1) The CA
IOUs recommended refining the
definition of submersible electric motors
based on appropriate classifications for
different designs of submersible motors,
and recommended DOE consider
multiple industry definitions. (CA IOUs,
No. 32.1 at p. 18) Several commenters
also raised concerns with having a
single test procedure for all types of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
submersible electric motors. They noted
that several different types of
submersible motors exist, each having
different technical performances and
design constraints. Accordingly, they
suggested that type-specific test
procedures may be needed to provide
accurate representations of efficiency.
(CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; Grundfos, No.
29 at p. 1; HI, No. 30 at p. 1; WSC, No.
35 at p. 1)
NEMA questioned the merits of
testing submersible motors in open air
conditions, as these motors are designed
to operate submerged. It noted that
because the proposed test procedure
does not require submersion for cooling,
it is neither representative, nor accurate,
nor repeatable. (NEMA, No 26 at p. 6)
It stated that submersible motors are
often designed with a much higher
power density than open-air motors
because the specific heat capacity of
water is approximately 4 times that of
air, allowing much more heat
dissipation to be accounted for in the
design. It noted that because of the
design difference, in most cases it is not
sufficient to rely on air flow to cool
submersible electric motors with such
high power densities. It provided motor
performance modeling data for a 15 hp
submersible motor built in a NEMA 184
frame. NEMA showed that using a
typical value of minimum required air
velocity for the manufacturer’s air-over
motors at the same frame size (i.e., at 12
mph), the AEDM predicts that the
maximum horsepower at which the
motor would stabilize is at 12.5 hp, at
which point the predicted average
winding temperature rise would reach
442 °C. Because IEEE 112–2017 requires
that the load temperature test be
performed before taking efficiency
measurements, conducting the load
temperature test at an average winding
temperature rise of 442 °C would likely
result in motor failure even before the
efficiency measurements could be made,
which in turn would subject personnel
performing the measurements to
potential safety hazards. Even at the
maximum air velocity that this
manufacturer’s AEDM is capable of
reaching (i.e., at 114 mph), the AEDM
predicts this motor would stabilize at
14.8 HP, for which the predicted
average winding temperature rise is
322.2 °C, which would also likely result
in motor failure. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp.
21–22)
CEMEP stated that NEMA part 34.4
was not applicable to submersible
motors. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 4) CEMEP
stated that some submersible motors
would not be sufficiently cooled by air
alone as would occur under the
proposed test procedure. They provided
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
an example of a 45 kW motor needing
to dissipate 8 kW of heat losses while
operating. They also stated that the
bearings and seals would not be
properly lubricated when tested under
the conditions of the proposed test
procedure—which would effectively be
by air rather than by a liquid as would
occur during the normal operation of
submersible motors. (CEMEP, No. 19 at
p. 8)
Franklin Electric opposed using
NEMA 34.4 as the test method for
submersible motors, arguing that no
standardized test procedure exists; the
proposed test procedure was not
validated on a diverse enough group of
motors; many submersible motor
bearings require liquid to be used to
lubricate seals and bearings during
operation, the lack of which would
damage the motor and present
additional frictional losses not
representative as part of the motor’s
intended use; many submersible motors
are not designed to operate in a
horizontal configuration as proposed by
the test procedure; the leads for
submersible motors are often designed
with liquid cooling in mind, and using
thermocouples on the surface of the
motor is not a reliable means of
evaluating the winding temperature—
particularly when different liquids are
used to encapsulate the windings.
(Franklin Electric, No. 22 at pp. 3–4)
Further, Franklin Electric noted that no
non-manufacturer test lab has the
capability to certify a motor using the
proposed method, (Franklin Electric,
No. 22 at p. 5), and added that
submersible motor manufacturers
already have custom in-house tests that
accommodate water cooling and vertical
orientation of the motor to provide
accurate and repeatable efficiency
testing. It stated that using air-cooling
would actually be more burdensome
than liquid for submersible motors
larger than 5 hp. (Franklin Electric, No.
22 at p. 4)
In response to DOE’s comments on
whether the proposed test procedure
should only apply to a certain
horsepower range, Franklin Electric
stated that even if the submersible test
method scope was limited to 10 hp, that
limit would exclude from scope most
sizes other than 4-inch diameter
submersible motors. It noted that this
cut-off would result in a very small
fraction of products being added to the
test procedure and therefore, would
create confusion around efficiency
ratings of an in-scope submersible motor
vs. out of scope submersible motor.
(Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 5) For
these reasons, Franklin Electric argued
that the submersible test procedure is
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
both technologically infeasible and not
economically justified and disagreed
with DOE’s initial view that the
proposed changes would not constitute
a ‘‘significant’’ regulatory action.
(Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 6)
AI Group stated that submersible
motors should be tested according to a
procedure that has them submerged in
water. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 3)
Grundfos offered a similar critique,
asserting that the proposed submersible
motor test procedure is inadequate
because these motors are designed to
operate while submerged in a liquid and
the proposed test method has them
tested in air. Grundfos stated that testing
these motors in air rather than
submerged in water would not
accurately reflect their efficiency in
their intended application. It explained
that the proposed method for
determining winding temperatures is
impractical and for some motors
impossible—and it specifically noted
that DOE’s proposed test method in air
does not consider the ‘‘heat rejection’’
efficiency of the motors and forces them
to reach winding temperatures the
motor may never reach under normal
operating conditions. (Grundfos, No. 29
at pp. 1, 7–8) Grundfos added that no
amount of modification to the air-over
method would make it an appropriate
method for accurately evaluating the
efficiency of submersible motors
(Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 1)
HI also criticized the proposed
approach. It stated that no
internationally recognized test standard
exists for evaluating the efficiency of
borehole and submersible wastewater
motors and that the proposed approach
of using air cooling will not result in an
accurate measurement of motor
performance. It argued that any test
procedure for submersible wastewater
motors would need to better reflect the
specific aspects of these motors and
require multiple product categories,
definitions, and test methods to
properly test and represent the
efficiencies for these specialized motors.
HI also stated that many submersible
motors rely liquid for lubrication.
Further, it asserted that the proposed
test method was not repeatable and
reproducible across test facilities and
that DOE’s testing of only two small
motors does not adequately address this
concern. HI also stated that the
proposed temperature measurement
provisions do not address all
submersible motor designs required to
accurately obtain winding temperature
measurements to ensure testing is
conducted within the defined
temperature tolerances. (HI, No. 30 at
pp. 1–2)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
WSC commented that testing
submersible motors in air will not result
in accurate values of motor
performance. It noted that submersible
motors have multiple designs, and any
test procedure will need multiple
product testing categories and methods
to accurately separate out the motor
losses from these different designs. It
also noted manufacturers have
developed their own specialized
methods that are capital intensive. It
added that wastewater submersible
motors have specific designs (oil filled,
air filled, single seal, dual seal, lip seal,
seal materials) that impact utility, which
in turn would require any test method
that DOE adopts to consider these
factors through the use of multiple
product testing categories and
appropriate testing methods for each.
WSC also asserted that DOE’s sample
size was too small to prove a repeatable
test method. (WSC, No. 35 at pp. 1–2)
CEMEP, WSC, and Grundfos all
recommended that a test method for
submersible motors should be
developed by international
standardization committees. (CEMEP,
No. 19 at pp. 8–9; WSC, No. 35 at p. 2;
Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 1)
In contrast to those commenters who
objected to the adoption of DOE’s
proposed test method for submersible
electric motors, other commenters
supported DOE’s proposal—but with
reservations. Advanced Energy stated
that the submersible test method
appears repeatable for 5 hp or smaller
submersible motors, and that there is
opportunity to evaluate this test method
for larger hp motors. (Advanced Energy,
No. 33 at p. 16) The Joint Advocates and
CA IOUs supported including
submersible electric motors in scope
and encouraged DOE to continue to
investigate options for submersible
motor testing to support development of
test procedures. (Joint Advocates, No. 27
at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 17–18)
The CA IOUs commented that Japan,
China, and Brazil have standards for
submersible motors. They noted that
China has published testing standards
for waste submersible motor-pumps,
submersible motors for deep wells, and
submersible motor-pumps. Further, they
noted that India has published a case
study and three test methods for
submersible motors. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1
at p. 17) The CA IOUs also stated that
IEEE is developing a submersible motor
test standard and provided links to the
currently published IEEE
recommendations for testing
submersible motors. They also
suggested that NEMA Part 34 would
need more modification to be used as
the test procedure, or that a completely
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63605
new test procedure needs to be
developed for these motors. (CA IOUs,
No. 32.1 at pp. 17–18)
DOE re-evaluated the proposed test
method based on concerns noted by
stakeholders. DOE agrees that further
testing is needed to ensure that any test
method(s) would be both applicable and
representative for submersible electric
motors of all designs and sizes. Further,
DOE also agrees that a test procedure
based on air cooling as opposed to water
cooling may not accurately capture
intended performance. In addition, DOE
acknowledges concerns that liquid is
needed to lubricate seals and bearings
during operation, the lack of which
could potentially damage the motor and
present additional frictional losses.
Finally, DOE understands that the
applicability of the proposed test
procedure at higher horsepowers may
result in winding temperature rises that
may cause motor failure. Accordingly,
based on comments received and further
review, DOE is not including
submersible electric motors within
scope of this test procedure. Therefore,
submersible electric motors will
continue to be exempt from the test
procedures and energy conservation
standards.
9. Other Exemptions
Currently, DOE exempts (1)
component sets of an electric motor; and
(2) liquid-cooled electric motors. 10 CFR
431.25(l)(2) and (3).
DOE defines ‘‘component set’’ as a
combination of motor parts that require
the addition of more than two
endshields (and their associated
bearings) to create an operable motor.
These parts may consist of any
combination of a stator frame, wound
stator, rotor, shaft, or endshields. 10
CFR 431.12. DOE defines ‘‘liquid-cooled
electric motor’’ as a motor that is cooled
by liquid circulated using a designated
cooling apparatus such that the liquid or
liquid-filled conductors come into
direct contact with the parts of the
motor. Id. DOE is amending the
definition for ‘‘liquid-cooled electric
motor’’ in this final rule, as discussed in
section III.B.5 of this document. In the
December 2021 NOPR, DOE requested
comment on maintaining the
exemptions. 86 FR 71710, 71727–71728.
Certain stakeholders supported
continuing to exempt components set of
electric motors from the scope of the test
procedure. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; ebmpapst, No. 23 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 26 at
p. 8; Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2) Certain
stakeholders also supported excluding
liquid-cooled electric motors from
scope. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 3; NEMA,
No. 26 at p. 8; Grundfos, No. 29 at p.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63606
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
3) Advanced Energy supported
continuing to exclude liquid-cooled
electric motors stating that they are
highly specialized motors and often
prioritize power density over other
performance requirements. (Advanced
Energy, No. 33 at p. 5) Comments
received regarding the liquid-cooled
definition are addressed in section
III.B.5. of this document.
Based on the discussion presented in
the December 2021 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs in this final rule,
DOE is continuing to exempt
component sets of an electric motor and
liquid-cooled electric motors from the
scope of the electric motors test
procedure.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
B. Definitions
In this final rule DOE is modifying 10
CFR 431.12 by amending and adding
certain definitions applicable to electric
motors. These amendments and
additions are discussed in further detail
in the following sections.
1. Updating IEC Design N and H Motors
Definitions and Including New
Definitions for IEC Design N and H ‘‘E’’
and ‘‘Y’’ Designations
As discussed in section III.A.2 of this
document, DOE is clarifying in this final
rule that IEC Design HE, HEY, HY, NE,
NEY, and NY motors are within the
scope of the test procedure. In the
December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to
add definitions for these ‘‘E’’ and ‘‘Y’’
designations for IEC Design N and H
motors based on IEC 60034–12:2016. 86
FR 71710, 71728–71729.
In response to this proposal,
Advanced Energy stated that the
proposed updates are not consistent
with the definitions as they appear in
IEC 60034–12:2016. It stated the IEC
standard states a ‘‘Y’’ designation
represents ‘‘star-delta starting’’ as
opposed to ‘‘direct-on-line’’ starting for
both IEC Design HEY and NEY. Further,
Advanced Energy also commented that
the upper limit of output power for IEC
Design H was not consistent with
Section 5.5 of IEC 60034–12:2016.
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 5) DOE
did not receive any other comments
regarding the definition of the ‘‘E’’ and
‘‘Y’’ variants of IEC Design N and H
motors.
Based on the comment from
Advanced Energy and additional review
of IEC 60034–12:2016, DOE agrees that
the IEC Design N and H motors with the
‘‘Y’’ variant are capable of star-delta
starting, not direct-on-line starting. DOE
is finalizing the definitions for IEC
Design N and H that include the Y
variant (IEC Design HY, HEY, NY, NEY)
accordingly.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
Regarding the upper limit for the
Design H definition, DOE notes that the
current DOE definition for IEC Design H
motor in 10 CFR 431.12 extends to 1600
kW. DOE established this definition in
the December 2013 Final Rule. 78 FR
75962, 75969–75970. In the December
2013 Final Rule, DOE explained that in
defining IEC Design H and IEC Design
N motors, DOE specified the
characteristics and features that identify
these types of motors, so that
manufacturers designing to the IEC
standards can easily tell whether their
motor is subject to DOE’s regulatory
requirements. DOE could not identify a
justification for why DOE’s definition of
IEC Design H included an upper limit of
1600 kW instead of the 160 kW limit
consistent with the IEC definition of
Design H. Although standards are
limited by a horsepower range (see 10
CFR 431.25(g)(8)), DOE stated that it
does not need to limit the DOE
definitions to the same power range as
the standards to describe whether a
given motor falls under Design H or
Design N. Id. Since the definition of
Design H in IEC 60034–12:2016 already
limits Design H motors to 160 kW,
bringing the upper limit in DOE’s
definitions to be consistent with IEC
60034–12:2016 will not change the
scope of the test procedure.
Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is
amending the upper horsepower limit
for Design H (and E and Y variations) to
160 kW.
2. Updating Definitions To Reference
Current NEMA MG 1–2016
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to revise a number of
definitions at 10 CFR 431.12 by
updating references from NEMA MG 1–
2009 to NEMA MG 1–2016 (with 2018
Supplements). 86 FR 71710, 71729–
71730. DOE noted that the following
definitions reference provisions of
NEMA MG 1–2009 that have changed
between the 2009 and 2016 versions:
‘‘definite purpose motor,’’ ‘‘definite
purpose electric motor,’’ ‘‘general
purpose electric motor,’’ ‘‘NEMA Design
A Motor,’’ ‘‘NEMA Design B Motor,’’
‘‘NEMA Design C motor,’’ and ‘‘nominal
full-load efficiency.’’ DOE initially
determined that the changes in NEMA
MG 1–2016 (with 2018 Supplements) do
not substantively change these
definitions. Id.
In response, NEMA commented that
updating the reference of NEMA MG 1
to the 2016 version (with 2018
Supplements) would not substantially
change the definitions currently
prescribed in 10 CFR 431.12. It further
stated the definitions of NEMA Design
A, B, and C should be updated to reflect
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the revised subsection references of
12.35 in NEMA MG 1–2016. (NEMA,
No. 26 at p. 10)
Since the December 2021 NOPR,
NEMA has published a revised version
of NEMA MG 1–2016. On June 15, 2021,
ANSI approved the revised version,
which is referred to in this document as
NEMA MG 1–2016. DOE understands
that NEMA continues to title this
standard as ‘‘NEMA MG 1–2016,’’ even
with the latest 2021 updates. In
reviewing the latest standard, DOE notes
that this revision only appears to unify
the supplements and the rest of NEMA
MG 1 into one continuous document
and does not include any substantial
changes to the content of the standard
that was reviewed in the December 2021
NOPR. While the December 2021 NOPR
requested comment on the definitions
based on the latest version at the time
[NEMA MG 1–2016 (with 2018
Supplements)], because DOE has since
concluded that the latest version
[NEMA MG 1–2016 ((Revision 1, 2018)
ANSI-approved 2021)] is not
substantially different, the assessment
conducted in the December 2021 NOPR
is still relevant for the latest version of
the standard. As such, in this final rule,
DOE is incorporating by reference and
including within the definitions the
latest NEMA MG 1–2016 standard.
In addition, DOE reviewed the
subsection references contained in the
definitions of NEMA Design A, B, and
C in NEMA MG 1–2016 and notes that
there have been no updates to the
content of the updated subsections.
Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE has
updated the definitions to include the
new subsection references as they
appear in NEMA MG 1–2016.
3. Inverter, Inverter-Only, and InverterCapable
DOE defines an ‘‘inverter-only electric
motor’’ as an electric motor that is
capable of rated operation solely with
an inverter, and is not intended for
operation when directly connected to
polyphase, sinusoidal line power.’’ DOE
also defines an ‘‘inverter-capable
electric motor’’ as an ‘‘electric motor
designed to be directly connected to
polyphase, sinusoidal line power, but
that is also capable of continuous
operation on an inverter drive over a
limited speed range and associated
load.’’ 10 CFR 431.12. Inverter-only and
inverter-capable electric motors can be
sold with or without an inverter.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to revise the definitions for
‘‘inverter-only electric motor’’ and
‘‘inverter-capable electric motor.’’
Further, DOE also proposed a definition
for ‘‘inverter.’’ 86 FR 71710, 71730. DOE
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
noted that, in addition to not being
designed for operation when directly
connected to polyphase, sinusoidal
power, inverter-only motors are also not
designed for operation when directly
connected to single-phase, sinusoidal
line power or to DC power. Id. To
provide a more complete definition,
DOE proposed to revise the definition of
inverter-only electric motor as follows:
‘‘an electric motor that is capable of
continuous operation solely with an
inverter, and is not designed for
operation when directly connected to
AC sinusoidal or DC power supply.’’ Id.
Similarly, DOE proposed to revise the
definition of an inverter-capable electric
motor as follows: ‘‘an electric motor
designed to be directly connected to AC
sinusoidal or DC power, but that is also
capable of continuous operation on an
inverter drive over a limited speed range
and associated load.’’ Id.
Finally, Paragraph 30.2.1.5 of NEMA
MG 1 2016 defines the term ‘‘control’’
for motors receiving AC power, as
‘‘devices that are also called inverters
and converters. They are electronic
devices that convert an input AC or DC
power into a controlled output AC
voltage or current’’. Converters can also
be found in motors that receive DC
power and also include electronic
devices that convert an input AC or DC
power into a controlled output DC
voltage or current. Therefore, to support
the definition of ‘‘inverter-only motor,’’
in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to define an inverter as ‘‘an
electronic device that converts an input
AC or DC power into a controlled
output AC or DC voltage or current. An
inverter may also be called a converter.’’
Id.
Grundfos and Advanced Energy
supported the proposed definitions for
‘‘inverter,’’ ‘‘inverter-only electric
motor,’’ and ‘‘inverter-capable electric
motors.’’ (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 3;
Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 6)
NEMA, CEMEP, and AI commented that
the definitions should be amended to
harmonize with the definitions in IEC
60034–1 Edition 14. (NEMA, No. 26 at
p. 11; CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 3; AI Group,
No. 25 at p. 4)
In response to these comments, DOE
reviewed the definitions contained in
IEC 60034–1 Ed. 14. IEC 60034–1 Ed. 14
contains specifications for the ratings
and performance of rotating electrical
machines and defines a ‘‘converter duty
machine’’ as an ‘‘electrical machine
designed specifically for operation fed
by a power electronic frequency
converter with a temperature rise within
the specified insulation thermal class or
thermal class.’’ DOE notes that this
definition was not in edition 13 of IEC
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
60034–1 and was not available for
consideration in the December 2021
NOPR since edition 14 was published in
2022. DOE also notes that the IEC
definition is generally similar to the
definition proposed in the December
2021 NOPR with only minor
differences. The IEC definition uses the
term ‘‘electrical machine’’ where DOE
used ‘‘electric motor’’ and ‘‘power
electronic frequency converter’’ where
DOE used ‘‘inverter.’’ DOE also
understands that the temperature rise
clause in the IEC definition is similar to
the ‘‘continuous operation’’ clause of
the DOE definition since overheating
(potentially through gradually breaking
down the motor’s insulation) is a
common mode of failure caused by an
inverter feeding a non-inverter-rated
motor. As such, DOE is adopting the IEC
definition to harmonize with industry
standards, with only minor
modifications to be consistent with the
terminology currently used in the
rulemaking process. Specifically, in this
final rule, DOE is defining an ‘‘inverteronly electric motor’’ as an ‘‘electric
motor designed specifically for
operation fed by an inverter with a
temperature rise within the specified
insulation thermal class or thermal
limits.’’
IEC 60034–1 Ed. 14 also defines a
‘‘converter capable machine’’ as an
‘‘electrical machine designed for direct
online start and suitable for operation
on a power electronic frequency
converter without special filtering.’’
DOE understands that the IEC definition
for ‘‘converter capable machine’’ is
largely similar to the term ‘‘invertercapable electric motor’’ in the same way
as how the IEC definition for ‘‘converter
duty machine’’ is largely similar to the
term ‘‘inverter-only electric motor.’’
Specifically, the IEC definition uses the
clause ‘‘suitable for operation’’ whereas
the proposed DOE definition included
an analogous clause ‘‘capable of
continuous operation.’’ Further, the IEC
definition uses the term ‘‘power
electronic frequency converter,’’
whereas the proposed DOE definition
included the term ‘‘inverter.’’
In reviewing the IEC definition for
‘‘converter capable machine’’ and the
proposed definition for ‘‘invertercapable electric motor,’’ DOE identified
two additional differences. The first
difference DOE identified was the
proposed inclusion of the clause ‘‘over
a limited speed range and associated
load’’—a qualification not included
with the IEC definition. However, DOE
understands that this additional clause
would not create a significant difference
between the two definitions as all
motors effectively have a limited speed
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63607
range or associated load by nature of
their construction. Therefore, DOE
concludes that adopting the IEC
definition would not modify the
currently proposed scope of this test
procedure.
The second difference DOE identified
was the clause ‘‘without special
filtering,’’ which is included in the IEC
definition but not in the DOE proposed
definition. DOE understands that the
inclusion of this clause in the IEC
definition is to ensure that non-inverterrated motors are not considered
inverter-capable when a filter is used
between the inverter and motor to filter
out the higher-order harmonics to
prevent damage to the non-inverterrated motor. This understanding is
consistent with the intent of the DOE
proposed definition of ‘‘inverter-capable
electric motor.’’ Therefore, to harmonize
with industry standards, DOE is
adopting the IEC definition with minor
modifications to keep the terminology
consistent. Specifically, in this final
rule, DOE is defining an ‘‘invertercapable electric motor’’ as an ‘‘electric
motor designed for direct online start
and suitable for operation on an inverter
without special filtering.’’
4. Air-Over Electric Motors
Certain general-purpose electric
motors have an internal fan attached to
the shaft that forces air through the
motor and prevents it from overheating
during continuous use. Air-over electric
motors do not have a factory-attached
fan and require a separate means of
forcing air over the frame of the motor.
The external cooling maintains internal
motor winding temperatures within the
permissible temperature rise for the
motor’s insulation class or to a
maximum temperature value specified
by the manufacturer.23 Without an
external means of cooling, an air-over
electric motor would overheat during
continuous operation. Air-over motors
can be found in direct-drive axial fans,
blowers, and several other applications;
for example, single-phase air-over
motors are widely used in residential
and commercial HVAC systems,
appliances, and equipment as well as in
agricultural applications. The current
definition for air-over electric motors in
10 CFR 431.12 is as follows: an electric
motor rated to operate in and be cooled
by the airstream of a fan or blower that
is not supplied with the motor and
23 Sections 12.42 and 12.43 of NEMA MG 1–2016
specifies the maximum temperature rises
corresponding to four insulation classes (A, B, F,
and H). Each class represents the maximum
allowable operating temperature rise at which the
motor can operate without failure, or risk of
reducing its lifetime.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63608
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
whose primary purpose is providing
airflow to an application other than the
motor driving it.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
noted that the absence of a fan is not a
differentiating feature specific to airover electric motors. 86 FR 71710,
71730–71731. For example, there is
little difference between a totally
enclosed fan-cooled electric motor
(‘‘TEFC’’) and a totally enclosed air-over
electric motor (‘‘TEAO’’). A user could
remove the fan on a TEFC electric
motor, and then place the motor in an
airstream of the application to obtain an
air-over electric motor configuration.
Further, other motor categories such as
totally enclosed non-ventilated
(‘‘TENV’’) electric motors do not have
internal fans or blowers and are similar
in construction to TEAO electric
motors.24 Finally, DOE also noted that
to differentiate air-over motors from
totally-enclosed pipe-ventilated
(‘‘TEPV’’) motors, it needed to specify
that the external cooling is obtained by
a free flow of air rather than external
cooling that is directed onto the motor
via a duct or a pipe.25 Id.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
explained that what differentiates airover motors from non-air-over motors is
that air-over motors require external
cooling by a free flow of air to prevent
overheating during continuous
operation.26 86 FR 71710, 71730–71731.
Further, DOE noted that the free flow of
air was needed for the air-over motor to
thermally stabilize. Accordingly, DOE
proposed a revised definition of air-over
electric motor in consideration of the
above specifications—i.e., ‘‘an electric
motor that does not reach thermal
equilibrium (i.e., thermal stability)
during a rated load temperature test
according to section 2 of appendix B,
without the application of forced
cooling by a free flow of air from an
external device not mechanically
connected to the motor.’’ 86 FR 71710,
71730–71731.
In response to DOE’s proposal,
Advanced Energy supported DOE’s
24 TENV electric motors are ‘‘built in a framesurface cooled, totally enclosed configuration that
is designed and equipped to be cooled only by free
convection’’ 10 CFR 431.12.
25 DOE did not find any pipe-ventilated motors in
the proposed scope of applicability of this test
procedure but is aware that some motors may exist
in such configurations. TEPV motors are cooled by
supply air which is piped into the motor and
ducted out of the motor. They are typically used to
overcome heat dissipation difficulties and when air
surrounding the motor is not clean (e.g., dust).
26 Without the application of free-flowing air, the
internal winding temperatures of an air-over
electric motor would exceed the maximum
permissible temperature (i.e., the motor’s insulation
class’s permissible temperature rise or a maximum
temperature value specified by the manufacturer).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
proposed definition of air-over electric
motor. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p.
6) NEMA commented that the definition
was adequate, but pointed out that DOE
should preserve and allow all three
potential stabilization methods. (NEMA,
No. 26 at p. 11) Lennox commented that
while it supported the proposed
definition, it stated that DOE must
continue to exempt HVACR air-over
motors from component level-regulation
when such motors are used in
equipment already regulated at the
systems level. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 7)
Trane commented that the current
definition of air-over electric motor is
appropriate and that changing it to
include thermal equilibrium is
inappropriate because the motor could
still reach equilibrium without forcedair through heat dissipation. However,
the same motor would still be defined
as an air-over motor because the
manufacturer specifies certain
minimum airflow requirements to
maintain winding temperatures within
permissible limits. (Trane, No. 31 at p.
4)
As discussed previously, DOE
proposed the updated definition to
ensure that air-over electric motors are
correctly distinguished from TEFC,
TENV, and TEPV motors. The proposed
definition for air-over electric motor
specifies reaching thermal equilibrium
with forced cooling at a target
temperature 27 according to section 2 of
appendix B, which is the air-over
electric motor test procedure. As
discussed in section III.D.1 of this
document, the air-over electric motor
test procedure allows the use of the
motor temperature rise if it is indicated
by the manufacturer to specify the target
temperature, or if it is not indicated,
requires use a target temperature of
75 °C. Based on the updated definition,
if the electric motor can thermally
stabilize below the target temperature
without airflow, then that motor is not
considered an air-over electric motor.
Without an external means of cooling,
an air-over electric motor would
overheat during continuous operation.
Therefore, if the motor is able to
stabilize and operate below the target
temperature, then there is no
requirement for external means of
cooling. On the other hand, the electric
motor would still be considered an airover electric motor if it can thermally
stabilize without airflow at a
temperature above the target
temperature. The updated definition
27 The amount of ventilation required during the
test is based on motor winding temperature
reaching a target temperature. See section III.D.1 of
this document.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
does not limit this occurrence, as it is
only specifying that thermal equilibrium
must be met during a rated load
temperature test according to section 2
of appendix B (i.e., using the
temperature rise indicated by the
manufacturer to determine target
temperature, or if it is not indicated, a
target temperature of 75 °C).
Accordingly, having an external means
of cooling would still be required during
continuous operation at the
manufacturer specified target
temperature.
AMCA stated that the proposed
definition for air-over motors is
ambiguous and would exclude many
intended air-over motors because of the
provision ‘‘without the application of
forced cooling by a free flow of air from
an external device not mechanically
connected to the motor’’ would exclude
air-over motors which are cooled by an
external fan driven by the motor’s shaft.
AMCA recommended as an alternate
definition: ‘‘an electric motor that does
not reach thermal equilibrium (i.e.,
thermal stability) during a rated load
temperature test according to section 2
of appendix B, without the application
of forced cooling by a free flow of air
from an external device not supplied for
permanent use with the motor.’’
(AMCA, No. 21 at pp. 2–3) ebm-papst
supported AMCA’s suggested definition
of an air-over motor and stated that
DOE’s proposed definition was too
broad. (ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 5)
As described in the NOPR, air-over
motors do not have a factory-attached
fan and require a separate means of
forcing air over the frame of the motor.
86 71710, 71730. DOE interprets the
concerns from AMCA and ebm-papst as
being that requiring the free flow of air
to come from an external device not
mechanically connected to the motor
would unintentionally exclude certain
air-over electric motors that should be
included, such as air-over motors that
are sold with a fan mechanically
connected to the motor’s shaft (in this
case, the fan is used to provide function
beyond cooling of the motor and an air
over-motor is used to drive the fan).
DOE agrees with AMCA and ebm-papst,
that such motors must not be excluded
from the air-motor electric motor
definition. DOE’s intent in specifying
‘‘external device’’ and ‘‘not
mechanically connected’’ in the
proposed definition was to distinguish
air-over motors that do not incorporate
a fan within the motor’s enclosure from
motors that do incorporate a fan in the
motor’s enclosure, where the fan is used
for the sole purpose of cooling the
motor. Therefore, in response to the
recommendations by AMCA and ebm-
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
papst, for clarification, DOE is adopting
a modified version of the proposed
definition instead. DOE is specifying
that the external device should also not
be supplied within the motor enclosure.
In general, DOE prefers to rely on
physical features instead of intended
usage (i.e., ‘‘for permanent use’’) when
establishing equipment definitions.
As such, in this final rule, DOE adopts
the following definition of air-over
electric motor: an electric motor that
does not reach thermal equilibrium (i.e.,
thermal stability), during a rated load
temperature test according to section 2
of appendix B, without the application
of forced cooling by a free flow of air
from an external device not
mechanically connected to the motor
within the motor enclosure.
5. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motors
Liquid-cooled electric motors are
definite-purpose motors typically
designed for high power density
applications. The higher power density
from these applications causes a liquidcooled electric motor to generate more
heat over a given volume than a
conventional air-cooled electric motor.
To prevent the motor from overheating,
it relies on a liquid to be forced through
and over components of the motor to
provide better cooling than an internal
fan would. DOE currently defines a
liquid-cooled electric motor as: a motor
that is cooled by liquid circulated using
a designated cooling apparatus such that
the liquid or liquid-filled conductors
come into direct contact with the parts
of the motor. 10 CFR 431.12.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to revise this definition to
read as ‘‘a motor that is cooled by liquid
circulated using a designated cooling
apparatus such that the liquid or liquidfilled conductors come into direct
contact with the parts of the motor, but
is not submerged in a liquid during
operation.’’ DOE proposed this revision
to better distinguish liquid-cooled
electric motors from submersible
electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71731–
71732.
NEMA supported the proposed
definition of liquid-cooled electric
motor. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 11)
Grundfos commented that ‘‘designated
cooling apparatus’’ is not clearly
defined and believe that the proposed
definition makes it unclear as to what
constitutes a liquid-cooled motor.
(Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 3)
In the December 2013 Final Rule,
DOE discussed that liquid-cooled
electric motors rely on a special cooling
apparatus that pumps liquid into and
around the motor housing. 78 FR 75962,
75987–75988. The liquid is circulated
around the motor frame to dissipate heat
and prevent the motor from overheating
during continuous-duty operation. The
December 2013 Final Rule amended the
definition of liquid-cooled electric
motor to better differentiate liquidcooled electric motors from other types
of electric motors, and the term
‘‘designated cooling apparatus’’ was
added to specify that a cooling
apparatus is required for a motor to be
designated as a liquid-cooled electric
motor. Id. In this final rule, DOE further
specifies that a ‘‘designated cooling
apparatus’’ is any apparatus that
circulates a liquid in order to cool a
liquid-cooled electric motor. One
example of such an apparatus is an
external pump that forces a liquid
through the motor for cooling purposes.
For the reasons discussed in the
December 2021 NOPR and with the
modification discussed in the preceding
paragraph, DOE is adopting the
definition of liquid-cooled, as proposed.
6. Basic Model and Equipment Class
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to amend the definition of
‘‘basic model’’ in 10 CFR 431.12 to make
it similar to the definitions used for
other DOE-regulated products and
equipment, and to eliminate an
ambiguity found in the current
definition. 86 FR 71710, 71732. The
definition in 10 CFR 431.12 specifies
that basic models of electric motors are
all units of a given type manufactured
by the same manufacturer, which have
the same rating, and have electrical
characteristics that are essentially
identical, and do not have any differing
physical or functional characteristics
that affect energy consumption or
efficiency. For the purposes of this
definition, the term ‘‘rating’’ is specified
to mean one of 113 combinations of
63609
horsepower, poles, and open or
enclosed construction. See id. The
reference to 113 combinations dates
from the Department’s implementation
of EPACT 1992, which established
initial standards for motors based on
that categorization. Since then, EISA
2007 and DOE’s regulations have
established standards for additional
motor categories. See 10 CFR 431.25. To
clarify that the concept of a ‘‘basic
model’’ reflects the categorization in
effect under the prevailing standard, as
it stands today, and as it may evolve in
future rulemakings, DOE proposed to
refer only to the combinations of
horsepower (or standard kilowatt
equivalent), number of poles, and open
or enclosed construction for which 10
CFR 431.25 prescribes standards; and to
remove the current reference to 113
such combinations. 86 FR 71710, 71732.
As such, DOE proposed to replace the
term ‘‘rating’’ with the term ‘‘equipment
class’’ in the basic model definition. In
addition, DOE proposed to define
‘‘equipment class’’ as one of the
combinations of an electric motor’s
horsepower (or standard kilowatt
equivalent), number of poles, and open
or enclosed construction, with respect
to a category of electric motor for which
§ 431.25 prescribes nominal full-load
efficiency standards. Id. This proposal
would also limit confusion between the
use of the term ‘‘rating’’ in this specific
case and the use of the term as it applies
to represented values of other
individual characteristics of an electric
motor, such as its rated horsepower,
voltage, torque, or energy efficiency. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments on
these definitions and adopts the
definitions of equipment class and basic
model as proposed.
C. Updates to Industry Standards
Currently Incorporated by Reference
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
reviewed each of the industry standards
that are currently incorporated by
reference as test methods for
determining the energy efficiency of
electric motors or that are referenced
within the definitions prescribed in 10
CFR 431.12, and identified updates for
each as provided in Table III–4 of this
document. 86 FR 71710, 71732–71734.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
TABLE III–4—UPDATED INDUSTRY STANDARDS PROPOSED IN THE DECEMBER 2021 NOPR
Existing reference
Updated version
IEC 60034–12 Edition 2.1 2007–09 .......................................
NFPA 20–2010 .......................................................................
CSA C390–10 ........................................................................
NEMA MG 1–2009 .................................................................
IEC 60034–12 Edition 3.0 2016 ............................................
NFPA 20–2019 .....................................................................
CSA C390–10 (Reaffirmed 2019) .........................................
NEMA MG 1–2016 ................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
Type of update
19OCR2
Revision.
Revision.
Reaffirmed.
Revision.
63610
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
Through the review, DOE tentatively
concluded that updating the industry
standards to the latest version would
not alter the measured efficiency of
electric motors and would not be
unduly burdensome to conduct.
Therefore, DOE proposed to incorporate
by reference the updated versions of the
industry standards. Id.
DOE also proposed to incorporate by
reference IEC 60079–7:2015 as it is
referenced within IEC 60034–12:2016
and is necessary for the test procedure.
Sections 5.2.7.3 and 5.2.8.2 of IEC
60079–7:2015 describe the additional
starting requirements of increased safety
‘‘eb’’ and ‘‘ec’’ motors. The ‘‘eb’’ and
‘‘ec’’ designations are the two levels of
protection offered by the increased
safety ‘‘e’’ designation and are intended
for use in explosive gas atmospheres,
according to Section 1 of IEC 60079–
7:2015. Section 5.2.7.3 specifies the
application of protective measures to
prevent airgap sparking while Section
5.2.8.2 specifies the application of
starting current requirements and when
a current-dependent safety device is
required. 86 FR 71710, 71733. Also, to
ensure consistency in the versions of the
referenced standards used when testing,
DOE proposed to specify the publication
year for each of the industry standards
referenced by Section 12.58.1 of NEMA
MG 1–2016, which are as follows: IEEE
112–2017, CSA C390–10, and IEC
60034–2–1:2014. 86 FR 71710, 71734.
In response, CEMEP agreed that
DOE’s assessment of the updates to
NEMA 12.58.1 of MG 1–2016 with its
2018 Supplements was accurate, and
supported updating the IEEE, CSA, and
IEC standards to their latest versions.
(CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 4) However,
CEMEP stated that IEC 60079–7:2015
contains some specific requirements for
’eb’ motors related to the safety of such
protection type, and for ’ec’ motors,
there are no requirements regarding
starting performance. Accordingly,
CEMEP recommended against including
IEC 60079–7:2015. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p.
4)
NEMA agreed with DOE’s assessment
of the updates to IEC 60034–12:2016,
and supported referencing both IEC
60034–12:2016 and IEC 60079–7:2015.
It commented that while IEC 60034–12
is currently under revision, substantial
changes were not expected. (NEMA, No.
26 at p. 11) Further, NEMA agreed with
DOE’s assessment of the updates to
Paragraph 12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1–2016,
and asserted that updating the
references to IEEE 112–2017, CSA
C390–10, and IEC 60034–2–1:2014
should not affect the measured
efficiency of electric motors currently in
scope of the test procedure. (NEMA, No.
26 at pp. 11–12) Finally, NEMA also
supported DOE updating to the 2019
version of NFPA 20. Id. NEMA stated
that ‘‘including any IEC equivalent’’
should remain in DOE’s definition of
fire pump for clarity even if NFPA 20
section 9.5 now includes that clause.
(NEMA, No. 26 at p. 11)
Grundfos did not believe updating to
the 2016 version of NEMA MG 1 (with
2018 Supplements) would alter the
measured efficiency of electric motors.
(Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 3) Further,
Grundfos agreed with DOE’s assessment
and proposed inclusion of IEC 60034–
12:2016 and the proposed updates to
Section 12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1. It also
supported including IEC 60034–2–
1:2014 as part of the DOE test
procedure. (Grundfos, No. 29 at pp. 3–
4) Advanced Energy agreed with DOE’s
assessment on the updates to Section
12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1–2016 (with 2018
Supplements), and agreed with
updating DOE’s test procedures to
reference the most recent IEEE, CSA,
and IEC standards because it would be
consistent with current industry
practice. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p.
7)
Since the December 2021 NOPR, there
have been updates to two of the
standards: (1) NFPA 20–2019 has been
revised to a 2022 version; and (2) NEMA
MG 1–2016 has been updated to an
ANSI approved June 15, 2021, version
that includes updates to parts 0, 1, 7, 12,
30, and 31, along with Part 34
(separately published).
For the 2022 update to NFPA–20, new
requirements were added to address
numerous recent advancements in the
field of stationary pumps for fire
protection, which is not relevant for the
scope of this rulemaking. The updates to
Section 9.5 of NFPA–20 provide further
clarifications on calculating values for
locked rotor current for motors rated at
voltages other than 230 V presented in
that section. Otherwise, section 9.5
remains the same as the 2019 version.
Accordingly, referencing the most
current version (NFPA 20–2022) would
not change the applicability of the
definition of fire pump electric motor
for the purposes of DOE’s regulations.
Further, DOE is maintaining ‘‘including
any IEC equivalent’’ within the fire
pump electric motor definition.
For the 2021 update to NEMA MG 1–
2016, this revision consolidates the
supplements and the rest of NEMA MG
1 into one document. DOE did not
identify any substantial changes
compared to the prior version of NEMA
MG 1. Accordingly, as with the updates
to NFPA–2020, referencing the most
current would not alter the measured
efficiency of electric motors, and would
not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
Further, as discussed in the December
2021 NOPR, IEC 60034–12:2016
references IEC 60079–7:2015 to
determine locked rotor apparent power
for motors with type of protection
‘‘e’’ ’—which are eligible to be
considered IEC Design N or H motors.
86 FR 71710, 71733. Considering IEC
60079–7:2015 is necessary to test using
IEC 60034–12:2016, DOE is
incorporating by reference both test
procedures in this final rule.
Accordingly, for the reasons
discussed in the December 2021 NOPR
and discussed in the preceding
paragraphs, DOE is updating its test
procedure regulations to incorporate the
current industry standards to the latest
references, as summarized in Table III–
5.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
TABLE III–5—UPDATED INDUSTRY STANDARDS IN THIS FINAL RULE
Existing reference
Updated version
IEC 60034–12 Edition 2.1 2007–09 .......................................
IEC 60034–12 Edition 3.0 2016 (including IEC 60079–
7:2015).
NFPA 20–2022 .....................................................................
CSA C390–10 (Reaffirmed 2019) .........................................
NEMA MG 1–2016 ................................................................
NFPA 20–2010 .......................................................................
CSA C390–10 ........................................................................
NEMA MG 1–2009 .................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
Type of update
19OCR2
Revision.
Revision.
Reaffirmed.
Revision.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
D. Industry Standards Incorporated By
Reference
This section discusses industry test
standards that DOE is incorporating by
reference for testing the additional
electric motors for inclusion in the
scope of the DOE test procedure.
EPCA includes specific test
procedure-related requirements for
electric motors subject to energy
conservation standards under 42 U.S.C.
6313. The provisions in EPCA require
that electric motors be tested in
accordance with the test procedures
specified in NEMA Standards
Publication MG1–1987 and IEEE
Standard 112 Test Method B for motor
efficiency, as in effect on October 24,
1992 (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)) As
discussed in section III.C of this
document, both publications have been
replaced with the more recent version
IEEE 112–2017 and NEMA MG 1–2016.
The additional electric motors DOE is
adding to the scope of the DOE test
procedure are not addressed by the
standards that are currently applicable
under 42 U.S.C. 6313. DOE notes that
the industry test procedures
incorporated by reference for air-over
electric motors and for SNEMs are
included in NEMA MG 1–2016. See
Section IV, Part 34: Air-Over Motor
Efficiency Test Method and Section
12.30. Section 12.30 of NEMA MG 1–
2016, specifies the use of IEEE 112 and
IEEE 114 for all single-phase and
polyphase motors.28 As further
discussed in section III.D.2 of this
document, DOE is requiring testing of
SNEMs other than air-over and inverteronly electric motors according to IEEE
112–2017 (or CSA C390–10 or IEC
60034–2–1:2014, which are equivalent
to IEEE 112–2017) and IEEE 114–2010
(or CSA C747–09 or IEC 60034–2–
1:2014, which are equivalent to IEEE
114–2010). This amendment satisfies
the test procedure requirements under
42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5).
The methods listed in Section 12.30
of NEMA MG 1–2016, for testing AC
motors apply only to AC induction
motors that can be operated when
directly connected to the power supply
(direct-on-line) and do not apply to
electric motors that are inverter-only or
to synchronous electric motors that are
not AC induction motors. Therefore, for
these additional electric motor types,
DOE is specifying the use of different
industry test procedures, as further
discussed in section III.D.3. of this
document.
28 As
previously mentioned, NEMA MG 1–2016
does not specify the publication year of the
referenced test standards and instead specifies that
the most recent version should be used.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
AI Group stated that DOE should
harmonize with IEC international
standards with respect to the electric
motor test procedures, efficiency
classes, and scope of regulation. (AI
Group, No. 25 at p. 2)
DOE’s test procedures currently
incorporate by reference several IEC test
methods for testing current in-scope
electric motors. See 10 CFR 431.15(c).
As part of this rulemaking, DOE
reviewed a number of industry
standards that would be relevant for
testing the additional electric motors
that DOE proposed to include within
the scope of the DOE test procedure.
Several of those industry standards
include IEC standards, which are
discussed in sections III.D.2 and III.D.3
of this document.
1. Test Procedures for Air-Over Electric
Motors
a. Test Method
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
evaluated three test methods published
by NEMA in NEMA MG 1–2016 that are
used to measure the efficiency of an airover electric motor. 86 FR 71710,
71735–71739. The first alternative test
method (i.e., Part 34.3) specifies that the
temperature test must be conducted by
thermally stabilizing the motor at the
rated full-load conditions using an
external airflow according to the end
user specifications in terms of airvelocity ratings in feet per minute. The
second alternative test method (i.e., Part
34.4) includes a temperature test
conducted with the use of an external
blower, but the amount of airflow is not
specified; therefore, the amount of
ventilation required is based on motor
winding temperature reaching a target
temperature. Finally, the third
alternative test method (i.e., Part 34.5)
includes a temperature test performed
without the use of an external blower
while not loading the motor at its rated
load. Instead, the motor is gradually
loaded until the motor winding
temperature reaches the required target
temperature. Id.
As part of the review of the test
methods, in the December 2021 NOPR,
DOE did not consider Part 34.3 because
testing with an external airflow
according to the customer or application
specific requirements as specified in the
first alternative test method could result
in testing the same motor at different
winding temperature during the test,
which would impact the measurement
of efficiency. Therefore, DOE tentatively
concluded that results from applying
the first test method according to Part
34.3 would not ensure relative
comparability of efficiency for air-over
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63611
electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71737–
71738.
Otherwise, DOE considered the other
two test methods (Parts 34.4 and 34.5)
and conducted testing to evaluate the
repeatability and equivalency of the
methods. 86 FR 71710, 71737–71738.
DOE conducted a series of efficiency
tests for a test sample that included
seven air-over motor models spanning a
range of 0.25 to 20 hp and represented
both single-phase and polyphase
motors. DOE observed the percentage
difference in losses between Parts 34.5
and 34.4 range from ¥0.4 (on the lower
end) to +10.9 (on the higher end), and
the units at the higher end of the
percentage difference spanned a wide
range of hp ratings. These units
included both single-phase and
polyphase motor types, indicating no
clear or consistent trend that could be
used to define criteria by which the two
methods would produce equivalent
results. As such, DOE found that the
two test methods could not be
considered equal. Id.
To determine which of the two test
methods (Part 34.4 or 34.5) to propose
for air-over electric motors, DOE tested
a subset of the seven air-over motors to
evaluate the repeatability of each test
methods. 86 FR 71710, 71737. The test
results indicated that for three units,
Part 34.4 showed less variation between
subsequent tests compared to the Part
34.5. However, for one unit, Part 34.4
test method showed greater variation
than Part 34.5. Based on these results,
DOE concluded that Part 34.4 may
provide more repeatability than Part
34.5 for air-over motors. Id. As such,
DOE proposed to require that air-over
motors be tested only according to Part
34.4. Id.
Regarding the test method, CEMEP
supported using Part 34.4 but
recommended allowing the use of other
methods present in NEMA Part 34, but
offered no specific justification for its
view. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 1) AI Group
referred DOE to Australian standards
that included efficiency requirements
for air-over motors and what test
procedure Australia uses to test these
motors.29 (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 3)
AMCA supported the use of Section
34.4 as the test method for air-over
motors only if the motor is: (1)
induction, (2) constructed in a NEMA/
IEC standard frame, and (3) the motor
target temperature test is verified by
means of the winding resistance method
or a temperature detector closely
29 The Australian test method includes a
requirement for an externally- and independentlygenerated air-steam, similar to Parts 34.3 and 34.4.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/
F2019L00968.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
63612
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
coupled to the stator winding. (AMCA,
No. 21 at p. 3) ebm-papst agreed with
AMCA that the scope of the air-over test
procedure should be limited to
induction motors built in standard
NEMA/IEC frames. (ebm-papst, No. 23
at p. 5)
The CA IOUs stated that they
conducted testing on the proposed airover test method and reported their
preliminary findings as follows: (1)
NEMA MG 1 Parts 34.4 and 34.5 appear
to be repeatable, (2) some totally
enclosed air-over (TEAO) motors
stabilize before the target temperature is
reached, suggesting the need for
modifications to the test procedure for
those motors, (3) manufacturer-specified
airflow differs across different designs,
with some having no specification, and
(4) TEAO motor designs have varying
responses to airflow and varying
relationships to measured efficiency and
target winding temperature. Relying on
their preliminary test data, the CA IOUs
agreed with DOE’s initial finding that
Part 34.4 meets DOE’s test procedure
requirements for repeatability and
supported the use of Part 34.4 for rating
TEAO motors. However, the CA IOUs
also suggested an approach that they
anticipated would significantly increase
the representativeness of the test
procedure for a broader range of field
applications (which are discussed in
section III.D.1.b) (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at
pp. 10–11)
Advanced Energy stated that the airover test method has proven to be
repeatable and reliable. Advanced
Energy also supported the conclusion
that Part 34.4 of NEMA Part 34 is more
repeatable than Part 34.5 for air-over
electric motors. It commented that boths
Part 34.4 and 34.5 are repeatable but
that the data presented by DOE suggest
Part 34.4 is more repeatable. (Advanced
Energy, No. 33 at pp. 2, 8–9) Further,
Advanced Energy stated it has tested
air-over motors up to 20 hp and has not
found blower capacity to be a limiting
factor. It stated that if its testing were
limited by the blower, a larger blower
could be used to permit the test to be
conducted according to the test
procedure. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at
p. 9)
NEMA disagreed with the December
2021 NOPR’s conclusion that Part 34.4
is less repeatable than Part 34.5. NEMA
further noted that the methods in Part
34.4 and Part 34.5 are useful depending
on in-situ factors and should both
remain available as needed. NEMA
commented that a fair assessment of
repeatability required understanding the
potential sources of variations in test
results. NEMA suggested certain
potential sources of error to investigate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
for discrepancies, specifically: power
meter capability, temperature
measurement, torque acquisition,
tachometer, and torque transducer
capability. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 13–14)
NEMA recommended that air-over
motors be tested in accordance with any
of the three test methods in Part 34,
without exception and modification,
and provided reasoning why Part 34.3
and Part 34.5 test methods should also
be allowed: (1) for Part 34.3, NEMA
noted that motor manufacturers are
approached by OEMs to develop a
motor with application specific fit,
form, and function constraints, and
motor design and development is
frequently performed as a system
approach and includes the motor, the
OEM’s fan, baffles, support structure
and ducting. Accordingly, it commented
that reproducing system operating
conditions of airflow and temperature
while coupled to a dynamometer is the
most desirable case for determining
motor efficiency; (2) for Part 34.5, it
stated that not all laboratories have the
equipment and resources to design a
blower system and measure the airflow
while the motor is coupled to a
dynamometer, and therefore a test
without airflow is an effective test
method in these cases. NEMA did not
directly comment on the accuracy and
equivalency of the test methods,
asserting simply (without offering more)
that there is a significant risk that an
equivalent test procedure option could
be rejected for inclusion in the electric
motor test procedure if feedback is
submitted based on data comprised of
unexplained test error. (NEMA, No. 26
at pp. 13–15) Lennox stated that a
generic component-level test method
would not yield results that are
representative of an average use cycle
for definite purpose motors because a
component-level test procedure would
fail to capture system operating
characteristics that affect motor
efficiency. Lennox also identified
relevant system operating
characteristics—e.g., motor mounting,
motor tuning, and how the air moving
systems relate to the heat exchanging
equipment—as variables that factor into
the system efficiency of the finished
product. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 3)
DOE notes that neither NEMA nor
CEMEP provided data supporting
equivalency of the three test methods in
Part 34. The CA IOUs also did not
provide the data underlying their
preliminary findings. Absent data other
than that generated by the DOE testing,
DOE is unable to conclude that Parts
34.4 and 34.5 are equivalent.
DOE understands that the different
test methods in Part 34 may be useful
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
depending on in-situ factors. However,
this test procedure rulemaking focuses
solely on the electric motor independent
of the product or equipment into which
the electric motor may be installed. This
focus necessarily means that DOE must
consider a test method that is repeatable
for the electric motor as stand-alone
equipment. As noted, Part 34.3 allows
testing with an external airflow
according to the customer, which could
result in testing the same motor at
different winding temperature during
the test, which would impact the
measurement of efficiency. With regard
to Parts 34.4 and 34.5, testing performed
as part of the December 2021 NOPR
indicated that they did not provide
equivalent results. Further, DOE has not
received any new test data that indicates
the three test methods in Part 34 are
equivalent. Accordingly, at this time
DOE cannot conclude that the three test
methods in Part 34 are equivalent.
Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is
adopting Part 34.4 as the only test
method for air-over electric motors.
b. Target Temperature Specification
Part 34.4 specifies that, if a motor
temperature rise is not indicated,
polyphase air-over electric motors use a
target temperature that depends on the
motor’s insulation class. This target
temperature is then used as the
temperature at which the load test is
conducted. In contrast, for all singlephase motors, the target temperature is
specified at 75 °C, regardless of
insulation class. In the December 2021
NOPR, DOE reported that it conducted
testing to understand how much the
temperature target could affect
measured efficiency. 86 FR 71710,
71738. That testing demonstrated
different measurements of efficiency at
different test temperatures, and
therefore, DOE tentatively concluded
that defining a single test temperature,
rather than using a target temperature
that depends on the motor’s insulation
class, would produce measured
efficiency values that are more
comparable across insulation classes.
Accordingly, DOE proposed to use a
single target temperature for polyphase
motors regardless of insulation class. 86
FR 71710, 71738–71739.
In response, the Joint Advocates
opposed a single target temperature for
all air-over motors and asserted that this
single target temperature could give a
testing advantage to motors that are
designed to run hotter than the target
temperature. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at
p. 3) AMCA stated that testing a motor
of an insulation class higher than
insulation class A (a 75 °C limit) at a
target temperature of 75 °C would result
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
in lower I2R losses than when the motor
is used as intended. (AMCA, No. 21 at
p. 3) CEMEP stated that a fixed
temperature target would penalize or
reward certain motors depending on the
temperatures at which they were
designed to operate. (CEMEP, No. 19 at
pp. 4–5) ebm-papst commented that
higher temperatures lead to higher
losses in the stator, rotor, and other
current-carrying components of the
motor. (ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 5) ebmpapst also stated that many definite
purpose motors would stabilize under
the 75 °C target temperature and would
be unable to use the proposed test
procedure. (ebm-papst, No. 23 at pp. 6)
NEMA disagreed with modifying
Section 34.4 to have a single target
temperature of 75 °C, regardless of
insulation class. It commented that
although the proposal indicated that the
single target temperature would apply to
all motors even if the temperature rise
is indicated, the proposed updates to
the regulatory text in section 2.2.1 of
appendix B appear to only apply to
motors without an indicated
temperature rise.30 NEMA commented
that if a manufacturer does not want its
motor to be tested at the upper bounds
of its insulation class, then all the
manufacturer has to do is indicate the
temperature rise. NEMA suggested that
DOE adopt Section 34.4 without
modification. In support, NEMA
provided data from a motor performance
simulation that predicted the required
airflow for different target temperatures.
In cases where a motor is designed to
have a higher temperature rise than the
75 °C target, NEMA stated that the motor
could need an unfeasibly large amount
of airflow to get to the temperature to
the proposed 75 °C target. (NEMA, No.
26 at pp. 12–15) It explained that in
situations where the motor temperature
rise under testing is significantly higher
than the motor temperature rise in the
actual application, the efficiency test
would be biased towards higher losses
and lower efficiency than the intended
application. NEMA recommended that a
manufacturer in that situation should
simply indicate the motor temperature
rise. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 12) Separately,
NEMA also noted that a default 75 °C
condition could be specified for cases
where a manufacturer does not indicate
30 In the December 2021 NOPR, the proposed
section 2.2.1 of appendix B stated ‘‘the provisions
in Paragraph 34.4.1.a.1 NEMA MG 1–2016 (with
2018 Supplements) related to the determination of
the target temperature for polyphase motors must be
replaced by a single target temperature of 75 °C for
all insulation classes.’’ 86 FR 71710, 71780.
However, Paragraph 34.4.1.a.1 NEMA MG 1–2016
(with 2018 Supplements) is a method for
determining target temperature only if a motor
temperature rise is not otherwise indicated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
motor temperature rise, although NEMA
still preferred that the test procedure in
Part 34.4 be followed without
modification. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 15)
AHAM and AHRI disagreed that a
single temperature should be used to
test air-over motors, due to potential
impracticalities of test setup. For
example, AHAM and AHRI stated that
some motors may not reach 75°C during
normal operation at the intended load
and that air-over motors constructed
with open enclosures may incorporate
an internal cooling fan and operate
continuously at rated load with a total
temperature less than 75 °C. They stated
that one reason an open motor with selfventilation may be applied to an air over
application is because the hub diameter
of the fan may prevent sufficient air
velocity from flowing over the surface of
the motor and that temperature rises of
20 °C to 40 °C are not uncommon for
small motors with open enclosures.
They cited this as an example where
thermally stabilizing the motor at 75 °C
would result in a full-load operating
temperature that is greater than the fullload operating temperature of the motor
while it is operating in its intended airover application. (AHAM and AHRI, No.
36 at p. 9)
Lennox did not support the single
target temperature and stated that the
operating temperature of motors used in
HVAC applications vary widely. It also
commented that air-over motors can be
designed to stabilize below the
proposed target temperature. (Lennox,
No. 24 at p. 8) Trane commented that
testing motors without their associated
appliance is not beneficial to the enduser or the appliance manufacturer. To
this end, Trane provided performance
data showing that efficiency varied with
horsepower and operating temperature
for a given motor and stated that the test
conditions need to reflect the operating
conditions within the appliance. (Trane,
No. 31 at p. 2)
The CA IOUs suggested using two
target temperatures and taking the
average efficiency of the two
temperatures to be the most
representative of field use. They
commented that certain TEFC-like and
TENV-like TEAO motors may be
capable of thermally stabilizing below
the rated insulation class temperature
without added airflow, suggesting the
need for a TEAO custom testing
approach that can address temperature
stabilization issues. Accordingly, they
suggested a two-target temperature
approach in which the first temperature
would be the temperature at which the
motor stabilizes if less than 75 °C, or
75 °C if the motor stabilizes above that,
and the second would be the insulation
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63613
class target temperature. They stated
that if the motor stabilizes below 75 °C,
that is the measured efficiency; if above,
the measured efficiency would be the
average of the 75 °C and insulation class
target. They provided data regarding
how varied manufacturer specified
airflow is, and stated that the minimum
airflows would stabilize the motors at
much lower temperatures than the
required 75 °C. They also provided data
regarding winding temperature response
vs. applied airflow for three different
air-over motors. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at
pp. 11–15)
Advanced Energy supported the 75 °C
target temperature for air-over electric
motors. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p.
8) Advanced Energy also stated that
many air-over motors they have tested
have stabilized below the 75 °C target
temperature, and that when this occurs,
the motor should be treated as a totally
enclosed, non-ventilated (‘‘TENV’’)
motor since it does not need air from an
external source to stabilize. (Advanced
Energy, No. 33 at p. 9)
In considering the comments
received, in this final rule, DOE is
specifying a single target temperature
requirement for polyphase motors that
do not indicate a specified temperature
rise. DOE understands that the indicated
motor insulation class does not correlate
to the intended target temperature and
is adopting its proposed modification to
Section 34.4. As discussed in the
December 2021 NOPR, DOE
understands that if a particular motor
that was designed with a higher
temperature insulation class than a
second motor, that fact does not
necessarily mean that the first motor
would operate or is designed to operate
at a higher temperature than the second
motor; instead it means that the first
motor is capable of running at the
higher temperature associated with its
insulation class. 86 FR 71710, 71736.
Therefore, determining target
temperature based on insulation class
when motor temperature rise is not
indicated would not necessarily be the
most representative of motor operation.
As adopted in this final rule, the test
procedure specifies the use of motor
temperature rise if it is indicated in
terms of insulation class (i.e., the
temperature rise being defined in terms
of an insulation class) or numerical
value (i.e., the actual temperature rise),
as specified in Sections 34.4.1.b and
34.4.1.c of NEMA MG 1–2016. For units
for which the motor temperature rise is
not otherwise indicated (i.e., in Section
34.4.1.a.1 of NEMA MG 1–2016), DOE is
requiring a target temperature of 75 °C
for both polyphase and single-phase
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63614
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
electric motors, as proposed in the
December 2021 NOPR.
In section III.B.4 of this document,
DOE discussed that in-scope air-over
electric motors are those that reach
thermal equilibrium during a rated load
test according to section 2 of appendix
B, and with the application of forced
cooling by a free flow of air from an
external device. Therefore, any motor
not meeting these criteria would not
meet the air-over electric motor
definition as finalized in this final rule.
If a motor can thermally stabilize during
a load test below the target temperature
(whether it be based on motor
temperature rise if it is indicated in
terms of insulation class, numerical
value; or whether it be based on 75 °C
when motor temperature rise is not
indicated) without applying forced
cooling by a free flow of air from an
external device, then it would not be an
in-scope air-over electric motor. DOE
notes that Section 34.4.1.c of NEMA MG
1–2016 provides that if a motor
temperature rise is indicated as a
numerical value, then the target
temperature for the test is the sum of
that temperature rise and the reference
ambient temperature of 25°C, which can
be less than 75 °C.
As such, DOE’s approach for the test
procedure is consistent with NEMA MG
1–2016, except for polyphase motors
that do not indicate a specified
temperature rise. Otherwise, allowing
the use of manufacturer indicated
temperature rise, as required by NEMA
MG 1–2016, maintains current industry
requirements and is the most
representative because the manufacturer
indicated temperature rise generally
reflects motor operation in the field.
While DOE acknowledges the CA IOUs
two-temperature approach, DOE cannot
currently determine that this approach
is more representative than what
industry has developed as part of NEMA
MG 1–2016. In addition, as presented in
this final rule, DOE is not requiring
testing at the same target temperature
for all air-over electric motors,
regardless of manufacturer indicated
temperature rise. As previously
discussed, one of the CA IOUs’ main
concerns was that testing at one target
temperature would not credit motors
with efficient heat shedding designs. To
avoid this potential problem, this final
rule specifies that the requirement to
use a single target temperature of 75 °C
only applies to air-over motors that do
not have a specified temperature rise
and that if the temperature rise is
specified on the motor, such
temperature rise will be used to
determine the target temperature.
2. Test Procedures for SNEMs
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to require testing of SNEMs
(other than inverter-only, and air-over
electric motors) according to the
industry test methods identified in
Table III–6 of this document. 86 FR
71710, 71739.
TABLE III–6—ADDITIONAL INDUSTRY TEST STANDARDS PROPOSED IN THE DECEMBER 2021 NOPR FOR INCORPORATION
BY REFERENCE FOR SNEMS
Industry test standard
incorporated by reference
Topology
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Single-phase .............................................................................................
Polyphase with rated horsepower less than 1 horsepower .....................
Polyphase with rated horsepower equal to or greater than 1 horsepower.
DOE initially determined that
polyphase motors at or above 1 hp can
be tested with the same methods as
would be applicable to electric motors
currently subject to the DOE test
procedure (i.e., IEEE 112–2017, CSA
C390–10, and IEC 60034–2–1:2014). See
section 2 of appendix B. The referenced
industry standards applicable to electric
motors are also consistent with those
referenced for small electric motors that
are for polyphase motors greater than 1
hp. 10 CFR 431.444(b). For SNEMs that
are polyphase motors with a horsepower
less than 1 hp and for SNEMs that are
single-phase motors, DOE initially
determined that, consistent with the
DOE test method established for
regulated small electric motors (which
also include polyphase motors with
rated motor horsepower less than 1 hp
and single-phase motors), IEEE 114–
2010, CSA C747–09 and IEC 60034–2–
1:2014 are appropriate test procedures
for SNEMs. Additionally, DOE notes
that Section 12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1–
2016 also lists IEEE 114 and CSA C747
as the selected industry standards for
measuring and determining the
efficiency of polyphase motors below
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
IEEE 114–2010, CSA C747–09, IEC 60034–2–1:2014.
IEEE 112–2017, CSA C747–09, IEC 60034–2–1:2014.
IEEE 112–2017, CSA C390–10, IEC 60034–2–1:2014.
with a horsepower less than 1 hp and
single-phase motors. 86 FR 71710,
71739.
The CA IOUs agreed with the
proposed test methods and suggested
that industry-accepted test methods
exist for the SNEM topologies. (CA
IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 43) CEMEP stated
that single-phase motors should be
tested using a ‘‘direct measurement’’
according to IEC 60034–2–1, CSA 747,
or IEEE 114 and that polyphase motors
should be tested using a separation of
losses method according to IEC 60034–
2–1, CSA C390, IEEE 112. (CEMEP, No.
19 at p. 5) Grundfos agreed with the test
methods proposed for SNEMs.
(Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 5) Grundfos also
separately recommended breaking this
large category of motors down into
smaller subcategories to make testing
requirements clearer. (e.g., single-phase,
2-digit NEMA (excluding 56) fractional
motors). (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2).
Advanced Energy agreed with the
prescribed test methods DOE proposed
for SNEMs and stated that these
methods are consistent with the many
tests it has conducted on these motors.
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 10)
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
NEMA stated that single-phase motors
should not be tested with the
summation of losses method, and
instead should use a direct output/input
power measurement. It provided data of
a 10 hp single-phase motor tested 30
times that indicated how the range and
average efficiency measured was
different for the two test types. NEMA
also cited a 2009 paper published by
Advanced Energy comparing the
differences in measured efficiency
produced by the direct vs. indirect
methods.31 In the paper, Advanced
Energy found that the direct method
would vary in measured efficiency
within a range of 1.26 percent points
higher or 1.86 percent points lower
compared to the indirect method and is
too large of a difference for reporting
purposes.32 NEMA stated that results
31 DOE notes that the cited paper analyzed
polyphase induction motors and did not focus on
single-phase motors.
32 E.B. Agamloh, ‘‘A Comparison of direct and
indirect measurement of induction motor
efficiency,’’ 2009 IEEE International Electric
Machines and Drives Conference, 2009, pp. 36–42,
doi: 10.1109/IEMDC.2009.5075180. Available at:
ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5075180 (last
accessed on 6/29/22).
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
obtained from the direct method should
have different loss tolerances applied
from those measured through the
indirect method. NEMA also stated that
single-phase motors should be removed
from this rulemaking and given its own,
separate rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 26 at
pp. 8–9)
The December 2021 NOPR proposed
the following test methods for singlephase SNEMs: IEEE 114–2010, CSA
C747–09, and Method 2–1–1A of IEC
60034–2–1:2014. 86 FR 71710, 71739.
These test methods are consistent with
those currently applicable to singlephase small electric motors in 10 CFR
431.444(b)(2). All of the proposed test
methods for single-phase SNEMs are
direct output/input power measurement
test methods. Specifically, the test
methods require determining efficiency
as follows: (1) Section 8.2 of IEEE 114–
2010 states, ‘‘A determination of
efficiency is based on measurements of
input power and output power.
Efficiency is calculated as the ratio of
the measured output power to the
corrected input power, where the
measured input power is corrected for
ambient temperature;’’ (2) Section 6.10
of CSA C747–09 requires efficiency to
be calculated using direct measurements
of input power torque and speed; and
(3) Method 2–1–1A of IEC 60034–2–
1:2014 is titled as the ‘‘direct
measurement of input and output.’’
Comments provided by the CA IOUs
(CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 43), and
comments DOE received in response to
the July 2009 small electric motors test
procedure rulemaking,33 also indicated
that these test procedures rely on direct
measurement of input and output.
Given the support from interested
parties and consistency with the test
methods for SEMs, DOE concludes that
the proposed test methods are relevant
for single-phase SNEMs that are not airover electric motors and not inverteronly electric motors and is therefore
finalizing the proposed test methods in
this final rule.
63615
3. Test Procedures for AC Induction
Inverter-Only Electric Motors and
Synchronous Electric Motors
a. Test Method
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed test methods for various
inverter-only electric motors and
synchronous electric motors. These
proposed test methods are presented in
Table III–7 of this document. In
addition, DOE proposed that for
inverter-only electric motors sold
without an inverter, testing would be
performed using an inverter that is
listed as recommended in the
manufacturer’s catalog. If more than one
inverter is listed as recommended in the
manufacturer’s catalog or if more than
one inverter is offered for sale with the
electric motor, DOE noted that it would
consider requiring that testing be
performed using the least efficient
inverter. 86 FR 71710, 71742.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
TABLE III–7—TEST STANDARDS PROPOSED FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE FOR SYNCHRONOUS ELECTRIC MOTORS
AND AC INDUCTION INVERTER-ONLY MOTORS
Motor configuration
Equipment tested
Synchronous motors that are direct-on-line or inverter-capable ...................................
Synchronous or AC Induction Inverter-only ..................................................................
Motor ..................................
Motor + Inverter ..................
In response to this proposal, both
CEMEP and AI Group stated that IEC
60034–2–3 is the correct test procedure
for inverter-only motors sold without an
inverter and IEC 61800–9–2 is the
correct procedure if the motor is sold
with an inverter. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p.
6; AI Group, No. 25 at p. 5)
Advanced Energy supported testing
synchronous motors according to IEC
60034–2–1 and IEC 61800–9–2. It stated
that in the case of switched reluctance
inverter-only motors, it would be
difficult to measure only the motor’s
efficiency, because measuring the power
input to the motor is not
straightforward. Accordingly, for such
motors, Advanced Energy stated that
they supply system efficiency only for
the motor drive system and not a
separate motor efficiency and inverter
efficiency. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at
pp. 10–11) Advanced Energy also stated
that DOE should designate the motor
wire to be used when testing inverteronly or inverter-capable motors with
inverters unless the manufacturer
documentation states differently. With
regard to this point, it provided the wire
requirements of AHRI 1210 Section
5.1.6. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at pp.
11–13) Advanced Energy also stated that
an inverter-only motor should be
allowed to be certified with any of the
recommended inverters listed in the
manufacturer catalog and that different
inverters will produce different
measured efficiencies when paired with
a motor. It commented that the settings
of the inverter could influence
measured efficiency, and that these
values should be specified either
directly or through reference to an
industry standard. To this end, it
provided the settings listed in AHRI
1210 Section 5.1.5. (Advanced Energy,
No. 33 at p. 12)
For inverter-only electric motors,
NEEA/NWPCC agreed with DOE that
these motors should be tested using IEC
61800–9–2:2017, and for inverter-only
motors that do not include an inverter,
testing must be conducted using an
inverter as recommended in the
manufacturer’s catalogs or that is offered
for sale with the electric motor. For
inverter-only motors that do not include
an inverter, NEEA/NWPCC
33 See comments from Advanced Energy and
NEEA in the small electric motor test procedure
final rule published on July 7, 2009. 74 FR 32059,
32065.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Industry test standard incorporated by reference
IEC 60034–2–1:2014.
IEC 61800–9–2:2017.
recommended that the efficiency should
include the losses of an inverter. NEEA/
NWPCC commented that if the inverter
losses are not accounted for, this would
create an unlevel playing field when
compared to inverter-only motors sold
with an inverter (e.g., ECMs). NEEA/
NWPCC commented that they do not
recommend adding ‘‘Reference
Complete Drive Module (RCDM)’’ losses
as laid out in IEC 61800–9–2:2017,
because these losses are not well aligned
with actual inverter losses. NEEA/
NWPCC recommended that such
equipment be tested and rated using an
inverter recommended by the
manufacturer or that DOE develop its
own default losses that are more
representative of equipment currently
available on the market. (NEEA/
NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 6) Grundfos
further stated that these equipment
should require ratings that reflect the
inverter and motor efficiency.
(Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2)
For inverter-capable electric motors,
NEEA/NWPCC recommended that they
be tested with IEC 61800–9–2 instead of
DOE’s proposed IEC 60034–2–1. They
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63616
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
commented that IEC 60034–2–1 does
not account for harmonic losses that are
present when motors are supplied by
inverters. By testing to IEC 60034–2–1
and not including the harmonic losses,
this approach would create an unlevel
playing field for inverter-capable motors
that compete with inverter-only motors.
NEEA/NWPCC commented that when a
consumer is in the market for a variablespeed motor, it can choose to purchase
either inverter-capable or inverter-only
motors. NEEA/NWPCC stated that if all
inverter-capable motors appear to have
a higher efficiency because of a
difference in test procedure, the
consumer would be more likely to
choose that motor over a lower-rated
inverter-only motor. They contended
that if inverter-only motors are not rated
or rated with a different metric, end
users will not be able to evaluate them
equitably. Accordingly, NEEA/NWPCC
recommended that both inverter-only
and inverter-capable motors should be
tested and rated with the same test
procedure. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at
pp. 3; 7)
ebm-papst stated that switchedreluctance motors are not in the scope
of IEC 61800–9–2, and suggested that
wire-to-shaft testing of these motors
requires a combination of two
standards: IEC 60034–2–3 to measure
shaft output and IEC 61800–9–2 to
measure converter input. (ebm-papst,
No. 23 at p. 3)
NEMA stated that IEC 60034–2–3 is
the correct test procedure for all inverter
motors, but that it is not structured for
use in testing for energy conservation
standards. It stated that IEC 61800–9–2
is for complete drive modules, a factor
that led NEMA to suggest that DOE
conduct a separate rulemaking because
of the unique rules and definitions
needed for these motors. NEMA stated
that aspects needing additional
consideration are: inverter switching
frequency, cable distance between
motor and inverter, voltage ramp and
boost settings, inverter capacitance
values, and inverter control. (NEMA,
No. 26 at p. 17)
IEC 61800–9–2:2017 specifies test
methods for determining inverter (or
complete drive module, ‘‘CDM’’) 34 and
motor-inverter combination (i.e., powerdriven system or ‘‘PDS’’) losses.35 Using
34 IEC 61800–9–2:2017 defines a CDM, or drive,
or drive controller as a ‘‘drive module consisting of
the electronic power converter connected between
the electric supply and a motor as well as extension
such as protection devices, transformers and
auxiliaries.’’
35 IEC 61800–9–2:2017 also provides a
mathematical model to determine the losses of a
reference CDM, reference motor and reference PDS
which are then used as the basis for comparing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
this test method, the motor is tested
with its inverter (either integrated or
non-integrated), and the measured
losses includes the losses of the motor
and of the inverter. Inverter-capable
electric motors subject to the current
test procedures are currently required to
be tested without the use of an inverter,
and rely on the test set-ups used when
testing a general purpose electric motor.
See 78 FR 75962, 75972. DOE is not
adopting to change the test procedure
for currently regulated induction
inverter- capable electric motors. The
approach for testing inverter-capable
synchronous electric motors without the
use of an inverter therefore aligns with
the existing method for induction
inverter-capable electric motors.
Further, DOE understands that many
general purpose induction motors are
rated as inverter-capable but are more
commonly operated as direct-on-line
motors (i.e., without an inverter), and as
such, the results of testing without an
inverter would be more representative.
Additionally, because inverter-capable
motors are more commonly operated
direct-on-line, such electric motors
would more closely compete with
typical induction electric motors rather
than inverter-only electric motors. DOE
further notes that not including the
inverter when testing inverter-capable
motors is consistent with how the
efficiency classification of invertercapable motors is established in
accordance with IEC 60034–30–1:2014.
Accordingly, DOE is requiring invertercapable synchronous electric motors to
be tested without the use of an inverter.
Regarding NEMA’s comment that
additional definitions are needed for
inverter-only motor testing and
Advanced Energy’s comment that the
inverter settings should be further
specified, DOE reviewed Section 5.1.5
‘‘Drive Settings’’ of AHRI Standard 1210
(I–P):2019 and considered if new
definitions were required. Section 5.1.5
specifies that the VFD [referred to in
this document as an inverter] shall be
set up according to the manufacturer’s
instructional and operational manual
included with the product specifies that
manufacturers must provide a parameter
set-up summary that at least includes
the: (1) carrier switching frequency, (2)
max frequency, (3) max output voltage,
(4) motor control method, (5) load
profile setting, and (6) saving energy
mode (if used). DOE notes that testing
at the manufacturer’s recommended
other CDMs, motors, and PDSs and establishing
efficiency classes (IES classes). PDS shall be
classified as ‘‘IES 0’’ if its losses are more than 20
percent higher than the value specified for a
reference PDS. See Section 6.4 of IEC 61800–9–
2:2017.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
operating conditions would be
consistent with how other input values
for electric motors are treated in the test
procedure, like rated voltage.
Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE
specifies inverter set-up requirements
consistent with Section 5.1.5 of AHRI
1210 (I–P):2019.
To address those comments claiming
that switched-reluctance motors do not
fall within the scope of IEC 61800–9–2,
DOE reviewed this testing standard and
how switched-reluctance motors
operate. These motors do not use a
permanent magnet rotor and the rotor
itself does not carry a current. Torque is
generated by making use of the different
values of reluctance 36 the rotor will
have in different positions. The rotor
will attempt to orient itself to give the
magnetic flux a path of least reluctance
through the rotor while the current in
each stator pole is switched to create a
continuous rotation in the rotor. While
these motors are similar to synchronous
reluctance motors in how they generate
torque, the two main differences in their
construction are how the stators are
built and how the inverter supplies
current to the motor. Synchronous
reluctance stators are built in a way that
resembles an induction motor stator
whereas a switched-reluctance motor
has a concentrated winding for each
stator tooth. The inverters used for
switched-reluctance motors have to be
built to handle higher phase currents
(for a given horsepower output)
compared to an inverter used for a
synchronous reluctance motor. DOE
also reviewed the scope of IEC 61800–
9–2 and notes that Section 1 of that
testing standard states that the standard
includes methods for determining the
losses of the PDS (i.e., motor and
inverter combination) and does not limit
its application to specific motor
topologies. DOE also notes that the
input-output method described in
Section 7.7.2 requires measuring the
electrical input to the PDS and the
mechanical output of the PDS, both of
which would be feasible when
evaluating switched-reluctance motors.
Accordingly in this final rule, as
proposed in the December 2021 NOPR,
DOE is specifying that Section 7.7.2 of
IEC 61800–9–2 is the test method to be
used to determine the efficiency of all
synchronous and inverter-only electric
motors.
36 Reluctance is the resistance to magnetic flux in
a given magnetic circuit. In electric motors, the
motor contains a magnetic circuit where the flux
flows to and from the stator poles through the rotor.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
b. Comparable Converter
In the 2021 December NOPR, DOE
proposed to require testing inverter-only
synchronous electric motors that
include an inverter, and inverter-only
AC induction motors that include an
inverter, in accordance with Section
7.7.2 of IEC 61800–9–2:2017, and using
the test provisions specified in Section
7.7.3.5 and testing conditions specified
in Section 7.10 of that same testing
standard. DOE proposed to test inverteronly synchronous electric motors that
do not include an inverter, and AC
induction inverter-only motors that do
not include an inverter, in accordance
with IEC 61800–9–2:2017 37 and to
specify that testing must be performed
using an inverter as recommended in
the manufacturer’s catalogs or offered
for sale with the electric motor. If more
than one inverter is available in
manufacturer’s catalogs or offered for
sale with the electric motor, DOE
considered requiring that testing occur
using the least efficient inverter. 86 FR
71710, 71742. DOE further requested
feedback in the December 2021 NOPR
on how to test an inverter-only motor
that is sold without an inverter, and on
whether DOE should consider testing
these motors using a comparable
converter as specified in Section 5.2.2.
of IEC 60034–2–3:2020. 86 FR 71710,
71742–71743.
In response, the CA IOUs
recommended that DOE develop a
method for testing an inseparable PDS
(i.e., motor and inverter combinations)
as a paired unit. Since the PDS is
inseparable, the CA IOUs noted that
such an approach would be appropriate
for a PDS unlikely to be distributed in
commerce with other CDM drive (i.e.,
inverter) components and suggested IEC
61800–9–2 as a starting point for testing
these motors. The CA IOUs also
commented that DOE should specify a
‘‘comparable inverter’’ for testing
inverter-only motors that are distributed
in commerce for use with various
CDMs, including motors paired with a
drive on-site. The CA IOUs suggested
IEC 61800–9–2 as a starting point for
this approach as well. (CA IOUs, No.
32.1 at p. 38) The CA IOUs
recommended testing with a
‘‘comparable inverter’’ for products sold
without a paired drive module, and that
this comparable inverter be evaluated in
each rulemaking to keep up with
advancing drive technology. They
37 Specifically, in accordance with Section 7.7.2
of IEC 61800–9–2:2017, and using the test
provisions specified in Section 7.7.3.5 and testing
conditions specified in Section 7.10. The proposed
method corresponds to an input-output test of the
motor and inverter combination.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
cautioned that applying IEC 61800–9–2
to a ‘‘comparable inverter’’ for current
products is challenging because of what
they described as the high reference
inverter losses used by the standard to
calculate the losses of a minimumperformance inverter. The CA IOUs
provided data that they stated show
how IE 0, the least efficient class of
inverters defined by IEC 61800–9–2, is
estimated to yield significantly higher
losses than any inverter they found on
the market and that the inverter
efficiency classes in IEC 61800–9–2
were developed before the adoption of
Silicon Carbide converters. The CA
IOUs asserted that the disparity between
reference losses and real-world
converter losses is even greater for
smaller output drives (<7.5 kW output)
and noted that these drives make up
two-thirds of the low-voltage drive
market. They suggested that DOE work
with the project managers of a study
currently being conducted on inverter
efficiency, and to use the data provided
from that study to inform how DOE
considers inverter losses in the test
procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp.
36–37) The CA IOUs also recommended
that DOE follow the IEC’s test procedure
framework for inverter-only motors and
drives. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 33)
Advanced Energy stated that it would
be beneficial if DOE provided guidance
on what inverter to use for testing if an
inverter is not recommended in a
manufacturer’s catalog, and it suggested
the use of a ‘‘comparable converter’’
according to IEC 60034–2–3 in this case.
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 10)
NEMA opposes the use of a reference
converter during testing. NEMA stated
that the only way a fair test could be
conducted on an inverter-only motor is
to use the exact inverter specified by the
manufacturer, and that a reference
inverter that was ‘‘close’’ would incur a
heavy risk of having the motor test as
less efficient than it would with the
intended inverter. (NEMA, No. 26 at p.
18) Grundfos stated that a ‘‘comparable
inverter’’ as stated in IEC 60034–2–
3:2020 should only be used when a
manufacturer does not sell an inverter to
go with the motor. (Grundfos, No. 29 at
pp. 5–6) Trane commented that a
‘‘comparable inverter’’ would result in
inaccurate representations of energy use
and that testing the inverter and motor
combinations separately provides no
value to the appliance manufacturer or
end user. (Trane, No. 31 at p. 6)
DOE notes that the test method
proposed for inverter-only motors
according to Section 7.7.2 of IEC 61800–
9–2:2017 does not make use of inverter
efficiency classes outlined in that
document. Accordingly, DOE will not
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63617
be addressing concerns about those
efficiency classes. Regarding the CA
IOUs comment suggesting the use of a
‘‘comparable converter’’ for inverteronly motors that have multiple CDMs
(i.e., inverters) recommended, DOE
disagrees because the efficiency of the
motor/inverter combination depends on
the inverter chosen for selection and the
‘‘comparable converter’’ may not be one
of manufacturer recommended
inverters. To ensure the test results are
representative of average use, one of the
inverters recommended by the
manufacturer should be the inverter
used during the efficiency test since the
motor is most likely to be paired with
one of those inverters during field use.
In cases where no inverter is specified
by the manufacturer to pair with an
inverter-only motor, DOE still needs to
choose an inverter to pair with the
motor during the test. NEMA’s concern
regarding the use of a ‘‘comparable
converter’’ does not apply because no
inverter was specified for use with the
motor, and Trane’s concern does not
apply because the motor and inverter
are not tested separately. As such, DOE
cannot at this time identify an option
more representative of average use than
the ‘‘comparable converter’’ in cases
where no inverter is specified for use
with an inverter-only motor.
After reviewing the comments
submitted by stakeholders, DOE has
decided to adopt the method proposed
in the December 2021 NOPR for testing
synchronous and AC induction inverteronly motors that include an inverter, in
accordance with IEC 61800–9–2:2017.
DOE is also adopting the methods
proposed in the December 2021 NOPR
for synchronous and AC induction
inverter-only motors that do not include
an inverter, and to specify must be
tested in accordance with IEC 61800–9–
2:2017 and to specify that testing must
be performed using an inverter as
recommended in the manufacturer’s
catalogs or offered for sale with the
electric motor. In addition, DOE did not
receive any comments on selecting the
least efficient inverter. Under the
approach taken in this final rule, if more
than one inverter is listed as
recommended in the manufacturer’s
catalog or if more than one inverter is
offered for sale with the electric motor
testing using the least efficient inverter
will be required. DOE is requiring the
use of ‘‘the least efficient inverter’’ to
ensure consistent testing of inverteronly motors with multiple
recommended inverters. DOE notes that
the test specified in Section 7.7.2 of IEC
61800–9–2 is based on an input-output
measurement and does not rely on
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63618
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘reference losses’’ 38 in IEC 61800–9–
2:2017 to characterize the inverter
performance. Instead, the motor and
inverter combination are tested using an
input-output test.
In addition, to address the case where
there are no inverters recommended in
the manufacturer’s catalogs or offered
for sale with the electric motor, DOE is
specifying the use of a ‘‘comparable
converter’’ based on Section 5.2.2 of IEC
60034–2–3, and to require that the
motor manufacturer specify the
manufacturer, brand and model number
of the inverter used for the test.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
E. Metric
The represented value of nominal
full-load efficiency is currently used to
make representations of efficiency for
electric motors subject to standards in
subpart B of part 431, based on the
average full-load efficiency as measured
in accordance with the provisions at 10
CFR 431.17.
In the December 2021 NOPR, for
electric motors subject to energy
conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25
(which are AC induction single-speed
motors), DOE proposed to maintain the
current use of the nominal full-load
efficiency metric. For the additional
electric motors proposed for inclusion
within the scope of the test procedures,
DOE also proposed to use the nominal
full-load efficiency as the metric. DOE
proposed to evaluate the efficiency of
the motor with or without the inclusion
of the inverter depending on the motor
configuration: (1) for the additional noninverter-only electric motors proposed
for inclusion within the test procedure’s
scope (i.e., direct-on-line or invertercapable),39 DOE proposed to determine
the efficiency of the motor at full-load
(i.e., measure the full-load efficiency),
consistent with how electric motors
currently subject to standards at 10 CFR
431.25 are evaluated; (2) for the
additional inverter-only electric motors
proposed for inclusion within the test
procedure’s scope, DOE proposed to
evaluate the efficiency of the motor and
inverter combination at 100 percent
rated speed and rated torque (i.e.,
measure the full-load efficiency). In
addition, DOE stated that it may
consider requiring manufacturers to
disclose the part-load performance
efficiency of the additional motors
proposed for inclusion within the scope
of this test procedure as part of any
38 IEC 61800–9–2 provides references losses for
inverters that can be used to calculate the combine
motor and inverter efficiency based on a
calculation-based method.
39 These include air over electric motors, electric
motors larger than 500 hp, certain SNEMs, and
certain synchronous motors.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
future energy conservation standard
related to these electric motors.40
Finally, similar to currently regulated
electric motors, for the additional
electric motors proposed for inclusion,
DOE proposed sampling requirements to
calculate the average full-load efficiency
of a basic model and provisions to
determine a tested motor’s nominal fullload efficiency. (See section III.N of this
document). 86 FR 71710, 71743–71745.
CEMEP stated that an efficiency
metric that includes both inverter and
motor efficiency should not be used for
inverter-only and inverter-capable
electric motors sold without an inverter.
In its view, the efficiency metric DOE
adopts should reflect only the efficiency
of the motor itself. (CEMEP, No. 19 at
p. 7)
The scope of the current test
procedure includes inverter-capable
electric motors, which are tested
without the use of an inverter.41 DOE is
not changing the current test procedure
for inverter-capable motors, and
continues to require testing these motors
without the use of an inverter. Further,
as discussed in section III.D.3 of this
document, DOE is adopting an approach
to test inverter-only motors inclusive of
the inverter. Therefore, DOE is adopting
a metric inclusive of the inverter
efficiency for these motors. As stated in
the December 2021 NOPR, because
inverter-only motors require an inverter
to operate, measuring the motor
efficiency independent of the inverter
would not be as representative of field
performance as would measuring the
combined motor and inverter efficiency.
86 FR 71710, 71743. In addition, some
inverter-only motors are sold with an
integrated 42 inverter such that
measuring motor-only efficiency is not
technically feasible.
In response to the December 2021
NOPR, Grundfos supported measuring
motor efficiency at the proposed load
points. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 6).
Several stakeholders opposed using a
full-load metric, as discussed in the next
paragraphs.
The Joint Advocates recommended
that DOE amend the test procedure to
incorporate efficiency at multiple load
points to ensure a level playing field for
manufacturers and to better inform
purchasers. The Joint Advocates stated
that while it is generally true that an AC
40 DOE did not propose to require this in the
December 2021 NOPR, as labelling requirements are
typically not in the scope of the test procedure and
included as part of energy conservation standards.
41 The test methods described in section 2 of
Appendix B to Subpart B do not require the use of
an inverter.
42 Integrated means that the drive and the motor
are physically contained in a single unit.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
induction electric motor with a tested
full-load efficiency will have smaller
losses than another electric motor with
a lower tested full-load efficiency
within its typical range of operation,
many advanced motor technologies
(e.g., synchronous motors) included in
the proposed expanded scope have loss
profiles (e.g., losses as a function of
load) that deviate significantly from
those of single-speed AC induction
motors. In particular, the Joint
Advocates stated that advanced motor
technologies typically maintain higher
efficiency at low loads and evaluating
electric motor efficiency at a single load
point is therefore not representative of
real-world energy use and will not
provide accurate relative rankings
across different motor topologies. In
addition, citing data from DOE’s Motor
Systems Market Assessment report,43
the Joint Advocates also commented
that motors operating in variable-load
applications with an average load factor
between 40 and 75 percent represent the
largest portion of motor energy use, and
that a metric that included part-load
efficiency would be more
representative.44 (Joint Advocates, No.
27 at pp. 5–6)
With regard to inverter-only motors,
the CA IOUs commented that DOE
should incorporate a weighted part-load
efficiency metric rather than using a
full-load efficiency metric. The CA IOUs
provided data from DOE’s Motor
Systems Market Assessment report and
from the California Public Utilities
Commission showing (in their view)
that the majority of motors operate at
variable-load.45 The CA IOUs expressed
concern that the proposed full-load
metric for inverter-only motors would
not meet DOE’s statutory requirement
that metrics be ‘‘representative of
average use.’’ Instead, the CA IOUs
recommended that DOE collaborate
with industry stakeholders to develop a
metric for inverter-only motors. The CA
IOUs referenced other rules that have
incorporated part-load metrics. (CA
IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 2–3; 20–24) The
CA IOUs also commented that the
largest differences in performance
43 Rao, P., Sheaffer, P., Chen, Y., Goldberg, M.,
Jones, B., Cropp, J., and J. Hester. U.S. Industrial
and Commercial Motor System Market Assessment
Report Volume 1: Characteristics of the Installed
Base. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
January 2021, https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/
default/files/u.s._industrial_and_commercial_
motor_system_market_assessment_report_volume_
1-_characteristics_of_the_installed_base_p_rao.pdf.
44 Note: the data provided by the Joint Advocates
were in terms of relative energy consumption and
not motor counts.
45 Note: the data provided by the CA IOUs were
in terms of relative energy consumption and not
motor counts.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
between synchronous inverter motors
and induction inverter motors occur at
low loads and that a full-load metric
would not capture this difference. To
illustrate this point, they provided
efficiency curves for a 5 hp and a 20 hp
permanent magnet inverter-only electric
motor as well as for a 5 hp and 2 0hp
induction electric motor, showing that
the permanent magnet inverter-only
motor had a higher efficiency than the
induction electric motor, specifically at
lower load. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 25)
The CA IOUs added that a full-load
efficiency metric would not enable the
comparison of inverter-only motors and
induction motor/inverter combinations
that have peak efficiencies at different
operating speeds and different positions
on the torque curve. The CA IOUs
provided part-load efficiency data
showing that different motor topologies
of synchronous inverter-only motors
(e.g., synchronous reluctance motors,
permanent magnet motors) and
induction motor/inverter combinations
each experienced increases in efficiency
at different load regions. The CA IOUs
explained that the selected load point
would change the rank order of the
motor performance of inverter-only
motors (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 26–28)
To illustrate this point, the CA IOUs
compared the efficiency rankings for a
synchronous reluctance motor, a
permanent magnet motor, and an
induction motor/inverter combination
in selected load-profiles, using part-load
and full-load metrics. For the selected
load-profiles in the example, the CA
IOUs claimed that the weighted part
load metrics provided a performance
ranking that was more representative of
the expected performance in the field
and the CA IOUs recommended that
DOE adopt a metric that can
differentiate motors with peak
efficiencies at different operating speeds
and different positions on the torque
curve. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 26–31)
NEMA agreed in concept with the
proposed metrics except for
synchronous and inverter-only motors—
both of which NEMA opposes for
inclusion as part of the test procedure’s
scope. NEMA commented that these
motors are not intended to be operated
at full-load. NEMA did not recommend
alternate approaches to test the
performance of these motors, but
instead voiced its general opposition to
their inclusion in the scope of the test
procedure. NEMA added that inverteronly and synchronous motors lend
themselves to be evaluated with system
efficiency, rather than motor-only
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
efficiency, and that inverter-only motors
should be regulated in a separate
rulemaking due to the complexity of
their testing and applications. (NEMA,
No. 26 at p. 19) NEMA stressed that the
extended product rulemakings
(commercial and industrial pumps, fans
and compressors) are the appropriate
path to energy savings and that
component level regulation does not
assure energy savings in the overall
application. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 4)
Regal opposed using a full-load
efficiency metric for inverter-type
motors and stated that this metric does
not capture any of the value added by
an inverter-only motor’s higher
efficiency at part-load conditions.
(Regal, No. 28 at p. 1) Trane commented
that measuring synchronous motors
with a full-load only metric is not useful
to the end-user nor applicable to the
equipment in which the motor is
installed. (Trane, No. 31 at p. 3) AHAM
and AHRI were concerned with the use
of a full-load metric for inverter-only
and synchronous electric motors, which
by definition are not intended to be
operated at full-load. (AHAM and AHRI,
No. 36 at p. 9)
NEEA/NWPCC recommended that
DOE add representative load points and
implement a weighted-average metric
that accounts for performance at partload. NEEA/NWPCC commented that a
weighted metric that takes into account
various load points will not be unduly
burdensome and is essential to showing
the actual performance of motors.
NEEA/NWPCC cited data from DOE’s
Motor Systems Market Assessment
report showing that the majority of
motor-connected horsepower operates
below 75 percent load, and commented
that a test procedure that does not
include load points below full-load is
not representative an average period of
use. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at pp. 4–6)
NEEA/NWPCC added that while using
full-load efficiency may have been
adequate when considering induction
electric motors only, many of the
synchronous motor topologies claim to
have flatter efficiency curves compared
to induction motors: the motor
maintains its efficiency at reduced loads
or reduced speeds better than induction
motors. NEEA/NWPCC commented that
a test procedure that measures
efficiency only at full-load would not
capture the difference in performance of
synchronous motors at lower loads
compared to induction motors. In
addition, NEEA/NWPCC noted that the
majority of commercial and industrial
motors are not operated at full-load and
commented that a metric that does not
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63619
include part-load points is not
representative of an average period of
use as required by EPCA. (NEEA/
NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 8)
Currently regulated electric motors
typically have flat efficiency profiles,
i.e., efficiency does not substantively
vary based on the loading condition.
The efficiency profile of smaller motors
(less than one hp) is almost flat in the
40–100 percent load range, and the
profile of larger motors (at or above 20
hp) is almost flat between 30–100
percent load.46 DOE found that the
estimates published in DOE’s Motor
Systems Market Assessment report for
polyphase motors show that the
majority of electric motors operate
above the 40 percent loading point. The
report also indicates that significantly
underloaded motors (i.e., those under a
variable or constant load below a 0.4
loading factor) represent a small
percentage of the installed base (4
percent).47 A motor is considered
underloaded when it is operated in the
range where efficiency drops
significantly with decreasing load.
Therefore, DOE has determined that the
majority of polyphase motors (which
include regulated electric motors)
operate in a range where efficiency is
relatively flat as a function of load.
Further, DOE reviewed the data
provided by the Joint Advocates and the
CA IOUs indicating that electric motors
primarily operate at variable-load. DOE
notes that the estimates provided were
based on a percentage of energy use or
connected load and not motor counts
(i.e., number of motor units included in
the sample). DOE believes motor counts
are a better indicator when assessing
representativeness because each
individual motor basic model is
certified regardless of its size or energy
use. When using motor counts, the DOE
Motor Systems Market Assessment
report shows that in the industrial
sector, constant load motors operating at
motor load factors greater than 0.75
represent 43 percent of all industrial
motor systems. Overall, in the industrial
46 A. de Almeida, H. Falkner, J. Fong, EuP Lot 30,
Electric Motors and Drives. Task 3: Consumer
Behaviour and Local Infrastructure. ENER/C3/413–
2010, at p.6, Final April 2014. Available at: https://
www.eceee.org/static/media/uploads/site-2/
ecodesign/products/special-motors-not-covered-inlot-11/eup-lot-30-task-3-april-2014.pdf. DOE also
analyzed published part-load efficiency data for
regulated electric motors and found that on average,
the efficiency at 50 percent load is 99 percent of the
full-load efficiency, while the efficiency at 75
percent load is 1.004 percent of the full-load
efficiency (average based on 7,199 units).
47 See: motors.lbl.gov/inventory/analyze/9–0713.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63620
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
sector, the report finds that there are
nearly twice as many constant-load
motors as variable-load motors.48 In the
commercial sector, the report states that
variable-load motors operating at load
factors between 0.4 and 0.75 represent
36 percent of all commercial sector
motor systems, followed by constant
load systems operating at motor load
factors greater than 0.75, at 27 percent.
Overall, in the commercial sector, the
report states that constant-load motors
represent 43 percent and variable-load
motors represent 52 percent of electric
motors (with 5 percent unknown).
Across both sectors, the report shows
that constant-load represents 44 percent
of electric motors and variable-load
represents 48 percent of electric motor
systems (with 7 percent unknown).49
Further, the estimated average load
factor for motors between 1 and 500 hp
ranges from approximately 0.52 to 0.68
depending on the motor horsepower.50
DOE has determined that currently
regulated electric motors are used
equally in both constant-load and
variable-load applications and primarily
operate in a range where efficiency is
relatively flat as a function of load. For
these reasons, DOE has determined that
measuring the performance of these
motors at full-load is representative of
an average use cycle. In addition, given
the variability in applications and load
profiles, an average load profile may not
be representative. For example, a
constant torque load application cannot
be represented using the load profile of
a variable torque application. Further,
currently regulated electric motors have
internationally-harmonized efficiency
test standards and efficiency classes
(e.g., IE3 and NEMA Premium classes) 51
and using a metric based on a weightedaverage efficiency across different partload points would be a departure from
internationally harmonized practices
without adding benefits in terms of
better representation. As noted in the
December 2021 NOPR, for motors that
48 See pp. 76 and 81 of the DOE’s Motor Systems
Market Assessment report available at: https://etapublications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._
industrial_and_commercial_motor_system_
market_assessment_report_volume_1-_
characteristics_of_the_installed_base_p_rao.pdf.
49 See: https://motors.lbl.gov/inventory/analyze/
9–0713.
50 See pp. 78 and 83 of the DOE’s Motor Systems
Market Assessment report available at: https://etapublications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._
industrial_and_commercial_motor_system_market_
assessment_report_volume_1-_characteristics_of_
the_installed_base_p_rao.pdf.
51 An IE class is a table of full-load efficiency
ratings provided at different motor rated power and
poles. For example, the IE class ‘‘IE3’’ is considered
largely equivalent to the current energy
conservation standards in Table 5 at 10 CFR 431.25
or ‘‘NEMA Premium.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
are not inverter-only, although the IEC
60034–2–1:2014 test standard includes
testing at part-load, IEC 60034–30–
1:2014 establishes efficiency classes
(e.g., IE3) based on the motor full-load
efficiency. 86 FR 71710, 71744. In
addition, rating these motors at full-load
or part-load would not change the rank
order by performance (i.e., if motor A is
better than B based on full-load
efficiency, motor A will perform better
than motor B in the field). For these
reasons, in this final rule, DOE
maintains the current nominal full-load
efficiency metric for currently regulated
motors. DOE may consider requiring
manufacturers to display the part-load
efficiency as part of any future energy
conservation standard related to these
electric motors.
For those additional motors that DOE
is incorporating in the scope of the test
procedure, which are not inverter-only,
given that the operating load data from
the DOE Motor Systems Market
Assessment report apply to all
polyphase motors above 1 horsepower,
DOE determined that the findings
discussed for regulated electric motors
also apply to those additional in-scope
polyphase electric motors that are not
inverter-only and are above 1
horsepower (i.e., polyphase air-over
motors and electric motors larger than
500 hp). Therefore, for these electric
motors, DOE is adopting the nominal
full-load efficiency metric. Further, for
synchronous motors that are not
inverter-only (i.e. line-start permanent
magnet motors), DOE found that the
efficiency curve as a function of load is
also flat in the typical motor operating
range.52 Therefore, DOE has determined
that measuring the performance of these
motors at full-load is representative of
an average use cycle and DOE adopts
the nominal full-load efficiency metric
as proposed for synchronous motors
that are not inverter-only.
Finally, for SNEMs that are not
inverter-only (including air-over
motors), DOE did not find data specific
to SNEMs (the DOE Motor Systems
Market Assessment report only
considered polyphase motors above 1
horsepower). Assuming these motors
operate at an average load between 0.66
52 See Arash Hassanpour Isfahani, Sadegh VaezZadeh, Line start permanent magnet synchronous
motors: Challenges and opportunities, Energy,
Volume 34, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 1755–1763, ISSN
0360–5442, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0360544209001303 and A. T. De
Almeida, F. J. T. E. Ferreira and A. Q. Duarte,
‘‘Technical and Economical Considerations on
Super High-Efficiency Three-Phase Motors,’’ in
IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol.
50, no. 2, pp. 1274–1285, March–April 2014, doi:
10.1109/TIA.2013.2272548.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and 0.67,53 and considering the
relatively flat efficiency curve in that
range,54 DOE believes a metric based on
full-load efficiency is appropriate and
representative of an average use cycle
for these motors. In addition, rating
these motors at full-load or part-load
would not change the rank order by
performance (i.e., if motor A is better
than B based on full-load efficiency,
motor A will perform better than motor
B in the field). Further, a metric based
on full-load efficiency is consistent with
the test method for small electric motors
and would enable performance
comparisons between SNEMs and
SEMs.55 For these reasons, DOE is
adopting the nominal full-load
efficiency metric as proposed. For the
additional non-inverter-only motors that
DOE is incorporating in the scope of the
test procedure, DOE may consider
requiring manufacturers to display the
part-load efficiency as part of any future
energy conservation standard related to
these electric motors.
For inverter-only electric motors, DOE
agrees that synchronous motors
typically maintain a flatter efficiency at
lower loads compared to inverter-only
induction motors.56 However, as
previously discussed, very few electric
motors operate at these lower loads (i.e.,
below 40 percent). Instead, electric
motors, including inverter-only electric
motors, typically operate in a region
where the efficiency is relatively flat.
Therefore, although inverter-only
motors operate at part-load, DOE has
determined that a metric based on fullload efficiency is representative of an
average energy use cycle. In addition,
because inverter-only motors tend to
also have flat efficiency curves above a
40 percent load, rating these motors at
53 This estimate is based on the average load
factor for motors between 1 and 5 hp as provided
in DOE’s Motor Systems Market Assessment report.
See pp. 78 and 83 of the DOE’s Motor Systems
Market Assessment report available at: https://etapublications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._
industrial_and_commercial_motor_system_market_
assessment_report_volume_1-_characteristics_of_
the_installed_base_p_rao.pdf.
54 DOE analyzed published part-load efficiency
data for SNEMs and found that on average, the
efficiency at 75 percent load is 97 percent of the
full-load efficiency (average based on 2,585 units).
55 DOE notes however that SEMs do not rely on
nominal full-load efficiency values but rather on
average full-load efficiency.
56 DOE notes that in their comment, the CA IOUs
provide an example which compares the efficiency
of 5 and 20 hp synchronous permanent magnet
motors with an inverter-only induction motor and
variable frequency drive at loads between 12.5 and
50 percent. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 29) While the
example shows that the difference in efficiency
between the synchronous permanent magnet motor
with an inverter-only induction motor increases at
load (below 40 percent) the example shows that this
difference is relatively constant between a 40 and
50 percent load. Id.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
full-load or part-load would not change
the rank order by performance (i.e., if
motor A is better than B based on fullload efficiency, motor A will perform
better than motor B in the field).57
Further, as noted in the December 2021
NOPR, for inverter-only and inverter
combination electric motors, although
the IEC 61800–9–2:2017 test standard
includes eight standardized test points,
the IEC efficiency classification is based
on the performance at a unique point at
full-load (100 percent rated speed and
100 percent rated torque) and
establishing a metric based on a
weighted average load would be a
departure from internationally
harmonized practices without adding
significant (if any) benefits in terms of
better representation. 86 FR 71710,
71744. For these reasons, DOE is
adopting the nominal full-load
efficiency as the metric for inverter-only
motors.
The Joint Advocates further
commented that the current electric
motors test procedure does not capture
the energy saving benefits associated
with speed control. The Joint Advocates
commented that motors with controls
may be at a disadvantage relative to
single-speed AC induction motors since
the energy usage of the inverter (e.g., in
a inverter-equipped inverter-only AC
induction motor) would be included in
the overall efficiency, while the benefits
of the inverter (e.g., speed reduction at
part load) are not. The Joint Advocates
stated that the test procedure should
capture the benefits of speed control
capability. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p.
6).
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE
establish a metric for inverter-only
motors that will capture the energy
saving benefits of variable-speed control
as these motors are most often used in
variable load and variable torque
applications. In addition, the CA IOUs
noted that speed control can provide
energy savings benefits in constant-load
applications by matching the load to the
motor output power to meet the
requirements of the application instead
of using throttling valves or dampers.
57 DOE notes that in the example provided by the
CA IOUs, where the rank order of inverter-only
motors changes based on considering a load profile
vs. a full-load operation, the motor is assumed to
operate 40 percent of the time at low load which
is not representative of typical inverter-only motors
(load in percent of horsepower is the product of
speed and torque, in the CA IOUs example, 15 and
10 percent load points were considered i.e., 50
percent speed, 30 percent torque and 50 percent
speed, 20 percent torque). In addition, in the
example provided, the inverter-only induction
motor has a flatter efficiency curve than the
synchronous reluctance motor which is contrary to
what is expected from a typical synchronous motors
and not representative. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 29).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
The CA IOUs commented that 90
percent of inverter-only motors are used
in variable torque applications such as
air compressors, pumps, fans and
blowers. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 20–
21)
NEEA/NWPCC also recommended
that DOE adopt a metric that would
capture the energy savings of speed
control for all electric motors. NEEA/
NWPCC noted that DOE already has
several test procedures and metrics that
have switched from full-load efficiency
to more representative metrics 58 and
recommended that a weighted-average
input power metric be used for electric
motors in line with the Pump Energy
Index metric used for pumps and the
recent Power Index Metric as described
in a standard published by NEMA.59
NEEA/NWPCC commented that a motor
weighted-average input power metric
would be calculated for both constantspeed motors and variable-speed motors
(both inverter-capable and inverteronly) and suggested calculation
methods and recommended weights at
each recommended load point (i.e., load
profiles). NEEA/NWPCC stated that a
weighted-average input power metric is
more representative than a weightedaverage efficiency metric because
inverter-controlled motors will
inherently have an ‘‘efficiency’’ loss at
each independent load point but will
generally use less energy overall.
Therefore, NEEA/NWPCC asserted that
using a weighted input power metric
instead of efficiency will show the
lower input power more equitably.
(NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at pp. 8–11)
Similar to the approach taken in the
commercial and industrial pump and air
compressor rulemakings,60 DOE
proposed to evaluate equipment with
variable-speed capability separately
from single-speed equipment. The
metric adopted for inverter-only motors,
which includes the inverter efficiency,
is not directly comparable with the
metric proposed for electric motors that
are not inverter-only, as these motors
are not tested using an inverter. As
such, DOE does not believe that motors
with controls would be at a
disadvantage relative to single-speed AC
induction motors when testing and
58 NEEA and NWPCC cited the example of the
seasonal energy efficiency ratio used for air
conditioning equipment and the Pump Energy
Index used for commercial and industrial pumps.
59 Available at https://www.techstreet.com/nema/
standards/nema-mg-10011-2022?product_
id=2247918.
60 For air compressors and pumps, variable speed
or variable-load and single speed or constant load
equipment are in separate equipment classes and
evaluated separately. 10 CFR 431.345 and 10 CFR
431.465.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63621
evaluating them under the proposed
conditions.
Regarding the adoption of a metric
that would capture the benefits of
controls, such as the approach suggested
by NEEA/NWPCC, which uses an input
power-based metric and a load profile
based on a variable-torque load profile
for inverter-motors (both inverter-only
and inverter-capable), inverter-motors
would always show better ratings (i.e.,
a lower weighted average input power)
than single-speed motors due to the
cubic relationship between power and
speed (i.e., affinity laws) 61 specific to
variable-torque load applications (e.g., a
reduction in speed by a factor of 3 is
associated to a reduction in power by a
factor of 9).62 Variable-speed capability
can provide energy savings in some
applications compared to single-speed
operation. However, not all applications
benefit equally from variable-speed
control. DOE estimates that 90 percent
of the installed base of variable-load
electric motor applications are variabletorque.63 Applying speed control to
these applications (primarily fans,
compressors, and pumps), will provide
energy savings due to the affinity laws
specific to these applications. However,
affinity laws do not apply to other
variable-load applications that are not
variable-torque (e.g., material handling,
material processing) where speed
control is not expected to provide the
same level of energy savings, if any. In
addition, AC induction inverter-only
motors are primarily used in constant
torque applications.64 Applying a metric
based on an average load profile that
captures the benefits of speed control
61 The affinity laws express the relationship
between power, speed, flow, and pressure or head.
Specifically, power is proportional to the cube of
the speed.
62 In addition, DOE reviewed the load points
recommended for variable speed moors by NEEA
and NWPCC and found that the points
recommended do not reflect the load points for
variable load motors in the DOE Motor Systems
Market Assessment report (which are provided in
terms of percentage of horsepower divided by the
motor full-load horsepower). NEEA and NWPCC
characterized the load range from 0 to 40 percent
using a (25,25) (% speed, % torque) point which is
equal to 6.25 percent load; the load range between
40 and 75 percent using a (50,50) (% speed, %
torque) point which is equal to 25 percent load, and
the range above 75 percent using (75,75) and
(100,100) (% speed, % torque) points which is
equal to 56.25 percent and 100 load. As such the
points recommended do not reflect the typical
motor loads for inverter-only motors.
63 See counts of motors by load factor by
application as provided by the DOE Motor Systems
Market Assessment report, available at https://
motors.lbl.gov/inventory/analyze/3-0825.
64 Inverter-only motors are capable of providing
full-rated torque at zero speed as well as operating
well over their nominal speed and are typically
selected when operating at extremely low speeds,
particularly when serving a constant torque load.
See: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56016.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63622
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
(i.e., a variable-torque load profile as
recommended by NEEA/NWPCC),
would assume that benefits of speed
controls are always realized and could
potentially significantly underestimate
the input power experienced by a
consumer. In the case of electric motors,
such a metric could be misleading to
consumers purchasing an electric motor
for a non-variable torque applications.
In other contexts where a more specific
application was identified as in the case
for pumps (which are all variable-torque
applications), DOE was able to identify
a specific load profile and use a metric
that captures the energy savings
potential of speed controls. However,
for electric motors, because of the
variability in applications, and because
the majority of AC induction inverteronly electric motors are used in
constant-torque applications, it is more
representative to rely on a full-load
efficiency metric rather than to rely on
a weighted power-input metric based on
a variable torque load profile, and to
provide disaggregated information on
the electric motor’s part-load efficiency
(inclusive of the inverter or not) to
consumers to allow them to perform the
power input calculation that is specific
to their application. In addition, as
previously stated, DOE understands that
many general purpose induction motors
are rated as inverter-capable but are
more commonly operated direct-on-line,
and as such, the results of testing
without an inverter would be more
representative. Consequently, DOE is
not including an input power-based
metric in the electric motors test
procedure. DOE may consider requiring
manufacturers to disclose the part-load
performance efficiency of the additional
motors proposed for inclusion within
the scope of this test procedure as part
of any future energy conservation
standard related to these electric
motors.65
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
F. Rated Output Power and Breakdown
Torque of Electric Motors
The current energy conservation
standards for electric motors at 10 CFR
431.25 are segregated based on rated
motor horsepower, pole configuration,
and motor enclosure. Pole configuration
and motor enclosure are both observable
properties of a motor and
straightforward to use for testing
purposes. In contrast, the rated motor
horsepower (i.e., rated output power) is
not easily observable and DOE has not
discerned a single uniform method to
65 DOE
did not propose to require this in the
December 2021 NOPR. DOE typically includes such
requirements (e.g., labeling) as part of its energy
conservation standards rulemakings.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
determine this value through testing. In
the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to specify rated output power
based on the electric motor’s breakdown
torque for those electric motors that are
subject to energy conservation standards
at 10 CFR 431.25, electric motors above
500 horsepower, air-over electric
motors, and SNEMs. 86 FR 71710,
71745–71747. DOE based this proposal
on the already-established definitions
for rated output power and breakdown
torque as they relate to small electric
motors (see 10 CFR 431.442). Id.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
reviewed NEMA MG 1–2016 (with 2018
Supplements), and noted the
complexity identified by CA IOUs in
determining rated output power based
on breakdown torque, in that the
performance requirements for a NEMA
Design A, B or C motor in Section 12.39
specify the minimum breakdown torque
as a percentage of full-load torque;
therefore, the breakdown torque can
only describe the largest possible rated
output power but cannot uniquely
identify a rated output power. However,
DOE also noted that it understands that
the economics of motor manufacturing
prevent manufacturers from downrating the output power of motors (i.e.,
manufacturers are disincentivized to
down-rate motors because of the
implications of cost-competitiveness),
but NEMA MG 1–2016 (with 2018
Supplements) does not inherently
eliminate that possibility. Regardless,
DOE proposed to specify how to
determine the rated output power of an
electric motor based on its breakdown
torque to provide further specificity. 86
FR 71710, 71745–71747.
Grundfos stated that rated output
power is a manufacturer declaration
(and should not be included as a
regulatory requirement), and that
breakdown torque is only published for
informational purposes. (Grundfos, No.
29 at p. 6)
AI Group disagreed with the use of
breakdown torque to determine power
rating. It warned that running a motor
above its rated torque to the breakdown
torque limit will result in high winding
temperature, winding failure and unsafe
operation should the motor stall. It
commented that a motor will not be able
to continuously deliver power
exceeding its rated power without high
over-temperature and eventual failure
through winding burnout. (AI Group,
No. 25 at p. 6) CEMEP also disagreed
with the use of breakdown torque in
determining rated output power and
stated that breakdown torque has never
been a design criterion for efficiency. It
stated that output power ratings are
based on frame sizes and other motor
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
performance metrics. (CEMEP, No. 19 at
p. 7)
NEMA stated that the proposed
specification of rated output power does
not accurately describe how
manufacturers are currently determining
the rated output power for polyphase
motors. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 19) It stated
that breakdown torque only establishes
the output power the motor can
momentarily deliver successfully and
does not establish the output power the
motor can deliver continuously. NEMA
commented that other parameters, such
as temperature rise, must be considered
to determine the output power the
motor can deliver continuously.
Further, NEMA provided examples of
how a motor’s output power would be
rated if DOE’s proposal were considered
for adoption. According to NEMA, rated
output power based on DOE’s proposal
would result in much higher values
than manufacturer-declared output
power, which in turn would result in
motors overheating during the rated
load temperature tests and potentially
being ineffective for the efficiency test.66
Id. at pp. 19–20.
Further, NEMA commented that
Section 12.39 of NEMA Standard MG–
1 2016 (with 2018 Supplements) only
defines a lower bound for breakdown
torque and not an upper bound, and that
there is nothing in that procedure
prohibiting manufacturers from
designing motors that are subject to that
section with a breakdown torque value
much higher than the minimum
required value when attempting to
optimize other aspects of the motor’s
performance. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 20)
On the other hand, NEMA noted that
motors subject to Section 12.37 of
NEMA Standard MG–1 2016 (with 2018
Supplements) (polyphase small motors)
have a defined lower breakdown torque
limit they do not have an upper limit.
As such, NEMA asserted that the
possibility of overheating the electric
motor makes the proposal unfeasible. In
addition, NEMA asserted that the
proposal may also be unfeasible for
single-phase induction motors because
there is a tolerance on the breakdown
torque values for these motors that the
proposal does not address. (NEMA, No.
26 at p. 20)
After receiving feedback from
stakeholders and reviewing the
capabilities of motor test labs, DOE has
concerns regarding the feasibility of
determining the breakdown torque of
larger motors and how breakdown
66 IEEE 112–2017 Test Method B (currently
incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 431.15 and one
of the test methods in Section 2 of appendix B)
requires that a rated load temperature test be
performed prior to taking efficiency measurements.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
torque could be used to determine rated
output power. DOE understands that
motors above 100 horsepower are rarely
physically tested due to the complexity
and cost of supplying a load of that size
during testing. Instead, manufacturers
rely on simulations and performance
modeling to determine the performance
characteristics of motors this size.
DOE also understands that while
breakdown torque may be used to
determine the rated output power of
small electric motors (or ‘‘small motors’’
as the term is generally used),
manufacturers do not typically use only
this value for larger motors, and there
are other parameters used to determine
rated output power. DOE has
determined that there is no single
uniform method that manufacturers
currently use to determine rated output
power; manufacturers instead view this
issue as an optimization problem that
changes depending on what function
the motor is providing. Electric motors
designed for higher horsepower outputs
tend to have more electrically-active
and inactive material to safely achieve
the higher power output. Due to this
relationship between active material
and power output, DOE understands
that rating a motor at a lower
horsepower rather than the maximum
that can be safely achievable for an
application would result in a motor
with more active and inactive material
than the other motors at the lower
horsepower. The added cost of excess
material in the oversized motor would
result in a motor that is not costcompetitive with motors at the lower
horsepower. As such, DOE understands
that the under-rating of motor
horsepower is not a significant issue
since manufacturers are incentivized to
rate a motor at a higher hp based on
cost-effectiveness.
In light of the difficulty of
determining breakdown torque for larger
motors and the potential of overheating
when determining rated output power
based on DOE’s proposal, at this time,
DOE is not adopting its proposed
specification of rated output power.
Therefore, the test procedure and
representations will be based on
manufacturer representations of the
rated output power of an electric motor.
DOE is also declining to define the term
‘‘breakdown torque’’ as it will not be
needed in light of the absence of a
requirement to determine the rated
output power of an electric motor.
G. Rated Values Specified for Testing
1. Rated Frequency
Electricity is supplied at a sinusoidal
frequency of 60 Hz in the United States
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
while other regions of the world (e.g.,
Europe) use a frequency of 50 Hz. The
frequency supplied to a motor (or to the
inverter, if the motor is connected to an
inverter) inherently affects the
performance of the motor (or motors and
inverter, if the motor is connected to an
inverter). ‘‘Rated frequency’’ is a term
commonly used by industry standards
for testing electric motors (e.g., Section
6.1 in IEEE 112–2004, and Section 6.1
in CSA C390–10), and refers to the
frequency at which the motor is
designed to operate. A motor’s rated
frequency is typically provided by the
manufacturer on the electric motor
nameplate. Multiple rated frequencies
are sometimes provided if a
manufacturer intends to sell a particular
model in all parts of the world. In the
case where an electric motor is
designated to operate at either 60 or 50
Hz, the current test procedure does not
explicitly specify the frequency value at
which an electric motor is tested.
Similarly, inverters used to operate
inverter-only motors can be rated at
multiple frequencies.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to add the term ‘‘rated
frequency’’ to the definitions located at
10 CFR 431.12 and to define the term as
‘‘60 Hz.’’ 86 FR 71710, 71747. DOE
stated that because the test procedures
and energy conservation standards
established under EPCA apply to motors
distributed in commerce within the
United States, DOE expressly proposed
to use 60 Hz. Id.
Grundfos commented that DOE
should make it clear that the definition
for rated frequency would not apply for
inverter-only motors. (Grundfos, No. 29
at p. 6) DOE did not receive any other
comments on this proposal.
In this final rule, DOE specifies that
the rated frequency describes the
frequency of the electricity supplied
either: (1) directly to the motor, in the
case of electric motors capable of
operating without an inverter; or (2) to
the inverter in the case of inverter-only
electric motors. Accordingly, DOE is
adopting the following definition for
‘‘rated frequency’’: Rated frequency
means 60 Hz and corresponds to the
frequency of the electricity supplied
either: (1) directly to the motor, in the
case of electric motors capable of
operating without an inverter; or (2) to
the inverter in the case on inverter-only
electric motors.
2. Rated Load
The term ‘‘rated load’’ is a term used
in industry standards to specify the load
that is applied to an electric motor
during testing. This rated load typically
equals the rated output power of an
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63623
electric motor, and efficiency
representations of ‘‘full-load efficiency’’
are in reference to the rated full-load (or
the rated load) of a motor. In the
December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to
define ‘‘rated load’’ as ‘‘the rated output
power of an electric motor.’’ DOE also
proposed qualifying that the term ‘‘rated
output power is equivalent to the terms
‘‘rated load,’’ ‘‘rated full-load,’’ ‘‘full
rated load,’’ or ‘‘full-load’’ as used in the
various industry standards used for
evaluating the energy efficiency of
electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71747.
DOE received a comment from
Grundfos in support of this proposed
definition, (Grundfos, No. 29 at pp. 6–
7), and received no comments opposing
it.
For the reasons discussed in the
December 2021 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, DOE is adopting
the definition of rated load as proposed
in the December 2021 NOPR and
clarifying that the term is
interchangeable with the terms fullload, full rated load, and rated full-load
as used in other current industry testing
standards for electric motors.
3. Rated Voltage
The rated voltage of a motor typically
refers to the input voltage(s) that an enduser can supply to the motor and expect
the motor to deliver the performance
characteristics detailed on its
nameplate. When performing an
efficiency test at the rated load, the
motor is supplied with one of the
voltages listed on its nameplate.
Currently, the referenced industry
standards listed in appendix B direct
that motors to be tested at the rated
voltage, without specifying how to test
when multiple voltages are provided on
the nameplate and marketing material.
DOE has found that some motor
nameplates are labeled with a voltage
rating including a range of values, such
as ‘‘208–230/460 volts,’’ or other
qualifiers, such as ‘‘230/460V, usable at
208V.’’
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
presented the results of electric motors
that were tested at two rated voltages of
230V and 460V. The results indicated
that the tests that were conducted at the
higher voltage rating (460V) resulted in
fewer losses than at the lower voltage
rating (230V). 86 FR 71710, 71747–
71749. DOE noted that under current
industry practice, a manufacturer can
select the voltage for testing; however,
the electric motor must meet all
performance requirements of NEMA MG
1–2016 (with 2018 Supplements) at all
rated voltages. Therefore, in the
December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to
define the term ‘‘rated voltage’’ as ‘‘any
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
63624
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
of the nameplate input voltages of an
electric motor or inverter, including the
voltage selected by the motor’s
manufacturer to be used for testing the
motor’s efficiency.’’ 86 FR 71710, 71748.
DOE further clarified that the proposed
definition would also require a motor to
meet all performance requirements at
any voltage listed on its nameplate.
Therefore, a manufacturer would not be
permitted to make representations
regarding other voltages at which an
electric motor could operate unless that
motor also satisfied all of the related
performance standards. DOE sought
comment on this proposal and the
proposal to allow voltages that appeared
on the nameplate as ‘‘Usable At’’ to be
selected for testing. Id.
In response, CEMEP stated that the
rated voltage is the voltage at which the
manufacturer provides all other rated
values like current, torque, and power
factor of a motor. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p.
8) AI Group stated that the rated voltage
should be the voltage at which the
manufacturer guarantees performance
data of the motor (including efficiency).
(AI Group, No. 25 at p. 6) Trane
commented that having to test motors at
all voltages on the nameplate creates an
undue burden to the manufacturer due
to the nature of the input rectification
circuit, and that manufacturers should
be allowed to test at only one voltage as
long as that voltage is reported in the
certification. (Trane, No. 31 at pp. 6–7)
NEMA commented that ‘‘Usable At’’
voltages are included to inform the
customer that the motor could operate at
that voltage but its inclusion on the
nameplate makes no claims regarding
efficiency at that voltage. (NEMA, No.
26 at p. 21) Grundfos opposed including
‘‘Usable At’’ voltages in the definition of
rated voltage, stating that this proposed
change will force manufacturers to
design motors for specific voltages and
limit motor utility and consumer
options. It stated that this requirement
would have a large impact on
manufacturers that ship to multiple
markets with different voltages (e.g.
U.S., Brazil, Japan, EU) and that it could
force them to double their offerings to
design motors specifically optimized for
their ‘‘Usable At’’ voltages, and that
DOE needs to account for the added
costs for the design and certification of
these motors if the proposed change is
adopted. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 7)
DOE notes that Section 12.50 of
NEMA MG 1–2016 states that ‘‘When a
small or medium polyphase motor is
marked with a single (e.g., 230 V), dual
(e.g., 230/460), or broad range (e.g. 208–
230) voltage in the Voltage field, the
motor shall meet all performance
requirements of MG 1, such as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
efficiency, at the rated voltage(s).’’ The
section further states that ‘‘When a
voltage is shown on a nameplate field
(e.g., ‘‘Useable at 208 Volts’’) . . . other
than the Voltage field, the motor is not
required to meet all performance
requirements of this standard (e.g.,
torques and nameplate nominal
efficiency) at this other voltage.’’ DOE
understands that these ‘‘Usable At’’
voltages and broad range voltages allow
manufacturers to serve multiple
national markets with a single product
offering.
In this final rule, DOE clarifies that its
proposal to allow any nameplate voltage
to be selected for testing does not mean
a manufacturer will have to certify a
motor’s efficiency at every rated voltage.
Instead, DOE is requiring that a
manufacturer will only have to certify
the efficiency of the motor at one
voltage, but that DOE could select any
nameplate voltage for enforcement
testing. DOE considers ‘‘Usable At’’
voltages that appear on the nameplate as
a nameplate voltage, and thus could be
selected for testing. In DOE’s view, at
any voltage at which the manufacturer
declares that an electric motor may be
installed and operated by making a
representation in its nameplate, the
electric motor must meet the standards
when measured by the DOE test
procedure. However, DOE notes that if
a ‘‘Usable At’’ voltage is included in
marketing materials but is not printed
on the nameplate, then that voltage
would not be selected for testing as it
would be for reference only.
Grundfos also stated that DOE needs
to consider that the rated voltage for an
inverter-only motor may be different
than the rated voltage of the inverter to
which it is connected. (Grundfos, No. 29
at p. 7) NEMA commented that the term
‘‘inverter’’ should be removed from the
definition of rated voltage (without
providing further details). (NEMA, No.
26 at pp. 20–21) Regarding how rated
voltage should be defined for expanded
scope, NEMA commented that motors
that are not inverter-only should be
tested at the rated voltage on the
nameplate; motors with an inverter
(inverter-only, converter-only, or
synchronous motors) should be tested in
accordance with the requirements of the
inverter, in accordance with IEC 60034–
2–3. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 21)
As discussed in section III.D.3 of this
document, DOE is requiring inverteronly electric motors to be tested with an
inverter. As such, DOE notes that the
voltage of the accompanying inverter to
the inverter-only motor is important for
determining its rated voltage. DOE
specified in the proposal that ‘‘any of
the nameplate input voltages of an
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
electric motor or inverter’’ could be
considered as the rated voltage, and that
the motor would have to meet all
performance requirements at any of the
voltages listed on its nameplate (inverter
or motor).
Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is
adopting its proposed rated voltage
definition. Further, DOE is clarifying
that a motor would have to meet all
performance requirements at any
voltage listed on its nameplate (inverter
or motor’s nameplate). DOE is also
clarifying that for any motor that is
tested with an inverter, the rated input
voltages that could be selected for
testing are only the voltages that appear
on the inverter nameplate. This
clarification is being added to ensure
that when the motor input voltage
differs from the inverter input voltage,
the incorrect voltage does not get fed
into the inverter.
H. Contact Seals Requirement
Certain electric motors come
equipped with contact seals that prevent
liquid, debris, and other unwanted
materials from entering (or exiting) the
motor housing. These contact seals
cause friction on the shaft, which can
cause a motor to have higher losses than
if the motor were operating without
those contact seals. In the December
2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify
that motors (other than immersible
motors) that have contact seals should
be tested with those seals installed. 86
FR 71710, 71750–71751.
NEMA, IEC, CEMEP, AI Group,
AGMA, and Sumitomo all opposed the
proposal. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 22–23;
IEC, No. 20 at pp. 2–3; CEMEP, No. 19
at p. 9; AI Group, No. 25 at pp. 2, 6–
7; AGMA, No. 14 at pp. 1–2; Sumitomo,
No. 17 at pp. 1, 4–5) IEC, AI Group, and
Sumitomo cited concerns about the
added test burden if manufacturers were
required to test every unique ‘‘motor
plus contact seal’’ combination
individually. (IEC, No. 20 at pp. 2–3; AI
Group, No. 25 at pp. 2, 6–7; Sumitomo,
No. 17 at pp. 6–7) CEMEP noted that
numerous seal types are available, and
the losses will be different in each case,
which will lead to a high number of
different basic models. (CEMEP, No. 19
at p. 9) IEC, and Sumitomo also cited
concerns about the variability of
frictional losses in contact seals and
how this variability would make the test
procedure less repeatable. (IEC, No. 20
at pp. 2–3; AI Group, No. 25 at pp. 2,
6–7; Sumitomo, No. 17 at pp. 6–7)
Specifically, IEC, and Sumitomo stated
that bearing friction and losses reduce
as the motor runs and these bearings
wear-in. Id. Further, NEMA and
Sumitomo commented that some
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
bearings can take up to 200 hours of run
time to wear-in, an amount of run time
they argued would be unduly
burdensome for a single efficiency test.
(NEMA, No. 26 at p. 23; Sumitomo, No.
17 at p. 5)
NEMA disagreed with requiring
electric motors to be tested with the
seals installed because of the larger
number of new models that would need
to be certified and the added
uncertainty introduced to the test
procedure because of the many variables
that affect seal losses. It referenced a
statement from Advanced Energy,67
who noted that because the ‘‘run-in’’
period of seals is not uniform across all
motors—and can be long enough to
make testing infeasible—testing these
motors without their seals would be the
reasonable approach for DOE to take.
(NEMA, No. 26 at p. 23)
Sumitomo stated that, unlike past
requirements, if DOE requires motors to
be tested with their contact seals
installed, testing a combination of
randomly-selected sample motors per
DOE’s established methodology to verify
calculated efficiency models will be
impossible. It commented that all the
motors will need to be tested until a
new AEDM is developed that
compensates for the reality that seal
drag varies by a variety of factors such
as total time in operation, lubrication,
seal design, and surface speed. Since
dimensions may vary depending on
‘‘reducer frame size,’’ multiple AEDMs
may be required for a given motor.
(Sumitomo, No. 17 at p. 6) Further,
Sumitomo stated that the DOE proposal
on contact seals would cause undue
burden and it requested that DOE
confirm that any required shaft contact
seal be deemed part of an electric
motor’s mating gearbox associated with
the reducer and not a necessary part of
the electrical motor itself, such that
contact seals be removed for testing.
Accordingly, Sumitomo recommended
that DOE an approach where the electric
motor shaft seals of any variety shall be
removed for testing if they are contact
seals—regardless of whether the motor
under test is an immersible electric
motor. It noted that the problem with
including seals on a gearmotor for
testing is that seal friction causes loss of
energy power output, but the losses are
inconsistent and vary depending on seal
size, number of seals, seal design, seal
material, lubrication, and time in
operation. By comparison, Sumitomo
stated that motor efficiency tests that
include fresh, dry seals do not simulate
real-world operating conditions and
67 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE2012-BT-TP-0043-0008.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
may not be indicative of actual
efficiency. Accordingly, Sumitomo
recommended that to allow for
meaningful comparison between
gearmotors and conventional motors,
contact seals should be excluded from
the test. (Sumitomo, No. 17 at pp. 1, 4–
5)
ABB stated that tests will need to be
performed to determine frictional losses
for shaft seals and sealed bearings for
each type of seal and seal combination
by rating and frame size. (ABB, No. 18
at p. 2) CEMEP asked DOE to clarify
whether the proposed approach would
treat every unique motor plus contact
seal combination as a new basic model
requiring separate certification.
(CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 10)
AGMA argued that, to allow for
meaningful comparison between
gearmotors and conventional motors,
contact seals should be excluded from
the test. It stated that modeling seal drag
and its attendant increase in motor
losses may be difficult and that seal
losses are a function of run time and
lubrication and can vary across
manufacturers and among individual
pieces. It mentioned that motor
efficiency tests that include fresh, dry
seals do not simulate real-world
operating conditions and may not be
indicative of actual efficiency. It stated
that requiring an integral gear motor
with the mechanically required shaft
contact seal to meet the same energy
efficiency levels as the vast majority of
electrical motors that have no need for
such a shaft contact seal is an
inconsistent application of the DOE’s
motor efficiency mandate and will
result in an ‘‘unlevel playing field.’’ It
encouraged DOE to consider any
required shaft contact seal as part of the
motor’s driven load and not a necessary
part of the electrical motor. (AGMA, No.
14 at pp. 1–2)
Grundfos stated that the proposed
clarification for contact seals is adequate
but that DOE must clearly define the
term ‘‘contact seals’’ with respect to
immersible motors to ensure clarity.
(Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 8)
Advanced Energy stated that the
proposed clarification on shaft seals
may be inconsistent with how
manufacturers have interpreted DOE’s
regulations and suggested that DOE add
language allowing manufacturers to
request a no-load run-in prior to
efficiency testing to allow the bearings
and seals to wear-in. The no-load runin ensures the shaft seals (along with
bearings and lubricant) are well-seated
prior to loading the motor. Advanced
Energy also explained that when it
performs efficiency testing, it conducts
a no-load test and waits until the input
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63625
power has stabilized before moving onto
the next stage of the test, with run-in
time varying based on the motor.
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 16)
DOE reviewed the comments
submitted and further researched the
complexities of measuring the efficiency
of an electric motor with the contact
seals installed. DOE understands that
the frictional losses of contact seals
reduce as the motor runs but the rate
that these losses reduce over time is not
uniform across all types of contact seals.
DOE considered allowing manufacturers
to use a run-in period that allowed for
motor losses to stabilize before the
efficiency test is conducted but is
concerned that this period could be
arduously long in the case of contact
seals that could take up to 200 hours of
runtime before the frictional losses
stabilized. At this time, DOE has not
found a practical way to account for the
variation in frictional losses of contact
seals when testing with the seals
installed. Accordingly, in this final rule,
DOE is declining to adopt its proposal
that motors (other than immersible
motors) that have contact seals should
be tested with those seals installed.
I. Vertical Electric Motors Testing
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to modify the vertical electric
motor test requirements in section 3.8 of
appendix B to permit the connection of
a dynamometer with a coupling of
torsional rigidity greater than or equal to
that of the motor shaft.68 86 FR 71710,
71750. DOE proposed this updated
language in response to NEMA’s
comments that industry’s common
practice is to use a disconnectable
coupling or adapter to connect hollow
motor shafts to dynamometers rather
than the current requirements direct
welding of a solid shaft to the motor’s
drive end. NEMA commented that using
an adaptor or coupling causes no loss of
testing accuracy, but carries the
advantage of easy reversibility; whereas
welding may permanently alter the
motor. (NEMA, No. 2 at p. 3) In the
December 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively
concluded that so long as the coupling
is sufficiently rigid, it would be unlikely
that it would reduce test procedure
repeatability, and permitting use of a
coupling could reduce burden, as
68 Specifically, DOE proposed removing the
instructional text reading, ‘‘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’’ to ‘‘If necessary, the
unit under test may be connected to the
dynamometer using a coupling of torsional rigidity
greater than or equal to that of the motor shaft.’’ 86
FR 71710, 71750.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63626
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
removal of such a connector may be less
laborious than reversing a welding
process. 86 FR 71710, 71750.
Consequently, DOE proposed to update
its vertical electric motor testing
requirements in the manner NEMA
suggested and sought comment on that
approach. Id
NEMA agreed with the proposed
changes to testing requirements for
certain vertical electric motors and that
the proposed changes for coupling
torsion are adequate. (NEMA, No. 26 at
p. 22) Advanced Energy supported the
proposed change to the definition as it
relates to vertical electric motors and
stated that the change is consistent with
its current testing practice. (Advanced
Energy, No. 33 at p. 16) Further,
Advanced Energy supported the
additional requirement of torsional
rigidity of the coupling used to measure
the motor output power. Id. Grundfos
also supported the specifications on
torsional rigidity. (Grundfos, No. 29 at
p. 8)
For the reasons discussed, DOE is
adopting the December 2021 NOPR
proposal in this final rule, which
provides an alternate specification of
using a coupling for testing vertical
electric motors.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
J. Proposed Testing Instructions for
Those Electric Motors Being Added to
the Scope of Appendix B
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
discussed how sections 3.1 through 3.8
of appendix B provide additional testing
instructions for certain electric motors.
86 FR 71710, 71751. Specifically, the
testing instructions provided are for (1)
brake electric motors; (2) close-coupled
pump electric motors and electric
motors with single or double shaft
extensions of non-standard dimensions
or design; (3) electric motors with nonstandard endshields or flanges; (4)
electric motors with non-standard bases,
feet or mounting configurations; (5)
electric motors with a separatelypowered blower; (6) immersible electric
motors; (7) partial electric motors; and
(8) vertical electric motors and electric
motors with bearings incapable of
horizontal operation. In the December
2021 NOPR, DOE reviewed these
instructions and found that they would
also apply to the additional motors
proposed for inclusion in scope, to the
extent that the additional motors fall
into one of the eight categories of
electric motors already listed in sections
3.1–3.8 of appendix B. Id. DOE
requested comments on the proposed
application of the additional testing
instructions in sections 3.1 through 3.8
of appendix B to the additional electric
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
motors proposed for inclusion in scope
of the test procedure. Id.
In response, two stakeholders
supported DOE’s view that the
additional testing instructions for
certain electric motors would also apply
to the additional electric motors
proposed for inclusion in scope of the
test procedure. Grundfos stated that the
additional test instructions in sections
3.1–3.8 of 10 CFR part 431 appendix B
would apply to the additional motor
types proposed in scope. (Grundfos, No.
29 at p. 8) NEMA commented that to the
extent that existing test procedures can
be accurately and repeatedly applied to
the additional electric motors proposed
for inclusion in scope, the
accommodations in sections 3.1–3.8 of
appendix B remain adequate. (NEMA,
No. 26 at p. 24)
The test methods adopted in this final
rule reference specific industry test
methods. Further, as discussed in
section III.D of this document, DOE has
concluded that the test methods for
those additional electric motors DOE is
including within the scope of the test
procedure are designed to produce
results reflecting a motor’s energy
efficiency during a representative
average use cycle and are not unduly
burdensome to conduct. As such,
because DOE has concluded that the test
procedures can be accurately and
repeatedly applied to the additional
electric motors, DOE maintains that the
additional testing instructions in
sections 3.1–3.8 of appendix B also
apply to the additional motors DOE is
adding to the test procedure’s scope, to
the extent that the additional motors fall
into one of the eight categories of
electric motors listed in sections 3.1–3.8
of appendix B. Consequently, DOE is
adopting these additional testing
instructions as proposed.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
also proposed to amend the definition of
standard bearing by expanding it to
include 600 series bearings—i.e., ‘‘a 600
or 6000 series, either open or greaselubricated double-shielded, single-row,
deep groove, radial ball bearing.’’ 86 FR
71710, 71751. DOE proposed this
amendment to accommodate categories
of bearings contained in motors with
smaller shafts that are found in SNEMs.
Id. DOE requested comment on this
proposal but received none. Therefore,
DOE is adopting this proposal in this
final rule.
K. Testing Instructions for Brake Electric
Motors
Section 3.1. of Appendix B to Subpart
B currently includes testing instructions
for brake electric motors. In the NOPR,
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
DOE did not propose any changes to
these testing instructions.
IEC commented that as long as
auxiliary devices, such as mechanical
brakes, are not an integral part of the
basic motor design, the test for
efficiency should be performed on basic
motors without auxiliary devices
installed. It recommended removing
mechanical brakes from an electric
motor during testing because testing
with the brakes installed will
significantly increase the uncertainty in
the test results. Moreover, it noted that
manufacturers offer different types of
brakes with their electric motors,
making it impracticable to test all of the
variations that are produced. Finally,
IEC explained that removing the brakes
before testing is consistent with IEC
600034–30–1 and IEC 600034–30–2.
(IEC, No. 20 at pp. 3–4)
DOE notes that section 3.1 of
appendix B instructs that brake electric
motors must be tested with the brake
component not activated during testing.
Specifically, the power supplied to
prevent the brake from engaging is not
included in the efficiency calculation.
Further, the test procedure allows the
brake to be disengaged from the motor
if such a mechanism to disengage to
brake is installed and if doing so does
not yield a different efficiency value
than when separately powering the
brake electrically. Accordingly, in
DOE’s view, the current test methods
already permit the brakes to be
disengaged and exclude any energy use
associated with the brake component
from the motor’s calculated efficiency.
L. Transition to 10 CFR Part 429
DOE proposed to amend its electric
motor regulations by amending and
moving those portions pertaining to
certification testing and the
determination of represented values
from 10 CFR part 431 to 10 CFR part
429. (86 FR 71710, 71751–71752) DOE
also proposed amending other sections
of 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, to ensure
the regulatory structure comprising 10
CFR part 431, subpart B, and 10 CFR
part 429 remains coherent. Id. DOE also
proposed making changes to the general
provisions in 10 CFR part 429 to reflect
the addition of electric motor provisions
related to certification testing and to the
determination of represented values. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments
related to transitioning the provisions
pertaining to certification testing and
the determination of represented values
from 10 CFR part 431 to 10 CFR part 429
and is adopting these changes as
proposed, consistent with other covered
products and equipment.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to largely retain the
procedures for recognition and
withdrawal of recognition of
accreditation bodies and certification
programs as it exists at 10 CFR 431.21,
with one change to the current
provisions at 10 CFR 431.21(g) to clarify
the timeline and process of withdrawal
of recognition by DOE as follows: if the
certification program is failing to meet
the criteria of paragraph (b) of § 429.73
or § 429.74, DOE will issue a Notice of
Withdrawal (‘‘Notice’’) stating which
criteria the entity has failed to meet. The
Notice will request that the entity take
appropriate corrective action(s)
specified in the Notice. The entity must
take corrective action within 180 days
from the date of the Notice of
Withdrawal or dispute DOE’s
allegations within 30 days from the
issuance of the Notice. If, after 180 days,
DOE finds that satisfactory corrective
action has not been made, DOE will
withdraw its recognition from the
63627
entity. DOE did not receive comments
related to this topic and is adopting the
proposed provisions related to the
recognition and withdrawal of
recognition of accreditation bodies and
certification programs. In DOE’s view,
these additional requirements to the
procedures for recognition and
withdrawal of recognition will provide
added clarity for those entities that may
be affected by this provision.
TABLE III–8—ELECTRIC MOTORS CERTIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE CFR TRANSITIONS
Subpart B—electric motors 69
10 CFR 431.14
10 CFR 431.17
Sources for information and guidance ........................
Determination of efficiency .........................................
10 CFR 431.18
Testing laboratories ....................................................
10 CFR 431.19 Department of Energy recognition of accreditation
bodies.
10 CFR 431.20 Department of Energy recognition of nationally recognized certification programs.
10 CFR 431.21 Procedures for recognition and withdrawal of recognition of accreditation bodies and certification programs.
Final location
Moved to 10 CFR 429.3 ................
Moved to 10 CFR 429.64 and 10
CFR 429.70 as relevant, edits to
general provisions in 10 CFR
429 as needed.
Retained and added additional
provisions at 10 CFR 429.64.
Moved to 10 CFR 429.74 ..............
Moved to 10 CFR 429.3.
Moved to 10 CFR 429.64 and 10
CFR 429.70 as relevant, edits to
general provisions in 10 CFR
429 as needed.
Retained and added additional
provisions at 10 CFR 429.64.
Moved to 10 CFR 429.74.
Moved to 10 CFR 429.73 ..............
Moved to 10 CFR 429.73.
Moved to 10 CFR 429.75 ..............
Moved to 10 CFR 429.75.
DOE codified at 10 CFR 431.17(a)(5)
the statutory requirement prescribing
that manufacturers must certify electric
motors as compliant with the applicable
standard through the use of an
‘‘independent testing or certification
program nationally recognized in the
United States.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6316(c)) In
the existing regulations, DOE addresses
the requirement to use an independent
testing program nationally recognized in
the United States by requiring that
testing laboratories be accredited by the
National Institute of Standards and
Technology (‘‘NIST’’)/National
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation
Program (‘‘NVLAP’’),70 a laboratory
accreditation program having a mutual
recognition program with NIST/NVLAP,
or an organization classified by DOE as
an accreditation body. 10 CFR 431.18.
The term ‘‘accredited laboratory’’ is
used to designate a testing laboratory to
which accreditation has been granted.
10 CFR 431.12.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed that, prior to 180 days
following the publication of this final
rule, in those cases when a certification
program is not used, certifying a new
basic model pursuant to 10 CFR
431.36(e) must be based on testing
conducted in an accredited laboratory
that meets the requirements of § 431.18.
However, on or after 180 days following
the publication of this final rule, when
certifying a new basic model pursuant
to 10 CFR 431.36(e) and when a
certification program is not used, DOE
proposed to require that testing be
conducted by a nationally recognized
testing program as further described in
the remainder of this section. DOE
69 As it appeared at 10 CFR part 431, subpart B,
in the 10 CFR parts 200 to 499 edition revised as
of January 1, 2020.
70 A list of NIST/NVLAP accredited laboratories
is available here: https://www-s.nist.gov/niws/
index.cfm?event=directory.results.
In addition, the December 2021 NOPR
included some revisions in 10 CFR
429.11 that were not discussed in the
NOPR preamble. In this final rule, DOE
does not implement those changes
(other than to update the cross-reference
to 10 CFR 429.65).
M. Certification of Electric Motors
Manufacturers must certify electric
motors as compliant with the applicable
standard through the use of an
‘‘independent testing or certification
program nationally recognized in the
United States.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6316(c)) DOE
is adopting changes to the provisions
related to certification testing to ensure
consistency with the statutory language
found in 42 U.S.C. 6316(c). These
updates are described in section III.M.1
and section III.M.2 of this document.
1. Independent Testing
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Proposed location
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
proposed to replace the use of the term
‘‘accredited laboratory’’ (currently
defined at 10 CFR 431.12) with the term
‘‘nationally recognized testing program’’
to better reflect the requirement that the
testing program be nationally
recognized in the United States. (42
U.S.C. 6316(c)) 86 FR 71710, 71752.
DOE further proposed to add a
definition for ‘‘independent’’ to appear
in 10 CFR 429.2 that would define the
term as referring to an entity that is not
controlled by, or under common control
with, electric motor manufacturers,
importers, private labelers, or vendors.
It would also require that the entity
have no affiliation, financial ties, or
contractual agreements, apparently or
otherwise, with such entities that
would: (1) Hinder the ability of the
program to evaluate fully or report the
measured or calculated energy
efficiency of any electric motor, or (2)
Create any potential or actual conflict of
interest that would undermine the
validity of said evaluation. The
proposed definition also provided that
for the purposes of the proposed
definition, financial ties or contractual
agreements between an electric motor
manufacturer, importer, private labeler
or vendor and a nationally recognized
testing program, certification program,
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
63628
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
or accreditation program exclusively for
testing, certification, or accreditation
services would not negate an otherwise
independent relationship. 86 FR 71710,
71752–71753. This proposed definition
was largely based on the descriptions of
independence currently found in 10
CFR 431.19(b)(2), 431.19(c)(2),
431.20(b)(2) and 431.20(c)(2). DOE
further proposed to remove these
descriptions in their entirety and rely
solely on the proposed definition of
independent that would appear in 10
CFR 429.2. 86 FR 71710, 71752–71753.
DOE indicated that these proposed
requirements would apply starting 180
days after publication of the final rule.
In response to the December 2021
NOPR, DOE received many comments
criticizing the proposal. AI Group
strongly opposed not allowing
accredited manufacturer laboratories to
conduct testing and submit results for
certification. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 7)
Franklin Electric, Trane, ABB, Regal,
CEMEP, AHRI and AHAM, and NEMA
all commented that requiring the use of
third-party testing laboratories would
add financial and time burdens on
manufacturers. Franklin Electric
opposed requiring manufacturers to
certify through a third-party test facility
and stated that imposing the proposed
requirement to do so would be an
expensive burden for motor
manufacturers. It elaborated that this
proposal would be particularly difficult
to meet in the case of submersible
motors because third-party facilities
would need time to implement the new
test procedure and there are currently
no third-party certification bodies
available to test and certify for these
motors. (Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p.
6) Trane commented that testing all the
new in-scope motors at independent
facilities would not be possible in the
timeframe allotted and that testing
components of covered products creates
unnecessary financial and time burdens
on manufacturers. It added that
requiring third-party laboratories to test
and certify these motors will create a
supply bottleneck. (Trane, No. 31 at p.
7) Regal stated that there are too few
third-party labs to test the motors that
would be added to the test procedure’s
scope and that this testing will create
longer lead times and backlogs in an
already supply-constrained
environment. (Regal, No. 28 at p. 1) ABB
commented that if all motor
manufacturers are required to use the
limited number of external partners
(who all have finite testing capacity), it
believed that the required testing could
take longer than 3 years to complete.
ABB commented that the 180-day time
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
frame for requiring manufacturers to test
at an independent, nationally
recognized testing facility is unrealistic.
(ABB, No. 18 at p. 2) Grundfos
expressed concern with DOE’s proposed
definition of ‘‘independent’’ since it
would preclude manufacturers from
engaging with an independent thirdparty for purposes not related to
certification—such as prototype testing.
Grundfos did not elaborate on this
point. Grundfos generally agreed,
however, with the proposed methods of
certification. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 8)
Advanced Energy supported DOE’s
proposed definition of ‘‘independent.’’
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 17)
The industry trade associations
harbored similar concerns. CEMEP
commented that requiring the use of a
third-party laboratory is an extreme
burden and a trade barrier to
manufacturers. It noted the potential for
higher adverse impacts on small- and
medium-sized businesses in the form of
additional time, effort, and financial and
administrative costs to meet the
proposed requirement, particularly in
light of the small number of motors that
these entities produce for the U.S.
market. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 9) AHAM
and AHRI commented that they were
aware of only three third-party labs and
stressed that these labs would be unable
to handle the magnitude of testing
required under DOE’s proposal,
particularly within the specified 180day timeframe. (AHAM and AHRI, No.
36 at p. 9) AHAM and AHRI also
commented that the proposed
certification changes may drive motor
manufacturers to limit the number of
motors currently available to
downstream OEMs in an effort to reduce
testing and certification burdens. AHRI
and AHAM commented that this
development would limit OEM choice,
may increase costs, and could
negatively impact the performance of
the end-use products. Id. NEMA, in
referencing the three third-party
certification bodies noted by AHRI and
AHAM, stressed that these testing
entities will not have the capacity to
handle the inflow of reports and become
a bottleneck. It strongly opposed not
allowing accredited manufacturer
laboratories to conduct testing and
submit results for certification. (NEMA,
No. 26 at pp. 24, 28) In addition, NEMA
noted that third-party test labs have
lower capacities than in-house
manufacturer test labs and are only able
to test a smaller range of horsepower
motors. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 30)
In addition, AHAM and AHRI stated
that because DOE has not provided
adequate reasoning for its view that
NIST/NVLAP-certified labs are not
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
sufficiently independent, commenters
have been prevented from providing
meaningful comments on this topic.
(AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at p. 10)
NEMA commented that DOE should
examine potential changes with the
individual NVLAP, International
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation
(ILAC), and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL)
program if there are issues with the
certification process and not impose on
manufacturers without justification and
analysis of the burden this change
would incur. NEMA added that the
industry has made investments to
participate in these programs and that
DOE should engage with the parent
organizations to address its concerns.
Industry participates in these programs
in accordance with the current
regulations and should not be
penalized. NEMA commented that
DOE’s proposal could be interpreted to
imply that the Department has lost
control of the process and its
certification database and added that the
proposed changes would not address
systemic failures in oversight, if they
exist. NEMA added that DOE provided
no justification or reasons for this
change and cannot add this burden
without justification and corresponding
economic analysis of the time and
burdens it conveys. (NEMA, No. 26 at p.
24)
EPCA requires that with respect to
any electric motor for which energy
conservation standards are established
at 42 U.S.C. 6313(b), the Secretary shall
require manufacturers to certify,
through an independent testing or
certification program nationally
recognized in the United States, that
such motor meets the applicable
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(c)) DOE
reviewed the requirements that a testing
laboratory must meet to obtain NIST/
NVLAP accreditation related to
proficiency testing, resources (e.g.,
personnel records, specific experience
and competence of technical manager,
competency review, training,
equipment), process (e.g., selection,
verification and validation of methods,
sampling, reporting results), and
management systems (e.g., control of
records, internal audits).71 In addition,
NIST/NVLAP conducts on-site
assessments that consist of an
independent, documented process for
determining laboratory competence and
other relevant information by NVLAP
assessors with the objective of
determining the extent to which NVLAP
71 See NIST/NVLAP requirement documents at
www.nist.gov/nvlap/efficiency-electric-motors-lap.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
requirements are fulfilled. Based on this
review, DOE has determined that NIST/
NVALP accreditation is sufficient to
satisfy the statutory requirement to use
an ‘‘independent testing [. . .]
nationally recognized in the United
States’’ (42 U.S.C. 6316(c)) and that no
changes are necessary. Therefore, DOE
has decided to not adopt its proposal to
require the use of an independent
testing program and to instead to
continue permitting the use of
accredited labs as currently described at
10 CFR 431.17(a)(5). These provisions
would be moved, consistent with the
proposal, to 10 CFR 429.64.
In response to the December 2021
NOPR, DOE did not receive any
comments on its proposal to replace the
descriptions of independence currently
found in 10 CFR 431.19(b)(2),
431.19(c)(2), 431.20(b)(2) and
431.20(c)(2) with references to the
proposed definition of independent as it
relates to nationally recognized
certification and accreditation programs.
Id. In this final rule, DOE adopts the
proposed definition of independent as it
relates to nationally recognized
certification and accreditation programs.
DOE is also replacing the descriptions of
independence currently in 10 CFR
431.19(b)(2), 431.19(c)(2), 431.20(b)(2)
and 431.20(c)(2) by referring to the
definition of independent.
In addition to the proposals discussed
in the NOPR, DOE notes that the current
description of the NIST/NVLAP
63629
accreditation program at 10 CFR
431.18(b) and the referenced NIST/
NVLAP handbooks and IEC guides
listed at 10 CFR 431.14 are outdated.
The more recent versions of the NIST/
NVLAP handbooks include references to
DOE’s latest test procedures and replace
the references to various IEC guides,
which have now been withdrawn, by a
reference to IEC 17025:2017 ‘‘General
Requirements for the Competence of
Testing and Calibration Laboratories.’’
DOE did not receive any comments
related to these reference documents. In
this final rule, DOE updates these
references to cite their most recent
versions. (See Table III–9)
TABLE III–9—UPDATED SOURCES FOR INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE
Current version listed at 10 CFR 431.14
Updated version in final location at
10 CFR 429.3
NVLAP Handbook 150, Procedures and General Requirements, February 2006 ............................................
NVLAP Handbook 150, Procedures
and General Requirements, February 2020.
NVLAP Handbook 150–10, Efficiency of Electric Motors, February 2020.
NIST Handbook 150–10 Checklist,
(2020–06–25).
Removed.
NVLAP Handbook 150–10, Efficiency of Electric Motors, February 2007 ........................................................
NIST Handbook 150–10 Checklist, Efficiency of Electric Motors Program, (2007–05–04) ..............................
NVLAP Lab Bulletin Number: LB–42–2009, Changes to NVLAP Efficiency of Electric Motors Program,
March 19, 2009.
ISO/IEC Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing laboratories, 1990 ..
ISO Guide 27, Guidelines for corrective action to be taken by a certification body in the event of either
misapplication of its mark of conformity to a product, or products which bear the mark of the certification
body being found to subject persons or property to risk, 1983.
ISO/IEC Guide 28, General rules for a model third-party certification system for products, 2004.
ISO/IEC Guide 58, Calibration and testing laboratory accreditation systems—General requirements for operation and recognition, 1993.
ISO/IEC Guide 65, General requirements for bodies operating product certification systems, 1996.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
2. Certification Process for Electric
Motors
As mentioned previously, DOE
codified at 10 CFR 431.17(a)(5) the
statutory requirement that
manufacturers must certify electric
motors for which energy conservation
standards are established at 42 U.S.C.
6313(b) as compliant with the
applicable standard through the use of
an ‘‘independent testing or certification
program nationally recognized in the
United States.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6316(c))
Consistent with the requirements of
42 U.S.C. 6316(c), DOE proposed
continuing to permit the use of
independent testing (via an
independent, nationally recognized
testing program) or a nationally
recognized certification program and to
further specify which parties can test
electric motors and certify compliance
with the applicable energy conservation
standards to DOE. DOE proposed that
these provisions be required starting on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
the compliance date for any amended
standards for electric motors published
after January 1, 2021, as this was the
date of the most recent print edition of
the Code of Federal Regulations. DOE
proposed three options in this regard:
(1) a manufacturer can have the electric
motor tested using a nationally
recognized testing program (as
described in the proposed § 429.64(d))
and then certify on its own behalf or
have a third-party submit the
manufacturer’s certification report; (2) a
manufacturer can test the electric motor
at a testing laboratory other than a
nationally recognized testing program
(as described in the proposed
§ 429.64(d)) and then have a nationally
recognized certification program (as
described in the proposed § 429.73)
certify the efficiency of the electric
motor; or (3) a manufacturer can use an
alternative efficiency determination
method (‘‘AEDM,’’ as described in the
proposed § 429.70) and then have a
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General requirements for the competence
of testing and calibration laboratories.
third-party nationally recognized
certification program certify the
efficiency of the electric motor. Under
the proposed regulatory structure, a
manufacturer cannot both test in its own
laboratories and directly submit the
certification of compliance to DOE for
its own electric motors. 86 FR 71710,
71753.
In response to the December 2021
NOPR, CEMEP commented against the
three certification options as proposed
in the December 2021 NOPR. CEMEP
commented that the proposed time
schedule was not suitable and suggested
keeping the existing system for
transmitting data and testing motors.
(CEMEP, No. 19 at pp. 9–10) Lennox
opposed requiring third-party
certification and stated that it would
significantly increase burden to HVACR
manufacturers without any benefit to
the consumer. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 9)
NEMA also opposed the three proposed
certification options and stressed that
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
63630
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
NEMA opposed any proposal that
would prevent certification through
accredited laboratories operated by
manufacturers. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 24)
Advanced Energy supported the three
offered motor certification options and
saw them as being consistent with other
motor certifications related to safety or
efficiency that manufacturers must
satisfy in other countries. (Advanced
Energy, No. 33 at p. 17)
As already noted, this final rule will
not require testing at an independent
testing program and continues to allow
the use of an accredited laboratory for
testing and certification purposes.
Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is
revising its proposed Option (1) to
reflect its current practice (detailed at 10
CFR 431.17(5)) by allowing a
manufacturer to test an electric motor
using an accredited laboratory (as
described at 10 CFR 431.18) and then to
certify that motor on its own behalf or
have a third-party submit the
manufacturer’s certification report. DOE
is adopting Option (2) as proposed,
which is consistent with the current
provisions at 10 CFR 431.17(5)—no
changes are being made to the current
manner in which a manufacturer who
conducts testing at a non-accredited lab
must certify its electric motor. As to
Option (3), DOE does not view the
requirements of an AEDM as satisfying
the statutory requirement of
‘‘independence.’’ Therefore, DOE
believes that when using an AEDM, the
results of the AEDM must be certified by
a third-party certification program that
is nationally recognized in the United
States under the newly adopted
§ 429.73.
In summary, consistent with the
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6316(c), DOE
continues to offer the option of using
independent testing (via an accredited
laboratory) or a nationally recognized
certification program and further
specifies which parties can test electric
motors and certify compliance with the
applicable energy conservation
standards to DOE. This final rule
specifies three options in this regard: (1)
a manufacturer can have the electric
motor tested using an accredited
laboratory (as described at 10 CFR
431.18) and then certify on its own
behalf or have a third-party submit the
manufacturer’s certification report; (2) a
manufacturer can test the electric motor
at a testing laboratory other than an
accredited laboratory (as described at 10
CFR 431.18) and then have a nationally
recognized certification program (as
described in the newly established
§ 429.73) certify the efficiency of the
electric motor; or (3) a manufacturer can
use an alternative efficiency
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
determination method (‘‘AEDM,’’ as
described in § 429.70) and then have a
third-party nationally recognized
certification program certify the
efficiency of the electric motor. Under
this structure, a manufacturer would
retain the ability to test in its own
laboratories and directly submit the
certification of compliance to DOE for
its own electric motors as long as the
laboratory is an accredited laboratory in
accordance with 10 CFR 431.18,
429.64(f) and 429.65(d).
In addition, DOE proposed that these
provisions would be required starting
on the compliance date for any new or
amended standards for electric motors.
DOE is adopting this timeline as
proposed and believes this timeline and
combination of three options will
provide sufficient time and alternatives
for manufacturers. In addition, the
compliance date to certify using these
three options would be on or after the
compliance date of the final rule
adopting new or amended energy
conservation standards for electric
motors, Any associated costs related to
these aspects of this final rule will be
addressed in conjunction with any
potential energy conservation standards
rulemaking that DOE conducts for these
affected electric motors. (See section
III.Q of this document for more details
related to test procedure costs and
impacts).
In response to the December 2021
NOPR, NEMA stated that DOE should
invest in an AEDM certification body
that is independent from the current
facility that also offers AEDM services
for manufacturers who may not have the
resources to develop their own AEDM
because of the conflict of interest that
comes with the same entity being both
a certifier and provider of AEDMs.
(NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 29–30)
DOE is not aware of any third-party,
nationally recognized certification body
that would develop AEDMs and
conduct AEDM simulations on behalf of
manufacturers and also certify the
resulting efficiencies. In addition, the
current regulations at 10 CFR 431.20
require that a nationally recognized
certification program must be
independent of electric motor
manufacturers, importers, distributors,
private labelers or vendors. It cannot be
affiliated with, have financial ties with,
be controlled by, or be under common
control with any such entity. 10 CFR
431.20(b)(2) In addition, any petitioning
organization should identify and
describe any relationship, direct or
indirect, that it or the certification
program has with an electric motor
manufacturer, importer, distributor,
private labeler, vendor, trade association
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
or other such entity, as well as any other
relationship it believes might appear to
create a conflict of interest for the
certification program in operating a
certification system for compliance by
electric motors with energy efficiency
standards. It should explain why it
believes such a relationship would not
compromise its independence in
operating a certification program. 10
CFR 431.20(c)(2). As previously noted,
in this final rule, DOE is adopting a
definition of ‘‘independent’’ as it
pertains to certification program (and
nationally recognized accreditation
program) that requires that the entity be
not controlled by, or under common
control with, electric motor
manufacturers, importers, private
labelers, or vendors, and that has no
affiliation, financial ties, or contractual
agreements, apparently or otherwise,
with such entities that would: (1) hinder
the ability of the program to evaluate
fully or report the measured or
calculated energy efficiency of any
electric motor, or (2) create any
potential or actual conflict of interest
that would undermine the validity of
said evaluation. Therefore, the adopted
definition of ‘‘independent’’ sufficiently
addresses NEMA’s concern. DOE notes
the requirement to be independent
ensures that the entity conducting the
AEDM for a basic model would not be
the same as the entity certifying that
same basic model. Further as noted
previously, this final rule requires that
when a manufacturer relies on an
AEDM, a third-party nationally
recognized certification program must
certify the efficiency of the electric
motor.
NEMA also questioned who would be
responsible for certification in the case
of a motor and inverter being sold
together, particularly when they are
manufactured by separate companies.
(NEMA, No. 26 at p. 17) DOE’s test
procedure applies to the inverter motor.
The motor manufacturer would be
responsible for testing and certifying the
motor, based on the test procedure
established in this final rule.
AHAM and AHRI commented that the
changes proposed in the NOPR
expanded the definition of
‘‘manufacturer’’ and questioned whether
OEMs that attach, for example, an
impeller to an otherwise finished airover motor would be considered the
manufacturer responsible for
certification. AHAM and AHRI
commented that, in the case of any
finished goods manufactured overseas,
DOE’s proposal would treat the OEM as
the electric motor manufacturer, and
they opposed this change. (AHAM and
AHRI, No. 36 at p. 11).
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
DOE’s proposals did not change the
definition of manufacturer. The
manufacturer of the motor would be
responsible for certification. 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 stated in section III.A.9, DOE
continues to exclude component sets
from the scope of the test procedure. A
component set of an electric motor
comprises any combination of these
motor parts that does not form an
operable motor. 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.))
N. Determination of Represented Values
For electric motors subject to
standards, DOE established sampling
requirements applicable to the
determination of the nominal full-load
efficiency. 10 CFR 431.17. The purpose
of these sampling plans is to provide
uniform statistical methods for
determining compliance with any
prescribed energy conservation
standards and for making
representations of energy consumption
and energy efficiency on labels and in
other locations such as marketing
materials. The current regulations
require that each basic model must
either be tested or rated using an AEDM.
10 CFR 431.17(a). Section 431.17
specifies the requirements for use of an
AEDM, including requirements for
substantiation (i.e., the initial
validation) and verification of an
AEDM. 10 CFR 431.17(a)(2)–(4).
DOE is adopting several edits to the
current regulatory language to revise the
existing requirements that
manufacturers must follow when
determining the represented value of
nominal full-load efficiency of a basic
model. The revised provisions regarding
the determination of the represented
value of nominal full-load efficiency,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
certification provisions, and the
validation and verification of an AEDM,
consistent with DOE’s overall approach
for consolidating the locations of its
certification and compliance provisions,
will be placed in 10 CFR 429.64 and
429.70. In addition, the revised
provisions regarding the determination
of the represented value of nominal fullload efficiency, enforcement provisions,
and the validation and verification of an
AEDM will also apply to the newlyadded electric motors now falling
within the scope of the test procedure
in those cases where a manufacturer of
such motors would be required to use
the DOE test procedure. These
provisions are discussed in more detail
in sections III.N.1 through III.N.4 of this
document.
1. Nominal Full-Load Efficiency
DOE defines ‘‘nominal full-load
efficiency,’’ with respect to an electric
motor, as a representative value of
efficiency selected from the ‘‘nominal
efficiency’’ column of Table 12–10,
NEMA MG 1–2009, that is not greater
than the average full-load efficiency of
a population of motors of the same
design. (10 CFR 431.12) As proposed in
the December 2021 NOPR, DOE is not
adopting any changes to this definition
other than updating the reference to the
latest version of NEMA MG 1 as
discussed in section III.C of this
document. 86 FR 71710, 71754. DOE
discusses how to determine the average
full-load efficiency of a basic model in
the following sections. See 10 CFR
429.64(e) as established by this final
rule.
Manufacturers currently rely on the
nominal full-load efficiency to represent
the performance of electric motor basic
models. In the December 2021 NOPR,
DOE proposed to allow manufacturers
to alternatively use the average full-load
efficiency of a basic model of electric
motor as the represented efficiency
(instead of the nominal full-load
efficiency) provided that the
manufacturer uses the average full-load
efficiency consistently on all marketing
materials, and as the efficiency value
reported on the nameplate. This
proposed provision would apply
starting on the compliance date for any
new or amended standards for electric
motors published after January 1, 2021.
86 FR 71754
Grundfos, a pump manufacturer,
supported allowing average full-load
efficiency to be an alternate to
represented value as long as both
nominal and average full-load efficiency
do not need to be declared on the
nameplate (i.e., a manufacturer can post
one or the other) (Grundfos, No. 29 at
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63631
p. 9) NEMA opposed using average fullload efficiency as alternative
represented values for electric motors
because it would be inconsistent with
harmonizing North American, IEC, and
other global standards and regulatory
practices. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 27)
In the NOPR, DOE proposed this
alternative as an option to allow
manufacturers to rate less
conservatively than potentially required
by the use of a nominal full-load
efficiency value. The current DOE
standards for electric motors are based
on nominal full load efficiency. 10 CFR
431.25. Further, as suggested by NEMA,
the current IEC classification of motor
efficiency (i.e., the ‘‘IE-code’’) in IEC
60034–30–1 is also based on nominal
efficiency limits. Therefore, in this final
rule, DOE is not adopting the proposed
approach to allow manufacturers to
alternatively use the average full-load
efficiency of a basic model of electric
motor as the represented efficiency
(instead of the nominal full-load
efficiency). DOE is maintaining its
current approach to remain in alignment
with harmonized international
standards.
2. Testing: Use of an Accredited
Laboratory
Manufacturers who do not use a
certification program and test basic
models in an accredited laboratory must
follow the criteria for selecting units for
testing, including a minimum sample
size of five (5) units in most cases, as
specified at 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2). The
sample of units must be large enough to
account for reasonable manufacturing
variability among individual units of the
basic model or variability in the test
methodology such that the test results
for the overall sample will be reasonably
representative of the average full-load
efficiency of the whole population of
production units of that basic model.
DOE notes that the current regulations
do not limit the sample size and
manufacturers can increase their sample
size to narrow the margin of error.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed that manufacturers continue
to follow the current provisions in 10
CFR 431.17 (including the formula at 10
CFR 431.17(b)(2)(i)) related to the
determination of the represented value.
Manufacturers would continue to follow
this procedure until DOE amends its
electric motor standards. However, DOE
proposed to move these provisions in
the newly proposed §§ 429.64(b) and
429.64(c). In addition, starting on the
compliance date for any new or
amended standards for any electric
motors published after January 1, 2021,
DOE proposed that manufacturers
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
63632
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
follow the amended provisions in
accordance with the newly proposed
§§ 429.64(d) through 429.64(f). 86 FR
71710, 71754.
NEMA disagreed with the proposed
change of the mathematical symbol
given in the second formula in the
current regulation at 10 CFR
431.17(b)(2)(i), which DOE proposed to
move to 10 CFR 429.64. Specifically, it
disagreed with the proposed symbol
change from ‘‘greater than or equal to’’
to ‘‘equal to’’ and argued that the
original equation and ‘‘greater than or
equal to’’ symbol should be restored.
(NEMA No. 26, at p. 29)
DOE reviewed the formula in the
December 2021 NOPR and identified a
typographical error. As stated in the
December 2021 NOPR, prior to the
compliance date for any new or
amended standards for electric motors
published after January 1, 2021, DOE
proposed that manufacturers continue
to follow the current provisions in 10
CFR 431.17 related to the determination
of the represented value. In addition,
DOE proposed to move these provisions
to the newly proposed §§ 429.64(b) and
429.64(c). 86 FR 71710, 71754. DOE’s
intent was to move the provisions from
10 CFR 431.17(b)(2)(i) to 429.64 without
modification. In this final rule, based on
the feedback from NEMA, DOE is
revising the second formula in
§ 429.64(c)(2)(i) to match the second
formula in the current regulation
§ 431.17(b)(2)(i) by replacing the ‘‘equal
to’’ sign with a ‘‘greater than or equal
to’’ sign.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed that the average full-load
efficiency of a basic model would be the
arithmetic mean of the tested
efficiencies of a sample of electric
motors. The average full-load efficiency
of a basic model is determined using the
definition of ‘‘average full-load
efficiency’’—i.e., the arithmetic mean of
the full-load efficiencies of a population
of electric motors of duplicate design.
10 CFR 431.12. This requirement would
need to be met starting on the
compliance date for any new or
amended standards for electric motors
published after January 1, 2021, DOE
proposed to add regulatory text to
implement the definition of ‘‘average
full-load efficiency’’ such that, when
conducting testing, the average full-load
efficiency of a basic model would be
calculated as the arithmetic mean of the
full-load efficiencies of a sample of
electric motors selected in accordance
with the sampling requirements at 10
CFR 431.17(b)(2). In addition, in the
case of manufacturers making
representations of energy efficiency
starting on the compliance date of any
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
new or amended standards for any
electric motors that DOE may set, DOE
proposed to remove the equations at 10
CFR 431.17(b)(2)(i)–(ii).72 Finally, to
ensure a high level of quality control
and consistency of testing performance
within the basic model, DOE proposed
to add a requirement to verify that no
motor tested would be able to sustain
losses exceeding 15 percent of those
permitted by the applicable energy
conservation standard. 86 FR 71710,
71755.
ABB commented that if the currently
permitted five percent additional loss
allowance is eliminated, then the
sample size required to predict the
nominal efficiency with a high degree of
probability would increase from five
motors to over 100 motors and would
take years to complete. (ABB, No. 18 at
p. 2) CEMEP stated that the new
statistical allowances would require
multiple years to comply with and need
a wholesale redesign of entire product
portfolios. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 10)
NEMA opposed the changes to the
sampling plan at 10 CFR 429.64(e)(1)
and commented that the additional test
burden would be unmanageable, or that
manufacturers would be required to
redesign most or all of their existing
basic models to a higher average
efficiency level to maintain compliance.
NEMA commented that the proposal in
10 CFR 429.64(e)(1) to remove the five
percent loss allowance permitted in 10
CFR 431.17(b)(2) for the average of the
samples relative to the represented
efficiency forces a need for the samples
chosen to estimate the mean value of
efficiency of the basic model population
with a low margin of error. NEMA
commented that an increase in the
number of required sample motors from
the present value of 5 to an estimated
value of approximately 120 to 140
would be required to estimate the
average of the population within a
margin of error of 0.05. Alternatively,
NEMA commented that to maintain a
sample size of 5 units, a redesign of
existing basic models would be required
to achieve an increase in average
population efficiency that is estimated
to be between 50 and 62.5 percent of a
nominal efficiency band. NEMA
believed forcing this redesign would be
72 The equation at § 431.17(b)(2)(i) currently
allows manufacturers to select a value of nominal
full-load efficiency that is greater than the average
of the tested full-load efficiency of a sample of
electric motors and corresponds to 5 percent losses
less than the average losses of the sample. The
equation at § 431.17(b)(2)(ii) verifies that no motor
in the sample has losses exceeding 15 percent of the
losses corresponding to the nominal full-load
efficiency. Note: Motor losses (L) and efficiency
(Eff) of motor of a given horsepower (hp) are related
by the following equation: L = hp (1/Eff¥1).
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
outside of the scope of a test procedure
rulemaking and would need to be done
through an energy conservation
standards rulemaking where the
economic justification and technological
feasibility are assessed. (NEMA, No. 26
at pp. 2, 24–27) NEMA provided the
results of several statistical simulations
to support their comments in appendix
A and B of their comments. (NEMA, No.
26 at pp. 31–44)
The Joint Advocates supported the
proposed requirement that an electric
motor’s represented nominal efficiency
be less than or equal to the average
efficiency based on testing. Specifically,
the Joint Advocates supported DOE’s
proposal that the nominal full-load
efficiency of a basic model must be less
or equal to the average full-load
efficiency determined either through
testing or AEDM. (Joint Advocates, No.
27 at p. 5) Grundfos agreed with DOE’s
proposal to specify how to determine
the nominal full-load efficiency of a
basic model when the average efficiency
of that basic model is known. Grundfos
further agreed with DOE’s proposal to
require that manufacturers must
calculate the average full-load efficiency
of a basic model as the arithmetic mean
of the full-load efficiencies of a sample
of electric motors starting on the
compliance date for any new or
amended electric motor standards.
Grundfos further supported DOE’s
proposal to add a requirement that no
electric motor tested in the sample has
losses exceeding 15 percent of those
permitted by the applicable energy
conservation standard. (Grundfos, No.
29 at p. 9)
DOE reviewed NEMA’s statistical
analysis, which purported to show that
an increase of up to approximately 120
to 140 units would be required to ensure
that the average of a sample is greater
than or equal to the average of the
population within a margin of 5 percent.
(NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 31–32) That
analysis showed that a sample of 120–
140 units would be required in order to
estimate the 95th percentile value of the
population, within a margin of 5
percent. It does not show that a sample
of 120–140 units would be required to
obtain an average value that is equal to
the average of the population within a
5 percent tolerance. DOE is not
requiring manufacturers to provide an
average value that is equal to the
average of the population within a 5
percent tolerance (see discussion related
to DOE’ typical sampling plans in the
remainder of this section). Therefore,
DOE disagrees that testing of over a
hundred units would be required.
In addition, DOE reviewed the
statistical analysis provided by NEMA
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
to support its view that removing the 5
percent tolerance on a basic model
currently rated at 95 percent would
require redesigning the motors from an
average efficiency of 95.076 (average of
the population required to meet the
current 5 percent tolerance) to 95.316
(average of the population required if
the 5 percent tolerance is removed) in
order to ensure, based on a 97.5 percent
confidence level, that a randomly
selected 5-sample set drawn from the
population will have a sample mean
greater than or equal to 95 percent.
NEMA did not provide any data to
support the actual shape of the
distribution and its analysis is based on
a hypothetical population distribution,
with a known mean and standard
deviation while, in reality, the mean of
the population is unknown. Assuming
the same hypothetical statistical
distribution as presented by NEMA
applies, DOE agrees that to ensure that
any randomly selected 5-sample set
drawn from the population will have a
sample mean greater than or equal to 95
percent, the mean of the population
would have to be greater than 95
percent. However, DOE is not requiring
that all samples (or 97.5 percent of all
samples) of a basic model rated at 95
percent full-load nominal efficiency
have an average value of full-load
efficiency that is less than or equal to 95
percent.73 DOE emphasizes that not
every, individual unit of a motor basic
model must be at or above the standard;
however, the represented nominal
efficiency must not exceed the
population mean. In view of the
comments received, DOE believes
stakeholders may be confusing the
provisions used to determine the
represented value of a basic model at 10
CFR 431.17 (b)(2) with the formulas
used by DOE to determine if a basic
model is in compliance in 10 CFR part
431, appendix A to subpart U. DOE
imposes one set of sampling provisions
for manufacturers to use when rating
their products and a second separate set
of sampling provisions for DOE to use
when evaluating the compliance of
those products. The sampling
provisions for determining a
represented value (e.g., nominal
efficiency) reflect the fact that an
important function of represented
values is to inform prospective
purchasers how efficiently various
products operate. In light of that
purpose, DOE designed the regulation
73 Assuming
a normal distribution, if an infinite
number of 5-sample sets are drawn, 50 percent will
have an average at or above the population average,
and 50 percent will fall at or below the population
average.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
with respect to represented value so that
purchasers are more likely than not to
buy a unit that actually performs as
efficiently as advertised. The
enforcement statistical formulas are
designed to determine if a basic model
is compliant with the applicable energy
conservation standard, and are weighted
in favor of the manufacturer to
minimize the likelihood of erroneous
noncompliance determinations. The
certification statistical formulas are
designed to protect purchasers; the
enforcement statistical formulas are
designed to protect manufacturers. The
enforcement statistical formulas for
electric motors are in 10 CFR part 431,
appendix A to subpart U. DOE did not
propose, and is not adopting, any
changes to these provisions. In other
words, while DOE proposed changes in
the formulas used to determine the
represented value of a basic model, DOE
did not propose to change how the
compliance of a given basic model is
determined. The compliance or noncompliance of a basic model would
remain unchanged by the publication of
this final rule. Therefore, DOE disagrees
with NEMA that basic model redesigns
would be required to ensure
compliance.
With the current formulas used to
determine the represented values of a
basic model, a basic model could have
a represented value of nominal
efficiency that equals or exceeds the
current energy conservation standard
levels but fails the compliance test in
accordance with the existing formulas at
10 CFR part 431, appendix A to subpart
U. DOE cannot allow manufacturers to
make valid representations of nominal
full-load efficiency of a basic model for
which the average efficiency of a
manufacturer’s production is less than
the represented value. The risk of a
product or equipment being falsely
determined to be out of compliance
(manufacturer’s risk) is balanced against
the risk of a product being inaccurately
represented (consumer’s risk) by
establishing a reasonable sampling and
testing regime. While the stakeholders’
recommendation to rely on a 5 percent
tolerance would reduce manufacturer
risk, DOE is concerned that it would
give rise to too high a risk that a
manufacturer may state a nominal
efficiency for a basic model that is
greater than the actual population mean
for that model, or that a manufacturer
may state a nominal efficiency for a
basic model that is equal to or greater
than the current energy conservation
standard level while the basic model
fails the compliance test at 10 CFR part
431, appendix A to subpart U.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63633
The average (or ‘‘mean’’) full-load
efficiency of the population is unknown
but can be estimated using confidence
limits for the mean, which are an
interval estimate for the mean. The
design of the sampling plan is intended
to determine an accurate assessment of
product or equipment performance,
within specified confidence limits,
without imposing an undue testing or
economic burden on manufacturers.
Different samples from the same
population will generate different
values for the sample average. An
interval estimate quantifies this
uncertainty in the sample estimate by
computing lower and upper confidence
limits (‘‘LCL’’ and ‘‘UCL’’) of an interval
(centered on the average of the sample)
which will, with a given level of
confidence, contain the population
average. Instead of a single estimate for
the average of the population (i.e., the
average of the sample), a confidence
interval generates a lower and upper
limit for the average of the population.
The interval estimate indicates how
much uncertainty there is in the
estimate of the average of the
population.74 Confidence limits are
expressed in terms of a confidence
coefficient. For covered equipment and
products, the confidence coefficient
typically ranges from 90 to 99 percent.75
The confidence coefficient (e.g., 97.5
percent) means that if an infinite
number of samples are collected, and
the confidence interval computed, 97.5
percent of these intervals would contain
the average of the population. In other
words, although the average of the
entire population is not known, there is
a high probability (97.5 percent
confidence level) that it is greater than
or equal to the LCL and less than or
equal to the UCL.
To ensure that the represented value
of efficiency is no greater than the
population average, the sampling plans
for determination of the represented
value typically consist of testing a
representative sample to ensure that any
represented value of energy efficiency is
no greater than the lower of the average
of the sample (x), or the LCL divided by
a constant ‘‘K’’. The degree of
confidence level associated with the
LCL and the value of K varies by
product or equipment type and are
selected based on an expected level of
variability in product performance and
74 NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical
Methods, https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/
handbook/eda/section3/eda352.htm.
75 10 CFR part 429 outlines sampling plans for
certification testing for product or equipment
covered by EPCA.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63634
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
measurement uncertainty.76 10 CFR part
429, subpart B. Requiring that the
represented value be less than or equal
to the LCL ensures that the represented
value of efficiency is no greater than the
population average. DOE divides the
LCL by K to provide additional
tolerance to account for variability in
product performance and measurement
uncertainty.77 The comparison with the
average of the sample further ensures
that if the quotient of the LCL divided
by K is greater than x, the represented
value is established using average of the
sample. DOE relies on a one-sided
confidence limit to provide the option
for manufacturers to rate more
conservatively.
For electric motors, with a given
sample and sample average, the average
of the population (X) is unknown but
can be estimated using the LCL and UCL
interval (LCL ≤ x ≤ UCL). Because the
average of the population is greater than
or equal to LCL, while the average fullload efficiency of the population is
unknown, requiring that the represented
value be less than or equal to the LCL
would ensure that the represented value
of efficiency (i.e., the nominal full-load
efficiency) is no greater than the
population average, as required by the
definition of nominal full-load
efficiency. Instead, as previously
discussed, DOE proposed to require that
the represented value be less than or
equal to the average of the sample.
Because the average of the sample is
greater than the LCL,78 this proposal is
less stringent than requiring that the
represented value be less than or equal
to the LCL, and provides additional
tolerance to manufacturers while
balancing the risk that an electric motor
has a represented value that is higher
than the population average. In
addition, if a manufacturer believes that
a given random 5-unit sample set does
not lead to a full-load efficiency rating
that is representative of the population,
the manufacturer can increase the size
of the sample.
For these reasons, while the average
full-load efficiency of the population is
unknown, DOE believes requiring that
the nominal full-load efficiency be less
than or equal to the average of the
sample satisfies the requirements of
‘‘nominal full-load efficiency’’ as
76 The confidence level associated with the LCL,
typically ranges from 90 to 99 percent, while K, an
adjustment factor, typically ranges from 0.9 to 0.99.
77 For example, if DOE expects that the variability
for measured performance is within a margin of 3
percent, DOE will use a K value of 0.97. See for
example 79 FR 32019, 32037 (June 3, 2014).
78 By definition, the confidence interval is such
that LCL ≤ x ≤ UCL, where x is the average of the
sample.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
defined, while balancing the
manufacturer’s risk against the
consumer’s risk. Therefore, DOE is
adopting the requirement that
manufacturers determine the nominal
full-load efficiency of a basic model, as
a representative value of efficiency
selected from the ‘‘nominal efficiency’’
column of Table 12–10, NEMA MG 1–
2009, that is not greater than the average
full-load efficiency of a basic model.
This requirement would apply starting
on the compliance date for any new or
amended electric motor standards final
rule that published after January 1,
2021, to all electric motors subject to
energy conservation standards
regardless of whether the final rule
prescribes new or amended energy
conservation standards for certain
electric motors. DOE further specifies in
this rule that the average full-load
efficiency of a basic model is the
arithmetic mean of tested efficiencies of
a sample of electric motors. In addition,
DOE is removing the equations at 10
CFR 431.17(b)(2)(i)–(ii). Id.
NEMA stated that manufacturers must
use the most recent test procedure once
implemented and thus the changes to 10
CFR 429.64(e)(1) would be implemented
180 days after the test procedure final
rule and not whenever the energy
conservation standards were finalized.
(NEMA, No. 26 at p. 25) NEMA
commented that any changes that would
require currently certified electric
motors to be retested and recertified
once new test procedures come into
effect, which as proposed is 180 days,
would be untenable. (NEMA, No. 26 at
p. 5)
As previously stated, in the December
2021 NOPR, prior to the compliance
date for any new or amended standards
for electric motors published after
January 1, 2021, DOE proposed that
manufacturers of electric motors
currently subject to energy conservation
standards would continue to follow the
current provisions in 10 CFR 431.17
(now moving to 10 CFR 429.64) that
relate to the determination of a motor’s
represented value. This final rule adopts
the same timeline and requirements—
specifically, the provisions in 10 CFR
429.64(e)(1) for electric motors currently
subject to energy conservation standards
would only become mandatory once
new or amended energy conservation
standards are established (for any
category of electric motors subject to
energy conservation standards,
regardless of whether the final rule
prescribes new or amended energy
conservation standards for certain
electric motors). As noted previously,
while DOE proposed changes in the
formulas used to determine the
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
represented value of a basic model, DOE
did not propose changing how the
compliance of a given basic model
would be determined. In addition, DOE
notes that manufacturers of electric
motors that are not currently subject to
energy conservation standards would
not be required to use the test procedure
for Federal certification or labeling
purposes, until such time as new or
amended energy conservation standards
are established for such electric motors.
However, if manufacturers, distributors,
retailers, and private labelers choose to
make any representations respecting the
energy consumption or cost of energy
consumed by such motors, then such
voluntary representations must be made
in accordance with the test procedure
and sampling requirements adopted at
10 CFR 429.64(e).
3. Testing: Use of a Nationally
Recognized Certification Program
For manufacturers using a nationally
recognized certification program as
described in 10 CFR 431.17(a)(5), the
selection and sampling requirements are
typically specified in the certification
program’s operational documents but
are not always described in detail. In the
December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed
additional requirements to ensure that
the certification program follows the
provisions proposed in 10 CFR 429.64,
as well as the AEDM validation
procedures, and periodic AEDM
verification procedures proposed in 10
CFR 429.70(i). DOE intended for these
proposals to ensure consistency
between basic model ratings obtained
with and without the use of a
certification program and would have
no impact on how nationally
certification programs operate. 86 FR
71710, 71755.
Advanced Energy supported the
proposed requirements to ensure that
the certification program follows the
provisions proposed in 10 CFR 429.64.
Advanced Energy stated that this
requirement was consistent with its
certification scheme (which follows the
existing AEDM regulation in 10 CFR
431.17) and would not change the
manner in which it currently conducts
its testing. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at
p.18) Grundfos agreed with the proposal
to add the provisions in 10 CFR 429.64
and 429.70(i) to the requirements that a
nationally recognized certification
program must satisfy. (Grundfos, No. 29
at p. 9) NEMA disagreed with the
requirement due to its relationship with
other provisions that would prevent a
manufacturer from certifying through
the use of its nationally accredited
laboratory. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 28)
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
The proposal to require that
nationally recognized certification
program follow the sampling provisions
proposed in 10 CFR 429.64, as well as
the AEDM validation procedures, and
periodic AEDM verification procedures
proposed in 10 CFR 429.70(i) is
unrelated to the three certification
requirement options discussed in
section III.M.2. of this document.
Therefore, DOE is adopting the
proposed additional requirements to
ensure that the certification program
follows the provisions proposed in 10
CFR 429.64, as well as the AEDM
validation procedures, and periodic
AEDM verification procedures in 10
CFR 429.70(j).79
In addition, after any updates to
DOE’s electric motors regulations, DOE
proposed that, within one year of
publication of the final rule, all
certification programs must either
submit a letter to DOE certifying that no
change to their program is needed, or
submit a letter describing the measures
implemented to ensure the criteria in
the proposed 10 CFR 429.73(b) are met.
If a certification program submits a
letter describing updates to their
program, DOE proposed that the current
certification program would still be
recognized until DOE evaluates any
newly implemented measures and
decides otherwise. 86 FR 71710, 71755.
In response, Advanced Energy stated
that it follows the sampling and
minimum test requirements as
prescribed, and that it is beneficial to
have consistency across all motor
efficiency certification body schemes.
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 18) DOE
did not receive any additional
comments on this issue and is adopting
its proposal to require that, within one
year of publication of the final rule, all
certification programs must either
submit a letter to DOE certifying that no
change to their program is needed, or
submit a letter describing the measures
implemented to ensure the criteria in
the proposed § 429.73(b) are met. If a
certification program submits a letter
describing updates to their program, the
current certification program would still
be recognized until DOE evaluates any
newly implemented measures and
decides otherwise.
79 The
AEDM validation procedures for electric
motors that DOE proposed for 10 CFR 429.70(i) in
the December 2021 NOPR are being adopted at 10
CFR 429.70(j) in this rule. After the December 2021
NOPR, a separate rule published on July 22, 2022,
added provisions at 10 CFR 429.70(i). 87 FR 45195.
Accordingly, the AEDM validation procedures are
renumbered in this final rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
63635
4. Use of an AEDM
Section 431.17 also specifies the
requirements for using an AEDM (10
CFR 431.17(a)(2)), including
requirements for substantiation (i.e., the
initial validation) (10 CFR 431.17(a)(3),
10 CFR 431.17(b)(3)) and subsequent
verification of an AEDM (10 CFR
431.17(a)(4)). Those requirements
ensure the accuracy and reliability of
the AEDM both prior to use and then
through ongoing verification checks on
the estimated efficiency.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to replace the term
‘‘substantiation’’ with the term
‘‘validation’’ to better align the relevant
terminology with the AEDM provisions
in 10 CFR 429.70. 86 FR 71710, 71755.
DOE did not receive any comments on
this topic and is amending its
regulations to replace the term
‘‘substantiation’’ with the term
‘‘validation.’’
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
also proposed to modify one of the
requirements for AEDM validation.
Currently, the provisions in 10 CFR
431.17(a)(3)(ii) require that the
simulated full-load losses for each basic
model selected for AEDM validation
testing must be within plus or minus ten
percent of the average full-load losses
determined from the testing of that basic
model.80 DOE proposed to change that
language to a one-sided 10 percent
tolerance to allow manufacturers
flexibility when choosing to rely on a
more conservative AEDM. (i.e., the
simulated full-load losses for each basic
model selected for AEDM validation
testing, calculated by applying the
AEDM, must be greater or equal to 90
percent of the average full-load losses
determined from the testing of that basic
model). This proposal would not require
manufacturers to update their AEDMs
and basic model ratings. Id.
In response to the December 2021
NOPR, Grundfos agreed with the
proposed validation requirements for
AEDMs. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 9) DOE
did not receive any additional
comments on this proposal.
Consequently, it is adopting the
proposed one-sided tolerance
requirement for the reasons discussed as
proposed.
In addition, DOE proposed to specify
how to obtain the nominal full-load
efficiency of a basic model using the
simulated full-load efficiency of that
basic model determined through the
application of an AEDM: the nominal
full-load efficiency of a basic model
must be less than or equal to the
simulated full-load efficiency of that
basic model determined through the
application of an AEDM. 86 FR 71710,
71754. DOE did not receive any
comments on this issue. As a result, it
is adopting its proposal to require that
when using an AEDM, the nominal fullload efficiency of a basic model must be
less than or equal to the simulated fullload efficiency of that basic model
determined through the application of
an AEDM.
Paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 431.17
provides further clarity regarding testing
if a certification program is not used.
Basic models used to validate an AEDM
must be selected for testing in
accordance with paragraph (b)(1), and
units of each such basic model must be
tested in accordance with paragraph
(b)(2). 10 CFR 431.17(b)(3). Paragraph
(b)(1) explains the criteria for selecting
a minimum of 5 basic models for
certification testing (in an accredited
laboratory) to validate an AEDM.
Paragraph (b)(2) provides the criteria for
selecting units for testing, which
includes a minimum sample size of 5
units in most cases.81 For manufacturers
using AEDMs, paragraph (b)(2) applies
to those basic models selected for
validating the AEDM. Paragraph (b)(3)
also explains that the motors tested to
validate an AEDM must either be in a
certification program or must have been
tested in an accredited laboratory. 10
CFR 431.17(b)(2)–(3).
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to revise the current
regulatory language to specify that,
when manufacturers use an accredited
laboratory or a nationally recognized
testing program for testing the basic
models used to validate the AEDM, the
selection criteria and sampling
requirements as described in paragraph
(b)(2) apply, including the requirement
to select a minimum of 5 basic models
that must comply with the energy
conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25
(if any exist). In addition, when using an
accredited laboratory or nationally
recognized testing program for testing,
DOE proposed that the average full-load
80 The output of the AEDM is the average fullload efficiency of the basic model. The represented
value of nominal full-load efficiency is obtained by
applying the provisions discussed in section III.N.1
of this document. The average full-load losses
predicted by the AEDM can be calculated as hp ×
(1/Eff¥1) where hp is the motor horsepower and
Eff is the average full-load efficiency predicted by
the AEDM.
81 As discussed previously and in the remainder
of this section, the provisions for selecting units
within a basic model and minimum sample size
described in paragraph 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2) apply
to three different situations: when (1) testing at an
accredited laboratory; (2) using an AEDM and
selecting units for substantiating the AEDM; and (3)
using an AEDM and selecting units for periodic
verification testing.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
63636
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
efficiency of each basic model selected
to validate the AEDM must be
determined based on the provisions
discussed in section III.N.2. Further, to
reduce testing burden, DOE proposed to
replace the requirement in paragraph
(b)(1) that two of the basic models must
be among the five basic models with the
highest unit volumes of production by
the manufacturer in ‘‘the prior year’’
with the phrase in ‘‘the prior 5 years’’.
The extension from 1 year to 5 years
would reduce testing burden in the case
of a year-to-year variation in the basic
models with the highest unit volumes of
production and would not impact basic
model ratings. 86 FR 71710, 71756.
In this final rule, DOE adopts the
basic model selection requirements as
proposed with the exception of one
provision as discussed in this
paragraph. In response to the December
2021 NOPR, NEMA commented that the
proposed requirement regarding basic
model selection for validation of an
AEDM in the proposed
§§ 429.70(a)(i)(2)(i)(D) and
429.70(a)(j)(2)(i)(D) (‘‘Each basic model
must have the lowest average full-load
efficiency among the basic models
within the same equipment class’’)
should be changed as follows to be
consistent with the current provisions
in § 431.17(b)(1)(i)(D): ‘‘Each basic
model must have the lowest nominal
full-load efficiency among the basic
models within the same equipment
class.’’ NEMA explained that relying on
the ‘‘lowest average full-load efficiency’’
introduces the possibility of a basic
model not being valid for purposes of
validating an AEDM simply because
there is another basic model with the
same nominal full-load efficiency but
with an average full-load efficiency that
is slightly higher by a virtually
unmeasurable amount and places an
unreasonable burden on the
manufacturer that is not justified by any
benefit with respect to validating the
accuracy of the AEDM. In this final rule,
DOE maintains the current language in
§ 431.17(b)(1)(i)(D) and requires that
each basic model must have the lowest
nominal full-load efficiency among the
basic models within the same
equipment class in line with the DOE
metric (i.e., ‘‘nominal full-load
efficiency’’).
Currently, the periodic verification of
an AEDM can be achieved in one of
three ways: through participation in a
certification program; by additional,
periodic testing in an accredited lab; or
by verification by a professional
engineer. When using periodic testing in
an accredited laboratory, a sample of
units must be tested in accordance with
the DOE test procedure and 10 CFR
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
431.17(b)(2). 10 CFR 431.17(a)(4)(A).
The current regulatory text does not
specify how often the periodic testing
must be conducted.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to add that manufacturers
must perform a sufficient number of
periodic verification tests to ensure the
AEDM maintains its accuracy and
reliability. Paragraph (b)(2) currently
provides the criteria for selecting units
for testing (in an accredited laboratory)
when conducting periodic AEDM
verification, including a minimum
sample size of 5 units in most cases.
DOE proposed to revise the 5-unit
minimum requirement on the sample
size and to replace it by requiring that
manufacturers test at least one unit of
each basic model. DOE believes that at
least one unit comprises a sufficient
sample size when conducting an AEDM
verification and would reduce testing
burden. 86 FR 71710, 71756.
Advanced Energy commented that the
term ‘‘periodic’’ as used in reference to
AEDM subsequent verification is very
broad, and that DOE should request
information from manufacturers on how
often their AEDMs are updated.
Advanced Energy stated that there are
many reasons a manufacturer would
update its AEDM, and noted that its
subsequent verification is performed
annually. Advanced Energy further
agreed that one basic model is sufficient
for subsequent verification testing, but
that DOE should be clear on which basic
model needs verifying, and that
requiring one unit of every basic model
would increase test burden to
manufacturers. (Advanced Energy, No.
33 at pp. 19)
In this final rule, rather than
specifying a verification testing
frequency, DOE adopts the proposed
AEDM verification provision which
specifies that sufficient testing must be
conducted to ensure the AEDM
maintains its accuracy and reliability.
DOE believes the manufacturer is
responsible for determining what
constitutes a sufficient number of
periodic verification tests to ensure the
AEDM maintains its accuracy and
reliability.
Paragraph (b)(2) also currently
includes the equations to use when
conducting periodic AEDM verification.
10 CFR 431.17(b)(2)(i)–(ii). The
equations in paragraph (b)(2) are used
after the represented value of the basic
model has already been determined
(e.g., by AEDM) 82 ‘‘in a test of
82 The AEDM output is the simulated full-load
efficiency. The represented value of nominal fullload efficiency as predicted by the AEDM is
obtained by applying the provisions discussed in
section I.A.1 of this document.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
compliance with a represented average
or nominal efficiency.’’ The equations
are applied to verify that the average
full-load efficiency of the sample and
the minimum full-load efficiency of the
sample of the basic model, are within a
prescribed margin of the represented
value as provided by applying the
AEDM (i.e., a test of compliance with a
represented average or nominal
efficiency). In addition, the equations in
paragraph (b)(2) also imply that the
represented value of the basic model has
already been determined (e.g., by
AEDM). As previously noted, DOE
proposed to revise the current
regulatory text to remove the equations
currently located in 10 CFR
431.17(b)(2)(i)–(ii). Instead, for
manufacturers conducting periodic
AEDM verification using testing, DOE
proposed that manufacturers would rely
on the same criteria used for the AEDM
validation at 10 CFR 429.70(i)(2)(iv) and
compare the average of the measured
full-load losses of the basic model 83 to
the simulated full-load losses of the
basic model as predicted by the AEDM.
NEMA commented in reference to the
requirements in proposed
§§ 429.70(a)(i)(3)(A) and
429.70(a)(j)(3)(a): ‘‘the simulated fullload losses for each unit must be greater
than or equal to 90 percent of the
measured full-load losses (i.e., 0.90 ×
average of the measured full-load losses
≤ simulated full-load losses).’’ NEMA
commented that the clarification in
parenthesis was acceptable but the
phrase ‘‘for each unit’’ that precedes it
is confusing because there are not
unique simulated full-load losses for
each unit but, rather, for each basic
model. NEMA added that for further
clarity and consistency with the AEDM
validation procedure in
§ 429.70(a)(i)(2)(iv), the words
‘‘measured full-load losses’’ should be
changed to ‘‘average of the measured
full-load losses.’’ (NEMA, No. 26, at pp.
28–29)
DOE agrees with NEMA. As written,
the proposed regulatory text only
accounted for a situation where a single
unit per basic model was selected when
conducting AEDM verification. In this
final rule, DOE is amending the
regulatory text to align with the
preamble discussion and specify that if
more than one unit per basic model is
selected: (1) the requirement is for the
simulated full-load losses for each basic
model; and (2) ‘‘measured full-load
83 The sample could include a single unit, in
which case, the average measured full-load losses
of the basic model are the measured full-load losses
of the unit.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
losses’’ is replaced by the ‘‘average of
the measured full-load losses.’’
If a certification program to conduct
the AEDM verification is used, the
provisions at 10 CFR 431.17(a)(4)(i)(B)
specify that a manufacturer must
periodically select basic models to
which it has applied the AEDM and
have a nationally recognized
certification program certify its nominal
full-load efficiency. The provision does
not specify the criteria to use when
comparing the output of the AEDM of
the tested and certified values of
nominal full-load efficiency. In the
December 2021 NOPR, DOE stated it
was considering three options to further
specify how the manufacturer must
conduct the AEDM verification when
using a certification program. DOE
considered proposing: (1) that
manufacturers rely on the same 10
percent tolerance used for the AEDM
validation at 10 CFR 429.70(i)(2)(iv) and
compare the losses corresponding to the
tested and certified nominal full-load
efficiency of the basic model to the
nominal full-load efficiency of the basic
model as predicted by the AEDM; 84 (2)
that manufacturers rely on a higher
tolerance (e.g., a 15 percent tolerance
rather than 10 percent) than used for the
AEDM validation at 10 CFR
429.70(i)(2)(iv) and compare the losses
corresponding to the tested and certified
nominal full-load efficiency of the basic
model to the nominal full-load
efficiency of the basic model as
predicted by the AEDM; or (3) to
continue to not specify any
requirements but require that
certification programs provide a
detailed description of the method used
to verify the AEDM. 86 FR 71710,
71756.
Advanced Energy commented that of
the three options to specify how a
manufacturer must conduct AEDM
verification when using a certification
program, Advanced Energy supported
Option (1), which is consistent with its
current practice, and that Option (3) is
the same as Option (1) in its case since
it follows the recommended AEDM
subsequent verification procedure
provided in the current version of 10
CFR 431.17. (Advanced Energy, No. 33
at p. 19)
In this final rule, DOE specifies how
the manufacturer must conduct the
AEDM verification when using a
certification program and requires that
manufacturers must rely on the same 10
percent tolerance used for the AEDM
84 The AEDM output is the average full-load
efficiency. The represented value of nominal fullload efficiency as predicted by the AEDM is
obtained by applying the provisions discussed in
section III.N.1 of this document.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
validation at 10 CFR 429.70(j)(2)(iv) 85
and compare the losses corresponding
to the simulated and certified nominal
full-load efficiency of the basic model to
the nominal full-load efficiency of the
basic model as predicted by the AEDM.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
further proposed to remove the option
to rely on a professional engineer to
conduct AEDM verification because this
is not an option that is used by
manufacturers. 86 FR 71710, 71756.
DOE did not receive any comments on
this proposal and is removing it as
proposed.
Finally, in the December 2021 NOPR,
DOE explained that the proposed AEDM
provisions would also apply to the
additional electric motors proposed for
inclusion in the scope of the test
procedure, when a manufacturer of such
motors would be required to use the
DOE test procedure. DOE did not
receive any comments specific to that
issue. Id. In this final rule, DOE adopts
the requirement that the AEDM
provisions adopted for currently
regulated electric motors will also apply
to the additional electric motors
included in the scope of the test
procedure, when a manufacturer of such
motors would be required to use the
DOE test procedure.
O. Certification, Sampling Plans and
AEDM Provisions for Dedicated-Purpose
Pool Pump Motors
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to include certification,
sampling plan, and AEDM provisions
for DPPP motors subject to the
requirements in subpart Z of 10 CFR
part 431. Because DPPP motors are a
subset of electric motors, DOE proposed
to apply the same certification,
sampling provisions and AEDM
provisions for consistency. In addition,
DOE proposed to allow the use of
‘‘nominal full-load efficiency’’ as an
alternative represented value for DPPP
motors. DOE proposed to add these
provisions in a new section 10 CFR
429.65 86 and 10 CFR 429.70(j), and to
specifically reference DPPP motors in 10
85 The AEDM validation tolerance requirements
for electric motors that DOE proposed for 10 CFR
429.70(i)(2(iv) in the December 2021 NOPR are
being adopted at 10 CFR 429.70(j)(2)(iv) in this rule.
After the December 2021 NOPR, a separate rule
published on July 22, 2022, added provisions at 10
CFR 429(i). 87 FR 45195. Accordingly, the AEDM
validation tolerance requirements are being
renumbered in this final rule.
86 In the December 2021 NOPR the proposed
regulatory text pertaining to DPPP motor
certification and sampling provisions is located in
a newly proposed section 10 CFR 429.65 and not
section 10 CFR 429.66 as incorrectly cited in the
December 2021 NOPR, which included a
typographical error. 86 FR 71710, 71757.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63637
CFR 429.73 and 10 CFR 429.74 as
proposed. 86 FR 71710, 71757.
DOE did not receive comments
specific to DPPP motors. In this final
rule, DOE adopts the same certification,
sampling provisions and AEDM
provisions for DPPP motors as for
electric motors as discussed in sections
III.M and III.N of this document. DOE
adopts these provisions in a §§ 429.65
and 429.70(k),87 and specifically
references DPPP motors in 10 CFR
429.73 and 429.74. In addition, DOE
allows the use of ‘‘nominal full-load
efficiency’’ as an alternative represented
value for DPPP motors.
As discussed in the December 2021
NOPR, manufacturers would be
required to test such motors once
compliance is required with a labeling
or energy conservation standard
requirement should such a requirement
be established. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b); 42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)). Any
voluntary representations by
manufacturers, distributors, retailers, or
private labelers about the energy
consumption or cost of energy for these
motors must be based on the use of this
test procedure and sampling
requirements beginning 180 days
following publication of this final rule.
DOE’s final rule does not require
manufacturers who do not currently
make voluntary representations to begin
making public representations of
efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)). 86 FR
71710, 71757.
P. Effective and Compliance Dates
The effective date for the adopted test
procedure amendment will be 30 days
after publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register. EPCA prescribes that
all representations of energy efficiency
and energy use, including those made
on marketing materials and product
labels, must be made in accordance with
an amended test procedure, beginning
180 days after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)(1)). EPCA provides an
allowance for individual manufacturers
to petition DOE for an extension of the
180-day period if the manufacturer may
experience undue hardship in meeting
the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(2). To
receive such an extension, petitions
must be filed with DOE no later than 60
days before the end of the 180-day
87 The AEDM validation procedures for DPPP
motors that DOE proposed for 10 CFR 429.70(j) in
the December 2021 NOPR are being adopted at 10
CFR 429.70(k) in this rule. After the December 2021
NOPR, a separate rule published on July 22, 2022,
added provisions at 10 CFR 429(i). 87 FR 45195.
Accordingly, the electric motors and DPPP motors
AEDM validation procedures provisions are being
renumbered in this final rule.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
63638
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
period and must detail how the
manufacturer will experience undue
hardship. (Id.) To the extent the
modified test procedure adopted in this
final rule is required only for the
evaluation and issuance of updated
efficiency standards, compliance with
the amended test procedure does not
require use of such modified test
procedure provisions until the
compliance date of updated standards.
Franklin Electric stated that a 6month period after publication of a final
rule to comply with a submersible
motor test procedure is too short,
particularly when there is no defined
certification body yet. (Franklin Electric,
No. 22 at p. 5) As discussed in section
III.A.8 of this document, DOE is no
longer considering a submersible
electric motor test method in this test
procedure.
Specific to DOE’s proposal to expand
coverage to special and definite-purpose
SNEMs, AHAM and AHRI commented
that 180 days to comply with the
proposed procedure if finalized is an
unrealistic timeline. AHAM and AHRI
commented that component motors that
were once available for a product may
no longer be available and OEMs will
not have the information about market
availability of new component motors
until well after the motor has been
tested and certified. (AHAM and AHRI,
No. 36 at p. 7) AHAM and AHRI
commented that OEMs may have to
redesign and test equipment to
accommodate for a different motor size,
which takes years to complete. Id. As
discussed previously, DOE notes that
manufacturers of electric motors for
which DOE is including within the
scope of the test procedure, but that are
not currently subject to an energy
conservation standard, would not be
required to use the test procedure, for
Federal certification or labeling
purposes, until such time as amended or
new energy conservation standards are
established for such electric motors. As
such, only voluntary representations by
manufacturers, distributors, retailers, or
private labelers about the energy
consumption or cost of energy for these
motors must be based on the use of the
test procedure beginning 180 days
following publication of the final rule.
Comments and costs associated with
these voluntary representations are
discussed in section III.Q of this
document.
Q. Test Procedure Costs
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impacts
In this final rule, DOE revises the
current scope of the test procedures to
add additional electric motors and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
subsequent updates needed for
supporting definitions and metric
requirements as a result of this
expanded scope; incorporates by
reference the most recent versions of the
referenced industry standards;
incorporates by reference additional
industry standards used to test newly
covered electric motors; clarifies the
scope and test instructions by adding
definitions for specific terms; revises the
current vertical motor testing
instructions to reduce manufacturer test
burden; revises the provisions
pertaining to certification testing and
determination of represented values;
and adds provisions pertaining to
certification testing and determination
of represented values for DPPP motors.
Regarding several of the amendments
to the provisions pertaining to
certification testing and determination
of represented values, DOE notes that
the updates that are effective 180 days
after the publication of this final rule,
include moving and largely retaining
the provisions related to AEDMs (see
section III.N.4 of this document), as well
as moving and largely retaining the
procedures for recognition and
withdrawal of recognition of
accreditation bodies and certification
programs (see sections III.L and III.N.3
of this document) from 10 CFR part 431
to 10 CFR part 429. DOE does not
anticipate any added test burden from
these changes. Regarding other aspects
of this rule (i.e., requiring to certify
using three options as discussed in
section III.M.2, revising the provisions
pertaining to the determination of the
represented value as discussed in
sections III.N.1 and III.N.2 of this
document) whose compliance date
would occur once the compliance date
is reached for any final rule that DOE
may adopt to set for electric motors,
DOE will discuss the associated costs in
the energy conservation standards
rulemaking. The same would apply to
the new provisions pertaining to the
certification testing and AEDM of
dedicated-purpose pool pump motors as
discussed in section III.O of this
document, whose compliance date
would be on or after the compliance
date of a final rule adopting new or
amended energy conservation standards
for dedicated-purpose pool pump
motors. DOE will discuss the associated
costs in the energy conservation
standards rulemaking.
Of the remaining amendments, DOE
has determined that the following
would impact testing costs: (1) the
updates expanding scope to include
other motor categories, and provisions
pertaining to determination of
represented values for DPPP motors;
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and (2) the update to vertical motor
testing. These amendments are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
a. Voluntary Representations
DOE is adding certain categories of
electric motors to the scope of the test
procedure. Specifically (1) air-over
electric motors; (2) certain electric
motors greater than 500 hp; (3) electric
motors considered small; (3) inverteronly electric motors; and (4) certain
synchronous motor technologies. In
addition, DOE is incorporating by
reference additional test methods.
Finally, DOE is adding provisions
pertaining to determination of
represented values for DPPP motors.
Manufacturers of those additional
electric motors that DOE is including
within the expanded scope of the test
procedure that this final rule is adopting
would not be required to test those
motors in accordance with the DOE test
procedure until the compliance date of
a final rule adopting new or amended
energy conservation standards for such
electric motors is reached. If
manufacturers voluntarily make
representations regarding the energy
consumption or cost of energy of such
electric motors, they would be required
to test according to the DOE test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)). DOE
has determined that the inclusion of
additional motors within the scope of
the test procedure and the update
pertaining to determination of
represented values for DPPP motors
would result in added costs to motor
manufacturers if manufacturers choose
to make efficiency representations.
These cost are estimated in the
following paragraphs.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
determined that approximately 50
percent of the basic models that are
covered under the new test procedure
currently make voluntary
representations based on a market
review of product catalogs. 86 FR 71710,
71757. Regarding representations,
NEMA disagreed with DOE’s estimate
that 50 percent of the current market of
the proposed expanded scope EM and
DPPP motors make voluntary
representations, and instead stated that
currently only industrial-rated motors
tend to make representations while
commercial-rated motors or SNEMs
rarely do, and that these subgroups
should be analyzed separately. (NEMA,
No. 26 at p. 30) Grundfos stated that it
already makes voluntary representations
for their SNEMs, submersible, and
inverter-only products. (Grundfos, No.
29 at p. 9) Trane commented that none
of the air-over, inverter-only, or
synchronous motors it purchases from
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
suppliers currently have representations
of efficiency. Trane stated that its only
concern is system-level efficiency.
(Trane, No. 31 at p. 7) DOE appreciates
the comments. However, the analysis
conducted in this section is based on a
per-unit cost, not industry-wide cost, so
this value does not directly impact
DOE’s per unit test cost analysis in this
final rule. In the following paragraphs,
DOE estimates the associated per-unit
costs for making voluntary
representations regarding the energy
consumption or cost of energy of
expanded scope electric motors.
DOE estimates that 10 percent of the
motors that include voluntary
representations from their
manufacturers would be physically
tested, consistent with the conclusions
considered in the December 2021 NOPR
that only a fraction of basic models are
physically tested (the remainder have
efficiency determined through an
alternative efficiency determination
method (‘‘AEDM’’)). 86 FR 71710,
71757. Further, this final rule would
require at least five units be tested per
basic model. 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2).
However, considering DOE is
harmonizing with current industry
standards, DOE assumes that
manufacturers have already tested at
least one unit for all the expanded scope
electric motor basic models. Therefore,
DOE estimates that manufacturers may
need to conduct up to four additional
tests per expanded scope electric motor
basic model.
DOE identified that the testing
requirements can be summarized
broadly with the following three groups:
63639
(1) motors tested according to CSA
C747–09, (2) motors tested according to
IEC 61800–9–2:2017, and (3) motors
tested according to Section 34.4 of the
NEMA Air-Over Motor Efficiency Test
Method. Consistent with the December
2021 NOPR, DOE estimated that 90
percent of the physical tests for these
electric motors would be conducted at
in-house test facilities, and the
remaining 10 percent of the physical
tests would be conducted at third-party
test facilities. 86 FR 71710, 71758. DOE
assumed that the per-unit test costs
differ between conducting testing at inhouse test facilities versus testing at
third-party test facilities. Table III.23
lists the estimated in-house and thirdparty single unit test cost incurred by
the manufacturer for each industry
standard.
TABLE III.23—ELECTRIC MOTOR PER UNIT TEST COST ESTIMATES
Industry standard
Tested at in-house
facility
Tested at thirdparty facility
(per unit test cost)
(per unit test cost)
$587
750
631
$2,210
3,210
2,210
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
CSA C747–09 ..............................................................................................................................................
IEC 61800–9–2:2017 ...................................................................................................................................
Section 34.4 of NEMA Air-over Motor Efficiency Test Method ...................................................................
To estimate in-house testing costs,
DOE assumed testing a single electric
motor unit to CSA C747–09 requires
approximately nine hours of a
mechanical engineer technician time
and three hours from a mechanical
engineer. DOE assumed testing a single
electric motor-drive combination unit to
IEC 61800–9–2:2017 requires
approximately twelve hours of a
mechanical engineer technician time
and three and a half hours of time from
a mechanical engineer. DOE assumed
testing a single electric motor unit
according to Section 34.4 of NEMA AirOver Motor Efficiency Test Method
requires ten hours of mechanical
engineer technician time and three
hours of time from a mechanical
engineer. Based on data from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics’ (‘‘BLS’s’’)
Occupational Employment and Wage
Statistics, the mean hourly wage for a
mechanical engineer technician is
$30.47 and the mean hourly wage for a
mechanical engineer is $46.64.88
Additionally, DOE used data from BLS’s
Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation to estimate the percent
that wages comprise the total
compensation for an employee. DOE
estimates that wages make up 70.5
percent of the total compensation for an
employee.89 Therefore, DOE estimated
that the total hourly compensation
(including all fringe benefits) of an
employee is $43.22 for a mechanical
engineering technician and $66.16 for a
mechanical engineer.90
Using these labor rates and time
estimates, DOE estimates that it would
cost electric motor manufacturers
approximately $587 to conduct a single
test for motors tested according to CSA
C747–09; approximately $750 to
conduct a single test for motors tested
according to IEC 61800–9–2:2017; and
approximately $631 to conduct a single
test for motors tested according to
Section 34.4 of the NEMA Air-over
Motor Efficiency Test Method, if these
test were conducted by the electric
motor manufacturers in-house.
To estimate third-party lab costs, DOE
received quotes from test labs on the
price of conducting each industry
88 DOE used the May 2021 Occupation Profiles of
‘‘17–3027 Mechanical Engineering Technologists
and Technicians’’ to estimate the hourly wage rate
of a mechanical technician (See www.bls.gov/oes/
current/oes173027.htm) and ‘‘17–2141 Mechanical
Engineers’’ to estimate the hourly wage rate of a
mechanical engineer (See www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oes172141.htm).
89 DOE used the December 2021 ‘‘Employer Costs
for Employee Compensation’’ to estimate that for
‘‘Private Industry’’ ‘‘Wages and Salaries’’ are 70.5
percent of total employee compensation (See
www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf).
90 Mechanical Engineering Technician: $30.47/
0.705 = $43.22. Mechanical Engineer: $46.64/0.705
= $66.16.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
standard. DOE then averaged these
prices to arrive at an estimate of what
the manufacturers would have to spend
to test their product using a third-party
test lab. Using these quotes, DOE
estimates that it would cost electric
motor manufacturers approximately
$2,000 to conduct a single test for
motors tested according to CSA C747–
09; approximately $3,000 to conduct a
single test for motors tested according to
IEC 61800–9–2:2017; and approximately
$2,000 to conduct a single test for
motors tested according to Section 34.4
of the NEMA Air-Over Motor Efficiency
Test Method, if these tests were
conducted by a third-party test facility.
Depending on the size and weight of the
electric motor being tested,
manufacturers would also incur a cost
to ship the product to the third-party
lab, based on shipping costs associated
with DOE’s testing, DOE expects this
cost to be approximately $210 per unit
to and from the lab.
Regarding testing costs, AI Group
stated that a typical motor test
conducted in an Australian third-party
lab will cost $3,000 to $5,000 depending
on motor size and that in-house testing
costs would be much lower. In
providing these costs, AI Group did not
specify how much lower these inhousing testing costs would be
compared to third-party labs and it did
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
63640
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
not note any differences in costs based
on the specific industry testing standard
being conducted. (AI Group, No. 25 at
p. 8) CEMEP stated that a small motor
efficiency test (<10 hp) by a third-party
lab would cost Ö4000 to Ö5000 euros per
test, and that a comparable in-house test
would be approximately a third of that
cost—Ö1333 to Ö1666 per test. (CEMEP,
No. 19 at p.11) Additionally, Grundfos
noted a disagreement with DOE’s
estimated in-house and third-party test
costs. It stated that DOE did not account
for sample motor costs, shipping
products to test labs, and third-party
certification costs. It also noted a higher
estimate of in-house test time and labor:
20 hours of a technician’s time and 4
hours of an engineer’s time per test.
Grundfos did not specify the industry
standard being used for that time
estimate. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 10) For
this final rule, DOE gathered its quotes
from domestic third-party labs and
acknowledges that third-party tests
conducted in overseas labs may differ
somewhat in cost. DOE also recognizes
that in-house testing costs will vary
across manufacturers. Since the values
provided in the comments do not
provide an industry standard that the
motors are being tested to, DOE did not
incorporate the values into its average
estimated test cost. Per the remainder of
Grundfos’s comment, DOE has adjusted
its analysis to include an estimate of
shipping costs, expects that the sample
motors will be recoverable, and notes
that third-party certification costs do not
affect voluntary representations and will
be addressed in any future energy
conservation standards.
Regarding cumulative regulatory
burden, Lennox stated that DOE needs
to consider the cumulative regulatory
burden imposed on HVACR
manufacturers that are having multiple
energy conservation standards changing
in the near future. Among these, they
highlighted new standards for: Central
Air Conditioners (‘‘ACs’’), Commercial
ACs, Commercial Warm Air Furnaces
and variable refrigerant flow systems.
(Lennox, No. 24 at p. 9) JCI commented
that the updated scope would
exacerbate the cumulative test burden
the HVAC industry is already facing
with other DOE regulations. (JCI, No. 34
at p. 2). AHAM and AHRI emphasized
that DOE needs to consider the
additional burden in the context of the
many updated standards affecting the
HVAC industry and they described the
new standards to which they will be
subject from DOE, UL, EPA, and
requirements under the American
Innovation and Manufacturing Act,
which will require the reduction of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
high-global warming potential (‘‘GWP’’)
hydrofluorocarbons (‘‘HFCs’’) in
stationary air conditioning (AC)
equipment (in turn requiring the
development of a second product line
for all equipment using low-GWP
refrigerants). (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36
at pp. 11–12). DOE recognizes the
potential manufacturer burden of
multiple simultaneous rulemakings and
will evaluate the cumulative regulatory
burden in future energy conservation
standards rulemakings relating to
electric motors as provided by its
established processes.91
b. Updating Vertical Motor Testing
Requirements
DOE is updating the testing
requirements for vertical motors with
hollow shafts to not require welding of
a solid shaft to the drive end, and
instead permit connection of electric
motors to a dynamometer without
restriction on the motor end and using
a coupling of torsional rigidity greater
than or equal to that of the motor shaft.
DOE has determined that its adopted
amendments will not require changes to
the designs of electric motors and will
not impact the utility of such electric
motors or impact the availability of
electric motor options. DOE has also
determined that the amendments will
not impact the representations of
electric motor energy efficiency/energy
use based on the determination that
manufacturers would be able to
continue rely on data generated under
the preceding test procedure. As such,
retesting of electric motors will not be
required solely as a result of DOE’s
adoption of this amendment.
Although DOE has determined that
the amendments related to vertical
motors will not add to manufacturer
costs, under specific circumstances they
may reduce testing costs. NEMA
commented that the existing
requirement to weld may prevent a
motor from being used in its intended
application (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 3). In
such instances, the testing cost could
include the cost of scrapping an
otherwise useable motor. This scrap cost
may be avoided if welding is not
required by appendix B, in which case
the test cost savings could equal the
value of the motor.
To estimate these cost savings, DOE
determined approximately how many
tests of these motors are conducted
annually. To do this, DOE reviewed
product catalogs from 2006 and
compared these to catalogs from 2018 to
determine how many new vertical
91 See 10 CFR part 430 subpart C appendix A
section 13(g).
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
hollow shaft models have been
produced in that time. DOE annualized
this count to estimate how many new
vertical hollow shaft motors are listed
per year and would need to be certified
as compliant with 10 CFR 431.25. Using
the 2018 catalog, DOE found the average
price of a vertical hollow shaft motor
and assumed a markup of 100 percent
to estimate the manufacturer’s
production cost. Next, DOE requires at
least five units to be tested per basic
model. 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2) Consistent
with the final rule for test procedures
for small electric motors and electric
motors published January 4, 2021, DOE
estimated that 10 percent of these new
vertical hollow shaft motors are certified
via physical testing, based on the
observation that most manufacturers use
an AEDM to certify an electric motor as
required under 10 CFR 431.36. 86 FR 4,
17 (January 4, 2021) (applying a general
10 percent estimate regarding the
number of electric motors that would be
physically tested). Using this
methodology, DOE estimates that
annual cost savings to industry due to
the amendments may approach $9,410
per year.
2. Harmonization With Industry
Standards
DOE’s established practice is to adopt
relevant industry standards for a
regulated product or equipment unless
such methodology would be unduly
burdensome to conduct or would not
produce test results that reflect the
energy efficiency, energy use, water use
(as specified in EPCA) or estimated
operating costs of that product during a
representative average use cycle. 10 CFR
431.4; Section 8(c) of appendix A of 10
CFR part 430 subpart C. In cases where
the industry standard does not meet
EPCA’s statutory criteria for test
procedures, DOE will make
modifications through the rulemaking
process to these standards as the DOE
test procedure. With regard to electric
motors subject to standards, EPCA
requires the test procedures to be the
test procedures specified in NEMA
Standards Publication MG1–1987 and
IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B for
motor efficiency, or the successor
standards, unless DOE determines by
rule, published in the Federal Register
and supported by clear and convincing
evidence, that to do so would not meet
the statutory requirements for test
procedures to produce results that are
representative of an average use cycle
and not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A) and
(B)). DOE established the prior test
procedures for electric motors at
appendix B based on the provisions of
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
NEMA MG 1–2009, CSA C390–10, IEC
60034–2–1:2014, IEEE 112–2017, which
are incorporated by reference and all of
which contain methods for measuring
the energy efficiency and losses of
electric motors. These referenced
standards specify test methods for
polyphase induction electric motors
above 1 horsepower that can operate
directly connected to a power supply.
DOE reviewed each of the industry
standards and is updating its
incorporation by reference to IEC
60034–12:2016, CSA C390–10, and
NEMA MG 1–2016 to align with the
latest revised and reaffirmed versions of
these standards.
In addition, certain additional motors
incorporated into the scope of the test
procedure cannot be tested using the
industry standards incorporated by
reference for currently regulated electric
motors because they require
modifications to the test procedure to
account for: requiring to be connected to
an inverter to be able to operate (i.e.,
inverter-only motors); and differences in
electrical design (i.e., single-phase
induction electric motors included as
SNEMs, and synchronous electric
motors). For these additional motors
newly included in scope, DOE
incorporates by reference the following
additional industry standards: IEEE
114–2010, CSA C747–09, IEC 60034–2–
1:2014, and IEC 61800–9–2:2017. IEEE
114–2010, CSA C747–09, and IEC
60034–2–1:2014 specify methods for
measuring the efficiency and losses of
single-phase induction electric motors.
IEC 61800–9–2:2017 specifies methods
for measuring the efficiency and losses
of induction and synchronous inverteronly electric motors.
The test procedures established for
air-over electric motors and for SNEMs
are included in NEMA MG 1–2016. See
Section IV, Part 34: Air-Over Motor
Efficiency Test Method and Section
12.30. Section 12.30 specifies the use of
IEEE 112 and IEEE 114 for all singlephase and polyphase motors.92 As
further discussed in section III.D.2 of
this document, DOE is requiring testing
of SNEMs—other than inverter-only
electric motors—according to IEEE 112–
2017, (or CSA C390–10 or IEC 60034–
2–1:2014, which are both equivalent to
IEEE 112–2017; see discussion in
section III.D.2) and IEEE 114–2010 (or
CSA C747–09 or IEC 60034–2–1:2014,
which are equivalent to IEEE 114–2010;
see discussion in III.D.2). This
amendment would satisfy the test
92 As previously mentioned, NEMA MG 1–2016
does not specify the publication year of the
referenced test standards and instead specifies that
the most recent version should be used.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
procedure requirements under 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(5).
The methods listed in Section 12.30
of NEMA MG 1–2016 for testing AC
motors apply only to AC induction
motors that can be operated directly
connected to the power supply (directon-line) and do not apply to electric
motors that are inverter-only or to
synchronous electric motors that are not
AC induction motors. Therefore, for
these additional electric motors, DOE
specifies the use of different industry
test procedures, as previously noted.
DOE notes that, with regard to the
industry standards currently
incorporated into the DOE test
procedure, DOE is only updating the
versions referenced to the latest version
of the industry standards.
R. Compliance Date
EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends
a test procedure, all representations of
energy efficiency and energy use of an
electric motor subject to the test
procedure, including those made on
marketing materials and product labels,
must be made in accordance with that
amended test procedure, beginning 180
days after publication of such a test
procedure final rule in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1). To the
extent DOE were to establish test
procedures for electric motors not
currently subject to an energy
conservation standard, manufacturers
would only need to use the testing setup instructions, testing procedures, and
rating procedures if a manufacturer
elected to make voluntary
representations of energy-efficiency or
energy costs of his or her basic models
beginning 180 days following
publication of a final rule. DOE’s final
rule would not require manufacturers
who do not currently make voluntary
representations to then begin making
public representations of efficiency. (42
U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)). Manufacturers would
be required to test such motors at such
time as compliance is required with a
labeling or energy conservation standard
requirement should such a requirement
be established. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b); 42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)).
EPCA provides an allowance for
individual manufacturers to petition
DOE for an extension of the 180-day
period if the manufacturer may
experience undue hardship in meeting
the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(2). To
receive such an extension, petitions
must be filed with DOE no later than 60
days before the end of the 180-day
period and must detail how the
manufacturer will experience undue
hardship. (Id.)
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63641
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563
Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as
supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O.
13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21,
2011), requires agencies, to the extent
permitted by law, to (1) propose or
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its
costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify); (2)
tailor regulations to impose the least
burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking
into account, among other things, and to
the extent practicable, the costs of
cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be
made by the public. DOE emphasizes as
well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to
use the best available techniques to
quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management
and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized
that such techniques may include
identifying changing future compliance
costs that might result from
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes. For the reasons
stated in the preamble, this final
regulatory action is consistent with
these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also
requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant
regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review.
OIRA has determined that this final
regulatory action does not constitute a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
this action was not submitted to OIRA
for review under E.O. 12866.
ABB requested that DOE have OMB
conduct a study of the economic impact
of this rulemaking. They stated that
based on the information provided it
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63642
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
appears that the small gain in efficiency
the rule is intended to capture would
result in inordinate expense and
economic disruption to all affected
motor manufacturers and OEMs in
terms of product redesign. (ABB, No. 18
at p. 2) As previously stated, this final
rule only establishes test procedures
and does not establish energy
conservation standards. Therefore, this
rule would not necessitate any redesign
of any of the equipment addressed by
this final rule.
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by
law must be proposed for public
comment, and a final regulatory
flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such
rule that an agency adopts as a final
rule, unless the agency certifies that the
rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As
required by Executive Order 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the DOE
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s website: www.energy.gov/gc/
office-general-counsel.
The following sections detail DOE’s
FRFA for this test procedure final rule.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is
Being Considered
DOE is amending the existing DOE
test procedures for electric motors.
EPCA, pursuant to amendments made
by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public
Law 102–486 (Oct. 24, 1992), specifies
that the test procedures for electric
motors subject to standards are those
specified in National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (‘‘NEMA’’)
Standards Publication MG1–1987 and
Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (‘‘IEEE’’) Standard 112 Test
Method B, as in effect on October 24,
1992. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A)). DOE
must amend its test procedures to
conform to such amended test
procedure requirements, unless DOE
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
determines by rule, published in the
Federal Register and supported by clear
and convincing evidence, that to do so
would not meet the statutory
requirements related to the test
procedure representativeness and
burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B))
EPCA also requires that, at least once
every 7 years, DOE evaluate test
procedures for each type of covered
equipment, including electric motors, to
determine whether amended test
procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements for
the test procedures to not be unduly
burdensome to conduct and be
reasonably designed to produce test
results that reflect energy efficiency,
energy use, and estimated operating
costs during a representative average
use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)).
DOE is publishing this final rule in
satisfaction of the requirements
specified in EPCA.
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
As noted previously, DOE is
publishing this final rule in satisfaction
of the requirements specified in EPCA
that DOE amend the test procedure for
electric motors whenever the relevant
industry standards are amended, but at
minimum every 7 years, to ensure that
the DOE test procedure produces test
results which reflect energy efficiency,
energy use, and estimated operating
costs of a type of industrial equipment
(or class thereof) during a representative
average use cycle. 42 U.S.C. 6314(a).
3. Description and Estimate of Small
Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of electric motors,
the Small Business Administration
(‘‘SBA’’) has set a size threshold, which
defines those entities classified as
‘‘small businesses’’ for the purposes of
the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small
business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be
subject to the requirements of the rule.
See 13 CFR part 121. The size standards
are listed by North American Industry
Classification System (‘‘NAICS’’) code
and industry description available at:
www.sba.gov/document/support--tablesize-standards. Electric motor
manufacturing is classified under
NAICS code 335312, ‘‘motor and
generator manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets
a threshold of 1,250 employees or less
for an entity to be considered as a small
business for this category.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
In this final rule, DOE revises the
current scope of the test procedures to
add additional electric motors and
subsequent updates needed for
supporting definitions and metric
requirements as a result of this
expanded scope; incorporates by
reference the most recent versions of the
referenced industry standards;
incorporates by reference additional
industry standards used to test newly
covered electric motors; clarifies the
scope and test instructions by adding
definitions for specific terms; revises the
current vertical motor testing
instructions to reduce manufacturer test
burden; revises the provisions
pertaining to certification testing and
determination of represented values;
and adds provisions pertaining to
certification testing and determination
of represented values for DPPP motors.
As previously stated in section III.Q.1
of this document, DOE estimates that
some electric motor manufacturers
would experience a cost savings from
the test procedure amendment regarding
the update to the testing requirements
for vertical motors with hollow shafts.
Additionally, this test procedure
expands the scope of covered electric
motors and establishes certification,
sampling plan, and AEDM provisions
for DPPP motors.
While manufacturers making these
expanded scope electric motors and
DPPP motors would not be required to
test according to the DOE test procedure
until energy efficiency standards were
established, if manufacturers voluntarily
make representations regarding the
energy consumption or cost of energy of
such electric motors, they would be
required to test according to the DOE
test procedure. DOE identified up to 12
potential small businesses
manufacturing these expanded scope
electric motors or DPPP motors. DOE
estimates that all other test procedure
amendments would not result in any
electric motor manufacturer, large or
small, to incur any additional costs due
to the test procedure amendments in
this final rule.
4. Description and Estimate of
Compliance Requirements
DOE estimated the per unit testing
cost for these expanded scope electric
motors and DPPP motors in section
III.Q.1. of this document. These
estimated per unit testing costs are
presented in Table IV.1.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
63643
TABLE IV.1—ELECTRIC MOTOR PER UNIT TEST COST ESTIMATES
Industry standard
Tested at in-house
facility
Tested at thirdparty facility
(per unit test cost)
(per unit test cost)
$587
750
631
$2,210
3,210
2,210
CSA C747–09 ..............................................................................................................................................
IEC 61800–9–2:2017 ...................................................................................................................................
Section 34.4 of NEMA Air-over Motor Efficiency Test Method ...................................................................
DOE is unable to estimate the number
of electric motor models that small
business manufacturers would decide to
make voluntary representations about
the efficiency of their electric motors.
Therefore, DOE is unable to estimate the
total cost each small business would
incur to test their electric motors in
accordance with the DOE test
procedure.
Due to the uncertainty of the potential
costs to small businesses, DOE is not
able to conclude that the impacts of the
test procedure amendments included in
this final rule would not have a
‘‘significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.’’
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict
With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or
regulations that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the rule being considered
today.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
As previously stated in this section,
DOE is required to review existing DOE
test procedures for all covered
equipment every 7 years. Additionally,
DOE shall amend test procedures with
respect to any covered equipment, if the
Secretary determines that amended test
procedures would more accurately
produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated annual operating cost of a
covered equipment during a
representative average use cycle or
period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
DOE has determined that the test
procedure would more accurately
produce test results to measure the
energy efficiency of electric motors.
DOE has determined that there are no
better alternatives than the amended test
procedures in terms of meeting the
agency’s objectives to more accurately
measure energy efficiency and reducing
burden on manufacturers. Therefore,
DOE is amending the existing DOE test
procedure for electric motors in this
final rule.
Additional compliance flexibilities
may be available through other means.
EPCA provides that a manufacturer
whose annual gross revenue from all of
its operations does not exceed $8
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
million may apply for an exemption
from all or part of an energy
conservation standard for a period not
longer than 24 months after the effective
date of a final rule establishing the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t))
Additionally, section 504 of the
Department of Energy Organization Act,
42 U.S.C. 7194, provides authority for
the Secretary to adjust a rule issued
under EPCA in order to prevent ‘‘special
hardship, inequity, or unfair
distribution of burdens’’ that may be
imposed on that manufacturer as a
result of such rule. Manufacturers
should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional
details.
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. To certify
compliance, manufacturers must first
obtain test data for their products
according to the DOE test procedures,
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. (See generally
10 CFR part 429.) The collection-ofinformation requirement for the
certification and recordkeeping is
subject to review and approval by OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(‘‘PRA’’). DOE’s current reporting
requirements have been approved by
OMB under OMB control number 1910–
1400. Public reporting burden for the
certification is estimated to average 35
hours per response, including the time
for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, certifying
compliance, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
1. Description of the Requirements
In this final rule, DOE is requiring
that within one year of publication of
any final rule updating or amending
DOE’s electric motors regulations, all
nationally recognized certification
programs must reassess the evaluation
criteria necessary for a certification
program to be classified by DOE as
nationally recognized and either submit
a letter to DOE certifying that no change
to their program is needed, or submit a
letter describing the measures
implemented to ensure the evaluation
criteria in amended 10 CFR 429.73(b)
are met. DOE is revising the collection
of information approval under OMB
Control Number 1910–1400 to account
for the paperwork burden associated
with submitting this letter, including
the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information.
2. Method of Collection
DOE is requiring that nationally
recognized certification programs must
submit a letter within one year after any
final rule is published updating or
amending DOE’s electric motor
regulations.
3. Data
There are three nationally recognized
certification programs for electric
motors. DOE estimated that drafting and
submitting a letter to DOE certifying that
no change to their program is needed or
drafting and submitting a letter
describing the measures implemented to
ensure the criteria in amended 10 CFR
429.73(b) are met would require
approximately 10 hours for each
nationally recognized certification
program. Therefore, DOE estimated that
the three nationally recognized
certification programs would spend
approximately 30 hours to draft and
submit these letters to DOE. DOE’s
February 2021 ‘‘Supporting Statement
for Certification Reports, Compliance
Statements, Application for a Test
Procedure Waiver, and Recording
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63644
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
keeping for Consumer Products and
Commercial Equipment Subject to
Energy or Water Conservation
Standards’’ estimated a fully loaded
(burdened) average wage rate of $67 per
hour for manufacturer reporting and
recordkeeping.93 (86 FR 9916). DOE
used this wage rate to estimate the
burden on the certification programs.
Therefore, DOE estimates that the total
burden to the industry is approximately
$2,010.94
OMB Control Number: 1910–1400.
Form Number: DOE F 220.7.
Type of Review: Regular submission.
Affected Public: Nationally
recognized certification programs.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 3.
Estimated Time per Response: 10
hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 30 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to the
Manufacturers: $2,010 in
recordkeeping/reporting costs.
4. Conclusion
DOE has determined that the cost of
these amendments would not impose a
material burden on nationally
recognized certification programs. It is
the responsibility of nationally
recognized certification programs to
have a complete understanding of
applicable regulations for electric
motors given their role as a certification
body, and accordingly, DOE has
concluded that the anticipated cost of
$670 per program to submit a letter
upon finalization of any updated or
amended electric motors regulations is a
reasonable burden for such a program.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE establishes test
procedure amendments that it expects
will be used to develop and implement
future energy conservation standards for
electric motors. DOE has determined
that this rule falls into a class of actions
that are categorically excluded from
review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part
1021. Specifically, DOE has determined
that adopting test procedures for
measuring energy efficiency of
consumer products and industrial
equipment is consistent with activities
identified in 10 CFR part 1021,
appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6.
Accordingly, neither an environmental
93 www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202102-1910-002.
94 3 certification programs × 10 hours × $67 =
$2,010.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
assessment nor an environmental
impact statement is required.
AHAM and AHRI stated that the
compliance deadlines proposed in the
NOPR will produce significant
environmental impact and warrant
review under NEPA. They stated that
manufacturers that make voluntary
representations about motor efficiency
will be required to certify 180 days after
the final rule, and there will not be
capacity at third-party test labs to do
this certification in time, so
manufacturers will be forced to remove
this efficiency information from
marketing materials. They stated that
this removal of efficiency information
will cause purchasers to gravitate
towards cheaper, and likely less
efficient, products, which will lead to
increased energy consumption and the
environmental impacts associated with
such. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp.
14–15). In this final rule, DOE is
adopting the industry standards similar
to what was proposed in the NOPR. In
addition, as discussed in section III.M.1
of this document, DOE does not adopt
the proposal to replace the requirement
to test at an accredited laboratory by
testing in an independent testing
program. Instead, DOE retains the use of
accredited laboratory as currently
described at 10 CFR 431.17(5).
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
regulations as to energy conservation for
the products that are the subject of this
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 Law 104–4, 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
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit
timely input by elected officers of State,
local, and Tribal governments on a
proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental
mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan
for giving notice and opportunity for
timely input to potentially affected
small governments before establishing
any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its
process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR
12820; also available at
www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined this 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
that may affect family well-being. This
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.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
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). Pursuant to OMB
Memorandum M–19–15, Improving
Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
published updated guidelines which are
available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/
files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20
Updated%20IQA%20
Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE
has reviewed this 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.
This 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’’)
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63645
concerning the impact of the
commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The modifications to the test
procedure for electric motors adopted in
this final rule incorporates testing
methods contained in certain sections of
the following commercial standards:
CSA C390–10; IEC 60034–12:2016; IEC
60079–7:2015; IEC 61800–9–2:2017;
NEMA MG 1–2016; and NFPA 20–2022.
DOE has evaluated these standards and
is unable to conclude whether it fully
complies with the requirements of
section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., whether
it was developed in a manner that fully
provides for public participation,
comment, and review.) 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 this 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. Description of Materials Incorporated
by Reference
The following standards were
previously approved for incorporation
by reference in the section where they
appear and no changes are required: IEC
60034–1 (select provisions in section 4),
IEC 60034–1:2010, IEC 60034–2–1:2014,
IEC 60050–411, IEC 60051–1:2016, IEEE
112–2017, and NEMA MG1–1967.
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by
reference the test standards published
by CSA, IEC, IEEE, NEMA and NFPA.
CSA C390–10 specifies test methods,
marking requirements, and energy
efficiency levels for three-phase
induction motors.
CSA C747–09 specifies test methods
for single-phase electric motors and
polyphase electric motors below 1 hp.
IEC 60034–12:2016 specifies the
parameters for eight designs (IEC Design
N, Design NE, Design NY, Design NEY,
IEC Design H, Design HE, Design HY,
Design HEY) of starting performance of
single-speed three-phase 50 Hz or 60 Hz
cage induction motors.
IEC 60072–1 (clauses 2, 3, 4.1, 6.1, 7,
and 10, and Tables 1, 2 and 4) specifies
the IEC-metric equivalent frame size.
IEC 60079–7:2015 is referenced
within IEC 60034–12:2016 and specifies
the requirements for the design,
construction, testing and marking of
electrical equipment and Ex
Components with type of protection
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63646
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
increased safety ‘‘e’’ intended for use in
explosive gas atmospheres.
IEC 61800–9–2:2017 specifies test
methods for inverter-fed electric motors
that include an inverter.
IEEE 114–2010 specifies test methods
for single-phase electric motors.
NEMA MG 1–2016 provides test
methods to determine motor efficiency
and losses, including for air-over
electric motors, and establishes several
industry definitions.
NFPA 20–2022 provides
specifications for fire-pump motors.
Copies of these standards can be
obtained from the organizations directly
at the following addresses:
• Canadian Standards Association,
Sales Department, 5060 Spectrum Way,
Suite 100, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W
5N6, Canada, 1–800–463–6727, or by
visiting www.shopcsa.ca/onlinestore/
welcome.asp.
• International Electrotechnical
Commission, 3 rue de Varembe´, 1st
Floor, P.O. Box 131, CH–1211 Geneva
20–Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 11, or by
visiting https://webstore.iec.ch/home.
• Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, 445 Hoes Lane,
P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855–
1331, (732) 981–0060, or by visiting
www.ieee.org.
• NEMA, 1300 North 17th Street,
Suite 900, Arlington, Virginia 22209, +1
(703) 841 3200, or by visiting
www.nema.org.
• National Fire Protection
Association, 1 Batterymarch Park,
Quincy, MA 02169, +1 800 344 3555, or
by visiting www.nfpa.org.
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final rule.
List of Subjects
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Small
businesses.
10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test
procedures, Incorporation by reference,
and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on October 3, 2022,
by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on October 4,
2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and
431 of chapter II of title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 429—CERTIFICATION,
COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT
FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 429
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
■
2. Revise § 429.1 to read as follows:
§ 429.1
Purpose and scope.
This part sets forth the procedures for
certification, determination and
enforcement of compliance of covered
products and covered equipment with
the applicable energy conservation
standards set forth in parts 430 and 431
of this subchapter.
■ 3. Amend § 429.2 by revising
paragraph (a) and adding in alphabetical
order to paragraph (b) a definition for
‘‘Independent’’ to read as follows:
§ 429.2
Definitions.
(a) The definitions found in 10 CFR
parts 430 and 431 apply for purposes of
this part.
(b) * * *
Independent means, in the context of
a nationally recognized certification
program, or accreditation program for
electric motors, an entity that is not
controlled by, or under common control
with, electric motor manufacturers,
importers, private labelers, or vendors,
and that has no affiliation, financial ties,
or contractual agreements, apparently or
otherwise, with such entities that
would:
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(i) Hinder the ability of the program
to evaluate fully or report the measured
or calculated energy efficiency of any
electric motor, or
(ii) Create any potential or actual
conflict of interest that would
undermine the validity of said
evaluation. For purposes of this
definition, financial ties or contractual
agreements between an electric motor
manufacturer, importer, private labeler
or vendor and a nationally recognized
certification program, or accreditation
program exclusively for certification or
accreditation services does not negate
an otherwise independent relationship.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Add § 429.3 to read as follows:
§ 429.3 Sources for information and
guidance.
(a) General. The standards listed in
this paragraph are referred to in
§§ 429.73 and 429.74 and are not
incorporated by reference. These
sources are provided here for
information and guidance only.
(b) ISO/IEC. International
Organization for Standardization (ISO),
1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH–
1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland/
International Electrotechnical
Commission, 3, rue de Varembe´, P.O.
Box 131, CH–1211 Geneva 20,
Switzerland.
(1) International Organization for
Standardization (ISO)/International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC),
(‘‘ISO/IEC’’) 17025, ‘‘General
requirements for the competence of
calibration and testing laboratories,’’
November 2017.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) NVLAP. National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program,
National Institute of Standards and
Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, M/S
2140, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–2140,
301–975–4016, or go to www.nist.gov/
nvlap/. Also see https://www.nist.gov/
nvlap/nvlap-handbooks.cfm.
(1) National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Handbook 150,
‘‘NVLAP Procedures and General
Requirements,’’ 2000 edition, August
2020.
(2) National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Handbook 150–10,
‘‘Efficiency of Electric Motors,’’ 2020
edition, April 2020.
■ 5. Revise § 429.11 to read as follows:
§ 429.11 General sampling requirements
for selecting units to be tested.
(a) When testing of covered products
or covered equipment is required to
comply with section 323(c) of the Act,
or to comply with rules prescribed
under sections 324, 325, 342, 344, 345
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
Electric motors.
(a) Applicability. When a party
determines the energy efficiency of an
electric motor in order to comply with
an obligation imposed on it by or
pursuant to Part C of Title III of EPCA,
42 U.S.C. 6311–6316, this section
applies. This section does not apply to
enforcement testing conducted pursuant
to § 431.383 of this subchapter. This
section applies to electric motors that
are subject to requirements in subpart B
of part 431 of this subchapter and does
not apply to dedicated-purpose pool
pump motors subject to requirements in
subpart Z of part 431.
(1) Prior to the date described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section,
manufacturers of electric motors subject
to energy conservation standards in
subpart B of part 431 must make
representations of energy efficiency,
including representations for
certification of compliance, in
accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c)
of this section.
(2) On and after the compliance date
for any new or amended standards for
electric motors published after January
1, 2021, manufacturers of electric
motors subject to energy conservation
standards in subpart B of part 431 of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of
this section to determine its energy
efficiency must be carried out in an
accredited laboratory that meets the
requirements of § 431.18 of this
subchapter;
(c) Additional testing requirements
applicable when a certification program
is not used—(1) Selection of units for
testing. For each basic model selected
for testing, a sample of units shall be
selected at random and tested.
Components of similar design may be
substituted without requiring additional
testing if the represented measures of
energy consumption continue to satisfy
the applicable sampling provision.
(2) Sampling requirements. The
sample shall be comprised of
production units of the basic model, or
units that are representative of such
production units. The sample size shall
be not fewer than five units, except that
when fewer than five units of a basic
model would be produced over a
reasonable period of time
(approximately 180 days), then each
unit shall be tested. In a test of
compliance with a represented average
or nominal efficiency:
(i) The average full-load efficiency of
the sample, which is defined by:
where xi is the measured full-load
efficiency of unit i and n is the number
of units tested, shall satisfy the
condition:
x~
100
100 _ 1)
1 + 1.0S(RE
where RE is the represented nominal
full-load efficiency, and
(ii) The lowest full-load efficiency in
the sample xmin, which is defined by:
xmin = min (xi)
shall satisfy the condition:
100
. >
100 1)
Xmm - 1 + 1.15(RE (d) Compliance certification. A
manufacturer may not certify the
compliance of an electric motor
pursuant to § 429.12 unless:
(1) Testing of the electric motor basic
model was conducted using an
accredited laboratory that meets the
requirements of paragraph (f) of this
section;
(2) Testing was conducted using a
laboratory other than an accredited
laboratory that meets the requirements
of paragraph (f) of this section, or the
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
ER19OC22.001</GPH> ER19OC22.002</GPH>
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
§ 429.64
this subchapter must make
representations of energy efficiency,
including representations for
certification of compliance, in
accordance with paragraphs (d) through
(f) of this section.
(3) On or after April 17, 2023,
manufacturers of electric motors subject
to the test procedures in appendix B of
subpart B of part 431 but are subject to
the energy conservation standards in
subpart B of part 431 of this subchapter,
must, if they chose to voluntarily make
representations of energy efficiency,
follow the provisions in paragraph (e) of
this section.
(b) Compliance certification—(1)
General requirements. The represented
value of nominal full-load efficiency of
each basic model of electric motor must
be determined either by testing in
accordance with § 431.16 of this
subchapter, or by application of an
alternative efficiency determination
method (AEDM) that meets the
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
(2) Alternative efficiency
determination method. In lieu of testing,
the represented value of nominal fullload efficiency for a basic model of
electric motor must be determined
through the application of an AEDM
pursuant to the requirements of
§ 429.70(j) and the provisions of this
paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) of this
section, where:
(i) The average full-load efficiency of
any basic model used to validate an
AEDM must be calculated under
paragraph (c) of this section.
(ii) The represented value is the
nominal full-load efficiency of a basic
model of electric motor and is to be
used in marketing materials and all
public representations, as the certified
value of efficiency, and on the
nameplate. (See § 431.31(a) of this
subchapter.) Determine the nominal
full-load efficiency by selecting a value
from the ‘‘Nominal Full-Load
Efficiency’’ table in appendix B to
subpart B of this part that is no greater
than the simulated full-load efficiency
predicted by the AEDM for the basic
model.
(3) Use of a certification program or
accredited laboratory. (i) A
manufacturer may have a certification
program, that DOE has classified as
nationally recognized under § 429.73,
certify the nominal full-load efficiency
of a basic model of electric motor, and
issue a certificate of conformity for the
motor.
(ii) For each basic model for which a
certification program is not used as
described in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this
section, any testing of the motor
ER19OC22.000</GPH>
or 346 of the Act, a sample comprised
of production units (or units
representative of production units) of
the basic model being tested must be
selected at random and tested and must
meet the criteria found in §§ 429.14
through 429.65. Components of similar
design may be substituted without
additional testing if the substitution
does not affect energy or water
consumption. Any represented values of
measures of energy efficiency, water
efficiency, energy consumption, or
water consumption for all individual
models represented by a given basic
model must be the same, except for
central air conditioners and central air
conditioning heat pumps, as specified
in § 429.16; and
(b) The minimum number of units
tested shall be no less than two, except
where:
(1) A different minimum limit is
specified in §§ 429.14 through 429.65;
or
(2) Only one unit of the basic model
is produced, in which case, that unit
must be tested and the test results must
demonstrate that the basic model
performs at or better than the applicable
standard(s). If one or more units of the
basic model are manufactured
subsequently, compliance with the
default sampling and representations
provisions is required.
■ 6. Add § 429.64 to read as follows:
63647
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
Where xi is the measured full-load
efficiency of unit i and n is the number
of units tested.
(iii) Represented value. The
represented value is the nominal fullload efficiency of a basic model of
electric motor and is to be used in
marketing materials and all public
representations, as the certified value of
efficiency, and on the nameplate. (See
§ 431.31(a) of this subchapter.)
Determine the nominal full-load
efficiency by selecting an efficiency
from the ‘‘Nominal Full-load Efficiency’’
table in appendix B that is no greater
than the average full-load efficiency of
the basic model as calculated in
§ 429.64(e)(1)(ii).
(iv) Minimum full-load efficiency: To
ensure a high level of quality control
and consistency of performance within
the basic model, the lowest full-load
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
efficiency in the sample Xmin, must
satisfy the condition:
Xmin
100
>
100 - 1)
- 1 + 1.15(Std
where Std is the value of the
applicable energy conservation
standard. If the lowest measured fullload efficiency of a unit in the tested
sample does not satisfy the condition in
this section, then the basic model
cannot be certified as compliant with
the applicable standard.
(2) Alternative efficiency
determination methods. In lieu of
testing, the represented value of
nominal full-load efficiency for a basic
model of electric motor must be
determined through the application of
an AEDM pursuant to the requirements
of § 429.70(j) and the provisions of this
section, where:
(i) The average full-load efficiency of
any basic model used to validate an
AEDM must be calculated under
paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section; and
(ii) The represented value is the
nominal full-load efficiency of a basic
model of electric motor and is to be
used in marketing materials and all
public representations, as the certified
value of efficiency, and on the
nameplate. (See § 431.31(a) of this
subchapter) Determine the nominal fullload efficiency by selecting a value from
the ‘‘Nominal Full-Load Efficiency’’
table in appendix B to subpart B of this
part, that is no greater than the
simulated full-load efficiency predicted
by the AEDM for the basic model.
(f) Accredited laboratory. (1) Testing
pursuant to paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) and
(d)(1) of this section must be conducted
in an accredited laboratory for which
the accreditation body was:
(i) The National Institute of Standards
and Technology/National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program
(NIST/NVLAP); or
(ii) A laboratory accreditation body
having a mutual recognition
arrangement with NIST/NVLAP; or
(iii) An organization classified by the
Department, pursuant to § 429.74, as an
accreditation body.
(2) NIST/NVLAP is under the
auspices of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)/
National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NVLAP), which
is part of the U.S. Department of
Commerce. NIST/NVLAP accreditation
is granted on the basis of conformance
with criteria published in 15 CFR part
285. The National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program, ‘‘Procedures and
General Requirements,’’ NIST Handbook
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
150–10, April 2020 (referenced for
guidance only, see § 429.3) present the
technical requirements of NVLAP for
the Efficiency of Electric Motors field of
accreditation. This handbook
supplements NIST Handbook 150,
National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program ‘‘Procedures and
General Requirements,’’ which contains
15 CFR part 285 plus all general NIST/
NVLAP procedures, criteria, and
policies. Information regarding NIST/
NVLAP and its Efficiency of Electric
Motors Program (EEM) can be obtained
from NIST/NVLAP, 100 Bureau Drive,
Mail Stop 2140, Gaithersburg, MD
20899–2140, (301) 975–4016
(telephone), or (301) 926–2884 (fax).
■ 7. Add § 429.65 to read as follows:
§ 429.65
motors.
Dedicated-purpose pool pump
(a) Applicability. This section applies
to dedicated purpose motors that are
subject to requirements in subpart Z of
part 431 of this subchapter. Starting on
the compliance date for any standards
for dedicated-purpose pool pump
motors published after January 1, 2021,
manufacturers of dedicated-purpose
pool pump motors subject to such
standards must make representations of
energy efficiency, including
representations for certification of
compliance, in accordance with this
section. Prior to the compliance date for
any standards for dedicated-purpose
pool pump motors published after
January 1, 2021, and on or after April
17, 2023, manufacturers of dedicatedpurpose pool pump motors subject to
test procedures in subpart Z of part 431
of this subchapter choosing to make
representations of energy efficiency
must follow the provisions in paragraph
(c) of this section.
(b) Compliance certification. A
manufacturer may not certify the
compliance of a dedicated-purpose pool
pump motor pursuant to 10 CFR 429.12
unless:
(1) Testing of the dedicated-purpose
pool pump motor basic model was
conducted using an accredited
laboratory that meets the requirements
of paragraph (d) of this section;
(2) Testing was conducted using a
laboratory other than an accredited
laboratory that meets the requirements
of paragraph (d) of this section, or the
full-load efficiency of the dedicatedpurpose pool pump motor basic model
was determined through the application
of an AEDM pursuant to the
requirements of § 429.70(k), and a thirdparty certification organization that is
nationally recognized in the United
States under § 429.73 has certified the
full-load efficiency of the dedicated-
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
ER19OC22.004</GPH>
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
nominal full-load efficiency of the
electric motor basic model was
determined through the application of
an AEDM pursuant to the requirements
of § 429.70(j), and a third-party
certification organization that is
nationally recognized in the United
States under § 429.73 has certified the
nominal full-load efficiency of the
electric motor basic model through
issuance of a certificate of conformity
for the basic model.
(e) Determination of represented
value. A manufacturer must determine
the represented value of nominal fullload efficiency (inclusive of the inverter
for inverter-only electric motors) for
each basic model of electric motor either
by testing in conjunction with the
applicable sampling provisions or by
applying an AEDM as set forth in this
section and in § 429.70(j).
(1) Testing—(i) Units to be tested. If
the represented value for a given basic
model is determined through testing,
the requirements of § 429.11 apply
except that, for electric motors, the
minimum sample size is five units. If
fewer units than the minimum sample
size are produced, each unit produced
must be tested and the test results must
demonstrate that the basic model
performs at or better than the applicable
standard(s). If one or more units of the
basic model are manufactured
subsequently, compliance with the
default sampling and representations
provisions is required.
(ii) Average Full-load Efficiency:
Determine the average full-load
efficiency for the basic model x, for the
units in the sample as follows:
ER19OC22.003</GPH>
63648
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
+
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
ER19OC22.006</GPH>
Where xi is the measured full-load
efficiency of unit i and n is the number
of units tested in the sample.
(iii) Represented value. The
represented value is the full-load
efficiency of a basic model of dedicatedpurpose pool pump motor and is to be
used in marketing materials and all
public representations, as the certified
value of efficiency, and on the
nameplate. (See § 431.486 of this
subchapter). Alternatively, a
manufacturer may make representations
using the nominal full-load efficiency of
a basic model of dedicated-purpose pool
pump motor provided that the
manufacturer uses the nominal full-load
efficiency consistently on all marketing
materials, and as the value on the
nameplate. Determine the nominal fullload efficiency by selecting an efficiency
from the ‘‘Nominal Full-load Efficiency’’
table in appendix B to subpart B of this
part, that is no greater than the full-load
efficiency of the basic model as
calculated in § 429.65(c)(1)(ii).
Laboratory Accreditation Program
(NIST/NVLAP); or
(ii) A laboratory accreditation body
having a mutual recognition
arrangement with NIST/NVLAP; or
(iii) An organization classified by the
Department, pursuant to § 429.74, as an
100
accreditation body.
100 - 1)
(2) NIST/NVLAP is under the
Xmin >
- 1
1.15(Std
auspices of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)/
where Std is the value of any
National Voluntary Laboratory
applicable energy conservation
Accreditation Program (NVLAP), which
standard. If the lowest measured fullis part of the U.S. Department of
load efficiency of a motor in the tested
sample does not satisfy the condition in Commerce. NIST/NVLAP accreditation
is granted on the basis of conformance
this section, then the basic model
with criteria published in 15 CFR part
cannot be certified as compliant with
285. The National Voluntary Laboratory
the applicable standard.
Accreditation Program, ‘‘Procedures and
(v) Dedicated-purpose pool pump
motor total horsepower. The represented General Requirements,’’ NIST Handbook
150–10, April 2020, (referenced for
value of the total horsepower of a basic
model of dedicated-purpose pool pump guidance only, see § 429.3) present the
technical requirements of NVLAP for
motor must be the mean of the
the Efficiency of Electric Motors field of
dedicated-purpose pool pump motor
accreditation. This handbook
total horsepower for each tested unit in
supplements NIST Handbook 150,
the sample.
National Voluntary Laboratory
(2) Alternative efficiency
Accreditation Program ‘‘Procedures and
determination methods. In lieu of
General Requirements,’’ which contains
testing, the represented value of full15 CFR part 285 plus all general NIST/
load efficiency for a basic model of
NVLAP procedures, criteria, and
dedicated-purpose pool pump motor
policies. Information regarding NIST/
must be determined through the
application of an AEDM pursuant to the NVLAP and its Efficiency of Electric
Motors Program (EEM) can be obtained
requirements of § 429.70(k) and the
from NIST/NVLAP, 100 Bureau Drive,
provisions of this section, where:
Mail Stop 2140, Gaithersburg, MD
(i) The full-load efficiency of any
20899–2140, (301) 975–4016
basic model used to validate an AEDM
(telephone), or (301) 926–2884 (fax).
must be calculated under paragraph
■ 8. Amend § 429.70 by revising
(c)(1)(ii) of this section; and
paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs (j)
(ii) The represented value is the fulland (k) to read as follows:
load efficiency of a basic model of
dedicated-purpose pool pump motor
§ 429.70 Alternative methods for
and is to be used in marketing materials determining energy efficiency and energy
and all public representations, as the
use.
certified value of efficiency, and on the
(a) General. A manufacturer of
nameplate. (See § 431.485 of this
covered products or covered equipment
subchapter). Alternatively, a
explicitly authorized to use an AEDM in
manufacturer may make representations §§ 429.14 through 429.65 may not
using the nominal full-load efficiency of distribute any basic model of such
a basic model of dedicated-purpose pool product or equipment in commerce
pump motor provided that the
unless the manufacturer has determined
manufacturer uses the nominal full-load the energy consumption or energy
efficiency consistently on all marketing
efficiency of the basic model, either
materials, and as the value on the
from testing the basic model in
nameplate. Determine the nominal fullconjunction with DOE’s certification
load efficiency by selecting an efficiency sampling plans and statistics or from
from the ‘‘Nominal Full-load Efficiency’’ applying an alternative method for
table in appendix B to subpart B of this
determining energy efficiency or energy
part, that is no greater than the full-load use (i.e., AEDM) to the basic model, in
efficiency of the basic model as
accordance with the requirements of
calculated in § 429.65(c)(1)(ii).
this section. In instances where a
(d) Accredited laboratory. (1) Testing
manufacturer has tested a basic model
pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section to validate the AEDM, the represented
must be conducted in an accredited
value of energy consumption or
laboratory for which the accreditation
efficiency of that basic model must be
body was:
determined and certified according to
(i) The National Institute of Standards results from actual testing in
and Technology/National Voluntary
conjunction with 10 CFR part 429,
(iv) Minimum full-load efficiency: To
ensure quality control and consistency
of performance within the basic model,
the lowest full-load efficiency in the
sample Xmin, must satisfy the condition:
ER19OC22.005</GPH>
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
purpose pool pump motor basic model
through issuance of a certificate of
conformity for the basic model.
(c) Determination of represented
value. A manufacturer must determine
the represented value of full-load
efficiency (inclusive of the drive, if the
dedicated-purpose pool pump motor
basic model is placed into commerce
with a drive, or is unable to operate
without the presence of a drive) for each
basic model of dedicated-purpose pool
pump motor either by testing in
conjunction with the applicable
sampling provisions or by applying an
AEDM as set forth in this section and in
§ 429.70(k).
(1) Testing—(i) Units to be tested. If
the represented value for a given basic
model is determined through testing,
the requirements of § 429.11 apply
except that, for dedicated-purpose pool
pump motors, the minimum sample size
is five units. If fewer units than the
minimum sample size are produced,
each unit produced must be tested and
the test results must demonstrate that
the basic model performs at or better
than the applicable standard(s). If one or
more units of the basic model are
manufactured subsequently, compliance
with the default sampling and
representations provisions is required.
(ii) Full-load efficiency. Any value of
full-load efficiency must be lower than
or equal to the average of the sample x,
calculated as follows:
63649
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
63650
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
subpart B certification sampling plans
and statistics. In addition, a
manufacturer may not knowingly use an
AEDM to overrate the efficiency of a
basic model.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Alternative efficiency
determination method (AEDM) for
electric motors subject to requirements
in subpart B of part 431 of this
subchapter—(1) Criteria an AEDM must
satisfy. A manufacturer is not permitted
to apply an AEDM to a basic model of
electric motor to determine its efficiency
pursuant to this section unless:
(i) The AEDM is derived from a
mathematical model that estimates the
energy efficiency characteristics and
losses of the basic model as measured
by the applicable DOE test procedure
and accurately represents the
mechanical and electrical characteristics
of that basic model; and
(ii) The AEDM is based on
engineering or statistical analysis,
computer simulation or modeling, or
other analytic evaluation of actual
performance data.
(iii) The manufacturer has validated
the AEDM in accordance with
paragraph (i)(2) of this section with
basic models that meet the current
Federal energy conservation standards
(if any).
(2) Validation of an AEDM. Before
using an AEDM, the manufacturer must
validate the AEDM’s accuracy and
reliability by comparing the simulated
full-load losses to tested average fullload losses as follows.
(i) Select basic models. A
manufacturer must select at least five
basic models compliant with the energy
conservation standards at § 431.25 of
this subchapter (if any), in accordance
with the criteria paragraphs (i)(2)(i)(A)
through (D) of this section. In any
instance where it is impossible for a
manufacturer to select basic models for
testing in accordance with all of these
criteria, prioritize the criteria in the
order in which they are listed. Within
the limits imposed by the criteria, select
basic models randomly. In addition, a
basic model with a sample size of fewer
than five units may not be selected to
validate an AEDM.
(A) Two of the basic models must be
among the five basic models with the
highest unit volumes of production by
the manufacturer in the prior 5 years;
(B) No two basic models may have the
same horsepower rating;
(C) No two basic models may have the
same frame number series; and
(D) Each basic model must have the
lowest nominal full-load efficiency
among the basic models within the same
equipment class.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
(ii) Apply the AEDM to the selected
basic models. Using the AEDM,
calculate the simulated full-load losses
for each of the selected basic models as
follows: hp × (1/simulated full-load
efficiency¥1), where hp is the
horsepower of the basic model.
(iii) Test at least five units of each of
the selected basic models in accordance
with § 431.16 of this subchapter. Use the
measured full-load losses for each of the
tested units to determine the average of
the measured full-load losses for each of
the selected basic models.
(iv) Compare. The simulated full-load
losses for each basic model (as
determined under paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of
this section) must be greater than or
equal to 90 percent of the average of the
measured full-load losses (as
determined under paragraph (i)(2)(iii) of
this section) (i.e., 0.90 × average of the
measured full-load losses ≤ simulated
full-load losses).
(3) Verification of an AEDM. (i) Each
manufacturer must periodically select
basic models representative of those to
which it has applied an AEDM. The
manufacturer must select a sufficient
number of basic models to ensure the
AEDM maintains its accuracy and
reliability. For each basic model
selected for verification:
(A) Subject at least one unit for each
basic model to test in accordance with
§ 431.16 of this subchapter by an
accredited laboratory that meets the
requirements of § 429.65(f). If one unit
per basic model is selected, the
simulated full-load losses for each basic
model must be greater than or equal to
90 percent of the measured full-load
losses (i.e., 0.90 × the measured full-load
losses ≤ simulated full-load losses). If
more than one unit per basic model is
selected, the simulated full-load losses
for each basic model must be greater
than or equal to 90 percent of the
average of the measured full-load losses
(i.e., 0.90 × average of the measured fullload losses ≤ simulated full-load losses);
or
(B) Have a certification body
recognized under § 429.73 certify the
results of the AEDM as accurately
representing the basic model’s average
full-load efficiency. The simulated fullload efficiency for each basic model
must be greater than or equal to 90
percent of the certified full-load losses
(i.e., 0.90 × certified full-load losses ≤
simulated full-load losses).
(ii) Each manufacturer that has used
an AEDM under this section must have
available for inspection by the
Department of Energy records showing:
(A) The method or methods used to
develop the AEDM;
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(B) The mathematical model, the
engineering or statistical analysis,
computer simulation or modeling, and
other analytic evaluation of performance
data on which the AEDM is based;
(C) Complete test data, product
information, and related information
that the manufacturer has generated or
acquired pursuant to paragraphs (i)(2)
and (3) of this section; and
(D) The calculations used to
determine the simulated full-load
efficiency of each basic model to which
the AEDM was applied.
(iii) If requested by the Department,
the manufacturer must:
(A) Conduct simulations to predict
the performance of particular basic
models of electric motors specified by
the Department;
(B) Provide analyses of previous
simulations conducted by the
manufacturer; and/or
(C) Conduct testing of basic models
selected by the Department.
(k) Alternative efficiency
determination method (AEDM) for
dedicated-purpose pool pump motors
subject to requirements in subpart Z of
part 431 of this subchapter—(1) Criteria
an AEDM must satisfy. A manufacturer
is not permitted to apply an AEDM to
a basic model of dedicated-purpose pool
pump motors, to determine its
efficiency pursuant to this section
unless:
(i) The AEDM is derived from a
mathematical model that estimates the
energy efficiency characteristics and
losses of the basic model as measured
by the applicable DOE test procedure
and accurately represents the
mechanical and electrical characteristics
of that basic model;
(ii) The AEDM is based on
engineering or statistical analysis,
computer simulation or modeling, or
other analytic evaluation of actual
performance data; and
(iii) The manufacturer has validated
the AEDM in accordance with
paragraph (i)(2) of this section with
basic models that meet the current
Federal energy conservation standards
(if any).
(2) Validation of an AEDM. Before
using an AEDM, the manufacturer must
validate the AEDM’s accuracy and
reliability by comparing the simulated
full-load losses to tested full-load losses
as follows:
(i) Select basic models. A
manufacturer must select at least five
basic models compliant with any
relevant energy conservation standards
at § 431.485 of this subchapter (if any),
in accordance with the criteria
paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(A) through (D) of this
section. In any instance where it is
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
impossible for a manufacturer to select
basic models for testing in accordance
with all of these criteria, prioritize the
criteria in the order in which they are
listed. Within the limits imposed by the
criteria, select basic models randomly.
In addition, a basic model with a sample
size of fewer than five units may not be
selected to validate an AEDM.
(A) Two of the basic models must be
among the five basic models with the
highest unit volumes of production by
the manufacturer in the prior 5 years.
(B) No two basic models may have the
same total horsepower rating;
(C) No two basic models may have the
same speed configuration; and
(D) Each basic model must have the
lowest full-load efficiency among the
basic models within the same
equipment class.
(ii) Apply the AEDM to the selected
basic models. Using the AEDM,
calculate the simulated full-load losses
for each of the selected basic models as
follows: THP × (1/simulated full-load
efficiency¥1), where THP is the total
horsepower of the basic model.
(iii) Test at least five units of each of
the selected basic models in accordance
with § 431.483 of this subchapter. Use
the measured full-load losses for each of
the tested units to determine the average
of the measured full-load losses for each
of the selected basic models.
(iv) Compare. The simulated full-load
losses for each basic model (paragraph
(i)(2)(ii) of this section) must be greater
than or equal to 90 percent of the
average of the measured full-load losses
(paragraph (i)(2)(iii) of this section) (i.e.,
0.90 × average of the measured full-load
losses ≤ simulated full-load losses).
(3) Verification of an AEDM. (i) Each
manufacturer must periodically select
basic models representative of those to
which it has applied an AEDM. The
manufacturer must select a sufficient
number of basic models to ensure the
AEDM maintains its accuracy and
reliability. For each basic model
selected for verification:
(A) Subject at least one unit to testing
in accordance with § 431.483 of this
subchapter by an accredited laboratory
that meets the requirements of
§ 429.65(d). If one unit per basic model
is selected, the simulated full-load
losses for each basic model must be
greater than or equal to 90 percent of the
measured full-load losses (i.e., 0.90 × the
measured full-load losses ≤ simulated
full-load losses). If more than one unit
per basic model is selected, the
simulated full-load losses for each basic
model must be greater than or equal to
90 percent of the average measured fullload losses (i.e., 0.90 × average of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
measured full-load losses ≤ simulated
full-load losses); or
(B) Have a certification body
recognized under § 429.73 certify the
results of the AEDM accurately
represent the basic model’s full-load
efficiency. The simulated full-load
efficiency for each basic model must be
greater than or equal to 90 percent of the
certified full-load losses (i.e., 0.90 ×
certified full-load losses ≤ simulated
full-load losses).
(ii) Each manufacturer that has used
an AEDM under this section must have
available for inspection by the
Department of Energy records showing:
(A) The method or methods used to
develop the AEDM;
(B) The mathematical model, the
engineering or statistical analysis,
computer simulation or modeling, and
other analytic evaluation of performance
data on which the AEDM is based;
(C) Complete test data, product
information, and related information
that the manufacturer has generated or
acquired pursuant to paragraphs (i)(2)
and (3) of this section; and
(D) The calculations used to
determine the simulated full-load
efficiency of each basic model to which
the AEDM was applied.
(iii) If requested by the Department,
the manufacturer must:
(A) Conduct simulations to predict
the performance of particular basic
models of dedicated-purpose pool pump
motors specified by the Department;
(B) Provide analyses of previous
simulations conducted by the
manufacturer;
(C) Conduct testing of basic models
selected by the Department; or
(D) A combination of the foregoing.
■ 9. Add § 429.73 to subpart B to read
as follows:
§ 429.73 Department of Energy recognition
of nationally recognized certification
programs for electric motors, including
dedicated-purpose pool pump motors.
(a) Petition. For a certification
program to be classified by the
Department of Energy as being
nationally recognized in the United
States for the purposes of §§ 429.64 and
429.65, the organization operating the
program must submit a petition to the
Department requesting such
classification, in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section and
§ 429.75. The petition must demonstrate
that the program meets the criteria in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Evaluation criteria. For a
certification program to be classified by
the Department as nationally
recognized, it must meet the following
criteria:
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63651
(1) It must have satisfactory standards
and procedures for conducting and
administering a certification system,
including periodic follow up activities
to assure that basic models of electric
motors continue to conform to the
efficiency levels for which they were
certified, and for granting a certificate of
conformity;
(2) For certification of electric motors,
including dedicated-purpose pool pump
motors, it must be independent (as
defined at § 429.2) of electric motor
(including dedicated-purpose pool
pump motor) manufacturers, importers,
distributors, private labelers or vendors
for which it is providing certification;
(3) It must be qualified to operate a
certification system in a highly
competent manner; and
(4) In the case of electric motors
subject to requirements in subpart B of
part 431 of this subchapter, the
certification program must have
expertise in the content and application
of the test procedures at § 431.16 of this
subchapter and must apply the
provisions at §§ 429.64 and 429.70(j); or
(5) In the case of dedicated-purpose
pool pump motors subject to
requirements in subpart Z of part 431 of
this subchapter, the certification
program must have expertise in the
content and application of the test
procedures at § 431.484 of this
subchapter and must apply the
provisions at §§ 429.65 and 429.70(k).
(c) Petition format. Each petition
requesting classification as a nationally
recognized certification program must
contain a narrative statement as to why
the program meets the criteria listed in
paragraph (b) of this section, must be
signed on behalf of the organization
operating the program by an authorized
representative, and must be
accompanied by documentation that
supports the narrative statement. The
following provides additional guidance
as to the specific criteria:
(1) Standards and procedures. A copy
of the standards and procedures for
operating a certification system and for
granting a certificate of conformity
should accompany the petition.
(2) Independent status. The
petitioning organization must describe
how it is independent (as defined at
§ 429.2) from electric motor, including
dedicated-purpose pool pump motor
manufacturers, importers, distributors,
private labelers, vendors, and trade
associations.
(3) Qualifications to operate a
certification system. Experience in
operating a certification system should
be described and substantiated by
supporting documents within the
petition. Of particular relevance would
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
63652
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
be documentary evidence that
establishes experience in the
application of guidelines contained in
the ISO/IEC Guide 65, ‘‘General
requirements for bodies operating
product certification systems’’
(referenced for guidance only, see
§ 429.3), ISO/IEC Guide 27, ‘‘Guidelines
for corrective action to be taken by a
certification body in the event of either
misapplication of its mark of conformity
to a product, or products which bear the
mark of the certification body being
found to subject persons or property to
risk’’ (referenced for guidance only, see
§ 429.3), and ISO/IEC Guide 28,
‘‘General rules for a model third-party
certification system for products’’
(referenced for guidance only, see
§ 429.3), as well as experience in
overseeing compliance with the
guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC
Guide 25, ‘‘General requirements for the
competence of calibration and testing
laboratories’’ (referenced for guidance
only, see § 429.3).
(4) Expertise in test procedures—(i)
General. This part of the petition should
include items such as, but not limited
to, a description of prior projects and
qualifications of staff members. Of
particular relevance would be
documentary evidence that establishes
experience in applying guidelines
contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25,
‘‘General Requirements for the
Competence of Calibration and Testing
Laboratories’’ (referenced for guidance
only, see § 429.3), and with energy
efficiency testing of the equipment to be
certified.
(ii) Electric motors subject to
requirements in subpart B of part 431 of
this subchapter. The petition should set
forth the program’s experience with the
test procedures detailed in § 431.16 of
this subchapter and the provisions in
§§ 429.64 and 429.70(j).
(iii) Dedicated-purpose pool pump
motors subject to requirements in
subpart Z of part 431 of this subchapter.
The petition should set forth the
program’s experience with the test
procedures detailed in § 431.484 of this
subchapter and the provisions in
§§ 429.65 and 429.70(k).
(d) Disposition. The Department will
evaluate the petition in accordance with
§ 429.75, and will determine whether
the applicant meets the criteria in
paragraph (b) of this section for
classification as a nationally recognized
certification program.
(e) Periodic evaluation. Within one
year after publication of any final rule
regarding electric motors, a nationally
recognized certification program must
evaluate whether they meet the criteria
in paragraph (b) of this section and must
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
either submit a letter to DOE certifying
that no change to its program is needed
to continue to meet the criteria in
paragraph (b) or submit a letter
describing the measures implemented to
ensure the criteria in paragraph (b) are
met. A certification program will
continue to be classified by the
Department of Energy as being
nationally recognized in the United
States until DOE concludes otherwise.
■ 10. Add § 429.74 to subpart B to read
as follows:
§ 429.74 Department of Energy recognition
of accreditation bodies for electric motors,
including dedicated-purpose pool pump
motors.
(a) Petition. To be classified by the
Department of Energy as an
accreditation body, an organization
must submit a petition to the
Department requesting such
classification, in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section and
§ 429.75. The petition must demonstrate
that the organization meets the criteria
in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Evaluation criteria. To be
classified as an accreditation body by
the Department, the organization must
meet the following criteria:
(1) It must have satisfactory standards
and procedures for conducting and
administering an accreditation system
and for granting accreditation. This
must include provisions for periodic
audits to verify that the laboratories
receiving its accreditation continue to
conform to the criteria by which they
were initially accredited, and for
withdrawal of accreditation where such
conformance does not occur, including
failure to provide accurate test results.
(2) It must be independent (as defined
at § 429.2) of electric motor
manufacturers, importers, distributors,
private labelers or vendors for which it
is providing accreditation.
(3) It must be qualified to perform the
accrediting function in a highly
competent manner.
(4)(i) In the case of electric motors
subject to requirements in subpart B of
part 431 of this subchapter, the
organization must be an expert in the
content and application of the test
procedures and methodologies at
§ 431.16 of this subchapter and § 429.64.
(ii) In the case of dedicated-purpose
pool pump motors subject to
requirements in subpart Z of part 431 of
this subchapter, the organization must
be an expert in the content and
application of the test procedures and
methodologies at § 431.484 of this
subchapter and § 429.65.
(c) Petition format. Each petition
requesting classification as an
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
accreditation body must contain a
narrative statement as to why the
program meets the criteria set forth in
paragraph (b) of this section, must be
signed on behalf of the organization
operating the program by an authorized
representative, and must be
accompanied by documentation that
supports the narrative statement. The
following provides additional guidance:
(1) Standards and procedures. A copy
of the organization’s standards and
procedures for operating an
accreditation system and for granting
accreditation should accompany the
petition.
(2) Independent status. The
petitioning organization must describe
how it is independent (as defined at
§ 429.2) from electric motor
manufacturers, importers, distributors,
private labelers, vendors, and trade
associations.
(3) Qualifications to do accrediting.
Experience in accrediting should be
discussed and substantiated by
supporting documents. Of particular
relevance would be documentary
evidence that establishes experience in
the application of guidelines contained
in the ISO/IEC Guide 58, ‘‘Calibration
and testing laboratory accreditation
systems—General requirements for
operation and recognition’’ (referenced
for guidance only, see § 429.3), as well
as experience in overseeing compliance
with the guidelines contained in the
ISO/IEC Guide 25, ‘‘General
Requirements for the Competence of
Calibration and Testing Laboratories’’
(referenced for guidance only, see
§ 429.3).
(4) Expertise in test procedures. The
petition should set forth the
organization’s experience with the test
procedures and methodologies test
procedures and methodologies at
§ 431.16 of this subchapter and § 429.64.
This part of the petition should include
items such as, but not limited to, a
description of prior projects and
qualifications of staff members. Of
particular relevance would be
documentary evidence that establishes
experience in applying the guidelines
contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25,
‘‘General Requirements for the
Competence of Calibration and Testing
Laboratories,’’ (referenced for guidance
only, see § 429.3) to energy efficiency
testing for electric motors.
(d) Disposition. The Department will
evaluate the petition in accordance with
§ 429.75, and will determine whether
the applicant meets the criteria in
paragraph (b) of this section for
classification as an accrediting body.
■ 11. Add § 429.75 to subpart B to read
as follows:
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
§ 429.75 Procedures for recognition and
withdrawal of recognition of accreditation
bodies or certification programs.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
(a) Filing of petition. Any petition
submitted to the Department pursuant
to § 429.73(a) or § 429.74(a), shall be
entitled ‘‘Petition for Recognition’’
(‘‘Petition’’) and must be submitted to
the Department of Energy, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Building Technologies Office,
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, EE–5B, 1000 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–
0121, or via email (preferred submittal
method) to AS_Motor_Petitions@
ee.doe.gov. In accordance with the
provisions set forth in 10 CFR 1004.11,
any request for confidential treatment of
any information contained in such a
Petition or in supporting documentation
must be accompanied by a copy of the
Petition or supporting documentation
from which the information claimed to
be confidential has been deleted.
(b) Public notice and solicitation of
comments. DOE shall publish in the
Federal Register the Petition from
which confidential information, as
determined by DOE, has been deleted in
accordance with 10 CFR 1004.11 and
shall solicit comments, data and
information on whether the Petition
should be granted. The Department
shall also make available for inspection
and copying the Petition’s supporting
documentation from which confidential
information, as determined by DOE, has
been deleted in accordance with 10 CFR
1004.11. Any person submitting written
comments to DOE with respect to a
Petition shall also send a copy of such
comments to the petitioner.
(c) Responsive statement by the
petitioner. A petitioner may, within 10
working days of receipt of a copy of any
comments submitted in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section, respond to
such comments in a written statement
99.0
98.9
98.8
98.7
98.6
98.5
98.4
98.2
98
97.8
97.6
97.4
97.1
96.8
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
submitted to the Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy. A petitioner may address more
than one set of comments in a single
responsive statement.
(d) Public announcement of interim
determination and solicitation of
comments. The Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy shall issue an interim
determination on the Petition as soon as
is practicable following receipt and
review of the Petition and other
applicable documents, including, but
not limited to, comments and responses
to comments. The petitioner shall be
notified in writing of the interim
determination. DOE shall also publish
in the Federal Register the interim
determination and shall solicit
comments, data, and information with
respect to that interim determination.
Written comments and responsive
statements may be submitted as
provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section.
(e) Public announcement of final
determination. The Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy shall as soon as practicable,
following receipt and review of
comments and responsive statements on
the interim determination, publish in
the Federal Register notification of final
determination on the Petition.
(f) Additional information. The
Department may, at any time during the
recognition process, request additional
relevant information or conduct an
investigation concerning the Petition.
The Department’s determination on a
Petition may be based solely on the
Petition and supporting documents, or
may also be based on such additional
information as the Department deems
appropriate.
(g) Withdrawal of recognition—(1)
Withdrawal by the Department. If DOE
believes that an accreditation body or
96.5
96.2
95.8
95.4
95
94.5
94.1
93.6
93
92.4
91.7
91
90.2
89.5
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
88.5
87.5
86.5
85.5
84
82.5
81.5
80
78.5
77
75.5
74
72
70
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63653
certification program that has been
recognized under § 429.73 or § 429.74,
respectively, is failing to meet the
criteria of paragraph (b) of the section
under which it is recognized, or if the
certification program fails to meet the
provisions at § 429.73(e), the
Department will issue a Notice of
Withdrawal (‘‘Notice’’) to inform such
entity and request that it take
appropriate corrective action(s)
specified in the Notice. The Department
will give the entity an opportunity to
respond. In no case shall the time
allowed for corrective action exceed 180
days from the date of the notice
(inclusive of the 30 days allowed for
disputing the bases for DOE’s
notification of withdrawal). If the entity
wishes to dispute any bases identified
in the Notice, the entity must respond
to DOE within 30 days of receipt of the
Notice. If after receiving such response,
or no response, the Department believes
satisfactory correction has not been
made, the Department will withdraw its
recognition from that entity.
(2) Voluntary withdrawal. An
accreditation body or certification
program may withdraw itself from
recognition by the Department by
advising the Department in writing of
such withdrawal. It must also advise
those that use it (for an accreditation
body, the testing laboratories, and for a
certification organization, the
manufacturers) of such withdrawal.
(3) Notice of withdrawal of
recognition. The Department will
publish in the Federal Register
notification of any withdrawal of
recognition that occurs pursuant to this
paragraph.
■ 12. Add appendix B to subpart B of
part 429 to read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 429—
Nominal Full-Load Efficiency Table for
Electric Motors
68
66
64
62
59.5
57.5
55
52.5
50.5
48
46
43.5
41
38.5
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
36.5
34.5
19OCR2
63654
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
13. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
14. Section 431.12 is amended by:
a. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Airover electric motor’’, ‘‘Basic model’’,
‘‘Definite purpose electric motor’’,
‘‘Definite purpose motor’’, ‘‘Electric
motor with encapsulated windings’’,
‘‘Electric motor with moisture resistant
windings’’, and ‘‘Electric motor with
sealed windings’’;
■ b. Adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ‘‘Equipment class’’;
■ c. Revising the definitions of ‘‘General
purpose electric motor’’, ‘‘General
purpose electric motor (subtype I)’’,
‘‘General purpose electric motor
(subtype II)’’, and ‘‘IEC Design H
motor’’;
■ d. Adding in alphabetical order
definitions for ‘‘IEC Design HE’’, ‘‘IEC
Design HEY’’, and ‘‘IEC Design HY’’;
■ e. Revising the definition of ‘‘IEC
Design N motor’’;
■ f. Adding in alphabetical order
definitions for ‘‘IEC Design NE’’, ‘‘IEC
Design NEY’’, and ‘‘IEC Design NY’’;
■ g. Adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ‘‘Inverter’’;
■ h. Revising the definitions of
‘‘Inverter-capable electric motor’’,
‘‘Inverter-only electric motor’’, ‘‘Liquidcooled electric motor’’, ‘‘NEMA Design
A motor’’, ‘‘NEMA Design B motor’’,
‘‘NEMA Design C motor’’, and ‘‘Nominal
full-load efficiency’’; and
■ i. Adding in alphabetical order
definitions for ‘‘Rated frequency’’,
‘‘Rated load’’, and ‘‘Rated voltage.’’
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 431.12
Definitions.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
*
*
*
*
*
Air-over electric motor means an
electric motor that does not reach
thermal equilibrium (i.e., thermal
stability), during a rated load
temperature test according to section 2
of appendix B, without the application
of forced cooling by a free flow of air
from an external device not
mechanically connected to the motor
within the motor enclosure.
*
*
*
*
*
Basic model means all units of
electric motors manufactured by a single
manufacturer, that are within the same
equipment class, have electrical
characteristics that are essentially
identical, and do not have any differing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
physical or functional characteristics
that affect energy consumption or
efficiency.
*
*
*
*
*
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 MG 1–
2016, Paragraph 14.3, ‘‘Unusual Service
Conditions,’’ (incorporated by reference,
see § 431.15); or
(2) For use on a particular type of
application.
Definite purpose 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 MG 1–
2016, 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 1–2016, 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 1–2016,
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–
2016, paragraph 12.62 (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.15).
*
*
*
*
*
Equipment class means one of the
combinations of an electric motor’s
horsepower (or standard kilowatt
equivalent), number of poles, and open
or enclosed construction, with respect
to a category of electric motor for which
§ 431.25 prescribes nominal full-load
efficiency standards.
*
*
*
*
*
General purpose electric motor means
any electric motor that is designed in
standard ratings with either:
(1) Standard operating characteristics
and mechanical construction for use
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
under usual service conditions, such as
those specified in NEMA MG 1–2016,
paragraph 14.2, ‘‘Usual Service
Conditions,’’ (incorporated by reference,
see § 431.15) and without restriction to
a particular application or type of
application; or
(2) Standard operating characteristics
or standard mechanical construction for
use under unusual service conditions,
such as those specified in NEMA MG 1–
2016, paragraph 14.3, ‘‘Unusual Service
Conditions,’’ (incorporated by reference,
see § 431.15) or for a particular type of
application, and which can be used in
most general purpose applications.
General purpose electric motor
(subtype I) means a general purpose
electric motor that:
(1) Is a single-speed, induction motor;
(2) Is rated for continuous duty (MG1)
operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);
(3) Contains a squirrel-cage (MG1) or
cage (IEC) rotor;
(4) Has foot-mounting that may
include foot-mounting with flanges or
detachable feet;
(5) Is built in accordance with NEMA
T-frame dimensions or their IEC metric
equivalents, including a frame size that
is between two consecutive NEMA
frame sizes or their IEC metric
equivalents;
(6) Has performance in accordance
with NEMA Design A (MG1) or B (MG1)
characteristics or equivalent designs
such as IEC Design N (IEC);
(7) Operates on polyphase alternating
current 60-hertz sinusoidal power, and:
(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
(8) Includes, but is not limited to,
explosion-proof construction.
Note 1 to definition of ‘‘General
purpose electric motor (subtype I)’’:
References to ‘‘MG1’’ above refer to
NEMA Standards Publication MG 1–
2016 (incorporated by reference in
§ 431.15). References to ‘‘IEC’’ above
refer to IEC 60034–1, 60034–12:2016,
60050–411, and 60072–1 (incorporated
by reference in § 431.15), as applicable.
General purpose electric motor
(subtype II) means any general purpose
electric motor that incorporates design
elements of a general purpose electric
motor (subtype I) but, unlike a general
purpose electric motor (subtype I), is
configured in one or more of the
following ways:
(1) Is built in accordance with NEMA
U-frame dimensions as described in
NEMA MG 1–1967 (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.15) or in accordance
with the IEC metric equivalents,
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
including a frame size that is between
two consecutive NEMA frame sizes or
their IEC metric equivalents;
(2) Has performance in accordance
with NEMA Design C characteristics as
described in MG1 or an equivalent IEC
design(s) such as IEC Design H;
(3) Is a close-coupled pump motor;
(4) Is a footless motor;
(5) Is a vertical solid shaft normal
thrust motor (as tested in a horizontal
configuration) built and designed in a
manner consistent with MG1;
(6) Is an eight-pole motor (900 rpm);
or
(7) Is a polyphase motor with a
voltage rating of not more than 600
volts, is not rated at 230 or 460 volts (or
both), and cannot be operated on 230 or
460 volts (or both).
Note 2 to definition of ‘‘General
purpose electric motor (subtype II)’’:
With the exception of the NEMA Motor
Standards MG1–1967 (incorporated by
reference in § 431.15), references to
‘‘MG1’’ above refer to NEMA MG 1–
2016 (incorporated by reference in
§ 431.15). References to ‘‘IEC’’ above
refer to IEC 60034–1, 60034–12, 60050–
411, and 60072–1 (incorporated by
reference in § 431.15), as applicable.
*
*
*
*
*
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 0.12 kW to 160 kW
at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to Sections 9.1, 9.2, and
9.3 of the IEC 60034–12:2016
(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15)
specifications for starting torque, locked
rotor apparent power, and starting
requirements, respectively.
IEC Design HE 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 0.12 kW to 160 kW
at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to section 9.1, Table 3,
and Section 9.3 of the IEC 60034–
12:2016 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.15) specifications for starting
torque, locked rotor apparent power,
and starting requirements, respectively.
IEC Design HEY means an electric
motor that:
(1) Is an induction motor designed for
use with three-phase power;
(2) Contains a cage rotor;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
(3) Is capable of star-delta starting;
(4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 160 kW
at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to section 5.7, Table 3
and Section 9.3 of the IEC 60034–
12:2016 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.15) specifications for starting
torque, locked rotor apparent power,
and starting requirements, respectively.
IEC Design HY 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 star-delta starting;
(4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 160 kW
at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to section 5.7, Table 3
and Section 9.3 of the IEC 60034–
12;2016 (incorporated by reference , see
§ 431.15) specification for starting
torque, locked rotor apparent power,
and starting requirements, respectively.
IEC Design HY 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 star-delta starting;
(4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 160 kW
at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to Section 5.7, Section
9.2 and Section 9.3 of the IEC 60034–
12:2016 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.15) specifications for starting
torque, locked rotor apparent power,
and starting requirements, respectively.
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 0.12 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 60034–12:2016
(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15)
specifications for torque characteristics,
locked rotor apparent power, and
starting requirements, respectively. If a
motor has an increased safety
designation of type ‘‘e,’’, the locked
rotor apparent power shall be in
accordance with the appropriate values
specified in IEC 60079–7:2015
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.15).
IEC Design NE 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;
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63655
(4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 1600 kW
at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to section 6.1, Table 3
and Section 6.3 of the IEC 60034–
12:2016 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.15) specifications for starting
torque, locked rotor apparent power,
and starting requirements, respectively.
IEC Design NEY 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 star-delta starting;
(4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 1600 kW
at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to section 5.4, Table 3
and Section 6.3 of the IEC 60034–
12:2016 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.15) specifications for starting
torque, locked rotor apparent power,
and starting requirements, respectively.
IEC Design NY 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 star-delta starting;
(4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 1600 kW
at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to Section 5.4, Section
6.2 and Section 6.3 of the IEC 60034–
12:2016 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.15) specifications for starting
torque, locked rotor apparent power,
and starting requirements, respectively.
*
*
*
*
*
Inverter means an electronic device
that converts an input AC or DC power
into a controlled output AC or DC
voltage or current. An inverter may also
be called a converter.
Inverter-capable electric motor means
an electric motor designed for direct
online starting and is suitable for
operation on an inverter without special
filtering.
Inverter-only electric motor means an
electric motor designed specifically for
operation fed by an inverter with a
temperature rise within the specified
insulation thermal class or thermal
limits.
*
*
*
*
*
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 but is not
submerged in a liquid during operation.
*
*
*
*
*
NEMA Design A motor means a
squirrel-cage motor that:
(1) Is designed to withstand fullvoltage starting and developing locked-
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
63656
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
rotor torque as shown in NEMA MG 1–
2016, paragraph 12.38.1 (incorporated
by reference, see § 431.15);
(2) Has pull-up torque not less than
the values shown in NEMA MG 1–2016,
paragraph 12.40.1;
(3) Has breakdown torque not less
than the values shown in NEMA MG 1–
2016, paragraph 12.39.1;
(4) Has a locked-rotor current higher
than the values shown in NEMA MG 1–
2016, Paragraph 12.35.2 for 60 hertz and
NEMA MG 1–2016, Paragraph 12.35.4
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 B motor means a
squirrel-cage motor that is:
(1) Designed to withstand full-voltage
starting;
(2) Develops locked-rotor, breakdown,
and pull-up torques adequate for general
application as specified in Sections
12.38, 12.39 and 12.40 of NEMA MG 1–
2016 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.15);
(3) Draws locked-rotor current not to
exceed the values shown in Section
12.35.2 for 60 hertz and 12.35.4 for 50
hertz of NEMA MG 1–2016; and
(4) Has a slip at rated load of less than
5 percent for motors with fewer than 10
poles.
NEMA Design C motor means a
squirrel-cage motor that:
(1) Is designed to withstand fullvoltage starting and developing lockedrotor torque for high-torque applications
up to the values shown in NEMA MG
1–2016, paragraph 12.38.2 (incorporated
by reference, see § 431.15);
(2) Has pull-up torque not less than
the values shown in NEMA MG 1–2016,
paragraph 12.40.2;
(3) Has breakdown torque not less
than the values shown in NEMA MG 1–
2016, paragraph 12.39.2;
(4) Has a locked-rotor current not to
exceed the values shown in NEMA MG
1–2016, paragraphs 12.35.2 for 60 hertz
and 12.35.4 for 50 hertz; and
(5) Has a slip at rated load of less than
5 percent.
Nominal full-load efficiency means,
with respect to an electric motor, a
representative value of efficiency
selected from the ‘‘nominal efficiency’’
column of Table 12–10, NEMA MG 1–
2016, (incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.15), that is not greater than the
average full-load efficiency of a
population of motors of the same
design.
*
*
*
*
*
Rated frequency means 60 Hz and
corresponds to the frequency of the
electricity supplied either:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
(1) Directly to the motor, in the case
of electric motors capable of operating
without an inverter; or
(2) To the inverter in the case on
inverter-only electric motors.
Rated load (or full-load, full rated
load, or rated full-load) means the rated
output power of an electric motor.
Rated voltage means the input voltage
of a motor or inverter used when
making representations of the
performance characteristics of a given
electric motor and selected by the
motor’s manufacturer to be used for
testing the motor’s efficiency.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 431.14
[Removed and Reserved]
15. Remove and reserve § 431.14.
■ 16. Section 431.15 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b);
■ b. Removing the text ‘‘, + 41 22 919
02 11, or go to https://webstore.iec.ch’’
and adding in its place the text ‘‘; + 41
22 919 02 11; webstore.iec.ch’’ in
paragraph (c) introductory text;
■ c. Revising paragraphs (c)(3), (4), and
(7);
■ d. Adding paragraphs (c)(8) and (9);
and
■ e. Revising paragraphs (d) through (f).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
§ 431.15 Materials incorporated by
reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by
reference into this subpart with the
approval of the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce
any edition other than that specified in
this section, the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) must publish a document
in the Federal Register and the material
must be available to the public. All
approved incorporation by reference
(IBR) material is available for inspection
at DOE and at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA).
Contact DOE at: the U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950
L’Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC
20024, (202) 586–9127, Buildings@
ee.doe.gov, https://www.energy.gov/
eere/buildings/building-technologiesoffice. For information on the
availability of this material at NARA,
email: fr.inspection@nara.gov, or go to:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/
ibr-locations.html. The material may be
obtained from the sources in the
following paragraphs:
(b) CSA. Canadian Standards
Association, Sales Department, 5060
Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga,
Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada; (800) 463–
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
6727; www.shopcsa.ca/onlinestore/
welcome.asp.
(1) CSA C390–10 (reaffirmed 2019),
(‘‘CSA C390–10’’), Test methods,
marking requirements, and energy
efficiency levels for three-phase
induction motors, including Updates
No. 1 through 3, Revised January 2020;
IBR approved for § 431.12 and appendix
B to this subpart.
(2) CSA C747–09 (reaffirmed 2019)
(‘‘CSA C747–09’’), Energy efficiency test
methods for small motors, including
Update No. 1 (August 2016), October
2009; IBR approved for appendix B to
this subpart.
(c) * * *
(3) IEC 60034–2–1:2014, Rotating
electrical machines—Part 2–1: Standard
methods for determining losses and
efficiency from tests (excluding
machines for traction vehicles), Edition
2.0, 2014–06; IBR approved for § 431.12
and appendix B to this subpart.
(4) IEC 60034–12:2016, Rotating
electrical machines, Part 12: Starting
performance of single-speed three-phase
cage induction motors, Edition 3.0,
2016–11; IBR approved for § 431.12.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) IEC 60072–1, Dimensions and
Output Series for Rotating Electrical
Machines—Part 1: Frame numbers 56 to
400 and flange numbers 55 to 1080,
Sixth edition, 1991–02; IBR approved as
follows: clauses 2, 3, 4.1, 6.1, 7, and 10,
and Tables 1, 2 and 4; IBR approved for
§ 431.12 and appendix B to this subpart.
(8) IEC 60079–7:2015, Explosive
atmospheres—Part 7: Equipment
protection by increased safety ‘‘e’’,
Edition 5.0, 2015–06; IBR approved for
§ 431.12.
(9) IEC 61800–9–2:2017, Adjustable
speed electrical power drive systems—
Part 9–2: Ecodesign for power drive
systems, motor starters, power
electronics and their driven
applications—Energy efficiency
indicators for power drive systems and
motor starters, Edition 1.0, 2017–03; IBR
approved for appendix B to this subpart.
(d) IEEE. Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445 Hoes
Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ
08855–1331; (800) 678–IEEE (4333);
www.ieee.org/web/publications/home/
index.html.
(1) IEEE Std 112–2017 (‘‘IEEE 112–
2017’’), IEEE Standard Test Procedure
for Polyphase Induction Motors and
Generators, approved December 6, 2017;
IBR approved for § 431.12 and appendix
B to this subpart.
(2) IEEE Std 114–2010 (‘‘IEEE 114–
2010’’), Test Procedure for Single-Phase
Induction Motors, December 23, 2010;
IBR approved for appendix B to this
subpart.
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
(e) NEMA. National Electrical
Manufacturers Association, 1300 North
17th Street, Suite 1752, Rosslyn,
Virginia 22209; (703) 841–3200;
www.nema.org/.
(1) ANSI/NEMA MG 1–2016 (Revision
1, 2018) (‘‘NEMA MG 1–2016’’), Motors
and Generators, ANSI-approved June
15, 2021; IBR approved for § 431.12 and
appendix B to this subpart.
(2) NEMA Standards Publication
MG1–1967 (‘‘NEMA MG1–1967’’),
Motors and Generators, January 1968; as
follows:
(i) Part 11, Dimension; IBR approved
for § 431.12.
(ii) Part 13, Frame Assignments—A–C
Integral-Horsepower Motors; IBR
approved for § 431.12.
(f) NFPA. National Fire Protection
Association, 1 Batterymarch Park,
Quincy, MA 02169–7471; (617) 770–
3000; www.nfpa.org/.
(1) NFPA 20, Standard for the
Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire
Protection, 2022 Edition, ANSIapproved April 8, 2021. IBR approved
for § 431.12.
(2) [Reserved]
§ 431.17
[Removed and Reserved]
17. Remove and reserve § 431.17.
■ 18. Section 431.18 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 431.18
Testing laboratories.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) NIST/NVLAP is under the
auspices of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)/
National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NVLAP), which
is part of the U.S. Department of
Commerce. NIST/NVLAP accreditation
is granted on the basis of conformance
with criteria published in 15 CFR part
285. The National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program, ‘‘Procedures and
General Requirements,’’ NIST Handbook
150–10, April 2020, (referenced for
guidance only, see § 429.3 of this
subchapter) present the technical
requirements of NVLAP for the
Efficiency of Electric Motors field of
accreditation. This handbook
supplements NIST Handbook 150,
National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program ‘‘Procedures and
General Requirements,’’ which contains
15 CFR part 285 plus all general NIST/
NVLAP procedures, criteria, and
policies. Information regarding NIST/
NVLAP and its Efficiency of Electric
Motors Program (EEM) can be obtained
from NIST/NVLAP, 100 Bureau Drive,
Mail Stop 2140, Gaithersburg, MD
20899–2140, (301) 975–4016
(telephone), or (301) 926–2884 (fax).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
§ § 431.19 through 431.21
[Removed]
19. Remove §§ 431.19 through 431.21.
■ 20. Section 431.25 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (g)(9);
■ b. Revising paragraph (h) introductory
text and the table 5 heading; and
■ c. Revising paragraph (i) introductory
text and the table 6 heading.
The revisions read as follows:
■
§ 431.25 Energy conservation standards
and compliance dates.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(9) Meet all of the performance
requirements of one of the following
motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or
C motor or an IEC Design N, NE, NEY,
NY or H, HE, HEY, HY motor.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Starting on June 1, 2016, each
NEMA Design A motor, NEMA Design
B motor, and IEC Design N (including
NE, NEY, or NY variants) motor that is
an electric motor meeting the criteria in
paragraph (g) of this section and with a
power rating from 1 horsepower through
500 horsepower, but excluding fire
pump electric motors, manufactured
(alone or as a component of another
piece of equipment) shall have a
nominal full-load efficiency of not less
than the following:
Table 5 to Paragraph (h)—Nominal
Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design
A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N,
NE, NEY or NY Motors (Excluding Fire
Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Starting on June 1, 2016, each
NEMA Design C motor and IEC Design
H (including HE, HEY, or HY variants)
motor that is an electric motor meeting
the criteria in paragraph (g) of this
section and with a power rating from 1
horsepower through 200 horsepower
manufactured (alone or as a component
of another piece of equipment) shall
have a nominal full-load efficiency that
is not less than the following:
Table 6 to Paragraph (i)—Nominal FullLoad Efficiencies of NEMA Design C
and IEC Design H, HE, HEY or HY
Motors at 60 Hz
*
*
*
*
*
20. Appendix B to subpart B of part
431 is revised to read as follows:
■
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431—
Uniform Test Method for Measuring the
Efficiency of Electric Motors
Note: Manufacturers of electric motors
subject to energy conservation standards in
§ 431.25 must test in accordance with this
appendix.
For any other electric motor that is not
currently covered by the energy conservation
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63657
standards at § 431.25, manufacturers of this
equipment must test in accordance with this
appendix 180 days after the effective date of
the final rule adopting energy conservation
standards for such motor. For any other
electric motor that is not currently covered
by the energy conservation standards at
§ 431.25, manufacturers choosing to make
any representations respecting of energy
efficiency for such motors must test in
accordance with this appendix.
0. Incorporation by Reference
In § 431.15, DOE incorporated by reference
the entire standard for CSA C390–10, CSA
C747–09, IEC 60034–1:2010, IEC 60034–2–
1:2014, IEC 60051–1:2016, IEC 61800–9–
2:2017, IEEE 112–2017, IEEE 114–2010, and
NEMA MG 1–2016; however, only
enumerated provisions of those documents
are applicable as follows. In cases where
there is a conflict, the language of this
appendix takes precedence over those
documents. Any subsequent amendment to a
referenced document by the standard-setting
organization will not affect the test procedure
in this appendix, unless and until the test
procedure is amended by DOE.
0.1. CSA C390–10
(a) Section 1.3 ‘‘Scope,’’ as specified in
sections 2.1.1 and 2.3.3.2 of this appendix;
(b) Section 3.1 ‘‘Definitions,’’ as specified
in sections 2.1.1 and 2.3.3.2 of this appendix;
(c) Section 5 ‘‘General test requirements—
Measurements,’’ as specified in sections 2.1.1
and 2.3.3.2 of this appendix;
(d) Section 7 ‘‘Test method,’’ as specified
in sections 2.1.1 and 2.3.3.2 of this appendix;
(e) Table 1 ‘‘Resistance measurement time
delay,’’ as specified in sections 2.1.1 and
2.3.3.2 of this appendix;
(f) Annex B ‘‘Linear regression analysis,’’
as specified in sections 2.1.1 and 2.3.3.2 of
this appendix; and
(g) Annex C ‘‘Procedure for correction of
dynamometer torque readings’’ as specified
in sections 2.1.1 and 2.3.3.2 of this appendix.
0.2. CSA C747–09
(a) Section 1.6 ‘‘Scope’’ as specified in
sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.2.2 of this appendix;
(b) Section 3 ‘‘Definitions’’ as specified in
sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.2.2 of this appendix;
(c) Section 5 ‘‘General test requirements’’
as specified in sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.2.2 of
this appendix; and
(d) Section 6 ‘‘Test method’’ as specified in
sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.2.2 of this appendix.
0.3. IEC 60034–1:2010
(a) Section 4.2.1 as specified in section 1.2
of this appendix;
(b) Section 7.2 as specified in sections
2.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.3, and 2.3.3.3 of this
appendix;
(c) Section 8.6.2.3.3 as specified in sections
2.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.3, and 2.3.3.3 of this
appendix; and
(d) Table 5 as specified in sections 2.1.2,
2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.3, and 2.3.3.3 of this appendix.
0.4. IEC 60034–2–1:2014
(a) Method 2–1–1A (which also includes
paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section) as
specified in sections 2.3.1.3 and 2.3.2.3 of
this appendix;
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63658
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
(b) Method 2–1–1B (which also includes
paragraphs (b) through (e), (g), and (i) of this
section) as specified in sections 2.1.2 and
2.3.3.3 of this appendix;
(c) Section 3 ‘‘Terms and definitions’’ as
specified in sections 2.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.3,
2.3.3.3, and 2.4.1 of this appendix;
(d) Section 4 ‘‘Symbols and abbreviations’’
as specified in sections 2.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.3,
2.3.3.3 and 2.4.1 of this appendix;
(e) Section 5 ‘‘Basic requirements’’ as
specified in sections 2.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.3,
2.3.3.3, and 2.4.1 of this appendix;
(f) Section 6.1.2 ‘‘Method 2–1–1A—Direct
measurement of input and output’’ (except
Section 6.1.2.2, ‘‘Test Procedure’’) as
specified in sections 2.3.1.3 and 2.3.2.3 of
this appendix;
(g) Section 6.1.3 ‘‘Method 2–1–1B—
Summations of losses, additional load losses
according to the method of residual losses’’
as specified in sections 2.1.2 and 2.3.3.3 of
this appendix; and
(h) Section 7.1. ‘‘Preferred Testing
Methods’’ as specified in section 2.4.1 of this
appendix;
(i) Annex D, ‘‘Test report template for 2–
1–1B’’ as specified in sections 2.1.2 and
2.3.3.3 of this appendix.
0.5. IEC 60051–1:2016
(a) Section 5.2 as specified in sections
2.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.3, and 2.3.3.3 of this
appendix; and
(b) [Reserved].
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
0.6. IEC 61800–9–2:2017
(a) Section 3 ‘‘Terms, definitions, symbols,
and abbreviated terms’’ as specified in
sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of this appendix;
(b) Section 7.7.2, ‘‘Input-output
measurement of PDS losses’’ as specified in
sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of this appendix;
(c) Section 7.7.3.1, ‘‘General’’ as specified
in sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of this appendix;
(d) Section 7.7.3.2. ‘‘Power analyser and
transducers’’ as specified in sections 2.4.2
and 2.4.3 of this appendix;
(e) Section 7.7.3.3, ‘‘Mechanical Output of
the motor’’ as specified in sections 2.4.2 and
2.4.3 of this appendix;
(f) Section 7.7.3.5, ‘‘PDS loss determination
according to input-output method’’ as
specified in sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of this
appendix;
(g) Section 7.10 ‘‘Testing Conditions for
PDS testing’’ as specified in sections 2.4.2
and 2.4.3 of this appendix.
0.7. IEEE 112–2017
(a) Test Method A (which also includes
paragraphs (c) through (g), (i), and (j) of this
section) as specified in section 2.3.2.1 of this
appendix;
(b) Test Method B (which also includes
paragraphs (c) through (f), (h), (k) and (l) of
this section) as specified in sections 2.1.3 and
2.3.3.1 of this appendix;
(c) Section 3, ‘‘General’’ as specified in
sections 2.1.3, 2.3.2.1, and 2.3.3.1 of this
appendix;
(d) Section 4, ‘‘Measurements’’ as specified
in sections 2.1.3, 2.3.2.1, and 2.3.3.1 of this
appendix;
(e) Section 5, ‘‘Machine losses and tests for
losses’’ as specified in sections 2.1.3, 2.3.2.1,
and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
(f) Section 6.1, ‘‘General’’ as specified in
sections 2.1.3, 2.3.2.1, and 2.3.3.1 of this
appendix;
(g) Section 6.3, ‘‘Efficiency test method A—
Input-output’’ as specified in section 2.3.2.1
of this appendix;
(h) Section 6.4, ‘‘Efficiency test method B—
Input-output’’ as specified in sections 2.1.3
and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix;
(i) Section 9.2, ‘‘Form A—Method A’’ as
specified in section 2.3.2.1 of this appendix;
(j) Section 9.3, ‘‘Form A2—Method A
calculations’’ as specified in section 2.3.2.1
of this appendix;
(k) Section 9.4, ‘‘Form B—Method B’’ as
specified in sections 2.1.3, and 2.3.3.1 of this
appendix; and
(l) Section 9.5, ‘‘Form B2—Method B
calculations’’ as specified in sections 2.1.3
and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix.
0.8. IEEE 114–2010
(a) Section 3.2, ‘‘Test with load’’ as
specified in section 2.3.1.1 of this appendix;
(b) Section 4, ‘‘Testing Facilities as
specified in section 2.3.1.1 of this appendix;
(c) Section 5, ‘‘Measurements’’ as specified
in section 2.3.1.1 of this appendix;
(d) Section 6, ‘‘General’’ as specified in
section 2.3.1.1 of this appendix;
(e) Section 7, ‘‘Type of loss’’ as specified
in section 2.3.1.1 of this appendix;
(f) Section 8, ‘‘Efficiency and Power
Factor’’ as specified in section 2.3.1.1 of this
appendix;
(g) Section 10 ‘‘Temperature Tests’’ as
specified in section 2.4.1.1 of this appendix;
(h) Annex A, Section A.3 ‘‘Determination
of Motor Efficiency’’ as specified in section
2.4.1.1 of this appendix; and
(i) Annex A, Section A.4 ‘‘Explanatory
notes for form 3, test data’’ as specified in
section 2.4.1.1 of this appendix.
0.9. NEMA MG 1–2016
(a) Paragraph 1.40.1, ‘‘Continuous Rating’’
as specified in section 1.2 of this appendix;
(b) Paragraph 12.58.1, ‘‘Determination of
Motor Efficiency and Losses’’ as specified in
the introductory paragraph to section 2.1 of
this appendix, and
(c) Paragraph 34.1, ‘‘Applicable Motor
Efficiency Test Methods’’ as specified in
section 2.2 of this appendix;
(d) Paragraph 34.2.2 ‘‘AO Temperature Test
Procedure 2—Target Temperature with
Airflow’’ as specified in section 2.2 of this
appendix;
(e) Paragraph 34.4, ‘‘AO Temperature Test
Procedure 2—Target Temperature with
Airflow’’ as specified in section 2.2 of this
appendix.
1. Scope and Definitions
1.1 Scope. The test procedure applies to
the following categories of electric motors:
Electric motors that meet the criteria listed at
§ 431.25(g); Electric motors above 500
horsepower; Small, non-small-electric-motor
electric motor; and Electric motors that are
synchronous motors; and excludes the
following categories of motors: inverter-only
electric motors that are air-over electric
motors, component sets of an electric motor,
liquid-cooled electric motors, and
submersible electric motors.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1.2 Definitions. Definitions contained in
§§ 431.2 and 431.12 are applicable to this
appendix, in addition to the following terms
(‘‘MG1’’ refers to NEMA MG 1–2016 and IEC
refers to IEC 60034–1:2010 and IEC 60072–
1):
Electric motors above 500 horsepower is
defined as an electric motor having a rated
horsepower above 500 and up to 750 hp that
meets the criteria listed at § 431.25(g), with
the exception of criteria § 431.25(g)(8).
Small, non-small-electric-motor electric
motor (‘‘SNEM’’) means an electric motor
that:
(a) Is not a small electric motor, as defined
§ 431.442 and is not a dedicated-purpose
pool pump motor as defined at § 431.483;
(b) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1)
operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);
(c) Operates on polyphase or single-phase
alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal
line power; or is used with an inverter that
operates on polyphase or single-phase
alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal
line power;
(d) Is rated for 600 volts or less;
(e) Is a single-speed induction motor
capable of operating without an inverter or is
an inverter-only electric motor;
(f) Produces a rated motor horsepower
greater than or equal to 0.25 horsepower
(0.18 kW); and
(g) Is built in the following frame sizes: any
two-, or three-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC
metric equivalent) if the motor operates on
single-phase power; any two-, or three-digit
NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent)
if the motor operates on polyphase power,
and has a rated motor horsepower less than
1 horsepower (0.75 kW); or a two-digit
NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent),
if the motor operates on polyphase power,
has a rated motor horsepower equal to or
greater than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW), and is
not an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC
metric equivalent).
Synchronous Electric Motor means an
electric motor that:
(a) Is not a dedicated-purpose pool pump
motor as defined at § 431.483 or is not an airover electric motor;
(b) Is a synchronous electric motor;
(c) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1)
operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);
(d) Operates on polyphase or single-phase
alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal
line power; or is used with an inverter that
operates on polyphase or single-phase
alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal
line power;
(e) Is rated 600 volts or less;
(f) Produces at least 0.25 hp (0.18 kW) but
not greater than 750 hp (559 kW).
2. Test Procedures
2.1. Test Procedures for Electric Motors
that meet the criteria listed at § 431.25(g), and
electric motors above 500 horsepower that
are capable of operating without an inverter.
Air-over electric motors must be tested in
accordance with Section 2.2. Inverter-only
electric motors must be tested in accordance
with 2.4.
Efficiency and losses must be determined
in accordance with NEMA MG 1–2016,
Paragraph 12.58.1, ‘‘Determination of Motor
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
Efficiency and Losses,’’ or one of the
following testing methods:
2.1.1. CSA C390–10 (see section 0.1 of this
appendix)
2.1.2. IEC 60034–2–1:2014, Method 2–1–1B
(see section 0.4(b) of this appendix). The
supply voltage shall be in accordance with
Section 7.2 of IEC 60034–1:2010. The
measured resistance at the end of the thermal
test shall be determined in a similar way to
the extrapolation procedure described in
Section 8.6.2.3.3 of IEC 60034–1:2010, using
the shortest possible time instead of the time
interval specified in Table 5 to IEC 60034–
1:2010, and extrapolating to zero. The
measuring instruments for electrical
quantities shall have the equivalent of an
accuracy class of 0,2 in case of a direct test
and 0,5 in case of an indirect test in
accordance with Section 5.2 of IEC 60051–
1:2016, or
2.1.3. IEEE 112–2017, Test Method B (see
section 0.7(b) of this appendix).
2.2. Test Procedures for Air-Over Electric
Motors
Except noted otherwise in section 2.2.1
and 2.2.2 of this appendix, efficiency and
losses of air-over electric motors must be
determined in accordance with NEMA MG
1–2016 (excluding Paragraph 12.58.1).
2.2.1. The provisions in Paragraph
34.4.1.a.1 of NEMA MG 1–2016 related to the
determination of the target temperature for
polyphase motors must be replaced by a
single target temperature of 75 °C for all
insulation classes.
2.2.2. The industry standards listed in
Paragraph 34.1 of NEMA MG 1–2016,
‘‘Applicable Motor Efficiency Test Methods’’
must correspond to the versions identified in
section 0 of this appendix, specifically IEEE
112–2017, IEEE 114–2010, CSA C390–10,
CSA C747–09, and IEC 60034–2–1:2014. In
addition, when testing in accordance with
IEC 60034–2–1:2014, the additional testing
instructions in section 2.1.2 of this appendix
apply.
2.3. Test Procedures for SNEMs capable of
operating without an inverter. Air-over
SNEMs must be tested in accordance with
section 2.2. of this appendix. Inverter-only
SNEMs must be tested in accordance with
section 2.4. of this appendix.
2.3.1. The efficiencies and losses of singlephase SNEMs that are not air-over electric
motors and are capable of operating without
an inverter, are determined using one of the
following methods:
2.3.1.1. IEEE 114–2010 (see section 0.8 of
this appendix);
2.3.1.2. CSA C747–09 (see section 0.2 of
this appendix), or
2.3.1.3. IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–
1A (see section 0.4(a) of this appendix),. The
supply voltage shall be in accordance with
Section 7.2 of IEC 60034–1:2010. The
measured resistance at the end of the thermal
test shall be determined in a similar way to
the extrapolation procedure described in
Section 8.6.2.3.3 of IEC 60034–1:2010, using
the shortest possible time instead of the time
interval specified in Table 5 of IEC 60034–
1:2010, and extrapolating to zero. The
measuring instruments for electrical
quantities shall have the equivalent of an
accuracy class of 0,2 in case of a direct test
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
and 0,5 in case of an indirect test in
accordance with Section 5.2 of IEC 60051–
1:2016.
2.3.1.3.1. Additional IEC 60034–2–1:2014
Method 2–1–1A Torque Measurement
Instructions. If using IEC 60034–2–1:2014
Method 2–1–1A to measure motor
performance, follow the instructions in
section 2.3.1.3.2. of this appendix, instead of
Section 6.1.2.2 of IEC 60034–2–1:2014;
2.3.1.3.2. Couple the machine under test to
a load machine. Measure torque using an inline, shaft-coupled, rotating torque
transducer or stationary, stator reaction
torque transducer. Operate the machine
under test at the rated load until thermal
equilibrium is achieved (rate of change 1 K
or less per half hour). Record U, I, Pel, n, T,
qc.
2.3.2. The efficiencies and losses of
polyphase electric motors considered with
rated horsepower less than 1 that are not airover electric motors, and are capable of
operating without an inverter, are determined
using one of the following methods:
2.3.2.1. IEEE 112–2017 Test Method A (see
section 0.7(a) of this appendix);
2.3.2.2. CSA C747–09 (see section 0.2 of
this appendix); or
2.3.2.3. IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–
1A (see section 0.4(a) of this appendix). The
supply voltage shall be in accordance with
Section 7.2 of IEC 60034–1:2010. The
measured resistance at the end of the thermal
test shall be determined in a similar way to
the extrapolation procedure described in
Section 8.6.2.3.3 of IEC 60034–1:2010 using
the shortest possible time instead of the time
interval specified in Table 5 of IEC 60034–
1:2010, and extrapolating to zero. The
measuring instruments for electrical
quantities shall have the equivalent of an
accuracy class of 0,2 in case of a direct test
and 0,5 in case of an indirect test in
accordance with Section 5.2 of IEC 60051–
1:2016.
2.3.2.3.1. Additional IEC 60034–2–1:2014
Method 2–1–1A Torque Measurement
Instructions. If using IEC 60034–2–1:2014
Method 2–1–1A to measure motor
performance, follow the instructions in
section 2.3.2.3.2. of this appendix, instead of
Section 6.1.2.2 of IEC 60034–2–1:2014;
2.3.2.3.2. Couple the machine under test to
load machine. Measure torque using an inline shaft-coupled, rotating torque transducer
or stationary, stator reaction torque
transducer. Operate the machine under test at
the rated load until thermal equilibrium is
achieved (rate of change 1 K or less per half
hour). Record U, I, Pel, n, T, qc.
2.3.3. The efficiencies and losses of
polyphase SNEMs with rated horsepower
equal to or greater than 1 that are not air-over
electric motors, and are capable of operating
without an inverter, are determined using
one of the following methods:
2.3.3.1. IEEE 112–2017 Test Method B (see
section 0.7(b) of this appendix);
2.3.3.2. CSA C390–10 (see section 0.1 of
this appendix); or
2.3.3.3. IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–
1B (see section 0.4(b) of this appendix). The
supply voltage shall be in accordance with
Section 7.2 of IEC 60034–1:2010. The
measured resistance at the end of the thermal
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63659
test shall be determined in a similar way to
the extrapolation procedure described in
Section 8.6.2.3.3 of IEC 60034–1:2010 using
the shortest possible time instead of the time
interval specified in Table 5 of IEC 60034–
1:2010, and extrapolating to zero. The
measuring instruments for electrical
quantities shall have the equivalent of an
accuracy class of 0,2 in case of a direct test
and 0,5 in case of an indirect test in
accordance with Section 5.2 of IEC 60051–
1:2016.
2.4. Test Procedures for Electric Motors
that are Synchronous Motors and Inverteronly Electric Motors
Section 2.4.1 of this appendix applies to
electric motors that are synchronous motors
that do not require an inverter to operate.
Sections 2.4.2. and 2.4.3. of this appendix
apply to electric motors that are synchronous
motors and are inverter-only; and to
induction electric motors that are inverteronly electric motors.
2.4.1. The efficiencies and losses of electric
motors that are synchronous motors that do
not require an inverter to operate, are
determined in accordance with IEC 60034–2–
1:2014, Section 3 ‘‘Terms and definitions,’’
Section 4 ‘‘Symbols and abbreviations,’’
Section 5 ‘‘Basic requirements,’’ and Section
7.1. ‘‘Preferred Testing Methods.’’
2.4.2. The efficiencies and losses of electric
motors (inclusive of the inverter) that are that
are inverter-only and do not include an
inverter, are determined in accordance with
IEC 61800–9–2:2017. Test must be conducted
using an inverter that is listed as
recommended in the manufacturer’s catalog
or that is offered for sale with the electric
motor. If more than one inverter is available
in manufacturer’s catalogs or if more than
one inverter is offered for sale with the
electric motor, test using the least efficient
inverter. Record the manufacturer, brand and
model number of the inverter used for the
test. If there are no inverters specified in the
manufacturer catalogs or offered for sale with
the electric motor, testing must be conducted
using an inverter that meets the criteria
described in section 2.4.2.2. of this appendix.
2.4.2.1. The inverter shall be set up
according to the manufacturer’s instructional
and operational manual included with the
product. Manufacturers shall also record
switching frequency in Hz, max frequency in
Hz, Max output voltage in V, motor control
method (i.e., V/f ratio, sensor less vector,
etc.), load profile setting (constant torque,
variable torque, etc.), and saving energy
mode (if used). Deviation from the resulting
settings, such as switching frequency or load
torque curves for the purpose of optimizing
test results shall not be permitted.
2.4.2.2. If there are no inverters specified
in the manufacturer catalogs or offered for
sale with the electric motor, test with a twolevel voltage source inverter. No additional
components influencing output voltage or
output current shall be installed between the
inverter and the motor, except those required
for the measuring instruments. For motors
with a rated speed up to 3 600 min–1, the
switching frequency shall not be higher than
5 kHz. For motors with a rated speed above
3 600 min–1, the switching frequency shall
not be higher than 10 kHz. Record the
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
63660
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
manufacturer, brand and model number of
the inverter used for the test.
2.4.3. The efficiencies and losses of electric
motors (inclusive of the inverter) that are
inverter-only and include an inverter are
determined in accordance with IEC 61800–9–
2:2017.
2.4.3.1. The inverter shall be set up
according to the manufacturer’s instructional
and operational manual included with the
product. Manufacturers shall also record
switching frequency in Hz, max frequency in
Hz, Max output voltage in V, motor control
method (i.e., V/f ratio, sensor less vector,
etc.), load profile setting (constant torque,
variable torque, etc.), and saving energy
mode (if used). Deviation from the resulting
settings, such as switching frequency or load
torque curves for the purpose of optimizing
test results shall not be permitted.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
3. Procedures for the Testing of Certain
Electric Motor Categories
Prior to testing according to section 2 of
this appendix, each basic model of the
electric motor categories 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 600- or 6000-series, either open
or grease-lubricated double-shielded, singlerow, deep groove, radial ball bearing.
3.1. 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
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Oct 18, 2022
Jkt 259001
mechanism exists and if the use of this
mechanism does not yield a different
efficiency value than separately powering the
brake electrically.
3.2. 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.
3.3. 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.
3.4. 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.
3.5. 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.
3.6. Immersible Electric Motors:
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
Immersible electric motors shall be tested
with all contact seals removed but be
otherwise unmodified.
3.7. 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.
3.8. 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 the applicable test
procedure under section 2 through section
2.4.3. of this appendix, 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 the applicable test
procedure under section 2 through section
2.4.3. of this appendix. 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. If necessary, the unit under test
may be connected to the dynamometer using
a coupling of torsional rigidity greater than
or equal to that of the motor shaft.
[FR Doc. 2022–21891 Filed 10–18–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\19OCR2.SGM
19OCR2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 19, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63588-63660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21891]
[[Page 63587]]
Vol. 87
Wednesday,
No. 201
October 19, 2022
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Electric Motors; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 63588]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[EERE-2020-BT-TP-0011]
RIN 1904-AE62
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Electric Motors
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the existing scope of the U.S.
Department of Energy (``DOE'') test procedures for electric motors
consistent with related updates to the relevant industry testing
standard (i.e., for air-over electric motors, electric motors greater
than 500 horsepower, electric motors considered small, inverter-only
electric motors, and synchronous electric motors); adds test
procedures, an appropriate metric, and supporting definitions for
additional electric motors covered under the amended scope; and updates
references to industry standards to reference current versions.
Furthermore, DOE is adopting certain industry provisions related to the
prescribed test conditions to further ensure the comparability of test
results. DOE is also amending provisions pertaining to certification
testing and the determination of represented values for electric motors
other than dedicated-purpose pool pump motors, and re-locating such
provisions consistent with the location of the certification
requirements for other covered products and equipment. Finally, DOE is
adding provisions pertaining to certification testing and the
determination of represented values for dedicated-purpose pool pump
motors.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is November 18, 2022. The final
rule changes will be mandatory for product testing starting April 17,
2023. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on
November 18, 2022. The incorporation by reference of certain other
publications listed in the rule was approved by the Director as of June
4, 2012 and February 3, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, webinar
attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those
containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not
be publicly available.
A link to the docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2020-BT-TP-0011. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email
[email protected].
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE maintains standards previously approved
for incorporation by reference and incorporates by reference the
following industry standards into part 431:
CSA C390:10 (reaffirmed 2019), ``Test methods, marking
requirements, and energy efficiency levels for three-phase induction
motors,'' including Updates No. 1 through 3, Revised January 2020
(``CSA C390-10'').
CSA C747-09 (reaffirmed 2019), ``Energy Efficiency Test Methods for
Small Motors,'' including Update No. 1 (August 2016), dated October
2009 (``CSA C747-09'').
Copies of CSA C390-10 and CSA C747-09 can be obtained from Canadian
Standards Association (``CSA''), Sales Department, 5060 Spectrum Way,
Suite 100, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1-800-463-6727, or by
visiting www.shopcsa.ca/onlinestore/welcome.asp.
IEC 60034-12:2016, Edition 3.0 2016-11, ``Rotating Electrical
Machines, Part 12: Starting Performance of Single-Speed Three-Phase
Cage Induction Motors,'' Published November 23, 2016 (``IEC 60034-
12:2016'').
IEC 60072-1, ``Dimensions and Output Series for Rotating Electrical
Machines--Part 1: Frame numbers 56 to 400 and flange numbers 55 to
1080,'' Sixth Edition, 1991-02, clauses 2, 3, 4.1, 6.1, 7, and 10, and
Tables 1, 2 and 4. (``IEC 60072-1'')
IEC 60079-7:2015, Edition 5.0 2015-06, ``Explosive atmospheres--
Part 7: Equipment protection by increased safety `e,' '' Published June
26, 2015 (``IEC 60079-7:2015'').
IEC 61800-9-2:2017, ``Adjustable speed electrical power drive
systems--Part 9-2: Ecodesign for power drive systems, motor starters,
power electronics and their driven applications--Energy efficiency
indicators for power drive systems and motor starters,'' Edition 1.0,
March 2017 (``IEC 61800-9-2:2017'').
Copies of IEC 60034-12:2016, IEC 60079-7:2015 and IEC 61800-9-
2:2017 may be purchased from International Electrotechnical Commission
(``IEC''), 3 rue de Varemb[eacute], 1st floor, P.O. Box 131, CH-1211
Geneva 20-Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 11, or by visiting https://webstore.iec.ch/home.
IEEE 114-2010, ``Test Procedure for Single-Phase Induction
Motors,'' December 23, 2010 (``IEEE 114-2010'').
Copies of IEEE 114-2010 can be obtained from: Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (``IEEE''), 445 Hoes Lane, P.O.
Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, (732) 981-0060, or by visiting
www.ieee.org.
ANSI/NEMA MG 1-2016 (Revision 1, 2018), ``Motors and Generators,''
ANSI approved June 15, 2021 (``NEMA MG 1-2016'').
Copies of NEMA MG 1-2016 may be purchased from National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (``NEMA''), 1300 North 17th Street, Suite
900, Arlington, Virginia 22209, +1 703 841 3200, or by visiting /
www.nema.org.
National Fire Protection Association (``NFPA'') 20, 2022 Edition,
``Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire
Protection,'' Approved by ANSI on April 8, 2021 (``NFPA 20-2022'').
Copies of NFPA 20-2022 may be purchased from National Fire
Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169, +1 800
344 3555, or by visiting www.nfpa.org.
See section IV.N of this document for a further discussion of these
standards.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
1. Motor Used as a Component of a Covered Product or Equipment
2. ``E'' and ``Y'' Designations of IEC Design N and H Motors
3. Air-Over Electric Motors
4. AC Induction Electric Motors Greater Than 500 Horsepower
[[Page 63589]]
5. SNEMs
6. AC Induction Inverter-Only Electric Motors
7. Synchronous Electric Motors
8. Submersible Electric Motors
9. Other Exemptions
B. Definitions
1. Updating IEC Design N and H Motors Definitions and Including
New Definitions for IEC Design N and H ``E'' and ``Y'' Designations
2. Updating Definitions to Reference Current NEMA MG 1-2016
3. Inverter, Inverter-Only, and Inverter-Capable
4. Air-Over Electric Motors
5. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motors
6. Basic Model and Equipment Class
C. Updates to Industry Standards Currently Incorporated by
Reference
D. Industry Standards Incorporated By Reference
1. Test Procedures for Air-Over Electric Motors
2. Test Procedures for SNEMs
3. Test Procedures for AC Induction Inverter-Only Electric
Motors and Synchronous Electric Motors
E. Metric
F. Rated Output Power and Breakdown Torque of Electric Motors
G. Rated Values Specified for Testing
1. Rated Frequency
2. Rated Load
3. Rated Voltage
H. Contact Seals Requirement
I. Vertical Electric Motors Testing
J. Proposed Testing Instructions for Those Electric Motors Being
Added to the Scope of Appendix B
K. Testing Instructions for Brake Electric Motors
L. Transition to 10 CFR part 429
M. Certification of Electric Motors
1. Independent Testing
2. Certification Process for Electric Motors
N. Determination of Represented Values
1. Nominal Full-Load Efficiency
2. Testing: Use of an Accredited Laboratory
3. Testing: Use of a Nationally Recognized Certification Program
4. Use of an AEDM
O. Certification, Sampling Plans and AEDM Provisions for
Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Motors
P. Effective and Compliance Dates
Q. Test Procedure Costs
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impacts
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
R. Compliance Date
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
1. Description of the Requirements
2. Method of Collection
3. Data
4. Conclusion
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Electric motors are included in the list of ``covered equipment''
for which the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is authorized to
establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) DOE's energy conservation standards and test
procedures for electric motors are currently prescribed at 10 CFR
431.25 and appendix B to subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 (``appendix B''),
respectively. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to
establish test procedures for electric motors and relevant background
information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this
equipment.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA, added by the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act, Pub. L. 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a),
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve
energy efficiency. These equipment include electric motors, the subject
of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Pub. L. 116-260 (Dec. 27,
2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts
A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42
U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1)
certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making other representations about
the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE
must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment
complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however,
grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test
results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a given type of covered equipment during a
representative average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary) and
requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
EPCA, pursuant to amendments made by the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
Pub. L. 102-486 (Oct. 24, 1992) (``EPACT 1992''), specifies that the
test procedures for electric motors subject to the standards prescribed
in 42 U.S.C. 6313 shall be those specified in National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (``NEMA'') Standards Publication MG1-1987 and
the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (``IEEE'')
Standard 112 Test Method B, as in effect on October 24, 1992. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A)). If these industry test procedures are amended,
DOE must
[[Page 63590]]
amend its own test procedures to conform to such amended test procedure
requirements, unless DOE determines by rule, published in the Federal
Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that to do so
would not meet the statutory requirements related to the test procedure
representativeness and burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including electric
motors, to determine whether amended test procedures would more
accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test
procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy
use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use
cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
In addition, if the Secretary determines that a test procedure
amendment is warranted, the Secretary must publish proposed test
procedures in the Federal Register, and afford interested persons an
opportunity (of not less than 45 days' duration) to present oral and
written data, views, and arguments on the proposed test procedures. (42
U.S.C. 6314(b)). If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are
not appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not to amend the
test procedures.
DOE is publishing this final rule in satisfaction of its statutory
obligations specified in EPCA.
B. Background
On December 17, 2021, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NOPR'') for the electric motors test procedure. 86 FR 71710
(``December 2021 NOPR''). In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to
revise the current scope of the test procedures to add additional
electric motors and implement related updates needed for supporting
definitions and metric requirements as a result of this expanded scope;
incorporate by reference the most recent versions of the referenced
industry standards; incorporate by reference additional industry
standards used to test additional electric motors that DOE had proposed
to include within its scope; clarify the current test procedure's scope
and test instructions by adding definitions for specific terms; revise
the current vertical motor testing instructions to reduce manufacturer
test burden; clarify that the current test procedure permits removal of
contact seals for immersible electric motors only; revise the
provisions pertaining to certification testing and determination of
represented values; and add provisions pertaining to certification
testing and determination of represented values for dedicated purpose
pool pump (``DPPP'') motors. Id The NOPR provided an opportunity for
submitting written comments, data, and information on the proposal by
February 15, 2022.
On February 4, 2022, DOE published a notice granting an extension
of the public comment period to allow public comments to be submitted
until February 28, 2022. 87 FR 6436.
DOE received comments in response to the December 2021 NOPR from
the interested parties listed in Table II.1.
Table II.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the December 2021 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this final
Commenter(s) rule Docket No. Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Motors and Mechanical Inc........... ABB....................... 18 Manufacturer.
Air Movement and Control Association AMCA...................... 21 Industry Motor Trade
International. Association.
American Gear Manufacturers Association. AGMA...................... 14 Industry Gear Manufacturer
Trade Association.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Joint Advocates........... 27 Efficiency Organizations.
American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, Natural Resources
Defense Council, New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority.
Association of Home Appliance AHAM and AHRI............. 36 Industry OEM Trade
Manufacturers; Air-Conditioning, Association.
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute.
The Australian Industry Group \i\....... AI Group.................. 25 Industry Motor Trade
Association.
ebm-papst Inc........................... ebm-papst................. 23 Manufacturer.
European Committee of Manufacturers of CEMEP..................... 19 Industry Electrical
Electrical Machines and Power Machines and Power
Electronics. Electronics Trade
Association.
Franklin Electric Co, Inc............... Franklin Electric......... 22 Manufacturer.
Grundfos Americas Corporation........... Grundfos.................. 29 OEM/Pump manufacturer.
Hydraulics Institute.................... HI........................ 30 Industry Pump Trade
Association.
International Electrotechnical IEC....................... 20 Industry Standards
Commission. Organization.
Johnson Controls........................ JCI....................... 34 Manufacturer.
Lennox International.................... Lennox.................... 24 Manufacturer.
National Electrical Manufacturers NEMA...................... 26 Industry Trade
Association. Association.
North Carolina Advanced Energy Advanced Energy........... 33 Independent Testing
Corporation. Laboratory.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance NEEA/NWPCC................ 37 Non-profit organization/
(NEEA), Northwest Power and interstate compact
Conservation Council (NWPCC). agency.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), CA IOUs................... 32.1 and 32.2 Utilities.
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and
Southern California Edison (SCE).
Regal Rexnord........................... Regal..................... 28 Manufacturer.
Sumitomo Machinery Corporation of Sumitomo.................. 17 Manufacturer.
America.
Trane Technologies...................... Trane..................... 31 OEM.
Water Systems Council................... WSC....................... 35 Industry Trade
Association.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ The AI group submitted multiple comments to the docket. One comment was an email cover letter, while the
other two were preliminary and final submission of their comments. In their cover letter, the AI group
attested that there were no changes between the final and preliminary submissions. Therefore, in this final
rule, DOE's reference to AI group's comment submission is the final submission.
[[Page 63591]]
To the extent that DOE received comments relating to the energy
conservation standards for electric motors subject to DOE's proposal to
expand the test procedure's scope, those comments fall outside of the
focus of this rulemaking, which addresses only the test procedure
itself. Comments related to any potential standards that DOE may
consider for electric motors will be discussed in the separate energy
conservation standards rulemaking docket (EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for electric motors. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-
0011, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number,
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the general rulemaking timeline, ABB requested that DOE
issue a Supplemental NOPR and schedule a meeting to discuss the test
procedure before a final rule is issued. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 3) NEMA
requested a Supplemental NOPR be added to this rulemaking asserting
that significant changes to the scope and test methods are needed to
ensure the test procedure is reasonable, accurate, and repeatable.
(NEMA, No. 26 at p. 6) CA IOUs suggested that DOE consider forming an
ASRAC Working Group to engage on cross-segment electric motor topics.
(CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 50)
As discussed in this final rule, DOE is amending the scope of the
test procedure and adopting corresponding test procedure provisions
consistent with the most current applicable industry test standard. The
test procedure adopted in this final rule is generally consistent with
the test procedure proposed in the December 2021 NOPR. Therefore, DOE
has determined that additional actions such as an SNOPR or ASRAC
Working Group are not appropriate and is proceeding with this final
rule. Additionally, as stated, EPCA requires DOE to evaluate the test
procedures at least once every seven years to determine whether
amendments to the test procedure are needed to more fully meet the
statutory requirement that the test procedure be representative of an
average use cycle without being unduly burdensome. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(1)) Accordingly, DOE is proceeding with a final rule as
discussed in the following sections.
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE amends the test procedure as follows:
(1) Update the existing definitions for IEC Design N and H motors
to reflect industry standard updates; amend the existing scope to
reflect updates in industry nomenclature, specifically for new industry
motor design designations IEC Design NE, HE, NEY and HEY, and include
corresponding definitions;
(2) Amend the definition of ``basic model'' to rely on the term
``equipment class'' and add a definition for ``equipment class'' to
make the electric motor provisions consistent with the provisions for
other DOE-regulated products and equipment;
(3) Add test procedures, a full-load efficiency metric, and
supporting definitions for air-over electric motors; electric motors
greater than 500 horsepower (``hp''); electric motors considered small
(i.e., SNEMs); inverter-only electric motors, and synchronous electric
motors;
(4) Incorporate by reference the most recent versions of NEMA MG 1
(i.e., NEMA MG 1-2016 (Revision 1, 2018) ANSI-approved 2021) and CSA
C390-10 (i.e., reaffirmed 2019), as well as other referenced industry
standards i.e., IEC 60034-12:2016, Edition 3.0 2016-11, ``Rotating
Electrical Machines, Part 12: Starting Performance of Single-Speed
Three-Phase Cage Induction Motors,''; IEC 60079-7:2015, Edition 5.0
2015-06, ``Explosive atmospheres--Part 7: Equipment protection by
increased safety `e,' '', which is referenced within IEC 60034-12:2016
and is necessary for the test procedure; and NFPA 20 ``Standard for the
Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection'' 2022 Edition
(``NFPA 20-2022'');
(5) Incorporate by reference additional industry test standards and
test instructions to support testing of the additional motors included
in the amended test procedure scope: CSA C747-09 (reaffirmed 2019)
(``CSA C747-09''), IEEE 114-2010, and IEC 61800-9-2:2017;
(6) Provide additional detail in the test instructions for electric
motors by adding definitions for the terms ``rated frequency'' and
``rated voltage;''
(7) Update the testing instructions for vertical electric motors to
reduce manufacturer test burden;
(8) Add a definition of ``independent'' as it relates to nationally
recognized certification and accreditation programs;
(9) Permit manufacturers to certify an electric motor's energy
efficiency using one of three options: (i) testing the electric motor
at an accredited laboratory and then certifying on its own behalf or
having a third-party submit the manufacturer's certification report;
(ii) testing the electric motor at a testing laboratory other than an
accredited laboratory and then having a nationally recognized
certification program certify the efficiency of the electric motor; or
(iii) using an alternative efficiency determination method (``AEDM'')
and then having a third-party nationally recognized certification
program certify the efficiency of the electric motor. Using these
provisions would be required for certification starting on the
compliance date for any new or amended standards for electric motors
published after January 1, 2022;
(10) Revise the provisions pertaining to the determination of
represented values applied starting on the compliance date of the next
final rule adopting new or amended energy conservation standards for
electric motors;
(11) Revise the AEDM provisions for electric motors and apply them
to all electric motors covered in the scope of the test procedure;
(12) Revise the procedures for recognition and withdrawal of
recognition of accreditation bodies and certification programs as
applied to electric motors and apply these provisions to all electric
motors covered in the scope of the test procedure;
(13) Move provisions pertaining to certification testing, AEDM, and
determination of represented values from 10 CFR part 431 to 10 CFR part
429; and
(14) Add provisions pertaining to certification testing and
determination of represented values for DPPP motors.
The adopted amendments are summarized in Table II-1 compared to the
test procedure provision prior to the amendment, as well as the reason
for the adopted change.
Table II-1--Summary of Changes in the Amended Test Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current DOE test procedure Amended test procedure Attribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to Design N and H motors defined Reflects updates in industry nomenclature, Update to industry testing
at 10 CFR 431.12. specifically, new motor design standard IEC 60034-12.
designations IEC Design HE, HY, HEY, NE,
NY and NEY, and includes corresponding
definitions.
[[Page 63592]]
Exempts air-over electric motors........ Includes test methods, full-load Update to industry testing
efficiency metric, and supporting standard NEMA MG 1 2016
definitions for air-over electric motors. with revisions through
2021 which include a test
method for air-over
electric motors.
Includes electric motors with a Includes test methods and full-load Statute allowance to
horsepower equal to or less than 500 hp. efficiency metric for electric motors extend applicability of
with a horsepower greater than 500 and the test procedure to
equal to or less than 750 hp. these electric motors.
Includes electric motors with a Includes test methods and full-load Statute allowance to
horsepower equal to or greater than 1 efficiency metric for electric motors extend applicability of
hp. considered small (i.e., small non-small- the test procedure to
electric-motor electric motors, or SNEMs). these electric motors.
Exempts inverter-only electric motors... Includes test methods, full-load New industry testing
efficiency metric, and supporting standard (IEC 61800-9-
definitions for inverter-only electric 2:2017).
motors.
Includes electric motors that are Includes test methods, full-load New developments in motor
induction motors only. efficiency metric, and supporting technologies and new
definitions for certain synchronous industry testing standard
electric motors. (IEC 61800-9-2:2017).
Incorporates by reference NEMA MG 1- Incorporates by reference the most recent Updates to industry
2009, CSA 390-10, IEC 60034-12 Edition versions of NEMA MG 1 (i.e., NEMA MG 1- testing standards NEMA MG
2.1 2007-09, and NFPA 20-2010. 2016), CSA 390 (i.e., CSA C390-10), as 1, CSA 390, IEC 60034-12
well as other referenced industry and NFPA 20-209.
standards (i.e., IEC 60034-12 Edition 3.0 Incorporates industry
2016 and NFPA 20-2022). In addition, standards for additional
incorporates by reference IEC 60079- motors included in scope.
7:2015, which is referenced within IEC
60034-12:2016 and is necessary for the
test procedure.
Incorporates by reference additional
industry test standards and testing
instructions to support testing of the
additional motors included in scope: CSA
C747-09, IEEE 114-2010, and IEC 61800-9-
2:2017.
Specifies testing at rated frequency, Provides additional detail in the test Harmonizes with
and rated voltage but does not define instructions for electric motors by definitions from NEMA MG
these terms. adding definitions for the terms ``rated 1 and improves the
frequency,'' and ``rated voltage''. repeatability of the test
procedure.
Specifies one method of connecting the Updates the vertical electric motor Reduce manufacturer
dynamometer to vertical electric motors. testing requirements to allow alternative testing burden.
methods for connecting to the dynamometer.
Includes a description of Adds a definition for ``independent'' as Required by 42 U.S.C.
``independent'' at 10 CFR 431.19(b)(2), it relates to nationally recognized 6316(c).
431.19(c)(2), 431.20(b)(2) and certification and accreditation programs
431.20(c)(2). and replace the descriptions of
``independent'' at 10 CFR 431.19(b)(2),
431.19(c)(2), 431.20(b)(2) and
431.20(c)(2) by this definition.
Allows a manufacturer to both test in Continues to allow a manufacturer to both Required by 42 U.S.C.
its own accredited laboratories and test in its own accredited laboratories 6316(c).
directly submit the certification of and directly submit the certification of
compliance to DOE for its own electric compliance to DOE for its own electric
motors. motors. Also now permits certification of
compliance using one of three options:
(1) a manufacturer can have the electric
motor tested using an accredited
laboratory and then certify on its own
behalf or have a third-party submit the
manufacturer's certification report; (2)
a manufacturer can test the electric
motor at a testing laboratory other than
an accredited laboratory and then have a
nationally recognized certification
program certify the efficiency of the
electric motor; or (3) a manufacturer can
use an alternative efficiency
determination method and then have a
third-party nationally recognized
certification program certify the
efficiency of the electric motor. DOE
adopts to require these provisions on or
after the compliance date for any new or
amended standards for electric motors
published after January 1, 2021.
Includes provisions pertaining to the Revises the provisions pertaining to the Align the determination of
determination of the represented value determination of the represented values the average and nominal
at 10 CFR 431.17. (i.e., nominal full-load efficiency and full-load efficiency with
average full-load efficiency) and the definitions at 10 CFR
requires use of these provisions for all 431.12. Harmonizes
electric motors subject to energy sampling requirements
conservation standards at 10 CFR 431, with other covered
subpart B, on or after the compliance equipment and covered
date of the final rule adopting new or products at 10 CFR
amended energy conservation standards for 429.70.
electric motors. Moves the provisions to
10 CFR 429.64. Applies these provisions
to all electric motors included in the
scope of the test procedure.
Includes AEDM provisions at 10 CFR Revises the AEDM provisions and applies Harmonizes the AEDM
431.17. these provisions to all electric motors requirements with other
included in the scope of the test covered equipment and
procedure. covered products at 10
CFR 429.70.
Includes provisions pertaining to Revises the procedures for recognition and Transfer provisions
nationally recognized accreditation withdrawal of recognition of related to certification
bodies and certification programs at 10 accreditation bodies and certification at 10 CFR part 429.
CFR 431.19, 431.20, and 431.21. programs as applied to electric motors.
Applies these provisions to all electric
motors included in the scope of the test
procedure.
[[Page 63593]]
Includes a definition of basic model Amends the definition of ``basic model'' Align the definition of
that relies on the term ``rating''. to rely on the term ``equipment class.'' basic model with other
Adds a definition for ``equipment class''. DOE-regulated products
and equipment and
eliminate the ambiguity
of the term ``rating.''
Does not include any certification, Adds certification, sampling plans, and Aligns DPPP motor
sampling plans, or AEDM provisions for AEDM provisions for DPPP Motors. provisions with the
DPPP Motors. provisions for electric
motors subject to the
requirements in subpart B
of 10 CFR part 431.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has determined that the amendments described in section III of
this final rule would not alter the measured efficiency of those
electric motors that are currently within the scope of the test
procedure and that are currently required to comply with energy
conservation standards.
The effective date for the amended test procedures adopted in this
final rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register. Representations of energy use or energy efficiency must be
based on testing in accordance with the amended test procedures
beginning 180 days after the publication of this final rule. DOE notes
that manufacturers of electric motors that have been added to the scope
of the test procedure per this final rule are not required to use the
test procedure for Federal certification or labeling purposes until
such time as energy conservation standards are established for such
electric motors. But, if manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and
private labelers choose to make any representations respecting the
energy consumption or cost of energy consumed by such motors, then such
voluntary representations must be made in accordance with the test
procedure and sampling requirements, and such representation must also
fairly disclose the results of such testing. In addition, manufacturers
of electric motors subject to energy conservation standards at 10 CFR
part 431, subpart B, will be required to follow the newly adopted
certification provisions at 10 CFR 429.64(d) through (f) beginning on
the compliance date of the final rule adopting new or amended energy
conservation standards for electric motors.
Similarly, DOE notes that manufacturers of dedicated-purpose pool
pump motors falling within the scope of the test procedure at 10 CFR
431.484 are not required to use the test procedure for Federal
certification or labeling purposes until such time as energy
conservation standards are established for those motors. But, if
manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and private labelers choose to
make any representations respecting the energy consumption or cost of
energy consumed by such motors, then such voluntary representations
must be made in accordance with the test procedure and sampling
requirements, and such representation must also fairly disclose the
results of such testing. In addition, manufacturers of dedicated-
purpose pool pump motors subject to any energy conservation standards
at 10 CFR part 431, subpart Z, will be required to follow the newly
adopted certification provisions at 10 CFR 429.65 starting on the
compliance date of the final rule adopting new energy conservation
standards for these motors.
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
The term ``electric motor'' is defined as ``a machine that converts
electrical power into rotational mechanical power.'' 10 CFR 431.12.
Manufacturers are required to test those electric motors subject to
energy conservation standards according to the test procedure in
appendix B.\4\ (See generally 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A); see also the
introductory paragraph to 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, appendix B)
Currently, energy conservation standards apply to certain categories of
electric motors provided that they meet the criteria specified at 10
CFR 431.25(g). These categories of electric motors are NEMA Design A
motors,\5\ NEMA Design B motors,\6\ NEMA Design C motors,\7\ IEC Design
N motors,\8\ IEC Design H motors,\9\ and fire
[[Page 63594]]
pump electric motors.\10\ See 10 CFR 431.25(h)-(j). The current energy
conservation standards apply to electric motors within the identified
categories only if they:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The amendments do not address small electric motors, which
are covered separately under 10 CFR part 431, subpart X. A small
electric motor is ``a NEMA general purpose alternating current
single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number
series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987,
including IEC metric equivalent motors.'' 10 CFR 431.442.
\5\ ``NEMA Design A'' motor means a squirrel-cage motor that:
(1) Is designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing
locked-rotor torque as shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.38.1
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15); (2) Has pull-up
torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph
12.40.1; (3) Has breakdown torque not less than the values shown in
NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.39.1; (4) Has a locked-rotor current
higher than the values shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.35.1
for 60 hertz and NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and
(5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for motors with
fewer than 10 poles. 10 CFR 430.12.
\6\ ``NEMA Design B motor'' means a squirrel-cage motor that is:
(1) Designed to withstand full-voltage starting; (2) Develops
locked-rotor, breakdown, and pull-up torques adequate for general
application as specified in Paragraphs 12.38, 12.39 and 12.40 of
NEMA MG1-2009 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15); (3)
Draws locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in
Paragraph 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and 12.35.2 for 50 hertz of NEMA MG1-
2009; and (4) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for
motors with fewer than 10 poles. Id.
\7\ ``NEMA Design C'' motor means a squirrel-cage motor that:
(1) Is Designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing
locked-rotor torque for high-torque applications up to the values
shown in NEMA MG1-2009, Paragraph 12.38.2 (incorporated by
reference, see 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. Id.
\8\ IEC Design N motor means an electric motor that: (1) Is an
induction motor designed for use with three-phase power; (2)
Contains a cage rotor; (3) Is capable of direct-on-line starting;
(4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles; (5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW at
a frequency of 60 Hz; and (6) Conforms to Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3
of the IEC 60034-12 edition 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.15) requirements for torque characteristics, locked rotor
apparent power, and starting. Id.
\9\ IEC Design H motor means an electric motor that (1) Is an
induction motor designed for use with three-phase power; (2)
Contains a cage rotor; (3) Is capable of direct-on-line starting (4)
Has 4, 6, or 8 poles; (5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 160 kW at a
frequency of 60 Hz; and (6) Conforms to Sections 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3
of the IEC 60034-12 edition 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.15) requirements for starting torque, locked rotor
apparent power, and starting. Id.
\10\ ``Fire pump electric motor'' means an electric motor,
including any IEC-equivalent motor, that meets the requirements of
Section 9.5 of NFPA 20. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Are single-speed, induction motors;
(2) Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type
S1 (IEC);
(3) Contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
(4) Operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz)
sinusoidal line power;
(5) Are rated 600 volts or less;
(6) Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration;
(7) Are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or
IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive
NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA
frame size (or IEC metric equivalent);
(8) Produce at least one horsepower (hp) (0.746 kilowatt (kW)) but
not greater than 500 hp (373 kW), and
(9) Meet all of the performance requirements of one of the
following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design
N or H motor.
10 CFR 431.25(g).
In the test procedure final rule published on December 13, 2013
(``December 2013 Final Rule''), DOE identified certain categories of
motors that meet the definition of ``electric motor'' but for which DOE
determined the referenced industry test procedures do not provide a
standardized test method for determining the energy efficiency. 78 FR
75962, 75975, 75987-75989. Motors that fall into this grouping are not
currently regulated by DOE and consist of the following categories:
Air-over electric motors;
Component sets of an electric motor;
Liquid-cooled electric motors;
Submersible electric motors; and
Inverter-only electric motors.
10 CFR 431.25(l).
In this final rule, DOE is clarifying that certain equipment that
are designated with IEC Design letters NE, HE, NY, NEY, HY, and HEY are
within the scope of the current electric motors test procedure.
Furthermore, DOE is establishing test procedure requirements for
certain categories of electric motors not currently subject to energy
conservation standards. These categories are (1) air-over electric
motors; (2) certain electric motors greater than 500 hp; (3) electric
motors considered small (i.e., small not-small-electric-motor electric
motors or ``SNEMs''); and (4) inverter-only electric motors. Finally,
DOE is also including within the scope of the test procedure
synchronous electric motors. DOE is covering these motors under its
``electric motors'' authority. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
DOE notes that manufacturers of electric motors for which DOE is
including within the scope of the test procedure, but that are not
currently subject to an energy conservation standard, are not required
to use the test procedure for Federal certification or labeling
purposes until such time as amended or new energy conservation
standards are established for such electric motors. However, any
voluntary representations by manufacturers, distributors, retailers, or
private labelers about the energy consumption or cost of energy for
these motors must be based on the use of the test procedure beginning
180 days following publication of this final rule, and such
representation must also fairly disclose the results of such testing.
DOE's rule does not require manufacturers who do not currently make
voluntary representations to then begin making public representations
of efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) Manufacturers not currently
making representations of efficiency would be required to test such
motors in accordance with the test procedure only when compliance is
required with a labeling or energy conservation standard requirement if
such a requirement should be established. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b); 42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed an amended scope for the
electric motors test procedure that is generally consistent with the
amendments established in this final rule and also proposed to include
submersible electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71716. In general, NEEA/NWPCC
supported DOE's proposed changes to expand the scope of the electric
motors test procedure to include additional motor sizes and topologies.
They stated that the current test procedure is limited to one category
of motor, excluding many commonly used general purpose motors, and most
advanced motor technologies. NEEA/NWPCC recommended the electric motors
test procedure apply to as broad a range of motor technologies,
designs, and categories as possible to enable consumers to make fair
comparisons and informed decisions. NEEA/NWPCC commented that these
motors are installed in the same applications as regulated motors, yet
are not subject to the same test procedure and standard. (NEEA/NWPCC,
No. 37 at p. 2) DOE also received a number of specific comments on each
category of electric motor included in the scope of the test procedure,
which are discussed in the following sections.
1. Motor Used as a Component of a Covered Product or Equipment
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed not to exclude motors used
as a component of a covered product or covered equipment from the test
procedure scope. This includes any proposed expanded scope electric
motors. Specifically, DOE noted that the current electric motors test
procedure applies to definite purpose and special purpose electric
motors, and DOE is not aware of any technical issues with testing such
motors using the current DOE test procedure. 86 FR 71710, 71728. In
response, DOE received a number of comments, many of whom objected to
DOE's approach.
AHAM and AHRI filed joint comments opposing DOE's proposed
expansion of the test procedure's scope of coverage to include special-
and definite-purpose electric motors, specifically air-over electric
motors, inverter-only electric motors, synchronous motors, and SNEMs.
They explained that Original Equipment Manufacturer (``OEM'') products
have been built around special/definite purpose motors or that these
motors are specially built to be installed inside OEM products. AHAM
and AHRI stated that those finished products are already regulated by
DOE and many manufacturers turn to more efficient designs that include
components such as more efficient motors to meet more stringent energy
conservation standards. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 1-3) AHAM and
AHRI added that special purpose and definite purpose motors are
distinct and different from general purpose motors and noted that
despite the reworking of the ``electric motor'' definition in the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, special purpose and
definite purpose motors are still defined separately. Id.
AHAM and AHRI commented that efficient electric motors destined for
finished products are already a major part of the energy equation when
OEMs consider which design options to apply to meet new standards and
added that DOE's proposed test procedure, which would rate motor
efficiency at full-load, fails to adequately capture representative
load conditions for finished products and equipment that
[[Page 63595]]
are largely optimized for, and regulated on, part-load performance.
AHAM and AHRI commented that regulating special and definite purpose
motors, particularly with the proposed third-party nationally
recognized certification program requirements, will add cost, reduce
market choices, and do little, if anything, to realize further energy
savings over time. AHRI and AHAM asserted that in the near-term, the
proposed rules will counter intuitively create a recipe for setbacks in
energy savings. They stated that the timing of these proposed changes
will also exacerbate supply chain disruption, further delaying products
reaching U.S. consumers and inflating the cost of finished goods. Id.
AHAM and AHRI provided information on the market size represented
by their respective member companies, stating that it represents a
significant segment of the economy. AHRI and AHAM commented that
regulation of a single component product can have ramifications to
other components throughout the product. AHAM and AHRI stated that
durable products work as a system to achieve their purpose for the
consumer and as such, requested DOE carefully consider the perspective
of the end-purchasers and users of the categories of small electric
motors (``SEMs'') that would be governed by the proposed regulation.
(AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 1-3)
Further, AHAM and AHRI commented that small electric motors that
are components of covered equipment are, and should continue to be,
appropriately afforded an exemption from energy conservation standards
and test method, and SNEMs should be given similar treatment. AHAM and
AHRI stated that DOE's proposal to not exclude motors that are
components of regulated products was contrary to DOE's previously
published public opinion (regarding SEMs) and the intent of Congress as
expressed in the EPCA Amendments of 1992. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp.
3-5) AHAM and AHRI further commented that in the April 2020 Small
Electric Motors Proposed Determination (see 85 FR 24146, 24152 (April
30, 2020)), DOE acknowledged, ``the term `small electric motor' has a
specific meaning under EPCA,'' codified in 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G) and 10
CFR 431.442. AHAM and AHRI commented that DOE's preliminary findings,
outlined in the 2011 RFI for Increased Scope of Coverage for Electric
Motors (see 76 FR 17577, 17578 (March 30, 2011)), noted explicitly that
many of the motors contemplated for coverage by DOE's proposed test
procedure require separate analysis from general purpose motors. AHAM
and AHRI commented that the notable exceptions from scope outlined in
the final rule published May 29, 2014, Energy Conservation Standards
for Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors Final Rule (79 FR 30934
(``May 2014 Final Rule''), are fractional horsepower motors. They
agreed with DOE's previous determination related to small electric
motors (81 FR 41378, 41394-41395) in which the agency recognized that
Congress intentionally excluded these motors from coverage by DOE
regulation when such motors are used as components of products and
equipment that are already subject to DOE regulation. (AHAM and AHRI,
No. 36 at pp. 3-5)
AHAM and AHRI commented that regulating SNEMs directly conflicts
with Congress's vision that components of EPCA-covered products and
equipment remain unregulated. AHAM and AHRI commented that given DOE's
claimed similarities between small electric motors and the SNEMs
category, DOE nevertheless proposes to deny to SNEMs a key exemption
that Congress expressly provided for small electric motors. AHAM and
AHRI stated that when Congress amended EPCA through the Energy Policy
Act of 1992 and defined ``small electric motors,'' it expressly
required that energy conservation standards ``shall not apply to any
small electric motor which is a component of a covered product under
section 6292(a) of this title or covered equipment under section 6311
of this title.'' 42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3) (emphasis added). AHAM and AHRI
commented that DOE provides no rationale or explanation for the
disparate treatment of small electric motors and SNEMs when it comes to
their use as components. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 3-5)
Similarly, Lennox stated that the exemption for SEMs that are
components of larger regulated equipment (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) should
also apply to SNEMs, particularly with respect to the heating,
ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration (``HVACR'') context.
(Lennox, No. 24 at pp. 5-6)
AI Group stated that SNEMs often go into regulated equipment and
that double regulation should be avoided. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 3)
NEMA argued that the creation of the SNEM category violated the intent
of 42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)'s prohibition against applying the SEM
standards to an SEM that is used as a component in another regulated
product. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 5) NEMA also stated that much of the SNEM
expanded scope includes definite and special-purpose motors that have
been designed for specific applications. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 5) Trane
commented that SNEMs are designed for end-product performance
requirements and that applying efficiency standards to the motor
specifically would add burden without providing energy savings, and on
that basis opposed including them in the scope of the test procedure.
(Trane, No. 31 at p. 3)
In addition, JCI generally opposed the proposed scope expansion to
mandate new test procedures to include special and definite purpose
motors--which specifically includes air-over, inverter, synchronous as
well as SNEMs--because these motors are already being regulated at the
system level and are, in its view, clearly exempted under 42 U.S.C.
6317(b)(3). (JCI, No. 34 at p. 1) JCI commented that component level
regulations will not result in significant savings or performance
benefits to consumers, and that consumers do not inquire about
component level efficiency and only are concerned with system-level
efficiency. In its view, this double regulation stifles design and
limits improvements because of the higher constraints without benefit.
It stated that the motor is typically not the least efficient component
with air conditioners, heat pumps, or furnaces and double regulation
only serves to add unnecessary cost. (JCI, No. 34 at p. 1)
In contrast, the Joint Advocates and the CA IOUs supported
including motors falling within the scope of the test procedure that
are installed into other DOE covered products. (Joint Advocates, No. 27
at p. 5; CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 45) The CA IOUs cautioned, however,
that DOE consider the manufacturer burdens associated with regulation,
and to not push manufacturers towards offering less diverse product
lines. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 45-46)
In their joint comments, NEEA/NWPCC recommended that DOE include
all electric motors that directly compete against each other in this
test procedure so that they can be fairly compared against other motor
designs. NEEA/NWPCC noted that some of these motor categories and
designs are known for having low efficiencies but are commonly chosen
by consumers and OEMs because they are cheaper than other motors. They
added that because of the incomplete coverage of the current test
procedure and standard, unregulated inefficient motor categories have a
competitive advantage compared to more efficient motors and--in spite
of
[[Page 63596]]
their cheaper initial costs--result in increased operating costs for
consumers. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3)
DOE is not addressing any potential standards in this rulemaking;
standards for electric motors are addressed in a separate rulemaking
procedure (see docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007). Rather, this
rulemaking addresses only the scope of the test procedure.
As discussed in the final rule published on May 4, 2012 (the ``May
2012 Final Rule''), EPCA, as amended through EISA 2007, provides DOE
with the authority to regulate the expanded scope of motors addressed
in this rule. 77 FR 26608, 26612-26613. Before the enactment of EISA
2007, EPCA defined the term ``electric motor'' as any motor that is a
general purpose T-frame, single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase
squirrel-cage induction motor of the NEMA, Design A and B, continuous
rated, operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60 Hertz line power as
defined in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987. (See 42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(A) (2006)) Section 313(a)(2) of EISA 2007 removed that
definition and the prior limits that narrowly defined what types of
motors would be considered as electric motors. In its place, EISA 2007
inserted a new ``Electric motors'' heading, and created two new
subtypes of electric motors: General purpose electric motor (subtype I)
and general purpose electric motor (subtype II). (42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(A)-(B) (2011)) In addition, section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007
established energy conservation standards for four types of electric
motors: general purpose electric motors (subtype I) (i.e., subtype I
motors) with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; fire pump motors;
general purpose electric motor (subtype II) (i.e., subtype II motors)
with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; and NEMA Design B, general
purpose electric motors with a power rating of more than 200
horsepower, but less than or equal to 500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C.
6313(b)(2)) The term ``electric motor'' was left undefined.
As described in the May 2012 Final Rule, a regulatory definition
for ``electric motor'' was necessary, and therefore DOE adopted the
broader definition of ``electric motor'' currently found in 10 CFR
431.12. Specifically, DOE noted that the absence of a definition may
cause confusion about which electric motors are required to comply with
mandatory test procedures and energy conservation standards. 77 FR
26608, 26613. Further, in the May 2012 Final Rule, DOE noted that this
broader approach would allow DOE to fill the definitional gap created
by the EISA 2007 amendments while providing DOE with the flexibility to
set energy conservation standards for other types of electric motors
without having to continuously update the definition of ``electric
motors'' each time DOE sets energy conservation standards for a new
subset of electric motors. Id.
Congress specifically defined what equipment comprises an SEM--
specifically, ``a NEMA general purpose alternating current single-speed
induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance
with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G))
(DOE clarified, at industry's urging, that the definition also includes
motors that are IEC metric equivalents to the specified NEMA motors
prescribed by the statute. See 74 FR 32059, 32061-32062; 10 CFR
431.442)) In conjunction with this definition, Congress also exempted
any SEM that is a component of a covered product or a covered equipment
from the standards that DOE was required to establish under 42 U.S.C.
6317(b). Congress did not, however, similarly restrict electric motors.
SNEMs, which are electric motors, are not SEMs because they do not
satisfy the more specific statutory SEM definition--or even the
arguably broader clarifying definition that DOE adopted to accommodate
electric motors that were IEC metric equivalents of the NEMA motors
falling under the SEM definition of that term and therefore not subject
to the exclusion explicitly established for SEMs. Accordingly, DOE is
declining to adopt the suggestions offered by commenters to exclude
SNEMs installed as components in other DOE regulated products and
equipment from the test procedure being promulgated in this final rule.
DOE is not establishing energy conservation standards for SNEMs in
this final rule. Were DOE to consider energy conservation standards for
SNEMs, DOE would evaluate the efficiency of SNEMs on the market for
their various applications, as well as opportunities for improved
efficiency while still being able to serve those applications.
DOE is also including in the scope of the test procedure special
purpose and definite purpose motors.
DOE notes that manufacturers of electric motors for which DOE is
including within the scope of the test procedure, but that are not
currently subject to an energy conservation standard, would not be
required to use the test procedure for Federal certification or
labeling purposes until such time as amended or new energy conservation
standards are established for such electric motors.
Further discussion on each of the expanded scope categories are
provided in the following sections. Discussion on maintaining the full-
load metric in this test procedure is provided in section III.E. of
this document.
2. ``E'' and ``Y'' Designations of IEC Design N and H Motors
Currently regulated electric motors include those motors designated
as IEC Design N and IEC Design H motors. In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
discussed that IEC 60034-12:2016 includes industry nomenclature updates
to IEC Design N and IEC Design H motors, whose designations are
augmented with the designations IEC Design NE, HE, NY, NEY, HY, and
HEY. 86 FR 71710, 71716-71717. DOE stated that all six additional
categories are described as electric motors that are variants of IEC
Design N and IEC Design H electric motors that DOE currently regulates,
with the only differences being the premium efficiency attribute
(indicated by the letter ``E''), and starting configuration \11\
(``star-delta'' starter \12\ indicated by the letter ``Y''). Id.
Accordingly, DOE proposed to revise 10 CFR 431.25 to reflect the
inclusion of IEC Design NE, NEY, and NY motors as IEC Design N motors
and to make a similar set of revisions to reflect the inclusion of IEC
Design HE, HEY, and HY motors as IEC Design H motors. DOE clarified
that to the extent IEC Design N and IEC Design H motors are subject to
the DOE regulations for electric motors, such coverage already includes
IEC Design NE, NY, NEY, HE, HY and HEY motors. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For induction motors, the starting configuration refers to
the manner in which the three-phase input terminals are connected to
each other, and the star configuration results in a lower line-to-
line voltage than the delta configuration. See Sections 2.62 and
2.64 of NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements) and 2021 updates for
further detail.
\12\ A ``star-delta starter'' refers to a reduced voltage
starter system arranged by connecting the supply with the primary
motor winding initially in star (``wye'' or ``Y'') configuration,
then reconnected in a delta configuration for running operation. In
the star configuration, all three supply lines are connected at a
single point and the circuit diagram resembles the letter Y. In the
delta configuration each supply line is connected at one end with
the next supply line and the circuit diagram resembles the Greek
letter delta ([Delta]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, CEMEP, NEMA and Grundfos supported DOE's proposed
clarification regarding the additional IEC designations. (CEMEP, No. 19
at p. 1; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 6; Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 1) For the
reasons discussed in the previous paragraph, DOE is adopting its
proposal to reflect the inclusion of IEC Design NE, NEY, and NY motors
as IEC Design N motors and to make a similar set of revisions to
reflect the
[[Page 63597]]
inclusion of IEC Design HE, HEY, and HY motors as IEC Design H motors.
In this final rule, DOE is revising 10 CFR 431.25(g)-(i) to reflect the
inclusion of IEC Design N and H variants as it relates to current
energy conservation standards.
DOE received comments regarding the definitions proposed for the
IEC Design designations, which are addressed separately in section
III.B.1. of this document.
3. Air-Over Electric Motors
DOE defines an ``air-over electric motor'' as an electric motor
rated to operate in and be cooled by the airstream of a fan or blower
that is not supplied with the motor and whose primary purpose is
providing airflow to an application other than the motor driving it. 10
CFR 431.12. These motors are currently exempt from the energy
conservation standards. 10 CFR 431.25(l)(4). In the December 2021 NOPR,
DOE reviewed NEMA MG 1-2016, Part 34: Air-Over Motor Efficiency Test
Method, as well as Section 8.2.1 of IEEE 114-2010 and Section 5 of CSA
C747-09, and initially determined that sufficient information was
available to propose a test method for air-over electric motors, and
therefore proposed to include air-over electric motors in the scope of
the test procedure. 86 FR 71710, 71718. Further, DOE also proposed an
amended definition for air-over electric motors (86 FR 71710, 71730-
71731), which is discussed further in section III.B.4 of this
rulemaking. Accordingly, DOE requested comment on its proposal to add
air-over electric motors in scope. Id.
In response to the expanded scope proposal, a number of
stakeholders supported the inclusion of air-over electric motors.
(AMCA, No. 21 at p. 2; ebm-papst, No. 23 at pp. 2, 6; CA IOUs, No. 32.1
at p. 10) NEMA agreed with the proposal in concept, but disagreed with
several testing provisions, which are discussed further in section
III.D.1 of this document. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 6) Lennox opposed the
inclusion of air-over motors, citing that component-level regulation
should be avoided when system-level regulation is possible. Lennox
stated that the cost of component-level regulation outweighs the
benefit when DOE could more effectively use system-level regulation
(HVAC in this case). (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 1-2) Regal opposed including
air-over motors to the scope of test procedure, explaining that it
already tests the motors according to DOE requirements for the
equipment into which these motors would be installed, and that
regulating these motors separately would increase costs while yielding
no benefit. (Regal, No. 28 at p. 1) AI Group referenced a 2019
Australian testing standard for three-phase cage induction motors that
includes testing requirements for totally enclosed air-over motors. (AI
Group, No. 25 at p. 3)
DOE is covering air-over electric motors under its ``electric
motors'' authority. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) As discussed in section
III.A of this document, the statute does not limit DOE's authority to
regulate an electric motor with respect to whether they are stand-alone
equipment items or as components of a covered product or covered
equipment. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (providing that standards for
electric motors be applied to electric motors manufactured ``alone or
as a component of another piece of equipment'') DOE's previous
determination in the December 2013 Final Rule to exclude air-over
electric motors from scope was due to insufficient information
available to DOE at the time to support establishment of a test method.
78 FR 75962, 75974-75975. Since that time, NEMA published a test
standard for air-over motors in Section IV, ``Performance Standards
Applying to All Machines,'' Part 34 ``Air-Over Motor Efficiency Test
Method'' of NEMA MG 1-2016 (``NEMA Air-over Motor Efficiency Test
Method''). The air-over method was originally published as part of the
2017 NEMA MG-1 Supplements and is also included in the latest version
of NEMA MG 1-2016. Therefore, DOE does not consider including air-over
electric motors within its test procedure scope significantly
burdensome because the NEMA test method (which is an industry-accepted
method) has existed since 2017. Further, based on a general market
review, DOE notes that several manufacturers have already been
representing the performance of their air-over electric motors in
marketing materials. Based on the additional information and the
development of an industry standard appropriate for air-over electric
motors, DOE is including air-over electric motors within scope of the
test procedure. DOE believes that including such a test procedure
within its regulations will provide consistent and comparable
efficiency ratings for consumers and provide manufacturers with a level
playing field.
DOE notes that air-over electric motors are not currently subject
to energy conservation standards in 10 CFR 431.25(l)(1). Manufacturers
would not be required to use the test procedure for certification,
until such time as a standard is established. If a manufacturer
voluntarily chooses to make representations about the energy
consumption or cost of energy for these motors such representations
must be based on the use of that test procedure beginning 180 days
following publication of a final rule. DOE's amendments do not require
manufacturers who do not currently make voluntary representations to
then begin making public representations of efficiency. (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)(1)) Manufacturers would be required to test such motors in
accordance with the DOE test procedure at such time as compliance is
required with a labeling or energy conservation standard requirement
should such a requirement be established. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b); 42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
In addition, DOE notes that the industry test procedure
incorporated by reference (see section III.D.1) are only applicable to
air-over motors that are induction motors and capable of operating
without an inverter. As such, they are not applicable to air-over
electric motors that are synchronous electric motors and to air-over
electric motors that are inverter-only. Accordingly, DOE clarifies that
it did not propose and is not adopting to include air-over electric
motors that are synchronous electric motors and air-over electric
motors that are inverter-only in the scope of the test procedure. DOE
adopts to add a clarification in the scope section of the test
procedure in appendix B to subpart B to specify which air-over electric
motors are included in the test procedure.
DOE also received a number of comments on the air-over electric
motor definition and test method, which are discussed in section
III.B.4 and section III.D.1 of this document, respectively.
4. AC Induction Electric Motors Greater Than 500 Horsepower
DOE currently specifies that its test procedures and energy
conservation standards for electric motors do not apply to motors that
produce greater than 500 horsepower (373 kW). 10 CFR 431.25(g)(8);
appendix B, Note.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to expand the scope of the
test procedure to include induction electric motors with a horsepower
rating greater than 500 hp and up to 750 hp, that otherwise meet the
criteria provided in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and are not currently listed at
10 CFR 431.25(l)(2)-(4). 86 FR 71710, 71719.
In response, CEMEP supported expanding the test procedure's scope
to include motors between 500 and 750 hp that otherwise meet the
conditions of 10 CFR 431.25(g). (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2) NEMA supported
adding motors
[[Page 63598]]
between 500 and 750 hp to the energy conservation standards but noted
there are currently no NEMA Design A, B, or C performance requirements
for this horsepower range, and that these requirements would need to be
developed. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7) The CA IOUs supported DOE's inclusion
of 500+ hp motors to the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 46)
The Joint Advocates supported expanding the scope beyond 500 hp and
suggested the upper limit should be 1000 hp and identified models that
they asserted would be included in scope even with a limit of 600V
input voltage. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 3) Grundfos questioned
how many motors were sold in this range and what energy savings could
be captured by including 500 to 750 hp motors into the scope of the
test procedure. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2) Advanced Energy stated that
motors of this size are outside of its lab test capabilities, but as a
nationally recognized certification program for electric and small
electric motor efficiency, its certification scheme allows it to
certify motors of this size by witnessing testing in manufacturer's
accredited labs. Accordingly, they commented that they offer
certification services for covered motor products above 250 hp.
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 3)
As discussed in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE's review of catalog
offerings identified large induction motors rated up to 750 hp
currently being sold in the market, and the majority of the models
identified listed full-load efficiencies even though DOE currently does
not regulate electric motors greater than 500 hp. 86 FR 71710, 71719.
Based on discussions with a subject matter expert, DOE understands that
most of these large motors rely on the alternative efficiency
determination method (``AEDM'') permitted under 10 CFR 431.17 to
determine full-load efficiencies for regulated electric motors at and
under 500 hp.\13\ Id. Accordingly, DOE understands that there are
motors sold in the range between 500 and 750 hp. DOE was unable to
identify any motors for sale greater than 750 hp with input voltages up
to 600 volts. Accordingly, DOE will not be expanding the horsepower
limit of the test procedure beyond 750 hp. While there may be motors
available at input voltages greater than 600 volts, in this final rule,
DOE is maintaining the approach from the December 2021 NOPR proposal to
limit the voltage to 600 volts, consistent with other in-scope electric
motors defined by 10 CFR 431.25(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ An AEDM may be used to determine the average full-load
efficiency of one or more of a manufacturer's basic models if the
average full-load efficiency of at least five of its other basic
models is determined through testing. 10 CFR 431.17(a)(1). An AEDM
applied to a basic model must be: (i) derived from a mathematical
model that represents the mechanical and electrical characteristics
of that basic model, and (ii) based on engineering or statistical
analysis, computer simulation or modeling, or other analytic
evaluation of performance data. 10 CFR 431.17(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that the proposed expanded scope would have required that
an electric motor meet all of the performance requirements of one of
the following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC
Design N or H motor. 10 CFR 431.25(g)(9) While DOE agrees with NEMA's
comment that there are no NEMA Design A, B, or C performance
requirements for motors greater than 500 hp, there are performance
requirements for IEC Design N or H motors for the same range. As such,
the IEC Design N or H performance requirements would be applicable for
this horsepower range instead of the NEMA Design A, B, or C performance
requirements.
Accordingly, consistent with the proposed scope expansion and
related discussion from the December 2021 NOPR and the reasons set
forth in the preceding paragraphs, DOE is expanding the scope of the
test procedure to include induction electric motors with a horsepower
rating greater than 500 hp and up to 750 hp that otherwise meet the
criteria provided in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and are not currently listed at
10 CFR 431.25(l)(2)-(4).
5. SNEMs
An SEM is a NEMA general purpose AC single-speed induction motor,
built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with NEMA
Standards Publication MG1-1987, including IEC metric equivalent motors.
See 42 U.S.C. 6311(G); see also 10 CFR 431.442 (clarifying that the
statutory definition for ``small electric motor'' includes IEC metric
equivalent motors). Table III-1 and Table III-2 provide a general
description of currently regulated small electric motors and electric
motors.
Table III-1--General Description of Single-Phase Induction Motors
Currently Subject to Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA frame size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-Digit NEMA
Motor enclosure construction 2-Digit NEMA frame frame size or
size above
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open.......................... NEMA general purpose None.
capacitor-start
induction run,
capacitor-start
capacitor run motors
between 0.25 and 3 hp.
Enclosed...................... None.................. None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: this table provides a high-level description. Full description of
motors currently subject to energy conservation standards and test
procedures available at 10 CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X.
Table III--2 General Description of Polyphase Phase Induction Motors
Currently Subject to Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA frame size
-----------------------------------------
Motor enclosure construction 3-Digit NEMA
2-Digit NEMA frame frame size or
size above
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open.......................... NEMA general purpose Between 1-500
motor between 0.25 hp.
and 3 hp.
Enclosed...................... NEMA 56-frame size Between 1-500
only between 1-500 hp. hp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: this table provides a high-level description. Full description of
motors currently subject to energy conservation standards and test
procedures in available at 10 CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X.
[[Page 63599]]
This section addresses electric motors that do not fall within the
SEM definition as described above but that are generally considered
``small'' by industry (i.e., ``small, non-small-electric-motor electric
motor,'' or ``SNEM''). In this section, DOE specifically discusses
SNEMs that are induction motors. Some of these motors are marketed as
general purpose by manufacturers, although they do not meet the
definition of small electric motor at 10 CFR 431.442.\14\ Non-induction
motor topologies (specifically certain synchronous electric motors) are
discussed in section III.A.7 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Based on DOE review of catalogs from four major
manufacturers, out of 3262 SNEMs in scope identified, 1300 were
marketed either general (1128) or definite purpose (172).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include test procedures
for additional electric motors not covered under the current electric
motors test procedure and that do not meet the definition of small
electric motors in 10 CFR part 431, subpart X, but are nonetheless
considered ``small,'' i.e., SNEMs. 86 FR 71710, 71719-71725. DOE
proposed to distinguish SNEMs from SEMs by specifying combinations of
frame size, rated motor horsepower, enclosure construction, and
additional performance criteria that are not currently included in the
existing electric motors and small electric motors regulations at 10
CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X (See Table III-1 and Table III-2
for electric motors and small electric motors that are currently
regulated). Id.
Accordingly, DOE proposed the following definition for this
expanded scope in the December 2021 NOPR:
Small non-small-electric-motor electric motor (``SNEMs'') means
an electric motor that:
(a) Is not a small electric motor, as defined at Sec. 431.442
and is not dedicated-purpose pool pump motors as defined at Sec.
431.483;
(b) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty
type S1 (IEC);
(c) Is capable of operating on polyphase or single-phase
alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power (with or
without an inverter);
(d) Is rated for 600 volts or less;
(e) Is a single-speed induction motor;
(f) Produces a rated motor horsepower greater than or equal to
0.25 horsepower (0.18 kW); and
(g) Is built in the following frame sizes: any frame sizes if
the motor operates on single-phase power; any frame size if the
motor operates on polyphase power, and has a rated motor horsepower
less than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW); or a two-digit NEMA frame size (or
IEC metric equivalent), if the motor operates on polyphase power,
has a rated motor horsepower equal to or greater than 1 horsepower
(0.75 kW), and is not an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric
equivalent).
86 FR 71710, 71780.
DOE received a number of comments on how the criteria for SNEMs was
defined. Some commenters supported including SNEMs in the scope of the
test procedure as proposed. Commenters noted that these motors are very
similar in application, construction, and performance to existing
covered equipment, and therefore should be covered. (Advanced Energy,
No. 33 at p. 3; NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) Further, NEEA/NWPCC
encouraged DOE to include all motors that directly compete against each
other in the test procedure so that they can be fairly compared against
other motor designs. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) Other commenters,
however, criticized DOE's approach. ABB stated that the criteria for
establishing if a product is in the proposed scope as an SNEM are not
adequately defined, and recommended that DOE list the criteria that an
SNEM must satisfy, citing the nine criteria DOE has already listed for
electric motors in 10 CFR 431.25. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 1) NEMA added that
the proposed SNEM definition needs to be clearer since it does not
allow manufacturers to clearly identify what motors in their inventory
would fall within the SNEM category. NEMA requested that DOE provide
specific examples of SNEMs and better identify whether an electric
motors is an SNEM. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7) HI offered a similar view,
noting that the proposed SNEM scope is too broad and that the proposed
definition's overly-broad nature prevented HI from identifying areas of
concern. (HI, No. 30 at p. 2)
DOE proposed to distinguish SNEMs by specifying combinations of
frame sizes, rated motor horsepower, enclosure construction, and
additional performance criteria that are not currently included in the
existing electric motors and small electric motors regulations at 10
CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X (See Table III-1 and Table III-2,
and proposed definition for SNEM earlier in this section). DOE proposed
seven specific criteria to identify whether an electric motor is a
SNEM, an approach similar to how DOE identifies those electric motors
that are subject to the standards at 10 CFR 431.25. If an electric
motor meets the seven proposed criteria, then it is an SNEM. ABB
recommended listing criteria to identify the appropriate scope (ABB,
No. 18 at p. 1), which DOE notes is consistent with the approach DOE
proposed in the December 2021 NOPR and is consistent with how
specifications are provided for motors currently in scope in 10 CFR
431.25(g). Further, other commenters did not identify any specific
areas of confusion. In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE provided a detailed
description on how the SNEM scope was determined based on the current
SEM and electric motor scope. 86 FR 71710, 71719-71725. In all, it is
DOE's understanding that the proposed specifications are sufficient to
specify the SNEM scope. DOE is, however, clarifying some of the
proposed criteria related to frame size, speed, and power supply in
response to other comments.
For example, the Joint Advocates suggested that multi-speed SNEMs
should be included in the scope as well, and that including only
single-speed SNEMs is inconsistent with the proposed broader test
procedure scope that includes variable-speed motors. They raised the
concern of a loophole with inefficient multi-speed SNEMs replacing more
efficient single-speed SNEMs. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at pp. 3-4) The
CA IOUs recommended including multi-speed SNEMs to the test procedure's
scope, citing as support the scenario where a consumer seeks to replace
a failed variable-speed electrically commutated motor (``ECM'') in a
residential furnace fan with a lower first cost, less efficient, multi-
speed permanent split capacitor (``PSC'') motor. They also stated that
multi-speed PSC and shaded-pole motors are in widespread use. (CA IOUs,
No. 32.1 at p. 42)
After careful consideration of these comments, DOE has decided at
this time to retain its single-speed limitation for SNEMs. As
explained, DOE is taking this step to ensure coverage of those motors
that are generally considered small by industry that have similarities
to motors that DOE currently regulates as SEMs at 10 CFR part 431
subpart X--the scope of which only includes single-speed induction
motors. See 10 CFR 431.442.
Commenters also had some concerns with the inclusion of the clause
``with or without an inverter'' within the SNEM definition.
Specifically, Grundfos stated that the proposed SNEM definition is
confusing and that DOE should clarify the intent with the ``single
speed'' and ``with or without an inverter'' requirements to remove any
ambiguity on the intention. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2) HI stated that
for clarity, the clause ``with or without an inverter'' should be
removed from the criteria. (HI, No. 30 at p. 2) DOE re-evaluated the
proposed text relevant to inverters. DOE's intention with the proposal
was
[[Page 63600]]
to ensure that in-scope electric motors that satisfy the SNEM
definition would be either: (1) single-speed and capable of operating
without an inverter; or (2) inverter-only electric motors operating
with an inverter and capable of varying speed.\15\ Therefore, to
clarify this intent, DOE is revising the language used to describe
SNEMs to state this more directly. First, to add clarity, DOE is
replacing the proposed criteria ``Is capable of operating on polyphase
or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power
(with or without an inverter)'' with ``Operates on polyphase or single-
phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is
used with an inverter that operates on polyphase or single-phase
alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power.'' Second, to
clarify its intent, DOE is replacing the proposed criterion ``Is a
single-speed induction motor'' with a revised one that accounts for
inverter-only electric motors as follows: ``Is a single-speed induction
motor capable of operating without an inverter or is an inverter-only
electric motor.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See discussion of the term ``inverter-only electric motor''
in section III.B.3 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separately, HI had concerns regarding how the frame sizes should be
identified within the SNEM definition. HI commented that DOE should
explicitly list the NEMA and IEC equivalents frame sizes that are
covered. (HI, No. 30 at p. 2) Further, HI noted that the proposed phase
``any frame size'' in the SNEM definition is not defined, and could
imply a motor of any dimensions, or a motor of any defined NEMA or IEC
frame size is covered. They suggested that this ambiguity needs to be
remedied. Id. DOE clarifies in this final rule that the proposed ``any
frame size'' is intended to designate ``any NEMA or IEC-equivalent''
frame size. As such, in this final rule, DOE is modifying the term
``any frame size'' to ``any two-, or three- digit NEMA frame size (or
IEC-equivalent).'' DOE notes that there are no four-digit frames sizes
that qualify as SNEMs.
Finally, DOE also received comments regarding the proposed term
``small non-small-electric-motor electric motor,'' or ``SNEM''. NEEA/
NWPCC recommended that DOE reconsider the use of the term ``small non-
small-electric-motor electric motor'' because it is a confusing term
for these motors. NEEA/NWPCC suggested ``Other Small HP Motors (OSHM)''
or ``Other Small Electric Motors (OSEM)'' as two possible options.
(NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) Grundfos stated that the DOE should
identify a more suitable, and less confusing name for this class of
motors. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2) DOE did not receive any other
recommendations regarding an alternate to the proposed ``SNEM'' term.
DOE notes that the term explicitly states that it is a ``non-small-
electric-motor.'' This specifies that SEMs, as defined in 10 CFR
431.442, are not part of this scope. Accordingly, DOE is maintaining
the term ``SNEM'' in this final rule.
Accordingly, DOE is finalizing the scope to cover SNEMs, which DOE
is defining as:
Small non-small-electric-motor electric motor (``SNEM'') means an
electric motor that:
(a) Is not a small electric motor, as defined Sec. 431.442 and is
not a dedicated-purpose pool pump motor as defined at Sec. 431.483;
(b) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type
S1 (IEC);
(c) Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-
hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that
operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz)
sinusoidal line power;
(d) Is rated for 600 volts or less;
(e) Is a single-speed induction motor capable of operating without
an inverter or is an inverter-only electric motor;
(f) Produces a rated motor horsepower greater than or equal to 0.25
horsepower (0.18 kW); and
(g) Is built in the following frame sizes: any two-, or three-
digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent) if the motor operates
on single-phase power; any two-, or three-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC
metric equivalent) if the motor operates on polyphase power, and has a
rated motor horsepower less than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW); or a two-digit
NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), if the motor operates on
polyphase power, has a rated motor horsepower equal to or greater than
1 horsepower (0.75 kW), and is not an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or
IEC metric equivalent).
6. AC Induction Inverter-Only Electric Motors
The current electric motor test procedures apply to AC induction
motors except for those AC induction motors that are ``inverter-only
electric motors.'' \16\ These motors are an exempted category of
electric motors listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l)(5).\17\ As it noted in its
May 2014 Final Rule, DOE exempted these electric motors from its
standards at 10 CFR 431.25 in the absence of a reliable and repeatable
method to test their efficiency. 79 FR 30934, 30945. In the December
2021 NOPR, DOE noted that in the interim since its 2014 rule was
published, the industry has developed several methods to test inverter-
only motors. As a result of this development, DOE proposed to include
within the electric motor test procedure's scope those AC induction
inverter-only electric motors that meet both the criteria listed at 10
CFR 431.25(g) and the proposed SNEM scope. 86 FR 71710, 71725-71726.
Further, as discussed in section III.A.4 of this section, DOE also
separately proposed to include within the test procedure's scope those
induction electric motors with a horsepower rating greater than 500 hp
and up to 750 hp that otherwise meet the criteria provided in 10 CFR
431.25(g) and are not currently listed as exempt at 10 CFR
431.25(l)(2)-(4). 86 FR 71710, 71719.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ NEMA MG-1 2016, Paragraph 30.2.1.5 defines the term
``control'' for motors receiving AC power, as ``devices that are
also called inverters and converters. These are ``electronic devices
that convert an input AC or DC power into a controlled output AC
voltage or current..''.'' Converters can also be found in motors
that receive DC power and include electronic devices that convert an
AC or DC power input into a controlled output DC voltage or current.
See section III.B.3 of this final rule.
\17\ DOE defines an ``inverter-only electric motor'' as an
electric motor that is capable of rated operation solely with an
inverter, and is not intended for operation when directly connected
to polyphase, sinusoidal line power.'' 10 CFR 431.12 DOE notes that
more generally, the requirement to operate with an inverter also
means that that inverter-only motors are not intended for operation
when directly connected to single-phase, sinusoidal line power or to
DC power. See section III.B.3 of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, several stakeholders objected to the inclusion of
inverter-only electric motors and suggested that DOE continue to exempt
them from coverage under the test procedure. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7;
CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 24 at p. 6; AI Group, No. 25 at p.
4; Regal, No. 28 at p. 1; Trane, No. 31 at pp. 3, 5-6) Further, CEMEP
suggested that DOE address inverter-only electric motors in a separate
(presumably dedicated) rulemaking. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2) ABB
supported NEMA's request that inverter-only motors be excluded from the
test procedure because inverter-only motors are different from
currently covered electric motors that are operated from inverters
(presumably inverter-capable) to operate continuous loads like pumps
and fans. On the other hand, ABB noted that inverter-only motors are
rated by the amount of torque they produce and are generally not used
for continuous fixed loads; instead, they operate at widely varying
loads or directions in applications such as sawmill carriage drives,
machine tools and other high-performance machinery. ABB also commented
that
[[Page 63601]]
inverter-only motors may have a special voltage/frequency combination
that allows them to operate at very high speeds with up to 400 Hz
input, and these motors are normally cooled by separately powered fans
and may have their laminations exposed with no external frame. Finally,
regarding inverters, ABB stated that inverters may vary from micro
designs to very large drives with widely varying topography, and some
newer drive topographies may result in a more efficient drive but at
the expense of producing additional harmonics, heating, and reduced
efficiency from the motor. (ABB, No. 18 at pp. 2-3) AI Group stated
that inverter-only motors are rarely general-purpose motors and have
non-continuous duty applications with high cycling and high-performance
demands. In its view, these special characteristics and the low volume
of sales for inverter-only motors favor excluding them from the scope
of the test procedure. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 4)
Similarly, NEMA, along with a number of individual electric motor
manufacturers, also supported excluding inverter-only motors from the
test procedure's scope. It explained that the motor and drive
combination required to operate is a ``motor-drive system''--not an
electric motor--and should not fall within the scope of an electric
motor test procedure. It further stated that inverter-only motors are
not general purpose and have unique performance requirements that
complicate expressions of efficiency. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7) Regal also
opposed including inverter-only motors within the scope of DOE's test
procedure. They stated that they already test the motors according to
DOE requirements for the equipment into which these motors are
installed, and that regulating these motors separately would increase
costs for no benefit. (Regal, No. 28 at p. 1) Trane commented that
inverter-only motors should not be included in the scope because, in
its view, there are no energy savings gained and that testing related
to these electric motors should occur as part of the overall system in
which they are installed. (Trane, No. 31 at pp. 3, 5-6)
In contrast, several stakeholders supported the inclusion of
inverter-only electric motors as part of the test procedure's scope.
(Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 4; Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2; CA IOUs,
No. 32.1 at p. 19; Advanced Energy, No. 33 at pp. 3-4; NEEA/NWPCC, No.
37 at p. 3) The CA IOUs commented that the inclusion of inverter-only
motors will provide end-users with a representative method to compare
these motors with conventional induction motors combined with variable-
frequency drives. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 19) The CA IOUs also
provided examples of case studies where inverter-only motors have
successfully substituted conventional induction motors combined with
VFDs. (CA IOUs, No. 32.2 at pp. 1-15) The Joint Advocates commented
that inverter-only motors with variable-speed capabilities may serve as
more energy efficient replacements for currently covered and newly
included (e.g., SNEM) AC induction motors, and that inclusion of these
more energy efficient motor types may unlock significant potential
energy savings. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 4) Advanced Energy
stated that in the past, DOE excluded inverter-only motors because
these motors can only be operated continuously when connected to an
inverter, and there may be difficulty testing the combined motor and
inverter. However, it noted that in practice, there are induction
machines marked as ``inverter-only'' that can be relatively more easily
tested than synchronous motors. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at pp. 3-4)
As discussed in section III.A.1, EPCA previously defined the term
``electric motor'' as encompassing specific motors that are general
purpose. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (2006)) Section 313(a)(2) of EISA
2007 removed that definition and the prior limits that narrowly defined
what types of motors would be considered as electric motors. Further,
section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 established energy conservation
standards for four types of electric motors (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) The
term ``electric motor'' was left undefined. EPCA does not limit
``electric motors'' to ``general purpose.''
In the May 2012 Final Rule, DOE determined a regulatory definition
for ``electric motor'' was necessary, and therefore DOE adopted the
broader definition of ``electric motor'' currently found in 10 CFR
431.12. Specifically, DOE noted that the absence of a definition may
cause confusion about which electric motors are required to comply with
mandatory test procedures and energy conservation standards. 77 FR
26608, 26613. Further, DOE noted that this broader approach would allow
DOE to fill the definitional gap created by the EISA 2007 amendments
while providing DOE with the flexibility to set energy conservation
standards for other types of electric motors without having to
continuously update the definition of ``electric motors'' each time DOE
sets energy conservation standards for a new subset of electric motors.
Id.
In addition, the statute does not limit DOE's authority to regulate
an electric motor with respect to whether ``electric motors'' are
stand-alone equipment items or components of a covered product or
covered equipment. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (providing that standards
for electric motors be applied to electric motors manufactured ``alone
or as a component of another piece of equipment'') As such, inverter-
only electric motors not being general purpose or components of another
covered product or equipment have no bearing on whether DOE may
regulate these motors.
Further, an inverter-only electric motor requiring an inverter to
operate also has no bearing on whether DOE may regulate these motors.
An electric motor is defined as a machine that converts electrical
power into rotational mechanical power. 10 CFR 431.12. Inverter-only
electric motors require the inverter to operate in the field to convert
electrical power into rotational mechanical power. Inverter-only motors
cannot be run continuously when directly connected to a 60-hertz, AC
polyphase sinusoidal power source. Therefore, a separate, special
electronic controller, called an inverter, is used to alter the power
signal to the motor. The inverter can be physically combined with the
motor into a single unit, may be physically separate from the motor, or
may not be included in the motor, but the motor is unable to operate
without a drive. As such, this electric motor would remain inoperable
if it does not include an inverter and would need to include both the
inverter-only electric motor and the inverter-component to convert
electrical power into rotational mechanical power. For this reason, the
combination of these two components, in DOE's view, meets the
definition of an electric motor and DOE has included this combination
within the scope of its test procedure.
In the December 2013 Final Rule, DOE considered inverter-only
electric motors as part of the scope and only excluded these motors
from the test procedure due to the absence of a reliable and repeatable
method to test them for efficiency. 78 FR 75962, 75989. In the December
2021 NOPR, DOE noted that in the interim since the December 2013 Final
Rule, the industry has developed several methods to test inverter-only
motors. 86 FR 71710, 71725-71726. These industry test methods are
discussed further in section III.D.3.
Accordingly, DOE is including inverter-only electric motors within
the scope of this test procedure. Establishing test procedures for
these
[[Page 63602]]
motors would allow for standardized representations of efficiency of
motors.
As proposed in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE will only be including
within scope the following inverter-only electric motors: (1) AC
induction inverter-only electric motors that meet the criteria listed
at 10 CFR 431.25(g); and (2) Inverter-only motors that meet the SNEM
definition. In addition, as discussed in section III.A.3 of this
document, DOE is not including air-over inverter-only electric motors.
In response to stakeholder comments, DOE is clarifying some of the
requirements. First, the criteria in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and the SNEM
scope presented in section III.A.5 both require that the motor be rated
for continuous duty. Therefore, non-continuous duty motors are not
included. Second, per 10 CFR 431.25(g) and the SNEM definition, in-
scope inverter-only electric motors would be those motors built using
certain NEMA (or IEC equivalent) frame sizes. Third, DOE is requiring
that the rated frequency be limited to 60 Hz (see section III.G.1). As
such, the scope of the test procedure is limited to inverter-only
electric motors with a rated frequency of 60 Hz, where the rated
frequency corresponds to the frequency of the electricity supplied to
the inverter (see section III.G.1). Finally, DOE is requiring that
inverter-only electric motors be tested with an inverter (see section
III.D.3); therefore, the efficiency determined would be a combined
efficiency of the motor and inverter, not just the efficiency of the
motor or the inverter measured individually and would account for any
interactions between the motor and the inverter (e.g. increase in
harmonics). As such, only inverter-only electric motors that meet the
specific requirements in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and are SNEMs, including
those discussed in this paragraph, would be included in scope of the
test procedure.
In this final rule, DOE is incorporating the proposed inverter-only
electric motors in scope. Further discussion on the test procedure is
provided in section III.D.3 of this document, and discussion of the
metric is provided in section III.E. of this document.
7. Synchronous Electric Motors
The current electric motor test procedures apply only to induction
electric motors. 10 CFR 431.25(g)(1), appendix B, Note.
The ``induction motor'' criteria exclude synchronous electric
motors from the scope. A ``synchronous electric motor'' is an electric
motor in which the average speed of the normal operation of the motor
is exactly proportional to the frequency of the power supply to which
it is connected, regardless of load.\18\ In contrast, in an induction
electric motor, the average speed of the normal operation of the motor
is not proportional to the frequency of the power supply to which the
motor is connected.\19\ For example, a 4-pole synchronous electric
motor will rotate at 1800 rpm when connected to 60 Hz power even when
the load varies while a 4-pole induction electric motor in the same
setup will slow down as load increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ NEMA MG 1-2016 Paragraph 1.17.3.4 defines a ``synchronous
machine,'' as an ``alternating-current machine in which the average
speed of the normal operation is exactly proportional to the
frequency of the system to which it is connected.''
\19\ NEMA MG 1-2016 Paragraph 1.17.3.3 defines an ``induction
machine,'' as an ``an asynchronous machine that comprises a magnetic
circuit interlinked with two electric circuits or sets of circuits,
rotating with respect to each other and in which power is
transferred from one circuit to another by electromagnetic
induction.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Synchronous electric motors can operate as either direct-on-line
(connected directly to the power supply) or inverter-fed (connected to
an inverter). Some inverter-fed electric motors require being connected
to an inverter to operate (i.e., inverter-only electric motors) while
others are capable of operating both direct-on-line or connected to an
inverter (i.e., inverter-capable electric motors).
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that it identified new
industry standards that apply to synchronous electric motors, and on
the basis of this finding, proposed to include within the test
procedure's scope synchronous electric motors with the following
characteristics: \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ DOE notes that while the preamble section of the December
2021 NOPR proposed to specify that synchronous electric motors ``are
rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1
(IEC),'' (see 86 FR 71710, 71727) the proposed regulatory text of
the notice did not include that requirement (see 86 FR 71710,
71780). DOE is clarifying in this final rule that the regulatory
text mistakenly excluded this requirement.
Table III-3--Synchronous Electric Motors Proposed for Inclusion in Scope
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria No. Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. Are not dedicated-purpose pool pump
motors as defined at 10 CFR
431.483.
2................................. Are synchronous electric motors;
3................................. Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1)
operation or for duty type S1
(IEC);
4................................. Capable of operating on polyphase or
single-phase alternating current 60-
hertz (Hz); sinusoidal line power
(with or without an inverter);
5................................. Are rated 600 volts or less;
6................................. Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, 8-, 10-, or 12-
pole configuration.
7................................. Produce at least 0.25 horsepower
(hp) (0.18 kilowatt (kW)) but not
greater than 750 hp (373 kW).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
86 FR 71710, 71726-71727.
Several stakeholders agreed with including synchronous electric
motors in scope and with the proposed criteria. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p.
2; NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) The Joint Advocates supported DOE's
proposed expansion of scope to include synchronous motors. (Joint
Advocates, No. 27 at pp. 4-5)
On the other hand, several commenters urged continuing to exempt
synchronous electric motors from the test procedure's scope, with some
suggesting that DOE evaluate these motors in a separate dedicated
rulemaking. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 3; CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; AI Group, No.
25 at p. 4; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 8) Specifically, ABB commented that
synchronous motors could be used in widely differing product
categories, like AC servo motors, which are not used for continuous
load applications but for incremental motion and positioning as on
machine tools and industrial robots. It added that other larger
synchronous motors are often used in freshwater pumps and fans, both
extended products that have a DOE regulation in effect or in
development. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 3) CEMEP also did not support the scope
of the definition as it would include servo-motors. (CEMEP, No. 19 at
p. 2) AI Group stated that synchronous motors are not general purpose
motors and have many different designs, characteristics, and
definitions as to what constitutes a synchronous
[[Page 63603]]
motor, and as such should be excluded from the scope of the test
procedure. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 4)
As already discussed in section III.A.1 and section III.A.7 of this
document, EPCA, as amended through EISA 2007, provides statutory
authority for the regulation of expanded scope of motors. EPCA does not
limit ``electric motors'' to ``general purpose.'' In addition, the
statute does not limit DOE's authority to regulate an electric motor
with respect to whether they are stand-alone equipment items or are
components of a covered product or covered equipment. See 42 U.S.C.
6313(b)(1) (providing that standards for electric motors be applied to
electric motors manufactured ``alone or as a component of another piece
of equipment'') Whether synchronous electric motors fall outside the
category of being general purpose (i.e., being special purpose or
definite purpose) or are used as components of other covered products
and equipment have no bearing on DOE's authority to regulate these
motors.
Further, as DOE presented in the December 2021 NOPR, industry
standards exist that apply to in-scope synchronous electric motors. 86
FR 71710, 71726-71727. Establishing test procedures for these motors
would allow for standardized representations of motor efficiency. DOE
notes that these motors are typically used as higher efficiency
replacements for single-speed induction motors that DOE currently
regulates. Accordingly, establishing a test procedure for standardized
representations of synchronous electric motors would reduce market
confusion by providing comparable ratings for substitutable induction
motors. As discussed in section III.E, DOE is requiring expanded scope
motors, including synchronous electric motors, to be represented based
on average full-load efficiency, similar to current in-scope electric
motors. Accordingly, a test procedure for synchronous electric motors
would ensure that end users are provided with ratings from a uniform
test method that can be used to compare and select between electric
motors of competing technologies that would ultimately be used in the
same end-use applications. DOE notes that, as proposed in the December
2021 NOPR, DOE is only including within the test procedure's scope
those synchronous motors that are rated for continuous duty (MG 1)
operation. As a result, non-continuous duty synchronous electric motors
would continue to remain out of scope.
The following paragraphs summarize comments and responses regarding
several specific criteria for synchronous electric motors that DOE
proposed in the December 2021 NOPR (See Table III-3 describing the
proposal).
The Joint Advocates stated that DOE should clarify the definition
of synchronous motors to more explicitly include inverter-fed
synchronous motors. Specifically, the Joint Advocates noted potential
concerns about whether the proposed definition could be interpreted as
requiring a synchronous motor to start and run on sinusoidal line power
(i.e., not inverter-fed), which would conflict with their understanding
that DOE intended to exclude only those synchronous motors that start
and run directly from a DC power source. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at
pp. 4-5) In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE's intention for the synchronous
electric motor scope was to include those that operate either direct-
on-line (connected directly to the power supply) or as inverter-fed
(connected to an inverter). 86 FR 71710, 71727; See Criterion 4 in
Table III.8. DOE acknowledged a number of inverter-fed synchronous
electric motors that are not currently included in the test procedures
for electric motors, including line start permanent magnet (``LSPM'');
\21\ permanent magnet AC (``PMAC,'' also known as permanent magnet
synchronous motor (``PMSM'') or brushless AC); switched reluctance
(``SR''); synchronous reluctance motors (``SynRMs''); and
electronically commutated motor (``ECMs'').\22\ 86 FR 71710, 71726.
Accordingly, to clarify in this final rule, DOE has updated the
description that motors used with an inverter that operate on polyphase
or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power
are included in the synchronous electric motor scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Advanced Energy noted that LSPM motors are synchronous
motors. Though these motors have a squirrel cage, they do not
operate on the principle of induction as is attributed to regular
induction motors. The cage is simply for starting the motor and
these motors are essentially synchronous motors. (Docket No. EERE-
2017-BT-TP-0047; Advanced Energy, No. 25 at p. 3) This technology is
described further in Chapter 3 of the technical support document
accompanying the May 2014 Final Rule: During the motor transient
start up, the squirrel cage in the rotor contributes to the
production of enough torque to start the rotation of the rotor,
albeit at an asynchronous speed. When the speed of the rotor
approaches synchronous speed, the constant magnetic field of the
permanent magnet locks to the rotating stator field, thereby pulling
the rotor into synchronous operation. See DOE Technical Support
Document (Electric Motors Standards Final Rule) (May 2014) (Docket
No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0108).
\22\ All 5 topologies are referred to as ``advanced motor
technologies'' and represent motor technologies that have been more
recently introduced on the market and have variable speed
capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Advanced Energy supported including synchronous motors in
scope, it requested a modification to the proposed pole criteria.
Advanced Energy explained that synchronous motors cannot be classified
in the same manner as induction motors regarding magnetic pole
configuration. It noted that some synchronous motors have significantly
more poles than what designates the operating speed, and this
designation may be present on the motor nameplate. Rather than pole
count, Advanced Energy suggested DOE use rated speed. (Advanced Energy,
No. 33 at p. 4)
DOE's proposal to include the pole configuration in the synchronous
electric motors description sought to maintain consistency with how DOE
describes current in-scope electric motors in 10 CFR 431.25(g)(6). The
synchronous speed of any electric motor is determined by the pole count
and the input frequency to the motor. For direct-on-line induction
motors, the input frequency is a fixed value determined by the
electricity supply grid the motor is connected to, so the synchronous
speed would then only vary as the pole count varies. For synchronous
motors, the input frequency to the motor is not fixed because the
inverter supplying power to the motor can supply different frequencies
on command, allowing two synchronous motors with different pole counts
to have the same synchronous speed. As such, DOE agrees with Advanced
Energy that pole configuration is not as critical a characteristic of
synchronous electric motor compared to induction motors. Because of
this inconsistency between synchronous motors and induction motors, DOE
no longer sees a need to maintain consistency on the pole count scope
criterion between the two groups of electric motors. Since pole count
is not nearly as critical to the operation of a synchronous motor, DOE
is removing the proposed pole configuration requirement from the
synchronous electric motor description.
ebm-papst commented that synchronous air-over motors do not fit
into the scope of NEMA MG 1-2016 Part 34's air-over electric motor test
method. (ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 3) DOE clarifies in this final rule
that DOE is not including in the test procedure's scope synchronous
electric motors that are also air-over electric motors. DOE agrees that
the test procedure for air-over electric motors is only specific to
induction motors and not the synchronous electric motors at issue in
this rulemaking. (See further discussion in section III.D.1 of this
document).
Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is defining synchronous
electric motor as follows:
[[Page 63604]]
A Synchronous Electric Motor means an electric motor that:
(a) Is not a dedicated pool pump motor as defined at Sec. 431.483,
or is not an air-over electric motor;
(b) Is a synchronous electric motor;
(c) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type
S1 (IEC);
(d) Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-
hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that
operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz)
sinusoidal line power;
(e) Is rated 600 volts or less; and
(f) Produces at least 0.25 hp (0.18 kW) but not greater than 750 hp
(559 kW).
8. Submersible Electric Motors
DOE defines a ``submersible electric motor'' as an electric motor
that: (1) is intended to operate continuously only while submerged in
liquid; (2) is capable of operation while submerged in liquid for an
indefinite period of time; and (3) has been sealed to prevent ingress
of liquid from contacting the motor's internal parts. 10 CFR 431.12.
These motors are currently exempt from the energy conservation
standards. 10 CFR 431.25(l)(4). In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed
to include submersible electric motors within the test procedure's
scope. 86 FR 71710, 71718-71719. DOE's proposal was informed in part by
its initial determination that the air-over test methods developed by
NEMA could be adapted as a test method for submersible electric motors
either by using an external blower to cool the motor or without the
need to submerge the motor in a liquid during testing to cool the
motor. With this potential modification to the air-over test method in
mind, DOE proposed to include submersible electric motors within the
scope of DOE's test procedures. 86 FR 71710, 71749-71750.
Several commenters suggested that the current definition of
submersible electric motors is too broad for the purpose of adding them
to the test procedure scope, in that the definition could cover a wide
range of products, each of which have different design constraints and
should be tested differently. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; Franklin
Electric, No. 22 at p. 2; HI, No. 30 at p. 1; WSC, No. 35 at p. 1) The
CA IOUs recommended refining the definition of submersible electric
motors based on appropriate classifications for different designs of
submersible motors, and recommended DOE consider multiple industry
definitions. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 18) Several commenters also
raised concerns with having a single test procedure for all types of
submersible electric motors. They noted that several different types of
submersible motors exist, each having different technical performances
and design constraints. Accordingly, they suggested that type-specific
test procedures may be needed to provide accurate representations of
efficiency. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 1; HI, No.
30 at p. 1; WSC, No. 35 at p. 1)
NEMA questioned the merits of testing submersible motors in open
air conditions, as these motors are designed to operate submerged. It
noted that because the proposed test procedure does not require
submersion for cooling, it is neither representative, nor accurate, nor
repeatable. (NEMA, No 26 at p. 6) It stated that submersible motors are
often designed with a much higher power density than open-air motors
because the specific heat capacity of water is approximately 4 times
that of air, allowing much more heat dissipation to be accounted for in
the design. It noted that because of the design difference, in most
cases it is not sufficient to rely on air flow to cool submersible
electric motors with such high power densities. It provided motor
performance modeling data for a 15 hp submersible motor built in a NEMA
184 frame. NEMA showed that using a typical value of minimum required
air velocity for the manufacturer's air-over motors at the same frame
size (i.e., at 12 mph), the AEDM predicts that the maximum horsepower
at which the motor would stabilize is at 12.5 hp, at which point the
predicted average winding temperature rise would reach 442 [deg]C.
Because IEEE 112-2017 requires that the load temperature test be
performed before taking efficiency measurements, conducting the load
temperature test at an average winding temperature rise of 442 [deg]C
would likely result in motor failure even before the efficiency
measurements could be made, which in turn would subject personnel
performing the measurements to potential safety hazards. Even at the
maximum air velocity that this manufacturer's AEDM is capable of
reaching (i.e., at 114 mph), the AEDM predicts this motor would
stabilize at 14.8 HP, for which the predicted average winding
temperature rise is 322.2 [deg]C, which would also likely result in
motor failure. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 21-22)
CEMEP stated that NEMA part 34.4 was not applicable to submersible
motors. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 4) CEMEP stated that some submersible
motors would not be sufficiently cooled by air alone as would occur
under the proposed test procedure. They provided an example of a 45 kW
motor needing to dissipate 8 kW of heat losses while operating. They
also stated that the bearings and seals would not be properly
lubricated when tested under the conditions of the proposed test
procedure--which would effectively be by air rather than by a liquid as
would occur during the normal operation of submersible motors. (CEMEP,
No. 19 at p. 8)
Franklin Electric opposed using NEMA 34.4 as the test method for
submersible motors, arguing that no standardized test procedure exists;
the proposed test procedure was not validated on a diverse enough group
of motors; many submersible motor bearings require liquid to be used to
lubricate seals and bearings during operation, the lack of which would
damage the motor and present additional frictional losses not
representative as part of the motor's intended use; many submersible
motors are not designed to operate in a horizontal configuration as
proposed by the test procedure; the leads for submersible motors are
often designed with liquid cooling in mind, and using thermocouples on
the surface of the motor is not a reliable means of evaluating the
winding temperature--particularly when different liquids are used to
encapsulate the windings. (Franklin Electric, No. 22 at pp. 3-4)
Further, Franklin Electric noted that no non-manufacturer test lab has
the capability to certify a motor using the proposed method, (Franklin
Electric, No. 22 at p. 5), and added that submersible motor
manufacturers already have custom in-house tests that accommodate water
cooling and vertical orientation of the motor to provide accurate and
repeatable efficiency testing. It stated that using air-cooling would
actually be more burdensome than liquid for submersible motors larger
than 5 hp. (Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 4)
In response to DOE's comments on whether the proposed test
procedure should only apply to a certain horsepower range, Franklin
Electric stated that even if the submersible test method scope was
limited to 10 hp, that limit would exclude from scope most sizes other
than 4-inch diameter submersible motors. It noted that this cut-off
would result in a very small fraction of products being added to the
test procedure and therefore, would create confusion around efficiency
ratings of an in-scope submersible motor vs. out of scope submersible
motor. (Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 5) For these reasons, Franklin
Electric argued that the submersible test procedure is
[[Page 63605]]
both technologically infeasible and not economically justified and
disagreed with DOE's initial view that the proposed changes would not
constitute a ``significant'' regulatory action. (Franklin Electric, No.
22 at p. 6)
AI Group stated that submersible motors should be tested according
to a procedure that has them submerged in water. (AI Group, No. 25 at
p. 3) Grundfos offered a similar critique, asserting that the proposed
submersible motor test procedure is inadequate because these motors are
designed to operate while submerged in a liquid and the proposed test
method has them tested in air. Grundfos stated that testing these
motors in air rather than submerged in water would not accurately
reflect their efficiency in their intended application. It explained
that the proposed method for determining winding temperatures is
impractical and for some motors impossible--and it specifically noted
that DOE's proposed test method in air does not consider the ``heat
rejection'' efficiency of the motors and forces them to reach winding
temperatures the motor may never reach under normal operating
conditions. (Grundfos, No. 29 at pp. 1, 7-8) Grundfos added that no
amount of modification to the air-over method would make it an
appropriate method for accurately evaluating the efficiency of
submersible motors (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 1)
HI also criticized the proposed approach. It stated that no
internationally recognized test standard exists for evaluating the
efficiency of borehole and submersible wastewater motors and that the
proposed approach of using air cooling will not result in an accurate
measurement of motor performance. It argued that any test procedure for
submersible wastewater motors would need to better reflect the specific
aspects of these motors and require multiple product categories,
definitions, and test methods to properly test and represent the
efficiencies for these specialized motors. HI also stated that many
submersible motors rely liquid for lubrication. Further, it asserted
that the proposed test method was not repeatable and reproducible
across test facilities and that DOE's testing of only two small motors
does not adequately address this concern. HI also stated that the
proposed temperature measurement provisions do not address all
submersible motor designs required to accurately obtain winding
temperature measurements to ensure testing is conducted within the
defined temperature tolerances. (HI, No. 30 at pp. 1-2)
WSC commented that testing submersible motors in air will not
result in accurate values of motor performance. It noted that
submersible motors have multiple designs, and any test procedure will
need multiple product testing categories and methods to accurately
separate out the motor losses from these different designs. It also
noted manufacturers have developed their own specialized methods that
are capital intensive. It added that wastewater submersible motors have
specific designs (oil filled, air filled, single seal, dual seal, lip
seal, seal materials) that impact utility, which in turn would require
any test method that DOE adopts to consider these factors through the
use of multiple product testing categories and appropriate testing
methods for each. WSC also asserted that DOE's sample size was too
small to prove a repeatable test method. (WSC, No. 35 at pp. 1-2)
CEMEP, WSC, and Grundfos all recommended that a test method for
submersible motors should be developed by international standardization
committees. (CEMEP, No. 19 at pp. 8-9; WSC, No. 35 at p. 2; Grundfos,
No. 29 at p. 1)
In contrast to those commenters who objected to the adoption of
DOE's proposed test method for submersible electric motors, other
commenters supported DOE's proposal--but with reservations. Advanced
Energy stated that the submersible test method appears repeatable for 5
hp or smaller submersible motors, and that there is opportunity to
evaluate this test method for larger hp motors. (Advanced Energy, No.
33 at p. 16) The Joint Advocates and CA IOUs supported including
submersible electric motors in scope and encouraged DOE to continue to
investigate options for submersible motor testing to support
development of test procedures. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 2; CA
IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 17-18) The CA IOUs commented that Japan, China,
and Brazil have standards for submersible motors. They noted that China
has published testing standards for waste submersible motor-pumps,
submersible motors for deep wells, and submersible motor-pumps.
Further, they noted that India has published a case study and three
test methods for submersible motors. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 17) The
CA IOUs also stated that IEEE is developing a submersible motor test
standard and provided links to the currently published IEEE
recommendations for testing submersible motors. They also suggested
that NEMA Part 34 would need more modification to be used as the test
procedure, or that a completely new test procedure needs to be
developed for these motors. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 17-18)
DOE re-evaluated the proposed test method based on concerns noted
by stakeholders. DOE agrees that further testing is needed to ensure
that any test method(s) would be both applicable and representative for
submersible electric motors of all designs and sizes. Further, DOE also
agrees that a test procedure based on air cooling as opposed to water
cooling may not accurately capture intended performance. In addition,
DOE acknowledges concerns that liquid is needed to lubricate seals and
bearings during operation, the lack of which could potentially damage
the motor and present additional frictional losses. Finally, DOE
understands that the applicability of the proposed test procedure at
higher horsepowers may result in winding temperature rises that may
cause motor failure. Accordingly, based on comments received and
further review, DOE is not including submersible electric motors within
scope of this test procedure. Therefore, submersible electric motors
will continue to be exempt from the test procedures and energy
conservation standards.
9. Other Exemptions
Currently, DOE exempts (1) component sets of an electric motor; and
(2) liquid-cooled electric motors. 10 CFR 431.25(l)(2) and (3).
DOE defines ``component set'' as a combination of motor parts that
require the addition of more than two endshields (and their associated
bearings) to create an operable motor. These parts may consist of any
combination of a stator frame, wound stator, rotor, shaft, or
endshields. 10 CFR 431.12. DOE defines ``liquid-cooled electric motor''
as a motor that is cooled by liquid circulated using a designated
cooling apparatus such that the liquid or liquid-filled conductors come
into direct contact with the parts of the motor. Id. DOE is amending
the definition for ``liquid-cooled electric motor'' in this final rule,
as discussed in section III.B.5 of this document. In the December 2021
NOPR, DOE requested comment on maintaining the exemptions. 86 FR 71710,
71727-71728.
Certain stakeholders supported continuing to exempt components set
of electric motors from the scope of the test procedure. (CEMEP, No. 19
at p. 2; ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 8; Grundfos, No.
29 at p. 2) Certain stakeholders also supported excluding liquid-cooled
electric motors from scope. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 26 at p.
8; Grundfos, No. 29 at p.
[[Page 63606]]
3) Advanced Energy supported continuing to exclude liquid-cooled
electric motors stating that they are highly specialized motors and
often prioritize power density over other performance requirements.
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 5) Comments received regarding the
liquid-cooled definition are addressed in section III.B.5. of this
document.
Based on the discussion presented in the December 2021 NOPR and in
the preceding paragraphs in this final rule, DOE is continuing to
exempt component sets of an electric motor and liquid-cooled electric
motors from the scope of the electric motors test procedure.
B. Definitions
In this final rule DOE is modifying 10 CFR 431.12 by amending and
adding certain definitions applicable to electric motors. These
amendments and additions are discussed in further detail in the
following sections.
1. Updating IEC Design N and H Motors Definitions and Including New
Definitions for IEC Design N and H ``E'' and ``Y'' Designations
As discussed in section III.A.2 of this document, DOE is clarifying
in this final rule that IEC Design HE, HEY, HY, NE, NEY, and NY motors
are within the scope of the test procedure. In the December 2021 NOPR,
DOE proposed to add definitions for these ``E'' and ``Y'' designations
for IEC Design N and H motors based on IEC 60034-12:2016. 86 FR 71710,
71728-71729.
In response to this proposal, Advanced Energy stated that the
proposed updates are not consistent with the definitions as they appear
in IEC 60034-12:2016. It stated the IEC standard states a ``Y''
designation represents ``star-delta starting'' as opposed to ``direct-
on-line'' starting for both IEC Design HEY and NEY. Further, Advanced
Energy also commented that the upper limit of output power for IEC
Design H was not consistent with Section 5.5 of IEC 60034-12:2016.
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 5) DOE did not receive any other
comments regarding the definition of the ``E'' and ``Y'' variants of
IEC Design N and H motors.
Based on the comment from Advanced Energy and additional review of
IEC 60034-12:2016, DOE agrees that the IEC Design N and H motors with
the ``Y'' variant are capable of star-delta starting, not direct-on-
line starting. DOE is finalizing the definitions for IEC Design N and H
that include the Y variant (IEC Design HY, HEY, NY, NEY) accordingly.
Regarding the upper limit for the Design H definition, DOE notes
that the current DOE definition for IEC Design H motor in 10 CFR 431.12
extends to 1600 kW. DOE established this definition in the December
2013 Final Rule. 78 FR 75962, 75969-75970. In the December 2013 Final
Rule, DOE explained that in defining IEC Design H and IEC Design N
motors, DOE specified the characteristics and features that identify
these types of motors, so that manufacturers designing to the IEC
standards can easily tell whether their motor is subject to DOE's
regulatory requirements. DOE could not identify a justification for why
DOE's definition of IEC Design H included an upper limit of 1600 kW
instead of the 160 kW limit consistent with the IEC definition of
Design H. Although standards are limited by a horsepower range (see 10
CFR 431.25(g)(8)), DOE stated that it does not need to limit the DOE
definitions to the same power range as the standards to describe
whether a given motor falls under Design H or Design N. Id. Since the
definition of Design H in IEC 60034-12:2016 already limits Design H
motors to 160 kW, bringing the upper limit in DOE's definitions to be
consistent with IEC 60034-12:2016 will not change the scope of the test
procedure. Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is amending the upper
horsepower limit for Design H (and E and Y variations) to 160 kW.
2. Updating Definitions To Reference Current NEMA MG 1-2016
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise a number of
definitions at 10 CFR 431.12 by updating references from NEMA MG 1-2009
to NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements). 86 FR 71710, 71729-71730.
DOE noted that the following definitions reference provisions of NEMA
MG 1-2009 that have changed between the 2009 and 2016 versions:
``definite purpose motor,'' ``definite purpose electric motor,''
``general purpose electric motor,'' ``NEMA Design A Motor,'' ``NEMA
Design B Motor,'' ``NEMA Design C motor,'' and ``nominal full-load
efficiency.'' DOE initially determined that the changes in NEMA MG 1-
2016 (with 2018 Supplements) do not substantively change these
definitions. Id.
In response, NEMA commented that updating the reference of NEMA MG
1 to the 2016 version (with 2018 Supplements) would not substantially
change the definitions currently prescribed in 10 CFR 431.12. It
further stated the definitions of NEMA Design A, B, and C should be
updated to reflect the revised subsection references of 12.35 in NEMA
MG 1-2016. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 10)
Since the December 2021 NOPR, NEMA has published a revised version
of NEMA MG 1-2016. On June 15, 2021, ANSI approved the revised version,
which is referred to in this document as NEMA MG 1-2016. DOE
understands that NEMA continues to title this standard as ``NEMA MG 1-
2016,'' even with the latest 2021 updates. In reviewing the latest
standard, DOE notes that this revision only appears to unify the
supplements and the rest of NEMA MG 1 into one continuous document and
does not include any substantial changes to the content of the standard
that was reviewed in the December 2021 NOPR. While the December 2021
NOPR requested comment on the definitions based on the latest version
at the time [NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements)], because DOE has
since concluded that the latest version [NEMA MG 1-2016 ((Revision 1,
2018) ANSI-approved 2021)] is not substantially different, the
assessment conducted in the December 2021 NOPR is still relevant for
the latest version of the standard. As such, in this final rule, DOE is
incorporating by reference and including within the definitions the
latest NEMA MG 1-2016 standard.
In addition, DOE reviewed the subsection references contained in
the definitions of NEMA Design A, B, and C in NEMA MG 1-2016 and notes
that there have been no updates to the content of the updated
subsections. Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE has updated the
definitions to include the new subsection references as they appear in
NEMA MG 1-2016.
3. Inverter, Inverter-Only, and Inverter-Capable
DOE defines an ``inverter-only electric motor'' as an electric
motor that is capable of rated operation solely with an inverter, and
is not intended for operation when directly connected to polyphase,
sinusoidal line power.'' DOE also defines an ``inverter-capable
electric motor'' as an ``electric motor designed to be directly
connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line power, but that is also capable
of continuous operation on an inverter drive over a limited speed range
and associated load.'' 10 CFR 431.12. Inverter-only and inverter-
capable electric motors can be sold with or without an inverter.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise the definitions
for ``inverter-only electric motor'' and ``inverter-capable electric
motor.'' Further, DOE also proposed a definition for ``inverter.'' 86
FR 71710, 71730. DOE
[[Page 63607]]
noted that, in addition to not being designed for operation when
directly connected to polyphase, sinusoidal power, inverter-only motors
are also not designed for operation when directly connected to single-
phase, sinusoidal line power or to DC power. Id. To provide a more
complete definition, DOE proposed to revise the definition of inverter-
only electric motor as follows: ``an electric motor that is capable of
continuous operation solely with an inverter, and is not designed for
operation when directly connected to AC sinusoidal or DC power
supply.'' Id. Similarly, DOE proposed to revise the definition of an
inverter-capable electric motor as follows: ``an electric motor
designed to be directly connected to AC sinusoidal or DC power, but
that is also capable of continuous operation on an inverter drive over
a limited speed range and associated load.'' Id.
Finally, Paragraph 30.2.1.5 of NEMA MG 1 2016 defines the term
``control'' for motors receiving AC power, as ``devices that are also
called inverters and converters. They are electronic devices that
convert an input AC or DC power into a controlled output AC voltage or
current''. Converters can also be found in motors that receive DC power
and also include electronic devices that convert an input AC or DC
power into a controlled output DC voltage or current. Therefore, to
support the definition of ``inverter-only motor,'' in the December 2021
NOPR, DOE proposed to define an inverter as ``an electronic device that
converts an input AC or DC power into a controlled output AC or DC
voltage or current. An inverter may also be called a converter.'' Id.
Grundfos and Advanced Energy supported the proposed definitions for
``inverter,'' ``inverter-only electric motor,'' and ``inverter-capable
electric motors.'' (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 3; Advanced Energy, No. 33
at p. 6) NEMA, CEMEP, and AI commented that the definitions should be
amended to harmonize with the definitions in IEC 60034-1 Edition 14.
(NEMA, No. 26 at p. 11; CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 3; AI Group, No. 25 at p.
4)
In response to these comments, DOE reviewed the definitions
contained in IEC 60034-1 Ed. 14. IEC 60034-1 Ed. 14 contains
specifications for the ratings and performance of rotating electrical
machines and defines a ``converter duty machine'' as an ``electrical
machine designed specifically for operation fed by a power electronic
frequency converter with a temperature rise within the specified
insulation thermal class or thermal class.'' DOE notes that this
definition was not in edition 13 of IEC 60034-1 and was not available
for consideration in the December 2021 NOPR since edition 14 was
published in 2022. DOE also notes that the IEC definition is generally
similar to the definition proposed in the December 2021 NOPR with only
minor differences. The IEC definition uses the term ``electrical
machine'' where DOE used ``electric motor'' and ``power electronic
frequency converter'' where DOE used ``inverter.'' DOE also understands
that the temperature rise clause in the IEC definition is similar to
the ``continuous operation'' clause of the DOE definition since
overheating (potentially through gradually breaking down the motor's
insulation) is a common mode of failure caused by an inverter feeding a
non-inverter-rated motor. As such, DOE is adopting the IEC definition
to harmonize with industry standards, with only minor modifications to
be consistent with the terminology currently used in the rulemaking
process. Specifically, in this final rule, DOE is defining an
``inverter-only electric motor'' as an ``electric motor designed
specifically for operation fed by an inverter with a temperature rise
within the specified insulation thermal class or thermal limits.''
IEC 60034-1 Ed. 14 also defines a ``converter capable machine'' as
an ``electrical machine designed for direct online start and suitable
for operation on a power electronic frequency converter without special
filtering.'' DOE understands that the IEC definition for ``converter
capable machine'' is largely similar to the term ``inverter-capable
electric motor'' in the same way as how the IEC definition for
``converter duty machine'' is largely similar to the term ``inverter-
only electric motor.'' Specifically, the IEC definition uses the clause
``suitable for operation'' whereas the proposed DOE definition included
an analogous clause ``capable of continuous operation.'' Further, the
IEC definition uses the term ``power electronic frequency converter,''
whereas the proposed DOE definition included the term ``inverter.''
In reviewing the IEC definition for ``converter capable machine''
and the proposed definition for ``inverter-capable electric motor,''
DOE identified two additional differences. The first difference DOE
identified was the proposed inclusion of the clause ``over a limited
speed range and associated load''--a qualification not included with
the IEC definition. However, DOE understands that this additional
clause would not create a significant difference between the two
definitions as all motors effectively have a limited speed range or
associated load by nature of their construction. Therefore, DOE
concludes that adopting the IEC definition would not modify the
currently proposed scope of this test procedure.
The second difference DOE identified was the clause ``without
special filtering,'' which is included in the IEC definition but not in
the DOE proposed definition. DOE understands that the inclusion of this
clause in the IEC definition is to ensure that non-inverter-rated
motors are not considered inverter-capable when a filter is used
between the inverter and motor to filter out the higher-order harmonics
to prevent damage to the non-inverter-rated motor. This understanding
is consistent with the intent of the DOE proposed definition of
``inverter-capable electric motor.'' Therefore, to harmonize with
industry standards, DOE is adopting the IEC definition with minor
modifications to keep the terminology consistent. Specifically, in this
final rule, DOE is defining an ``inverter-capable electric motor'' as
an ``electric motor designed for direct online start and suitable for
operation on an inverter without special filtering.''
4. Air-Over Electric Motors
Certain general-purpose electric motors have an internal fan
attached to the shaft that forces air through the motor and prevents it
from overheating during continuous use. Air-over electric motors do not
have a factory-attached fan and require a separate means of forcing air
over the frame of the motor. The external cooling maintains internal
motor winding temperatures within the permissible temperature rise for
the motor's insulation class or to a maximum temperature value
specified by the manufacturer.\23\ Without an external means of
cooling, an air-over electric motor would overheat during continuous
operation. Air-over motors can be found in direct-drive axial fans,
blowers, and several other applications; for example, single-phase air-
over motors are widely used in residential and commercial HVAC systems,
appliances, and equipment as well as in agricultural applications. The
current definition for air-over electric motors in 10 CFR 431.12 is as
follows: an electric motor rated to operate in and be cooled by the
airstream of a fan or blower that is not supplied with the motor and
[[Page 63608]]
whose primary purpose is providing airflow to an application other than
the motor driving it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Sections 12.42 and 12.43 of NEMA MG 1-2016 specifies the
maximum temperature rises corresponding to four insulation classes
(A, B, F, and H). Each class represents the maximum allowable
operating temperature rise at which the motor can operate without
failure, or risk of reducing its lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE noted that the absence of a fan is
not a differentiating feature specific to air-over electric motors. 86
FR 71710, 71730-71731. For example, there is little difference between
a totally enclosed fan-cooled electric motor (``TEFC'') and a totally
enclosed air-over electric motor (``TEAO''). A user could remove the
fan on a TEFC electric motor, and then place the motor in an airstream
of the application to obtain an air-over electric motor configuration.
Further, other motor categories such as totally enclosed non-ventilated
(``TENV'') electric motors do not have internal fans or blowers and are
similar in construction to TEAO electric motors.\24\ Finally, DOE also
noted that to differentiate air-over motors from totally-enclosed pipe-
ventilated (``TEPV'') motors, it needed to specify that the external
cooling is obtained by a free flow of air rather than external cooling
that is directed onto the motor via a duct or a pipe.\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ TENV electric motors are ``built in a frame-surface cooled,
totally enclosed configuration that is designed and equipped to be
cooled only by free convection'' 10 CFR 431.12.
\25\ DOE did not find any pipe-ventilated motors in the proposed
scope of applicability of this test procedure but is aware that some
motors may exist in such configurations. TEPV motors are cooled by
supply air which is piped into the motor and ducted out of the
motor. They are typically used to overcome heat dissipation
difficulties and when air surrounding the motor is not clean (e.g.,
dust).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE explained that what differentiates
air-over motors from non-air-over motors is that air-over motors
require external cooling by a free flow of air to prevent overheating
during continuous operation.\26\ 86 FR 71710, 71730-71731. Further, DOE
noted that the free flow of air was needed for the air-over motor to
thermally stabilize. Accordingly, DOE proposed a revised definition of
air-over electric motor in consideration of the above specifications--
i.e., ``an electric motor that does not reach thermal equilibrium
(i.e., thermal stability) during a rated load temperature test
according to section 2 of appendix B, without the application of forced
cooling by a free flow of air from an external device not mechanically
connected to the motor.'' 86 FR 71710, 71730-71731.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Without the application of free-flowing air, the internal
winding temperatures of an air-over electric motor would exceed the
maximum permissible temperature (i.e., the motor's insulation
class's permissible temperature rise or a maximum temperature value
specified by the manufacturer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to DOE's proposal, Advanced Energy supported DOE's
proposed definition of air-over electric motor. (Advanced Energy, No.
33 at p. 6) NEMA commented that the definition was adequate, but
pointed out that DOE should preserve and allow all three potential
stabilization methods. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 11) Lennox commented that
while it supported the proposed definition, it stated that DOE must
continue to exempt HVACR air-over motors from component level-
regulation when such motors are used in equipment already regulated at
the systems level. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 7)
Trane commented that the current definition of air-over electric
motor is appropriate and that changing it to include thermal
equilibrium is inappropriate because the motor could still reach
equilibrium without forced-air through heat dissipation. However, the
same motor would still be defined as an air-over motor because the
manufacturer specifies certain minimum airflow requirements to maintain
winding temperatures within permissible limits. (Trane, No. 31 at p. 4)
As discussed previously, DOE proposed the updated definition to
ensure that air-over electric motors are correctly distinguished from
TEFC, TENV, and TEPV motors. The proposed definition for air-over
electric motor specifies reaching thermal equilibrium with forced
cooling at a target temperature \27\ according to section 2 of appendix
B, which is the air-over electric motor test procedure. As discussed in
section III.D.1 of this document, the air-over electric motor test
procedure allows the use of the motor temperature rise if it is
indicated by the manufacturer to specify the target temperature, or if
it is not indicated, requires use a target temperature of 75 [deg]C.
Based on the updated definition, if the electric motor can thermally
stabilize below the target temperature without airflow, then that motor
is not considered an air-over electric motor. Without an external means
of cooling, an air-over electric motor would overheat during continuous
operation. Therefore, if the motor is able to stabilize and operate
below the target temperature, then there is no requirement for external
means of cooling. On the other hand, the electric motor would still be
considered an air-over electric motor if it can thermally stabilize
without airflow at a temperature above the target temperature. The
updated definition does not limit this occurrence, as it is only
specifying that thermal equilibrium must be met during a rated load
temperature test according to section 2 of appendix B (i.e., using the
temperature rise indicated by the manufacturer to determine target
temperature, or if it is not indicated, a target temperature of 75
[deg]C). Accordingly, having an external means of cooling would still
be required during continuous operation at the manufacturer specified
target temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The amount of ventilation required during the test is based
on motor winding temperature reaching a target temperature. See
section III.D.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMCA stated that the proposed definition for air-over motors is
ambiguous and would exclude many intended air-over motors because of
the provision ``without the application of forced cooling by a free
flow of air from an external device not mechanically connected to the
motor'' would exclude air-over motors which are cooled by an external
fan driven by the motor's shaft. AMCA recommended as an alternate
definition: ``an electric motor that does not reach thermal equilibrium
(i.e., thermal stability) during a rated load temperature test
according to section 2 of appendix B, without the application of forced
cooling by a free flow of air from an external device not supplied for
permanent use with the motor.'' (AMCA, No. 21 at pp. 2-3) ebm-papst
supported AMCA's suggested definition of an air-over motor and stated
that DOE's proposed definition was too broad. (ebm-papst, No. 23 at p.
5)
As described in the NOPR, air-over motors do not have a factory-
attached fan and require a separate means of forcing air over the frame
of the motor. 86 71710, 71730. DOE interprets the concerns from AMCA
and ebm-papst as being that requiring the free flow of air to come from
an external device not mechanically connected to the motor would
unintentionally exclude certain air-over electric motors that should be
included, such as air-over motors that are sold with a fan mechanically
connected to the motor's shaft (in this case, the fan is used to
provide function beyond cooling of the motor and an air over-motor is
used to drive the fan). DOE agrees with AMCA and ebm-papst, that such
motors must not be excluded from the air-motor electric motor
definition. DOE's intent in specifying ``external device'' and ``not
mechanically connected'' in the proposed definition was to distinguish
air-over motors that do not incorporate a fan within the motor's
enclosure from motors that do incorporate a fan in the motor's
enclosure, where the fan is used for the sole purpose of cooling the
motor. Therefore, in response to the recommendations by AMCA and ebm-
[[Page 63609]]
papst, for clarification, DOE is adopting a modified version of the
proposed definition instead. DOE is specifying that the external device
should also not be supplied within the motor enclosure. In general, DOE
prefers to rely on physical features instead of intended usage (i.e.,
``for permanent use'') when establishing equipment definitions.
As such, in this final rule, DOE adopts the following definition of
air-over electric motor: an electric motor that does not reach thermal
equilibrium (i.e., thermal stability), during a rated load temperature
test according to section 2 of appendix B, without the application of
forced cooling by a free flow of air from an external device not
mechanically connected to the motor within the motor enclosure.
5. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motors
Liquid-cooled electric motors are definite-purpose motors typically
designed for high power density applications. The higher power density
from these applications causes a liquid-cooled electric motor to
generate more heat over a given volume than a conventional air-cooled
electric motor. To prevent the motor from overheating, it relies on a
liquid to be forced through and over components of the motor to provide
better cooling than an internal fan would. DOE currently defines a
liquid-cooled electric motor as: a motor that is cooled by liquid
circulated using a designated cooling apparatus such that the liquid or
liquid-filled conductors come into direct contact with the parts of the
motor. 10 CFR 431.12.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise this definition
to read as ``a motor that is cooled by liquid circulated using a
designated cooling apparatus such that the liquid or liquid-filled
conductors come into direct contact with the parts of the motor, but is
not submerged in a liquid during operation.'' DOE proposed this
revision to better distinguish liquid-cooled electric motors from
submersible electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71731-71732.
NEMA supported the proposed definition of liquid-cooled electric
motor. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 11) Grundfos commented that ``designated
cooling apparatus'' is not clearly defined and believe that the
proposed definition makes it unclear as to what constitutes a liquid-
cooled motor. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 3)
In the December 2013 Final Rule, DOE discussed that liquid-cooled
electric motors rely on a special cooling apparatus that pumps liquid
into and around the motor housing. 78 FR 75962, 75987-75988. The liquid
is circulated around the motor frame to dissipate heat and prevent the
motor from overheating during continuous-duty operation. The December
2013 Final Rule amended the definition of liquid-cooled electric motor
to better differentiate liquid-cooled electric motors from other types
of electric motors, and the term ``designated cooling apparatus'' was
added to specify that a cooling apparatus is required for a motor to be
designated as a liquid-cooled electric motor. Id. In this final rule,
DOE further specifies that a ``designated cooling apparatus'' is any
apparatus that circulates a liquid in order to cool a liquid-cooled
electric motor. One example of such an apparatus is an external pump
that forces a liquid through the motor for cooling purposes.
For the reasons discussed in the December 2021 NOPR and with the
modification discussed in the preceding paragraph, DOE is adopting the
definition of liquid-cooled, as proposed.
6. Basic Model and Equipment Class
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the definition of
``basic model'' in 10 CFR 431.12 to make it similar to the definitions
used for other DOE-regulated products and equipment, and to eliminate
an ambiguity found in the current definition. 86 FR 71710, 71732. The
definition in 10 CFR 431.12 specifies that basic models of electric
motors are all units of a given type manufactured by the same
manufacturer, which have the same rating, and have electrical
characteristics that are essentially identical, and do not have any
differing physical or functional characteristics that affect energy
consumption or efficiency. For the purposes of this definition, the
term ``rating'' is specified to mean one of 113 combinations of
horsepower, poles, and open or enclosed construction. See id. The
reference to 113 combinations dates from the Department's
implementation of EPACT 1992, which established initial standards for
motors based on that categorization. Since then, EISA 2007 and DOE's
regulations have established standards for additional motor categories.
See 10 CFR 431.25. To clarify that the concept of a ``basic model''
reflects the categorization in effect under the prevailing standard, as
it stands today, and as it may evolve in future rulemakings, DOE
proposed to refer only to the combinations of horsepower (or standard
kilowatt equivalent), number of poles, and open or enclosed
construction for which 10 CFR 431.25 prescribes standards; and to
remove the current reference to 113 such combinations. 86 FR 71710,
71732. As such, DOE proposed to replace the term ``rating'' with the
term ``equipment class'' in the basic model definition. In addition,
DOE proposed to define ``equipment class'' as one of the combinations
of an electric motor's horsepower (or standard kilowatt equivalent),
number of poles, and open or enclosed construction, with respect to a
category of electric motor for which Sec. 431.25 prescribes nominal
full-load efficiency standards. Id. This proposal would also limit
confusion between the use of the term ``rating'' in this specific case
and the use of the term as it applies to represented values of other
individual characteristics of an electric motor, such as its rated
horsepower, voltage, torque, or energy efficiency. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments on these definitions and adopts
the definitions of equipment class and basic model as proposed.
C. Updates to Industry Standards Currently Incorporated by Reference
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE reviewed each of the industry
standards that are currently incorporated by reference as test methods
for determining the energy efficiency of electric motors or that are
referenced within the definitions prescribed in 10 CFR 431.12, and
identified updates for each as provided in Table III-4 of this
document. 86 FR 71710, 71732-71734.
Table III-4--Updated Industry Standards Proposed in the December 2021
NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing reference Updated version Type of update
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEC 60034-12 Edition 2.1 IEC 60034-12 Revision.
2007-09. Edition 3.0
2016.
NFPA 20-2010................ NFPA 20-2019... Revision.
CSA C390-10................. CSA C390-10 Reaffirmed.
(Reaffirmed
2019).
NEMA MG 1-2009.............. NEMA MG 1-2016. Revision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63610]]
Through the review, DOE tentatively concluded that updating the
industry standards to the latest version would not alter the measured
efficiency of electric motors and would not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. Therefore, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference the
updated versions of the industry standards. Id.
DOE also proposed to incorporate by reference IEC 60079-7:2015 as
it is referenced within IEC 60034-12:2016 and is necessary for the test
procedure. Sections 5.2.7.3 and 5.2.8.2 of IEC 60079-7:2015 describe
the additional starting requirements of increased safety ``eb'' and
``ec'' motors. The ``eb'' and ``ec'' designations are the two levels of
protection offered by the increased safety ``e'' designation and are
intended for use in explosive gas atmospheres, according to Section 1
of IEC 60079-7:2015. Section 5.2.7.3 specifies the application of
protective measures to prevent airgap sparking while Section 5.2.8.2
specifies the application of starting current requirements and when a
current-dependent safety device is required. 86 FR 71710, 71733. Also,
to ensure consistency in the versions of the referenced standards used
when testing, DOE proposed to specify the publication year for each of
the industry standards referenced by Section 12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1-2016,
which are as follows: IEEE 112-2017, CSA C390-10, and IEC 60034-2-
1:2014. 86 FR 71710, 71734.
In response, CEMEP agreed that DOE's assessment of the updates to
NEMA 12.58.1 of MG 1-2016 with its 2018 Supplements was accurate, and
supported updating the IEEE, CSA, and IEC standards to their latest
versions. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 4) However, CEMEP stated that IEC 60079-
7:2015 contains some specific requirements for 'eb' motors related to
the safety of such protection type, and for 'ec' motors, there are no
requirements regarding starting performance. Accordingly, CEMEP
recommended against including IEC 60079-7:2015. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 4)
NEMA agreed with DOE's assessment of the updates to IEC 60034-
12:2016, and supported referencing both IEC 60034-12:2016 and IEC
60079-7:2015. It commented that while IEC 60034-12 is currently under
revision, substantial changes were not expected. (NEMA, No. 26 at p.
11) Further, NEMA agreed with DOE's assessment of the updates to
Paragraph 12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1-2016, and asserted that updating the
references to IEEE 112-2017, CSA C390-10, and IEC 60034-2-1:2014 should
not affect the measured efficiency of electric motors currently in
scope of the test procedure. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 11-12) Finally, NEMA
also supported DOE updating to the 2019 version of NFPA 20. Id. NEMA
stated that ``including any IEC equivalent'' should remain in DOE's
definition of fire pump for clarity even if NFPA 20 section 9.5 now
includes that clause. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 11)
Grundfos did not believe updating to the 2016 version of NEMA MG 1
(with 2018 Supplements) would alter the measured efficiency of electric
motors. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 3) Further, Grundfos agreed with DOE's
assessment and proposed inclusion of IEC 60034-12:2016 and the proposed
updates to Section 12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1. It also supported including
IEC 60034-2-1:2014 as part of the DOE test procedure. (Grundfos, No. 29
at pp. 3-4) Advanced Energy agreed with DOE's assessment on the updates
to Section 12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements), and
agreed with updating DOE's test procedures to reference the most recent
IEEE, CSA, and IEC standards because it would be consistent with
current industry practice. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 7)
Since the December 2021 NOPR, there have been updates to two of the
standards: (1) NFPA 20-2019 has been revised to a 2022 version; and (2)
NEMA MG 1-2016 has been updated to an ANSI approved June 15, 2021,
version that includes updates to parts 0, 1, 7, 12, 30, and 31, along
with Part 34 (separately published).
For the 2022 update to NFPA-20, new requirements were added to
address numerous recent advancements in the field of stationary pumps
for fire protection, which is not relevant for the scope of this
rulemaking. The updates to Section 9.5 of NFPA-20 provide further
clarifications on calculating values for locked rotor current for
motors rated at voltages other than 230 V presented in that section.
Otherwise, section 9.5 remains the same as the 2019 version.
Accordingly, referencing the most current version (NFPA 20-2022) would
not change the applicability of the definition of fire pump electric
motor for the purposes of DOE's regulations. Further, DOE is
maintaining ``including any IEC equivalent'' within the fire pump
electric motor definition.
For the 2021 update to NEMA MG 1-2016, this revision consolidates
the supplements and the rest of NEMA MG 1 into one document. DOE did
not identify any substantial changes compared to the prior version of
NEMA MG 1. Accordingly, as with the updates to NFPA-2020, referencing
the most current would not alter the measured efficiency of electric
motors, and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
Further, as discussed in the December 2021 NOPR, IEC 60034-12:2016
references IEC 60079-7:2015 to determine locked rotor apparent power
for motors with type of protection ``e'' '--which are eligible to be
considered IEC Design N or H motors. 86 FR 71710, 71733. Considering
IEC 60079-7:2015 is necessary to test using IEC 60034-12:2016, DOE is
incorporating by reference both test procedures in this final rule.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the December 2021 NOPR
and discussed in the preceding paragraphs, DOE is updating its test
procedure regulations to incorporate the current industry standards to
the latest references, as summarized in Table III-5.
Table III-5--Updated Industry Standards in This Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing reference Updated version Type of update
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEC 60034-12 Edition 2.1 IEC 60034-12 Revision.
2007-09. Edition 3.0
2016
(including IEC
60079-7:2015).
NFPA 20-2010................ NFPA 20-2022... Revision.
CSA C390-10................. CSA C390-10 Reaffirmed.
(Reaffirmed
2019).
NEMA MG 1-2009.............. NEMA MG 1-2016. Revision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63611]]
D. Industry Standards Incorporated By Reference
This section discusses industry test standards that DOE is
incorporating by reference for testing the additional electric motors
for inclusion in the scope of the DOE test procedure.
EPCA includes specific test procedure-related requirements for
electric motors subject to energy conservation standards under 42
U.S.C. 6313. The provisions in EPCA require that electric motors be
tested in accordance with the test procedures specified in NEMA
Standards Publication MG1-1987 and IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B for
motor efficiency, as in effect on October 24, 1992 (See 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(5)) As discussed in section III.C of this document, both
publications have been replaced with the more recent version IEEE 112-
2017 and NEMA MG 1-2016.
The additional electric motors DOE is adding to the scope of the
DOE test procedure are not addressed by the standards that are
currently applicable under 42 U.S.C. 6313. DOE notes that the industry
test procedures incorporated by reference for air-over electric motors
and for SNEMs are included in NEMA MG 1-2016. See Section IV, Part 34:
Air-Over Motor Efficiency Test Method and Section 12.30. Section 12.30
of NEMA MG 1-2016, specifies the use of IEEE 112 and IEEE 114 for all
single-phase and polyphase motors.\28\ As further discussed in section
III.D.2 of this document, DOE is requiring testing of SNEMs other than
air-over and inverter-only electric motors according to IEEE 112-2017
(or CSA C390-10 or IEC 60034-2-1:2014, which are equivalent to IEEE
112-2017) and IEEE 114-2010 (or CSA C747-09 or IEC 60034-2-1:2014,
which are equivalent to IEEE 114-2010). This amendment satisfies the
test procedure requirements under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ As previously mentioned, NEMA MG 1-2016 does not specify
the publication year of the referenced test standards and instead
specifies that the most recent version should be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The methods listed in Section 12.30 of NEMA MG 1-2016, for testing
AC motors apply only to AC induction motors that can be operated when
directly connected to the power supply (direct-on-line) and do not
apply to electric motors that are inverter-only or to synchronous
electric motors that are not AC induction motors. Therefore, for these
additional electric motor types, DOE is specifying the use of different
industry test procedures, as further discussed in section III.D.3. of
this document.
AI Group stated that DOE should harmonize with IEC international
standards with respect to the electric motor test procedures,
efficiency classes, and scope of regulation. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 2)
DOE's test procedures currently incorporate by reference several
IEC test methods for testing current in-scope electric motors. See 10
CFR 431.15(c). As part of this rulemaking, DOE reviewed a number of
industry standards that would be relevant for testing the additional
electric motors that DOE proposed to include within the scope of the
DOE test procedure. Several of those industry standards include IEC
standards, which are discussed in sections III.D.2 and III.D.3 of this
document.
1. Test Procedures for Air-Over Electric Motors
a. Test Method
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE evaluated three test methods
published by NEMA in NEMA MG 1-2016 that are used to measure the
efficiency of an air-over electric motor. 86 FR 71710, 71735-71739. The
first alternative test method (i.e., Part 34.3) specifies that the
temperature test must be conducted by thermally stabilizing the motor
at the rated full-load conditions using an external airflow according
to the end user specifications in terms of air-velocity ratings in feet
per minute. The second alternative test method (i.e., Part 34.4)
includes a temperature test conducted with the use of an external
blower, but the amount of airflow is not specified; therefore, the
amount of ventilation required is based on motor winding temperature
reaching a target temperature. Finally, the third alternative test
method (i.e., Part 34.5) includes a temperature test performed without
the use of an external blower while not loading the motor at its rated
load. Instead, the motor is gradually loaded until the motor winding
temperature reaches the required target temperature. Id.
As part of the review of the test methods, in the December 2021
NOPR, DOE did not consider Part 34.3 because testing with an external
airflow according to the customer or application specific requirements
as specified in the first alternative test method could result in
testing the same motor at different winding temperature during the
test, which would impact the measurement of efficiency. Therefore, DOE
tentatively concluded that results from applying the first test method
according to Part 34.3 would not ensure relative comparability of
efficiency for air-over electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71737-71738.
Otherwise, DOE considered the other two test methods (Parts 34.4
and 34.5) and conducted testing to evaluate the repeatability and
equivalency of the methods. 86 FR 71710, 71737-71738. DOE conducted a
series of efficiency tests for a test sample that included seven air-
over motor models spanning a range of 0.25 to 20 hp and represented
both single-phase and polyphase motors. DOE observed the percentage
difference in losses between Parts 34.5 and 34.4 range from -0.4 (on
the lower end) to +10.9 (on the higher end), and the units at the
higher end of the percentage difference spanned a wide range of hp
ratings. These units included both single-phase and polyphase motor
types, indicating no clear or consistent trend that could be used to
define criteria by which the two methods would produce equivalent
results. As such, DOE found that the two test methods could not be
considered equal. Id.
To determine which of the two test methods (Part 34.4 or 34.5) to
propose for air-over electric motors, DOE tested a subset of the seven
air-over motors to evaluate the repeatability of each test methods. 86
FR 71710, 71737. The test results indicated that for three units, Part
34.4 showed less variation between subsequent tests compared to the
Part 34.5. However, for one unit, Part 34.4 test method showed greater
variation than Part 34.5. Based on these results, DOE concluded that
Part 34.4 may provide more repeatability than Part 34.5 for air-over
motors. Id. As such, DOE proposed to require that air-over motors be
tested only according to Part 34.4. Id.
Regarding the test method, CEMEP supported using Part 34.4 but
recommended allowing the use of other methods present in NEMA Part 34,
but offered no specific justification for its view. (CEMEP, No. 19 at
p. 1) AI Group referred DOE to Australian standards that included
efficiency requirements for air-over motors and what test procedure
Australia uses to test these motors.\29\ (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 3)
AMCA supported the use of Section 34.4 as the test method for air-over
motors only if the motor is: (1) induction, (2) constructed in a NEMA/
IEC standard frame, and (3) the motor target temperature test is
verified by means of the winding resistance method or a temperature
detector closely
[[Page 63612]]
coupled to the stator winding. (AMCA, No. 21 at p. 3) ebm-papst agreed
with AMCA that the scope of the air-over test procedure should be
limited to induction motors built in standard NEMA/IEC frames. (ebm-
papst, No. 23 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The Australian test method includes a requirement for an
externally- and independently-generated air-steam, similar to Parts
34.3 and 34.4. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CA IOUs stated that they conducted testing on the proposed air-
over test method and reported their preliminary findings as follows:
(1) NEMA MG 1 Parts 34.4 and 34.5 appear to be repeatable, (2) some
totally enclosed air-over (TEAO) motors stabilize before the target
temperature is reached, suggesting the need for modifications to the
test procedure for those motors, (3) manufacturer-specified airflow
differs across different designs, with some having no specification,
and (4) TEAO motor designs have varying responses to airflow and
varying relationships to measured efficiency and target winding
temperature. Relying on their preliminary test data, the CA IOUs agreed
with DOE's initial finding that Part 34.4 meets DOE's test procedure
requirements for repeatability and supported the use of Part 34.4 for
rating TEAO motors. However, the CA IOUs also suggested an approach
that they anticipated would significantly increase the
representativeness of the test procedure for a broader range of field
applications (which are discussed in section III.D.1.b) (CA IOUs, No.
32.1 at pp. 10-11)
Advanced Energy stated that the air-over test method has proven to
be repeatable and reliable. Advanced Energy also supported the
conclusion that Part 34.4 of NEMA Part 34 is more repeatable than Part
34.5 for air-over electric motors. It commented that boths Part 34.4
and 34.5 are repeatable but that the data presented by DOE suggest Part
34.4 is more repeatable. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at pp. 2, 8-9)
Further, Advanced Energy stated it has tested air-over motors up to 20
hp and has not found blower capacity to be a limiting factor. It stated
that if its testing were limited by the blower, a larger blower could
be used to permit the test to be conducted according to the test
procedure. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 9)
NEMA disagreed with the December 2021 NOPR's conclusion that Part
34.4 is less repeatable than Part 34.5. NEMA further noted that the
methods in Part 34.4 and Part 34.5 are useful depending on in-situ
factors and should both remain available as needed. NEMA commented that
a fair assessment of repeatability required understanding the potential
sources of variations in test results. NEMA suggested certain potential
sources of error to investigate for discrepancies, specifically: power
meter capability, temperature measurement, torque acquisition,
tachometer, and torque transducer capability. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 13-
14) NEMA recommended that air-over motors be tested in accordance with
any of the three test methods in Part 34, without exception and
modification, and provided reasoning why Part 34.3 and Part 34.5 test
methods should also be allowed: (1) for Part 34.3, NEMA noted that
motor manufacturers are approached by OEMs to develop a motor with
application specific fit, form, and function constraints, and motor
design and development is frequently performed as a system approach and
includes the motor, the OEM's fan, baffles, support structure and
ducting. Accordingly, it commented that reproducing system operating
conditions of airflow and temperature while coupled to a dynamometer is
the most desirable case for determining motor efficiency; (2) for Part
34.5, it stated that not all laboratories have the equipment and
resources to design a blower system and measure the airflow while the
motor is coupled to a dynamometer, and therefore a test without airflow
is an effective test method in these cases. NEMA did not directly
comment on the accuracy and equivalency of the test methods, asserting
simply (without offering more) that there is a significant risk that an
equivalent test procedure option could be rejected for inclusion in the
electric motor test procedure if feedback is submitted based on data
comprised of unexplained test error. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 13-15) Lennox
stated that a generic component-level test method would not yield
results that are representative of an average use cycle for definite
purpose motors because a component-level test procedure would fail to
capture system operating characteristics that affect motor efficiency.
Lennox also identified relevant system operating characteristics--e.g.,
motor mounting, motor tuning, and how the air moving systems relate to
the heat exchanging equipment--as variables that factor into the system
efficiency of the finished product. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 3)
DOE notes that neither NEMA nor CEMEP provided data supporting
equivalency of the three test methods in Part 34. The CA IOUs also did
not provide the data underlying their preliminary findings. Absent data
other than that generated by the DOE testing, DOE is unable to conclude
that Parts 34.4 and 34.5 are equivalent.
DOE understands that the different test methods in Part 34 may be
useful depending on in-situ factors. However, this test procedure
rulemaking focuses solely on the electric motor independent of the
product or equipment into which the electric motor may be installed.
This focus necessarily means that DOE must consider a test method that
is repeatable for the electric motor as stand-alone equipment. As
noted, Part 34.3 allows testing with an external airflow according to
the customer, which could result in testing the same motor at different
winding temperature during the test, which would impact the measurement
of efficiency. With regard to Parts 34.4 and 34.5, testing performed as
part of the December 2021 NOPR indicated that they did not provide
equivalent results. Further, DOE has not received any new test data
that indicates the three test methods in Part 34 are equivalent.
Accordingly, at this time DOE cannot conclude that the three test
methods in Part 34 are equivalent. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE
is adopting Part 34.4 as the only test method for air-over electric
motors.
b. Target Temperature Specification
Part 34.4 specifies that, if a motor temperature rise is not
indicated, polyphase air-over electric motors use a target temperature
that depends on the motor's insulation class. This target temperature
is then used as the temperature at which the load test is conducted. In
contrast, for all single-phase motors, the target temperature is
specified at 75 [deg]C, regardless of insulation class. In the December
2021 NOPR, DOE reported that it conducted testing to understand how
much the temperature target could affect measured efficiency. 86 FR
71710, 71738. That testing demonstrated different measurements of
efficiency at different test temperatures, and therefore, DOE
tentatively concluded that defining a single test temperature, rather
than using a target temperature that depends on the motor's insulation
class, would produce measured efficiency values that are more
comparable across insulation classes. Accordingly, DOE proposed to use
a single target temperature for polyphase motors regardless of
insulation class. 86 FR 71710, 71738-71739.
In response, the Joint Advocates opposed a single target
temperature for all air-over motors and asserted that this single
target temperature could give a testing advantage to motors that are
designed to run hotter than the target temperature. (Joint Advocates,
No. 27 at p. 3) AMCA stated that testing a motor of an insulation class
higher than insulation class A (a 75 [deg]C limit) at a target
temperature of 75 [deg]C would result
[[Page 63613]]
in lower I\2\R losses than when the motor is used as intended. (AMCA,
No. 21 at p. 3) CEMEP stated that a fixed temperature target would
penalize or reward certain motors depending on the temperatures at
which they were designed to operate. (CEMEP, No. 19 at pp. 4-5) ebm-
papst commented that higher temperatures lead to higher losses in the
stator, rotor, and other current-carrying components of the motor.
(ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 5) ebm-papst also stated that many definite
purpose motors would stabilize under the 75 [deg]C target temperature
and would be unable to use the proposed test procedure. (ebm-papst, No.
23 at pp. 6)
NEMA disagreed with modifying Section 34.4 to have a single target
temperature of 75 [deg]C, regardless of insulation class. It commented
that although the proposal indicated that the single target temperature
would apply to all motors even if the temperature rise is indicated,
the proposed updates to the regulatory text in section 2.2.1 of
appendix B appear to only apply to motors without an indicated
temperature rise.\30\ NEMA commented that if a manufacturer does not
want its motor to be tested at the upper bounds of its insulation
class, then all the manufacturer has to do is indicate the temperature
rise. NEMA suggested that DOE adopt Section 34.4 without modification.
In support, NEMA provided data from a motor performance simulation that
predicted the required airflow for different target temperatures. In
cases where a motor is designed to have a higher temperature rise than
the 75 [deg]C target, NEMA stated that the motor could need an
unfeasibly large amount of airflow to get to the temperature to the
proposed 75 [deg]C target. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 12-15) It explained
that in situations where the motor temperature rise under testing is
significantly higher than the motor temperature rise in the actual
application, the efficiency test would be biased towards higher losses
and lower efficiency than the intended application. NEMA recommended
that a manufacturer in that situation should simply indicate the motor
temperature rise. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 12) Separately, NEMA also noted
that a default 75 [deg]C condition could be specified for cases where a
manufacturer does not indicate motor temperature rise, although NEMA
still preferred that the test procedure in Part 34.4 be followed
without modification. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ In the December 2021 NOPR, the proposed section 2.2.1 of
appendix B stated ``the provisions in Paragraph 34.4.1.a.1 NEMA MG
1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements) related to the determination of the
target temperature for polyphase motors must be replaced by a single
target temperature of 75 [deg]C for all insulation classes.'' 86 FR
71710, 71780. However, Paragraph 34.4.1.a.1 NEMA MG 1-2016 (with
2018 Supplements) is a method for determining target temperature
only if a motor temperature rise is not otherwise indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM and AHRI disagreed that a single temperature should be used to
test air-over motors, due to potential impracticalities of test setup.
For example, AHAM and AHRI stated that some motors may not reach
75[deg]C during normal operation at the intended load and that air-over
motors constructed with open enclosures may incorporate an internal
cooling fan and operate continuously at rated load with a total
temperature less than 75 [deg]C. They stated that one reason an open
motor with self-ventilation may be applied to an air over application
is because the hub diameter of the fan may prevent sufficient air
velocity from flowing over the surface of the motor and that
temperature rises of 20 [deg]C to 40 [deg]C are not uncommon for small
motors with open enclosures. They cited this as an example where
thermally stabilizing the motor at 75 [deg]C would result in a full-
load operating temperature that is greater than the full-load operating
temperature of the motor while it is operating in its intended air-over
application. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at p. 9)
Lennox did not support the single target temperature and stated
that the operating temperature of motors used in HVAC applications vary
widely. It also commented that air-over motors can be designed to
stabilize below the proposed target temperature. (Lennox, No. 24 at p.
8) Trane commented that testing motors without their associated
appliance is not beneficial to the end-user or the appliance
manufacturer. To this end, Trane provided performance data showing that
efficiency varied with horsepower and operating temperature for a given
motor and stated that the test conditions need to reflect the operating
conditions within the appliance. (Trane, No. 31 at p. 2)
The CA IOUs suggested using two target temperatures and taking the
average efficiency of the two temperatures to be the most
representative of field use. They commented that certain TEFC-like and
TENV-like TEAO motors may be capable of thermally stabilizing below the
rated insulation class temperature without added airflow, suggesting
the need for a TEAO custom testing approach that can address
temperature stabilization issues. Accordingly, they suggested a two-
target temperature approach in which the first temperature would be the
temperature at which the motor stabilizes if less than 75 [deg]C, or 75
[deg]C if the motor stabilizes above that, and the second would be the
insulation class target temperature. They stated that if the motor
stabilizes below 75 [deg]C, that is the measured efficiency; if above,
the measured efficiency would be the average of the 75 [deg]C and
insulation class target. They provided data regarding how varied
manufacturer specified airflow is, and stated that the minimum airflows
would stabilize the motors at much lower temperatures than the required
75 [deg]C. They also provided data regarding winding temperature
response vs. applied airflow for three different air-over motors. (CA
IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 11-15)
Advanced Energy supported the 75 [deg]C target temperature for air-
over electric motors. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 8) Advanced Energy
also stated that many air-over motors they have tested have stabilized
below the 75 [deg]C target temperature, and that when this occurs, the
motor should be treated as a totally enclosed, non-ventilated
(``TENV'') motor since it does not need air from an external source to
stabilize. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 9)
In considering the comments received, in this final rule, DOE is
specifying a single target temperature requirement for polyphase motors
that do not indicate a specified temperature rise. DOE understands that
the indicated motor insulation class does not correlate to the intended
target temperature and is adopting its proposed modification to Section
34.4. As discussed in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE understands that if a
particular motor that was designed with a higher temperature insulation
class than a second motor, that fact does not necessarily mean that the
first motor would operate or is designed to operate at a higher
temperature than the second motor; instead it means that the first
motor is capable of running at the higher temperature associated with
its insulation class. 86 FR 71710, 71736. Therefore, determining target
temperature based on insulation class when motor temperature rise is
not indicated would not necessarily be the most representative of motor
operation.
As adopted in this final rule, the test procedure specifies the use
of motor temperature rise if it is indicated in terms of insulation
class (i.e., the temperature rise being defined in terms of an
insulation class) or numerical value (i.e., the actual temperature
rise), as specified in Sections 34.4.1.b and 34.4.1.c of NEMA MG 1-
2016. For units for which the motor temperature rise is not otherwise
indicated (i.e., in Section 34.4.1.a.1 of NEMA MG 1-2016), DOE is
requiring a target temperature of 75 [deg]C for both polyphase and
single-phase
[[Page 63614]]
electric motors, as proposed in the December 2021 NOPR.
In section III.B.4 of this document, DOE discussed that in-scope
air-over electric motors are those that reach thermal equilibrium
during a rated load test according to section 2 of appendix B, and with
the application of forced cooling by a free flow of air from an
external device. Therefore, any motor not meeting these criteria would
not meet the air-over electric motor definition as finalized in this
final rule. If a motor can thermally stabilize during a load test below
the target temperature (whether it be based on motor temperature rise
if it is indicated in terms of insulation class, numerical value; or
whether it be based on 75 [deg]C when motor temperature rise is not
indicated) without applying forced cooling by a free flow of air from
an external device, then it would not be an in-scope air-over electric
motor. DOE notes that Section 34.4.1.c of NEMA MG 1-2016 provides that
if a motor temperature rise is indicated as a numerical value, then the
target temperature for the test is the sum of that temperature rise and
the reference ambient temperature of 25[deg]C, which can be less than
75 [deg]C.
As such, DOE's approach for the test procedure is consistent with
NEMA MG 1-2016, except for polyphase motors that do not indicate a
specified temperature rise. Otherwise, allowing the use of manufacturer
indicated temperature rise, as required by NEMA MG 1-2016, maintains
current industry requirements and is the most representative because
the manufacturer indicated temperature rise generally reflects motor
operation in the field. While DOE acknowledges the CA IOUs two-
temperature approach, DOE cannot currently determine that this approach
is more representative than what industry has developed as part of NEMA
MG 1-2016. In addition, as presented in this final rule, DOE is not
requiring testing at the same target temperature for all air-over
electric motors, regardless of manufacturer indicated temperature rise.
As previously discussed, one of the CA IOUs' main concerns was that
testing at one target temperature would not credit motors with
efficient heat shedding designs. To avoid this potential problem, this
final rule specifies that the requirement to use a single target
temperature of 75 [deg]C only applies to air-over motors that do not
have a specified temperature rise and that if the temperature rise is
specified on the motor, such temperature rise will be used to determine
the target temperature.
2. Test Procedures for SNEMs
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to require testing of SNEMs
(other than inverter-only, and air-over electric motors) according to
the industry test methods identified in Table III-6 of this document.
86 FR 71710, 71739.
Table III-6--Additional Industry Test Standards Proposed in the December
2021 NOPR for Incorporation by Reference for SNEMs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry test standard
Topology incorporated by reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-phase........................... IEEE 114-2010, CSA C747-09, IEC
60034-2-1:2014.
Polyphase with rated horsepower less IEEE 112-2017, CSA C747-09, IEC
than 1 horsepower. 60034-2-1:2014.
Polyphase with rated horsepower equal IEEE 112-2017, CSA C390-10, IEC
to or greater than 1 horsepower. 60034-2-1:2014.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE initially determined that polyphase motors at or above 1 hp can
be tested with the same methods as would be applicable to electric
motors currently subject to the DOE test procedure (i.e., IEEE 112-
2017, CSA C390-10, and IEC 60034-2-1:2014). See section 2 of appendix
B. The referenced industry standards applicable to electric motors are
also consistent with those referenced for small electric motors that
are for polyphase motors greater than 1 hp. 10 CFR 431.444(b). For
SNEMs that are polyphase motors with a horsepower less than 1 hp and
for SNEMs that are single-phase motors, DOE initially determined that,
consistent with the DOE test method established for regulated small
electric motors (which also include polyphase motors with rated motor
horsepower less than 1 hp and single-phase motors), IEEE 114-2010, CSA
C747-09 and IEC 60034-2-1:2014 are appropriate test procedures for
SNEMs. Additionally, DOE notes that Section 12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1-2016
also lists IEEE 114 and CSA C747 as the selected industry standards for
measuring and determining the efficiency of polyphase motors below with
a horsepower less than 1 hp and single-phase motors. 86 FR 71710,
71739.
The CA IOUs agreed with the proposed test methods and suggested
that industry-accepted test methods exist for the SNEM topologies. (CA
IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 43) CEMEP stated that single-phase motors should
be tested using a ``direct measurement'' according to IEC 60034-2-1,
CSA 747, or IEEE 114 and that polyphase motors should be tested using a
separation of losses method according to IEC 60034-2-1, CSA C390, IEEE
112. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 5) Grundfos agreed with the test methods
proposed for SNEMs. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 5) Grundfos also separately
recommended breaking this large category of motors down into smaller
subcategories to make testing requirements clearer. (e.g., single-
phase, 2-digit NEMA (excluding 56) fractional motors). (Grundfos, No.
29 at p. 2). Advanced Energy agreed with the prescribed test methods
DOE proposed for SNEMs and stated that these methods are consistent
with the many tests it has conducted on these motors. (Advanced Energy,
No. 33 at p. 10)
NEMA stated that single-phase motors should not be tested with the
summation of losses method, and instead should use a direct output/
input power measurement. It provided data of a 10 hp single-phase motor
tested 30 times that indicated how the range and average efficiency
measured was different for the two test types. NEMA also cited a 2009
paper published by Advanced Energy comparing the differences in
measured efficiency produced by the direct vs. indirect methods.\31\ In
the paper, Advanced Energy found that the direct method would vary in
measured efficiency within a range of 1.26 percent points higher or
1.86 percent points lower compared to the indirect method and is too
large of a difference for reporting purposes.\32\ NEMA stated that
results
[[Page 63615]]
obtained from the direct method should have different loss tolerances
applied from those measured through the indirect method. NEMA also
stated that single-phase motors should be removed from this rulemaking
and given its own, separate rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 8-9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ DOE notes that the cited paper analyzed polyphase induction
motors and did not focus on single-phase motors.
\32\ E.B. Agamloh, ``A Comparison of direct and indirect
measurement of induction motor efficiency,'' 2009 IEEE International
Electric Machines and Drives Conference, 2009, pp. 36-42, doi:
10.1109/IEMDC.2009.5075180. Available at: ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5075180 (last accessed on 6/29/22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The December 2021 NOPR proposed the following test methods for
single-phase SNEMs: IEEE 114-2010, CSA C747-09, and Method 2-1-1A of
IEC 60034-2-1:2014. 86 FR 71710, 71739. These test methods are
consistent with those currently applicable to single-phase small
electric motors in 10 CFR 431.444(b)(2). All of the proposed test
methods for single-phase SNEMs are direct output/input power
measurement test methods. Specifically, the test methods require
determining efficiency as follows: (1) Section 8.2 of IEEE 114-2010
states, ``A determination of efficiency is based on measurements of
input power and output power. Efficiency is calculated as the ratio of
the measured output power to the corrected input power, where the
measured input power is corrected for ambient temperature;'' (2)
Section 6.10 of CSA C747-09 requires efficiency to be calculated using
direct measurements of input power torque and speed; and (3) Method 2-
1-1A of IEC 60034-2-1:2014 is titled as the ``direct measurement of
input and output.'' Comments provided by the CA IOUs (CA IOUs, No. 32.1
at p. 43), and comments DOE received in response to the July 2009 small
electric motors test procedure rulemaking,\33\ also indicated that
these test procedures rely on direct measurement of input and output.
Given the support from interested parties and consistency with the test
methods for SEMs, DOE concludes that the proposed test methods are
relevant for single-phase SNEMs that are not air-over electric motors
and not inverter-only electric motors and is therefore finalizing the
proposed test methods in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See comments from Advanced Energy and NEEA in the small
electric motor test procedure final rule published on July 7, 2009.
74 FR 32059, 32065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Test Procedures for AC Induction Inverter-Only Electric Motors and
Synchronous Electric Motors
a. Test Method
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed test methods for various
inverter-only electric motors and synchronous electric motors. These
proposed test methods are presented in Table III-7 of this document. In
addition, DOE proposed that for inverter-only electric motors sold
without an inverter, testing would be performed using an inverter that
is listed as recommended in the manufacturer's catalog. If more than
one inverter is listed as recommended in the manufacturer's catalog or
if more than one inverter is offered for sale with the electric motor,
DOE noted that it would consider requiring that testing be performed
using the least efficient inverter. 86 FR 71710, 71742.
Table III-7--Test Standards Proposed for Incorporation by Reference for
Synchronous Electric Motors and AC Induction Inverter-Only Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry test
standard
Motor configuration Equipment tested incorporated by
reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Synchronous motors that are Motor............. IEC 60034-2-
direct-on-line or inverter- 1:2014.
capable.
Synchronous or AC Induction Motor + Inverter.. IEC 61800-9-
Inverter-only. 2:2017.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to this proposal, both CEMEP and AI Group stated that
IEC 60034-2-3 is the correct test procedure for inverter-only motors
sold without an inverter and IEC 61800-9-2 is the correct procedure if
the motor is sold with an inverter. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 6; AI Group,
No. 25 at p. 5)
Advanced Energy supported testing synchronous motors according to
IEC 60034-2-1 and IEC 61800-9-2. It stated that in the case of switched
reluctance inverter-only motors, it would be difficult to measure only
the motor's efficiency, because measuring the power input to the motor
is not straightforward. Accordingly, for such motors, Advanced Energy
stated that they supply system efficiency only for the motor drive
system and not a separate motor efficiency and inverter efficiency.
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at pp. 10-11) Advanced Energy also stated that
DOE should designate the motor wire to be used when testing inverter-
only or inverter-capable motors with inverters unless the manufacturer
documentation states differently. With regard to this point, it
provided the wire requirements of AHRI 1210 Section 5.1.6. (Advanced
Energy, No. 33 at pp. 11-13) Advanced Energy also stated that an
inverter-only motor should be allowed to be certified with any of the
recommended inverters listed in the manufacturer catalog and that
different inverters will produce different measured efficiencies when
paired with a motor. It commented that the settings of the inverter
could influence measured efficiency, and that these values should be
specified either directly or through reference to an industry standard.
To this end, it provided the settings listed in AHRI 1210 Section
5.1.5. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 12)
For inverter-only electric motors, NEEA/NWPCC agreed with DOE that
these motors should be tested using IEC 61800-9-2:2017, and for
inverter-only motors that do not include an inverter, testing must be
conducted using an inverter as recommended in the manufacturer's
catalogs or that is offered for sale with the electric motor. For
inverter-only motors that do not include an inverter, NEEA/NWPCC
recommended that the efficiency should include the losses of an
inverter. NEEA/NWPCC commented that if the inverter losses are not
accounted for, this would create an unlevel playing field when compared
to inverter-only motors sold with an inverter (e.g., ECMs). NEEA/NWPCC
commented that they do not recommend adding ``Reference Complete Drive
Module (RCDM)'' losses as laid out in IEC 61800-9-2:2017, because these
losses are not well aligned with actual inverter losses. NEEA/NWPCC
recommended that such equipment be tested and rated using an inverter
recommended by the manufacturer or that DOE develop its own default
losses that are more representative of equipment currently available on
the market. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 6) Grundfos further stated that
these equipment should require ratings that reflect the inverter and
motor efficiency. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2)
For inverter-capable electric motors, NEEA/NWPCC recommended that
they be tested with IEC 61800-9-2 instead of DOE's proposed IEC 60034-
2-1. They
[[Page 63616]]
commented that IEC 60034-2-1 does not account for harmonic losses that
are present when motors are supplied by inverters. By testing to IEC
60034-2-1 and not including the harmonic losses, this approach would
create an unlevel playing field for inverter-capable motors that
compete with inverter-only motors. NEEA/NWPCC commented that when a
consumer is in the market for a variable-speed motor, it can choose to
purchase either inverter-capable or inverter-only motors. NEEA/NWPCC
stated that if all inverter-capable motors appear to have a higher
efficiency because of a difference in test procedure, the consumer
would be more likely to choose that motor over a lower-rated inverter-
only motor. They contended that if inverter-only motors are not rated
or rated with a different metric, end users will not be able to
evaluate them equitably. Accordingly, NEEA/NWPCC recommended that both
inverter-only and inverter-capable motors should be tested and rated
with the same test procedure. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at pp. 3; 7)
ebm-papst stated that switched-reluctance motors are not in the
scope of IEC 61800-9-2, and suggested that wire-to-shaft testing of
these motors requires a combination of two standards: IEC 60034-2-3 to
measure shaft output and IEC 61800-9-2 to measure converter input.
(ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 3)
NEMA stated that IEC 60034-2-3 is the correct test procedure for
all inverter motors, but that it is not structured for use in testing
for energy conservation standards. It stated that IEC 61800-9-2 is for
complete drive modules, a factor that led NEMA to suggest that DOE
conduct a separate rulemaking because of the unique rules and
definitions needed for these motors. NEMA stated that aspects needing
additional consideration are: inverter switching frequency, cable
distance between motor and inverter, voltage ramp and boost settings,
inverter capacitance values, and inverter control. (NEMA, No. 26 at p.
17)
IEC 61800-9-2:2017 specifies test methods for determining inverter
(or complete drive module, ``CDM'') \34\ and motor-inverter combination
(i.e., power-driven system or ``PDS'') losses.\35\ Using this test
method, the motor is tested with its inverter (either integrated or
non-integrated), and the measured losses includes the losses of the
motor and of the inverter. Inverter-capable electric motors subject to
the current test procedures are currently required to be tested without
the use of an inverter, and rely on the test set-ups used when testing
a general purpose electric motor. See 78 FR 75962, 75972. DOE is not
adopting to change the test procedure for currently regulated induction
inverter- capable electric motors. The approach for testing inverter-
capable synchronous electric motors without the use of an inverter
therefore aligns with the existing method for induction inverter-
capable electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ IEC 61800-9-2:2017 defines a CDM, or drive, or drive
controller as a ``drive module consisting of the electronic power
converter connected between the electric supply and a motor as well
as extension such as protection devices, transformers and
auxiliaries.''
\35\ IEC 61800-9-2:2017 also provides a mathematical model to
determine the losses of a reference CDM, reference motor and
reference PDS which are then used as the basis for comparing other
CDMs, motors, and PDSs and establishing efficiency classes (IES
classes). PDS shall be classified as ``IES 0'' if its losses are
more than 20 percent higher than the value specified for a reference
PDS. See Section 6.4 of IEC 61800-9-2:2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, DOE understands that many general purpose induction motors
are rated as inverter-capable but are more commonly operated as direct-
on-line motors (i.e., without an inverter), and as such, the results of
testing without an inverter would be more representative. Additionally,
because inverter-capable motors are more commonly operated direct-on-
line, such electric motors would more closely compete with typical
induction electric motors rather than inverter-only electric motors.
DOE further notes that not including the inverter when testing
inverter-capable motors is consistent with how the efficiency
classification of inverter-capable motors is established in accordance
with IEC 60034-30-1:2014. Accordingly, DOE is requiring inverter-
capable synchronous electric motors to be tested without the use of an
inverter.
Regarding NEMA's comment that additional definitions are needed for
inverter-only motor testing and Advanced Energy's comment that the
inverter settings should be further specified, DOE reviewed Section
5.1.5 ``Drive Settings'' of AHRI Standard 1210 (I-P):2019 and
considered if new definitions were required. Section 5.1.5 specifies
that the VFD [referred to in this document as an inverter] shall be set
up according to the manufacturer's instructional and operational manual
included with the product specifies that manufacturers must provide a
parameter set-up summary that at least includes the: (1) carrier
switching frequency, (2) max frequency, (3) max output voltage, (4)
motor control method, (5) load profile setting, and (6) saving energy
mode (if used). DOE notes that testing at the manufacturer's
recommended operating conditions would be consistent with how other
input values for electric motors are treated in the test procedure,
like rated voltage. Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE specifies
inverter set-up requirements consistent with Section 5.1.5 of AHRI 1210
(I-P):2019.
To address those comments claiming that switched-reluctance motors
do not fall within the scope of IEC 61800-9-2, DOE reviewed this
testing standard and how switched-reluctance motors operate. These
motors do not use a permanent magnet rotor and the rotor itself does
not carry a current. Torque is generated by making use of the different
values of reluctance \36\ the rotor will have in different positions.
The rotor will attempt to orient itself to give the magnetic flux a
path of least reluctance through the rotor while the current in each
stator pole is switched to create a continuous rotation in the rotor.
While these motors are similar to synchronous reluctance motors in how
they generate torque, the two main differences in their construction
are how the stators are built and how the inverter supplies current to
the motor. Synchronous reluctance stators are built in a way that
resembles an induction motor stator whereas a switched-reluctance motor
has a concentrated winding for each stator tooth. The inverters used
for switched-reluctance motors have to be built to handle higher phase
currents (for a given horsepower output) compared to an inverter used
for a synchronous reluctance motor. DOE also reviewed the scope of IEC
61800-9-2 and notes that Section 1 of that testing standard states that
the standard includes methods for determining the losses of the PDS
(i.e., motor and inverter combination) and does not limit its
application to specific motor topologies. DOE also notes that the
input-output method described in Section 7.7.2 requires measuring the
electrical input to the PDS and the mechanical output of the PDS, both
of which would be feasible when evaluating switched-reluctance motors.
Accordingly in this final rule, as proposed in the December 2021 NOPR,
DOE is specifying that Section 7.7.2 of IEC 61800-9-2 is the test
method to be used to determine the efficiency of all synchronous and
inverter-only electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Reluctance is the resistance to magnetic flux in a given
magnetic circuit. In electric motors, the motor contains a magnetic
circuit where the flux flows to and from the stator poles through
the rotor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63617]]
b. Comparable Converter
In the 2021 December NOPR, DOE proposed to require testing
inverter-only synchronous electric motors that include an inverter, and
inverter-only AC induction motors that include an inverter, in
accordance with Section 7.7.2 of IEC 61800-9-2:2017, and using the test
provisions specified in Section 7.7.3.5 and testing conditions
specified in Section 7.10 of that same testing standard. DOE proposed
to test inverter-only synchronous electric motors that do not include
an inverter, and AC induction inverter-only motors that do not include
an inverter, in accordance with IEC 61800-9-2:2017 \37\ and to specify
that testing must be performed using an inverter as recommended in the
manufacturer's catalogs or offered for sale with the electric motor. If
more than one inverter is available in manufacturer's catalogs or
offered for sale with the electric motor, DOE considered requiring that
testing occur using the least efficient inverter. 86 FR 71710, 71742.
DOE further requested feedback in the December 2021 NOPR on how to test
an inverter-only motor that is sold without an inverter, and on whether
DOE should consider testing these motors using a comparable converter
as specified in Section 5.2.2. of IEC 60034-2-3:2020. 86 FR 71710,
71742-71743.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Specifically, in accordance with Section 7.7.2 of IEC
61800-9-2:2017, and using the test provisions specified in Section
7.7.3.5 and testing conditions specified in Section 7.10. The
proposed method corresponds to an input-output test of the motor and
inverter combination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE develop a method for
testing an inseparable PDS (i.e., motor and inverter combinations) as a
paired unit. Since the PDS is inseparable, the CA IOUs noted that such
an approach would be appropriate for a PDS unlikely to be distributed
in commerce with other CDM drive (i.e., inverter) components and
suggested IEC 61800-9-2 as a starting point for testing these motors.
The CA IOUs also commented that DOE should specify a ``comparable
inverter'' for testing inverter-only motors that are distributed in
commerce for use with various CDMs, including motors paired with a
drive on-site. The CA IOUs suggested IEC 61800-9-2 as a starting point
for this approach as well. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 38) The CA IOUs
recommended testing with a ``comparable inverter'' for products sold
without a paired drive module, and that this comparable inverter be
evaluated in each rulemaking to keep up with advancing drive
technology. They cautioned that applying IEC 61800-9-2 to a
``comparable inverter'' for current products is challenging because of
what they described as the high reference inverter losses used by the
standard to calculate the losses of a minimum-performance inverter. The
CA IOUs provided data that they stated show how IE 0, the least
efficient class of inverters defined by IEC 61800-9-2, is estimated to
yield significantly higher losses than any inverter they found on the
market and that the inverter efficiency classes in IEC 61800-9-2 were
developed before the adoption of Silicon Carbide converters. The CA
IOUs asserted that the disparity between reference losses and real-
world converter losses is even greater for smaller output drives (<7.5
kW output) and noted that these drives make up two-thirds of the low-
voltage drive market. They suggested that DOE work with the project
managers of a study currently being conducted on inverter efficiency,
and to use the data provided from that study to inform how DOE
considers inverter losses in the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at
pp. 36-37) The CA IOUs also recommended that DOE follow the IEC's test
procedure framework for inverter-only motors and drives. (CA IOUs, No.
32.1 at p. 33)
Advanced Energy stated that it would be beneficial if DOE provided
guidance on what inverter to use for testing if an inverter is not
recommended in a manufacturer's catalog, and it suggested the use of a
``comparable converter'' according to IEC 60034-2-3 in this case.
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 10)
NEMA opposes the use of a reference converter during testing. NEMA
stated that the only way a fair test could be conducted on an inverter-
only motor is to use the exact inverter specified by the manufacturer,
and that a reference inverter that was ``close'' would incur a heavy
risk of having the motor test as less efficient than it would with the
intended inverter. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 18) Grundfos stated that a
``comparable inverter'' as stated in IEC 60034-2-3:2020 should only be
used when a manufacturer does not sell an inverter to go with the
motor. (Grundfos, No. 29 at pp. 5-6) Trane commented that a
``comparable inverter'' would result in inaccurate representations of
energy use and that testing the inverter and motor combinations
separately provides no value to the appliance manufacturer or end user.
(Trane, No. 31 at p. 6)
DOE notes that the test method proposed for inverter-only motors
according to Section 7.7.2 of IEC 61800-9-2:2017 does not make use of
inverter efficiency classes outlined in that document. Accordingly, DOE
will not be addressing concerns about those efficiency classes.
Regarding the CA IOUs comment suggesting the use of a ``comparable
converter'' for inverter-only motors that have multiple CDMs (i.e.,
inverters) recommended, DOE disagrees because the efficiency of the
motor/inverter combination depends on the inverter chosen for selection
and the ``comparable converter'' may not be one of manufacturer
recommended inverters. To ensure the test results are representative of
average use, one of the inverters recommended by the manufacturer
should be the inverter used during the efficiency test since the motor
is most likely to be paired with one of those inverters during field
use.
In cases where no inverter is specified by the manufacturer to pair
with an inverter-only motor, DOE still needs to choose an inverter to
pair with the motor during the test. NEMA's concern regarding the use
of a ``comparable converter'' does not apply because no inverter was
specified for use with the motor, and Trane's concern does not apply
because the motor and inverter are not tested separately. As such, DOE
cannot at this time identify an option more representative of average
use than the ``comparable converter'' in cases where no inverter is
specified for use with an inverter-only motor.
After reviewing the comments submitted by stakeholders, DOE has
decided to adopt the method proposed in the December 2021 NOPR for
testing synchronous and AC induction inverter-only motors that include
an inverter, in accordance with IEC 61800-9-2:2017. DOE is also
adopting the methods proposed in the December 2021 NOPR for synchronous
and AC induction inverter-only motors that do not include an inverter,
and to specify must be tested in accordance with IEC 61800-9-2:2017 and
to specify that testing must be performed using an inverter as
recommended in the manufacturer's catalogs or offered for sale with the
electric motor. In addition, DOE did not receive any comments on
selecting the least efficient inverter. Under the approach taken in
this final rule, if more than one inverter is listed as recommended in
the manufacturer's catalog or if more than one inverter is offered for
sale with the electric motor testing using the least efficient inverter
will be required. DOE is requiring the use of ``the least efficient
inverter'' to ensure consistent testing of inverter-only motors with
multiple recommended inverters. DOE notes that the test specified in
Section 7.7.2 of IEC 61800-9-2 is based on an input-output measurement
and does not rely on
[[Page 63618]]
``reference losses'' \38\ in IEC 61800-9-2:2017 to characterize the
inverter performance. Instead, the motor and inverter combination are
tested using an input-output test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ IEC 61800-9-2 provides references losses for inverters that
can be used to calculate the combine motor and inverter efficiency
based on a calculation-based method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, to address the case where there are no inverters
recommended in the manufacturer's catalogs or offered for sale with the
electric motor, DOE is specifying the use of a ``comparable converter''
based on Section 5.2.2 of IEC 60034-2-3, and to require that the motor
manufacturer specify the manufacturer, brand and model number of the
inverter used for the test.
E. Metric
The represented value of nominal full-load efficiency is currently
used to make representations of efficiency for electric motors subject
to standards in subpart B of part 431, based on the average full-load
efficiency as measured in accordance with the provisions at 10 CFR
431.17.
In the December 2021 NOPR, for electric motors subject to energy
conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25 (which are AC induction single-
speed motors), DOE proposed to maintain the current use of the nominal
full-load efficiency metric. For the additional electric motors
proposed for inclusion within the scope of the test procedures, DOE
also proposed to use the nominal full-load efficiency as the metric.
DOE proposed to evaluate the efficiency of the motor with or without
the inclusion of the inverter depending on the motor configuration: (1)
for the additional non-inverter-only electric motors proposed for
inclusion within the test procedure's scope (i.e., direct-on-line or
inverter-capable),\39\ DOE proposed to determine the efficiency of the
motor at full-load (i.e., measure the full-load efficiency), consistent
with how electric motors currently subject to standards at 10 CFR
431.25 are evaluated; (2) for the additional inverter-only electric
motors proposed for inclusion within the test procedure's scope, DOE
proposed to evaluate the efficiency of the motor and inverter
combination at 100 percent rated speed and rated torque (i.e., measure
the full-load efficiency). In addition, DOE stated that it may consider
requiring manufacturers to disclose the part-load performance
efficiency of the additional motors proposed for inclusion within the
scope of this test procedure as part of any future energy conservation
standard related to these electric motors.\40\ Finally, similar to
currently regulated electric motors, for the additional electric motors
proposed for inclusion, DOE proposed sampling requirements to calculate
the average full-load efficiency of a basic model and provisions to
determine a tested motor's nominal full-load efficiency. (See section
III.N of this document). 86 FR 71710, 71743-71745.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ These include air over electric motors, electric motors
larger than 500 hp, certain SNEMs, and certain synchronous motors.
\40\ DOE did not propose to require this in the December 2021
NOPR, as labelling requirements are typically not in the scope of
the test procedure and included as part of energy conservation
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEMEP stated that an efficiency metric that includes both inverter
and motor efficiency should not be used for inverter-only and inverter-
capable electric motors sold without an inverter. In its view, the
efficiency metric DOE adopts should reflect only the efficiency of the
motor itself. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 7)
The scope of the current test procedure includes inverter-capable
electric motors, which are tested without the use of an inverter.\41\
DOE is not changing the current test procedure for inverter-capable
motors, and continues to require testing these motors without the use
of an inverter. Further, as discussed in section III.D.3 of this
document, DOE is adopting an approach to test inverter-only motors
inclusive of the inverter. Therefore, DOE is adopting a metric
inclusive of the inverter efficiency for these motors. As stated in the
December 2021 NOPR, because inverter-only motors require an inverter to
operate, measuring the motor efficiency independent of the inverter
would not be as representative of field performance as would measuring
the combined motor and inverter efficiency. 86 FR 71710, 71743. In
addition, some inverter-only motors are sold with an integrated \42\
inverter such that measuring motor-only efficiency is not technically
feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The test methods described in section 2 of Appendix B to
Subpart B do not require the use of an inverter.
\42\ Integrated means that the drive and the motor are
physically contained in a single unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the December 2021 NOPR, Grundfos supported measuring
motor efficiency at the proposed load points. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p.
6).
Several stakeholders opposed using a full-load metric, as discussed
in the next paragraphs.
The Joint Advocates recommended that DOE amend the test procedure
to incorporate efficiency at multiple load points to ensure a level
playing field for manufacturers and to better inform purchasers. The
Joint Advocates stated that while it is generally true that an AC
induction electric motor with a tested full-load efficiency will have
smaller losses than another electric motor with a lower tested full-
load efficiency within its typical range of operation, many advanced
motor technologies (e.g., synchronous motors) included in the proposed
expanded scope have loss profiles (e.g., losses as a function of load)
that deviate significantly from those of single-speed AC induction
motors. In particular, the Joint Advocates stated that advanced motor
technologies typically maintain higher efficiency at low loads and
evaluating electric motor efficiency at a single load point is
therefore not representative of real-world energy use and will not
provide accurate relative rankings across different motor topologies.
In addition, citing data from DOE's Motor Systems Market Assessment
report,\43\ the Joint Advocates also commented that motors operating in
variable-load applications with an average load factor between 40 and
75 percent represent the largest portion of motor energy use, and that
a metric that included part-load efficiency would be more
representative.\44\ (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at pp. 5-6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Rao, P., Sheaffer, P., Chen, Y., Goldberg, M., Jones, B.,
Cropp, J., and J. Hester. U.S. Industrial and Commercial Motor
System Market Assessment Report Volume 1: Characteristics of the
Installed Base. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 2021,
https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._industrial_and_commercial_motor_system_market_assessment_report_volume_1-_characteristics_of_the_installed_base_p_rao.pdf.
\44\ Note: the data provided by the Joint Advocates were in
terms of relative energy consumption and not motor counts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to inverter-only motors, the CA IOUs commented that DOE
should incorporate a weighted part-load efficiency metric rather than
using a full-load efficiency metric. The CA IOUs provided data from
DOE's Motor Systems Market Assessment report and from the California
Public Utilities Commission showing (in their view) that the majority
of motors operate at variable-load.\45\ The CA IOUs expressed concern
that the proposed full-load metric for inverter-only motors would not
meet DOE's statutory requirement that metrics be ``representative of
average use.'' Instead, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE collaborate
with industry stakeholders to develop a metric for inverter-only
motors. The CA IOUs referenced other rules that have incorporated part-
load metrics. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 2-3; 20-24) The CA IOUs also
commented that the largest differences in performance
[[Page 63619]]
between synchronous inverter motors and induction inverter motors occur
at low loads and that a full-load metric would not capture this
difference. To illustrate this point, they provided efficiency curves
for a 5 hp and a 20 hp permanent magnet inverter-only electric motor as
well as for a 5 hp and 2 0hp induction electric motor, showing that the
permanent magnet inverter-only motor had a higher efficiency than the
induction electric motor, specifically at lower load. (CA IOUs, No.
32.1 at p. 25) The CA IOUs added that a full-load efficiency metric
would not enable the comparison of inverter-only motors and induction
motor/inverter combinations that have peak efficiencies at different
operating speeds and different positions on the torque curve. The CA
IOUs provided part-load efficiency data showing that different motor
topologies of synchronous inverter-only motors (e.g., synchronous
reluctance motors, permanent magnet motors) and induction motor/
inverter combinations each experienced increases in efficiency at
different load regions. The CA IOUs explained that the selected load
point would change the rank order of the motor performance of inverter-
only motors (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 26-28) To illustrate this point,
the CA IOUs compared the efficiency rankings for a synchronous
reluctance motor, a permanent magnet motor, and an induction motor/
inverter combination in selected load-profiles, using part-load and
full-load metrics. For the selected load-profiles in the example, the
CA IOUs claimed that the weighted part load metrics provided a
performance ranking that was more representative of the expected
performance in the field and the CA IOUs recommended that DOE adopt a
metric that can differentiate motors with peak efficiencies at
different operating speeds and different positions on the torque curve.
(CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 26-31)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Note: the data provided by the CA IOUs were in terms of
relative energy consumption and not motor counts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA agreed in concept with the proposed metrics except for
synchronous and inverter-only motors--both of which NEMA opposes for
inclusion as part of the test procedure's scope. NEMA commented that
these motors are not intended to be operated at full-load. NEMA did not
recommend alternate approaches to test the performance of these motors,
but instead voiced its general opposition to their inclusion in the
scope of the test procedure. NEMA added that inverter-only and
synchronous motors lend themselves to be evaluated with system
efficiency, rather than motor-only efficiency, and that inverter-only
motors should be regulated in a separate rulemaking due to the
complexity of their testing and applications. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 19)
NEMA stressed that the extended product rulemakings (commercial and
industrial pumps, fans and compressors) are the appropriate path to
energy savings and that component level regulation does not assure
energy savings in the overall application. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 4)
Regal opposed using a full-load efficiency metric for inverter-type
motors and stated that this metric does not capture any of the value
added by an inverter-only motor's higher efficiency at part-load
conditions. (Regal, No. 28 at p. 1) Trane commented that measuring
synchronous motors with a full-load only metric is not useful to the
end-user nor applicable to the equipment in which the motor is
installed. (Trane, No. 31 at p. 3) AHAM and AHRI were concerned with
the use of a full-load metric for inverter-only and synchronous
electric motors, which by definition are not intended to be operated at
full-load. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at p. 9)
NEEA/NWPCC recommended that DOE add representative load points and
implement a weighted-average metric that accounts for performance at
part-load. NEEA/NWPCC commented that a weighted metric that takes into
account various load points will not be unduly burdensome and is
essential to showing the actual performance of motors. NEEA/NWPCC cited
data from DOE's Motor Systems Market Assessment report showing that the
majority of motor-connected horsepower operates below 75 percent load,
and commented that a test procedure that does not include load points
below full-load is not representative an average period of use. (NEEA/
NWPCC, No. 37 at pp. 4-6) NEEA/NWPCC added that while using full-load
efficiency may have been adequate when considering induction electric
motors only, many of the synchronous motor topologies claim to have
flatter efficiency curves compared to induction motors: the motor
maintains its efficiency at reduced loads or reduced speeds better than
induction motors. NEEA/NWPCC commented that a test procedure that
measures efficiency only at full-load would not capture the difference
in performance of synchronous motors at lower loads compared to
induction motors. In addition, NEEA/NWPCC noted that the majority of
commercial and industrial motors are not operated at full-load and
commented that a metric that does not include part-load points is not
representative of an average period of use as required by EPCA. (NEEA/
NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 8)
Currently regulated electric motors typically have flat efficiency
profiles, i.e., efficiency does not substantively vary based on the
loading condition. The efficiency profile of smaller motors (less than
one hp) is almost flat in the 40-100 percent load range, and the
profile of larger motors (at or above 20 hp) is almost flat between 30-
100 percent load.\46\ DOE found that the estimates published in DOE's
Motor Systems Market Assessment report for polyphase motors show that
the majority of electric motors operate above the 40 percent loading
point. The report also indicates that significantly underloaded motors
(i.e., those under a variable or constant load below a 0.4 loading
factor) represent a small percentage of the installed base (4
percent).\47\ A motor is considered underloaded when it is operated in
the range where efficiency drops significantly with decreasing load.
Therefore, DOE has determined that the majority of polyphase motors
(which include regulated electric motors) operate in a range where
efficiency is relatively flat as a function of load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ A. de Almeida, H. Falkner, J. Fong, EuP Lot 30, Electric
Motors and Drives. Task 3: Consumer Behaviour and Local
Infrastructure. ENER/C3/413-2010, at p.6, Final April 2014.
Available at: https://www.eceee.org/static/media/uploads/site-2/ecodesign/products/special-motors-not-covered-in-lot-11/eup-lot-30-task-3-april-2014.pdf. DOE also analyzed published part-load
efficiency data for regulated electric motors and found that on
average, the efficiency at 50 percent load is 99 percent of the
full-load efficiency, while the efficiency at 75 percent load is
1.004 percent of the full-load efficiency (average based on 7,199
units).
\47\ See: motors.lbl.gov/inventory/analyze/9-0713.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, DOE reviewed the data provided by the Joint Advocates and
the CA IOUs indicating that electric motors primarily operate at
variable-load. DOE notes that the estimates provided were based on a
percentage of energy use or connected load and not motor counts (i.e.,
number of motor units included in the sample). DOE believes motor
counts are a better indicator when assessing representativeness because
each individual motor basic model is certified regardless of its size
or energy use. When using motor counts, the DOE Motor Systems Market
Assessment report shows that in the industrial sector, constant load
motors operating at motor load factors greater than 0.75 represent 43
percent of all industrial motor systems. Overall, in the industrial
[[Page 63620]]
sector, the report finds that there are nearly twice as many constant-
load motors as variable-load motors.\48\ In the commercial sector, the
report states that variable-load motors operating at load factors
between 0.4 and 0.75 represent 36 percent of all commercial sector
motor systems, followed by constant load systems operating at motor
load factors greater than 0.75, at 27 percent. Overall, in the
commercial sector, the report states that constant-load motors
represent 43 percent and variable-load motors represent 52 percent of
electric motors (with 5 percent unknown). Across both sectors, the
report shows that constant-load represents 44 percent of electric
motors and variable-load represents 48 percent of electric motor
systems (with 7 percent unknown).\49\ Further, the estimated average
load factor for motors between 1 and 500 hp ranges from approximately
0.52 to 0.68 depending on the motor horsepower.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See pp. 76 and 81 of the DOE's Motor Systems Market
Assessment report available at: https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._industrial_and_commercial_motor_system_market_assessment_report_volume_1-_characteristics_of_the_installed_base_p_rao.pdf.
\49\ See: https://motors.lbl.gov/inventory/analyze/9-0713.
\50\ See pp. 78 and 83 of the DOE's Motor Systems Market
Assessment report available at: https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._industrial_and_commercial_motor_system_market_assessment_report_volume_1-_characteristics_of_the_installed_base_p_rao.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has determined that currently regulated electric motors are
used equally in both constant-load and variable-load applications and
primarily operate in a range where efficiency is relatively flat as a
function of load. For these reasons, DOE has determined that measuring
the performance of these motors at full-load is representative of an
average use cycle. In addition, given the variability in applications
and load profiles, an average load profile may not be representative.
For example, a constant torque load application cannot be represented
using the load profile of a variable torque application. Further,
currently regulated electric motors have internationally-harmonized
efficiency test standards and efficiency classes (e.g., IE3 and NEMA
Premium classes) \51\ and using a metric based on a weighted-average
efficiency across different part-load points would be a departure from
internationally harmonized practices without adding benefits in terms
of better representation. As noted in the December 2021 NOPR, for
motors that are not inverter-only, although the IEC 60034-2-1:2014 test
standard includes testing at part-load, IEC 60034-30-1:2014 establishes
efficiency classes (e.g., IE3) based on the motor full-load efficiency.
86 FR 71710, 71744. In addition, rating these motors at full-load or
part-load would not change the rank order by performance (i.e., if
motor A is better than B based on full-load efficiency, motor A will
perform better than motor B in the field). For these reasons, in this
final rule, DOE maintains the current nominal full-load efficiency
metric for currently regulated motors. DOE may consider requiring
manufacturers to display the part-load efficiency as part of any future
energy conservation standard related to these electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ An IE class is a table of full-load efficiency ratings
provided at different motor rated power and poles. For example, the
IE class ``IE3'' is considered largely equivalent to the current
energy conservation standards in Table 5 at 10 CFR 431.25 or ``NEMA
Premium.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those additional motors that DOE is incorporating in the scope
of the test procedure, which are not inverter-only, given that the
operating load data from the DOE Motor Systems Market Assessment report
apply to all polyphase motors above 1 horsepower, DOE determined that
the findings discussed for regulated electric motors also apply to
those additional in-scope polyphase electric motors that are not
inverter-only and are above 1 horsepower (i.e., polyphase air-over
motors and electric motors larger than 500 hp). Therefore, for these
electric motors, DOE is adopting the nominal full-load efficiency
metric. Further, for synchronous motors that are not inverter-only
(i.e. line-start permanent magnet motors), DOE found that the
efficiency curve as a function of load is also flat in the typical
motor operating range.\52\ Therefore, DOE has determined that measuring
the performance of these motors at full-load is representative of an
average use cycle and DOE adopts the nominal full-load efficiency
metric as proposed for synchronous motors that are not inverter-only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See Arash Hassanpour Isfahani, Sadegh Vaez-Zadeh, Line
start permanent magnet synchronous motors: Challenges and
opportunities, Energy, Volume 34, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 1755-1763,
ISSN 0360-5442, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544209001303 and A. T. De Almeida, F. J. T. E. Ferreira and A.
Q. Duarte, ``Technical and Economical Considerations on Super High-
Efficiency Three-Phase Motors,'' in IEEE Transactions on Industry
Applications, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 1274-1285, March-April 2014, doi:
10.1109/TIA.2013.2272548.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, for SNEMs that are not inverter-only (including air-over
motors), DOE did not find data specific to SNEMs (the DOE Motor Systems
Market Assessment report only considered polyphase motors above 1
horsepower). Assuming these motors operate at an average load between
0.66 and 0.67,\53\ and considering the relatively flat efficiency curve
in that range,\54\ DOE believes a metric based on full-load efficiency
is appropriate and representative of an average use cycle for these
motors. In addition, rating these motors at full-load or part-load
would not change the rank order by performance (i.e., if motor A is
better than B based on full-load efficiency, motor A will perform
better than motor B in the field). Further, a metric based on full-load
efficiency is consistent with the test method for small electric motors
and would enable performance comparisons between SNEMs and SEMs.\55\
For these reasons, DOE is adopting the nominal full-load efficiency
metric as proposed. For the additional non-inverter-only motors that
DOE is incorporating in the scope of the test procedure, DOE may
consider requiring manufacturers to display the part-load efficiency as
part of any future energy conservation standard related to these
electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ This estimate is based on the average load factor for
motors between 1 and 5 hp as provided in DOE's Motor Systems Market
Assessment report. See pp. 78 and 83 of the DOE's Motor Systems
Market Assessment report available at: https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._industrial_and_commercial_motor_system_market_assessment_report_volume_1-_characteristics_of_the_installed_base_p_rao.pdf.
\54\ DOE analyzed published part-load efficiency data for SNEMs
and found that on average, the efficiency at 75 percent load is 97
percent of the full-load efficiency (average based on 2,585 units).
\55\ DOE notes however that SEMs do not rely on nominal full-
load efficiency values but rather on average full-load efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For inverter-only electric motors, DOE agrees that synchronous
motors typically maintain a flatter efficiency at lower loads compared
to inverter-only induction motors.\56\ However, as previously
discussed, very few electric motors operate at these lower loads (i.e.,
below 40 percent). Instead, electric motors, including inverter-only
electric motors, typically operate in a region where the efficiency is
relatively flat. Therefore, although inverter-only motors operate at
part-load, DOE has determined that a metric based on full-load
efficiency is representative of an average energy use cycle. In
addition, because inverter-only motors tend to also have flat
efficiency curves above a 40 percent load, rating these motors at
[[Page 63621]]
full-load or part-load would not change the rank order by performance
(i.e., if motor A is better than B based on full-load efficiency, motor
A will perform better than motor B in the field).\57\ Further, as noted
in the December 2021 NOPR, for inverter-only and inverter combination
electric motors, although the IEC 61800-9-2:2017 test standard includes
eight standardized test points, the IEC efficiency classification is
based on the performance at a unique point at full-load (100 percent
rated speed and 100 percent rated torque) and establishing a metric
based on a weighted average load would be a departure from
internationally harmonized practices without adding significant (if
any) benefits in terms of better representation. 86 FR 71710, 71744.
For these reasons, DOE is adopting the nominal full-load efficiency as
the metric for inverter-only motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ DOE notes that in their comment, the CA IOUs provide an
example which compares the efficiency of 5 and 20 hp synchronous
permanent magnet motors with an inverter-only induction motor and
variable frequency drive at loads between 12.5 and 50 percent. (CA
IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 29) While the example shows that the difference
in efficiency between the synchronous permanent magnet motor with an
inverter-only induction motor increases at load (below 40 percent)
the example shows that this difference is relatively constant
between a 40 and 50 percent load. Id.
\57\ DOE notes that in the example provided by the CA IOUs,
where the rank order of inverter-only motors changes based on
considering a load profile vs. a full-load operation, the motor is
assumed to operate 40 percent of the time at low load which is not
representative of typical inverter-only motors (load in percent of
horsepower is the product of speed and torque, in the CA IOUs
example, 15 and 10 percent load points were considered i.e., 50
percent speed, 30 percent torque and 50 percent speed, 20 percent
torque). In addition, in the example provided, the inverter-only
induction motor has a flatter efficiency curve than the synchronous
reluctance motor which is contrary to what is expected from a
typical synchronous motors and not representative. (CA IOUs, No.
32.1 at p. 29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Advocates further commented that the current electric
motors test procedure does not capture the energy saving benefits
associated with speed control. The Joint Advocates commented that
motors with controls may be at a disadvantage relative to single-speed
AC induction motors since the energy usage of the inverter (e.g., in a
inverter-equipped inverter-only AC induction motor) would be included
in the overall efficiency, while the benefits of the inverter (e.g.,
speed reduction at part load) are not. The Joint Advocates stated that
the test procedure should capture the benefits of speed control
capability. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 6).
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE establish a metric for inverter-
only motors that will capture the energy saving benefits of variable-
speed control as these motors are most often used in variable load and
variable torque applications. In addition, the CA IOUs noted that speed
control can provide energy savings benefits in constant-load
applications by matching the load to the motor output power to meet the
requirements of the application instead of using throttling valves or
dampers. The CA IOUs commented that 90 percent of inverter-only motors
are used in variable torque applications such as air compressors,
pumps, fans and blowers. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 20-21)
NEEA/NWPCC also recommended that DOE adopt a metric that would
capture the energy savings of speed control for all electric motors.
NEEA/NWPCC noted that DOE already has several test procedures and
metrics that have switched from full-load efficiency to more
representative metrics \58\ and recommended that a weighted-average
input power metric be used for electric motors in line with the Pump
Energy Index metric used for pumps and the recent Power Index Metric as
described in a standard published by NEMA.\59\ NEEA/NWPCC commented
that a motor weighted-average input power metric would be calculated
for both constant-speed motors and variable-speed motors (both
inverter-capable and inverter-only) and suggested calculation methods
and recommended weights at each recommended load point (i.e., load
profiles). NEEA/NWPCC stated that a weighted-average input power metric
is more representative than a weighted-average efficiency metric
because inverter-controlled motors will inherently have an
``efficiency'' loss at each independent load point but will generally
use less energy overall. Therefore, NEEA/NWPCC asserted that using a
weighted input power metric instead of efficiency will show the lower
input power more equitably. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at pp. 8-11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ NEEA and NWPCC cited the example of the seasonal energy
efficiency ratio used for air conditioning equipment and the Pump
Energy Index used for commercial and industrial pumps.
\59\ Available at https://www.techstreet.com/nema/standards/nema-mg-10011-2022?product_id=2247918.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to the approach taken in the commercial and industrial pump
and air compressor rulemakings,\60\ DOE proposed to evaluate equipment
with variable-speed capability separately from single-speed equipment.
The metric adopted for inverter-only motors, which includes the
inverter efficiency, is not directly comparable with the metric
proposed for electric motors that are not inverter-only, as these
motors are not tested using an inverter. As such, DOE does not believe
that motors with controls would be at a disadvantage relative to
single-speed AC induction motors when testing and evaluating them under
the proposed conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ For air compressors and pumps, variable speed or variable-
load and single speed or constant load equipment are in separate
equipment classes and evaluated separately. 10 CFR 431.345 and 10
CFR 431.465.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the adoption of a metric that would capture the benefits
of controls, such as the approach suggested by NEEA/NWPCC, which uses
an input power-based metric and a load profile based on a variable-
torque load profile for inverter-motors (both inverter-only and
inverter-capable), inverter-motors would always show better ratings
(i.e., a lower weighted average input power) than single-speed motors
due to the cubic relationship between power and speed (i.e., affinity
laws) \61\ specific to variable-torque load applications (e.g., a
reduction in speed by a factor of 3 is associated to a reduction in
power by a factor of 9).\62\ Variable-speed capability can provide
energy savings in some applications compared to single-speed operation.
However, not all applications benefit equally from variable-speed
control. DOE estimates that 90 percent of the installed base of
variable-load electric motor applications are variable-torque.\63\
Applying speed control to these applications (primarily fans,
compressors, and pumps), will provide energy savings due to the
affinity laws specific to these applications. However, affinity laws do
not apply to other variable-load applications that are not variable-
torque (e.g., material handling, material processing) where speed
control is not expected to provide the same level of energy savings, if
any. In addition, AC induction inverter-only motors are primarily used
in constant torque applications.\64\ Applying a metric based on an
average load profile that captures the benefits of speed control
[[Page 63622]]
(i.e., a variable-torque load profile as recommended by NEEA/NWPCC),
would assume that benefits of speed controls are always realized and
could potentially significantly underestimate the input power
experienced by a consumer. In the case of electric motors, such a
metric could be misleading to consumers purchasing an electric motor
for a non-variable torque applications. In other contexts where a more
specific application was identified as in the case for pumps (which are
all variable-torque applications), DOE was able to identify a specific
load profile and use a metric that captures the energy savings
potential of speed controls. However, for electric motors, because of
the variability in applications, and because the majority of AC
induction inverter-only electric motors are used in constant-torque
applications, it is more representative to rely on a full-load
efficiency metric rather than to rely on a weighted power-input metric
based on a variable torque load profile, and to provide disaggregated
information on the electric motor's part-load efficiency (inclusive of
the inverter or not) to consumers to allow them to perform the power
input calculation that is specific to their application. In addition,
as previously stated, DOE understands that many general purpose
induction motors are rated as inverter-capable but are more commonly
operated direct-on-line, and as such, the results of testing without an
inverter would be more representative. Consequently, DOE is not
including an input power-based metric in the electric motors test
procedure. DOE may consider requiring manufacturers to disclose the
part-load performance efficiency of the additional motors proposed for
inclusion within the scope of this test procedure as part of any future
energy conservation standard related to these electric motors.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ The affinity laws express the relationship between power,
speed, flow, and pressure or head. Specifically, power is
proportional to the cube of the speed.
\62\ In addition, DOE reviewed the load points recommended for
variable speed moors by NEEA and NWPCC and found that the points
recommended do not reflect the load points for variable load motors
in the DOE Motor Systems Market Assessment report (which are
provided in terms of percentage of horsepower divided by the motor
full-load horsepower). NEEA and NWPCC characterized the load range
from 0 to 40 percent using a (25,25) (% speed, % torque) point which
is equal to 6.25 percent load; the load range between 40 and 75
percent using a (50,50) (% speed, % torque) point which is equal to
25 percent load, and the range above 75 percent using (75,75) and
(100,100) (% speed, % torque) points which is equal to 56.25 percent
and 100 load. As such the points recommended do not reflect the
typical motor loads for inverter-only motors.
\63\ See counts of motors by load factor by application as
provided by the DOE Motor Systems Market Assessment report,
available at https://motors.lbl.gov/inventory/analyze/3-0825.
\64\ Inverter-only motors are capable of providing full-rated
torque at zero speed as well as operating well over their nominal
speed and are typically selected when operating at extremely low
speeds, particularly when serving a constant torque load. See:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56016.pdf.
\65\ DOE did not propose to require this in the December 2021
NOPR. DOE typically includes such requirements (e.g., labeling) as
part of its energy conservation standards rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Rated Output Power and Breakdown Torque of Electric Motors
The current energy conservation standards for electric motors at 10
CFR 431.25 are segregated based on rated motor horsepower, pole
configuration, and motor enclosure. Pole configuration and motor
enclosure are both observable properties of a motor and straightforward
to use for testing purposes. In contrast, the rated motor horsepower
(i.e., rated output power) is not easily observable and DOE has not
discerned a single uniform method to determine this value through
testing. In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify rated
output power based on the electric motor's breakdown torque for those
electric motors that are subject to energy conservation standards at 10
CFR 431.25, electric motors above 500 horsepower, air-over electric
motors, and SNEMs. 86 FR 71710, 71745-71747. DOE based this proposal on
the already-established definitions for rated output power and
breakdown torque as they relate to small electric motors (see 10 CFR
431.442). Id.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE reviewed NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018
Supplements), and noted the complexity identified by CA IOUs in
determining rated output power based on breakdown torque, in that the
performance requirements for a NEMA Design A, B or C motor in Section
12.39 specify the minimum breakdown torque as a percentage of full-load
torque; therefore, the breakdown torque can only describe the largest
possible rated output power but cannot uniquely identify a rated output
power. However, DOE also noted that it understands that the economics
of motor manufacturing prevent manufacturers from down-rating the
output power of motors (i.e., manufacturers are disincentivized to
down-rate motors because of the implications of cost-competitiveness),
but NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements) does not inherently
eliminate that possibility. Regardless, DOE proposed to specify how to
determine the rated output power of an electric motor based on its
breakdown torque to provide further specificity. 86 FR 71710, 71745-
71747.
Grundfos stated that rated output power is a manufacturer
declaration (and should not be included as a regulatory requirement),
and that breakdown torque is only published for informational purposes.
(Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 6)
AI Group disagreed with the use of breakdown torque to determine
power rating. It warned that running a motor above its rated torque to
the breakdown torque limit will result in high winding temperature,
winding failure and unsafe operation should the motor stall. It
commented that a motor will not be able to continuously deliver power
exceeding its rated power without high over-temperature and eventual
failure through winding burnout. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 6) CEMEP also
disagreed with the use of breakdown torque in determining rated output
power and stated that breakdown torque has never been a design
criterion for efficiency. It stated that output power ratings are based
on frame sizes and other motor performance metrics. (CEMEP, No. 19 at
p. 7)
NEMA stated that the proposed specification of rated output power
does not accurately describe how manufacturers are currently
determining the rated output power for polyphase motors. (NEMA, No. 26
at p. 19) It stated that breakdown torque only establishes the output
power the motor can momentarily deliver successfully and does not
establish the output power the motor can deliver continuously. NEMA
commented that other parameters, such as temperature rise, must be
considered to determine the output power the motor can deliver
continuously. Further, NEMA provided examples of how a motor's output
power would be rated if DOE's proposal were considered for adoption.
According to NEMA, rated output power based on DOE's proposal would
result in much higher values than manufacturer-declared output power,
which in turn would result in motors overheating during the rated load
temperature tests and potentially being ineffective for the efficiency
test.\66\ Id. at pp. 19-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ IEEE 112-2017 Test Method B (currently incorporated by
reference in 10 CFR 431.15 and one of the test methods in Section 2
of appendix B) requires that a rated load temperature test be
performed prior to taking efficiency measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, NEMA commented that Section 12.39 of NEMA Standard MG-1
2016 (with 2018 Supplements) only defines a lower bound for breakdown
torque and not an upper bound, and that there is nothing in that
procedure prohibiting manufacturers from designing motors that are
subject to that section with a breakdown torque value much higher than
the minimum required value when attempting to optimize other aspects of
the motor's performance. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 20) On the other hand,
NEMA noted that motors subject to Section 12.37 of NEMA Standard MG-1
2016 (with 2018 Supplements) (polyphase small motors) have a defined
lower breakdown torque limit they do not have an upper limit. As such,
NEMA asserted that the possibility of overheating the electric motor
makes the proposal unfeasible. In addition, NEMA asserted that the
proposal may also be unfeasible for single-phase induction motors
because there is a tolerance on the breakdown torque values for these
motors that the proposal does not address. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 20)
After receiving feedback from stakeholders and reviewing the
capabilities of motor test labs, DOE has concerns regarding the
feasibility of determining the breakdown torque of larger motors and
how breakdown
[[Page 63623]]
torque could be used to determine rated output power. DOE understands
that motors above 100 horsepower are rarely physically tested due to
the complexity and cost of supplying a load of that size during
testing. Instead, manufacturers rely on simulations and performance
modeling to determine the performance characteristics of motors this
size.
DOE also understands that while breakdown torque may be used to
determine the rated output power of small electric motors (or ``small
motors'' as the term is generally used), manufacturers do not typically
use only this value for larger motors, and there are other parameters
used to determine rated output power. DOE has determined that there is
no single uniform method that manufacturers currently use to determine
rated output power; manufacturers instead view this issue as an
optimization problem that changes depending on what function the motor
is providing. Electric motors designed for higher horsepower outputs
tend to have more electrically-active and inactive material to safely
achieve the higher power output. Due to this relationship between
active material and power output, DOE understands that rating a motor
at a lower horsepower rather than the maximum that can be safely
achievable for an application would result in a motor with more active
and inactive material than the other motors at the lower horsepower.
The added cost of excess material in the oversized motor would result
in a motor that is not cost-competitive with motors at the lower
horsepower. As such, DOE understands that the under-rating of motor
horsepower is not a significant issue since manufacturers are
incentivized to rate a motor at a higher hp based on cost-
effectiveness.
In light of the difficulty of determining breakdown torque for
larger motors and the potential of overheating when determining rated
output power based on DOE's proposal, at this time, DOE is not adopting
its proposed specification of rated output power. Therefore, the test
procedure and representations will be based on manufacturer
representations of the rated output power of an electric motor. DOE is
also declining to define the term ``breakdown torque'' as it will not
be needed in light of the absence of a requirement to determine the
rated output power of an electric motor.
G. Rated Values Specified for Testing
1. Rated Frequency
Electricity is supplied at a sinusoidal frequency of 60 Hz in the
United States while other regions of the world (e.g., Europe) use a
frequency of 50 Hz. The frequency supplied to a motor (or to the
inverter, if the motor is connected to an inverter) inherently affects
the performance of the motor (or motors and inverter, if the motor is
connected to an inverter). ``Rated frequency'' is a term commonly used
by industry standards for testing electric motors (e.g., Section 6.1 in
IEEE 112-2004, and Section 6.1 in CSA C390-10), and refers to the
frequency at which the motor is designed to operate. A motor's rated
frequency is typically provided by the manufacturer on the electric
motor nameplate. Multiple rated frequencies are sometimes provided if a
manufacturer intends to sell a particular model in all parts of the
world. In the case where an electric motor is designated to operate at
either 60 or 50 Hz, the current test procedure does not explicitly
specify the frequency value at which an electric motor is tested.
Similarly, inverters used to operate inverter-only motors can be rated
at multiple frequencies.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to add the term ``rated
frequency'' to the definitions located at 10 CFR 431.12 and to define
the term as ``60 Hz.'' 86 FR 71710, 71747. DOE stated that because the
test procedures and energy conservation standards established under
EPCA apply to motors distributed in commerce within the United States,
DOE expressly proposed to use 60 Hz. Id.
Grundfos commented that DOE should make it clear that the
definition for rated frequency would not apply for inverter-only
motors. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 6) DOE did not receive any other
comments on this proposal.
In this final rule, DOE specifies that the rated frequency
describes the frequency of the electricity supplied either: (1)
directly to the motor, in the case of electric motors capable of
operating without an inverter; or (2) to the inverter in the case of
inverter-only electric motors. Accordingly, DOE is adopting the
following definition for ``rated frequency'': Rated frequency means 60
Hz and corresponds to the frequency of the electricity supplied either:
(1) directly to the motor, in the case of electric motors capable of
operating without an inverter; or (2) to the inverter in the case on
inverter-only electric motors.
2. Rated Load
The term ``rated load'' is a term used in industry standards to
specify the load that is applied to an electric motor during testing.
This rated load typically equals the rated output power of an electric
motor, and efficiency representations of ``full-load efficiency'' are
in reference to the rated full-load (or the rated load) of a motor. In
the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to define ``rated load'' as ``the
rated output power of an electric motor.'' DOE also proposed qualifying
that the term ``rated output power is equivalent to the terms ``rated
load,'' ``rated full-load,'' ``full rated load,'' or ``full-load'' as
used in the various industry standards used for evaluating the energy
efficiency of electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71747.
DOE received a comment from Grundfos in support of this proposed
definition, (Grundfos, No. 29 at pp. 6-7), and received no comments
opposing it.
For the reasons discussed in the December 2021 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, DOE is adopting the definition of rated load as
proposed in the December 2021 NOPR and clarifying that the term is
interchangeable with the terms full-load, full rated load, and rated
full-load as used in other current industry testing standards for
electric motors.
3. Rated Voltage
The rated voltage of a motor typically refers to the input
voltage(s) that an end-user can supply to the motor and expect the
motor to deliver the performance characteristics detailed on its
nameplate. When performing an efficiency test at the rated load, the
motor is supplied with one of the voltages listed on its nameplate.
Currently, the referenced industry standards listed in appendix B
direct that motors to be tested at the rated voltage, without
specifying how to test when multiple voltages are provided on the
nameplate and marketing material. DOE has found that some motor
nameplates are labeled with a voltage rating including a range of
values, such as ``208-230/460 volts,'' or other qualifiers, such as
``230/460V, usable at 208V.''
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE presented the results of electric
motors that were tested at two rated voltages of 230V and 460V. The
results indicated that the tests that were conducted at the higher
voltage rating (460V) resulted in fewer losses than at the lower
voltage rating (230V). 86 FR 71710, 71747-71749. DOE noted that under
current industry practice, a manufacturer can select the voltage for
testing; however, the electric motor must meet all performance
requirements of NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements) at all rated
voltages. Therefore, in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to define
the term ``rated voltage'' as ``any
[[Page 63624]]
of the nameplate input voltages of an electric motor or inverter,
including the voltage selected by the motor's manufacturer to be used
for testing the motor's efficiency.'' 86 FR 71710, 71748. DOE further
clarified that the proposed definition would also require a motor to
meet all performance requirements at any voltage listed on its
nameplate. Therefore, a manufacturer would not be permitted to make
representations regarding other voltages at which an electric motor
could operate unless that motor also satisfied all of the related
performance standards. DOE sought comment on this proposal and the
proposal to allow voltages that appeared on the nameplate as ``Usable
At'' to be selected for testing. Id.
In response, CEMEP stated that the rated voltage is the voltage at
which the manufacturer provides all other rated values like current,
torque, and power factor of a motor. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 8) AI Group
stated that the rated voltage should be the voltage at which the
manufacturer guarantees performance data of the motor (including
efficiency). (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 6) Trane commented that having to
test motors at all voltages on the nameplate creates an undue burden to
the manufacturer due to the nature of the input rectification circuit,
and that manufacturers should be allowed to test at only one voltage as
long as that voltage is reported in the certification. (Trane, No. 31
at pp. 6-7)
NEMA commented that ``Usable At'' voltages are included to inform
the customer that the motor could operate at that voltage but its
inclusion on the nameplate makes no claims regarding efficiency at that
voltage. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 21) Grundfos opposed including ``Usable
At'' voltages in the definition of rated voltage, stating that this
proposed change will force manufacturers to design motors for specific
voltages and limit motor utility and consumer options. It stated that
this requirement would have a large impact on manufacturers that ship
to multiple markets with different voltages (e.g. U.S., Brazil, Japan,
EU) and that it could force them to double their offerings to design
motors specifically optimized for their ``Usable At'' voltages, and
that DOE needs to account for the added costs for the design and
certification of these motors if the proposed change is adopted.
(Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 7)
DOE notes that Section 12.50 of NEMA MG 1-2016 states that ``When a
small or medium polyphase motor is marked with a single (e.g., 230 V),
dual (e.g., 230/460), or broad range (e.g. 208-230) voltage in the
Voltage field, the motor shall meet all performance requirements of MG
1, such as efficiency, at the rated voltage(s).'' The section further
states that ``When a voltage is shown on a nameplate field (e.g.,
``Useable at 208 Volts'') . . . other than the Voltage field, the motor
is not required to meet all performance requirements of this standard
(e.g., torques and nameplate nominal efficiency) at this other
voltage.'' DOE understands that these ``Usable At'' voltages and broad
range voltages allow manufacturers to serve multiple national markets
with a single product offering.
In this final rule, DOE clarifies that its proposal to allow any
nameplate voltage to be selected for testing does not mean a
manufacturer will have to certify a motor's efficiency at every rated
voltage. Instead, DOE is requiring that a manufacturer will only have
to certify the efficiency of the motor at one voltage, but that DOE
could select any nameplate voltage for enforcement testing. DOE
considers ``Usable At'' voltages that appear on the nameplate as a
nameplate voltage, and thus could be selected for testing. In DOE's
view, at any voltage at which the manufacturer declares that an
electric motor may be installed and operated by making a representation
in its nameplate, the electric motor must meet the standards when
measured by the DOE test procedure. However, DOE notes that if a
``Usable At'' voltage is included in marketing materials but is not
printed on the nameplate, then that voltage would not be selected for
testing as it would be for reference only.
Grundfos also stated that DOE needs to consider that the rated
voltage for an inverter-only motor may be different than the rated
voltage of the inverter to which it is connected. (Grundfos, No. 29 at
p. 7) NEMA commented that the term ``inverter'' should be removed from
the definition of rated voltage (without providing further details).
(NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 20-21) Regarding how rated voltage should be
defined for expanded scope, NEMA commented that motors that are not
inverter-only should be tested at the rated voltage on the nameplate;
motors with an inverter (inverter-only, converter-only, or synchronous
motors) should be tested in accordance with the requirements of the
inverter, in accordance with IEC 60034-2-3. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 21)
As discussed in section III.D.3 of this document, DOE is requiring
inverter-only electric motors to be tested with an inverter. As such,
DOE notes that the voltage of the accompanying inverter to the
inverter-only motor is important for determining its rated voltage. DOE
specified in the proposal that ``any of the nameplate input voltages of
an electric motor or inverter'' could be considered as the rated
voltage, and that the motor would have to meet all performance
requirements at any of the voltages listed on its nameplate (inverter
or motor).
Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is adopting its proposed rated
voltage definition. Further, DOE is clarifying that a motor would have
to meet all performance requirements at any voltage listed on its
nameplate (inverter or motor's nameplate). DOE is also clarifying that
for any motor that is tested with an inverter, the rated input voltages
that could be selected for testing are only the voltages that appear on
the inverter nameplate. This clarification is being added to ensure
that when the motor input voltage differs from the inverter input
voltage, the incorrect voltage does not get fed into the inverter.
H. Contact Seals Requirement
Certain electric motors come equipped with contact seals that
prevent liquid, debris, and other unwanted materials from entering (or
exiting) the motor housing. These contact seals cause friction on the
shaft, which can cause a motor to have higher losses than if the motor
were operating without those contact seals. In the December 2021 NOPR,
DOE proposed to clarify that motors (other than immersible motors) that
have contact seals should be tested with those seals installed. 86 FR
71710, 71750-71751.
NEMA, IEC, CEMEP, AI Group, AGMA, and Sumitomo all opposed the
proposal. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 22-23; IEC, No. 20 at pp. 2-3; CEMEP,
No. 19 at p. 9; AI Group, No. 25 at pp. 2, 6-7; AGMA, No. 14 at pp. 1-
2; Sumitomo, No. 17 at pp. 1, 4-5) IEC, AI Group, and Sumitomo cited
concerns about the added test burden if manufacturers were required to
test every unique ``motor plus contact seal'' combination individually.
(IEC, No. 20 at pp. 2-3; AI Group, No. 25 at pp. 2, 6-7; Sumitomo, No.
17 at pp. 6-7) CEMEP noted that numerous seal types are available, and
the losses will be different in each case, which will lead to a high
number of different basic models. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 9) IEC, and
Sumitomo also cited concerns about the variability of frictional losses
in contact seals and how this variability would make the test procedure
less repeatable. (IEC, No. 20 at pp. 2-3; AI Group, No. 25 at pp. 2, 6-
7; Sumitomo, No. 17 at pp. 6-7) Specifically, IEC, and Sumitomo stated
that bearing friction and losses reduce as the motor runs and these
bearings wear-in. Id. Further, NEMA and Sumitomo commented that some
[[Page 63625]]
bearings can take up to 200 hours of run time to wear-in, an amount of
run time they argued would be unduly burdensome for a single efficiency
test. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 23; Sumitomo, No. 17 at p. 5)
NEMA disagreed with requiring electric motors to be tested with the
seals installed because of the larger number of new models that would
need to be certified and the added uncertainty introduced to the test
procedure because of the many variables that affect seal losses. It
referenced a statement from Advanced Energy,\67\ who noted that because
the ``run-in'' period of seals is not uniform across all motors--and
can be long enough to make testing infeasible--testing these motors
without their seals would be the reasonable approach for DOE to take.
(NEMA, No. 26 at p. 23)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2012-BT-TP-0043-0008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sumitomo stated that, unlike past requirements, if DOE requires
motors to be tested with their contact seals installed, testing a
combination of randomly-selected sample motors per DOE's established
methodology to verify calculated efficiency models will be impossible.
It commented that all the motors will need to be tested until a new
AEDM is developed that compensates for the reality that seal drag
varies by a variety of factors such as total time in operation,
lubrication, seal design, and surface speed. Since dimensions may vary
depending on ``reducer frame size,'' multiple AEDMs may be required for
a given motor. (Sumitomo, No. 17 at p. 6) Further, Sumitomo stated that
the DOE proposal on contact seals would cause undue burden and it
requested that DOE confirm that any required shaft contact seal be
deemed part of an electric motor's mating gearbox associated with the
reducer and not a necessary part of the electrical motor itself, such
that contact seals be removed for testing. Accordingly, Sumitomo
recommended that DOE an approach where the electric motor shaft seals
of any variety shall be removed for testing if they are contact seals--
regardless of whether the motor under test is an immersible electric
motor. It noted that the problem with including seals on a gearmotor
for testing is that seal friction causes loss of energy power output,
but the losses are inconsistent and vary depending on seal size, number
of seals, seal design, seal material, lubrication, and time in
operation. By comparison, Sumitomo stated that motor efficiency tests
that include fresh, dry seals do not simulate real-world operating
conditions and may not be indicative of actual efficiency. Accordingly,
Sumitomo recommended that to allow for meaningful comparison between
gearmotors and conventional motors, contact seals should be excluded
from the test. (Sumitomo, No. 17 at pp. 1, 4-5)
ABB stated that tests will need to be performed to determine
frictional losses for shaft seals and sealed bearings for each type of
seal and seal combination by rating and frame size. (ABB, No. 18 at p.
2) CEMEP asked DOE to clarify whether the proposed approach would treat
every unique motor plus contact seal combination as a new basic model
requiring separate certification. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 10)
AGMA argued that, to allow for meaningful comparison between
gearmotors and conventional motors, contact seals should be excluded
from the test. It stated that modeling seal drag and its attendant
increase in motor losses may be difficult and that seal losses are a
function of run time and lubrication and can vary across manufacturers
and among individual pieces. It mentioned that motor efficiency tests
that include fresh, dry seals do not simulate real-world operating
conditions and may not be indicative of actual efficiency. It stated
that requiring an integral gear motor with the mechanically required
shaft contact seal to meet the same energy efficiency levels as the
vast majority of electrical motors that have no need for such a shaft
contact seal is an inconsistent application of the DOE's motor
efficiency mandate and will result in an ``unlevel playing field.'' It
encouraged DOE to consider any required shaft contact seal as part of
the motor's driven load and not a necessary part of the electrical
motor. (AGMA, No. 14 at pp. 1-2)
Grundfos stated that the proposed clarification for contact seals
is adequate but that DOE must clearly define the term ``contact seals''
with respect to immersible motors to ensure clarity. (Grundfos, No. 29
at p. 8)
Advanced Energy stated that the proposed clarification on shaft
seals may be inconsistent with how manufacturers have interpreted DOE's
regulations and suggested that DOE add language allowing manufacturers
to request a no-load run-in prior to efficiency testing to allow the
bearings and seals to wear-in. The no-load run-in ensures the shaft
seals (along with bearings and lubricant) are well-seated prior to
loading the motor. Advanced Energy also explained that when it performs
efficiency testing, it conducts a no-load test and waits until the
input power has stabilized before moving onto the next stage of the
test, with run-in time varying based on the motor. (Advanced Energy,
No. 33 at p. 16)
DOE reviewed the comments submitted and further researched the
complexities of measuring the efficiency of an electric motor with the
contact seals installed. DOE understands that the frictional losses of
contact seals reduce as the motor runs but the rate that these losses
reduce over time is not uniform across all types of contact seals. DOE
considered allowing manufacturers to use a run-in period that allowed
for motor losses to stabilize before the efficiency test is conducted
but is concerned that this period could be arduously long in the case
of contact seals that could take up to 200 hours of runtime before the
frictional losses stabilized. At this time, DOE has not found a
practical way to account for the variation in frictional losses of
contact seals when testing with the seals installed. Accordingly, in
this final rule, DOE is declining to adopt its proposal that motors
(other than immersible motors) that have contact seals should be tested
with those seals installed.
I. Vertical Electric Motors Testing
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to modify the vertical
electric motor test requirements in section 3.8 of appendix B to permit
the connection of a dynamometer with a coupling of torsional rigidity
greater than or equal to that of the motor shaft.\68\ 86 FR 71710,
71750. DOE proposed this updated language in response to NEMA's
comments that industry's common practice is to use a disconnectable
coupling or adapter to connect hollow motor shafts to dynamometers
rather than the current requirements direct welding of a solid shaft to
the motor's drive end. NEMA commented that using an adaptor or coupling
causes no loss of testing accuracy, but carries the advantage of easy
reversibility; whereas welding may permanently alter the motor. (NEMA,
No. 2 at p. 3) In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded
that so long as the coupling is sufficiently rigid, it would be
unlikely that it would reduce test procedure repeatability, and
permitting use of a coupling could reduce burden, as
[[Page 63626]]
removal of such a connector may be less laborious than reversing a
welding process. 86 FR 71710, 71750. Consequently, DOE proposed to
update its vertical electric motor testing requirements in the manner
NEMA suggested and sought comment on that approach. Id
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Specifically, DOE proposed removing the instructional text
reading, ``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'' to
``If necessary, the unit under test may be connected to the
dynamometer using a coupling of torsional rigidity greater than or
equal to that of the motor shaft.'' 86 FR 71710, 71750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA agreed with the proposed changes to testing requirements for
certain vertical electric motors and that the proposed changes for
coupling torsion are adequate. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 22) Advanced Energy
supported the proposed change to the definition as it relates to
vertical electric motors and stated that the change is consistent with
its current testing practice. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 16)
Further, Advanced Energy supported the additional requirement of
torsional rigidity of the coupling used to measure the motor output
power. Id. Grundfos also supported the specifications on torsional
rigidity. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 8)
For the reasons discussed, DOE is adopting the December 2021 NOPR
proposal in this final rule, which provides an alternate specification
of using a coupling for testing vertical electric motors.
J. Proposed Testing Instructions for Those Electric Motors Being Added
to the Scope of Appendix B
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE discussed how sections 3.1 through
3.8 of appendix B provide additional testing instructions for certain
electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71751. Specifically, the testing
instructions provided are for (1) brake electric motors; (2) close-
coupled pump electric motors and electric motors with single or double
shaft extensions of non-standard dimensions or design; (3) electric
motors with non-standard endshields or flanges; (4) electric motors
with non-standard bases, feet or mounting configurations; (5) electric
motors with a separately-powered blower; (6) immersible electric
motors; (7) partial electric motors; and (8) vertical electric motors
and electric motors with bearings incapable of horizontal operation. In
the December 2021 NOPR, DOE reviewed these instructions and found that
they would also apply to the additional motors proposed for inclusion
in scope, to the extent that the additional motors fall into one of the
eight categories of electric motors already listed in sections 3.1-3.8
of appendix B. Id. DOE requested comments on the proposed application
of the additional testing instructions in sections 3.1 through 3.8 of
appendix B to the additional electric motors proposed for inclusion in
scope of the test procedure. Id.
In response, two stakeholders supported DOE's view that the
additional testing instructions for certain electric motors would also
apply to the additional electric motors proposed for inclusion in scope
of the test procedure. Grundfos stated that the additional test
instructions in sections 3.1-3.8 of 10 CFR part 431 appendix B would
apply to the additional motor types proposed in scope. (Grundfos, No.
29 at p. 8) NEMA commented that to the extent that existing test
procedures can be accurately and repeatedly applied to the additional
electric motors proposed for inclusion in scope, the accommodations in
sections 3.1-3.8 of appendix B remain adequate. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 24)
The test methods adopted in this final rule reference specific
industry test methods. Further, as discussed in section III.D of this
document, DOE has concluded that the test methods for those additional
electric motors DOE is including within the scope of the test procedure
are designed to produce results reflecting a motor's energy efficiency
during a representative average use cycle and are not unduly burdensome
to conduct. As such, because DOE has concluded that the test procedures
can be accurately and repeatedly applied to the additional electric
motors, DOE maintains that the additional testing instructions in
sections 3.1-3.8 of appendix B also apply to the additional motors DOE
is adding to the test procedure's scope, to the extent that the
additional motors fall into one of the eight categories of electric
motors listed in sections 3.1-3.8 of appendix B. Consequently, DOE is
adopting these additional testing instructions as proposed.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE also proposed to amend the
definition of standard bearing by expanding it to include 600 series
bearings--i.e., ``a 600 or 6000 series, either open or grease-
lubricated double-shielded, single-row, deep groove, radial ball
bearing.'' 86 FR 71710, 71751. DOE proposed this amendment to
accommodate categories of bearings contained in motors with smaller
shafts that are found in SNEMs. Id. DOE requested comment on this
proposal but received none. Therefore, DOE is adopting this proposal in
this final rule.
K. Testing Instructions for Brake Electric Motors
Section 3.1. of Appendix B to Subpart B currently includes testing
instructions for brake electric motors. In the NOPR, DOE did not
propose any changes to these testing instructions.
IEC commented that as long as auxiliary devices, such as mechanical
brakes, are not an integral part of the basic motor design, the test
for efficiency should be performed on basic motors without auxiliary
devices installed. It recommended removing mechanical brakes from an
electric motor during testing because testing with the brakes installed
will significantly increase the uncertainty in the test results.
Moreover, it noted that manufacturers offer different types of brakes
with their electric motors, making it impracticable to test all of the
variations that are produced. Finally, IEC explained that removing the
brakes before testing is consistent with IEC 600034-30-1 and IEC
600034-30-2. (IEC, No. 20 at pp. 3-4)
DOE notes that section 3.1 of appendix B instructs that brake
electric motors must be tested with the brake component not activated
during testing. Specifically, the power supplied to prevent the brake
from engaging is not included in the efficiency calculation. Further,
the test procedure allows the brake to be disengaged from the motor if
such a mechanism to disengage to brake is installed and if doing so
does not yield a different efficiency value than when separately
powering the brake electrically. Accordingly, in DOE's view, the
current test methods already permit the brakes to be disengaged and
exclude any energy use associated with the brake component from the
motor's calculated efficiency.
L. Transition to 10 CFR Part 429
DOE proposed to amend its electric motor regulations by amending
and moving those portions pertaining to certification testing and the
determination of represented values from 10 CFR part 431 to 10 CFR part
429. (86 FR 71710, 71751-71752) DOE also proposed amending other
sections of 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, to ensure the regulatory
structure comprising 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, and 10 CFR part 429
remains coherent. Id. DOE also proposed making changes to the general
provisions in 10 CFR part 429 to reflect the addition of electric motor
provisions related to certification testing and to the determination of
represented values. Id. DOE did not receive any comments related to
transitioning the provisions pertaining to certification testing and
the determination of represented values from 10 CFR part 431 to 10 CFR
part 429 and is adopting these changes as proposed, consistent with
other covered products and equipment.
[[Page 63627]]
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to largely retain the
procedures for recognition and withdrawal of recognition of
accreditation bodies and certification programs as it exists at 10 CFR
431.21, with one change to the current provisions at 10 CFR 431.21(g)
to clarify the timeline and process of withdrawal of recognition by DOE
as follows: if the certification program is failing to meet the
criteria of paragraph (b) of Sec. 429.73 or Sec. 429.74, DOE will
issue a Notice of Withdrawal (``Notice'') stating which criteria the
entity has failed to meet. The Notice will request that the entity take
appropriate corrective action(s) specified in the Notice. The entity
must take corrective action within 180 days from the date of the Notice
of Withdrawal or dispute DOE's allegations within 30 days from the
issuance of the Notice. If, after 180 days, DOE finds that satisfactory
corrective action has not been made, DOE will withdraw its recognition
from the entity. DOE did not receive comments related to this topic and
is adopting the proposed provisions related to the recognition and
withdrawal of recognition of accreditation bodies and certification
programs. In DOE's view, these additional requirements to the
procedures for recognition and withdrawal of recognition will provide
added clarity for those entities that may be affected by this
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ As it appeared at 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, in the 10 CFR
parts 200 to 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2020.
Table III-8--Electric Motors Certification and Compliance CFR
Transitions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart B--electric motors \69\ Proposed location Final location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR 431.14 Sources for Moved to 10 CFR Moved to 10 CFR
information and guidance. 429.3. 429.3.
10 CFR 431.17 Determination of Moved to 10 CFR Moved to 10 CFR
efficiency. 429.64 and 10 CFR 429.64 and 10 CFR
429.70 as 429.70 as
relevant, edits relevant, edits
to general to general
provisions in 10 provisions in 10
CFR 429 as needed. CFR 429 as
needed.
10 CFR 431.18 Testing Retained and added Retained and added
laboratories. additional additional
provisions at 10 provisions at 10
CFR 429.64. CFR 429.64.
10 CFR 431.19 Department of Moved to 10 CFR Moved to 10 CFR
Energy recognition of 429.74. 429.74.
accreditation bodies.
10 CFR 431.20 Department of Moved to 10 CFR Moved to 10 CFR
Energy recognition of 429.73. 429.73.
nationally recognized
certification programs.
10 CFR 431.21 Procedures for Moved to 10 CFR Moved to 10 CFR
recognition and withdrawal of 429.75. 429.75.
recognition of accreditation
bodies and certification
programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the December 2021 NOPR included some revisions in 10
CFR 429.11 that were not discussed in the NOPR preamble. In this final
rule, DOE does not implement those changes (other than to update the
cross-reference to 10 CFR 429.65).
M. Certification of Electric Motors
Manufacturers must certify electric motors as compliant with the
applicable standard through the use of an ``independent testing or
certification program nationally recognized in the United States.'' (42
U.S.C. 6316(c)) DOE is adopting changes to the provisions related to
certification testing to ensure consistency with the statutory language
found in 42 U.S.C. 6316(c). These updates are described in section
III.M.1 and section III.M.2 of this document.
1. Independent Testing
DOE codified at 10 CFR 431.17(a)(5) the statutory requirement
prescribing that manufacturers must certify electric motors as
compliant with the applicable standard through the use of an
``independent testing or certification program nationally recognized in
the United States.'' (42 U.S.C. 6316(c)) In the existing regulations,
DOE addresses the requirement to use an independent testing program
nationally recognized in the United States by requiring that testing
laboratories be accredited by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (``NIST'')/National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation
Program (``NVLAP''),\70\ a laboratory accreditation program having a
mutual recognition program with NIST/NVLAP, or an organization
classified by DOE as an accreditation body. 10 CFR 431.18. The term
``accredited laboratory'' is used to designate a testing laboratory to
which accreditation has been granted. 10 CFR 431.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ A list of NIST/NVLAP accredited laboratories is available
here: https://www-s.nist.gov/niws/index.cfm?event=directory.results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed that, prior to 180 days
following the publication of this final rule, in those cases when a
certification program is not used, certifying a new basic model
pursuant to 10 CFR 431.36(e) must be based on testing conducted in an
accredited laboratory that meets the requirements of Sec. 431.18.
However, on or after 180 days following the publication of this final
rule, when certifying a new basic model pursuant to 10 CFR 431.36(e)
and when a certification program is not used, DOE proposed to require
that testing be conducted by a nationally recognized testing program as
further described in the remainder of this section. DOE proposed to
replace the use of the term ``accredited laboratory'' (currently
defined at 10 CFR 431.12) with the term ``nationally recognized testing
program'' to better reflect the requirement that the testing program be
nationally recognized in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(c)) 86 FR
71710, 71752. DOE further proposed to add a definition for
``independent'' to appear in 10 CFR 429.2 that would define the term as
referring to an entity that is not controlled by, or under common
control with, electric motor manufacturers, importers, private
labelers, or vendors. It would also require that the entity have no
affiliation, financial ties, or contractual agreements, apparently or
otherwise, with such entities that would: (1) Hinder the ability of the
program to evaluate fully or report the measured or calculated energy
efficiency of any electric motor, or (2) Create any potential or actual
conflict of interest that would undermine the validity of said
evaluation. The proposed definition also provided that for the purposes
of the proposed definition, financial ties or contractual agreements
between an electric motor manufacturer, importer, private labeler or
vendor and a nationally recognized testing program, certification
program,
[[Page 63628]]
or accreditation program exclusively for testing, certification, or
accreditation services would not negate an otherwise independent
relationship. 86 FR 71710, 71752-71753. This proposed definition was
largely based on the descriptions of independence currently found in 10
CFR 431.19(b)(2), 431.19(c)(2), 431.20(b)(2) and 431.20(c)(2). DOE
further proposed to remove these descriptions in their entirety and
rely solely on the proposed definition of independent that would appear
in 10 CFR 429.2. 86 FR 71710, 71752-71753. DOE indicated that these
proposed requirements would apply starting 180 days after publication
of the final rule.
In response to the December 2021 NOPR, DOE received many comments
criticizing the proposal. AI Group strongly opposed not allowing
accredited manufacturer laboratories to conduct testing and submit
results for certification. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 7) Franklin
Electric, Trane, ABB, Regal, CEMEP, AHRI and AHAM, and NEMA all
commented that requiring the use of third-party testing laboratories
would add financial and time burdens on manufacturers. Franklin
Electric opposed requiring manufacturers to certify through a third-
party test facility and stated that imposing the proposed requirement
to do so would be an expensive burden for motor manufacturers. It
elaborated that this proposal would be particularly difficult to meet
in the case of submersible motors because third-party facilities would
need time to implement the new test procedure and there are currently
no third-party certification bodies available to test and certify for
these motors. (Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 6) Trane commented that
testing all the new in-scope motors at independent facilities would not
be possible in the timeframe allotted and that testing components of
covered products creates unnecessary financial and time burdens on
manufacturers. It added that requiring third-party laboratories to test
and certify these motors will create a supply bottleneck. (Trane, No.
31 at p. 7) Regal stated that there are too few third-party labs to
test the motors that would be added to the test procedure's scope and
that this testing will create longer lead times and backlogs in an
already supply-constrained environment. (Regal, No. 28 at p. 1) ABB
commented that if all motor manufacturers are required to use the
limited number of external partners (who all have finite testing
capacity), it believed that the required testing could take longer than
3 years to complete. ABB commented that the 180-day time frame for
requiring manufacturers to test at an independent, nationally
recognized testing facility is unrealistic. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 2)
Grundfos expressed concern with DOE's proposed definition of
``independent'' since it would preclude manufacturers from engaging
with an independent third-party for purposes not related to
certification--such as prototype testing. Grundfos did not elaborate on
this point. Grundfos generally agreed, however, with the proposed
methods of certification. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 8) Advanced Energy
supported DOE's proposed definition of ``independent.'' (Advanced
Energy, No. 33 at p. 17)
The industry trade associations harbored similar concerns. CEMEP
commented that requiring the use of a third-party laboratory is an
extreme burden and a trade barrier to manufacturers. It noted the
potential for higher adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized
businesses in the form of additional time, effort, and financial and
administrative costs to meet the proposed requirement, particularly in
light of the small number of motors that these entities produce for the
U.S. market. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 9) AHAM and AHRI commented that they
were aware of only three third-party labs and stressed that these labs
would be unable to handle the magnitude of testing required under DOE's
proposal, particularly within the specified 180-day timeframe. (AHAM
and AHRI, No. 36 at p. 9) AHAM and AHRI also commented that the
proposed certification changes may drive motor manufacturers to limit
the number of motors currently available to downstream OEMs in an
effort to reduce testing and certification burdens. AHRI and AHAM
commented that this development would limit OEM choice, may increase
costs, and could negatively impact the performance of the end-use
products. Id. NEMA, in referencing the three third-party certification
bodies noted by AHRI and AHAM, stressed that these testing entities
will not have the capacity to handle the inflow of reports and become a
bottleneck. It strongly opposed not allowing accredited manufacturer
laboratories to conduct testing and submit results for certification.
(NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 24, 28) In addition, NEMA noted that third-party
test labs have lower capacities than in-house manufacturer test labs
and are only able to test a smaller range of horsepower motors. (NEMA,
No. 26 at p. 30)
In addition, AHAM and AHRI stated that because DOE has not provided
adequate reasoning for its view that NIST/NVLAP-certified labs are not
sufficiently independent, commenters have been prevented from providing
meaningful comments on this topic. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at p. 10)
NEMA commented that DOE should examine potential changes with the
individual NVLAP, International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation
(ILAC), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) program if there are
issues with the certification process and not impose on manufacturers
without justification and analysis of the burden this change would
incur. NEMA added that the industry has made investments to participate
in these programs and that DOE should engage with the parent
organizations to address its concerns. Industry participates in these
programs in accordance with the current regulations and should not be
penalized. NEMA commented that DOE's proposal could be interpreted to
imply that the Department has lost control of the process and its
certification database and added that the proposed changes would not
address systemic failures in oversight, if they exist. NEMA added that
DOE provided no justification or reasons for this change and cannot add
this burden without justification and corresponding economic analysis
of the time and burdens it conveys. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 24)
EPCA requires that with respect to any electric motor for which
energy conservation standards are established at 42 U.S.C. 6313(b), the
Secretary shall require manufacturers to certify, through an
independent testing or certification program nationally recognized in
the United States, that such motor meets the applicable standard. (42
U.S.C. 6316(c)) DOE reviewed the requirements that a testing laboratory
must meet to obtain NIST/NVLAP accreditation related to proficiency
testing, resources (e.g., personnel records, specific experience and
competence of technical manager, competency review, training,
equipment), process (e.g., selection, verification and validation of
methods, sampling, reporting results), and management systems (e.g.,
control of records, internal audits).\71\ In addition, NIST/NVLAP
conducts on-site assessments that consist of an independent, documented
process for determining laboratory competence and other relevant
information by NVLAP assessors with the objective of determining the
extent to which NVLAP
[[Page 63629]]
requirements are fulfilled. Based on this review, DOE has determined
that NIST/NVALP accreditation is sufficient to satisfy the statutory
requirement to use an ``independent testing [. . .] nationally
recognized in the United States'' (42 U.S.C. 6316(c)) and that no
changes are necessary. Therefore, DOE has decided to not adopt its
proposal to require the use of an independent testing program and to
instead to continue permitting the use of accredited labs as currently
described at 10 CFR 431.17(a)(5). These provisions would be moved,
consistent with the proposal, to 10 CFR 429.64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See NIST/NVLAP requirement documents at www.nist.gov/nvlap/efficiency-electric-motors-lap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the December 2021 NOPR, DOE did not receive any
comments on its proposal to replace the descriptions of independence
currently found in 10 CFR 431.19(b)(2), 431.19(c)(2), 431.20(b)(2) and
431.20(c)(2) with references to the proposed definition of independent
as it relates to nationally recognized certification and accreditation
programs. Id. In this final rule, DOE adopts the proposed definition of
independent as it relates to nationally recognized certification and
accreditation programs. DOE is also replacing the descriptions of
independence currently in 10 CFR 431.19(b)(2), 431.19(c)(2),
431.20(b)(2) and 431.20(c)(2) by referring to the definition of
independent.
In addition to the proposals discussed in the NOPR, DOE notes that
the current description of the NIST/NVLAP accreditation program at 10
CFR 431.18(b) and the referenced NIST/NVLAP handbooks and IEC guides
listed at 10 CFR 431.14 are outdated. The more recent versions of the
NIST/NVLAP handbooks include references to DOE's latest test procedures
and replace the references to various IEC guides, which have now been
withdrawn, by a reference to IEC 17025:2017 ``General Requirements for
the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories.'' DOE did not
receive any comments related to these reference documents. In this
final rule, DOE updates these references to cite their most recent
versions. (See Table III-9)
Table III-9--Updated Sources for Information and Guidance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated version in final
Current version listed at 10 CFR 431.14 location at 10 CFR 429.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NVLAP Handbook 150, Procedures and General NVLAP Handbook 150,
Requirements, February 2006. Procedures and General
Requirements, February
2020.
NVLAP Handbook 150-10, Efficiency of NVLAP Handbook 150-10,
Electric Motors, February 2007. Efficiency of Electric
Motors, February 2020.
NIST Handbook 150-10 Checklist, Efficiency NIST Handbook 150-10
of Electric Motors Program, (2007-05-04). Checklist, (2020-06-25).
NVLAP Lab Bulletin Number: LB-42-2009, Removed.
Changes to NVLAP Efficiency of Electric
Motors Program, March 19, 2009.
ISO/IEC Guide 25, General requirements for ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General
the competence of calibration and testing requirements for the
laboratories, 1990. competence of testing and
ISO Guide 27, Guidelines for corrective calibration laboratories.
action to be taken by a certification body
in the event of either misapplication of
its mark of conformity to a product, or
products which bear the mark of the
certification body being found to subject
persons or property to risk, 1983..
ISO/IEC Guide 28, General rules for a model
third-party certification system for
products, 2004.
ISO/IEC Guide 58, Calibration and testing
laboratory accreditation systems--General
requirements for operation and
recognition, 1993.
ISO/IEC Guide 65, General requirements for
bodies operating product certification
systems, 1996.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Certification Process for Electric Motors
As mentioned previously, DOE codified at 10 CFR 431.17(a)(5) the
statutory requirement that manufacturers must certify electric motors
for which energy conservation standards are established at 42 U.S.C.
6313(b) as compliant with the applicable standard through the use of an
``independent testing or certification program nationally recognized in
the United States.'' (42 U.S.C. 6316(c))
Consistent with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6316(c), DOE proposed
continuing to permit the use of independent testing (via an
independent, nationally recognized testing program) or a nationally
recognized certification program and to further specify which parties
can test electric motors and certify compliance with the applicable
energy conservation standards to DOE. DOE proposed that these
provisions be required starting on the compliance date for any amended
standards for electric motors published after January 1, 2021, as this
was the date of the most recent print edition of the Code of Federal
Regulations. DOE proposed three options in this regard: (1) a
manufacturer can have the electric motor tested using a nationally
recognized testing program (as described in the proposed Sec.
429.64(d)) and then certify on its own behalf or have a third-party
submit the manufacturer's certification report; (2) a manufacturer can
test the electric motor at a testing laboratory other than a nationally
recognized testing program (as described in the proposed Sec.
429.64(d)) and then have a nationally recognized certification program
(as described in the proposed Sec. 429.73) certify the efficiency of
the electric motor; or (3) a manufacturer can use an alternative
efficiency determination method (``AEDM,'' as described in the proposed
Sec. 429.70) and then have a third-party nationally recognized
certification program certify the efficiency of the electric motor.
Under the proposed regulatory structure, a manufacturer cannot both
test in its own laboratories and directly submit the certification of
compliance to DOE for its own electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71753.
In response to the December 2021 NOPR, CEMEP commented against the
three certification options as proposed in the December 2021 NOPR.
CEMEP commented that the proposed time schedule was not suitable and
suggested keeping the existing system for transmitting data and testing
motors. (CEMEP, No. 19 at pp. 9-10) Lennox opposed requiring third-
party certification and stated that it would significantly increase
burden to HVACR manufacturers without any benefit to the consumer.
(Lennox, No. 24 at p. 9) NEMA also opposed the three proposed
certification options and stressed that
[[Page 63630]]
NEMA opposed any proposal that would prevent certification through
accredited laboratories operated by manufacturers. (NEMA, No. 26 at p.
24) Advanced Energy supported the three offered motor certification
options and saw them as being consistent with other motor
certifications related to safety or efficiency that manufacturers must
satisfy in other countries. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 17)
As already noted, this final rule will not require testing at an
independent testing program and continues to allow the use of an
accredited laboratory for testing and certification purposes.
Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is revising its proposed Option (1)
to reflect its current practice (detailed at 10 CFR 431.17(5)) by
allowing a manufacturer to test an electric motor using an accredited
laboratory (as described at 10 CFR 431.18) and then to certify that
motor on its own behalf or have a third-party submit the manufacturer's
certification report. DOE is adopting Option (2) as proposed, which is
consistent with the current provisions at 10 CFR 431.17(5)--no changes
are being made to the current manner in which a manufacturer who
conducts testing at a non-accredited lab must certify its electric
motor. As to Option (3), DOE does not view the requirements of an AEDM
as satisfying the statutory requirement of ``independence.'' Therefore,
DOE believes that when using an AEDM, the results of the AEDM must be
certified by a third-party certification program that is nationally
recognized in the United States under the newly adopted Sec. 429.73.
In summary, consistent with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6316(c),
DOE continues to offer the option of using independent testing (via an
accredited laboratory) or a nationally recognized certification program
and further specifies which parties can test electric motors and
certify compliance with the applicable energy conservation standards to
DOE. This final rule specifies three options in this regard: (1) a
manufacturer can have the electric motor tested using an accredited
laboratory (as described at 10 CFR 431.18) and then certify on its own
behalf or have a third-party submit the manufacturer's certification
report; (2) a manufacturer can test the electric motor at a testing
laboratory other than an accredited laboratory (as described at 10 CFR
431.18) and then have a nationally recognized certification program (as
described in the newly established Sec. 429.73) certify the efficiency
of the electric motor; or (3) a manufacturer can use an alternative
efficiency determination method (``AEDM,'' as described in Sec.
429.70) and then have a third-party nationally recognized certification
program certify the efficiency of the electric motor. Under this
structure, a manufacturer would retain the ability to test in its own
laboratories and directly submit the certification of compliance to DOE
for its own electric motors as long as the laboratory is an accredited
laboratory in accordance with 10 CFR 431.18, 429.64(f) and 429.65(d).
In addition, DOE proposed that these provisions would be required
starting on the compliance date for any new or amended standards for
electric motors. DOE is adopting this timeline as proposed and believes
this timeline and combination of three options will provide sufficient
time and alternatives for manufacturers. In addition, the compliance
date to certify using these three options would be on or after the
compliance date of the final rule adopting new or amended energy
conservation standards for electric motors, Any associated costs
related to these aspects of this final rule will be addressed in
conjunction with any potential energy conservation standards rulemaking
that DOE conducts for these affected electric motors. (See section
III.Q of this document for more details related to test procedure costs
and impacts).
In response to the December 2021 NOPR, NEMA stated that DOE should
invest in an AEDM certification body that is independent from the
current facility that also offers AEDM services for manufacturers who
may not have the resources to develop their own AEDM because of the
conflict of interest that comes with the same entity being both a
certifier and provider of AEDMs. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 29-30)
DOE is not aware of any third-party, nationally recognized
certification body that would develop AEDMs and conduct AEDM
simulations on behalf of manufacturers and also certify the resulting
efficiencies. In addition, the current regulations at 10 CFR 431.20
require that a nationally recognized certification program must be
independent of electric motor manufacturers, importers, distributors,
private labelers or vendors. It cannot be affiliated with, have
financial ties with, be controlled by, or be under common control with
any such entity. 10 CFR 431.20(b)(2) In addition, any petitioning
organization should identify and describe any relationship, direct or
indirect, that it or the certification program has with an electric
motor manufacturer, importer, distributor, private labeler, vendor,
trade association or other such entity, as well as any other
relationship it believes might appear to create a conflict of interest
for the certification program in operating a certification system for
compliance by electric motors with energy efficiency standards. It
should explain why it believes such a relationship would not compromise
its independence in operating a certification program. 10 CFR
431.20(c)(2). As previously noted, in this final rule, DOE is adopting
a definition of ``independent'' as it pertains to certification program
(and nationally recognized accreditation program) that requires that
the entity be not controlled by, or under common control with, electric
motor manufacturers, importers, private labelers, or vendors, and that
has no affiliation, financial ties, or contractual agreements,
apparently or otherwise, with such entities that would: (1) hinder the
ability of the program to evaluate fully or report the measured or
calculated energy efficiency of any electric motor, or (2) create any
potential or actual conflict of interest that would undermine the
validity of said evaluation. Therefore, the adopted definition of
``independent'' sufficiently addresses NEMA's concern. DOE notes the
requirement to be independent ensures that the entity conducting the
AEDM for a basic model would not be the same as the entity certifying
that same basic model. Further as noted previously, this final rule
requires that when a manufacturer relies on an AEDM, a third-party
nationally recognized certification program must certify the efficiency
of the electric motor.
NEMA also questioned who would be responsible for certification in
the case of a motor and inverter being sold together, particularly when
they are manufactured by separate companies. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 17)
DOE's test procedure applies to the inverter motor. The motor
manufacturer would be responsible for testing and certifying the motor,
based on the test procedure established in this final rule.
AHAM and AHRI commented that the changes proposed in the NOPR
expanded the definition of ``manufacturer'' and questioned whether OEMs
that attach, for example, an impeller to an otherwise finished air-over
motor would be considered the manufacturer responsible for
certification. AHAM and AHRI commented that, in the case of any
finished goods manufactured overseas, DOE's proposal would treat the
OEM as the electric motor manufacturer, and they opposed this change.
(AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at p. 11).
[[Page 63631]]
DOE's proposals did not change the definition of manufacturer. The
manufacturer of the motor would be responsible for certification.
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 stated in section III.A.9, DOE continues
to exclude component sets from the scope of the test procedure. A
component set of an electric motor comprises any combination of these
motor parts that does not form an operable motor. 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.))
N. Determination of Represented Values
For electric motors subject to standards, DOE established sampling
requirements applicable to the determination of the nominal full-load
efficiency. 10 CFR 431.17. The purpose of these sampling plans is to
provide uniform statistical methods for determining compliance with any
prescribed energy conservation standards and for making representations
of energy consumption and energy efficiency on labels and in other
locations such as marketing materials. The current regulations require
that each basic model must either be tested or rated using an AEDM. 10
CFR 431.17(a). Section 431.17 specifies the requirements for use of an
AEDM, including requirements for substantiation (i.e., the initial
validation) and verification of an AEDM. 10 CFR 431.17(a)(2)-(4).
DOE is adopting several edits to the current regulatory language to
revise the existing requirements that manufacturers must follow when
determining the represented value of nominal full-load efficiency of a
basic model. The revised provisions regarding the determination of the
represented value of nominal full-load efficiency, certification
provisions, and the validation and verification of an AEDM, consistent
with DOE's overall approach for consolidating the locations of its
certification and compliance provisions, will be placed in 10 CFR
429.64 and 429.70. In addition, the revised provisions regarding the
determination of the represented value of nominal full-load efficiency,
enforcement provisions, and the validation and verification of an AEDM
will also apply to the newly-added electric motors now falling within
the scope of the test procedure in those cases where a manufacturer of
such motors would be required to use the DOE test procedure. These
provisions are discussed in more detail in sections III.N.1 through
III.N.4 of this document.
1. Nominal Full-Load Efficiency
DOE defines ``nominal full-load efficiency,'' with respect to an
electric motor, as a representative value of efficiency selected from
the ``nominal efficiency'' column of Table 12-10, NEMA MG 1-2009, that
is not greater than the average full-load efficiency of a population of
motors of the same design. (10 CFR 431.12) As proposed in the December
2021 NOPR, DOE is not adopting any changes to this definition other
than updating the reference to the latest version of NEMA MG 1 as
discussed in section III.C of this document. 86 FR 71710, 71754. DOE
discusses how to determine the average full-load efficiency of a basic
model in the following sections. See 10 CFR 429.64(e) as established by
this final rule.
Manufacturers currently rely on the nominal full-load efficiency to
represent the performance of electric motor basic models. In the
December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to allow manufacturers to
alternatively use the average full-load efficiency of a basic model of
electric motor as the represented efficiency (instead of the nominal
full-load efficiency) provided that the manufacturer uses the average
full-load efficiency consistently on all marketing materials, and as
the efficiency value reported on the nameplate. This proposed provision
would apply starting on the compliance date for any new or amended
standards for electric motors published after January 1, 2021. 86 FR
71754
Grundfos, a pump manufacturer, supported allowing average full-load
efficiency to be an alternate to represented value as long as both
nominal and average full-load efficiency do not need to be declared on
the nameplate (i.e., a manufacturer can post one or the other)
(Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 9) NEMA opposed using average full-load
efficiency as alternative represented values for electric motors
because it would be inconsistent with harmonizing North American, IEC,
and other global standards and regulatory practices. (NEMA, No. 26 at
p. 27)
In the NOPR, DOE proposed this alternative as an option to allow
manufacturers to rate less conservatively than potentially required by
the use of a nominal full-load efficiency value. The current DOE
standards for electric motors are based on nominal full load
efficiency. 10 CFR 431.25. Further, as suggested by NEMA, the current
IEC classification of motor efficiency (i.e., the ``IE-code'') in IEC
60034-30-1 is also based on nominal efficiency limits. Therefore, in
this final rule, DOE is not adopting the proposed approach to allow
manufacturers to alternatively use the average full-load efficiency of
a basic model of electric motor as the represented efficiency (instead
of the nominal full-load efficiency). DOE is maintaining its current
approach to remain in alignment with harmonized international
standards.
2. Testing: Use of an Accredited Laboratory
Manufacturers who do not use a certification program and test basic
models in an accredited laboratory must follow the criteria for
selecting units for testing, including a minimum sample size of five
(5) units in most cases, as specified at 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2). The
sample of units must be large enough to account for reasonable
manufacturing variability among individual units of the basic model or
variability in the test methodology such that the test results for the
overall sample will be reasonably representative of the average full-
load efficiency of the whole population of production units of that
basic model. DOE notes that the current regulations do not limit the
sample size and manufacturers can increase their sample size to narrow
the margin of error.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed that manufacturers continue
to follow the current provisions in 10 CFR 431.17 (including the
formula at 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2)(i)) related to the determination of the
represented value. Manufacturers would continue to follow this
procedure until DOE amends its electric motor standards. However, DOE
proposed to move these provisions in the newly proposed Sec. Sec.
429.64(b) and 429.64(c). In addition, starting on the compliance date
for any new or amended standards for any electric motors published
after January 1, 2021, DOE proposed that manufacturers
[[Page 63632]]
follow the amended provisions in accordance with the newly proposed
Sec. Sec. 429.64(d) through 429.64(f). 86 FR 71710, 71754.
NEMA disagreed with the proposed change of the mathematical symbol
given in the second formula in the current regulation at 10 CFR
431.17(b)(2)(i), which DOE proposed to move to 10 CFR 429.64.
Specifically, it disagreed with the proposed symbol change from
``greater than or equal to'' to ``equal to'' and argued that the
original equation and ``greater than or equal to'' symbol should be
restored. (NEMA No. 26, at p. 29)
DOE reviewed the formula in the December 2021 NOPR and identified a
typographical error. As stated in the December 2021 NOPR, prior to the
compliance date for any new or amended standards for electric motors
published after January 1, 2021, DOE proposed that manufacturers
continue to follow the current provisions in 10 CFR 431.17 related to
the determination of the represented value. In addition, DOE proposed
to move these provisions to the newly proposed Sec. Sec. 429.64(b) and
429.64(c). 86 FR 71710, 71754. DOE's intent was to move the provisions
from 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2)(i) to 429.64 without modification. In this
final rule, based on the feedback from NEMA, DOE is revising the second
formula in Sec. 429.64(c)(2)(i) to match the second formula in the
current regulation Sec. 431.17(b)(2)(i) by replacing the ``equal to''
sign with a ``greater than or equal to'' sign.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed that the average full-load
efficiency of a basic model would be the arithmetic mean of the tested
efficiencies of a sample of electric motors. The average full-load
efficiency of a basic model is determined using the definition of
``average full-load efficiency''--i.e., the arithmetic mean of the
full-load efficiencies of a population of electric motors of duplicate
design. 10 CFR 431.12. This requirement would need to be met starting
on the compliance date for any new or amended standards for electric
motors published after January 1, 2021, DOE proposed to add regulatory
text to implement the definition of ``average full-load efficiency''
such that, when conducting testing, the average full-load efficiency of
a basic model would be calculated as the arithmetic mean of the full-
load efficiencies of a sample of electric motors selected in accordance
with the sampling requirements at 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2). In addition, in
the case of manufacturers making representations of energy efficiency
starting on the compliance date of any new or amended standards for any
electric motors that DOE may set, DOE proposed to remove the equations
at 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2)(i)-(ii).\72\ Finally, to ensure a high level of
quality control and consistency of testing performance within the basic
model, DOE proposed to add a requirement to verify that no motor tested
would be able to sustain losses exceeding 15 percent of those permitted
by the applicable energy conservation standard. 86 FR 71710, 71755.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ The equation at Sec. 431.17(b)(2)(i) currently allows
manufacturers to select a value of nominal full-load efficiency that
is greater than the average of the tested full-load efficiency of a
sample of electric motors and corresponds to 5 percent losses less
than the average losses of the sample. The equation at Sec.
431.17(b)(2)(ii) verifies that no motor in the sample has losses
exceeding 15 percent of the losses corresponding to the nominal
full-load efficiency. Note: Motor losses (L) and efficiency (Eff) of
motor of a given horsepower (hp) are related by the following
equation: L = hp (1/Eff-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABB commented that if the currently permitted five percent
additional loss allowance is eliminated, then the sample size required
to predict the nominal efficiency with a high degree of probability
would increase from five motors to over 100 motors and would take years
to complete. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 2) CEMEP stated that the new
statistical allowances would require multiple years to comply with and
need a wholesale redesign of entire product portfolios. (CEMEP, No. 19
at p. 10) NEMA opposed the changes to the sampling plan at 10 CFR
429.64(e)(1) and commented that the additional test burden would be
unmanageable, or that manufacturers would be required to redesign most
or all of their existing basic models to a higher average efficiency
level to maintain compliance. NEMA commented that the proposal in 10
CFR 429.64(e)(1) to remove the five percent loss allowance permitted in
10 CFR 431.17(b)(2) for the average of the samples relative to the
represented efficiency forces a need for the samples chosen to estimate
the mean value of efficiency of the basic model population with a low
margin of error. NEMA commented that an increase in the number of
required sample motors from the present value of 5 to an estimated
value of approximately 120 to 140 would be required to estimate the
average of the population within a margin of error of 0.05.
Alternatively, NEMA commented that to maintain a sample size of 5
units, a redesign of existing basic models would be required to achieve
an increase in average population efficiency that is estimated to be
between 50 and 62.5 percent of a nominal efficiency band. NEMA believed
forcing this redesign would be outside of the scope of a test procedure
rulemaking and would need to be done through an energy conservation
standards rulemaking where the economic justification and technological
feasibility are assessed. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 2, 24-27) NEMA provided
the results of several statistical simulations to support their
comments in appendix A and B of their comments. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp.
31-44)
The Joint Advocates supported the proposed requirement that an
electric motor's represented nominal efficiency be less than or equal
to the average efficiency based on testing. Specifically, the Joint
Advocates supported DOE's proposal that the nominal full-load
efficiency of a basic model must be less or equal to the average full-
load efficiency determined either through testing or AEDM. (Joint
Advocates, No. 27 at p. 5) Grundfos agreed with DOE's proposal to
specify how to determine the nominal full-load efficiency of a basic
model when the average efficiency of that basic model is known.
Grundfos further agreed with DOE's proposal to require that
manufacturers must calculate the average full-load efficiency of a
basic model as the arithmetic mean of the full-load efficiencies of a
sample of electric motors starting on the compliance date for any new
or amended electric motor standards. Grundfos further supported DOE's
proposal to add a requirement that no electric motor tested in the
sample has losses exceeding 15 percent of those permitted by the
applicable energy conservation standard. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 9)
DOE reviewed NEMA's statistical analysis, which purported to show
that an increase of up to approximately 120 to 140 units would be
required to ensure that the average of a sample is greater than or
equal to the average of the population within a margin of 5 percent.
(NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 31-32) That analysis showed that a sample of 120-
140 units would be required in order to estimate the 95th percentile
value of the population, within a margin of 5 percent. It does not show
that a sample of 120-140 units would be required to obtain an average
value that is equal to the average of the population within a 5 percent
tolerance. DOE is not requiring manufacturers to provide an average
value that is equal to the average of the population within a 5 percent
tolerance (see discussion related to DOE' typical sampling plans in the
remainder of this section). Therefore, DOE disagrees that testing of
over a hundred units would be required.
In addition, DOE reviewed the statistical analysis provided by NEMA
[[Page 63633]]
to support its view that removing the 5 percent tolerance on a basic
model currently rated at 95 percent would require redesigning the
motors from an average efficiency of 95.076 (average of the population
required to meet the current 5 percent tolerance) to 95.316 (average of
the population required if the 5 percent tolerance is removed) in order
to ensure, based on a 97.5 percent confidence level, that a randomly
selected 5-sample set drawn from the population will have a sample mean
greater than or equal to 95 percent. NEMA did not provide any data to
support the actual shape of the distribution and its analysis is based
on a hypothetical population distribution, with a known mean and
standard deviation while, in reality, the mean of the population is
unknown. Assuming the same hypothetical statistical distribution as
presented by NEMA applies, DOE agrees that to ensure that any randomly
selected 5-sample set drawn from the population will have a sample mean
greater than or equal to 95 percent, the mean of the population would
have to be greater than 95 percent. However, DOE is not requiring that
all samples (or 97.5 percent of all samples) of a basic model rated at
95 percent full-load nominal efficiency have an average value of full-
load efficiency that is less than or equal to 95 percent.\73\ DOE
emphasizes that not every, individual unit of a motor basic model must
be at or above the standard; however, the represented nominal
efficiency must not exceed the population mean. In view of the comments
received, DOE believes stakeholders may be confusing the provisions
used to determine the represented value of a basic model at 10 CFR
431.17 (b)(2) with the formulas used by DOE to determine if a basic
model is in compliance in 10 CFR part 431, appendix A to subpart U. DOE
imposes one set of sampling provisions for manufacturers to use when
rating their products and a second separate set of sampling provisions
for DOE to use when evaluating the compliance of those products. The
sampling provisions for determining a represented value (e.g., nominal
efficiency) reflect the fact that an important function of represented
values is to inform prospective purchasers how efficiently various
products operate. In light of that purpose, DOE designed the regulation
with respect to represented value so that purchasers are more likely
than not to buy a unit that actually performs as efficiently as
advertised. The enforcement statistical formulas are designed to
determine if a basic model is compliant with the applicable energy
conservation standard, and are weighted in favor of the manufacturer to
minimize the likelihood of erroneous noncompliance determinations. The
certification statistical formulas are designed to protect purchasers;
the enforcement statistical formulas are designed to protect
manufacturers. The enforcement statistical formulas for electric motors
are in 10 CFR part 431, appendix A to subpart U. DOE did not propose,
and is not adopting, any changes to these provisions. In other words,
while DOE proposed changes in the formulas used to determine the
represented value of a basic model, DOE did not propose to change how
the compliance of a given basic model is determined. The compliance or
non-compliance of a basic model would remain unchanged by the
publication of this final rule. Therefore, DOE disagrees with NEMA that
basic model redesigns would be required to ensure compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Assuming a normal distribution, if an infinite number of 5-
sample sets are drawn, 50 percent will have an average at or above
the population average, and 50 percent will fall at or below the
population average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the current formulas used to determine the represented values
of a basic model, a basic model could have a represented value of
nominal efficiency that equals or exceeds the current energy
conservation standard levels but fails the compliance test in
accordance with the existing formulas at 10 CFR part 431, appendix A to
subpart U. DOE cannot allow manufacturers to make valid representations
of nominal full-load efficiency of a basic model for which the average
efficiency of a manufacturer's production is less than the represented
value. The risk of a product or equipment being falsely determined to
be out of compliance (manufacturer's risk) is balanced against the risk
of a product being inaccurately represented (consumer's risk) by
establishing a reasonable sampling and testing regime. While the
stakeholders' recommendation to rely on a 5 percent tolerance would
reduce manufacturer risk, DOE is concerned that it would give rise to
too high a risk that a manufacturer may state a nominal efficiency for
a basic model that is greater than the actual population mean for that
model, or that a manufacturer may state a nominal efficiency for a
basic model that is equal to or greater than the current energy
conservation standard level while the basic model fails the compliance
test at 10 CFR part 431, appendix A to subpart U.
The average (or ``mean'') full-load efficiency of the population is
unknown but can be estimated using confidence limits for the mean,
which are an interval estimate for the mean. The design of the sampling
plan is intended to determine an accurate assessment of product or
equipment performance, within specified confidence limits, without
imposing an undue testing or economic burden on manufacturers.
Different samples from the same population will generate different
values for the sample average. An interval estimate quantifies this
uncertainty in the sample estimate by computing lower and upper
confidence limits (``LCL'' and ``UCL'') of an interval (centered on the
average of the sample) which will, with a given level of confidence,
contain the population average. Instead of a single estimate for the
average of the population (i.e., the average of the sample), a
confidence interval generates a lower and upper limit for the average
of the population. The interval estimate indicates how much uncertainty
there is in the estimate of the average of the population.\74\
Confidence limits are expressed in terms of a confidence coefficient.
For covered equipment and products, the confidence coefficient
typically ranges from 90 to 99 percent.\75\ The confidence coefficient
(e.g., 97.5 percent) means that if an infinite number of samples are
collected, and the confidence interval computed, 97.5 percent of these
intervals would contain the average of the population. In other words,
although the average of the entire population is not known, there is a
high probability (97.5 percent confidence level) that it is greater
than or equal to the LCL and less than or equal to the UCL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods, https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda352.htm.
\75\ 10 CFR part 429 outlines sampling plans for certification
testing for product or equipment covered by EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure that the represented value of efficiency is no greater
than the population average, the sampling plans for determination of
the represented value typically consist of testing a representative
sample to ensure that any represented value of energy efficiency is no
greater than the lower of the average of the sample (x), or the LCL
divided by a constant ``K''. The degree of confidence level associated
with the LCL and the value of K varies by product or equipment type and
are selected based on an expected level of variability in product
performance and
[[Page 63634]]
measurement uncertainty.\76\ 10 CFR part 429, subpart B. Requiring that
the represented value be less than or equal to the LCL ensures that the
represented value of efficiency is no greater than the population
average. DOE divides the LCL by K to provide additional tolerance to
account for variability in product performance and measurement
uncertainty.\77\ The comparison with the average of the sample further
ensures that if the quotient of the LCL divided by K is greater than x,
the represented value is established using average of the sample. DOE
relies on a one-sided confidence limit to provide the option for
manufacturers to rate more conservatively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ The confidence level associated with the LCL, typically
ranges from 90 to 99 percent, while K, an adjustment factor,
typically ranges from 0.9 to 0.99.
\77\ For example, if DOE expects that the variability for
measured performance is within a margin of 3 percent, DOE will use a
K value of 0.97. See for example 79 FR 32019, 32037 (June 3, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For electric motors, with a given sample and sample average, the
average of the population (X) is unknown but can be estimated using the
LCL and UCL interval (LCL <= x <= UCL). Because the average of the
population is greater than or equal to LCL, while the average full-load
efficiency of the population is unknown, requiring that the represented
value be less than or equal to the LCL would ensure that the
represented value of efficiency (i.e., the nominal full-load
efficiency) is no greater than the population average, as required by
the definition of nominal full-load efficiency. Instead, as previously
discussed, DOE proposed to require that the represented value be less
than or equal to the average of the sample. Because the average of the
sample is greater than the LCL,\78\ this proposal is less stringent
than requiring that the represented value be less than or equal to the
LCL, and provides additional tolerance to manufacturers while balancing
the risk that an electric motor has a represented value that is higher
than the population average. In addition, if a manufacturer believes
that a given random 5-unit sample set does not lead to a full-load
efficiency rating that is representative of the population, the
manufacturer can increase the size of the sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ By definition, the confidence interval is such that LCL <=
x <= UCL, where x is the average of the sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, while the average full-load efficiency of the
population is unknown, DOE believes requiring that the nominal full-
load efficiency be less than or equal to the average of the sample
satisfies the requirements of ``nominal full-load efficiency'' as
defined, while balancing the manufacturer's risk against the consumer's
risk. Therefore, DOE is adopting the requirement that manufacturers
determine the nominal full-load efficiency of a basic model, as a
representative value of efficiency selected from the ``nominal
efficiency'' column of Table 12-10, NEMA MG 1-2009, that is not greater
than the average full-load efficiency of a basic model. This
requirement would apply starting on the compliance date for any new or
amended electric motor standards final rule that published after
January 1, 2021, to all electric motors subject to energy conservation
standards regardless of whether the final rule prescribes new or
amended energy conservation standards for certain electric motors. DOE
further specifies in this rule that the average full-load efficiency of
a basic model is the arithmetic mean of tested efficiencies of a sample
of electric motors. In addition, DOE is removing the equations at 10
CFR 431.17(b)(2)(i)-(ii). Id.
NEMA stated that manufacturers must use the most recent test
procedure once implemented and thus the changes to 10 CFR 429.64(e)(1)
would be implemented 180 days after the test procedure final rule and
not whenever the energy conservation standards were finalized. (NEMA,
No. 26 at p. 25) NEMA commented that any changes that would require
currently certified electric motors to be retested and recertified once
new test procedures come into effect, which as proposed is 180 days,
would be untenable. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 5)
As previously stated, in the December 2021 NOPR, prior to the
compliance date for any new or amended standards for electric motors
published after January 1, 2021, DOE proposed that manufacturers of
electric motors currently subject to energy conservation standards
would continue to follow the current provisions in 10 CFR 431.17 (now
moving to 10 CFR 429.64) that relate to the determination of a motor's
represented value. This final rule adopts the same timeline and
requirements--specifically, the provisions in 10 CFR 429.64(e)(1) for
electric motors currently subject to energy conservation standards
would only become mandatory once new or amended energy conservation
standards are established (for any category of electric motors subject
to energy conservation standards, regardless of whether the final rule
prescribes new or amended energy conservation standards for certain
electric motors). As noted previously, while DOE proposed changes in
the formulas used to determine the represented value of a basic model,
DOE did not propose changing how the compliance of a given basic model
would be determined. In addition, DOE notes that manufacturers of
electric motors that are not currently subject to energy conservation
standards would not be required to use the test procedure for Federal
certification or labeling purposes, until such time as new or amended
energy conservation standards are established for such electric motors.
However, if manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and private
labelers choose to make any representations respecting the energy
consumption or cost of energy consumed by such motors, then such
voluntary representations must be made in accordance with the test
procedure and sampling requirements adopted at 10 CFR 429.64(e).
3. Testing: Use of a Nationally Recognized Certification Program
For manufacturers using a nationally recognized certification
program as described in 10 CFR 431.17(a)(5), the selection and sampling
requirements are typically specified in the certification program's
operational documents but are not always described in detail. In the
December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed additional requirements to ensure that
the certification program follows the provisions proposed in 10 CFR
429.64, as well as the AEDM validation procedures, and periodic AEDM
verification procedures proposed in 10 CFR 429.70(i). DOE intended for
these proposals to ensure consistency between basic model ratings
obtained with and without the use of a certification program and would
have no impact on how nationally certification programs operate. 86 FR
71710, 71755.
Advanced Energy supported the proposed requirements to ensure that
the certification program follows the provisions proposed in 10 CFR
429.64. Advanced Energy stated that this requirement was consistent
with its certification scheme (which follows the existing AEDM
regulation in 10 CFR 431.17) and would not change the manner in which
it currently conducts its testing. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p.18)
Grundfos agreed with the proposal to add the provisions in 10 CFR
429.64 and 429.70(i) to the requirements that a nationally recognized
certification program must satisfy. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 9) NEMA
disagreed with the requirement due to its relationship with other
provisions that would prevent a manufacturer from certifying through
the use of its nationally accredited laboratory. (NEMA, No. 26 at p.
28)
[[Page 63635]]
The proposal to require that nationally recognized certification
program follow the sampling provisions proposed in 10 CFR 429.64, as
well as the AEDM validation procedures, and periodic AEDM verification
procedures proposed in 10 CFR 429.70(i) is unrelated to the three
certification requirement options discussed in section III.M.2. of this
document. Therefore, DOE is adopting the proposed additional
requirements to ensure that the certification program follows the
provisions proposed in 10 CFR 429.64, as well as the AEDM validation
procedures, and periodic AEDM verification procedures in 10 CFR
429.70(j).\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ The AEDM validation procedures for electric motors that DOE
proposed for 10 CFR 429.70(i) in the December 2021 NOPR are being
adopted at 10 CFR 429.70(j) in this rule. After the December 2021
NOPR, a separate rule published on July 22, 2022, added provisions
at 10 CFR 429.70(i). 87 FR 45195. Accordingly, the AEDM validation
procedures are renumbered in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, after any updates to DOE's electric motors
regulations, DOE proposed that, within one year of publication of the
final rule, all certification programs must either submit a letter to
DOE certifying that no change to their program is needed, or submit a
letter describing the measures implemented to ensure the criteria in
the proposed 10 CFR 429.73(b) are met. If a certification program
submits a letter describing updates to their program, DOE proposed that
the current certification program would still be recognized until DOE
evaluates any newly implemented measures and decides otherwise. 86 FR
71710, 71755.
In response, Advanced Energy stated that it follows the sampling
and minimum test requirements as prescribed, and that it is beneficial
to have consistency across all motor efficiency certification body
schemes. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 18) DOE did not receive any
additional comments on this issue and is adopting its proposal to
require that, within one year of publication of the final rule, all
certification programs must either submit a letter to DOE certifying
that no change to their program is needed, or submit a letter
describing the measures implemented to ensure the criteria in the
proposed Sec. 429.73(b) are met. If a certification program submits a
letter describing updates to their program, the current certification
program would still be recognized until DOE evaluates any newly
implemented measures and decides otherwise.
4. Use of an AEDM
Section 431.17 also specifies the requirements for using an AEDM
(10 CFR 431.17(a)(2)), including requirements for substantiation (i.e.,
the initial validation) (10 CFR 431.17(a)(3), 10 CFR 431.17(b)(3)) and
subsequent verification of an AEDM (10 CFR 431.17(a)(4)). Those
requirements ensure the accuracy and reliability of the AEDM both prior
to use and then through ongoing verification checks on the estimated
efficiency.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to replace the term
``substantiation'' with the term ``validation'' to better align the
relevant terminology with the AEDM provisions in 10 CFR 429.70. 86 FR
71710, 71755. DOE did not receive any comments on this topic and is
amending its regulations to replace the term ``substantiation'' with
the term ``validation.''
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE also proposed to modify one of the
requirements for AEDM validation. Currently, the provisions in 10 CFR
431.17(a)(3)(ii) require that the simulated full-load losses for each
basic model selected for AEDM validation testing must be within plus or
minus ten percent of the average full-load losses determined from the
testing of that basic model.\80\ DOE proposed to change that language
to a one-sided 10 percent tolerance to allow manufacturers flexibility
when choosing to rely on a more conservative AEDM. (i.e., the simulated
full-load losses for each basic model selected for AEDM validation
testing, calculated by applying the AEDM, must be greater or equal to
90 percent of the average full-load losses determined from the testing
of that basic model). This proposal would not require manufacturers to
update their AEDMs and basic model ratings. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ The output of the AEDM is the average full-load efficiency
of the basic model. The represented value of nominal full-load
efficiency is obtained by applying the provisions discussed in
section III.N.1 of this document. The average full-load losses
predicted by the AEDM can be calculated as hp x (1/Eff-1) where hp
is the motor horsepower and Eff is the average full-load efficiency
predicted by the AEDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the December 2021 NOPR, Grundfos agreed with the
proposed validation requirements for AEDMs. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 9)
DOE did not receive any additional comments on this proposal.
Consequently, it is adopting the proposed one-sided tolerance
requirement for the reasons discussed as proposed.
In addition, DOE proposed to specify how to obtain the nominal
full-load efficiency of a basic model using the simulated full-load
efficiency of that basic model determined through the application of an
AEDM: the nominal full-load efficiency of a basic model must be less
than or equal to the simulated full-load efficiency of that basic model
determined through the application of an AEDM. 86 FR 71710, 71754. DOE
did not receive any comments on this issue. As a result, it is adopting
its proposal to require that when using an AEDM, the nominal full-load
efficiency of a basic model must be less than or equal to the simulated
full-load efficiency of that basic model determined through the
application of an AEDM.
Paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 431.17 provides further clarity regarding
testing if a certification program is not used. Basic models used to
validate an AEDM must be selected for testing in accordance with
paragraph (b)(1), and units of each such basic model must be tested in
accordance with paragraph (b)(2). 10 CFR 431.17(b)(3). Paragraph (b)(1)
explains the criteria for selecting a minimum of 5 basic models for
certification testing (in an accredited laboratory) to validate an
AEDM. Paragraph (b)(2) provides the criteria for selecting units for
testing, which includes a minimum sample size of 5 units in most
cases.\81\ For manufacturers using AEDMs, paragraph (b)(2) applies to
those basic models selected for validating the AEDM. Paragraph (b)(3)
also explains that the motors tested to validate an AEDM must either be
in a certification program or must have been tested in an accredited
laboratory. 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ As discussed previously and in the remainder of this
section, the provisions for selecting units within a basic model and
minimum sample size described in paragraph 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2) apply
to three different situations: when (1) testing at an accredited
laboratory; (2) using an AEDM and selecting units for substantiating
the AEDM; and (3) using an AEDM and selecting units for periodic
verification testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise the current
regulatory language to specify that, when manufacturers use an
accredited laboratory or a nationally recognized testing program for
testing the basic models used to validate the AEDM, the selection
criteria and sampling requirements as described in paragraph (b)(2)
apply, including the requirement to select a minimum of 5 basic models
that must comply with the energy conservation standards at 10 CFR
431.25 (if any exist). In addition, when using an accredited laboratory
or nationally recognized testing program for testing, DOE proposed that
the average full-load
[[Page 63636]]
efficiency of each basic model selected to validate the AEDM must be
determined based on the provisions discussed in section III.N.2.
Further, to reduce testing burden, DOE proposed to replace the
requirement in paragraph (b)(1) that two of the basic models must be
among the five basic models with the highest unit volumes of production
by the manufacturer in ``the prior year'' with the phrase in ``the
prior 5 years''. The extension from 1 year to 5 years would reduce
testing burden in the case of a year-to-year variation in the basic
models with the highest unit volumes of production and would not impact
basic model ratings. 86 FR 71710, 71756.
In this final rule, DOE adopts the basic model selection
requirements as proposed with the exception of one provision as
discussed in this paragraph. In response to the December 2021 NOPR,
NEMA commented that the proposed requirement regarding basic model
selection for validation of an AEDM in the proposed Sec. Sec.
429.70(a)(i)(2)(i)(D) and 429.70(a)(j)(2)(i)(D) (``Each basic model
must have the lowest average full-load efficiency among the basic
models within the same equipment class'') should be changed as follows
to be consistent with the current provisions in Sec.
431.17(b)(1)(i)(D): ``Each basic model must have the lowest nominal
full-load efficiency among the basic models within the same equipment
class.'' NEMA explained that relying on the ``lowest average full-load
efficiency'' introduces the possibility of a basic model not being
valid for purposes of validating an AEDM simply because there is
another basic model with the same nominal full-load efficiency but with
an average full-load efficiency that is slightly higher by a virtually
unmeasurable amount and places an unreasonable burden on the
manufacturer that is not justified by any benefit with respect to
validating the accuracy of the AEDM. In this final rule, DOE maintains
the current language in Sec. 431.17(b)(1)(i)(D) and requires that each
basic model must have the lowest nominal full-load efficiency among the
basic models within the same equipment class in line with the DOE
metric (i.e., ``nominal full-load efficiency'').
Currently, the periodic verification of an AEDM can be achieved in
one of three ways: through participation in a certification program; by
additional, periodic testing in an accredited lab; or by verification
by a professional engineer. When using periodic testing in an
accredited laboratory, a sample of units must be tested in accordance
with the DOE test procedure and 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2). 10 CFR
431.17(a)(4)(A). The current regulatory text does not specify how often
the periodic testing must be conducted.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to add that manufacturers
must perform a sufficient number of periodic verification tests to
ensure the AEDM maintains its accuracy and reliability. Paragraph
(b)(2) currently provides the criteria for selecting units for testing
(in an accredited laboratory) when conducting periodic AEDM
verification, including a minimum sample size of 5 units in most cases.
DOE proposed to revise the 5-unit minimum requirement on the sample
size and to replace it by requiring that manufacturers test at least
one unit of each basic model. DOE believes that at least one unit
comprises a sufficient sample size when conducting an AEDM verification
and would reduce testing burden. 86 FR 71710, 71756.
Advanced Energy commented that the term ``periodic'' as used in
reference to AEDM subsequent verification is very broad, and that DOE
should request information from manufacturers on how often their AEDMs
are updated. Advanced Energy stated that there are many reasons a
manufacturer would update its AEDM, and noted that its subsequent
verification is performed annually. Advanced Energy further agreed that
one basic model is sufficient for subsequent verification testing, but
that DOE should be clear on which basic model needs verifying, and that
requiring one unit of every basic model would increase test burden to
manufacturers. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at pp. 19)
In this final rule, rather than specifying a verification testing
frequency, DOE adopts the proposed AEDM verification provision which
specifies that sufficient testing must be conducted to ensure the AEDM
maintains its accuracy and reliability. DOE believes the manufacturer
is responsible for determining what constitutes a sufficient number of
periodic verification tests to ensure the AEDM maintains its accuracy
and reliability.
Paragraph (b)(2) also currently includes the equations to use when
conducting periodic AEDM verification. 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2)(i)-(ii). The
equations in paragraph (b)(2) are used after the represented value of
the basic model has already been determined (e.g., by AEDM) \82\ ``in a
test of compliance with a represented average or nominal efficiency.''
The equations are applied to verify that the average full-load
efficiency of the sample and the minimum full-load efficiency of the
sample of the basic model, are within a prescribed margin of the
represented value as provided by applying the AEDM (i.e., a test of
compliance with a represented average or nominal efficiency). In
addition, the equations in paragraph (b)(2) also imply that the
represented value of the basic model has already been determined (e.g.,
by AEDM). As previously noted, DOE proposed to revise the current
regulatory text to remove the equations currently located in 10 CFR
431.17(b)(2)(i)-(ii). Instead, for manufacturers conducting periodic
AEDM verification using testing, DOE proposed that manufacturers would
rely on the same criteria used for the AEDM validation at 10 CFR
429.70(i)(2)(iv) and compare the average of the measured full-load
losses of the basic model \83\ to the simulated full-load losses of the
basic model as predicted by the AEDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ The AEDM output is the simulated full-load efficiency. The
represented value of nominal full-load efficiency as predicted by
the AEDM is obtained by applying the provisions discussed in section
I.A.1 of this document.
\83\ The sample could include a single unit, in which case, the
average measured full-load losses of the basic model are the
measured full-load losses of the unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA commented in reference to the requirements in proposed
Sec. Sec. 429.70(a)(i)(3)(A) and 429.70(a)(j)(3)(a): ``the simulated
full-load losses for each unit must be greater than or equal to 90
percent of the measured full-load losses (i.e., 0.90 x average of the
measured full-load losses <= simulated full-load losses).'' NEMA
commented that the clarification in parenthesis was acceptable but the
phrase ``for each unit'' that precedes it is confusing because there
are not unique simulated full-load losses for each unit but, rather,
for each basic model. NEMA added that for further clarity and
consistency with the AEDM validation procedure in Sec.
429.70(a)(i)(2)(iv), the words ``measured full-load losses'' should be
changed to ``average of the measured full-load losses.'' (NEMA, No. 26,
at pp. 28-29)
DOE agrees with NEMA. As written, the proposed regulatory text only
accounted for a situation where a single unit per basic model was
selected when conducting AEDM verification. In this final rule, DOE is
amending the regulatory text to align with the preamble discussion and
specify that if more than one unit per basic model is selected: (1) the
requirement is for the simulated full-load losses for each basic model;
and (2) ``measured full-load
[[Page 63637]]
losses'' is replaced by the ``average of the measured full-load
losses.''
If a certification program to conduct the AEDM verification is
used, the provisions at 10 CFR 431.17(a)(4)(i)(B) specify that a
manufacturer must periodically select basic models to which it has
applied the AEDM and have a nationally recognized certification program
certify its nominal full-load efficiency. The provision does not
specify the criteria to use when comparing the output of the AEDM of
the tested and certified values of nominal full-load efficiency. In the
December 2021 NOPR, DOE stated it was considering three options to
further specify how the manufacturer must conduct the AEDM verification
when using a certification program. DOE considered proposing: (1) that
manufacturers rely on the same 10 percent tolerance used for the AEDM
validation at 10 CFR 429.70(i)(2)(iv) and compare the losses
corresponding to the tested and certified nominal full-load efficiency
of the basic model to the nominal full-load efficiency of the basic
model as predicted by the AEDM; \84\ (2) that manufacturers rely on a
higher tolerance (e.g., a 15 percent tolerance rather than 10 percent)
than used for the AEDM validation at 10 CFR 429.70(i)(2)(iv) and
compare the losses corresponding to the tested and certified nominal
full-load efficiency of the basic model to the nominal full-load
efficiency of the basic model as predicted by the AEDM; or (3) to
continue to not specify any requirements but require that certification
programs provide a detailed description of the method used to verify
the AEDM. 86 FR 71710, 71756.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ The AEDM output is the average full-load efficiency. The
represented value of nominal full-load efficiency as predicted by
the AEDM is obtained by applying the provisions discussed in section
III.N.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Energy commented that of the three options to specify how
a manufacturer must conduct AEDM verification when using a
certification program, Advanced Energy supported Option (1), which is
consistent with its current practice, and that Option (3) is the same
as Option (1) in its case since it follows the recommended AEDM
subsequent verification procedure provided in the current version of 10
CFR 431.17. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 19)
In this final rule, DOE specifies how the manufacturer must conduct
the AEDM verification when using a certification program and requires
that manufacturers must rely on the same 10 percent tolerance used for
the AEDM validation at 10 CFR 429.70(j)(2)(iv) \85\ and compare the
losses corresponding to the simulated and certified nominal full-load
efficiency of the basic model to the nominal full-load efficiency of
the basic model as predicted by the AEDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ The AEDM validation tolerance requirements for electric
motors that DOE proposed for 10 CFR 429.70(i)(2(iv) in the December
2021 NOPR are being adopted at 10 CFR 429.70(j)(2)(iv) in this rule.
After the December 2021 NOPR, a separate rule published on July 22,
2022, added provisions at 10 CFR 429(i). 87 FR 45195. Accordingly,
the AEDM validation tolerance requirements are being renumbered in
this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE further proposed to remove the
option to rely on a professional engineer to conduct AEDM verification
because this is not an option that is used by manufacturers. 86 FR
71710, 71756. DOE did not receive any comments on this proposal and is
removing it as proposed.
Finally, in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE explained that the proposed
AEDM provisions would also apply to the additional electric motors
proposed for inclusion in the scope of the test procedure, when a
manufacturer of such motors would be required to use the DOE test
procedure. DOE did not receive any comments specific to that issue. Id.
In this final rule, DOE adopts the requirement that the AEDM provisions
adopted for currently regulated electric motors will also apply to the
additional electric motors included in the scope of the test procedure,
when a manufacturer of such motors would be required to use the DOE
test procedure.
O. Certification, Sampling Plans and AEDM Provisions for Dedicated-
Purpose Pool Pump Motors
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include certification,
sampling plan, and AEDM provisions for DPPP motors subject to the
requirements in subpart Z of 10 CFR part 431. Because DPPP motors are a
subset of electric motors, DOE proposed to apply the same
certification, sampling provisions and AEDM provisions for consistency.
In addition, DOE proposed to allow the use of ``nominal full-load
efficiency'' as an alternative represented value for DPPP motors. DOE
proposed to add these provisions in a new section 10 CFR 429.65 \86\
and 10 CFR 429.70(j), and to specifically reference DPPP motors in 10
CFR 429.73 and 10 CFR 429.74 as proposed. 86 FR 71710, 71757.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ In the December 2021 NOPR the proposed regulatory text
pertaining to DPPP motor certification and sampling provisions is
located in a newly proposed section 10 CFR 429.65 and not section 10
CFR 429.66 as incorrectly cited in the December 2021 NOPR, which
included a typographical error. 86 FR 71710, 71757.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE did not receive comments specific to DPPP motors. In this final
rule, DOE adopts the same certification, sampling provisions and AEDM
provisions for DPPP motors as for electric motors as discussed in
sections III.M and III.N of this document. DOE adopts these provisions
in a Sec. Sec. 429.65 and 429.70(k),\87\ and specifically references
DPPP motors in 10 CFR 429.73 and 429.74. In addition, DOE allows the
use of ``nominal full-load efficiency'' as an alternative represented
value for DPPP motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ The AEDM validation procedures for DPPP motors that DOE
proposed for 10 CFR 429.70(j) in the December 2021 NOPR are being
adopted at 10 CFR 429.70(k) in this rule. After the December 2021
NOPR, a separate rule published on July 22, 2022, added provisions
at 10 CFR 429(i). 87 FR 45195. Accordingly, the electric motors and
DPPP motors AEDM validation procedures provisions are being
renumbered in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the December 2021 NOPR, manufacturers would be
required to test such motors once compliance is required with a
labeling or energy conservation standard requirement should such a
requirement be established. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(s)). Any voluntary representations by manufacturers,
distributors, retailers, or private labelers about the energy
consumption or cost of energy for these motors must be based on the use
of this test procedure and sampling requirements beginning 180 days
following publication of this final rule. DOE's final rule does not
require manufacturers who do not currently make voluntary
representations to begin making public representations of efficiency.
(42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)). 86 FR 71710, 71757.
P. Effective and Compliance Dates
The effective date for the adopted test procedure amendment will be
30 days after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register.
EPCA prescribes that all representations of energy efficiency and
energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product
labels, must be made in accordance with an amended test procedure,
beginning 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)). EPCA provides an allowance for
individual manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension of the 180-
day period if the manufacturer may experience undue hardship in meeting
the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(2). To receive such an extension,
petitions must be filed with DOE no later than 60 days before the end
of the 180-day
[[Page 63638]]
period and must detail how the manufacturer will experience undue
hardship. (Id.) To the extent the modified test procedure adopted in
this final rule is required only for the evaluation and issuance of
updated efficiency standards, compliance with the amended test
procedure does not require use of such modified test procedure
provisions until the compliance date of updated standards.
Franklin Electric stated that a 6-month period after publication of
a final rule to comply with a submersible motor test procedure is too
short, particularly when there is no defined certification body yet.
(Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 5) As discussed in section III.A.8 of
this document, DOE is no longer considering a submersible electric
motor test method in this test procedure.
Specific to DOE's proposal to expand coverage to special and
definite-purpose SNEMs, AHAM and AHRI commented that 180 days to comply
with the proposed procedure if finalized is an unrealistic timeline.
AHAM and AHRI commented that component motors that were once available
for a product may no longer be available and OEMs will not have the
information about market availability of new component motors until
well after the motor has been tested and certified. (AHAM and AHRI, No.
36 at p. 7) AHAM and AHRI commented that OEMs may have to redesign and
test equipment to accommodate for a different motor size, which takes
years to complete. Id. As discussed previously, DOE notes that
manufacturers of electric motors for which DOE is including within the
scope of the test procedure, but that are not currently subject to an
energy conservation standard, would not be required to use the test
procedure, for Federal certification or labeling purposes, until such
time as amended or new energy conservation standards are established
for such electric motors. As such, only voluntary representations by
manufacturers, distributors, retailers, or private labelers about the
energy consumption or cost of energy for these motors must be based on
the use of the test procedure beginning 180 days following publication
of the final rule. Comments and costs associated with these voluntary
representations are discussed in section III.Q of this document.
Q. Test Procedure Costs
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impacts
In this final rule, DOE revises the current scope of the test
procedures to add additional electric motors and subsequent updates
needed for supporting definitions and metric requirements as a result
of this expanded scope; incorporates by reference the most recent
versions of the referenced industry standards; incorporates by
reference additional industry standards used to test newly covered
electric motors; clarifies the scope and test instructions by adding
definitions for specific terms; revises the current vertical motor
testing instructions to reduce manufacturer test burden; revises the
provisions pertaining to certification testing and determination of
represented values; and adds provisions pertaining to certification
testing and determination of represented values for DPPP motors.
Regarding several of the amendments to the provisions pertaining to
certification testing and determination of represented values, DOE
notes that the updates that are effective 180 days after the
publication of this final rule, include moving and largely retaining
the provisions related to AEDMs (see section III.N.4 of this document),
as well as moving and largely retaining the procedures for recognition
and withdrawal of recognition of accreditation bodies and certification
programs (see sections III.L and III.N.3 of this document) from 10 CFR
part 431 to 10 CFR part 429. DOE does not anticipate any added test
burden from these changes. Regarding other aspects of this rule (i.e.,
requiring to certify using three options as discussed in section
III.M.2, revising the provisions pertaining to the determination of the
represented value as discussed in sections III.N.1 and III.N.2 of this
document) whose compliance date would occur once the compliance date is
reached for any final rule that DOE may adopt to set for electric
motors, DOE will discuss the associated costs in the energy
conservation standards rulemaking. The same would apply to the new
provisions pertaining to the certification testing and AEDM of
dedicated-purpose pool pump motors as discussed in section III.O of
this document, whose compliance date would be on or after the
compliance date of a final rule adopting new or amended energy
conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pump motors. DOE will
discuss the associated costs in the energy conservation standards
rulemaking.
Of the remaining amendments, DOE has determined that the following
would impact testing costs: (1) the updates expanding scope to include
other motor categories, and provisions pertaining to determination of
represented values for DPPP motors; and (2) the update to vertical
motor testing. These amendments are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
a. Voluntary Representations
DOE is adding certain categories of electric motors to the scope of
the test procedure. Specifically (1) air-over electric motors; (2)
certain electric motors greater than 500 hp; (3) electric motors
considered small; (3) inverter-only electric motors; and (4) certain
synchronous motor technologies. In addition, DOE is incorporating by
reference additional test methods. Finally, DOE is adding provisions
pertaining to determination of represented values for DPPP motors.
Manufacturers of those additional electric motors that DOE is
including within the expanded scope of the test procedure that this
final rule is adopting would not be required to test those motors in
accordance with the DOE test procedure until the compliance date of a
final rule adopting new or amended energy conservation standards for
such electric motors is reached. If manufacturers voluntarily make
representations regarding the energy consumption or cost of energy of
such electric motors, they would be required to test according to the
DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)). DOE has determined that the
inclusion of additional motors within the scope of the test procedure
and the update pertaining to determination of represented values for
DPPP motors would result in added costs to motor manufacturers if
manufacturers choose to make efficiency representations. These cost are
estimated in the following paragraphs.
In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE determined that approximately 50
percent of the basic models that are covered under the new test
procedure currently make voluntary representations based on a market
review of product catalogs. 86 FR 71710, 71757. Regarding
representations, NEMA disagreed with DOE's estimate that 50 percent of
the current market of the proposed expanded scope EM and DPPP motors
make voluntary representations, and instead stated that currently only
industrial-rated motors tend to make representations while commercial-
rated motors or SNEMs rarely do, and that these subgroups should be
analyzed separately. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 30) Grundfos stated that it
already makes voluntary representations for their SNEMs, submersible,
and inverter-only products. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 9) Trane commented
that none of the air-over, inverter-only, or synchronous motors it
purchases from
[[Page 63639]]
suppliers currently have representations of efficiency. Trane stated
that its only concern is system-level efficiency. (Trane, No. 31 at p.
7) DOE appreciates the comments. However, the analysis conducted in
this section is based on a per-unit cost, not industry-wide cost, so
this value does not directly impact DOE's per unit test cost analysis
in this final rule. In the following paragraphs, DOE estimates the
associated per-unit costs for making voluntary representations
regarding the energy consumption or cost of energy of expanded scope
electric motors.
DOE estimates that 10 percent of the motors that include voluntary
representations from their manufacturers would be physically tested,
consistent with the conclusions considered in the December 2021 NOPR
that only a fraction of basic models are physically tested (the
remainder have efficiency determined through an alternative efficiency
determination method (``AEDM'')). 86 FR 71710, 71757. Further, this
final rule would require at least five units be tested per basic model.
10 CFR 431.17(b)(2). However, considering DOE is harmonizing with
current industry standards, DOE assumes that manufacturers have already
tested at least one unit for all the expanded scope electric motor
basic models. Therefore, DOE estimates that manufacturers may need to
conduct up to four additional tests per expanded scope electric motor
basic model.
DOE identified that the testing requirements can be summarized
broadly with the following three groups: (1) motors tested according to
CSA C747-09, (2) motors tested according to IEC 61800-9-2:2017, and (3)
motors tested according to Section 34.4 of the NEMA Air-Over Motor
Efficiency Test Method. Consistent with the December 2021 NOPR, DOE
estimated that 90 percent of the physical tests for these electric
motors would be conducted at in-house test facilities, and the
remaining 10 percent of the physical tests would be conducted at third-
party test facilities. 86 FR 71710, 71758. DOE assumed that the per-
unit test costs differ between conducting testing at in-house test
facilities versus testing at third-party test facilities. Table III.23
lists the estimated in-house and third-party single unit test cost
incurred by the manufacturer for each industry standard.
Table III.23--Electric Motor Per Unit Test Cost Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tested at in- Tested at third-
house facility party facility
Industry standard -------------------------------------
(per unit test (per unit test
cost) cost)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSA C747-09....................... $587 $2,210
IEC 61800-9-2:2017................ 750 3,210
Section 34.4 of NEMA Air-over 631 2,210
Motor Efficiency Test Method.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate in-house testing costs, DOE assumed testing a single
electric motor unit to CSA C747-09 requires approximately nine hours of
a mechanical engineer technician time and three hours from a mechanical
engineer. DOE assumed testing a single electric motor-drive combination
unit to IEC 61800-9-2:2017 requires approximately twelve hours of a
mechanical engineer technician time and three and a half hours of time
from a mechanical engineer. DOE assumed testing a single electric motor
unit according to Section 34.4 of NEMA Air-Over Motor Efficiency Test
Method requires ten hours of mechanical engineer technician time and
three hours of time from a mechanical engineer. Based on data from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics' (``BLS's'') Occupational Employment and
Wage Statistics, the mean hourly wage for a mechanical engineer
technician is $30.47 and the mean hourly wage for a mechanical engineer
is $46.64.\88\ Additionally, DOE used data from BLS's Employer Costs
for Employee Compensation to estimate the percent that wages comprise
the total compensation for an employee. DOE estimates that wages make
up 70.5 percent of the total compensation for an employee.\89\
Therefore, DOE estimated that the total hourly compensation (including
all fringe benefits) of an employee is $43.22 for a mechanical
engineering technician and $66.16 for a mechanical engineer.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ DOE used the May 2021 Occupation Profiles of ``17-3027
Mechanical Engineering Technologists and Technicians'' to estimate
the hourly wage rate of a mechanical technician (See www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173027.htm) and ``17-2141 Mechanical Engineers'' to
estimate the hourly wage rate of a mechanical engineer (See
www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172141.htm).
\89\ DOE used the December 2021 ``Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation'' to estimate that for ``Private Industry'' ``Wages and
Salaries'' are 70.5 percent of total employee compensation (See
www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf).
\90\ Mechanical Engineering Technician: $30.47/0.705 = $43.22.
Mechanical Engineer: $46.64/0.705 = $66.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using these labor rates and time estimates, DOE estimates that it
would cost electric motor manufacturers approximately $587 to conduct a
single test for motors tested according to CSA C747-09; approximately
$750 to conduct a single test for motors tested according to IEC 61800-
9-2:2017; and approximately $631 to conduct a single test for motors
tested according to Section 34.4 of the NEMA Air-over Motor Efficiency
Test Method, if these test were conducted by the electric motor
manufacturers in-house.
To estimate third-party lab costs, DOE received quotes from test
labs on the price of conducting each industry standard. DOE then
averaged these prices to arrive at an estimate of what the
manufacturers would have to spend to test their product using a third-
party test lab. Using these quotes, DOE estimates that it would cost
electric motor manufacturers approximately $2,000 to conduct a single
test for motors tested according to CSA C747-09; approximately $3,000
to conduct a single test for motors tested according to IEC 61800-9-
2:2017; and approximately $2,000 to conduct a single test for motors
tested according to Section 34.4 of the NEMA Air-Over Motor Efficiency
Test Method, if these tests were conducted by a third-party test
facility. Depending on the size and weight of the electric motor being
tested, manufacturers would also incur a cost to ship the product to
the third-party lab, based on shipping costs associated with DOE's
testing, DOE expects this cost to be approximately $210 per unit to and
from the lab.
Regarding testing costs, AI Group stated that a typical motor test
conducted in an Australian third-party lab will cost $3,000 to $5,000
depending on motor size and that in-house testing costs would be much
lower. In providing these costs, AI Group did not specify how much
lower these in-housing testing costs would be compared to third-party
labs and it did
[[Page 63640]]
not note any differences in costs based on the specific industry
testing standard being conducted. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 8) CEMEP
stated that a small motor efficiency test (<10 hp) by a third-party lab
would cost [euro]4000 to [euro]5000 euros per test, and that a
comparable in-house test would be approximately a third of that cost--
[euro]1333 to [euro]1666 per test. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p.11)
Additionally, Grundfos noted a disagreement with DOE's estimated in-
house and third-party test costs. It stated that DOE did not account
for sample motor costs, shipping products to test labs, and third-party
certification costs. It also noted a higher estimate of in-house test
time and labor: 20 hours of a technician's time and 4 hours of an
engineer's time per test. Grundfos did not specify the industry
standard being used for that time estimate. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 10)
For this final rule, DOE gathered its quotes from domestic third-party
labs and acknowledges that third-party tests conducted in overseas labs
may differ somewhat in cost. DOE also recognizes that in-house testing
costs will vary across manufacturers. Since the values provided in the
comments do not provide an industry standard that the motors are being
tested to, DOE did not incorporate the values into its average
estimated test cost. Per the remainder of Grundfos's comment, DOE has
adjusted its analysis to include an estimate of shipping costs, expects
that the sample motors will be recoverable, and notes that third-party
certification costs do not affect voluntary representations and will be
addressed in any future energy conservation standards.
Regarding cumulative regulatory burden, Lennox stated that DOE
needs to consider the cumulative regulatory burden imposed on HVACR
manufacturers that are having multiple energy conservation standards
changing in the near future. Among these, they highlighted new
standards for: Central Air Conditioners (``ACs''), Commercial ACs,
Commercial Warm Air Furnaces and variable refrigerant flow systems.
(Lennox, No. 24 at p. 9) JCI commented that the updated scope would
exacerbate the cumulative test burden the HVAC industry is already
facing with other DOE regulations. (JCI, No. 34 at p. 2). AHAM and AHRI
emphasized that DOE needs to consider the additional burden in the
context of the many updated standards affecting the HVAC industry and
they described the new standards to which they will be subject from
DOE, UL, EPA, and requirements under the American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act, which will require the reduction of high-global
warming potential (``GWP'') hydrofluorocarbons (``HFCs'') in stationary
air conditioning (AC) equipment (in turn requiring the development of a
second product line for all equipment using low-GWP refrigerants).
(AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 11-12). DOE recognizes the potential
manufacturer burden of multiple simultaneous rulemakings and will
evaluate the cumulative regulatory burden in future energy conservation
standards rulemakings relating to electric motors as provided by its
established processes.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See 10 CFR part 430 subpart C appendix A section 13(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Updating Vertical Motor Testing Requirements
DOE is updating the testing requirements for vertical motors with
hollow shafts to not require welding of a solid shaft to the drive end,
and instead permit connection of electric motors to a dynamometer
without restriction on the motor end and using a coupling of torsional
rigidity greater than or equal to that of the motor shaft.
DOE has determined that its adopted amendments will not require
changes to the designs of electric motors and will not impact the
utility of such electric motors or impact the availability of electric
motor options. DOE has also determined that the amendments will not
impact the representations of electric motor energy efficiency/energy
use based on the determination that manufacturers would be able to
continue rely on data generated under the preceding test procedure. As
such, retesting of electric motors will not be required solely as a
result of DOE's adoption of this amendment.
Although DOE has determined that the amendments related to vertical
motors will not add to manufacturer costs, under specific circumstances
they may reduce testing costs. NEMA commented that the existing
requirement to weld may prevent a motor from being used in its intended
application (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 3). In such instances, the testing cost
could include the cost of scrapping an otherwise useable motor. This
scrap cost may be avoided if welding is not required by appendix B, in
which case the test cost savings could equal the value of the motor.
To estimate these cost savings, DOE determined approximately how
many tests of these motors are conducted annually. To do this, DOE
reviewed product catalogs from 2006 and compared these to catalogs from
2018 to determine how many new vertical hollow shaft models have been
produced in that time. DOE annualized this count to estimate how many
new vertical hollow shaft motors are listed per year and would need to
be certified as compliant with 10 CFR 431.25. Using the 2018 catalog,
DOE found the average price of a vertical hollow shaft motor and
assumed a markup of 100 percent to estimate the manufacturer's
production cost. Next, DOE requires at least five units to be tested
per basic model. 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2) Consistent with the final rule for
test procedures for small electric motors and electric motors published
January 4, 2021, DOE estimated that 10 percent of these new vertical
hollow shaft motors are certified via physical testing, based on the
observation that most manufacturers use an AEDM to certify an electric
motor as required under 10 CFR 431.36. 86 FR 4, 17 (January 4, 2021)
(applying a general 10 percent estimate regarding the number of
electric motors that would be physically tested). Using this
methodology, DOE estimates that annual cost savings to industry due to
the amendments may approach $9,410 per year.
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
DOE's established practice is to adopt relevant industry standards
for a regulated product or equipment unless such methodology would be
unduly burdensome to conduct or would not produce test results that
reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in
EPCA) or estimated operating costs of that product during a
representative average use cycle. 10 CFR 431.4; Section 8(c) of
appendix A of 10 CFR part 430 subpart C. In cases where the industry
standard does not meet EPCA's statutory criteria for test procedures,
DOE will make modifications through the rulemaking process to these
standards as the DOE test procedure. With regard to electric motors
subject to standards, EPCA requires the test procedures to be the test
procedures specified in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987 and IEEE
Standard 112 Test Method B for motor efficiency, or the successor
standards, unless DOE determines by rule, published in the Federal
Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that to do so
would not meet the statutory requirements for test procedures to
produce results that are representative of an average use cycle and not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A) and (B)). DOE
established the prior test procedures for electric motors at appendix B
based on the provisions of
[[Page 63641]]
NEMA MG 1-2009, CSA C390-10, IEC 60034-2-1:2014, IEEE 112-2017, which
are incorporated by reference and all of which contain methods for
measuring the energy efficiency and losses of electric motors. These
referenced standards specify test methods for polyphase induction
electric motors above 1 horsepower that can operate directly connected
to a power supply. DOE reviewed each of the industry standards and is
updating its incorporation by reference to IEC 60034-12:2016, CSA C390-
10, and NEMA MG 1-2016 to align with the latest revised and reaffirmed
versions of these standards.
In addition, certain additional motors incorporated into the scope
of the test procedure cannot be tested using the industry standards
incorporated by reference for currently regulated electric motors
because they require modifications to the test procedure to account
for: requiring to be connected to an inverter to be able to operate
(i.e., inverter-only motors); and differences in electrical design
(i.e., single-phase induction electric motors included as SNEMs, and
synchronous electric motors). For these additional motors newly
included in scope, DOE incorporates by reference the following
additional industry standards: IEEE 114-2010, CSA C747-09, IEC 60034-2-
1:2014, and IEC 61800-9-2:2017. IEEE 114-2010, CSA C747-09, and IEC
60034-2-1:2014 specify methods for measuring the efficiency and losses
of single-phase induction electric motors. IEC 61800-9-2:2017 specifies
methods for measuring the efficiency and losses of induction and
synchronous inverter-only electric motors.
The test procedures established for air-over electric motors and
for SNEMs are included in NEMA MG 1-2016. See Section IV, Part 34: Air-
Over Motor Efficiency Test Method and Section 12.30. Section 12.30
specifies the use of IEEE 112 and IEEE 114 for all single-phase and
polyphase motors.\92\ As further discussed in section III.D.2 of this
document, DOE is requiring testing of SNEMs--other than inverter-only
electric motors--according to IEEE 112-2017, (or CSA C390-10 or IEC
60034-2-1:2014, which are both equivalent to IEEE 112-2017; see
discussion in section III.D.2) and IEEE 114-2010 (or CSA C747-09 or IEC
60034-2-1:2014, which are equivalent to IEEE 114-2010; see discussion
in III.D.2). This amendment would satisfy the test procedure
requirements under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ As previously mentioned, NEMA MG 1-2016 does not specify
the publication year of the referenced test standards and instead
specifies that the most recent version should be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The methods listed in Section 12.30 of NEMA MG 1-2016 for testing
AC motors apply only to AC induction motors that can be operated
directly connected to the power supply (direct-on-line) and do not
apply to electric motors that are inverter-only or to synchronous
electric motors that are not AC induction motors. Therefore, for these
additional electric motors, DOE specifies the use of different industry
test procedures, as previously noted.
DOE notes that, with regard to the industry standards currently
incorporated into the DOE test procedure, DOE is only updating the
versions referenced to the latest version of the industry standards.
R. Compliance Date
EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends a test procedure, all
representations of energy efficiency and energy use of an electric
motor subject to the test procedure, including those made on marketing
materials and product labels, must be made in accordance with that
amended test procedure, beginning 180 days after publication of such a
test procedure final rule in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)(1). To the extent DOE were to establish test procedures for
electric motors not currently subject to an energy conservation
standard, manufacturers would only need to use the testing set-up
instructions, testing procedures, and rating procedures if a
manufacturer elected to make voluntary representations of energy-
efficiency or energy costs of his or her basic models beginning 180
days following publication of a final rule. DOE's final rule would not
require manufacturers who do not currently make voluntary
representations to then begin making public representations of
efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)). Manufacturers would be required to
test such motors at such time as compliance is required with a labeling
or energy conservation standard requirement should such a requirement
be established. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(s)).
EPCA provides an allowance for individual manufacturers to petition
DOE for an extension of the 180-day period if the manufacturer may
experience undue hardship in meeting the deadline. (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)(2). To receive such an extension, petitions must be filed with
DOE no later than 60 days before the end of the 180-day period and must
detail how the manufacturer will experience undue hardship. (Id.)
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires
agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify
its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs
of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this final regulatory action is
consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this final regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.
ABB requested that DOE have OMB conduct a study of the economic
impact of this rulemaking. They stated that based on the information
provided it
[[Page 63642]]
appears that the small gain in efficiency the rule is intended to
capture would result in inordinate expense and economic disruption to
all affected motor manufacturers and OEMs in terms of product redesign.
(ABB, No. 18 at p. 2) As previously stated, this final rule only
establishes test procedures and does not establish energy conservation
standards. Therefore, this rule would not necessitate any redesign of
any of the equipment addressed by this final rule.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, and a
final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such rule that an
agency adopts as a final rule, unless the agency certifies that the
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order
13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,''
67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on
small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking
process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available
on the Office of the General Counsel's website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
The following sections detail DOE's FRFA for this test procedure
final rule.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
DOE is amending the existing DOE test procedures for electric
motors. EPCA, pursuant to amendments made by the Energy Policy Act of
1992, Public Law 102-486 (Oct. 24, 1992), specifies that the test
procedures for electric motors subject to standards are those specified
in National Electrical Manufacturers Association (``NEMA'') Standards
Publication MG1-1987 and Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (``IEEE'') Standard 112 Test Method B, as in effect on
October 24, 1992. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A)). DOE must amend its test
procedures to conform to such amended test procedure requirements,
unless DOE determines by rule, published in the Federal Register and
supported by clear and convincing evidence, that to do so would not
meet the statutory requirements related to the test procedure
representativeness and burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including electric
motors, to determine whether amended test procedures would more
accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test
procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy
use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use
cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)).
DOE is publishing this final rule in satisfaction of the
requirements specified in EPCA.
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
As noted previously, DOE is publishing this final rule in
satisfaction of the requirements specified in EPCA that DOE amend the
test procedure for electric motors whenever the relevant industry
standards are amended, but at minimum every 7 years, to ensure that the
DOE test procedure produces test results which reflect energy
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of a type of
industrial equipment (or class thereof) during a representative average
use cycle. 42 U.S.C. 6314(a).
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of electric motors, the Small Business
Administration (``SBA'') has set a size threshold, which defines those
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the
statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the
rule. See 13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by North
American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') code and industry
description available at: www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards. Electric motor manufacturing is classified under NAICS code
335312, ``motor and generator manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold
of 1,250 employees or less for an entity to be considered as a small
business for this category.
In this final rule, DOE revises the current scope of the test
procedures to add additional electric motors and subsequent updates
needed for supporting definitions and metric requirements as a result
of this expanded scope; incorporates by reference the most recent
versions of the referenced industry standards; incorporates by
reference additional industry standards used to test newly covered
electric motors; clarifies the scope and test instructions by adding
definitions for specific terms; revises the current vertical motor
testing instructions to reduce manufacturer test burden; revises the
provisions pertaining to certification testing and determination of
represented values; and adds provisions pertaining to certification
testing and determination of represented values for DPPP motors.
As previously stated in section III.Q.1 of this document, DOE
estimates that some electric motor manufacturers would experience a
cost savings from the test procedure amendment regarding the update to
the testing requirements for vertical motors with hollow shafts.
Additionally, this test procedure expands the scope of covered electric
motors and establishes certification, sampling plan, and AEDM
provisions for DPPP motors.
While manufacturers making these expanded scope electric motors and
DPPP motors would not be required to test according to the DOE test
procedure until energy efficiency standards were established, if
manufacturers voluntarily make representations regarding the energy
consumption or cost of energy of such electric motors, they would be
required to test according to the DOE test procedure. DOE identified up
to 12 potential small businesses manufacturing these expanded scope
electric motors or DPPP motors. DOE estimates that all other test
procedure amendments would not result in any electric motor
manufacturer, large or small, to incur any additional costs due to the
test procedure amendments in this final rule.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
DOE estimated the per unit testing cost for these expanded scope
electric motors and DPPP motors in section III.Q.1. of this document.
These estimated per unit testing costs are presented in Table IV.1.
[[Page 63643]]
Table IV.1--Electric Motor Per Unit Test Cost Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tested at in- Tested at third-
house facility party facility
Industry standard -------------------------------------
(per unit test (per unit test
cost) cost)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSA C747-09....................... $587 $2,210
IEC 61800-9-2:2017................ 750 3,210
Section 34.4 of NEMA Air-over 631 2,210
Motor Efficiency Test Method.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is unable to estimate the number of electric motor models that
small business manufacturers would decide to make voluntary
representations about the efficiency of their electric motors.
Therefore, DOE is unable to estimate the total cost each small business
would incur to test their electric motors in accordance with the DOE
test procedure.
Due to the uncertainty of the potential costs to small businesses,
DOE is not able to conclude that the impacts of the test procedure
amendments included in this final rule would not have a ``significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.''
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered today.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
As previously stated in this section, DOE is required to review
existing DOE test procedures for all covered equipment every 7 years.
Additionally, DOE shall amend test procedures with respect to any
covered equipment, if the Secretary determines that amended test
procedures would more accurately produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a
covered equipment during a representative average use cycle or period
of use. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) DOE has determined that the test
procedure would more accurately produce test results to measure the
energy efficiency of electric motors.
DOE has determined that there are no better alternatives than the
amended test procedures in terms of meeting the agency's objectives to
more accurately measure energy efficiency and reducing burden on
manufacturers. Therefore, DOE is amending the existing DOE test
procedure for electric motors in this final rule.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally,
section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C.
7194, provides authority for the Secretary to adjust a rule issued
under EPCA in order to prevent ``special hardship, inequity, or unfair
distribution of burdens'' that may be imposed on that manufacturer as a
result of such rule. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430,
subpart E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.
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. To
certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their
products according to the DOE test procedures, 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.
(See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'').
DOE's current reporting requirements have been approved by OMB under
OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the
certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, including
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, certifying compliance, 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.
1. Description of the Requirements
In this final rule, DOE is requiring that within one year of
publication of any final rule updating or amending DOE's electric
motors regulations, all nationally recognized certification programs
must reassess the evaluation criteria necessary for a certification
program to be classified by DOE as nationally recognized and either
submit a letter to DOE certifying that no change to their program is
needed, or submit a letter describing the measures implemented to
ensure the evaluation criteria in amended 10 CFR 429.73(b) are met. DOE
is revising the collection of information approval under OMB Control
Number 1910-1400 to account for the paperwork burden associated with
submitting this letter, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
2. Method of Collection
DOE is requiring that nationally recognized certification programs
must submit a letter within one year after any final rule is published
updating or amending DOE's electric motor regulations.
3. Data
There are three nationally recognized certification programs for
electric motors. DOE estimated that drafting and submitting a letter to
DOE certifying that no change to their program is needed or drafting
and submitting a letter describing the measures implemented to ensure
the criteria in amended 10 CFR 429.73(b) are met would require
approximately 10 hours for each nationally recognized certification
program. Therefore, DOE estimated that the three nationally recognized
certification programs would spend approximately 30 hours to draft and
submit these letters to DOE. DOE's February 2021 ``Supporting Statement
for Certification Reports, Compliance Statements, Application for a
Test Procedure Waiver, and Recording
[[Page 63644]]
keeping for Consumer Products and Commercial Equipment Subject to
Energy or Water Conservation Standards'' estimated a fully loaded
(burdened) average wage rate of $67 per hour for manufacturer reporting
and recordkeeping.\93\ (86 FR 9916). DOE used this wage rate to
estimate the burden on the certification programs. Therefore, DOE
estimates that the total burden to the industry is approximately
$2,010.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202102-1910-002.
\94\ 3 certification programs x 10 hours x $67 = $2,010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Control Number: 1910-1400.
Form Number: DOE F 220.7.
Type of Review: Regular submission.
Affected Public: Nationally recognized certification programs.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 3.
Estimated Time per Response: 10 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 30 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Manufacturers: $2,010 in
recordkeeping/reporting costs.
4. Conclusion
DOE has determined that the cost of these amendments would not
impose a material burden on nationally recognized certification
programs. It is the responsibility of nationally recognized
certification programs to have a complete understanding of applicable
regulations for electric motors given their role as a certification
body, and accordingly, DOE has concluded that the anticipated cost of
$670 per program to submit a letter upon finalization of any updated or
amended electric motors regulations is a reasonable burden for such a
program.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE establishes test procedure amendments that
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy
conservation standards for electric motors. DOE has determined that
this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded
from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part
1021. Specifically, DOE has determined that adopting test procedures
for measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and industrial
equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR part 1021,
appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
AHAM and AHRI stated that the compliance deadlines proposed in the
NOPR will produce significant environmental impact and warrant review
under NEPA. They stated that manufacturers that make voluntary
representations about motor efficiency will be required to certify 180
days after the final rule, and there will not be capacity at third-
party test labs to do this certification in time, so manufacturers will
be forced to remove this efficiency information from marketing
materials. They stated that this removal of efficiency information will
cause purchasers to gravitate towards cheaper, and likely less
efficient, products, which will lead to increased energy consumption
and the environmental impacts associated with such. (AHAM and AHRI, No.
36 at pp. 14-15). In this final rule, DOE is adopting the industry
standards similar to what was proposed in the NOPR. In addition, as
discussed in section III.M.1 of this document, DOE does not adopt the
proposal to replace the requirement to test at an accredited laboratory
by testing in an independent testing program. Instead, DOE retains the
use of accredited laboratory as currently described at 10 CFR
431.17(5).
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 regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of this 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 Law 104-4, 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
[[Page 63645]]
UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to
permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate,''
and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for
timely input to potentially affected small governments before
establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement
of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA.
62 FR 12820; also available at www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this 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 that may affect family well-being.
This 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). Pursuant
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which
are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this 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.
This 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 to the test procedure for electric motors adopted
in this final rule incorporates testing methods contained in certain
sections of the following commercial standards: CSA C390-10; IEC 60034-
12:2016; IEC 60079-7:2015; IEC 61800-9-2:2017; NEMA MG 1-2016; and NFPA
20-2022. DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude
whether it fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the
FEAA (i.e., whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides
for public participation, comment, and review.) 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 this 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. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
The following standards were previously approved for incorporation
by reference in the section where they appear and no changes are
required: IEC 60034-1 (select provisions in section 4), IEC 60034-
1:2010, IEC 60034-2-1:2014, IEC 60050-411, IEC 60051-1:2016, IEEE 112-
2017, and NEMA MG1-1967.
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the test
standards published by CSA, IEC, IEEE, NEMA and NFPA.
CSA C390-10 specifies test methods, marking requirements, and
energy efficiency levels for three-phase induction motors.
CSA C747-09 specifies test methods for single-phase electric motors
and polyphase electric motors below 1 hp.
IEC 60034-12:2016 specifies the parameters for eight designs (IEC
Design N, Design NE, Design NY, Design NEY, IEC Design H, Design HE,
Design HY, Design HEY) of starting performance of single-speed three-
phase 50 Hz or 60 Hz cage induction motors.
IEC 60072-1 (clauses 2, 3, 4.1, 6.1, 7, and 10, and Tables 1, 2 and
4) specifies the IEC-metric equivalent frame size.
IEC 60079-7:2015 is referenced within IEC 60034-12:2016 and
specifies the requirements for the design, construction, testing and
marking of electrical equipment and Ex Components with type of
protection
[[Page 63646]]
increased safety ``e'' intended for use in explosive gas atmospheres.
IEC 61800-9-2:2017 specifies test methods for inverter-fed electric
motors that include an inverter.
IEEE 114-2010 specifies test methods for single-phase electric
motors.
NEMA MG 1-2016 provides test methods to determine motor efficiency
and losses, including for air-over electric motors, and establishes
several industry definitions.
NFPA 20-2022 provides specifications for fire-pump motors.
Copies of these standards can be obtained from the organizations
directly at the following addresses:
Canadian Standards Association, Sales Department, 5060
Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1-800-
463-6727, or by visiting www.shopcsa.ca/onlinestore/welcome.asp.
International Electrotechnical Commission, 3 rue de
Varemb[eacute], 1st Floor, P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 Geneva 20-Switzerland,
+41 22 919 02 11, or by visiting https://webstore.iec.ch/home.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 445
Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, (732) 981-0060, or
by visiting www.ieee.org.
NEMA, 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 900, Arlington,
Virginia 22209, +1 (703) 841 3200, or by visiting www.nema.org.
National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park,
Quincy, MA 02169, +1 800 344 3555, or by visiting www.nfpa.org.
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Small businesses.
10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by
reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 3,
2022, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on October 4, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and
431 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth
below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Revise Sec. 429.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 429.1 Purpose and scope.
This part sets forth the procedures for certification,
determination and enforcement of compliance of covered products and
covered equipment with the applicable energy conservation standards set
forth in parts 430 and 431 of this subchapter.
0
3. Amend Sec. 429.2 by revising paragraph (a) and adding in
alphabetical order to paragraph (b) a definition for ``Independent'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 429.2 Definitions.
(a) The definitions found in 10 CFR parts 430 and 431 apply for
purposes of this part.
(b) * * *
Independent means, in the context of a nationally recognized
certification program, or accreditation program for electric motors, an
entity that is not controlled by, or under common control with,
electric motor manufacturers, importers, private labelers, or vendors,
and that has no affiliation, financial ties, or contractual agreements,
apparently or otherwise, with such entities that would:
(i) Hinder the ability of the program to evaluate fully or report
the measured or calculated energy efficiency of any electric motor, or
(ii) Create any potential or actual conflict of interest that would
undermine the validity of said evaluation. For purposes of this
definition, financial ties or contractual agreements between an
electric motor manufacturer, importer, private labeler or vendor and a
nationally recognized certification program, or accreditation program
exclusively for certification or accreditation services does not negate
an otherwise independent relationship.
* * * * *
0
4. Add Sec. 429.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 429.3 Sources for information and guidance.
(a) General. The standards listed in this paragraph are referred to
in Sec. Sec. 429.73 and 429.74 and are not incorporated by reference.
These sources are provided here for information and guidance only.
(b) ISO/IEC. International Organization for Standardization (ISO),
1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland/
International Electrotechnical Commission, 3, rue de Varemb[eacute],
P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.
(1) International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), (``ISO/IEC'') 17025,
``General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing
laboratories,'' November 2017.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) NVLAP. National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, M/S
2140, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140, 301-975-4016, or go to www.nist.gov/nvlap/. Also see https://www.nist.gov/nvlap/nvlap-handbooks.cfm.
(1) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook
150, ``NVLAP Procedures and General Requirements,'' 2000 edition,
August 2020.
(2) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook
150-10, ``Efficiency of Electric Motors,'' 2020 edition, April 2020.
0
5. Revise Sec. 429.11 to read as follows:
Sec. 429.11 General sampling requirements for selecting units to be
tested.
(a) When testing of covered products or covered equipment is
required to comply with section 323(c) of the Act, or to comply with
rules prescribed under sections 324, 325, 342, 344, 345
[[Page 63647]]
or 346 of the Act, a sample comprised of production units (or units
representative of production units) of the basic model being tested
must be selected at random and tested and must meet the criteria found
in Sec. Sec. 429.14 through 429.65. Components of similar design may
be substituted without additional testing if the substitution does not
affect energy or water consumption. Any represented values of measures
of energy efficiency, water efficiency, energy consumption, or water
consumption for all individual models represented by a given basic
model must be the same, except for central air conditioners and central
air conditioning heat pumps, as specified in Sec. 429.16; and
(b) The minimum number of units tested shall be no less than two,
except where:
(1) A different minimum limit is specified in Sec. Sec. 429.14
through 429.65; or
(2) Only one unit of the basic model is produced, in which case,
that unit must be tested and the test results must demonstrate that the
basic model performs at or better than the applicable standard(s). If
one or more units of the basic model are manufactured subsequently,
compliance with the default sampling and representations provisions is
required.
0
6. Add Sec. 429.64 to read as follows:
Sec. 429.64 Electric motors.
(a) Applicability. When a party determines the energy efficiency of
an electric motor in order to comply with an obligation imposed on it
by or pursuant to Part C of Title III of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311-6316,
this section applies. This section does not apply to enforcement
testing conducted pursuant to Sec. 431.383 of this subchapter. This
section applies to electric motors that are subject to requirements in
subpart B of part 431 of this subchapter and does not apply to
dedicated-purpose pool pump motors subject to requirements in subpart Z
of part 431.
(1) Prior to the date described in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, manufacturers of electric motors subject to energy
conservation standards in subpart B of part 431 must make
representations of energy efficiency, including representations for
certification of compliance, in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c)
of this section.
(2) On and after the compliance date for any new or amended
standards for electric motors published after January 1, 2021,
manufacturers of electric motors subject to energy conservation
standards in subpart B of part 431 of this subchapter must make
representations of energy efficiency, including representations for
certification of compliance, in accordance with paragraphs (d) through
(f) of this section.
(3) On or after April 17, 2023, manufacturers of electric motors
subject to the test procedures in appendix B of subpart B of part 431
but are subject to the energy conservation standards in subpart B of
part 431 of this subchapter, must, if they chose to voluntarily make
representations of energy efficiency, follow the provisions in
paragraph (e) of this section.
(b) Compliance certification--(1) General requirements. The
represented value of nominal full-load efficiency of each basic model
of electric motor must be determined either by testing in accordance
with Sec. 431.16 of this subchapter, or by application of an
alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) that meets the
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) Alternative efficiency determination method. In lieu of
testing, the represented value of nominal full-load efficiency for a
basic model of electric motor must be determined through the
application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 429.70(j)
and the provisions of this paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) of this
section, where:
(i) The average full-load efficiency of any basic model used to
validate an AEDM must be calculated under paragraph (c) of this
section.
(ii) The represented value is the nominal full-load efficiency of a
basic model of electric motor and is to be used in marketing materials
and all public representations, as the certified value of efficiency,
and on the nameplate. (See Sec. 431.31(a) of this subchapter.)
Determine the nominal full-load efficiency by selecting a value from
the ``Nominal Full-Load Efficiency'' table in appendix B to subpart B
of this part that is no greater than the simulated full-load efficiency
predicted by the AEDM for the basic model.
(3) Use of a certification program or accredited laboratory. (i) A
manufacturer may have a certification program, that DOE has classified
as nationally recognized under Sec. 429.73, certify the nominal full-
load efficiency of a basic model of electric motor, and issue a
certificate of conformity for the motor.
(ii) For each basic model for which a certification program is not
used as described in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, any testing
of the motor pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section to
determine its energy efficiency must be carried out in an accredited
laboratory that meets the requirements of Sec. 431.18 of this
subchapter;
(c) Additional testing requirements applicable when a certification
program is not used--(1) Selection of units for testing. For each basic
model selected for testing, a sample of units shall be selected at
random and tested. Components of similar design may be substituted
without requiring additional testing if the represented measures of
energy consumption continue to satisfy the applicable sampling
provision.
(2) Sampling requirements. The sample shall be comprised of
production units of the basic model, or units that are representative
of such production units. The sample size shall be not fewer than five
units, except that when fewer than five units of a basic model would be
produced over a reasonable period of time (approximately 180 days),
then each unit shall be tested. In a test of compliance with a
represented average or nominal efficiency:
(i) The average full-load efficiency of the sample, which is
defined by:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC22.000
where xi is the measured full-load efficiency of unit i
and n is the number of units tested, shall satisfy the condition:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC22.001
where RE is the represented nominal full-load efficiency, and
(ii) The lowest full-load efficiency in the sample xmin,
which is defined by:
xmin = min (xi)
shall satisfy the condition:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC22.002
(d) Compliance certification. A manufacturer may not certify the
compliance of an electric motor pursuant to Sec. 429.12 unless:
(1) Testing of the electric motor basic model was conducted using
an accredited laboratory that meets the requirements of paragraph (f)
of this section;
(2) Testing was conducted using a laboratory other than an
accredited laboratory that meets the requirements of paragraph (f) of
this section, or the
[[Page 63648]]
nominal full-load efficiency of the electric motor basic model was
determined through the application of an AEDM pursuant to the
requirements of Sec. 429.70(j), and a third-party certification
organization that is nationally recognized in the United States under
Sec. 429.73 has certified the nominal full-load efficiency of the
electric motor basic model through issuance of a certificate of
conformity for the basic model.
(e) Determination of represented value. A manufacturer must
determine the represented value of nominal full-load efficiency
(inclusive of the inverter for inverter-only electric motors) for each
basic model of electric motor either by testing in conjunction with the
applicable sampling provisions or by applying an AEDM as set forth in
this section and in Sec. 429.70(j).
(1) Testing--(i) Units to be tested. If the represented value for a
given basic model is determined through testing, the requirements of
Sec. 429.11 apply except that, for electric motors, the minimum sample
size is five units. If fewer units than the minimum sample size are
produced, each unit produced must be tested and the test results must
demonstrate that the basic model performs at or better than the
applicable standard(s). If one or more units of the basic model are
manufactured subsequently, compliance with the default sampling and
representations provisions is required.
(ii) Average Full-load Efficiency: Determine the average full-load
efficiency for the basic model x, for the units in the sample as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC22.003
Where xi is the measured full-load efficiency of unit i
and n is the number of units tested.
(iii) Represented value. The represented value is the nominal full-
load efficiency of a basic model of electric motor and is to be used in
marketing materials and all public representations, as the certified
value of efficiency, and on the nameplate. (See Sec. 431.31(a) of this
subchapter.) Determine the nominal full-load efficiency by selecting an
efficiency from the ``Nominal Full-load Efficiency'' table in appendix
B that is no greater than the average full-load efficiency of the basic
model as calculated in Sec. 429.64(e)(1)(ii).
(iv) Minimum full-load efficiency: To ensure a high level of
quality control and consistency of performance within the basic model,
the lowest full-load efficiency in the sample Xmin, must
satisfy the condition:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC22.004
where Std is the value of the applicable energy conservation
standard. If the lowest measured full-load efficiency of a unit in the
tested sample does not satisfy the condition in this section, then the
basic model cannot be certified as compliant with the applicable
standard.
(2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of
testing, the represented value of nominal full-load efficiency for a
basic model of electric motor must be determined through the
application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 429.70(j)
and the provisions of this section, where:
(i) The average full-load efficiency of any basic model used to
validate an AEDM must be calculated under paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this
section; and
(ii) The represented value is the nominal full-load efficiency of a
basic model of electric motor and is to be used in marketing materials
and all public representations, as the certified value of efficiency,
and on the nameplate. (See Sec. 431.31(a) of this subchapter)
Determine the nominal full-load efficiency by selecting a value from
the ``Nominal Full-Load Efficiency'' table in appendix B to subpart B
of this part, that is no greater than the simulated full-load
efficiency predicted by the AEDM for the basic model.
(f) Accredited laboratory. (1) Testing pursuant to paragraphs
(b)(3)(ii) and (d)(1) of this section must be conducted in an
accredited laboratory for which the accreditation body was:
(i) The National Institute of Standards and Technology/National
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NIST/NVLAP); or
(ii) A laboratory accreditation body having a mutual recognition
arrangement with NIST/NVLAP; or
(iii) An organization classified by the Department, pursuant to
Sec. 429.74, as an accreditation body.
(2) NIST/NVLAP is under the auspices of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)/National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NVLAP), which is part of the U.S. Department of
Commerce. NIST/NVLAP accreditation is granted on the basis of
conformance with criteria published in 15 CFR part 285. The National
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, ``Procedures and General
Requirements,'' NIST Handbook 150-10, April 2020 (referenced for
guidance only, see Sec. 429.3) present the technical requirements of
NVLAP for the Efficiency of Electric Motors field of accreditation.
This handbook supplements NIST Handbook 150, National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program ``Procedures and General
Requirements,'' which contains 15 CFR part 285 plus all general NIST/
NVLAP procedures, criteria, and policies. Information regarding NIST/
NVLAP and its Efficiency of Electric Motors Program (EEM) can be
obtained from NIST/NVLAP, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2140,
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140, (301) 975-4016 (telephone), or (301) 926-
2884 (fax).
0
7. Add Sec. 429.65 to read as follows:
Sec. 429.65 Dedicated-purpose pool pump motors.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to dedicated purpose motors
that are subject to requirements in subpart Z of part 431 of this
subchapter. Starting on the compliance date for any standards for
dedicated-purpose pool pump motors published after January 1, 2021,
manufacturers of dedicated-purpose pool pump motors subject to such
standards must make representations of energy efficiency, including
representations for certification of compliance, in accordance with
this section. Prior to the compliance date for any standards for
dedicated-purpose pool pump motors published after January 1, 2021, and
on or after April 17, 2023, manufacturers of dedicated-purpose pool
pump motors subject to test procedures in subpart Z of part 431 of this
subchapter choosing to make representations of energy efficiency must
follow the provisions in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Compliance certification. A manufacturer may not certify the
compliance of a dedicated-purpose pool pump motor pursuant to 10 CFR
429.12 unless:
(1) Testing of the dedicated-purpose pool pump motor basic model
was conducted using an accredited laboratory that meets the
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section;
(2) Testing was conducted using a laboratory other than an
accredited laboratory that meets the requirements of paragraph (d) of
this section, or the full-load efficiency of the dedicated-purpose pool
pump motor basic model was determined through the application of an
AEDM pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 429.70(k), and a third-party
certification organization that is nationally recognized in the United
States under Sec. 429.73 has certified the full-load efficiency of the
dedicated-
[[Page 63649]]
purpose pool pump motor basic model through issuance of a certificate
of conformity for the basic model.
(c) Determination of represented value. A manufacturer must
determine the represented value of full-load efficiency (inclusive of
the drive, if the dedicated-purpose pool pump motor basic model is
placed into commerce with a drive, or is unable to operate without the
presence of a drive) for each basic model of dedicated-purpose pool
pump motor either by testing in conjunction with the applicable
sampling provisions or by applying an AEDM as set forth in this section
and in Sec. 429.70(k).
(1) Testing--(i) Units to be tested. If the represented value for a
given basic model is determined through testing, the requirements of
Sec. 429.11 apply except that, for dedicated-purpose pool pump motors,
the minimum sample size is five units. If fewer units than the minimum
sample size are produced, each unit produced must be tested and the
test results must demonstrate that the basic model performs at or
better than the applicable standard(s). If one or more units of the
basic model are manufactured subsequently, compliance with the default
sampling and representations provisions is required.
(ii) Full-load efficiency. Any value of full-load efficiency must
be lower than or equal to the average of the sample x, calculated as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC22.005
Where xi is the measured full-load efficiency of unit i
and n is the number of units tested in the sample.
(iii) Represented value. The represented value is the full-load
efficiency of a basic model of dedicated-purpose pool pump motor and is
to be used in marketing materials and all public representations, as
the certified value of efficiency, and on the nameplate. (See Sec.
431.486 of this subchapter). Alternatively, a manufacturer may make
representations using the nominal full-load efficiency of a basic model
of dedicated-purpose pool pump motor provided that the manufacturer
uses the nominal full-load efficiency consistently on all marketing
materials, and as the value on the nameplate. Determine the nominal
full-load efficiency by selecting an efficiency from the ``Nominal
Full-load Efficiency'' table in appendix B to subpart B of this part,
that is no greater than the full-load efficiency of the basic model as
calculated in Sec. 429.65(c)(1)(ii).
(iv) Minimum full-load efficiency: To ensure quality control and
consistency of performance within the basic model, the lowest full-load
efficiency in the sample Xmin, must satisfy the condition:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC22.006
where Std is the value of any applicable energy conservation
standard. If the lowest measured full-load efficiency of a motor in the
tested sample does not satisfy the condition in this section, then the
basic model cannot be certified as compliant with the applicable
standard.
(v) Dedicated-purpose pool pump motor total horsepower. The
represented value of the total horsepower of a basic model of
dedicated-purpose pool pump motor must be the mean of the dedicated-
purpose pool pump motor total horsepower for each tested unit in the
sample.
(2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of
testing, the represented value of full-load efficiency for a basic
model of dedicated-purpose pool pump motor must be determined through
the application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of Sec.
429.70(k) and the provisions of this section, where:
(i) The full-load efficiency of any basic model used to validate an
AEDM must be calculated under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section; and
(ii) The represented value is the full-load efficiency of a basic
model of dedicated-purpose pool pump motor and is to be used in
marketing materials and all public representations, as the certified
value of efficiency, and on the nameplate. (See Sec. 431.485 of this
subchapter). Alternatively, a manufacturer may make representations
using the nominal full-load efficiency of a basic model of dedicated-
purpose pool pump motor provided that the manufacturer uses the nominal
full-load efficiency consistently on all marketing materials, and as
the value on the nameplate. Determine the nominal full-load efficiency
by selecting an efficiency from the ``Nominal Full-load Efficiency''
table in appendix B to subpart B of this part, that is no greater than
the full-load efficiency of the basic model as calculated in Sec.
429.65(c)(1)(ii).
(d) Accredited laboratory. (1) Testing pursuant to paragraph (b) of
this section must be conducted in an accredited laboratory for which
the accreditation body was:
(i) The National Institute of Standards and Technology/National
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NIST/NVLAP); or
(ii) A laboratory accreditation body having a mutual recognition
arrangement with NIST/NVLAP; or
(iii) An organization classified by the Department, pursuant to
Sec. 429.74, as an accreditation body.
(2) NIST/NVLAP is under the auspices of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)/National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NVLAP), which is part of the U.S. Department of
Commerce. NIST/NVLAP accreditation is granted on the basis of
conformance with criteria published in 15 CFR part 285. The National
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, ``Procedures and General
Requirements,'' NIST Handbook 150-10, April 2020, (referenced for
guidance only, see Sec. 429.3) present the technical requirements of
NVLAP for the Efficiency of Electric Motors field of accreditation.
This handbook supplements NIST Handbook 150, National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program ``Procedures and General
Requirements,'' which contains 15 CFR part 285 plus all general NIST/
NVLAP procedures, criteria, and policies. Information regarding NIST/
NVLAP and its Efficiency of Electric Motors Program (EEM) can be
obtained from NIST/NVLAP, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2140,
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140, (301) 975-4016 (telephone), or (301) 926-
2884 (fax).
0
8. Amend Sec. 429.70 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs
(j) and (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.70 Alternative methods for determining energy efficiency and
energy use.
(a) General. A manufacturer of covered products or covered
equipment explicitly authorized to use an AEDM in Sec. Sec. 429.14
through 429.65 may not distribute any basic model of such product or
equipment in commerce unless the manufacturer has determined the energy
consumption or energy efficiency of the basic model, either from
testing the basic model in conjunction with DOE's certification
sampling plans and statistics or from applying an alternative method
for determining energy efficiency or energy use (i.e., AEDM) to the
basic model, in accordance with the requirements of this section. In
instances where a manufacturer has tested a basic model to validate the
AEDM, the represented value of energy consumption or efficiency of that
basic model must be determined and certified according to results from
actual testing in conjunction with 10 CFR part 429,
[[Page 63650]]
subpart B certification sampling plans and statistics. In addition, a
manufacturer may not knowingly use an AEDM to overrate the efficiency
of a basic model.
* * * * *
(j) Alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) for electric
motors subject to requirements in subpart B of part 431 of this
subchapter--(1) Criteria an AEDM must satisfy. A manufacturer is not
permitted to apply an AEDM to a basic model of electric motor to
determine its efficiency pursuant to this section unless:
(i) The AEDM is derived from a mathematical model that estimates
the energy efficiency characteristics and losses of the basic model as
measured by the applicable DOE test procedure and accurately represents
the mechanical and electrical characteristics of that basic model; and
(ii) The AEDM is based on engineering or statistical analysis,
computer simulation or modeling, or other analytic evaluation of actual
performance data.
(iii) The manufacturer has validated the AEDM in accordance with
paragraph (i)(2) of this section with basic models that meet the
current Federal energy conservation standards (if any).
(2) Validation of an AEDM. Before using an AEDM, the manufacturer
must validate the AEDM's accuracy and reliability by comparing the
simulated full-load losses to tested average full-load losses as
follows.
(i) Select basic models. A manufacturer must select at least five
basic models compliant with the energy conservation standards at Sec.
431.25 of this subchapter (if any), in accordance with the criteria
paragraphs (i)(2)(i)(A) through (D) of this section. In any instance
where it is impossible for a manufacturer to select basic models for
testing in accordance with all of these criteria, prioritize the
criteria in the order in which they are listed. Within the limits
imposed by the criteria, select basic models randomly. In addition, a
basic model with a sample size of fewer than five units may not be
selected to validate an AEDM.
(A) Two of the basic models must be among the five basic models
with the highest unit volumes of production by the manufacturer in the
prior 5 years;
(B) No two basic models may have the same horsepower rating;
(C) No two basic models may have the same frame number series; and
(D) Each basic model must have the lowest nominal full-load
efficiency among the basic models within the same equipment class.
(ii) Apply the AEDM to the selected basic models. Using the AEDM,
calculate the simulated full-load losses for each of the selected basic
models as follows: hp x (1/simulated full-load efficiency-1), where hp
is the horsepower of the basic model.
(iii) Test at least five units of each of the selected basic models
in accordance with Sec. 431.16 of this subchapter. Use the measured
full-load losses for each of the tested units to determine the average
of the measured full-load losses for each of the selected basic models.
(iv) Compare. The simulated full-load losses for each basic model
(as determined under paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this section) must be
greater than or equal to 90 percent of the average of the measured
full-load losses (as determined under paragraph (i)(2)(iii) of this
section) (i.e., 0.90 x average of the measured full-load losses <=
simulated full-load losses).
(3) Verification of an AEDM. (i) Each manufacturer must
periodically select basic models representative of those to which it
has applied an AEDM. The manufacturer must select a sufficient number
of basic models to ensure the AEDM maintains its accuracy and
reliability. For each basic model selected for verification:
(A) Subject at least one unit for each basic model to test in
accordance with Sec. 431.16 of this subchapter by an accredited
laboratory that meets the requirements of Sec. 429.65(f). If one unit
per basic model is selected, the simulated full-load losses for each
basic model must be greater than or equal to 90 percent of the measured
full-load losses (i.e., 0.90 x the measured full-load losses <=
simulated full-load losses). If more than one unit per basic model is
selected, the simulated full-load losses for each basic model must be
greater than or equal to 90 percent of the average of the measured
full-load losses (i.e., 0.90 x average of the measured full-load losses
<= simulated full-load losses); or
(B) Have a certification body recognized under Sec. 429.73 certify
the results of the AEDM as accurately representing the basic model's
average full-load efficiency. The simulated full-load efficiency for
each basic model must be greater than or equal to 90 percent of the
certified full-load losses (i.e., 0.90 x certified full-load losses <=
simulated full-load losses).
(ii) Each manufacturer that has used an AEDM under this section
must have available for inspection by the Department of Energy records
showing:
(A) The method or methods used to develop the AEDM;
(B) The mathematical model, the engineering or statistical
analysis, computer simulation or modeling, and other analytic
evaluation of performance data on which the AEDM is based;
(C) Complete test data, product information, and related
information that the manufacturer has generated or acquired pursuant to
paragraphs (i)(2) and (3) of this section; and
(D) The calculations used to determine the simulated full-load
efficiency of each basic model to which the AEDM was applied.
(iii) If requested by the Department, the manufacturer must:
(A) Conduct simulations to predict the performance of particular
basic models of electric motors specified by the Department;
(B) Provide analyses of previous simulations conducted by the
manufacturer; and/or
(C) Conduct testing of basic models selected by the Department.
(k) Alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) for
dedicated-purpose pool pump motors subject to requirements in subpart Z
of part 431 of this subchapter--(1) Criteria an AEDM must satisfy. A
manufacturer is not permitted to apply an AEDM to a basic model of
dedicated-purpose pool pump motors, to determine its efficiency
pursuant to this section unless:
(i) The AEDM is derived from a mathematical model that estimates
the energy efficiency characteristics and losses of the basic model as
measured by the applicable DOE test procedure and accurately represents
the mechanical and electrical characteristics of that basic model;
(ii) The AEDM is based on engineering or statistical analysis,
computer simulation or modeling, or other analytic evaluation of actual
performance data; and
(iii) The manufacturer has validated the AEDM in accordance with
paragraph (i)(2) of this section with basic models that meet the
current Federal energy conservation standards (if any).
(2) Validation of an AEDM. Before using an AEDM, the manufacturer
must validate the AEDM's accuracy and reliability by comparing the
simulated full-load losses to tested full-load losses as follows:
(i) Select basic models. A manufacturer must select at least five
basic models compliant with any relevant energy conservation standards
at Sec. 431.485 of this subchapter (if any), in accordance with the
criteria paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(A) through (D) of this section. In any
instance where it is
[[Page 63651]]
impossible for a manufacturer to select basic models for testing in
accordance with all of these criteria, prioritize the criteria in the
order in which they are listed. Within the limits imposed by the
criteria, select basic models randomly. In addition, a basic model with
a sample size of fewer than five units may not be selected to validate
an AEDM.
(A) Two of the basic models must be among the five basic models
with the highest unit volumes of production by the manufacturer in the
prior 5 years.
(B) No two basic models may have the same total horsepower rating;
(C) No two basic models may have the same speed configuration; and
(D) Each basic model must have the lowest full-load efficiency
among the basic models within the same equipment class.
(ii) Apply the AEDM to the selected basic models. Using the AEDM,
calculate the simulated full-load losses for each of the selected basic
models as follows: THP x (1/simulated full-load efficiency-1), where
THP is the total horsepower of the basic model.
(iii) Test at least five units of each of the selected basic models
in accordance with Sec. 431.483 of this subchapter. Use the measured
full-load losses for each of the tested units to determine the average
of the measured full-load losses for each of the selected basic models.
(iv) Compare. The simulated full-load losses for each basic model
(paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this section) must be greater than or equal to
90 percent of the average of the measured full-load losses (paragraph
(i)(2)(iii) of this section) (i.e., 0.90 x average of the measured
full-load losses <= simulated full-load losses).
(3) Verification of an AEDM. (i) Each manufacturer must
periodically select basic models representative of those to which it
has applied an AEDM. The manufacturer must select a sufficient number
of basic models to ensure the AEDM maintains its accuracy and
reliability. For each basic model selected for verification:
(A) Subject at least one unit to testing in accordance with Sec.
431.483 of this subchapter by an accredited laboratory that meets the
requirements of Sec. 429.65(d). If one unit per basic model is
selected, the simulated full-load losses for each basic model must be
greater than or equal to 90 percent of the measured full-load losses
(i.e., 0.90 x the measured full-load losses <= simulated full-load
losses). If more than one unit per basic model is selected, the
simulated full-load losses for each basic model must be greater than or
equal to 90 percent of the average measured full-load losses (i.e.,
0.90 x average of the measured full-load losses <= simulated full-load
losses); or
(B) Have a certification body recognized under Sec. 429.73 certify
the results of the AEDM accurately represent the basic model's full-
load efficiency. The simulated full-load efficiency for each basic
model must be greater than or equal to 90 percent of the certified
full-load losses (i.e., 0.90 x certified full-load losses <= simulated
full-load losses).
(ii) Each manufacturer that has used an AEDM under this section
must have available for inspection by the Department of Energy records
showing:
(A) The method or methods used to develop the AEDM;
(B) The mathematical model, the engineering or statistical
analysis, computer simulation or modeling, and other analytic
evaluation of performance data on which the AEDM is based;
(C) Complete test data, product information, and related
information that the manufacturer has generated or acquired pursuant to
paragraphs (i)(2) and (3) of this section; and
(D) The calculations used to determine the simulated full-load
efficiency of each basic model to which the AEDM was applied.
(iii) If requested by the Department, the manufacturer must:
(A) Conduct simulations to predict the performance of particular
basic models of dedicated-purpose pool pump motors specified by the
Department;
(B) Provide analyses of previous simulations conducted by the
manufacturer;
(C) Conduct testing of basic models selected by the Department; or
(D) A combination of the foregoing.
0
9. Add Sec. 429.73 to subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 429.73 Department of Energy recognition of nationally recognized
certification programs for electric motors, including dedicated-purpose
pool pump motors.
(a) Petition. For a certification program to be classified by the
Department of Energy as being nationally recognized in the United
States for the purposes of Sec. Sec. 429.64 and 429.65, the
organization operating the program must submit a petition to the
Department requesting such classification, in accordance with paragraph
(c) of this section and Sec. 429.75. The petition must demonstrate
that the program meets the criteria in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Evaluation criteria. For a certification program to be
classified by the Department as nationally recognized, it must meet the
following criteria:
(1) It must have satisfactory standards and procedures for
conducting and administering a certification system, including periodic
follow up activities to assure that basic models of electric motors
continue to conform to the efficiency levels for which they were
certified, and for granting a certificate of conformity;
(2) For certification of electric motors, including dedicated-
purpose pool pump motors, it must be independent (as defined at Sec.
429.2) of electric motor (including dedicated-purpose pool pump motor)
manufacturers, importers, distributors, private labelers or vendors for
which it is providing certification;
(3) It must be qualified to operate a certification system in a
highly competent manner; and
(4) In the case of electric motors subject to requirements in
subpart B of part 431 of this subchapter, the certification program
must have expertise in the content and application of the test
procedures at Sec. 431.16 of this subchapter and must apply the
provisions at Sec. Sec. 429.64 and 429.70(j); or
(5) In the case of dedicated-purpose pool pump motors subject to
requirements in subpart Z of part 431 of this subchapter, the
certification program must have expertise in the content and
application of the test procedures at Sec. 431.484 of this subchapter
and must apply the provisions at Sec. Sec. 429.65 and 429.70(k).
(c) Petition format. Each petition requesting classification as a
nationally recognized certification program must contain a narrative
statement as to why the program meets the criteria listed in paragraph
(b) of this section, must be signed on behalf of the organization
operating the program by an authorized representative, and must be
accompanied by documentation that supports the narrative statement. The
following provides additional guidance as to the specific criteria:
(1) Standards and procedures. A copy of the standards and
procedures for operating a certification system and for granting a
certificate of conformity should accompany the petition.
(2) Independent status. The petitioning organization must describe
how it is independent (as defined at Sec. 429.2) from electric motor,
including dedicated-purpose pool pump motor manufacturers, importers,
distributors, private labelers, vendors, and trade associations.
(3) Qualifications to operate a certification system. Experience in
operating a certification system should be described and substantiated
by supporting documents within the petition. Of particular relevance
would
[[Page 63652]]
be documentary evidence that establishes experience in the application
of guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 65, ``General requirements
for bodies operating product certification systems'' (referenced for
guidance only, see Sec. 429.3), ISO/IEC Guide 27, ``Guidelines for
corrective action to be taken by a certification body in the event of
either misapplication of its mark of conformity to a product, or
products which bear the mark of the certification body being found to
subject persons or property to risk'' (referenced for guidance only,
see Sec. 429.3), and ISO/IEC Guide 28, ``General rules for a model
third-party certification system for products'' (referenced for
guidance only, see Sec. 429.3), as well as experience in overseeing
compliance with the guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25,
``General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing
laboratories'' (referenced for guidance only, see Sec. 429.3).
(4) Expertise in test procedures--(i) General. This part of the
petition should include items such as, but not limited to, a
description of prior projects and qualifications of staff members. Of
particular relevance would be documentary evidence that establishes
experience in applying guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25,
``General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration and Testing
Laboratories'' (referenced for guidance only, see Sec. 429.3), and
with energy efficiency testing of the equipment to be certified.
(ii) Electric motors subject to requirements in subpart B of part
431 of this subchapter. The petition should set forth the program's
experience with the test procedures detailed in Sec. 431.16 of this
subchapter and the provisions in Sec. Sec. 429.64 and 429.70(j).
(iii) Dedicated-purpose pool pump motors subject to requirements in
subpart Z of part 431 of this subchapter. The petition should set forth
the program's experience with the test procedures detailed in Sec.
431.484 of this subchapter and the provisions in Sec. Sec. 429.65 and
429.70(k).
(d) Disposition. The Department will evaluate the petition in
accordance with Sec. 429.75, and will determine whether the applicant
meets the criteria in paragraph (b) of this section for classification
as a nationally recognized certification program.
(e) Periodic evaluation. Within one year after publication of any
final rule regarding electric motors, a nationally recognized
certification program must evaluate whether they meet the criteria in
paragraph (b) of this section and must either submit a letter to DOE
certifying that no change to its program is needed to continue to meet
the criteria in paragraph (b) or submit a letter describing the
measures implemented to ensure the criteria in paragraph (b) are met. A
certification program will continue to be classified by the Department
of Energy as being nationally recognized in the United States until DOE
concludes otherwise.
0
10. Add Sec. 429.74 to subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 429.74 Department of Energy recognition of accreditation bodies
for electric motors, including dedicated-purpose pool pump motors.
(a) Petition. To be classified by the Department of Energy as an
accreditation body, an organization must submit a petition to the
Department requesting such classification, in accordance with paragraph
(c) of this section and Sec. 429.75. The petition must demonstrate
that the organization meets the criteria in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) Evaluation criteria. To be classified as an accreditation body
by the Department, the organization must meet the following criteria:
(1) It must have satisfactory standards and procedures for
conducting and administering an accreditation system and for granting
accreditation. This must include provisions for periodic audits to
verify that the laboratories receiving its accreditation continue to
conform to the criteria by which they were initially accredited, and
for withdrawal of accreditation where such conformance does not occur,
including failure to provide accurate test results.
(2) It must be independent (as defined at Sec. 429.2) of electric
motor manufacturers, importers, distributors, private labelers or
vendors for which it is providing accreditation.
(3) It must be qualified to perform the accrediting function in a
highly competent manner.
(4)(i) In the case of electric motors subject to requirements in
subpart B of part 431 of this subchapter, the organization must be an
expert in the content and application of the test procedures and
methodologies at Sec. 431.16 of this subchapter and Sec. 429.64.
(ii) In the case of dedicated-purpose pool pump motors subject to
requirements in subpart Z of part 431 of this subchapter, the
organization must be an expert in the content and application of the
test procedures and methodologies at Sec. 431.484 of this subchapter
and Sec. 429.65.
(c) Petition format. Each petition requesting classification as an
accreditation body must contain a narrative statement as to why the
program meets the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section,
must be signed on behalf of the organization operating the program by
an authorized representative, and must be accompanied by documentation
that supports the narrative statement. The following provides
additional guidance:
(1) Standards and procedures. A copy of the organization's
standards and procedures for operating an accreditation system and for
granting accreditation should accompany the petition.
(2) Independent status. The petitioning organization must describe
how it is independent (as defined at Sec. 429.2) from electric motor
manufacturers, importers, distributors, private labelers, vendors, and
trade associations.
(3) Qualifications to do accrediting. Experience in accrediting
should be discussed and substantiated by supporting documents. Of
particular relevance would be documentary evidence that establishes
experience in the application of guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC
Guide 58, ``Calibration and testing laboratory accreditation systems--
General requirements for operation and recognition'' (referenced for
guidance only, see Sec. 429.3), as well as experience in overseeing
compliance with the guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25,
``General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration and Testing
Laboratories'' (referenced for guidance only, see Sec. 429.3).
(4) Expertise in test procedures. The petition should set forth the
organization's experience with the test procedures and methodologies
test procedures and methodologies at Sec. 431.16 of this subchapter
and Sec. 429.64. This part of the petition should include items such
as, but not limited to, a description of prior projects and
qualifications of staff members. Of particular relevance would be
documentary evidence that establishes experience in applying the
guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25, ``General Requirements
for the Competence of Calibration and Testing Laboratories,''
(referenced for guidance only, see Sec. 429.3) to energy efficiency
testing for electric motors.
(d) Disposition. The Department will evaluate the petition in
accordance with Sec. 429.75, and will determine whether the applicant
meets the criteria in paragraph (b) of this section for classification
as an accrediting body.
0
11. Add Sec. 429.75 to subpart B to read as follows:
[[Page 63653]]
Sec. 429.75 Procedures for recognition and withdrawal of recognition
of accreditation bodies or certification programs.
(a) Filing of petition. Any petition submitted to the Department
pursuant to Sec. 429.73(a) or Sec. 429.74(a), shall be entitled
``Petition for Recognition'' (``Petition'') and must be submitted to
the Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Building Technologies Office, Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121,
or via email (preferred submittal method) to
[email protected]. In accordance with the provisions set
forth in 10 CFR 1004.11, any request for confidential treatment of any
information contained in such a Petition or in supporting documentation
must be accompanied by a copy of the Petition or supporting
documentation from which the information claimed to be confidential has
been deleted.
(b) Public notice and solicitation of comments. DOE shall publish
in the Federal Register the Petition from which confidential
information, as determined by DOE, has been deleted in accordance with
10 CFR 1004.11 and shall solicit comments, data and information on
whether the Petition should be granted. The Department shall also make
available for inspection and copying the Petition's supporting
documentation from which confidential information, as determined by
DOE, has been deleted in accordance with 10 CFR 1004.11. Any person
submitting written comments to DOE with respect to a Petition shall
also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner.
(c) Responsive statement by the petitioner. A petitioner may,
within 10 working days of receipt of a copy of any comments submitted
in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, respond to such
comments in a written statement submitted to the Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. A petitioner may address
more than one set of comments in a single responsive statement.
(d) Public announcement of interim determination and solicitation
of comments. The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy shall issue an interim determination on the Petition
as soon as is practicable following receipt and review of the Petition
and other applicable documents, including, but not limited to, comments
and responses to comments. The petitioner shall be notified in writing
of the interim determination. DOE shall also publish in the Federal
Register the interim determination and shall solicit comments, data,
and information with respect to that interim determination. Written
comments and responsive statements may be submitted as provided in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(e) Public announcement of final determination. The Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy shall as soon as
practicable, following receipt and review of comments and responsive
statements on the interim determination, publish in the Federal
Register notification of final determination on the Petition.
(f) Additional information. The Department may, at any time during
the recognition process, request additional relevant information or
conduct an investigation concerning the Petition. The Department's
determination on a Petition may be based solely on the Petition and
supporting documents, or may also be based on such additional
information as the Department deems appropriate.
(g) Withdrawal of recognition--(1) Withdrawal by the Department. If
DOE believes that an accreditation body or certification program that
has been recognized under Sec. 429.73 or Sec. 429.74, respectively,
is failing to meet the criteria of paragraph (b) of the section under
which it is recognized, or if the certification program fails to meet
the provisions at Sec. 429.73(e), the Department will issue a Notice
of Withdrawal (``Notice'') to inform such entity and request that it
take appropriate corrective action(s) specified in the Notice. The
Department will give the entity an opportunity to respond. In no case
shall the time allowed for corrective action exceed 180 days from the
date of the notice (inclusive of the 30 days allowed for disputing the
bases for DOE's notification of withdrawal). If the entity wishes to
dispute any bases identified in the Notice, the entity must respond to
DOE within 30 days of receipt of the Notice. If after receiving such
response, or no response, the Department believes satisfactory
correction has not been made, the Department will withdraw its
recognition from that entity.
(2) Voluntary withdrawal. An accreditation body or certification
program may withdraw itself from recognition by the Department by
advising the Department in writing of such withdrawal. It must also
advise those that use it (for an accreditation body, the testing
laboratories, and for a certification organization, the manufacturers)
of such withdrawal.
(3) Notice of withdrawal of recognition. The Department will
publish in the Federal Register notification of any withdrawal of
recognition that occurs pursuant to this paragraph.
0
12. Add appendix B to subpart B of part 429 to read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 429--Nominal Full-Load Efficiency Table
for Electric Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99.0........................................ 96.5 88.5 68 36.5
98.9........................................ 96.2 87.5 66 34.5
98.8........................................ 95.8 86.5 64
98.7........................................ 95.4 85.5 62
98.6........................................ 95 84 59.5
98.5........................................ 94.5 82.5 57.5
98.4........................................ 94.1 81.5 55
98.2........................................ 93.6 80 52.5
98.......................................... 93 78.5 50.5
97.8........................................ 92.4 77 48
97.6........................................ 91.7 75.5 46
97.4........................................ 91 74 43.5
97.1........................................ 90.2 72 41
96.8........................................ 89.5 70 38.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63654]]
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
13. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
14. Section 431.12 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the definitions of ``Air-over electric motor'', ``Basic
model'', ``Definite purpose electric motor'', ``Definite purpose
motor'', ``Electric motor with encapsulated windings'', ``Electric
motor with moisture resistant windings'', and ``Electric motor with
sealed windings'';
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Equipment class'';
0
c. Revising the definitions of ``General purpose electric motor'',
``General purpose electric motor (subtype I)'', ``General purpose
electric motor (subtype II)'', and ``IEC Design H motor'';
0
d. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``IEC Design HE'',
``IEC Design HEY'', and ``IEC Design HY'';
0
e. Revising the definition of ``IEC Design N motor'';
0
f. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``IEC Design NE'',
``IEC Design NEY'', and ``IEC Design NY'';
0
g. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Inverter'';
0
h. Revising the definitions of ``Inverter-capable electric motor'',
``Inverter-only electric motor'', ``Liquid-cooled electric motor'',
``NEMA Design A motor'', ``NEMA Design B motor'', ``NEMA Design C
motor'', and ``Nominal full-load efficiency''; and
0
i. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Rated frequency'',
``Rated load'', and ``Rated voltage.''
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 431.12 Definitions.
* * * * *
Air-over electric motor means an electric motor that does not reach
thermal equilibrium (i.e., thermal stability), during a rated load
temperature test according to section 2 of appendix B, without the
application of forced cooling by a free flow of air from an external
device not mechanically connected to the motor within the motor
enclosure.
* * * * *
Basic model means all units of electric motors manufactured by a
single manufacturer, that are within the same equipment class, have
electrical characteristics that are essentially identical, and do not
have any differing physical or functional characteristics that affect
energy consumption or efficiency.
* * * * *
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 MG 1-2016, Paragraph 14.3,
``Unusual Service Conditions,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.15); or
(2) For use on a particular type of application.
Definite purpose 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 MG 1-2016, 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 1-2016, 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 1-2016, 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 1-2016, paragraph 12.62 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.15).
* * * * *
Equipment class means one of the combinations of an electric
motor's horsepower (or standard kilowatt equivalent), number of poles,
and open or enclosed construction, with respect to a category of
electric motor for which Sec. 431.25 prescribes nominal full-load
efficiency standards.
* * * * *
General purpose electric motor means any electric motor that is
designed in standard ratings with either:
(1) Standard operating characteristics and mechanical construction
for use under usual service conditions, such as those specified in NEMA
MG 1-2016, paragraph 14.2, ``Usual Service Conditions,'' (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 431.15) and without restriction to a particular
application or type of application; or
(2) Standard operating characteristics or standard mechanical
construction for use under unusual service conditions, such as those
specified in NEMA MG 1-2016, paragraph 14.3, ``Unusual Service
Conditions,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15) or for a
particular type of application, and which can be used in most general
purpose applications.
General purpose electric motor (subtype I) means a general purpose
electric motor that:
(1) Is a single-speed, induction motor;
(2) Is rated for continuous duty (MG1) operation or for duty type
S1 (IEC);
(3) Contains a squirrel-cage (MG1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
(4) Has foot-mounting that may include foot-mounting with flanges
or detachable feet;
(5) Is built in accordance with NEMA T-frame dimensions or their
IEC metric equivalents, including a frame size that is between two
consecutive NEMA frame sizes or their IEC metric equivalents;
(6) Has performance in accordance with NEMA Design A (MG1) or B
(MG1) characteristics or equivalent designs such as IEC Design N (IEC);
(7) Operates on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal
power, and:
(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
(8) Includes, but is not limited to, explosion-proof construction.
Note 1 to definition of ``General purpose electric motor (subtype
I)'': References to ``MG1'' above refer to NEMA Standards Publication
MG 1-2016 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 431.15). References to
``IEC'' above refer to IEC 60034-1, 60034-12:2016, 60050-411, and
60072-1 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 431.15), as applicable.
General purpose electric motor (subtype II) means any general
purpose electric motor that incorporates design elements of a general
purpose electric motor (subtype I) but, unlike a general purpose
electric motor (subtype I), is configured in one or more of the
following ways:
(1) Is built in accordance with NEMA U-frame dimensions as
described in NEMA MG 1-1967 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.15) or in accordance with the IEC metric equivalents,
[[Page 63655]]
including a frame size that is between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes
or their IEC metric equivalents;
(2) Has performance in accordance with NEMA Design C
characteristics as described in MG1 or an equivalent IEC design(s) such
as IEC Design H;
(3) Is a close-coupled pump motor;
(4) Is a footless motor;
(5) Is a vertical solid shaft normal thrust motor (as tested in a
horizontal configuration) built and designed in a manner consistent
with MG1;
(6) Is an eight-pole motor (900 rpm); or
(7) Is a polyphase motor with a voltage rating of not more than 600
volts, is not rated at 230 or 460 volts (or both), and cannot be
operated on 230 or 460 volts (or both).
Note 2 to definition of ``General purpose electric motor (subtype
II)'': With the exception of the NEMA Motor Standards MG1-1967
(incorporated by reference in Sec. 431.15), references to ``MG1''
above refer to NEMA MG 1-2016 (incorporated by reference in Sec.
431.15). References to ``IEC'' above refer to IEC 60034-1, 60034-12,
60050-411, and 60072-1 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 431.15), as
applicable.
* * * * *
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 0.12 kW to 160 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to Sections 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3 of the IEC 60034-12:2016
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15) specifications for
starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and starting
requirements, respectively.
IEC Design HE 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 0.12 kW to 160 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to section 9.1, Table 3, and Section 9.3 of the IEC
60034-12:2016 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15)
specifications for starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and
starting requirements, respectively.
IEC Design HEY 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 star-delta starting;
(4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 160 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to section 5.7, Table 3 and Section 9.3 of the IEC
60034-12:2016 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15)
specifications for starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and
starting requirements, respectively.
IEC Design HY 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 star-delta starting;
(4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 160 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to section 5.7, Table 3 and Section 9.3 of the IEC
60034-12;2016 (incorporated by reference , see Sec. 431.15)
specification for starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and
starting requirements, respectively.
IEC Design HY 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 star-delta starting;
(4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 160 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to Section 5.7, Section 9.2 and Section 9.3 of the IEC
60034-12:2016 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15)
specifications for starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and
starting requirements, respectively.
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 0.12 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 60034-12:2016
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15) specifications for torque
characteristics, locked rotor apparent power, and starting
requirements, respectively. If a motor has an increased safety
designation of type ``e,'', the locked rotor apparent power shall be in
accordance with the appropriate values specified in IEC 60079-7:2015
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15).
IEC Design NE 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 0.12 kW to 1600 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to section 6.1, Table 3 and Section 6.3 of the IEC
60034-12:2016 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15)
specifications for starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and
starting requirements, respectively.
IEC Design NEY 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 star-delta starting;
(4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 1600 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to section 5.4, Table 3 and Section 6.3 of the IEC
60034-12:2016 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15)
specifications for starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and
starting requirements, respectively.
IEC Design NY 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 star-delta starting;
(4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles;
(5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 1600 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
(6) Conforms to Section 5.4, Section 6.2 and Section 6.3 of the IEC
60034-12:2016 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15)
specifications for starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and
starting requirements, respectively.
* * * * *
Inverter means an electronic device that converts an input AC or DC
power into a controlled output AC or DC voltage or current. An inverter
may also be called a converter.
Inverter-capable electric motor means an electric motor designed
for direct online starting and is suitable for operation on an inverter
without special filtering.
Inverter-only electric motor means an electric motor designed
specifically for operation fed by an inverter with a temperature rise
within the specified insulation thermal class or thermal limits.
* * * * *
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 but is not submerged in a liquid during operation.
* * * * *
NEMA Design A motor means a squirrel-cage motor that:
(1) Is designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing
locked-
[[Page 63656]]
rotor torque as shown in NEMA MG 1-2016, paragraph 12.38.1
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15);
(2) Has pull-up torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG 1-
2016, paragraph 12.40.1;
(3) Has breakdown torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG
1-2016, paragraph 12.39.1;
(4) Has a locked-rotor current higher than the values shown in NEMA
MG 1-2016, Paragraph 12.35.2 for 60 hertz and NEMA MG 1-2016, Paragraph
12.35.4 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 B motor means a squirrel-cage motor that is:
(1) Designed to withstand full-voltage starting;
(2) Develops locked-rotor, breakdown, and pull-up torques adequate
for general application as specified in Sections 12.38, 12.39 and 12.40
of NEMA MG 1-2016 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15);
(3) Draws locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in
Section 12.35.2 for 60 hertz and 12.35.4 for 50 hertz of NEMA MG 1-
2016; and
(4) 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 MG 1-2016, paragraph 12.38.2 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.15);
(2) Has pull-up torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG 1-
2016, paragraph 12.40.2;
(3) Has breakdown torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG
1-2016, paragraph 12.39.2;
(4) Has a locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in
NEMA MG 1-2016, paragraphs 12.35.2 for 60 hertz and 12.35.4 for 50
hertz; and
(5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent.
Nominal full-load efficiency means, with respect to an electric
motor, a representative value of efficiency selected from the ``nominal
efficiency'' column of Table 12-10, NEMA MG 1-2016, (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.15), that is not greater than the average
full-load efficiency of a population of motors of the same design.
* * * * *
Rated frequency means 60 Hz and corresponds to the frequency of the
electricity supplied either:
(1) Directly to the motor, in the case of electric motors capable
of operating without an inverter; or
(2) To the inverter in the case on inverter-only electric motors.
Rated load (or full-load, full rated load, or rated full-load)
means the rated output power of an electric motor.
Rated voltage means the input voltage of a motor or inverter used
when making representations of the performance characteristics of a
given electric motor and selected by the motor's manufacturer to be
used for testing the motor's efficiency.
* * * * *
Sec. 431.14 [Removed and Reserved]
0
15. Remove and reserve Sec. 431.14.
0
16. Section 431.15 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b);
0
b. Removing the text ``, + 41 22 919 02 11, or go to https://webstore.iec.ch'' and adding in its place the text ``; + 41 22 919 02
11; webstore.iec.ch'' in paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(3), (4), and (7);
0
d. Adding paragraphs (c)(8) and (9); and
0
e. Revising paragraphs (d) through (f).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 431.15 Materials incorporated by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other
than that specified in this section, the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material
must be available to the public. All approved incorporation by
reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at DOE and at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact DOE at:
the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-9127,
[email protected], https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/building-technologies-office. For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, email: [email protected], or go to:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. The material
may be obtained from the sources in the following paragraphs:
(b) CSA. Canadian Standards Association, Sales Department, 5060
Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada; (800)
463-6727; www.shopcsa.ca/onlinestore/welcome.asp.
(1) CSA C390-10 (reaffirmed 2019), (``CSA C390-10''), Test methods,
marking requirements, and energy efficiency levels for three-phase
induction motors, including Updates No. 1 through 3, Revised January
2020; IBR approved for Sec. 431.12 and appendix B to this subpart.
(2) CSA C747-09 (reaffirmed 2019) (``CSA C747-09''), Energy
efficiency test methods for small motors, including Update No. 1
(August 2016), October 2009; IBR approved for appendix B to this
subpart.
(c) * * *
(3) IEC 60034-2-1:2014, Rotating electrical machines--Part 2-1:
Standard methods for determining losses and efficiency from tests
(excluding machines for traction vehicles), Edition 2.0, 2014-06; IBR
approved for Sec. 431.12 and appendix B to this subpart.
(4) IEC 60034-12:2016, Rotating electrical machines, Part 12:
Starting performance of single-speed three-phase cage induction motors,
Edition 3.0, 2016-11; IBR approved for Sec. 431.12.
* * * * *
(7) IEC 60072-1, Dimensions and Output Series for Rotating
Electrical Machines--Part 1: Frame numbers 56 to 400 and flange numbers
55 to 1080, Sixth edition, 1991-02; IBR approved as follows: clauses 2,
3, 4.1, 6.1, 7, and 10, and Tables 1, 2 and 4; IBR approved for Sec.
431.12 and appendix B to this subpart.
(8) IEC 60079-7:2015, Explosive atmospheres--Part 7: Equipment
protection by increased safety ``e'', Edition 5.0, 2015-06; IBR
approved for Sec. 431.12.
(9) IEC 61800-9-2:2017, Adjustable speed electrical power drive
systems--Part 9-2: Ecodesign for power drive systems, motor starters,
power electronics and their driven applications--Energy efficiency
indicators for power drive systems and motor starters, Edition 1.0,
2017-03; IBR approved for appendix B to this subpart.
(d) IEEE. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331; (800) 678-IEEE
(4333); www.ieee.org/web/publications/home/.
(1) IEEE Std 112-2017 (``IEEE 112-2017''), IEEE Standard Test
Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators, approved
December 6, 2017; IBR approved for Sec. 431.12 and appendix B to this
subpart.
(2) IEEE Std 114-2010 (``IEEE 114-2010''), Test Procedure for
Single-Phase Induction Motors, December 23, 2010; IBR approved for
appendix B to this subpart.
[[Page 63657]]
(e) NEMA. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 North
17th Street, Suite 1752, Rosslyn, Virginia 22209; (703) 841-3200;
www.nema.org/.
(1) ANSI/NEMA MG 1-2016 (Revision 1, 2018) (``NEMA MG 1-2016''),
Motors and Generators, ANSI-approved June 15, 2021; IBR approved for
Sec. 431.12 and appendix B to this subpart.
(2) NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1967 (``NEMA MG1-1967''), Motors
and Generators, January 1968; as follows:
(i) Part 11, Dimension; IBR approved for Sec. 431.12.
(ii) Part 13, Frame Assignments--A-C Integral-Horsepower Motors;
IBR approved for Sec. 431.12.
(f) NFPA. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch
Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471; (617) 770-3000; www.nfpa.org/.
(1) NFPA 20, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for
Fire Protection, 2022 Edition, ANSI-approved April 8, 2021. IBR
approved for Sec. 431.12.
(2) [Reserved]
Sec. 431.17 [Removed and Reserved]
0
17. Remove and reserve Sec. 431.17.
0
18. Section 431.18 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 431.18 Testing laboratories.
* * * * *
(b) NIST/NVLAP is under the auspices of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)/National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NVLAP), which is part of the U.S. Department of
Commerce. NIST/NVLAP accreditation is granted on the basis of
conformance with criteria published in 15 CFR part 285. The National
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, ``Procedures and General
Requirements,'' NIST Handbook 150-10, April 2020, (referenced for
guidance only, see Sec. 429.3 of this subchapter) present the
technical requirements of NVLAP for the Efficiency of Electric Motors
field of accreditation. This handbook supplements NIST Handbook 150,
National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program ``Procedures and
General Requirements,'' which contains 15 CFR part 285 plus all general
NIST/NVLAP procedures, criteria, and policies. Information regarding
NIST/NVLAP and its Efficiency of Electric Motors Program (EEM) can be
obtained from NIST/NVLAP, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2140,
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140, (301) 975-4016 (telephone), or (301) 926-
2884 (fax).
Sec. Sec. 431.19 through 431.21 [Removed]
0
19. Remove Sec. Sec. 431.19 through 431.21.
0
20. Section 431.25 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (g)(9);
0
b. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text and the table 5 heading;
and
0
c. Revising paragraph (i) introductory text and the table 6 heading.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 431.25 Energy conservation standards and compliance dates.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(9) Meet all of the performance requirements of one of the
following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design
N, NE, NEY, NY or H, HE, HEY, HY motor.
* * * * *
(h) Starting on June 1, 2016, each NEMA Design A motor, NEMA Design
B motor, and IEC Design N (including NE, NEY, or NY variants) motor
that is an electric motor meeting the criteria in paragraph (g) of this
section and with a power rating from 1 horsepower through 500
horsepower, but excluding fire pump electric motors, manufactured
(alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) shall have a
nominal full-load efficiency of not less than the following:
Table 5 to Paragraph (h)--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design
A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE, NEY or NY Motors (Excluding Fire
Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
* * * * *
(i) Starting on June 1, 2016, each NEMA Design C motor and IEC
Design H (including HE, HEY, or HY variants) motor that is an electric
motor meeting the criteria in paragraph (g) of this section and with a
power rating from 1 horsepower through 200 horsepower manufactured
(alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) shall have a
nominal full-load efficiency that is not less than the following:
Table 6 to Paragraph (i)--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design
C and IEC Design H, HE, HEY or HY Motors at 60 Hz
* * * * *
0
20. Appendix B to subpart B of part 431 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Efficiency of Electric Motors
Note: Manufacturers of electric motors subject to energy
conservation standards in Sec. 431.25 must test in accordance with
this appendix.
For any other electric motor that is not currently covered by
the energy conservation standards at Sec. 431.25, manufacturers of
this equipment must test in accordance with this appendix 180 days
after the effective date of the final rule adopting energy
conservation standards for such motor. For any other electric motor
that is not currently covered by the energy conservation standards
at Sec. 431.25, manufacturers choosing to make any representations
respecting of energy efficiency for such motors must test in
accordance with this appendix.
0. Incorporation by Reference
In Sec. 431.15, DOE incorporated by reference the entire
standard for CSA C390-10, CSA C747-09, IEC 60034-1:2010, IEC 60034-
2-1:2014, IEC 60051-1:2016, IEC 61800-9-2:2017, IEEE 112-2017, IEEE
114-2010, and NEMA MG 1-2016; however, only enumerated provisions of
those documents are applicable as follows. In cases where there is a
conflict, the language of this appendix takes precedence over those
documents. Any subsequent amendment to a referenced document by the
standard-setting organization will not affect the test procedure in
this appendix, unless and until the test procedure is amended by
DOE.
0.1. CSA C390-10
(a) Section 1.3 ``Scope,'' as specified in sections 2.1.1 and
2.3.3.2 of this appendix;
(b) Section 3.1 ``Definitions,'' as specified in sections 2.1.1
and 2.3.3.2 of this appendix;
(c) Section 5 ``General test requirements--Measurements,'' as
specified in sections 2.1.1 and 2.3.3.2 of this appendix;
(d) Section 7 ``Test method,'' as specified in sections 2.1.1
and 2.3.3.2 of this appendix;
(e) Table 1 ``Resistance measurement time delay,'' as specified
in sections 2.1.1 and 2.3.3.2 of this appendix;
(f) Annex B ``Linear regression analysis,'' as specified in
sections 2.1.1 and 2.3.3.2 of this appendix; and
(g) Annex C ``Procedure for correction of dynamometer torque
readings'' as specified in sections 2.1.1 and 2.3.3.2 of this
appendix.
0.2. CSA C747-09
(a) Section 1.6 ``Scope'' as specified in sections 2.3.1.2 and
2.3.2.2 of this appendix;
(b) Section 3 ``Definitions'' as specified in sections 2.3.1.2
and 2.3.2.2 of this appendix;
(c) Section 5 ``General test requirements'' as specified in
sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.2.2 of this appendix; and
(d) Section 6 ``Test method'' as specified in sections 2.3.1.2
and 2.3.2.2 of this appendix.
0.3. IEC 60034-1:2010
(a) Section 4.2.1 as specified in section 1.2 of this appendix;
(b) Section 7.2 as specified in sections 2.1.2, 2.3.1.3,
2.3.2.3, and 2.3.3.3 of this appendix;
(c) Section 8.6.2.3.3 as specified in sections 2.1.2, 2.3.1.3,
2.3.2.3, and 2.3.3.3 of this appendix; and
(d) Table 5 as specified in sections 2.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.3,
and 2.3.3.3 of this appendix.
0.4. IEC 60034-2-1:2014
(a) Method 2-1-1A (which also includes paragraphs (b) through
(f) of this section) as specified in sections 2.3.1.3 and 2.3.2.3 of
this appendix;
[[Page 63658]]
(b) Method 2-1-1B (which also includes paragraphs (b) through
(e), (g), and (i) of this section) as specified in sections 2.1.2
and 2.3.3.3 of this appendix;
(c) Section 3 ``Terms and definitions'' as specified in sections
2.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.3, 2.3.3.3, and 2.4.1 of this appendix;
(d) Section 4 ``Symbols and abbreviations'' as specified in
sections 2.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.3, 2.3.3.3 and 2.4.1 of this
appendix;
(e) Section 5 ``Basic requirements'' as specified in sections
2.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.3, 2.3.3.3, and 2.4.1 of this appendix;
(f) Section 6.1.2 ``Method 2-1-1A--Direct measurement of input
and output'' (except Section 6.1.2.2, ``Test Procedure'') as
specified in sections 2.3.1.3 and 2.3.2.3 of this appendix;
(g) Section 6.1.3 ``Method 2-1-1B--Summations of losses,
additional load losses according to the method of residual losses''
as specified in sections 2.1.2 and 2.3.3.3 of this appendix; and
(h) Section 7.1. ``Preferred Testing Methods'' as specified in
section 2.4.1 of this appendix;
(i) Annex D, ``Test report template for 2-1-1B'' as specified in
sections 2.1.2 and 2.3.3.3 of this appendix.
0.5. IEC 60051-1:2016
(a) Section 5.2 as specified in sections 2.1.2, 2.3.1.3,
2.3.2.3, and 2.3.3.3 of this appendix; and
(b) [Reserved].
0.6. IEC 61800-9-2:2017
(a) Section 3 ``Terms, definitions, symbols, and abbreviated
terms'' as specified in sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of this appendix;
(b) Section 7.7.2, ``Input-output measurement of PDS losses'' as
specified in sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of this appendix;
(c) Section 7.7.3.1, ``General'' as specified in sections 2.4.2
and 2.4.3 of this appendix;
(d) Section 7.7.3.2. ``Power analyser and transducers'' as
specified in sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of this appendix;
(e) Section 7.7.3.3, ``Mechanical Output of the motor'' as
specified in sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of this appendix;
(f) Section 7.7.3.5, ``PDS loss determination according to
input-output method'' as specified in sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of
this appendix;
(g) Section 7.10 ``Testing Conditions for PDS testing'' as
specified in sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of this appendix.
0.7. IEEE 112-2017
(a) Test Method A (which also includes paragraphs (c) through
(g), (i), and (j) of this section) as specified in section 2.3.2.1
of this appendix;
(b) Test Method B (which also includes paragraphs (c) through
(f), (h), (k) and (l) of this section) as specified in sections
2.1.3 and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix;
(c) Section 3, ``General'' as specified in sections 2.1.3,
2.3.2.1, and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix;
(d) Section 4, ``Measurements'' as specified in sections 2.1.3,
2.3.2.1, and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix;
(e) Section 5, ``Machine losses and tests for losses'' as
specified in sections 2.1.3, 2.3.2.1, and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix;
(f) Section 6.1, ``General'' as specified in sections 2.1.3,
2.3.2.1, and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix;
(g) Section 6.3, ``Efficiency test method A--Input-output'' as
specified in section 2.3.2.1 of this appendix;
(h) Section 6.4, ``Efficiency test method B--Input-output'' as
specified in sections 2.1.3 and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix;
(i) Section 9.2, ``Form A--Method A'' as specified in section
2.3.2.1 of this appendix;
(j) Section 9.3, ``Form A2--Method A calculations'' as specified
in section 2.3.2.1 of this appendix;
(k) Section 9.4, ``Form B--Method B'' as specified in sections
2.1.3, and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix; and
(l) Section 9.5, ``Form B2--Method B calculations'' as specified
in sections 2.1.3 and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix.
0.8. IEEE 114-2010
(a) Section 3.2, ``Test with load'' as specified in section
2.3.1.1 of this appendix;
(b) Section 4, ``Testing Facilities as specified in section
2.3.1.1 of this appendix;
(c) Section 5, ``Measurements'' as specified in section 2.3.1.1
of this appendix;
(d) Section 6, ``General'' as specified in section 2.3.1.1 of
this appendix;
(e) Section 7, ``Type of loss'' as specified in section 2.3.1.1
of this appendix;
(f) Section 8, ``Efficiency and Power Factor'' as specified in
section 2.3.1.1 of this appendix;
(g) Section 10 ``Temperature Tests'' as specified in section
2.4.1.1 of this appendix;
(h) Annex A, Section A.3 ``Determination of Motor Efficiency''
as specified in section 2.4.1.1 of this appendix; and
(i) Annex A, Section A.4 ``Explanatory notes for form 3, test
data'' as specified in section 2.4.1.1 of this appendix.
0.9. NEMA MG 1-2016
(a) Paragraph 1.40.1, ``Continuous Rating'' as specified in
section 1.2 of this appendix;
(b) Paragraph 12.58.1, ``Determination of Motor Efficiency and
Losses'' as specified in the introductory paragraph to section 2.1
of this appendix, and
(c) Paragraph 34.1, ``Applicable Motor Efficiency Test Methods''
as specified in section 2.2 of this appendix;
(d) Paragraph 34.2.2 ``AO Temperature Test Procedure 2--Target
Temperature with Airflow'' as specified in section 2.2 of this
appendix;
(e) Paragraph 34.4, ``AO Temperature Test Procedure 2--Target
Temperature with Airflow'' as specified in section 2.2 of this
appendix.
1. Scope and Definitions
1.1 Scope. The test procedure applies to the following
categories of electric motors: Electric motors that meet the
criteria listed at Sec. 431.25(g); Electric motors above 500
horsepower; Small, non-small-electric-motor electric motor; and
Electric motors that are synchronous motors; and excludes the
following categories of motors: inverter-only electric motors that
are air-over electric motors, component sets of an electric motor,
liquid-cooled electric motors, and submersible electric motors.
1.2 Definitions. Definitions contained in Sec. Sec. 431.2 and
431.12 are applicable to this appendix, in addition to the following
terms (``MG1'' refers to NEMA MG 1-2016 and IEC refers to IEC 60034-
1:2010 and IEC 60072-1):
Electric motors above 500 horsepower is defined as an electric
motor having a rated horsepower above 500 and up to 750 hp that
meets the criteria listed at Sec. 431.25(g), with the exception of
criteria Sec. 431.25(g)(8).
Small, non-small-electric-motor electric motor (``SNEM'') means
an electric motor that:
(a) Is not a small electric motor, as defined Sec. 431.442 and
is not a dedicated-purpose pool pump motor as defined at Sec.
431.483;
(b) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty
type S1 (IEC);
(c) Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current
60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter
that operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-
hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power;
(d) Is rated for 600 volts or less;
(e) Is a single-speed induction motor capable of operating
without an inverter or is an inverter-only electric motor;
(f) Produces a rated motor horsepower greater than or equal to
0.25 horsepower (0.18 kW); and
(g) Is built in the following frame sizes: any two-, or three-
digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent) if the motor
operates on single-phase power; any two-, or three-digit NEMA frame
size (or IEC metric equivalent) if the motor operates on polyphase
power, and has a rated motor horsepower less than 1 horsepower (0.75
kW); or a two-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), if
the motor operates on polyphase power, has a rated motor horsepower
equal to or greater than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW), and is not an
enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent).
Synchronous Electric Motor means an electric motor that:
(a) Is not a dedicated-purpose pool pump motor as defined at
Sec. 431.483 or is not an air-over electric motor;
(b) Is a synchronous electric motor;
(c) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty
type S1 (IEC);
(d) Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current
60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter
that operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-
hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power;
(e) Is rated 600 volts or less;
(f) Produces at least 0.25 hp (0.18 kW) but not greater than 750
hp (559 kW).
2. Test Procedures
2.1. Test Procedures for Electric Motors that meet the criteria
listed at Sec. 431.25(g), and electric motors above 500 horsepower
that are capable of operating without an inverter. Air-over electric
motors must be tested in accordance with Section 2.2. Inverter-only
electric motors must be tested in accordance with 2.4.
Efficiency and losses must be determined in accordance with NEMA
MG 1-2016, Paragraph 12.58.1, ``Determination of Motor
[[Page 63659]]
Efficiency and Losses,'' or one of the following testing methods:
2.1.1. CSA C390-10 (see section 0.1 of this appendix)
2.1.2. IEC 60034-2-1:2014, Method 2-1-1B (see section 0.4(b) of
this appendix). The supply voltage shall be in accordance with
Section 7.2 of IEC 60034-1:2010. The measured resistance at the end
of the thermal test shall be determined in a similar way to the
extrapolation procedure described in Section 8.6.2.3.3 of IEC 60034-
1:2010, using the shortest possible time instead of the time
interval specified in Table 5 to IEC 60034-1:2010, and extrapolating
to zero. The measuring instruments for electrical quantities shall
have the equivalent of an accuracy class of 0,2 in case of a direct
test and 0,5 in case of an indirect test in accordance with Section
5.2 of IEC 60051-1:2016, or
2.1.3. IEEE 112-2017, Test Method B (see section 0.7(b) of this
appendix).
2.2. Test Procedures for Air-Over Electric Motors
Except noted otherwise in section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of this
appendix, efficiency and losses of air-over electric motors must be
determined in accordance with NEMA MG 1-2016 (excluding Paragraph
12.58.1).
2.2.1. The provisions in Paragraph 34.4.1.a.1 of NEMA MG 1-2016
related to the determination of the target temperature for polyphase
motors must be replaced by a single target temperature of 75 [deg]C
for all insulation classes.
2.2.2. The industry standards listed in Paragraph 34.1 of NEMA
MG 1-2016, ``Applicable Motor Efficiency Test Methods'' must
correspond to the versions identified in section 0 of this appendix,
specifically IEEE 112-2017, IEEE 114-2010, CSA C390-10, CSA C747-09,
and IEC 60034-2-1:2014. In addition, when testing in accordance with
IEC 60034-2-1:2014, the additional testing instructions in section
2.1.2 of this appendix apply.
2.3. Test Procedures for SNEMs capable of operating without an
inverter. Air-over SNEMs must be tested in accordance with section
2.2. of this appendix. Inverter-only SNEMs must be tested in
accordance with section 2.4. of this appendix.
2.3.1. The efficiencies and losses of single-phase SNEMs that
are not air-over electric motors and are capable of operating
without an inverter, are determined using one of the following
methods:
2.3.1.1. IEEE 114-2010 (see section 0.8 of this appendix);
2.3.1.2. CSA C747-09 (see section 0.2 of this appendix), or
2.3.1.3. IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A (see section 0.4(a) of
this appendix),. The supply voltage shall be in accordance with
Section 7.2 of IEC 60034-1:2010. The measured resistance at the end
of the thermal test shall be determined in a similar way to the
extrapolation procedure described in Section 8.6.2.3.3 of IEC 60034-
1:2010, using the shortest possible time instead of the time
interval specified in Table 5 of IEC 60034-1:2010, and extrapolating
to zero. The measuring instruments for electrical quantities shall
have the equivalent of an accuracy class of 0,2 in case of a direct
test and 0,5 in case of an indirect test in accordance with Section
5.2 of IEC 60051-1:2016.
2.3.1.3.1. Additional IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A Torque
Measurement Instructions. If using IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A
to measure motor performance, follow the instructions in section
2.3.1.3.2. of this appendix, instead of Section 6.1.2.2 of IEC
60034-2-1:2014;
2.3.1.3.2. Couple the machine under test to a load machine.
Measure torque using an in-line, shaft-coupled, rotating torque
transducer or stationary, stator reaction torque transducer. Operate
the machine under test at the rated load until thermal equilibrium
is achieved (rate of change 1 K or less per half hour). Record U, I,
Pel, n, T, [thgr]c.
2.3.2. The efficiencies and losses of polyphase electric motors
considered with rated horsepower less than 1 that are not air-over
electric motors, and are capable of operating without an inverter,
are determined using one of the following methods:
2.3.2.1. IEEE 112-2017 Test Method A (see section 0.7(a) of this
appendix);
2.3.2.2. CSA C747-09 (see section 0.2 of this appendix); or
2.3.2.3. IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A (see section 0.4(a) of
this appendix). The supply voltage shall be in accordance with
Section 7.2 of IEC 60034-1:2010. The measured resistance at the end
of the thermal test shall be determined in a similar way to the
extrapolation procedure described in Section 8.6.2.3.3 of IEC 60034-
1:2010 using the shortest possible time instead of the time interval
specified in Table 5 of IEC 60034-1:2010, and extrapolating to zero.
The measuring instruments for electrical quantities shall have the
equivalent of an accuracy class of 0,2 in case of a direct test and
0,5 in case of an indirect test in accordance with Section 5.2 of
IEC 60051-1:2016.
2.3.2.3.1. Additional IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A Torque
Measurement Instructions. If using IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A
to measure motor performance, follow the instructions in section
2.3.2.3.2. of this appendix, instead of Section 6.1.2.2 of IEC
60034-2-1:2014;
2.3.2.3.2. Couple the machine under test to load machine.
Measure torque using an in-line shaft-coupled, rotating torque
transducer or stationary, stator reaction torque transducer. Operate
the machine under test at the rated load until thermal equilibrium
is achieved (rate of change 1 K or less per half hour). Record U, I,
Pel, n, T, [thgr]c.
2.3.3. The efficiencies and losses of polyphase SNEMs with rated
horsepower equal to or greater than 1 that are not air-over electric
motors, and are capable of operating without an inverter, are
determined using one of the following methods:
2.3.3.1. IEEE 112-2017 Test Method B (see section 0.7(b) of this
appendix);
2.3.3.2. CSA C390-10 (see section 0.1 of this appendix); or
2.3.3.3. IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B (see section 0.4(b) of
this appendix). The supply voltage shall be in accordance with
Section 7.2 of IEC 60034-1:2010. The measured resistance at the end
of the thermal test shall be determined in a similar way to the
extrapolation procedure described in Section 8.6.2.3.3 of IEC 60034-
1:2010 using the shortest possible time instead of the time interval
specified in Table 5 of IEC 60034-1:2010, and extrapolating to zero.
The measuring instruments for electrical quantities shall have the
equivalent of an accuracy class of 0,2 in case of a direct test and
0,5 in case of an indirect test in accordance with Section 5.2 of
IEC 60051-1:2016.
2.4. Test Procedures for Electric Motors that are Synchronous
Motors and Inverter-only Electric Motors
Section 2.4.1 of this appendix applies to electric motors that
are synchronous motors that do not require an inverter to operate.
Sections 2.4.2. and 2.4.3. of this appendix apply to electric motors
that are synchronous motors and are inverter-only; and to induction
electric motors that are inverter-only electric motors.
2.4.1. The efficiencies and losses of electric motors that are
synchronous motors that do not require an inverter to operate, are
determined in accordance with IEC 60034-2-1:2014, Section 3 ``Terms
and definitions,'' Section 4 ``Symbols and abbreviations,'' Section
5 ``Basic requirements,'' and Section 7.1. ``Preferred Testing
Methods.''
2.4.2. The efficiencies and losses of electric motors (inclusive
of the inverter) that are that are inverter-only and do not include
an inverter, are determined in accordance with IEC 61800-9-2:2017.
Test must be conducted using an inverter that is listed as
recommended in the manufacturer's catalog or that is offered for
sale with the electric motor. If more than one inverter is available
in manufacturer's catalogs or if more than one inverter is offered
for sale with the electric motor, test using the least efficient
inverter. Record the manufacturer, brand and model number of the
inverter used for the test. If there are no inverters specified in
the manufacturer catalogs or offered for sale with the electric
motor, testing must be conducted using an inverter that meets the
criteria described in section 2.4.2.2. of this appendix.
2.4.2.1. The inverter shall be set up according to the
manufacturer's instructional and operational manual included with
the product. Manufacturers shall also record switching frequency in
Hz, max frequency in Hz, Max output voltage in V, motor control
method (i.e., V/f ratio, sensor less vector, etc.), load profile
setting (constant torque, variable torque, etc.), and saving energy
mode (if used). Deviation from the resulting settings, such as
switching frequency or load torque curves for the purpose of
optimizing test results shall not be permitted.
2.4.2.2. If there are no inverters specified in the manufacturer
catalogs or offered for sale with the electric motor, test with a
two-level voltage source inverter. No additional components
influencing output voltage or output current shall be installed
between the inverter and the motor, except those required for the
measuring instruments. For motors with a rated speed up to 3 600
min-1, the switching frequency shall not be higher than 5 kHz. For
motors with a rated speed above 3 600 min-1, the switching frequency
shall not be higher than 10 kHz. Record the
[[Page 63660]]
manufacturer, brand and model number of the inverter used for the
test.
2.4.3. The efficiencies and losses of electric motors (inclusive
of the inverter) that are inverter-only and include an inverter are
determined in accordance with IEC 61800-9-2:2017.
2.4.3.1. The inverter shall be set up according to the
manufacturer's instructional and operational manual included with
the product. Manufacturers shall also record switching frequency in
Hz, max frequency in Hz, Max output voltage in V, motor control
method (i.e., V/f ratio, sensor less vector, etc.), load profile
setting (constant torque, variable torque, etc.), and saving energy
mode (if used). Deviation from the resulting settings, such as
switching frequency or load torque curves for the purpose of
optimizing test results shall not be permitted.
3. Procedures for the Testing of Certain Electric Motor Categories
Prior to testing according to section 2 of this appendix, each
basic model of the electric motor categories 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 600- or 6000-series, either open or grease-lubricated double-
shielded, single-row, deep groove, radial ball bearing.
3.1. 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.
3.2. 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.
3.3. 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.
3.4. 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.
3.5. 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.
3.6. Immersible Electric Motors:
Immersible electric motors shall be tested with all contact
seals removed but be otherwise unmodified.
3.7. 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.
3.8. 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 the applicable test procedure under section 2
through section 2.4.3. of this appendix, 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 the applicable test
procedure under section 2 through section 2.4.3. of this appendix.
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. If necessary,
the unit under test may be connected to the dynamometer using a
coupling of torsional rigidity greater than or equal to that of the
motor shaft.
[FR Doc. 2022-21891 Filed 10-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
