[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38455-38482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15132]



[[Page 38455]]

Vol. 78

Wednesday,

No. 123

June 26, 2013

Part II





 Department of Energy





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





10 CFR Part 431





 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors; 
Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 38456]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0043]
RIN 1904-AC89


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to clarify aspects of certain U.S. 
Department of Energy (DOE) energy efficiency regulations related to 
electric motors. DOE is considering establishing definitions, 
specifying testing set-up procedures necessary to test, and extending 
DOE's existing test procedures for electric motors to certain electric 
motor types that have not been regulated by DOE. These actions are 
being proposed to clarify the scope of regulatory coverage for electric 
motors and to ensure accurate and consistent measurements when 
determining the energy efficiency of various types of electric motors. 
This notice seeks comment on this proposal and requests comments, data, 
and other information to assist DOE in deciding whether to finalize or 
modify these provisions.

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, July 16, 2013, from 9 
a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast 
as a webinar. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR 
before and after the public meeting, but no later than September 9, 
2013. See section V, ``Public Participation.'' for details.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 
(202) 586-2945. For detailed information regarding attendance and 
participation at the public meeting, see section V, ``Public 
Participation.''
    Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Test Procedures 
for Electric Motors, and provide docket number EERE-2012-BT-TP-0043 
and/or regulation identifier number (RIN) number 1904-AC89. Comments 
may be submitted using any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: ElectricMotors2012TP0043@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket 
number EERE-2012-BT-TP-0043 and/or RIN 1904-AC89 in the subject line of 
the message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a 
compact disc. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza 
SW., Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one 
signed paper original.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section V, ``Public 
Participation.''
    Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov, 
including Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and 
transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/74.
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Email: medium_electric_motors@ee.doe.gov
    Ms. Ami Grace-Tardy, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585. Telephone: (202) 586-5709. Email: Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
II. Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
    A. Proposed Effective Dates for the Amended Test Procedures
    B. Expanding the Scope of Coverage of Energy Conservation 
Standards
    C. Motor Type Definitions
    1. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Design A and 
Design C Motors
    2. International Electrotechnical Commission Designs N and H 
Motors
    3. Electric Motors with Sealed and Moisture Resistant Windings
    4. Inverter-Capable Electric Motors
    5. Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated Electric Motors
    D. Electric Motor Types Requiring Definitions and Test Procedure 
Instructions
    1. Immersible Electric Motors and Electric Motors with Contact 
Seals
    2. Integral and Non-Integral Brake Electric Motors
    3. Partial Electric Motors
    E. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only Test Procedure 
Instructions
    1. Electric Motors with Non-Standard Endshields or Flanges
    2. Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors and Electric Motors with 
Single or Double Shaft Extensions of Non-Standard Dimensions or 
Additions
    3. Vertical Electric Motors
    4. Electric Motor Bearings
    F. General Clarification for Certain Electric Motor Types
    1. Electric Motors with Non-Standard Bases, Feet or Mounting 
Configurations
    G. Electric Motor Types DOE Proposes Not to Regulate at This 
Time
    1. Air-Over Electric Motor
    2. Component Set of an Electric Motor
    3. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motor
    4. Submersible Electric Motor
    5. Definite-Purpose Inverter-Fed Electric Motors
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
V. Public Participation
    a. Attendance at Public Meeting
    b. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution
    c. Conduct of Public Meeting
    d. Submission of Comments
    e. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Introduction

A. Authority

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 
6291, et

[[Page 38457]]

seq., (``EPCA'' or ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of provisions 
designed to improve the energy efficiency of products and commercial 
equipment. (All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended 
through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 
(AEMTCA 2012), Public Law 112-210 (December 18, 2012)). Part C of Title 
III (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), which was subsequently redesignated as Part 
A-1 for editorial reasons, establishes an energy conservation program 
for certain industrial equipment, which includes electric motors, the 
subject of today's notice. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A), 6313(b))

B. Background

    In the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486 (October 24, 
1992) (EPACT 1992), Congress amended EPCA to establish energy 
conservation standards, test procedures, compliance certification, and 
labeling requirements for certain electric motors. (When used in 
context, the term ``motor'' refers to ``electric motor'' in this 
document.) On October 5, 1999, DOE published in the Federal Register, a 
final rule to implement these requirements. 64 FR 54114. In 2007, 
section 313 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA 2007) 
amended EPCA by: (1) Striking the definition of ``electric motor,'' (2) 
setting forth definitions for ``general purpose electric motor (subtype 
I)'' and ``general purpose electric motor (subtype II),'' and (3) 
prescribing energy conservation standards for ``general purpose 
electric motors (subtype I),'' ``general purpose electric motors 
(subtype II), ``fire pump electric motors,'' and ``NEMA Design B 
general purpose electric motors'' with a power rating of more than 200 
horsepower but not greater than 500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13), 
6313(b)). Consequently, on March 23, 2009, DOE updated the 
corresponding regulations at 10 CFR part 431 with the new definitions 
and energy conservation standards. 74 FR 12058. On December 22, 2008, 
DOE proposed to update the test procedures under 10 CFR part 431 both 
for electric motors and small electric motors. 73 FR 78220. DOE 
finalized key provisions related to small electric motor testing in a 
2009 final rule at 74 FR 32059 (July 7, 2009), and further updated test 
procedures for electric motors and small electric motors at 77 FR 26608 
(May 4, 2012).
    Today's notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) focuses on electric 
motors and proposes to add the aforementioned definitions and 
additional testing set-up instructions and clarifications to the 
current test procedures under subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 for a wider 
variety of electric motor types than currently regulated. Additionally, 
DOE is proposing to extend the applicability of DOE's existing electric 
motor test procedure in 10 CFR part 431 to the wider scope of currently 
unregulated motors. DOE is proposing such amendments because the 
additional testing set-up instructions and clarifications are designed 
to help manufacturers of certain types of motors prepare them for 
testing under the applicable test procedure. The proposed steps are 
intended to enable a manufacturer to consistently measure the losses 
and determine the efficiency of a wider variety of motors, and 
potentially facilitate the application of energy conservation standards 
to a wider array of motors than what is currently covered under 10 CFR 
part 431.\1\ In addition, DOE is considering prescribing standards for 
some electric motors addressed in this notice through a parallel energy 
conservation standards-related activity. See 77 FR 43015 (July 23, 
2012). To ensure consistency between the two rulemakings, this test 
procedure NOPR addresses scope of coverage and test procedure issues 
raised in response to DOE's current electric motors energy conservation 
standards rulemaking. See 76 FR 17577 (March 30, 2011); 77 FR 43015 
(July 23, 2012). Finally, to provide regulatory clarity and consistency 
with existing regulations, today's proposed rule also defines NEMA 
Design A motors, NEMA Design C motors, International Electrotechnical 
Commission (IEC) Design H motors and IEC Design N motors, which are 
covered under subpart B of 10 CFR part 431.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPCA, as amended by EPACT 1992, had previously defined an 
``electric motor'' as any motor which is a general purpose T-frame, 
single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction motor 
of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Design A and 
B, continuous rated, operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60 
Hertz line power as defined in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987. 
(42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (1992)) Through subsequent amendments to EPCA 
made by EISA 2007, Congress removed this definition and added 
language denoting two new subtypes of general purpose electric 
motors. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)-(B) (2012)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, DOE notes that section 343(a)(5)(A) of EPCA, 
42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A), initially required that the test procedures to 
determine electric motor efficiency shall be those procedures specified 
in two documents: National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 
Standards Publication MG1-1987 \2\ and Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 112 Test Method B for motor 
efficiency, as in effect on the date of enactment of EPACT 1992. 
Section 343(a)(5)(B)-(C) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B)-(C), provides 
in part that if the NEMA- and IEEE-developed test procedures are 
amended, the Secretary of Energy shall so amend the test procedures 
under 10 CFR part 431, unless the Secretary determines, by rule, that 
the amended industry procedures would not meet the requirements for 
test procedures to produce results that reflect energy efficiency, 
energy use, and estimated operating costs of the tested motor, or would 
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3), (a)(5)(B)) 
Subsequently, as newer versions of the NEMA and IEEE test procedures 
for electric motors were published and used by industry, DOE updated 10 
CFR part 431. For example, see 64 FR 54114 (October 5, 1999) that 
incorporated by reference into 10 CFR part 431 applicable provisions of 
NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993 and IEEE Standard 112-1996, and 
codified them at 10 CFR 431.16 and appendix B to subpart B of 10 CFR 
part 431. DOE also added the equivalent test procedure--Canadian 
Standards Association (CSA) CAN/CSA C390-93, ``Energy Efficiency Test 
Methods for Three-Phase Induction Motors,'' because NEMA added this 
procedure to its Standards Publication, MG1, when it was revised and 
updated in 1993. See 61 FR 60440, 60446 (November 27, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NEMA MG1 does not contain the actual methods and 
calculations needed to perform an energy efficiency test but, 
rather, refers the reader to the proper industry methodologies in 
IEEE Standard 112 and CSA C390-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 4, 2012, DOE incorporated by reference the updated versions 
of the above test procedures: NEMA MG1-2009, IEEE 112-2004, and CAN/CSA 
C390-10. 77 FR 26608, 26638 (the ``2012 final test procedure.'') DOE 
made these updates to ensure consistency between 10 CFR part 431 and 
current industry procedures and related practices. Since publication of 
the 2012 final test procedure, NEMA Standards Publication MG1 has been 
updated to MG1-2011. The text of the sections and paragraphs of NEMA 
MG1-2009, which is incorporated by reference under 10 CFR part 431.15, 
is identical to the text of the relevant sections and paragraphs of 
NEMA MG1-2011. The substance of those NEMA MG1-2009 sections and 
paragraphs incorporated by reference into subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 
were subjected to public notice and comment during the 2012 test 
procedure rulemaking. DOE addressed its reasons for incorporating the 
MG1-2009 text into its regulations in its May 2012 final

[[Page 38458]]

rule. See 77 FR at 26616-26617. For all the above reasons, DOE has 
preliminarily chosen not to update its regulations with NEMA MG1-2011, 
but is accepting public comment on this preliminary decision.

II. Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In this NOPR, DOE proposes to:
    (1) Define a variety of electric motor configurations (i.e., types) 
that are currently covered under 10 CFR 431.25 but are not currently 
defined under 10 CFR 431.12;
    (2) Define a variety of electric motor configurations (i.e., types) 
that are not currently covered under 10 CFR 431.25 and are not 
currently defined under 10 CFR 431.12; and
    (3) Clarify the necessary testing ``set-up'' procedures to 
facilitate the testing of the currently not covered motor types under 
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA Standard C390-10.
    Today's NOPR was precipitated by DOE's ongoing electric motors 
standards rulemaking. DOE published its ``Framework Document for 
Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors'' (the ``2010 framework 
document'') (75 FR 59657) on September 28, 2010. Public comments filed 
in response urged DOE to consider regulating the efficiency of certain 
definite and special purpose motors. DOE, in turn, published a request 
for information regarding definite and special purpose motors (the 
``March 2011 RFI''). See 76 FR 17577 (March 30, 2011). DOE is 
considering whether to propose expanding the scope of what its electric 
motor standards regulate to include all continuous duty, single speed, 
squirrel-cage, polyphase alternating-current, induction motors, with 
some narrowly defined exemptions. See 77 FR 43015 (July 23, 2012). 
Today's NOPR addresses and solicits comment on test procedure issues 
arising from potentially expanding the scope of DOE's energy efficiency 
requirements to include certain motor types that are not currently 
required to meet energy conservation standards. In particular, today's 
proposal includes definitions for those motor types that DOE may 
consider regulating and those types that DOE is not considering 
regulating at this time. DOE is coordinating today's NOPR with a 
parallel electric motor energy conservation standards rulemaking. To 
the extent possible, DOE will consider all comments submitted in 
response to the electric motors test procedure or standards rulemaking 
in connection with both activities.
    In addition to proposing to include new definitions, today's notice 
proposes to add certain steps to the applicable test procedures 
contained in appendix B to subpart B of 10 CFR part 431, to accommodate 
setting those motors up for testing that DOE is considering regulating. 
Because the proposed amendments are strictly limited to those steps 
necessary to facilitate testing under the currently incorporated test 
procedures, DOE does not anticipate that the proposal would affect the 
actual measurement of losses and the subsequent determination of 
efficiency for any of the electric motors within the scope of today's 
proposed rulemaking.
    The proposed revisions are summarized in the table below and 
addressed in detail in the following sections. Note that all citations 
to various sections of 10 CFR part 431 throughout this preamble refer 
to the current version of 10 CFR part 431. The proposed regulatory text 
follows the preamble to this notice. DOE seeks comments from interested 
parties on each of the proposed revisions.

    Table II-1--Summary of Changes Proposed in This NOPR and Affected
                       Sections of 10 CFR Part 431
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing section in 10 CFR part 431   Summary of proposed modifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 431.12--Definitions........   Adds new definitions for:
                                       [cir] Air-over electric motor.
                                       [cir] Component set.
                                       [cir] Definite-purpose inverter-
                                     fed electric motor.
                                       [cir] Electric motor with
                                     moisture resistant windings.
                                       [cir] Electric motor with sealed
                                     windings.
                                       [cir] IEC Design H motor.
                                       [cir] IEC Design N motor.
                                       [cir] Immersible electric motor.
                                       [cir] Integral brake electric
                                     motor.
                                       [cir] Inverter-capable electric
                                     motor.
                                       [cir] Liquid-cooled electric
                                     motor.
                                       [cir] NEMA Design A motor.
                                       [cir] NEMA Design C motor.
                                       [cir] Non-integral brake
                                     electrical motor.
                                       [cir] Partial electric motor.
                                       [cir] Submersible electric motor.
                                       [cir] Totally enclosed non-
                                     ventilated (TENV) electric motor.
Appendix B to Subpart B--Uniform      Updates test procedure set-
 Test Method for Measuring Nominal    up methods for:
 Full Load Efficiency of Electric    [cir] Close-coupled pump electric
 Motors.                              motors and electric motors with
                                      single or double shaft extensions
                                      of non-standard dimensions or
                                      additions.
                                       [cir] Electric motors with non-
                                     standard endshields or flanges.
                                       [cir] Immersible electric motors
                                     and electric motors with contact
                                     seals.
                                       [cir] Integral brake electric
                                     motors.
                                       [cir] Non-integral brake electric
                                     motors.
                                       [cir] Partial electric motors.
                                       [cir] Vertical electric motors
                                     and electric motors with bearings
                                     incapable of horizontal operation.
                                       [cir] Close-coupled pump electric
                                     motors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 38459]]

    DOE developed today's proposal after considering public input, 
including written comments, from a wide variety of interested parties. 
All commenters, along with their corresponding abbreviations and 
affiliation, are listed in Table II.2 below. The issues raised by these 
commenters are addressed in the discussions that follow.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As comments have not yet been submitted for this test 
procedure rulemaking, all comments cited in this NOPR can be found 
in the Electric Motors Standards rulemaking docket with the number 
EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027.

                                     Table II-2--Summary of NOPR Commenters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Company or organization                      Abbreviation                         Affiliation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness Project...  ASAP................................  Energy Efficiency Advocate.
Baldor Electric Co......................  Baldor..............................  Manufacturer.
Copper Development Association..........  CDA.................................  Trade Association.
Motor Coalition *.......................  MC..................................  Energy Efficiency Advocates,
                                                                                 Trade Associations,
                                                                                 Manufacturers.
National Electrical Manufacturers         NEMA................................  Trade Association.
 Association.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The members of the Motor Coalition include: National Electrical Manufacturers Association, American Council
  for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Alliance to Save Energy, Earthjustice,
  Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Northeast Energy Efficiency
  Partnerships, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council.

III. Discussion

A. Proposed Effective Dates for the Amended Test Procedures

    If adopted, the proposed amendments would become effective 30 days 
after the publication of the final rule. As previously explained, 
today's proposal would primarily add a new section to DOE's test 
procedure with the steps that the manufacturers of certain types of 
special and definite purpose electric motors would need to take before 
testing a motor. Because these test procedure changes would add only a 
new section to the existing test procedure for motor types that are not 
currently regulated (i.e., special and definite purpose motors), 
manufacturers of motors currently covered by DOE regulations (i.e., 
general purpose electric motors (subtype I and subtype II), including 
fire pump electric motors and NEMA Design B motors with a power rating 
of more than 200 horsepower but not greater than 500 horsepower) can 
continue to use the current test procedure until 180 days after 
publication of the final rule. At 180 days after publication of the 
final rule, both manufacturers of currently regulated motors and 
manufacturers of special and definite purpose motors for which 
definitions or testing set-up procedures are proposed in this rule may 
not make any representations regarding energy use or the cost of energy 
use for all electric motors addressed in today's rulemaking unless such 
representations are based on the results of testing, or calculations 
from a substantiated alternative efficiency determination method 
(AEDM), that reflect values of efficiency that would be obtained 
through testing in accordance with the amended test procedures. In 
addition, 180 days after publication of the final rule, both 
manufacturers of currently regulated motors and manufacturers of 
special and definite purpose motors for which definitions or testing 
set-up procedures are provided would be required to comply with and use 
the amended test procedures to determine if the covered electric motor 
types they manufacture comply with the applicable energy conservation 
standards.\4\ See 42 U.S.C. 6314(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DOE acknowledges that there are no current energy 
conservation standards for the majority of the motor types covered 
in today's proposed rule. If DOE establishes standards for these 
motor types, manufacturers will be required to use the proposed test 
procedure to certify compliance with these standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Expanding the Scope of Coverage of Energy Conservation Standards

    DOE has the authority to set energy conservation standards for a 
wider range of electric motors than those classified as general purpose 
electric motors (e.g., definite or special purpose motors). The EPACT 
1992 amendments to EPCA had defined ``electric motor'' to include a 
certain type of ``general purpose'' motor that Congress would 
eventually classify as a general purpose electric motor (subtype I). 
(42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (1992)) Those amendments also defined several 
other types of motors, including definite purpose motors and special 
purpose motors. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(C) and (D) (1992)) EPACT 1992 
set energy conservation standards for ``electric motors'' (i.e., 
general purpose electric motors (subtype I)) and explicitly stated that 
the standards did not apply to definite purpose or special purpose 
motors.\5\ (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1)) (1992)) EISA 2007 struck the narrow 
EPACT 1992 definition for ``electric motor'' and replaced it with the 
heading ``Electric motors.'' As a result of these changes, both 
definite and special purpose motors fell under the broad heading of 
``Electric motors'' that previously only applied to ``general purpose'' 
motors. While EISA 2007 set specific standards for general purpose 
electric motors, it did not explicitly apply these new requirements to 
definite or special purpose motors. (See generally 42 U.S.C. 6313(b) 
(2012))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For the most part, DOE understands that a fire pump electric 
motor is a NEMA Design B motor, except it does not have a thermal 
limit switch that would otherwise preclude multiple starts. In other 
words, a NEMA Design B electric motor has a thermal limit switch 
that protects the motor, whereas a fire pump electric motor does not 
have such a thermal limit switch to ensure that the motor will start 
and operate to pump water to extinguish a fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although DOE believes that EPCA, as amended through EISA 2007, 
provides sufficient statutory authority for the regulation of special 
purpose and definite purpose motors as ``electric motors,'' DOE notes 
it has additional authority provided under section 10 of AEMTCA (to be 
codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)) to generally regulate ``other 
motors'' as covered ``industrial equipment.'' Therefore, even if 
special and definite purpose motors were not ``electric motors,'' 
special and definite purpose motors would be considered as ``other 
motors'' that EPCA already treats as covered industrial equipment.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPCA specifies the types of industrial equipment that can be 
classified as covered in addition to the equipment enumerated in 42 
U.S.C. 6311(1). This equipment includes ``other motors'' (to be 
codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)). Industrial equipment must also, 
without regard to whether such equipment is in fact distributed in 
commerce for industrial or commercial use, be of a type that: (1) In 
operation consumes, or is designed to consume, energy in operation; 
(2) to any significant extent, is distributed in commerce for 
industrial or commercial use; and (3) is not a covered product as 
defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(a)(2) of EPCA, other than a component of a 
covered product with respect to which there is in effect a 
determination under 42 U.S.C. 6312(c). (42 U.S.C. 6311 (2)(A)). Data 
from the 2002 United States Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market 
Opportunities Assessment estimated total energy use from industrial 
motor systems to be 747 billion kWh. Based on the expansion of 
industrial activity, it is likely that current annual electric motor 
energy use is higher than this figure. Electric motors are 
distributed in commerce for both the industrial and commercial 
sectors. According to data provided by the Motors Coalition, the 
number of electric motors manufactured in, or imported into, the 
United States is over five million electric motors annually, 
including special and definite purpose motors. Finally, special and 
definite purpose motors are not currently regulated under Title 10 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 430 (10 CFR part 430).
    To classify equipment as covered commercial or industrial 
equipment, the Secretary must also determine that classifying the 
equipment as covered equipment is necessary for the purposes of Part 
A-1 of EPCA. The purpose of Part A-1 is to improve the efficiency of 
electric motors, pumps and certain other industrial equipment to 
conserve the energy resources of the nation. (42 U.S.C. 6312(a)-(b)) 
In today's proposal, DOE has tentatively determined that the 
regulation of special and definite purpose motors is necessary to 
carry out the purposes of part A-1 of EPCA because regulating these 
motors will promote the conservation of energy supplies. Efficiency 
standards that may result from coverage would help to capture some 
portion of the potential for improving the efficiency of special and 
definite purpose motors.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 38460]]

    Consistent with the changes made by EISA 2007, DOE defined the term 
``electric motor'' broadly. See 77 FR 26633 (May 4, 2012). That 
definition covers ``general purpose,'' ``special purpose'' and 
``definite purpose'' electric motors (as defined by EPCA). Previously, 
EPCA did not require either ``special purpose'' or ``definite purpose'' 
motor types to meet energy conservation standards because they were not 
considered ``general purpose'' under the EPCA definition of ``general 
purpose motor''--a necessary element to meet the pre-EISA 2007 
``electric motor'' definition. See 77 FR 26612. Because of the 
restrictive nature of the prior electric motor definition, along with 
the restrictive definition of the term ``industrial equipment,'' DOE 
would have been unable to set standards for such motors. (See 42 U.S.C. 
6311(2)(B) (limiting the scope of equipment covered under EPCA)) In 
view of the changes introduced by EISA 2007 and the absence of current 
Federal energy conservation standards for special purpose and definite 
purpose motors, as noted in chapter 2 of DOE's July 2012 electric 
motors preliminary analysis technical support document (TSD),\7\ it is 
DOE's view that both are categories of ``electric motors'' covered 
under EPCA, as currently amended. Accordingly, DOE is considering 
establishing standards for certain definite purpose and special purpose 
motors in the context of a separate rulemaking. At this time, DOE is 
considering setting energy conservation standards for only those motors 
that exhibit all of the following nine characteristics:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The preliminary TSD published in July 2012 is available at: 
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-
0023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Is a single-speed, induction motor,
     Is rated for continuous duty (MG1) operation or for duty 
type S1 (IEC),
     Contains a squirrel-cage (MG1) or cage (IEC) rotor,
     Operates on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz 
sinusoidal line power,
     Is rated 600 volts or less,
     Has a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration,
     Has a three-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric 
equivalent) or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric 
equivalent),
     Is rated no more than 500 horsepower, but greater than or 
equal to 1 horsepower (or kilowatt equivalent), and
     Meets all of the performance requirements of one of the 
following motor types: a NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC design 
N or H motor.
    Motor types that exhibit all of the characteristics listed above, 
but that DOE is declining to subject to energy conservation standards 
at this time because of the inability to test them for efficiency in a 
repeatable manner, would be identified by DOE through a parallel notice 
of proposed rulemaking. To prepare this test procedure NOPR, DOE has 
incorporated feedback received during the August 21, 2012, electric 
motors standards preliminary analysis public meeting, comments on the 
March 2011 RFI, and comments on the July 2012 electric motors 
preliminary analysis (``electric motors preliminary analysis'') as well 
as information gleaned from discussions with testing laboratories, 
manufacturers, and subject matter experts (SMEs).
    To facilitate the potential application of energy conservation 
standards to motors built in the configurations described above, DOE 
proposes to first define the motors and then provide additional testing 
instructions to enable them to be tested using the existing DOE test 
method for electric motors. The definitions under consideration would 
address motors currently subject to standards, certain motors DOE is 
considering requiring to meet standards, and certain other motors that 
DOE is, at this time, considering not regulating through energy 
conservation standards. Some clarifying definitions, such as the 
definitions for NEMA Design A and NEMA Design C motors from NEMA MG1-
2009, would be added. However, DOE understands that some motors, such 
as partial motors and integral brake motors, do not have standard, 
industry-accepted definitions. For such motor types, DOE conducted its 
own independent research and consulted with SMEs, manufacturers, and 
the Motor Coalition so that DOE could create the working definitions 
that are proposed in section III of this NOPR. For the definitions of 
``electric motor with moisture resistant windings'' and ``electric 
motor with sealed windings,'' which reference certain subsections of 
NEMA MG1-2009, DOE intends to incorporate by reference the cited 
sections of NEMA MG1-2009.
    DOE believes that the existing IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) 
and CSA C390-10 test procedures can be used to accurately measure 
losses and determine the energy efficiency for this additional group 
(or ``expanded scope'') of motors because all of the motor types under 
consideration are single-speed, polyphase induction motors with 
electromechanical characteristics similar to those currently subject to 
energy conservation standards. While some of these motor types require 
the addition of testing step-up instructions prior to testing, all can 
be tested using the same methodology provided in those industry-based 
procedures DOE has already incorporated into its regulations.
    Testing an electric motor using IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) 
or CSA C390-10 requires some basic electrical connections and physical 
configurations. To test an electric motor under either procedure, the 
electric motor is first mounted on a test bench in a horizontal 
position. This means that the motor shaft is horizontal to the test 
bench and the motor is equipped with antifriction bearings that can 
withstand operation while in a horizontal position.\8\ Instruments are 
then connected to the power leads of the motor to measure input power, 
voltage, current, speed, torque, temperature, and other input, output, 
and performance characteristics. Thermocouples are attached to the 
motor to facilitate temperature measurement. Stator winding resistance 
is measured while the motor is at ambient, or room, temperature. No-
load measurements are recorded while the motor is operating, both 
temperature and input power have stabilized, and the shaft extension is 
free from any attachments. After ambient temperature and no-load 
measurements are taken, a dynamometer is attached to the motor shaft to 
take ``loaded'' measurements. A dynamometer is a device that 
simultaneously applies and measures torque for a motor. The dynamometer 
applies incremental loads to the shaft, typically at 25, 50, 75, 100, 
125, and 150 percent of the motor's total rated output horsepower. This 
allows the testing laboratory to record motor performance

[[Page 38461]]

criteria, such as power output and torque, at each incremental load 
point. Additional stator winding resistance measurements are taken to 
record the temperature at the different load points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ DOE is aware of some types of bearings that cannot operate 
while the motor is in a horizontal position. DOE addresses such 
bearings in later sections of this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE believes that clarifying instructions may be necessary to test 
some of the expanded-scope motors that DOE is considering and for which 
DOE is conducting an energy conservation standards rulemaking because 
some motors may require modifications before they can operate 
continuously and be tested on a dynamometer in a manner consistent with 
the current DOE test procedure. For example, a partial electric motor 
may be engineered for use without one or both endshields, including 
bearings, because it relies on mechanical support from another piece of 
equipment. Without these components, the motor would be unable to 
operate as a stand-alone piece of equipment. Therefore, DOE is 
proposing to add instructions to facilitate consistent and repeatable 
procedures for motors such as these. These additions were based on 
testing and research conducted by the Department along with technical 
consultations with SMEs, manufacturers, testing laboratories, and 
various trade associations. Table III-1 lists those electric motors 
that are covered under current energy conservation standards or that 
DOE is analyzing for potential new energy conservation standards. In 
each case, the table identifies whether DOE is proposing to address a 
given motor through the use of new definitions, test procedure 
instructions, or both.

                       Table III-1--Motor Types Considered for Regulation in DOE Proposed Test Procedure and Standards Rulemakings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Under  consideration
                   Motor type                      Currently  subject to          for potential            New definition          Additional  set-up
                                                         standards?                standards?                 proposed?          instructions  proposed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA Design A Motors...........................  Yes......................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  No.
NEMA Design C Motors...........................  Yes......................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  No.
IEC Design N Motors............................  Yes......................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  No.
IEC Design H Motors............................  Yes......................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  No.
Electric Motors with Moisture Resistant or       No.......................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  No.
 Sealed Windings.
Inverter-Capable Electric Motors...............  Yes......................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  No.
Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated Electric Motors  No.......................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  No.
Immersible Electric Motors.....................  No.......................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.
Electric Motors with Contact Seals.............  Yes......................  Yes.....................  No......................  Yes.
Integral Brake Electric Motors.................  No.......................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.
Non-Integral Brake Electric Motors.............  Yes......................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.
Partial Electric Motors........................  No.......................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.
Electric Motors with Non-Standard Endshields or  No.......................  Yes.....................  No......................  Yes.
 Flanges.
Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors.............  Yes......................  Yes.....................  No......................  Yes.
Electric Motors with Special Shafts............  No.......................  Yes.....................  No......................  Yes.
Vertical Solid Shaft Motors....................  Yes......................  Yes.....................  No......................  Yes.
Vertical Hollow-Shaft Motors...................  No.......................  Yes.....................  No......................  Yes.
Electric Motors with Thrust Bearings...........  No.......................  Yes.....................  No......................  Yes.
Electric Motors with Sealed Bearings...........  Yes......................  Yes.....................  No......................  Yes.
Electric Motors with Roller Bearings...........  No.......................  Yes.....................  No......................  Yes.
Electric Motors with Sleeve Bearings...........  Yes......................  Yes.....................  No......................  Yes.
Electric Motors with Non-Standard Bases........  No.......................  Yes.....................  No......................  No.
Air-Over Electric Motors.......................  No.......................  No......................  Yes.....................  No.
Component Sets.................................  No.......................  No......................  Yes.....................  No.
Liquid-cooled Electric Motors..................  No.......................  No......................  Yes.....................  No.
Submersible Electric Motors....................  No.......................  No......................  Yes.....................  No.
Definite-Purpose Inverter-Fed Electric Motors..  No.......................  No......................  Yes.....................  No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Motor Type Definitions

    During the course of the 2012 final test procedure rulemaking, some 
interested parties questioned why DOE defined NEMA Design B motors but 
not NEMA Design A or Design C motors. DOE explained that it chose to 
adopt a definition for ``NEMA Design B'' motor because the application 
section in MG1 (MG1-1.19.1.2 in both MG1-2009 and MG1-2011) contained a 
typographical error that required correcting for purposes of DOE's 
regulations. DOE also noted that it may incorporate a corrected version 
of the ``NEMA Design C'' motor definition in a future rulemaking--that 
definition, which is found in MG1-1.19.1.3, also contains a 
typographical error. DOE did not intend to add definitions for NEMA 
Design A and IEC Design N, as the existing definitions found in MG1 are 
correct as published. 77 FR 26616, 26634 (May 4, 2012). In view of 
DOE's intention to consider regulating other types of motors, DOE now 
believes it is necessary to make clear the terms and definitions for 
them as well. DOE understands that many terms and definitions 
applicable to motors and used in common industry parlance for voluntary 
standards and day-to-day business communication are not necessarily 
defined with sufficient clarity for regulatory purposes. DOE does not, 
at this time, propose to add amendments related to such types of motors 
other than to provide more precise definitions for them to sufficiently 
capture the particular characteristics attributable to each and aid the 
manufacturing community in determining whether a particular basic model 
is covered by DOE's regulations for electric motors.
1. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Design A and Design C 
Motors
    NEMA MG1-2009 defines the following three types of polyphase, 
alternating current, induction motors: NEMA Designs A, B, and C. NEMA 
MG1-2009 establishes the same pull-up, breakdown, and locked-rotor 
torque requirements for both NEMA Design A

[[Page 38462]]

and NEMA Design B motors.\9\ However, a NEMA Design A motor must be 
designed such that its locked-rotor current exceeds the maximum locked-
rotor current established for a NEMA Design B motor. Unless the 
application specifically requires the higher locked-rotor current 
capability offered by a NEMA Design A motor, a NEMA Design B motor 
(that has the same specified minimum torque characteristics as the NEMA 
Design A motor) is often used instead because of the additional 
convenience offered by these motors when compared to Design A motors. 
(See NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at 36 (noting the additional 
convenience offered by Design B motors over Design A motors with 
respect to selecting disconnecting methods and in satisfying National 
Electrical Code and Underwriters Laboratory requirements.)) In 
addition, DOE understands that NEMA Design B motors are frequently 
preferred because the user can easily select motor control and 
protection equipment that meets the applicable requirements of the 
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) National Electrical Code 
(NFPA 70). These motors are also listed by private testing, safety, or 
certification organizations, such as CSA International and Underwriters 
Laboratory. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 36) A NEMA Design C 
motor requires a minimum locked-rotor torque per NEMA MG1-2009, Table 
12-3, which is higher than either the NEMA Design A or Design B minimum 
locked-rotor torque required per NEMA MG1-2009, Table 12-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Locked-rotor torque is the torque that a motor produces when 
it is at rest or zero speed and initially turned on. A higher 
locked-rotor torque is important for hard-to-start applications, 
such as positive displacement pumps or compressors. A lower locked-
rotor torque can be accepted in applications such as centrifugal 
fans or pumps where the start load is low or close to zero. Pull-up 
torque is the torque needed to cause a load to reach its full rated 
speed. If a motor's pull-up torque is less than that required by its 
application load, the motor will overheat and eventually stall. 
Breakdown torque is the maximum torque a motor can produce without 
abruptly losing motor speed. High breakdown torque is necessary for 
applications that may undergo frequent overloading, such as a 
conveyor belt. Often, conveyor belts have more product or materials 
placed upon them than their rating allows. High breakdown torque 
enables the conveyor to continue operating under these conditions 
without causing heat damage to the motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In view of the above, DOE is proposing to incorporate a definition 
for both ``NEMA Design A motor'' and ``NEMA Design C motor'' to improve 
regulatory clarity. DOE notes it has already adopted a definition for 
``NEMA Design B motor'' at 10 CFR 431.12. DOE believes that providing 
definitions for other motor types will provide consistency in the 
treatment of all considered motors. The proposed definitions for NEMA 
Design A and Design C motors are based on the definitions in NEMA MG1-
2009, paragraphs 1.19.1.1 and 1.19.1.3, respectively. DOE believes that 
the NEMA MG1-2009 definition of ``NEMA Design A motor'' is sufficiently 
clear and concise and is proposing to add it with minor clarifying 
elements. DOE is proposing to incorporate the definition of ``NEMA 
Design C motor'' from NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 1.19.1.3 with some minor 
corrections because the NEMA MG1-2009 definition appears to contain 
typographical errors \10\ with regard to the tables referenced in the 
definition. As detailed in the proposed regulations below, a NEMA 
Design A motor is defined as a squirrel-cage motor designed to 
withstand full-voltage starting and developing locked-rotor torque, 
pull-up torque, breakdown torque, and locked-rotor current as specified 
in NEMA MG1-2009; and with a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent 
for motors with fewer than 10 poles. A NEMA Design C motor is defined 
as a squirrel-cage motor designed to withstand full-voltage starting 
and developing locked-rotor torque for high-torque applications, pull-
up torque, breakdown torque, and locked-rotor current as specified in 
NEMA MG1-2009; and with a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In NEMA MG1-2009, the definition for NEMA Design C refers 
the reader to paragraph 12.34.1 for locked-rotor current limits for 
60 hertz motors. The appropriate paragraph appears to be 12.35.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously mentioned, DOE is proposing these definitions to 
retain consistency with other already incorporated regulatory 
definitions. General purpose electric motors that meet the definition 
of NEMA Design A and Design C motor and are rated between 1 and 200 
horsepower are currently subject to energy conservation standards. DOE 
is not aware of any difficulties in testing either of these motor 
design types using the current procedures. Therefore, DOE is not 
proposing any test procedure amendments for these motor types at this 
time. DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate definitions 
for NEMA Design A and NEMA Design C motors based on the NEMA MG1-2009 
definitions of these motor designs.
2. International Electrotechnical Commission Designs N and H Motors
    Similar to NEMA, the European International Electrotechnical 
Commission (IEC) produces industry standards that contain performance 
requirements for electric motors. Analogous to NEMA Designs B and C, 
the IEC has design types N and H. IEC Design N motors have similar 
performance characteristics to NEMA Design B motors, while IEC Design H 
motors are similar to NEMA Design C motors. Because many motors 
imported into the U.S. are built to IEC specifications instead of NEMA 
specifications, DOE is proposing to include a definition for IEC Design 
N and IEC Design H motor types to ensure that these functionally 
similar motors are treated in a manner consistent with equivalent NEMA-
based electric motors and to retain overall consistency with the 
existing definitional framework.
    DOE's proposed definition for ``IEC Design N motor'' incorporates 
language from IEC Standard 60034-12 (2007 Ed. 2.1) (IEC 60034) with 
some modifications that would make the definition more comprehensive. 
IEC 60034 defines IEC Design N motors as being ``normal starting torque 
three-phase cage induction motors intended for direct-across the line 
starting, having 2, 4, 6 or 8 poles and rated from 0,4 kW to 1 600 
kW,'' with torque characteristics and locked-rotor characteristics 
detailed in subsequent tables of the standard.\11\ A similar approach 
for IEC Design H motors is taken in IEC 60034, but with references to 
different sections and slightly different wording. DOE is proposing to 
include all references to tables for torque characteristics and locked-
rotor characteristics as part of these definitions to improve their 
comprehensiveness. As detailed in the proposed regulations below, 
today's proposed rule defines an ``IEC Design N motor'' as an induction 
motor designed for use with three-phase power with the following 
characteristics: a cage rotor, intended for direct-on-line starting, 
having 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles, rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW, and 
conforming to IEC specifications for torque characteristics, locked 
rotor apparent power, and starting. An ``IEC Design H motor'' is 
defined as an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power 
with the following characteristics: a cage rotor, intended for direct-
on-line starting, with 4, 6, or 8 poles, rated from 0.4 kW to 160 kW, 
and conforming to IEC specifications for starting torque, locked rotor 
apparent power, and starting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Across-the-line (or direct-on-line) starting is the ability 
of a motor to start directly when connected to a polyphase 
sinusoidal power source without the need for an inverter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Electric motors that meet these performance requirements and

[[Page 38463]]

otherwise meet the definitions of general purpose electric motor 
(subtype I) or (subtype II) are already required to satisfy DOE's 
energy conservation standards at specified horsepower ranges. Because 
these IEC definitions stipulate a set of performance parameters that do 
not inhibit an electric motor's ability to be tested, DOE is not 
proposing any additional test procedure amendments at this time. 
However, DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions.
3. Electric Motors With Sealed and Moisture Resistant Windings
    All electric motors have ``insulation systems'' that surround the 
various copper winding components in the stator. The insulation, such 
as a resin coating or plastic sheets, serves two purposes. First, it 
helps separate the three electrical phases of the windings from each 
other and, second, it separates the copper windings from the stator 
lamination steel. Electric motors with encapsulated windings have 
additional insulation that completely encases the stator windings, 
which protects them from condensation, moisture, dirt, and debris. This 
insulation typically consists of a special material coating, such as 
epoxy or resin that completely seals the stator's windings. 
Encapsulation is generally found on open-frame motors, where the 
possibility of contaminants getting inside the motor is higher than for 
an enclosed-frame motor.
    In the electric motors preliminary analysis TSD,\12\ DOE set forth 
a possible definition for the term ``encapsulated electric motor.'' The 
definition presented was based upon a NEMA definition for the term 
``Machine with Sealed Windings'' and was intended to cover motors 
containing special windings that could withstand exposure to 
contaminants and moisture. As highlighted in NEMA and Baldor's 
comments, NEMA MG1-2009 does not specify a single term that encompasses 
a motor with encapsulated windings. Instead, NEMA MG1-2009 provides two 
terms: one for a ``Machine with Sealed Windings'' and one for a 
``Machine with Moisture Resistant Windings.'' A definition for the term 
``Machine with Encapsulated Windings'' has not appeared in MG1 since 
the 1967 edition. Because of potential confusion, NEMA asked DOE to 
clarify which type of motor, or possibly both, DOE was considering 
covering. (Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0060 at p 52; 
NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 33)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The preliminary TSD published in July 2012 is available at: 
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-
0023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the two pertinent definitions, the comments from 
Baldor and NEMA, and DOE's own research on these types of motors, DOE 
believes that motors that meet both definitions should be covered by 
any proposed definition and be included within its expanded scope of 
coverage. The ability for a motor's windings to continue to function 
properly when the motor is in the presence of moisture, water, or 
contaminants, as is the case when a motor meets one of these two 
definitions, does not affect its ability to be connected to a 
dynamometer and be tested for efficiency. Additionally, this ability 
does not preclude a motor from meeting the nine criteria that DOE is 
preliminarily using to characterize the electric motors that are within 
the scope of DOE's regulatory authority. Therefore, DOE is proposing 
two definitions based on the NEMA MG1--2009 definitions of a ``Machine 
with Moisture Resistant Windings'' and a ``Machine with Sealed 
Windings.'' DOE's proposed definitions are based on modified versions 
of the NEMA MG1--2009 definitions in order to eliminate potential 
confusion and ambiguities. The proposed definitions emphasize the 
ability of motors to pass the conformance tests for moisture and water 
resistance, thereby identifying them as having special or definite 
purpose characteristics. As detailed in the proposed regulations below, 
today's proposed rule defines ``electric motor with moisture 
resistant'' as an electric motor engineered to pass the conformance 
test for moisture resistance as specified in NEMA MG1-2009. An 
``electric motor with sealed windings'' is defined as an electric motor 
engineered to pass the conformance test for water resistance as 
specified in NEMA MG1-2009.
    In addition to proposing a definition for these motor types, DOE 
also considered difficulties that may arise during testing when 
following IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B or CSA C390-10 or any 
potential impacts on efficiency caused by encapsulation of the 
windings. While DOE received comment advocating the regulation of 
motors with special windings, it did not receive any comments 
suggesting or raising any necessary test procedure changes that would 
need to be made as a result of the stator winding encapsulation. (NEMA, 
EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 14) Subsequently, DOE conducted its 
own research and consulted with testing laboratories and various 
industry experts regarding any effects that specially insulated 
windings may have on testing or efficiency.
    As a result of these discussions, DOE does not believe that the 
presence of specially insulated stator windings in an electric motor 
would interfere with DOE-prescribed test procedures. Also, because 
temperature measurements are taken by measuring the stator winding 
resistance, DOE does not believe that the insulation on the stator 
windings themselves would interfere with carrying out any part of IEEE 
Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA C390-10, both of which require 
temperature measurements to be taken during testing. The modifications 
made to stator windings have no impact on a motor's ability to be 
connected to a dynamometer because they are modifications to the 
internal portions of the motor. Therefore, at this time, DOE is not 
proposing any test procedure amendments for electric motors with 
moisture resistant windings or electric motors with sealed windings.
    DOE believes that the effects that specially insulated windings may 
have on an electric motor's efficiency are likely to be minimal. 
Although DOE recognizes there could be a change in the thermal 
characteristics of the motor, DOE believes that the additional 
treatment given to these specially insulated windings could, in some 
cases, improve heat dissipation. Again, however, DOE does not believe 
that the efficiency changes, whether positive or negative, will be 
significant. DOE requests any data, information, or comments regarding 
the effects of specially insulated stator windings on electric motor 
efficiency.
    DOE also seeks comment on its proposed definition for motors with 
moisture resistant windings and motors with sealed windings and its 
preliminary decision not to propose additional testing instructions for 
these motors types.
4. Inverter-Capable Electric Motors
    DOE currently regulates single speed motors with a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 
8-pole configuration. Each of these motors operates at a constant 
rotational speed, which is predicated by its pole configuration. This 
means that the motor shaft is engineered to rotate at the same speed, 
regardless of its application or required power. In addition to its

[[Page 38464]]

pole configuration, a motor's rotational speed is partially determined 
by the frequency of its power source. The equation determining a 
motor's theoretical maximum speed (or synchronous speed) is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JN13.001

    Inverter drives (also called variable-frequency drives (VFDs), 
variable-speed drives, adjustable frequency drives, alternating-current 
drives, microdrives, or vector drives) operate by changing the 
frequency and voltage of the power source that feeds into an electric 
motor. The inverter is connected between the power source and the motor 
and provides a variable frequency power source to the motor. The 
benefit of the inverter is that it can control the frequency of the 
power source fed to the motor, which in turn controls the rotational 
speed of the motor. This allows the motor to operate at a reduced speed 
when the full, nameplate-rated speed is not needed. This practice can 
save energy, particularly for fan and pump applications that frequently 
operate at reduced loading points. Inverters can also control the 
start-up characteristics of the motor, such as locked-rotor current or 
locked-rotor torque, which allows a motor to employ higher-efficiency 
designs while still attaining locked-rotor current or locked-rotor 
torque limits standardized in NEMA MG1-2009.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Li, Harry. Impact of VFD, Starting Method and Driven Load 
on Motor Efficiency. 2011. Siemens Industry, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, being suitable for use on an inverter alone would not 
exempt a motor from having to satisfy any applicable energy 
conservation requirements because it does not preclude a motor from 
meeting the nine design characteristics of electric motors that will 
define regulatory coverage. In today's NOPR, DOE is maintaining this 
approach. However, today's NOPR seeks to further clarify this position 
by proposing a definition for the term ``inverter-capable electric 
motor.''
    In its comments about the electric motors preliminary analysis, 
NEMA provided suggestions on how to define inverter capable-electric 
motors. NEMA agreed with DOE that these motors are capable of both 
operating with or without an inverter. However, NEMA stressed that 
these electric motors are primarily engineered to be used without an 
inverter and, in its view, this fact should be evident by the 
definition DOE ultimately adopts. NEMA also provided a suggested 
definition for the term ``inverter-capable electric motor.'' (NEMA, 
EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at pp. 34-35) This definition, similar in 
substance and meaning to the definition that DOE presented in the 
electric motors preliminary analysis but including a few minor word 
changes, is consistent with DOE's understanding. As detailed in the 
proposed regulations below, today's proposed rule defines an 
``inverter-capable electric motor'' as an electric motor designed to be 
directly connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line power, but that is 
also capable of continuous operation on an inverter drive over a 
limited speed range and associated load.
    Because this motor type operates like a typical, general purpose 
electric motor when not connected to an inverter, DOE does not believe 
any test procedure amendments are needed. Under DOE's proposed 
approach, an inverter-capable electric motor would be tested without 
the use of an inverter and rely on the procedures used when testing a 
general purpose electric motor. DOE requests comments on its proposed 
definition and its tentative decision not to specify any test procedure 
instructions for this motor type beyond that which is already contained 
in the current procedure.
5. Totally Enclosed Non-Ventilated Electric Motors
    Most enclosed electric motors are constructed with a fan attached 
to the shaft, typically on the end opposite the driven load, as a means 
of pushing air over the surface of the motor enclosure, which helps 
dissipate heat and reduce the motor's operating temperature. Totally 
enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) motors, however, have no fan blowing air 
over the surface of the motor. These motors rely, instead, on the 
conduction and convection of the motor heat into the surrounding 
environment for heat removal, which results in a motor that operates at 
higher temperatures than motors with attached cooling fans. TENV motors 
may be used in environments where an external fan could clog with dirt 
or dust, or applications where the shaft operates at too low of a speed 
to provide sufficient cooling (i.e., a motor controlled by an inverter 
to operate at very low revolutions per minute). TENV motors may employ 
additional frame material as well as improved stator winding insulation 
so that the motor may withstand the increased operating temperatures. 
Extra frame material allows for more surface area and mass to dissipate 
heat, whereas higher-grade stator winding insulation may be rated to 
withstand the higher operating temperatures.
    In view of the statutory definitional changes created by EISA 2007, 
and the support expressed by both industry and energy efficiency 
advocates, DOE is analyzing TENV motors in the energy conservation 
standards rulemaking. (Motor Coalition, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0035 at 
p. 19) As part of this effort, DOE proposes to add a definition for 
this motor type based on the definition of a ``totally enclosed 
nonventilated machine'' in paragraph 1.26.1 of NEMA MG1-2009. DOE 
tentatively concludes that this definition is accurate and sufficiently 
clear and concise and is proposing that the definition be adopted with 
minor alterations. As detailed in the proposed regulations below, 
today's proposed rule defines a ``TENV electric motor'' as an electric 
motor built in a frame-surface cooled, totally enclosed configuration 
that is designed and equipped to be cooled only by free convection.
    In addition to proposing a definition for these motors, DOE 
considered whether any modifications to the test procedure may be 
necessary to test TENV motors. Prior to the electric motors preliminary 
analysis, ASAP and NEMA submitted comments suggesting that 
manufacturers could demonstrate compliance with the applicable energy 
conservation standards by testing similar models. (ASAP and NEMA, EERE-
2010-BT-STD-0027-0012 at p. 7) Although NEMA and ASAP suggested this 
was a possible way to test these motors to demonstrate compliance, they 
did not state that this was necessary because of testing difficulties. 
Subsequently, after DOE published its electric motors preliminary 
analysis, NEMA stated that it was not aware of any changes that were 
required to use IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) when testing TENV 
motors. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 16) The Copper 
Development Association (CDA) commented that DOE may need to develop 
new test procedures for these motor types but did not explain why such 
a change would

[[Page 38465]]

be necessary. (CDA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0018 at p. 2) CDA did not 
indicate whether the current procedures could be modified to test these 
motors or what specific steps would need to be included to test these 
types of motors. Additionally, DOE knows of no technical reason why a 
TENV motor could not be tested using either IEEE Standard 112 (Test 
Method B) or the CSA-C390 procedure without modification. In view of 
NEMA's most recent comments suggesting that IEEE Standard 112 (Test 
Method B) is an appropriate means to determine the efficiency of these 
motors, and the fact that the CDA did not provide an explanation of why 
changes would be necessary, DOE is not proposing any test procedure 
amendments for TENV electric motors.
    DOE requests comments on its proposed definition and preliminary 
decision not to propose any test procedure amendments for TENV electric 
motors.

D. Electric Motor Types Requiring Definitions and Test Procedure 
Instructions

    DOE is proposing to add definitions for a number of electric motor 
types that are already commonly understood, but not necessarily clearly 
defined, by the industry. DOE is also proposing clarifying language for 
testing each of these motor types.
1. Immersible Electric Motors and Electric Motors With Contact Seals
    Most electric motors are not engineered to withstand immersion in 
liquid (e.g., water, including wastewater). If liquid enters an 
electric motor's stator frame, it could create electrical faults 
between the different electrical phases or electrical steel and could 
impede rotor operation or corrode internal components. Immersible 
motors are electric motors that are capable of withstanding immersion 
in a liquid without causing damage to the motor. Immersible motors can 
withstand temporary operation in liquid, sometimes up to two weeks, but 
also run continuously outside of a liquid environment because they do 
not rely on the liquid to cool the motor. According to test 7 in Table 
5-4 of NEMA MG1-2009, for a motor to be marked as protected against the 
effects of immersion, a motor must prevent the ingress of water into 
the motor while being completely submerged in water for a continuous 
period of at least 30 minutes. Therefore, DOE interprets ``temporary'' 
to mean a period of time of no less than 30 minutes. Immersible motors 
can operate while temporarily submerged because they have contact seals 
that keep liquid and other contaminants out of the motor. Additionally, 
some immersible motors may have pressurized oil inside the motor 
enclosure, which is used in conjunction with contact seals to prevent 
the ingress of liquid during immersion. Finally, immersible motors are 
occasionally constructed in a package that includes another, smaller 
(e.g., \1/2\ horsepower) motor that is used to improve cooling when the 
immersible motor is not submerged in water. In these cases, the two 
motors are constructed in a totally enclosed blower-cooled (TEBC) frame 
and sold together.
    In responding to the October 15, 2010 framework document, NEMA and 
ASAP commented that greater clarification is needed with regard to 
immersible motors and how to differentiate them from liquid-cooled or 
submersible motors. (NEMA and ASAP, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0012 at p. 9) 
DOE understands the general differences to be as follows:
    1. Submersible motors are engineered to operate only while 
completely surrounded by liquid because they require liquid for cooling 
purposes,
    2. Liquid-cooled motors use liquid (or liquid-filled components) to 
facilitate heat dissipation but are not submerged in liquid during 
operation, and
    3. Immersible motors are capable of operating temporarily while 
surrounded by liquid, but are engineered to work primarily out of 
liquid.
    As a result, as detailed in the proposed regulations below, today's 
proposed rule defines an immersible electric motor as an electric motor 
primarily designed to operate continuously in free-air, but that is 
also capable of withstanding complete immersion in liquid for a 
continuous period of no less than 30 minutes.
    The contact seals used by immersible motors to prevent the ingress 
of water or other contaminants have an effect on tested efficiency that 
generally changes over time. New seals are stiff, and provide higher 
levels of friction than seals that have been used and undergone an 
initial break-in period.\14\ DOE understands that as the seals wear-in 
they will loosen and become more flexible, which will somewhat reduce 
friction losses. In its comments on the electric motors preliminary 
analysis, NEMA stated that immersible motors should be tested with 
their contact seals removed. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 
18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Guide for the Use of Electric Motor Testing Methods Based 
on IEC 60034-2-1. May 2011. Version 1.1. 4E, Electric Motors 
Systems, EMSA, available at: http://www.motorsystems.org/files/otherfiles/0000/0113/guide_to_iec60034-2-1_may2011.pdf and Neal, 
Michael J. The Tribology Handbook Second Edition. Page C26.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE discussed testing immersible electric motors with industry 
experts, SMEs, and testing laboratories, all of whom suggested that the 
seals should be removed prior to testing to eliminate any impacts on 
the tested efficiency. Given the break-in period considerations 
discussed above, DOE sought to confirm the effects of contact seals by 
conducting its own testing. DOE procured a five-horsepower, two-pole, 
TENV motor for this purpose.\15\ Upon receipt of the motor, DOE's 
testing laboratory followed IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) and 
tested the motor as it was received, with the contact seals in place 
(test 1). After completing that initial test, the laboratory removed 
the contact seals and tested the motor again (test 2). Finally, the 
testing laboratory reinstalled the seals, ran the motor for an 
additional period of time such that the motor had run for a total of 10 
hours with the contact seals installed (including time from the initial 
test) and then performed IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) again (test 
3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The immersible motor tested by DOE was also a vertical, 
solid-shaft motor. The testing laboratory was able to orient the 
motor horizontally without any issues, thus being able to test the 
motor properly per IEEE 112 Test Method B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's testing confirmed the significant impact that contact seals 
can have on demonstrated efficiency. In the case of the five-
horsepower, two-pole, TENV motor, the motor performed significantly 
better with the contact seals removed, demonstrating a reduction in 
motor losses of nearly 20 percent. DOE's testing also demonstrated a 
decaying effect of the contact seals on motor losses as they break-in 
over time. In this instance, the effect of the contact seals on motor 
losses was reduced, but not eliminated, after 10 hours of running the 
motor. The results of DOE's immersible motor testing are shown below.

[[Page 38466]]



                                Table III-2--Results of Immersible Motor Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Nameplate          Test 1           Test 2           Test 3
                 Motor type                      efficiency       (percent)        (percent)        (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immersible Motor (also TENV and a vertical              89.5             88.9             91.0             89.2
 solid-shaft motor).........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although DOE's testing confirmed that the impacts from contact 
seals can be significant and may reduce over time, DOE is proposing 
test procedure instructions that differ from the recommendations 
offered by interested parties. DOE believes testing with the contact 
seals may better represent an immersible motor's installed efficiency. 
DOE does not have specific data showing how the impacts from contact 
seals decay over time and DOE believes this decay may vary by basic 
model of immersible motor. In absence of such data showing near 
equivalent performance of immersible motors that are tested without 
contact seals to those that have contact seals that have been broken 
in, DOE is proposing that these motors be tested with the contact seals 
in place. In addition, DOE is proposing an allowance of a maximum run-
in period of 10 hours prior to performing IEEE Standard 112 (Test 
Method B). This run-in period is intended to allow the contact seals a 
sufficient amount of time to break-in such that test conditions are 
equal or very similar to normal operating conditions that will be 
experienced by a user. DOE's proposed 10-hour maximum is a preliminary 
estimate obtained through discussions with electric motors testing 
experts. DOE may consider a longer run-in period or potentially 
removing the seals prior to testing in the final rule if data are 
obtained from manufacturers that substantiate the claim that an 
immersible motor's contact seals will wear-in, early on during the 
motor's lifetime (i.e., 200 hours), and to the point that the motor's 
efficiency is not affected. DOE is soliciting comments on its 200 hour 
assumption in its early motor lifetime estimate.
    Finally, with regard to immersible motors built in a TEBC 
configuration, DOE is proposing instructions that would require the 
testing laboratory to power the smaller blower motor from an alternate 
power source than the one used for the electric motor being tested for 
efficiency. This approach will allow the testing laboratory to isolate 
the performance of the motor under test while continuing to provide the 
necessary cooling from the blower motor.
    DOE requests comments concerning its proposed definition for 
``immersible electric motor,'' especially with respect to 
differentiating this motor type from ``liquid-cooled'' and 
``submersible'' motors. Additionally, DOE invites comment on its 
proposal to permit manufacturers to run their motors for a period of 
time prior to performing IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) to break-in 
any contact seals. In particular, DOE requests comment and any data on 
the appropriateness of the proposed 10-hour time limit allowable for 
the run-in period. Finally, DOE requests comment on the appropriateness 
of allowing manufacturers to use an alternative power source to run the 
blower motor while testing an immersible motor built in a TEBC frame.
2. Integral and Non-Integral Brake Electric Motors
    In most applications, electric motors are not required to stop 
immediately; instead, electric motors typically slow down and gradually 
stop after power is removed from the motor, due to a buildup of 
friction and windage from the internal components of the motor. 
However, some applications require electric motors to stop quickly. 
Such motors may employ a brake component that, when engaged, abruptly 
slows or stops shaft rotation. The brake component attaches to one end 
of the motor and surrounds a section of the motor's shaft. During 
normal operation of the motor, the brake is disengaged from the motor's 
shaft--it neither touches nor interferes with the motor's operation. 
However, under these conditions, the brake is drawing power from the 
electric motor's power source and may be contributing to windage 
losses, because the brake is an additional rotating component on the 
motor's shaft. When power is removed from the electric motor (and brake 
component), the brake component de-energizes and engages the motor 
shaft, quickly slowing or stopping rotation of the rotor and shaft 
components.
    There are two general types of brake motors--integral and non-
integral brake motors. An electric motor falls into one of these two 
categories depending on how its brake component is connected to the 
motor. If the brake component is integrated with other components of 
the electric motor and not readily detachable, it is usually considered 
\16\ an integral brake motor. Conversely, if the brake component is 
connected externally and is more readily detachable, it is considered a 
non-integral brake motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ DOE's proposed definitions for integral and non-integral 
brake motors do not require a certain manner of attachment of the 
brake rather, the placement of the brake is the relevant distinctive 
factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its August 15, 2012 ``Joint Petition to Adopt Joint Stakeholder 
Proposal As it Relates to the Rulemaking on Energy Conservation 
Standards for Electric Motors'' (the Petition), the Motor Coalition 
proposed a definition for the term ``integral brake electric motor.'' 
That definition stated that an integral brake electric motor is ``an 
electric motor containing a brake mechanism either inside of the motor 
endshield or between the motor fan and endshield such that removal of 
the brake component would require extensive disassembly of the motor or 
motor parts.'' (Motor Coalition, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0035 at p. 19) 
Subsequent to the submission of the petition, DOE spoke with some of 
the Motor Coalition's manufacturers and its own SMEs. Based on these 
conversations, DOE believes that the Motor Coalition's definition is 
consistent with DOE's understanding of the term. In the electric motors 
preliminary analysis, DOE presented a definition of the term ``integral 
brake motor'' consistent with the definition proposed by the Motor 
Coalition. (For additional details, see Chapter 3 of the electric 
motors preliminary analysis Technical Support Document). However, upon 
further consideration, DOE believes that there may be uncertainty 
regarding certain aspects of the definition, particularly, what 
constitutes ``extensive disassembly of the motor or motor parts.'' 
Therefore, DOE is proposing a new definition that would remove this 
ambiguity. As detailed in the proposed regulations below, today's 
proposed rule defines an ``integral brake electric motor'' as an 
electric motor containing a brake mechanism either inside of the motor 
endshield or between the motor fan and endshield.
    Conversely, the brake component of a non-integral brake motor is 
usually external to the motor and can be easily

[[Page 38467]]

detached without disassembly or adversely affecting the motor's 
performance. However, as with the definition of an ``integral brake 
motor,'' DOE reconsidered the definition it presented in its electric 
motors preliminary analysis TSD for ``non-integral brake electric 
motor.'' Similarly, DOE concluded that the previous definition was 
ambiguous, particularly with regards to detaching the brake component. 
Therefore, in today's notice, DOE is proposing a new definition for 
``non-integral brake electric motor'' that parallels its proposed 
definition for ``integral brake electric motor.'' DOE believes that the 
new definition is clearer because it relies solely on the placement of 
the brake and not what level of effort is needed to remove it. 
Additionally, DOE believes that the structure of its two definitions 
encompasses all brake motors by requiring them to meet one definition 
or the other. As detailed in the proposed regulations below, DOE's 
proposed definition for a ``non-integral brake electric motor'' is an 
electric motor containing a brake mechanism outside of the endshield, 
but not between the motor fan and endshield.
    DOE believes that a definition for both integral and non-integral 
brake electric motors is necessary to distinguish between the two motor 
types because DOE may consider requiring different setup procedures for 
the two motor types and holding them to different efficiency levels.
    In the electric motors preliminary analysis, DOE stated that it had 
preliminarily planned to include integral brake motors in the scope of 
expanded energy conservation. The Motor Coalition suggested that DOE 
continue to exclude these motors from coverage because of potential 
complications with testing. The group explained that there are no test 
standards for this motor type and that removing the brake components 
from the motor would affect the motor's performance and possibly leave 
the motor inoperable because of the integrated nature of the removed 
brake components. The Motor Coalition added that the efficiency losses 
from brake componentry would not be uniform across the industry. (Motor 
Coalition, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0035 at p. 13)
    When considering test procedures for both brake motor types, DOE 
considered all the recommendations from the Motor Coalition and the 
results of its own testing. DOE conducted its own testing to gather 
information on the feasibility of testing integral and non-integral 
brake motors. During its investigation of integral brake motors, DOE 
procured and tested two motors: one five-horsepower, four-pole, TEFC 
motor and one one-horsepower, four-pole, TEFC motor. For each of the 
motors, DOE performed three tests. Each motor was initially tested 
following IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) as the motor was received 
(i.e., no modifications to the brake components). Then, the test 
laboratory removed the brake components and retested the motor, again 
following IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B). Finally, a third test was 
conducted after the test laboratory reattached the brake components. 
The results of this testing are shown in Table III-3.

                              Table III-3--Results of Integral Brake Motor Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Nameplate
                   Motor type                       efficiency        Test 1          Test 2          Test 3
                                                     (percent)       (percent)       (percent)       (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integral Brake Motor 1..........................            87.5            86.4            87.2            86.0
Integral Brake Motor 2..........................            82.5            77.4            80.3            78.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the two integral brake motors, there was no consistent amount 
of losses observed and attributable to the brake component. However, 
the decrease in motor losses that resulted when the brake was removed 
reached as high as 16 percent. While DOE anticipated that brake losses 
would vary based on motor horsepower and brake type, it appears that 
such losses are difficult to quantify in certain integral brake motor 
configurations. Additionally, while DOE found that the testing 
laboratory was able to reconnect the braking mechanisms after removal 
and to make the motor operable again after reconnecting the braking 
mechanism, there was a slight change in the performance of the two 
motors tested.
    DOE also sought to investigate the feasibility of testing non-
integral brake motors. DOE procured two non-integral brake motors, one 
five-horsepower, four-pole, TEFC motor and one 15-horsepower, four-
pole, TEFC motor. When testing the motors, DOE's testing laboratory 
performed two tests on each motor. Initially, the motors were to be 
tested as they were received, following IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method 
B); however DOE's test facility faced a few complications. When 
attempting to test the five-horsepower motor, the test laboratory 
experienced complications when trying to conduct the no-load test. 
Because of the low voltage levels required for the no-load test, the 
braking mechanism would engage, stopping the test. Therefore, the 
testing laboratory spliced the electrical connections of the braking 
mechanism and connected the brake to an external power source. For the 
15-horsepower motor, the brake had its own power connection and the 
test laboratory elected to connect the brake to an external power 
source (i.e., separate from what was supplied to the motor itself). For 
both motors, the test laboratory performed a second test in which the 
brake component was completely removed and the motor was tested 
according to IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) again. Finally, for the 
five-horsepower motor, the test laboratory performed a third test with 
the brake mechanism reattached.\17\ The results of DOE's  non-integral  
brake motor testing are shown below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This motor was originally thought to be an integral brake 
motor, which is why it was tested a third time.
    \18\ For this test, the brake would engage during the no-load 
test, thus the testing laboratory connected the brake to a separate 
power source for that test.
    \19\ For this test, the laboratory connected the brake to an 
external power source for the duration of the test.

[[Page 38468]]



                            Table III-4--Results of Non-Integral Brake Motor Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Nameplate
                   Motor type                       efficiency        Test 1          Test 2          Test 3
                                                     (percent)       (percent)       (percent)       (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Integral Brake Motor 1......................            87.5       \18\ 87.3            87.7            87.1
Non-Integral Brake Motor 2......................            89.5       \19\ 90.0            90.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE obtained much useful information from both rounds of non-
integral brake motor testing. For the five-horsepower motor (``non-
integral brake motor 1''), DOE obtained additional test data that 
supports the notion that removing and reattaching a brake mechanism to 
a motor could affect its performance. In this case, when the brake was 
reattached, the demonstrated efficiency of the motor decreased, albeit 
a minimal amount that could simply be due to testing variation. For the 
15-horsepower motor (``non-integral brake motor 2'') DOE obtained the 
same tested efficiency when the brake was powered externally and when 
it was removed. In this instance, this shows that there was a 
negligible impact on friction and windage losses due to the brake 
mechanism. DOE understands that this could have occurred for several 
reasons. It could be because the significant impacts on losses from 
brakes come from the power consumed to keep the brake disengaged. It 
could also be that the design of this particular brake mechanism was an 
anomaly and most brake mechanisms would have a larger impact on 
friction and windage. Finally, it could be because the motor tested was 
a 15-horsepower motor and the friction and windage losses due to the 
brake may have been small relative to other losses in the motor.
    In light of the test results of the 15 horsepower, non-integral 
brake motor, DOE sought to investigate testing brake motors with the 
brake powered separately. Therefore, DOE conducted a final set of tests 
for the other three motors. During this testing the brake component was 
attached, but powered by a source separate from the motor. This testing 
showed that powering the brake component separately resulted in 
demonstrated efficiencies equivalent to testing a motor with the brake 
component completely removed. Results are shown in the Table below.

 Table III-5--Comparison of Removing Brake and Powering Brake Separately
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Tested
                                           Tested       efficiency  with
            Motor tested              efficiency  with   brake  powered
                                       brake  removed      separately
                                          (percent)         (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integral Brake Motor 1..............              87.2              87.6
Integral Brake Motor 2..............              80.3              80.4
Non-Integral Brake Motor 1..........              87.7              87.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of its testing of integral and non-integral brake 
electric motors, DOE is proposing the same test instructions for both 
motors types in today's notice. DOE proposes to include instructions 
that would require manufacturers to keep the brake mechanism attached 
to the motor, but to power it externally while performing IEEE Standard 
112 (Test Method B). DOE believes that this is the best approach 
because it allows the test laboratory to isolate the losses due to the 
motor, which includes the friction and windage produced by the rotating 
brake mechanism. DOE believes that powering the motor and the brake 
mechanism separately during testing would ensure that the power 
consumed to keep the brake mechanism disengaged is not counted against 
the motor's tested efficiency. The power consumed to keep the brake 
mechanism disengaged represents useful work performed by the motor and 
should not be construed as losses, but it should be measured and 
reported. DOE believes this information is pertinent for brake motor 
consumers who wish to understand the energy consumption of their motor. 
Furthermore, when conducting the testing, DOE's test laboratory was 
able to splice connections and externally power the brake on multiple 
integral and non-integral brake motors, so DOE preliminarily believes 
that this process would not be unduly burdensome.
    DOE requests comments on its proposed definitions. Additionally, 
DOE requests comments on its proposed instructions for testing integral 
and non-integral brake electric motors.
3. Partial Electric Motors
    Most general purpose electric motors have two endshields,\20\ which 
support the bearings and shaft while also allowing the shaft to rotate 
during operation. DOE understands that ``partial electric motors,'' 
also called ``partial \3/4\ motors,'' or ``\3/4\ motors,'' are motors 
that are sold without one or both endshields and the accompanying 
bearings. When partial electric motors are installed in the field, they 
are attached to another piece of equipment, such as a pump or gearbox. 
The equipment to which the motor is mated usually provides support for 
the shaft, thus allowing the shaft to rotate and drive its intended 
equipment. The equipment may also provide support for a shaft. When a 
partial electric motor is mated to another piece of equipment it is 
often referred to as an ``integral'' motor.\21\ For example, an 
``integral gearmotor'' is the combination of a partial electric motor 
mated to a gearbox. The gearbox provides a bearing or support structure 
that allows the shaft to rotate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Endshields are metal plates on each end of the motor that 
house the motor's bearings and close off the internal components of 
the motor from the surrounding environment.
    \21\ DOE notes that integral brake motors are not considered 
integral or partial motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is aware that there are many different industry terms used to 
describe a partial electric motor and now that it is considering 
covering special and definite purpose electric motors in light

[[Page 38469]]

of the EISA 2007 changes to EPCA, DOE is proposing to define the term 
``partial electric motor'' to ensure clarity. Additionally, because DOE 
considers integral gearmotors to be a subset of partial electric 
motors, this definition would also apply to integral gearmotors. Also, 
DOE does not wish to create confusion regarding the difference between 
a ``component set'' of an electric motor (discussed below in section 
III.G.2) and a ``partial electric motor.'' Therefore, as detailed in 
the proposed regulations below, today's proposed rule defines ``partial 
electric motor'' as an assembly of motor components necessitating the 
addition of no more than two endshields, including bearings, to create 
an operable motor. The ``operable motor'' means an electric motor 
engineered for performing in accordance with the applicable nameplate 
ratings.
    DOE is aware that partial electric motors require modifications 
before they can be attached to a dynamometer for testing purposes. DOE 
received comments concerning potential testing difficulties for partial 
motors. The CDA indicated that a new test procedure may be required for 
partial motors and that DOE should consider developing a new test 
procedure for these and other motors. (CDA, No. 18 at p. 2) DOE has 
also received feedback suggesting that manufacturers could show 
compliance by testing a similar model that could more easily be 
attached to a dynamometer. (ASAP and NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0012 
at p. 9) In comments on the electric motors preliminary analysis, NEMA 
recommended that DOE require endshields to be installed prior to 
testing a partial motor. NEMA stated this would be an appropriate 
approach as long as the operating and cooling characteristics of a 
particular motor with endshields installed for testing is similar to 
how the partial motor would operate when connected to the driven 
equipment.\22\ (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p 16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Driven equipment is machinery that is run or ``driven'' by 
an electric motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE discussed NEMA's proposal and additional testing options with 
SMEs, testing laboratories, and motor industry representatives. Some 
interested parties suggested that the motor manufacturer could supply 
generic or ``dummy'' endplates equipped with standard ball bearings, 
which would allow for testing when connected to the partial electric 
motor. Alternatively, testing laboratories have considered machining 
the ``dummy'' endplates themselves, and supplying the properly sized 
deep-groove, ball bearings for the testing. Various testing 
laboratories have indicated the ability to perform this operation, but 
some added that they would require design criteria for the endplates 
from the original manufacturer of the motor. These laboratories noted 
that machining their own endplates could create motor performance 
variation between laboratories because it may impact airflow 
characteristics (and therefore thermal characteristics) of the motor.
    DOE procured an integral gearmotor to determine the feasibility of 
testing partial electric motors. For this investigation, DOE purchased 
and tested one five-horsepower, four-pole, TEFC electric motor. DOE 
tested the motor twice, first with an endplate obtained from the 
manufacturer and second, with an endplate machined in-house by the 
testing laboratory. The results of these tests are shown below.

                             Table III-6--Results of Partial Electric Motor Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Nameplate
                        Motor type                             efficiency          Test 1            Test 2
                                                                (percent)         (percent)         (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial Electric Motor....................................              81.0              83.5              82.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated by testing laboratories, DOE found a variation in 
efficiency because of the endplate used during testing. In this case, 
DOE understands that the variation seen in tested efficiency was likely 
the result of varying the material used for the endplate. The endplate 
provided by the manufacturer was made of cast iron, while the endplate 
provided by the testing laboratory was machined from steel. The testing 
laboratory was not equipped to cast an iron endshield and replace the 
manufacturer's endshield with one of the same material. Additionally, 
DOE knows of no testing laboratory (other than a motor manufacturer), 
with such capability. DOE understands that the variance in the magnetic 
properties of steel likely produced small eddy currents in the 
endshield which increased heat and, therefore, losses within the 
motor.\23\ Consequently, DOE believes that it is necessary to try and 
maintain a consistency in frame material, in order to prevent such 
variances in future testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Eddy currents are circulating currents induced in 
conductors (e.g., steel) by changing magnetic fields. They typically 
manifest themselves as heat, which can increase losses within an 
electric motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, because of the possible variance that DOE found 
through its testing, DOE is proposing that an endplate be provided by 
the manufacturer of the motor and test with that endplate in place. If 
bearings are also needed, the test laboratory should use what DOE views 
as a ``standard bearing''--a 6000-series, open, single-row, deep 
groove, radial ball bearing. DOE selected this set of specifications 
because it is common bearing type capable of horizontal operation. DOE 
requests comments on its proposed testing instructions for partial 
electric motors. In particular, DOE requests any data regarding the 
variation in tested efficiency likely to result from varying an 
endplate and its material.

E. Electric Motor Types Requiring Only Test Procedure Instructions

    DOE is proposing to add additional instructions to the DOE test 
procedure that would affect a number of motor types for which DOE is 
analyzing new energy conservation standards. DOE is not proposing any 
definitions for these terms because DOE believes the terms are self-
explanatory or already readily understood in the industry.
1. Electric Motors With Non-Standard Endshields or Flanges
    Most electric motors are attached to a mounting surface by 
``mounting feet'' or other hardware attached to the motor's housing, 
oftentimes on the bottom of the motor. However, some motors are mounted 
by directly attaching the motor's endshield, also called a faceplate, 
to a piece of driven equipment. If a motor's endshield protrudes 
forward to create a smooth mounting surface it may also be referred to 
as a flange, such as a Type D-flange or Type P-flange motor, as 
described in NEMA MG1-2009. Attaching a motor to the shaft of the 
driven equipment in this manner generally involves bolting the

[[Page 38470]]

motor to the equipment through mounting holes in the flange or 
faceplate of the motor.
    NEMA MG1-2009, paragraphs 1.63.1, 1.63.2, and 1.63.3 designate Type 
C face-mounting, Type D flange-mounting, and Type P flange-mounting 
motors, respectively. These definitions provide reference figures in 
NEMA MG1-2009, section I, part 4 titled ``Dimensions, Tolerances, and 
Mounting'' that contain specifications for the standard mounting 
configurations and dimensions for these three motor types. The 
dimensions designate standard locations and dimensions for mounting 
holes on the faceplates or flanges of the motors. DOE is aware that 
some electric motors may have special or customer-defined endshields, 
faceplates, or flanges with mounting-hole locations or other 
specifications that do not necessarily conform to NEMA MG1-2009, Figure 
4-3, ``Letter Symbols for Type C Face-Mounting Foot or Footless 
Machines,'' Figure 4-4, ``Letter Symbols for Type D Flange-Mounting 
Foot or Footless Machines,'' or Figure 4-5, ``Letter Symbols for 
Vertical Machines.''
    As previously explained DOE is considering setting energy 
conservation standards for special and definite purpose electric motors 
such as those motors with non-standard endshields. This change to the 
scope of energy conservation standards for electric motors means that 
the dimensions of a motor's endshields or flanges--neither of which 
impacts the efficiency or the ability to measure the efficiency of the 
motor--would no longer dictate whether a given motor would be required 
to meet energy conservation standards. Hence, DOE believes that an 
actual definition for such motors is unnecessary.
    In evaluating the possibility of requiring these motor types to 
meet potential energy conservation standards, DOE is assessing whether 
these motors can be tested using non-standard flanges or endshields. 
DOE has received comments concerning the testing of these motor types. 
In response to the March 2011 RFI (76 FR 17577), ASAP and NEMA 
commented that motors with customer-defined endshields and flanged 
special motors should have their efficiency verified by testing a model 
motor with an equivalent electrical design that could more easily be 
attached to a dynamometer. (ASAP and NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0020 
at p. 4) NEMA added that testing motors with non-standard endshields 
may require a substitution of the special endshields with more 
conventional endshields. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 15)
    DOE understands that it may not be possible to attach motors with 
non-standard endshields to a testing laboratory's dynamometer. If such 
situation arises and a test laboratory is unable to reconfigure the 
motor without removal of the endplate such that attachment to a 
dynamometer is possible, DOE proposes that the custom endshield be 
replaced with one that has standard (i.e., in compliance with NEMA MG1) 
dimensions and mounting configurations. As with partial electric 
motors, such a replacement must be obtained through the manufacturer 
and be constructed of the same material as the original endplate.
    DOE requests comment on its preliminary decision not to propose a 
definition for these motor types. DOE also requests comments on its 
proposed instructions for testing motors with non-standard endshields 
or flanges.
2. Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors and Electric Motors With Single 
or Double Shaft Extensions of Non-Standard Dimensions or Additions
    Close-coupled pump motors are electric motors used in pump 
applications where the impeller is mounted directly on the motor shaft. 
Such motors are typically built with different shafts (usually longer) 
than generic general-purpose electric motors. Section I, part 4 of NEMA 
MG1-2009 and IEC Standard 60072-1 (1991) specify standard tolerances 
for shaft extensions, diameters, and keyseats that relate to the fit 
between the shaft and the device mounted to the shaft. However, 
sometimes manufacturers provide shafts with a special diameter, length, 
or design because of a customer's special application. In 2011, DOE 
proposed to clarify its treatment of these types of motors and included 
a table with allowable shaft variations. 76 FR 648, 671-72 (January 5, 
2011) This table was intended to enumerate the deviations from standard 
shaft dimensions that DOE would allow while still considering the motor 
to be a general purpose motor subject to energy conservation standards.
    The guidance was intended to identify variations in shaft 
dimensions for a motor that would be covered as a general purpose 
electric motor under EPCA. However, in view of the EISA 2007 and AEMTCA 
2012 amendments, DOE has preliminarily decided to expand the scope of 
regulatory coverage beyond the initial scope set by EPCA prior to these 
two amendments. As such, DOE believes that a motor's shaft alone, no 
matter what its dimensions or type, is an insufficient reason to 
exclude a motor from having to satisfy energy conservation standards. 
Further, DOE believes that it is not necessary to explicitly define a 
close-coupled pump electric motor or an electric motor with a single or 
double shaft extension of non-standard dimensions or additions because 
whether a shaft is built within the shaft tolerances defined by NEMA 
and IEC is unambiguous.
    In considering applying standards to these types of motors, DOE is 
assessing whether motors with non-standard shaft dimensions or 
additions can be tested using accepted and established procedures. DOE 
received feedback concerning the testing of these motor types during 
and after the October 18, 2010, framework document public meeting. NEMA 
and ASAP submitted a joint comment noting that DOE could allow testing 
of a ``similar model'' motor with a standard shaft to enable the motor 
to be more easily tested on a dynamometer. (NEMA and ASAP, EERE-2010-
BT-STD-0027-0012 at p. 8) In its comments about the electric motors 
preliminary analysis, NEMA added that special couplings or adapters may 
be needed to test motors with special shaft extensions, but noted that 
a motor's shaft extension has little to no effect on its efficiency. 
(NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 14)
    DOE sought to investigate the feasibility of using coupling 
adapters for motors with extended shafts or shafts of unique design. To 
do this, DOE procured a close-coupled pump motor with an extended 
shaft. When this motor was received, DOE's testing laboratory had no 
problems attaching the motor to its dynamometer. The use of an adapter 
in this case, was not needed. However, DOE also conferred with experts 
at its testing laboratory and learned that coupling adapters were 
needed for motors with extended shafts or shafts of unique design, 
which it had tested in the past. As such, DOE is not aware of any motor 
shaft design that has prevented DOE's test laboratory from performing a 
proper test according to IEEE 112 Test Method B. Therefore, at this 
time, DOE agrees with the above NEMA comment and is proposing to 
include instructions for special couplings or adapters. In other words, 
if a testing facility cannot attach a motor to its dynamometer because 
of the motor's shaft extension, that facility should use a coupling or 
adapter to mount and test the motor. DOE understands that a motor's 
shaft configuration has minimal, if any, impact on overall motor 
efficiency, and believes that this approach is technologically feasible 
and will not result in any distortion of a motor's inherent efficiency 
when tested.

[[Page 38471]]

    DOE seeks comment on its tentative approach declining to propose a 
definition for motors with non-standard shaft dimensions or additions. 
DOE also requests comment on its proposed instructions for testing such 
motors.
3. Vertical Electric Motors
    Although most electric motors are engineered to run while oriented 
horizontally, some operate in applications that require a vertical 
orientation. A horizontally oriented motor has a shaft parallel to the 
floor (or perpendicular to the force of gravity), while a vertically 
oriented motor has a shaft perpendicular to the floor (or parallel to 
the force of gravity). Relative to horizontal motors, vertical motors 
have different designs made with different construction techniques so 
that the electric motor can be operated in a vertical position. These 
different designs can include modifications to the mounting 
configuration, bearing design, and bearing lubrication (a discussion 
regarding bearings can be found in the following section, III.E.4). 
Additionally, vertical motors can come with various shaft 
configurations, including with a solid or hollow shaft. An example of a 
typical application requiring a vertical motor is a pump used in a well 
or a pit.
    At this time, DOE is not proposing a definition for any terms 
related to vertical electric motors. DOE believes definitions are not 
needed because there is no industry confusion or ambiguity in whether 
an electric motor is a vertical electric motor. Furthermore, whether an 
electric motor has a solid shaft or a hollow shaft is also unambiguous 
and without need for DOE clarification. Although defining a vertically 
mounted electric motor does not appear necessary, DOE believes 
instructions detailing how to configure and mount a vertical motor for 
testing in a horizontal position, including the motor's orientation and 
shaft characteristics, would be helpful in ensuring a proper and 
consistent testing set-up.
    EISA 2007 classified vertical solid-shaft motors as subtype II 
motors and required them to be tested in a ``horizontal 
configuration.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(B)(v)) NEMA, ASAP, and the Motor 
Coalition submitted comments agreeing with the EISA 2007 provision and 
noted that vertical motors cannot be tested on a standard dynamometer 
because most dynamometers are designed to operate in conjunction with 
horizontally oriented electric motors. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-
0013 at p. 5; NEMA and ASAP, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0012 at p. 3; Motor 
Coalition, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0035 at pp. 18 and 30) DOE confirmed 
this assertion with its test laboratory and subject matter experts. In 
view of the statutory requirement and current dynamometer testing 
configuration limits, DOE is proposing to test motors, which are 
otherwise engineered to operate vertically, in a horizontal position 
when determining efficiency.
    Another consideration is the shaft of a vertical motor and whether 
it is solid or hollow. If a vertical motor has a solid shaft, then no 
further adjustments are needed after considering orientation, unless 
the motor contains a special shaft. (See section III.E.2) If a vertical 
motor has a hollow shaft, (i.e., an empty cylinder that runs through 
the rotor and typically attaches internally to the end opposite the 
drive of the motor with a special coupling) then additional 
instructions would be needed prior to testing for efficiency.
    After publishing the preliminary analysis, DOE did not receive any 
public comments suggesting that the testing of a vertical, hollow-shaft 
motor in a horizontal position would be technologically infeasible or 
unduly burdensome, especially when compared to the testing of a 
vertical solid-shaft motor. DOE understands that vertical hollow-shaft 
motors may not have a shaft extension at the drive end of the motor, 
which would be necessary for attaching or coupling the motor to a 
dynamometer for testing.
    DOE conducted testing to gauge the feasibility of testing a 
vertical, hollow-shaft motor. For its investigation, DOE purchased a 
five-horsepower, two-pole, TEFC vertical motor with a hollow shaft. 
Upon receipt of the motor, the testing laboratory found that the 
motor's bearing construction was sufficient for horizontal operation 
and no replacement would be needed. However, the motor did require a 
shaft extension to be machined. After a solid shaft was constructed, it 
was inserted into the hollow shaft and attached via welding to the lip 
of the hollow shaft. The testing laboratory encountered no further 
problems and was able to properly test the motor according to IEEE 
Standard 112 (Test Method B).
    After conducting this testing, DOE believes that, as long as the 
attached solid-shaft maintains sufficient clearance through the drive 
end of the motor to enable the motor to be attached to the dynamometer 
this is a feasible approach to testing vertical hollow-shaft motors. 
Aside from the addition of a shaft extension, DOE does not believe that 
testing a vertical hollow-shaft motor in a horizontal configuration 
would add undue testing burden when compared to testing a solid-shaft 
vertical motor.
    In response to the March 2011 RFI, NEMA suggested that vertical 
motors rated 1-500 horsepower be tested according to section 6.4 of 
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B--Input-output with segregation of 
losses and indirect measurement of stray-load loss), if bearing 
construction permits; otherwise, it suggested testing vertical motors 
according to section 6.6 of IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method E--Electric 
power measurement under load with segregation of losses and direct 
measurement of stray-load loss), as specified in NEMA MG1 paragraph 
12.58.1 ``Determination of Motor Efficiency and Losses.'' \24\ (NEMA, 
EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0019 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ ``Efficiency and losses shall be determined in accordance 
with IEEE Std 112 or Canadian Standards Association Standard C390. 
The efficiency shall be determined at rated output, voltage, and 
frequency. Unless otherwise specified, horizontal polyphase, 
squirrel-cage medium motors rated 1 to 500 horsepower shall be 
tested by dynamometer (Method B) [Footnote: CSA Std C390 Method 1] 
as described in Section 6.4 of IEEE Std 112. Motor efficiency shall 
be calculated using form B of IEEE Std 112 or the equivalent C390 
calculation procedure. Vertical motors of this horsepower range 
shall also be tested by Method B if bearing construction permits; 
otherwise they shall be tested by segregated losses (Method E) 
[Footnote: CSA Std Method 2] as described in Section 6.6 of IEEE Std 
112, including direct measurement of stray-loss load.'' NEMA 
Standards Publication MG1-2009, Motors and Generators, paragraph 
12.58.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE consulted testing laboratories about whether IEEE Standard 112 
(Test Method E) would be an appropriate procedure to use when testing 
vertical motors. DOE understands that the primary difference between 
IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B and Test Method E is that Test Method E 
uses a different method to calculate stray-load loss relative to Test 
Method B. Test Method B measures motor output power and uses this 
number as part of the calculation for stray-load loss. However, Test 
Method E does not require the measurement of output power, and, 
therefore, uses a different measurement method to directly find the 
stray-load loss. By not requiring the measurement of output power, Test 
Method E can be conducted on motors installed in an area or in 
equipment that cannot be attached to a dynamometer. Although Test 
Method E may reduce some testing burden for vertical motors, DOE is 
concerned that Test Method E could produce results that are 
inconsistent and inaccurate relative to testing comparable motors under 
Test Method B. Therefore, DOE is declining to propose the use of Test 
Method E for vertical motors. However, DOE requests additional comments 
and test data that demonstrate any differences in the

[[Page 38472]]

results of testing under Test Method E and Test Method B for the same 
basic model of vertical motor.
    DOE requests comments on its preliminary decision not to propose 
any definitions for vertical motors. It also requests comments on its 
proposed instructions when addressing various construction differences 
between vertical and horizontal motors, in particular, test methods for 
vertical motors with hollow shafts.
4. Electric Motor Bearings
    Electric motors usually employ antifriction bearings that are 
housed within the endshields to support the motor's shaft and provide a 
low-friction means for shaft rotation. Antifriction bearings contain 
rolling elements, which are the components inside the bearings that 
``roll'' around the bearing housing and provide the reduced-friction 
means of rotation. Rolling elements can be spherical, cylindrical, 
conical, or other shapes. The design of the rolling element is selected 
based on the type and amount of force the shaft must be capable of 
withstanding. The two primary types of loads imposed on motor bearings 
are radial and thrust. Radial loads are so named because the load is 
applied along the radius of the shaft (i.e., perpendicular to the 
shaft's axis of rotation). Bearings may be subject to radial loads if 
the motor's shaft is horizontal to the floor (i.e., horizontally 
oriented). These bearings are called ``radial bearings.'' ``Thrust 
bearings'' are bearings capable of withstanding thrust loads, which are 
loads with forces parallel to the ``axis'' of the shaft (i.e., parallel 
to the shaft's axis of rotation) and may be encountered when the shaft 
is vertical to the floor (i.e., vertically oriented).
    In addition to the type of force, bearings are also chosen based on 
the magnitude of the force they can withstand. While most applications 
use spherical rolling-elements, some motors employ cylindrical-shaped 
rolling-elements inside the bearings. These cylindrical-shaped rolling 
elements are called ``rollers,'' and this bearing type is referred to 
as a ``roller bearing.'' Roller bearings can withstand higher loads 
than spherical ball bearings because the cylindrically shaped rolling-
element provides a larger contact area for transmitting forces. 
However, the larger contact area of the rolling element with the 
bearing housing also creates more friction and, therefore, may cause 
more losses during motor operation.
    Regardless of the rolling element used, bearings must be lubricated 
with either grease or oil to further reduce friction and prevent wear 
on the bearings. Open or shielded bearing construction allows for the 
exchange of grease or oil during motor operation. Sealed bearings, 
unlike shielded or open bearings, do not allow the free exchange of 
grease or oil during operation. Sealed bearings incorporate close-
fitting seals that prevent the exchange of oil or grease during the 
bearing's operational lifetime. Such bearings may be referred to as 
``lubed-for-life'' bearings because the user purchases the bearings 
with the intention of replacing the bearing before it requires re-
lubrication. Shielded bearings differ from open bearings in that 
shielded bearings contain a cover, called a ``shield,'' which allows 
the flow of oil or grease into the inner portions of the bearing 
casing, but restricts dirt or debris from contacting the rolling 
elements. Preventing dirt and debris from contacting the bearing 
prevents wear and increases the life of the bearing.
    DOE also understands that certain vertical motors use oil-
lubricated bearings rather than the grease-lubricated bearings that are 
typically found in horizontal motors. If a vertical motor contains an 
oil-lubricated system, problems can occur when the motor is reoriented 
into a horizontal position and attached to a dynamometer for testing. 
Because oil has a lower viscosity than grease, it could pool in the 
bottom of the now horizontally oriented (vertical motor) bearing.\25\ 
Such pooling, or loss of proper lubrication to the bearings, could 
adversely affect the motor's performance, damage the motor, and distort 
the results of testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Viscosity is the measure of a liquid's resistivity to being 
deformed. An example of a material with high viscosity is molasses 
and an example of a material with low viscosity is water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the various construction and lubrication types, DOE 
understands that motors may contain bearings only capable of horizontal 
operation, vertical operation, or, in some limited cases, both 
horizontal and vertical operation. For those motors equipped with 
thrust bearings only capable of vertical orientation, DOE understands 
that reorienting the motor, as would be necessary for testing, could 
cause physical damage to the motor. For motors equipped with such 
bearings, DOE is proposing to add testing instructions that would 
require the testing laboratory to replace the thrust bearing with a 
``standard bearing,'' which shall be interpreted as a 6000 series, 
open, single-row, deep groove, radial ball bearing, because that is the 
most common type of bearing employed on horizontally oriented motors. 
For any electric motor equipped with bearings that are capable of 
operating properly (i.e., without damaging the motor) when the motor is 
oriented horizontally, DOE is proposing that the motor should be tested 
as is, without replacing the bearings. DOE believes that this is the 
most appropriate approach because it will provide the truest 
representation of the energy use that will be experienced by the user.
    In response to the preliminary analysis, DOE received comment 
specifically about testing electric motors with sleeve bearings. Sleeve 
bearings are another type of bearing that do not use typical rolling 
elements, but rather consist of a lubricated bushing, or ``sleeve,'' 
inside of which the motor shaft rotates. The shaft rotates on a film of 
oil or grease, which reduces friction during rotation. Sleeve bearings 
generally have a longer life than anti-friction ball bearings, but they 
are more expensive than anti-friction ball bearings for most horsepower 
ratings.\26\ Both ASAP and NEMA asserted that a motor with sleeve 
bearings should have its efficiency verified by testing a motor of 
equivalent electrical design and which employs standard bearings.\27\ 
(ASAP and NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0020 at p. 4) However, NEMA later 
revised its position in separately submitted comments to the electric 
motors preliminary analysis public meeting. NEMA stated that further 
review of pertinent test data indicated that sleeve bearings do not 
significantly impact the efficiency of a motor, and that a motor having 
sleeve bearings is not sufficient reason to exclude it from meeting 
energy conservation standards. (NEMA, NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 
at p. 17) NEMA also commented that it is not aware of any reason that a 
motor cannot be tested with sleeve bearings, but that DOE should also 
provide the option to test sleeve bearing motors with the sleeve 
bearing swapped out for anti-friction ball bearings. (NEMA, EERE-2010-
BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ William R. Finley and Mark. M Hodowanec. Sleeve Vs. Anti-
Friction Bearings: Selection of the Optimal Bearing for Induction 
Motors. 2001. IEEE. USA.
    \27\ Neither NEMA nor ASAP elaborated on what ``standard'' 
bearings are. DOE is interpreting ``standard'' bearings to mean 
spherical, radial ball bearings, because this is the most common 
type of bearing used for general purpose, horizontally oriented 
motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE separately consulted with testing laboratories, SMEs, and 
manufacturers and reviewed a pertinent technical paper.\28\ As a result 
of this collective

[[Page 38473]]

research, DOE has tentatively determined that sleeve bearings do not 
significantly degrade efficiency when compared to spherical, radial 
ball bearings. More importantly, DOE does not believe that it is any 
more difficult to attach a motor with sleeve bearings to a dynamometer 
than a standard, general purpose electric motor equipped with radial 
ball bearings. Additionally, DOE believes that swapping sleeve bearings 
with spherical, radial ball bearings may be time consuming and 
otherwise present unforeseen or undue difficulties because of the 
overall design of the motor that operates with the sleeve bearings. 
Motors that employ sleeve bearings have significantly different 
bearing-support configurations than motors that employ spherical, 
radial ball bearings, and DOE is not certain that sleeve bearings could 
be readily swapped with standard ball bearings without significant, 
costly motor alterations. Therefore, because it may be impracticable to 
swap them out with other bearings, DOE is proposing that motors with 
sleeve bearings be tested as-is and with the sleeve bearings installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ William R. Finley and Mark. M Hodowanec. Sleeve Vs. Anti-
Friction Bearings: Selection of the Optimal Bearing for Induction 
Motors. 2001. IEEE. USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment regarding its proposed approach to testing 
motors with thrust bearings only capable of vertical operation. DOE 
also requests comment on its proposed approach to testing motors with 
all types of bearings that are capable of horizontal operation, in 
particular, its proposed approach to testing motors with sleeve 
bearings.

F. General Clarification for Certain Electric Motor Types

    For some electric motor types, DOE is neither proposing additions 
to the DOE test procedure nor proposing to define the motor types. 
However, DOE believes that some general clarification is needed for the 
following electric motor types to ensure that the regulations have 
sufficient clarity in detailing whether a particular motor is covered 
by DOE's regulations.
1. Electric Motors With Non-Standard Bases, Feet or Mounting 
Configurations
    DOE has not yet regulated special or definite purpose motors, or 
general purpose motors with ``special bases or mounting feet,'' because 
of the limits prescribed by the previous statutory definition of 
``electric motor.'' That definition included a variety of criteria such 
as ``foot-mounting'' and being built in accordance with NEMA ``T-
frame'' dimensions, which all narrowed the scope of what comprised an 
electric motor under the statute. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (1992)) As 
a result of EISA 2007 and related amendments that established energy 
conservation standards for two subtypes of general purpose electric 
motors (subtype I and subtype II), among other motor types, the 
statutory meaning of the term, ``general purpose motor'' was broadened 
to include, for example, ``footless motors.'' Similarly, because 
definite and special purpose motors now fall under the broad statutory 
heading of ``electric motors,'' DOE is considering whether to set 
standards for electric motors with non-standard bases, feet, or 
mounting configurations.
    Part 4 of section I in NEMA MG1-2009 provides general standards for 
dimensions, tolerances, and mounting for all types of electric motors. 
In that section, figures 4-1 through 4-5 identify the letter symbols 
associated with specific dimensions of electric motors with various 
bases, feet, and mounting configurations. Accompanying these figures 
are tables throughout part 4 of section I that specify dimensions, 
explain how a particular dimension is measured and detail the 
applicable measurement tolerances. This collective information is used 
to standardize the dimensions associated with specific frame sizes, 
given a certain base, feet, or mounting configuration. The IEC provides 
similar information in its standard, IEC Standard 60072-1, ``Dimensions 
and output series for rotating electrical machines.'' Although the 
majority of motors are built within these specifications, DOE is aware 
that some motors may have feet, bases, or mounting configurations that 
do not necessarily conform to the industry standards. These are the 
motors--i.e. those not conforming to NEMA or IEC standards for bases, 
feet, or mounting configurations--that DOE is considering regulating.
    DOE believes that a definition is not needed for this particular 
type of electric motor because whether a motor has a mounting base, 
feet, or configuration that is built within compliance of the standard 
dimensions laid out in NEMA MG1-2009 or IEC Standard 60072-1 is 
unambiguous. Also, DOE believes that additional instructions for these 
types of electric motors are not necessary because such mounting 
characteristics are not explicitly addressed either in IEEE Standard 
112 (Test Method B) or CSA C390-10, other than how mounting conditions 
will affect the vibration of a motor under IEEE Standard 112, paragraph 
9.6.2, ``Mounting configurations.''
    In response to the March 2011 RFI, ASAP and NEMA asserted that a 
motor with a special base or mounting feet, as well as a motor of any 
mounting configuration, should have its efficiency verified by testing 
a model motor with an equivalent electrical design that could more 
easily be attached to a dynamometer. (ASAP and NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-
0027-0020 at p. 4)
    DOE believes testing a ``similar model'' to show compliance would 
likely create difficulties in ensuring the accuracy and equivalence of 
claimed efficiency ratings. Additionally, DOE believes that testing 
motors with non-standard bases or mounting feet would not present an 
undue burden or insurmountable obstacle to testing. DOE understands 
that the test benches used for testing electric motors can have, for 
example, adjustable heights to accommodate the wide variety of motor 
sizes and mechanical configurations that commonly exist. Therefore, 
because the mounting feet will not necessarily affect how a motor is 
mounted to a dynamometer, but simply the positioning of the shaft 
extension, DOE believes non-standard mounting feet present no 
additional testing burdens. As was done for the vertical electric motor 
that DOE had tested and which did not have a standard horizontal 
mounting configuration, a testing laboratory would likely treat these 
motors as a typical general purpose electric motor and adjust the test 
bench as applicable for the unit under test.
    Finally, DOE understands that an electric motor's mounting base, 
feet, or configuration will have no impact on its demonstrated 
efficiency. An electric motor's mounting base, feet, or configuration 
does not affect a motor's operating characteristics because this is a 
feature external to the core components of the motor. It is also a 
feature that will not impact friction and windage losses because this 
feature does not involve any rotating elements of the motor. An 
electric motor's mounting base, feet, or mounting configuration only 
affects how a motor is physically installed in a piece of equipment.
    DOE seeks comment about its tentative decision declining to propose 
a definition for ``electric motors with non-standard base, feet, or 
mounting configurations.'' DOE also requests comment on any potential 
testing difficulties that may arise from testing these motor types and 
its preliminary decision not to issue any specific instructions related 
to testing such electric motors. Finally, DOE requests comment on its 
understanding that a motor's mounting base, feet, or configuration will 
not impact its demonstrated efficiency.

[[Page 38474]]

G. Electric Motor Types DOE Proposes Not To Regulate at This Time

1. Air-Over Electric Motor
    Most enclosed electric motors are constructed with a fan attached 
to the shaft, typically on the end opposite the drive, as a means of 
providing cooling air flow over the surface of the motor frame. This 
air flow helps remove heat, which reduces the motor's operating 
temperature. The reduction in operating temperature prevents the motor 
from overheating during continuous duty operation and increases the 
life expectancy of the motor.\29\ On the other hand, air-over electric 
motors do not have a factory-attached fan and, therefore, require a 
separate and external means of forcing air over the frame of the motor. 
Without an external means of cooling, an air-over electric motor could 
overheat during continuous operation and potentially degrade the 
motor's life. To prevent overheating, an air-over electric motor may, 
for example, operate in the airflow of an industrial fan it is driving, 
or it may operate in a ventilation shaft that provides constant 
airflow. The manufacturer typically specifies the required volume of 
air that must flow over the motor housing for the motor to operate at 
the proper temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The temperature at which a motor operates is correlated to 
the motor's efficiency. Generally, as the operating temperature 
increases the efficiency decreases. Additionally, motor components 
wear our more slowly when operated at lower temperatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the enactment of the EISA 2007 amendments, DOE performed 
independent research and consultation with manufacturers and SMEs. 
Through this work, DOE found that testing air-over electric motors 
would be extremely complex. IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) and CSA 
C390-10 do not provide standardized procedures for preparing an air-
over electric motor for testing, which would otherwise require an 
external cooling apparatus. Additionally, DOE is not aware of any 
standard test procedures that provide guidance on how to test such 
motors. Test procedure guidance that would produce a consistent, 
repeatable test method would likely require testing laboratories to be 
capable of measuring the cubic airflow of an external cooling fan used 
to cool the motor during testing. This is a capability that most 
testing laboratories, at this time, do not have. Without the ability to 
measure airflow, one testing laboratory may provide more airflow to the 
motor than a different testing laboratory. Increasing or decreasing 
airflow between tests could impact the tested efficiency of the motor, 
which would provide inconsistent test results. Because of this 
difficulty, DOE has no plans to require energy conservation standards 
for air-over electric motors, making further test procedure changes 
unnecessary.
    Although DOE does not plan to apply energy conservation standards 
to air-over electric motors, it is proposing to define them for 
clarity. DOE's proposed ``air-over electric motor'' definition is based 
on the NEMA MG1-2009 definition of a ``totally enclosed air-over 
machine,'' with some modification to that definition to include air-
over electric motors with open frames. DOE believes air-over electric 
motors with either totally enclosed or open frame construction use the 
same methods for heat dissipation and, therefore, should be included in 
the same definition. DOE requests comment on the broad definition for 
air-over electric motor. As detailed in the proposed regulations below, 
today's proposed rule defines ``air-over electric motor'' as an 
electric motor designed to be cooled by a ventilating means external 
to, and not supplied with, the motor.
    DOE believes that the difficulties associated with testing air-over 
electric motors--such as providing a standard flow of cooling air from 
an external source that provides a constant velocity under defined 
ambient temperature and barometric conditions over the motor--are 
insurmountable at this time. Therefore, DOE also requests comment on 
its tentative decision not to require air-over electric motors to meet 
energy conservation standards at this time given the difficulties in 
developing a consistent, repeatable test method for these motors.
2. Component Set of an Electric Motor
    Electric motors are comprised of several primary components that 
include: a rotor, stator, stator windings, stator frame, two 
endshields, two bearings, and a shaft. A component set of an electric 
motor is comprised of any combination of these motor parts that does 
not form an operable motor.\30\ For example, a component set may 
consist of a wound stator and rotor component sold without a stator 
housing, endshields, or shaft. These components may be sold with the 
intention of having the motor parts mounted inside a piece of 
equipment, with the equipment providing the necessary mounting and 
rotor attachments for the components to operate in a manner similar to 
a stand-alone electric motor. Component sets may also be sold with the 
intention of a third party using the components to construct a 
complete, stand-alone motor. In such cases, the end manufacturer that 
``completes'' the motor's construction must certify that the motor 
meets any pertinent standards. (See 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)(10) (defining 
``manufacture'' to include manufacture, produce, assemble, or import.)) 
This approach was supported by NEMA in its comments on the electric 
motors preliminary analysis. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at pp. 
15-16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ A combination of wound stator, rotor, shaft, and stator 
housing that is missing only one or both endshields or bearings is 
not considered a component set because this particular combination 
of assembled components creates an operable motor. A set of motor 
parts missing one or both endshields or bearing components is 
considered a ``partial electric motor'' and is discussed earlier in 
this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is aware of some confusion regarding what constitutes a 
``component set'' of a motor, especially about the difference between a 
``component set'' and a ``partial'' motor. DOE is aware that there is 
no definition for either of these motor types in NEMA MG1-2009 or any 
other standard. Therefore, DOE is proposing a definition for 
``component set'' in view of comments from SMEs, NEMA, and other 
industry experts. Defining ``component set'' is necessary to 
differentiate it from a ``partial electric motor,'' addressed 
previously in this NOPR. DOE requests comment on its definition of 
``component set.'' As detailed in the proposed regulations below, 
today's proposed rule defines ``component set'' as a combination of 
motor parts that require the addition of more than two endshields to 
create an operable motor. Under the definition, these parts may consist 
of any combination of a stator frame, wound stator, rotor, shaft, or 
endshields and the term ``operable motor'' means an electric motor 
engineered for performing in accordance with nameplate ratings.
    DOE understands that a component set does not constitute a 
complete, or near-complete, motor that could be tested under IEEE 
Standard 112 (Test Method B) or CSA C390-10, because it would require 
major modifications before it can operate as a motor. In view of its 
examination of motor component sets, DOE understands that some of them 
would require the addition of costly and fundamental parts for the 
motor to be capable of continuous-duty operation, as would be required 
under either test procedure. The parts that would need to be added to 
the component set, such as a wound stator or rotor, are complex 
components that directly affect the performance of a motor and can only 
be provided by a motor manufacturer. Without the

[[Page 38475]]

fundamental components, there is no motor. Therefore, DOE believes that 
a single testing laboratory would have insurmountable difficulty 
machining motor parts, assembling the parts into an operable machine, 
and testing the motor in a way that would be manageable, consistent, 
and repeatable by other testing laboratories. Because DOE is not aware 
of any test procedures or additional test procedure instructions that 
would accommodate the testing of a component set in a manageable, 
consistent, and repeatable manner, it is declining at this time to 
require them to satisfy any energy conservations standards.
    DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for ``component 
set.'' DOE also requests comment on its tentative decision to not 
require component sets to meet any particular energy conservation 
standards.
3. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motor
    While most electric motors are cooled by air and many use a fan 
attached to the shaft on the end opposite the drive to blow air over 
the surface of the motor to dissipate heat during the motor's 
operation, liquid-cooled electric motors rely on a special cooling 
apparatus that pumps liquid into and around the motor housing. The 
liquid is circulated around the motor frame to dissipate heat and 
prevent the motor from overheating during continuous-duty operation. A 
liquid-cooled electric motor may use different liquids or liquids at 
different temperatures, which could affect the operating temperature of 
the motor and, therefore, the efficiency of the motor. This variability 
could present testing consistency and reliability problems. Neither 
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) nor CSA C390-10 provide a 
standardized methodology for testing the energy efficiency of a liquid-
cooled electric motor. Additionally, as NEMA noted in its comments, 
these motors are typically used in space-constrained applications, such 
as mining applications, and require a high power density, which 
somewhat limits their efficiency potential. (NEMA, NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-
STD-0027-0054 at p. 42) In view of these likely testing consistency 
problems, DOE does not intend to subject them to energy conservation 
standards at this time.
    NEMA and ASAP commented in response to the October 15, 2010, energy 
conservation standards framework document, that greater clarification 
is needed with regard to liquid-cooled electric motors and how to 
differentiate them from immersible or submersible electric motors. 
(NEMA and ASAP, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0012 at p. 9) DOE does not plan 
to subject these motors to energy conservation standards, but instead 
is proposing to define ``liquid-cooled electric motor'' to clarify its 
view of what motors fall within this term. DOE's proposed definition is 
based on the definition of a ``totally enclosed water-cooled machine'' 
found in paragraph 1.26.5 of NEMA MG1-2009. Further, DOE is proposing 
to remove ``totally enclosed'' from the definition to prevent any 
unintentional limitations of the definition due to frame construction. 
DOE also plans to replace the term ``water'' with ``liquid'' to cover 
the use of any type of liquid as a coolant. Finally, per comments from 
NEMA, DOE is proposing to modify the term ``water conductors'' to 
``liquid-filled conductors'' to make it clear that the conductors are 
not made of liquid. (NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 35) As 
detailed in the proposed regulations below, today's proposed rule 
defines ``liquid-cooled electric motor'' as a motor that is cooled by 
circulating liquid with the liquid or liquid-filled conductors coming 
into direct contact with the machine parts.
    DOE seeks comment on its proposed definition for ``liquid-cooled 
electric motor'' as well as its tentative decision not to cover these 
motors because of potential testing difficulties identified above, 
along with the testing variables that are introduced by an additional 
coolant system and pump apparatus. Nevertheless, DOE is open to comment 
about any test procedure standards or additional test procedure 
instructions that would take into account all such variables and allow 
this motor-type to be tested in a consistent, manageable, and 
repeatable manner.
4. Submersible Electric Motor
    As previously addressed, most motors are not engineered for 
operation while under water. Any liquid inside a stator frame could 
impede rotor operation and corrode components of the motor. However, a 
submersible electric motor is capable of complete submersion in liquid 
without damaging the motor. A submersible electric motor uses special 
seals to prevent the ingress of liquid into its enclosure. 
Additionally, DOE understands that a submersible electric motor relies 
on the properties of the surrounding liquid to cool the motor during 
continuous-duty operation. That is, submersible electric motors are 
only capable of continuous duty operation while completely submerged in 
liquid, as NEMA clarified in its comments on the preliminary analysis. 
(NEMA, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 37) Consequently, as detailed 
in the proposed regulations below, today's proposed rule defines 
``submersible electric motor'' as an electric motor designed for 
continuous operation only while submerged in liquid.
    DOE does not plan to require submersible electric motors to meet 
energy conservation standards at this time. DOE believes that testing 
submersible electric motors would be extremely difficult because the 
motor must be submerged in a liquid to properly operate. After having 
discussions with manufacturers and testing laboratories, DOE is not 
aware of any industry test procedures or potential modifications to the 
procedures under 10 CFR 431.16 that could test a motor that relies on 
submersion in liquid for continuous-duty operation. Additionally DOE is 
not aware of any testing facilities that are capable of testing a 
submerged motor. Consequently, DOE has tentatively decided not to 
propose specific preparatory instructions for testing submersible 
electric motors. DOE is interested in whether there are facilities 
capable of conducting energy efficiency tests on submersible motors, 
along with any specific procedures that these facilities follow when 
attempting to rate the energy efficiency of this equipment.
    DOE seeks comment about its proposed definition for ``submersible 
electric motor.'' Additionally, DOE seeks comment on its tentative 
decision not to cover these motors because of potential testing 
difficulties and the number of testing concerns, such as the 
availability of standard testing procedures and testing facilities. 
Nevertheless, DOE is open to comment about any test procedure standards 
or additional test procedure instructions that would facilitate the 
testing of submersible electric motors in a consistent, manageable, and 
repeatable manner.
5. Definite-Purpose Inverter-Fed Electric Motors
    DOE considers two types of electric motors related to the use of 
inverters, those that are engineered to work only with an inverter and 
those that are capable of working with an inverter, but are otherwise 
capable of general, continuous-duty operation without an inverter. This 
section addresses the former type of electric motors. Inverter-capable 
electric motors are addressed in section II.C.4.
    In its electric motors preliminary analysis TSD, DOE sought to 
clarify that, in its view, inverter-only motors were motors that can 
operate continuously only by means of an inverter drive. DOE also 
explained that

[[Page 38476]]

it preliminarily planned to continue to exclude these motors from 
energy conservation standards requirements, in large part because of 
the difficulties that were likely to arise from testing them.
    NEMA agreed with DOE's preliminary approach to define such motors 
and not require them to meet energy conservation standards, but 
suggested a more specific definition of ``inverter-only motor,'' based 
on NEMA MG1 part 31, ``Definite-Purpose Inverter-Fed Polyphase 
Motors,'' in place of the one previously considered by DOE. (NEMA, 
EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 35) DOE examined the suggested 
definition and is proposing to adopt it, with minor modifications. At 
this time, DOE is not proposing to require that a motor be marked as a 
``definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric motor,'' but may consider 
such a requirement in the future. DOE believes the new definition is 
more precise than what it previously considered and understands that it 
is a term currently recognized and used in common industry parlance. As 
detailed in the proposed regulations below, today's proposed rule 
defines ``definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric motor'' as an 
electric motor that is designed for operation solely with an inverter, 
and is not intended for operation when directly connected to polyphase, 
sinusoidal line power.
    Regarding testing a definite-purpose inverter-fed motor, NEMA 
asserted that the industry-based procedures, which have already been 
incorporated by reference in DOE's regulations, require that a tested 
motor be capable of across-the-line starting, but inverter-fed motors 
are incapable of meeting this requirement without the inverter. (See 
NEMA, at EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0054 at p. 35 and NEMA MG1-2009, part 31 
at paragraph 31.4.3.1, which elaborates that an ``inverter-fed motor'' 
cannot perform across-the-line starting unless the motor is attached to 
the inverter.) Otherwise, DOE is not aware of an industry accepted test 
procedure that specifies at which speed or torque characteristics an 
inverter-fed motor should be tested. Furthermore, DOE does not believe 
it would be possible for it to develop a standardized test procedure 
for definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric motors on its own. Because 
inverters allow a motor to operate at a wide array of speeds for many 
different applications, there would be considerable difficulties in 
developing a single procedure that produced a fair representation of 
the actual energy used by all electric motors connected to an inverter 
in the field. Additionally, a single motor design may be paired with a 
wide variety of inverters, so properly selecting an inverter to use for 
the test such that an accurate representation of efficiency is obtained 
would prove extremely difficult. Therefore, even if DOE intended to 
regulate such motors, testing them could be extremely challenging using 
the currently accepted industry test procedures.
    DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for ``definite-
purpose, inverter-fed electric motors'' and its preliminary decision to 
exclude such motors from any expanded energy conservation standards for 
electric motors.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that test 
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: www.gc.doe.gov.
    As described in the preamble, today's proposal presents additional 
test procedure set-up clarifications for motors currently subject to 
Federal energy conservation standards, new test procedure set-up and 
test procedures for motors not currently subject to Federal energy 
conservation standards, and additional clarifications of definitions 
for certain key terms to aid manufacturers in better understanding 
DOE's regulations. All of the proposals are consistent with current 
industry practices and, once adopted and compliance is required, should 
be used for making representations of energy-efficiency of those 
covered electric motors and for certifying compliance to Federal energy 
conservation standards. DOE certified to the Office of Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration (SBA) that the proposed test procedures 
for electric motors would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this 
certification is as follows:
    To estimate the number of small businesses impacted by the rule, 
DOE considered the size standards for a small business listed by the 
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and 
description under 13 CFR 121.201. To be considered a small business, a 
manufacturer of electric motors and its affiliates may employ a maximum 
of 1,000 employees. DOE estimates that there are approximately 30 
domestic motor manufacturers that manufacture electric motors covered 
by EPCA, and no more than 13 of these manufacturers are small 
businesses employing a maximum of 1,000 employees. The number of motor 
manufacturers, including the number of manufacturers qualifying as 
small businesses, was estimated based on interviews with motor 
manufacturers and publicly available data.
    To determine the anticipated economic impact of the testing 
requirements on small manufacturers, DOE compared its proposal to 
current industry practices regarding testing procedures and 
representations for energy efficiency along with those steps DOE has 
taken in the design of the rule to minimize the testing burden on 
manufacturers. For motors that are currently subject to Federal 
standards, today's procedures are largely clarifications and would not 
change the underlying DOE test procedure and methodologies currently 
being employed by industry to rate and certify to the Department 
compliance with Federal standards.
    If DOE ultimately adopts the additional definitions in this 
rulemaking extending the existing test procedures to motors that are 
not currently subject to Federal energy conservation standards, 
manufacturers would only need to use the testing set-up instructions, 
testing procedures, and rating procedures if a manufacturer elected to 
make voluntary representations of energy-efficiency of his or her basic 
models once compliance with the final test procedure was required. To 
better understand how the proposal would impact small

[[Page 38477]]

manufacturers of electric motors, DOE reviewed current industry 
practice regarding the representations of energy efficiency currently 
made for motors not currently subject to energy conservation standards 
and how the proposal may impact current industry practice. 
Specifically, DOE's test procedures would require that those 
manufacturers of motors not currently subject to standards who choose 
to make public representations of efficiency to comply with the 
proposed methods. DOE's rule would not require manufacturers who do not 
currently make voluntary representations to then begin making public 
representations of efficiency.
    DOE researched the catalogs and Web sites of the 13 identified 
small manufacturers and found that only four of the small manufacturers 
clearly list efficiency ratings for their equipment in public 
disclosures. The remaining manufacturers either build custom products, 
which would not be subject to the proposal, or do not list energy 
efficiency in their motor specifications, in part because it is not 
required. For the manufacturers that currently do not make any public 
representations of energy efficiency of their motors, DOE does not 
believe the proposal would impact the current behavior of those 
manufacturers that do not elect to make voluntary representations. DOE 
does not anticipate any burden accruing to these manufacturers unless 
the agency was to consider and set energy conservation standards for 
those additional electric motor types. Of the four manufacturers that 
currently elect to make voluntary representations of the electric motor 
efficiency, DOE believes those manufacturers will be minimally impacted 
because they are already basing those representations on commonly used 
industry standards, which are the same testing procedures that are 
contained within DOE's proposals. DOE does not have any reason to 
believe that the test set-up clarifications proposed for adoption would 
have any significant impact on the current practice of these four 
manufacturers.
    In view of the foregoing, DOE certifies that today's proposal would 
not impose significant economic impacts on a substantial number of 
small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE has provided its 
certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review 
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of electric motors must certify to DOE that their 
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In 
certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according 
to the DOE test procedures for electric motors, including any 
amendments adopted for those test procedures. The collection-of-
information requirement for electric motors certification and 
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by 
OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400 that expires February 13, 2014. 
Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 
20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, 
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this proposed rule, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that 
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy 
conservation standards for electric motors. DOE has determined that 
this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded 
from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 
1021. Specifically, this proposed rule would amend the existing test 
procedures without affecting the amount, quality or distribution of 
energy usage, and, therefore, would not result in any environmental 
impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 
under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that 
interprets or amends an existing rule without changing the 
environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has 
determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal 
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the 
products that are the subject of today's proposed rule. States can 
petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and 
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further 
action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney

[[Page 38478]]

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is 
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 
12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may 
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at www.gc.doe.gov. DOE examined today's proposed rule according to UMRA 
and its statement of policy and determined that today's proposal 
contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may 
result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these 
requirements do not apply.

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

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This proposal would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of 
the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is 
not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposal would not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), 
and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). 
DOE has reviewed today's proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines 
and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in 
those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy 
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an 
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a 
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    Today's proposal to amend the test procedure for measuring the 
energy efficiency of electric motors is not a significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not, if adopted, 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by 
the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy 
action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 
Effects.

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

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed 
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The rule proposed in this notice incorporates portions of the 
following commercial standard as specified: National Electrical 
Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Standards Publication MG1-2009 Section 
I (Part 4), Section II and Section II (Part 12). Although other 
portions of NEMA MG1-2009 are already incorporated by reference into 
DOE regulations, portions of Section I (Part 4) and Section II (Part 
12) have yet to be incorporated. DOE has evaluated these provisions and 
is unable to conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements 
of section 32(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act (i.e., that 
they were developed in a manner that fully provides for public 
participation, comment, and review). DOE will consult with the Attorney 
General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact of this test 
procedure on competition.

V. Public Participation

a. Attendance at Public Meeting

    The time, date and location of the public meeting are listed in the 
DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this document. If you 
plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 
(202) 586-2945 or Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
    Any foreign national wishing to participate in the meeting should 
advise DOE as soon as possible by contacting

[[Page 38479]]

Ms. Edwards to initiate the necessary procedures. Please also note that 
those wishing to bring laptop computers into the Forrestal Building 
will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid 
bringing laptop computers, or allow an extra 45 minutes for security 
screening. Persons can also participate in the public meeting via 
webinar. For more information, refer to the Public Participation 
section near the end of this notice.
    In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be 
published on DOE's Web site http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/74. Participants are 
responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar 
software.

b. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements For 
Distribution

    Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement 
may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at 
the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an 
advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), 
Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to 
the appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 
of this notice. The request and advance copy of statements must be 
received at least one week before the public meeting and may be 
emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive 
requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone 
number to enable DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, if needed.

c. Conduct of Public Meeting

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting 
and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The 
meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but 
DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and 
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of 
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of 
the public meeting. After the public meeting, interested parties may 
submit further comments on the proceedings as well as on any aspect of 
the rulemaking until the end of the comment period.
    The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference 
style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the 
public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by 
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views 
on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed 
to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), 
before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time 
permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general 
statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on 
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer 
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE 
representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other 
matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public 
meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those 
attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any 
further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that 
may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
    A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, 
which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning 
of this notice. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the 
transcript from the transcribing reporter.

d. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the 
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed 
rule. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 
Web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. 
Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies 
staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable 
except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and 
submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not 
processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this 
information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, 
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any 
documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure 
is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business 
Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot 
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive 
any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on 
submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and 
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be 
posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact 
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment 
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact 
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email 
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover 
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any 
comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand 
delivery, please provide all items on a compact disk (CD), if feasible. 
It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) 
will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, written in English and are free

[[Page 38480]]

of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special 
characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should 
carry the electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: one copy 
of the document marked confidential including all the information 
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-
confidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted. 
Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

e. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
    1. DOE requests comment on the decision to incorporate definitions 
for NEMA Design A and NEMA Design C motors based on the NEMA MG1-2009 
definitions of these motor designs.
    2. DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for IEC Design 
N and H motors.
    3. DOE seeks comment on its proposed definition for electric motors 
with moisture resistant windings and electric motors with sealed 
windings and its preliminary decision to not propose additional testing 
instructions for these motors types.
    4. DOE requests comments on its proposed definition for inverter-
capable electric motors and its decision not to provide any test 
procedure instructions for this motor type.
    5. DOE requests comments on its proposed definition and preliminary 
decision not to propose any clarifying testing instructions for TENV 
electric motors.
    6. DOE requests comments on its proposed definition of integral 
brake electric motor and its preliminary decision to include them in 
the scope of these test procedures.
    7. DOE requests comments on its preliminary decision to test 
integral brake electric motors and non-integral brake electric motors 
without disassembly but, rather, with their brake components powered 
externally.
    8. DOE requests comments concerning its proposed definition for 
immersible electric motor, especially with regards to differentiating 
this motor type from liquid-cooled electric and submersible electric 
motors.
    9. DOE invites comment on its proposed test procedure instructions 
for immersible electric motors, in particular, the proposal to allow 
for a maximum run-in period of 10 hours prior to testing according to 
IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B.
    10. DOE requests comment on its preliminary decision not to propose 
a definition for electric motors with non-standard endshields or bases
    11. DOE invites comment on its proposed instructions for testing 
electric motors with non-standard endshields or flanges.
    12. DOE seeks comment on the decision to not propose a definition 
for electric motors with non-standard shaft dimensions or additions.
    13. DOE requests comment on it proposed instructions for testing 
motors with non-standard shaft dimensions or additions.
    14. DOE seeks comment regarding its decision not to propose a 
definition for electric motors with non-standard base, feet, or 
mounting configurations.
    15. DOE requests comment on its instructions for testing electric 
motors with non-standard base, feet, or mounting configurations.
    16. DOE seeks comment on any other testing difficulties that may 
arise from testing electric motors with non-standard base, feet, or 
mounting configurations.
    17. DOE requests comment regarding its proposed approach to testing 
electric motors with bearings capable of horizontal orientation. DOE 
also requests comment on its proposed approach to testing electric 
motors with bearings not capable of horizontal orientation.
    18. DOE requests comments on its preliminary decision not to 
propose any definitions for vertical motors.
    19. DOE seeks comments on its proposed instructions for dealing 
with the various construction differences found between vertical and 
horizontal motors.
    20. DOE requests comment on its decision not to propose additional 
test procedure clarifications for motors with sleeve bearings or a 
definition for these motor types.
    21. DOE requests comment regarding the effect of sleeve bearings on 
a motor's tested efficiency.
    22. DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for air-over 
electric motor, and the decision to include both open and enclosed 
frame motors under the same definition.
    23. DOE requests comment on the decision to not require air-over 
electric motors to meet energy conservation standards at this time.
    24. DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of component 
set of an electric motor.
    25. DOE is open to comment on its tentative decision to not require 
component sets of electric motors to meet any particular energy 
conservation standards.
    26. DOE seeks feedback on its proposed definition for liquid-cooled 
electric motors.
    27. DOE seeks comment on its tentative decision not to cover 
liquid-cooled electric motors, primarily because of the testing 
difficulties encountered when testing them, namely the number of 
testing variables that are introduced by the additional coolant system 
and pump apparatus.
    28. DOE is open to comment regarding any test procedure standards 
or additional test procedure guidance language that would take into 
account all variables involved in testing liquid-cooled motors and 
allows this motor type to be tested in a consistent, manageable, and 
repeatable manner.

[[Page 38481]]

    29. DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of submersible 
electric motor.
    30. DOE requests comment on whether it is correct that there are no 
test facilities capable of conducting performance tests on submersible 
electric motors.
    31. DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for definite-
purpose, inverter-fed electric motors.
    32. DOE seeks comment on its preliminary decision to continue to 
not require definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric motors to meet any 
expanded energy conservation standards for electric motors.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed 
rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practices and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Incorporation by reference, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 19, 2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 
431 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as set 
forth below.

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND 
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

0
2. Section 431.12 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the reserved terms ``Fire pump motors'' and ``NEMA design B 
general purpose electric motor;'' and
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order, definitions for: ``air-over electric 
motor,'' ``component set,'' ``definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric 
motor,'' ``electric motor with moisture resistant windings,'' 
``electric motor with sealed windings,'' ``IEC Design H motor,'' ``IEC 
Design N motor,'' ``immersible electric motor,'' ``integral brake 
electric motor,'' ``inverter-capable electric motor,'' ``liquid-cooled 
electric motor,'' ``NEMA Design A motor,'' ``NEMA Design C motor,'' 
``non-integral brake electric motor,'' ``partial electric motor,'' 
``submersible electric motor,'' ``totally enclosed non-ventilated 
(TENV) electric motor.''
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  431.12  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Air-over electric motor means an electric motor designed to be 
cooled by a ventilating means external to, and not supplied with, the 
motor.
* * * * *
    Component set means a combination of motor parts that require the 
addition of more than two endshields to create an operable motor. These 
parts may consist of any combination of a stator frame, wound stator, 
rotor, shaft, or endshields. For the purpose of this definition, the 
term ``operable motor'' means an electric motor engineered for 
performing in accordance with nameplate ratings.
* * * * *
    Definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric motor means an electric 
motor that is designed for operation solely with an inverter, and is 
not intended for operation when directly connected to polyphase, 
sinusoidal line power.
* * * * *
    Electric motor with moisture resistant windings means an electric 
motor that is engineered for passing the conformance test for moisture 
resistance described in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.63, (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  431.15) as demonstrated on a representative 
sample or prototype.
    Electric motor with sealed windings means an electric motor that is 
engineered for passing the conformance test for water resistance 
described in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.62, (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.15) as demonstrated on a representative sample 
or prototype.
* * * * *
    IEC Design H motor means an electric motor that
    (1) Is an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power;
    (2) Contains a cage rotor;
    (3) Is intended for direct-on-line starting (as demonstrated by the 
motor's ability to operate without an inverter)
    (4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles;
    (5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 160 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
    (6) Conforms to sections 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 of the IEC 60034-12 
edition 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15) requirements 
for starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and starting.
    IEC Design N motor means an electric motor that:
    (1) Is an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power;
    (2) Contains a cage rotor;
    (3) Is intended for direct-on-line starting (as demonstrated by the 
motor's ability to operate without an inverter);
    (4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles;
    (5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW; and
    (6) Conforms to sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of the IEC 60034-12 
edition 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15) requirements 
for torque characteristics, locked rotor apparent power, and starting.
* * * * *
    Immersible electric motor means an electric motor primarily 
designed to operate continuously in free-air, but is also capable of 
withstanding complete immersion in liquid for a continuous period of no 
less than 30 minutes.
    Integral brake electric motor means an electric motor containing a 
brake mechanism either inside of the motor endshield or between the 
motor fan and endshield.
    Inverter-capable electric motor means an electric motor designed to 
be directly connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line power, but that is 
also capable of continuous operation on an inverter drive over a 
limited speed range and associated load.
    Liquid-cooled electric motor means a motor that is cooled by 
circulating liquid with the liquid or liquid-filled conductors coming 
into direct contact with the machine parts.
* * * * *
    NEMA Design A motor means a squirrel-cage motor that:
    (1) Is Designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing 
locked-rotor torque as shown in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.38 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15);
    (2) Has pull-up torque as shown in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.40;
    (3) Has breakdown torque as shown in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 
12.39;
    (4) Has a locked-rotor current higher than the values shown in NEMA 
MG1-2009, paragraph 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 
12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and
    (5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for motors with 
fewer than 10 poles.
* * * * *
    NEMA Design C motor means a squirrel-cage motor that:
    1. Is Designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing 
locked-rotor torque for high-torque applications up to the values shown 
in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.38 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.15);
    2. Has pull-up torque as shown in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.40;
    3. Has breakdown torque up to the values shown in NEMA MG1-2009, 
paragraph 12.39;
    4. Has a locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in 
NEMA

[[Page 38482]]

MG1-2009, paragraphs 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and 12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and
    5. Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent.
    Non-integral brake electric motor means an electric motor 
containing a brake mechanism outside of the endshield, but not between 
the motor fan and endshield.
* * * * *
    Partial electric motor means an assembly of motor components 
necessitating the addition of no more than two endshields, including 
bearings, to create an operable motor. For the purpose of this 
definition, the term ``operable motor'' means an electric motor 
engineered for performing in accordance with the applicable nameplate 
ratings.
* * * * *
    Submersible electric motor means an electric motor designed for 
continuous operation only while submerged in liquid.
* * * * *
    Totally enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) electric motor means an 
electric motor that is built in a frame-surface cooled, totally 
enclosed configuration that is designed and equipped to be cooled only 
by free convection.
0
3. Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431 is amended by adding an 
introductory note and section 4 to read as follows:

Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
Nominal Full-Load Efficiency of Electric Motors

    Note:  Any representation made after [date 180 days after 
publication of the final rule will be inserted here] related to 
special and definite purpose motor types for which definitions are 
provided at Sec.  431.12, or for which specific testing procedures 
are provided in this appendix, must be based upon results generated 
under this test procedure. Upon the compliance date(s) of any energy 
conservation standard(s) for special and definite purpose motor 
types, use of the applicable provisions of this test procedure to 
demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standard will 
also be required.
    Any representation, including demonstrations of compliance, 
related to general purpose electric motors (subtype I or II) made 
after [date 180 days after publication of the final rule will be 
inserted here] must be based upon results generated under this test 
procedure.

* * * * *
    4. Procedures for the Testing of Certain Electric Motor Types.
    Prior to testing according to IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) 
or CSA C390-10 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15), each 
basic model of the electric motor types listed below must be 
prepared in accordance with the instructions of this section to 
ensure consistent test results. These steps are designed to enable a 
motor to be attached to a dynamometer and run continuously for 
testing purposes. For the purposes of this appendix, a ``standard 
bearing'' is a 6000 series, open, single-row, deep groove, radial 
ball bearing.
    4.1 Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors and Electric Motors with 
Single or Double Shaft Extensions of Non-Standard Dimensions or 
Additions:
    To attach the unit under test to a dynamometer, close-coupled 
pump electric motors and electric motors with single or double shaft 
extensions of non-standard dimensions or additions must be tested 
using a special coupling adapter.
    4.2 Electric Motors with Non-Standard Endshields or Flanges:
    If it is not possible to connect the electric motor to a 
dynamometer without removing the endplate, the testing laboratory 
shall replace the non-standard endshield or flange with an endshield 
or flange meeting NEMA or IEC specifications. The NEMA 
specifications are found in NEMA MG-1 (2009) in Section I, Part 4, 
paragraphs 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, and 4.4.6, 
Figures 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5, and Table 4-2 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.15). The IEC specifications are found in 
IEC 60072-1 (1991) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15). If 
this is necessary, the replacement endshield or flange shall be 
obtained through the manufacturer, either by request or purchased as 
a replacement part; any such replacement endshield or flange must be 
constructed of the same material as the original endplate.
    4.3 Immersible Electric Motors and Electric Motors with Contact 
Seals:
    Immersible electric motors shall be tested with all contact 
seals installed as the motor is received. A manufacturer or test 
laboratory may run the electric motor being tested for a period of 
no more than 10 hours in order to break in the contact seals prior 
to testing. For immersible motors built in a totally enclosed blower 
cooled construction, the smaller, cooling motor shall be powered by 
a source separate from the source powering the electric motor under 
test.
    4.4 Integral Brake Electric Motors:
    Integral brake electric motors shall be tested with the integral 
brake component powered by a source separate from the source 
powering the electric motor under test. Additionally, for any 10 
minute period during the test and while the brake is being powered 
such that it remains disengaged from the motor shaft, record the 
power consumed (i.e., watts).
    4.5 Non-Integral Brake Electric Motors:
    Non-integral brake electric motors shall be tested with the non-
integral brake component powered by a source separate from the 
source powering the electric motor under test. Additionally, for any 
10 minute period during the test and while the brake is being 
powered such that it remains disengaged from the motor shaft, record 
the power consumed (i.e., watts).
    4.6 Partial Electric Motors:
    Partial electric motors shall be disconnected from their mated 
piece of equipment. After disconnection from the equipment, standard 
bearings and/or endshields shall be added to the motor, such that it 
is capable of operation. If an endshield is necessary, an endshield 
meeting NEMA or IEC specifications shall be obtained through the 
manufacturer, either by request or purchased as a replacement part.
    4.7 Vertical Electric Motors and Electric Motors with Bearings 
Incapable of Horizontal Operation:
    Vertical electric motors and electric motors with thrust 
bearings shall be tested in a horizontal configuration. If the unit 
under test cannot be reoriented horizontally due to its bearing 
construction, the electric motor's bearings shall be removed and 
replaced with standard bearings. If the unit under test contains 
oil-lubricated bearings, its bearings shall be removed and replaced 
with standard bearings. Finally, if the unit under test contains a 
hollow-shaft, a solid-shaft shall be inserted, bolted to the non-
drive end of the motor and welded on the drive end. Enough clearance 
shall be maintained such that attachment to a dynamometer is 
possible.
[FR Doc. 2013-15132 Filed 6-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P