[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 19, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63588-63660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21891]



[[Page 63587]]

Vol. 87

Wednesday,

No. 201

October 19, 2022

Part II





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Parts 429 and 431





Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Electric Motors; Final 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2022 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 63588]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[EERE-2020-BT-TP-0011]
RIN 1904-AE62


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Electric Motors

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the existing scope of the U.S. 
Department of Energy (``DOE'') test procedures for electric motors 
consistent with related updates to the relevant industry testing 
standard (i.e., for air-over electric motors, electric motors greater 
than 500 horsepower, electric motors considered small, inverter-only 
electric motors, and synchronous electric motors); adds test 
procedures, an appropriate metric, and supporting definitions for 
additional electric motors covered under the amended scope; and updates 
references to industry standards to reference current versions. 
Furthermore, DOE is adopting certain industry provisions related to the 
prescribed test conditions to further ensure the comparability of test 
results. DOE is also amending provisions pertaining to certification 
testing and the determination of represented values for electric motors 
other than dedicated-purpose pool pump motors, and re-locating such 
provisions consistent with the location of the certification 
requirements for other covered products and equipment. Finally, DOE is 
adding provisions pertaining to certification testing and the 
determination of represented values for dedicated-purpose pool pump 
motors.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is November 18, 2022. The final 
rule changes will be mandatory for product testing starting April 17, 
2023. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on 
November 18, 2022. The incorporation by reference of certain other 
publications listed in the rule was approved by the Director as of June 
4, 2012 and February 3, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, webinar 
attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. 
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov 
index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those 
containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not 
be publicly available.
    A link to the docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2020-BT-TP-0011. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket contact the 
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by 
email: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email 
[email protected].
    Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE maintains standards previously approved 
for incorporation by reference and incorporates by reference the 
following industry standards into part 431:
    CSA C390:10 (reaffirmed 2019), ``Test methods, marking 
requirements, and energy efficiency levels for three-phase induction 
motors,'' including Updates No. 1 through 3, Revised January 2020 
(``CSA C390-10'').
    CSA C747-09 (reaffirmed 2019), ``Energy Efficiency Test Methods for 
Small Motors,'' including Update No. 1 (August 2016), dated October 
2009 (``CSA C747-09'').
    Copies of CSA C390-10 and CSA C747-09 can be obtained from Canadian 
Standards Association (``CSA''), Sales Department, 5060 Spectrum Way, 
Suite 100, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1-800-463-6727, or by 
visiting www.shopcsa.ca/onlinestore/welcome.asp.
    IEC 60034-12:2016, Edition 3.0 2016-11, ``Rotating Electrical 
Machines, Part 12: Starting Performance of Single-Speed Three-Phase 
Cage Induction Motors,'' Published November 23, 2016 (``IEC 60034-
12:2016'').
    IEC 60072-1, ``Dimensions and Output Series for Rotating Electrical 
Machines--Part 1: Frame numbers 56 to 400 and flange numbers 55 to 
1080,'' Sixth Edition, 1991-02, clauses 2, 3, 4.1, 6.1, 7, and 10, and 
Tables 1, 2 and 4. (``IEC 60072-1'')
    IEC 60079-7:2015, Edition 5.0 2015-06, ``Explosive atmospheres--
Part 7: Equipment protection by increased safety `e,' '' Published June 
26, 2015 (``IEC 60079-7:2015'').
    IEC 61800-9-2:2017, ``Adjustable speed electrical power drive 
systems--Part 9-2: Ecodesign for power drive systems, motor starters, 
power electronics and their driven applications--Energy efficiency 
indicators for power drive systems and motor starters,'' Edition 1.0, 
March 2017 (``IEC 61800-9-2:2017'').
    Copies of IEC 60034-12:2016, IEC 60079-7:2015 and IEC 61800-9-
2:2017 may be purchased from International Electrotechnical Commission 
(``IEC''), 3 rue de Varemb[eacute], 1st floor, P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 
Geneva 20-Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 11, or by visiting https://webstore.iec.ch/home.
    IEEE 114-2010, ``Test Procedure for Single-Phase Induction 
Motors,'' December 23, 2010 (``IEEE 114-2010'').
    Copies of IEEE 114-2010 can be obtained from: Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (``IEEE''), 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. 
Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, (732) 981-0060, or by visiting 
www.ieee.org.
    ANSI/NEMA MG 1-2016 (Revision 1, 2018), ``Motors and Generators,'' 
ANSI approved June 15, 2021 (``NEMA MG 1-2016'').
    Copies of NEMA MG 1-2016 may be purchased from National Electrical 
Manufacturers Association (``NEMA''), 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 
900, Arlington, Virginia 22209, +1 703 841 3200, or by visiting /
www.nema.org.
    National Fire Protection Association (``NFPA'') 20, 2022 Edition, 
``Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire 
Protection,'' Approved by ANSI on April 8, 2021 (``NFPA 20-2022'').
    Copies of NFPA 20-2022 may be purchased from National Fire 
Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169, +1 800 
344 3555, or by visiting www.nfpa.org.
    See section IV.N of this document for a further discussion of these 
standards.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. Authority
    B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Scope of Applicability
    1. Motor Used as a Component of a Covered Product or Equipment
    2. ``E'' and ``Y'' Designations of IEC Design N and H Motors
    3. Air-Over Electric Motors
    4. AC Induction Electric Motors Greater Than 500 Horsepower

[[Page 63589]]

    5. SNEMs
    6. AC Induction Inverter-Only Electric Motors
    7. Synchronous Electric Motors
    8. Submersible Electric Motors
    9. Other Exemptions
    B. Definitions
    1. Updating IEC Design N and H Motors Definitions and Including 
New Definitions for IEC Design N and H ``E'' and ``Y'' Designations
    2. Updating Definitions to Reference Current NEMA MG 1-2016
    3. Inverter, Inverter-Only, and Inverter-Capable
    4. Air-Over Electric Motors
    5. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motors
    6. Basic Model and Equipment Class
    C. Updates to Industry Standards Currently Incorporated by 
Reference
    D. Industry Standards Incorporated By Reference
    1. Test Procedures for Air-Over Electric Motors
    2. Test Procedures for SNEMs
    3. Test Procedures for AC Induction Inverter-Only Electric 
Motors and Synchronous Electric Motors
    E. Metric
    F. Rated Output Power and Breakdown Torque of Electric Motors
    G. Rated Values Specified for Testing
    1. Rated Frequency
    2. Rated Load
    3. Rated Voltage
    H. Contact Seals Requirement
    I. Vertical Electric Motors Testing
    J. Proposed Testing Instructions for Those Electric Motors Being 
Added to the Scope of Appendix B
    K. Testing Instructions for Brake Electric Motors
    L. Transition to 10 CFR part 429
    M. Certification of Electric Motors
    1. Independent Testing
    2. Certification Process for Electric Motors
    N. Determination of Represented Values
    1. Nominal Full-Load Efficiency
    2. Testing: Use of an Accredited Laboratory
    3. Testing: Use of a Nationally Recognized Certification Program
    4. Use of an AEDM
    O. Certification, Sampling Plans and AEDM Provisions for 
Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Motors
    P. Effective and Compliance Dates
    Q. Test Procedure Costs
    1. Test Procedure Costs and Impacts
    2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
    R. Compliance Date
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
    4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and 
Regulations
    6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    1. Description of the Requirements
    2. Method of Collection
    3. Data
    4. Conclusion
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Congressional Notification
    N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Electric motors are included in the list of ``covered equipment'' 
for which the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is authorized to 
establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. 
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) DOE's energy conservation standards and test 
procedures for electric motors are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 
431.25 and appendix B to subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 (``appendix B''), 
respectively. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to 
establish test procedures for electric motors and relevant background 
information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this 
equipment.

A. Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\ 
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of 
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA, added by the National Energy 
Conservation Policy Act, Pub. L. 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), 
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial 
Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve 
energy efficiency. These equipment include electric motors, the subject 
of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Pub. L. 116-260 (Dec. 27, 
2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts 
A and A-1 of EPCA.
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant 
provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test 
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), 
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to 
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 
U.S.C. 6296).
    The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that 
manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) 
certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable 
energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making other representations about 
the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE 
must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment 
complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, 
grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or 
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of 
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or 
amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test 
results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual 
operating cost of a given type of covered equipment during a 
representative average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary) and 
requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
    EPCA, pursuant to amendments made by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 
Pub. L. 102-486 (Oct. 24, 1992) (``EPACT 1992''), specifies that the 
test procedures for electric motors subject to the standards prescribed 
in 42 U.S.C. 6313 shall be those specified in National Electrical 
Manufacturers Association (``NEMA'') Standards Publication MG1-1987 and 
the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (``IEEE'') 
Standard 112 Test Method B, as in effect on October 24, 1992. (42 
U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A)). If these industry test procedures are amended, 
DOE must

[[Page 63590]]

amend its own test procedures to conform to such amended test procedure 
requirements, unless DOE determines by rule, published in the Federal 
Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that to do so 
would not meet the statutory requirements related to the test procedure 
representativeness and burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B))
    EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate 
test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including electric 
motors, to determine whether amended test procedures would more 
accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test 
procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably 
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy 
use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use 
cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
    In addition, if the Secretary determines that a test procedure 
amendment is warranted, the Secretary must publish proposed test 
procedures in the Federal Register, and afford interested persons an 
opportunity (of not less than 45 days' duration) to present oral and 
written data, views, and arguments on the proposed test procedures. (42 
U.S.C. 6314(b)). If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are 
not appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not to amend the 
test procedures.
    DOE is publishing this final rule in satisfaction of its statutory 
obligations specified in EPCA.

B. Background

    On December 17, 2021, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(``NOPR'') for the electric motors test procedure. 86 FR 71710 
(``December 2021 NOPR''). In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to 
revise the current scope of the test procedures to add additional 
electric motors and implement related updates needed for supporting 
definitions and metric requirements as a result of this expanded scope; 
incorporate by reference the most recent versions of the referenced 
industry standards; incorporate by reference additional industry 
standards used to test additional electric motors that DOE had proposed 
to include within its scope; clarify the current test procedure's scope 
and test instructions by adding definitions for specific terms; revise 
the current vertical motor testing instructions to reduce manufacturer 
test burden; clarify that the current test procedure permits removal of 
contact seals for immersible electric motors only; revise the 
provisions pertaining to certification testing and determination of 
represented values; and add provisions pertaining to certification 
testing and determination of represented values for dedicated purpose 
pool pump (``DPPP'') motors. Id The NOPR provided an opportunity for 
submitting written comments, data, and information on the proposal by 
February 15, 2022.
    On February 4, 2022, DOE published a notice granting an extension 
of the public comment period to allow public comments to be submitted 
until February 28, 2022. 87 FR 6436.
    DOE received comments in response to the December 2021 NOPR from 
the interested parties listed in Table II.1.

          Table II.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the December 2021 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Reference in this final
              Commenter(s)                           rule               Docket No.          Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Motors and Mechanical Inc...........  ABB.......................              18  Manufacturer.
Air Movement and Control Association      AMCA......................              21  Industry Motor Trade
 International.                                                                        Association.
American Gear Manufacturers Association.  AGMA......................              14  Industry Gear Manufacturer
                                                                                       Trade Association.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project,    Joint Advocates...........              27  Efficiency Organizations.
 American Council for an Energy-
 Efficient Economy, Natural Resources
 Defense Council, New York State Energy
 Research and Development Authority.
Association of Home Appliance             AHAM and AHRI.............              36  Industry OEM Trade
 Manufacturers; Air-Conditioning,                                                      Association.
 Heating, and Refrigeration Institute.
The Australian Industry Group \i\.......  AI Group..................              25  Industry Motor Trade
                                                                                       Association.
ebm-papst Inc...........................  ebm-papst.................              23  Manufacturer.
European Committee of Manufacturers of    CEMEP.....................              19  Industry Electrical
 Electrical Machines and Power                                                         Machines and Power
 Electronics.                                                                          Electronics Trade
                                                                                       Association.
Franklin Electric Co, Inc...............  Franklin Electric.........              22  Manufacturer.
Grundfos Americas Corporation...........  Grundfos..................              29  OEM/Pump manufacturer.
Hydraulics Institute....................  HI........................              30  Industry Pump Trade
                                                                                       Association.
International Electrotechnical            IEC.......................              20  Industry Standards
 Commission.                                                                           Organization.
Johnson Controls........................  JCI.......................              34  Manufacturer.
Lennox International....................  Lennox....................              24  Manufacturer.
National Electrical Manufacturers         NEMA......................              26  Industry Trade
 Association.                                                                          Association.
North Carolina Advanced Energy            Advanced Energy...........              33  Independent Testing
 Corporation.                                                                          Laboratory.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance      NEEA/NWPCC................              37  Non-profit organization/
 (NEEA), Northwest Power and                                                           interstate compact
 Conservation Council (NWPCC).                                                         agency.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E),  CA IOUs...................   32.1 and 32.2  Utilities.
 San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and
 Southern California Edison (SCE).
Regal Rexnord...........................  Regal.....................              28  Manufacturer.
Sumitomo Machinery Corporation of         Sumitomo..................              17  Manufacturer.
 America.
Trane Technologies......................  Trane.....................              31  OEM.
Water Systems Council...................  WSC.......................              35  Industry Trade
                                                                                       Association.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ The AI group submitted multiple comments to the docket. One comment was an email cover letter, while the
  other two were preliminary and final submission of their comments. In their cover letter, the AI group
  attested that there were no changes between the final and preliminary submissions. Therefore, in this final
  rule, DOE's reference to AI group's comment submission is the final submission.


[[Page 63591]]

    To the extent that DOE received comments relating to the energy 
conservation standards for electric motors subject to DOE's proposal to 
expand the test procedure's scope, those comments fall outside of the 
focus of this rulemaking, which addresses only the test procedure 
itself. Comments related to any potential standards that DOE may 
consider for electric motors will be discussed in the separate energy 
conservation standards rulemaking docket (EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
test procedures for electric motors. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-
0011, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references 
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, 
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the general rulemaking timeline, ABB requested that DOE 
issue a Supplemental NOPR and schedule a meeting to discuss the test 
procedure before a final rule is issued. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 3) NEMA 
requested a Supplemental NOPR be added to this rulemaking asserting 
that significant changes to the scope and test methods are needed to 
ensure the test procedure is reasonable, accurate, and repeatable. 
(NEMA, No. 26 at p. 6) CA IOUs suggested that DOE consider forming an 
ASRAC Working Group to engage on cross-segment electric motor topics. 
(CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 50)
    As discussed in this final rule, DOE is amending the scope of the 
test procedure and adopting corresponding test procedure provisions 
consistent with the most current applicable industry test standard. The 
test procedure adopted in this final rule is generally consistent with 
the test procedure proposed in the December 2021 NOPR. Therefore, DOE 
has determined that additional actions such as an SNOPR or ASRAC 
Working Group are not appropriate and is proceeding with this final 
rule. Additionally, as stated, EPCA requires DOE to evaluate the test 
procedures at least once every seven years to determine whether 
amendments to the test procedure are needed to more fully meet the 
statutory requirement that the test procedure be representative of an 
average use cycle without being unduly burdensome. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(1)) Accordingly, DOE is proceeding with a final rule as 
discussed in the following sections.

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

    In this final rule, DOE amends the test procedure as follows:
    (1) Update the existing definitions for IEC Design N and H motors 
to reflect industry standard updates; amend the existing scope to 
reflect updates in industry nomenclature, specifically for new industry 
motor design designations IEC Design NE, HE, NEY and HEY, and include 
corresponding definitions;
    (2) Amend the definition of ``basic model'' to rely on the term 
``equipment class'' and add a definition for ``equipment class'' to 
make the electric motor provisions consistent with the provisions for 
other DOE-regulated products and equipment;
    (3) Add test procedures, a full-load efficiency metric, and 
supporting definitions for air-over electric motors; electric motors 
greater than 500 horsepower (``hp''); electric motors considered small 
(i.e., SNEMs); inverter-only electric motors, and synchronous electric 
motors;
    (4) Incorporate by reference the most recent versions of NEMA MG 1 
(i.e., NEMA MG 1-2016 (Revision 1, 2018) ANSI-approved 2021) and CSA 
C390-10 (i.e., reaffirmed 2019), as well as other referenced industry 
standards i.e., IEC 60034-12:2016, Edition 3.0 2016-11, ``Rotating 
Electrical Machines, Part 12: Starting Performance of Single-Speed 
Three-Phase Cage Induction Motors,''; IEC 60079-7:2015, Edition 5.0 
2015-06, ``Explosive atmospheres--Part 7: Equipment protection by 
increased safety `e,' '', which is referenced within IEC 60034-12:2016 
and is necessary for the test procedure; and NFPA 20 ``Standard for the 
Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection'' 2022 Edition 
(``NFPA 20-2022'');
    (5) Incorporate by reference additional industry test standards and 
test instructions to support testing of the additional motors included 
in the amended test procedure scope: CSA C747-09 (reaffirmed 2019) 
(``CSA C747-09''), IEEE 114-2010, and IEC 61800-9-2:2017;
    (6) Provide additional detail in the test instructions for electric 
motors by adding definitions for the terms ``rated frequency'' and 
``rated voltage;''
    (7) Update the testing instructions for vertical electric motors to 
reduce manufacturer test burden;
    (8) Add a definition of ``independent'' as it relates to nationally 
recognized certification and accreditation programs;
    (9) Permit manufacturers to certify an electric motor's energy 
efficiency using one of three options: (i) testing the electric motor 
at an accredited laboratory and then certifying on its own behalf or 
having a third-party submit the manufacturer's certification report; 
(ii) testing the electric motor at a testing laboratory other than an 
accredited laboratory and then having a nationally recognized 
certification program certify the efficiency of the electric motor; or 
(iii) using an alternative efficiency determination method (``AEDM'') 
and then having a third-party nationally recognized certification 
program certify the efficiency of the electric motor. Using these 
provisions would be required for certification starting on the 
compliance date for any new or amended standards for electric motors 
published after January 1, 2022;
    (10) Revise the provisions pertaining to the determination of 
represented values applied starting on the compliance date of the next 
final rule adopting new or amended energy conservation standards for 
electric motors;
    (11) Revise the AEDM provisions for electric motors and apply them 
to all electric motors covered in the scope of the test procedure;
    (12) Revise the procedures for recognition and withdrawal of 
recognition of accreditation bodies and certification programs as 
applied to electric motors and apply these provisions to all electric 
motors covered in the scope of the test procedure;
    (13) Move provisions pertaining to certification testing, AEDM, and 
determination of represented values from 10 CFR part 431 to 10 CFR part 
429; and
    (14) Add provisions pertaining to certification testing and 
determination of represented values for DPPP motors.
    The adopted amendments are summarized in Table II-1 compared to the 
test procedure provision prior to the amendment, as well as the reason 
for the adopted change.

                          Table II-1--Summary of Changes in the Amended Test Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Current DOE test procedure                   Amended test procedure                    Attribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to Design N and H motors defined  Reflects updates in industry nomenclature,  Update to industry testing
 at 10 CFR 431.12.                         specifically, new motor design              standard IEC 60034-12.
                                           designations IEC Design HE, HY, HEY, NE,
                                           NY and NEY, and includes corresponding
                                           definitions.

[[Page 63592]]

 
Exempts air-over electric motors........  Includes test methods, full-load            Update to industry testing
                                           efficiency metric, and supporting           standard NEMA MG 1 2016
                                           definitions for air-over electric motors.   with revisions through
                                                                                       2021 which include a test
                                                                                       method for air-over
                                                                                       electric motors.
Includes electric motors with a           Includes test methods and full-load         Statute allowance to
 horsepower equal to or less than 500 hp.  efficiency metric for electric motors       extend applicability of
                                           with a horsepower greater than 500 and      the test procedure to
                                           equal to or less than 750 hp.               these electric motors.
Includes electric motors with a           Includes test methods and full-load         Statute allowance to
 horsepower equal to or greater than 1     efficiency metric for electric motors       extend applicability of
 hp.                                       considered small (i.e., small non-small-    the test procedure to
                                           electric-motor electric motors, or SNEMs).  these electric motors.
Exempts inverter-only electric motors...  Includes test methods, full-load            New industry testing
                                           efficiency metric, and supporting           standard (IEC 61800-9-
                                           definitions for inverter-only electric      2:2017).
                                           motors.
Includes electric motors that are         Includes test methods, full-load            New developments in motor
 induction motors only.                    efficiency metric, and supporting           technologies and new
                                           definitions for certain synchronous         industry testing standard
                                           electric motors.                            (IEC 61800-9-2:2017).
Incorporates by reference NEMA MG 1-      Incorporates by reference the most recent   Updates to industry
 2009, CSA 390-10, IEC 60034-12 Edition    versions of NEMA MG 1 (i.e., NEMA MG 1-     testing standards NEMA MG
 2.1 2007-09, and NFPA 20-2010.            2016), CSA 390 (i.e., CSA C390-10), as      1, CSA 390, IEC 60034-12
                                           well as other referenced industry           and NFPA 20-209.
                                           standards (i.e., IEC 60034-12 Edition 3.0   Incorporates industry
                                           2016 and NFPA 20-2022). In addition,        standards for additional
                                           incorporates by reference IEC 60079-        motors included in scope.
                                           7:2015, which is referenced within IEC
                                           60034-12:2016 and is necessary for the
                                           test procedure.
                                          Incorporates by reference additional
                                           industry test standards and testing
                                           instructions to support testing of the
                                           additional motors included in scope: CSA
                                           C747-09, IEEE 114-2010, and IEC 61800-9-
                                           2:2017.
Specifies testing at rated frequency,     Provides additional detail in the test      Harmonizes with
 and rated voltage but does not define     instructions for electric motors by         definitions from NEMA MG
 these terms.                              adding definitions for the terms ``rated    1 and improves the
                                           frequency,'' and ``rated voltage''.         repeatability of the test
                                                                                       procedure.
Specifies one method of connecting the    Updates the vertical electric motor         Reduce manufacturer
 dynamometer to vertical electric motors.  testing requirements to allow alternative   testing burden.
                                           methods for connecting to the dynamometer.
Includes a description of                 Adds a definition for ``independent'' as    Required by 42 U.S.C.
 ``independent'' at 10 CFR 431.19(b)(2),   it relates to nationally recognized         6316(c).
 431.19(c)(2), 431.20(b)(2) and            certification and accreditation programs
 431.20(c)(2).                             and replace the descriptions of
                                           ``independent'' at 10 CFR 431.19(b)(2),
                                           431.19(c)(2), 431.20(b)(2) and
                                           431.20(c)(2) by this definition.
Allows a manufacturer to both test in     Continues to allow a manufacturer to both   Required by 42 U.S.C.
 its own accredited laboratories and       test in its own accredited laboratories     6316(c).
 directly submit the certification of      and directly submit the certification of
 compliance to DOE for its own electric    compliance to DOE for its own electric
 motors.                                   motors. Also now permits certification of
                                           compliance using one of three options:
                                           (1) a manufacturer can have the electric
                                           motor tested using an accredited
                                           laboratory and then certify on its own
                                           behalf or have a third-party submit the
                                           manufacturer's certification report; (2)
                                           a manufacturer can test the electric
                                           motor at a testing laboratory other than
                                           an accredited laboratory and then have a
                                           nationally recognized certification
                                           program certify the efficiency of the
                                           electric motor; or (3) a manufacturer can
                                           use an alternative efficiency
                                           determination method and then have a
                                           third-party nationally recognized
                                           certification program certify the
                                           efficiency of the electric motor. DOE
                                           adopts to require these provisions on or
                                           after the compliance date for any new or
                                           amended standards for electric motors
                                           published after January 1, 2021.
Includes provisions pertaining to the     Revises the provisions pertaining to the    Align the determination of
 determination of the represented value    determination of the represented values     the average and nominal
 at 10 CFR 431.17.                         (i.e., nominal full-load efficiency and     full-load efficiency with
                                           average full-load efficiency) and           the definitions at 10 CFR
                                           requires use of these provisions for all    431.12. Harmonizes
                                           electric motors subject to energy           sampling requirements
                                           conservation standards at 10 CFR 431,       with other covered
                                           subpart B, on or after the compliance       equipment and covered
                                           date of the final rule adopting new or      products at 10 CFR
                                           amended energy conservation standards for   429.70.
                                           electric motors. Moves the provisions to
                                           10 CFR 429.64. Applies these provisions
                                           to all electric motors included in the
                                           scope of the test procedure.
Includes AEDM provisions at 10 CFR        Revises the AEDM provisions and applies     Harmonizes the AEDM
 431.17.                                   these provisions to all electric motors     requirements with other
                                           included in the scope of the test           covered equipment and
                                           procedure.                                  covered products at 10
                                                                                       CFR 429.70.
Includes provisions pertaining to         Revises the procedures for recognition and  Transfer provisions
 nationally recognized accreditation       withdrawal of recognition of                related to certification
 bodies and certification programs at 10   accreditation bodies and certification      at 10 CFR part 429.
 CFR 431.19, 431.20, and 431.21.           programs as applied to electric motors.
                                           Applies these provisions to all electric
                                           motors included in the scope of the test
                                           procedure.

[[Page 63593]]

 
Includes a definition of basic model      Amends the definition of ``basic model''    Align the definition of
 that relies on the term ``rating''.       to rely on the term ``equipment class.''    basic model with other
                                           Adds a definition for ``equipment class''.  DOE-regulated products
                                                                                       and equipment and
                                                                                       eliminate the ambiguity
                                                                                       of the term ``rating.''
Does not include any certification,       Adds certification, sampling plans, and     Aligns DPPP motor
 sampling plans, or AEDM provisions for    AEDM provisions for DPPP Motors.            provisions with the
 DPPP Motors.                                                                          provisions for electric
                                                                                       motors subject to the
                                                                                       requirements in subpart B
                                                                                       of 10 CFR part 431.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has determined that the amendments described in section III of 
this final rule would not alter the measured efficiency of those 
electric motors that are currently within the scope of the test 
procedure and that are currently required to comply with energy 
conservation standards.
    The effective date for the amended test procedures adopted in this 
final rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the Federal 
Register. Representations of energy use or energy efficiency must be 
based on testing in accordance with the amended test procedures 
beginning 180 days after the publication of this final rule. DOE notes 
that manufacturers of electric motors that have been added to the scope 
of the test procedure per this final rule are not required to use the 
test procedure for Federal certification or labeling purposes until 
such time as energy conservation standards are established for such 
electric motors. But, if manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and 
private labelers choose to make any representations respecting the 
energy consumption or cost of energy consumed by such motors, then such 
voluntary representations must be made in accordance with the test 
procedure and sampling requirements, and such representation must also 
fairly disclose the results of such testing. In addition, manufacturers 
of electric motors subject to energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 
part 431, subpart B, will be required to follow the newly adopted 
certification provisions at 10 CFR 429.64(d) through (f) beginning on 
the compliance date of the final rule adopting new or amended energy 
conservation standards for electric motors.
    Similarly, DOE notes that manufacturers of dedicated-purpose pool 
pump motors falling within the scope of the test procedure at 10 CFR 
431.484 are not required to use the test procedure for Federal 
certification or labeling purposes until such time as energy 
conservation standards are established for those motors. But, if 
manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and private labelers choose to 
make any representations respecting the energy consumption or cost of 
energy consumed by such motors, then such voluntary representations 
must be made in accordance with the test procedure and sampling 
requirements, and such representation must also fairly disclose the 
results of such testing. In addition, manufacturers of dedicated-
purpose pool pump motors subject to any energy conservation standards 
at 10 CFR part 431, subpart Z, will be required to follow the newly 
adopted certification provisions at 10 CFR 429.65 starting on the 
compliance date of the final rule adopting new energy conservation 
standards for these motors.

III. Discussion

A. Scope of Applicability

    The term ``electric motor'' is defined as ``a machine that converts 
electrical power into rotational mechanical power.'' 10 CFR 431.12. 
Manufacturers are required to test those electric motors subject to 
energy conservation standards according to the test procedure in 
appendix B.\4\ (See generally 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A); see also the 
introductory paragraph to 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, appendix B) 
Currently, energy conservation standards apply to certain categories of 
electric motors provided that they meet the criteria specified at 10 
CFR 431.25(g). These categories of electric motors are NEMA Design A 
motors,\5\ NEMA Design B motors,\6\ NEMA Design C motors,\7\ IEC Design 
N motors,\8\ IEC Design H motors,\9\ and fire

[[Page 63594]]

pump electric motors.\10\ See 10 CFR 431.25(h)-(j). The current energy 
conservation standards apply to electric motors within the identified 
categories only if they:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The amendments do not address small electric motors, which 
are covered separately under 10 CFR part 431, subpart X. A small 
electric motor is ``a NEMA general purpose alternating current 
single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number 
series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987, 
including IEC metric equivalent motors.'' 10 CFR 431.442.
    \5\ ``NEMA Design A'' motor means a squirrel-cage motor that: 
(1) Is designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing 
locked-rotor torque as shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.38.1 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15); (2) Has pull-up 
torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 
12.40.1; (3) Has breakdown torque not less than the values shown in 
NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.39.1; (4) Has a locked-rotor current 
higher than the values shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.35.1 
for 60 hertz and NEMA MG 1-2009, Paragraph 12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and 
(5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for motors with 
fewer than 10 poles. 10 CFR 430.12.
    \6\ ``NEMA Design B motor'' means a squirrel-cage motor that is: 
(1) Designed to withstand full-voltage starting; (2) Develops 
locked-rotor, breakdown, and pull-up torques adequate for general 
application as specified in Paragraphs 12.38, 12.39 and 12.40 of 
NEMA MG1-2009 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15); (3) 
Draws locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in 
Paragraph 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and 12.35.2 for 50 hertz of NEMA MG1-
2009; and (4) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for 
motors with fewer than 10 poles. Id.
    \7\ ``NEMA Design C'' motor means a squirrel-cage motor that: 
(1) Is Designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing 
locked-rotor torque for high-torque applications up to the values 
shown in NEMA MG1-2009, Paragraph 12.38.2 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.15); (2) Has pull-up torque not less than 
the values shown in NEMA MG1-2009, Paragraph 12.40.2; (3) Has 
breakdown torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG1-2009, 
Paragraph 12.39.2; (4) Has a locked-rotor current not to exceed the 
values shown in NEMA MG1-2009, Paragraphs 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and 
12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and (5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 
5 percent. Id.
    \8\ IEC Design N motor means an electric motor that: (1) Is an 
induction motor designed for use with three-phase power; (2) 
Contains a cage rotor; (3) Is capable of direct-on-line starting; 
(4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles; (5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 1600 kW at 
a frequency of 60 Hz; and (6) Conforms to Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 
of the IEC 60034-12 edition 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.15) requirements for torque characteristics, locked rotor 
apparent power, and starting. Id.
    \9\ IEC Design H motor means an electric motor that (1) Is an 
induction motor designed for use with three-phase power; (2) 
Contains a cage rotor; (3) Is capable of direct-on-line starting (4) 
Has 4, 6, or 8 poles; (5) Is rated from 0.4 kW to 160 kW at a 
frequency of 60 Hz; and (6) Conforms to Sections 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 
of the IEC 60034-12 edition 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.15) requirements for starting torque, locked rotor 
apparent power, and starting. Id.
    \10\ ``Fire pump electric motor'' means an electric motor, 
including any IEC-equivalent motor, that meets the requirements of 
Section 9.5 of NFPA 20. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Are single-speed, induction motors;
    (2) Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type 
S1 (IEC);
    (3) Contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
    (4) Operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) 
sinusoidal line power;
    (5) Are rated 600 volts or less;
    (6) Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration;
    (7) Are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or 
IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive 
NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA 
frame size (or IEC metric equivalent);
    (8) Produce at least one horsepower (hp) (0.746 kilowatt (kW)) but 
not greater than 500 hp (373 kW), and
    (9) Meet all of the performance requirements of one of the 
following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design 
N or H motor.
    10 CFR 431.25(g).
    In the test procedure final rule published on December 13, 2013 
(``December 2013 Final Rule''), DOE identified certain categories of 
motors that meet the definition of ``electric motor'' but for which DOE 
determined the referenced industry test procedures do not provide a 
standardized test method for determining the energy efficiency. 78 FR 
75962, 75975, 75987-75989. Motors that fall into this grouping are not 
currently regulated by DOE and consist of the following categories:
     Air-over electric motors;
     Component sets of an electric motor;
     Liquid-cooled electric motors;
     Submersible electric motors; and
     Inverter-only electric motors.
    10 CFR 431.25(l).
    In this final rule, DOE is clarifying that certain equipment that 
are designated with IEC Design letters NE, HE, NY, NEY, HY, and HEY are 
within the scope of the current electric motors test procedure. 
Furthermore, DOE is establishing test procedure requirements for 
certain categories of electric motors not currently subject to energy 
conservation standards. These categories are (1) air-over electric 
motors; (2) certain electric motors greater than 500 hp; (3) electric 
motors considered small (i.e., small not-small-electric-motor electric 
motors or ``SNEMs''); and (4) inverter-only electric motors. Finally, 
DOE is also including within the scope of the test procedure 
synchronous electric motors. DOE is covering these motors under its 
``electric motors'' authority. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
    DOE notes that manufacturers of electric motors for which DOE is 
including within the scope of the test procedure, but that are not 
currently subject to an energy conservation standard, are not required 
to use the test procedure for Federal certification or labeling 
purposes until such time as amended or new energy conservation 
standards are established for such electric motors. However, any 
voluntary representations by manufacturers, distributors, retailers, or 
private labelers about the energy consumption or cost of energy for 
these motors must be based on the use of the test procedure beginning 
180 days following publication of this final rule, and such 
representation must also fairly disclose the results of such testing. 
DOE's rule does not require manufacturers who do not currently make 
voluntary representations to then begin making public representations 
of efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) Manufacturers not currently 
making representations of efficiency would be required to test such 
motors in accordance with the test procedure only when compliance is 
required with a labeling or energy conservation standard requirement if 
such a requirement should be established. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b); 42 U.S.C. 
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed an amended scope for the 
electric motors test procedure that is generally consistent with the 
amendments established in this final rule and also proposed to include 
submersible electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71716. In general, NEEA/NWPCC 
supported DOE's proposed changes to expand the scope of the electric 
motors test procedure to include additional motor sizes and topologies. 
They stated that the current test procedure is limited to one category 
of motor, excluding many commonly used general purpose motors, and most 
advanced motor technologies. NEEA/NWPCC recommended the electric motors 
test procedure apply to as broad a range of motor technologies, 
designs, and categories as possible to enable consumers to make fair 
comparisons and informed decisions. NEEA/NWPCC commented that these 
motors are installed in the same applications as regulated motors, yet 
are not subject to the same test procedure and standard. (NEEA/NWPCC, 
No. 37 at p. 2) DOE also received a number of specific comments on each 
category of electric motor included in the scope of the test procedure, 
which are discussed in the following sections.
1. Motor Used as a Component of a Covered Product or Equipment
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed not to exclude motors used 
as a component of a covered product or covered equipment from the test 
procedure scope. This includes any proposed expanded scope electric 
motors. Specifically, DOE noted that the current electric motors test 
procedure applies to definite purpose and special purpose electric 
motors, and DOE is not aware of any technical issues with testing such 
motors using the current DOE test procedure. 86 FR 71710, 71728. In 
response, DOE received a number of comments, many of whom objected to 
DOE's approach.
    AHAM and AHRI filed joint comments opposing DOE's proposed 
expansion of the test procedure's scope of coverage to include special-
and definite-purpose electric motors, specifically air-over electric 
motors, inverter-only electric motors, synchronous motors, and SNEMs. 
They explained that Original Equipment Manufacturer (``OEM'') products 
have been built around special/definite purpose motors or that these 
motors are specially built to be installed inside OEM products. AHAM 
and AHRI stated that those finished products are already regulated by 
DOE and many manufacturers turn to more efficient designs that include 
components such as more efficient motors to meet more stringent energy 
conservation standards. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 1-3) AHAM and 
AHRI added that special purpose and definite purpose motors are 
distinct and different from general purpose motors and noted that 
despite the reworking of the ``electric motor'' definition in the 
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, special purpose and 
definite purpose motors are still defined separately. Id.
    AHAM and AHRI commented that efficient electric motors destined for 
finished products are already a major part of the energy equation when 
OEMs consider which design options to apply to meet new standards and 
added that DOE's proposed test procedure, which would rate motor 
efficiency at full-load, fails to adequately capture representative 
load conditions for finished products and equipment that

[[Page 63595]]

are largely optimized for, and regulated on, part-load performance. 
AHAM and AHRI commented that regulating special and definite purpose 
motors, particularly with the proposed third-party nationally 
recognized certification program requirements, will add cost, reduce 
market choices, and do little, if anything, to realize further energy 
savings over time. AHRI and AHAM asserted that in the near-term, the 
proposed rules will counter intuitively create a recipe for setbacks in 
energy savings. They stated that the timing of these proposed changes 
will also exacerbate supply chain disruption, further delaying products 
reaching U.S. consumers and inflating the cost of finished goods. Id.
    AHAM and AHRI provided information on the market size represented 
by their respective member companies, stating that it represents a 
significant segment of the economy. AHRI and AHAM commented that 
regulation of a single component product can have ramifications to 
other components throughout the product. AHAM and AHRI stated that 
durable products work as a system to achieve their purpose for the 
consumer and as such, requested DOE carefully consider the perspective 
of the end-purchasers and users of the categories of small electric 
motors (``SEMs'') that would be governed by the proposed regulation. 
(AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 1-3)
    Further, AHAM and AHRI commented that small electric motors that 
are components of covered equipment are, and should continue to be, 
appropriately afforded an exemption from energy conservation standards 
and test method, and SNEMs should be given similar treatment. AHAM and 
AHRI stated that DOE's proposal to not exclude motors that are 
components of regulated products was contrary to DOE's previously 
published public opinion (regarding SEMs) and the intent of Congress as 
expressed in the EPCA Amendments of 1992. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 
3-5) AHAM and AHRI further commented that in the April 2020 Small 
Electric Motors Proposed Determination (see 85 FR 24146, 24152 (April 
30, 2020)), DOE acknowledged, ``the term `small electric motor' has a 
specific meaning under EPCA,'' codified in 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G) and 10 
CFR 431.442. AHAM and AHRI commented that DOE's preliminary findings, 
outlined in the 2011 RFI for Increased Scope of Coverage for Electric 
Motors (see 76 FR 17577, 17578 (March 30, 2011)), noted explicitly that 
many of the motors contemplated for coverage by DOE's proposed test 
procedure require separate analysis from general purpose motors. AHAM 
and AHRI commented that the notable exceptions from scope outlined in 
the final rule published May 29, 2014, Energy Conservation Standards 
for Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors Final Rule (79 FR 30934 
(``May 2014 Final Rule''), are fractional horsepower motors. They 
agreed with DOE's previous determination related to small electric 
motors (81 FR 41378, 41394-41395) in which the agency recognized that 
Congress intentionally excluded these motors from coverage by DOE 
regulation when such motors are used as components of products and 
equipment that are already subject to DOE regulation. (AHAM and AHRI, 
No. 36 at pp. 3-5)
    AHAM and AHRI commented that regulating SNEMs directly conflicts 
with Congress's vision that components of EPCA-covered products and 
equipment remain unregulated. AHAM and AHRI commented that given DOE's 
claimed similarities between small electric motors and the SNEMs 
category, DOE nevertheless proposes to deny to SNEMs a key exemption 
that Congress expressly provided for small electric motors. AHAM and 
AHRI stated that when Congress amended EPCA through the Energy Policy 
Act of 1992 and defined ``small electric motors,'' it expressly 
required that energy conservation standards ``shall not apply to any 
small electric motor which is a component of a covered product under 
section 6292(a) of this title or covered equipment under section 6311 
of this title.'' 42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3) (emphasis added). AHAM and AHRI 
commented that DOE provides no rationale or explanation for the 
disparate treatment of small electric motors and SNEMs when it comes to 
their use as components. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 3-5)
    Similarly, Lennox stated that the exemption for SEMs that are 
components of larger regulated equipment (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) should 
also apply to SNEMs, particularly with respect to the heating, 
ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration (``HVACR'') context. 
(Lennox, No. 24 at pp. 5-6)
    AI Group stated that SNEMs often go into regulated equipment and 
that double regulation should be avoided. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 3) 
NEMA argued that the creation of the SNEM category violated the intent 
of 42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)'s prohibition against applying the SEM 
standards to an SEM that is used as a component in another regulated 
product. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 5) NEMA also stated that much of the SNEM 
expanded scope includes definite and special-purpose motors that have 
been designed for specific applications. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 5) Trane 
commented that SNEMs are designed for end-product performance 
requirements and that applying efficiency standards to the motor 
specifically would add burden without providing energy savings, and on 
that basis opposed including them in the scope of the test procedure. 
(Trane, No. 31 at p. 3)
    In addition, JCI generally opposed the proposed scope expansion to 
mandate new test procedures to include special and definite purpose 
motors--which specifically includes air-over, inverter, synchronous as 
well as SNEMs--because these motors are already being regulated at the 
system level and are, in its view, clearly exempted under 42 U.S.C. 
6317(b)(3). (JCI, No. 34 at p. 1) JCI commented that component level 
regulations will not result in significant savings or performance 
benefits to consumers, and that consumers do not inquire about 
component level efficiency and only are concerned with system-level 
efficiency. In its view, this double regulation stifles design and 
limits improvements because of the higher constraints without benefit. 
It stated that the motor is typically not the least efficient component 
with air conditioners, heat pumps, or furnaces and double regulation 
only serves to add unnecessary cost. (JCI, No. 34 at p. 1)
    In contrast, the Joint Advocates and the CA IOUs supported 
including motors falling within the scope of the test procedure that 
are installed into other DOE covered products. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 
at p. 5; CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 45) The CA IOUs cautioned, however, 
that DOE consider the manufacturer burdens associated with regulation, 
and to not push manufacturers towards offering less diverse product 
lines. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 45-46)
    In their joint comments, NEEA/NWPCC recommended that DOE include 
all electric motors that directly compete against each other in this 
test procedure so that they can be fairly compared against other motor 
designs. NEEA/NWPCC noted that some of these motor categories and 
designs are known for having low efficiencies but are commonly chosen 
by consumers and OEMs because they are cheaper than other motors. They 
added that because of the incomplete coverage of the current test 
procedure and standard, unregulated inefficient motor categories have a 
competitive advantage compared to more efficient motors and--in spite 
of

[[Page 63596]]

their cheaper initial costs--result in increased operating costs for 
consumers. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3)
    DOE is not addressing any potential standards in this rulemaking; 
standards for electric motors are addressed in a separate rulemaking 
procedure (see docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007). Rather, this 
rulemaking addresses only the scope of the test procedure.
    As discussed in the final rule published on May 4, 2012 (the ``May 
2012 Final Rule''), EPCA, as amended through EISA 2007, provides DOE 
with the authority to regulate the expanded scope of motors addressed 
in this rule. 77 FR 26608, 26612-26613. Before the enactment of EISA 
2007, EPCA defined the term ``electric motor'' as any motor that is a 
general purpose T-frame, single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase 
squirrel-cage induction motor of the NEMA, Design A and B, continuous 
rated, operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60 Hertz line power as 
defined in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987. (See 42 U.S.C. 
6311(13)(A) (2006)) Section 313(a)(2) of EISA 2007 removed that 
definition and the prior limits that narrowly defined what types of 
motors would be considered as electric motors. In its place, EISA 2007 
inserted a new ``Electric motors'' heading, and created two new 
subtypes of electric motors: General purpose electric motor (subtype I) 
and general purpose electric motor (subtype II). (42 U.S.C. 
6311(13)(A)-(B) (2011)) In addition, section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 
established energy conservation standards for four types of electric 
motors: general purpose electric motors (subtype I) (i.e., subtype I 
motors) with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; fire pump motors; 
general purpose electric motor (subtype II) (i.e., subtype II motors) 
with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; and NEMA Design B, general 
purpose electric motors with a power rating of more than 200 
horsepower, but less than or equal to 500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(b)(2)) The term ``electric motor'' was left undefined.
    As described in the May 2012 Final Rule, a regulatory definition 
for ``electric motor'' was necessary, and therefore DOE adopted the 
broader definition of ``electric motor'' currently found in 10 CFR 
431.12. Specifically, DOE noted that the absence of a definition may 
cause confusion about which electric motors are required to comply with 
mandatory test procedures and energy conservation standards. 77 FR 
26608, 26613. Further, in the May 2012 Final Rule, DOE noted that this 
broader approach would allow DOE to fill the definitional gap created 
by the EISA 2007 amendments while providing DOE with the flexibility to 
set energy conservation standards for other types of electric motors 
without having to continuously update the definition of ``electric 
motors'' each time DOE sets energy conservation standards for a new 
subset of electric motors. Id.
    Congress specifically defined what equipment comprises an SEM--
specifically, ``a NEMA general purpose alternating current single-speed 
induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance 
with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) 
(DOE clarified, at industry's urging, that the definition also includes 
motors that are IEC metric equivalents to the specified NEMA motors 
prescribed by the statute. See 74 FR 32059, 32061-32062; 10 CFR 
431.442)) In conjunction with this definition, Congress also exempted 
any SEM that is a component of a covered product or a covered equipment 
from the standards that DOE was required to establish under 42 U.S.C. 
6317(b). Congress did not, however, similarly restrict electric motors.
    SNEMs, which are electric motors, are not SEMs because they do not 
satisfy the more specific statutory SEM definition--or even the 
arguably broader clarifying definition that DOE adopted to accommodate 
electric motors that were IEC metric equivalents of the NEMA motors 
falling under the SEM definition of that term and therefore not subject 
to the exclusion explicitly established for SEMs. Accordingly, DOE is 
declining to adopt the suggestions offered by commenters to exclude 
SNEMs installed as components in other DOE regulated products and 
equipment from the test procedure being promulgated in this final rule.
    DOE is not establishing energy conservation standards for SNEMs in 
this final rule. Were DOE to consider energy conservation standards for 
SNEMs, DOE would evaluate the efficiency of SNEMs on the market for 
their various applications, as well as opportunities for improved 
efficiency while still being able to serve those applications.
    DOE is also including in the scope of the test procedure special 
purpose and definite purpose motors.
    DOE notes that manufacturers of electric motors for which DOE is 
including within the scope of the test procedure, but that are not 
currently subject to an energy conservation standard, would not be 
required to use the test procedure for Federal certification or 
labeling purposes until such time as amended or new energy conservation 
standards are established for such electric motors.
    Further discussion on each of the expanded scope categories are 
provided in the following sections. Discussion on maintaining the full-
load metric in this test procedure is provided in section III.E. of 
this document.
2. ``E'' and ``Y'' Designations of IEC Design N and H Motors
    Currently regulated electric motors include those motors designated 
as IEC Design N and IEC Design H motors. In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE 
discussed that IEC 60034-12:2016 includes industry nomenclature updates 
to IEC Design N and IEC Design H motors, whose designations are 
augmented with the designations IEC Design NE, HE, NY, NEY, HY, and 
HEY. 86 FR 71710, 71716-71717. DOE stated that all six additional 
categories are described as electric motors that are variants of IEC 
Design N and IEC Design H electric motors that DOE currently regulates, 
with the only differences being the premium efficiency attribute 
(indicated by the letter ``E''), and starting configuration \11\ 
(``star-delta'' starter \12\ indicated by the letter ``Y''). Id. 
Accordingly, DOE proposed to revise 10 CFR 431.25 to reflect the 
inclusion of IEC Design NE, NEY, and NY motors as IEC Design N motors 
and to make a similar set of revisions to reflect the inclusion of IEC 
Design HE, HEY, and HY motors as IEC Design H motors. DOE clarified 
that to the extent IEC Design N and IEC Design H motors are subject to 
the DOE regulations for electric motors, such coverage already includes 
IEC Design NE, NY, NEY, HE, HY and HEY motors. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For induction motors, the starting configuration refers to 
the manner in which the three-phase input terminals are connected to 
each other, and the star configuration results in a lower line-to-
line voltage than the delta configuration. See Sections 2.62 and 
2.64 of NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements) and 2021 updates for 
further detail.
    \12\ A ``star-delta starter'' refers to a reduced voltage 
starter system arranged by connecting the supply with the primary 
motor winding initially in star (``wye'' or ``Y'') configuration, 
then reconnected in a delta configuration for running operation. In 
the star configuration, all three supply lines are connected at a 
single point and the circuit diagram resembles the letter Y. In the 
delta configuration each supply line is connected at one end with 
the next supply line and the circuit diagram resembles the Greek 
letter delta ([Delta]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, CEMEP, NEMA and Grundfos supported DOE's proposed 
clarification regarding the additional IEC designations. (CEMEP, No. 19 
at p. 1; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 6; Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 1) For the 
reasons discussed in the previous paragraph, DOE is adopting its 
proposal to reflect the inclusion of IEC Design NE, NEY, and NY motors 
as IEC Design N motors and to make a similar set of revisions to 
reflect the

[[Page 63597]]

inclusion of IEC Design HE, HEY, and HY motors as IEC Design H motors. 
In this final rule, DOE is revising 10 CFR 431.25(g)-(i) to reflect the 
inclusion of IEC Design N and H variants as it relates to current 
energy conservation standards.
    DOE received comments regarding the definitions proposed for the 
IEC Design designations, which are addressed separately in section 
III.B.1. of this document.
3. Air-Over Electric Motors
    DOE defines an ``air-over electric motor'' as an electric motor 
rated to operate in and be cooled by the airstream of a fan or blower 
that is not supplied with the motor and whose primary purpose is 
providing airflow to an application other than the motor driving it. 10 
CFR 431.12. These motors are currently exempt from the energy 
conservation standards. 10 CFR 431.25(l)(4). In the December 2021 NOPR, 
DOE reviewed NEMA MG 1-2016, Part 34: Air-Over Motor Efficiency Test 
Method, as well as Section 8.2.1 of IEEE 114-2010 and Section 5 of CSA 
C747-09, and initially determined that sufficient information was 
available to propose a test method for air-over electric motors, and 
therefore proposed to include air-over electric motors in the scope of 
the test procedure. 86 FR 71710, 71718. Further, DOE also proposed an 
amended definition for air-over electric motors (86 FR 71710, 71730-
71731), which is discussed further in section III.B.4 of this 
rulemaking. Accordingly, DOE requested comment on its proposal to add 
air-over electric motors in scope. Id.
    In response to the expanded scope proposal, a number of 
stakeholders supported the inclusion of air-over electric motors. 
(AMCA, No. 21 at p. 2; ebm-papst, No. 23 at pp. 2, 6; CA IOUs, No. 32.1 
at p. 10) NEMA agreed with the proposal in concept, but disagreed with 
several testing provisions, which are discussed further in section 
III.D.1 of this document. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 6) Lennox opposed the 
inclusion of air-over motors, citing that component-level regulation 
should be avoided when system-level regulation is possible. Lennox 
stated that the cost of component-level regulation outweighs the 
benefit when DOE could more effectively use system-level regulation 
(HVAC in this case). (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 1-2) Regal opposed including 
air-over motors to the scope of test procedure, explaining that it 
already tests the motors according to DOE requirements for the 
equipment into which these motors would be installed, and that 
regulating these motors separately would increase costs while yielding 
no benefit. (Regal, No. 28 at p. 1) AI Group referenced a 2019 
Australian testing standard for three-phase cage induction motors that 
includes testing requirements for totally enclosed air-over motors. (AI 
Group, No. 25 at p. 3)
    DOE is covering air-over electric motors under its ``electric 
motors'' authority. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) As discussed in section 
III.A of this document, the statute does not limit DOE's authority to 
regulate an electric motor with respect to whether they are stand-alone 
equipment items or as components of a covered product or covered 
equipment. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (providing that standards for 
electric motors be applied to electric motors manufactured ``alone or 
as a component of another piece of equipment'') DOE's previous 
determination in the December 2013 Final Rule to exclude air-over 
electric motors from scope was due to insufficient information 
available to DOE at the time to support establishment of a test method. 
78 FR 75962, 75974-75975. Since that time, NEMA published a test 
standard for air-over motors in Section IV, ``Performance Standards 
Applying to All Machines,'' Part 34 ``Air-Over Motor Efficiency Test 
Method'' of NEMA MG 1-2016 (``NEMA Air-over Motor Efficiency Test 
Method''). The air-over method was originally published as part of the 
2017 NEMA MG-1 Supplements and is also included in the latest version 
of NEMA MG 1-2016. Therefore, DOE does not consider including air-over 
electric motors within its test procedure scope significantly 
burdensome because the NEMA test method (which is an industry-accepted 
method) has existed since 2017. Further, based on a general market 
review, DOE notes that several manufacturers have already been 
representing the performance of their air-over electric motors in 
marketing materials. Based on the additional information and the 
development of an industry standard appropriate for air-over electric 
motors, DOE is including air-over electric motors within scope of the 
test procedure. DOE believes that including such a test procedure 
within its regulations will provide consistent and comparable 
efficiency ratings for consumers and provide manufacturers with a level 
playing field.
    DOE notes that air-over electric motors are not currently subject 
to energy conservation standards in 10 CFR 431.25(l)(1). Manufacturers 
would not be required to use the test procedure for certification, 
until such time as a standard is established. If a manufacturer 
voluntarily chooses to make representations about the energy 
consumption or cost of energy for these motors such representations 
must be based on the use of that test procedure beginning 180 days 
following publication of a final rule. DOE's amendments do not require 
manufacturers who do not currently make voluntary representations to 
then begin making public representations of efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(d)(1)) Manufacturers would be required to test such motors in 
accordance with the DOE test procedure at such time as compliance is 
required with a labeling or energy conservation standard requirement 
should such a requirement be established. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b); 42 U.S.C. 
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
    In addition, DOE notes that the industry test procedure 
incorporated by reference (see section III.D.1) are only applicable to 
air-over motors that are induction motors and capable of operating 
without an inverter. As such, they are not applicable to air-over 
electric motors that are synchronous electric motors and to air-over 
electric motors that are inverter-only. Accordingly, DOE clarifies that 
it did not propose and is not adopting to include air-over electric 
motors that are synchronous electric motors and air-over electric 
motors that are inverter-only in the scope of the test procedure. DOE 
adopts to add a clarification in the scope section of the test 
procedure in appendix B to subpart B to specify which air-over electric 
motors are included in the test procedure.
    DOE also received a number of comments on the air-over electric 
motor definition and test method, which are discussed in section 
III.B.4 and section III.D.1 of this document, respectively.
4. AC Induction Electric Motors Greater Than 500 Horsepower
    DOE currently specifies that its test procedures and energy 
conservation standards for electric motors do not apply to motors that 
produce greater than 500 horsepower (373 kW). 10 CFR 431.25(g)(8); 
appendix B, Note.
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to expand the scope of the 
test procedure to include induction electric motors with a horsepower 
rating greater than 500 hp and up to 750 hp, that otherwise meet the 
criteria provided in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and are not currently listed at 
10 CFR 431.25(l)(2)-(4). 86 FR 71710, 71719.
    In response, CEMEP supported expanding the test procedure's scope 
to include motors between 500 and 750 hp that otherwise meet the 
conditions of 10 CFR 431.25(g). (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2) NEMA supported 
adding motors

[[Page 63598]]

between 500 and 750 hp to the energy conservation standards but noted 
there are currently no NEMA Design A, B, or C performance requirements 
for this horsepower range, and that these requirements would need to be 
developed. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7) The CA IOUs supported DOE's inclusion 
of 500+ hp motors to the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 46) 
The Joint Advocates supported expanding the scope beyond 500 hp and 
suggested the upper limit should be 1000 hp and identified models that 
they asserted would be included in scope even with a limit of 600V 
input voltage. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 3) Grundfos questioned 
how many motors were sold in this range and what energy savings could 
be captured by including 500 to 750 hp motors into the scope of the 
test procedure. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2) Advanced Energy stated that 
motors of this size are outside of its lab test capabilities, but as a 
nationally recognized certification program for electric and small 
electric motor efficiency, its certification scheme allows it to 
certify motors of this size by witnessing testing in manufacturer's 
accredited labs. Accordingly, they commented that they offer 
certification services for covered motor products above 250 hp. 
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 3)
    As discussed in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE's review of catalog 
offerings identified large induction motors rated up to 750 hp 
currently being sold in the market, and the majority of the models 
identified listed full-load efficiencies even though DOE currently does 
not regulate electric motors greater than 500 hp. 86 FR 71710, 71719. 
Based on discussions with a subject matter expert, DOE understands that 
most of these large motors rely on the alternative efficiency 
determination method (``AEDM'') permitted under 10 CFR 431.17 to 
determine full-load efficiencies for regulated electric motors at and 
under 500 hp.\13\ Id. Accordingly, DOE understands that there are 
motors sold in the range between 500 and 750 hp. DOE was unable to 
identify any motors for sale greater than 750 hp with input voltages up 
to 600 volts. Accordingly, DOE will not be expanding the horsepower 
limit of the test procedure beyond 750 hp. While there may be motors 
available at input voltages greater than 600 volts, in this final rule, 
DOE is maintaining the approach from the December 2021 NOPR proposal to 
limit the voltage to 600 volts, consistent with other in-scope electric 
motors defined by 10 CFR 431.25(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ An AEDM may be used to determine the average full-load 
efficiency of one or more of a manufacturer's basic models if the 
average full-load efficiency of at least five of its other basic 
models is determined through testing. 10 CFR 431.17(a)(1). An AEDM 
applied to a basic model must be: (i) derived from a mathematical 
model that represents the mechanical and electrical characteristics 
of that basic model, and (ii) based on engineering or statistical 
analysis, computer simulation or modeling, or other analytic 
evaluation of performance data. 10 CFR 431.17(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that the proposed expanded scope would have required that 
an electric motor meet all of the performance requirements of one of 
the following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC 
Design N or H motor. 10 CFR 431.25(g)(9) While DOE agrees with NEMA's 
comment that there are no NEMA Design A, B, or C performance 
requirements for motors greater than 500 hp, there are performance 
requirements for IEC Design N or H motors for the same range. As such, 
the IEC Design N or H performance requirements would be applicable for 
this horsepower range instead of the NEMA Design A, B, or C performance 
requirements.
    Accordingly, consistent with the proposed scope expansion and 
related discussion from the December 2021 NOPR and the reasons set 
forth in the preceding paragraphs, DOE is expanding the scope of the 
test procedure to include induction electric motors with a horsepower 
rating greater than 500 hp and up to 750 hp that otherwise meet the 
criteria provided in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and are not currently listed at 
10 CFR 431.25(l)(2)-(4).
5. SNEMs
    An SEM is a NEMA general purpose AC single-speed induction motor, 
built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with NEMA 
Standards Publication MG1-1987, including IEC metric equivalent motors. 
See 42 U.S.C. 6311(G); see also 10 CFR 431.442 (clarifying that the 
statutory definition for ``small electric motor'' includes IEC metric 
equivalent motors). Table III-1 and Table III-2 provide a general 
description of currently regulated small electric motors and electric 
motors.

    Table III-1--General Description of Single-Phase Induction Motors
 Currently Subject to Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             NEMA frame size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          3-Digit NEMA
 Motor enclosure construction     2-Digit NEMA frame      frame size or
                                         size                 above
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open..........................  NEMA general purpose    None.
                                 capacitor-start
                                 induction run,
                                 capacitor-start
                                 capacitor run motors
                                 between 0.25 and 3 hp.
Enclosed......................  None..................  None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: this table provides a high-level description. Full description of
  motors currently subject to energy conservation standards and test
  procedures available at 10 CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X.


  Table III--2 General Description of Polyphase Phase Induction Motors
 Currently Subject to Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             NEMA frame size
                               -----------------------------------------
 Motor enclosure construction                             3-Digit NEMA
                                  2-Digit NEMA frame      frame size or
                                         size                 above
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open..........................  NEMA general purpose    Between 1-500
                                 motor between 0.25      hp.
                                 and 3 hp.
Enclosed......................  NEMA 56-frame size      Between 1-500
                                 only between 1-500 hp.  hp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: this table provides a high-level description. Full description of
  motors currently subject to energy conservation standards and test
  procedures in available at 10 CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X.


[[Page 63599]]

    This section addresses electric motors that do not fall within the 
SEM definition as described above but that are generally considered 
``small'' by industry (i.e., ``small, non-small-electric-motor electric 
motor,'' or ``SNEM''). In this section, DOE specifically discusses 
SNEMs that are induction motors. Some of these motors are marketed as 
general purpose by manufacturers, although they do not meet the 
definition of small electric motor at 10 CFR 431.442.\14\ Non-induction 
motor topologies (specifically certain synchronous electric motors) are 
discussed in section III.A.7 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Based on DOE review of catalogs from four major 
manufacturers, out of 3262 SNEMs in scope identified, 1300 were 
marketed either general (1128) or definite purpose (172).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include test procedures 
for additional electric motors not covered under the current electric 
motors test procedure and that do not meet the definition of small 
electric motors in 10 CFR part 431, subpart X, but are nonetheless 
considered ``small,'' i.e., SNEMs. 86 FR 71710, 71719-71725. DOE 
proposed to distinguish SNEMs from SEMs by specifying combinations of 
frame size, rated motor horsepower, enclosure construction, and 
additional performance criteria that are not currently included in the 
existing electric motors and small electric motors regulations at 10 
CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X (See Table III-1 and Table III-2 
for electric motors and small electric motors that are currently 
regulated). Id.
    Accordingly, DOE proposed the following definition for this 
expanded scope in the December 2021 NOPR:

    Small non-small-electric-motor electric motor (``SNEMs'') means 
an electric motor that:
    (a) Is not a small electric motor, as defined at Sec.  431.442 
and is not dedicated-purpose pool pump motors as defined at Sec.  
431.483;
    (b) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty 
type S1 (IEC);
    (c) Is capable of operating on polyphase or single-phase 
alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power (with or 
without an inverter);
    (d) Is rated for 600 volts or less;
    (e) Is a single-speed induction motor;
    (f) Produces a rated motor horsepower greater than or equal to 
0.25 horsepower (0.18 kW); and
    (g) Is built in the following frame sizes: any frame sizes if 
the motor operates on single-phase power; any frame size if the 
motor operates on polyphase power, and has a rated motor horsepower 
less than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW); or a two-digit NEMA frame size (or 
IEC metric equivalent), if the motor operates on polyphase power, 
has a rated motor horsepower equal to or greater than 1 horsepower 
(0.75 kW), and is not an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric 
equivalent).

    86 FR 71710, 71780.
    DOE received a number of comments on how the criteria for SNEMs was 
defined. Some commenters supported including SNEMs in the scope of the 
test procedure as proposed. Commenters noted that these motors are very 
similar in application, construction, and performance to existing 
covered equipment, and therefore should be covered. (Advanced Energy, 
No. 33 at p. 3; NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) Further, NEEA/NWPCC 
encouraged DOE to include all motors that directly compete against each 
other in the test procedure so that they can be fairly compared against 
other motor designs. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) Other commenters, 
however, criticized DOE's approach. ABB stated that the criteria for 
establishing if a product is in the proposed scope as an SNEM are not 
adequately defined, and recommended that DOE list the criteria that an 
SNEM must satisfy, citing the nine criteria DOE has already listed for 
electric motors in 10 CFR 431.25. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 1) NEMA added that 
the proposed SNEM definition needs to be clearer since it does not 
allow manufacturers to clearly identify what motors in their inventory 
would fall within the SNEM category. NEMA requested that DOE provide 
specific examples of SNEMs and better identify whether an electric 
motors is an SNEM. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7) HI offered a similar view, 
noting that the proposed SNEM scope is too broad and that the proposed 
definition's overly-broad nature prevented HI from identifying areas of 
concern. (HI, No. 30 at p. 2)
    DOE proposed to distinguish SNEMs by specifying combinations of 
frame sizes, rated motor horsepower, enclosure construction, and 
additional performance criteria that are not currently included in the 
existing electric motors and small electric motors regulations at 10 
CFR part 431 subpart B and subpart X (See Table III-1 and Table III-2, 
and proposed definition for SNEM earlier in this section). DOE proposed 
seven specific criteria to identify whether an electric motor is a 
SNEM, an approach similar to how DOE identifies those electric motors 
that are subject to the standards at 10 CFR 431.25. If an electric 
motor meets the seven proposed criteria, then it is an SNEM. ABB 
recommended listing criteria to identify the appropriate scope (ABB, 
No. 18 at p. 1), which DOE notes is consistent with the approach DOE 
proposed in the December 2021 NOPR and is consistent with how 
specifications are provided for motors currently in scope in 10 CFR 
431.25(g). Further, other commenters did not identify any specific 
areas of confusion. In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE provided a detailed 
description on how the SNEM scope was determined based on the current 
SEM and electric motor scope. 86 FR 71710, 71719-71725. In all, it is 
DOE's understanding that the proposed specifications are sufficient to 
specify the SNEM scope. DOE is, however, clarifying some of the 
proposed criteria related to frame size, speed, and power supply in 
response to other comments.
    For example, the Joint Advocates suggested that multi-speed SNEMs 
should be included in the scope as well, and that including only 
single-speed SNEMs is inconsistent with the proposed broader test 
procedure scope that includes variable-speed motors. They raised the 
concern of a loophole with inefficient multi-speed SNEMs replacing more 
efficient single-speed SNEMs. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at pp. 3-4) The 
CA IOUs recommended including multi-speed SNEMs to the test procedure's 
scope, citing as support the scenario where a consumer seeks to replace 
a failed variable-speed electrically commutated motor (``ECM'') in a 
residential furnace fan with a lower first cost, less efficient, multi-
speed permanent split capacitor (``PSC'') motor. They also stated that 
multi-speed PSC and shaded-pole motors are in widespread use. (CA IOUs, 
No. 32.1 at p. 42)
    After careful consideration of these comments, DOE has decided at 
this time to retain its single-speed limitation for SNEMs. As 
explained, DOE is taking this step to ensure coverage of those motors 
that are generally considered small by industry that have similarities 
to motors that DOE currently regulates as SEMs at 10 CFR part 431 
subpart X--the scope of which only includes single-speed induction 
motors. See 10 CFR 431.442.
    Commenters also had some concerns with the inclusion of the clause 
``with or without an inverter'' within the SNEM definition. 
Specifically, Grundfos stated that the proposed SNEM definition is 
confusing and that DOE should clarify the intent with the ``single 
speed'' and ``with or without an inverter'' requirements to remove any 
ambiguity on the intention. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2) HI stated that 
for clarity, the clause ``with or without an inverter'' should be 
removed from the criteria. (HI, No. 30 at p. 2) DOE re-evaluated the 
proposed text relevant to inverters. DOE's intention with the proposal 
was

[[Page 63600]]

to ensure that in-scope electric motors that satisfy the SNEM 
definition would be either: (1) single-speed and capable of operating 
without an inverter; or (2) inverter-only electric motors operating 
with an inverter and capable of varying speed.\15\ Therefore, to 
clarify this intent, DOE is revising the language used to describe 
SNEMs to state this more directly. First, to add clarity, DOE is 
replacing the proposed criteria ``Is capable of operating on polyphase 
or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power 
(with or without an inverter)'' with ``Operates on polyphase or single-
phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is 
used with an inverter that operates on polyphase or single-phase 
alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power.'' Second, to 
clarify its intent, DOE is replacing the proposed criterion ``Is a 
single-speed induction motor'' with a revised one that accounts for 
inverter-only electric motors as follows: ``Is a single-speed induction 
motor capable of operating without an inverter or is an inverter-only 
electric motor.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See discussion of the term ``inverter-only electric motor'' 
in section III.B.3 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separately, HI had concerns regarding how the frame sizes should be 
identified within the SNEM definition. HI commented that DOE should 
explicitly list the NEMA and IEC equivalents frame sizes that are 
covered. (HI, No. 30 at p. 2) Further, HI noted that the proposed phase 
``any frame size'' in the SNEM definition is not defined, and could 
imply a motor of any dimensions, or a motor of any defined NEMA or IEC 
frame size is covered. They suggested that this ambiguity needs to be 
remedied. Id. DOE clarifies in this final rule that the proposed ``any 
frame size'' is intended to designate ``any NEMA or IEC-equivalent'' 
frame size. As such, in this final rule, DOE is modifying the term 
``any frame size'' to ``any two-, or three- digit NEMA frame size (or 
IEC-equivalent).'' DOE notes that there are no four-digit frames sizes 
that qualify as SNEMs.
    Finally, DOE also received comments regarding the proposed term 
``small non-small-electric-motor electric motor,'' or ``SNEM''. NEEA/
NWPCC recommended that DOE reconsider the use of the term ``small non-
small-electric-motor electric motor'' because it is a confusing term 
for these motors. NEEA/NWPCC suggested ``Other Small HP Motors (OSHM)'' 
or ``Other Small Electric Motors (OSEM)'' as two possible options. 
(NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) Grundfos stated that the DOE should 
identify a more suitable, and less confusing name for this class of 
motors. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2) DOE did not receive any other 
recommendations regarding an alternate to the proposed ``SNEM'' term. 
DOE notes that the term explicitly states that it is a ``non-small-
electric-motor.'' This specifies that SEMs, as defined in 10 CFR 
431.442, are not part of this scope. Accordingly, DOE is maintaining 
the term ``SNEM'' in this final rule.
    Accordingly, DOE is finalizing the scope to cover SNEMs, which DOE 
is defining as:
    Small non-small-electric-motor electric motor (``SNEM'') means an 
electric motor that:
    (a) Is not a small electric motor, as defined Sec.  431.442 and is 
not a dedicated-purpose pool pump motor as defined at Sec.  431.483;
    (b) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type 
S1 (IEC);
    (c) Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-
hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that 
operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) 
sinusoidal line power;
    (d) Is rated for 600 volts or less;
    (e) Is a single-speed induction motor capable of operating without 
an inverter or is an inverter-only electric motor;
    (f) Produces a rated motor horsepower greater than or equal to 0.25 
horsepower (0.18 kW); and
    (g) Is built in the following frame sizes: any two-, or three- 
digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent) if the motor operates 
on single-phase power; any two-, or three-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC 
metric equivalent) if the motor operates on polyphase power, and has a 
rated motor horsepower less than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW); or a two-digit 
NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), if the motor operates on 
polyphase power, has a rated motor horsepower equal to or greater than 
1 horsepower (0.75 kW), and is not an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or 
IEC metric equivalent).
6. AC Induction Inverter-Only Electric Motors
    The current electric motor test procedures apply to AC induction 
motors except for those AC induction motors that are ``inverter-only 
electric motors.'' \16\ These motors are an exempted category of 
electric motors listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l)(5).\17\ As it noted in its 
May 2014 Final Rule, DOE exempted these electric motors from its 
standards at 10 CFR 431.25 in the absence of a reliable and repeatable 
method to test their efficiency. 79 FR 30934, 30945. In the December 
2021 NOPR, DOE noted that in the interim since its 2014 rule was 
published, the industry has developed several methods to test inverter-
only motors. As a result of this development, DOE proposed to include 
within the electric motor test procedure's scope those AC induction 
inverter-only electric motors that meet both the criteria listed at 10 
CFR 431.25(g) and the proposed SNEM scope. 86 FR 71710, 71725-71726. 
Further, as discussed in section III.A.4 of this section, DOE also 
separately proposed to include within the test procedure's scope those 
induction electric motors with a horsepower rating greater than 500 hp 
and up to 750 hp that otherwise meet the criteria provided in 10 CFR 
431.25(g) and are not currently listed as exempt at 10 CFR 
431.25(l)(2)-(4). 86 FR 71710, 71719.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NEMA MG-1 2016, Paragraph 30.2.1.5 defines the term 
``control'' for motors receiving AC power, as ``devices that are 
also called inverters and converters. These are ``electronic devices 
that convert an input AC or DC power into a controlled output AC 
voltage or current..''.'' Converters can also be found in motors 
that receive DC power and include electronic devices that convert an 
AC or DC power input into a controlled output DC voltage or current. 
See section III.B.3 of this final rule.
    \17\ DOE defines an ``inverter-only electric motor'' as an 
electric motor that is capable of rated operation solely with an 
inverter, and is not intended for operation when directly connected 
to polyphase, sinusoidal line power.'' 10 CFR 431.12 DOE notes that 
more generally, the requirement to operate with an inverter also 
means that that inverter-only motors are not intended for operation 
when directly connected to single-phase, sinusoidal line power or to 
DC power. See section III.B.3 of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, several stakeholders objected to the inclusion of 
inverter-only electric motors and suggested that DOE continue to exempt 
them from coverage under the test procedure. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7; 
CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 24 at p. 6; AI Group, No. 25 at p. 
4; Regal, No. 28 at p. 1; Trane, No. 31 at pp. 3, 5-6) Further, CEMEP 
suggested that DOE address inverter-only electric motors in a separate 
(presumably dedicated) rulemaking. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2) ABB 
supported NEMA's request that inverter-only motors be excluded from the 
test procedure because inverter-only motors are different from 
currently covered electric motors that are operated from inverters 
(presumably inverter-capable) to operate continuous loads like pumps 
and fans. On the other hand, ABB noted that inverter-only motors are 
rated by the amount of torque they produce and are generally not used 
for continuous fixed loads; instead, they operate at widely varying 
loads or directions in applications such as sawmill carriage drives, 
machine tools and other high-performance machinery. ABB also commented 
that

[[Page 63601]]

inverter-only motors may have a special voltage/frequency combination 
that allows them to operate at very high speeds with up to 400 Hz 
input, and these motors are normally cooled by separately powered fans 
and may have their laminations exposed with no external frame. Finally, 
regarding inverters, ABB stated that inverters may vary from micro 
designs to very large drives with widely varying topography, and some 
newer drive topographies may result in a more efficient drive but at 
the expense of producing additional harmonics, heating, and reduced 
efficiency from the motor. (ABB, No. 18 at pp. 2-3) AI Group stated 
that inverter-only motors are rarely general-purpose motors and have 
non-continuous duty applications with high cycling and high-performance 
demands. In its view, these special characteristics and the low volume 
of sales for inverter-only motors favor excluding them from the scope 
of the test procedure. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 4)
    Similarly, NEMA, along with a number of individual electric motor 
manufacturers, also supported excluding inverter-only motors from the 
test procedure's scope. It explained that the motor and drive 
combination required to operate is a ``motor-drive system''--not an 
electric motor--and should not fall within the scope of an electric 
motor test procedure. It further stated that inverter-only motors are 
not general purpose and have unique performance requirements that 
complicate expressions of efficiency. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7) Regal also 
opposed including inverter-only motors within the scope of DOE's test 
procedure. They stated that they already test the motors according to 
DOE requirements for the equipment into which these motors are 
installed, and that regulating these motors separately would increase 
costs for no benefit. (Regal, No. 28 at p. 1) Trane commented that 
inverter-only motors should not be included in the scope because, in 
its view, there are no energy savings gained and that testing related 
to these electric motors should occur as part of the overall system in 
which they are installed. (Trane, No. 31 at pp. 3, 5-6)
    In contrast, several stakeholders supported the inclusion of 
inverter-only electric motors as part of the test procedure's scope. 
(Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 4; Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2; CA IOUs, 
No. 32.1 at p. 19; Advanced Energy, No. 33 at pp. 3-4; NEEA/NWPCC, No. 
37 at p. 3) The CA IOUs commented that the inclusion of inverter-only 
motors will provide end-users with a representative method to compare 
these motors with conventional induction motors combined with variable-
frequency drives. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 19) The CA IOUs also 
provided examples of case studies where inverter-only motors have 
successfully substituted conventional induction motors combined with 
VFDs. (CA IOUs, No. 32.2 at pp. 1-15) The Joint Advocates commented 
that inverter-only motors with variable-speed capabilities may serve as 
more energy efficient replacements for currently covered and newly 
included (e.g., SNEM) AC induction motors, and that inclusion of these 
more energy efficient motor types may unlock significant potential 
energy savings. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 4) Advanced Energy 
stated that in the past, DOE excluded inverter-only motors because 
these motors can only be operated continuously when connected to an 
inverter, and there may be difficulty testing the combined motor and 
inverter. However, it noted that in practice, there are induction 
machines marked as ``inverter-only'' that can be relatively more easily 
tested than synchronous motors. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at pp. 3-4)
    As discussed in section III.A.1, EPCA previously defined the term 
``electric motor'' as encompassing specific motors that are general 
purpose. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (2006)) Section 313(a)(2) of EISA 
2007 removed that definition and the prior limits that narrowly defined 
what types of motors would be considered as electric motors. Further, 
section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 established energy conservation 
standards for four types of electric motors (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) The 
term ``electric motor'' was left undefined. EPCA does not limit 
``electric motors'' to ``general purpose.''
    In the May 2012 Final Rule, DOE determined a regulatory definition 
for ``electric motor'' was necessary, and therefore DOE adopted the 
broader definition of ``electric motor'' currently found in 10 CFR 
431.12. Specifically, DOE noted that the absence of a definition may 
cause confusion about which electric motors are required to comply with 
mandatory test procedures and energy conservation standards. 77 FR 
26608, 26613. Further, DOE noted that this broader approach would allow 
DOE to fill the definitional gap created by the EISA 2007 amendments 
while providing DOE with the flexibility to set energy conservation 
standards for other types of electric motors without having to 
continuously update the definition of ``electric motors'' each time DOE 
sets energy conservation standards for a new subset of electric motors. 
Id.
    In addition, the statute does not limit DOE's authority to regulate 
an electric motor with respect to whether ``electric motors'' are 
stand-alone equipment items or components of a covered product or 
covered equipment. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (providing that standards 
for electric motors be applied to electric motors manufactured ``alone 
or as a component of another piece of equipment'') As such, inverter-
only electric motors not being general purpose or components of another 
covered product or equipment have no bearing on whether DOE may 
regulate these motors.
    Further, an inverter-only electric motor requiring an inverter to 
operate also has no bearing on whether DOE may regulate these motors. 
An electric motor is defined as a machine that converts electrical 
power into rotational mechanical power. 10 CFR 431.12. Inverter-only 
electric motors require the inverter to operate in the field to convert 
electrical power into rotational mechanical power. Inverter-only motors 
cannot be run continuously when directly connected to a 60-hertz, AC 
polyphase sinusoidal power source. Therefore, a separate, special 
electronic controller, called an inverter, is used to alter the power 
signal to the motor. The inverter can be physically combined with the 
motor into a single unit, may be physically separate from the motor, or 
may not be included in the motor, but the motor is unable to operate 
without a drive. As such, this electric motor would remain inoperable 
if it does not include an inverter and would need to include both the 
inverter-only electric motor and the inverter-component to convert 
electrical power into rotational mechanical power. For this reason, the 
combination of these two components, in DOE's view, meets the 
definition of an electric motor and DOE has included this combination 
within the scope of its test procedure.
    In the December 2013 Final Rule, DOE considered inverter-only 
electric motors as part of the scope and only excluded these motors 
from the test procedure due to the absence of a reliable and repeatable 
method to test them for efficiency. 78 FR 75962, 75989. In the December 
2021 NOPR, DOE noted that in the interim since the December 2013 Final 
Rule, the industry has developed several methods to test inverter-only 
motors. 86 FR 71710, 71725-71726. These industry test methods are 
discussed further in section III.D.3.
    Accordingly, DOE is including inverter-only electric motors within 
the scope of this test procedure. Establishing test procedures for 
these

[[Page 63602]]

motors would allow for standardized representations of efficiency of 
motors.
    As proposed in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE will only be including 
within scope the following inverter-only electric motors: (1) AC 
induction inverter-only electric motors that meet the criteria listed 
at 10 CFR 431.25(g); and (2) Inverter-only motors that meet the SNEM 
definition. In addition, as discussed in section III.A.3 of this 
document, DOE is not including air-over inverter-only electric motors. 
In response to stakeholder comments, DOE is clarifying some of the 
requirements. First, the criteria in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and the SNEM 
scope presented in section III.A.5 both require that the motor be rated 
for continuous duty. Therefore, non-continuous duty motors are not 
included. Second, per 10 CFR 431.25(g) and the SNEM definition, in-
scope inverter-only electric motors would be those motors built using 
certain NEMA (or IEC equivalent) frame sizes. Third, DOE is requiring 
that the rated frequency be limited to 60 Hz (see section III.G.1). As 
such, the scope of the test procedure is limited to inverter-only 
electric motors with a rated frequency of 60 Hz, where the rated 
frequency corresponds to the frequency of the electricity supplied to 
the inverter (see section III.G.1). Finally, DOE is requiring that 
inverter-only electric motors be tested with an inverter (see section 
III.D.3); therefore, the efficiency determined would be a combined 
efficiency of the motor and inverter, not just the efficiency of the 
motor or the inverter measured individually and would account for any 
interactions between the motor and the inverter (e.g. increase in 
harmonics). As such, only inverter-only electric motors that meet the 
specific requirements in 10 CFR 431.25(g) and are SNEMs, including 
those discussed in this paragraph, would be included in scope of the 
test procedure.
    In this final rule, DOE is incorporating the proposed inverter-only 
electric motors in scope. Further discussion on the test procedure is 
provided in section III.D.3 of this document, and discussion of the 
metric is provided in section III.E. of this document.
7. Synchronous Electric Motors
    The current electric motor test procedures apply only to induction 
electric motors. 10 CFR 431.25(g)(1), appendix B, Note.
    The ``induction motor'' criteria exclude synchronous electric 
motors from the scope. A ``synchronous electric motor'' is an electric 
motor in which the average speed of the normal operation of the motor 
is exactly proportional to the frequency of the power supply to which 
it is connected, regardless of load.\18\ In contrast, in an induction 
electric motor, the average speed of the normal operation of the motor 
is not proportional to the frequency of the power supply to which the 
motor is connected.\19\ For example, a 4-pole synchronous electric 
motor will rotate at 1800 rpm when connected to 60 Hz power even when 
the load varies while a 4-pole induction electric motor in the same 
setup will slow down as load increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NEMA MG 1-2016 Paragraph 1.17.3.4 defines a ``synchronous 
machine,'' as an ``alternating-current machine in which the average 
speed of the normal operation is exactly proportional to the 
frequency of the system to which it is connected.''
    \19\ NEMA MG 1-2016 Paragraph 1.17.3.3 defines an ``induction 
machine,'' as an ``an asynchronous machine that comprises a magnetic 
circuit interlinked with two electric circuits or sets of circuits, 
rotating with respect to each other and in which power is 
transferred from one circuit to another by electromagnetic 
induction.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Synchronous electric motors can operate as either direct-on-line 
(connected directly to the power supply) or inverter-fed (connected to 
an inverter). Some inverter-fed electric motors require being connected 
to an inverter to operate (i.e., inverter-only electric motors) while 
others are capable of operating both direct-on-line or connected to an 
inverter (i.e., inverter-capable electric motors).
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that it identified new 
industry standards that apply to synchronous electric motors, and on 
the basis of this finding, proposed to include within the test 
procedure's scope synchronous electric motors with the following 
characteristics: \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ DOE notes that while the preamble section of the December 
2021 NOPR proposed to specify that synchronous electric motors ``are 
rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 
(IEC),'' (see 86 FR 71710, 71727) the proposed regulatory text of 
the notice did not include that requirement (see 86 FR 71710, 
71780). DOE is clarifying in this final rule that the regulatory 
text mistakenly excluded this requirement.

Table III-3--Synchronous Electric Motors Proposed for Inclusion in Scope
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Criteria No.                          Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................  Are not dedicated-purpose pool pump
                                     motors as defined at 10 CFR
                                     431.483.
2.................................  Are synchronous electric motors;
3.................................  Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1)
                                     operation or for duty type S1
                                     (IEC);
4.................................  Capable of operating on polyphase or
                                     single-phase alternating current 60-
                                     hertz (Hz); sinusoidal line power
                                     (with or without an inverter);
5.................................  Are rated 600 volts or less;
6.................................  Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, 8-, 10-, or 12-
                                     pole configuration.
7.................................  Produce at least 0.25 horsepower
                                     (hp) (0.18 kilowatt (kW)) but not
                                     greater than 750 hp (373 kW).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    86 FR 71710, 71726-71727.
    Several stakeholders agreed with including synchronous electric 
motors in scope and with the proposed criteria. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 
2; NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 3) The Joint Advocates supported DOE's 
proposed expansion of scope to include synchronous motors. (Joint 
Advocates, No. 27 at pp. 4-5)
    On the other hand, several commenters urged continuing to exempt 
synchronous electric motors from the test procedure's scope, with some 
suggesting that DOE evaluate these motors in a separate dedicated 
rulemaking. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 3; CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; AI Group, No. 
25 at p. 4; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 8) Specifically, ABB commented that 
synchronous motors could be used in widely differing product 
categories, like AC servo motors, which are not used for continuous 
load applications but for incremental motion and positioning as on 
machine tools and industrial robots. It added that other larger 
synchronous motors are often used in freshwater pumps and fans, both 
extended products that have a DOE regulation in effect or in 
development. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 3) CEMEP also did not support the scope 
of the definition as it would include servo-motors. (CEMEP, No. 19 at 
p. 2) AI Group stated that synchronous motors are not general purpose 
motors and have many different designs, characteristics, and 
definitions as to what constitutes a synchronous

[[Page 63603]]

motor, and as such should be excluded from the scope of the test 
procedure. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 4)
    As already discussed in section III.A.1 and section III.A.7 of this 
document, EPCA, as amended through EISA 2007, provides statutory 
authority for the regulation of expanded scope of motors. EPCA does not 
limit ``electric motors'' to ``general purpose.'' In addition, the 
statute does not limit DOE's authority to regulate an electric motor 
with respect to whether they are stand-alone equipment items or are 
components of a covered product or covered equipment. See 42 U.S.C. 
6313(b)(1) (providing that standards for electric motors be applied to 
electric motors manufactured ``alone or as a component of another piece 
of equipment'') Whether synchronous electric motors fall outside the 
category of being general purpose (i.e., being special purpose or 
definite purpose) or are used as components of other covered products 
and equipment have no bearing on DOE's authority to regulate these 
motors.
    Further, as DOE presented in the December 2021 NOPR, industry 
standards exist that apply to in-scope synchronous electric motors. 86 
FR 71710, 71726-71727. Establishing test procedures for these motors 
would allow for standardized representations of motor efficiency. DOE 
notes that these motors are typically used as higher efficiency 
replacements for single-speed induction motors that DOE currently 
regulates. Accordingly, establishing a test procedure for standardized 
representations of synchronous electric motors would reduce market 
confusion by providing comparable ratings for substitutable induction 
motors. As discussed in section III.E, DOE is requiring expanded scope 
motors, including synchronous electric motors, to be represented based 
on average full-load efficiency, similar to current in-scope electric 
motors. Accordingly, a test procedure for synchronous electric motors 
would ensure that end users are provided with ratings from a uniform 
test method that can be used to compare and select between electric 
motors of competing technologies that would ultimately be used in the 
same end-use applications. DOE notes that, as proposed in the December 
2021 NOPR, DOE is only including within the test procedure's scope 
those synchronous motors that are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) 
operation. As a result, non-continuous duty synchronous electric motors 
would continue to remain out of scope.
    The following paragraphs summarize comments and responses regarding 
several specific criteria for synchronous electric motors that DOE 
proposed in the December 2021 NOPR (See Table III-3 describing the 
proposal).
    The Joint Advocates stated that DOE should clarify the definition 
of synchronous motors to more explicitly include inverter-fed 
synchronous motors. Specifically, the Joint Advocates noted potential 
concerns about whether the proposed definition could be interpreted as 
requiring a synchronous motor to start and run on sinusoidal line power 
(i.e., not inverter-fed), which would conflict with their understanding 
that DOE intended to exclude only those synchronous motors that start 
and run directly from a DC power source. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at 
pp. 4-5) In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE's intention for the synchronous 
electric motor scope was to include those that operate either direct-
on-line (connected directly to the power supply) or as inverter-fed 
(connected to an inverter). 86 FR 71710, 71727; See Criterion 4 in 
Table III.8. DOE acknowledged a number of inverter-fed synchronous 
electric motors that are not currently included in the test procedures 
for electric motors, including line start permanent magnet (``LSPM''); 
\21\ permanent magnet AC (``PMAC,'' also known as permanent magnet 
synchronous motor (``PMSM'') or brushless AC); switched reluctance 
(``SR''); synchronous reluctance motors (``SynRMs''); and 
electronically commutated motor (``ECMs'').\22\ 86 FR 71710, 71726. 
Accordingly, to clarify in this final rule, DOE has updated the 
description that motors used with an inverter that operate on polyphase 
or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power 
are included in the synchronous electric motor scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Advanced Energy noted that LSPM motors are synchronous 
motors. Though these motors have a squirrel cage, they do not 
operate on the principle of induction as is attributed to regular 
induction motors. The cage is simply for starting the motor and 
these motors are essentially synchronous motors. (Docket No. EERE-
2017-BT-TP-0047; Advanced Energy, No. 25 at p. 3) This technology is 
described further in Chapter 3 of the technical support document 
accompanying the May 2014 Final Rule: During the motor transient 
start up, the squirrel cage in the rotor contributes to the 
production of enough torque to start the rotation of the rotor, 
albeit at an asynchronous speed. When the speed of the rotor 
approaches synchronous speed, the constant magnetic field of the 
permanent magnet locks to the rotating stator field, thereby pulling 
the rotor into synchronous operation. See DOE Technical Support 
Document (Electric Motors Standards Final Rule) (May 2014) (Docket 
No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0108).
    \22\ All 5 topologies are referred to as ``advanced motor 
technologies'' and represent motor technologies that have been more 
recently introduced on the market and have variable speed 
capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Advanced Energy supported including synchronous motors in 
scope, it requested a modification to the proposed pole criteria. 
Advanced Energy explained that synchronous motors cannot be classified 
in the same manner as induction motors regarding magnetic pole 
configuration. It noted that some synchronous motors have significantly 
more poles than what designates the operating speed, and this 
designation may be present on the motor nameplate. Rather than pole 
count, Advanced Energy suggested DOE use rated speed. (Advanced Energy, 
No. 33 at p. 4)
    DOE's proposal to include the pole configuration in the synchronous 
electric motors description sought to maintain consistency with how DOE 
describes current in-scope electric motors in 10 CFR 431.25(g)(6). The 
synchronous speed of any electric motor is determined by the pole count 
and the input frequency to the motor. For direct-on-line induction 
motors, the input frequency is a fixed value determined by the 
electricity supply grid the motor is connected to, so the synchronous 
speed would then only vary as the pole count varies. For synchronous 
motors, the input frequency to the motor is not fixed because the 
inverter supplying power to the motor can supply different frequencies 
on command, allowing two synchronous motors with different pole counts 
to have the same synchronous speed. As such, DOE agrees with Advanced 
Energy that pole configuration is not as critical a characteristic of 
synchronous electric motor compared to induction motors. Because of 
this inconsistency between synchronous motors and induction motors, DOE 
no longer sees a need to maintain consistency on the pole count scope 
criterion between the two groups of electric motors. Since pole count 
is not nearly as critical to the operation of a synchronous motor, DOE 
is removing the proposed pole configuration requirement from the 
synchronous electric motor description.
    ebm-papst commented that synchronous air-over motors do not fit 
into the scope of NEMA MG 1-2016 Part 34's air-over electric motor test 
method. (ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 3) DOE clarifies in this final rule 
that DOE is not including in the test procedure's scope synchronous 
electric motors that are also air-over electric motors. DOE agrees that 
the test procedure for air-over electric motors is only specific to 
induction motors and not the synchronous electric motors at issue in 
this rulemaking. (See further discussion in section III.D.1 of this 
document).
    Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is defining synchronous 
electric motor as follows:

[[Page 63604]]

    A Synchronous Electric Motor means an electric motor that:
    (a) Is not a dedicated pool pump motor as defined at Sec.  431.483, 
or is not an air-over electric motor;
    (b) Is a synchronous electric motor;
    (c) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type 
S1 (IEC);
    (d) Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-
hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that 
operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) 
sinusoidal line power;
    (e) Is rated 600 volts or less; and
    (f) Produces at least 0.25 hp (0.18 kW) but not greater than 750 hp 
(559 kW).
8. Submersible Electric Motors
    DOE defines a ``submersible electric motor'' as an electric motor 
that: (1) is intended to operate continuously only while submerged in 
liquid; (2) is capable of operation while submerged in liquid for an 
indefinite period of time; and (3) has been sealed to prevent ingress 
of liquid from contacting the motor's internal parts. 10 CFR 431.12. 
These motors are currently exempt from the energy conservation 
standards. 10 CFR 431.25(l)(4). In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed 
to include submersible electric motors within the test procedure's 
scope. 86 FR 71710, 71718-71719. DOE's proposal was informed in part by 
its initial determination that the air-over test methods developed by 
NEMA could be adapted as a test method for submersible electric motors 
either by using an external blower to cool the motor or without the 
need to submerge the motor in a liquid during testing to cool the 
motor. With this potential modification to the air-over test method in 
mind, DOE proposed to include submersible electric motors within the 
scope of DOE's test procedures. 86 FR 71710, 71749-71750.
    Several commenters suggested that the current definition of 
submersible electric motors is too broad for the purpose of adding them 
to the test procedure scope, in that the definition could cover a wide 
range of products, each of which have different design constraints and 
should be tested differently. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; Franklin 
Electric, No. 22 at p. 2; HI, No. 30 at p. 1; WSC, No. 35 at p. 1) The 
CA IOUs recommended refining the definition of submersible electric 
motors based on appropriate classifications for different designs of 
submersible motors, and recommended DOE consider multiple industry 
definitions. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 18) Several commenters also 
raised concerns with having a single test procedure for all types of 
submersible electric motors. They noted that several different types of 
submersible motors exist, each having different technical performances 
and design constraints. Accordingly, they suggested that type-specific 
test procedures may be needed to provide accurate representations of 
efficiency. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 2; Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 1; HI, No. 
30 at p. 1; WSC, No. 35 at p. 1)
    NEMA questioned the merits of testing submersible motors in open 
air conditions, as these motors are designed to operate submerged. It 
noted that because the proposed test procedure does not require 
submersion for cooling, it is neither representative, nor accurate, nor 
repeatable. (NEMA, No 26 at p. 6) It stated that submersible motors are 
often designed with a much higher power density than open-air motors 
because the specific heat capacity of water is approximately 4 times 
that of air, allowing much more heat dissipation to be accounted for in 
the design. It noted that because of the design difference, in most 
cases it is not sufficient to rely on air flow to cool submersible 
electric motors with such high power densities. It provided motor 
performance modeling data for a 15 hp submersible motor built in a NEMA 
184 frame. NEMA showed that using a typical value of minimum required 
air velocity for the manufacturer's air-over motors at the same frame 
size (i.e., at 12 mph), the AEDM predicts that the maximum horsepower 
at which the motor would stabilize is at 12.5 hp, at which point the 
predicted average winding temperature rise would reach 442 [deg]C. 
Because IEEE 112-2017 requires that the load temperature test be 
performed before taking efficiency measurements, conducting the load 
temperature test at an average winding temperature rise of 442 [deg]C 
would likely result in motor failure even before the efficiency 
measurements could be made, which in turn would subject personnel 
performing the measurements to potential safety hazards. Even at the 
maximum air velocity that this manufacturer's AEDM is capable of 
reaching (i.e., at 114 mph), the AEDM predicts this motor would 
stabilize at 14.8 HP, for which the predicted average winding 
temperature rise is 322.2 [deg]C, which would also likely result in 
motor failure. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 21-22)
    CEMEP stated that NEMA part 34.4 was not applicable to submersible 
motors. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 4) CEMEP stated that some submersible 
motors would not be sufficiently cooled by air alone as would occur 
under the proposed test procedure. They provided an example of a 45 kW 
motor needing to dissipate 8 kW of heat losses while operating. They 
also stated that the bearings and seals would not be properly 
lubricated when tested under the conditions of the proposed test 
procedure--which would effectively be by air rather than by a liquid as 
would occur during the normal operation of submersible motors. (CEMEP, 
No. 19 at p. 8)
    Franklin Electric opposed using NEMA 34.4 as the test method for 
submersible motors, arguing that no standardized test procedure exists; 
the proposed test procedure was not validated on a diverse enough group 
of motors; many submersible motor bearings require liquid to be used to 
lubricate seals and bearings during operation, the lack of which would 
damage the motor and present additional frictional losses not 
representative as part of the motor's intended use; many submersible 
motors are not designed to operate in a horizontal configuration as 
proposed by the test procedure; the leads for submersible motors are 
often designed with liquid cooling in mind, and using thermocouples on 
the surface of the motor is not a reliable means of evaluating the 
winding temperature--particularly when different liquids are used to 
encapsulate the windings. (Franklin Electric, No. 22 at pp. 3-4) 
Further, Franklin Electric noted that no non-manufacturer test lab has 
the capability to certify a motor using the proposed method, (Franklin 
Electric, No. 22 at p. 5), and added that submersible motor 
manufacturers already have custom in-house tests that accommodate water 
cooling and vertical orientation of the motor to provide accurate and 
repeatable efficiency testing. It stated that using air-cooling would 
actually be more burdensome than liquid for submersible motors larger 
than 5 hp. (Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 4)
    In response to DOE's comments on whether the proposed test 
procedure should only apply to a certain horsepower range, Franklin 
Electric stated that even if the submersible test method scope was 
limited to 10 hp, that limit would exclude from scope most sizes other 
than 4-inch diameter submersible motors. It noted that this cut-off 
would result in a very small fraction of products being added to the 
test procedure and therefore, would create confusion around efficiency 
ratings of an in-scope submersible motor vs. out of scope submersible 
motor. (Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 5) For these reasons, Franklin 
Electric argued that the submersible test procedure is

[[Page 63605]]

both technologically infeasible and not economically justified and 
disagreed with DOE's initial view that the proposed changes would not 
constitute a ``significant'' regulatory action. (Franklin Electric, No. 
22 at p. 6)
    AI Group stated that submersible motors should be tested according 
to a procedure that has them submerged in water. (AI Group, No. 25 at 
p. 3) Grundfos offered a similar critique, asserting that the proposed 
submersible motor test procedure is inadequate because these motors are 
designed to operate while submerged in a liquid and the proposed test 
method has them tested in air. Grundfos stated that testing these 
motors in air rather than submerged in water would not accurately 
reflect their efficiency in their intended application. It explained 
that the proposed method for determining winding temperatures is 
impractical and for some motors impossible--and it specifically noted 
that DOE's proposed test method in air does not consider the ``heat 
rejection'' efficiency of the motors and forces them to reach winding 
temperatures the motor may never reach under normal operating 
conditions. (Grundfos, No. 29 at pp. 1, 7-8) Grundfos added that no 
amount of modification to the air-over method would make it an 
appropriate method for accurately evaluating the efficiency of 
submersible motors (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 1)
    HI also criticized the proposed approach. It stated that no 
internationally recognized test standard exists for evaluating the 
efficiency of borehole and submersible wastewater motors and that the 
proposed approach of using air cooling will not result in an accurate 
measurement of motor performance. It argued that any test procedure for 
submersible wastewater motors would need to better reflect the specific 
aspects of these motors and require multiple product categories, 
definitions, and test methods to properly test and represent the 
efficiencies for these specialized motors. HI also stated that many 
submersible motors rely liquid for lubrication. Further, it asserted 
that the proposed test method was not repeatable and reproducible 
across test facilities and that DOE's testing of only two small motors 
does not adequately address this concern. HI also stated that the 
proposed temperature measurement provisions do not address all 
submersible motor designs required to accurately obtain winding 
temperature measurements to ensure testing is conducted within the 
defined temperature tolerances. (HI, No. 30 at pp. 1-2)
    WSC commented that testing submersible motors in air will not 
result in accurate values of motor performance. It noted that 
submersible motors have multiple designs, and any test procedure will 
need multiple product testing categories and methods to accurately 
separate out the motor losses from these different designs. It also 
noted manufacturers have developed their own specialized methods that 
are capital intensive. It added that wastewater submersible motors have 
specific designs (oil filled, air filled, single seal, dual seal, lip 
seal, seal materials) that impact utility, which in turn would require 
any test method that DOE adopts to consider these factors through the 
use of multiple product testing categories and appropriate testing 
methods for each. WSC also asserted that DOE's sample size was too 
small to prove a repeatable test method. (WSC, No. 35 at pp. 1-2)
    CEMEP, WSC, and Grundfos all recommended that a test method for 
submersible motors should be developed by international standardization 
committees. (CEMEP, No. 19 at pp. 8-9; WSC, No. 35 at p. 2; Grundfos, 
No. 29 at p. 1)
    In contrast to those commenters who objected to the adoption of 
DOE's proposed test method for submersible electric motors, other 
commenters supported DOE's proposal--but with reservations. Advanced 
Energy stated that the submersible test method appears repeatable for 5 
hp or smaller submersible motors, and that there is opportunity to 
evaluate this test method for larger hp motors. (Advanced Energy, No. 
33 at p. 16) The Joint Advocates and CA IOUs supported including 
submersible electric motors in scope and encouraged DOE to continue to 
investigate options for submersible motor testing to support 
development of test procedures. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 2; CA 
IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 17-18) The CA IOUs commented that Japan, China, 
and Brazil have standards for submersible motors. They noted that China 
has published testing standards for waste submersible motor-pumps, 
submersible motors for deep wells, and submersible motor-pumps. 
Further, they noted that India has published a case study and three 
test methods for submersible motors. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 17) The 
CA IOUs also stated that IEEE is developing a submersible motor test 
standard and provided links to the currently published IEEE 
recommendations for testing submersible motors. They also suggested 
that NEMA Part 34 would need more modification to be used as the test 
procedure, or that a completely new test procedure needs to be 
developed for these motors. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 17-18)
    DOE re-evaluated the proposed test method based on concerns noted 
by stakeholders. DOE agrees that further testing is needed to ensure 
that any test method(s) would be both applicable and representative for 
submersible electric motors of all designs and sizes. Further, DOE also 
agrees that a test procedure based on air cooling as opposed to water 
cooling may not accurately capture intended performance. In addition, 
DOE acknowledges concerns that liquid is needed to lubricate seals and 
bearings during operation, the lack of which could potentially damage 
the motor and present additional frictional losses. Finally, DOE 
understands that the applicability of the proposed test procedure at 
higher horsepowers may result in winding temperature rises that may 
cause motor failure. Accordingly, based on comments received and 
further review, DOE is not including submersible electric motors within 
scope of this test procedure. Therefore, submersible electric motors 
will continue to be exempt from the test procedures and energy 
conservation standards.
9. Other Exemptions
    Currently, DOE exempts (1) component sets of an electric motor; and 
(2) liquid-cooled electric motors. 10 CFR 431.25(l)(2) and (3).
    DOE defines ``component set'' as a combination of motor parts that 
require the addition of more than two endshields (and their associated 
bearings) to create an operable motor. These parts may consist of any 
combination of a stator frame, wound stator, rotor, shaft, or 
endshields. 10 CFR 431.12. DOE defines ``liquid-cooled electric motor'' 
as a motor that is cooled by liquid circulated using a designated 
cooling apparatus such that the liquid or liquid-filled conductors come 
into direct contact with the parts of the motor. Id. DOE is amending 
the definition for ``liquid-cooled electric motor'' in this final rule, 
as discussed in section III.B.5 of this document. In the December 2021 
NOPR, DOE requested comment on maintaining the exemptions. 86 FR 71710, 
71727-71728.
    Certain stakeholders supported continuing to exempt components set 
of electric motors from the scope of the test procedure. (CEMEP, No. 19 
at p. 2; ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 8; Grundfos, No. 
29 at p. 2) Certain stakeholders also supported excluding liquid-cooled 
electric motors from scope. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 
8; Grundfos, No. 29 at p.

[[Page 63606]]

3) Advanced Energy supported continuing to exclude liquid-cooled 
electric motors stating that they are highly specialized motors and 
often prioritize power density over other performance requirements. 
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 5) Comments received regarding the 
liquid-cooled definition are addressed in section III.B.5. of this 
document.
    Based on the discussion presented in the December 2021 NOPR and in 
the preceding paragraphs in this final rule, DOE is continuing to 
exempt component sets of an electric motor and liquid-cooled electric 
motors from the scope of the electric motors test procedure.

B. Definitions

    In this final rule DOE is modifying 10 CFR 431.12 by amending and 
adding certain definitions applicable to electric motors. These 
amendments and additions are discussed in further detail in the 
following sections.
1. Updating IEC Design N and H Motors Definitions and Including New 
Definitions for IEC Design N and H ``E'' and ``Y'' Designations
    As discussed in section III.A.2 of this document, DOE is clarifying 
in this final rule that IEC Design HE, HEY, HY, NE, NEY, and NY motors 
are within the scope of the test procedure. In the December 2021 NOPR, 
DOE proposed to add definitions for these ``E'' and ``Y'' designations 
for IEC Design N and H motors based on IEC 60034-12:2016. 86 FR 71710, 
71728-71729.
    In response to this proposal, Advanced Energy stated that the 
proposed updates are not consistent with the definitions as they appear 
in IEC 60034-12:2016. It stated the IEC standard states a ``Y'' 
designation represents ``star-delta starting'' as opposed to ``direct-
on-line'' starting for both IEC Design HEY and NEY. Further, Advanced 
Energy also commented that the upper limit of output power for IEC 
Design H was not consistent with Section 5.5 of IEC 60034-12:2016. 
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 5) DOE did not receive any other 
comments regarding the definition of the ``E'' and ``Y'' variants of 
IEC Design N and H motors.
    Based on the comment from Advanced Energy and additional review of 
IEC 60034-12:2016, DOE agrees that the IEC Design N and H motors with 
the ``Y'' variant are capable of star-delta starting, not direct-on-
line starting. DOE is finalizing the definitions for IEC Design N and H 
that include the Y variant (IEC Design HY, HEY, NY, NEY) accordingly.
    Regarding the upper limit for the Design H definition, DOE notes 
that the current DOE definition for IEC Design H motor in 10 CFR 431.12 
extends to 1600 kW. DOE established this definition in the December 
2013 Final Rule. 78 FR 75962, 75969-75970. In the December 2013 Final 
Rule, DOE explained that in defining IEC Design H and IEC Design N 
motors, DOE specified the characteristics and features that identify 
these types of motors, so that manufacturers designing to the IEC 
standards can easily tell whether their motor is subject to DOE's 
regulatory requirements. DOE could not identify a justification for why 
DOE's definition of IEC Design H included an upper limit of 1600 kW 
instead of the 160 kW limit consistent with the IEC definition of 
Design H. Although standards are limited by a horsepower range (see 10 
CFR 431.25(g)(8)), DOE stated that it does not need to limit the DOE 
definitions to the same power range as the standards to describe 
whether a given motor falls under Design H or Design N. Id. Since the 
definition of Design H in IEC 60034-12:2016 already limits Design H 
motors to 160 kW, bringing the upper limit in DOE's definitions to be 
consistent with IEC 60034-12:2016 will not change the scope of the test 
procedure. Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is amending the upper 
horsepower limit for Design H (and E and Y variations) to 160 kW.
2. Updating Definitions To Reference Current NEMA MG 1-2016
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise a number of 
definitions at 10 CFR 431.12 by updating references from NEMA MG 1-2009 
to NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements). 86 FR 71710, 71729-71730. 
DOE noted that the following definitions reference provisions of NEMA 
MG 1-2009 that have changed between the 2009 and 2016 versions: 
``definite purpose motor,'' ``definite purpose electric motor,'' 
``general purpose electric motor,'' ``NEMA Design A Motor,'' ``NEMA 
Design B Motor,'' ``NEMA Design C motor,'' and ``nominal full-load 
efficiency.'' DOE initially determined that the changes in NEMA MG 1-
2016 (with 2018 Supplements) do not substantively change these 
definitions. Id.
    In response, NEMA commented that updating the reference of NEMA MG 
1 to the 2016 version (with 2018 Supplements) would not substantially 
change the definitions currently prescribed in 10 CFR 431.12. It 
further stated the definitions of NEMA Design A, B, and C should be 
updated to reflect the revised subsection references of 12.35 in NEMA 
MG 1-2016. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 10)
    Since the December 2021 NOPR, NEMA has published a revised version 
of NEMA MG 1-2016. On June 15, 2021, ANSI approved the revised version, 
which is referred to in this document as NEMA MG 1-2016. DOE 
understands that NEMA continues to title this standard as ``NEMA MG 1-
2016,'' even with the latest 2021 updates. In reviewing the latest 
standard, DOE notes that this revision only appears to unify the 
supplements and the rest of NEMA MG 1 into one continuous document and 
does not include any substantial changes to the content of the standard 
that was reviewed in the December 2021 NOPR. While the December 2021 
NOPR requested comment on the definitions based on the latest version 
at the time [NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements)], because DOE has 
since concluded that the latest version [NEMA MG 1-2016 ((Revision 1, 
2018) ANSI-approved 2021)] is not substantially different, the 
assessment conducted in the December 2021 NOPR is still relevant for 
the latest version of the standard. As such, in this final rule, DOE is 
incorporating by reference and including within the definitions the 
latest NEMA MG 1-2016 standard.
    In addition, DOE reviewed the subsection references contained in 
the definitions of NEMA Design A, B, and C in NEMA MG 1-2016 and notes 
that there have been no updates to the content of the updated 
subsections. Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE has updated the 
definitions to include the new subsection references as they appear in 
NEMA MG 1-2016.
3. Inverter, Inverter-Only, and Inverter-Capable
    DOE defines an ``inverter-only electric motor'' as an electric 
motor that is capable of rated operation solely with an inverter, and 
is not intended for operation when directly connected to polyphase, 
sinusoidal line power.'' DOE also defines an ``inverter-capable 
electric motor'' as an ``electric motor designed to be directly 
connected to polyphase, sinusoidal line power, but that is also capable 
of continuous operation on an inverter drive over a limited speed range 
and associated load.'' 10 CFR 431.12. Inverter-only and inverter-
capable electric motors can be sold with or without an inverter.
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise the definitions 
for ``inverter-only electric motor'' and ``inverter-capable electric 
motor.'' Further, DOE also proposed a definition for ``inverter.'' 86 
FR 71710, 71730. DOE

[[Page 63607]]

noted that, in addition to not being designed for operation when 
directly connected to polyphase, sinusoidal power, inverter-only motors 
are also not designed for operation when directly connected to single-
phase, sinusoidal line power or to DC power. Id. To provide a more 
complete definition, DOE proposed to revise the definition of inverter-
only electric motor as follows: ``an electric motor that is capable of 
continuous operation solely with an inverter, and is not designed for 
operation when directly connected to AC sinusoidal or DC power 
supply.'' Id. Similarly, DOE proposed to revise the definition of an 
inverter-capable electric motor as follows: ``an electric motor 
designed to be directly connected to AC sinusoidal or DC power, but 
that is also capable of continuous operation on an inverter drive over 
a limited speed range and associated load.'' Id.
    Finally, Paragraph 30.2.1.5 of NEMA MG 1 2016 defines the term 
``control'' for motors receiving AC power, as ``devices that are also 
called inverters and converters. They are electronic devices that 
convert an input AC or DC power into a controlled output AC voltage or 
current''. Converters can also be found in motors that receive DC power 
and also include electronic devices that convert an input AC or DC 
power into a controlled output DC voltage or current. Therefore, to 
support the definition of ``inverter-only motor,'' in the December 2021 
NOPR, DOE proposed to define an inverter as ``an electronic device that 
converts an input AC or DC power into a controlled output AC or DC 
voltage or current. An inverter may also be called a converter.'' Id.
    Grundfos and Advanced Energy supported the proposed definitions for 
``inverter,'' ``inverter-only electric motor,'' and ``inverter-capable 
electric motors.'' (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 3; Advanced Energy, No. 33 
at p. 6) NEMA, CEMEP, and AI commented that the definitions should be 
amended to harmonize with the definitions in IEC 60034-1 Edition 14. 
(NEMA, No. 26 at p. 11; CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 3; AI Group, No. 25 at p. 
4)
    In response to these comments, DOE reviewed the definitions 
contained in IEC 60034-1 Ed. 14. IEC 60034-1 Ed. 14 contains 
specifications for the ratings and performance of rotating electrical 
machines and defines a ``converter duty machine'' as an ``electrical 
machine designed specifically for operation fed by a power electronic 
frequency converter with a temperature rise within the specified 
insulation thermal class or thermal class.'' DOE notes that this 
definition was not in edition 13 of IEC 60034-1 and was not available 
for consideration in the December 2021 NOPR since edition 14 was 
published in 2022. DOE also notes that the IEC definition is generally 
similar to the definition proposed in the December 2021 NOPR with only 
minor differences. The IEC definition uses the term ``electrical 
machine'' where DOE used ``electric motor'' and ``power electronic 
frequency converter'' where DOE used ``inverter.'' DOE also understands 
that the temperature rise clause in the IEC definition is similar to 
the ``continuous operation'' clause of the DOE definition since 
overheating (potentially through gradually breaking down the motor's 
insulation) is a common mode of failure caused by an inverter feeding a 
non-inverter-rated motor. As such, DOE is adopting the IEC definition 
to harmonize with industry standards, with only minor modifications to 
be consistent with the terminology currently used in the rulemaking 
process. Specifically, in this final rule, DOE is defining an 
``inverter-only electric motor'' as an ``electric motor designed 
specifically for operation fed by an inverter with a temperature rise 
within the specified insulation thermal class or thermal limits.''
    IEC 60034-1 Ed. 14 also defines a ``converter capable machine'' as 
an ``electrical machine designed for direct online start and suitable 
for operation on a power electronic frequency converter without special 
filtering.'' DOE understands that the IEC definition for ``converter 
capable machine'' is largely similar to the term ``inverter-capable 
electric motor'' in the same way as how the IEC definition for 
``converter duty machine'' is largely similar to the term ``inverter-
only electric motor.'' Specifically, the IEC definition uses the clause 
``suitable for operation'' whereas the proposed DOE definition included 
an analogous clause ``capable of continuous operation.'' Further, the 
IEC definition uses the term ``power electronic frequency converter,'' 
whereas the proposed DOE definition included the term ``inverter.''
    In reviewing the IEC definition for ``converter capable machine'' 
and the proposed definition for ``inverter-capable electric motor,'' 
DOE identified two additional differences. The first difference DOE 
identified was the proposed inclusion of the clause ``over a limited 
speed range and associated load''--a qualification not included with 
the IEC definition. However, DOE understands that this additional 
clause would not create a significant difference between the two 
definitions as all motors effectively have a limited speed range or 
associated load by nature of their construction. Therefore, DOE 
concludes that adopting the IEC definition would not modify the 
currently proposed scope of this test procedure.
    The second difference DOE identified was the clause ``without 
special filtering,'' which is included in the IEC definition but not in 
the DOE proposed definition. DOE understands that the inclusion of this 
clause in the IEC definition is to ensure that non-inverter-rated 
motors are not considered inverter-capable when a filter is used 
between the inverter and motor to filter out the higher-order harmonics 
to prevent damage to the non-inverter-rated motor. This understanding 
is consistent with the intent of the DOE proposed definition of 
``inverter-capable electric motor.'' Therefore, to harmonize with 
industry standards, DOE is adopting the IEC definition with minor 
modifications to keep the terminology consistent. Specifically, in this 
final rule, DOE is defining an ``inverter-capable electric motor'' as 
an ``electric motor designed for direct online start and suitable for 
operation on an inverter without special filtering.''
4. Air-Over Electric Motors
    Certain general-purpose electric motors have an internal fan 
attached to the shaft that forces air through the motor and prevents it 
from overheating during continuous use. Air-over electric motors do not 
have a factory-attached fan and require a separate means of forcing air 
over the frame of the motor. The external cooling maintains internal 
motor winding temperatures within the permissible temperature rise for 
the motor's insulation class or to a maximum temperature value 
specified by the manufacturer.\23\ Without an external means of 
cooling, an air-over electric motor would overheat during continuous 
operation. Air-over motors can be found in direct-drive axial fans, 
blowers, and several other applications; for example, single-phase air-
over motors are widely used in residential and commercial HVAC systems, 
appliances, and equipment as well as in agricultural applications. The 
current definition for air-over electric motors in 10 CFR 431.12 is as 
follows: an electric motor rated to operate in and be cooled by the 
airstream of a fan or blower that is not supplied with the motor and

[[Page 63608]]

whose primary purpose is providing airflow to an application other than 
the motor driving it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Sections 12.42 and 12.43 of NEMA MG 1-2016 specifies the 
maximum temperature rises corresponding to four insulation classes 
(A, B, F, and H). Each class represents the maximum allowable 
operating temperature rise at which the motor can operate without 
failure, or risk of reducing its lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE noted that the absence of a fan is 
not a differentiating feature specific to air-over electric motors. 86 
FR 71710, 71730-71731. For example, there is little difference between 
a totally enclosed fan-cooled electric motor (``TEFC'') and a totally 
enclosed air-over electric motor (``TEAO''). A user could remove the 
fan on a TEFC electric motor, and then place the motor in an airstream 
of the application to obtain an air-over electric motor configuration. 
Further, other motor categories such as totally enclosed non-ventilated 
(``TENV'') electric motors do not have internal fans or blowers and are 
similar in construction to TEAO electric motors.\24\ Finally, DOE also 
noted that to differentiate air-over motors from totally-enclosed pipe-
ventilated (``TEPV'') motors, it needed to specify that the external 
cooling is obtained by a free flow of air rather than external cooling 
that is directed onto the motor via a duct or a pipe.\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ TENV electric motors are ``built in a frame-surface cooled, 
totally enclosed configuration that is designed and equipped to be 
cooled only by free convection'' 10 CFR 431.12.
    \25\ DOE did not find any pipe-ventilated motors in the proposed 
scope of applicability of this test procedure but is aware that some 
motors may exist in such configurations. TEPV motors are cooled by 
supply air which is piped into the motor and ducted out of the 
motor. They are typically used to overcome heat dissipation 
difficulties and when air surrounding the motor is not clean (e.g., 
dust).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE explained that what differentiates 
air-over motors from non-air-over motors is that air-over motors 
require external cooling by a free flow of air to prevent overheating 
during continuous operation.\26\ 86 FR 71710, 71730-71731. Further, DOE 
noted that the free flow of air was needed for the air-over motor to 
thermally stabilize. Accordingly, DOE proposed a revised definition of 
air-over electric motor in consideration of the above specifications--
i.e., ``an electric motor that does not reach thermal equilibrium 
(i.e., thermal stability) during a rated load temperature test 
according to section 2 of appendix B, without the application of forced 
cooling by a free flow of air from an external device not mechanically 
connected to the motor.'' 86 FR 71710, 71730-71731.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Without the application of free-flowing air, the internal 
winding temperatures of an air-over electric motor would exceed the 
maximum permissible temperature (i.e., the motor's insulation 
class's permissible temperature rise or a maximum temperature value 
specified by the manufacturer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to DOE's proposal, Advanced Energy supported DOE's 
proposed definition of air-over electric motor. (Advanced Energy, No. 
33 at p. 6) NEMA commented that the definition was adequate, but 
pointed out that DOE should preserve and allow all three potential 
stabilization methods. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 11) Lennox commented that 
while it supported the proposed definition, it stated that DOE must 
continue to exempt HVACR air-over motors from component level-
regulation when such motors are used in equipment already regulated at 
the systems level. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 7)
    Trane commented that the current definition of air-over electric 
motor is appropriate and that changing it to include thermal 
equilibrium is inappropriate because the motor could still reach 
equilibrium without forced-air through heat dissipation. However, the 
same motor would still be defined as an air-over motor because the 
manufacturer specifies certain minimum airflow requirements to maintain 
winding temperatures within permissible limits. (Trane, No. 31 at p. 4)
    As discussed previously, DOE proposed the updated definition to 
ensure that air-over electric motors are correctly distinguished from 
TEFC, TENV, and TEPV motors. The proposed definition for air-over 
electric motor specifies reaching thermal equilibrium with forced 
cooling at a target temperature \27\ according to section 2 of appendix 
B, which is the air-over electric motor test procedure. As discussed in 
section III.D.1 of this document, the air-over electric motor test 
procedure allows the use of the motor temperature rise if it is 
indicated by the manufacturer to specify the target temperature, or if 
it is not indicated, requires use a target temperature of 75 [deg]C. 
Based on the updated definition, if the electric motor can thermally 
stabilize below the target temperature without airflow, then that motor 
is not considered an air-over electric motor. Without an external means 
of cooling, an air-over electric motor would overheat during continuous 
operation. Therefore, if the motor is able to stabilize and operate 
below the target temperature, then there is no requirement for external 
means of cooling. On the other hand, the electric motor would still be 
considered an air-over electric motor if it can thermally stabilize 
without airflow at a temperature above the target temperature. The 
updated definition does not limit this occurrence, as it is only 
specifying that thermal equilibrium must be met during a rated load 
temperature test according to section 2 of appendix B (i.e., using the 
temperature rise indicated by the manufacturer to determine target 
temperature, or if it is not indicated, a target temperature of 75 
[deg]C). Accordingly, having an external means of cooling would still 
be required during continuous operation at the manufacturer specified 
target temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The amount of ventilation required during the test is based 
on motor winding temperature reaching a target temperature. See 
section III.D.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AMCA stated that the proposed definition for air-over motors is 
ambiguous and would exclude many intended air-over motors because of 
the provision ``without the application of forced cooling by a free 
flow of air from an external device not mechanically connected to the 
motor'' would exclude air-over motors which are cooled by an external 
fan driven by the motor's shaft. AMCA recommended as an alternate 
definition: ``an electric motor that does not reach thermal equilibrium 
(i.e., thermal stability) during a rated load temperature test 
according to section 2 of appendix B, without the application of forced 
cooling by a free flow of air from an external device not supplied for 
permanent use with the motor.'' (AMCA, No. 21 at pp. 2-3) ebm-papst 
supported AMCA's suggested definition of an air-over motor and stated 
that DOE's proposed definition was too broad. (ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 
5)
    As described in the NOPR, air-over motors do not have a factory-
attached fan and require a separate means of forcing air over the frame 
of the motor. 86 71710, 71730. DOE interprets the concerns from AMCA 
and ebm-papst as being that requiring the free flow of air to come from 
an external device not mechanically connected to the motor would 
unintentionally exclude certain air-over electric motors that should be 
included, such as air-over motors that are sold with a fan mechanically 
connected to the motor's shaft (in this case, the fan is used to 
provide function beyond cooling of the motor and an air over-motor is 
used to drive the fan). DOE agrees with AMCA and ebm-papst, that such 
motors must not be excluded from the air-motor electric motor 
definition. DOE's intent in specifying ``external device'' and ``not 
mechanically connected'' in the proposed definition was to distinguish 
air-over motors that do not incorporate a fan within the motor's 
enclosure from motors that do incorporate a fan in the motor's 
enclosure, where the fan is used for the sole purpose of cooling the 
motor. Therefore, in response to the recommendations by AMCA and ebm-

[[Page 63609]]

papst, for clarification, DOE is adopting a modified version of the 
proposed definition instead. DOE is specifying that the external device 
should also not be supplied within the motor enclosure. In general, DOE 
prefers to rely on physical features instead of intended usage (i.e., 
``for permanent use'') when establishing equipment definitions.
    As such, in this final rule, DOE adopts the following definition of 
air-over electric motor: an electric motor that does not reach thermal 
equilibrium (i.e., thermal stability), during a rated load temperature 
test according to section 2 of appendix B, without the application of 
forced cooling by a free flow of air from an external device not 
mechanically connected to the motor within the motor enclosure.
5. Liquid-Cooled Electric Motors
    Liquid-cooled electric motors are definite-purpose motors typically 
designed for high power density applications. The higher power density 
from these applications causes a liquid-cooled electric motor to 
generate more heat over a given volume than a conventional air-cooled 
electric motor. To prevent the motor from overheating, it relies on a 
liquid to be forced through and over components of the motor to provide 
better cooling than an internal fan would. DOE currently defines a 
liquid-cooled electric motor as: a motor that is cooled by liquid 
circulated using a designated cooling apparatus such that the liquid or 
liquid-filled conductors come into direct contact with the parts of the 
motor. 10 CFR 431.12.
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise this definition 
to read as ``a motor that is cooled by liquid circulated using a 
designated cooling apparatus such that the liquid or liquid-filled 
conductors come into direct contact with the parts of the motor, but is 
not submerged in a liquid during operation.'' DOE proposed this 
revision to better distinguish liquid-cooled electric motors from 
submersible electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71731-71732.
    NEMA supported the proposed definition of liquid-cooled electric 
motor. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 11) Grundfos commented that ``designated 
cooling apparatus'' is not clearly defined and believe that the 
proposed definition makes it unclear as to what constitutes a liquid-
cooled motor. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 3)
    In the December 2013 Final Rule, DOE discussed that liquid-cooled 
electric motors rely on a special cooling apparatus that pumps liquid 
into and around the motor housing. 78 FR 75962, 75987-75988. The liquid 
is circulated around the motor frame to dissipate heat and prevent the 
motor from overheating during continuous-duty operation. The December 
2013 Final Rule amended the definition of liquid-cooled electric motor 
to better differentiate liquid-cooled electric motors from other types 
of electric motors, and the term ``designated cooling apparatus'' was 
added to specify that a cooling apparatus is required for a motor to be 
designated as a liquid-cooled electric motor. Id. In this final rule, 
DOE further specifies that a ``designated cooling apparatus'' is any 
apparatus that circulates a liquid in order to cool a liquid-cooled 
electric motor. One example of such an apparatus is an external pump 
that forces a liquid through the motor for cooling purposes.
    For the reasons discussed in the December 2021 NOPR and with the 
modification discussed in the preceding paragraph, DOE is adopting the 
definition of liquid-cooled, as proposed.
6. Basic Model and Equipment Class
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the definition of 
``basic model'' in 10 CFR 431.12 to make it similar to the definitions 
used for other DOE-regulated products and equipment, and to eliminate 
an ambiguity found in the current definition. 86 FR 71710, 71732. The 
definition in 10 CFR 431.12 specifies that basic models of electric 
motors are all units of a given type manufactured by the same 
manufacturer, which have the same rating, and have electrical 
characteristics that are essentially identical, and do not have any 
differing physical or functional characteristics that affect energy 
consumption or efficiency. For the purposes of this definition, the 
term ``rating'' is specified to mean one of 113 combinations of 
horsepower, poles, and open or enclosed construction. See id. The 
reference to 113 combinations dates from the Department's 
implementation of EPACT 1992, which established initial standards for 
motors based on that categorization. Since then, EISA 2007 and DOE's 
regulations have established standards for additional motor categories. 
See 10 CFR 431.25. To clarify that the concept of a ``basic model'' 
reflects the categorization in effect under the prevailing standard, as 
it stands today, and as it may evolve in future rulemakings, DOE 
proposed to refer only to the combinations of horsepower (or standard 
kilowatt equivalent), number of poles, and open or enclosed 
construction for which 10 CFR 431.25 prescribes standards; and to 
remove the current reference to 113 such combinations. 86 FR 71710, 
71732. As such, DOE proposed to replace the term ``rating'' with the 
term ``equipment class'' in the basic model definition. In addition, 
DOE proposed to define ``equipment class'' as one of the combinations 
of an electric motor's horsepower (or standard kilowatt equivalent), 
number of poles, and open or enclosed construction, with respect to a 
category of electric motor for which Sec.  431.25 prescribes nominal 
full-load efficiency standards. Id. This proposal would also limit 
confusion between the use of the term ``rating'' in this specific case 
and the use of the term as it applies to represented values of other 
individual characteristics of an electric motor, such as its rated 
horsepower, voltage, torque, or energy efficiency. Id.
    DOE did not receive any comments on these definitions and adopts 
the definitions of equipment class and basic model as proposed.

C. Updates to Industry Standards Currently Incorporated by Reference

    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE reviewed each of the industry 
standards that are currently incorporated by reference as test methods 
for determining the energy efficiency of electric motors or that are 
referenced within the definitions prescribed in 10 CFR 431.12, and 
identified updates for each as provided in Table III-4 of this 
document. 86 FR 71710, 71732-71734.

  Table III-4--Updated Industry Standards Proposed in the December 2021
                                  NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Existing reference       Updated version        Type of update
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEC 60034-12 Edition 2.1      IEC 60034-12     Revision.
 2007-09.                      Edition 3.0
                               2016.
NFPA 20-2010................  NFPA 20-2019...  Revision.
CSA C390-10.................  CSA C390-10      Reaffirmed.
                               (Reaffirmed
                               2019).
NEMA MG 1-2009..............  NEMA MG 1-2016.  Revision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 63610]]

    Through the review, DOE tentatively concluded that updating the 
industry standards to the latest version would not alter the measured 
efficiency of electric motors and would not be unduly burdensome to 
conduct. Therefore, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference the 
updated versions of the industry standards. Id.
    DOE also proposed to incorporate by reference IEC 60079-7:2015 as 
it is referenced within IEC 60034-12:2016 and is necessary for the test 
procedure. Sections 5.2.7.3 and 5.2.8.2 of IEC 60079-7:2015 describe 
the additional starting requirements of increased safety ``eb'' and 
``ec'' motors. The ``eb'' and ``ec'' designations are the two levels of 
protection offered by the increased safety ``e'' designation and are 
intended for use in explosive gas atmospheres, according to Section 1 
of IEC 60079-7:2015. Section 5.2.7.3 specifies the application of 
protective measures to prevent airgap sparking while Section 5.2.8.2 
specifies the application of starting current requirements and when a 
current-dependent safety device is required. 86 FR 71710, 71733. Also, 
to ensure consistency in the versions of the referenced standards used 
when testing, DOE proposed to specify the publication year for each of 
the industry standards referenced by Section 12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1-2016, 
which are as follows: IEEE 112-2017, CSA C390-10, and IEC 60034-2-
1:2014. 86 FR 71710, 71734.
    In response, CEMEP agreed that DOE's assessment of the updates to 
NEMA 12.58.1 of MG 1-2016 with its 2018 Supplements was accurate, and 
supported updating the IEEE, CSA, and IEC standards to their latest 
versions. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 4) However, CEMEP stated that IEC 60079-
7:2015 contains some specific requirements for 'eb' motors related to 
the safety of such protection type, and for 'ec' motors, there are no 
requirements regarding starting performance. Accordingly, CEMEP 
recommended against including IEC 60079-7:2015. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 4)
    NEMA agreed with DOE's assessment of the updates to IEC 60034-
12:2016, and supported referencing both IEC 60034-12:2016 and IEC 
60079-7:2015. It commented that while IEC 60034-12 is currently under 
revision, substantial changes were not expected. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 
11) Further, NEMA agreed with DOE's assessment of the updates to 
Paragraph 12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1-2016, and asserted that updating the 
references to IEEE 112-2017, CSA C390-10, and IEC 60034-2-1:2014 should 
not affect the measured efficiency of electric motors currently in 
scope of the test procedure. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 11-12) Finally, NEMA 
also supported DOE updating to the 2019 version of NFPA 20. Id. NEMA 
stated that ``including any IEC equivalent'' should remain in DOE's 
definition of fire pump for clarity even if NFPA 20 section 9.5 now 
includes that clause. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 11)
    Grundfos did not believe updating to the 2016 version of NEMA MG 1 
(with 2018 Supplements) would alter the measured efficiency of electric 
motors. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 3) Further, Grundfos agreed with DOE's 
assessment and proposed inclusion of IEC 60034-12:2016 and the proposed 
updates to Section 12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1. It also supported including 
IEC 60034-2-1:2014 as part of the DOE test procedure. (Grundfos, No. 29 
at pp. 3-4) Advanced Energy agreed with DOE's assessment on the updates 
to Section 12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements), and 
agreed with updating DOE's test procedures to reference the most recent 
IEEE, CSA, and IEC standards because it would be consistent with 
current industry practice. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 7)
    Since the December 2021 NOPR, there have been updates to two of the 
standards: (1) NFPA 20-2019 has been revised to a 2022 version; and (2) 
NEMA MG 1-2016 has been updated to an ANSI approved June 15, 2021, 
version that includes updates to parts 0, 1, 7, 12, 30, and 31, along 
with Part 34 (separately published).
    For the 2022 update to NFPA-20, new requirements were added to 
address numerous recent advancements in the field of stationary pumps 
for fire protection, which is not relevant for the scope of this 
rulemaking. The updates to Section 9.5 of NFPA-20 provide further 
clarifications on calculating values for locked rotor current for 
motors rated at voltages other than 230 V presented in that section. 
Otherwise, section 9.5 remains the same as the 2019 version. 
Accordingly, referencing the most current version (NFPA 20-2022) would 
not change the applicability of the definition of fire pump electric 
motor for the purposes of DOE's regulations. Further, DOE is 
maintaining ``including any IEC equivalent'' within the fire pump 
electric motor definition.
    For the 2021 update to NEMA MG 1-2016, this revision consolidates 
the supplements and the rest of NEMA MG 1 into one document. DOE did 
not identify any substantial changes compared to the prior version of 
NEMA MG 1. Accordingly, as with the updates to NFPA-2020, referencing 
the most current would not alter the measured efficiency of electric 
motors, and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
    Further, as discussed in the December 2021 NOPR, IEC 60034-12:2016 
references IEC 60079-7:2015 to determine locked rotor apparent power 
for motors with type of protection ``e'' '--which are eligible to be 
considered IEC Design N or H motors. 86 FR 71710, 71733. Considering 
IEC 60079-7:2015 is necessary to test using IEC 60034-12:2016, DOE is 
incorporating by reference both test procedures in this final rule.
    Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the December 2021 NOPR 
and discussed in the preceding paragraphs, DOE is updating its test 
procedure regulations to incorporate the current industry standards to 
the latest references, as summarized in Table III-5.

       Table III-5--Updated Industry Standards in This Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Existing reference       Updated version        Type of update
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEC 60034-12 Edition 2.1      IEC 60034-12     Revision.
 2007-09.                      Edition 3.0
                               2016
                               (including IEC
                               60079-7:2015).
NFPA 20-2010................  NFPA 20-2022...  Revision.
CSA C390-10.................  CSA C390-10      Reaffirmed.
                               (Reaffirmed
                               2019).
NEMA MG 1-2009..............  NEMA MG 1-2016.  Revision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 63611]]

D. Industry Standards Incorporated By Reference

    This section discusses industry test standards that DOE is 
incorporating by reference for testing the additional electric motors 
for inclusion in the scope of the DOE test procedure.
    EPCA includes specific test procedure-related requirements for 
electric motors subject to energy conservation standards under 42 
U.S.C. 6313. The provisions in EPCA require that electric motors be 
tested in accordance with the test procedures specified in NEMA 
Standards Publication MG1-1987 and IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B for 
motor efficiency, as in effect on October 24, 1992 (See 42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(5)) As discussed in section III.C of this document, both 
publications have been replaced with the more recent version IEEE 112-
2017 and NEMA MG 1-2016.
    The additional electric motors DOE is adding to the scope of the 
DOE test procedure are not addressed by the standards that are 
currently applicable under 42 U.S.C. 6313. DOE notes that the industry 
test procedures incorporated by reference for air-over electric motors 
and for SNEMs are included in NEMA MG 1-2016. See Section IV, Part 34: 
Air-Over Motor Efficiency Test Method and Section 12.30. Section 12.30 
of NEMA MG 1-2016, specifies the use of IEEE 112 and IEEE 114 for all 
single-phase and polyphase motors.\28\ As further discussed in section 
III.D.2 of this document, DOE is requiring testing of SNEMs other than 
air-over and inverter-only electric motors according to IEEE 112-2017 
(or CSA C390-10 or IEC 60034-2-1:2014, which are equivalent to IEEE 
112-2017) and IEEE 114-2010 (or CSA C747-09 or IEC 60034-2-1:2014, 
which are equivalent to IEEE 114-2010). This amendment satisfies the 
test procedure requirements under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ As previously mentioned, NEMA MG 1-2016 does not specify 
the publication year of the referenced test standards and instead 
specifies that the most recent version should be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The methods listed in Section 12.30 of NEMA MG 1-2016, for testing 
AC motors apply only to AC induction motors that can be operated when 
directly connected to the power supply (direct-on-line) and do not 
apply to electric motors that are inverter-only or to synchronous 
electric motors that are not AC induction motors. Therefore, for these 
additional electric motor types, DOE is specifying the use of different 
industry test procedures, as further discussed in section III.D.3. of 
this document.
    AI Group stated that DOE should harmonize with IEC international 
standards with respect to the electric motor test procedures, 
efficiency classes, and scope of regulation. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 2)
    DOE's test procedures currently incorporate by reference several 
IEC test methods for testing current in-scope electric motors. See 10 
CFR 431.15(c). As part of this rulemaking, DOE reviewed a number of 
industry standards that would be relevant for testing the additional 
electric motors that DOE proposed to include within the scope of the 
DOE test procedure. Several of those industry standards include IEC 
standards, which are discussed in sections III.D.2 and III.D.3 of this 
document.
1. Test Procedures for Air-Over Electric Motors
a. Test Method
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE evaluated three test methods 
published by NEMA in NEMA MG 1-2016 that are used to measure the 
efficiency of an air-over electric motor. 86 FR 71710, 71735-71739. The 
first alternative test method (i.e., Part 34.3) specifies that the 
temperature test must be conducted by thermally stabilizing the motor 
at the rated full-load conditions using an external airflow according 
to the end user specifications in terms of air-velocity ratings in feet 
per minute. The second alternative test method (i.e., Part 34.4) 
includes a temperature test conducted with the use of an external 
blower, but the amount of airflow is not specified; therefore, the 
amount of ventilation required is based on motor winding temperature 
reaching a target temperature. Finally, the third alternative test 
method (i.e., Part 34.5) includes a temperature test performed without 
the use of an external blower while not loading the motor at its rated 
load. Instead, the motor is gradually loaded until the motor winding 
temperature reaches the required target temperature. Id.
    As part of the review of the test methods, in the December 2021 
NOPR, DOE did not consider Part 34.3 because testing with an external 
airflow according to the customer or application specific requirements 
as specified in the first alternative test method could result in 
testing the same motor at different winding temperature during the 
test, which would impact the measurement of efficiency. Therefore, DOE 
tentatively concluded that results from applying the first test method 
according to Part 34.3 would not ensure relative comparability of 
efficiency for air-over electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71737-71738.
    Otherwise, DOE considered the other two test methods (Parts 34.4 
and 34.5) and conducted testing to evaluate the repeatability and 
equivalency of the methods. 86 FR 71710, 71737-71738. DOE conducted a 
series of efficiency tests for a test sample that included seven air-
over motor models spanning a range of 0.25 to 20 hp and represented 
both single-phase and polyphase motors. DOE observed the percentage 
difference in losses between Parts 34.5 and 34.4 range from -0.4 (on 
the lower end) to +10.9 (on the higher end), and the units at the 
higher end of the percentage difference spanned a wide range of hp 
ratings. These units included both single-phase and polyphase motor 
types, indicating no clear or consistent trend that could be used to 
define criteria by which the two methods would produce equivalent 
results. As such, DOE found that the two test methods could not be 
considered equal. Id.
    To determine which of the two test methods (Part 34.4 or 34.5) to 
propose for air-over electric motors, DOE tested a subset of the seven 
air-over motors to evaluate the repeatability of each test methods. 86 
FR 71710, 71737. The test results indicated that for three units, Part 
34.4 showed less variation between subsequent tests compared to the 
Part 34.5. However, for one unit, Part 34.4 test method showed greater 
variation than Part 34.5. Based on these results, DOE concluded that 
Part 34.4 may provide more repeatability than Part 34.5 for air-over 
motors. Id. As such, DOE proposed to require that air-over motors be 
tested only according to Part 34.4. Id.
    Regarding the test method, CEMEP supported using Part 34.4 but 
recommended allowing the use of other methods present in NEMA Part 34, 
but offered no specific justification for its view. (CEMEP, No. 19 at 
p. 1) AI Group referred DOE to Australian standards that included 
efficiency requirements for air-over motors and what test procedure 
Australia uses to test these motors.\29\ (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 3) 
AMCA supported the use of Section 34.4 as the test method for air-over 
motors only if the motor is: (1) induction, (2) constructed in a NEMA/
IEC standard frame, and (3) the motor target temperature test is 
verified by means of the winding resistance method or a temperature 
detector closely

[[Page 63612]]

coupled to the stator winding. (AMCA, No. 21 at p. 3) ebm-papst agreed 
with AMCA that the scope of the air-over test procedure should be 
limited to induction motors built in standard NEMA/IEC frames. (ebm-
papst, No. 23 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The Australian test method includes a requirement for an 
externally- and independently-generated air-steam, similar to Parts 
34.3 and 34.4. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CA IOUs stated that they conducted testing on the proposed air-
over test method and reported their preliminary findings as follows: 
(1) NEMA MG 1 Parts 34.4 and 34.5 appear to be repeatable, (2) some 
totally enclosed air-over (TEAO) motors stabilize before the target 
temperature is reached, suggesting the need for modifications to the 
test procedure for those motors, (3) manufacturer-specified airflow 
differs across different designs, with some having no specification, 
and (4) TEAO motor designs have varying responses to airflow and 
varying relationships to measured efficiency and target winding 
temperature. Relying on their preliminary test data, the CA IOUs agreed 
with DOE's initial finding that Part 34.4 meets DOE's test procedure 
requirements for repeatability and supported the use of Part 34.4 for 
rating TEAO motors. However, the CA IOUs also suggested an approach 
that they anticipated would significantly increase the 
representativeness of the test procedure for a broader range of field 
applications (which are discussed in section III.D.1.b) (CA IOUs, No. 
32.1 at pp. 10-11)
    Advanced Energy stated that the air-over test method has proven to 
be repeatable and reliable. Advanced Energy also supported the 
conclusion that Part 34.4 of NEMA Part 34 is more repeatable than Part 
34.5 for air-over electric motors. It commented that boths Part 34.4 
and 34.5 are repeatable but that the data presented by DOE suggest Part 
34.4 is more repeatable. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at pp. 2, 8-9) 
Further, Advanced Energy stated it has tested air-over motors up to 20 
hp and has not found blower capacity to be a limiting factor. It stated 
that if its testing were limited by the blower, a larger blower could 
be used to permit the test to be conducted according to the test 
procedure. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 9)
    NEMA disagreed with the December 2021 NOPR's conclusion that Part 
34.4 is less repeatable than Part 34.5. NEMA further noted that the 
methods in Part 34.4 and Part 34.5 are useful depending on in-situ 
factors and should both remain available as needed. NEMA commented that 
a fair assessment of repeatability required understanding the potential 
sources of variations in test results. NEMA suggested certain potential 
sources of error to investigate for discrepancies, specifically: power 
meter capability, temperature measurement, torque acquisition, 
tachometer, and torque transducer capability. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 13-
14) NEMA recommended that air-over motors be tested in accordance with 
any of the three test methods in Part 34, without exception and 
modification, and provided reasoning why Part 34.3 and Part 34.5 test 
methods should also be allowed: (1) for Part 34.3, NEMA noted that 
motor manufacturers are approached by OEMs to develop a motor with 
application specific fit, form, and function constraints, and motor 
design and development is frequently performed as a system approach and 
includes the motor, the OEM's fan, baffles, support structure and 
ducting. Accordingly, it commented that reproducing system operating 
conditions of airflow and temperature while coupled to a dynamometer is 
the most desirable case for determining motor efficiency; (2) for Part 
34.5, it stated that not all laboratories have the equipment and 
resources to design a blower system and measure the airflow while the 
motor is coupled to a dynamometer, and therefore a test without airflow 
is an effective test method in these cases. NEMA did not directly 
comment on the accuracy and equivalency of the test methods, asserting 
simply (without offering more) that there is a significant risk that an 
equivalent test procedure option could be rejected for inclusion in the 
electric motor test procedure if feedback is submitted based on data 
comprised of unexplained test error. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 13-15) Lennox 
stated that a generic component-level test method would not yield 
results that are representative of an average use cycle for definite 
purpose motors because a component-level test procedure would fail to 
capture system operating characteristics that affect motor efficiency. 
Lennox also identified relevant system operating characteristics--e.g., 
motor mounting, motor tuning, and how the air moving systems relate to 
the heat exchanging equipment--as variables that factor into the system 
efficiency of the finished product. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 3)
    DOE notes that neither NEMA nor CEMEP provided data supporting 
equivalency of the three test methods in Part 34. The CA IOUs also did 
not provide the data underlying their preliminary findings. Absent data 
other than that generated by the DOE testing, DOE is unable to conclude 
that Parts 34.4 and 34.5 are equivalent.
    DOE understands that the different test methods in Part 34 may be 
useful depending on in-situ factors. However, this test procedure 
rulemaking focuses solely on the electric motor independent of the 
product or equipment into which the electric motor may be installed. 
This focus necessarily means that DOE must consider a test method that 
is repeatable for the electric motor as stand-alone equipment. As 
noted, Part 34.3 allows testing with an external airflow according to 
the customer, which could result in testing the same motor at different 
winding temperature during the test, which would impact the measurement 
of efficiency. With regard to Parts 34.4 and 34.5, testing performed as 
part of the December 2021 NOPR indicated that they did not provide 
equivalent results. Further, DOE has not received any new test data 
that indicates the three test methods in Part 34 are equivalent. 
Accordingly, at this time DOE cannot conclude that the three test 
methods in Part 34 are equivalent. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE 
is adopting Part 34.4 as the only test method for air-over electric 
motors.
b. Target Temperature Specification
    Part 34.4 specifies that, if a motor temperature rise is not 
indicated, polyphase air-over electric motors use a target temperature 
that depends on the motor's insulation class. This target temperature 
is then used as the temperature at which the load test is conducted. In 
contrast, for all single-phase motors, the target temperature is 
specified at 75 [deg]C, regardless of insulation class. In the December 
2021 NOPR, DOE reported that it conducted testing to understand how 
much the temperature target could affect measured efficiency. 86 FR 
71710, 71738. That testing demonstrated different measurements of 
efficiency at different test temperatures, and therefore, DOE 
tentatively concluded that defining a single test temperature, rather 
than using a target temperature that depends on the motor's insulation 
class, would produce measured efficiency values that are more 
comparable across insulation classes. Accordingly, DOE proposed to use 
a single target temperature for polyphase motors regardless of 
insulation class. 86 FR 71710, 71738-71739.
    In response, the Joint Advocates opposed a single target 
temperature for all air-over motors and asserted that this single 
target temperature could give a testing advantage to motors that are 
designed to run hotter than the target temperature. (Joint Advocates, 
No. 27 at p. 3) AMCA stated that testing a motor of an insulation class 
higher than insulation class A (a 75 [deg]C limit) at a target 
temperature of 75 [deg]C would result

[[Page 63613]]

in lower I\2\R losses than when the motor is used as intended. (AMCA, 
No. 21 at p. 3) CEMEP stated that a fixed temperature target would 
penalize or reward certain motors depending on the temperatures at 
which they were designed to operate. (CEMEP, No. 19 at pp. 4-5) ebm-
papst commented that higher temperatures lead to higher losses in the 
stator, rotor, and other current-carrying components of the motor. 
(ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 5) ebm-papst also stated that many definite 
purpose motors would stabilize under the 75 [deg]C target temperature 
and would be unable to use the proposed test procedure. (ebm-papst, No. 
23 at pp. 6)
    NEMA disagreed with modifying Section 34.4 to have a single target 
temperature of 75 [deg]C, regardless of insulation class. It commented 
that although the proposal indicated that the single target temperature 
would apply to all motors even if the temperature rise is indicated, 
the proposed updates to the regulatory text in section 2.2.1 of 
appendix B appear to only apply to motors without an indicated 
temperature rise.\30\ NEMA commented that if a manufacturer does not 
want its motor to be tested at the upper bounds of its insulation 
class, then all the manufacturer has to do is indicate the temperature 
rise. NEMA suggested that DOE adopt Section 34.4 without modification. 
In support, NEMA provided data from a motor performance simulation that 
predicted the required airflow for different target temperatures. In 
cases where a motor is designed to have a higher temperature rise than 
the 75 [deg]C target, NEMA stated that the motor could need an 
unfeasibly large amount of airflow to get to the temperature to the 
proposed 75 [deg]C target. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 12-15) It explained 
that in situations where the motor temperature rise under testing is 
significantly higher than the motor temperature rise in the actual 
application, the efficiency test would be biased towards higher losses 
and lower efficiency than the intended application. NEMA recommended 
that a manufacturer in that situation should simply indicate the motor 
temperature rise. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 12) Separately, NEMA also noted 
that a default 75 [deg]C condition could be specified for cases where a 
manufacturer does not indicate motor temperature rise, although NEMA 
still preferred that the test procedure in Part 34.4 be followed 
without modification. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ In the December 2021 NOPR, the proposed section 2.2.1 of 
appendix B stated ``the provisions in Paragraph 34.4.1.a.1 NEMA MG 
1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements) related to the determination of the 
target temperature for polyphase motors must be replaced by a single 
target temperature of 75 [deg]C for all insulation classes.'' 86 FR 
71710, 71780. However, Paragraph 34.4.1.a.1 NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 
2018 Supplements) is a method for determining target temperature 
only if a motor temperature rise is not otherwise indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM and AHRI disagreed that a single temperature should be used to 
test air-over motors, due to potential impracticalities of test setup. 
For example, AHAM and AHRI stated that some motors may not reach 
75[deg]C during normal operation at the intended load and that air-over 
motors constructed with open enclosures may incorporate an internal 
cooling fan and operate continuously at rated load with a total 
temperature less than 75 [deg]C. They stated that one reason an open 
motor with self-ventilation may be applied to an air over application 
is because the hub diameter of the fan may prevent sufficient air 
velocity from flowing over the surface of the motor and that 
temperature rises of 20 [deg]C to 40 [deg]C are not uncommon for small 
motors with open enclosures. They cited this as an example where 
thermally stabilizing the motor at 75 [deg]C would result in a full-
load operating temperature that is greater than the full-load operating 
temperature of the motor while it is operating in its intended air-over 
application. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at p. 9)
    Lennox did not support the single target temperature and stated 
that the operating temperature of motors used in HVAC applications vary 
widely. It also commented that air-over motors can be designed to 
stabilize below the proposed target temperature. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 
8) Trane commented that testing motors without their associated 
appliance is not beneficial to the end-user or the appliance 
manufacturer. To this end, Trane provided performance data showing that 
efficiency varied with horsepower and operating temperature for a given 
motor and stated that the test conditions need to reflect the operating 
conditions within the appliance. (Trane, No. 31 at p. 2)
    The CA IOUs suggested using two target temperatures and taking the 
average efficiency of the two temperatures to be the most 
representative of field use. They commented that certain TEFC-like and 
TENV-like TEAO motors may be capable of thermally stabilizing below the 
rated insulation class temperature without added airflow, suggesting 
the need for a TEAO custom testing approach that can address 
temperature stabilization issues. Accordingly, they suggested a two-
target temperature approach in which the first temperature would be the 
temperature at which the motor stabilizes if less than 75 [deg]C, or 75 
[deg]C if the motor stabilizes above that, and the second would be the 
insulation class target temperature. They stated that if the motor 
stabilizes below 75 [deg]C, that is the measured efficiency; if above, 
the measured efficiency would be the average of the 75 [deg]C and 
insulation class target. They provided data regarding how varied 
manufacturer specified airflow is, and stated that the minimum airflows 
would stabilize the motors at much lower temperatures than the required 
75 [deg]C. They also provided data regarding winding temperature 
response vs. applied airflow for three different air-over motors. (CA 
IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 11-15)
    Advanced Energy supported the 75 [deg]C target temperature for air-
over electric motors. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 8) Advanced Energy 
also stated that many air-over motors they have tested have stabilized 
below the 75 [deg]C target temperature, and that when this occurs, the 
motor should be treated as a totally enclosed, non-ventilated 
(``TENV'') motor since it does not need air from an external source to 
stabilize. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 9)
    In considering the comments received, in this final rule, DOE is 
specifying a single target temperature requirement for polyphase motors 
that do not indicate a specified temperature rise. DOE understands that 
the indicated motor insulation class does not correlate to the intended 
target temperature and is adopting its proposed modification to Section 
34.4. As discussed in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE understands that if a 
particular motor that was designed with a higher temperature insulation 
class than a second motor, that fact does not necessarily mean that the 
first motor would operate or is designed to operate at a higher 
temperature than the second motor; instead it means that the first 
motor is capable of running at the higher temperature associated with 
its insulation class. 86 FR 71710, 71736. Therefore, determining target 
temperature based on insulation class when motor temperature rise is 
not indicated would not necessarily be the most representative of motor 
operation.
    As adopted in this final rule, the test procedure specifies the use 
of motor temperature rise if it is indicated in terms of insulation 
class (i.e., the temperature rise being defined in terms of an 
insulation class) or numerical value (i.e., the actual temperature 
rise), as specified in Sections 34.4.1.b and 34.4.1.c of NEMA MG 1-
2016. For units for which the motor temperature rise is not otherwise 
indicated (i.e., in Section 34.4.1.a.1 of NEMA MG 1-2016), DOE is 
requiring a target temperature of 75 [deg]C for both polyphase and 
single-phase

[[Page 63614]]

electric motors, as proposed in the December 2021 NOPR.
    In section III.B.4 of this document, DOE discussed that in-scope 
air-over electric motors are those that reach thermal equilibrium 
during a rated load test according to section 2 of appendix B, and with 
the application of forced cooling by a free flow of air from an 
external device. Therefore, any motor not meeting these criteria would 
not meet the air-over electric motor definition as finalized in this 
final rule. If a motor can thermally stabilize during a load test below 
the target temperature (whether it be based on motor temperature rise 
if it is indicated in terms of insulation class, numerical value; or 
whether it be based on 75 [deg]C when motor temperature rise is not 
indicated) without applying forced cooling by a free flow of air from 
an external device, then it would not be an in-scope air-over electric 
motor. DOE notes that Section 34.4.1.c of NEMA MG 1-2016 provides that 
if a motor temperature rise is indicated as a numerical value, then the 
target temperature for the test is the sum of that temperature rise and 
the reference ambient temperature of 25[deg]C, which can be less than 
75 [deg]C.
    As such, DOE's approach for the test procedure is consistent with 
NEMA MG 1-2016, except for polyphase motors that do not indicate a 
specified temperature rise. Otherwise, allowing the use of manufacturer 
indicated temperature rise, as required by NEMA MG 1-2016, maintains 
current industry requirements and is the most representative because 
the manufacturer indicated temperature rise generally reflects motor 
operation in the field. While DOE acknowledges the CA IOUs two-
temperature approach, DOE cannot currently determine that this approach 
is more representative than what industry has developed as part of NEMA 
MG 1-2016. In addition, as presented in this final rule, DOE is not 
requiring testing at the same target temperature for all air-over 
electric motors, regardless of manufacturer indicated temperature rise. 
As previously discussed, one of the CA IOUs' main concerns was that 
testing at one target temperature would not credit motors with 
efficient heat shedding designs. To avoid this potential problem, this 
final rule specifies that the requirement to use a single target 
temperature of 75 [deg]C only applies to air-over motors that do not 
have a specified temperature rise and that if the temperature rise is 
specified on the motor, such temperature rise will be used to determine 
the target temperature.
2. Test Procedures for SNEMs
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to require testing of SNEMs 
(other than inverter-only, and air-over electric motors) according to 
the industry test methods identified in Table III-6 of this document. 
86 FR 71710, 71739.

Table III-6--Additional Industry Test Standards Proposed in the December
           2021 NOPR for Incorporation by Reference for SNEMs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Industry test standard
                Topology                    incorporated by reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-phase...........................  IEEE 114-2010, CSA C747-09, IEC
                                          60034-2-1:2014.
Polyphase with rated horsepower less     IEEE 112-2017, CSA C747-09, IEC
 than 1 horsepower.                       60034-2-1:2014.
Polyphase with rated horsepower equal    IEEE 112-2017, CSA C390-10, IEC
 to or greater than 1 horsepower.         60034-2-1:2014.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE initially determined that polyphase motors at or above 1 hp can 
be tested with the same methods as would be applicable to electric 
motors currently subject to the DOE test procedure (i.e., IEEE 112-
2017, CSA C390-10, and IEC 60034-2-1:2014). See section 2 of appendix 
B. The referenced industry standards applicable to electric motors are 
also consistent with those referenced for small electric motors that 
are for polyphase motors greater than 1 hp. 10 CFR 431.444(b). For 
SNEMs that are polyphase motors with a horsepower less than 1 hp and 
for SNEMs that are single-phase motors, DOE initially determined that, 
consistent with the DOE test method established for regulated small 
electric motors (which also include polyphase motors with rated motor 
horsepower less than 1 hp and single-phase motors), IEEE 114-2010, CSA 
C747-09 and IEC 60034-2-1:2014 are appropriate test procedures for 
SNEMs. Additionally, DOE notes that Section 12.58.1 of NEMA MG 1-2016 
also lists IEEE 114 and CSA C747 as the selected industry standards for 
measuring and determining the efficiency of polyphase motors below with 
a horsepower less than 1 hp and single-phase motors. 86 FR 71710, 
71739.
    The CA IOUs agreed with the proposed test methods and suggested 
that industry-accepted test methods exist for the SNEM topologies. (CA 
IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 43) CEMEP stated that single-phase motors should 
be tested using a ``direct measurement'' according to IEC 60034-2-1, 
CSA 747, or IEEE 114 and that polyphase motors should be tested using a 
separation of losses method according to IEC 60034-2-1, CSA C390, IEEE 
112. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 5) Grundfos agreed with the test methods 
proposed for SNEMs. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 5) Grundfos also separately 
recommended breaking this large category of motors down into smaller 
subcategories to make testing requirements clearer. (e.g., single-
phase, 2-digit NEMA (excluding 56) fractional motors). (Grundfos, No. 
29 at p. 2). Advanced Energy agreed with the prescribed test methods 
DOE proposed for SNEMs and stated that these methods are consistent 
with the many tests it has conducted on these motors. (Advanced Energy, 
No. 33 at p. 10)
    NEMA stated that single-phase motors should not be tested with the 
summation of losses method, and instead should use a direct output/
input power measurement. It provided data of a 10 hp single-phase motor 
tested 30 times that indicated how the range and average efficiency 
measured was different for the two test types. NEMA also cited a 2009 
paper published by Advanced Energy comparing the differences in 
measured efficiency produced by the direct vs. indirect methods.\31\ In 
the paper, Advanced Energy found that the direct method would vary in 
measured efficiency within a range of 1.26 percent points higher or 
1.86 percent points lower compared to the indirect method and is too 
large of a difference for reporting purposes.\32\ NEMA stated that 
results

[[Page 63615]]

obtained from the direct method should have different loss tolerances 
applied from those measured through the indirect method. NEMA also 
stated that single-phase motors should be removed from this rulemaking 
and given its own, separate rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 8-9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ DOE notes that the cited paper analyzed polyphase induction 
motors and did not focus on single-phase motors.
    \32\ E.B. Agamloh, ``A Comparison of direct and indirect 
measurement of induction motor efficiency,'' 2009 IEEE International 
Electric Machines and Drives Conference, 2009, pp. 36-42, doi: 
10.1109/IEMDC.2009.5075180. Available at: ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5075180 (last accessed on 6/29/22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The December 2021 NOPR proposed the following test methods for 
single-phase SNEMs: IEEE 114-2010, CSA C747-09, and Method 2-1-1A of 
IEC 60034-2-1:2014. 86 FR 71710, 71739. These test methods are 
consistent with those currently applicable to single-phase small 
electric motors in 10 CFR 431.444(b)(2). All of the proposed test 
methods for single-phase SNEMs are direct output/input power 
measurement test methods. Specifically, the test methods require 
determining efficiency as follows: (1) Section 8.2 of IEEE 114-2010 
states, ``A determination of efficiency is based on measurements of 
input power and output power. Efficiency is calculated as the ratio of 
the measured output power to the corrected input power, where the 
measured input power is corrected for ambient temperature;'' (2) 
Section 6.10 of CSA C747-09 requires efficiency to be calculated using 
direct measurements of input power torque and speed; and (3) Method 2-
1-1A of IEC 60034-2-1:2014 is titled as the ``direct measurement of 
input and output.'' Comments provided by the CA IOUs (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 
at p. 43), and comments DOE received in response to the July 2009 small 
electric motors test procedure rulemaking,\33\ also indicated that 
these test procedures rely on direct measurement of input and output. 
Given the support from interested parties and consistency with the test 
methods for SEMs, DOE concludes that the proposed test methods are 
relevant for single-phase SNEMs that are not air-over electric motors 
and not inverter-only electric motors and is therefore finalizing the 
proposed test methods in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See comments from Advanced Energy and NEEA in the small 
electric motor test procedure final rule published on July 7, 2009. 
74 FR 32059, 32065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Test Procedures for AC Induction Inverter-Only Electric Motors and 
Synchronous Electric Motors
a. Test Method
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed test methods for various 
inverter-only electric motors and synchronous electric motors. These 
proposed test methods are presented in Table III-7 of this document. In 
addition, DOE proposed that for inverter-only electric motors sold 
without an inverter, testing would be performed using an inverter that 
is listed as recommended in the manufacturer's catalog. If more than 
one inverter is listed as recommended in the manufacturer's catalog or 
if more than one inverter is offered for sale with the electric motor, 
DOE noted that it would consider requiring that testing be performed 
using the least efficient inverter. 86 FR 71710, 71742.

 Table III-7--Test Standards Proposed for Incorporation by Reference for
    Synchronous Electric Motors and AC Induction Inverter-Only Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Industry test
                                                            standard
       Motor configuration          Equipment tested    incorporated by
                                                           reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Synchronous motors that are        Motor.............  IEC 60034-2-
 direct-on-line or inverter-                            1:2014.
 capable.
Synchronous or AC Induction        Motor + Inverter..  IEC 61800-9-
 Inverter-only.                                         2:2017.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to this proposal, both CEMEP and AI Group stated that 
IEC 60034-2-3 is the correct test procedure for inverter-only motors 
sold without an inverter and IEC 61800-9-2 is the correct procedure if 
the motor is sold with an inverter. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 6; AI Group, 
No. 25 at p. 5)
    Advanced Energy supported testing synchronous motors according to 
IEC 60034-2-1 and IEC 61800-9-2. It stated that in the case of switched 
reluctance inverter-only motors, it would be difficult to measure only 
the motor's efficiency, because measuring the power input to the motor 
is not straightforward. Accordingly, for such motors, Advanced Energy 
stated that they supply system efficiency only for the motor drive 
system and not a separate motor efficiency and inverter efficiency. 
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at pp. 10-11) Advanced Energy also stated that 
DOE should designate the motor wire to be used when testing inverter-
only or inverter-capable motors with inverters unless the manufacturer 
documentation states differently. With regard to this point, it 
provided the wire requirements of AHRI 1210 Section 5.1.6. (Advanced 
Energy, No. 33 at pp. 11-13) Advanced Energy also stated that an 
inverter-only motor should be allowed to be certified with any of the 
recommended inverters listed in the manufacturer catalog and that 
different inverters will produce different measured efficiencies when 
paired with a motor. It commented that the settings of the inverter 
could influence measured efficiency, and that these values should be 
specified either directly or through reference to an industry standard. 
To this end, it provided the settings listed in AHRI 1210 Section 
5.1.5. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 12)
    For inverter-only electric motors, NEEA/NWPCC agreed with DOE that 
these motors should be tested using IEC 61800-9-2:2017, and for 
inverter-only motors that do not include an inverter, testing must be 
conducted using an inverter as recommended in the manufacturer's 
catalogs or that is offered for sale with the electric motor. For 
inverter-only motors that do not include an inverter, NEEA/NWPCC 
recommended that the efficiency should include the losses of an 
inverter. NEEA/NWPCC commented that if the inverter losses are not 
accounted for, this would create an unlevel playing field when compared 
to inverter-only motors sold with an inverter (e.g., ECMs). NEEA/NWPCC 
commented that they do not recommend adding ``Reference Complete Drive 
Module (RCDM)'' losses as laid out in IEC 61800-9-2:2017, because these 
losses are not well aligned with actual inverter losses. NEEA/NWPCC 
recommended that such equipment be tested and rated using an inverter 
recommended by the manufacturer or that DOE develop its own default 
losses that are more representative of equipment currently available on 
the market. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 6) Grundfos further stated that 
these equipment should require ratings that reflect the inverter and 
motor efficiency. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 2)
    For inverter-capable electric motors, NEEA/NWPCC recommended that 
they be tested with IEC 61800-9-2 instead of DOE's proposed IEC 60034-
2-1. They

[[Page 63616]]

commented that IEC 60034-2-1 does not account for harmonic losses that 
are present when motors are supplied by inverters. By testing to IEC 
60034-2-1 and not including the harmonic losses, this approach would 
create an unlevel playing field for inverter-capable motors that 
compete with inverter-only motors. NEEA/NWPCC commented that when a 
consumer is in the market for a variable-speed motor, it can choose to 
purchase either inverter-capable or inverter-only motors. NEEA/NWPCC 
stated that if all inverter-capable motors appear to have a higher 
efficiency because of a difference in test procedure, the consumer 
would be more likely to choose that motor over a lower-rated inverter-
only motor. They contended that if inverter-only motors are not rated 
or rated with a different metric, end users will not be able to 
evaluate them equitably. Accordingly, NEEA/NWPCC recommended that both 
inverter-only and inverter-capable motors should be tested and rated 
with the same test procedure. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at pp. 3; 7)
    ebm-papst stated that switched-reluctance motors are not in the 
scope of IEC 61800-9-2, and suggested that wire-to-shaft testing of 
these motors requires a combination of two standards: IEC 60034-2-3 to 
measure shaft output and IEC 61800-9-2 to measure converter input. 
(ebm-papst, No. 23 at p. 3)
    NEMA stated that IEC 60034-2-3 is the correct test procedure for 
all inverter motors, but that it is not structured for use in testing 
for energy conservation standards. It stated that IEC 61800-9-2 is for 
complete drive modules, a factor that led NEMA to suggest that DOE 
conduct a separate rulemaking because of the unique rules and 
definitions needed for these motors. NEMA stated that aspects needing 
additional consideration are: inverter switching frequency, cable 
distance between motor and inverter, voltage ramp and boost settings, 
inverter capacitance values, and inverter control. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 
17)
    IEC 61800-9-2:2017 specifies test methods for determining inverter 
(or complete drive module, ``CDM'') \34\ and motor-inverter combination 
(i.e., power-driven system or ``PDS'') losses.\35\ Using this test 
method, the motor is tested with its inverter (either integrated or 
non-integrated), and the measured losses includes the losses of the 
motor and of the inverter. Inverter-capable electric motors subject to 
the current test procedures are currently required to be tested without 
the use of an inverter, and rely on the test set-ups used when testing 
a general purpose electric motor. See 78 FR 75962, 75972. DOE is not 
adopting to change the test procedure for currently regulated induction 
inverter- capable electric motors. The approach for testing inverter-
capable synchronous electric motors without the use of an inverter 
therefore aligns with the existing method for induction inverter-
capable electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ IEC 61800-9-2:2017 defines a CDM, or drive, or drive 
controller as a ``drive module consisting of the electronic power 
converter connected between the electric supply and a motor as well 
as extension such as protection devices, transformers and 
auxiliaries.''
    \35\ IEC 61800-9-2:2017 also provides a mathematical model to 
determine the losses of a reference CDM, reference motor and 
reference PDS which are then used as the basis for comparing other 
CDMs, motors, and PDSs and establishing efficiency classes (IES 
classes). PDS shall be classified as ``IES 0'' if its losses are 
more than 20 percent higher than the value specified for a reference 
PDS. See Section 6.4 of IEC 61800-9-2:2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, DOE understands that many general purpose induction motors 
are rated as inverter-capable but are more commonly operated as direct-
on-line motors (i.e., without an inverter), and as such, the results of 
testing without an inverter would be more representative. Additionally, 
because inverter-capable motors are more commonly operated direct-on-
line, such electric motors would more closely compete with typical 
induction electric motors rather than inverter-only electric motors. 
DOE further notes that not including the inverter when testing 
inverter-capable motors is consistent with how the efficiency 
classification of inverter-capable motors is established in accordance 
with IEC 60034-30-1:2014. Accordingly, DOE is requiring inverter-
capable synchronous electric motors to be tested without the use of an 
inverter.
    Regarding NEMA's comment that additional definitions are needed for 
inverter-only motor testing and Advanced Energy's comment that the 
inverter settings should be further specified, DOE reviewed Section 
5.1.5 ``Drive Settings'' of AHRI Standard 1210 (I-P):2019 and 
considered if new definitions were required. Section 5.1.5 specifies 
that the VFD [referred to in this document as an inverter] shall be set 
up according to the manufacturer's instructional and operational manual 
included with the product specifies that manufacturers must provide a 
parameter set-up summary that at least includes the: (1) carrier 
switching frequency, (2) max frequency, (3) max output voltage, (4) 
motor control method, (5) load profile setting, and (6) saving energy 
mode (if used). DOE notes that testing at the manufacturer's 
recommended operating conditions would be consistent with how other 
input values for electric motors are treated in the test procedure, 
like rated voltage. Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE specifies 
inverter set-up requirements consistent with Section 5.1.5 of AHRI 1210 
(I-P):2019.
    To address those comments claiming that switched-reluctance motors 
do not fall within the scope of IEC 61800-9-2, DOE reviewed this 
testing standard and how switched-reluctance motors operate. These 
motors do not use a permanent magnet rotor and the rotor itself does 
not carry a current. Torque is generated by making use of the different 
values of reluctance \36\ the rotor will have in different positions. 
The rotor will attempt to orient itself to give the magnetic flux a 
path of least reluctance through the rotor while the current in each 
stator pole is switched to create a continuous rotation in the rotor. 
While these motors are similar to synchronous reluctance motors in how 
they generate torque, the two main differences in their construction 
are how the stators are built and how the inverter supplies current to 
the motor. Synchronous reluctance stators are built in a way that 
resembles an induction motor stator whereas a switched-reluctance motor 
has a concentrated winding for each stator tooth. The inverters used 
for switched-reluctance motors have to be built to handle higher phase 
currents (for a given horsepower output) compared to an inverter used 
for a synchronous reluctance motor. DOE also reviewed the scope of IEC 
61800-9-2 and notes that Section 1 of that testing standard states that 
the standard includes methods for determining the losses of the PDS 
(i.e., motor and inverter combination) and does not limit its 
application to specific motor topologies. DOE also notes that the 
input-output method described in Section 7.7.2 requires measuring the 
electrical input to the PDS and the mechanical output of the PDS, both 
of which would be feasible when evaluating switched-reluctance motors. 
Accordingly in this final rule, as proposed in the December 2021 NOPR, 
DOE is specifying that Section 7.7.2 of IEC 61800-9-2 is the test 
method to be used to determine the efficiency of all synchronous and 
inverter-only electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Reluctance is the resistance to magnetic flux in a given 
magnetic circuit. In electric motors, the motor contains a magnetic 
circuit where the flux flows to and from the stator poles through 
the rotor.

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

[[Page 63617]]

b. Comparable Converter
    In the 2021 December NOPR, DOE proposed to require testing 
inverter-only synchronous electric motors that include an inverter, and 
inverter-only AC induction motors that include an inverter, in 
accordance with Section 7.7.2 of IEC 61800-9-2:2017, and using the test 
provisions specified in Section 7.7.3.5 and testing conditions 
specified in Section 7.10 of that same testing standard. DOE proposed 
to test inverter-only synchronous electric motors that do not include 
an inverter, and AC induction inverter-only motors that do not include 
an inverter, in accordance with IEC 61800-9-2:2017 \37\ and to specify 
that testing must be performed using an inverter as recommended in the 
manufacturer's catalogs or offered for sale with the electric motor. If 
more than one inverter is available in manufacturer's catalogs or 
offered for sale with the electric motor, DOE considered requiring that 
testing occur using the least efficient inverter. 86 FR 71710, 71742. 
DOE further requested feedback in the December 2021 NOPR on how to test 
an inverter-only motor that is sold without an inverter, and on whether 
DOE should consider testing these motors using a comparable converter 
as specified in Section 5.2.2. of IEC 60034-2-3:2020. 86 FR 71710, 
71742-71743.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Specifically, in accordance with Section 7.7.2 of IEC 
61800-9-2:2017, and using the test provisions specified in Section 
7.7.3.5 and testing conditions specified in Section 7.10. The 
proposed method corresponds to an input-output test of the motor and 
inverter combination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE develop a method for 
testing an inseparable PDS (i.e., motor and inverter combinations) as a 
paired unit. Since the PDS is inseparable, the CA IOUs noted that such 
an approach would be appropriate for a PDS unlikely to be distributed 
in commerce with other CDM drive (i.e., inverter) components and 
suggested IEC 61800-9-2 as a starting point for testing these motors. 
The CA IOUs also commented that DOE should specify a ``comparable 
inverter'' for testing inverter-only motors that are distributed in 
commerce for use with various CDMs, including motors paired with a 
drive on-site. The CA IOUs suggested IEC 61800-9-2 as a starting point 
for this approach as well. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 38) The CA IOUs 
recommended testing with a ``comparable inverter'' for products sold 
without a paired drive module, and that this comparable inverter be 
evaluated in each rulemaking to keep up with advancing drive 
technology. They cautioned that applying IEC 61800-9-2 to a 
``comparable inverter'' for current products is challenging because of 
what they described as the high reference inverter losses used by the 
standard to calculate the losses of a minimum-performance inverter. The 
CA IOUs provided data that they stated show how IE 0, the least 
efficient class of inverters defined by IEC 61800-9-2, is estimated to 
yield significantly higher losses than any inverter they found on the 
market and that the inverter efficiency classes in IEC 61800-9-2 were 
developed before the adoption of Silicon Carbide converters. The CA 
IOUs asserted that the disparity between reference losses and real-
world converter losses is even greater for smaller output drives (<7.5 
kW output) and noted that these drives make up two-thirds of the low-
voltage drive market. They suggested that DOE work with the project 
managers of a study currently being conducted on inverter efficiency, 
and to use the data provided from that study to inform how DOE 
considers inverter losses in the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at 
pp. 36-37) The CA IOUs also recommended that DOE follow the IEC's test 
procedure framework for inverter-only motors and drives. (CA IOUs, No. 
32.1 at p. 33)
    Advanced Energy stated that it would be beneficial if DOE provided 
guidance on what inverter to use for testing if an inverter is not 
recommended in a manufacturer's catalog, and it suggested the use of a 
``comparable converter'' according to IEC 60034-2-3 in this case. 
(Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 10)
    NEMA opposes the use of a reference converter during testing. NEMA 
stated that the only way a fair test could be conducted on an inverter-
only motor is to use the exact inverter specified by the manufacturer, 
and that a reference inverter that was ``close'' would incur a heavy 
risk of having the motor test as less efficient than it would with the 
intended inverter. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 18) Grundfos stated that a 
``comparable inverter'' as stated in IEC 60034-2-3:2020 should only be 
used when a manufacturer does not sell an inverter to go with the 
motor. (Grundfos, No. 29 at pp. 5-6) Trane commented that a 
``comparable inverter'' would result in inaccurate representations of 
energy use and that testing the inverter and motor combinations 
separately provides no value to the appliance manufacturer or end user. 
(Trane, No. 31 at p. 6)
    DOE notes that the test method proposed for inverter-only motors 
according to Section 7.7.2 of IEC 61800-9-2:2017 does not make use of 
inverter efficiency classes outlined in that document. Accordingly, DOE 
will not be addressing concerns about those efficiency classes. 
Regarding the CA IOUs comment suggesting the use of a ``comparable 
converter'' for inverter-only motors that have multiple CDMs (i.e., 
inverters) recommended, DOE disagrees because the efficiency of the 
motor/inverter combination depends on the inverter chosen for selection 
and the ``comparable converter'' may not be one of manufacturer 
recommended inverters. To ensure the test results are representative of 
average use, one of the inverters recommended by the manufacturer 
should be the inverter used during the efficiency test since the motor 
is most likely to be paired with one of those inverters during field 
use.
    In cases where no inverter is specified by the manufacturer to pair 
with an inverter-only motor, DOE still needs to choose an inverter to 
pair with the motor during the test. NEMA's concern regarding the use 
of a ``comparable converter'' does not apply because no inverter was 
specified for use with the motor, and Trane's concern does not apply 
because the motor and inverter are not tested separately. As such, DOE 
cannot at this time identify an option more representative of average 
use than the ``comparable converter'' in cases where no inverter is 
specified for use with an inverter-only motor.
    After reviewing the comments submitted by stakeholders, DOE has 
decided to adopt the method proposed in the December 2021 NOPR for 
testing synchronous and AC induction inverter-only motors that include 
an inverter, in accordance with IEC 61800-9-2:2017. DOE is also 
adopting the methods proposed in the December 2021 NOPR for synchronous 
and AC induction inverter-only motors that do not include an inverter, 
and to specify must be tested in accordance with IEC 61800-9-2:2017 and 
to specify that testing must be performed using an inverter as 
recommended in the manufacturer's catalogs or offered for sale with the 
electric motor. In addition, DOE did not receive any comments on 
selecting the least efficient inverter. Under the approach taken in 
this final rule, if more than one inverter is listed as recommended in 
the manufacturer's catalog or if more than one inverter is offered for 
sale with the electric motor testing using the least efficient inverter 
will be required. DOE is requiring the use of ``the least efficient 
inverter'' to ensure consistent testing of inverter-only motors with 
multiple recommended inverters. DOE notes that the test specified in 
Section 7.7.2 of IEC 61800-9-2 is based on an input-output measurement 
and does not rely on

[[Page 63618]]

``reference losses'' \38\ in IEC 61800-9-2:2017 to characterize the 
inverter performance. Instead, the motor and inverter combination are 
tested using an input-output test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ IEC 61800-9-2 provides references losses for inverters that 
can be used to calculate the combine motor and inverter efficiency 
based on a calculation-based method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, to address the case where there are no inverters 
recommended in the manufacturer's catalogs or offered for sale with the 
electric motor, DOE is specifying the use of a ``comparable converter'' 
based on Section 5.2.2 of IEC 60034-2-3, and to require that the motor 
manufacturer specify the manufacturer, brand and model number of the 
inverter used for the test.

E. Metric

    The represented value of nominal full-load efficiency is currently 
used to make representations of efficiency for electric motors subject 
to standards in subpart B of part 431, based on the average full-load 
efficiency as measured in accordance with the provisions at 10 CFR 
431.17.
    In the December 2021 NOPR, for electric motors subject to energy 
conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25 (which are AC induction single-
speed motors), DOE proposed to maintain the current use of the nominal 
full-load efficiency metric. For the additional electric motors 
proposed for inclusion within the scope of the test procedures, DOE 
also proposed to use the nominal full-load efficiency as the metric. 
DOE proposed to evaluate the efficiency of the motor with or without 
the inclusion of the inverter depending on the motor configuration: (1) 
for the additional non-inverter-only electric motors proposed for 
inclusion within the test procedure's scope (i.e., direct-on-line or 
inverter-capable),\39\ DOE proposed to determine the efficiency of the 
motor at full-load (i.e., measure the full-load efficiency), consistent 
with how electric motors currently subject to standards at 10 CFR 
431.25 are evaluated; (2) for the additional inverter-only electric 
motors proposed for inclusion within the test procedure's scope, DOE 
proposed to evaluate the efficiency of the motor and inverter 
combination at 100 percent rated speed and rated torque (i.e., measure 
the full-load efficiency). In addition, DOE stated that it may consider 
requiring manufacturers to disclose the part-load performance 
efficiency of the additional motors proposed for inclusion within the 
scope of this test procedure as part of any future energy conservation 
standard related to these electric motors.\40\ Finally, similar to 
currently regulated electric motors, for the additional electric motors 
proposed for inclusion, DOE proposed sampling requirements to calculate 
the average full-load efficiency of a basic model and provisions to 
determine a tested motor's nominal full-load efficiency. (See section 
III.N of this document). 86 FR 71710, 71743-71745.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ These include air over electric motors, electric motors 
larger than 500 hp, certain SNEMs, and certain synchronous motors.
    \40\ DOE did not propose to require this in the December 2021 
NOPR, as labelling requirements are typically not in the scope of 
the test procedure and included as part of energy conservation 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CEMEP stated that an efficiency metric that includes both inverter 
and motor efficiency should not be used for inverter-only and inverter-
capable electric motors sold without an inverter. In its view, the 
efficiency metric DOE adopts should reflect only the efficiency of the 
motor itself. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 7)
    The scope of the current test procedure includes inverter-capable 
electric motors, which are tested without the use of an inverter.\41\ 
DOE is not changing the current test procedure for inverter-capable 
motors, and continues to require testing these motors without the use 
of an inverter. Further, as discussed in section III.D.3 of this 
document, DOE is adopting an approach to test inverter-only motors 
inclusive of the inverter. Therefore, DOE is adopting a metric 
inclusive of the inverter efficiency for these motors. As stated in the 
December 2021 NOPR, because inverter-only motors require an inverter to 
operate, measuring the motor efficiency independent of the inverter 
would not be as representative of field performance as would measuring 
the combined motor and inverter efficiency. 86 FR 71710, 71743. In 
addition, some inverter-only motors are sold with an integrated \42\ 
inverter such that measuring motor-only efficiency is not technically 
feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The test methods described in section 2 of Appendix B to 
Subpart B do not require the use of an inverter.
    \42\ Integrated means that the drive and the motor are 
physically contained in a single unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the December 2021 NOPR, Grundfos supported measuring 
motor efficiency at the proposed load points. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 
6).
    Several stakeholders opposed using a full-load metric, as discussed 
in the next paragraphs.
    The Joint Advocates recommended that DOE amend the test procedure 
to incorporate efficiency at multiple load points to ensure a level 
playing field for manufacturers and to better inform purchasers. The 
Joint Advocates stated that while it is generally true that an AC 
induction electric motor with a tested full-load efficiency will have 
smaller losses than another electric motor with a lower tested full-
load efficiency within its typical range of operation, many advanced 
motor technologies (e.g., synchronous motors) included in the proposed 
expanded scope have loss profiles (e.g., losses as a function of load) 
that deviate significantly from those of single-speed AC induction 
motors. In particular, the Joint Advocates stated that advanced motor 
technologies typically maintain higher efficiency at low loads and 
evaluating electric motor efficiency at a single load point is 
therefore not representative of real-world energy use and will not 
provide accurate relative rankings across different motor topologies. 
In addition, citing data from DOE's Motor Systems Market Assessment 
report,\43\ the Joint Advocates also commented that motors operating in 
variable-load applications with an average load factor between 40 and 
75 percent represent the largest portion of motor energy use, and that 
a metric that included part-load efficiency would be more 
representative.\44\ (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at pp. 5-6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Rao, P., Sheaffer, P., Chen, Y., Goldberg, M., Jones, B., 
Cropp, J., and J. Hester. U.S. Industrial and Commercial Motor 
System Market Assessment Report Volume 1: Characteristics of the 
Installed Base. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 2021, 
https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._industrial_and_commercial_motor_system_market_assessment_report_volume_1-_characteristics_of_the_installed_base_p_rao.pdf.
    \44\ Note: the data provided by the Joint Advocates were in 
terms of relative energy consumption and not motor counts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to inverter-only motors, the CA IOUs commented that DOE 
should incorporate a weighted part-load efficiency metric rather than 
using a full-load efficiency metric. The CA IOUs provided data from 
DOE's Motor Systems Market Assessment report and from the California 
Public Utilities Commission showing (in their view) that the majority 
of motors operate at variable-load.\45\ The CA IOUs expressed concern 
that the proposed full-load metric for inverter-only motors would not 
meet DOE's statutory requirement that metrics be ``representative of 
average use.'' Instead, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE collaborate 
with industry stakeholders to develop a metric for inverter-only 
motors. The CA IOUs referenced other rules that have incorporated part-
load metrics. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 2-3; 20-24) The CA IOUs also 
commented that the largest differences in performance

[[Page 63619]]

between synchronous inverter motors and induction inverter motors occur 
at low loads and that a full-load metric would not capture this 
difference. To illustrate this point, they provided efficiency curves 
for a 5 hp and a 20 hp permanent magnet inverter-only electric motor as 
well as for a 5 hp and 2 0hp induction electric motor, showing that the 
permanent magnet inverter-only motor had a higher efficiency than the 
induction electric motor, specifically at lower load. (CA IOUs, No. 
32.1 at p. 25) The CA IOUs added that a full-load efficiency metric 
would not enable the comparison of inverter-only motors and induction 
motor/inverter combinations that have peak efficiencies at different 
operating speeds and different positions on the torque curve. The CA 
IOUs provided part-load efficiency data showing that different motor 
topologies of synchronous inverter-only motors (e.g., synchronous 
reluctance motors, permanent magnet motors) and induction motor/
inverter combinations each experienced increases in efficiency at 
different load regions. The CA IOUs explained that the selected load 
point would change the rank order of the motor performance of inverter-
only motors (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 26-28) To illustrate this point, 
the CA IOUs compared the efficiency rankings for a synchronous 
reluctance motor, a permanent magnet motor, and an induction motor/
inverter combination in selected load-profiles, using part-load and 
full-load metrics. For the selected load-profiles in the example, the 
CA IOUs claimed that the weighted part load metrics provided a 
performance ranking that was more representative of the expected 
performance in the field and the CA IOUs recommended that DOE adopt a 
metric that can differentiate motors with peak efficiencies at 
different operating speeds and different positions on the torque curve. 
(CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 26-31)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Note: the data provided by the CA IOUs were in terms of 
relative energy consumption and not motor counts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA agreed in concept with the proposed metrics except for 
synchronous and inverter-only motors--both of which NEMA opposes for 
inclusion as part of the test procedure's scope. NEMA commented that 
these motors are not intended to be operated at full-load. NEMA did not 
recommend alternate approaches to test the performance of these motors, 
but instead voiced its general opposition to their inclusion in the 
scope of the test procedure. NEMA added that inverter-only and 
synchronous motors lend themselves to be evaluated with system 
efficiency, rather than motor-only efficiency, and that inverter-only 
motors should be regulated in a separate rulemaking due to the 
complexity of their testing and applications. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 19) 
NEMA stressed that the extended product rulemakings (commercial and 
industrial pumps, fans and compressors) are the appropriate path to 
energy savings and that component level regulation does not assure 
energy savings in the overall application. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 4)
    Regal opposed using a full-load efficiency metric for inverter-type 
motors and stated that this metric does not capture any of the value 
added by an inverter-only motor's higher efficiency at part-load 
conditions. (Regal, No. 28 at p. 1) Trane commented that measuring 
synchronous motors with a full-load only metric is not useful to the 
end-user nor applicable to the equipment in which the motor is 
installed. (Trane, No. 31 at p. 3) AHAM and AHRI were concerned with 
the use of a full-load metric for inverter-only and synchronous 
electric motors, which by definition are not intended to be operated at 
full-load. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at p. 9)
    NEEA/NWPCC recommended that DOE add representative load points and 
implement a weighted-average metric that accounts for performance at 
part-load. NEEA/NWPCC commented that a weighted metric that takes into 
account various load points will not be unduly burdensome and is 
essential to showing the actual performance of motors. NEEA/NWPCC cited 
data from DOE's Motor Systems Market Assessment report showing that the 
majority of motor-connected horsepower operates below 75 percent load, 
and commented that a test procedure that does not include load points 
below full-load is not representative an average period of use. (NEEA/
NWPCC, No. 37 at pp. 4-6) NEEA/NWPCC added that while using full-load 
efficiency may have been adequate when considering induction electric 
motors only, many of the synchronous motor topologies claim to have 
flatter efficiency curves compared to induction motors: the motor 
maintains its efficiency at reduced loads or reduced speeds better than 
induction motors. NEEA/NWPCC commented that a test procedure that 
measures efficiency only at full-load would not capture the difference 
in performance of synchronous motors at lower loads compared to 
induction motors. In addition, NEEA/NWPCC noted that the majority of 
commercial and industrial motors are not operated at full-load and 
commented that a metric that does not include part-load points is not 
representative of an average period of use as required by EPCA. (NEEA/
NWPCC, No. 37 at p. 8)
    Currently regulated electric motors typically have flat efficiency 
profiles, i.e., efficiency does not substantively vary based on the 
loading condition. The efficiency profile of smaller motors (less than 
one hp) is almost flat in the 40-100 percent load range, and the 
profile of larger motors (at or above 20 hp) is almost flat between 30-
100 percent load.\46\ DOE found that the estimates published in DOE's 
Motor Systems Market Assessment report for polyphase motors show that 
the majority of electric motors operate above the 40 percent loading 
point. The report also indicates that significantly underloaded motors 
(i.e., those under a variable or constant load below a 0.4 loading 
factor) represent a small percentage of the installed base (4 
percent).\47\ A motor is considered underloaded when it is operated in 
the range where efficiency drops significantly with decreasing load. 
Therefore, DOE has determined that the majority of polyphase motors 
(which include regulated electric motors) operate in a range where 
efficiency is relatively flat as a function of load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ A. de Almeida, H. Falkner, J. Fong, EuP Lot 30, Electric 
Motors and Drives. Task 3: Consumer Behaviour and Local 
Infrastructure. ENER/C3/413-2010, at p.6, Final April 2014. 
Available at: https://www.eceee.org/static/media/uploads/site-2/ecodesign/products/special-motors-not-covered-in-lot-11/eup-lot-30-task-3-april-2014.pdf. DOE also analyzed published part-load 
efficiency data for regulated electric motors and found that on 
average, the efficiency at 50 percent load is 99 percent of the 
full-load efficiency, while the efficiency at 75 percent load is 
1.004 percent of the full-load efficiency (average based on 7,199 
units).
    \47\ See: motors.lbl.gov/inventory/analyze/9-0713.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, DOE reviewed the data provided by the Joint Advocates and 
the CA IOUs indicating that electric motors primarily operate at 
variable-load. DOE notes that the estimates provided were based on a 
percentage of energy use or connected load and not motor counts (i.e., 
number of motor units included in the sample). DOE believes motor 
counts are a better indicator when assessing representativeness because 
each individual motor basic model is certified regardless of its size 
or energy use. When using motor counts, the DOE Motor Systems Market 
Assessment report shows that in the industrial sector, constant load 
motors operating at motor load factors greater than 0.75 represent 43 
percent of all industrial motor systems. Overall, in the industrial

[[Page 63620]]

sector, the report finds that there are nearly twice as many constant-
load motors as variable-load motors.\48\ In the commercial sector, the 
report states that variable-load motors operating at load factors 
between 0.4 and 0.75 represent 36 percent of all commercial sector 
motor systems, followed by constant load systems operating at motor 
load factors greater than 0.75, at 27 percent. Overall, in the 
commercial sector, the report states that constant-load motors 
represent 43 percent and variable-load motors represent 52 percent of 
electric motors (with 5 percent unknown). Across both sectors, the 
report shows that constant-load represents 44 percent of electric 
motors and variable-load represents 48 percent of electric motor 
systems (with 7 percent unknown).\49\ Further, the estimated average 
load factor for motors between 1 and 500 hp ranges from approximately 
0.52 to 0.68 depending on the motor horsepower.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See pp. 76 and 81 of the DOE's Motor Systems Market 
Assessment report available at: https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._industrial_and_commercial_motor_system_market_assessment_report_volume_1-_characteristics_of_the_installed_base_p_rao.pdf.
    \49\ See: https://motors.lbl.gov/inventory/analyze/9-0713.
    \50\ See pp. 78 and 83 of the DOE's Motor Systems Market 
Assessment report available at: https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._industrial_and_commercial_motor_system_market_assessment_report_volume_1-_characteristics_of_the_installed_base_p_rao.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has determined that currently regulated electric motors are 
used equally in both constant-load and variable-load applications and 
primarily operate in a range where efficiency is relatively flat as a 
function of load. For these reasons, DOE has determined that measuring 
the performance of these motors at full-load is representative of an 
average use cycle. In addition, given the variability in applications 
and load profiles, an average load profile may not be representative. 
For example, a constant torque load application cannot be represented 
using the load profile of a variable torque application. Further, 
currently regulated electric motors have internationally-harmonized 
efficiency test standards and efficiency classes (e.g., IE3 and NEMA 
Premium classes) \51\ and using a metric based on a weighted-average 
efficiency across different part-load points would be a departure from 
internationally harmonized practices without adding benefits in terms 
of better representation. As noted in the December 2021 NOPR, for 
motors that are not inverter-only, although the IEC 60034-2-1:2014 test 
standard includes testing at part-load, IEC 60034-30-1:2014 establishes 
efficiency classes (e.g., IE3) based on the motor full-load efficiency. 
86 FR 71710, 71744. In addition, rating these motors at full-load or 
part-load would not change the rank order by performance (i.e., if 
motor A is better than B based on full-load efficiency, motor A will 
perform better than motor B in the field). For these reasons, in this 
final rule, DOE maintains the current nominal full-load efficiency 
metric for currently regulated motors. DOE may consider requiring 
manufacturers to display the part-load efficiency as part of any future 
energy conservation standard related to these electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ An IE class is a table of full-load efficiency ratings 
provided at different motor rated power and poles. For example, the 
IE class ``IE3'' is considered largely equivalent to the current 
energy conservation standards in Table 5 at 10 CFR 431.25 or ``NEMA 
Premium.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For those additional motors that DOE is incorporating in the scope 
of the test procedure, which are not inverter-only, given that the 
operating load data from the DOE Motor Systems Market Assessment report 
apply to all polyphase motors above 1 horsepower, DOE determined that 
the findings discussed for regulated electric motors also apply to 
those additional in-scope polyphase electric motors that are not 
inverter-only and are above 1 horsepower (i.e., polyphase air-over 
motors and electric motors larger than 500 hp). Therefore, for these 
electric motors, DOE is adopting the nominal full-load efficiency 
metric. Further, for synchronous motors that are not inverter-only 
(i.e. line-start permanent magnet motors), DOE found that the 
efficiency curve as a function of load is also flat in the typical 
motor operating range.\52\ Therefore, DOE has determined that measuring 
the performance of these motors at full-load is representative of an 
average use cycle and DOE adopts the nominal full-load efficiency 
metric as proposed for synchronous motors that are not inverter-only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Arash Hassanpour Isfahani, Sadegh Vaez-Zadeh, Line 
start permanent magnet synchronous motors: Challenges and 
opportunities, Energy, Volume 34, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 1755-1763, 
ISSN 0360-5442, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544209001303 and A. T. De Almeida, F. J. T. E. Ferreira and A. 
Q. Duarte, ``Technical and Economical Considerations on Super High-
Efficiency Three-Phase Motors,'' in IEEE Transactions on Industry 
Applications, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 1274-1285, March-April 2014, doi: 
10.1109/TIA.2013.2272548.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, for SNEMs that are not inverter-only (including air-over 
motors), DOE did not find data specific to SNEMs (the DOE Motor Systems 
Market Assessment report only considered polyphase motors above 1 
horsepower). Assuming these motors operate at an average load between 
0.66 and 0.67,\53\ and considering the relatively flat efficiency curve 
in that range,\54\ DOE believes a metric based on full-load efficiency 
is appropriate and representative of an average use cycle for these 
motors. In addition, rating these motors at full-load or part-load 
would not change the rank order by performance (i.e., if motor A is 
better than B based on full-load efficiency, motor A will perform 
better than motor B in the field). Further, a metric based on full-load 
efficiency is consistent with the test method for small electric motors 
and would enable performance comparisons between SNEMs and SEMs.\55\ 
For these reasons, DOE is adopting the nominal full-load efficiency 
metric as proposed. For the additional non-inverter-only motors that 
DOE is incorporating in the scope of the test procedure, DOE may 
consider requiring manufacturers to display the part-load efficiency as 
part of any future energy conservation standard related to these 
electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ This estimate is based on the average load factor for 
motors between 1 and 5 hp as provided in DOE's Motor Systems Market 
Assessment report. See pp. 78 and 83 of the DOE's Motor Systems 
Market Assessment report available at: https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._industrial_and_commercial_motor_system_market_assessment_report_volume_1-_characteristics_of_the_installed_base_p_rao.pdf.
    \54\ DOE analyzed published part-load efficiency data for SNEMs 
and found that on average, the efficiency at 75 percent load is 97 
percent of the full-load efficiency (average based on 2,585 units).
    \55\ DOE notes however that SEMs do not rely on nominal full-
load efficiency values but rather on average full-load efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For inverter-only electric motors, DOE agrees that synchronous 
motors typically maintain a flatter efficiency at lower loads compared 
to inverter-only induction motors.\56\ However, as previously 
discussed, very few electric motors operate at these lower loads (i.e., 
below 40 percent). Instead, electric motors, including inverter-only 
electric motors, typically operate in a region where the efficiency is 
relatively flat. Therefore, although inverter-only motors operate at 
part-load, DOE has determined that a metric based on full-load 
efficiency is representative of an average energy use cycle. In 
addition, because inverter-only motors tend to also have flat 
efficiency curves above a 40 percent load, rating these motors at

[[Page 63621]]

full-load or part-load would not change the rank order by performance 
(i.e., if motor A is better than B based on full-load efficiency, motor 
A will perform better than motor B in the field).\57\ Further, as noted 
in the December 2021 NOPR, for inverter-only and inverter combination 
electric motors, although the IEC 61800-9-2:2017 test standard includes 
eight standardized test points, the IEC efficiency classification is 
based on the performance at a unique point at full-load (100 percent 
rated speed and 100 percent rated torque) and establishing a metric 
based on a weighted average load would be a departure from 
internationally harmonized practices without adding significant (if 
any) benefits in terms of better representation. 86 FR 71710, 71744. 
For these reasons, DOE is adopting the nominal full-load efficiency as 
the metric for inverter-only motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ DOE notes that in their comment, the CA IOUs provide an 
example which compares the efficiency of 5 and 20 hp synchronous 
permanent magnet motors with an inverter-only induction motor and 
variable frequency drive at loads between 12.5 and 50 percent. (CA 
IOUs, No. 32.1 at p. 29) While the example shows that the difference 
in efficiency between the synchronous permanent magnet motor with an 
inverter-only induction motor increases at load (below 40 percent) 
the example shows that this difference is relatively constant 
between a 40 and 50 percent load. Id.
    \57\ DOE notes that in the example provided by the CA IOUs, 
where the rank order of inverter-only motors changes based on 
considering a load profile vs. a full-load operation, the motor is 
assumed to operate 40 percent of the time at low load which is not 
representative of typical inverter-only motors (load in percent of 
horsepower is the product of speed and torque, in the CA IOUs 
example, 15 and 10 percent load points were considered i.e., 50 
percent speed, 30 percent torque and 50 percent speed, 20 percent 
torque). In addition, in the example provided, the inverter-only 
induction motor has a flatter efficiency curve than the synchronous 
reluctance motor which is contrary to what is expected from a 
typical synchronous motors and not representative. (CA IOUs, No. 
32.1 at p. 29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Joint Advocates further commented that the current electric 
motors test procedure does not capture the energy saving benefits 
associated with speed control. The Joint Advocates commented that 
motors with controls may be at a disadvantage relative to single-speed 
AC induction motors since the energy usage of the inverter (e.g., in a 
inverter-equipped inverter-only AC induction motor) would be included 
in the overall efficiency, while the benefits of the inverter (e.g., 
speed reduction at part load) are not. The Joint Advocates stated that 
the test procedure should capture the benefits of speed control 
capability. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 6).
    The CA IOUs recommended that DOE establish a metric for inverter-
only motors that will capture the energy saving benefits of variable-
speed control as these motors are most often used in variable load and 
variable torque applications. In addition, the CA IOUs noted that speed 
control can provide energy savings benefits in constant-load 
applications by matching the load to the motor output power to meet the 
requirements of the application instead of using throttling valves or 
dampers. The CA IOUs commented that 90 percent of inverter-only motors 
are used in variable torque applications such as air compressors, 
pumps, fans and blowers. (CA IOUs, No. 32.1 at pp. 20-21)
    NEEA/NWPCC also recommended that DOE adopt a metric that would 
capture the energy savings of speed control for all electric motors. 
NEEA/NWPCC noted that DOE already has several test procedures and 
metrics that have switched from full-load efficiency to more 
representative metrics \58\ and recommended that a weighted-average 
input power metric be used for electric motors in line with the Pump 
Energy Index metric used for pumps and the recent Power Index Metric as 
described in a standard published by NEMA.\59\ NEEA/NWPCC commented 
that a motor weighted-average input power metric would be calculated 
for both constant-speed motors and variable-speed motors (both 
inverter-capable and inverter-only) and suggested calculation methods 
and recommended weights at each recommended load point (i.e., load 
profiles). NEEA/NWPCC stated that a weighted-average input power metric 
is more representative than a weighted-average efficiency metric 
because inverter-controlled motors will inherently have an 
``efficiency'' loss at each independent load point but will generally 
use less energy overall. Therefore, NEEA/NWPCC asserted that using a 
weighted input power metric instead of efficiency will show the lower 
input power more equitably. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 37 at pp. 8-11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ NEEA and NWPCC cited the example of the seasonal energy 
efficiency ratio used for air conditioning equipment and the Pump 
Energy Index used for commercial and industrial pumps.
    \59\ Available at https://www.techstreet.com/nema/standards/nema-mg-10011-2022?product_id=2247918.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the approach taken in the commercial and industrial pump 
and air compressor rulemakings,\60\ DOE proposed to evaluate equipment 
with variable-speed capability separately from single-speed equipment. 
The metric adopted for inverter-only motors, which includes the 
inverter efficiency, is not directly comparable with the metric 
proposed for electric motors that are not inverter-only, as these 
motors are not tested using an inverter. As such, DOE does not believe 
that motors with controls would be at a disadvantage relative to 
single-speed AC induction motors when testing and evaluating them under 
the proposed conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ For air compressors and pumps, variable speed or variable-
load and single speed or constant load equipment are in separate 
equipment classes and evaluated separately. 10 CFR 431.345 and 10 
CFR 431.465.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the adoption of a metric that would capture the benefits 
of controls, such as the approach suggested by NEEA/NWPCC, which uses 
an input power-based metric and a load profile based on a variable-
torque load profile for inverter-motors (both inverter-only and 
inverter-capable), inverter-motors would always show better ratings 
(i.e., a lower weighted average input power) than single-speed motors 
due to the cubic relationship between power and speed (i.e., affinity 
laws) \61\ specific to variable-torque load applications (e.g., a 
reduction in speed by a factor of 3 is associated to a reduction in 
power by a factor of 9).\62\ Variable-speed capability can provide 
energy savings in some applications compared to single-speed operation. 
However, not all applications benefit equally from variable-speed 
control. DOE estimates that 90 percent of the installed base of 
variable-load electric motor applications are variable-torque.\63\ 
Applying speed control to these applications (primarily fans, 
compressors, and pumps), will provide energy savings due to the 
affinity laws specific to these applications. However, affinity laws do 
not apply to other variable-load applications that are not variable-
torque (e.g., material handling, material processing) where speed 
control is not expected to provide the same level of energy savings, if 
any. In addition, AC induction inverter-only motors are primarily used 
in constant torque applications.\64\ Applying a metric based on an 
average load profile that captures the benefits of speed control

[[Page 63622]]

(i.e., a variable-torque load profile as recommended by NEEA/NWPCC), 
would assume that benefits of speed controls are always realized and 
could potentially significantly underestimate the input power 
experienced by a consumer. In the case of electric motors, such a 
metric could be misleading to consumers purchasing an electric motor 
for a non-variable torque applications. In other contexts where a more 
specific application was identified as in the case for pumps (which are 
all variable-torque applications), DOE was able to identify a specific 
load profile and use a metric that captures the energy savings 
potential of speed controls. However, for electric motors, because of 
the variability in applications, and because the majority of AC 
induction inverter-only electric motors are used in constant-torque 
applications, it is more representative to rely on a full-load 
efficiency metric rather than to rely on a weighted power-input metric 
based on a variable torque load profile, and to provide disaggregated 
information on the electric motor's part-load efficiency (inclusive of 
the inverter or not) to consumers to allow them to perform the power 
input calculation that is specific to their application. In addition, 
as previously stated, DOE understands that many general purpose 
induction motors are rated as inverter-capable but are more commonly 
operated direct-on-line, and as such, the results of testing without an 
inverter would be more representative. Consequently, DOE is not 
including an input power-based metric in the electric motors test 
procedure. DOE may consider requiring manufacturers to disclose the 
part-load performance efficiency of the additional motors proposed for 
inclusion within the scope of this test procedure as part of any future 
energy conservation standard related to these electric motors.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ The affinity laws express the relationship between power, 
speed, flow, and pressure or head. Specifically, power is 
proportional to the cube of the speed.
    \62\ In addition, DOE reviewed the load points recommended for 
variable speed moors by NEEA and NWPCC and found that the points 
recommended do not reflect the load points for variable load motors 
in the DOE Motor Systems Market Assessment report (which are 
provided in terms of percentage of horsepower divided by the motor 
full-load horsepower). NEEA and NWPCC characterized the load range 
from 0 to 40 percent using a (25,25) (% speed, % torque) point which 
is equal to 6.25 percent load; the load range between 40 and 75 
percent using a (50,50) (% speed, % torque) point which is equal to 
25 percent load, and the range above 75 percent using (75,75) and 
(100,100) (% speed, % torque) points which is equal to 56.25 percent 
and 100 load. As such the points recommended do not reflect the 
typical motor loads for inverter-only motors.
    \63\ See counts of motors by load factor by application as 
provided by the DOE Motor Systems Market Assessment report, 
available at https://motors.lbl.gov/inventory/analyze/3-0825.
    \64\ Inverter-only motors are capable of providing full-rated 
torque at zero speed as well as operating well over their nominal 
speed and are typically selected when operating at extremely low 
speeds, particularly when serving a constant torque load. See: 
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56016.pdf.
    \65\ DOE did not propose to require this in the December 2021 
NOPR. DOE typically includes such requirements (e.g., labeling) as 
part of its energy conservation standards rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Rated Output Power and Breakdown Torque of Electric Motors

    The current energy conservation standards for electric motors at 10 
CFR 431.25 are segregated based on rated motor horsepower, pole 
configuration, and motor enclosure. Pole configuration and motor 
enclosure are both observable properties of a motor and straightforward 
to use for testing purposes. In contrast, the rated motor horsepower 
(i.e., rated output power) is not easily observable and DOE has not 
discerned a single uniform method to determine this value through 
testing. In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify rated 
output power based on the electric motor's breakdown torque for those 
electric motors that are subject to energy conservation standards at 10 
CFR 431.25, electric motors above 500 horsepower, air-over electric 
motors, and SNEMs. 86 FR 71710, 71745-71747. DOE based this proposal on 
the already-established definitions for rated output power and 
breakdown torque as they relate to small electric motors (see 10 CFR 
431.442). Id.
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE reviewed NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 
Supplements), and noted the complexity identified by CA IOUs in 
determining rated output power based on breakdown torque, in that the 
performance requirements for a NEMA Design A, B or C motor in Section 
12.39 specify the minimum breakdown torque as a percentage of full-load 
torque; therefore, the breakdown torque can only describe the largest 
possible rated output power but cannot uniquely identify a rated output 
power. However, DOE also noted that it understands that the economics 
of motor manufacturing prevent manufacturers from down-rating the 
output power of motors (i.e., manufacturers are disincentivized to 
down-rate motors because of the implications of cost-competitiveness), 
but NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements) does not inherently 
eliminate that possibility. Regardless, DOE proposed to specify how to 
determine the rated output power of an electric motor based on its 
breakdown torque to provide further specificity. 86 FR 71710, 71745-
71747.
    Grundfos stated that rated output power is a manufacturer 
declaration (and should not be included as a regulatory requirement), 
and that breakdown torque is only published for informational purposes. 
(Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 6)
    AI Group disagreed with the use of breakdown torque to determine 
power rating. It warned that running a motor above its rated torque to 
the breakdown torque limit will result in high winding temperature, 
winding failure and unsafe operation should the motor stall. It 
commented that a motor will not be able to continuously deliver power 
exceeding its rated power without high over-temperature and eventual 
failure through winding burnout. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 6) CEMEP also 
disagreed with the use of breakdown torque in determining rated output 
power and stated that breakdown torque has never been a design 
criterion for efficiency. It stated that output power ratings are based 
on frame sizes and other motor performance metrics. (CEMEP, No. 19 at 
p. 7)
    NEMA stated that the proposed specification of rated output power 
does not accurately describe how manufacturers are currently 
determining the rated output power for polyphase motors. (NEMA, No. 26 
at p. 19) It stated that breakdown torque only establishes the output 
power the motor can momentarily deliver successfully and does not 
establish the output power the motor can deliver continuously. NEMA 
commented that other parameters, such as temperature rise, must be 
considered to determine the output power the motor can deliver 
continuously. Further, NEMA provided examples of how a motor's output 
power would be rated if DOE's proposal were considered for adoption. 
According to NEMA, rated output power based on DOE's proposal would 
result in much higher values than manufacturer-declared output power, 
which in turn would result in motors overheating during the rated load 
temperature tests and potentially being ineffective for the efficiency 
test.\66\ Id. at pp. 19-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ IEEE 112-2017 Test Method B (currently incorporated by 
reference in 10 CFR 431.15 and one of the test methods in Section 2 
of appendix B) requires that a rated load temperature test be 
performed prior to taking efficiency measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, NEMA commented that Section 12.39 of NEMA Standard MG-1 
2016 (with 2018 Supplements) only defines a lower bound for breakdown 
torque and not an upper bound, and that there is nothing in that 
procedure prohibiting manufacturers from designing motors that are 
subject to that section with a breakdown torque value much higher than 
the minimum required value when attempting to optimize other aspects of 
the motor's performance. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 20) On the other hand, 
NEMA noted that motors subject to Section 12.37 of NEMA Standard MG-1 
2016 (with 2018 Supplements) (polyphase small motors) have a defined 
lower breakdown torque limit they do not have an upper limit. As such, 
NEMA asserted that the possibility of overheating the electric motor 
makes the proposal unfeasible. In addition, NEMA asserted that the 
proposal may also be unfeasible for single-phase induction motors 
because there is a tolerance on the breakdown torque values for these 
motors that the proposal does not address. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 20)
    After receiving feedback from stakeholders and reviewing the 
capabilities of motor test labs, DOE has concerns regarding the 
feasibility of determining the breakdown torque of larger motors and 
how breakdown

[[Page 63623]]

torque could be used to determine rated output power. DOE understands 
that motors above 100 horsepower are rarely physically tested due to 
the complexity and cost of supplying a load of that size during 
testing. Instead, manufacturers rely on simulations and performance 
modeling to determine the performance characteristics of motors this 
size.
    DOE also understands that while breakdown torque may be used to 
determine the rated output power of small electric motors (or ``small 
motors'' as the term is generally used), manufacturers do not typically 
use only this value for larger motors, and there are other parameters 
used to determine rated output power. DOE has determined that there is 
no single uniform method that manufacturers currently use to determine 
rated output power; manufacturers instead view this issue as an 
optimization problem that changes depending on what function the motor 
is providing. Electric motors designed for higher horsepower outputs 
tend to have more electrically-active and inactive material to safely 
achieve the higher power output. Due to this relationship between 
active material and power output, DOE understands that rating a motor 
at a lower horsepower rather than the maximum that can be safely 
achievable for an application would result in a motor with more active 
and inactive material than the other motors at the lower horsepower. 
The added cost of excess material in the oversized motor would result 
in a motor that is not cost-competitive with motors at the lower 
horsepower. As such, DOE understands that the under-rating of motor 
horsepower is not a significant issue since manufacturers are 
incentivized to rate a motor at a higher hp based on cost-
effectiveness.
    In light of the difficulty of determining breakdown torque for 
larger motors and the potential of overheating when determining rated 
output power based on DOE's proposal, at this time, DOE is not adopting 
its proposed specification of rated output power. Therefore, the test 
procedure and representations will be based on manufacturer 
representations of the rated output power of an electric motor. DOE is 
also declining to define the term ``breakdown torque'' as it will not 
be needed in light of the absence of a requirement to determine the 
rated output power of an electric motor.

G. Rated Values Specified for Testing

1. Rated Frequency
    Electricity is supplied at a sinusoidal frequency of 60 Hz in the 
United States while other regions of the world (e.g., Europe) use a 
frequency of 50 Hz. The frequency supplied to a motor (or to the 
inverter, if the motor is connected to an inverter) inherently affects 
the performance of the motor (or motors and inverter, if the motor is 
connected to an inverter). ``Rated frequency'' is a term commonly used 
by industry standards for testing electric motors (e.g., Section 6.1 in 
IEEE 112-2004, and Section 6.1 in CSA C390-10), and refers to the 
frequency at which the motor is designed to operate. A motor's rated 
frequency is typically provided by the manufacturer on the electric 
motor nameplate. Multiple rated frequencies are sometimes provided if a 
manufacturer intends to sell a particular model in all parts of the 
world. In the case where an electric motor is designated to operate at 
either 60 or 50 Hz, the current test procedure does not explicitly 
specify the frequency value at which an electric motor is tested. 
Similarly, inverters used to operate inverter-only motors can be rated 
at multiple frequencies.
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to add the term ``rated 
frequency'' to the definitions located at 10 CFR 431.12 and to define 
the term as ``60 Hz.'' 86 FR 71710, 71747. DOE stated that because the 
test procedures and energy conservation standards established under 
EPCA apply to motors distributed in commerce within the United States, 
DOE expressly proposed to use 60 Hz. Id.
    Grundfos commented that DOE should make it clear that the 
definition for rated frequency would not apply for inverter-only 
motors. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 6) DOE did not receive any other 
comments on this proposal.
    In this final rule, DOE specifies that the rated frequency 
describes the frequency of the electricity supplied either: (1) 
directly to the motor, in the case of electric motors capable of 
operating without an inverter; or (2) to the inverter in the case of 
inverter-only electric motors. Accordingly, DOE is adopting the 
following definition for ``rated frequency'': Rated frequency means 60 
Hz and corresponds to the frequency of the electricity supplied either: 
(1) directly to the motor, in the case of electric motors capable of 
operating without an inverter; or (2) to the inverter in the case on 
inverter-only electric motors.
2. Rated Load
    The term ``rated load'' is a term used in industry standards to 
specify the load that is applied to an electric motor during testing. 
This rated load typically equals the rated output power of an electric 
motor, and efficiency representations of ``full-load efficiency'' are 
in reference to the rated full-load (or the rated load) of a motor. In 
the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to define ``rated load'' as ``the 
rated output power of an electric motor.'' DOE also proposed qualifying 
that the term ``rated output power is equivalent to the terms ``rated 
load,'' ``rated full-load,'' ``full rated load,'' or ``full-load'' as 
used in the various industry standards used for evaluating the energy 
efficiency of electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71747.
    DOE received a comment from Grundfos in support of this proposed 
definition, (Grundfos, No. 29 at pp. 6-7), and received no comments 
opposing it.
    For the reasons discussed in the December 2021 NOPR and in the 
preceding paragraphs, DOE is adopting the definition of rated load as 
proposed in the December 2021 NOPR and clarifying that the term is 
interchangeable with the terms full-load, full rated load, and rated 
full-load as used in other current industry testing standards for 
electric motors.
3. Rated Voltage
    The rated voltage of a motor typically refers to the input 
voltage(s) that an end-user can supply to the motor and expect the 
motor to deliver the performance characteristics detailed on its 
nameplate. When performing an efficiency test at the rated load, the 
motor is supplied with one of the voltages listed on its nameplate. 
Currently, the referenced industry standards listed in appendix B 
direct that motors to be tested at the rated voltage, without 
specifying how to test when multiple voltages are provided on the 
nameplate and marketing material. DOE has found that some motor 
nameplates are labeled with a voltage rating including a range of 
values, such as ``208-230/460 volts,'' or other qualifiers, such as 
``230/460V, usable at 208V.''
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE presented the results of electric 
motors that were tested at two rated voltages of 230V and 460V. The 
results indicated that the tests that were conducted at the higher 
voltage rating (460V) resulted in fewer losses than at the lower 
voltage rating (230V). 86 FR 71710, 71747-71749. DOE noted that under 
current industry practice, a manufacturer can select the voltage for 
testing; however, the electric motor must meet all performance 
requirements of NEMA MG 1-2016 (with 2018 Supplements) at all rated 
voltages. Therefore, in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to define 
the term ``rated voltage'' as ``any

[[Page 63624]]

of the nameplate input voltages of an electric motor or inverter, 
including the voltage selected by the motor's manufacturer to be used 
for testing the motor's efficiency.'' 86 FR 71710, 71748. DOE further 
clarified that the proposed definition would also require a motor to 
meet all performance requirements at any voltage listed on its 
nameplate. Therefore, a manufacturer would not be permitted to make 
representations regarding other voltages at which an electric motor 
could operate unless that motor also satisfied all of the related 
performance standards. DOE sought comment on this proposal and the 
proposal to allow voltages that appeared on the nameplate as ``Usable 
At'' to be selected for testing. Id.
    In response, CEMEP stated that the rated voltage is the voltage at 
which the manufacturer provides all other rated values like current, 
torque, and power factor of a motor. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 8) AI Group 
stated that the rated voltage should be the voltage at which the 
manufacturer guarantees performance data of the motor (including 
efficiency). (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 6) Trane commented that having to 
test motors at all voltages on the nameplate creates an undue burden to 
the manufacturer due to the nature of the input rectification circuit, 
and that manufacturers should be allowed to test at only one voltage as 
long as that voltage is reported in the certification. (Trane, No. 31 
at pp. 6-7)
    NEMA commented that ``Usable At'' voltages are included to inform 
the customer that the motor could operate at that voltage but its 
inclusion on the nameplate makes no claims regarding efficiency at that 
voltage. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 21) Grundfos opposed including ``Usable 
At'' voltages in the definition of rated voltage, stating that this 
proposed change will force manufacturers to design motors for specific 
voltages and limit motor utility and consumer options. It stated that 
this requirement would have a large impact on manufacturers that ship 
to multiple markets with different voltages (e.g. U.S., Brazil, Japan, 
EU) and that it could force them to double their offerings to design 
motors specifically optimized for their ``Usable At'' voltages, and 
that DOE needs to account for the added costs for the design and 
certification of these motors if the proposed change is adopted. 
(Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 7)
    DOE notes that Section 12.50 of NEMA MG 1-2016 states that ``When a 
small or medium polyphase motor is marked with a single (e.g., 230 V), 
dual (e.g., 230/460), or broad range (e.g. 208-230) voltage in the 
Voltage field, the motor shall meet all performance requirements of MG 
1, such as efficiency, at the rated voltage(s).'' The section further 
states that ``When a voltage is shown on a nameplate field (e.g., 
``Useable at 208 Volts'') . . . other than the Voltage field, the motor 
is not required to meet all performance requirements of this standard 
(e.g., torques and nameplate nominal efficiency) at this other 
voltage.'' DOE understands that these ``Usable At'' voltages and broad 
range voltages allow manufacturers to serve multiple national markets 
with a single product offering.
    In this final rule, DOE clarifies that its proposal to allow any 
nameplate voltage to be selected for testing does not mean a 
manufacturer will have to certify a motor's efficiency at every rated 
voltage. Instead, DOE is requiring that a manufacturer will only have 
to certify the efficiency of the motor at one voltage, but that DOE 
could select any nameplate voltage for enforcement testing. DOE 
considers ``Usable At'' voltages that appear on the nameplate as a 
nameplate voltage, and thus could be selected for testing. In DOE's 
view, at any voltage at which the manufacturer declares that an 
electric motor may be installed and operated by making a representation 
in its nameplate, the electric motor must meet the standards when 
measured by the DOE test procedure. However, DOE notes that if a 
``Usable At'' voltage is included in marketing materials but is not 
printed on the nameplate, then that voltage would not be selected for 
testing as it would be for reference only.
    Grundfos also stated that DOE needs to consider that the rated 
voltage for an inverter-only motor may be different than the rated 
voltage of the inverter to which it is connected. (Grundfos, No. 29 at 
p. 7) NEMA commented that the term ``inverter'' should be removed from 
the definition of rated voltage (without providing further details). 
(NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 20-21) Regarding how rated voltage should be 
defined for expanded scope, NEMA commented that motors that are not 
inverter-only should be tested at the rated voltage on the nameplate; 
motors with an inverter (inverter-only, converter-only, or synchronous 
motors) should be tested in accordance with the requirements of the 
inverter, in accordance with IEC 60034-2-3. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 21)
    As discussed in section III.D.3 of this document, DOE is requiring 
inverter-only electric motors to be tested with an inverter. As such, 
DOE notes that the voltage of the accompanying inverter to the 
inverter-only motor is important for determining its rated voltage. DOE 
specified in the proposal that ``any of the nameplate input voltages of 
an electric motor or inverter'' could be considered as the rated 
voltage, and that the motor would have to meet all performance 
requirements at any of the voltages listed on its nameplate (inverter 
or motor).
    Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is adopting its proposed rated 
voltage definition. Further, DOE is clarifying that a motor would have 
to meet all performance requirements at any voltage listed on its 
nameplate (inverter or motor's nameplate). DOE is also clarifying that 
for any motor that is tested with an inverter, the rated input voltages 
that could be selected for testing are only the voltages that appear on 
the inverter nameplate. This clarification is being added to ensure 
that when the motor input voltage differs from the inverter input 
voltage, the incorrect voltage does not get fed into the inverter.

H. Contact Seals Requirement

    Certain electric motors come equipped with contact seals that 
prevent liquid, debris, and other unwanted materials from entering (or 
exiting) the motor housing. These contact seals cause friction on the 
shaft, which can cause a motor to have higher losses than if the motor 
were operating without those contact seals. In the December 2021 NOPR, 
DOE proposed to clarify that motors (other than immersible motors) that 
have contact seals should be tested with those seals installed. 86 FR 
71710, 71750-71751.
    NEMA, IEC, CEMEP, AI Group, AGMA, and Sumitomo all opposed the 
proposal. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 22-23; IEC, No. 20 at pp. 2-3; CEMEP, 
No. 19 at p. 9; AI Group, No. 25 at pp. 2, 6-7; AGMA, No. 14 at pp. 1-
2; Sumitomo, No. 17 at pp. 1, 4-5) IEC, AI Group, and Sumitomo cited 
concerns about the added test burden if manufacturers were required to 
test every unique ``motor plus contact seal'' combination individually. 
(IEC, No. 20 at pp. 2-3; AI Group, No. 25 at pp. 2, 6-7; Sumitomo, No. 
17 at pp. 6-7) CEMEP noted that numerous seal types are available, and 
the losses will be different in each case, which will lead to a high 
number of different basic models. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 9) IEC, and 
Sumitomo also cited concerns about the variability of frictional losses 
in contact seals and how this variability would make the test procedure 
less repeatable. (IEC, No. 20 at pp. 2-3; AI Group, No. 25 at pp. 2, 6-
7; Sumitomo, No. 17 at pp. 6-7) Specifically, IEC, and Sumitomo stated 
that bearing friction and losses reduce as the motor runs and these 
bearings wear-in. Id. Further, NEMA and Sumitomo commented that some

[[Page 63625]]

bearings can take up to 200 hours of run time to wear-in, an amount of 
run time they argued would be unduly burdensome for a single efficiency 
test. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 23; Sumitomo, No. 17 at p. 5)
    NEMA disagreed with requiring electric motors to be tested with the 
seals installed because of the larger number of new models that would 
need to be certified and the added uncertainty introduced to the test 
procedure because of the many variables that affect seal losses. It 
referenced a statement from Advanced Energy,\67\ who noted that because 
the ``run-in'' period of seals is not uniform across all motors--and 
can be long enough to make testing infeasible--testing these motors 
without their seals would be the reasonable approach for DOE to take. 
(NEMA, No. 26 at p. 23)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2012-BT-TP-0043-0008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sumitomo stated that, unlike past requirements, if DOE requires 
motors to be tested with their contact seals installed, testing a 
combination of randomly-selected sample motors per DOE's established 
methodology to verify calculated efficiency models will be impossible. 
It commented that all the motors will need to be tested until a new 
AEDM is developed that compensates for the reality that seal drag 
varies by a variety of factors such as total time in operation, 
lubrication, seal design, and surface speed. Since dimensions may vary 
depending on ``reducer frame size,'' multiple AEDMs may be required for 
a given motor. (Sumitomo, No. 17 at p. 6) Further, Sumitomo stated that 
the DOE proposal on contact seals would cause undue burden and it 
requested that DOE confirm that any required shaft contact seal be 
deemed part of an electric motor's mating gearbox associated with the 
reducer and not a necessary part of the electrical motor itself, such 
that contact seals be removed for testing. Accordingly, Sumitomo 
recommended that DOE an approach where the electric motor shaft seals 
of any variety shall be removed for testing if they are contact seals--
regardless of whether the motor under test is an immersible electric 
motor. It noted that the problem with including seals on a gearmotor 
for testing is that seal friction causes loss of energy power output, 
but the losses are inconsistent and vary depending on seal size, number 
of seals, seal design, seal material, lubrication, and time in 
operation. By comparison, Sumitomo stated that motor efficiency tests 
that include fresh, dry seals do not simulate real-world operating 
conditions and may not be indicative of actual efficiency. Accordingly, 
Sumitomo recommended that to allow for meaningful comparison between 
gearmotors and conventional motors, contact seals should be excluded 
from the test. (Sumitomo, No. 17 at pp. 1, 4-5)
    ABB stated that tests will need to be performed to determine 
frictional losses for shaft seals and sealed bearings for each type of 
seal and seal combination by rating and frame size. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 
2) CEMEP asked DOE to clarify whether the proposed approach would treat 
every unique motor plus contact seal combination as a new basic model 
requiring separate certification. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 10)
    AGMA argued that, to allow for meaningful comparison between 
gearmotors and conventional motors, contact seals should be excluded 
from the test. It stated that modeling seal drag and its attendant 
increase in motor losses may be difficult and that seal losses are a 
function of run time and lubrication and can vary across manufacturers 
and among individual pieces. It mentioned that motor efficiency tests 
that include fresh, dry seals do not simulate real-world operating 
conditions and may not be indicative of actual efficiency. It stated 
that requiring an integral gear motor with the mechanically required 
shaft contact seal to meet the same energy efficiency levels as the 
vast majority of electrical motors that have no need for such a shaft 
contact seal is an inconsistent application of the DOE's motor 
efficiency mandate and will result in an ``unlevel playing field.'' It 
encouraged DOE to consider any required shaft contact seal as part of 
the motor's driven load and not a necessary part of the electrical 
motor. (AGMA, No. 14 at pp. 1-2)
    Grundfos stated that the proposed clarification for contact seals 
is adequate but that DOE must clearly define the term ``contact seals'' 
with respect to immersible motors to ensure clarity. (Grundfos, No. 29 
at p. 8)
    Advanced Energy stated that the proposed clarification on shaft 
seals may be inconsistent with how manufacturers have interpreted DOE's 
regulations and suggested that DOE add language allowing manufacturers 
to request a no-load run-in prior to efficiency testing to allow the 
bearings and seals to wear-in. The no-load run-in ensures the shaft 
seals (along with bearings and lubricant) are well-seated prior to 
loading the motor. Advanced Energy also explained that when it performs 
efficiency testing, it conducts a no-load test and waits until the 
input power has stabilized before moving onto the next stage of the 
test, with run-in time varying based on the motor. (Advanced Energy, 
No. 33 at p. 16)
    DOE reviewed the comments submitted and further researched the 
complexities of measuring the efficiency of an electric motor with the 
contact seals installed. DOE understands that the frictional losses of 
contact seals reduce as the motor runs but the rate that these losses 
reduce over time is not uniform across all types of contact seals. DOE 
considered allowing manufacturers to use a run-in period that allowed 
for motor losses to stabilize before the efficiency test is conducted 
but is concerned that this period could be arduously long in the case 
of contact seals that could take up to 200 hours of runtime before the 
frictional losses stabilized. At this time, DOE has not found a 
practical way to account for the variation in frictional losses of 
contact seals when testing with the seals installed. Accordingly, in 
this final rule, DOE is declining to adopt its proposal that motors 
(other than immersible motors) that have contact seals should be tested 
with those seals installed.

I. Vertical Electric Motors Testing

    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to modify the vertical 
electric motor test requirements in section 3.8 of appendix B to permit 
the connection of a dynamometer with a coupling of torsional rigidity 
greater than or equal to that of the motor shaft.\68\ 86 FR 71710, 
71750. DOE proposed this updated language in response to NEMA's 
comments that industry's common practice is to use a disconnectable 
coupling or adapter to connect hollow motor shafts to dynamometers 
rather than the current requirements direct welding of a solid shaft to 
the motor's drive end. NEMA commented that using an adaptor or coupling 
causes no loss of testing accuracy, but carries the advantage of easy 
reversibility; whereas welding may permanently alter the motor. (NEMA, 
No. 2 at p. 3) In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded 
that so long as the coupling is sufficiently rigid, it would be 
unlikely that it would reduce test procedure repeatability, and 
permitting use of a coupling could reduce burden, as

[[Page 63626]]

removal of such a connector may be less laborious than reversing a 
welding process. 86 FR 71710, 71750. Consequently, DOE proposed to 
update its vertical electric motor testing requirements in the manner 
NEMA suggested and sought comment on that approach. Id
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Specifically, DOE proposed removing the instructional text 
reading, ``Finally, if the unit under test contains a hollow shaft, 
a solid shaft shall be inserted, bolted to the non-drive end of the 
motor and welded on the drive end. Enough clearance shall be 
maintained such that attachment to a dynamometer is possible'' to 
``If necessary, the unit under test may be connected to the 
dynamometer using a coupling of torsional rigidity greater than or 
equal to that of the motor shaft.'' 86 FR 71710, 71750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA agreed with the proposed changes to testing requirements for 
certain vertical electric motors and that the proposed changes for 
coupling torsion are adequate. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 22) Advanced Energy 
supported the proposed change to the definition as it relates to 
vertical electric motors and stated that the change is consistent with 
its current testing practice. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 16) 
Further, Advanced Energy supported the additional requirement of 
torsional rigidity of the coupling used to measure the motor output 
power. Id. Grundfos also supported the specifications on torsional 
rigidity. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 8)
    For the reasons discussed, DOE is adopting the December 2021 NOPR 
proposal in this final rule, which provides an alternate specification 
of using a coupling for testing vertical electric motors.

J. Proposed Testing Instructions for Those Electric Motors Being Added 
to the Scope of Appendix B

    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE discussed how sections 3.1 through 
3.8 of appendix B provide additional testing instructions for certain 
electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71751. Specifically, the testing 
instructions provided are for (1) brake electric motors; (2) close-
coupled pump electric motors and electric motors with single or double 
shaft extensions of non-standard dimensions or design; (3) electric 
motors with non-standard endshields or flanges; (4) electric motors 
with non-standard bases, feet or mounting configurations; (5) electric 
motors with a separately-powered blower; (6) immersible electric 
motors; (7) partial electric motors; and (8) vertical electric motors 
and electric motors with bearings incapable of horizontal operation. In 
the December 2021 NOPR, DOE reviewed these instructions and found that 
they would also apply to the additional motors proposed for inclusion 
in scope, to the extent that the additional motors fall into one of the 
eight categories of electric motors already listed in sections 3.1-3.8 
of appendix B. Id. DOE requested comments on the proposed application 
of the additional testing instructions in sections 3.1 through 3.8 of 
appendix B to the additional electric motors proposed for inclusion in 
scope of the test procedure. Id.
    In response, two stakeholders supported DOE's view that the 
additional testing instructions for certain electric motors would also 
apply to the additional electric motors proposed for inclusion in scope 
of the test procedure. Grundfos stated that the additional test 
instructions in sections 3.1-3.8 of 10 CFR part 431 appendix B would 
apply to the additional motor types proposed in scope. (Grundfos, No. 
29 at p. 8) NEMA commented that to the extent that existing test 
procedures can be accurately and repeatedly applied to the additional 
electric motors proposed for inclusion in scope, the accommodations in 
sections 3.1-3.8 of appendix B remain adequate. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 24)
    The test methods adopted in this final rule reference specific 
industry test methods. Further, as discussed in section III.D of this 
document, DOE has concluded that the test methods for those additional 
electric motors DOE is including within the scope of the test procedure 
are designed to produce results reflecting a motor's energy efficiency 
during a representative average use cycle and are not unduly burdensome 
to conduct. As such, because DOE has concluded that the test procedures 
can be accurately and repeatedly applied to the additional electric 
motors, DOE maintains that the additional testing instructions in 
sections 3.1-3.8 of appendix B also apply to the additional motors DOE 
is adding to the test procedure's scope, to the extent that the 
additional motors fall into one of the eight categories of electric 
motors listed in sections 3.1-3.8 of appendix B. Consequently, DOE is 
adopting these additional testing instructions as proposed.
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE also proposed to amend the 
definition of standard bearing by expanding it to include 600 series 
bearings--i.e., ``a 600 or 6000 series, either open or grease-
lubricated double-shielded, single-row, deep groove, radial ball 
bearing.'' 86 FR 71710, 71751. DOE proposed this amendment to 
accommodate categories of bearings contained in motors with smaller 
shafts that are found in SNEMs. Id. DOE requested comment on this 
proposal but received none. Therefore, DOE is adopting this proposal in 
this final rule.

K. Testing Instructions for Brake Electric Motors

    Section 3.1. of Appendix B to Subpart B currently includes testing 
instructions for brake electric motors. In the NOPR, DOE did not 
propose any changes to these testing instructions.
    IEC commented that as long as auxiliary devices, such as mechanical 
brakes, are not an integral part of the basic motor design, the test 
for efficiency should be performed on basic motors without auxiliary 
devices installed. It recommended removing mechanical brakes from an 
electric motor during testing because testing with the brakes installed 
will significantly increase the uncertainty in the test results. 
Moreover, it noted that manufacturers offer different types of brakes 
with their electric motors, making it impracticable to test all of the 
variations that are produced. Finally, IEC explained that removing the 
brakes before testing is consistent with IEC 600034-30-1 and IEC 
600034-30-2. (IEC, No. 20 at pp. 3-4)
    DOE notes that section 3.1 of appendix B instructs that brake 
electric motors must be tested with the brake component not activated 
during testing. Specifically, the power supplied to prevent the brake 
from engaging is not included in the efficiency calculation. Further, 
the test procedure allows the brake to be disengaged from the motor if 
such a mechanism to disengage to brake is installed and if doing so 
does not yield a different efficiency value than when separately 
powering the brake electrically. Accordingly, in DOE's view, the 
current test methods already permit the brakes to be disengaged and 
exclude any energy use associated with the brake component from the 
motor's calculated efficiency.

L. Transition to 10 CFR Part 429

    DOE proposed to amend its electric motor regulations by amending 
and moving those portions pertaining to certification testing and the 
determination of represented values from 10 CFR part 431 to 10 CFR part 
429. (86 FR 71710, 71751-71752) DOE also proposed amending other 
sections of 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, to ensure the regulatory 
structure comprising 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, and 10 CFR part 429 
remains coherent. Id. DOE also proposed making changes to the general 
provisions in 10 CFR part 429 to reflect the addition of electric motor 
provisions related to certification testing and to the determination of 
represented values. Id. DOE did not receive any comments related to 
transitioning the provisions pertaining to certification testing and 
the determination of represented values from 10 CFR part 431 to 10 CFR 
part 429 and is adopting these changes as proposed, consistent with 
other covered products and equipment.

[[Page 63627]]

    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to largely retain the 
procedures for recognition and withdrawal of recognition of 
accreditation bodies and certification programs as it exists at 10 CFR 
431.21, with one change to the current provisions at 10 CFR 431.21(g) 
to clarify the timeline and process of withdrawal of recognition by DOE 
as follows: if the certification program is failing to meet the 
criteria of paragraph (b) of Sec.  429.73 or Sec.  429.74, DOE will 
issue a Notice of Withdrawal (``Notice'') stating which criteria the 
entity has failed to meet. The Notice will request that the entity take 
appropriate corrective action(s) specified in the Notice. The entity 
must take corrective action within 180 days from the date of the Notice 
of Withdrawal or dispute DOE's allegations within 30 days from the 
issuance of the Notice. If, after 180 days, DOE finds that satisfactory 
corrective action has not been made, DOE will withdraw its recognition 
from the entity. DOE did not receive comments related to this topic and 
is adopting the proposed provisions related to the recognition and 
withdrawal of recognition of accreditation bodies and certification 
programs. In DOE's view, these additional requirements to the 
procedures for recognition and withdrawal of recognition will provide 
added clarity for those entities that may be affected by this 
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ As it appeared at 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, in the 10 CFR 
parts 200 to 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2020.

      Table III-8--Electric Motors Certification and Compliance CFR
                               Transitions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Subpart B--electric motors \69\   Proposed location    Final location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR 431.14 Sources for         Moved to 10 CFR     Moved to 10 CFR
 information and guidance.         429.3.              429.3.
10 CFR 431.17 Determination of    Moved to 10 CFR     Moved to 10 CFR
 efficiency.                       429.64 and 10 CFR   429.64 and 10 CFR
                                   429.70 as           429.70 as
                                   relevant, edits     relevant, edits
                                   to general          to general
                                   provisions in 10    provisions in 10
                                   CFR 429 as needed.  CFR 429 as
                                                       needed.
10 CFR 431.18 Testing             Retained and added  Retained and added
 laboratories.                     additional          additional
                                   provisions at 10    provisions at 10
                                   CFR 429.64.         CFR 429.64.
10 CFR 431.19 Department of       Moved to 10 CFR     Moved to 10 CFR
 Energy recognition of             429.74.             429.74.
 accreditation bodies.
10 CFR 431.20 Department of       Moved to 10 CFR     Moved to 10 CFR
 Energy recognition of             429.73.             429.73.
 nationally recognized
 certification programs.
10 CFR 431.21 Procedures for      Moved to 10 CFR     Moved to 10 CFR
 recognition and withdrawal of     429.75.             429.75.
 recognition of accreditation
 bodies and certification
 programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the December 2021 NOPR included some revisions in 10 
CFR 429.11 that were not discussed in the NOPR preamble. In this final 
rule, DOE does not implement those changes (other than to update the 
cross-reference to 10 CFR 429.65).

M. Certification of Electric Motors

    Manufacturers must certify electric motors as compliant with the 
applicable standard through the use of an ``independent testing or 
certification program nationally recognized in the United States.'' (42 
U.S.C. 6316(c)) DOE is adopting changes to the provisions related to 
certification testing to ensure consistency with the statutory language 
found in 42 U.S.C. 6316(c). These updates are described in section 
III.M.1 and section III.M.2 of this document.
1. Independent Testing
    DOE codified at 10 CFR 431.17(a)(5) the statutory requirement 
prescribing that manufacturers must certify electric motors as 
compliant with the applicable standard through the use of an 
``independent testing or certification program nationally recognized in 
the United States.'' (42 U.S.C. 6316(c)) In the existing regulations, 
DOE addresses the requirement to use an independent testing program 
nationally recognized in the United States by requiring that testing 
laboratories be accredited by the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (``NIST'')/National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation 
Program (``NVLAP''),\70\ a laboratory accreditation program having a 
mutual recognition program with NIST/NVLAP, or an organization 
classified by DOE as an accreditation body. 10 CFR 431.18. The term 
``accredited laboratory'' is used to designate a testing laboratory to 
which accreditation has been granted. 10 CFR 431.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ A list of NIST/NVLAP accredited laboratories is available 
here: https://www-s.nist.gov/niws/index.cfm?event=directory.results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed that, prior to 180 days 
following the publication of this final rule, in those cases when a 
certification program is not used, certifying a new basic model 
pursuant to 10 CFR 431.36(e) must be based on testing conducted in an 
accredited laboratory that meets the requirements of Sec.  431.18. 
However, on or after 180 days following the publication of this final 
rule, when certifying a new basic model pursuant to 10 CFR 431.36(e) 
and when a certification program is not used, DOE proposed to require 
that testing be conducted by a nationally recognized testing program as 
further described in the remainder of this section. DOE proposed to 
replace the use of the term ``accredited laboratory'' (currently 
defined at 10 CFR 431.12) with the term ``nationally recognized testing 
program'' to better reflect the requirement that the testing program be 
nationally recognized in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(c)) 86 FR 
71710, 71752. DOE further proposed to add a definition for 
``independent'' to appear in 10 CFR 429.2 that would define the term as 
referring to an entity that is not controlled by, or under common 
control with, electric motor manufacturers, importers, private 
labelers, or vendors. It would also require that the entity have no 
affiliation, financial ties, or contractual agreements, apparently or 
otherwise, with such entities that would: (1) Hinder the ability of the 
program to evaluate fully or report the measured or calculated energy 
efficiency of any electric motor, or (2) Create any potential or actual 
conflict of interest that would undermine the validity of said 
evaluation. The proposed definition also provided that for the purposes 
of the proposed definition, financial ties or contractual agreements 
between an electric motor manufacturer, importer, private labeler or 
vendor and a nationally recognized testing program, certification 
program,

[[Page 63628]]

or accreditation program exclusively for testing, certification, or 
accreditation services would not negate an otherwise independent 
relationship. 86 FR 71710, 71752-71753. This proposed definition was 
largely based on the descriptions of independence currently found in 10 
CFR 431.19(b)(2), 431.19(c)(2), 431.20(b)(2) and 431.20(c)(2). DOE 
further proposed to remove these descriptions in their entirety and 
rely solely on the proposed definition of independent that would appear 
in 10 CFR 429.2. 86 FR 71710, 71752-71753. DOE indicated that these 
proposed requirements would apply starting 180 days after publication 
of the final rule.
    In response to the December 2021 NOPR, DOE received many comments 
criticizing the proposal. AI Group strongly opposed not allowing 
accredited manufacturer laboratories to conduct testing and submit 
results for certification. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 7) Franklin 
Electric, Trane, ABB, Regal, CEMEP, AHRI and AHAM, and NEMA all 
commented that requiring the use of third-party testing laboratories 
would add financial and time burdens on manufacturers. Franklin 
Electric opposed requiring manufacturers to certify through a third-
party test facility and stated that imposing the proposed requirement 
to do so would be an expensive burden for motor manufacturers. It 
elaborated that this proposal would be particularly difficult to meet 
in the case of submersible motors because third-party facilities would 
need time to implement the new test procedure and there are currently 
no third-party certification bodies available to test and certify for 
these motors. (Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 6) Trane commented that 
testing all the new in-scope motors at independent facilities would not 
be possible in the timeframe allotted and that testing components of 
covered products creates unnecessary financial and time burdens on 
manufacturers. It added that requiring third-party laboratories to test 
and certify these motors will create a supply bottleneck. (Trane, No. 
31 at p. 7) Regal stated that there are too few third-party labs to 
test the motors that would be added to the test procedure's scope and 
that this testing will create longer lead times and backlogs in an 
already supply-constrained environment. (Regal, No. 28 at p. 1) ABB 
commented that if all motor manufacturers are required to use the 
limited number of external partners (who all have finite testing 
capacity), it believed that the required testing could take longer than 
3 years to complete. ABB commented that the 180-day time frame for 
requiring manufacturers to test at an independent, nationally 
recognized testing facility is unrealistic. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 2) 
Grundfos expressed concern with DOE's proposed definition of 
``independent'' since it would preclude manufacturers from engaging 
with an independent third-party for purposes not related to 
certification--such as prototype testing. Grundfos did not elaborate on 
this point. Grundfos generally agreed, however, with the proposed 
methods of certification. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 8) Advanced Energy 
supported DOE's proposed definition of ``independent.'' (Advanced 
Energy, No. 33 at p. 17)
    The industry trade associations harbored similar concerns. CEMEP 
commented that requiring the use of a third-party laboratory is an 
extreme burden and a trade barrier to manufacturers. It noted the 
potential for higher adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized 
businesses in the form of additional time, effort, and financial and 
administrative costs to meet the proposed requirement, particularly in 
light of the small number of motors that these entities produce for the 
U.S. market. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p. 9) AHAM and AHRI commented that they 
were aware of only three third-party labs and stressed that these labs 
would be unable to handle the magnitude of testing required under DOE's 
proposal, particularly within the specified 180-day timeframe. (AHAM 
and AHRI, No. 36 at p. 9) AHAM and AHRI also commented that the 
proposed certification changes may drive motor manufacturers to limit 
the number of motors currently available to downstream OEMs in an 
effort to reduce testing and certification burdens. AHRI and AHAM 
commented that this development would limit OEM choice, may increase 
costs, and could negatively impact the performance of the end-use 
products. Id. NEMA, in referencing the three third-party certification 
bodies noted by AHRI and AHAM, stressed that these testing entities 
will not have the capacity to handle the inflow of reports and become a 
bottleneck. It strongly opposed not allowing accredited manufacturer 
laboratories to conduct testing and submit results for certification. 
(NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 24, 28) In addition, NEMA noted that third-party 
test labs have lower capacities than in-house manufacturer test labs 
and are only able to test a smaller range of horsepower motors. (NEMA, 
No. 26 at p. 30)
    In addition, AHAM and AHRI stated that because DOE has not provided 
adequate reasoning for its view that NIST/NVLAP-certified labs are not 
sufficiently independent, commenters have been prevented from providing 
meaningful comments on this topic. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at p. 10) 
NEMA commented that DOE should examine potential changes with the 
individual NVLAP, International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation 
(ILAC), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) program if there are 
issues with the certification process and not impose on manufacturers 
without justification and analysis of the burden this change would 
incur. NEMA added that the industry has made investments to participate 
in these programs and that DOE should engage with the parent 
organizations to address its concerns. Industry participates in these 
programs in accordance with the current regulations and should not be 
penalized. NEMA commented that DOE's proposal could be interpreted to 
imply that the Department has lost control of the process and its 
certification database and added that the proposed changes would not 
address systemic failures in oversight, if they exist. NEMA added that 
DOE provided no justification or reasons for this change and cannot add 
this burden without justification and corresponding economic analysis 
of the time and burdens it conveys. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 24)
    EPCA requires that with respect to any electric motor for which 
energy conservation standards are established at 42 U.S.C. 6313(b), the 
Secretary shall require manufacturers to certify, through an 
independent testing or certification program nationally recognized in 
the United States, that such motor meets the applicable standard. (42 
U.S.C. 6316(c)) DOE reviewed the requirements that a testing laboratory 
must meet to obtain NIST/NVLAP accreditation related to proficiency 
testing, resources (e.g., personnel records, specific experience and 
competence of technical manager, competency review, training, 
equipment), process (e.g., selection, verification and validation of 
methods, sampling, reporting results), and management systems (e.g., 
control of records, internal audits).\71\ In addition, NIST/NVLAP 
conducts on-site assessments that consist of an independent, documented 
process for determining laboratory competence and other relevant 
information by NVLAP assessors with the objective of determining the 
extent to which NVLAP

[[Page 63629]]

requirements are fulfilled. Based on this review, DOE has determined 
that NIST/NVALP accreditation is sufficient to satisfy the statutory 
requirement to use an ``independent testing [. . .] nationally 
recognized in the United States'' (42 U.S.C. 6316(c)) and that no 
changes are necessary. Therefore, DOE has decided to not adopt its 
proposal to require the use of an independent testing program and to 
instead to continue permitting the use of accredited labs as currently 
described at 10 CFR 431.17(a)(5). These provisions would be moved, 
consistent with the proposal, to 10 CFR 429.64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See NIST/NVLAP requirement documents at www.nist.gov/nvlap/efficiency-electric-motors-lap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the December 2021 NOPR, DOE did not receive any 
comments on its proposal to replace the descriptions of independence 
currently found in 10 CFR 431.19(b)(2), 431.19(c)(2), 431.20(b)(2) and 
431.20(c)(2) with references to the proposed definition of independent 
as it relates to nationally recognized certification and accreditation 
programs. Id. In this final rule, DOE adopts the proposed definition of 
independent as it relates to nationally recognized certification and 
accreditation programs. DOE is also replacing the descriptions of 
independence currently in 10 CFR 431.19(b)(2), 431.19(c)(2), 
431.20(b)(2) and 431.20(c)(2) by referring to the definition of 
independent.
    In addition to the proposals discussed in the NOPR, DOE notes that 
the current description of the NIST/NVLAP accreditation program at 10 
CFR 431.18(b) and the referenced NIST/NVLAP handbooks and IEC guides 
listed at 10 CFR 431.14 are outdated. The more recent versions of the 
NIST/NVLAP handbooks include references to DOE's latest test procedures 
and replace the references to various IEC guides, which have now been 
withdrawn, by a reference to IEC 17025:2017 ``General Requirements for 
the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories.'' DOE did not 
receive any comments related to these reference documents. In this 
final rule, DOE updates these references to cite their most recent 
versions. (See Table III-9)

        Table III-9--Updated Sources for Information and Guidance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Updated version in final
  Current version listed at 10 CFR 431.14      location at 10 CFR 429.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NVLAP Handbook 150, Procedures and General   NVLAP Handbook 150,
 Requirements, February 2006.                 Procedures and General
                                              Requirements, February
                                              2020.
NVLAP Handbook 150-10, Efficiency of         NVLAP Handbook 150-10,
 Electric Motors, February 2007.              Efficiency of Electric
                                              Motors, February 2020.
NIST Handbook 150-10 Checklist, Efficiency   NIST Handbook 150-10
 of Electric Motors Program, (2007-05-04).    Checklist, (2020-06-25).
NVLAP Lab Bulletin Number: LB-42-2009,       Removed.
 Changes to NVLAP Efficiency of Electric
 Motors Program, March 19, 2009.
ISO/IEC Guide 25, General requirements for   ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General
 the competence of calibration and testing    requirements for the
 laboratories, 1990.                          competence of testing and
ISO Guide 27, Guidelines for corrective       calibration laboratories.
 action to be taken by a certification body
 in the event of either misapplication of
 its mark of conformity to a product, or
 products which bear the mark of the
 certification body being found to subject
 persons or property to risk, 1983..
ISO/IEC Guide 28, General rules for a model
 third-party certification system for
 products, 2004.
ISO/IEC Guide 58, Calibration and testing
 laboratory accreditation systems--General
 requirements for operation and
 recognition, 1993.
ISO/IEC Guide 65, General requirements for
 bodies operating product certification
 systems, 1996.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Certification Process for Electric Motors
    As mentioned previously, DOE codified at 10 CFR 431.17(a)(5) the 
statutory requirement that manufacturers must certify electric motors 
for which energy conservation standards are established at 42 U.S.C. 
6313(b) as compliant with the applicable standard through the use of an 
``independent testing or certification program nationally recognized in 
the United States.'' (42 U.S.C. 6316(c))
    Consistent with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6316(c), DOE proposed 
continuing to permit the use of independent testing (via an 
independent, nationally recognized testing program) or a nationally 
recognized certification program and to further specify which parties 
can test electric motors and certify compliance with the applicable 
energy conservation standards to DOE. DOE proposed that these 
provisions be required starting on the compliance date for any amended 
standards for electric motors published after January 1, 2021, as this 
was the date of the most recent print edition of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. DOE proposed three options in this regard: (1) a 
manufacturer can have the electric motor tested using a nationally 
recognized testing program (as described in the proposed Sec.  
429.64(d)) and then certify on its own behalf or have a third-party 
submit the manufacturer's certification report; (2) a manufacturer can 
test the electric motor at a testing laboratory other than a nationally 
recognized testing program (as described in the proposed Sec.  
429.64(d)) and then have a nationally recognized certification program 
(as described in the proposed Sec.  429.73) certify the efficiency of 
the electric motor; or (3) a manufacturer can use an alternative 
efficiency determination method (``AEDM,'' as described in the proposed 
Sec.  429.70) and then have a third-party nationally recognized 
certification program certify the efficiency of the electric motor. 
Under the proposed regulatory structure, a manufacturer cannot both 
test in its own laboratories and directly submit the certification of 
compliance to DOE for its own electric motors. 86 FR 71710, 71753.
    In response to the December 2021 NOPR, CEMEP commented against the 
three certification options as proposed in the December 2021 NOPR. 
CEMEP commented that the proposed time schedule was not suitable and 
suggested keeping the existing system for transmitting data and testing 
motors. (CEMEP, No. 19 at pp. 9-10) Lennox opposed requiring third-
party certification and stated that it would significantly increase 
burden to HVACR manufacturers without any benefit to the consumer. 
(Lennox, No. 24 at p. 9) NEMA also opposed the three proposed 
certification options and stressed that

[[Page 63630]]

NEMA opposed any proposal that would prevent certification through 
accredited laboratories operated by manufacturers. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 
24) Advanced Energy supported the three offered motor certification 
options and saw them as being consistent with other motor 
certifications related to safety or efficiency that manufacturers must 
satisfy in other countries. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 17)
    As already noted, this final rule will not require testing at an 
independent testing program and continues to allow the use of an 
accredited laboratory for testing and certification purposes. 
Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is revising its proposed Option (1) 
to reflect its current practice (detailed at 10 CFR 431.17(5)) by 
allowing a manufacturer to test an electric motor using an accredited 
laboratory (as described at 10 CFR 431.18) and then to certify that 
motor on its own behalf or have a third-party submit the manufacturer's 
certification report. DOE is adopting Option (2) as proposed, which is 
consistent with the current provisions at 10 CFR 431.17(5)--no changes 
are being made to the current manner in which a manufacturer who 
conducts testing at a non-accredited lab must certify its electric 
motor. As to Option (3), DOE does not view the requirements of an AEDM 
as satisfying the statutory requirement of ``independence.'' Therefore, 
DOE believes that when using an AEDM, the results of the AEDM must be 
certified by a third-party certification program that is nationally 
recognized in the United States under the newly adopted Sec.  429.73.
    In summary, consistent with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6316(c), 
DOE continues to offer the option of using independent testing (via an 
accredited laboratory) or a nationally recognized certification program 
and further specifies which parties can test electric motors and 
certify compliance with the applicable energy conservation standards to 
DOE. This final rule specifies three options in this regard: (1) a 
manufacturer can have the electric motor tested using an accredited 
laboratory (as described at 10 CFR 431.18) and then certify on its own 
behalf or have a third-party submit the manufacturer's certification 
report; (2) a manufacturer can test the electric motor at a testing 
laboratory other than an accredited laboratory (as described at 10 CFR 
431.18) and then have a nationally recognized certification program (as 
described in the newly established Sec.  429.73) certify the efficiency 
of the electric motor; or (3) a manufacturer can use an alternative 
efficiency determination method (``AEDM,'' as described in Sec.  
429.70) and then have a third-party nationally recognized certification 
program certify the efficiency of the electric motor. Under this 
structure, a manufacturer would retain the ability to test in its own 
laboratories and directly submit the certification of compliance to DOE 
for its own electric motors as long as the laboratory is an accredited 
laboratory in accordance with 10 CFR 431.18, 429.64(f) and 429.65(d).
    In addition, DOE proposed that these provisions would be required 
starting on the compliance date for any new or amended standards for 
electric motors. DOE is adopting this timeline as proposed and believes 
this timeline and combination of three options will provide sufficient 
time and alternatives for manufacturers. In addition, the compliance 
date to certify using these three options would be on or after the 
compliance date of the final rule adopting new or amended energy 
conservation standards for electric motors, Any associated costs 
related to these aspects of this final rule will be addressed in 
conjunction with any potential energy conservation standards rulemaking 
that DOE conducts for these affected electric motors. (See section 
III.Q of this document for more details related to test procedure costs 
and impacts).
    In response to the December 2021 NOPR, NEMA stated that DOE should 
invest in an AEDM certification body that is independent from the 
current facility that also offers AEDM services for manufacturers who 
may not have the resources to develop their own AEDM because of the 
conflict of interest that comes with the same entity being both a 
certifier and provider of AEDMs. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 29-30)
    DOE is not aware of any third-party, nationally recognized 
certification body that would develop AEDMs and conduct AEDM 
simulations on behalf of manufacturers and also certify the resulting 
efficiencies. In addition, the current regulations at 10 CFR 431.20 
require that a nationally recognized certification program must be 
independent of electric motor manufacturers, importers, distributors, 
private labelers or vendors. It cannot be affiliated with, have 
financial ties with, be controlled by, or be under common control with 
any such entity. 10 CFR 431.20(b)(2) In addition, any petitioning 
organization should identify and describe any relationship, direct or 
indirect, that it or the certification program has with an electric 
motor manufacturer, importer, distributor, private labeler, vendor, 
trade association or other such entity, as well as any other 
relationship it believes might appear to create a conflict of interest 
for the certification program in operating a certification system for 
compliance by electric motors with energy efficiency standards. It 
should explain why it believes such a relationship would not compromise 
its independence in operating a certification program. 10 CFR 
431.20(c)(2). As previously noted, in this final rule, DOE is adopting 
a definition of ``independent'' as it pertains to certification program 
(and nationally recognized accreditation program) that requires that 
the entity be not controlled by, or under common control with, electric 
motor manufacturers, importers, private labelers, or vendors, and that 
has no affiliation, financial ties, or contractual agreements, 
apparently or otherwise, with such entities that would: (1) hinder the 
ability of the program to evaluate fully or report the measured or 
calculated energy efficiency of any electric motor, or (2) create any 
potential or actual conflict of interest that would undermine the 
validity of said evaluation. Therefore, the adopted definition of 
``independent'' sufficiently addresses NEMA's concern. DOE notes the 
requirement to be independent ensures that the entity conducting the 
AEDM for a basic model would not be the same as the entity certifying 
that same basic model. Further as noted previously, this final rule 
requires that when a manufacturer relies on an AEDM, a third-party 
nationally recognized certification program must certify the efficiency 
of the electric motor.
    NEMA also questioned who would be responsible for certification in 
the case of a motor and inverter being sold together, particularly when 
they are manufactured by separate companies. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 17) 
DOE's test procedure applies to the inverter motor. The motor 
manufacturer would be responsible for testing and certifying the motor, 
based on the test procedure established in this final rule.
    AHAM and AHRI commented that the changes proposed in the NOPR 
expanded the definition of ``manufacturer'' and questioned whether OEMs 
that attach, for example, an impeller to an otherwise finished air-over 
motor would be considered the manufacturer responsible for 
certification. AHAM and AHRI commented that, in the case of any 
finished goods manufactured overseas, DOE's proposal would treat the 
OEM as the electric motor manufacturer, and they opposed this change. 
(AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at p. 11).

[[Page 63631]]

    DOE's proposals did not change the definition of manufacturer. The 
manufacturer of the motor would be responsible for certification. 
Electric motors are comprised of several primary components that 
include a rotor, stator, stator windings, stator frame, two endshields, 
two bearings, and a shaft. As stated in section III.A.9, DOE continues 
to exclude component sets from the scope of the test procedure. A 
component set of an electric motor comprises any combination of these 
motor parts that does not form an operable motor. For example, a 
component set may consist of a wound stator and rotor component sold 
without a stator housing, endshields, or shaft. These components may be 
sold with the intention of having the motor parts mounted inside other 
equipment, with the equipment providing the necessary mounting and 
rotor attachments for the components to operate in a manner similar to 
a stand-alone electric motor. Component sets may also be sold with the 
intention of a third-party using the components to construct a 
complete, stand-alone motor. In such cases, the end manufacturer that 
``completes'' the motor's construction must certify that the motor 
meets any pertinent standards. (See 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)(10) (defining 
``manufacture'' to include manufacture, produce, assemble, or import.))

N. Determination of Represented Values

    For electric motors subject to standards, DOE established sampling 
requirements applicable to the determination of the nominal full-load 
efficiency. 10 CFR 431.17. The purpose of these sampling plans is to 
provide uniform statistical methods for determining compliance with any 
prescribed energy conservation standards and for making representations 
of energy consumption and energy efficiency on labels and in other 
locations such as marketing materials. The current regulations require 
that each basic model must either be tested or rated using an AEDM. 10 
CFR 431.17(a). Section 431.17 specifies the requirements for use of an 
AEDM, including requirements for substantiation (i.e., the initial 
validation) and verification of an AEDM. 10 CFR 431.17(a)(2)-(4).
    DOE is adopting several edits to the current regulatory language to 
revise the existing requirements that manufacturers must follow when 
determining the represented value of nominal full-load efficiency of a 
basic model. The revised provisions regarding the determination of the 
represented value of nominal full-load efficiency, certification 
provisions, and the validation and verification of an AEDM, consistent 
with DOE's overall approach for consolidating the locations of its 
certification and compliance provisions, will be placed in 10 CFR 
429.64 and 429.70. In addition, the revised provisions regarding the 
determination of the represented value of nominal full-load efficiency, 
enforcement provisions, and the validation and verification of an AEDM 
will also apply to the newly-added electric motors now falling within 
the scope of the test procedure in those cases where a manufacturer of 
such motors would be required to use the DOE test procedure. These 
provisions are discussed in more detail in sections III.N.1 through 
III.N.4 of this document.
1. Nominal Full-Load Efficiency
    DOE defines ``nominal full-load efficiency,'' with respect to an 
electric motor, as a representative value of efficiency selected from 
the ``nominal efficiency'' column of Table 12-10, NEMA MG 1-2009, that 
is not greater than the average full-load efficiency of a population of 
motors of the same design. (10 CFR 431.12) As proposed in the December 
2021 NOPR, DOE is not adopting any changes to this definition other 
than updating the reference to the latest version of NEMA MG 1 as 
discussed in section III.C of this document. 86 FR 71710, 71754. DOE 
discusses how to determine the average full-load efficiency of a basic 
model in the following sections. See 10 CFR 429.64(e) as established by 
this final rule.
    Manufacturers currently rely on the nominal full-load efficiency to 
represent the performance of electric motor basic models. In the 
December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to allow manufacturers to 
alternatively use the average full-load efficiency of a basic model of 
electric motor as the represented efficiency (instead of the nominal 
full-load efficiency) provided that the manufacturer uses the average 
full-load efficiency consistently on all marketing materials, and as 
the efficiency value reported on the nameplate. This proposed provision 
would apply starting on the compliance date for any new or amended 
standards for electric motors published after January 1, 2021. 86 FR 
71754
    Grundfos, a pump manufacturer, supported allowing average full-load 
efficiency to be an alternate to represented value as long as both 
nominal and average full-load efficiency do not need to be declared on 
the nameplate (i.e., a manufacturer can post one or the other) 
(Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 9) NEMA opposed using average full-load 
efficiency as alternative represented values for electric motors 
because it would be inconsistent with harmonizing North American, IEC, 
and other global standards and regulatory practices. (NEMA, No. 26 at 
p. 27)
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed this alternative as an option to allow 
manufacturers to rate less conservatively than potentially required by 
the use of a nominal full-load efficiency value. The current DOE 
standards for electric motors are based on nominal full load 
efficiency. 10 CFR 431.25. Further, as suggested by NEMA, the current 
IEC classification of motor efficiency (i.e., the ``IE-code'') in IEC 
60034-30-1 is also based on nominal efficiency limits. Therefore, in 
this final rule, DOE is not adopting the proposed approach to allow 
manufacturers to alternatively use the average full-load efficiency of 
a basic model of electric motor as the represented efficiency (instead 
of the nominal full-load efficiency). DOE is maintaining its current 
approach to remain in alignment with harmonized international 
standards.
2. Testing: Use of an Accredited Laboratory
    Manufacturers who do not use a certification program and test basic 
models in an accredited laboratory must follow the criteria for 
selecting units for testing, including a minimum sample size of five 
(5) units in most cases, as specified at 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2). The 
sample of units must be large enough to account for reasonable 
manufacturing variability among individual units of the basic model or 
variability in the test methodology such that the test results for the 
overall sample will be reasonably representative of the average full-
load efficiency of the whole population of production units of that 
basic model. DOE notes that the current regulations do not limit the 
sample size and manufacturers can increase their sample size to narrow 
the margin of error.
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed that manufacturers continue 
to follow the current provisions in 10 CFR 431.17 (including the 
formula at 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2)(i)) related to the determination of the 
represented value. Manufacturers would continue to follow this 
procedure until DOE amends its electric motor standards. However, DOE 
proposed to move these provisions in the newly proposed Sec. Sec.  
429.64(b) and 429.64(c). In addition, starting on the compliance date 
for any new or amended standards for any electric motors published 
after January 1, 2021, DOE proposed that manufacturers

[[Page 63632]]

follow the amended provisions in accordance with the newly proposed 
Sec. Sec.  429.64(d) through 429.64(f). 86 FR 71710, 71754.
    NEMA disagreed with the proposed change of the mathematical symbol 
given in the second formula in the current regulation at 10 CFR 
431.17(b)(2)(i), which DOE proposed to move to 10 CFR 429.64. 
Specifically, it disagreed with the proposed symbol change from 
``greater than or equal to'' to ``equal to'' and argued that the 
original equation and ``greater than or equal to'' symbol should be 
restored. (NEMA No. 26, at p. 29)
    DOE reviewed the formula in the December 2021 NOPR and identified a 
typographical error. As stated in the December 2021 NOPR, prior to the 
compliance date for any new or amended standards for electric motors 
published after January 1, 2021, DOE proposed that manufacturers 
continue to follow the current provisions in 10 CFR 431.17 related to 
the determination of the represented value. In addition, DOE proposed 
to move these provisions to the newly proposed Sec. Sec.  429.64(b) and 
429.64(c). 86 FR 71710, 71754. DOE's intent was to move the provisions 
from 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2)(i) to 429.64 without modification. In this 
final rule, based on the feedback from NEMA, DOE is revising the second 
formula in Sec.  429.64(c)(2)(i) to match the second formula in the 
current regulation Sec.  431.17(b)(2)(i) by replacing the ``equal to'' 
sign with a ``greater than or equal to'' sign.
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed that the average full-load 
efficiency of a basic model would be the arithmetic mean of the tested 
efficiencies of a sample of electric motors. The average full-load 
efficiency of a basic model is determined using the definition of 
``average full-load efficiency''--i.e., the arithmetic mean of the 
full-load efficiencies of a population of electric motors of duplicate 
design. 10 CFR 431.12. This requirement would need to be met starting 
on the compliance date for any new or amended standards for electric 
motors published after January 1, 2021, DOE proposed to add regulatory 
text to implement the definition of ``average full-load efficiency'' 
such that, when conducting testing, the average full-load efficiency of 
a basic model would be calculated as the arithmetic mean of the full-
load efficiencies of a sample of electric motors selected in accordance 
with the sampling requirements at 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2). In addition, in 
the case of manufacturers making representations of energy efficiency 
starting on the compliance date of any new or amended standards for any 
electric motors that DOE may set, DOE proposed to remove the equations 
at 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2)(i)-(ii).\72\ Finally, to ensure a high level of 
quality control and consistency of testing performance within the basic 
model, DOE proposed to add a requirement to verify that no motor tested 
would be able to sustain losses exceeding 15 percent of those permitted 
by the applicable energy conservation standard. 86 FR 71710, 71755.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ The equation at Sec.  431.17(b)(2)(i) currently allows 
manufacturers to select a value of nominal full-load efficiency that 
is greater than the average of the tested full-load efficiency of a 
sample of electric motors and corresponds to 5 percent losses less 
than the average losses of the sample. The equation at Sec.  
431.17(b)(2)(ii) verifies that no motor in the sample has losses 
exceeding 15 percent of the losses corresponding to the nominal 
full-load efficiency. Note: Motor losses (L) and efficiency (Eff) of 
motor of a given horsepower (hp) are related by the following 
equation: L = hp (1/Eff-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ABB commented that if the currently permitted five percent 
additional loss allowance is eliminated, then the sample size required 
to predict the nominal efficiency with a high degree of probability 
would increase from five motors to over 100 motors and would take years 
to complete. (ABB, No. 18 at p. 2) CEMEP stated that the new 
statistical allowances would require multiple years to comply with and 
need a wholesale redesign of entire product portfolios. (CEMEP, No. 19 
at p. 10) NEMA opposed the changes to the sampling plan at 10 CFR 
429.64(e)(1) and commented that the additional test burden would be 
unmanageable, or that manufacturers would be required to redesign most 
or all of their existing basic models to a higher average efficiency 
level to maintain compliance. NEMA commented that the proposal in 10 
CFR 429.64(e)(1) to remove the five percent loss allowance permitted in 
10 CFR 431.17(b)(2) for the average of the samples relative to the 
represented efficiency forces a need for the samples chosen to estimate 
the mean value of efficiency of the basic model population with a low 
margin of error. NEMA commented that an increase in the number of 
required sample motors from the present value of 5 to an estimated 
value of approximately 120 to 140 would be required to estimate the 
average of the population within a margin of error of 0.05. 
Alternatively, NEMA commented that to maintain a sample size of 5 
units, a redesign of existing basic models would be required to achieve 
an increase in average population efficiency that is estimated to be 
between 50 and 62.5 percent of a nominal efficiency band. NEMA believed 
forcing this redesign would be outside of the scope of a test procedure 
rulemaking and would need to be done through an energy conservation 
standards rulemaking where the economic justification and technological 
feasibility are assessed. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 2, 24-27) NEMA provided 
the results of several statistical simulations to support their 
comments in appendix A and B of their comments. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 
31-44)
    The Joint Advocates supported the proposed requirement that an 
electric motor's represented nominal efficiency be less than or equal 
to the average efficiency based on testing. Specifically, the Joint 
Advocates supported DOE's proposal that the nominal full-load 
efficiency of a basic model must be less or equal to the average full-
load efficiency determined either through testing or AEDM. (Joint 
Advocates, No. 27 at p. 5) Grundfos agreed with DOE's proposal to 
specify how to determine the nominal full-load efficiency of a basic 
model when the average efficiency of that basic model is known. 
Grundfos further agreed with DOE's proposal to require that 
manufacturers must calculate the average full-load efficiency of a 
basic model as the arithmetic mean of the full-load efficiencies of a 
sample of electric motors starting on the compliance date for any new 
or amended electric motor standards. Grundfos further supported DOE's 
proposal to add a requirement that no electric motor tested in the 
sample has losses exceeding 15 percent of those permitted by the 
applicable energy conservation standard. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 9)
    DOE reviewed NEMA's statistical analysis, which purported to show 
that an increase of up to approximately 120 to 140 units would be 
required to ensure that the average of a sample is greater than or 
equal to the average of the population within a margin of 5 percent. 
(NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 31-32) That analysis showed that a sample of 120-
140 units would be required in order to estimate the 95th percentile 
value of the population, within a margin of 5 percent. It does not show 
that a sample of 120-140 units would be required to obtain an average 
value that is equal to the average of the population within a 5 percent 
tolerance. DOE is not requiring manufacturers to provide an average 
value that is equal to the average of the population within a 5 percent 
tolerance (see discussion related to DOE' typical sampling plans in the 
remainder of this section). Therefore, DOE disagrees that testing of 
over a hundred units would be required.
    In addition, DOE reviewed the statistical analysis provided by NEMA

[[Page 63633]]

to support its view that removing the 5 percent tolerance on a basic 
model currently rated at 95 percent would require redesigning the 
motors from an average efficiency of 95.076 (average of the population 
required to meet the current 5 percent tolerance) to 95.316 (average of 
the population required if the 5 percent tolerance is removed) in order 
to ensure, based on a 97.5 percent confidence level, that a randomly 
selected 5-sample set drawn from the population will have a sample mean 
greater than or equal to 95 percent. NEMA did not provide any data to 
support the actual shape of the distribution and its analysis is based 
on a hypothetical population distribution, with a known mean and 
standard deviation while, in reality, the mean of the population is 
unknown. Assuming the same hypothetical statistical distribution as 
presented by NEMA applies, DOE agrees that to ensure that any randomly 
selected 5-sample set drawn from the population will have a sample mean 
greater than or equal to 95 percent, the mean of the population would 
have to be greater than 95 percent. However, DOE is not requiring that 
all samples (or 97.5 percent of all samples) of a basic model rated at 
95 percent full-load nominal efficiency have an average value of full-
load efficiency that is less than or equal to 95 percent.\73\ DOE 
emphasizes that not every, individual unit of a motor basic model must 
be at or above the standard; however, the represented nominal 
efficiency must not exceed the population mean. In view of the comments 
received, DOE believes stakeholders may be confusing the provisions 
used to determine the represented value of a basic model at 10 CFR 
431.17 (b)(2) with the formulas used by DOE to determine if a basic 
model is in compliance in 10 CFR part 431, appendix A to subpart U. DOE 
imposes one set of sampling provisions for manufacturers to use when 
rating their products and a second separate set of sampling provisions 
for DOE to use when evaluating the compliance of those products. The 
sampling provisions for determining a represented value (e.g., nominal 
efficiency) reflect the fact that an important function of represented 
values is to inform prospective purchasers how efficiently various 
products operate. In light of that purpose, DOE designed the regulation 
with respect to represented value so that purchasers are more likely 
than not to buy a unit that actually performs as efficiently as 
advertised. The enforcement statistical formulas are designed to 
determine if a basic model is compliant with the applicable energy 
conservation standard, and are weighted in favor of the manufacturer to 
minimize the likelihood of erroneous noncompliance determinations. The 
certification statistical formulas are designed to protect purchasers; 
the enforcement statistical formulas are designed to protect 
manufacturers. The enforcement statistical formulas for electric motors 
are in 10 CFR part 431, appendix A to subpart U. DOE did not propose, 
and is not adopting, any changes to these provisions. In other words, 
while DOE proposed changes in the formulas used to determine the 
represented value of a basic model, DOE did not propose to change how 
the compliance of a given basic model is determined. The compliance or 
non-compliance of a basic model would remain unchanged by the 
publication of this final rule. Therefore, DOE disagrees with NEMA that 
basic model redesigns would be required to ensure compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Assuming a normal distribution, if an infinite number of 5-
sample sets are drawn, 50 percent will have an average at or above 
the population average, and 50 percent will fall at or below the 
population average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the current formulas used to determine the represented values 
of a basic model, a basic model could have a represented value of 
nominal efficiency that equals or exceeds the current energy 
conservation standard levels but fails the compliance test in 
accordance with the existing formulas at 10 CFR part 431, appendix A to 
subpart U. DOE cannot allow manufacturers to make valid representations 
of nominal full-load efficiency of a basic model for which the average 
efficiency of a manufacturer's production is less than the represented 
value. The risk of a product or equipment being falsely determined to 
be out of compliance (manufacturer's risk) is balanced against the risk 
of a product being inaccurately represented (consumer's risk) by 
establishing a reasonable sampling and testing regime. While the 
stakeholders' recommendation to rely on a 5 percent tolerance would 
reduce manufacturer risk, DOE is concerned that it would give rise to 
too high a risk that a manufacturer may state a nominal efficiency for 
a basic model that is greater than the actual population mean for that 
model, or that a manufacturer may state a nominal efficiency for a 
basic model that is equal to or greater than the current energy 
conservation standard level while the basic model fails the compliance 
test at 10 CFR part 431, appendix A to subpart U.
    The average (or ``mean'') full-load efficiency of the population is 
unknown but can be estimated using confidence limits for the mean, 
which are an interval estimate for the mean. The design of the sampling 
plan is intended to determine an accurate assessment of product or 
equipment performance, within specified confidence limits, without 
imposing an undue testing or economic burden on manufacturers. 
Different samples from the same population will generate different 
values for the sample average. An interval estimate quantifies this 
uncertainty in the sample estimate by computing lower and upper 
confidence limits (``LCL'' and ``UCL'') of an interval (centered on the 
average of the sample) which will, with a given level of confidence, 
contain the population average. Instead of a single estimate for the 
average of the population (i.e., the average of the sample), a 
confidence interval generates a lower and upper limit for the average 
of the population. The interval estimate indicates how much uncertainty 
there is in the estimate of the average of the population.\74\ 
Confidence limits are expressed in terms of a confidence coefficient. 
For covered equipment and products, the confidence coefficient 
typically ranges from 90 to 99 percent.\75\ The confidence coefficient 
(e.g., 97.5 percent) means that if an infinite number of samples are 
collected, and the confidence interval computed, 97.5 percent of these 
intervals would contain the average of the population. In other words, 
although the average of the entire population is not known, there is a 
high probability (97.5 percent confidence level) that it is greater 
than or equal to the LCL and less than or equal to the UCL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods, https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda352.htm.
    \75\ 10 CFR part 429 outlines sampling plans for certification 
testing for product or equipment covered by EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure that the represented value of efficiency is no greater 
than the population average, the sampling plans for determination of 
the represented value typically consist of testing a representative 
sample to ensure that any represented value of energy efficiency is no 
greater than the lower of the average of the sample (x), or the LCL 
divided by a constant ``K''. The degree of confidence level associated 
with the LCL and the value of K varies by product or equipment type and 
are selected based on an expected level of variability in product 
performance and

[[Page 63634]]

measurement uncertainty.\76\ 10 CFR part 429, subpart B. Requiring that 
the represented value be less than or equal to the LCL ensures that the 
represented value of efficiency is no greater than the population 
average. DOE divides the LCL by K to provide additional tolerance to 
account for variability in product performance and measurement 
uncertainty.\77\ The comparison with the average of the sample further 
ensures that if the quotient of the LCL divided by K is greater than x, 
the represented value is established using average of the sample. DOE 
relies on a one-sided confidence limit to provide the option for 
manufacturers to rate more conservatively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ The confidence level associated with the LCL, typically 
ranges from 90 to 99 percent, while K, an adjustment factor, 
typically ranges from 0.9 to 0.99.
    \77\ For example, if DOE expects that the variability for 
measured performance is within a margin of 3 percent, DOE will use a 
K value of 0.97. See for example 79 FR 32019, 32037 (June 3, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For electric motors, with a given sample and sample average, the 
average of the population (X) is unknown but can be estimated using the 
LCL and UCL interval (LCL <= x <= UCL). Because the average of the 
population is greater than or equal to LCL, while the average full-load 
efficiency of the population is unknown, requiring that the represented 
value be less than or equal to the LCL would ensure that the 
represented value of efficiency (i.e., the nominal full-load 
efficiency) is no greater than the population average, as required by 
the definition of nominal full-load efficiency. Instead, as previously 
discussed, DOE proposed to require that the represented value be less 
than or equal to the average of the sample. Because the average of the 
sample is greater than the LCL,\78\ this proposal is less stringent 
than requiring that the represented value be less than or equal to the 
LCL, and provides additional tolerance to manufacturers while balancing 
the risk that an electric motor has a represented value that is higher 
than the population average. In addition, if a manufacturer believes 
that a given random 5-unit sample set does not lead to a full-load 
efficiency rating that is representative of the population, the 
manufacturer can increase the size of the sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ By definition, the confidence interval is such that LCL <= 
x <= UCL, where x is the average of the sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, while the average full-load efficiency of the 
population is unknown, DOE believes requiring that the nominal full-
load efficiency be less than or equal to the average of the sample 
satisfies the requirements of ``nominal full-load efficiency'' as 
defined, while balancing the manufacturer's risk against the consumer's 
risk. Therefore, DOE is adopting the requirement that manufacturers 
determine the nominal full-load efficiency of a basic model, as a 
representative value of efficiency selected from the ``nominal 
efficiency'' column of Table 12-10, NEMA MG 1-2009, that is not greater 
than the average full-load efficiency of a basic model. This 
requirement would apply starting on the compliance date for any new or 
amended electric motor standards final rule that published after 
January 1, 2021, to all electric motors subject to energy conservation 
standards regardless of whether the final rule prescribes new or 
amended energy conservation standards for certain electric motors. DOE 
further specifies in this rule that the average full-load efficiency of 
a basic model is the arithmetic mean of tested efficiencies of a sample 
of electric motors. In addition, DOE is removing the equations at 10 
CFR 431.17(b)(2)(i)-(ii). Id.
    NEMA stated that manufacturers must use the most recent test 
procedure once implemented and thus the changes to 10 CFR 429.64(e)(1) 
would be implemented 180 days after the test procedure final rule and 
not whenever the energy conservation standards were finalized. (NEMA, 
No. 26 at p. 25) NEMA commented that any changes that would require 
currently certified electric motors to be retested and recertified once 
new test procedures come into effect, which as proposed is 180 days, 
would be untenable. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 5)
    As previously stated, in the December 2021 NOPR, prior to the 
compliance date for any new or amended standards for electric motors 
published after January 1, 2021, DOE proposed that manufacturers of 
electric motors currently subject to energy conservation standards 
would continue to follow the current provisions in 10 CFR 431.17 (now 
moving to 10 CFR 429.64) that relate to the determination of a motor's 
represented value. This final rule adopts the same timeline and 
requirements--specifically, the provisions in 10 CFR 429.64(e)(1) for 
electric motors currently subject to energy conservation standards 
would only become mandatory once new or amended energy conservation 
standards are established (for any category of electric motors subject 
to energy conservation standards, regardless of whether the final rule 
prescribes new or amended energy conservation standards for certain 
electric motors). As noted previously, while DOE proposed changes in 
the formulas used to determine the represented value of a basic model, 
DOE did not propose changing how the compliance of a given basic model 
would be determined. In addition, DOE notes that manufacturers of 
electric motors that are not currently subject to energy conservation 
standards would not be required to use the test procedure for Federal 
certification or labeling purposes, until such time as new or amended 
energy conservation standards are established for such electric motors. 
However, if manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and private 
labelers choose to make any representations respecting the energy 
consumption or cost of energy consumed by such motors, then such 
voluntary representations must be made in accordance with the test 
procedure and sampling requirements adopted at 10 CFR 429.64(e).
3. Testing: Use of a Nationally Recognized Certification Program
    For manufacturers using a nationally recognized certification 
program as described in 10 CFR 431.17(a)(5), the selection and sampling 
requirements are typically specified in the certification program's 
operational documents but are not always described in detail. In the 
December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed additional requirements to ensure that 
the certification program follows the provisions proposed in 10 CFR 
429.64, as well as the AEDM validation procedures, and periodic AEDM 
verification procedures proposed in 10 CFR 429.70(i). DOE intended for 
these proposals to ensure consistency between basic model ratings 
obtained with and without the use of a certification program and would 
have no impact on how nationally certification programs operate. 86 FR 
71710, 71755.
    Advanced Energy supported the proposed requirements to ensure that 
the certification program follows the provisions proposed in 10 CFR 
429.64. Advanced Energy stated that this requirement was consistent 
with its certification scheme (which follows the existing AEDM 
regulation in 10 CFR 431.17) and would not change the manner in which 
it currently conducts its testing. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p.18) 
Grundfos agreed with the proposal to add the provisions in 10 CFR 
429.64 and 429.70(i) to the requirements that a nationally recognized 
certification program must satisfy. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 9) NEMA 
disagreed with the requirement due to its relationship with other 
provisions that would prevent a manufacturer from certifying through 
the use of its nationally accredited laboratory. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 
28)

[[Page 63635]]

    The proposal to require that nationally recognized certification 
program follow the sampling provisions proposed in 10 CFR 429.64, as 
well as the AEDM validation procedures, and periodic AEDM verification 
procedures proposed in 10 CFR 429.70(i) is unrelated to the three 
certification requirement options discussed in section III.M.2. of this 
document. Therefore, DOE is adopting the proposed additional 
requirements to ensure that the certification program follows the 
provisions proposed in 10 CFR 429.64, as well as the AEDM validation 
procedures, and periodic AEDM verification procedures in 10 CFR 
429.70(j).\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ The AEDM validation procedures for electric motors that DOE 
proposed for 10 CFR 429.70(i) in the December 2021 NOPR are being 
adopted at 10 CFR 429.70(j) in this rule. After the December 2021 
NOPR, a separate rule published on July 22, 2022, added provisions 
at 10 CFR 429.70(i). 87 FR 45195. Accordingly, the AEDM validation 
procedures are renumbered in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, after any updates to DOE's electric motors 
regulations, DOE proposed that, within one year of publication of the 
final rule, all certification programs must either submit a letter to 
DOE certifying that no change to their program is needed, or submit a 
letter describing the measures implemented to ensure the criteria in 
the proposed 10 CFR 429.73(b) are met. If a certification program 
submits a letter describing updates to their program, DOE proposed that 
the current certification program would still be recognized until DOE 
evaluates any newly implemented measures and decides otherwise. 86 FR 
71710, 71755.
    In response, Advanced Energy stated that it follows the sampling 
and minimum test requirements as prescribed, and that it is beneficial 
to have consistency across all motor efficiency certification body 
schemes. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 18) DOE did not receive any 
additional comments on this issue and is adopting its proposal to 
require that, within one year of publication of the final rule, all 
certification programs must either submit a letter to DOE certifying 
that no change to their program is needed, or submit a letter 
describing the measures implemented to ensure the criteria in the 
proposed Sec.  429.73(b) are met. If a certification program submits a 
letter describing updates to their program, the current certification 
program would still be recognized until DOE evaluates any newly 
implemented measures and decides otherwise.
4. Use of an AEDM
    Section 431.17 also specifies the requirements for using an AEDM 
(10 CFR 431.17(a)(2)), including requirements for substantiation (i.e., 
the initial validation) (10 CFR 431.17(a)(3), 10 CFR 431.17(b)(3)) and 
subsequent verification of an AEDM (10 CFR 431.17(a)(4)). Those 
requirements ensure the accuracy and reliability of the AEDM both prior 
to use and then through ongoing verification checks on the estimated 
efficiency.
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to replace the term 
``substantiation'' with the term ``validation'' to better align the 
relevant terminology with the AEDM provisions in 10 CFR 429.70. 86 FR 
71710, 71755. DOE did not receive any comments on this topic and is 
amending its regulations to replace the term ``substantiation'' with 
the term ``validation.''
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE also proposed to modify one of the 
requirements for AEDM validation. Currently, the provisions in 10 CFR 
431.17(a)(3)(ii) require that the simulated full-load losses for each 
basic model selected for AEDM validation testing must be within plus or 
minus ten percent of the average full-load losses determined from the 
testing of that basic model.\80\ DOE proposed to change that language 
to a one-sided 10 percent tolerance to allow manufacturers flexibility 
when choosing to rely on a more conservative AEDM. (i.e., the simulated 
full-load losses for each basic model selected for AEDM validation 
testing, calculated by applying the AEDM, must be greater or equal to 
90 percent of the average full-load losses determined from the testing 
of that basic model). This proposal would not require manufacturers to 
update their AEDMs and basic model ratings. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ The output of the AEDM is the average full-load efficiency 
of the basic model. The represented value of nominal full-load 
efficiency is obtained by applying the provisions discussed in 
section III.N.1 of this document. The average full-load losses 
predicted by the AEDM can be calculated as hp x (1/Eff-1) where hp 
is the motor horsepower and Eff is the average full-load efficiency 
predicted by the AEDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the December 2021 NOPR, Grundfos agreed with the 
proposed validation requirements for AEDMs. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 9) 
DOE did not receive any additional comments on this proposal. 
Consequently, it is adopting the proposed one-sided tolerance 
requirement for the reasons discussed as proposed.
    In addition, DOE proposed to specify how to obtain the nominal 
full-load efficiency of a basic model using the simulated full-load 
efficiency of that basic model determined through the application of an 
AEDM: the nominal full-load efficiency of a basic model must be less 
than or equal to the simulated full-load efficiency of that basic model 
determined through the application of an AEDM. 86 FR 71710, 71754. DOE 
did not receive any comments on this issue. As a result, it is adopting 
its proposal to require that when using an AEDM, the nominal full-load 
efficiency of a basic model must be less than or equal to the simulated 
full-load efficiency of that basic model determined through the 
application of an AEDM.
    Paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 431.17 provides further clarity regarding 
testing if a certification program is not used. Basic models used to 
validate an AEDM must be selected for testing in accordance with 
paragraph (b)(1), and units of each such basic model must be tested in 
accordance with paragraph (b)(2). 10 CFR 431.17(b)(3). Paragraph (b)(1) 
explains the criteria for selecting a minimum of 5 basic models for 
certification testing (in an accredited laboratory) to validate an 
AEDM. Paragraph (b)(2) provides the criteria for selecting units for 
testing, which includes a minimum sample size of 5 units in most 
cases.\81\ For manufacturers using AEDMs, paragraph (b)(2) applies to 
those basic models selected for validating the AEDM. Paragraph (b)(3) 
also explains that the motors tested to validate an AEDM must either be 
in a certification program or must have been tested in an accredited 
laboratory. 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ As discussed previously and in the remainder of this 
section, the provisions for selecting units within a basic model and 
minimum sample size described in paragraph 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2) apply 
to three different situations: when (1) testing at an accredited 
laboratory; (2) using an AEDM and selecting units for substantiating 
the AEDM; and (3) using an AEDM and selecting units for periodic 
verification testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise the current 
regulatory language to specify that, when manufacturers use an 
accredited laboratory or a nationally recognized testing program for 
testing the basic models used to validate the AEDM, the selection 
criteria and sampling requirements as described in paragraph (b)(2) 
apply, including the requirement to select a minimum of 5 basic models 
that must comply with the energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 
431.25 (if any exist). In addition, when using an accredited laboratory 
or nationally recognized testing program for testing, DOE proposed that 
the average full-load

[[Page 63636]]

efficiency of each basic model selected to validate the AEDM must be 
determined based on the provisions discussed in section III.N.2. 
Further, to reduce testing burden, DOE proposed to replace the 
requirement in paragraph (b)(1) that two of the basic models must be 
among the five basic models with the highest unit volumes of production 
by the manufacturer in ``the prior year'' with the phrase in ``the 
prior 5 years''. The extension from 1 year to 5 years would reduce 
testing burden in the case of a year-to-year variation in the basic 
models with the highest unit volumes of production and would not impact 
basic model ratings. 86 FR 71710, 71756.
    In this final rule, DOE adopts the basic model selection 
requirements as proposed with the exception of one provision as 
discussed in this paragraph. In response to the December 2021 NOPR, 
NEMA commented that the proposed requirement regarding basic model 
selection for validation of an AEDM in the proposed Sec. Sec.  
429.70(a)(i)(2)(i)(D) and 429.70(a)(j)(2)(i)(D) (``Each basic model 
must have the lowest average full-load efficiency among the basic 
models within the same equipment class'') should be changed as follows 
to be consistent with the current provisions in Sec.  
431.17(b)(1)(i)(D): ``Each basic model must have the lowest nominal 
full-load efficiency among the basic models within the same equipment 
class.'' NEMA explained that relying on the ``lowest average full-load 
efficiency'' introduces the possibility of a basic model not being 
valid for purposes of validating an AEDM simply because there is 
another basic model with the same nominal full-load efficiency but with 
an average full-load efficiency that is slightly higher by a virtually 
unmeasurable amount and places an unreasonable burden on the 
manufacturer that is not justified by any benefit with respect to 
validating the accuracy of the AEDM. In this final rule, DOE maintains 
the current language in Sec.  431.17(b)(1)(i)(D) and requires that each 
basic model must have the lowest nominal full-load efficiency among the 
basic models within the same equipment class in line with the DOE 
metric (i.e., ``nominal full-load efficiency'').
    Currently, the periodic verification of an AEDM can be achieved in 
one of three ways: through participation in a certification program; by 
additional, periodic testing in an accredited lab; or by verification 
by a professional engineer. When using periodic testing in an 
accredited laboratory, a sample of units must be tested in accordance 
with the DOE test procedure and 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2). 10 CFR 
431.17(a)(4)(A). The current regulatory text does not specify how often 
the periodic testing must be conducted.
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to add that manufacturers 
must perform a sufficient number of periodic verification tests to 
ensure the AEDM maintains its accuracy and reliability. Paragraph 
(b)(2) currently provides the criteria for selecting units for testing 
(in an accredited laboratory) when conducting periodic AEDM 
verification, including a minimum sample size of 5 units in most cases. 
DOE proposed to revise the 5-unit minimum requirement on the sample 
size and to replace it by requiring that manufacturers test at least 
one unit of each basic model. DOE believes that at least one unit 
comprises a sufficient sample size when conducting an AEDM verification 
and would reduce testing burden. 86 FR 71710, 71756.
    Advanced Energy commented that the term ``periodic'' as used in 
reference to AEDM subsequent verification is very broad, and that DOE 
should request information from manufacturers on how often their AEDMs 
are updated. Advanced Energy stated that there are many reasons a 
manufacturer would update its AEDM, and noted that its subsequent 
verification is performed annually. Advanced Energy further agreed that 
one basic model is sufficient for subsequent verification testing, but 
that DOE should be clear on which basic model needs verifying, and that 
requiring one unit of every basic model would increase test burden to 
manufacturers. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at pp. 19)
    In this final rule, rather than specifying a verification testing 
frequency, DOE adopts the proposed AEDM verification provision which 
specifies that sufficient testing must be conducted to ensure the AEDM 
maintains its accuracy and reliability. DOE believes the manufacturer 
is responsible for determining what constitutes a sufficient number of 
periodic verification tests to ensure the AEDM maintains its accuracy 
and reliability.
    Paragraph (b)(2) also currently includes the equations to use when 
conducting periodic AEDM verification. 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2)(i)-(ii). The 
equations in paragraph (b)(2) are used after the represented value of 
the basic model has already been determined (e.g., by AEDM) \82\ ``in a 
test of compliance with a represented average or nominal efficiency.'' 
The equations are applied to verify that the average full-load 
efficiency of the sample and the minimum full-load efficiency of the 
sample of the basic model, are within a prescribed margin of the 
represented value as provided by applying the AEDM (i.e., a test of 
compliance with a represented average or nominal efficiency). In 
addition, the equations in paragraph (b)(2) also imply that the 
represented value of the basic model has already been determined (e.g., 
by AEDM). As previously noted, DOE proposed to revise the current 
regulatory text to remove the equations currently located in 10 CFR 
431.17(b)(2)(i)-(ii). Instead, for manufacturers conducting periodic 
AEDM verification using testing, DOE proposed that manufacturers would 
rely on the same criteria used for the AEDM validation at 10 CFR 
429.70(i)(2)(iv) and compare the average of the measured full-load 
losses of the basic model \83\ to the simulated full-load losses of the 
basic model as predicted by the AEDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ The AEDM output is the simulated full-load efficiency. The 
represented value of nominal full-load efficiency as predicted by 
the AEDM is obtained by applying the provisions discussed in section 
I.A.1 of this document.
    \83\ The sample could include a single unit, in which case, the 
average measured full-load losses of the basic model are the 
measured full-load losses of the unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA commented in reference to the requirements in proposed 
Sec. Sec.  429.70(a)(i)(3)(A) and 429.70(a)(j)(3)(a): ``the simulated 
full-load losses for each unit must be greater than or equal to 90 
percent of the measured full-load losses (i.e., 0.90 x average of the 
measured full-load losses <= simulated full-load losses).'' NEMA 
commented that the clarification in parenthesis was acceptable but the 
phrase ``for each unit'' that precedes it is confusing because there 
are not unique simulated full-load losses for each unit but, rather, 
for each basic model. NEMA added that for further clarity and 
consistency with the AEDM validation procedure in Sec.  
429.70(a)(i)(2)(iv), the words ``measured full-load losses'' should be 
changed to ``average of the measured full-load losses.'' (NEMA, No. 26, 
at pp. 28-29)
    DOE agrees with NEMA. As written, the proposed regulatory text only 
accounted for a situation where a single unit per basic model was 
selected when conducting AEDM verification. In this final rule, DOE is 
amending the regulatory text to align with the preamble discussion and 
specify that if more than one unit per basic model is selected: (1) the 
requirement is for the simulated full-load losses for each basic model; 
and (2) ``measured full-load

[[Page 63637]]

losses'' is replaced by the ``average of the measured full-load 
losses.''
    If a certification program to conduct the AEDM verification is 
used, the provisions at 10 CFR 431.17(a)(4)(i)(B) specify that a 
manufacturer must periodically select basic models to which it has 
applied the AEDM and have a nationally recognized certification program 
certify its nominal full-load efficiency. The provision does not 
specify the criteria to use when comparing the output of the AEDM of 
the tested and certified values of nominal full-load efficiency. In the 
December 2021 NOPR, DOE stated it was considering three options to 
further specify how the manufacturer must conduct the AEDM verification 
when using a certification program. DOE considered proposing: (1) that 
manufacturers rely on the same 10 percent tolerance used for the AEDM 
validation at 10 CFR 429.70(i)(2)(iv) and compare the losses 
corresponding to the tested and certified nominal full-load efficiency 
of the basic model to the nominal full-load efficiency of the basic 
model as predicted by the AEDM; \84\ (2) that manufacturers rely on a 
higher tolerance (e.g., a 15 percent tolerance rather than 10 percent) 
than used for the AEDM validation at 10 CFR 429.70(i)(2)(iv) and 
compare the losses corresponding to the tested and certified nominal 
full-load efficiency of the basic model to the nominal full-load 
efficiency of the basic model as predicted by the AEDM; or (3) to 
continue to not specify any requirements but require that certification 
programs provide a detailed description of the method used to verify 
the AEDM. 86 FR 71710, 71756.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ The AEDM output is the average full-load efficiency. The 
represented value of nominal full-load efficiency as predicted by 
the AEDM is obtained by applying the provisions discussed in section 
III.N.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Advanced Energy commented that of the three options to specify how 
a manufacturer must conduct AEDM verification when using a 
certification program, Advanced Energy supported Option (1), which is 
consistent with its current practice, and that Option (3) is the same 
as Option (1) in its case since it follows the recommended AEDM 
subsequent verification procedure provided in the current version of 10 
CFR 431.17. (Advanced Energy, No. 33 at p. 19)
    In this final rule, DOE specifies how the manufacturer must conduct 
the AEDM verification when using a certification program and requires 
that manufacturers must rely on the same 10 percent tolerance used for 
the AEDM validation at 10 CFR 429.70(j)(2)(iv) \85\ and compare the 
losses corresponding to the simulated and certified nominal full-load 
efficiency of the basic model to the nominal full-load efficiency of 
the basic model as predicted by the AEDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ The AEDM validation tolerance requirements for electric 
motors that DOE proposed for 10 CFR 429.70(i)(2(iv) in the December 
2021 NOPR are being adopted at 10 CFR 429.70(j)(2)(iv) in this rule. 
After the December 2021 NOPR, a separate rule published on July 22, 
2022, added provisions at 10 CFR 429(i). 87 FR 45195. Accordingly, 
the AEDM validation tolerance requirements are being renumbered in 
this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE further proposed to remove the 
option to rely on a professional engineer to conduct AEDM verification 
because this is not an option that is used by manufacturers. 86 FR 
71710, 71756. DOE did not receive any comments on this proposal and is 
removing it as proposed.
    Finally, in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE explained that the proposed 
AEDM provisions would also apply to the additional electric motors 
proposed for inclusion in the scope of the test procedure, when a 
manufacturer of such motors would be required to use the DOE test 
procedure. DOE did not receive any comments specific to that issue. Id. 
In this final rule, DOE adopts the requirement that the AEDM provisions 
adopted for currently regulated electric motors will also apply to the 
additional electric motors included in the scope of the test procedure, 
when a manufacturer of such motors would be required to use the DOE 
test procedure.

O. Certification, Sampling Plans and AEDM Provisions for Dedicated-
Purpose Pool Pump Motors

    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include certification, 
sampling plan, and AEDM provisions for DPPP motors subject to the 
requirements in subpart Z of 10 CFR part 431. Because DPPP motors are a 
subset of electric motors, DOE proposed to apply the same 
certification, sampling provisions and AEDM provisions for consistency. 
In addition, DOE proposed to allow the use of ``nominal full-load 
efficiency'' as an alternative represented value for DPPP motors. DOE 
proposed to add these provisions in a new section 10 CFR 429.65 \86\ 
and 10 CFR 429.70(j), and to specifically reference DPPP motors in 10 
CFR 429.73 and 10 CFR 429.74 as proposed. 86 FR 71710, 71757.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ In the December 2021 NOPR the proposed regulatory text 
pertaining to DPPP motor certification and sampling provisions is 
located in a newly proposed section 10 CFR 429.65 and not section 10 
CFR 429.66 as incorrectly cited in the December 2021 NOPR, which 
included a typographical error. 86 FR 71710, 71757.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE did not receive comments specific to DPPP motors. In this final 
rule, DOE adopts the same certification, sampling provisions and AEDM 
provisions for DPPP motors as for electric motors as discussed in 
sections III.M and III.N of this document. DOE adopts these provisions 
in a Sec. Sec.  429.65 and 429.70(k),\87\ and specifically references 
DPPP motors in 10 CFR 429.73 and 429.74. In addition, DOE allows the 
use of ``nominal full-load efficiency'' as an alternative represented 
value for DPPP motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ The AEDM validation procedures for DPPP motors that DOE 
proposed for 10 CFR 429.70(j) in the December 2021 NOPR are being 
adopted at 10 CFR 429.70(k) in this rule. After the December 2021 
NOPR, a separate rule published on July 22, 2022, added provisions 
at 10 CFR 429(i). 87 FR 45195. Accordingly, the electric motors and 
DPPP motors AEDM validation procedures provisions are being 
renumbered in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the December 2021 NOPR, manufacturers would be 
required to test such motors once compliance is required with a 
labeling or energy conservation standard requirement should such a 
requirement be established. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 
U.S.C. 6295(s)). Any voluntary representations by manufacturers, 
distributors, retailers, or private labelers about the energy 
consumption or cost of energy for these motors must be based on the use 
of this test procedure and sampling requirements beginning 180 days 
following publication of this final rule. DOE's final rule does not 
require manufacturers who do not currently make voluntary 
representations to begin making public representations of efficiency. 
(42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)). 86 FR 71710, 71757.

P. Effective and Compliance Dates

    The effective date for the adopted test procedure amendment will be 
30 days after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. 
EPCA prescribes that all representations of energy efficiency and 
energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product 
labels, must be made in accordance with an amended test procedure, 
beginning 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)). EPCA provides an allowance for 
individual manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension of the 180-
day period if the manufacturer may experience undue hardship in meeting 
the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(2). To receive such an extension, 
petitions must be filed with DOE no later than 60 days before the end 
of the 180-day

[[Page 63638]]

period and must detail how the manufacturer will experience undue 
hardship. (Id.) To the extent the modified test procedure adopted in 
this final rule is required only for the evaluation and issuance of 
updated efficiency standards, compliance with the amended test 
procedure does not require use of such modified test procedure 
provisions until the compliance date of updated standards.
    Franklin Electric stated that a 6-month period after publication of 
a final rule to comply with a submersible motor test procedure is too 
short, particularly when there is no defined certification body yet. 
(Franklin Electric, No. 22 at p. 5) As discussed in section III.A.8 of 
this document, DOE is no longer considering a submersible electric 
motor test method in this test procedure.
    Specific to DOE's proposal to expand coverage to special and 
definite-purpose SNEMs, AHAM and AHRI commented that 180 days to comply 
with the proposed procedure if finalized is an unrealistic timeline. 
AHAM and AHRI commented that component motors that were once available 
for a product may no longer be available and OEMs will not have the 
information about market availability of new component motors until 
well after the motor has been tested and certified. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 
36 at p. 7) AHAM and AHRI commented that OEMs may have to redesign and 
test equipment to accommodate for a different motor size, which takes 
years to complete. Id. As discussed previously, DOE notes that 
manufacturers of electric motors for which DOE is including within the 
scope of the test procedure, but that are not currently subject to an 
energy conservation standard, would not be required to use the test 
procedure, for Federal certification or labeling purposes, until such 
time as amended or new energy conservation standards are established 
for such electric motors. As such, only voluntary representations by 
manufacturers, distributors, retailers, or private labelers about the 
energy consumption or cost of energy for these motors must be based on 
the use of the test procedure beginning 180 days following publication 
of the final rule. Comments and costs associated with these voluntary 
representations are discussed in section III.Q of this document.

Q. Test Procedure Costs

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impacts
    In this final rule, DOE revises the current scope of the test 
procedures to add additional electric motors and subsequent updates 
needed for supporting definitions and metric requirements as a result 
of this expanded scope; incorporates by reference the most recent 
versions of the referenced industry standards; incorporates by 
reference additional industry standards used to test newly covered 
electric motors; clarifies the scope and test instructions by adding 
definitions for specific terms; revises the current vertical motor 
testing instructions to reduce manufacturer test burden; revises the 
provisions pertaining to certification testing and determination of 
represented values; and adds provisions pertaining to certification 
testing and determination of represented values for DPPP motors.
    Regarding several of the amendments to the provisions pertaining to 
certification testing and determination of represented values, DOE 
notes that the updates that are effective 180 days after the 
publication of this final rule, include moving and largely retaining 
the provisions related to AEDMs (see section III.N.4 of this document), 
as well as moving and largely retaining the procedures for recognition 
and withdrawal of recognition of accreditation bodies and certification 
programs (see sections III.L and III.N.3 of this document) from 10 CFR 
part 431 to 10 CFR part 429. DOE does not anticipate any added test 
burden from these changes. Regarding other aspects of this rule (i.e., 
requiring to certify using three options as discussed in section 
III.M.2, revising the provisions pertaining to the determination of the 
represented value as discussed in sections III.N.1 and III.N.2 of this 
document) whose compliance date would occur once the compliance date is 
reached for any final rule that DOE may adopt to set for electric 
motors, DOE will discuss the associated costs in the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking. The same would apply to the new 
provisions pertaining to the certification testing and AEDM of 
dedicated-purpose pool pump motors as discussed in section III.O of 
this document, whose compliance date would be on or after the 
compliance date of a final rule adopting new or amended energy 
conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pump motors. DOE will 
discuss the associated costs in the energy conservation standards 
rulemaking.
    Of the remaining amendments, DOE has determined that the following 
would impact testing costs: (1) the updates expanding scope to include 
other motor categories, and provisions pertaining to determination of 
represented values for DPPP motors; and (2) the update to vertical 
motor testing. These amendments are discussed in the following 
paragraphs.
a. Voluntary Representations
    DOE is adding certain categories of electric motors to the scope of 
the test procedure. Specifically (1) air-over electric motors; (2) 
certain electric motors greater than 500 hp; (3) electric motors 
considered small; (3) inverter-only electric motors; and (4) certain 
synchronous motor technologies. In addition, DOE is incorporating by 
reference additional test methods. Finally, DOE is adding provisions 
pertaining to determination of represented values for DPPP motors.
    Manufacturers of those additional electric motors that DOE is 
including within the expanded scope of the test procedure that this 
final rule is adopting would not be required to test those motors in 
accordance with the DOE test procedure until the compliance date of a 
final rule adopting new or amended energy conservation standards for 
such electric motors is reached. If manufacturers voluntarily make 
representations regarding the energy consumption or cost of energy of 
such electric motors, they would be required to test according to the 
DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)). DOE has determined that the 
inclusion of additional motors within the scope of the test procedure 
and the update pertaining to determination of represented values for 
DPPP motors would result in added costs to motor manufacturers if 
manufacturers choose to make efficiency representations. These cost are 
estimated in the following paragraphs.
    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE determined that approximately 50 
percent of the basic models that are covered under the new test 
procedure currently make voluntary representations based on a market 
review of product catalogs. 86 FR 71710, 71757. Regarding 
representations, NEMA disagreed with DOE's estimate that 50 percent of 
the current market of the proposed expanded scope EM and DPPP motors 
make voluntary representations, and instead stated that currently only 
industrial-rated motors tend to make representations while commercial-
rated motors or SNEMs rarely do, and that these subgroups should be 
analyzed separately. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 30) Grundfos stated that it 
already makes voluntary representations for their SNEMs, submersible, 
and inverter-only products. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 9) Trane commented 
that none of the air-over, inverter-only, or synchronous motors it 
purchases from

[[Page 63639]]

suppliers currently have representations of efficiency. Trane stated 
that its only concern is system-level efficiency. (Trane, No. 31 at p. 
7) DOE appreciates the comments. However, the analysis conducted in 
this section is based on a per-unit cost, not industry-wide cost, so 
this value does not directly impact DOE's per unit test cost analysis 
in this final rule. In the following paragraphs, DOE estimates the 
associated per-unit costs for making voluntary representations 
regarding the energy consumption or cost of energy of expanded scope 
electric motors.
    DOE estimates that 10 percent of the motors that include voluntary 
representations from their manufacturers would be physically tested, 
consistent with the conclusions considered in the December 2021 NOPR 
that only a fraction of basic models are physically tested (the 
remainder have efficiency determined through an alternative efficiency 
determination method (``AEDM'')). 86 FR 71710, 71757. Further, this 
final rule would require at least five units be tested per basic model. 
10 CFR 431.17(b)(2). However, considering DOE is harmonizing with 
current industry standards, DOE assumes that manufacturers have already 
tested at least one unit for all the expanded scope electric motor 
basic models. Therefore, DOE estimates that manufacturers may need to 
conduct up to four additional tests per expanded scope electric motor 
basic model.
    DOE identified that the testing requirements can be summarized 
broadly with the following three groups: (1) motors tested according to 
CSA C747-09, (2) motors tested according to IEC 61800-9-2:2017, and (3) 
motors tested according to Section 34.4 of the NEMA Air-Over Motor 
Efficiency Test Method. Consistent with the December 2021 NOPR, DOE 
estimated that 90 percent of the physical tests for these electric 
motors would be conducted at in-house test facilities, and the 
remaining 10 percent of the physical tests would be conducted at third-
party test facilities. 86 FR 71710, 71758. DOE assumed that the per-
unit test costs differ between conducting testing at in-house test 
facilities versus testing at third-party test facilities. Table III.23 
lists the estimated in-house and third-party single unit test cost 
incurred by the manufacturer for each industry standard.

        Table III.23--Electric Motor Per Unit Test Cost Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Tested at in-     Tested at third-
                                      house facility     party facility
         Industry standard         -------------------------------------
                                      (per unit test     (per unit test
                                          cost)              cost)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSA C747-09.......................               $587             $2,210
IEC 61800-9-2:2017................                750              3,210
Section 34.4 of NEMA Air-over                     631              2,210
 Motor Efficiency Test Method.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate in-house testing costs, DOE assumed testing a single 
electric motor unit to CSA C747-09 requires approximately nine hours of 
a mechanical engineer technician time and three hours from a mechanical 
engineer. DOE assumed testing a single electric motor-drive combination 
unit to IEC 61800-9-2:2017 requires approximately twelve hours of a 
mechanical engineer technician time and three and a half hours of time 
from a mechanical engineer. DOE assumed testing a single electric motor 
unit according to Section 34.4 of NEMA Air-Over Motor Efficiency Test 
Method requires ten hours of mechanical engineer technician time and 
three hours of time from a mechanical engineer. Based on data from the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics' (``BLS's'') Occupational Employment and 
Wage Statistics, the mean hourly wage for a mechanical engineer 
technician is $30.47 and the mean hourly wage for a mechanical engineer 
is $46.64.\88\ Additionally, DOE used data from BLS's Employer Costs 
for Employee Compensation to estimate the percent that wages comprise 
the total compensation for an employee. DOE estimates that wages make 
up 70.5 percent of the total compensation for an employee.\89\ 
Therefore, DOE estimated that the total hourly compensation (including 
all fringe benefits) of an employee is $43.22 for a mechanical 
engineering technician and $66.16 for a mechanical engineer.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ DOE used the May 2021 Occupation Profiles of ``17-3027 
Mechanical Engineering Technologists and Technicians'' to estimate 
the hourly wage rate of a mechanical technician (See www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173027.htm) and ``17-2141 Mechanical Engineers'' to 
estimate the hourly wage rate of a mechanical engineer (See 
www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172141.htm).
    \89\ DOE used the December 2021 ``Employer Costs for Employee 
Compensation'' to estimate that for ``Private Industry'' ``Wages and 
Salaries'' are 70.5 percent of total employee compensation (See 
www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf).
    \90\ Mechanical Engineering Technician: $30.47/0.705 = $43.22. 
Mechanical Engineer: $46.64/0.705 = $66.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using these labor rates and time estimates, DOE estimates that it 
would cost electric motor manufacturers approximately $587 to conduct a 
single test for motors tested according to CSA C747-09; approximately 
$750 to conduct a single test for motors tested according to IEC 61800-
9-2:2017; and approximately $631 to conduct a single test for motors 
tested according to Section 34.4 of the NEMA Air-over Motor Efficiency 
Test Method, if these test were conducted by the electric motor 
manufacturers in-house.
    To estimate third-party lab costs, DOE received quotes from test 
labs on the price of conducting each industry standard. DOE then 
averaged these prices to arrive at an estimate of what the 
manufacturers would have to spend to test their product using a third-
party test lab. Using these quotes, DOE estimates that it would cost 
electric motor manufacturers approximately $2,000 to conduct a single 
test for motors tested according to CSA C747-09; approximately $3,000 
to conduct a single test for motors tested according to IEC 61800-9-
2:2017; and approximately $2,000 to conduct a single test for motors 
tested according to Section 34.4 of the NEMA Air-Over Motor Efficiency 
Test Method, if these tests were conducted by a third-party test 
facility. Depending on the size and weight of the electric motor being 
tested, manufacturers would also incur a cost to ship the product to 
the third-party lab, based on shipping costs associated with DOE's 
testing, DOE expects this cost to be approximately $210 per unit to and 
from the lab.
    Regarding testing costs, AI Group stated that a typical motor test 
conducted in an Australian third-party lab will cost $3,000 to $5,000 
depending on motor size and that in-house testing costs would be much 
lower. In providing these costs, AI Group did not specify how much 
lower these in-housing testing costs would be compared to third-party 
labs and it did

[[Page 63640]]

not note any differences in costs based on the specific industry 
testing standard being conducted. (AI Group, No. 25 at p. 8) CEMEP 
stated that a small motor efficiency test (<10 hp) by a third-party lab 
would cost [euro]4000 to [euro]5000 euros per test, and that a 
comparable in-house test would be approximately a third of that cost--
[euro]1333 to [euro]1666 per test. (CEMEP, No. 19 at p.11) 
Additionally, Grundfos noted a disagreement with DOE's estimated in-
house and third-party test costs. It stated that DOE did not account 
for sample motor costs, shipping products to test labs, and third-party 
certification costs. It also noted a higher estimate of in-house test 
time and labor: 20 hours of a technician's time and 4 hours of an 
engineer's time per test. Grundfos did not specify the industry 
standard being used for that time estimate. (Grundfos, No. 29 at p. 10) 
For this final rule, DOE gathered its quotes from domestic third-party 
labs and acknowledges that third-party tests conducted in overseas labs 
may differ somewhat in cost. DOE also recognizes that in-house testing 
costs will vary across manufacturers. Since the values provided in the 
comments do not provide an industry standard that the motors are being 
tested to, DOE did not incorporate the values into its average 
estimated test cost. Per the remainder of Grundfos's comment, DOE has 
adjusted its analysis to include an estimate of shipping costs, expects 
that the sample motors will be recoverable, and notes that third-party 
certification costs do not affect voluntary representations and will be 
addressed in any future energy conservation standards.
    Regarding cumulative regulatory burden, Lennox stated that DOE 
needs to consider the cumulative regulatory burden imposed on HVACR 
manufacturers that are having multiple energy conservation standards 
changing in the near future. Among these, they highlighted new 
standards for: Central Air Conditioners (``ACs''), Commercial ACs, 
Commercial Warm Air Furnaces and variable refrigerant flow systems. 
(Lennox, No. 24 at p. 9) JCI commented that the updated scope would 
exacerbate the cumulative test burden the HVAC industry is already 
facing with other DOE regulations. (JCI, No. 34 at p. 2). AHAM and AHRI 
emphasized that DOE needs to consider the additional burden in the 
context of the many updated standards affecting the HVAC industry and 
they described the new standards to which they will be subject from 
DOE, UL, EPA, and requirements under the American Innovation and 
Manufacturing Act, which will require the reduction of high-global 
warming potential (``GWP'') hydrofluorocarbons (``HFCs'') in stationary 
air conditioning (AC) equipment (in turn requiring the development of a 
second product line for all equipment using low-GWP refrigerants). 
(AHAM and AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 11-12). DOE recognizes the potential 
manufacturer burden of multiple simultaneous rulemakings and will 
evaluate the cumulative regulatory burden in future energy conservation 
standards rulemakings relating to electric motors as provided by its 
established processes.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See 10 CFR part 430 subpart C appendix A section 13(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Updating Vertical Motor Testing Requirements
    DOE is updating the testing requirements for vertical motors with 
hollow shafts to not require welding of a solid shaft to the drive end, 
and instead permit connection of electric motors to a dynamometer 
without restriction on the motor end and using a coupling of torsional 
rigidity greater than or equal to that of the motor shaft.
    DOE has determined that its adopted amendments will not require 
changes to the designs of electric motors and will not impact the 
utility of such electric motors or impact the availability of electric 
motor options. DOE has also determined that the amendments will not 
impact the representations of electric motor energy efficiency/energy 
use based on the determination that manufacturers would be able to 
continue rely on data generated under the preceding test procedure. As 
such, retesting of electric motors will not be required solely as a 
result of DOE's adoption of this amendment.
    Although DOE has determined that the amendments related to vertical 
motors will not add to manufacturer costs, under specific circumstances 
they may reduce testing costs. NEMA commented that the existing 
requirement to weld may prevent a motor from being used in its intended 
application (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 3). In such instances, the testing cost 
could include the cost of scrapping an otherwise useable motor. This 
scrap cost may be avoided if welding is not required by appendix B, in 
which case the test cost savings could equal the value of the motor.
    To estimate these cost savings, DOE determined approximately how 
many tests of these motors are conducted annually. To do this, DOE 
reviewed product catalogs from 2006 and compared these to catalogs from 
2018 to determine how many new vertical hollow shaft models have been 
produced in that time. DOE annualized this count to estimate how many 
new vertical hollow shaft motors are listed per year and would need to 
be certified as compliant with 10 CFR 431.25. Using the 2018 catalog, 
DOE found the average price of a vertical hollow shaft motor and 
assumed a markup of 100 percent to estimate the manufacturer's 
production cost. Next, DOE requires at least five units to be tested 
per basic model. 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2) Consistent with the final rule for 
test procedures for small electric motors and electric motors published 
January 4, 2021, DOE estimated that 10 percent of these new vertical 
hollow shaft motors are certified via physical testing, based on the 
observation that most manufacturers use an AEDM to certify an electric 
motor as required under 10 CFR 431.36. 86 FR 4, 17 (January 4, 2021) 
(applying a general 10 percent estimate regarding the number of 
electric motors that would be physically tested). Using this 
methodology, DOE estimates that annual cost savings to industry due to 
the amendments may approach $9,410 per year.
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
    DOE's established practice is to adopt relevant industry standards 
for a regulated product or equipment unless such methodology would be 
unduly burdensome to conduct or would not produce test results that 
reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in 
EPCA) or estimated operating costs of that product during a 
representative average use cycle. 10 CFR 431.4; Section 8(c) of 
appendix A of 10 CFR part 430 subpart C. In cases where the industry 
standard does not meet EPCA's statutory criteria for test procedures, 
DOE will make modifications through the rulemaking process to these 
standards as the DOE test procedure. With regard to electric motors 
subject to standards, EPCA requires the test procedures to be the test 
procedures specified in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987 and IEEE 
Standard 112 Test Method B for motor efficiency, or the successor 
standards, unless DOE determines by rule, published in the Federal 
Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that to do so 
would not meet the statutory requirements for test procedures to 
produce results that are representative of an average use cycle and not 
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A) and (B)). DOE 
established the prior test procedures for electric motors at appendix B 
based on the provisions of

[[Page 63641]]

NEMA MG 1-2009, CSA C390-10, IEC 60034-2-1:2014, IEEE 112-2017, which 
are incorporated by reference and all of which contain methods for 
measuring the energy efficiency and losses of electric motors. These 
referenced standards specify test methods for polyphase induction 
electric motors above 1 horsepower that can operate directly connected 
to a power supply. DOE reviewed each of the industry standards and is 
updating its incorporation by reference to IEC 60034-12:2016, CSA C390-
10, and NEMA MG 1-2016 to align with the latest revised and reaffirmed 
versions of these standards.
    In addition, certain additional motors incorporated into the scope 
of the test procedure cannot be tested using the industry standards 
incorporated by reference for currently regulated electric motors 
because they require modifications to the test procedure to account 
for: requiring to be connected to an inverter to be able to operate 
(i.e., inverter-only motors); and differences in electrical design 
(i.e., single-phase induction electric motors included as SNEMs, and 
synchronous electric motors). For these additional motors newly 
included in scope, DOE incorporates by reference the following 
additional industry standards: IEEE 114-2010, CSA C747-09, IEC 60034-2-
1:2014, and IEC 61800-9-2:2017. IEEE 114-2010, CSA C747-09, and IEC 
60034-2-1:2014 specify methods for measuring the efficiency and losses 
of single-phase induction electric motors. IEC 61800-9-2:2017 specifies 
methods for measuring the efficiency and losses of induction and 
synchronous inverter-only electric motors.
    The test procedures established for air-over electric motors and 
for SNEMs are included in NEMA MG 1-2016. See Section IV, Part 34: Air-
Over Motor Efficiency Test Method and Section 12.30. Section 12.30 
specifies the use of IEEE 112 and IEEE 114 for all single-phase and 
polyphase motors.\92\ As further discussed in section III.D.2 of this 
document, DOE is requiring testing of SNEMs--other than inverter-only 
electric motors--according to IEEE 112-2017, (or CSA C390-10 or IEC 
60034-2-1:2014, which are both equivalent to IEEE 112-2017; see 
discussion in section III.D.2) and IEEE 114-2010 (or CSA C747-09 or IEC 
60034-2-1:2014, which are equivalent to IEEE 114-2010; see discussion 
in III.D.2). This amendment would satisfy the test procedure 
requirements under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ As previously mentioned, NEMA MG 1-2016 does not specify 
the publication year of the referenced test standards and instead 
specifies that the most recent version should be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The methods listed in Section 12.30 of NEMA MG 1-2016 for testing 
AC motors apply only to AC induction motors that can be operated 
directly connected to the power supply (direct-on-line) and do not 
apply to electric motors that are inverter-only or to synchronous 
electric motors that are not AC induction motors. Therefore, for these 
additional electric motors, DOE specifies the use of different industry 
test procedures, as previously noted.
    DOE notes that, with regard to the industry standards currently 
incorporated into the DOE test procedure, DOE is only updating the 
versions referenced to the latest version of the industry standards.

R. Compliance Date

    EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends a test procedure, all 
representations of energy efficiency and energy use of an electric 
motor subject to the test procedure, including those made on marketing 
materials and product labels, must be made in accordance with that 
amended test procedure, beginning 180 days after publication of such a 
test procedure final rule in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(d)(1). To the extent DOE were to establish test procedures for 
electric motors not currently subject to an energy conservation 
standard, manufacturers would only need to use the testing set-up 
instructions, testing procedures, and rating procedures if a 
manufacturer elected to make voluntary representations of energy-
efficiency or energy costs of his or her basic models beginning 180 
days following publication of a final rule. DOE's final rule would not 
require manufacturers who do not currently make voluntary 
representations to then begin making public representations of 
efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)). Manufacturers would be required to 
test such motors at such time as compliance is required with a labeling 
or energy conservation standard requirement should such a requirement 
be established. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(s)).
    EPCA provides an allowance for individual manufacturers to petition 
DOE for an extension of the 180-day period if the manufacturer may 
experience undue hardship in meeting the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(d)(2). To receive such an extension, petitions must be filed with 
DOE no later than 60 days before the end of the 180-day period and must 
detail how the manufacturer will experience undue hardship. (Id.)

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires 
agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a 
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify 
its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to 
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on 
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into 
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs 
of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative 
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, 
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the 
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying 
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must 
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE 
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office 
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques 
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might 
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. 
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this final regulatory action is 
consistent with these principles.
    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit 
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has 
determined that this final regulatory action does not constitute a 
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. 
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under 
E.O. 12866.
    ABB requested that DOE have OMB conduct a study of the economic 
impact of this rulemaking. They stated that based on the information 
provided it

[[Page 63642]]

appears that the small gain in efficiency the rule is intended to 
capture would result in inordinate expense and economic disruption to 
all affected motor manufacturers and OEMs in terms of product redesign. 
(ABB, No. 18 at p. 2) As previously stated, this final rule only 
establishes test procedures and does not establish energy conservation 
standards. Therefore, this rule would not necessitate any redesign of 
any of the equipment addressed by this final rule.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') 
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, and a 
final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such rule that an 
agency adopts as a final rule, unless the agency certifies that the 
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 
13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 
67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on 
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on 
small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking 
process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available 
on the Office of the General Counsel's website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    The following sections detail DOE's FRFA for this test procedure 
final rule.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    DOE is amending the existing DOE test procedures for electric 
motors. EPCA, pursuant to amendments made by the Energy Policy Act of 
1992, Public Law 102-486 (Oct. 24, 1992), specifies that the test 
procedures for electric motors subject to standards are those specified 
in National Electrical Manufacturers Association (``NEMA'') Standards 
Publication MG1-1987 and Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers (``IEEE'') Standard 112 Test Method B, as in effect on 
October 24, 1992. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A)). DOE must amend its test 
procedures to conform to such amended test procedure requirements, 
unless DOE determines by rule, published in the Federal Register and 
supported by clear and convincing evidence, that to do so would not 
meet the statutory requirements related to the test procedure 
representativeness and burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B))
    EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate 
test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including electric 
motors, to determine whether amended test procedures would more 
accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test 
procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably 
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy 
use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use 
cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)).
    DOE is publishing this final rule in satisfaction of the 
requirements specified in EPCA.
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    As noted previously, DOE is publishing this final rule in 
satisfaction of the requirements specified in EPCA that DOE amend the 
test procedure for electric motors whenever the relevant industry 
standards are amended, but at minimum every 7 years, to ensure that the 
DOE test procedure produces test results which reflect energy 
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of a type of 
industrial equipment (or class thereof) during a representative average 
use cycle. 42 U.S.C. 6314(a).
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
    For manufacturers of electric motors, the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') has set a size threshold, which defines those 
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the 
statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine 
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the 
rule. See 13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by North 
American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') code and industry 
description available at: www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards. Electric motor manufacturing is classified under NAICS code 
335312, ``motor and generator manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold 
of 1,250 employees or less for an entity to be considered as a small 
business for this category.
    In this final rule, DOE revises the current scope of the test 
procedures to add additional electric motors and subsequent updates 
needed for supporting definitions and metric requirements as a result 
of this expanded scope; incorporates by reference the most recent 
versions of the referenced industry standards; incorporates by 
reference additional industry standards used to test newly covered 
electric motors; clarifies the scope and test instructions by adding 
definitions for specific terms; revises the current vertical motor 
testing instructions to reduce manufacturer test burden; revises the 
provisions pertaining to certification testing and determination of 
represented values; and adds provisions pertaining to certification 
testing and determination of represented values for DPPP motors.
    As previously stated in section III.Q.1 of this document, DOE 
estimates that some electric motor manufacturers would experience a 
cost savings from the test procedure amendment regarding the update to 
the testing requirements for vertical motors with hollow shafts. 
Additionally, this test procedure expands the scope of covered electric 
motors and establishes certification, sampling plan, and AEDM 
provisions for DPPP motors.
    While manufacturers making these expanded scope electric motors and 
DPPP motors would not be required to test according to the DOE test 
procedure until energy efficiency standards were established, if 
manufacturers voluntarily make representations regarding the energy 
consumption or cost of energy of such electric motors, they would be 
required to test according to the DOE test procedure. DOE identified up 
to 12 potential small businesses manufacturing these expanded scope 
electric motors or DPPP motors. DOE estimates that all other test 
procedure amendments would not result in any electric motor 
manufacturer, large or small, to incur any additional costs due to the 
test procedure amendments in this final rule.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    DOE estimated the per unit testing cost for these expanded scope 
electric motors and DPPP motors in section III.Q.1. of this document. 
These estimated per unit testing costs are presented in Table IV.1.

[[Page 63643]]



         Table IV.1--Electric Motor Per Unit Test Cost Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Tested at in-     Tested at third-
                                      house facility     party facility
         Industry standard         -------------------------------------
                                      (per unit test     (per unit test
                                          cost)              cost)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSA C747-09.......................               $587             $2,210
IEC 61800-9-2:2017................                750              3,210
Section 34.4 of NEMA Air-over                     631              2,210
 Motor Efficiency Test Method.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is unable to estimate the number of electric motor models that 
small business manufacturers would decide to make voluntary 
representations about the efficiency of their electric motors. 
Therefore, DOE is unable to estimate the total cost each small business 
would incur to test their electric motors in accordance with the DOE 
test procedure.
    Due to the uncertainty of the potential costs to small businesses, 
DOE is not able to conclude that the impacts of the test procedure 
amendments included in this final rule would not have a ``significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.''
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered today.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    As previously stated in this section, DOE is required to review 
existing DOE test procedures for all covered equipment every 7 years. 
Additionally, DOE shall amend test procedures with respect to any 
covered equipment, if the Secretary determines that amended test 
procedures would more accurately produce test results which measure 
energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a 
covered equipment during a representative average use cycle or period 
of use. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) DOE has determined that the test 
procedure would more accurately produce test results to measure the 
energy efficiency of electric motors.
    DOE has determined that there are no better alternatives than the 
amended test procedures in terms of meeting the agency's objectives to 
more accurately measure energy efficiency and reducing burden on 
manufacturers. Therefore, DOE is amending the existing DOE test 
procedure for electric motors in this final rule.
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue 
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an 
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a 
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final 
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally, 
section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 
7194, provides authority for the Secretary to adjust a rule issued 
under EPCA in order to prevent ``special hardship, inequity, or unfair 
distribution of burdens'' that may be imposed on that manufacturer as a 
result of such rule. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of electric motors must certify to DOE that their 
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To 
certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their 
products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments 
adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for 
the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered 
consumer products and commercial equipment, including electric motors. 
(See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information 
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to 
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). 
DOE's current reporting requirements have been approved by OMB under 
OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the 
certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, including 
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, certifying compliance, and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
1. Description of the Requirements
    In this final rule, DOE is requiring that within one year of 
publication of any final rule updating or amending DOE's electric 
motors regulations, all nationally recognized certification programs 
must reassess the evaluation criteria necessary for a certification 
program to be classified by DOE as nationally recognized and either 
submit a letter to DOE certifying that no change to their program is 
needed, or submit a letter describing the measures implemented to 
ensure the evaluation criteria in amended 10 CFR 429.73(b) are met. DOE 
is revising the collection of information approval under OMB Control 
Number 1910-1400 to account for the paperwork burden associated with 
submitting this letter, including the time for reviewing instructions, 
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
2. Method of Collection
    DOE is requiring that nationally recognized certification programs 
must submit a letter within one year after any final rule is published 
updating or amending DOE's electric motor regulations.
3. Data
    There are three nationally recognized certification programs for 
electric motors. DOE estimated that drafting and submitting a letter to 
DOE certifying that no change to their program is needed or drafting 
and submitting a letter describing the measures implemented to ensure 
the criteria in amended 10 CFR 429.73(b) are met would require 
approximately 10 hours for each nationally recognized certification 
program. Therefore, DOE estimated that the three nationally recognized 
certification programs would spend approximately 30 hours to draft and 
submit these letters to DOE. DOE's February 2021 ``Supporting Statement 
for Certification Reports, Compliance Statements, Application for a 
Test Procedure Waiver, and Recording

[[Page 63644]]

keeping for Consumer Products and Commercial Equipment Subject to 
Energy or Water Conservation Standards'' estimated a fully loaded 
(burdened) average wage rate of $67 per hour for manufacturer reporting 
and recordkeeping.\93\ (86 FR 9916). DOE used this wage rate to 
estimate the burden on the certification programs. Therefore, DOE 
estimates that the total burden to the industry is approximately 
$2,010.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202102-1910-002.
    \94\ 3 certification programs x 10 hours x $67 = $2,010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control Number: 1910-1400.
    Form Number: DOE F 220.7.
    Type of Review: Regular submission.
    Affected Public: Nationally recognized certification programs.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3.
    Estimated Time per Response: 10 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 30 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Manufacturers: $2,010 in 
recordkeeping/reporting costs.
4. Conclusion
    DOE has determined that the cost of these amendments would not 
impose a material burden on nationally recognized certification 
programs. It is the responsibility of nationally recognized 
certification programs to have a complete understanding of applicable 
regulations for electric motors given their role as a certification 
body, and accordingly, DOE has concluded that the anticipated cost of 
$670 per program to submit a letter upon finalization of any updated or 
amended electric motors regulations is a reasonable burden for such a 
program.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this final rule, DOE establishes test procedure amendments that 
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy 
conservation standards for electric motors. DOE has determined that 
this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded 
from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 
1021. Specifically, DOE has determined that adopting test procedures 
for measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and industrial 
equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR part 1021, 
appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. Accordingly, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.
    AHAM and AHRI stated that the compliance deadlines proposed in the 
NOPR will produce significant environmental impact and warrant review 
under NEPA. They stated that manufacturers that make voluntary 
representations about motor efficiency will be required to certify 180 
days after the final rule, and there will not be capacity at third-
party test labs to do this certification in time, so manufacturers will 
be forced to remove this efficiency information from marketing 
materials. They stated that this removal of efficiency information will 
cause purchasers to gravitate towards cheaper, and likely less 
efficient, products, which will lead to increased energy consumption 
and the environmental impacts associated with such. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 
36 at pp. 14-15). In this final rule, DOE is adopting the industry 
standards similar to what was proposed in the NOPR. In addition, as 
discussed in section III.M.1 of this document, DOE does not adopt the 
proposal to replace the requirement to test at an accredited laboratory 
by testing in an independent testing program. Instead, DOE retains the 
use of accredited laboratory as currently described at 10 CFR 
431.17(5).

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

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

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is 
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'') 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The

[[Page 63645]]

UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to 
permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal 
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' 
and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for 
timely input to potentially affected small governments before 
establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement 
of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 
62 FR 12820; also available at www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final rule according to UMRA and its 
statement of policy and determined that the rule contains neither an 
intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the 
expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements 
do not apply.

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant 
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information 
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which 
are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 
reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

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

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

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; 
``FEAA'') Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where 
a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the 
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and 
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE 
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal 
Trade Commission (``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or 
industry standards on competition.
    The modifications to the test procedure for electric motors adopted 
in this final rule incorporates testing methods contained in certain 
sections of the following commercial standards: CSA C390-10; IEC 60034-
12:2016; IEC 60079-7:2015; IEC 61800-9-2:2017; NEMA MG 1-2016; and NFPA 
20-2022. DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude 
whether it fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the 
FEAA (i.e., whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides 
for public participation, comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with 
both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact 
on competition of using the methods contained in these standards and 
has received no comments objecting to their use.

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will 
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    The following standards were previously approved for incorporation 
by reference in the section where they appear and no changes are 
required: IEC 60034-1 (select provisions in section 4), IEC 60034-
1:2010, IEC 60034-2-1:2014, IEC 60050-411, IEC 60051-1:2016, IEEE 112-
2017, and NEMA MG1-1967.
    In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the test 
standards published by CSA, IEC, IEEE, NEMA and NFPA.
    CSA C390-10 specifies test methods, marking requirements, and 
energy efficiency levels for three-phase induction motors.
    CSA C747-09 specifies test methods for single-phase electric motors 
and polyphase electric motors below 1 hp.
    IEC 60034-12:2016 specifies the parameters for eight designs (IEC 
Design N, Design NE, Design NY, Design NEY, IEC Design H, Design HE, 
Design HY, Design HEY) of starting performance of single-speed three-
phase 50 Hz or 60 Hz cage induction motors.
    IEC 60072-1 (clauses 2, 3, 4.1, 6.1, 7, and 10, and Tables 1, 2 and 
4) specifies the IEC-metric equivalent frame size.
    IEC 60079-7:2015 is referenced within IEC 60034-12:2016 and 
specifies the requirements for the design, construction, testing and 
marking of electrical equipment and Ex Components with type of 
protection

[[Page 63646]]

increased safety ``e'' intended for use in explosive gas atmospheres.
    IEC 61800-9-2:2017 specifies test methods for inverter-fed electric 
motors that include an inverter.
    IEEE 114-2010 specifies test methods for single-phase electric 
motors.
    NEMA MG 1-2016 provides test methods to determine motor efficiency 
and losses, including for air-over electric motors, and establishes 
several industry definitions.
    NFPA 20-2022 provides specifications for fire-pump motors.
    Copies of these standards can be obtained from the organizations 
directly at the following addresses:
     Canadian Standards Association, Sales Department, 5060 
Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1-800-
463-6727, or by visiting www.shopcsa.ca/onlinestore/welcome.asp.
     International Electrotechnical Commission, 3 rue de 
Varemb[eacute], 1st Floor, P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 Geneva 20-Switzerland, 
+41 22 919 02 11, or by visiting https://webstore.iec.ch/home.
     Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 445 
Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, (732) 981-0060, or 
by visiting www.ieee.org.
     NEMA, 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 900, Arlington, 
Virginia 22209, +1 (703) 841 3200, or by visiting www.nema.org.
     National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, 
Quincy, MA 02169, +1 800 344 3555, or by visiting www.nfpa.org.

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Small businesses.

10 CFR Part 431

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

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 3, 
2022, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature 
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on October 4, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 
431 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth 
below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.


0
2. Revise Sec.  429.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  429.1  Purpose and scope.

    This part sets forth the procedures for certification, 
determination and enforcement of compliance of covered products and 
covered equipment with the applicable energy conservation standards set 
forth in parts 430 and 431 of this subchapter.

0
3. Amend Sec.  429.2 by revising paragraph (a) and adding in 
alphabetical order to paragraph (b) a definition for ``Independent'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  429.2  Definitions.

    (a) The definitions found in 10 CFR parts 430 and 431 apply for 
purposes of this part.
    (b) * * *
    Independent means, in the context of a nationally recognized 
certification program, or accreditation program for electric motors, an 
entity that is not controlled by, or under common control with, 
electric motor manufacturers, importers, private labelers, or vendors, 
and that has no affiliation, financial ties, or contractual agreements, 
apparently or otherwise, with such entities that would:
    (i) Hinder the ability of the program to evaluate fully or report 
the measured or calculated energy efficiency of any electric motor, or
    (ii) Create any potential or actual conflict of interest that would 
undermine the validity of said evaluation. For purposes of this 
definition, financial ties or contractual agreements between an 
electric motor manufacturer, importer, private labeler or vendor and a 
nationally recognized certification program, or accreditation program 
exclusively for certification or accreditation services does not negate 
an otherwise independent relationship.
* * * * *

0
4. Add Sec.  429.3 to read as follows:


Sec.  429.3  Sources for information and guidance.

    (a) General. The standards listed in this paragraph are referred to 
in Sec. Sec.  429.73 and 429.74 and are not incorporated by reference. 
These sources are provided here for information and guidance only.
    (b) ISO/IEC. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 
1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland/
International Electrotechnical Commission, 3, rue de Varemb[eacute], 
P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.
    (1) International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), (``ISO/IEC'') 17025, 
``General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing 
laboratories,'' November 2017.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (c) NVLAP. National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, M/S 
2140, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140, 301-975-4016, or go to www.nist.gov/nvlap/. Also see http://www.nist.gov/nvlap/nvlap-handbooks.cfm.
    (1) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 
150, ``NVLAP Procedures and General Requirements,'' 2000 edition, 
August 2020.
    (2) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 
150-10, ``Efficiency of Electric Motors,'' 2020 edition, April 2020.

0
5. Revise Sec.  429.11 to read as follows:


Sec.  429.11  General sampling requirements for selecting units to be 
tested.

    (a) When testing of covered products or covered equipment is 
required to comply with section 323(c) of the Act, or to comply with 
rules prescribed under sections 324, 325, 342, 344, 345

[[Page 63647]]

or 346 of the Act, a sample comprised of production units (or units 
representative of production units) of the basic model being tested 
must be selected at random and tested and must meet the criteria found 
in Sec. Sec.  429.14 through 429.65. Components of similar design may 
be substituted without additional testing if the substitution does not 
affect energy or water consumption. Any represented values of measures 
of energy efficiency, water efficiency, energy consumption, or water 
consumption for all individual models represented by a given basic 
model must be the same, except for central air conditioners and central 
air conditioning heat pumps, as specified in Sec.  429.16; and
    (b) The minimum number of units tested shall be no less than two, 
except where:
    (1) A different minimum limit is specified in Sec. Sec.  429.14 
through 429.65; or
    (2) Only one unit of the basic model is produced, in which case, 
that unit must be tested and the test results must demonstrate that the 
basic model performs at or better than the applicable standard(s). If 
one or more units of the basic model are manufactured subsequently, 
compliance with the default sampling and representations provisions is 
required.

0
6. Add Sec.  429.64 to read as follows:


Sec.  429.64  Electric motors.

    (a) Applicability. When a party determines the energy efficiency of 
an electric motor in order to comply with an obligation imposed on it 
by or pursuant to Part C of Title III of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311-6316, 
this section applies. This section does not apply to enforcement 
testing conducted pursuant to Sec.  431.383 of this subchapter. This 
section applies to electric motors that are subject to requirements in 
subpart B of part 431 of this subchapter and does not apply to 
dedicated-purpose pool pump motors subject to requirements in subpart Z 
of part 431.
    (1) Prior to the date described in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section, manufacturers of electric motors subject to energy 
conservation standards in subpart B of part 431 must make 
representations of energy efficiency, including representations for 
certification of compliance, in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) 
of this section.
    (2) On and after the compliance date for any new or amended 
standards for electric motors published after January 1, 2021, 
manufacturers of electric motors subject to energy conservation 
standards in subpart B of part 431 of this subchapter must make 
representations of energy efficiency, including representations for 
certification of compliance, in accordance with paragraphs (d) through 
(f) of this section.
    (3) On or after April 17, 2023, manufacturers of electric motors 
subject to the test procedures in appendix B of subpart B of part 431 
but are subject to the energy conservation standards in subpart B of 
part 431 of this subchapter, must, if they chose to voluntarily make 
representations of energy efficiency, follow the provisions in 
paragraph (e) of this section.
    (b) Compliance certification--(1) General requirements. The 
represented value of nominal full-load efficiency of each basic model 
of electric motor must be determined either by testing in accordance 
with Sec.  431.16 of this subchapter, or by application of an 
alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) that meets the 
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (2) Alternative efficiency determination method. In lieu of 
testing, the represented value of nominal full-load efficiency for a 
basic model of electric motor must be determined through the 
application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  429.70(j) 
and the provisions of this paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) of this 
section, where:
    (i) The average full-load efficiency of any basic model used to 
validate an AEDM must be calculated under paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (ii) The represented value is the nominal full-load efficiency of a 
basic model of electric motor and is to be used in marketing materials 
and all public representations, as the certified value of efficiency, 
and on the nameplate. (See Sec.  431.31(a) of this subchapter.) 
Determine the nominal full-load efficiency by selecting a value from 
the ``Nominal Full-Load Efficiency'' table in appendix B to subpart B 
of this part that is no greater than the simulated full-load efficiency 
predicted by the AEDM for the basic model.
    (3) Use of a certification program or accredited laboratory. (i) A 
manufacturer may have a certification program, that DOE has classified 
as nationally recognized under Sec.  429.73, certify the nominal full-
load efficiency of a basic model of electric motor, and issue a 
certificate of conformity for the motor.
    (ii) For each basic model for which a certification program is not 
used as described in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, any testing 
of the motor pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section to 
determine its energy efficiency must be carried out in an accredited 
laboratory that meets the requirements of Sec.  431.18 of this 
subchapter;
    (c) Additional testing requirements applicable when a certification 
program is not used--(1) Selection of units for testing. For each basic 
model selected for testing, a sample of units shall be selected at 
random and tested. Components of similar design may be substituted 
without requiring additional testing if the represented measures of 
energy consumption continue to satisfy the applicable sampling 
provision.
    (2) Sampling requirements. The sample shall be comprised of 
production units of the basic model, or units that are representative 
of such production units. The sample size shall be not fewer than five 
units, except that when fewer than five units of a basic model would be 
produced over a reasonable period of time (approximately 180 days), 
then each unit shall be tested. In a test of compliance with a 
represented average or nominal efficiency:
    (i) The average full-load efficiency of the sample, which is 
defined by:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC22.000

    where xi is the measured full-load efficiency of unit i 
and n is the number of units tested, shall satisfy the condition:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC22.001

    where RE is the represented nominal full-load efficiency, and
    (ii) The lowest full-load efficiency in the sample xmin, 
which is defined by:
    xmin = min (xi)
    shall satisfy the condition:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC22.002
    
    (d) Compliance certification. A manufacturer may not certify the 
compliance of an electric motor pursuant to Sec.  429.12 unless:
    (1) Testing of the electric motor basic model was conducted using 
an accredited laboratory that meets the requirements of paragraph (f) 
of this section;
    (2) Testing was conducted using a laboratory other than an 
accredited laboratory that meets the requirements of paragraph (f) of 
this section, or the

[[Page 63648]]

nominal full-load efficiency of the electric motor basic model was 
determined through the application of an AEDM pursuant to the 
requirements of Sec.  429.70(j), and a third-party certification 
organization that is nationally recognized in the United States under 
Sec.  429.73 has certified the nominal full-load efficiency of the 
electric motor basic model through issuance of a certificate of 
conformity for the basic model.
    (e) Determination of represented value. A manufacturer must 
determine the represented value of nominal full-load efficiency 
(inclusive of the inverter for inverter-only electric motors) for each 
basic model of electric motor either by testing in conjunction with the 
applicable sampling provisions or by applying an AEDM as set forth in 
this section and in Sec.  429.70(j).
    (1) Testing--(i) Units to be tested. If the represented value for a 
given basic model is determined through testing, the requirements of 
Sec.  429.11 apply except that, for electric motors, the minimum sample 
size is five units. If fewer units than the minimum sample size are 
produced, each unit produced must be tested and the test results must 
demonstrate that the basic model performs at or better than the 
applicable standard(s). If one or more units of the basic model are 
manufactured subsequently, compliance with the default sampling and 
representations provisions is required.
    (ii) Average Full-load Efficiency: Determine the average full-load 
efficiency for the basic model x, for the units in the sample as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC22.003

    Where xi is the measured full-load efficiency of unit i 
and n is the number of units tested.
    (iii) Represented value. The represented value is the nominal full-
load efficiency of a basic model of electric motor and is to be used in 
marketing materials and all public representations, as the certified 
value of efficiency, and on the nameplate. (See Sec.  431.31(a) of this 
subchapter.) Determine the nominal full-load efficiency by selecting an 
efficiency from the ``Nominal Full-load Efficiency'' table in appendix 
B that is no greater than the average full-load efficiency of the basic 
model as calculated in Sec.  429.64(e)(1)(ii).
    (iv) Minimum full-load efficiency: To ensure a high level of 
quality control and consistency of performance within the basic model, 
the lowest full-load efficiency in the sample Xmin, must 
satisfy the condition:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC22.004

    where Std is the value of the applicable energy conservation 
standard. If the lowest measured full-load efficiency of a unit in the 
tested sample does not satisfy the condition in this section, then the 
basic model cannot be certified as compliant with the applicable 
standard.
    (2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of 
testing, the represented value of nominal full-load efficiency for a 
basic model of electric motor must be determined through the 
application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  429.70(j) 
and the provisions of this section, where:
    (i) The average full-load efficiency of any basic model used to 
validate an AEDM must be calculated under paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this 
section; and
    (ii) The represented value is the nominal full-load efficiency of a 
basic model of electric motor and is to be used in marketing materials 
and all public representations, as the certified value of efficiency, 
and on the nameplate. (See Sec.  431.31(a) of this subchapter) 
Determine the nominal full-load efficiency by selecting a value from 
the ``Nominal Full-Load Efficiency'' table in appendix B to subpart B 
of this part, that is no greater than the simulated full-load 
efficiency predicted by the AEDM for the basic model.
    (f) Accredited laboratory. (1) Testing pursuant to paragraphs 
(b)(3)(ii) and (d)(1) of this section must be conducted in an 
accredited laboratory for which the accreditation body was:
    (i) The National Institute of Standards and Technology/National 
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NIST/NVLAP); or
    (ii) A laboratory accreditation body having a mutual recognition 
arrangement with NIST/NVLAP; or
    (iii) An organization classified by the Department, pursuant to 
Sec.  429.74, as an accreditation body.
    (2) NIST/NVLAP is under the auspices of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST)/National Voluntary Laboratory 
Accreditation Program (NVLAP), which is part of the U.S. Department of 
Commerce. NIST/NVLAP accreditation is granted on the basis of 
conformance with criteria published in 15 CFR part 285. The National 
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, ``Procedures and General 
Requirements,'' NIST Handbook 150-10, April 2020 (referenced for 
guidance only, see Sec.  429.3) present the technical requirements of 
NVLAP for the Efficiency of Electric Motors field of accreditation. 
This handbook supplements NIST Handbook 150, National Voluntary 
Laboratory Accreditation Program ``Procedures and General 
Requirements,'' which contains 15 CFR part 285 plus all general NIST/
NVLAP procedures, criteria, and policies. Information regarding NIST/
NVLAP and its Efficiency of Electric Motors Program (EEM) can be 
obtained from NIST/NVLAP, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2140, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140, (301) 975-4016 (telephone), or (301) 926-
2884 (fax).

0
7. Add Sec.  429.65 to read as follows:


Sec.  429.65  Dedicated-purpose pool pump motors.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to dedicated purpose motors 
that are subject to requirements in subpart Z of part 431 of this 
subchapter. Starting on the compliance date for any standards for 
dedicated-purpose pool pump motors published after January 1, 2021, 
manufacturers of dedicated-purpose pool pump motors subject to such 
standards must make representations of energy efficiency, including 
representations for certification of compliance, in accordance with 
this section. Prior to the compliance date for any standards for 
dedicated-purpose pool pump motors published after January 1, 2021, and 
on or after April 17, 2023, manufacturers of dedicated-purpose pool 
pump motors subject to test procedures in subpart Z of part 431 of this 
subchapter choosing to make representations of energy efficiency must 
follow the provisions in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Compliance certification. A manufacturer may not certify the 
compliance of a dedicated-purpose pool pump motor pursuant to 10 CFR 
429.12 unless:
    (1) Testing of the dedicated-purpose pool pump motor basic model 
was conducted using an accredited laboratory that meets the 
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section;
    (2) Testing was conducted using a laboratory other than an 
accredited laboratory that meets the requirements of paragraph (d) of 
this section, or the full-load efficiency of the dedicated-purpose pool 
pump motor basic model was determined through the application of an 
AEDM pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  429.70(k), and a third-party 
certification organization that is nationally recognized in the United 
States under Sec.  429.73 has certified the full-load efficiency of the 
dedicated-

[[Page 63649]]

purpose pool pump motor basic model through issuance of a certificate 
of conformity for the basic model.
    (c) Determination of represented value. A manufacturer must 
determine the represented value of full-load efficiency (inclusive of 
the drive, if the dedicated-purpose pool pump motor basic model is 
placed into commerce with a drive, or is unable to operate without the 
presence of a drive) for each basic model of dedicated-purpose pool 
pump motor either by testing in conjunction with the applicable 
sampling provisions or by applying an AEDM as set forth in this section 
and in Sec.  429.70(k).
    (1) Testing--(i) Units to be tested. If the represented value for a 
given basic model is determined through testing, the requirements of 
Sec.  429.11 apply except that, for dedicated-purpose pool pump motors, 
the minimum sample size is five units. If fewer units than the minimum 
sample size are produced, each unit produced must be tested and the 
test results must demonstrate that the basic model performs at or 
better than the applicable standard(s). If one or more units of the 
basic model are manufactured subsequently, compliance with the default 
sampling and representations provisions is required.
    (ii) Full-load efficiency. Any value of full-load efficiency must 
be lower than or equal to the average of the sample x, calculated as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC22.005

    Where xi is the measured full-load efficiency of unit i 
and n is the number of units tested in the sample.
    (iii) Represented value. The represented value is the full-load 
efficiency of a basic model of dedicated-purpose pool pump motor and is 
to be used in marketing materials and all public representations, as 
the certified value of efficiency, and on the nameplate. (See Sec.  
431.486 of this subchapter). Alternatively, a manufacturer may make 
representations using the nominal full-load efficiency of a basic model 
of dedicated-purpose pool pump motor provided that the manufacturer 
uses the nominal full-load efficiency consistently on all marketing 
materials, and as the value on the nameplate. Determine the nominal 
full-load efficiency by selecting an efficiency from the ``Nominal 
Full-load Efficiency'' table in appendix B to subpart B of this part, 
that is no greater than the full-load efficiency of the basic model as 
calculated in Sec.  429.65(c)(1)(ii).
    (iv) Minimum full-load efficiency: To ensure quality control and 
consistency of performance within the basic model, the lowest full-load 
efficiency in the sample Xmin, must satisfy the condition:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19OC22.006

    where Std is the value of any applicable energy conservation 
standard. If the lowest measured full-load efficiency of a motor in the 
tested sample does not satisfy the condition in this section, then the 
basic model cannot be certified as compliant with the applicable 
standard.
    (v) Dedicated-purpose pool pump motor total horsepower. The 
represented value of the total horsepower of a basic model of 
dedicated-purpose pool pump motor must be the mean of the dedicated-
purpose pool pump motor total horsepower for each tested unit in the 
sample.
    (2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of 
testing, the represented value of full-load efficiency for a basic 
model of dedicated-purpose pool pump motor must be determined through 
the application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  
429.70(k) and the provisions of this section, where:
    (i) The full-load efficiency of any basic model used to validate an 
AEDM must be calculated under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section; and
    (ii) The represented value is the full-load efficiency of a basic 
model of dedicated-purpose pool pump motor and is to be used in 
marketing materials and all public representations, as the certified 
value of efficiency, and on the nameplate. (See Sec.  431.485 of this 
subchapter). Alternatively, a manufacturer may make representations 
using the nominal full-load efficiency of a basic model of dedicated-
purpose pool pump motor provided that the manufacturer uses the nominal 
full-load efficiency consistently on all marketing materials, and as 
the value on the nameplate. Determine the nominal full-load efficiency 
by selecting an efficiency from the ``Nominal Full-load Efficiency'' 
table in appendix B to subpart B of this part, that is no greater than 
the full-load efficiency of the basic model as calculated in Sec.  
429.65(c)(1)(ii).
    (d) Accredited laboratory. (1) Testing pursuant to paragraph (b) of 
this section must be conducted in an accredited laboratory for which 
the accreditation body was:
    (i) The National Institute of Standards and Technology/National 
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NIST/NVLAP); or
    (ii) A laboratory accreditation body having a mutual recognition 
arrangement with NIST/NVLAP; or
    (iii) An organization classified by the Department, pursuant to 
Sec.  429.74, as an accreditation body.
    (2) NIST/NVLAP is under the auspices of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST)/National Voluntary Laboratory 
Accreditation Program (NVLAP), which is part of the U.S. Department of 
Commerce. NIST/NVLAP accreditation is granted on the basis of 
conformance with criteria published in 15 CFR part 285. The National 
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, ``Procedures and General 
Requirements,'' NIST Handbook 150-10, April 2020, (referenced for 
guidance only, see Sec.  429.3) present the technical requirements of 
NVLAP for the Efficiency of Electric Motors field of accreditation. 
This handbook supplements NIST Handbook 150, National Voluntary 
Laboratory Accreditation Program ``Procedures and General 
Requirements,'' which contains 15 CFR part 285 plus all general NIST/
NVLAP procedures, criteria, and policies. Information regarding NIST/
NVLAP and its Efficiency of Electric Motors Program (EEM) can be 
obtained from NIST/NVLAP, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2140, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140, (301) 975-4016 (telephone), or (301) 926-
2884 (fax).

0
8. Amend Sec.  429.70 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs 
(j) and (k) to read as follows:


Sec.  429.70  Alternative methods for determining energy efficiency and 
energy use.

    (a) General. A manufacturer of covered products or covered 
equipment explicitly authorized to use an AEDM in Sec. Sec.  429.14 
through 429.65 may not distribute any basic model of such product or 
equipment in commerce unless the manufacturer has determined the energy 
consumption or energy efficiency of the basic model, either from 
testing the basic model in conjunction with DOE's certification 
sampling plans and statistics or from applying an alternative method 
for determining energy efficiency or energy use (i.e., AEDM) to the 
basic model, in accordance with the requirements of this section. In 
instances where a manufacturer has tested a basic model to validate the 
AEDM, the represented value of energy consumption or efficiency of that 
basic model must be determined and certified according to results from 
actual testing in conjunction with 10 CFR part 429,

[[Page 63650]]

subpart B certification sampling plans and statistics. In addition, a 
manufacturer may not knowingly use an AEDM to overrate the efficiency 
of a basic model.
* * * * *
    (j) Alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) for electric 
motors subject to requirements in subpart B of part 431 of this 
subchapter--(1) Criteria an AEDM must satisfy. A manufacturer is not 
permitted to apply an AEDM to a basic model of electric motor to 
determine its efficiency pursuant to this section unless:
    (i) The AEDM is derived from a mathematical model that estimates 
the energy efficiency characteristics and losses of the basic model as 
measured by the applicable DOE test procedure and accurately represents 
the mechanical and electrical characteristics of that basic model; and
    (ii) The AEDM is based on engineering or statistical analysis, 
computer simulation or modeling, or other analytic evaluation of actual 
performance data.
    (iii) The manufacturer has validated the AEDM in accordance with 
paragraph (i)(2) of this section with basic models that meet the 
current Federal energy conservation standards (if any).
    (2) Validation of an AEDM. Before using an AEDM, the manufacturer 
must validate the AEDM's accuracy and reliability by comparing the 
simulated full-load losses to tested average full-load losses as 
follows.
    (i) Select basic models. A manufacturer must select at least five 
basic models compliant with the energy conservation standards at Sec.  
431.25 of this subchapter (if any), in accordance with the criteria 
paragraphs (i)(2)(i)(A) through (D) of this section. In any instance 
where it is impossible for a manufacturer to select basic models for 
testing in accordance with all of these criteria, prioritize the 
criteria in the order in which they are listed. Within the limits 
imposed by the criteria, select basic models randomly. In addition, a 
basic model with a sample size of fewer than five units may not be 
selected to validate an AEDM.
    (A) Two of the basic models must be among the five basic models 
with the highest unit volumes of production by the manufacturer in the 
prior 5 years;
    (B) No two basic models may have the same horsepower rating;
    (C) No two basic models may have the same frame number series; and
    (D) Each basic model must have the lowest nominal full-load 
efficiency among the basic models within the same equipment class.
    (ii) Apply the AEDM to the selected basic models. Using the AEDM, 
calculate the simulated full-load losses for each of the selected basic 
models as follows: hp x (1/simulated full-load efficiency-1), where hp 
is the horsepower of the basic model.
    (iii) Test at least five units of each of the selected basic models 
in accordance with Sec.  431.16 of this subchapter. Use the measured 
full-load losses for each of the tested units to determine the average 
of the measured full-load losses for each of the selected basic models.
    (iv) Compare. The simulated full-load losses for each basic model 
(as determined under paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this section) must be 
greater than or equal to 90 percent of the average of the measured 
full-load losses (as determined under paragraph (i)(2)(iii) of this 
section) (i.e., 0.90 x average of the measured full-load losses <= 
simulated full-load losses).
    (3) Verification of an AEDM. (i) Each manufacturer must 
periodically select basic models representative of those to which it 
has applied an AEDM. The manufacturer must select a sufficient number 
of basic models to ensure the AEDM maintains its accuracy and 
reliability. For each basic model selected for verification:
    (A) Subject at least one unit for each basic model to test in 
accordance with Sec.  431.16 of this subchapter by an accredited 
laboratory that meets the requirements of Sec.  429.65(f). If one unit 
per basic model is selected, the simulated full-load losses for each 
basic model must be greater than or equal to 90 percent of the measured 
full-load losses (i.e., 0.90 x the measured full-load losses <= 
simulated full-load losses). If more than one unit per basic model is 
selected, the simulated full-load losses for each basic model must be 
greater than or equal to 90 percent of the average of the measured 
full-load losses (i.e., 0.90 x average of the measured full-load losses 
<= simulated full-load losses); or
    (B) Have a certification body recognized under Sec.  429.73 certify 
the results of the AEDM as accurately representing the basic model's 
average full-load efficiency. The simulated full-load efficiency for 
each basic model must be greater than or equal to 90 percent of the 
certified full-load losses (i.e., 0.90 x certified full-load losses <= 
simulated full-load losses).
    (ii) Each manufacturer that has used an AEDM under this section 
must have available for inspection by the Department of Energy records 
showing:
    (A) The method or methods used to develop the AEDM;
    (B) The mathematical model, the engineering or statistical 
analysis, computer simulation or modeling, and other analytic 
evaluation of performance data on which the AEDM is based;
    (C) Complete test data, product information, and related 
information that the manufacturer has generated or acquired pursuant to 
paragraphs (i)(2) and (3) of this section; and
    (D) The calculations used to determine the simulated full-load 
efficiency of each basic model to which the AEDM was applied.
    (iii) If requested by the Department, the manufacturer must:
    (A) Conduct simulations to predict the performance of particular 
basic models of electric motors specified by the Department;
    (B) Provide analyses of previous simulations conducted by the 
manufacturer; and/or
    (C) Conduct testing of basic models selected by the Department.
    (k) Alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) for 
dedicated-purpose pool pump motors subject to requirements in subpart Z 
of part 431 of this subchapter--(1) Criteria an AEDM must satisfy. A 
manufacturer is not permitted to apply an AEDM to a basic model of 
dedicated-purpose pool pump motors, to determine its efficiency 
pursuant to this section unless:
    (i) The AEDM is derived from a mathematical model that estimates 
the energy efficiency characteristics and losses of the basic model as 
measured by the applicable DOE test procedure and accurately represents 
the mechanical and electrical characteristics of that basic model;
    (ii) The AEDM is based on engineering or statistical analysis, 
computer simulation or modeling, or other analytic evaluation of actual 
performance data; and
    (iii) The manufacturer has validated the AEDM in accordance with 
paragraph (i)(2) of this section with basic models that meet the 
current Federal energy conservation standards (if any).
    (2) Validation of an AEDM. Before using an AEDM, the manufacturer 
must validate the AEDM's accuracy and reliability by comparing the 
simulated full-load losses to tested full-load losses as follows:
    (i) Select basic models. A manufacturer must select at least five 
basic models compliant with any relevant energy conservation standards 
at Sec.  431.485 of this subchapter (if any), in accordance with the 
criteria paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(A) through (D) of this section. In any 
instance where it is

[[Page 63651]]

impossible for a manufacturer to select basic models for testing in 
accordance with all of these criteria, prioritize the criteria in the 
order in which they are listed. Within the limits imposed by the 
criteria, select basic models randomly. In addition, a basic model with 
a sample size of fewer than five units may not be selected to validate 
an AEDM.
    (A) Two of the basic models must be among the five basic models 
with the highest unit volumes of production by the manufacturer in the 
prior 5 years.
    (B) No two basic models may have the same total horsepower rating;
    (C) No two basic models may have the same speed configuration; and
    (D) Each basic model must have the lowest full-load efficiency 
among the basic models within the same equipment class.
    (ii) Apply the AEDM to the selected basic models. Using the AEDM, 
calculate the simulated full-load losses for each of the selected basic 
models as follows: THP x (1/simulated full-load efficiency-1), where 
THP is the total horsepower of the basic model.
    (iii) Test at least five units of each of the selected basic models 
in accordance with Sec.  431.483 of this subchapter. Use the measured 
full-load losses for each of the tested units to determine the average 
of the measured full-load losses for each of the selected basic models.
    (iv) Compare. The simulated full-load losses for each basic model 
(paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this section) must be greater than or equal to 
90 percent of the average of the measured full-load losses (paragraph 
(i)(2)(iii) of this section) (i.e., 0.90 x average of the measured 
full-load losses <= simulated full-load losses).
    (3) Verification of an AEDM. (i) Each manufacturer must 
periodically select basic models representative of those to which it 
has applied an AEDM. The manufacturer must select a sufficient number 
of basic models to ensure the AEDM maintains its accuracy and 
reliability. For each basic model selected for verification:
    (A) Subject at least one unit to testing in accordance with Sec.  
431.483 of this subchapter by an accredited laboratory that meets the 
requirements of Sec.  429.65(d). If one unit per basic model is 
selected, the simulated full-load losses for each basic model must be 
greater than or equal to 90 percent of the measured full-load losses 
(i.e., 0.90 x the measured full-load losses <= simulated full-load 
losses). If more than one unit per basic model is selected, the 
simulated full-load losses for each basic model must be greater than or 
equal to 90 percent of the average measured full-load losses (i.e., 
0.90 x average of the measured full-load losses <= simulated full-load 
losses); or
    (B) Have a certification body recognized under Sec.  429.73 certify 
the results of the AEDM accurately represent the basic model's full-
load efficiency. The simulated full-load efficiency for each basic 
model must be greater than or equal to 90 percent of the certified 
full-load losses (i.e., 0.90 x certified full-load losses <= simulated 
full-load losses).
    (ii) Each manufacturer that has used an AEDM under this section 
must have available for inspection by the Department of Energy records 
showing:
    (A) The method or methods used to develop the AEDM;
    (B) The mathematical model, the engineering or statistical 
analysis, computer simulation or modeling, and other analytic 
evaluation of performance data on which the AEDM is based;
    (C) Complete test data, product information, and related 
information that the manufacturer has generated or acquired pursuant to 
paragraphs (i)(2) and (3) of this section; and
    (D) The calculations used to determine the simulated full-load 
efficiency of each basic model to which the AEDM was applied.
    (iii) If requested by the Department, the manufacturer must:
    (A) Conduct simulations to predict the performance of particular 
basic models of dedicated-purpose pool pump motors specified by the 
Department;
    (B) Provide analyses of previous simulations conducted by the 
manufacturer;
    (C) Conduct testing of basic models selected by the Department; or
    (D) A combination of the foregoing.

0
9. Add Sec.  429.73 to subpart B to read as follows:


Sec.  429.73  Department of Energy recognition of nationally recognized 
certification programs for electric motors, including dedicated-purpose 
pool pump motors.

    (a) Petition. For a certification program to be classified by the 
Department of Energy as being nationally recognized in the United 
States for the purposes of Sec. Sec.  429.64 and 429.65, the 
organization operating the program must submit a petition to the 
Department requesting such classification, in accordance with paragraph 
(c) of this section and Sec.  429.75. The petition must demonstrate 
that the program meets the criteria in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) Evaluation criteria. For a certification program to be 
classified by the Department as nationally recognized, it must meet the 
following criteria:
    (1) It must have satisfactory standards and procedures for 
conducting and administering a certification system, including periodic 
follow up activities to assure that basic models of electric motors 
continue to conform to the efficiency levels for which they were 
certified, and for granting a certificate of conformity;
    (2) For certification of electric motors, including dedicated-
purpose pool pump motors, it must be independent (as defined at Sec.  
429.2) of electric motor (including dedicated-purpose pool pump motor) 
manufacturers, importers, distributors, private labelers or vendors for 
which it is providing certification;
    (3) It must be qualified to operate a certification system in a 
highly competent manner; and
    (4) In the case of electric motors subject to requirements in 
subpart B of part 431 of this subchapter, the certification program 
must have expertise in the content and application of the test 
procedures at Sec.  431.16 of this subchapter and must apply the 
provisions at Sec. Sec.  429.64 and 429.70(j); or
    (5) In the case of dedicated-purpose pool pump motors subject to 
requirements in subpart Z of part 431 of this subchapter, the 
certification program must have expertise in the content and 
application of the test procedures at Sec.  431.484 of this subchapter 
and must apply the provisions at Sec. Sec.  429.65 and 429.70(k).
    (c) Petition format. Each petition requesting classification as a 
nationally recognized certification program must contain a narrative 
statement as to why the program meets the criteria listed in paragraph 
(b) of this section, must be signed on behalf of the organization 
operating the program by an authorized representative, and must be 
accompanied by documentation that supports the narrative statement. The 
following provides additional guidance as to the specific criteria:
    (1) Standards and procedures. A copy of the standards and 
procedures for operating a certification system and for granting a 
certificate of conformity should accompany the petition.
    (2) Independent status. The petitioning organization must describe 
how it is independent (as defined at Sec.  429.2) from electric motor, 
including dedicated-purpose pool pump motor manufacturers, importers, 
distributors, private labelers, vendors, and trade associations.
    (3) Qualifications to operate a certification system. Experience in 
operating a certification system should be described and substantiated 
by supporting documents within the petition. Of particular relevance 
would

[[Page 63652]]

be documentary evidence that establishes experience in the application 
of guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 65, ``General requirements 
for bodies operating product certification systems'' (referenced for 
guidance only, see Sec.  429.3), ISO/IEC Guide 27, ``Guidelines for 
corrective action to be taken by a certification body in the event of 
either misapplication of its mark of conformity to a product, or 
products which bear the mark of the certification body being found to 
subject persons or property to risk'' (referenced for guidance only, 
see Sec.  429.3), and ISO/IEC Guide 28, ``General rules for a model 
third-party certification system for products'' (referenced for 
guidance only, see Sec.  429.3), as well as experience in overseeing 
compliance with the guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25, 
``General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing 
laboratories'' (referenced for guidance only, see Sec.  429.3).
    (4) Expertise in test procedures--(i) General. This part of the 
petition should include items such as, but not limited to, a 
description of prior projects and qualifications of staff members. Of 
particular relevance would be documentary evidence that establishes 
experience in applying guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25, 
``General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration and Testing 
Laboratories'' (referenced for guidance only, see Sec.  429.3), and 
with energy efficiency testing of the equipment to be certified.
    (ii) Electric motors subject to requirements in subpart B of part 
431 of this subchapter. The petition should set forth the program's 
experience with the test procedures detailed in Sec.  431.16 of this 
subchapter and the provisions in Sec. Sec.  429.64 and 429.70(j).
    (iii) Dedicated-purpose pool pump motors subject to requirements in 
subpart Z of part 431 of this subchapter. The petition should set forth 
the program's experience with the test procedures detailed in Sec.  
431.484 of this subchapter and the provisions in Sec. Sec.  429.65 and 
429.70(k).
    (d) Disposition. The Department will evaluate the petition in 
accordance with Sec.  429.75, and will determine whether the applicant 
meets the criteria in paragraph (b) of this section for classification 
as a nationally recognized certification program.
    (e) Periodic evaluation. Within one year after publication of any 
final rule regarding electric motors, a nationally recognized 
certification program must evaluate whether they meet the criteria in 
paragraph (b) of this section and must either submit a letter to DOE 
certifying that no change to its program is needed to continue to meet 
the criteria in paragraph (b) or submit a letter describing the 
measures implemented to ensure the criteria in paragraph (b) are met. A 
certification program will continue to be classified by the Department 
of Energy as being nationally recognized in the United States until DOE 
concludes otherwise.

0
10. Add Sec.  429.74 to subpart B to read as follows:


Sec.  429.74  Department of Energy recognition of accreditation bodies 
for electric motors, including dedicated-purpose pool pump motors.

    (a) Petition. To be classified by the Department of Energy as an 
accreditation body, an organization must submit a petition to the 
Department requesting such classification, in accordance with paragraph 
(c) of this section and Sec.  429.75. The petition must demonstrate 
that the organization meets the criteria in paragraph (b) of this 
section.
    (b) Evaluation criteria. To be classified as an accreditation body 
by the Department, the organization must meet the following criteria:
    (1) It must have satisfactory standards and procedures for 
conducting and administering an accreditation system and for granting 
accreditation. This must include provisions for periodic audits to 
verify that the laboratories receiving its accreditation continue to 
conform to the criteria by which they were initially accredited, and 
for withdrawal of accreditation where such conformance does not occur, 
including failure to provide accurate test results.
    (2) It must be independent (as defined at Sec.  429.2) of electric 
motor manufacturers, importers, distributors, private labelers or 
vendors for which it is providing accreditation.
    (3) It must be qualified to perform the accrediting function in a 
highly competent manner.
    (4)(i) In the case of electric motors subject to requirements in 
subpart B of part 431 of this subchapter, the organization must be an 
expert in the content and application of the test procedures and 
methodologies at Sec.  431.16 of this subchapter and Sec.  429.64.
    (ii) In the case of dedicated-purpose pool pump motors subject to 
requirements in subpart Z of part 431 of this subchapter, the 
organization must be an expert in the content and application of the 
test procedures and methodologies at Sec.  431.484 of this subchapter 
and Sec.  429.65.
    (c) Petition format. Each petition requesting classification as an 
accreditation body must contain a narrative statement as to why the 
program meets the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, 
must be signed on behalf of the organization operating the program by 
an authorized representative, and must be accompanied by documentation 
that supports the narrative statement. The following provides 
additional guidance:
    (1) Standards and procedures. A copy of the organization's 
standards and procedures for operating an accreditation system and for 
granting accreditation should accompany the petition.
    (2) Independent status. The petitioning organization must describe 
how it is independent (as defined at Sec.  429.2) from electric motor 
manufacturers, importers, distributors, private labelers, vendors, and 
trade associations.
    (3) Qualifications to do accrediting. Experience in accrediting 
should be discussed and substantiated by supporting documents. Of 
particular relevance would be documentary evidence that establishes 
experience in the application of guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC 
Guide 58, ``Calibration and testing laboratory accreditation systems--
General requirements for operation and recognition'' (referenced for 
guidance only, see Sec.  429.3), as well as experience in overseeing 
compliance with the guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25, 
``General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration and Testing 
Laboratories'' (referenced for guidance only, see Sec.  429.3).
    (4) Expertise in test procedures. The petition should set forth the 
organization's experience with the test procedures and methodologies 
test procedures and methodologies at Sec.  431.16 of this subchapter 
and Sec.  429.64. This part of the petition should include items such 
as, but not limited to, a description of prior projects and 
qualifications of staff members. Of particular relevance would be 
documentary evidence that establishes experience in applying the 
guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25, ``General Requirements 
for the Competence of Calibration and Testing Laboratories,'' 
(referenced for guidance only, see Sec.  429.3) to energy efficiency 
testing for electric motors.
    (d) Disposition. The Department will evaluate the petition in 
accordance with Sec.  429.75, and will determine whether the applicant 
meets the criteria in paragraph (b) of this section for classification 
as an accrediting body.

0
11. Add Sec.  429.75 to subpart B to read as follows:

[[Page 63653]]

Sec.  429.75  Procedures for recognition and withdrawal of recognition 
of accreditation bodies or certification programs.

    (a) Filing of petition. Any petition submitted to the Department 
pursuant to Sec.  429.73(a) or Sec.  429.74(a), shall be entitled 
``Petition for Recognition'' (``Petition'') and must be submitted to 
the Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, Building Technologies Office, Appliance and Equipment Standards 
Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121, 
or via email (preferred submittal method) to 
[email protected]. In accordance with the provisions set 
forth in 10 CFR 1004.11, any request for confidential treatment of any 
information contained in such a Petition or in supporting documentation 
must be accompanied by a copy of the Petition or supporting 
documentation from which the information claimed to be confidential has 
been deleted.
    (b) Public notice and solicitation of comments. DOE shall publish 
in the Federal Register the Petition from which confidential 
information, as determined by DOE, has been deleted in accordance with 
10 CFR 1004.11 and shall solicit comments, data and information on 
whether the Petition should be granted. The Department shall also make 
available for inspection and copying the Petition's supporting 
documentation from which confidential information, as determined by 
DOE, has been deleted in accordance with 10 CFR 1004.11. Any person 
submitting written comments to DOE with respect to a Petition shall 
also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner.
    (c) Responsive statement by the petitioner. A petitioner may, 
within 10 working days of receipt of a copy of any comments submitted 
in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, respond to such 
comments in a written statement submitted to the Assistant Secretary 
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. A petitioner may address 
more than one set of comments in a single responsive statement.
    (d) Public announcement of interim determination and solicitation 
of comments. The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy shall issue an interim determination on the Petition 
as soon as is practicable following receipt and review of the Petition 
and other applicable documents, including, but not limited to, comments 
and responses to comments. The petitioner shall be notified in writing 
of the interim determination. DOE shall also publish in the Federal 
Register the interim determination and shall solicit comments, data, 
and information with respect to that interim determination. Written 
comments and responsive statements may be submitted as provided in 
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
    (e) Public announcement of final determination. The Assistant 
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy shall as soon as 
practicable, following receipt and review of comments and responsive 
statements on the interim determination, publish in the Federal 
Register notification of final determination on the Petition.
    (f) Additional information. The Department may, at any time during 
the recognition process, request additional relevant information or 
conduct an investigation concerning the Petition. The Department's 
determination on a Petition may be based solely on the Petition and 
supporting documents, or may also be based on such additional 
information as the Department deems appropriate.
    (g) Withdrawal of recognition--(1) Withdrawal by the Department. If 
DOE believes that an accreditation body or certification program that 
has been recognized under Sec.  429.73 or Sec.  429.74, respectively, 
is failing to meet the criteria of paragraph (b) of the section under 
which it is recognized, or if the certification program fails to meet 
the provisions at Sec.  429.73(e), the Department will issue a Notice 
of Withdrawal (``Notice'') to inform such entity and request that it 
take appropriate corrective action(s) specified in the Notice. The 
Department will give the entity an opportunity to respond. In no case 
shall the time allowed for corrective action exceed 180 days from the 
date of the notice (inclusive of the 30 days allowed for disputing the 
bases for DOE's notification of withdrawal). If the entity wishes to 
dispute any bases identified in the Notice, the entity must respond to 
DOE within 30 days of receipt of the Notice. If after receiving such 
response, or no response, the Department believes satisfactory 
correction has not been made, the Department will withdraw its 
recognition from that entity.
    (2) Voluntary withdrawal. An accreditation body or certification 
program may withdraw itself from recognition by the Department by 
advising the Department in writing of such withdrawal. It must also 
advise those that use it (for an accreditation body, the testing 
laboratories, and for a certification organization, the manufacturers) 
of such withdrawal.
    (3) Notice of withdrawal of recognition. The Department will 
publish in the Federal Register notification of any withdrawal of 
recognition that occurs pursuant to this paragraph.

0
12. Add appendix B to subpart B of part 429 to read as follows:

Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 429--Nominal Full-Load Efficiency Table 
for Electric Motors

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99.0........................................            96.5             88.5               68             36.5
98.9........................................            96.2             87.5               66             34.5
98.8........................................            95.8             86.5               64
98.7........................................            95.4             85.5               62
98.6........................................              95               84             59.5
98.5........................................            94.5             82.5             57.5
98.4........................................            94.1             81.5               55
98.2........................................            93.6               80             52.5
98..........................................              93             78.5             50.5
97.8........................................            92.4               77               48
97.6........................................            91.7             75.5               46
97.4........................................              91               74             43.5
97.1........................................            90.2               72               41
96.8........................................            89.5               70             38.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 63654]]

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

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

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.


0
14. Section 431.12 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the definitions of ``Air-over electric motor'', ``Basic 
model'', ``Definite purpose electric motor'', ``Definite purpose 
motor'', ``Electric motor with encapsulated windings'', ``Electric 
motor with moisture resistant windings'', and ``Electric motor with 
sealed windings'';
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Equipment class'';
0
c. Revising the definitions of ``General purpose electric motor'', 
``General purpose electric motor (subtype I)'', ``General purpose 
electric motor (subtype II)'', and ``IEC Design H motor'';
0
d. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``IEC Design HE'', 
``IEC Design HEY'', and ``IEC Design HY'';
0
e. Revising the definition of ``IEC Design N motor'';
0
f. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``IEC Design NE'', 
``IEC Design NEY'', and ``IEC Design NY'';
0
g. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Inverter'';
0
h. Revising the definitions of ``Inverter-capable electric motor'', 
``Inverter-only electric motor'', ``Liquid-cooled electric motor'', 
``NEMA Design A motor'', ``NEMA Design B motor'', ``NEMA Design C 
motor'', and ``Nominal full-load efficiency''; and
0
i. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Rated frequency'', 
``Rated load'', and ``Rated voltage.''
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  431.12  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Air-over electric motor means an electric motor that does not reach 
thermal equilibrium (i.e., thermal stability), during a rated load 
temperature test according to section 2 of appendix B, without the 
application of forced cooling by a free flow of air from an external 
device not mechanically connected to the motor within the motor 
enclosure.
* * * * *
    Basic model means all units of electric motors manufactured by a 
single manufacturer, that are within the same equipment class, have 
electrical characteristics that are essentially identical, and do not 
have any differing physical or functional characteristics that affect 
energy consumption or efficiency.
* * * * *
    Definite purpose electric motor means any electric motor that 
cannot be used in most general purpose applications and is designed 
either:
    (1) To standard ratings with standard operating characteristics or 
standard mechanical construction for use under service conditions other 
than usual, such as those specified in NEMA MG 1-2016, Paragraph 14.3, 
``Unusual Service Conditions,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.15); or
    (2) For use on a particular type of application.
    Definite purpose motor means any electric motor that cannot be used 
in most general purpose applications and is designed either:
    (1) To standard ratings with standard operating characteristics or 
standard mechanical construction for use under service conditions other 
than usual, such as those specified in NEMA MG 1-2016, Paragraph 14.3, 
``Unusual Service Conditions,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.15); or
    (2) For use on a particular type of application.
* * * * *
    Electric motor with encapsulated windings means an electric motor 
capable of passing the conformance test for water resistance described 
in NEMA MG 1-2016, Paragraph 12.62 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.15).
    Electric motor with moisture resistant windings means an electric 
motor that is capable of passing the conformance test for moisture 
resistance generally described in NEMA MG 1-2016, paragraph 12.63 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15).
    Electric motor with sealed windings means an electric motor capable 
of passing the conformance test for water resistance described in NEMA 
MG 1-2016, paragraph 12.62 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.15).
* * * * *
    Equipment class means one of the combinations of an electric 
motor's horsepower (or standard kilowatt equivalent), number of poles, 
and open or enclosed construction, with respect to a category of 
electric motor for which Sec.  431.25 prescribes nominal full-load 
efficiency standards.
* * * * *
    General purpose electric motor means any electric motor that is 
designed in standard ratings with either:
    (1) Standard operating characteristics and mechanical construction 
for use under usual service conditions, such as those specified in NEMA 
MG 1-2016, paragraph 14.2, ``Usual Service Conditions,'' (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  431.15) and without restriction to a particular 
application or type of application; or
    (2) Standard operating characteristics or standard mechanical 
construction for use under unusual service conditions, such as those 
specified in NEMA MG 1-2016, paragraph 14.3, ``Unusual Service 
Conditions,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15) or for a 
particular type of application, and which can be used in most general 
purpose applications.
    General purpose electric motor (subtype I) means a general purpose 
electric motor that:
    (1) Is a single-speed, induction motor;
    (2) Is rated for continuous duty (MG1) operation or for duty type 
S1 (IEC);
    (3) Contains a squirrel-cage (MG1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
    (4) Has foot-mounting that may include foot-mounting with flanges 
or detachable feet;
    (5) Is built in accordance with NEMA T-frame dimensions or their 
IEC metric equivalents, including a frame size that is between two 
consecutive NEMA frame sizes or their IEC metric equivalents;
    (6) Has performance in accordance with NEMA Design A (MG1) or B 
(MG1) characteristics or equivalent designs such as IEC Design N (IEC);
    (7) Operates on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal 
power, and:
    (i) Is rated at 230 or 460 volts (or both) including motors rated 
at multiple voltages that include 230 or 460 volts (or both), or
    (ii) Can be operated on 230 or 460 volts (or both); and
    (8) Includes, but is not limited to, explosion-proof construction.
    Note 1 to definition of ``General purpose electric motor (subtype 
I)'': References to ``MG1'' above refer to NEMA Standards Publication 
MG 1-2016 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  431.15). References to 
``IEC'' above refer to IEC 60034-1, 60034-12:2016, 60050-411, and 
60072-1 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  431.15), as applicable.
    General purpose electric motor (subtype II) means any general 
purpose electric motor that incorporates design elements of a general 
purpose electric motor (subtype I) but, unlike a general purpose 
electric motor (subtype I), is configured in one or more of the 
following ways:
    (1) Is built in accordance with NEMA U-frame dimensions as 
described in NEMA MG 1-1967 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.15) or in accordance with the IEC metric equivalents,

[[Page 63655]]

including a frame size that is between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes 
or their IEC metric equivalents;
    (2) Has performance in accordance with NEMA Design C 
characteristics as described in MG1 or an equivalent IEC design(s) such 
as IEC Design H;
    (3) Is a close-coupled pump motor;
    (4) Is a footless motor;
    (5) Is a vertical solid shaft normal thrust motor (as tested in a 
horizontal configuration) built and designed in a manner consistent 
with MG1;
    (6) Is an eight-pole motor (900 rpm); or
    (7) Is a polyphase motor with a voltage rating of not more than 600 
volts, is not rated at 230 or 460 volts (or both), and cannot be 
operated on 230 or 460 volts (or both).
    Note 2 to definition of ``General purpose electric motor (subtype 
II)'': With the exception of the NEMA Motor Standards MG1-1967 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  431.15), references to ``MG1'' 
above refer to NEMA MG 1-2016 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  
431.15). References to ``IEC'' above refer to IEC 60034-1, 60034-12, 
60050-411, and 60072-1 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  431.15), as 
applicable.
* * * * *
    IEC Design H motor means an electric motor that:
    (1) Is an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power;
    (2) Contains a cage rotor;
    (3) Is capable of direct-on-line starting
    (4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles;
    (5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 160 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
    (6) Conforms to Sections 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3 of the IEC 60034-12:2016 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15) specifications for 
starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and starting 
requirements, respectively.
    IEC Design HE means an electric motor that:
    (1) Is an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power;
    (2) Contains a cage rotor;
    (3) Is capable of direct-on-line starting;
    (4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles;
    (5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 160 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
    (6) Conforms to section 9.1, Table 3, and Section 9.3 of the IEC 
60034-12:2016 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15) 
specifications for starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and 
starting requirements, respectively.
    IEC Design HEY means an electric motor that:
    (1) Is an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power;
    (2) Contains a cage rotor;
    (3) Is capable of star-delta starting;
    (4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles;
    (5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 160 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
    (6) Conforms to section 5.7, Table 3 and Section 9.3 of the IEC 
60034-12:2016 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15) 
specifications for starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and 
starting requirements, respectively.
    IEC Design HY means an electric motor that:
    (1) Is an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power;
    (2) Contains a cage rotor;
    (3) Is capable of star-delta starting;
    (4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles;
    (5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 160 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
    (6) Conforms to section 5.7, Table 3 and Section 9.3 of the IEC 
60034-12;2016 (incorporated by reference , see Sec.  431.15) 
specification for starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and 
starting requirements, respectively.
    IEC Design HY means an electric motor that:
    (1) Is an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power;
    (2) Contains a cage rotor;
    (3) Is capable of star-delta starting;
    (4) Has 4, 6, or 8 poles;
    (5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 160 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
    (6) Conforms to Section 5.7, Section 9.2 and Section 9.3 of the IEC 
60034-12:2016 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15) 
specifications for starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and 
starting requirements, respectively.
    IEC Design N motor means an electric motor that:
    (1) Is an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power;
    (2) Contains a cage rotor;
    (3) Is capable of direct-on-line starting;
    (4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles;
    (5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 1600 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
    (6) Conforms to Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of the IEC 60034-12:2016 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15) specifications for torque 
characteristics, locked rotor apparent power, and starting 
requirements, respectively. If a motor has an increased safety 
designation of type ``e,'', the locked rotor apparent power shall be in 
accordance with the appropriate values specified in IEC 60079-7:2015 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15).
    IEC Design NE means an electric motor that:
    (1) Is an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power;
    (2) Contains a cage rotor;
    (3) Is capable of direct-on-line starting;
    (4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles;
    (5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 1600 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
    (6) Conforms to section 6.1, Table 3 and Section 6.3 of the IEC 
60034-12:2016 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15) 
specifications for starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and 
starting requirements, respectively.
    IEC Design NEY means an electric motor that:
    (1) Is an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power;
    (2) Contains a cage rotor;
    (3) Is capable of star-delta starting;
    (4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles;
    (5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 1600 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
    (6) Conforms to section 5.4, Table 3 and Section 6.3 of the IEC 
60034-12:2016 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15) 
specifications for starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and 
starting requirements, respectively.
    IEC Design NY means an electric motor that:
    (1) Is an induction motor designed for use with three-phase power;
    (2) Contains a cage rotor;
    (3) Is capable of star-delta starting;
    (4) Has 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles;
    (5) Is rated from 0.12 kW to 1600 kW at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
    (6) Conforms to Section 5.4, Section 6.2 and Section 6.3 of the IEC 
60034-12:2016 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15) 
specifications for starting torque, locked rotor apparent power, and 
starting requirements, respectively.
* * * * *
    Inverter means an electronic device that converts an input AC or DC 
power into a controlled output AC or DC voltage or current. An inverter 
may also be called a converter.
    Inverter-capable electric motor means an electric motor designed 
for direct online starting and is suitable for operation on an inverter 
without special filtering.
    Inverter-only electric motor means an electric motor designed 
specifically for operation fed by an inverter with a temperature rise 
within the specified insulation thermal class or thermal limits.
* * * * *
    Liquid-cooled electric motor means a motor that is cooled by liquid 
circulated using a designated cooling apparatus such that the liquid or 
liquid-filled conductors come into direct contact with the parts of the 
motor but is not submerged in a liquid during operation.
* * * * *
    NEMA Design A motor means a squirrel-cage motor that:
    (1) Is designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing 
locked-

[[Page 63656]]

rotor torque as shown in NEMA MG 1-2016, paragraph 12.38.1 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15);
    (2) Has pull-up torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG 1-
2016, paragraph 12.40.1;
    (3) Has breakdown torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG 
1-2016, paragraph 12.39.1;
    (4) Has a locked-rotor current higher than the values shown in NEMA 
MG 1-2016, Paragraph 12.35.2 for 60 hertz and NEMA MG 1-2016, Paragraph 
12.35.4 for 50 hertz; and
    (5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for motors with 
fewer than 10 poles.
    NEMA Design B motor means a squirrel-cage motor that is:
    (1) Designed to withstand full-voltage starting;
    (2) Develops locked-rotor, breakdown, and pull-up torques adequate 
for general application as specified in Sections 12.38, 12.39 and 12.40 
of NEMA MG 1-2016 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15);
    (3) Draws locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in 
Section 12.35.2 for 60 hertz and 12.35.4 for 50 hertz of NEMA MG 1-
2016; and
    (4) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for motors with 
fewer than 10 poles.
    NEMA Design C motor means a squirrel-cage motor that:
    (1) Is designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing 
locked-rotor torque for high-torque applications up to the values shown 
in NEMA MG 1-2016, paragraph 12.38.2 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.15);
    (2) Has pull-up torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG 1-
2016, paragraph 12.40.2;
    (3) Has breakdown torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG 
1-2016, paragraph 12.39.2;
    (4) Has a locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in 
NEMA MG 1-2016, paragraphs 12.35.2 for 60 hertz and 12.35.4 for 50 
hertz; and
    (5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent.
    Nominal full-load efficiency means, with respect to an electric 
motor, a representative value of efficiency selected from the ``nominal 
efficiency'' column of Table 12-10, NEMA MG 1-2016, (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.15), that is not greater than the average 
full-load efficiency of a population of motors of the same design.
* * * * *
    Rated frequency means 60 Hz and corresponds to the frequency of the 
electricity supplied either:
    (1) Directly to the motor, in the case of electric motors capable 
of operating without an inverter; or
    (2) To the inverter in the case on inverter-only electric motors.
    Rated load (or full-load, full rated load, or rated full-load) 
means the rated output power of an electric motor.
    Rated voltage means the input voltage of a motor or inverter used 
when making representations of the performance characteristics of a 
given electric motor and selected by the motor's manufacturer to be 
used for testing the motor's efficiency.
* * * * *


Sec.  431.14  [Removed and Reserved]

0
15. Remove and reserve Sec.  431.14.

0
16. Section 431.15 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b);
0
b. Removing the text ``, + 41 22 919 02 11, or go to http://webstore.iec.ch'' and adding in its place the text ``; + 41 22 919 02 
11; webstore.iec.ch'' in paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(3), (4), and (7);
0
d. Adding paragraphs (c)(8) and (9); and
0
e. Revising paragraphs (d) through (f).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  431.15  Materials incorporated by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart 
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other 
than that specified in this section, the U.S. Department of Energy 
(DOE) must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material 
must be available to the public. All approved incorporation by 
reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at DOE and at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact DOE at: 
the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-9127, 
[email protected], https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/building-technologies-office. For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: 
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. The material 
may be obtained from the sources in the following paragraphs:
    (b) CSA. Canadian Standards Association, Sales Department, 5060 
Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada; (800) 
463-6727; www.shopcsa.ca/onlinestore/welcome.asp.
    (1) CSA C390-10 (reaffirmed 2019), (``CSA C390-10''), Test methods, 
marking requirements, and energy efficiency levels for three-phase 
induction motors, including Updates No. 1 through 3, Revised January 
2020; IBR approved for Sec.  431.12 and appendix B to this subpart.
    (2) CSA C747-09 (reaffirmed 2019) (``CSA C747-09''), Energy 
efficiency test methods for small motors, including Update No. 1 
(August 2016), October 2009; IBR approved for appendix B to this 
subpart.
    (c) * * *
    (3) IEC 60034-2-1:2014, Rotating electrical machines--Part 2-1: 
Standard methods for determining losses and efficiency from tests 
(excluding machines for traction vehicles), Edition 2.0, 2014-06; IBR 
approved for Sec.  431.12 and appendix B to this subpart.
    (4) IEC 60034-12:2016, Rotating electrical machines, Part 12: 
Starting performance of single-speed three-phase cage induction motors, 
Edition 3.0, 2016-11; IBR approved for Sec.  431.12.
* * * * *
    (7) IEC 60072-1, Dimensions and Output Series for Rotating 
Electrical Machines--Part 1: Frame numbers 56 to 400 and flange numbers 
55 to 1080, Sixth edition, 1991-02; IBR approved as follows: clauses 2, 
3, 4.1, 6.1, 7, and 10, and Tables 1, 2 and 4; IBR approved for Sec.  
431.12 and appendix B to this subpart.
    (8) IEC 60079-7:2015, Explosive atmospheres--Part 7: Equipment 
protection by increased safety ``e'', Edition 5.0, 2015-06; IBR 
approved for Sec.  431.12.
    (9) IEC 61800-9-2:2017, Adjustable speed electrical power drive 
systems--Part 9-2: Ecodesign for power drive systems, motor starters, 
power electronics and their driven applications--Energy efficiency 
indicators for power drive systems and motor starters, Edition 1.0, 
2017-03; IBR approved for appendix B to this subpart.
    (d) IEEE. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 
445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331; (800) 678-IEEE 
(4333); www.ieee.org/web/publications/home/index.html.
    (1) IEEE Std 112-2017 (``IEEE 112-2017''), IEEE Standard Test 
Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators, approved 
December 6, 2017; IBR approved for Sec.  431.12 and appendix B to this 
subpart.
    (2) IEEE Std 114-2010 (``IEEE 114-2010''), Test Procedure for 
Single-Phase Induction Motors, December 23, 2010; IBR approved for 
appendix B to this subpart.

[[Page 63657]]

    (e) NEMA. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 North 
17th Street, Suite 1752, Rosslyn, Virginia 22209; (703) 841-3200; 
www.nema.org/.
    (1) ANSI/NEMA MG 1-2016 (Revision 1, 2018) (``NEMA MG 1-2016''), 
Motors and Generators, ANSI-approved June 15, 2021; IBR approved for 
Sec.  431.12 and appendix B to this subpart.
    (2) NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1967 (``NEMA MG1-1967''), Motors 
and Generators, January 1968; as follows:
    (i) Part 11, Dimension; IBR approved for Sec.  431.12.
    (ii) Part 13, Frame Assignments--A-C Integral-Horsepower Motors; 
IBR approved for Sec.  431.12.
    (f) NFPA. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch 
Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471; (617) 770-3000; www.nfpa.org/.
    (1) NFPA 20, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for 
Fire Protection, 2022 Edition, ANSI-approved April 8, 2021. IBR 
approved for Sec.  431.12.
    (2) [Reserved]


Sec.  431.17  [Removed and Reserved]

0
17. Remove and reserve Sec.  431.17.

0
18. Section 431.18 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  431.18  Testing laboratories.

* * * * *
    (b) NIST/NVLAP is under the auspices of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST)/National Voluntary Laboratory 
Accreditation Program (NVLAP), which is part of the U.S. Department of 
Commerce. NIST/NVLAP accreditation is granted on the basis of 
conformance with criteria published in 15 CFR part 285. The National 
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, ``Procedures and General 
Requirements,'' NIST Handbook 150-10, April 2020, (referenced for 
guidance only, see Sec.  429.3 of this subchapter) present the 
technical requirements of NVLAP for the Efficiency of Electric Motors 
field of accreditation. This handbook supplements NIST Handbook 150, 
National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program ``Procedures and 
General Requirements,'' which contains 15 CFR part 285 plus all general 
NIST/NVLAP procedures, criteria, and policies. Information regarding 
NIST/NVLAP and its Efficiency of Electric Motors Program (EEM) can be 
obtained from NIST/NVLAP, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2140, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140, (301) 975-4016 (telephone), or (301) 926-
2884 (fax).


Sec.  Sec.  431.19 through 431.21   [Removed]

0
19. Remove Sec. Sec.  431.19 through 431.21.

0
20. Section 431.25 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (g)(9);
0
b. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text and the table 5 heading; 
and
0
c. Revising paragraph (i) introductory text and the table 6 heading.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  431.25  Energy conservation standards and compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (9) Meet all of the performance requirements of one of the 
following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design 
N, NE, NEY, NY or H, HE, HEY, HY motor.
* * * * *
    (h) Starting on June 1, 2016, each NEMA Design A motor, NEMA Design 
B motor, and IEC Design N (including NE, NEY, or NY variants) motor 
that is an electric motor meeting the criteria in paragraph (g) of this 
section and with a power rating from 1 horsepower through 500 
horsepower, but excluding fire pump electric motors, manufactured 
(alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) shall have a 
nominal full-load efficiency of not less than the following:

Table 5 to Paragraph (h)--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design 
A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE, NEY or NY Motors (Excluding Fire 
Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz

* * * * *
    (i) Starting on June 1, 2016, each NEMA Design C motor and IEC 
Design H (including HE, HEY, or HY variants) motor that is an electric 
motor meeting the criteria in paragraph (g) of this section and with a 
power rating from 1 horsepower through 200 horsepower manufactured 
(alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) shall have a 
nominal full-load efficiency that is not less than the following:

Table 6 to Paragraph (i)--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design 
C and IEC Design H, HE, HEY or HY Motors at 60 Hz

* * * * *

0
20. Appendix B to subpart B of part 431 is revised to read as follows:

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

    Note:  Manufacturers of electric motors subject to energy 
conservation standards in Sec.  431.25 must test in accordance with 
this appendix.

    For any other electric motor that is not currently covered by 
the energy conservation standards at Sec.  431.25, manufacturers of 
this equipment must test in accordance with this appendix 180 days 
after the effective date of the final rule adopting energy 
conservation standards for such motor. For any other electric motor 
that is not currently covered by the energy conservation standards 
at Sec.  431.25, manufacturers choosing to make any representations 
respecting of energy efficiency for such motors must test in 
accordance with this appendix.

0. Incorporation by Reference

    In Sec.  431.15, DOE incorporated by reference the entire 
standard for CSA C390-10, CSA C747-09, IEC 60034-1:2010, IEC 60034-
2-1:2014, IEC 60051-1:2016, IEC 61800-9-2:2017, IEEE 112-2017, IEEE 
114-2010, and NEMA MG 1-2016; however, only enumerated provisions of 
those documents are applicable as follows. In cases where there is a 
conflict, the language of this appendix takes precedence over those 
documents. Any subsequent amendment to a referenced document by the 
standard-setting organization will not affect the test procedure in 
this appendix, unless and until the test procedure is amended by 
DOE.

0.1. CSA C390-10

    (a) Section 1.3 ``Scope,'' as specified in sections 2.1.1 and 
2.3.3.2 of this appendix;
    (b) Section 3.1 ``Definitions,'' as specified in sections 2.1.1 
and 2.3.3.2 of this appendix;
    (c) Section 5 ``General test requirements--Measurements,'' as 
specified in sections 2.1.1 and 2.3.3.2 of this appendix;
    (d) Section 7 ``Test method,'' as specified in sections 2.1.1 
and 2.3.3.2 of this appendix;
    (e) Table 1 ``Resistance measurement time delay,'' as specified 
in sections 2.1.1 and 2.3.3.2 of this appendix;
    (f) Annex B ``Linear regression analysis,'' as specified in 
sections 2.1.1 and 2.3.3.2 of this appendix; and
    (g) Annex C ``Procedure for correction of dynamometer torque 
readings'' as specified in sections 2.1.1 and 2.3.3.2 of this 
appendix.

0.2. CSA C747-09

    (a) Section 1.6 ``Scope'' as specified in sections 2.3.1.2 and 
2.3.2.2 of this appendix;
    (b) Section 3 ``Definitions'' as specified in sections 2.3.1.2 
and 2.3.2.2 of this appendix;
    (c) Section 5 ``General test requirements'' as specified in 
sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.2.2 of this appendix; and
    (d) Section 6 ``Test method'' as specified in sections 2.3.1.2 
and 2.3.2.2 of this appendix.

0.3. IEC 60034-1:2010

    (a) Section 4.2.1 as specified in section 1.2 of this appendix;
    (b) Section 7.2 as specified in sections 2.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 
2.3.2.3, and 2.3.3.3 of this appendix;
    (c) Section 8.6.2.3.3 as specified in sections 2.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 
2.3.2.3, and 2.3.3.3 of this appendix; and
    (d) Table 5 as specified in sections 2.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.3, 
and 2.3.3.3 of this appendix.

0.4. IEC 60034-2-1:2014

    (a) Method 2-1-1A (which also includes paragraphs (b) through 
(f) of this section) as specified in sections 2.3.1.3 and 2.3.2.3 of 
this appendix;

[[Page 63658]]

    (b) Method 2-1-1B (which also includes paragraphs (b) through 
(e), (g), and (i) of this section) as specified in sections 2.1.2 
and 2.3.3.3 of this appendix;
    (c) Section 3 ``Terms and definitions'' as specified in sections 
2.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.3, 2.3.3.3, and 2.4.1 of this appendix;
    (d) Section 4 ``Symbols and abbreviations'' as specified in 
sections 2.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.3, 2.3.3.3 and 2.4.1 of this 
appendix;
    (e) Section 5 ``Basic requirements'' as specified in sections 
2.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.3, 2.3.3.3, and 2.4.1 of this appendix;
    (f) Section 6.1.2 ``Method 2-1-1A--Direct measurement of input 
and output'' (except Section 6.1.2.2, ``Test Procedure'') as 
specified in sections 2.3.1.3 and 2.3.2.3 of this appendix;
    (g) Section 6.1.3 ``Method 2-1-1B--Summations of losses, 
additional load losses according to the method of residual losses'' 
as specified in sections 2.1.2 and 2.3.3.3 of this appendix; and
    (h) Section 7.1. ``Preferred Testing Methods'' as specified in 
section 2.4.1 of this appendix;
    (i) Annex D, ``Test report template for 2-1-1B'' as specified in 
sections 2.1.2 and 2.3.3.3 of this appendix.

0.5. IEC 60051-1:2016

    (a) Section 5.2 as specified in sections 2.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 
2.3.2.3, and 2.3.3.3 of this appendix; and
    (b) [Reserved].

0.6. IEC 61800-9-2:2017

    (a) Section 3 ``Terms, definitions, symbols, and abbreviated 
terms'' as specified in sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of this appendix;
    (b) Section 7.7.2, ``Input-output measurement of PDS losses'' as 
specified in sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of this appendix;
    (c) Section 7.7.3.1, ``General'' as specified in sections 2.4.2 
and 2.4.3 of this appendix;
    (d) Section 7.7.3.2. ``Power analyser and transducers'' as 
specified in sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of this appendix;
    (e) Section 7.7.3.3, ``Mechanical Output of the motor'' as 
specified in sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of this appendix;
    (f) Section 7.7.3.5, ``PDS loss determination according to 
input-output method'' as specified in sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of 
this appendix;
    (g) Section 7.10 ``Testing Conditions for PDS testing'' as 
specified in sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of this appendix.

0.7. IEEE 112-2017

    (a) Test Method A (which also includes paragraphs (c) through 
(g), (i), and (j) of this section) as specified in section 2.3.2.1 
of this appendix;
    (b) Test Method B (which also includes paragraphs (c) through 
(f), (h), (k) and (l) of this section) as specified in sections 
2.1.3 and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix;
    (c) Section 3, ``General'' as specified in sections 2.1.3, 
2.3.2.1, and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix;
    (d) Section 4, ``Measurements'' as specified in sections 2.1.3, 
2.3.2.1, and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix;
    (e) Section 5, ``Machine losses and tests for losses'' as 
specified in sections 2.1.3, 2.3.2.1, and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix;
    (f) Section 6.1, ``General'' as specified in sections 2.1.3, 
2.3.2.1, and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix;
    (g) Section 6.3, ``Efficiency test method A--Input-output'' as 
specified in section 2.3.2.1 of this appendix;
    (h) Section 6.4, ``Efficiency test method B--Input-output'' as 
specified in sections 2.1.3 and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix;
    (i) Section 9.2, ``Form A--Method A'' as specified in section 
2.3.2.1 of this appendix;
    (j) Section 9.3, ``Form A2--Method A calculations'' as specified 
in section 2.3.2.1 of this appendix;
    (k) Section 9.4, ``Form B--Method B'' as specified in sections 
2.1.3, and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix; and
    (l) Section 9.5, ``Form B2--Method B calculations'' as specified 
in sections 2.1.3 and 2.3.3.1 of this appendix.

0.8. IEEE 114-2010

    (a) Section 3.2, ``Test with load'' as specified in section 
2.3.1.1 of this appendix;
    (b) Section 4, ``Testing Facilities as specified in section 
2.3.1.1 of this appendix;
    (c) Section 5, ``Measurements'' as specified in section 2.3.1.1 
of this appendix;
    (d) Section 6, ``General'' as specified in section 2.3.1.1 of 
this appendix;
    (e) Section 7, ``Type of loss'' as specified in section 2.3.1.1 
of this appendix;
    (f) Section 8, ``Efficiency and Power Factor'' as specified in 
section 2.3.1.1 of this appendix;
    (g) Section 10 ``Temperature Tests'' as specified in section 
2.4.1.1 of this appendix;
    (h) Annex A, Section A.3 ``Determination of Motor Efficiency'' 
as specified in section 2.4.1.1 of this appendix; and
    (i) Annex A, Section A.4 ``Explanatory notes for form 3, test 
data'' as specified in section 2.4.1.1 of this appendix.

0.9. NEMA MG 1-2016

    (a) Paragraph 1.40.1, ``Continuous Rating'' as specified in 
section 1.2 of this appendix;
    (b) Paragraph 12.58.1, ``Determination of Motor Efficiency and 
Losses'' as specified in the introductory paragraph to section 2.1 
of this appendix, and
    (c) Paragraph 34.1, ``Applicable Motor Efficiency Test Methods'' 
as specified in section 2.2 of this appendix;
    (d) Paragraph 34.2.2 ``AO Temperature Test Procedure 2--Target 
Temperature with Airflow'' as specified in section 2.2 of this 
appendix;
    (e) Paragraph 34.4, ``AO Temperature Test Procedure 2--Target 
Temperature with Airflow'' as specified in section 2.2 of this 
appendix.

1. Scope and Definitions

    1.1 Scope. The test procedure applies to the following 
categories of electric motors: Electric motors that meet the 
criteria listed at Sec.  431.25(g); Electric motors above 500 
horsepower; Small, non-small-electric-motor electric motor; and 
Electric motors that are synchronous motors; and excludes the 
following categories of motors: inverter-only electric motors that 
are air-over electric motors, component sets of an electric motor, 
liquid-cooled electric motors, and submersible electric motors.
    1.2 Definitions. Definitions contained in Sec. Sec.  431.2 and 
431.12 are applicable to this appendix, in addition to the following 
terms (``MG1'' refers to NEMA MG 1-2016 and IEC refers to IEC 60034-
1:2010 and IEC 60072-1):
    Electric motors above 500 horsepower is defined as an electric 
motor having a rated horsepower above 500 and up to 750 hp that 
meets the criteria listed at Sec.  431.25(g), with the exception of 
criteria Sec.  431.25(g)(8).
    Small, non-small-electric-motor electric motor (``SNEM'') means 
an electric motor that:
    (a) Is not a small electric motor, as defined Sec.  431.442 and 
is not a dedicated-purpose pool pump motor as defined at Sec.  
431.483;
    (b) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty 
type S1 (IEC);
    (c) Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 
60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter 
that operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-
hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power;
    (d) Is rated for 600 volts or less;
    (e) Is a single-speed induction motor capable of operating 
without an inverter or is an inverter-only electric motor;
    (f) Produces a rated motor horsepower greater than or equal to 
0.25 horsepower (0.18 kW); and
    (g) Is built in the following frame sizes: any two-, or three-
digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent) if the motor 
operates on single-phase power; any two-, or three-digit NEMA frame 
size (or IEC metric equivalent) if the motor operates on polyphase 
power, and has a rated motor horsepower less than 1 horsepower (0.75 
kW); or a two-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), if 
the motor operates on polyphase power, has a rated motor horsepower 
equal to or greater than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW), and is not an 
enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent).
    Synchronous Electric Motor means an electric motor that:
    (a) Is not a dedicated-purpose pool pump motor as defined at 
Sec.  431.483 or is not an air-over electric motor;
    (b) Is a synchronous electric motor;
    (c) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty 
type S1 (IEC);
    (d) Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 
60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter 
that operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-
hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power;
    (e) Is rated 600 volts or less;
    (f) Produces at least 0.25 hp (0.18 kW) but not greater than 750 
hp (559 kW).

2. Test Procedures

    2.1. Test Procedures for Electric Motors that meet the criteria 
listed at Sec.  431.25(g), and electric motors above 500 horsepower 
that are capable of operating without an inverter. Air-over electric 
motors must be tested in accordance with Section 2.2. Inverter-only 
electric motors must be tested in accordance with 2.4.
    Efficiency and losses must be determined in accordance with NEMA 
MG 1-2016, Paragraph 12.58.1, ``Determination of Motor

[[Page 63659]]

Efficiency and Losses,'' or one of the following testing methods:
    2.1.1. CSA C390-10 (see section 0.1 of this appendix)
    2.1.2. IEC 60034-2-1:2014, Method 2-1-1B (see section 0.4(b) of 
this appendix). The supply voltage shall be in accordance with 
Section 7.2 of IEC 60034-1:2010. The measured resistance at the end 
of the thermal test shall be determined in a similar way to the 
extrapolation procedure described in Section 8.6.2.3.3 of IEC 60034-
1:2010, using the shortest possible time instead of the time 
interval specified in Table 5 to IEC 60034-1:2010, and extrapolating 
to zero. The measuring instruments for electrical quantities shall 
have the equivalent of an accuracy class of 0,2 in case of a direct 
test and 0,5 in case of an indirect test in accordance with Section 
5.2 of IEC 60051-1:2016, or
    2.1.3. IEEE 112-2017, Test Method B (see section 0.7(b) of this 
appendix).
    2.2. Test Procedures for Air-Over Electric Motors
    Except noted otherwise in section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of this 
appendix, efficiency and losses of air-over electric motors must be 
determined in accordance with NEMA MG 1-2016 (excluding Paragraph 
12.58.1).
    2.2.1. The provisions in Paragraph 34.4.1.a.1 of NEMA MG 1-2016 
related to the determination of the target temperature for polyphase 
motors must be replaced by a single target temperature of 75 [deg]C 
for all insulation classes.
    2.2.2. The industry standards listed in Paragraph 34.1 of NEMA 
MG 1-2016, ``Applicable Motor Efficiency Test Methods'' must 
correspond to the versions identified in section 0 of this appendix, 
specifically IEEE 112-2017, IEEE 114-2010, CSA C390-10, CSA C747-09, 
and IEC 60034-2-1:2014. In addition, when testing in accordance with 
IEC 60034-2-1:2014, the additional testing instructions in section 
2.1.2 of this appendix apply.
    2.3. Test Procedures for SNEMs capable of operating without an 
inverter. Air-over SNEMs must be tested in accordance with section 
2.2. of this appendix. Inverter-only SNEMs must be tested in 
accordance with section 2.4. of this appendix.
    2.3.1. The efficiencies and losses of single-phase SNEMs that 
are not air-over electric motors and are capable of operating 
without an inverter, are determined using one of the following 
methods:
    2.3.1.1. IEEE 114-2010 (see section 0.8 of this appendix);
    2.3.1.2. CSA C747-09 (see section 0.2 of this appendix), or
    2.3.1.3. IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A (see section 0.4(a) of 
this appendix),. The supply voltage shall be in accordance with 
Section 7.2 of IEC 60034-1:2010. The measured resistance at the end 
of the thermal test shall be determined in a similar way to the 
extrapolation procedure described in Section 8.6.2.3.3 of IEC 60034-
1:2010, using the shortest possible time instead of the time 
interval specified in Table 5 of IEC 60034-1:2010, and extrapolating 
to zero. The measuring instruments for electrical quantities shall 
have the equivalent of an accuracy class of 0,2 in case of a direct 
test and 0,5 in case of an indirect test in accordance with Section 
5.2 of IEC 60051-1:2016.
    2.3.1.3.1. Additional IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A Torque 
Measurement Instructions. If using IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A 
to measure motor performance, follow the instructions in section 
2.3.1.3.2. of this appendix, instead of Section 6.1.2.2 of IEC 
60034-2-1:2014;
    2.3.1.3.2. Couple the machine under test to a load machine. 
Measure torque using an in-line, shaft-coupled, rotating torque 
transducer or stationary, stator reaction torque transducer. Operate 
the machine under test at the rated load until thermal equilibrium 
is achieved (rate of change 1 K or less per half hour). Record U, I, 
Pel, n, T, [thgr]c.
    2.3.2. The efficiencies and losses of polyphase electric motors 
considered with rated horsepower less than 1 that are not air-over 
electric motors, and are capable of operating without an inverter, 
are determined using one of the following methods:
    2.3.2.1. IEEE 112-2017 Test Method A (see section 0.7(a) of this 
appendix);
    2.3.2.2. CSA C747-09 (see section 0.2 of this appendix); or
    2.3.2.3. IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A (see section 0.4(a) of 
this appendix). The supply voltage shall be in accordance with 
Section 7.2 of IEC 60034-1:2010. The measured resistance at the end 
of the thermal test shall be determined in a similar way to the 
extrapolation procedure described in Section 8.6.2.3.3 of IEC 60034-
1:2010 using the shortest possible time instead of the time interval 
specified in Table 5 of IEC 60034-1:2010, and extrapolating to zero. 
The measuring instruments for electrical quantities shall have the 
equivalent of an accuracy class of 0,2 in case of a direct test and 
0,5 in case of an indirect test in accordance with Section 5.2 of 
IEC 60051-1:2016.
    2.3.2.3.1. Additional IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A Torque 
Measurement Instructions. If using IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1A 
to measure motor performance, follow the instructions in section 
2.3.2.3.2. of this appendix, instead of Section 6.1.2.2 of IEC 
60034-2-1:2014;
    2.3.2.3.2. Couple the machine under test to load machine. 
Measure torque using an in-line shaft-coupled, rotating torque 
transducer or stationary, stator reaction torque transducer. Operate 
the machine under test at the rated load until thermal equilibrium 
is achieved (rate of change 1 K or less per half hour). Record U, I, 
Pel, n, T, [thgr]c.
    2.3.3. The efficiencies and losses of polyphase SNEMs with rated 
horsepower equal to or greater than 1 that are not air-over electric 
motors, and are capable of operating without an inverter, are 
determined using one of the following methods:
    2.3.3.1. IEEE 112-2017 Test Method B (see section 0.7(b) of this 
appendix);
    2.3.3.2. CSA C390-10 (see section 0.1 of this appendix); or
    2.3.3.3. IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B (see section 0.4(b) of 
this appendix). The supply voltage shall be in accordance with 
Section 7.2 of IEC 60034-1:2010. The measured resistance at the end 
of the thermal test shall be determined in a similar way to the 
extrapolation procedure described in Section 8.6.2.3.3 of IEC 60034-
1:2010 using the shortest possible time instead of the time interval 
specified in Table 5 of IEC 60034-1:2010, and extrapolating to zero. 
The measuring instruments for electrical quantities shall have the 
equivalent of an accuracy class of 0,2 in case of a direct test and 
0,5 in case of an indirect test in accordance with Section 5.2 of 
IEC 60051-1:2016.
    2.4. Test Procedures for Electric Motors that are Synchronous 
Motors and Inverter-only Electric Motors
    Section 2.4.1 of this appendix applies to electric motors that 
are synchronous motors that do not require an inverter to operate. 
Sections 2.4.2. and 2.4.3. of this appendix apply to electric motors 
that are synchronous motors and are inverter-only; and to induction 
electric motors that are inverter-only electric motors.
    2.4.1. The efficiencies and losses of electric motors that are 
synchronous motors that do not require an inverter to operate, are 
determined in accordance with IEC 60034-2-1:2014, Section 3 ``Terms 
and definitions,'' Section 4 ``Symbols and abbreviations,'' Section 
5 ``Basic requirements,'' and Section 7.1. ``Preferred Testing 
Methods.''
    2.4.2. The efficiencies and losses of electric motors (inclusive 
of the inverter) that are that are inverter-only and do not include 
an inverter, are determined in accordance with IEC 61800-9-2:2017. 
Test must be conducted using an inverter that is listed as 
recommended in the manufacturer's catalog or that is offered for 
sale with the electric motor. If more than one inverter is available 
in manufacturer's catalogs or if more than one inverter is offered 
for sale with the electric motor, test using the least efficient 
inverter. Record the manufacturer, brand and model number of the 
inverter used for the test. If there are no inverters specified in 
the manufacturer catalogs or offered for sale with the electric 
motor, testing must be conducted using an inverter that meets the 
criteria described in section 2.4.2.2. of this appendix.
    2.4.2.1. The inverter shall be set up according to the 
manufacturer's instructional and operational manual included with 
the product. Manufacturers shall also record switching frequency in 
Hz, max frequency in Hz, Max output voltage in V, motor control 
method (i.e., V/f ratio, sensor less vector, etc.), load profile 
setting (constant torque, variable torque, etc.), and saving energy 
mode (if used). Deviation from the resulting settings, such as 
switching frequency or load torque curves for the purpose of 
optimizing test results shall not be permitted.
    2.4.2.2. If there are no inverters specified in the manufacturer 
catalogs or offered for sale with the electric motor, test with a 
two-level voltage source inverter. No additional components 
influencing output voltage or output current shall be installed 
between the inverter and the motor, except those required for the 
measuring instruments. For motors with a rated speed up to 3 600 
min-1, the switching frequency shall not be higher than 5 kHz. For 
motors with a rated speed above 3 600 min-1, the switching frequency 
shall not be higher than 10 kHz. Record the

[[Page 63660]]

manufacturer, brand and model number of the inverter used for the 
test.
    2.4.3. The efficiencies and losses of electric motors (inclusive 
of the inverter) that are inverter-only and include an inverter are 
determined in accordance with IEC 61800-9-2:2017.
    2.4.3.1. The inverter shall be set up according to the 
manufacturer's instructional and operational manual included with 
the product. Manufacturers shall also record switching frequency in 
Hz, max frequency in Hz, Max output voltage in V, motor control 
method (i.e., V/f ratio, sensor less vector, etc.), load profile 
setting (constant torque, variable torque, etc.), and saving energy 
mode (if used). Deviation from the resulting settings, such as 
switching frequency or load torque curves for the purpose of 
optimizing test results shall not be permitted.

3. Procedures for the Testing of Certain Electric Motor Categories

    Prior to testing according to section 2 of this appendix, each 
basic model of the electric motor categories listed below must be 
set up in accordance with the instructions of this section to ensure 
consistent test results. These steps are designed to enable a motor 
to be attached to a dynamometer and run continuously for testing 
purposes. For the purposes of this appendix, a ``standard bearing'' 
is a 600- or 6000-series, either open or grease-lubricated double-
shielded, single-row, deep groove, radial ball bearing.
    3.1. Brake Electric Motors:
    Brake electric motors shall be tested with the brake component 
powered separately from the motor such that it does not activate 
during testing. Additionally, for any 10-minute period during the 
test and while the brake is being powered such that it remains 
disengaged from the motor shaft, record the power consumed (i.e., 
watts). Only power used to drive the motor is to be included in the 
efficiency calculation; power supplied to prevent the brake from 
engaging is not included in this calculation. In lieu of powering 
the brake separately, the brake may be disengaged mechanically, if 
such a mechanism exists and if the use of this mechanism does not 
yield a different efficiency value than separately powering the 
brake electrically.
    3.2. Close-Coupled Pump Electric Motors and Electric Motors with 
Single or Double Shaft Extensions of Non-Standard Dimensions or 
Design:
    To attach the unit under test to a dynamometer, close-coupled 
pump electric motors and electric motors with single or double shaft 
extensions of non-standard dimensions or design must be tested using 
a special coupling adapter.
    3.3. Electric Motors with Non-Standard Endshields or Flanges:
    If it is not possible to connect the electric motor to a 
dynamometer with the non-standard endshield or flange in place, the 
testing laboratory shall replace the non-standard endshield or 
flange with an endshield or flange meeting NEMA or IEC 
specifications. The replacement component should be obtained from 
the manufacturer or, if the manufacturer chooses, machined by the 
testing laboratory after consulting with the manufacturer regarding 
the critical characteristics of the endshield.
    3.4. Electric Motors with Non-Standard Bases, Feet or Mounting 
Configurations:
    An electric motor with a non-standard base, feet, or mounting 
configuration may be mounted on the test equipment using adaptive 
fixtures for testing as long as the mounting or use of adaptive 
mounting fixtures does not have an adverse impact on the performance 
of the electric motor, particularly on the cooling of the motor.
    3.5. Electric Motors with a Separately-Powered Blower:
    For electric motors furnished with a separately-powered blower, 
the losses from the blower's motor should not be included in any 
efficiency calculation. This can be done either by powering the 
blower's motor by a source separate from the source powering the 
electric motor under test or by connecting leads such that they only 
measure the power of the motor under test.
    3.6. Immersible Electric Motors:
    Immersible electric motors shall be tested with all contact 
seals removed but be otherwise unmodified.
    3.7. Partial Electric Motors:
    Partial electric motors shall be disconnected from their mated 
piece of equipment. After disconnection from the equipment, standard 
bearings and/or endshields shall be added to the motor, such that it 
is capable of operation. If an endshield is necessary, an endshield 
meeting NEMA or IEC specifications should be obtained from the 
manufacturer or, if the manufacturer chooses, machined by the 
testing laboratory after consulting with the manufacturer regarding 
the critical characteristics of the endshield.
    3.8. Vertical Electric Motors and Electric Motors with Bearings 
Incapable of Horizontal Operation:
    Vertical electric motors and electric motors with thrust 
bearings shall be tested in a horizontal or vertical configuration 
in accordance with the applicable test procedure under section 2 
through section 2.4.3. of this appendix, depending on the testing 
facility's capabilities and construction of the motor, except if the 
motor is a vertical solid shaft normal thrust general purpose 
electric motor (subtype II), in which case it shall be tested in a 
horizontal configuration in accordance with the applicable test 
procedure under section 2 through section 2.4.3. of this appendix. 
Preference shall be given to testing a motor in its native 
orientation. If the unit under test cannot be reoriented 
horizontally due to its bearing construction, the electric motor's 
bearing(s) shall be removed and replaced with standard bearings. If 
the unit under test contains oil-lubricated bearings, its bearings 
shall be removed and replaced with standard bearings. If necessary, 
the unit under test may be connected to the dynamometer using a 
coupling of torsional rigidity greater than or equal to that of the 
motor shaft.

[FR Doc. 2022-21891 Filed 10-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P