Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17577 

1Notations of this form appear throughout this 

document and identify statements made in written 

comments or at public hearings that DOE has 

received and has included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. For example, ‘‘NEMA, No. 12 at p. 7’’ 

refers to a comment: (1) From the National 

Electrical Manufacturers Association; (2) in 

document number 12 in the docket of this 

rulemaking; and (3) appearing on page 7 of the 

submission, while ‘‘Baldor, Framework Public 

Meeting Transcript, p.126’’ refers to a comment: (1) 

From Baldor Electric Company; (2) in the transcript 

for the public meeting on the Framework document; 

and (3) appearing on page 126 of the transcript. 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this NOPM. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 24, 

2011. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Office of Technology 

Development, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7452 Filed 3–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket Number EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0027] 

RIN 1904–AC28 

Increased Scope of Coverage for 

Electric Motors 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information (RFI). 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE or the Department) seeks 

certain information to help inform its 

current rulemaking to set energy 

conservation standards for electric 

motors. Specifically, DOE seeks 

information to assist DOE in 

determining whether to develop energy 

conservation standards for certain types 

of electric motors that are currently 

unregulated by any standards. Should 

DOE receive sufficient information 

supporting the inclusion of these motor 

types, DOE will consider including 

these motor types in the electric motors 

standards rulemaking. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested on or before 

April 19, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027, by 

any of the following methods: 

• E-mail: ElecMotors–2010–STD– 

0027@ee.doe.gov. Include docket 

number EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027 

and/or RIN 1904–AC28 in the subject 

line of the message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

Revisions to Energy Efficiency 

Enforcement Regulations, EERE–2010– 

BT–STD–0027, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Phone: (202) 586–2945. Please 

submit one signed paper original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 

586–2945. Please submit one signed 

paper original. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or RIN for this 

rulemaking. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, or 

comments received, go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586– 

8654, e-mail: Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority and Background: DOE 

intends to publish a final rule 

determining whether to amend the 

current energy conservation standards 

for electric motors. On September 28, 

2010, DOE published a notice of 

availability of the ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Framework 

Document for Electric Motors’’ 

(Framework Document), which 

describes the procedural and analytical 

approaches DOE anticipates using in its 

evaluation. 75 FR 59657. DOE must 

publish a final rule determining 

whether to amend the electric motors 

standards by December 19, 2012. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(b)(4)(B)). 

The current energy conservation 

standards for electric motors, as set forth 

in the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) 

amendments to the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (ECPA), establish 

energy conservation standards for two 

types of general purpose electric motors: 

(1) Subtype I, and (2) subtype II. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) These broad 

categories include various types of 

motors, such as the National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 

Design B motors rated from 1 to 500 

horsepower, NEMA Design A and C 

motors rated from 1 to 200 horsepower, 

vertical solid shaft motors and closecoupled pump motors. These standards 

do not apply to vertical hollow shaft 

motors, integral shafted partial motors, 

brake motors, or NEMA Design A 

motors between 200 and 500 

horsepower, among other motor types. 

This is so because these types of electric 

motors do not meet currently prescribed 

definitions for general purpose electric 

motor (subtype I) and general purpose 

electric motor (subtype II), in that they 

are not general purpose motors and 

cannot be used in most general purpose 

applications. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)– 

(B); 10 CFR 431.12). 

During the Framework Document 

comment period, energy efficiency 

advocates (the Appliance Standards 

Awareness Project (ASAP) and the 

American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE)), 

manufacturers (NEMA and Baldor), and 

utilities (the Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company (PG&E), Southern California 

Gas Company (SCGC), San Diego Gas 

and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern 

California Edison (SCE)) urged DOE to 

consider including additional motor 

types currently without energy 

conservation standards in DOE’s 

analyses and establishing such 

standards. (ASAP/NEMA, No. 12 at p. 1; 

ACEEE, No. 10 at p. 1; Baldor, No. 8 at 

p. 2; PG&E/SCGC/SDG&E/SCE, No. 11 at 

p. 1) 1 In the commenters’ view, this 

approach would more effectively 

increase energy savings than setting 

more stringent standards for the electric 

motors that are currently being 

examined as part of the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking that 

DOE has initiated. See 75 FR 59657 

(September 28, 2010). These parties also 

asserted that expanding the scope of 

DOE’s current efforts, along with 

specially tailored exemptions for certain 

types of electric motors,would enable 

DOE to simplify its compliance and 

enforcement efforts. (ASAP/NEMA, No. 

12 at p. 1–2; ACEEE, No. 10 at p. 1) 

In light of these comments, DOE 

requests information regarding definite 

purpose and special purpose motors, 

including the additional motor types 

that DOE describes in Table 1 and Table 

2. DOE is considering including definite 

and special purpose motors in the 

electric motors standards rulemaking. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

17578 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Although DOE is particularly interested 

in information on the specific motor 

types identified in comments received 

in response to the Framework 

Document, commenters are welcome to 

provide information similar to the 

information sought for any additional 

motor type that the commenter believes 

should be included in this rulemaking 

and the reasons for their inclusion as 

part of the standards rulemaking. 

Description: Public comments are 

sought from interested parties regarding 

establishment of energy conservation 

standards for several types of definite 

and special purpose motors for which 

EISA 2007 did not provide energy 

conservation standards. DOE has the 

authority to set energy conservation 

standards for a wider range of electric 

motors than those classified as general 

purpose electric motors (e.g., definite or 

special purpose motors). The Energy 

Policy Act of 1992 (‘‘EPAct 1992’’) 

amendments to EPCA defined ‘‘electric 

motor’’ to include a certain type of 

‘‘general purpose’’ motor. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(13)(A) (1992)) EPAct 1992 set 

energy conservation standards for such 

‘‘electric motors’’ and explicitly stated 

that the standards did not apply to 

definite purpose or special purpose 

motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1)) (1992)) In 

EISA 2007, Congress removed the 

definition of ‘‘electric motors,’’ added a 

definitional heading for ‘‘electric 

motors,’’ and then denoted several types 

of ‘‘electric motors,’’ including general 

purpose electric motors, definite 

purpose motors, and special purpose 

motors. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13) (2010)) 

EISA 2007 also amended the energy 

conservation standards for general 

purpose motors and removed the 

exclusion for definite purpose and 

special purpose motors. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(b)(2)–(3) (2010)) Based on these 

changes, in spite of the absence of any 

current standards for these types of 

motors, it is DOE’s view that definite 

and special purpose motors are ‘‘electric 

motor’’ categories covered under EPCA. 

Accordingly, DOE is considering 

establishing standards for certain 

definite and special purpose motors in 

the context of the electric motors 

rulemaking. 

While existing energy conservation 

standards cover a majority of the electric 

motors market, based on DOE’s initial 

findings, several categories of the 

definite or special purpose motors that 

interested parties recommended for 

standards coverage have significant 

sales volumes, and thus energy savings 

potential. Adding these motors to the 

group of motors for which DOE has 

already set energy conservation 

standards would also reduce the 

incentive for manufacturers to attempt 

to circumvent existing or amended 

standards by substituting unregulated 

motors for regulated motors. To this 

end, DOE examined each motor type to 

determine whether it would require an 

engineering analysis separate from 

covered general purpose electric motors, 

and whether it could be evaluated using 

DOE’s current test procedure, located in 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 431. 

To inform its decision-making 

process, DOE seeks information 

regarding whether any of the motor 

types listed in Table 1 below have any 

unique design features that affect the 

cost or efficiency of the motor. For 

instance, DOE is interested in whether 

a particular design feature for a brake 

motor would prevent it from meeting an 

efficiency level that its general purpose 

counterpart can meet. Furthermore, if 

the cost-efficiency relationship for a 

comparable general purpose motor 

cannot be applied to the motor type in 

question, DOE requests information on 

the relationship between cost and 

efficiency. DOE seeks information on 

whether a scaling relationship can be 

used to extend the cost-efficiency 

relationship of a general purpose motor 

to the motor type in question. 

DOE also requests comments on 

whether inclusion of each of the motor 

types listed in Table 1 in the electric 

motors rulemaking would require 

changes to the current DOE test 

procedure. DOE requests information on 

whether the change would require that 

a new test method or test procedure be 

incorporated by reference, or whether it 

would require a slight modification or 

clarification as to how the test is 

performed, similar to what is currently 

done for vertical solid shaft motors, 

which, as DOE understands the current 

practice, are tested in the horizontal 

configuration. If a new test procedure is 

needed, DOE requests information on 

any test procedures or test methods that 

are applicable and available and the 

reasons for those procedures or 

methods. 

Table 1 summarizes DOE’s 

preliminary findings for each of the 

motor types that stakeholders support 

including within the electric motors 

standards rulemaking. DOE requests 

comment on the preliminary 

conclusions included in the table, as 

well as the market share of each of these 

motor types, and the potential energy 

saved by including each motor type. 

The market analysis consists of motors 

sold in the U.S. by NEMA-member 

companies and does not include any 

imports. DOE also requests comment on 

whether there are any other types of 

motors not listed in Table 1 that DOE 

should consider including in the 

standards rulemaking. 

TABLE 1—ELECTRIC MOTOR TYPES WHICH STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS INDICATED SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE

STANDARDS RULEMAKING

Motor type 

Requires 

separate 

analysis 

from general purpose 

motors? 

Requires 

changes to 

the DOE 

test 

procedure? 

Approximate percentage of the 

motor market Notes 

NEMA Design A Motors from 200 to 500 

HP.

No .......... No ............. Unknown DOE believes that these motors are 

similar to the lower horsepower Design A electric motors already covered. 

Brake Motors ............................................. No .......... No ............. 10.1% DOE believes that when not applied, the 

brake unit does not interfere with normal operation and therefore the motor 

can be tested with the brake in the off 

position using the current test procedure. DOE believes that the cost-efficiency relationship is similar to that of 

a general purpose electric motor. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17579 

TABLE 1—ELECTRIC MOTOR TYPES WHICH STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS INDICATED SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE

STANDARDS RULEMAKING—Continued 

Motor type 

Requires 

separate 

analysis 

from general purpose 

motors? 

Requires 

changes to 

the DOE 

test 

procedure? 

Approximate percentage of the 

motor market Notes 

Partial Motors or Component Sets ........... Yes ......... Yes ........... 11.9% DOE has been advised that these motors do not include a full frame, front 

plate, bearings, shaft, or shaft support. Because the ability of these 

components to dissipate heat is 

strongly dependent on the type of 

frame, bearings, etc. chosen, the efficiency of these motors is therefore 

dependent on the application. Because of this, they would also require 

a new test procedure. 

Integral Shafted Partial Motors ................. No .......... No ............. DOE believes that unlike partial motors 

or component sets, integral shafted 

partial motors are only missing the 

drive end face plate, and therefore 

can be tested with a ‘‘dummy test 

bracket’’ using the current test procedure. DOE believes that when 

equipped with a dummy end plate, the 

cost-efficiency relationship of this type 

of motor would be similar to that of a 

general purpose motor. 

Vertical Hollow Shaft Motors .................... No .......... No ............. 0.8% DOE believes that these motors do not 

differ from vertical solid shaft motors 

in performance or electrical characteristics. When tested with their bearings 

swapped for ball bearings and in a 

horizontal configuration, these motors 

can meet designated efficiency levels 

of general purpose motors. DOE believes that the test procedure would 

mirror that performed on vertical solid 

shaft motors, which are currently covered by DOE standards. 

Integral Gear Motors ................................. No .......... No ............. 15.6% DOE has been advised that these motors are almost identical to integral 

shafted partial motors in function, and 

therefore can be tested similarly, with 

a ‘‘dummy test bracket’’ in lieu of a 

standard face plate. As with integral 

shafted motors, DOE believes that 

when equipped with a dummy end 

plate, the cost-efficiency relationship 

of this type of motor would be similar 

to that of a general purpose motor. 

TENV Motors ............................................ Yes ......... No ............. 3.0% DOE understands that these motors 

have no built-in fan, and therefore require enough exterior clearance to 

allow for free convection. Furthermore, the frame is generally larger to 

aid in dissipation of heat. Because of 

this, DOE believes that the cost-efficiency relationship for a general purpose motor cannot be directly applied 

to a TENV motor, as TENV motors 

have unique efficiency-affecting features that distinguish them from general purpose motors. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

17580 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—ELECTRIC MOTOR TYPES WHICH STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS INDICATED SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE

STANDARDS RULEMAKING—Continued 

Motor type 

Requires 

separate 

analysis 

from general purpose 

motors? 

Requires 

changes to 

the DOE 

test 

procedure? 

Approximate percentage of the 

motor market Notes 

TEAO Motors ............................................ Yes ......... Yes ........... DOE understands that these motors are 

intended to be cooled by ventilation 

means external to the motor and that 

the motor must be provided with additional ventilation to prevent it from 

overheating. DOE believes the addition of a separate means for cooling 

would require a new test procedure. 

Furthermore, DOE believes that the 

cost-efficiency relationship for a general purpose motor cannot be directly 

applied to a TEAO motor, as TEAO 

motors have unique efficiency-affecting features that distinguish them from 

general purpose motors. 

The joint comments from ASAP and 

NEMA also identified several types of 

motors that the commenters believe 

should not be included in the standards 

rulemaking. (ASAP/NEMA, No. 12 at p. 

9) These motors are presented in Table 

2. To inform its decision-making 

process, DOE seeks information 

regarding the merits of this 

recommendation and whether any of the 

motor types listed in Table 2 have any 

unique design features that affect the 

cost or efficiency of the motor. 

Furthermore, if the cost-efficiency 

relationship for a comparable general 

purpose motor cannot be applied to the 

motor type in question, DOE requests 

information on the relationship between 

cost and efficiency. DOE seeks 

information on whether a scaling 

relationship can be used to extend the 

cost-efficiency relationship of a general 

purpose motor to the motor type in 

question. 

DOE also requests comments on 

whether inclusion of each of the motor 

types listed in Table 2 in the electric 

motors rulemaking would require 

changes to the current DOE test 

procedure and if so, whether those 

changes would require that a new test 

method or test procedure be 

incorporated by reference. If a new test 

procedure is needed, DOE requests 

information on any test procedures or 

test methods that are applicable and 

available and why those procedures or 

methods are needed. 

Table 2 summarizes DOE’s 

preliminary findings for each of the 

motor types that ASAP and NEMA do 

not support for inclusion within the 

electric motors standards rulemaking. 

DOE requests comment on the 

preliminary conclusions included in 

Table 2, as well as the market share of 

each of these motor types and their 

potential energy savings. 

TABLE 2—ELECTRIC MOTOR TYPES WHICH STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS INDICATED SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE

STANDARDS RULEMAKING

Motor type 

Requires separate analysis 

from general 

purpose motors? 

Requires 

changes to the 

DOE test procedure? 

Notes 

Multispeed Motors ........................... Yes .................... Yes .................... The current standards only cover single-speed motors, and therefore, DOE believes that the cost-efficiency relationship for general 

purpose motors cannot be directly applied to multispeed motors. 

Also, these motors would require a new test procedure. 

DC Motors ....................................... Yes .................... Yes .................... The current standards only cover AC motors, and therefore, DOE 

believes that the cost-efficiency relationship for general purpose 

motors cannot be directly applied to DC motors. Also, these motors would require a new test procedure. 

Single Phase Motors ....................... Yes .................... Yes .................... The current standards only cover polyphase motors, and therefore, 

DOE believes that the cost-efficiency relationship for general purpose motors cannot be directly applied to single phase motors. 

Also, these motors would require a new test procedure. 

Liquid Cooled and Submersible or 

Immersible Motors.

DOE Requests 

Comment.

Yes .................... DOE understands that the submersible motor is completely sealed 

for use in submersible applications, and that cooling is accomplished by surrounding liquid. DOE requests comment on whether 

the cost-efficiency relationship for a general purpose motor can 

be directly applied to a submersible motor. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17581 

2 Inrush current refers to the maximum, 

instantaneous input current drawn by an electrical 

device when first turned on. For example, an 

alternating current electric motor may draw several 

times its normal full-load current when first 

energized, for a few cycles of the input waveform. 

3This written comment was submitted to the 

docket of the supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking on test procedures for electric motors 

and small electric motors (refer to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

TP–0008; RIN number 1904–AB71). 

TABLE 2—ELECTRIC MOTOR TYPES WHICH STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS INDICATED SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE

STANDARDS RULEMAKING—Continued 

Motor type 

Requires separate analysis 

from general 

purpose motors? 

Requires 

changes to the 

DOE test procedure? 

Notes 

Electronically Commutated Motors Yes .................... Yes .................... The current standards only cover squirrel-cage induction motors, 

and therefore, DOE believes that the cost-efficiency relationship 

for general purpose motors cannot be directly applied to electrically commutated motors. Also, these motors would require a 

new test procedure. 

Switched Reluctance Motors .......... Yes .................... Yes .................... The current standards only cover squirrel-cage induction motors, 

and therefore, DOE believes that the cost-efficiency relationship 

for general purpose motors cannot be directly applied to switched 

reluctance motors. Also, these motors would require a new test 

procedure. 

Interior Permanent Magnet Motors Yes .................... Yes .................... The current standards only cover squirrel-cage induction motors, 

and therefore, DOE believes that the cost-efficiency relationship 

for general purpose motors cannot be directly applied to interior 

permanent magnet motors. Also, these motors would require a 

new test procedure. 

Inverter-duty Motors ........................ Yes .................... No ..................... DOE is aware that these motors are designed to run on variable 

frequency drives and typically are designed to run at lower 

speeds. Because they are designed to run at lower speeds where 

they won’t be cooled as effectively, in order to prevent the motor 

from overheating, the insulation differs from that used in a general purpose motor. This difference in internal design leads to a 

different cost-efficiency curve. 

Intermittent-duty Motors .................. Yes .................... Yes .................... DOE is aware that these motors are designed to run on an intermittent basis to allow for proper cooling without overheating. The 

current standards and test procedure only cover continuous duty 

motors. Therefore, DOE believes that the cost-efficiency relationship for general purpose motors cannot be directly applied to 

intermittent-duty motors. Also, these motors would require a new 

test procedure. 

In addition to the above issues, DOE 

seeks information and comment 

regarding the possible consolidation of 

two different sets of motors into one 

equipment class for the purposes of its 

analysis. Specifically, Baldor and 

NEMA both recommended that DOE 

combine Design A and Design B motors 

into a single equipment class. (Baldor, 

Framework Public Meeting Transcript, 

p.77; NEMA, No. 13, p.4) (‘‘Design A’’ 

and ‘‘Design B’’ are NEMA-developed 

designations that define a motor’s 

performance characteristics such as the 

locked-rotor torque, pull-up torque, 

breakdown torque, inrush current, and 

locked-rotor current.) These motors are 

identical except with respect to the limit 

on inrush current 2—Design B motors 

are limited to certain prescribed levels 

while Design A motors have no such 

limitation. DOE is interested in 

receiving information about any 

differences in efficiencies between 

similar Design A and Design B motors. 

DOE is also interested in receiving 

information about the respective market 

shares of Design A and Design B motors. 

Baldor and NEMA made a similar 

recommendation for U-frame and Tframe motors. (Baldor, Framework 

Public Meeting Transcript, p.126; 

NEMA, No. 13, p.13) T-frame motors, 

which are more compact than U-frame 

motors, are increasingly being used as 

replacements for their U-frame 

counterparts. While installing a T-frame 

motor into a U-frame application 

requires minor adjustments (e.g. 

shimming of the mounting plate and/or 

using a different shaft coupling, which 

are changes that a technician can make 

expeditiously) to enable it to fit within 

a U-frame application, this motor would 

provide the same functionality as the Uframe motor it replaces. Partly because 

of their smaller size and lower weight 

for similarly rated motors (i.e. 

horsepower), information reviewed by 

DOE indicates that T-frame motors are 

replacing U-frame motors in both new 

and existing applications. (NEMA/ 

ACEEE, No. 25, p. 6) 3 DOE is interested 

in receiving information about the 

difference in efficiencies between 

similar T-frame and U-frame motors. 

DOE is also interested in receiving 

information about the respective market 

shares of T-frame and U-frame motors. 

Public Participation 

A. Submission of Information 

DOE will accept comments in 

response to this RFI under the timeline 

provided in the DATES section. 

Comments submitted to the Department 

through the eRulemaking Portal or by email should be provided in 

WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, portable 

document format (PDF), or text file 

format. Those responding should avoid 

the use of special characters or any form 

of encryption. No facsimiles will be 

accepted. Comments submitted in 

response to this notice will become a 

matter of public record and will be 

made publicly available. 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Information 

For this RFI, DOE requests comments, 

information, and recommendations on 

the following concepts for the purpose 

of determining whether additional 

motor types currently without energy 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

17582 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

conservation standards can and should 

be assigned energy conservation 

standards. DOE also seeks information 

and comment regarding the possible 

consolidation of NEMA Design A and 

Design B motors into one equipment 

class and NEMA T- and U-frame motors 

into one equipment class for the 

purpose of its analysis and energy 

conservation standards. 

1. DOE requests comment on the 

preliminary conclusions included in 

Table 1 and Table 2. 

2. DOE seeks comment on whether 

the analyses performed for motors that 

currently have standards can be 

extended to those electric motors listed 

in Table 1 and Table 2. 

3. DOE seeks information regarding 

whether any of the motor types listed in 

Table 1 and Table 2 have any unique 

design features that affect the cost or 

efficiency of the motor compared to 

general purpose motors. 

a. If the cost-efficiency relationship 

for a comparable general purpose motor 

cannot be applied to the motor type in 

question, DOE requests information on 

the relationship between cost and 

efficiency. 

b. DOE requests information on 

whether a scaling relationship can be 

used to extend the cost-efficiency 

relationship of a general purpose motor 

to the motor type in question. 

4. DOE requests comment on the 

market share of each of these motor 

types listed in Table 1 and Table 2. 

5. DOE requests comment on the 

potential energy saved by including 

each motor type listed in Table 1 and 

Table 2 in the standards rulemaking. 

6. DOE seeks information on methods 

for testing the motors listed in Table 1 

and Table 2, and how they may differ 

from the current test procedures for 

electric motors. If a new test procedure 

is needed, DOE requests information on 

the reasons why such a new procedures 

is needed and the current availability 

and applicability of any test procedures 

or test methods. DOE also seeks 

confirmation of the accuracy of its 

understanding with respect to the 

testing of vertical shaft motors. 

7. DOE seeks information on any 

other types of definite purpose or 

special purpose motors not listed in 

Table 1 and Table 2 that DOE should 

consider including in this rulemaking. 

8. DOE seeks comment on the 

possible consolidation of NEMA Design 

A and Design B motors into one 

equipment class, and NEMA T- and Uframe motors into one equipment class. 

a. What are the possible differences in 

achievable efficiency between Design A 

and Design B motors? 

b. What are the respective market 

shares of Design A and Design B 

motors? 

c. What are the possible differences in 

achievable efficiency between U-frame 

and T-frame motors? 

d. What are the respective market 

shares of U-frame and T-frame motors? 

Statutory Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(4). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 24, 

2011. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Office of Technology 

Development, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7440 Filed 3–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. NM451; Notice No. 25–11–10– 

SC] 

Special Conditions: Bombardier Model 

BD–700–1A10 and BD–700–1A11 

Airplanes, Head-Up Display (HUD) With 

Video Synthetic Vision System (SVS) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed special 

conditions. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes special 

conditions for Bombardier Model BD– 

700–1A10 and BD–700–1A11 airplanes. 

These airplanes, as modified by 

Bombardier Inc., will have a novel or 

unusual design features associated with 

a SVS that displays video imagery on 

the HUD. The applicable airworthiness 

regulations do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for this 

design feature. These special conditions 

contain the additional safety standards 

that the Administrator considers 

necessary to establish a level of safety 

equivalent to that established by the 

existing airworthiness standards. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

by April 19, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You must mail two copies 

of your comments to: Federal Aviation 

Administration, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket (ANM– 

113), Docket No. NM451, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356. You may deliver two 

copies to the Transport Airplane 

Directorate at the above address. You 

must mark your comments: Docket No. 

NM451. You can inspect comments in 

the Rules Docket weekdays, except 

Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 

4 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale 

Dunford, FAA, ANM–111, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2239 

facsimile (425) 227–1100. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite interested people to take 

part in this rulemaking by sending 

written comments, data, or views. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the special 

conditions, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. We ask that you send 

us two copies of written comments. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning these special conditions. 

You can inspect the docket before and 

after the comment closing date. If you 

wish to review the docket in person, go 

to the address in the ADDRESSES section 

of this preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 

4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive on or before the closing date for 

comments. We will consider comments 

filed late if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. We 

may change these special conditions 

based on the comments we receive. 

If you want us to acknowledge receipt 

of your comments on this proposal, 

include with your comments a selfaddressed, stamped postcard on which 

you have written the docket number. 

We will stamp the date on the postcard 

and mail it back to you. 

Background 

On January 26, 2007, Transport 

Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), on 

behalf of Bombardier Inc., located in 

Montreal Canada, applied to the New 

York Aircraft Certification Office 

(NYACO) for FAA approval of a typedesign change on the Bombardier Model 

BD–700–1A10 and BD–700–1A11 

airplanes. Per Type Certificate Data 

Sheet (TCDS) T00003NY, those aircraft 

models are known under the marketing 

designation of Global Express and 

Global 5000, respectively. The change is 

to introduce the Rockwell-Collins 

avionics suite to replace the existing 

Honeywell Primus 2000EP avionics 

suite. It includes the installation of a 

SVS that displays video imagery. 

Video display on the HUD constitutes 

new and novel technology for which the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS