26608 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–TP–0008] 

RIN 1904–AC05 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Electric Motors and 

Small Electric Motors 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On January 5, 2011, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) issued a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking to amend the test 

procedures for electric motors and small 

electric motors. That supplemental 

proposal, along with an earlier proposal 

from December 22, 2008, form the basis 

for today’s action to amend the current 

test procedures used to measure the 

energy efficiency of electric and small 

electric motors. These changes will be 

mandatory to demonstrate compliance 

with the current energy efficiency 

standards starting 180 days after 

publication. The final rule clarifies the 

scope of regulatory coverage for electric 

motors and ensures the accurate and 

consistent measurement of electric 

motor and small electric motor energy 

efficiency through changes to the 

current test procedures. These changes 

also clarify certain regulatory terms and 

language related to electric motors and 

small electric motors, clarify the scope 

of energy conservation standards for 

electric motors, update references to 

several industry and testing standards 

for electric motors, incorporate by 

reference and update alternative test 

methods that manufacturers may use 

when certifying polyphase and singlephase small electric motors as 

compliant, and specify the 

determination of efficiency 

requirements for small electric motors. 

DATES: Effective date: June 4, 2012. 

Compliance dates: The final rule 

changes will be required for equipment 

testing starting October 31, 2012. 

Representations either in writing or in 

any broadcast advertisement respecting 

energy consumption must also be made 

using the revised DOE test procedure 

starting on October 31, 2012. DOE is 

also establishing a compliance date for 

energy conservation standards for IEC 

100 mm frame series electric motors (as 

well as motors built in a frame that is 

not necessarily a NEMA-equivalent but 

otherwise covered under EISA 2007) 

that is June 4, 2015. The incorporation 

by reference of certain publications 

listed in the rule was approved by the 

Director of the Federal Register on June 

4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The docket is available for 

review at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

framework documents, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials. Link to the docket 

by entering EERE–2008–BT–TP–0008 in 

the ‘‘Search ID’’ window. All documents 

in the docket are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

A link to the docket web page can be 

found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/

commercial/small_electric_motors.html 

for small electric motors and http://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/commercial/

electric_motors.html for electric motors. 

This web page will contain a link to the 

docket for this notice on the 

regulations.gov site. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8654. Email: 

Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov. 

For legal issues, Mr. Michael Kido, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, 

Telephone: (202) 586–8145, Email: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov or Ms. Ami 

Grace-Tardy, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121, 

Telephone: (202) 586–5709, Email: 

Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule incorporates by reference the 

following standards into part 431: 

(1) CSA C390–10, Test methods, marking 

requirements, and energy efficiency levels for 

three-phase induction motors, March 2010. 

(2) CSA C747–09, Energy efficiency test 

methods for small motors, October 2009. 

(3) IEC Standard 60034–1, Rotating 

Electrical Machines, Part 1: Rating and 

Performance, Section 4: Duty, clause 4.2.1 

and Figure 1, February 2010. 

(4) IEC Standard 60034–12, Rotating 

Electrical Machines, Part 12: Starting 

Performance of Single-Speed Three-Phase 

Cage Induction Motors, clauses 5.2, 5.4, 6, 

and 8, and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, 

September 2007. 

(5) The following provisions of IEEE 

Standard 112–2004, Test Procedure for 

Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators, 

approved February 9, 2004: 

(i) Section 6.3, Efficiency Test Method A, 

Input-Output; and 

(ii) Section 6.4, Efficiency Test Method B, 

Input-Output with Loss Segregation. 

(6) IEEE Standard 114–2010, Test 

Procedure for Single-Phase Induction Motors, 

approved September 30, 2010. 

(7) The following provisions of NEMA 

Standards Publication MG1–2009, Motors 

and Generators, 2009: 

(i) Section I, General Standards Applying 

to All Machines, Part 1, Referenced 

Standards and Definitions, paragraphs 1.18.1, 

1.18.1.1, 1.19.1.1, 1.19.1.2, 1.19.1.3, and 

1.40.1; 

(ii) Section I, General Standards Applying 

to All Machines, Part 4, Dimensions, 

Tolerances, and Mounting, paragraphs 4.1, 

4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, and 

4.4.6, Figures 4–1, 4–2, 4–3, 4–4, and 4–5, 

and Table 4–2; 

(iii) Section II, Small (Fractional) and 

Medium (Integral) Machines, Part 12, Tests 

and Performance—AC and DC Motors, 

paragraphs 12.35.1, 12.38.1, 12.38.2, 12.39.1, 

12.39.2, and 12.40.1, 12.40.2, 12.58.1, and 

Tables 12–2, 12–3, and 12–10; and 

(iv) Section II, Small (Fractional) and 

Medium (Integral) Machines, Part 14, 

Application Data—AC and DC Small and 

Medium Machines, paragraphs 14.2 and 14.3. 

(8) The following provisions of NEMA 

Standards Publication MG1–1967, Motors 

and Generators, January 1968: 

(i) Part 11, Dimensions; and 

(ii) Part 13, Frame Assignments—A–C 

Integral-Horsepower Motors. 

(9) NFPA Standard 20–2010, Standard for 

the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire 

Protection, section 9.5, approved August 26, 

2009. 

Copies of the CSA standards are 

available from the Canadian Standards 

Association, Sales Department, 5060 

Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga, 

Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1–800–463– 

6727, or go to http://www.shopcsa.ca/ 

onlinestore/welcome.asp. 

Copies of the IEC standards are 

available from the International 

Electrotechnical Commission Central 

Office, 3, rue de Varembe ́, P.O. Box 131, 

CH–1211 GENEVA 20, Switzerland, +41 

22 919 02 11, or go to http:// 

webstore.iec.ch. 

Copies of the IEEE standards are 

available from the Institute of Electrical 

and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445 

Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, 

NJ 08855–1331, 1–800–678–IEEE (4333), 

or http://www.ieee.org/web/ 

publications/home/index.html. 

Copies of the NEMA standard are 

available from the National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association, 1300 North 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26609 

1EPCA, as amended by EPACT 1992, had 

previously defined an ‘‘electric motor’’ as any motor 

which is a general purpose T-frame, single-speed, 

foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction 

motor of the National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association, Design A and B, continuous rated, 

operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60 Hertz 

line power as defined in NEMA Standards 

Publication MG1–1987. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) 

(1992)) Through subsequent amendments to EPCA, 

Congress removed this definition and replaced it 

with the heading ‘‘Electric motors’’ and added 

language denoting two new subtypes of electric 

motors: general purpose electric motor (subtype I) 

and general purpose electric motor (subtype II). (See 

42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)–(B) (2010)) 

2EPCA, as amended by EPACT 1992, defines the 

term ‘‘small electric motor’’ to mean 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)) 

3A single-phase small electric motor is a rotating 

electrical machine that operates on single-phase 

electrical power, which refers to a single alternating 

voltage sinusoidal waveform. Similarly, a 

polyphase small electric motor is a rotating 

electrical machine that operates on three-phase 

electrical power, which refers to the sinusoidal 

waveforms of three supply conductors that are 

offset from one another by 120 degrees. Small 

electric motors are generally used as components to 

drive commercial and industrial pumps, fans, 

conveyors, and other equipment that require low 

power. 73 FR 78220, 78221 n.2 (December 22, 

2008). 

17th Street, Suite 1752, Rosslyn, 

Virginia 22209, 703–841–3200, or go to 

http://www.nema.org/. 

Copies of the NFPA standard are 

available from the National Fire 

Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch 

Park, Quincy, MA 02169–7471, 617– 

770–3000, or go to http://nfpa.org/. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

1. Electric Motors 

2. Small Electric Motors 

3. General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Definition of Electric Motor 

B. Definition of General Purpose Electric 

Motors Subtypes I and II 

C. Definition of General Purpose Electric 

Motor 

D. Definition of NEMA Design B Motors 

E. Fire Pump Motors Definition 

F. Fire Pump Motor Coverage 

G. Energy Conservation Standards for 

Electric Motors 

H. International Electrotechnical 

Commission Standards Incorporated by 

Reference 

I. References to Various Industry Standards 

J. National Institute of Standards and 

Technology/National Voluntary 

Laboratory Accreditation Program 

Handbook 150–10 Update and Checklist 

K. Appendix A to Subpart B of Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 431 

L. Definition of Small Electric Motor 

M. Canadian Standards Association Test 

Procedures for Small Electric Motors 

N. Small Electric Motor Represented 

Efficiency Value 

O. Validation of the Small Electric Motor 

Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Method 

P. Small Electric Motor Nationally 

Recognized Certification and Testing 

Laboratory Accreditation Programs 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Congressional Notification 

N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291, et 

seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’ or, ‘‘the Act’’) sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve appliance and commercial 

equipment energy efficiency. (All 

references to EPCA refer to the statute 

as amended through the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007), Public Law 110–140 

(December 19, 2007)). Part C of Title III 

(42 U.S.C. 6311–6317), which was 

subsequently redesignated as Part A–1 

for editorial reasons, establishes an 

energy conservation program for certain 

industrial equipment, which includes 

electric motors and small electric 

motors, the subject of today’s notice. (42 

U.S.C. 6311(1)(A), 6313(b)) 

Under EPCA, this program consists 

essentially of three parts: (1) Testing, (2) 

labeling, and (3) Federal energy 

conservation standards (referred to 

herein as ‘‘energy conservation 

standards,’’ ‘‘energy efficiency levels,’’ 

or ‘‘energy efficiency standards’’). The 

testing requirements consist of test 

procedures that manufacturers of 

covered products or equipment must 

use as the basis for certifying to DOE 

that their products or equipment 

comply with the applicable energy 

conservation standards adopted under 

EPCA and for making representations 

about the efficiency of those products or 

equipment. Similarly, DOE must use 

these test requirements to determine 

whether the products or equipment 

comply with any relevant standards 

promulgated under EPCA. 

In the Energy Policy Act of 1992 

(EPACT 1992), Public Law 102–486 

(October 24, 1992), Congress amended 

EPCA to establish: (1) Energy 

conservation standards, (2) test 

procedures, (3) compliance certification, 

and (4) labeling requirements for certain 

electric motors.1 In addition, EPACT 

1992 directed the Secretary of Energy to 

determine whether energy conservation 

standards for small electric motors 

would be technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings.2 On 

October 5, 1999, DOE issued a final rule 

setting forth procedures to determine 

the energy efficiency of electric motors. 

64 FR 54114. After determining that 

energy conservation standards for small 

electric motors would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, see 71 FR 38799 

(July 10, 2006), DOE initiated a 

rulemaking to begin the development of 

standards for small electric motors.3

Related to these efforts was DOE’s 

publication of a final rule prescribing 

test procedures for small electric 

motors. 74 FR 32059 (July 7, 2009). That 

rule followed from an earlier December 

2008 proposal to amend test procedures 

for electric and small electric motors. 

See 73 FR 78220 (December 22, 2008). 

DOE finalized key provisions related to 

small electric motor testing in the July 

2009 final rule, but opted to solicit 

further comment on certain issues from 

the December 2008 proposal. To this 

end, DOE issued a supplemental notice 

of proposed rulemaking, which also 

raised other related issues. 76 FR 648 

(January 5, 2011) Today’s final rule 

addresses these remaining issues. 

1. Electric Motors 

EPCA, through EPACT 1992, initially 

required that DOE adopt the thencurrent test procedures prescribed by 

the National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA) in its MG1–1987 

publication and those procedures 

contained in IEEE Standard 112 (Test 

Method B) when determining an electric 

motor’s efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(5)(A)) MG1 is a voluntary 

industry standards publication 

produced by NEMA that facilitates 

communication between manufacturers 

and users about the selection and 

application of electric motors and 

generators. MG1 provides practical 

information to electric motor 

manufacturers and users concerning the 

construction, testing, performance, and 

safety of alternating current (AC) and 

direct current (DC) motors and 

generators. IEEE Standard 112 (Test 

Method B) is an industry-accepted test 

method that outlines the methods and 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26610 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

4See also MG1–1993 with Revision 1, section 

MG1–12.58.1, which states: ‘‘Efficiency and losses 

shall be determined in accordance with IEEE Std 

112 or Canadian Standards Association Standard 

C390.’’ 

5The IEEE Standards addressed in this notice are 

generally listed chronologically by their last date of 

revision and adoption rather than their sequential 

number. 

calculations that manufacturers should 

use to determine their electric motors’ 

full-load efficiencies. EPCA required 

DOE to conform its procedures to any 

amendments to these protocols unless 

the Secretary determines, by rule, that 

the amended procedures are not 

reasonably designed to produce results 

that reflect energy efficiency, energy 

use, and estimated operating costs, and 

would be unduly burdensome to 

conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B)) 

Consistent with this requirement, DOE 

has amended its regulations to 

incorporate more recent versions of 

these procedures. 

In addition, DOE incorporated 

Canadian Standards Association (CSA) 

C390–93, ‘‘Energy Efficiency Test 

Methods for Three-Phase Induction 

Motors’’ into the October 5, 1999, final 

rule as a widely recognized alternative 

that is consistent with IEEE Standard 

112 (Test Method B). 64 FR 54114 

(October 5, 1999).4 In light of changes to 

the CSA test procedure, DOE 

reexamined and updated its test 

procedures consistent with its practice 

of ensuring that the latest industry 

practices (and related equivalent 

procedures) are incorporated into DOE’s 

regulations. 

The testing protocols considered by 

DOE have all been updated—MG1 on 

April 9, 2010, IEEE Standard 112 (Test 

Method B) on February 9, 2004, and 

CSA C390 on March 22, 2010 (‘‘Test 

methods, marking requirements, and 

energy efficiency levels for three-phase 

induction motors’’). Consistent with its 

obligations under EPCA, DOE had 

proposed to incorporate the most 

current versions of the IEEE and NEMA 

protocols into its regulations. 73 FR 

78220 (December 22, 2008). 

2. Small Electric Motors 

Among its many requirements, EPCA 

requires DOE to prescribe test 

procedures for those small electric 

motors for which the Secretary of 

Energy makes a positive determination 

that energy conservation standards 

would be technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 

6317(b)(1)) Consistent with this 

requirement, DOE indicated it would 

initiate the development of test 

procedures for certain small electric 

motors. 71 FR 38807 (July 10, 2006). 

DOE proposed possible test methods 

for measuring the energy efficiency of 

both small electric motors and electric 

motors in the December 2008 notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR). 73 FR 

78220. For small electric motors, DOE 

proposed to base its test procedure on 

IEEE Standard 114–2001, ‘‘Test 

Procedure for Single-Phase Induction 

Motors,’’ IEEE Standard 112–2004, 

‘‘Test Procedure for Polyphase 

Induction Motors and Generators,’’ and 

CSA C747–94, ‘‘Energy Efficiency Test 

Methods for Single- and Three-Phase 

Small Motors.’’ 5 DOE proposed these 

three procedures based in part on their 

wide use and acceptance by small 

electric motor manufacturers. 

On July 7, 2009, DOE published a 

final rule adopting test procedures for 

measuring the energy efficiency of small 

electric motors. 74 FR 32059. However, 

certain subsidiary issues raised in 

response to the December 2008 NOPR 

required additional consideration by 

DOE. These issues are addressed in 

today’s final rule. 

3. Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

In January 2011, DOE published a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNOPR) that attempted to 

address a variety of issues related to the 

test procedures for electric motors and 

small electric motors. 76 FR 648. Among 

these issues included those items that 

remained unresolved from the July 2009 

test procedure final rule, along with 

other issues raised in the interim since 

that rule’s publication. 

For electric motors, the SNOPR 

proposed to clarify certain terms and 

language in the DOE regulations. 

Specifically, DOE proposed to revise the 

definitions of certain terms related to 

electric motors, clarify the scope of 

energy conservation standards for 

electric motors, and update references to 

several industry and testing standards 

for electric motors. These proposals 

were made in an effort to help clarify 

the scope of regulatory coverage for 

electric motors and ensure the accurate 

and consistent measurement of energy 

efficiency. 

For small electric motors, the SNOPR 

proposed to revise the definitions of 

certain terms, incorporate by reference 

and update alternative test methods for 

polyphase and single-phase small 

electric motors, and specify the 

determination of efficiency 

requirements. As with electric motors, 

DOE made these proposals to ensure the 

accurate and consistent measurement of 

energy efficiency. 

For both motor types, the January 

2011 SNOPR invited comments on the 

issues presented and requested 

comments, data, and other information 

that would enable DOE to promulgate a 

final rule. In response, DOE received 

comments addressing its supplemental 

notice. Today’s notice addresses these 

issues. 

4. General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

EPCA, through 42 U.S.C. 6314, sets 

forth the criteria and procedures DOE 

must generally follow when prescribing 

or amending test procedures for 

commercial or industrial equipment. 

That provision generally requires that a 

test procedure that is either prescribed 

or amended shall be reasonably 

designed to produce test results which 

measure energy efficiency, energy use, 

and the estimated annual operating cost 

of a type of covered equipment during 

a representative average use cycle or 

period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) In 

instances where the test procedure is 

one that determines annual operating 

costs, the costs must be calculated from 

energy use measurements taken during 

a representative average use cycle and 

from the average unit costs of the energy 

needed to operate such equipment. (See 

42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(3)) 

When amending a test procedure, 

DOE must determine the extent to 

which a proposed procedure will alter 

the measured energy efficiency of a 

given type of covered equipment when 

compared to the current procedure. (See 

42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(C) (incorporating 

the procedural steps of 42 U.S.C. 

6293(e) for electric motors)) As 

described later in this notice, DOE 

compared IEEE Standard 112–1996 

(Test Method B) and CSA C390–93 with 

IEEE Standard 112–2004 (Test Method 

B) and CSA C390–10, respectively, and 

determined that there were no 

substantive differences that would alter 

the measured efficiency of the covered 

motors. 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

Today’s final rule, which is based on 

feedback received in response to the 

December 2008 and January 2011 

notices, amends the current DOE test 

procedures and definitions for electric 

motors and small electric motors. These 

changes will not affect the measured 

efficiency of this equipment. Instead, 

these changes will primarily clarify 

certain terms, language and the scope of 

energy conservation standards for 

electric motors. They will also minimize 

any potential ambiguity contained in 

the test procedures for electric motors 

and small electric motors. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26611 

Electric Motors 

Today’s rule makes four changes with 

respect to electric motors. First, it 

clarifies the definitions for ‘‘electric 

motor,’’ ‘‘fire pump motor,’’ ‘‘general 

purpose electric motor (subtype I),’’ 

‘‘general purpose electric motor 

(subtype II),’’ and ‘‘NEMA Design B 

motor.’’ Each of these terms was either 

added or modified by EISA 2007. 

Additionally, the rule clarifies that the 

term ‘‘general purpose electric motor’’ 

denotes a ‘‘general purpose motor’’ to 

ensure the use of consistent terminology 

in DOE’s regulations. These revisions, in 

addition to addressing the specific 

comments raised by interested parties, 

will help ensure that the test procedures 

are applied appropriately. 

Second, today’s final rule clarifies the 

scope of existing energy conservation 

standards for electric motors (10 CFR 

431.25). 

Third, the rule updates the references 

to (1) NIST Handbook 150–10, 

‘‘Efficiency of Electric Motors,’’ and the 

associated NIST Handbook 150–10 

checklist, (2) IEC standards documents, 

(3) CSA C390, (4) CSA C747, (5) NEMA 

MG1, and (6) IEEE Standard 112 

throughout subpart B of 10 CFR part 

431. 

Finally, today’s rule removes the 

guidance from appendix A to subpart B, 

of 10 CFR part 431. That guidance, 

which will be updated to maintain 

consistency with the more recent 

amendments made by EISA 2007, will 

be posted on DOE’s Web site as a 

vehicle for DOE to periodically update 

its interpretive guidance with respect to 

the treatment of certain aspects related 

to electric motors. Separating this 

guidance and placing it on the agency’s 

public Web site will enable DOE to 

periodically update this guidance more 

expeditiously in response to public 

feedback and changing conditions in the 

industry. The updates may also serve as 

the basis for future rulemaking 

amendments as required. 

Small Electric Motors 

Today’s final rule addresses two 

related matters that clarify the codified 

definition of ‘‘small electric motor’’ and 

should alleviate any potential undue 

testing burden related to small electric 

motors. These changes will help clarify 

aspects of the July 2009 final rule for 

small electric motors. 

First, the rule clarifies the terms 

‘‘represented efficiency value’’ and 

‘‘average full-load efficiency’’ for small 

electric motors. 

Second, the rule adds CSA C747–09 

and CSA C390–10 as alternative test 

procedures that manufacturers may use 

for measuring the energy efficiency of 

polyphase small electric motors. After 

receiving comments and data from 

multiple interested parties, DOE found 

that both test methods are equivalent to 

IEEE Standard 112 Test Methods A and 

B, respectively, which were adopted in 

the July 2009 final rule. DOE is also 

updating its current CSA C747 

references to account for the latest 

version of that protocol. 

Finally, although DOE had 

contemplated in the SNOPR providing a 

method to validate an alternative 

efficiency determination method 

(AEDM) for small electric motors, 

including the statistical requirements 

needed to substantiate the AEDM, it has 

elected to address these requirements in 

a separate rulemaking currently under 

development. To this end, DOE has 

initiated a separate rulemaking effort to 

address the AEDM requirements for all 

products and equipment for which DOE 

has test procedures, including motors. 

The revisions are summarized in the 

table below and addressed in detail in 

the following section. Note that all 

citations to 10 CFR part 431 in today’s 

notice refer to the current version of 10 

CFR part 431. The corresponding 

revisions to the regulatory text follow 

the preamble to this final rule. 

TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES PROMULGATED IN THIS FINAL RULE AND AFFECTED SECTIONS OF 10 CFR PART 431 

Section in 10 CFR Part 431 Summary of modifications 

Section 431.11 of Subpart B—Purpose and Scope ................................ • Clarifies that subpart B is applicable to ‘‘electric motors,’’ but not 

‘‘small electric motors.’’ 

Section 431.12 of Subpart B—Definitions ................................................ • Revises the definitions of ‘‘accreditation,’’ ‘‘definite purpose motor,’’ 

‘‘general purpose electric motor (subtype I),’’ ‘‘general purpose electric motor (subtype II),’’ and ‘‘nominal full-load efficiency.’’ 

• Adds new definitions for ‘‘electric motor,’’ ‘‘fire pump motor,’’ ‘‘general 

purpose electric motor,’’ and ‘‘NEMA Design B motor.’’ 

• Removes definition of ‘‘general purpose motor.’’ 

Section 431.14 of Subpart B—Sources for information and guidance .... • Moves the list of references from 431.15 into a new section. 

Section 431.15 of Subpart B—Materials incorporated by reference ....... • Updates reference to CSA–C390. 

• Updates references to IEC standards. 

• Updates reference to IEEE Standard 112. 

• Updates reference to NEMA MG1. 

Section 431.18 of Subpart B—Testing Laboratories ............................... • Updates reference to NIST Handbook 150–10. 

Section 431.19 of Subpart B—Department of Energy recognition of accreditation bodies.• Updates references to IEEE Standard 112 and CSA C390. 

Section 431.20 of Subpart B—Department of Energy recognition of nationally recognized certification programs.• Updates references to IEEE Standard 112 and CSA C390 for electric motors. 

Section 431.25 of Subpart B—Energy conservation standards and effective dates.• Removes the existing 431.25(a). 

• Clarifies the scope of efficiency standards in 431.25(a) through (d). 

• Inserts kilowatt equivalent power ratings in the efficiency standard tables. 

Section 431.31 of Subpart B—Labeling Requirements ........................... • Updates reference to NEMA MG1. 

Appendix A to Subpart B—Policy Statement for Electric Motors Covered Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.• Removes appendix A to subpart B; guidance will be posted on the 

DOE Appliance Standards Program website. 

Appendix B to Subpart B—Uniform Test Method for Measuring Nominal 

Full-Load Efficiency of Electric Motors.

• Updates references to NEMA MG1, IEEE Standard 112, and CSA 

C390. 

Section 431.441 of Subpart X—Purpose and Scope .............................. • Clarifies that subpart X is applicable to ‘‘small electric motors,’’ but 

not ‘‘electric motors.’’ 

Section 431.443 of Subpart X—Materials incorporated by reference ..... • Updates reference to CSA C747. 

• Adds reference to CSA C390. 

• Updates references to IEEE Standard 112 and 114. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26612 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES PROMULGATED IN THIS FINAL RULE AND AFFECTED SECTIONS OF 10 CFR PART

431—Continued 

Section in 10 CFR Part 431 Summary of modifications 

Section 431.444 of Subpart X—Test procedures for measurement of 

energy efficiency.

• Updates reference to CSA C747. 

• Adds reference to CSA C390. 

• Updates reference to IEEE Standard 114. 

Section 431.445 of Subpart X—Determination of small electric motor 

efficiency.

• Adds additional guidelines on use of a certification program and references section 431.447 for small electric motors. 

• Clarifies the term ‘‘represented average full-load efficiency’’ and renames as ‘‘required average full-load efficiency’’. 

Section 431.447 of Subpart X—Department of Energy recognition of 

nationally recognized certification programs.

• Adds a section on nationally recognized certification programs for 

small electric motors similar to section 431.20 for electric motors. 

Section 431.448 of Subpart X—Procedures for recognition and withdrawal of recognition of certification programs.• Adds a section on procedures for recognition of certification programs for small electric motors similar to section 431.21 for electric 

motors. 

As noted earlier, DOE developed 

today’s rule after considering input, 

including written comments, from a 

variety of interested parties that 

represent a variety of interests. All 

commenters, their corresponding 

abbreviations and type are listed in 

Table II.2 below. The issues raised by 

these commenters are addressed in the 

various discussions that follow. 

TABLE II.2—SUMMARY OF SNOPR COMMENTERS

Company Abbreviation Interested party type 

Baldor Electric Co ........................................................................................... Baldor ................................. Manufacturer. 

WEG Electric .................................................................................................. WEG ................................... Manufacturer. 

Advanced Energy ........................................................................................... Advanced Energy ............... Independent Test Laboratory. 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association ............................................... NEMA ................................. Trade Association. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ............................................................. NEEA .................................. Efficiency/Environmental Advocate. 

Grundfos Pumps Co ....................................................................................... Grundfos ............................. Manufacturer. 

Habasit America, Rossi Gearmotor Division .................................................. Rossi .................................. Manufacturer. 

GEA Mechanical Eq. US, Inc ......................................................................... GEA .................................... Manufacturer. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Earthjustice, 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Alliance to Save Energy.

NEEA, et al ........................ Efficiency/Environmental Advocate 

Group. 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association and the American Council for 

an Energy Efficient Economy.

NEMA and ACEEE ............ Trade Groups. 

III. Discussion 

A. Definition of Electric Motor 

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 National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association, Design A and B, 

continuous rated, operating on 230/460 

volts and constant 60 Hertz line power 

as defined in NEMA Standards 

Publication MG1–1987. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6311(13)(A) (2006)) Section 313(a)(2) of 

EISA 2007 removed that definition, 

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)) 

These standards were set out in 

statutory provisions that referenced 

specific tables from the 2006 version of 

NEMA MG1. All of these standards 

apply to covered motors that are 

manufactured alone or as a component 

of another piece of equipment. The term 

‘‘electric motor’’ (which frequently 

appears throughout EPCA, as amended 

by EISA 2007, and various subparts of 

10 CFR part 431) was left undefined. 

Consequently, 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. 73 FR 78225. 

In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to clarify the EISA 2007 term 

‘‘electric motor’’ to mean any of the 

following four types of motors: a 

subtype I motor, a fire pump motor, a 

subtype II motor, or a NEMA Design B 

general purpose electric motor. 73 FR 

78225 and 78235. In DOE’s view, 

applying the term ‘‘electric motor’’ in 

this manner would clarify that the test 

procedures prescribed for electric 

motors would also apply to each of the 

four types of motors. 73 FR 78225. In 

the January 2011 SNOPR, DOE revisited 

this issue and proposed to broadly 

define ‘‘electric motor’’ to mean ‘‘a 

machine which converts electrical 

power into rotational mechanical 

power.’’ 76 FR 651. 

In a comment submitted jointly with 

other interested parties, the Northwest 

Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) 

responded to the SNOPR and asserted 

that DOE could create either a broad, 

high-level definition of electric motor 

that is carefully broken down into 

various subtypes of electric motors, or a 

narrow definition exclusive to these 

electric motors that are currently subject 

to standards. Ultimately, NEEA agreed 

with the approach proposed by DOE to 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26613 

6Notations 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, ‘‘NEEA, et al., No. 24 at 

p. 2’’ refers to: (1) A comment from advocates 

referred to collectively as the Northwest Energy 

Efficiency Alliance, et al.; (2) in document number 

24 in the docket of this rulemaking; and (3) 

appearing on page 2 of the submission. 

7This comment comes from the docket EERE– 

2010–BT–STD–0027 for electric motors standards 

and was jointly submitted on behalf of ACEEE, 

ASE, Advanced Energy, Earthjustice, NRDC, the 

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and 

NEEA by NEMA and ASAP. 

broadly define an electric motor. NEEA 

believed that this approach would 

minimize confusion by providing 

stability to the ‘‘electric motor’’ 

definition. It added that DOE’s proposed 

approach could provide the foundation 

for extending standards to other electric 

motors not currently covered by DOE 

regulations. Further, they noted that 

using a narrower definition would have 

the disadvantage of requiring DOE to 

redefine the term ‘‘electric motor’’ each 

time the scope of energy conservation 

standards for electric motors changes. 

(NEEA, et al., No. 24 at p. 2) 6

Separately, a joint comment from 

NEMA and ACEEE supported DOE’s 

intent to modify the definition for 

‘‘electric motors’’ to include a common 

definition of the term. However, NEMA 

and ACEEE added that the proposed 

definition was too broad, stating that 

such a definition would make all 

references to ‘‘electric motor’’ in 

subparts B and U of 10 CFR part 431 

apply to all possible types of motors, 

including direct current, single-phase, 

variable speed, and multi-speed motors. 

In their view, the proposal would 

eliminate qualifiers that are necessary to 

narrow the definition to include only 

motors for which energy efficiency 

standards are prescribed. Commenters 

also asserted that such a change would 

alter the ‘‘covered equipment’’ provision 

at 10 CFR 431.12 to include a set of 

motors for which no energy 

conservation standards are prescribed. 

NEMA and ACEEE suggested the 

following definition as an alternative for 

DOE to consider: ‘‘Electric motor means 

a machine that converts electrical power 

into rotational mechanical power and is 

configured as a general purpose electric 

motor (subtype I) or general purpose 

electric motor (subtype II).’’ 

Further, NEMA and ACEEE 

recommended that if DOE believes that 

fire pump motors require a classification 

separate from general purpose electric 

motors (subtype I and II), then the 

definition should be changed to, 

‘‘electric motor means a machine that 

converts electrical power into rotational 

mechanical power and is configured as 

a general purpose electric motor 

(subtype I) or general purpose electric 

motor (subtype II), including, but not 

limited to, fire pump electric motors.’’ 

(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 3 and 

4) 

Although Congress retained the term 

‘‘electric motors’’ as part of EPCA, it 

removed the definition that had 

previously been in place. In its place, 

Congress added two new electric motor 

subtypes—general purpose electric 

motor (subtype I) and general purpose 

electric motor (subtype II). (See 42 

U.S.C. 6311(13)) As NEMA and ACEEE 

observed in its comments to the recent 

framework document for electric 

motors, the removal of this definition 

also removed the prior limits that 

narrowly defined what types of motors 

would be considered as electric motors. 

These commenters asserted that DOE 

already has the statutory authority to 

regulate definite and special purpose 

motors. (ASAP and NEMA, No. 12.17 at 

p. 1) 

DOE believes that a definition for 

‘‘electric motor’’ is necessary and 

today’s rule retains the broader 

approach proposed in the SNOPR. The 

definition that DOE is adopting should 

be sufficiently broad to encompass all 

electric motor subtypes. At this time, 

while the definition covers a large set of 

motors, only those for which energy 

conservation standards have been set 

are currently regulated equipment—i.e., 

subtype I and II motors, fire pump 

motors that are subtype I or II motors, 

and Design B motors that are subtype I 

or II motors. This approach allows 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. Accordingly, 

DOE is declining to adopt the approach 

suggested by NEMA and ACEEE. 

B. Definition of General Purpose Electric 

Motors Subtypes I and II 

Before the enactment of EISA 2007, 

EPCA defined a general purpose electric 

motor (subtype I) as a motor that meets 

the definition of ‘‘general purpose’’ that 

was in effect in DOE’s regulations at the 

time of EISA 2007’s enactment. (See 42 

U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)(2006)) At that time, 

10 CFR part 431 did not contain a 

definition of ‘‘general purpose,’’ but 

instead defined the term ‘‘general 

purpose motor.’’ That term was defined 

to refer to a motor designed in standard 

ratings with either: 

(1) Standard operating characteristics 

and standard mechanical construction 

for use under usual service conditions, 

such as those specified in NEMA 

Standards Publication MG1–1993, 

paragraph 14.02, ‘‘Usual Service 

Conditions,’’ 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 

Standards Publication MG1–1993, 

paragraph 14.03, ‘‘Unusual Service 

conditions,’’ or for a particular type of 

application, and which can be used in 

most general purpose applications. 

See 64 FR 54142 (codified at 10 CFR 

431.12). 

Consistent with the EISA 2007 

amendments, DOE subsequently 

adopted this definition of ‘‘general 

purpose motor’’ as the definition of 

‘‘general purpose electric motor 

(subtype I).’’ 74 FR 12058, 12071 (March 

23, 2009) (codified at 10 CFR 431.12). 

DOE did not propose any changes to 

this definition in its December 2008 

proposal. 73 FR 78220. 

DOE also adopted a definition for 

‘‘general purpose electric motor 

(subtype II).’’ 74 FR 12071 (codified at 

10 CFR 431.12). This definition 

mirrored the statute, which defined this 

type of motor as one that incorporates 

the design elements of a subtype I motor 

but is configured as one of the 

following: 

(i) A U-frame motor; 

(ii) A Design C motor; 

(iii) A close-coupled pump motor; 

(iv) A footless motor; 

(v) A vertical solid shaft normal thrust 

motor (as tested in a horizontal 

configuration); 

(vi) An 8-pole motor (900 rpm); or 

(vii) A polyphase motor with voltage 

of not more than 600 volts (other than 

230 or 460 volts). 

(See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(B)) 

Responding to comments received in 

response to the December 2008 NOPR, 

DOE proposed in the January 2011 

SNOPR to clarify the definition for a 

subtype I motor. Particularly, DOE 

proposed adding parentheticals 

referring to either MG1 or IEC to denote 

those terms that were used by those 

protocols with respect to certain motors 

or motor characteristics. See 76 FR 652. 

In the regulatory text following the 

proposed definition, DOE added a note 

to clarify that the descriptive elements 

in this definition followed by the 

parenthetical ‘‘MG1’’ must be construed 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26614 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

with reference to provisions in NEMA 

Standards Publication MG1–2009 and 

elements followed by the parenthetical 

‘‘IEC’’ must be construed with reference 

to the International Electrotechnical 

Commission Standards. The note also 

stated that 10 CFR part 431, subpart B 

applies even if the NEMA or IECequivalent frame size or design element 

has been discontinued or is 

discontinued in the future. 76 FR 655, 

665. DOE had intended for the note to 

help ensure that manufacturers apply 

the various technical characteristics 

included as part of the definition in a 

consistent and appropriate manner 

(examples of these types of 

characteristics include performance 

characteristics of NEMA Design A or 

IEC Design N motors). A similar note 

was also proposed for inclusion to 

follow the definition of a subtype II 

motor. 

In distinguishing between subtype I 

and subtype II motors, DOE looks to 

whether the motor is configured to have 

one or more of the design or 

performance elements listed in the 

definition of subtype II motors at 42 

U.S.C. 6311(13)(B). For example, a 

subtype I motor could be built in 

accordance with NEMA T-frame 

dimensions and could have the 

performance characteristics of a NEMA 

Design A motor. In contrast, a motor 

built with all of these same design 

elements but with the performance 

characteristics of a NEMA Design C 

motor would be a subtype II motor. To 

clarify this interpretation of the subtype 

II motor statutory definition, DOE 

proposed to modify the introductory 

text of the subtype II definition to read, 

‘‘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.’’ 

A list of the seven different 

characteristics added by EISA 2007 then 

followed. And consistent with the 

subtype I definition, DOE proposed to 

add references to MG1 and IEC 

standards in the subtype II definition to 

clarify the terms ‘‘U-frame,’’ ‘‘NEMA 

Design C,’’ and ‘‘vertical solid shaft 

normal thrust motor.’’ 76 FR 653. 

The SNOPR also proposed to include 

a note as part of the definitions of 

‘‘general purpose electric motor 

(subtype I)’’ and ‘‘general purpose 

electric motor (subtype II)’’ to indicate 

that electric motors that are built 

according to IEC standards but that 

otherwise meet the proposed definition 

of a subtype I or II motor, would be 

considered covered motors under EPCA, 

as amended by EISA 2007, even if the 

NEMA-equivalent frame size had 

already been discontinued. 76 FR 665. 

DOE explained that it proposed to add 

this note to address situations such as 

the one presented by IEC 100 millimeter 

(mm) frame sized motors, which DOE 

had previously indicated were not 

covered in large part because of the 

limitations imposed by the prior 

statutory definition of ‘‘electric motor.’’ 

See 76 FR 653 (explaining DOE’s 

tentative determination that IEC 100 

mm frame-sized motors were not 

covered under the previous statutory 

definition then in place for electric 

motors). DOE understands that these 

motors can be used in many of the same 

applications where other covered 

electric motors are used, such as fans, 

pumps, conveyors, machine tools, and 

gear reducers. 

With respect to IEC 100 mm framesized motors that fall into the subtype 

I or II categories, DOE notes that under 

the previous statutory definition of 

‘‘electric motor,’’ an electric motor was 

a motor that possessed certain 

characteristics. That statutory definition 

also referenced MG1–1987, an industrydeveloped guidance document. The 

inclusion of that reference to MG1–1987 

suggested its significance with respect 

to whether a given motor would be 

considered an ‘‘electric motor’’ as 

defined under the statute. MG1–1987 

omitted any specifications related to 

motors equivalent to an IEC 100 mm 

motor. 

Meanwhile, NEMA and electric motor 

manufacturers had submitted 

information to DOE indicating that a 

motor that was equivalent to the IEC 100 

mm motors—the 160-series T-frame 

motor—had already been discontinued 

by motor manufacturers. As a result of 

this information, coupled with the fact 

that the relevant industry guidance 

(MG1–1987) referenced in the prior 

statutory definition for ‘‘electric motor’’ 

no longer included any technical 

specifications related to the 160-series 

T-frame motor, DOE concluded that IEC 

100 mm motors were not considered 

covered ‘‘electric motors’’ for purposes 

of statutory coverage. Therefore, DOE 

tentatively decided not to treat IEC 100 

mm frame size motors as covered 

electric motors. 61 FR 60440, 60443 

(November 27, 1996). 

Upon reconsideration and in light of 

the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA, 

which eliminated the previous and 

more limiting ‘‘electric motor’’ 

definition, DOE proposed as part of the 

January SNOPR to include both NEMA 

and IEC frame size motors as covered 

motors, regardless of whether the 

equivalent NEMA or IEC frame size had 

been discontinued. 76 FR 653. 

NEEA viewed DOE’s proposals for the 

definitions of ‘‘general purpose electric 

motor (subtype I)’’ and ‘‘general purpose 

electric motor (subtype II)’’ as 

reasonable. (NEEA, et al., No. 24 at p. 

2) Other commenters focused on the 

proposed inclusion of the note to these 

definitions and made suggestions on 

how to characterize U-frame motors. 

NEMA and ACEEE supported DOE’s 

proposal to include the IEC 100 mm 

frame size as covered equipment, but 

otherwise asserted that DOE failed to 

achieve this goal by the addition of its 

proposed ‘‘note’’ to the subtype I and II 

definitions. They explained that there 

were never alternating current motors in 

the NEMA 160T frame size and, 

therefore, no NEMA-equivalent to the 

IEC 100 mm frame size. For this reason, 

in their view, the added text included 

in the SNOPR to address the IEC 100 

mm frame motor, which generally refers 

to frame sizes that have already been 

discontinued, would not cover IEC 100 

mm frame motors. Also, NEMA stated 

that it is unaware of any discontinued 

T-frame sizes and expressed concern 

about using a ‘‘note’’ in the definitions 

section because, in the motor industry, 

a ‘‘note’’ to a standard is not viewed as 

part of the standard itself. (NEMA and 

ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 4, 5) 

As to the proposed definition for 

‘‘general purpose electric motor 

(subtype II)’’ and how it relates to Uframe motors, NEMA and ACEEE also 

pointed out that the NEMA U-frame was 

discontinued as a standard frame size 

when the NEMA T-frame became the 

standard frame size. NEMA and ACEEE 

stated that despite the U-frame being 

directly referenced in the configurations 

for subtype II motors, the proposed note 

in the subtype I motor definition would, 

in their view, imply that motors 

constructed in a discontinued NEMA Uframe size would be considered a 

‘‘general purpose electric motor 

(subtype I).’’ (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 

at p. 6) 

Responding to these comments, DOE 

has modified its approach. For the 

subtype I and II definitions, DOE 

removed the portion of the proposed 

note regarding discontinued frame sizes. 

Instead, DOE is adding language to the 

subtype I and II definitions to include 

frame sizes that are between two 

consecutive NEMA frame sizes or their 

IEC metric equivalents. This language 

extends coverage to those motors built 

in accordance with an IEC 100 mm 

frame. DOE notes that the modification 

to the subtype I ‘‘note’’ also addresses 

NEMA and ACEEE’s concerns regarding 

U-frame motors and the potential 

confusion related to them in the context 

of the subtype I definition. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26615 

NEMA and ACEEE also stated that 

DOE’s reference to MG1–2009 in the 

proposed definition of ‘‘general purpose 

electric motor (subtype II)’’ is incorrect, 

as dimensions for U-frame motors were 

not included in MG1–2009. Instead, 

they suggested that a more appropriate 

reference for DOE to use is a 1967 

edition of a NEMA document entitled, 

‘‘NEMA Motor Standards,’’ which, 

according to these commenters, later 

became known as a ‘‘Condensed MG1.’’ 

(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 6) DOE 

understands that the industry 

transitioned from the U-frame motor 

design to the T-frame motor design after 

publication of the 1967 edition of 

‘‘NEMA Motor Standards’’ and that this 

industry standards document was the 

last to contain dimensional 

specifications for U-frame designs. 

Today’s final rule accounts for this 

situation by adding language referencing 

NEMA MG1–1967 as part of the subtype 

II definition in 10 CFR 431.12. 

Specifically, the amended definition 

explicitly indicates that those motors 

built in accordance with the NEMA Uframe dimensions as described in that 

1967 document will be treated as 

subtype II motors. 

Additionally, interested parties 

expressed concern about when 

manufacturers of IEC 100 mm frame 

motors would need to comply with the 

appropriate energy efficiency standards. 

Given that DOE had previously decided 

that these motors were not covered, 

NEMA and ACEEE argued that requiring 

IEC 100 mm frame motors to comply 

with standards immediately could have 

‘‘serious repercussions on 

manufacturers and motor users where 

significant changes in the motor design 

and size may be required to achieve a 

sudden increase in efficiency of several 

NEMA nominal efficiency bands.’’ 

(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 5–6). 

Both requested that DOE establish a 

compliance date that is not less than 

three years after these motors become 

covered under 10 CFR 431.12 and that 

the required efficiency level be 

equivalent to that for a subtype II motor. 

Both also cited precedents under EPCA, 

noting specifically that amendments 

added by Congress through EPACT 1992 

provided 60 months for compliance (42 

U.S.C. 6313(b)(1)) and that the EISA 

2007 amendments provided three years 

for compliance (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)) 

(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 5–6) 

In addition, Grundfos Pumps Co. 

expressed concern over the timing of 

enforcing standards for the IEC 100 mm 

frame size. Grundfos believed that a 

short grace period or no grace period 

will harm only foreign manufacturers. It 

requested a grace period of at least 12 

months to minimize these effects. 

(Grundfos, No. 21 at p. 1). 

DOE understands the concerns of 

motor manufacturers and realizes that a 

change from DOE’s previous views 

regarding the coverage of these motors 

could have significant manufacturing 

redesign and financial impacts on 

manufacturers and users of such motors. 

DOE seeks to ensure that these motors 

satisfy the relevant efficiency standards 

as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, 

to mitigate the effects of this transition 

and to ensure that manufacturers have 

sufficient time to adjust to this change 

and certify compliance, DOE is allowing 

three years from the effective date of 

today’s notice for IEC 100 mm frame 

series motors (as well as motors built in 

a frame that is not necessarily a NEMAequivalent but otherwise covered under 

EISA 2007) to meet the EISA 2007 

standards. The three-year timeline is 

consistent with the deadline 

recommended by NEMA and ACEEE 

and reflects the three years that 

manufacturers had to comply with 

energy conservation standards 

established in EISA 2007. The threeyear compliance date also recognizes 

the change in DOE’s previous views 

regarding 100 mm frame-sized motors. 

When standards for these 100 mm 

motors (as well as all other motors built 

in a frame that is not a direct NEMAequivalent but is otherwise covered 

under EISA 2007) become effective, 

only those motors that also meet the 

subtype I or II definitions will be subject 

to the subtype I or subtype II standards, 

respectively. 

Finally, DOE also received comments 

regarding voltage ratings as it pertains to 

subtype II motors. NEMA and ACEEE 

commented that DOE should clarify 

which voltages apply to this definition 

by making the language consistent with 

the subtype I definition. They suggested 

restating item (vii) of the definition to 

read ‘‘is a polyphase motor with voltage 

of not more than 600 volts (other than 

230 or 460 volts or useable on 230 or 

460 volts).’’ (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 

at p. 6) Although the commenters did 

not offer an explicit reason for their 

proposed language, DOE has modified 

the language regarding subtype II 

voltages to distinguish the standard 

voltages associated with the definition 

for subtype I motors from the special 

voltages that could cause an electric 

motor to be classified as a subtype II 

motor. DOE has modified the subtype II 

definition to clarify that those motors 

that are not rated for 230 or 460 volts 

and cannot operate on 230 or 460 volts 

are subtype II motors because of their 

voltage rating. (Note that motors that are 

rated for 230 or 460 volts or can be used 

on 230 or 460 may also be deemed 

subtype II based on another 

characteristic—for example, by being a 

footless motor). 

C. Definition of General Purpose Electric 

Motor 

DOE proposed to amend the 

definition of ‘‘general purpose motor’’ in 

10 CFR 431.12 by adding the word 

‘‘electric’’ in front of the word ‘‘motor’’ 

to clarify that a general purpose motor 

is a type of electric motor. This 

proposed change would create 

consistency between the ‘‘electric 

motor’’ and ‘‘general purpose electric 

motor (subtype I)’’ definitions, the latter 

of which refers to a ‘‘general purpose 

motor.’’ (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)) 

Additionally, DOE proposed updating 

the references to NEMA MG1 from 

NEMA MG1–1993 to the most recent 

publication, NEMA MG1–2009. Finally, 

DOE proposed adding text to the end of 

the definition emphasizing that the 

various examples of standard operating 

characteristics and mechanical 

construction cited as part of the 

definition were illustrative and not 

comprehensive. The purpose of the 

additional text was to reiterate the 

‘‘such as those specified’’ qualifier used 

in the references to NEMA MG1–2009 in 

both the current and proposed ‘‘general 

purpose electric motor’’ definition. 

Although DOE is not aware of any 

other standard operating characteristics 

and mechanical construction for usual 

or unusual service conditions, DOE 

anticipates that there may be now, or in 

the future, IEC or other standards that 

may develop such specifications. To 

address that possibility, DOE proposed 

to modify its definition to cover those 

electric motors that are designed in 

standard ratings and have either: (1) 

Standard operating characteristics and 

mechanical construction for use under 

usual service conditions, such as those 

specified in NEMA Standards 

Publication MG1–2009, paragraph 14.2, 

‘‘Usual Service Conditions,’’ 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15) 

and without restriction to a particular 

application or type of application; or (2) 

standard operating characteristics or 

standard mechanical construction for 

use under unusual service conditions, 

such as those specified in NEMA 

Standards Publication MG1–2009, 

paragraph 14.3, ‘‘Unusual Service 

Conditions,’’ (incorporated by reference, 

see § 431.15) or for a particular type of 

application, and which can be used in 

most general purpose applications. 76 

FR 665. 

The proposed definition also included 

at the end a brief statement noting that 

‘‘[t]hese cited examples of standard 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26616 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

operating characteristics and 

mechanical construction are for 

illustrative purposes only.’’ 76 FR 665. 

In response to this proposal, NEMA 

and ACEEE raised concerns regarding 

this final sentence to the proposed 

definition for ‘‘general purpose electric 

motor’’. NEMA and ACEEE suggested 

that including this language would 

create confusion, nullify the current 

references to NEMA MG1, and 

invalidate the second part of the 

definition that lays out the 

characteristics and construction under 

unusual service conditions. In their 

view, the language of the proposed 

regulatory text appeared to apply only 

to electric motors designed for unusual 

service conditions. ACEEE and NEMA 

also questioned what other examples of 

‘‘standard operating characteristics and 

mechanical construction’’ would qualify 

a motor as a general purpose electric 

motor. Finally, the commenters stated 

the added text should be removed from 

the definition to remove any confusion 

and ambiguity. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 

25 at p. 7) 

DOE has reconsidered its proposed 

definition for ‘‘general purpose electric 

motor’’ and, in today’s final rule, DOE 

is codifying the definition proposed in 

the SNOPR without the language noted 

above. Without that language, the 

definition remains consistent with 

previous versions of the definition 

codified in 10 CFR 431, with the 

exception of updated references to 

NEMA MG1. Additionally, DOE 

believes that this approach will not 

limit the scope of motors considered as 

‘‘general purpose electric motors’’ for 

purposes of satisfying the standards 

prescribed by EISA 2007. DOE notes, 

however, that it is removing the 

proposed text because it is duplicative 

of the language in the current definition 

that already notes NEMA MG1 is an 

example of, but not the only standard 

for, standard operating characteristics 

and mechanical construction. DOE does 

not agree with commenters that the text 

would have added confusion to the 

existing definition because the text 

simply repeated the illustrative nature 

of the standard operating characteristics 

and mechanical construction listed in 

the definition. 

Finally, today’s rule moves the 

‘‘cannot be used in most general 

purpose applications’’ qualifier used in 

the proposed update to the ‘‘definite 

purpose motor’’ definition to the 

beginning of the definition. This change 

does not alter the ‘‘definite purpose 

motor’’ definition as proposed, but 

clarifies that definite purpose motors 

cannot be used in most general purpose 

applications regardless of whether they 

are designed for unusual service 

conditions or for use on a particular 

type of application. 

D. Definition of NEMA Design B Motor 

In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE 

proposed a definition for the term 

‘‘NEMA Design B, general purpose 

electric motor’’ that was based on the 

definition of general purpose electric 

motor provided in paragraph 1.19.1.2, 

‘‘Design B,’’ of NEMA MG 1–2006 

Revision 1, but with three changes. See 

73 FR 78235. First, the proposed 

definition removed the reference to 50 

hertz and corresponding performance 

characteristics because the EISA 2007- 

prescribed efficiency standards for 

‘‘NEMA Design B, general purpose 

electric motors’’ at 42 U.S.C. 

6313(b)(2)(D) cover only 60-hertz 

motors. (See NEMA MG–1 (2006) Table 

12–11) Second, it limited the maximum 

rated slip at rated load (i.e., the amount 

of physical force a motor is designed to 

output) to less than 5 percent for motors 

with fewer than 10 poles, because the 

EISA 2007-prescribed energy 

conservation standards only cover 2-, 

4-, 6-, and 8-pole motors and, according 

to the footnote to MG1–2006 paragraph 

1.19.1.2, motors with 10 or more poles 

are permitted to have slip slightly 

greater than 5 percent. Third, it 

corrected the referenced 60-hertz 

locked-rotor current paragraph from 

12.35.3 to 12.35.1, because there is no 

paragraph 12.35.3 in MG1–2006 and the 

table under paragraph 12.35.1 contains 

the maximum currents associated with 

a locked rotor. 

In response to comments received 

regarding the 2008 NOPR, the January 

2011 SNOPR incorporated several 

changes to the initially proposed 

‘‘NEMA Design B motor’’ definition. In 

the SNOPR, DOE proposed to adopt a 

broad definition of a NEMA Design B 

motor to include provisions regarding 

50 hertz motors. Furthermore, DOE 

proposed to update the reference to 

‘‘NEMA MG1–2006’’ to reflect the 2009 

version of this document (‘‘NEMA 

MG1–2009’’). Finally, DOE proposed 

eliminating references to NEMA Design 

B motors to remove any confusion that 

these motors are solely a subpart of 

general purpose electric motors because 

a NEMA Design B motor may be 

configured in a manner that falls outside 

of the general purpose electric motor 

category. 76 FR 653–54. DOE indicated 

that it is inaccurate and inconsistent 

with industry practice to narrowly 

categorize NEMA Design B motors as 

only a subset of general purpose electric 

motor (subtype I). Instead, in DOE’s 

view, a NEMA Design B motor can also 

fall under the category of general 

purpose electric motor (subtype II), such 

as a footless NEMA Design B motor, or 

other type of electric motor. 76 FR 654. 

NEMA and ACEEE expressed 

concerns over the proposed changes for 

NEMA Design B motors. Both pointed 

out that the term ‘‘NEMA Design B’’ has 

been included as part of the DOE’s 

definition of ‘‘electric motor’’ (now as a 

part of the definition for ‘‘general 

purpose electric motor (subtype I) and, 

by extension, the definition of ‘‘general 

purpose electric motor (subtype II)’’) 

since 10 CFR part 431 was first codified 

in 1999. They stated that it was not 

separately defined then, and there is no 

need to do so now. Instead, they 

indicated that the reference to NEMA 

MG1 for the meaning of ‘‘Design B’’ in 

the proposed definition of ‘‘general 

purpose electric motor (subtype I)’’ is 

sufficient. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at 

p. 8) NEMA and ACEEE also questioned 

why DOE did not incorporate a 

definition for NEMA Design A, NEMA 

Design C, or IEC Design N (which they 

stated is the equivalent to NEMA Design 

B) motors. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 

at p. 8) In its submitted comment, NEEA 

offered no explicit feedback on DOE’s 

proposed definition for NEMA Design B 

motors, but instead deferred to electric 

motor industry experts for comments on 

the necessity for, and the use of, the 

‘‘NEMA Design B’’ designation as a 

further sub-category. (NEEA, et al., No. 

24 at p. 2) 

In addition to the above comments, 

NEMA and ACEEE stated that EISA 

2007 categorized ‘‘electric motors’’ into 

two groups, general purpose electric 

motors subtypes I and II. NEMA and 

ACEEE explained that they believed the 

standards in section 313(b)(2) of EISA 

2007 are for four particular groupings of 

‘‘electric motors’’ based on those two 

classifications. They added that the 

terms ‘‘NEMA Design B’’ and ‘‘General 

Purpose’’ are qualifiers used to identify 

particular characteristics of one such 

grouping of ‘‘electric motor’’ selected 

from these two classifications. (NEMA 

and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 8) Furthermore, 

in response to the proposed definition, 

NEMA and ACEEE argued that the 

reasoning for proposing a definition of 

‘‘NEMA Design B motor’’ in 10 CFR 

431.12 appeared to be related, in their 

view, to DOE incorrectly changing the 

type of motors identified under section 

313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 as ‘‘NEMA 

Design B, General Purpose Electric 

Motors’’ to that of a ‘‘NEMA Design B 

motor that is a general purpose electric 

motor’’ in 10 CFR 431.25(d). They 

believed that had DOE kept the original 

EISA 2007 language, it should be clear 

that no definition of ‘‘NEMA Design B 

motor’’ is required in part 431. With the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26617 

original language, they argued, it is clear 

that NEMA Design B is simply a 

qualifier for the broader term ‘‘electric 

motor.’’ They added that because this 

term, NEMA Design B, was not defined 

previously but was understood, it 

remains unnecessary to define it now. 

Finally, NEMA and ACEEE reiterated 

the connection between NEMA Design B 

and IEC Design N motors, and stated 

that the standards prescribed by section 

313(b)(2)(D) of EISA 2007 should apply 

to both motor designs, but only those 

that also meet the definition of either 

subtype I or II motors. (NEMA and 

ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 7–9) 

While DOE appreciates the concerns 

raised by NEMA and ACEEE, DOE is 

broadly defining the term ‘‘NEMA 

Design B motor’’ to preserve its 

flexibility to regulate electric motors 

covered under EPCA. Additionally, DOE 

is codifying only the definition of 

‘‘NEMA Design B motor’’ (rather than 

NEMA Design A, B, C and IEC Design 

N) because the most recent industry 

standard defining this term (NEMA 

MG1–2009) appears to contain 

typographical errors—namely, 

erroneous table references related to 

performance characteristics that NEMA 

Design B motors must meet (i.e., lockedrotor current). Therefore, DOE wishes to 

clarify its interpretation of the term 

‘‘NEMA Design B’’ and is codifying that 

term in today’s rule. For ‘‘NEMA Design 

A’’ and ‘‘IEC Design N’’ motors, DOE 

believes that the industry standards 

referenced in its definitions of subtype 

I and II motors do not contain any 

errors. Accordingly, referring the reader 

to the specific industry standards that 

define these terms should be sufficient 

and require no further clarification. 

Consequently, DOE is not inclined to 

codify these definitions at this time. 

However, for ‘‘NEMA Design C,’’ since 

the SNOPR’s publication, DOE has 

become aware of a typographical error 

in MG1–2009’s definition of this term. 

Although DOE is not defining this term 

today, in large part because such a 

definition had not been proposed, DOE 

may clarify its interpretation of this 

term in the future. 

As discussed previously, DOE 

disagrees with NEMA and ACEEE that 

EISA 2007 narrowed the definition of 

‘‘electric motors’’ to only subtype I and 

subtype II motors. DOE also disagrees 

that changing the description for the 

group of motors described as ‘‘NEMA 

Design B, general purpose electric 

motors’’ in EISA 2007 to a ‘‘NEMA 

Design B motor that is a general purpose 

electric motor’’ is confusing or 

problematic. The proposed modification 

to this language was designed to clarify 

the terminology without changing the 

meaning and to establish consistency 

with other covered electric motors. 

Although DOE is currently taking a 

broad approach in defining ‘‘NEMA 

Design B’’ motors, these motors are only 

required to meet energy conservation 

standards to the extent to which the 

energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 

431.25 apply. In other words, only those 

NEMA Design B motors that fall into 

either the subtype I or subtype II 

categories are required to meet the 

applicable subtype I or subtype II energy 

efficiency levels prescribed by EISA 

2007. Those NEMA Design B motors 

that fall outside of subtype I or II are not 

required to satisfy specific energy 

conservation standards at this time. For 

these reasons, DOE is clarifying that a 

NEMA Design B motor that is 

configured as a general purpose electric 

motor (subtype I or II) must meet the 

standards prescribed at 10 CFR 

431.25(d). See Section F. ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Standards for Electric 

Motors,’’ infra. This approach also 

addresses the concern that DOE’s 

proposal attempted to regulate 50 Hz 

motors. Because general purpose 

electric motors (subtypes I and II) are 60 

Hz motors by definition, 60 Hz motors 

are, therefore, the only motors that are 

currently required to meet energy 

conservation standards in 10 CFR 

431.25. 

E. Fire Pump Motors Definition 

EPCA section 342(b), as amended by 

section 313(b)(1)(B) of EISA 2007, 

prescribes energy efficiency standards 

for fire pump motors, which were 

subsequently codified at 10 CFR 

431.25(d). 74 FR 12072. However, 

EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, does 

not define the term ‘‘fire pump motor.’’ 

DOE proposed in its December 2008 

NOPR to define ‘‘fire pump motor’’ as ‘‘a 

Design B polyphase motor, as defined in 

NEMA MG1–2006, rated 500 

horsepower (373 kW) or less, 600 volts 

or less, and that is intended for use in 

accordance with the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 

20–2007, ‘Standard for the Installation 

of Stationary Pumps for Fire 

Protection.’’’ 73 FR 78235. DOE based 

this proposed definition primarily on 

the scope of the Underwriters 

Laboratories (UL) Standard 1004A– 

2001, ‘‘Fire Pump Motors,’’ and NFPA 

Standard 20–2007. 

DOE’s January 2011 SNOPR raised the 

possibility of modifying the proposed 

‘‘fire pump motor’’ definition from the 

December NOPR by adding a 

publication date for the cited NFPA 

standard, making a correction to the title 

of the relevant NFPA standard, and 

adding a citation to UL Standard 1004– 

5 (2008). (This UL standard is the latest 

version to address fire pump motors.) 

This revised proposal would define a 

fire pump motor as an electric motor 

that is required to meet the performance 

and construction requirements set forth 

by NFPA Standard 20–2010, section 9.5, 

and UL Standard 1004–5 (2008). Based 

on its understanding of fire pump 

motors, DOE does not believe that these 

motors are necessarily a subset of 

general purpose electric motors (as 

defined in the January 2011 SNOPR). 

With this understanding, DOE, 

consistent with the statute, proposed 

that all fire pump motors, irrespective of 

whether they meet the design 

constraints of subtype I motors, would 

each be subject to the same efficiency 

level—i.e., the more lenient standards 

afforded to subtype II motors. 76 FR 

654. (See also 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)) 

Regarding the SNOPR, NEMA and 

ACEEE raised concerns over the 

definition of ‘‘fire pump motor.’’ In their 

view, EISA 2007 defines only two types 

of motors: ‘‘general purpose electric 

motors (subtype I)’’ and ‘‘general 

purpose electric motors (subtype II).’’ 

Furthermore, they believe that EISA 

2007 inadvertently omitted the word 

‘‘electric’’ from the description of ‘‘fire 

pump motors’’ in section 313(b)(2)(B). 

Although they state that there is no need 

for a fire pump motor definition, NEMA 

and ACEEE contend that these motors 

should only consist of what they deem 

‘‘electric motors’’ (i.e., subtype I and II 

motors) that are used with fire pumps. 

(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 10– 

11) 

Additionally, NEMA and ACEEE 

expressed concern over the inclusion of 

UL 1004–5 in the definition because UL 

1004–5 states that the performance and 

construction standards for fire pump 

motors are given in other standards, 

such as NEMA MG1. Also, UL 1004–5 

is not considered a performance and 

construction standard in the motor 

industry. As such, the definition of ‘‘fire 

pump motor’’ should not include it. 

Furthermore, they commented that the 

references to NFPA 20 and UL 1004–5 

do not recognize the use of IEC motors 

with fire pumps and DOE should ensure 

that, if it chooses to maintain a 

definition for ‘‘fire pump motor,’’ it 

should cover those motors. They added 

that, if DOE opts to define ‘‘fire pump 

motor’’ without removing the UL 1004– 

5 reference from the proposed 

definition, DOE should add UL 1004–5 

to the industry standards incorporated 

by reference and included at 10 CFR 

431.14 and 10 CFR 431.15. (NEMA and 

ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 11) NEMA and 

ACEEE asserted that if UL 1004–5 is not 

dropped from the definition, then UL 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26618 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

8Although DOE is adopting a broad definition of 

‘‘fire pump electric motor,’’ DOE notes that only fire 

pump electric motors that are general purpose 

electric motors (subtypes I or II) are currently 

required to meet energy conservation standards. 

These motors must satisfy those levels that are 

equivalent to those prescribed for subtype II motors 

(i.e., NEMA MG1–2009 Table 12–11 levels). See 42 

U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)–(C). 

674, which relates to explosion-proof 

motors (a specific characteristic covered 

under the subtype I motor definition), 

should also be included. Furthermore, 

to harmonize with other international 

protocols related to explosion-proof 

motors, DOE would need to include 

CSA C22.2 No. 145 and the appropriate 

IEC protocols as part of the referenced 

industry provisions in DOE’s 

regulations. 

Finally, NEMA and ACEEE made 

specific recommendations about DOE’s 

definitions as they relate to ‘‘fire pump 

motor.’’ First, they stated that if DOE 

believes that fire pump motors should 

be a separate classification, an ‘‘electric 

motor’’ should be defined as ‘‘a machine 

that converts electrical power into 

rotational mechanical power and is 

configured as a general purpose electric 

motor (subtype I) or general purpose 

electric motor (subtype II), including, 

but not limited to, fire pump electric 

motors.’’ (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at 

pp. 3 and 4) Second, NEMA and ACEEE 

recommended that ‘‘fire pump motor’’ 

should be changed to ‘‘fire pump 

electric motor’’ and suggested that a fire 

pump electric motor be defined as an 

electric motor that meets the 

requirements of sections 9.5.1.1 and 

9.5.1.7 of the National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) Standard 20–2010, 

‘‘Standard for the Installation of 

Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection.’’ 

NEMA and ACEEE specifically cited 

sections 9.5.1.1 and 9.5.1.7 of NFPA 20– 

2010 rather than 9.5 as a whole because 

these are the only provisions of that 

section that they believe apply to the 

fire pump electric motors that should be 

subject to energy conservation standards 

(i.e., those that are also subtype I or II 

motors). (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at 

pp. 9–11) In other words, according to 

NEMA and ACEEE, if an electric motor 

meets the definition of subtype I or 

subtype II motor, it only has to meet the 

requirements of provisions 9.5.1.1 and 

9.5.1.7 to be deemed a ‘‘fire pump 

electric motor’’ as DOE should define 

the term. The other sections of 9.5 of 

NFPA 20–2010 provide performance 

specifications that must be met by 

electric motors that fall outside the 

scope of subtype I and II motors (e.g., 

direct-current, universal, or single-phase 

motors) to be deemed fire pump motors. 

As discussed in section III.A, DOE 

disagrees with NEMA and ACEEE that 

EISA 2007 narrowed the definition of 

‘‘electric motors’’ to address only 

subtype I and subtype II motors. 

However, DOE agrees with NEMA and 

ACEEE that ‘‘fire pump motors’’ should 

be defined within the context of the 

broader term ‘‘electric motors.’’ DOE 

also agrees that IEC-equivalent motors 

should be included within the scope of 

the definition of ‘‘fire pump electric 

motor,’’ although NFPA 20 and UL 

1004–5 do not explicitly recognize the 

use of IEC motors with fire pumps. DOE 

believes this change will help prevent 

any circumvention of energy 

conservation standards and will be 

consistent with the definitions for other 

motor categories. 

DOE also agrees with commenters that 

referencing UL 1004–5 in the ‘‘fire 

pump electric motor’’ definition is 

unnecessary, particularly given its 

potential for confusion regarding 

performance and construction. 

Accordingly, DOE has dropped this 

reference from the final definition. 

Finally, DOE disagrees with 

narrowing the cited sections of NFPA 

from 9.5 to reference only 9.5.1.1 and 

9.5.1.7. As stated earlier in the context 

of NEMA Design B motors, DOE does 

not wish to limit the scope of motors for 

which it may establish energy 

conservation standards and is opting to 

take a broader approach that will help 

preserve its flexibility in regulating 

motors. Therefore, DOE is referencing 

all of section 9.5 in its definition of fire 

pump electric motor, including those 

sections that apply to motors that are 

not currently required to meet energy 

conservation standards.8

F. Fire Pump Motor Coverage 

Section 313(b)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 

amended EPCA section 342(b) by 

requiring that fire pump motors meet 

the efficiency levels prescribed in 

NEMA MG 1–2006 Table 12–11. That 

provision required fire pump motors 

manufactured (alone or as a component 

of another piece of equipment) to have 

a nominal full-load efficiency that is not 

less than as defined in NEMA MG–1 

(2006) Table 12–11. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(b)(2)(B)) The provision also 

provided manufacturers with a threeyear grace period starting from EISA 

2007’s enactment before these motors 

would need to comply with these 

efficiency levels. Consequently, 

manufacturers were required to comply 

with these levels starting on December 

19, 2010. 

On March 23, 2009, DOE formally 

codified the MG1–2006 efficiency levels 

into 10 CFR part 431. 74 FR 12072. 

These efficiency values cover motors 

with a range from 1 through 500 

horsepower and address motors built in 

2-pole, 4-pole, 6-pole, and 8-pole 

configurations. Both open and enclosed 

fire pump motors are also addressed by 

this table. 74 FR 12061, 12072. 

In response to the December 2008 

NOPR, in which DOE did not explicitly 

define a horsepower range, several 

interested parties sought clarity over 

whether the covered range of 

horsepower ratings for fire pump motors 

was from 1- to 200-horsepower or 1- to 

500-horsepower. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 8 at p. 147; WEG, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at pp. 148–49; 

NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 8–9; NEEA, No. 10 

at p. 2) Furthermore, Baldor noted that 

an excerpt of the language under EPCA 

section 342(b), as amended by section 

313(b)(1)(B) of EISA 2007, mentions a 1- 

to 200-horsepower range for subtype I 

motors. Baldor stated that whether a fire 

pump motor covered under this EISA 

2007 amendment—codified at 42 U.S.C. 

6313(b)(2)(B)—was limited to the same 

1- to 200-horsepower range as a subtype 

I motor was a matter of statutory 

interpretation. (Baldor, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 8 at pp. 112–13, 145, 

149–50) 

EISA 2007 prescribes energy 

conservation standards for general 

purpose electric motors (subtype I) rated 

from 1 through 200-horsepower. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(A)) EISA 2007 also 

separately prescribes standards for fire 

pump motors without specifying any 

particular horsepower range. (See 42 

U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)) In DOE’s view, 

with the inclusion of this separate fire 

pump motor section, Congress excluded 

fire pump motors from being treated 

solely as subtype I motors. Instead, fire 

pump motors, as a separate motor 

category under the statute, must satisfy 

the efficiency levels laid out in NEMA 

Standard MG1–2006, Table 12–11, 

which covers 1- through 500- 

horsepower motors. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(b)(2)(B)) Consistent with this view, 

DOE proposed in its SNOPR that fire 

pump motor energy conservation 

standards apply to fire pump motors 

rated from 1- through 500-horsepower. 

76 FR 655. DOE continues to hold the 

view that the energy conservation 

standards promulgated in the March 23, 

2009, technical amendment are 

consistent with the manner in which 

EISA 2007 categorized these motors and 

prescribed their specific efficiency 

levels. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1)(B)) 

Accordingly, DOE believes that EISA 

2007 established fire pump motors as an 

individual class of electric motors 

separate from subtype I motors. 

NEMA and ACEEE agreed with DOE’s 

interpretation of EISA 2007 that the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26619 

sections establishing standards for 

‘‘general purpose electric motors 

(subtype I)’’ and ‘‘fire pump motors’’ 

(sections 313(b)(2)(A) and 313(b)(2)(B), 

respectively), do not preclude standards 

for ‘‘fire pump motors’’ rated higher 

than 200 horsepower but less than or 

equal to 500 horsepower. They noted 

that if a definition for ‘‘fire pump 

motors’’ is established and includes a 

reference to 9.5.1.1 of NFPA 20, which 

stipulates that fire pump motors must be 

NEMA Design B, the higher horsepower 

fire pump motors will be covered by the 

standards established for NEMA Design 

B motors (section 313(b)(2)(D) of EISA 

2007) falling within the range from 200 

through 500 horsepower. (NEMA and 

ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 12) 

Finally, NEMA and ACEEE stated that 

the provisions in 10 CFR 431.25 should 

be modified and suggested that DOE 

explicitly state that the standards in 10 

CFR 431.25 that apply to both subtypes 

of general purpose electric motors 

should exclude ‘‘fire pump motors’’ and 

refer the reader to the ‘‘fire pump 

motors’’ paragraph. Additionally, they 

stated that the paragraph for ‘‘fire pump 

motors,’’ currently in 10 CFR 431.25(d), 

should only include ratings up to 200 

horsepower. They claim that those 

higher horsepower ‘‘fire pump motors’’ 

can be captured implicitly by the 

standards established for NEMA Design 

B motors currently referenced in 10 CFR 

431.25(f). (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at 

pp. 13–15) 

DOE appreciates the comments of 

interested parties and, in today’s final 

rule, it has incorporated a number of 

these suggestions. As stated in the 

previous section, DOE believes that a 

‘‘fire pump electric motor’’ is a distinct 

category of ‘‘electric motor’’ that 

includes motors that are not necessarily 

‘‘general purpose electric motor 

(subtype I)’’ or ‘‘general purpose electric 

motor (subtype II).’’ However, as 

described earlier, today’s final rule 

clarifies that DOE views the relevant 

standards to apply only to those fire 

pump electric motors that are also 

subtype I or subtype II motors. DOE is 

adopting this more limited approach in 

light of the fact that the vast majority of 

fire pump motors fall into either the 

subtype I or II category. Moreover, 

without this initial limitation, the fire 

pump motor standards would apply to 

all motor types that may serve as fire 

pump motors, including several motor 

types that do not currently have energy 

conservation standards—e.g., direct 

current motors, universal motors, and 

single-phase motors. This fact is 

significant because DOE’s current test 

procedures are not designed to measure 

the energy efficiency of such motor 

types. As a result, although the 

standards set by Congress do not appear 

to contemplate a restriction on which 

fire pump electric motors need to satisfy 

the prescribed standards, this limitation 

is necessary for the short-term until a 

suitable procedure can be developed to 

measure the efficiency of these other 

types of electric motors. 

In the future, DOE may consider 

whether separate standards for these 

types of motors would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Until it reaches 

a determination on this issue and 

promulgates an appropriate test 

procedure for such motors, DOE is 

applying the fire pump motors 

standards only to those motors that fall 

within subtypes I or II. Therefore, at this 

time, DOE is codifying under 10 CFR 

431.25(b) that only those ‘‘fire pump 

electric motors’’ that also satisfy the 

subtype I or subtype II definitions are 

required to meet specific energy 

conservation standards. These motors 

would need to satisfy the standards set 

out in the EISA 2007 amendments—i.e. 

the efficiency levels found in Table 12– 

11 of MG1–2006. 

Furthermore, DOE is also modifying 

the language in 10 CFR 431.25 to more 

precisely state which motors are 

covered by the standards prescribed in 

each section. DOE notes that it is not 

relying on higher horsepower ‘‘fire 

pump electric motors’’ to be implicitly 

covered under the standards for NEMA 

Design B motors and is continuing to 

provide explicit language under a 

separate ‘‘fire pump electric motors’’ 

subsection (10 CFR 431.25(b)). These 

motors are required to meet energy 

conservation standards equivalent to 

Table 12–11, as prescribed by EISA 

2007. 

G. Energy Conservation Standards for 

Electric Motors 

Interested parties also requested that 

DOE clarify several issues related to the 

scope of coverage and the efficiency 

levels in the tables of electric motor 

efficiency standards in 10 CFR 431.25. 

First, under 10 CFR 431.25(a), electric 

motor manufacturers must comply with 

the energy efficiency levels that were 

prescribed by EPACT 1992. That 

provision, however, specifies no sunset 

date. Section 313(b) of EISA 2007 

amended EPCA by prescribing energy 

conservation standards for subtype I and 

subtype II motors that manufacturers 

needed to meet for covered motors 

manufactured or imported on or after 

December 19, 2010. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(b)(2)) These standards, and the 

compliance date, were subsequently 

codified at 10 CFR 431.25(c) and (e), 

respectively. Because the standards set 

by section 431.25(a), which applied to 

subtype I motors, have been superseded 

by the EISA 2007 levels but have no 

specified end date, NEMA argued that 

this situation was potentially confusing 

for manufacturers in deciding which 

provisions apply to their subtype I 

motors—the EPACT 1992 levels or the 

EISA 2007 levels. Consequently, NEMA 

requested guidance on the proper 

energy conservation standards for 

subtype I motors. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 

9) DOE addressed this issue in the 2011 

SNOPR by proposing to delete 10 CFR 

431.25(a) to clarify that the standards in 

this section no longer applied. 

In view of the above statutory history 

and relationship of EPCA to EPACT 

1992 and EISA 2007, it is DOE’s view 

that an electric motor covered under 10 

CFR 431.25(a) is a general purpose 

electric motor (subtype I), which is now 

required to meet the EISA 2007 energy 

efficiency levels. In other words, a 

subtype I motor—previously known 

simply as an ‘‘electric motor’’—that was 

manufactured or imported (alone or as 

a component of another piece of 

equipment) before December 19, 2010, 

is subject to the EPACT 1992 energy 

efficiency standards; a subtype I motor 

that was manufactured or imported 

(alone or as a component of another 

piece of equipment) on or after 

December 19, 2010, is subject to the 

EISA 2007 energy efficiency standards. 

In response to these proposed 

changes, NEMA and ACEEE expressed 

concern over the removal of the table of 

efficiency standards that applied to 

motors manufactured or imported prior 

to December 19, 2010, from 10 CFR Part 

431. They commented that many such 

motors manufactured prior to December 

19, 2010, still remain in commerce and 

are certified to the efficiency levels in 

place at that time. They argued that the 

standards codified on March 23, 2009, 

should remain in place for a reasonable 

amount of time, so that these motors 

may lawfully remain in commerce. 

(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 13) 

Today’s rule conforms with the 2011 

SNOPR regarding the removal of the 

EPACT 1992 energy efficiency levels 

from the CFR. While DOE understands 

stakeholder desire to verify that motors 

manufactured or imported prior to 

December 19, 2010, meet EPACT 1992 

levels, DOE notes that the removal of 

the current table of standards located at 

10 CFR 431.25(a) does not mean that 

electric motors manufactured or 

imported prior to December 19, 2010, 

that conform to EPACT 1992 levels and 

that are still in commerce violate DOE 

energy conservation standards. Motors 

manufactured or imported prior to 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26620 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

December 19, 2010, would need to 

satisfy the EPACT 1992 levels. To the 

extent that DOE pursues a compliance 

violation regarding pre-December 19, 

2010 motors, those motors would be 

evaluated against the EPACT 1992 

efficiency levels. 

In addition, removing the existing 

tables in 10 CFR 431.25(a) that detail the 

previous efficiency levels that were 

required under EPACT 1992 will reduce 

potential confusion. Specifically, the 

EISA 2007 standards have displaced the 

older standards that Congress 

established in EPACT 1992 and the 

regulations should be updated to reflect 

that fact. Removal of the previous 

standards will help clarify the 

requirements that manufacturers must 

now satisfy by reducing the complexity 

of the regulatory text. 

Second, in the December 2008 NOPR, 

DOE did not explicitly state that a 

NEMA Design B general purpose 

electric motor that otherwise meets the 

definition of a subtype I motor is subject 

to the EISA 2007 energy conservation 

standards that are codified at 10 CFR 

431.25(c). NEMA noted that, given the 

proposed definitions and structure of 10 

CFR 431.25, NEMA Design B general 

purpose electric motors rated from 1 

horsepower up to and including 200 

horsepower, would appear to remain at 

the same efficiency levels established by 

EPACT 1992 (codified at 10 CFR 

431.25(a)) rather than the higher 

efficiency levels prescribed by EISA 

2007. 

To clarify the scope of energy 

conservation standards for NEMA 

Design B motors from 1 through 200 

horsepower, DOE proposed two 

modifications of 10 CFR 431.25 in the 

2011 SNOPR. Because subtype I motors 

include certain NEMA Design B motors, 

DOE proposed to specify that NEMA 

Design B motors rated 1 through 200 

horsepower that are also subtype I 

motors are subject to the energy 

conservation standards in 10 CFR 

431.25(c) (i.e., those for subtype I 

motors). In addition, since subtype II 

motors include certain NEMA Design B 

motors (e.g., footless motors), DOE 

proposed to specify that NEMA Design 

B motors rated 1 through 200 

horsepower that are also subtype II 

motors are subject to energy 

conservation standards in 10 CFR 

431.25(e) (i.e., those for subtype II 

motors). 76 FR 655. 

Regarding NEMA Design B motors 

from 200 through 500 horsepower, EISA 

2007 also established energy 

conservation standards for ‘‘NEMA 

Design B, general purpose electric 

motors’’ rated greater than 200 

horsepower but less than or equal to 500 

horsepower, which were later codified 

into the current version of 10 CFR 

431.25(f). In response to the 2008 NOPR, 

NEMA asserted that the motor industry 

recognizes a ‘‘NEMA Design B, general 

purpose electric motor’’ as a specific 

group of motors that fit the definition of 

either ‘‘electric motor’’ from EPACT 

1992 or ‘‘general purpose electric motor 

(subtype I)’’ from EISA 2007. 

In the January 2011 SNOPR, DOE 

noted that EISA 2007 did not define the 

terms ‘‘NEMA Design B, general 

purpose electric motor,’’ ‘‘NEMA Design 

B motor,’’ or ‘‘general purpose electric 

motor.’’ In the absence of any statutory 

definition and the statute’s apparent 

reliance on the agency’s then-existing 

definition of ‘‘general purpose motor,’’ 

DOE views the regulatory definition of 

‘‘general purpose motor’’ that was in 

place on EISA 2007’s enactment date as 

the proper definition for ‘‘general 

purpose electric motor’’ as used in the 

term ‘‘NEMA Design B, general purpose 

electric motor.’’ The ‘‘general purpose 

motor’’ definition in place at the time of 

EISA 2007’s enactment is the same as 

the ‘‘general purpose electric motor’’ 

definition proposed in the SNOPR, with 

minor differences for standards updates. 

DOE proposed that this definition, when 

read in conjunction with the definition 

of ‘‘NEMA Design B’’ proposed in the 

2011 SNOPR, would adequately identify 

the motors regulated under 10 CFR 

431.25(f). DOE realized that this 

interpretation could potentially include 

NEMA Design B motors that are general 

purpose electric motors that do not meet 

the proposed definition of ‘‘general 

purpose electric motor (subtype I)’’ or 

‘‘general purpose electric motor 

(subtype II).’’ 76 FR 655. It is DOE’s 

understanding, however, that there are 

few, if any, NEMA Design B motors that 

would be neither a subtype I nor a 

subtype II general purpose electric 

motor. 76 FR 655. Such motors that do 

not fall within one of the subtypes are 

not currently subject to energy 

conservation standards. 

Third, at the time of the December 

2008 NOPR, the energy efficiency 

standards tables contained in 10 CFR 

431.25(c)–(f) listed motor ratings in 

horsepower, but not equivalent 

kilowatts. NEMA requested, in 

comments to that notice, that DOE 

include kilowatt power ratings in the 

then-newly codified tables that detail 

the EISA 2007 efficiency standards. 

(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 9) Without this 

change, NEMA raised concerns that 

metric-rated motors would not be 

covered. To ensure that the tables under 

10 CFR 431.25(c)–(f) apply to metricrated, kilowatt-equivalent motors, DOE 

subsequently proposed the possibility of 

amending the tables to provide an 

equivalent kilowatt rating for each 

horsepower. 76 FR 656. 

Although the EISA 2007 definitions 

for subtype I and subtype II motors do 

not specifically mention motors rated in 

kilowatts, which is how IEC motors are 

rated, DOE believes that the statute 

covers IEC motors that are identical or 

equivalent to motors included in the 

statutory definitions. DOE understands 

that IEC motors generally perform 

identical functions as EISA 2007- 

covered electric motors. Comparable 

motors of both types provide virtually 

identical amounts of rotational 

mechanical power, and generally 

operate or provide power for the same 

pieces of machinery or equipment. A 

given industrial central air conditioner, 

for example, could operate with either 

an IEC or NEMA motor with little or no 

effect on performance. Providing 

equivalent kilowatt/horsepower ratings 

would be consistent with the alreadycodified EPACT 1992 levels and clarify 

their applicability. DOE is maintaining 

this approach for today’s final rule and 

has codified kilowatt equivalents to 

horsepower ratings for each table of 

energy conservation standards in 10 

CFR 431.25. 

Finally, in the SNOPR, DOE proposed 

to clarify in 10 CFR 431.11, Purpose and 

scope, that the electric motors covered 

under subpart B are not small electric 

motors. DOE believes that this 

clarification is necessary because 

electric motors (covered under 10 CFR 

part 431, subpart B) and small electric 

motors (covered under 10 CFR part 431, 

subpart X) are separate and unique 

covered equipment subject to different 

regulatory requirements. DOE received 

no comments regarding this topic and is 

maintaining this proposed approach in 

today’s final rule. 

H. International Electrotechnical 

Commission Standards Incorporated by 

Reference 

After EISA 2007 removed the 

definition of electric motor under 42 

U.S.C. 6311(13), DOE subsequently 

proposed in the December 2008 NOPR 

to remove the corresponding test 

protocols incorporated by reference 

under 10 CFR 431.15. These protocols 

helped clarify critical elements in the 

previous electric motor definition. 73 

FR 78227. These protocols included IEC 

Standards 60034–1 (1996), 60050–411 

(1996), 60072–1 (1991), and 60034–12 

(1980). Removal of these references was 

necessary in order to account for the 

statutory changes introduced by the 

removal of the ‘‘electric motor’’ 

definition that had previously been in 

place as part of EPCA. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26621 

In response to the December 2008 

NOPR, NEMA commented that when 

DOE adopted the content of EPACT 

1992 into 10 CFR part 431, it recognized 

the necessity of including for coverage 

purposes those equivalent motors 

designed in accordance with IEC 

standards that could be used in the 

same applications as motors designed in 

accordance with the NEMA MG1 

standards. NEMA asserted that although 

the IEC standards do not particularly 

identify ‘‘general purpose motors,’’ 

those motors built according to IEC 

specifications can be used 

interchangeably with NEMA motors in 

most general purpose applications. 

Because of this fact, NEMA argued that 

the applicable IEC standards should be 

retained in 10 CFR part 431, and that 

motors constructed in accordance with 

those standards in metric-equivalent 

ratings should be considered as covered 

equipment under 10 CFR part 431. 

(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 10) 

In the January 2011 SNOPR, DOE 

explained that it previously took such 

an approach when addressing IEC 

metric motors in the October 1999 

electric motor test procedure final rule 

because of the interchangeability 

between IEC motors that are identical or 

equivalent to motors constructed in 

accordance with NEMA MG1. See 64 FR 

54142–43 (October 5, 1999). The 

inclusion of parenthetical references to 

the IEC standards in the codified 

definition of ‘‘electric motor’’ under 10 

CFR 431.2 (2000) clarified the 

applicability and coverage of IEC (i.e., 

metric-equivalent) electric motors. For 

example, under the EPACT 1992 

definition of ‘‘electric motor,’’ a motor 

had to be ‘‘continuous rated.’’ DOE later 

clarified ‘‘continuous rated’’ in 10 CFR 

431.2 (2000) to mean ‘‘is rated for 

continuous duty (MG1) operation, or is 

rated duty type S1 (IEC).’’ Although the 

statutory definition did not explicitly 

mention IEC motors, DOE had 

previously proposed that the term 

‘‘continuous rated’’ apply to those 

electric motors that are equivalent to the 

‘‘continuous duty operation’’ rating 

denoted by the parenthetical ‘‘MG1’’ or 

the equivalent IEC duty type ‘‘S1.’’ See 

61 FR 60442. DOE later codified this 

approach at 10 CFR 431.2. 64 FR 54142 

(October 5, 1999). 

DOE believes that EISA 2007 provides 

the same breadth of coverage as EPACT 

1992 did over IEC motors that are 

identical or equivalent to electric motors 

built in accordance with MG1. In the 

SNOPR, DOE proposed revised 

definitions for ‘‘general purpose electric 

motor (subtype I)’’ and ‘‘general purpose 

electric motor (subtype II)’’ that 

incorporated IEC-equivalent motors. 

Thus, in the SNOPR, DOE proposed to 

retain the IEC references in 10 CFR 

431.15. In addition, DOE proposed to 

adopt the updated versions of two of the 

IEC standards, IEC Standards 60034–1 

and 60034–12, to the 2004 and 2007 

versions, respectively. 76 FR 656. 

NEMA also noted in its comments to 

the December 2008 NOPR that a source 

to obtain IEC standards does not appear 

in 10 CFR 431.15(d). (NEMA, No. 10 at 

p. 10) In today’s rule and in response to 

NEMA’s comment, DOE reorganizes and 

updates 10 CFR 431.15, as it proposed 

in the SNOPR, to include each IEC 

standard incorporated by reference with 

corresponding updated information 

about how to obtain copies of these 

documents. 

I. References to Various Industry 

Standards 

DOE noted in the SNOPR that the 

current version of 10 CFR part 431 

references several outdated standards, 

such as NEMA MG1–1993, IEEE 

Standard 112–1996 (Test Method B), 

and CSA C390–93 (Test Method 1). In 

the SNOPR, DOE proposed to update 

those references throughout 10 CFR part 

431 to be consistent with the current, 

industry standards and test 

procedures—i.e., NEMA MG1–2009, 

IEEE Standard 112–2004 (Test Methods 

A and B), IEEE Standard 114–2001, CSA 

C390–10, CSA C747–09, IEC 60034–1 

(2010), IEC 60050–411 (1996), IEC 

60072–1 (1991), and IEC 60034–12 

(2007) . 76 FR 656, 666, and 674. 

Additionally, after reviewing these 

updated protocols, DOE indicated that 

the exceptions to IEEE Standard 112– 

1996 (Test Method B) contained in 

paragraph (2) of appendix B to subpart 

B, ‘‘2. Test Procedures,’’ which were 

intended to clarify steps of the test 

procedure and various values for 

constants and equations, and to provide 

additional context where needed, are 

incorporated within the updated version 

of IEEE Standard 112–2004 Test Method 

B. 76 FR 656. DOE sought comment on 

whether this assessment of the updated 

test method was accurate and if the 

proposed procedure would adversely 

affect the measured losses and 

efficiency determined for an electric 

motor. 

In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE 

stated that it had examined the current 

protocols from IEEE, CSA, and IEC. The 

agency concluded after this review that 

the proposed updates are consistent 

with the previous methodologies and 

will have neither an adverse effect on 

the measurement of losses or the 

determination of efficiency. DOE 

proposed adopting the IEEE test 

methods because: (1) Each represents an 

approach that is consistent with the 

existing test methods for electric motors, 

which have been in effect without issue 

since November 1999 as part of 10 CFR 

part 431; (2) they are the most current 

versions in use by industry and have 

been periodically updated to reflect the 

best approaches for measuring and 

determining the efficiency of electric 

motors (including small electric 

motors); and (3) they will, in DOE’s 

view, provide accurate and repeatable 

measurements because they have tightly 

defined tolerances, provide necessary 

test equipment calibration 

specifications, and contain methods and 

procedures developed by electric motor 

manufacturers to fairly assess the 

performance characteristics of their 

products. 73 FR 78223. 

NEMA and ACEEE had several 

comments in response to the SNOPR. 

First, they commented that the IEC 

standards proposed for inclusion in 10 

CFR 431.15(e)(2)(ii)–(vi) that define the 

metric-designs equivalent to the covered 

NEMA motors should be updated to the 

most recent versions. (NEMA and 

ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 15) In particular, 

references to International 

Electrotechnical Commission Standard 

60034–1 (1996), Rotating Electrical 

Machines, Part 1: Rating and 

Performance should be updated to the 

2010 version. DOE agrees with this 

suggestion and, as with its other efforts 

at updating references to the test 

procedures, will update these IEC 

references. 

Second, NEMA and ACEEE noted that 

the newest version of CSA C390, CSA 

C390–10, is no longer technically 

equivalent to IEEE Standard 112–2004 

(Test Method B) and asserted that the 

preferred test standard in the U.S. 

should remain IEEE Standard 112–2004 

(Test Method B). However, they also 

recommended that DOE examine the 

differences between IEEE Standard 112– 

2004 (Test Method B) and CSA C390– 

10 to determine if the CSA standard 

should be updated to reference CSA 

C390–10 (previously CSA C390–93 (Test 

Method 1)) and whether this more 

recent CSA standard would be 

permissible to use when determining 

motor efficiency. (NEMA and ACEEE, 

No. 25 at p. 15) 

Advanced Energy supported DOE’s 

proposal to incorporate the updated 

versions of the referenced standards in 

10 CFR part 431. It also concurred with 

NEMA and ACEEE that there are 

differences between IEEE Standard 112 

Test Method B and CSA C390–10, the 

most significant of these differences 

being how the magnetic core losses are 

determined under these protocols. 

Magnetic core losses are losses that 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26622 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

9Magnetic core losses are generated by two 

electromagnetic phenomena: hysteresis losses and 

eddy currents. Hysteresis losses are caused by 

magnetic domains resisting reorientation to the 

alternating magnetic field. Eddy currents are 

physical currents that are induced in the steel 

laminations by the magnetic flux of the windings. 

10According to a study conducted by the 

Electrical Apparatus Service Association and the 

Association of Electrical and Mechanical Trades, 

‘‘The Effect of Repair/Rewinding on Motor 

Efficiency,’’ the same motor tested at multiple 

locations showed a variation of up to 0.9 percent, 

even though the same test procedure was used. 

manifest themselves as heat in the steel 

components of an electric motor. These 

losses are important factors because 

they, along with I2R (i.e., resistive) 

losses, comprise the most significant 

inefficiencies in an electric motor.9

With respect to how magnetic core 

losses are determined, Advanced Energy 

explained that CSA C390–10 is more 

closely aligned with IEC 60034–2–1 ’’ 

Rotating Electrical Machines—Part 2–1: 

Standard Methods for Determining 

Losses and Efficiency from Tests’’ than 

IEEE Standard 112–2004. However, 

Advanced Energy did not believe that 

the differences between IEEE Standard 

112–2004 (Test Method B) and CSA 

C390–10 significantly affect the 

measured efficiency numbers, based on 

a number of studies comparing the 

efficiency differences between IEEE 

Standard 112–2004 (Test Method B), 

IEC 60034–2–1, and CSA C390–10. 

In support of that view, Advanced 

Energy cited data from LTEE HydroQuebec in Canada, which found during 

testing a maximum difference of 0.13 

percent efficiency points among the 

three standards. A University of 

Nottingham test of five motors obtained 

a maximum difference of 0.1 percent 

efficiency points between IEEE Standard 

112–2004 (Test Method B) efficiency 

and IEC 60034–2–1. From its own tests, 

Advanced Energy concluded that 

differences between all three standards 

would result in full-load efficiency 

values that differed by less than 0.2 

percentage points. Advanced Energy did 

this by providing two sets of test results. 

The first demonstrated that the same 

motor tested using IEC 60034–2–1 and 

CSA C390–10 would show no difference 

in full-load efficiency and the second 

demonstrated that the difference 

between IEC 60034–2–1 and IEEE 

Standard 112–2004 (Test Method B) 

would result in full-load efficiency 

values that differed by less than 0.2 

percentage points. Therefore, Advanced 

Energy argued that because these data 

showed that IEC 60034–2–1 was 

equivalent to CSA C390–10, the data 

demonstrated that the difference 

between CSA C390–10 and IEEE 

Standard 112–2004 (Test Method B) 

would also be less than 0.2 percentage 

points. (Advanced Energy, No. 23 at p. 

3) Advanced Energy noted that while it 

believes these differences are small, 

DOE will need to determine if these 

differences are small enough to consider 

these test methods equivalent. 

(Advanced Energy, No. 23 at pp. 2–3) 

In view of the above comments about 

the equivalence of IEEE Standard 112– 

2004 (Test Method B) and CSA C390– 

10, including the results of the LTEE 

Hydro-Quebec, University of 

Nottingham, and Advanced Energy 

studies, DOE conferred with 

independent experts about IEEE 

Standard 112–2004 (Test Method B) and 

CSA C390–10, the methodologies, 

measurement of losses, and calculated 

efficiency. DOE understands that the 

test methods are not identical, but DOE 

believes that the differences are minimal 

and both tests will result in an accurate 

and similar measurement of efficiency. 

Given the variable nature of tested 

efficiency values for electric motors due 

to manufacturing and material 

differences, DOE believes that the 

variation in the calculated efficiency is 

insignificant and not likely to result in 

any manipulation of energy efficiency 

test results.10 Moreover, DOE believes 

that removing CSA C390–10 would 

cause unnecessary disruption in current 

testing practices and compliance 

certification. Therefore, DOE is 

continuing to allow manufacturers to 

use either test method to certify 

compliance. 

On a related note, GEA requested that 

IEC 60034–2–1 be included as an 

acceptable test method in 10 CFR Part 

431. (GEA, No. 26 at p. 1) GEA 

considered the efficiency test methods 

of IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) 

and IEC 60034–2–1 to be almost 

identical to each other and asserted that 

both methods achieve the desired result 

of measuring the energy efficiency of a 

motor. While GEA provided no data to 

support its claim that IEC 60034–2–1 is 

almost identical to IEEE Standard 112 

(Test Method B), Advanced Energy 

provided data in support of that view. 

As described previously, Advanced 

Energy provided test results using IEEE 

Standard 112–2004 (Test Method B), 

IEC 60034–2–1, and CSA C390–10 that 

demonstrated that the test procedures 

would result in full-load efficiency 

values that differed by less than 0.2 

percentage points. (Advanced Energy, 

No. 23 at p. 3) 

Additionally, NEMA and ACEEE 

noted that they were not aware of 

whether DOE had examined IEEE 

Standard 112 (Test Method E) for testing 

vertical motors (i.e., motors that are 

designed to be mounted in a vertical 

configuration), and they requested that 

DOE carry out this determination. 

NEMA and ACEEE requested that, if 

DOE determines IEEE Standard 112 

(Test Method E) is acceptable, DOE 

should include it in 10 CFR Part 431. 

Otherwise, if it is not acceptable, they 

requested that DOE provide a test 

procedure that is acceptable. (NEMA 

and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 15) 

DOE appreciates the comments about 

IEC 60034–2–1 and IEEE Standard 112 

(Test Method E). DOE will examine 

them further and may address them as 

part of a separate rulemaking. 

Finally, GEA believed that DOE had 

made progress by including IEC 

standards for frame sizes that are 

consistent with NEMA frame sizes but 

noted that there had been no reference 

to the IEC motor efficiency 

classifications. GEA requested that DOE 

add a reference to the efficiency 

classifications laid out in IEC 60034–30, 

‘‘Rotating Electrical Machines—Part 30: 

Efficiency Classes of Single-Speed, 

Three-Phase, Cage-Induction Motors (IEcode)’’ in the CFR. (GEA, No. 26 at p. 

1) It asserted that the IE2 energy 

efficiency and IE3 premium efficiency 

ratings of IEC 60034–30 are comparable 

to NEMA MG1–2009 tables 12–11 and 

12–12 respectively. Although DOE 

appreciates GEA’s comment, it believes 

that incorporating a reference to the IEC 

tables of efficiency levels is unnecessary 

because the actual efficiency standards 

are included as a part of 10 CFR 431.25. 

J. National Institute of Standards and 

Technology/National Voluntary 

Laboratory Accreditation Program 

Handbook 150–10 Update and Checklist 

In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE 

proposed updating the references in the 

regulations from: (1) The 1994 edition of 

the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology/National Voluntary 

Laboratory Accreditation Program 

(NIST/NVLAP) Handbook 150, 

‘‘Procedures and General Requirements’’ 

to the 2006 edition; and (2) the 1995 

edition of the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 

150–10, ‘‘Efficiency of Electric Motors’’ 

to the 2007 edition. 73 FR 78228, 78236. 

Although following the NIST/NVLAP 

handbooks is not a required part of the 

electric motors test procedure, the 

handbook provides important guidance 

for assuring testing laboratory 

competency and is used by test facilities 

seeking accreditation under 10 CFR 

431.18, 431.19, and 431.36(a)(2). 

During the January 30, 2009, public 

meeting to discuss the December 2008 

NOPR, two issues were raised regarding 

this proposed update. First, Baldor 

expressed concern that an update to 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26623 

NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150–10 could 

be problematic because it refers to test 

methods that are different from the 

updated test methods proposed by DOE. 

For example, the NIST/NVLAP 

Handbook 150–10 refers to proficiency 

in IEEE Standard 112–1996 (Test 

Method B) and CSA C390–93 (Test 

Method 1) to become an accredited 

laboratory. (Baldor, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 8 at p. 178) Because 

these industry test methods have been 

revised, DOE proposed in the December 

2008 NOPR to update 10 CFR 431.16, 

appendix A to subpart B, and 10 CFR 

431.15 to be consistent with current 

industry practice. 73 FR 78228. DOE 

indicated that it would consult with 

NIST and consider appropriate updates 

regarding the references in NIST/ 

NVLAP Handbook 150–10. 

Subsequently, NIST reviewed its 

Handbook 150–10 and issued a formal 

Laboratory Bulletin on March 19, 2009 

(Lab Bulletin LB–42–2009) about the 

Efficiency of Electric Motors Program, 

available at http://www.nist.gov/nvlap/ 

upload/LB_42_2009–1.pdf. That bulletin 

contains a series of updates to the 

industry standards referenced in 

Handbook 150–10. Although NIST did 

not update its references of CSA C390, 

DOE and NIST evaluated potential 

differences between the 1993 and 2010 

versions of the Canadian standard and 

determined that there are no substantial 

differences between them that would 

result in a significant change in 

measured efficiency. Therefore, in the 

January 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed to 

adopt the 2007 edition of NIST 

Handbook 150–10. DOE is maintaining 

this approach for its final rule. 

Additionally, in today’s rule, DOE is 

adopting the March 2009 NVLAP Lab 

Bulletin, which contains the updates to 

industry references in the NIST 

handbook. 

Second, Baldor commented that the 

2007 edition of the handbook does not 

address the procedure used for 

accrediting a laboratory, which is 

contained in a checklist that it was 

unable to obtain and examine. (Baldor, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at pp. 

166–167) NEMA commented that it 

found a ‘‘significant difference’’ 

between the 1995 and 2007 editions of 

the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150–10. 

NEMA noted that the 1995 edition 

provides (1) information on the required 

accuracy of the test equipment, (2) 

details of the test procedure to be used 

for testing induction motors, and (3) a 

checklist for the purpose of evaluating 

the test facility. NEMA expressed 

concern that the 2007 edition does not 

contain that technical information and 

noted that clause 1.6.2 of the NIST/ 

NVLAP Handbook 150–10 (2007) 

indicates that all NVLAP programs must 

use the NIST Handbook 150 Checklist. 

NEMA commented that DOE should not 

incorporate by reference the 2007 

edition of NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150– 

10 until the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 

150–10 Checklist is available to the 

public and DOE has examined it to be 

certain it contains the same information 

about the accuracy of test equipment 

and the procedure for testing as the 

1995 edition. (NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 11– 

12) 

DOE consulted with NIST about the 

above matters and learned that the 

NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150–10 (2007) 

and the on-site assessment NIST/ 

NVLAP Handbook 150–10 Checklist are 

available through the web links http:// 

www.nist.gov/nvlap/nvlaphandbooks.cfm and http://www.nist.

gov/nvlap/upload/NIST-HB-150-10-

Checklist.pdf respectively. 

After considering the comments from 

Baldor and NEMA, DOE further 

examined the 1995 and 2007 Checklists. 

In DOE’s view, these two testing-related 

documents share the same information 

related to equipment accuracy, test 

procedures, and procedures for 

laboratory accreditation. Accordingly, 

DOE believes that the 2007 Checklist is 

a proper replacement for the provisions 

in the 1995 edition and is updating the 

regulations to include the new edition 

of the NIST Handbook 150–10 Checklist 

(Rev. 2007–05–04). 

Because the two NIST/NVLAP 

handbooks, the lab bulletin, and the 

checklist are not requirements of the test 

procedure itself, but rather documents 

used to accredit a testing facility as 

being capable of conducting the 

necessary tests for evaluating the energy 

efficiency of an electric motor, DOE is 

providing all of the necessary 

information for these documents in 10 

CFR 431.14 ‘‘Sources for information 

and guidance.’’ 

NEMA and ACEEE also had concerns 

with 10 CFR 431.18 and the continued 

use of the phrase ‘‘the initial effective 

date’’ in the statement ‘‘[c]hanges in 

NIST/NVLAP’s criteria, procedures, 

policies, standards, or other bases for 

granting accreditation occurring after 

the initial effective date of 10 CFR Part 

431 shall not apply to accreditation 

under this part unless approved in 

writing by the Department of Energy.’’ 

NEMA and ACEEE believed the phrase 

the ‘‘initial effective date,’’ which refers 

to October 5, 1999, may be confusing 

because neither commenter was aware 

of any established procedure for 

informing test facilities when DOE has 

approved a revision of the accreditation 

program. Both commenters encouraged 

DOE to establish and apply such a 

procedure to certification and 

accreditation programs. (NEMA and 

ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 16) 

DOE appreciates the concerns that 

NEMA and ACEEE have raised 

regarding 10 CFR 431.18, ‘‘Testing 

Laboratories.’’ To eliminate any 

potential confusion over this issue, DOE 

is removing the sentence, ‘‘Changes in 

NIST/NVLAP’s criteria, procedures, 

policies, standards or other bases for 

granting accreditation, occurring 

subsequent to the initial effective date 

occurring subject to the initial effective 

date of 10 CFR Part 431, shall not apply 

to accreditation under this Part unless 

approved in writing by the Department 

of Energy.’’ Reference to the effective 

date of the regulation is unnecessary as 

the date has passed, and any change 

approved in writing will be reflected in 

the regulatory text at the time of the 

change. DOE notes that the NIST/ 

NVLAP criteria currently incorporated 

into the DOE regulations remain 

effective, and changes to these criteria 

shall not apply unless the changes are 

approved in writing by the Department. 

K. Appendix A to Subpart B of Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

431 

Prior to EISA 2007, the Policy 

Statement under appendix A to subpart 

B of 10 CFR part 431 provided 

interpretive guidance as to which types 

of motors DOE viewed as covered under 

EPCA. This policy statement was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 5, 1997, in response to 

concerns expressed from manufacturers 

regarding uncertainty as to whether 

motors with certain modifications were 

‘‘electric motors’’ covered under the 

statute. DOE based its guidance on the 

recommendations of motor 

manufacturers, original equipment 

manufacturers, energy efficiency 

advocates, trade associations, testing 

laboratories, and other government 

officials. 62 FR 59978. 

In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to delete the contents of 

appendix A to subpart B since the 

appendix was no longer an 

interpretation of current law in light of 

the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA. 

The appendix had been heavily based 

on the previous definition of ‘‘electric 

motors’’ that Congress removed. With 

the removal of that definition, much of 

the interpretive basis surrounding the 

policy statement required significant 

reconsideration. 73 FR 78228. 

During the January 29, 2009, public 

meeting, Baldor commented that 

removing appendix A would result in 

no guidance and leave open the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26624 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

possibility to greatly expanded guidance 

in the future. (Baldor, Public Meeting 

Transcript No. 8, p. 118) NEMA 

submitted a comment suggesting that 

DOE attempt to revise the guidance that 

appears in appendix A rather than 

deleting it completely. NEMA argued 

that this would help clarify some of the 

new interpretations that DOE would 

have in view of the EISA 2007 

legislation. (NEMA, No. 12, p. 12) 

In response, the January SNOPR 

included an alternative to the removal 

of appendix A—revision of the contents 

of appendix A to reflect the EISA 2007 

changes to EPCA. Specifically, DOE 

proposed to: (1) Eliminate references to 

enactment dates that no longer apply; 

(2) update the scope of coverage to 

include subtype I and II motors; and (3) 

address the bounds of standard shaft 

dimensions applicable to subtype I and 

II motors. DOE did not propose language 

regarding fire pump or NEMA Design B 

motors because DOE did not believe that 

such guidance was necessary at that 

time, although DOE indicated that it 

may add such guidance at a future date. 

DOE specifically noted that, as a ‘‘Policy 

Statement,’’ appendix A represented 

DOE’s interpretation of existing statutes 

and regulations but did not, and was not 

intended to, have the force and effect of 

law. 76 FR 657. 

In response to the SNOPR, DOE 

received multiple comments from 

interested parties regarding appendix A. 

Multiple interested parties expressed 

support for DOE’s plans to provide 

additional guidance on the bounds of 

standard shaft dimensions applicable to 

subtype I and II motors. These 

interested parties also expressed 

support for time phased implementation 

dates before such guidance takes effect, 

although suggested phase-in periods 

varied. Additionally, some interested 

parties requested clarification on certain 

categories of electric motors, such as 

gearmotors. Finally, ACEEE and NEMA 

suggested specific updates to the table 

that DOE proposed in its regulatory text 

for appendix A to Subpart B of Part 431. 

(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 16– 

17) 

In light of the comments received and 

DOE’s desire to provide the public and 

all interested parties with guidance in a 

more expeditious manner, in today’s 

final rule, DOE is removing appendix A 

from the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), reformatting the information 

contained therein, and will post the 

contents on DOE’s Web site as guidance 

(‘‘Electric Motors Guidance’’). The 

removal of appendix A from the CFR 

does not change the legal effect or 

authority of appendix A as appendix A 

was a ‘‘Policy Statement’’ that merely 

provided users with guidance as to 

DOE’s interpretation of existing statutes 

and regulations. Unlike EPCA, as 

amended, and DOE’s electric motor 

regulations, appendix A was never 

intended to have, and never had, the 

force and effect of law. 

By placing appendix A on DOE’s Web 

site as guidance, DOE will be able to 

respond more efficiently to questions 

regarding general electric motors 

coverage and share DOE’s responses to 

all interested persons at the same time. 

Moving appendix A to DOE’s Web site 

will also eliminate any potential 

confusion as to the legal effect of 

appendix A. The updated guidance 

document will be available at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/ 

default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1. The 

guidance will incorporate changes based 

on comments received in this 

rulemaking regarding appendix A. 

The updated guidance will address 

the bounds of standard shaft dimensions 

applicable to subtype I and subtype II 

motors. DOE understands that NEMA 

Standard MG1–2009 and IEC Standard 

60072–1 (1991) specify tolerances for 

the shaft extension diameter and keyset 

that relate to the fit between the shaft 

and the device mounted on the shaft. 

DOE is aware that shafts of special 

diameter, length, or design are often 

provided at a customer’s request for use 

in particular applications. However, 

there are electric motors with nonstandard shafts that could be used in 

most general purpose applications and 

would then be considered subtype I or 

subtype II general purpose electric 

motors. DOE received inquiries 

regarding whether motors with shaft 

designs that are not necessarily in 

conformance with the standard shaft 

types and dimensions in NEMA MG1 or 

IEC 60072–1 were covered under EPCA. 

(Baldor, No. 16; WEG, No. 17) In 

response to such inquiries, and in view 

of possible confusion in the 

marketplace, DOE proposed to add 

guidance on shaft diameter, length, 

shoulder location, and special designs 

under section III of appendix A to 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 in the 

January 2011 SNOPR. 76 FR 658. 

The Electric Motors Guidance will 

specify for certain design features the 

range of variation in motor 

characteristics beyond which a motor 

would no longer be considered by DOE 

as general purpose. Manufacturers 

should not attempt to circumvent the 

efficiency standards by making minor 

modifications to a motor in an attempt 

to characterize an otherwise general 

purpose electric motor as a non-general 

purpose electric motor. Whether a user 

can use a motor in most general purpose 

applications is a critical factor in 

assessing whether a given motor is a 

general purpose electric motor. 

DOE proposed language to provide 

guidance on the amount of variation 

from standard characteristics that would 

enable a motor to maintain its general 

purpose classification, as follows: 

TABLE III.1—ALLOWABLE SHAFT DIMENSION VARIATIONS

Design feature Variation allowed from standard characteristic 

Shaft Diameter .......................................... Any variation in the shaft diameter between the standard shaft diameter of the next lower and higher 

frame numbers series maintains the general purpose classification of a motor. 

Shaft Length .............................................. Any shaft length between and inclusive of 0.5 to 1.25 times the standard shaft length of the motor 

maintains the general purpose classification of the motor. 

Shoulder Location ..................................... An increase less than or equal to 25 percent in either the ‘‘BA’’ (MG1) or ‘‘C’’ (IEC) dimensions of 

the standard motor frame dimensions maintains the general purpose classification of the motor. 

Special Shaft Designs ............................... The special shaft designs of a flat section in shaft (for pulley mounting) and shafts with a threaded 

hole maintain the general purpose classification of the motor. Alternatively, shafts with threads on 

the outside of the shaft or a stepped shaft do not currently maintain their general purpose classification. If DOE receives information that manufacturers are switching to motors with outside 

threads and stepped-shaft design variants to avoid efficiency improvements, then DOE may 

change the guidance to classify motors with outside threads and stepped shafts as general purpose electric motors. 76 FR 658, 673. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26625 

NEEA stated that it ‘‘strongly 

supports’’ DOE actions to clarify 

regulations and prevent circumvention 

of standards and in this regard 

supported DOE’s decision to regulate 

non-standard shaft dimensions. It 

recommended that up to one year 

should be allowed for such motors to 

come into compliance with the 

applicable standards established by 

EISA 2007. (NEEA, et al., No. 24 at p. 

3) Several interested parties indicated 

their concern over the enforcement of 

these shaft and shoulder dimensions. 

Particularly, these parties were 

concerned that if DOE took the position 

that motors with non-standard shaft 

lengths and sizes would be treated as 

general purpose electric motors for 

purposes of compliance with the EISA 

2007 standards, manufacturers would 

require additional time to adjust to this 

new policy. NEMA noted that its 

members and their customers have 

spent a considerable amount of time and 

effort to adopt the EISA 2007 standards 

by the effective date of December 19, 

2010, and have made significant 

changes both in manufacturing 

processes for motors and the equipment 

that use the motors to comply with the 

applicable provisions under 10 CFR Part 

431. In view of these concerns, NEMA 

and ACEEE have requested a timephased implementation of three years 

for the changes in guidance pertaining 

to special shafts. They believe that this 

will allow motor users and 

manufacturers the necessary time to 

implement the required changes. 

(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 17–18). 

Regarding DOE’s enforcement of its 

electric motors regulations in light of 

DOE guidance, DOE reminds 

stakeholders that the former appendix A 

was a guidance document and did not 

constitute a regulatory requirement. 

Similarly, any future guidance does not 

change the scope of coverage for electric 

motors. Therefore, although DOE 

understands that some electric motors 

may require some design modifications, 

DOE declines to establish an 

implementation date for the 

enforcement of energy conservation 

standards for motors with special shaft 

dimensions. DOE will consider cases on 

an individual basis when evaluating any 

potential noncompliance. 

In response to the January 2011 

SNOPR, the Rossi Gearmotor Division of 

Habasit America (Rossi) commented 

that integral gearmotors are effectively 

general purpose electric motors with 

relatively simple modifications that 

would not affect energy efficiency. 

While these motors often cannot be used 

independent of the gear reducer, they 

can be technologically and 

economically manufactured to the 

energy efficiency levels of a standard 

NEMA or IEC motor, which is 

evidenced by the fact that most integral 

gearmotor manufacturers selling in the 

U.S. market offer a high efficiency 

gearmotor. However, it added that the 

majority of those manufacturers would 

want DOE to continue to consider such 

motors outside the scope of regulation, 

which would continue to allow 

standard efficient integral gearmotors to 

be offered at lower first costs relative to 

energy efficient integral gearmotors. 

Rossi stated that manufacturers of 

integral gearmotors have a statutory 

responsibility to meet energy efficiency 

standards where it is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

(Rossi, No. 22 at pp. 1–2). 

NEMA and ACEEE requested that 

DOE clarify that only motors connected 

to a stand-alone gear assembly would be 

treated as covered equipment. NEMA 

and ACEEE stated that a separately 

contained gear assembly can be 

intended for mounting on a C-face or Dflange on a motor of otherwise standard 

construction. They added that such a 

gear assembly is not generally a ‘‘standalone’’ unit and the assembly with the 

motor would not be an ‘‘integral 

gearmotor.’’ (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 

at p. 26) 

As stated in the former appendix A, 

DOE only considers a motor to be an 

‘‘integral gearmotor’’ if it is a 

combination of a motor and a gear drive 

(or assembly of gears). In this combined 

package, the gear drive (or assembly of 

gears) and the motor are not stand-alone 

entities. Also as noted in the former 

appendix A, DOE did not consider such 

equipment to be covered by EPCA. The 

motor portion of an integral gearmotor 

is usually not a complete motor and 

thus not capable of being used in most 

general purpose applications. 

Additionally, integral gearmotors are 

generally not constructed with a T- or 

U-frame and they can have unique 

performance characteristics, physical 

dimensions, and casing, flange, and 

shafting dimensions. As a result, DOE 

considers such motors outside the scope 

of EPCA as amended by EISA 2007. 

Finally, DOE recognizes that an electric 

motor could be connected to a standalone gear drive (or assembly of gears) 

and clarifies that it does not consider 

such a configuration to be an integral 

gearmotor. If an electric motor is 

connected to a stand-alone gear drive (or 

assembly of gears), DOE considers it 

covered equipment if it also meets the 

definition of subtype I or subtype II. 

L. Definition of Small Electric Motor 

Subsequent to the publication of the 

July 7, 2009, small electric motor test 

procedures final rule (74 FR 32059), 

Baldor expressed concern over the 

clarity of certain key terms contained 

within the statutory definition of a small 

electric motor, asking DOE to clarify the 

statutory definition of ‘‘small electric 

motor’’ by interpreting key phrases in 

the definition, specifically: ‘‘general 

purpose,’’ ‘‘induction motor,’’ ‘‘twodigit frame number series,’’ and ‘‘IEC 

metric equivalent motors.’’ (Baldor, No. 

15 at p. 2) Baldor suggested that DOE 

consider clarifying the definition by 

adding parenthetical identifiers 

‘‘(MG1)’’ and ‘‘(IEC)’’ to the definition 

after each of these four key phrases to 

indicate the industry reference from 

which DOE interprets the meaning of 

that phrase. (Baldor, No. 15 at p. 2) 

Section 340(G) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 

6311(13)(G), defines the term ‘‘small 

electric motor’’ to mean 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. When DOE codified this 

definition into the CFR, DOE added the 

phrase ‘‘including IEC metric equivalent 

motors’’ to clearly signal that a motor 

that otherwise satisfied the technical 

requirements spelled out in the 

statutory definition would not be 

exempt from coverage simply because it 

was built using metric—rather than 

English (Imperial)—units. 74 FR 32072. 

DOE applied the term ‘‘small electric 

motors’’ to refer to those motors that are 

built in a two-digit frame series and that 

are general purpose and possess 

standard ratings and standard operating 

characteristics, an application that a 

Federal appellate court has upheld as 

permissible. See National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association v. DOE, 654 

F.3d 496 (4th Cir. 2011). However, 

should it become necessary, DOE may 

consider providing further clarification 

as required. 

M. Canadian Standards Association 

Test Procedures for Small Electric 

Motors 

In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE 

proposed permitting manufacturers to 

select one of three test methods to 

measure the energy efficiency of its 

covered small electric motors: IEEE 

Standard 114, IEEE Standard 112, or 

CAN/CSA C747–94. 73 FR 78223, 

78238. These choices were consistent 

with those for electric motors listed in 

10 CFR 431.16. Under that provision, a 

manufacturer may select either an IEEE 

or CSA test method for determining the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26626 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

efficiency of covered 1–200 horsepower 

electric motors. DOE adopted IEEE 

Standard 114–2001 for single-phase 

small electric motors and both IEEE 

Standard 112–2004 Test Method A and 

Test Method B in its final rule for 

polyphase small electric motors. 74 FR 

32065–66, 32073–74. Since IEEE 

Standard 112 Test Method A applies to 

polyphase small electric motors below 1 

kilowatt (1.34 horsepower), DOE 

determined that Test Method A would 

apply to polyphase small electric motors 

rated at or below 1 horsepower, which 

is the first common horsepower rating 

below 1 kilowatt (1.34 horsepower). 

Similarly, IEEE Standard 112 Test 

Method B would apply to polyphase 

small electric motors rated greater than 

1 horsepower. DOE also adopted CAN/ 

CSA–C747–94 as an alternative test 

method for single-phase motors. In the 

small electric motors test procedure 

final rule, DOE stated that it was not 

adopting alternative test methods for 

polyphase small electric motors based 

on CAN/CSA–747–94 or CSA C390–10 

because of potential inconsistencies in 

the measured efficiency associated with 

units tested under IEEE Standard 112– 

2004 (Test Method B). 74 FR 32066. 

In the January 2011 SNOPR, DOE 

proposed to add alternatives to provide 

manufacturers with greater testing 

flexibility. In particular, DOE proposed 

to permit testing using: (1) CSA C747– 

09 as an alternative to IEEE Standard 

112 (Test Method A) for polyphase 

small electric motors rated less than or 

equal to 1 horsepower (0.746 kilowatt); 

and (2) CSA C390–10, as an alternative 

to IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) 

for polyphase small electric motors that 

have a rating greater than 1 horsepower 

(0.746 kilowatt). DOE indicated that 

using the CSA C747–09 and CSA C390– 

10 in this manner will result in 

consistent measurements compared to 

the applicable IEEE Standard 112 and 

IEEE Standard 114 test methods adopted 

in the small electric motors final rule, 

and help promote the harmonization of 

test methods internationally. 76 FR 658. 

NEMA and ACEEE suggested 

including CSA C747–09 as an 

equivalent protocol to the appropriate 

IEEE 114 and 112 Methods. (NEMA and 

ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 18) They also 

provided comments on CSA C390–10 as 

it relates to IEEE Standard 112 (Test 

Method B), which are addressed in 

section III.I of today’s notice. Advanced 

Energy pointed out that an updated 

version of the IEEE Standard 114 was 

published in December 2010 and 

advised DOE to reference this standard 

rather than the superseded IEEE 

Standard 114–2001. (Advanced Energy, 

No. 23 at p. 4) 

DOE has decided to codify the 

changes proposed in the SNOPR with 

the addition of the changes suggested by 

interested parties—namely, to update 

IEEE Standard 114 to the 2010 version 

and allow the use of CSA C390–10 as an 

equivalent to IEEE Standard 112. DOE 

believes that it is important to have the 

most current standards referenced in its 

regulatory text and it understands that 

the new version of CSA C390 is 

essentially equivalent to IEEE Standard 

112 (Test Method B). DOE will update 

the referenced IEEE Standard 114 to the 

most recent December 2010 version 

because it reflects the most current 

industry practices. Because DOE 

believes the two methods are 

equivalent, DOE may use either test 

procedure when testing electric motors 

for compliance with EPCA, as amended. 

N. Small Electric Motor Represented 

Efficiency Value 

In DOE’s notice proposing energy 

conservation standards for small electric 

motors, the term ‘‘nominal full-load 

efficiency’’ was defined as the 

arithmetic mean of the full-load 

efficiency of a population of motors. 

DOE received numerous comments on 

this definition, all of which were 

summarized in its final rule on energy 

conservation standards for small electric 

motors. 75 FR 10874 (March 9, 2010). 

Ultimately, DOE agreed with comments 

made by NEMA and Baldor and opted 

not to establish energy conservation 

standards in terms of nominal 

efficiency. 75 FR 10914. Instead, DOE 

established energy conservation 

standards for small electric motors in 

terms of ‘‘average full-load efficiency.’’ 

75 FR 10947. 

NEMA had also sought clarity on the 

term ‘‘nominal full-load efficiency’’ in 

the context of the December 2008 

proposal. It noted that DOE had not 

fully explained the efficiency value for 

which test results are to be compared for 

the purpose of determining compliance. 

NEMA asked how DOE would require 

the full-load efficiency to be represented 

on small electric motors, noting that 

motors are not marked with the average 

full-load efficiency. (NEMA, No. 12 at 

p. 3) 

In developing the January 2011 

SNOPR, DOE considered the relevant 

comments submitted during the small 

electric motors rulemaking proceedings. 

DOE recognized that its standards for 

electric motors and small electric 

motors use different metrics—i.e., 

nominal full-load efficiency (electric 

motors) and average full-load efficiency 

(small electric motors). The nominal 

efficiency values for electric motors are 

based on a logical sequence of standard 

values in NEMA Standard MG1–2009 

(Table 12–10) and are familiar to motor 

users. However, there is no comparable 

set of standardized values adopted by 

NEMA for small electric motors and 

there is no statutory requirement that 

efficiency standards for these motors be 

set in terms of their nominal full-load 

efficiency. 

As mentioned earlier, DOE 

established small electric motor energy 

conservation standards in terms of 

‘‘average full-load efficiency’’ in the 

final rule. 75 FR 10914, 10947 (March 

9, 2010). The analyses and results 

supporting the final energy conservation 

standard levels for small electric motors 

were calculated using an average 

efficiency metric. In the 2011 SNOPR, 

DOE proposed procedures for reporting 

the average full-load efficiency of these 

small electric motors that would be 

consistent with the energy conservation 

standards set in the March 2010 rule. 

With respect to the term ‘‘nominal fullload efficiency,’’ since this term is not 

used in the small electric motors 

standard, DOE proposed leaving the 

term undefined. If DOE amended the 

test procedure to measure the nominal 

full-load efficiency of small electric 

motors, the change would alter the 

applicable metric, which, in turn, could 

require a change in the energy efficiency 

standard levels for small electric motors 

because the average full-load efficiency 

standards in place would need to be 

recalculated in terms of nominal fullload efficiencies. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)) 

NEMA viewed the average full-load 

efficiency definition in the small 

electric motors energy conservation 

standards final rule as ambiguous and 

noted that the term ‘‘represented 

efficiency’’ had yet to be defined. 

Therefore, in the 2011 SNOPR, DOE 

proposed procedures for determining 

the represented efficiency of small 

electric motors and how that value 

relates to the average full-load efficiency 

of a sample of motors. 

In the SNOPR preamble, DOE 

proposed to treat the represented 

efficiency as the efficiency that 

corresponds to a 5 percent increase in 

losses, compared to the tested efficiency 

of a random sample of five or more units 

of a basic model. 76 FR 659. However, 

this approach was not fully consistent 

with the language and equations 

proposed in 10 CFR 431.445 of the 

proposed regulatory text, which 

suggested that the average full-load 

efficiency of a sample of motors must be 

greater than or equal to a motor’s 

represented efficiency with an increase 

of 5 percent in motor losses. 76 FR 674– 

75. In other words, if the motor’s 

represented efficiency is adjusted to a 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26627 

11Motor losses (ML) are calculated using the 

equation ML = (100/m)¥1, where m equals 

efficiency. Consider the example in the text. At 88.5 

percent efficient, ML = 0.130, and a 5 percent 

increase would make ML = 0.136. Then, the 

previous equation can be rearranged as follows, m 

= 100/(ML+1). Plugging in 0.136 for ML and solving 

for m yields a new efficiency of 88.0 percent. 

new efficiency that equates to an 

increase in motor losses of 5 percent, 

the average full-load efficiency of the 

tested sample must be greater than or 

equal to that new, adjusted, efficiency. 

NEMA and ACEEE had several 

comments regarding DOE’s January 

2011 proposal to define ‘‘represented 

efficiency value.’’ First, NEMA and 

ACEEE argued that no definition is 

needed in addition to the previously 

defined terms ‘‘average full-load 

efficiency’’ and ‘‘NEMA nominal 

efficiency,’’ which are already in use by 

the industry. They commented that the 

representative efficiency used to check 

the average efficiency of a sample 

should be the nominal full-load 

efficiency value for the small electric 

motors, and did not believe that a 

separately defined ‘‘representative 

efficiency’’ is necessary. They asserted 

that the definition of ‘‘nominal full-load 

efficiency’’ in 10 CFR 431.12 should be 

added to 10 CFR 431.442 to cover small 

electric motors. Furthermore, NEMA 

and ACEEE commented that the 

relationship between average full-load 

efficiency and represented efficiency, as 

defined in 10 CFR 431.445(c)(3), 

conflicts with the statement in the 2011 

SNOPR preamble that ‘‘represented 

efficiency’’ is ‘‘that efficiency that 

corresponds to a 5 percent increase in 

losses, compared to the tested efficiency 

of a random sample of five or more units 

of a basic model.’’ (NEMA and ACEEE, 

No. 25 at p. 19) 

NEMA and ACEEE also expressed 

concern that the ‘‘arbitrary 5% increase 

in losses’’ proposed by DOE that a 

manufacturer would use when reporting 

and certifying its equipment would 

require a manufacturer to understate the 

actual value efficiency of its motors. In 

their view, DOE does not require a 

manufacturer of any other covered 

product in Part 431 to understate the 

actual efficiency, and DOE should not 

require electric motor manufacturers to 

do so. Furthermore, NEMA and ACEEE 

disagreed with the selection of the 5 

percent factor. They noted that the value 

of 5 percent chosen for electric motors 

was supported by NEMA round robin 

tests and studies by NIST/NVLAP in 

developing the accreditation program 

for test facilities to follow when 

determining electric motor efficiency. It 

was their opinion that until sufficient 

studies have been performed to 

determine how the ‘‘average full-load 

efficiency’’ will be determined for a 

large population of small electric motors 

based on a sample of five motors, this 

margin should be increased to no less 

than 15 percent. (NEMA and ACEEE, 

No. 25 at p. 20) 

Finally, NEMA and ACEEE expressed 

concern over the sample size of five 

motors for the ‘‘tested efficiency.’’ In 

their view, the proposal fails to 

recognize that this sample of five motors 

could be taken from a population of 

thousands of small electric motors of the 

same design. This situation leaves open 

the possibility that the selected motors 

could be outliers to the general 

population of small electric motors 

produced by a manufacturer. (NEMA 

and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 19) 

DOE notes that it did not propose a 

definition for the term ‘‘represented 

average full-load efficiency.’’ DOE 

agrees with the commenters that such a 

definition is unnecessary, given that the 

term ‘‘average full-load efficiency’’ is 

already defined and will be used with 

respect to small electric motors in a 

similar manner as ‘‘nominal-full-load 

efficiency’’ is used with respect to 

electric motors (as represented on the 

electric motor nameplate). For electric 

motors, the term ‘‘represented nominal 

full load efficiency’’ is understood by 

electric motor manufacturers as 

denoting the efficiency of a basic model 

for which a manufacturer is attempting 

to demonstrate compliance. (See 10 CFR 

431.17(b)(2).) 

To make these concepts clearer with 

respect to small electric motors, DOE is 

replacing the term ‘‘represented averagefull load efficiency’’ with the term 

‘‘required average-full load efficiency.’’ 

In the context of small electric motors, 

the term ‘‘required average-full load 

efficiency’’ refers to the average fullload efficiency that a small electric 

motor basic model must satisfy to 

comply with the applicable standard. 

DOE believes that ‘‘required’’ is a 

preferable term for small electric motors 

because it does not connote labeling 

requirements as ‘‘represented’’ does for 

electric motors. 

This change is important for two 

reasons. First, there are no labeling 

requirements currently in place for 

small electric motors. Second, 

manufacturers prefer to use nominal 

full-load efficiency values on their 

labels and to represent the efficiency of 

a large population of motors with the 

same design (both electric motors and 

small electric motors) with a single 

efficiency value. Because the standards 

for small electric motors are in terms of 

average full-load efficiencies (and not 

standardized nominal values used for 

labeling electric motors), using the term 

‘‘required’’ distinguishes the rating for 

small electric motors from the nominal 

full-load efficiency values used to rate 

electric motors. 

In addition to these revisions, DOE is 

clarifying one portion of the text within 

Section 431.445(c)(2). DOE is making 

this change to ensure that the limited 

conditions under which substitute 

components may be used are more 

easily understood. These changes are 

being made to improve the overall 

readability of this section and are 

consistent with DOE’s proposal. 

DOE also clarifies that the regulatory 

text and equations appearing in the 

SNOPR correctly lay out the manner in 

which manufacturers are to determine 

the certified efficiency of their motors. 

See 76 FR 674–75. DOE’s proposal 

regarding the represented (now 

required) efficiency of a small electric 

motor was intended to be consistent 

with DOE’s current regulations for 

electric motors. In other words, DOE is 

clarifying that the average full-load 

efficiency of a sample should be greater 

than or equal to the required efficiency 

(plus a 5 percent increase in losses) for 

that sample. 

DOE notes that in the context of all 

other regulated consumer products and 

commercial equipment, manufacturers 

are required to rate the energy efficiency 

performance of their products or 

equipment in a conservative manner not 

only to ensure that those products and 

equipment satisfy the required energy 

conservation standards, but also to 

ensure that the final product or 

equipment performs at least as well as 

the represented efficiency. Against this 

background, DOE notes that its proposal 

centers on requiring manufacturers to 

apply test results when determining the 

energy efficiency of a particular basic 

model and to certify compliance using 

the applicable small electric motor 

energy efficiency level. The average 

efficiency of the required sample must 

be greater than or equal to the required 

efficiency level plus a 5 percent increase 

in motor losses. For example, if a 

manufacturer has a small electric motor 

with a required energy conservation 

standard level of 88.5 percent, 

demonstrating that a small electric 

motor basic model meets that level 

would require that the average of a 

sample of at least 5 tested motors must 

be greater than or equal to 88.5 percent 

plus a 5 percent increase in motor 

losses, or 88.0 percent.11

Furthermore, DOE emphasizes that a 

manufacturer seeking to certify a 

particular basic model must test at least 

5 units (or samples) of a basic model. If 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26628 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

a manufacturer believes that this sample 

size will not be representative of their 

population of that basic model, it may 

test more units at its discretion to 

determine its certified efficiency. 

DOE appreciates the comments 

regarding the use of ‘‘nominal full-load 

efficiency’’ when referring to a small 

electric motor’s ‘‘represented full-load 

efficiency,’’ now ‘‘required full-load 

efficiency.’’ However, because ‘‘nominal 

full-load efficiency’’ is not used in the 

small electric motors standard, DOE has 

decided to leave the term undefined. 

Should DOE amend the test procedure 

to measure the nominal full-load 

efficiency of small electric motors, it 

would likely necessitate changes to the 

energy conservation standards as well. If 

such a change were made to the 

regulated metric, DOE would alter, as 

appropriate, the applicable methodology 

and then make a corresponding change 

in the energy conservation standards 

consistent with other statutory 

requirements. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)). 

Consequently, DOE is not requiring the 

‘‘required full-load efficiency’’ to be 

stated or reported in terms of ‘‘nominal 

full-load efficiency.’’ However, DOE 

realizes that this is the industry 

standard for labeling motors and is 

clarifying that small electric motor 

manufacturers can still use the 

standardized values for nominal fullload efficiency that appear in NEMA 

MG1–2009 Table 12–10 to label their 

motors. Consistent with 42 U.S.C. 

6317(d), DOE will consider the 

promulgation of detailed requirements 

related to this equipment. 

Finally, in response to the comments 

by NEMA and ACEEE suggesting that 

DOE raise the proposed power loss 

factor from 5 to 15 percent, DOE is not 

inclined to change its proposal for a 

number of reasons. First, the proposed 

value is consistent with the value used 

for medium electric motors. That value, 

as NEMA and ACEEE pointed out, was 

based on round robin testing and testing 

from NIST/NVLAP that supported its 

use. DOE also notes that the 5 percent 

allowance has been an accepted 

tolerance for electric motors since DOE 

published its first final rule for electric 

motors test procedures on October 5, 

1999. 64 FR 54153 Second, there is no 

reason to believe that the variation in 

performance of small electric motors 

should be any different from medium 

electric motors. At the lowest 

horsepower ratings covered for medium 

electric motors, the standard frame sizes 

are very similar to those used for small 

electric motors. Third, DOE understands 

that small electric motors and medium 

electric motors are built with the same 

materials that have the same variations 

in properties that affect motor losses. As 

a result, there are no engineering 

reasons that would necessitate the use 

of a power loss factor for small electric 

motors that exceeds by three-fold the 

loss factor provided for electric motors. 

These facts collectively suggest that 

whether a motor is a small or medium 

electric motor does not have a 

significant bearing on the variation in 

tested efficiency and it would be 

unnecessary to provide an additional 10 

percent of loss variation for small 

electric motors. Finally, adopting the 

approach suggested by NEMA and 

ACEEE would have the effect of 

lowering the permitted efficiency level 

for a basic model by one NEMA nominal 

efficiency band. DOE notes that such a 

significant increase in the permitted 

motor loss value would allow 

manufacturers to produce motors at 

significantly reduced efficiency levels 

and potentially undercut the applicable 

energy conservation standard. 

DOE also notes that, contrary to the 

assertions made by NEMA and ACEEE, 

consumer products and other 

commercial equipment are required to 

meet a prescribed efficiency level 

without the benefit of an added loss 

factor. In that sense, motor 

manufacturers are presented with an 

additional margin for compliance when 

compared to other types of commercial 

equipment or consumer products. DOE’s 

inclusion of this factor is in recognition 

of the changes in motor performance 

that are observed because of material 

variability and engineering limitations 

inherent in certain aspects of motor 

manufacturing. Given continuing 

advances in manufacturing, however, 

DOE may revisit the continued 

inclusion of a standard power loss factor 

as part of future revisions to its 

standards. DOE notes that in its most 

recent Certification, Compliance and 

Enforcement rule, there is no allowance 

for efficiency losses. See 76 FR 12422 

(March 6, 2011). 

Furthermore, based on small electric 

motor test data generated by an 

independent laboratory, a 5 percent 

increase in losses has been shown to be 

a reasonable allowance for an increase 

in losses relative to a motor’s labeled 

full-load efficiency. This 5 percent value 

falls within the margin of error for stateof-the-art testing equipment used to 

measure the efficiency losses in a motor 

relative to its labeled full-load efficiency 

value. Based on testing information DOE 

has reviewed, small electric motors 

were able to meet the 5 percent 

variation. 

DOE’s analysis of small electric motor 

efficiency included a review of test 

results from 27 small electric motors as 

provided by an independent laboratory. 

Although the tests show a range of rated 

losses, ranging from 81 percent to 179 

percent of rated losses (excluding one 

outlier), nine of these tests demonstrate 

that a 5 percent increase in losses is 

reasonable. This is significant for two 

reasons. First, these tests show that a 5 

percent loss is technologically feasible 

today. Second, DOE anticipates that the 

same tests conducted after 

manufacturers are required to comply 

with the small electric motor standards 

would show much less variation in 

rated losses resulting from the standard. 

Moreover, NEMA/ACEEE did not 

provide DOE with any studies or data 

contradicting the proposed 5 percent 

motor loss value. 

As an added check, DOE also 

reviewed the test data that examined 

electric motor efficiency. Those tests 

indicated that when tolerance levels are 

prescribed, the measured efficiency 

remains within the prescribed band—in 

this case, the prescribed band is 

delineated by the NEMA-developed 

efficiency bands found in MG–1. Given 

that there are no engineering reasons 

that would limit the ability of 

manufacturers to meet a prescribed 

efficiency value under similar 

conditions, manufacturers should be 

capable of meeting the required 

efficiency levels when applying the 

same motor loss value for small electric 

motors as well. 

O. Validation of the Small Electric 

Motor Alternative Efficiency 

Determination Method 

Section 343(a)(2) of EPCA requires 

that test procedures prescribed for 

electric motors be ‘‘reasonably designed 

to produce test results which reflect 

energy efficiency,’’ yet not be ‘‘unduly 

burdensome’’ to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(2)) As discussed in section 

III.D.3 of the December 22, 2008 NOPR, 

DOE recognizes that manufacturers 

produce large numbers of basic models 

of small electric motors, numbering in 

the thousands. 73 FR 78223. These large 

numbers are due in part to the 

frequency with which units are 

modified because of material price 

fluctuations which, in turn, often 

necessitate the development of new 

basic models. 

In view of the substantial number of 

small electric motors that could be 

subject to an individual testing 

requirement for each basic model, the 

final small electric motors test 

procedure rule included the use of an 

alternative efficiency determination 

method (AEDM). 74 FR 32067, 32073. 

An AEDM is a predictive mathematical 

model developed from engineering 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26629 

12Further, 10 CFR 431.17(a)(5) provides for a 

manufacturer to establish compliance either 

through: (1) A certification program that DOE has 

classified as nationally recognized, such as CSA or 

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., or (2) testing in any 

laboratory that is accredited by the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology/National 

Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NIST/ 

NVLAP). 

analyses of design data and 

substantiated by actual testing. It 

represents the energy consumption 

characteristics of one or more basic 

models. Before using an AEDM, a 

manufacturer must determine its 

accuracy and reliability through actual 

testing of a statistically valid sample of 

at least five basic models. (10 CFR 

431.445) For each basic model, the 

manufacturer must test a sample size of 

at least five units selected at random 

according to the criteria adopted in 

section 10 CFR 431.445. After validating 

an AEDM’s accuracy, the manufacturer 

may use that AEDM to determine the 

efficiencies of other basic models of 

small electric motors without further 

testing. DOE may consider requiring 

periodic verification subsequent to 

initial substantiation in a separate 

rulemaking on compliance, certification, 

and enforcement. 

In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to adopt procedures for small 

electric motors that would allow a 

manufacturer to certify compliance by 

using an AEDM and a statistically 

meaningful sampling procedure for 

selecting test specimens that would be 

consistent with the existing 

requirements in 10 CFR 431.17 that 

currently apply to electric motors. 73 FR 

78223–24, 78238–39. In the January 

2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed additional 

requirements that are consistent with 

the AEDM approach already adopted for 

1–200 horsepower electric motors. 

These proposals helped clarify portions 

of the AEDM procedure adopted in the 

final rule for small electric motors. DOE 

requested comments from interested 

parties on these requirements for a 

manufacturer to substantiate the 

accuracy of its AEDM. 76 FR 660. 

In response to the January 2011 

SNOPR, NEMA and ACEEE supported 

the adoption of AEDM usage and 

verification procedures for small electric 

motors that would be based on the 

procedures already in place for electric 

motors. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at 

p. 22) Advanced Energy also agreed 

with DOE’s proposal to use actual 

testing to validate an AEDM model for 

small electric motors. However, it 

requested that DOE place more 

emphasis on an AEDM’s subsequent 

verification. Advanced Energy noted 

that it would be helpful for the current 

language, which calls for subsequent 

verification of AEDMs to be conducted 

on a ‘‘periodic’’ basis using a specific 

time period, such as annually, to 

provide quality control to the process of 

AEDMs. (Advanced Energy, No. 23 at 

p. 4) 

DOE appreciates these comments. 

However, as noted previously, DOE is 

planning on addressing these comments 

in a separate rulemaking. Between 

publication of the SNOPR and this final 

rule, DOE initiated a rulemaking 

specifically for AEDMs for all products 

and equipment; these comments will be 

addressed in that rulemaking. 

P. Small Electric Motor Nationally 

Recognized Certification and Testing 

Laboratory Accreditation Programs 

EPCA provides different requirements 

for determining the energy efficiency of 

regulated small electric motors and 

electric motors. In particular, section 

345(c) of EPCA directs the Secretary of 

Energy to require manufacturers of 

‘‘electric motors’’ to certify, through an 

independent testing or certification 

program nationally recognized in the 

United States, that any electric motor 

subject to EPCA efficiency standards 

meets the applicable standard.12 (42 

U.S.C. 6316(c)) No such requirement for 

independent testing or certification 

applies to small electric motors. 

In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to allow a manufacturer to 

self-certify its small electric motors (i.e., 

not require ‘‘independent testing’’). This 

approach would be consistent with the 

compliance certification requirements 

for other commercial equipment such as 

high-intensity discharge lamps and 

distribution transformers, which are 

covered equipment under section 346 of 

EPCA. 73 FR 78224. 

In its comments to the NOPR, at 74 FR 

32068 (July 7, 2009), NEMA observed 

that many small electric motors sold in 

the U.S. are also sold in Canada, and 

that Canadian regulatory entities are 

considering following DOE’s lead in 

developing energy efficiency standards 

for small electric motors. (NEMA, No. 

12 at p. 4) NEMA noted that because the 

only means to certify compliance for 

electric motors in Canada is through the 

CSA Energy Efficiency Verification 

Program, it is likely that the Canadian 

government will require small electric 

motors to be certified through the same 

CSA Energy Efficiency Verification 

Program. NEMA requested that DOE 

recognize independent third party 

efficiency certification programs for 

small electric motors, but not mandate 

the use of independent third party 

certification programs or accreditation 

programs for testing facilities. Rather, it 

stressed that DOE recognition of such 

programs would encourage motor 

manufacturers to use third party 

accreditation programs, such as NVLAP, 

to accredit their own test facility, which 

could then be used to self-certify under 

10 CFR 431.17(a)(5)(ii). In addition, 

NEMA recommended that DOE allow 

sufficient time for the approval of such 

programs and manufacturer 

participation in such programs because 

no accreditation programs for testing in 

accordance with IEEE Standard 112 

(Test Method A), IEEE Standard 114, or 

CSA C747 currently exist. (NEMA, No. 

12 at pp. 4–5) 

NEEA supported the creation of a 

nationally recognized certification 

program or accredited laboratory, 

according to the requirements that 

currently apply to electric motors. (See 

10 CFR 431.17(a)(5)) It recommended 

that DOE apply the same requirements 

to small electric motors. (NEEA, No. 10 

at p. 2) 

Responding to these comments, DOE 

proposed in the January 2011 SNOPR to 

add the same provisions regarding 

nationally recognized certification 

programs to the small electric motors 

regulations as are currently found in the 

electric motors regulations at 10 CFR 

431.17(a)(5), 431.20, and 431.21. DOE 

proposed to allow the use of such 

approved programs but it added that it 

may also, in the future, require 

manufacturers to test small electric 

motors through a nationally recognized 

certification program or a testing 

laboratory that has been accredited 

through a process similar to that of 

NIST/NVLAP. 76 FR 660. DOE notes 

that 10 CFR sections 431.19 and 431.20, 

respectively, provide for DOE 

recognition of accreditation bodies and 

nationally recognized certification 

programs. 

In written comments, NEMA and 

ACEEE agreed that independent third 

party compliance certification programs 

for small electric motors should be 

approved as DOE had proposed through 

the additions of sections 431.447 and 

431.448. However, they stressed that 

any approved certification program for 

small electric motors should not be 

mandatory—these programs should 

continue to be one of the procedures 

available to manufacturers when 

certifying their small electric motors to 

the applicable standards. Furthermore, 

they commented that, similar to electric 

motors, participation in a laboratory 

accreditation program for the testing of 

small electric motor efficiency should 

not be mandatory if it is possible to 

obtain equivalent recognition of the test 

facility through participation in a 

certification program. (NEMA and 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26630 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 22) NEMA and 

ACEEE also noted that in DOE’s SNOPR, 

DOE did not include sections for small 

electric motors corresponding to the 

provisions currently in place for electric 

motors—10 CFR 431.18 (‘‘Testing 

Laboratories’’) and 10 CFR 431.19 

(‘‘Department of Energy recognition of 

accreditation bodies’’). These 

commenters urged DOE to begin the 

process of establishing proper 

certification and accreditation programs 

in the immediate future. (NEMA and 

ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 22–23) 

Advanced Energy recommended that 

third party accreditation programs and 

laboratory accreditation programs be 

established and made available for 

motor manufacturers seeking 

compliance for small electric motors. 

Furthermore, it commented that these 

programs should be made mandatory to 

match the testing and certification 

policies of electric motors. Advanced 

Energy suggested that DOE and NIST 

work together to develop laboratory 

accredited programs for all new test 

standards referenced in the SNOPR, and 

that all third party certification 

programs currently recognized by DOE 

should have NVLAP accreditation for 

motor efficiency testing because it 

improves testing consistency and 

expertise of the programs for 

determining motor efficiency. 

In view of the above comments, DOE 

will codify the proposed requirements 

for sections 431.447 and 431.448 in 

today’s final rule, with one minor 

change. DOE believes that an 

independent third party certification 

should not be mandatory at this time 

because such a requirement would 

conflict with DOE’s goal of reducing 

testing burdens for small electric motor 

manufacturers. Furthermore, mandatory 

use of third-party certification would 

also nullify the advantage that 

manufacturers would gain through the 

use of an AEDM, which DOE currently 

believes offers a reasonably accurate 

method of demonstrating the efficiency 

of a given basic model of a small electric 

motor. In sum, until there is a DOEapproved nationally recognized 

certification program for small electric 

motors, manufacturers must self-certify 

their small electric motors as required in 

today’s rule at section 431.445(b)(5)(ii). 

Section 431.445(b)(5)(i) of today’s rule 

differs from the proposed rule in that it 

allows a manufacturer to ‘‘use’’ a 

certification program rather than ‘‘have’’ 

a certification program. This minor 

change clarifies that manufacturers can 

use their own approved certification 

program or an approved third-party 

certification program. In terms of 

participation in laboratory accreditation, 

DOE will continue to work with NIST/ 

NVLAP to develop such accreditation 

procedures in the near future. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that test procedure 

rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 

action was not subject to review under 

the Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of a regulatory flexibility analysis for 

any rule that by law must be proposed 

for public comment, unless the agency 

certifies that the rule, if promulgated, 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. As required by Executive Order 

13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small 

Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 

53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 

published procedures and policies on 

February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 

potential impacts of its rules on small 

entities are properly considered during 

the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 

7990. DOE has made its procedures and 

policies available on the Office of the 

General Counsel’s Web site: http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov. 

As described in the preamble, today’s 

final rule presents additional test 

procedure options consistent with 

current industry practice that 

manufacturers may use when certifying 

their equipment as compliant, clarifies 

definitions for certain key terms, 

clarifies the scope of energy 

conservation standards for electric 

motors, and updates references to 

standards publications and test 

procedures otherwise incorporated by 

reference. DOE certified to the Office of 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) that the proposed 

test procedures for electric motors and 

small electric motors would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

After consideration of comments 

received on the economic impact of the 

rule, discussed in more detail below and 

elsewhere in the preamble, DOE 

continues to certify that the test 

procedures would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The factual 

basis for this certification is as follows: 

To estimate the number of small 

businesses impacted by the rule, DOE 

considered the size standards for a small 

business listed by the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code and description under 13 CFR 

121.201. To be considered a small 

business, a manufacturer of electric 

motors or small electric motors and its 

affiliates may employ a maximum of 

1,000 employees. DOE estimates that 

there are approximately 20 domestic 

motor manufacturers that manufacture 

electric motors or small electric motors 

covered by EPCA, and no more than six 

of these manufacturers are small 

businesses employing a maximum of 

1,000 employees. These estimates are 

based on analyses DOE conducted in the 

final rule establishing energy 

conservation standards for small electric 

motors at 75 FR 10874 (March 9, 2010) 

and the final rule that set forth test 

procedures for electric motors at 64 FR 

54114 (October 5, 1999). In these 

previous rules, DOE calculated the 

number of motor manufacturers, 

including the number of manufacturers 

qualifying as small businesses, based on 

interviews with motor manufacturers 

and publicly available data. Since the 

promulgation of those rules, and after 

further examining the motor industry, 

which included surveying the motor 

industry and determining the number of 

manufacturers remaining, DOE has not 

discovered the presence of any new 

manufacturers of electric or small 

electric motors that would necessitate a 

change to these previous estimates. 

To determine the anticipated 

economic impact of the testing 

requirements on small manufacturers, 

DOE examined current industry 

practices and steps taken in the design 

of the rule to minimize the testing 

burden on manufacturers. Today’s final 

rule will continue to allow a 

manufacturer to certify compliance 

through its election of either an 

independent testing program or a 

certification program. Today’s rule will 

also continue to follow the NEMA 

sampling plan for determining 

compliance, which DOE adopted on 

October 5, 1999, (64 FR 54114). Use of 

the sampling plan is consistent with 

industry practice. In addition, today’s 

final rule is consistent with current test 

procedures and methodologies that the 

industry already uses (i.e., IEEE 

Standard 114, IEEE Standard 112, CSA 

C390, and CSA C747.) DOE examined 

these methodologies in the December 

22, 2008, test procedure notice of 

proposed rulemaking, which today’s 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26631 

final rule supplements. The 2008 

proposal stated that because DOE 

proposed adopting those requirements 

that the industry already follows, DOE 

did not find that the revisions in that 

proposal would result in any significant 

increase in testing or compliance costs, 

or otherwise be unduly burdensome. 73 

FR 78220. Today’s rule does not 

increase the reporting, recordkeeping, or 

other compliance requirements beyond 

those requirements already established 

for the testing and compliance 

certification of electric motors and small 

electric motors. Moreover, today’s final 

rule does not adopt additional testing 

requirements, tighter tolerances, or 

greater accuracy than what is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. In addition, DOE 

continues to believe that allowing a 

manufacturer to choose between two 

equally valid test procedures will 

reduce undue burden on that 

manufacturer or private labeler. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

from SBA or the public in response to 

its certification. DOE did receive 

comments from stakeholders on the 

potential economic impacts of the rule. 

These comments, which are addressed 

in the preamble, all urged DOE to give 

manufacturers one to three years to 

comply with energy conservation 

standards for motors types not 

previously covered—i.e., special shaft 

and 100 mm frame motors. In response 

to these comments, the Department has 

agreed to give manufacturers of IEC 100 

mm frame size motors three years after 

the effective date of today’s rule to 

comply with energy conservation 

standards and relevant test procedures. 

(As described in today’s rule, DOE 

declines to establish an implementation 

date for the enforcement of energy 

conservation standards for motors with 

special shaft dimensions because shaft 

dimensions were addressed in guidance 

and guidance does not change the scope 

of coverage for electric motors.) 

In view of the foregoing, DOE certifies 

that today’s final rule would not impose 

significant economic impacts on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

rulemaking. DOE has provided its 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for review under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of covered electric 

motors must certify to DOE that their 

electric motors comply with any 

applicable energy conservation 

standard. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their electric 

motors according to the relevant DOE 

test procedure, including any 

amendments adopted for that test 

procedure. DOE has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment. 76 FR 12422 

(March 7, 2011); 10 CFR Part 431, 

Subpart B. 

The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping provisions related to 

electric motors is subject to review and 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

was approved by OMB and is current 

under OMB Control Number 1910–1400. 

DOE estimated the reporting burden for 

the certification to average 20 hours per 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

This final rule amends certain aspects 

related to the test procedures for electric 

and small electric motors. DOE has 

determined that this rule falls into a 

class of actions that are categorically 

excluded from review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s 

implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 

1021. Specifically, this rule amends an 

existing rule without affecting the 

amount, quality or distribution of 

energy usage, and, therefore, will not 

result in any environmental impacts. 

Thus, this rulemaking is covered by 

Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D, which applies to 

any rulemaking that interprets or 

amends an existing rule without 

changing the environmental effect of 

that rule. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE 

examined this final rule and determined 

that it will not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the equipment 

covered by today’s final rule. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) No further action is required by 

Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26632 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

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 http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov. DOE examined today’s 

final rule according to UMRA and its 

statement of policy and determined that 

the rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. 

Today’s final rule will not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

will not result in any takings that might 

require compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed today’s final rule under the 

OMB and DOE guidelines and has 

concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgated or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, or any successor order; and (2) 

is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy; or (3) is designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action. For any significant energy 

action, the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use if the 

regulation is implemented, and of 

reasonable alternatives to the action and 

their expected benefits on energy 

supply, distribution, and use. 

Today’s regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

a significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is 

not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply 

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 

788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The final rule in this notice 

incorporates testing methods contained 

in the following commercial standards: 

(1) CSA C390–10, Test methods, 

marking requirements, and energy 

efficiency levels for three-phase 

induction motors, March 22, 2010; (2) 

CSA C747–09, Energy efficiency test 

methods for small motors, October 1, 

2009; (3) IEC Standard 60034–1 (2010), 

Rotating Electrical Machines, Part 1: 

Rating and Performance, Section 4: 

Duty, clause 4.2.1 and Figure 1; (4) IEC 

Standard 60034–12 (2007), Rotating 

Electrical Machines, Part 12: Starting 

Performance of Single-Speed ThreePhase Cage Induction Motors, clauses 

5.2, 5.4, 6, and 8, and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 

5, 6, and 7; (5) NEMA Standards 

Publication MG1–2009 Section I (Part 

1), Section I (Part 4), Section II (Part 12), 

and Section II (Part 14); (6) NEMA 

Standards Publication Mg1–1967 

Section C and Section D; and (7) IEEE 

Standard 114, Standard Test Procedure 

for Single-Phase Induction Motors, 

December 23, 2010. 

DOE has evaluated these revised 

standards and is unable to conclude 

whether they fully comply with the 

requirements of section 32(b) of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act (i.e., 

that they were developed in a manner 

that fully provides for public 

participation, comment, and review). 

DOE has consulted with the Attorney 

General and the Chairman of the FTC 

about the impact of these test 

procedures on competition and received 

no objections to their use. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26633 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of today’s 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). 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practices and 

procedure, Energy conservation, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 25, 

2012. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 431 of 

chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Section 431.11 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.11 Purpose and scope. 

This subpart contains energy 

conservation requirements for electric 

motors. It contains test procedures that 

EPCA requires DOE to prescribe, related 

requirements, energy conservation 

standards prescribed by EPCA, labeling 

rules, and compliance procedures. It 

also identifies materials incorporated by 

reference in this part. This subpart does 

not cover ‘‘small electric motors,’’ 

which are addressed in subpart X of this 

part. 

■ 3. Section 431.12 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing from the introductory 

text, ‘‘K through M’’ and adding ‘‘U and 

V’’ in its place; 

■ b. Revising the definitions of 

‘‘accreditation,’’ ‘‘CSA,’’ ‘‘definite 

purpose motor,’’ ‘‘general purpose 

electric motor (subtype I),’’ ‘‘general 

purpose electric motor (subtype II),’’ 

and ‘‘nominal full-load efficiency;’’ 

■ c. Removing the definition of ‘‘general 

purpose motor;’’ and 

■ d. Adding in alphabetical order, new 

definitions for ‘‘electric motor,’’ ‘‘fire 

pump electric motor,’’ ‘‘general purpose 

electric motor,’’ and ‘‘NEMA Design B 

motor.’’ 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 431.12 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Accreditation means recognition by 

an accreditation body that a laboratory 

is competent to test the efficiency of 

electric motors according to the scope 

and procedures given in Test Method B 

of IEEE Std 112–2004 and CSA C390– 

10 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.15). 

* * * * * 

CSA means Canadian Standards 

Association. 

Definite purpose motor means any 

motor that cannot be used in most 

general purpose applications and is 

designed either: 

(1) To standard ratings with standard 

operating characteristics or standard 

mechanical construction for use under 

service conditions other than usual, 

such as those specified in NEMA MG1– 

2009, paragraph 14.3, ‘‘Unusual Service 

Conditions,’’ (incorporated by reference, 

see § 431.15); or 

(2) For use on a particular type of 

application. 

Electric motor means a machine that 

converts electrical power into rotational 

mechanical power. 

* * * * * 

Fire pump electric motor means an 

electric motor, including any IECequivalent, that meets the requirements 

of section 9.5 of NFPA 20 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.15). 

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 MG1–2009, 

paragraph 14.2, ‘‘Usual Service 

Conditions,’’ (incorporated by reference, 

see § 431.15) and without restriction to 

a particular application or type of 

application; or 

(2) Standard operating characteristics 

or standard mechanical construction for 

use under unusual service conditions, 

such as those specified in NEMA MG1– 

2009, paragraph 14.3, ‘‘Unusual Service 

Conditions,’’ (incorporated by reference, 

see § 431.15) or for a particular type of 

application, and which can be used in 

most general purpose applications. 

General purpose electric motor 

(subtype I) means a general purpose 

electric motor that: 

(1) Is a single-speed, induction motor; 

(2) Is rated for continuous duty (MG1) 

operation or for duty type S1 (IEC); 

(3) Contains a squirrel-cage (MG1) or 

cage (IEC) rotor; 

(4) Has foot-mounting that may 

include foot-mounting with flanges or 

detachable feet; 

(5) Is built in accordance with NEMA 

T-frame dimensions or their IEC metric 

equivalents, including a frame size that 

is between two consecutive NEMA 

frame sizes or their IEC metric 

equivalents; 

(6) Has performance in accordance 

with NEMA Design A (MG1) or B (MG1) 

characteristics or equivalent designs 

such as IEC Design N (IEC); 

(7) Operates on polyphase alternating 

current 60-hertz sinusoidal power, and: 

(i) Is rated at 230 or 460 volts (or both) 

including motors rated at multiple 

voltages that include 230 or 460 volts 

(or both), or 

(ii) Can be operated on 230 or 460 

volts (or both); and 

(8) Includes, but is not limited to, 

explosion-proof construction. 

Note to Definition of General purpose 

electric motor (subtype I): References to 

‘‘MG1’’ above refer to NEMA Standards 

Publication MG1–2009 (incorporated by 

reference in § 431.15). References to ‘‘IEC’’ 

above refer to IEC 60034–1, 60034–12, 

60050–411, and 60072–1 (incorporated by 

reference in § 431.15), as applicable. 

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 MG1–1967 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.15) or in accordance 

with the IEC metric equivalents, 

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 to Definition of General purpose 

electric motor (subtype II): With the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26634 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

exception of the NEMA Motor Standards 

MG1–1967 (incorporated by reference in 

§ 431.15), references to ‘‘MG1’’ above refer to 

the 2009 NEMA MG1–2009 (incorporated by 

reference in § 431.15). References to ‘‘IEC’’ 

above refer to IEC 60034–1, 60034–12, 

60050–411, and 60072–1 (incorporated by 

reference in § 431.15), as applicable. 

* * * * * 

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 MG1– 

2009 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.15); 

(3) Draws locked-rotor current not to 

exceed the values shown in section 

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. 

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 MG1– 

2009, (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.15), that is not greater than the 

average full-load efficiency of a 

population of motors of the same 

design. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. A new § 431.14 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.14 Sources for information and 

guidance. 

(a) General. The standards listed in 

this paragraph are referred to in the DOE 

procedures for testing laboratories, and 

recognition of accreditation bodies and 

certification programs but are not 

incorporated by reference. These 

sources are given here for information 

and guidance. 

(b) 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 http://www.nist.

gov/nvlap/. Also see http:// 

www.nist.gov/nvlap/nvlaphandbooks.cfm. 

(1) NVLAP Handbook 150, Procedures 

and General Requirements, February 

2006. 

(2) NVLAP Handbook 150–10, 

Efficiency of Electric Motors, February 

2007. 

(3) NIST Handbook 150–10 Checklist, 

Efficiency of Electric Motors Program, 

(2007–05–04). 

(4) NVLAP Lab Bulletin Number: LB– 

42–2009, Changes to NVLAP Efficiency 

of Electric Motors Program, March 19, 

2009. 

(c) ISO/IEC. International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO), 

1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH– 

1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland/ 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission, 3, rue de Varembe ́, P.O. 

Box 131, CH–1211 Geneva 20, 

Switzerland. 

(1) ISO/IEC Guide 25, General 

requirements for the competence of 

calibration and testing laboratories, 

1990. 

(2) ISO Guide 27, Guidelines for 

corrective action to be taken by a 

certification body in the event of either 

misapplication of its mark of conformity 

to a product, or products which bear the 

mark of the certification body being 

found to subject persons or property to 

risk, 1983. 

(3) ISO/IEC Guide 28, General rules 

for a model third-party certification 

system for products, 2004. 

(4) ISO/IEC Guide 58, Calibration and 

testing laboratory accreditation 

systems—General requirements for 

operation and recognition, 1993. 

(5) ISO/IEC Guide 65, General 

requirements for bodies operating 

product certification systems, 1996. 

■ 5. Section 431.15 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.15 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) General. The Department of Energy 

incorporates by reference the following 

standards and test procedures into 

subpart B of part 431. The Director of 

the Federal Register has approved the 

material listed for incorporation by 

reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Any 

subsequent amendment to a standard by 

the standard-setting organization will 

not affect DOE regulations unless and 

until DOE amends its test procedures. 

Material is incorporated as it exists on 

the date of the approval, and a notice of 

any change in the material will be 

published in the Federal Register. All 

approved material is available for 

inspection 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) 586–2945, or go to http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/. Also, this 

material is available for inspection at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

(b) CSA. Canadian Standards 

Association, Sales Department, 5060 

Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga, 

Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1–800–463– 

6727, or go to http://www.shopcsa.ca/ 

onlinestore/welcome.asp. 

(1) CSA C390–10, Test methods, 

marking requirements, and energy 

efficiency levels for three-phase 

induction motors, March 2010, IBR 

approved for §§ 431.12; 431.19; 431.20; 

appendix B to subpart B of part 431. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(c) IEC. International Electrotechnical 

Commission Central Office, 3, rue de 

Varembe ́, P.O. Box 131, CH–1211 

GENEVA 20, Switzerland, +41 22 919 

02 11, or go to http://webstore.iec.ch. 

(1) IEC 60034–1 Edition 12.0 2010–02, 

(‘‘IEC 60034–1’’), Rotating Electrical 

Machines, Part 1: Rating and 

Performance, February 2010, IBR 

approved as follows: section 4: Duty, 

clause 4.2.1 and Figure 1, IBR approved 

for § 431.12. 

(2) IEC 60034–12 Edition 2.1 2007–09, 

(‘‘IEC 60034–12’’), Rotating Electrical 

Machines, Part 12: Starting Performance 

of Single-Speed Three-Phase Cage 

Induction Motors, September 2007, IBR 

approved as follows: clauses 5.2, 5.4, 6, 

and 8, and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 

7, IBR approved for § 431.12. 

(3) IEC 60050–411, International 

Electrotechnical Vocabulary Chapter 

411: Rotating machines, 1996, IBR 

approved as follows: sections 411–33– 

07 and 411–37–26, IBR approved for 

§ 431.12. 

(4) IEC 60072–1, Dimensions and 

Output Series for Rotating Electrical 

Machines—Part 1: Frame numbers 56 to 

400 and flange numbers 55 to 1080, 

1991, IBR approved as follows: clauses 

2, 3, 4.1, 6.1, 7, and 10, and Tables 1, 

2 and 4, IBR approved for § 431.12. 

(d) IEEE. Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445 Hoes 

Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 

08855–1331, 1–800–678–IEEE (4333), or 

http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/ 

home/index.html. 

(1) IEEE Std 112–2004, Test Procedure 

for Polyphase Induction Motors and 

Generators, approved February 9, 2004, 

IBR approved as follows: section 6.4, 

Efficiency Test Method B, Input-Output 

with Loss Segregation, IBR approved for 

§§ 431.12; 431.19; 431.20; appendix B to 

subpart B of part 431. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(e) NEMA. National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association, 1300 North 

17th Street, Suite 1752, Rosslyn, 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26635 

Virginia 22209, 703–841–3200, or go to 

http://www.nema.org/. 

(1) NEMA Standards Publication 

MG1–2009 (‘‘NEMA MG1–2009’’), 

Motors and Generators, copyright 2009, 

IBR approved as follows: 

(i) Section I, General Standards 

Applying to All Machines, Part 1, 

Referenced Standards and Definitions, 

paragraphs 1.18.1, 1.18.1.1, 1.19.1.1, 

1.19.1.2, 1.19.1.3, and 1.40.1, IBR 

approved for § 431.12; 

(ii) Section I, General Standards 

Applying to All Machines, Part 4, 

Dimensions, Tolerances, and Mounting, 

paragraphs 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 

4.4.4, 4.4.5, and 4.4.6, Figures 4–1, 4–2, 

4–3, 4–4, and 4–5, and Table 4–2, IBR 

approved for § 431.12; 

(iii) Section II, Small (Fractional) and 

Medium (Integral) Machines, Part 12, 

Tests and Performance—AC and DC 

Motors: 

(A) Paragraphs 12.35.1, 12.35.2, 

12.38.1, 12.38.2, 12.39.1, 12.39.2, and 

12.40.1, 12.40.2, and Tables 12–2, 12–3, 

and 12–10, IBR approved for § 431.12; 

(B) Paragraph 12.58.1, IBR approved 

for § 431.12 and appendix B to subpart 

B of part 431; 

(C) Paragraph 12.58.2, IBR approved 

for § 431.31. 

(iv) Section II, Small (Fractional) and 

Medium (Integral) Machines, Part 14, 

Application Data—AC and DC Small 

and Medium Machines, paragraphs 14.2 

and 14.3, IBR approved for § 431.12. 

(2) NEMA Standards Publication 

MG1–1967, (‘‘NEMA MG1–1967’’), 

Motors and Generators, January 1968, 

IBR approved as follows: 

(i) Part 11, Dimensions, IBR approved 

for § 431.12; 

(ii) Part 13, Frame Assignments—A–C 

Integral-Horsepower Motors, IBR 

approved for § 431.12. 

(f) NFPA. National Fire Protection 

Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, 

Quincy, MA 02169–7471, 617–770– 

3000, or go to http://nfpa.org/. 

(1) NFPA 20, 2010 Edition, Standard 

for the Installation of Stationary Pumps 

for Fire Protection, section 9.5, IBR 

approved for § 431.12. 

(2) (Reserved) 

■ 6. Section 431.18, paragraph (b) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 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, February 2007, and Lab 

Bulletin LB–42–2009, Efficiency of 

Electric Motors Program, (referenced for 

guidance only, see § 431.14) present the 

technical requirements of NVLAP for 

the Efficiency of Electric Motors field of 

accreditation. This handbook 

supplements NIST Handbook 150, 

National Voluntary Laboratory 

Accreditation Program ‘‘Procedures and 

General Requirements,’’ which contains 

15 CFR part 285 plus all general NIST/ 

NVLAP procedures, criteria, and 

policies. Information regarding NIST/ 

NVLAP and its Efficiency of Electric 

Motors Program (EEM) can be obtained 

from NIST/NVLAP, 100 Bureau Drive, 

Mail Stop 2140, Gaithersburg, MD 

20899–2140, (301) 975–4016 

(telephone), or (301) 926–2884 (fax). 

■ 7. Section 431.19 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding at the end of the last 

sentence in paragraph (c)(3) 

‘‘(referenced for guidance only, see 

§ 431.14)’’; and 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (b)(4) and 

(c)(4), to read as follows: 

§ 431.19 Department of Energy recognition 

of accreditation bodies. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) It must be expert in the content 

and application of the test procedures 

and methodologies in IEEE Std 112– 

2004 Test Method B or CSA C390–10, 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.15). 

(c) * * * 

(4) Expertise in electric motor test 

procedures. The petition should set 

forth the organization’s experience with 

the test procedures and methodologies 

in IEEE Std 112–2004 Test Method B 

and CSA C390–10, (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.15). 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 § 431.14) to energy efficiency 

testing for electric motors. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 431.20 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding at the end of the last 

sentence of paragraph (c)(3) 

‘‘(referenced for guidance only, see 

§ 431.14)’’; and 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (b)(4) and 

(c)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 431.20 Department of Energy recognition 

of nationally recognized certification 

programs. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) It must be expert in the content 

and application of the test procedures 

and methodologies in IEEE Std 112– 

2004 Test Method B or CSA C390–10, 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.15). It must have satisfactory 

criteria and procedures for the selection 

and sampling of electric motors tested 

for energy efficiency. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) Expertise in electric motor test 

procedures. The petition should set 

forth the program’s experience with the 

test procedures and methodologies in 

IEEE Std 112–2004 Test Method B or 

CSA C390–10, (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.15). 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 431.14) to energy efficiency 

testing for electric motors. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 431.25 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.25 Energy conservation standards 

and effective dates. 

(a) Except as provided for fire pump 

electric motors in paragraph (b) of this 

section, each general purpose electric 

motor (subtype I) with a power rating of 

1 horsepower or greater, but not greater 

than 200 horsepower, including a 

NEMA Design B or an equivalent IEC 

Design N motor that is a general purpose 

electric motor (subtype I), manufactured 

(alone or as a component of another 

piece of equipment) on or after 

December 19, 2010, shall have a 

nominal full-load efficiency that is not 

less than the following: 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26636 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF GENERAL PURPOSE ELECTRIC MOTORS (SUBTYPE I), EXCEPT FIRE

PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency 

Open motors 

(number of poles) 

Enclosed motors 

(number of poles) 

6 4 2 6 4 2 

1/.75 ............................................................................................. 82.5 85.5 77.0 82.5 85.5 77.0

1.5/1.1 .......................................................................................... 86.5 86.5 84.0 87.5 86.5 84.0 

2/1.5 ............................................................................................. 87.5 86.5 85.5 88.5 86.5 85.5

3/2.2 ............................................................................................. 88.5 89.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 86.5

5/3.7 ............................................................................................. 89.5 89.5 86.5 89.5 89.5 88.5

7.5/5.5 .......................................................................................... 90.2 91.0 88.5 91.0 91.7 89.5 

10/7.5 ........................................................................................... 91.7 91.7 89.5 91.0 91.7 90.2 

15/11 ............................................................................................ 91.7 93.0 90.2 91.7 92.4 91.0 

20/15 ............................................................................................ 92.4 93.0 91.0 91.7 93.0 91.0 

25/18.5 ......................................................................................... 93.0 93.6 91.7 93.0 93.6 91.7 

30/22 ............................................................................................ 93.6 94.1 91.7 93.0 93.6 91.7 

40/30 ............................................................................................ 94.1 94.1 92.4 94.1 94.1 92.4 

50/37 ............................................................................................ 94.1 94.5 93.0 94.1 94.5 93.0 

60/45 ............................................................................................ 94.5 95.0 93.6 94.5 95.0 93.6 

75/55 ............................................................................................ 94.5 95.0 93.6 94.5 95.4 93.6 

100/75 .......................................................................................... 95.0 95.4 93.6 95.0 95.4 94.1 

125/90 .......................................................................................... 95.0 95.4 94.1 95.0 95.4 95.0 

150/110 ........................................................................................ 95.4 95.8 94.1 95.8 95.8 95.0 

200/150 ........................................................................................ 95.4 95.8 95.0 95.8 96.2 95.4 

(b) Each fire pump electric motor that 

is a general purpose electric motor 

(subtype I) or general purpose electric 

motor (subtype II) manufactured (alone 

or as a component of another piece of 

equipment) on or after December 19, 

2010, shall have a nominal full-load 

efficiency that is not less than the 

following: 

TABLE 2—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS

Motor horsepower/standard 

kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency 

Open motors 

(number of poles) 

Enclosed motors 

(number of poles) 

8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2 

1/.75 ................................................. 74.0 80.0 82.5 .................. 74.0 80.0 82.5 75.5 

1.5/1.1 .............................................. 75.5 84.0 84.0 82.5 77.0 85.5 84.0 82.5 

2/1.5 ................................................. 85.5 85.5 84.0 84.0 82.5 86.5 84.0 84.0 

3/2.2 ................................................. 86.5 86.5 86.5 84.0 84.0 87.5 87.5 85.5 

5/3.7 ................................................. 87.5 87.5 87.5 85.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 

7.5/5.5 .............................................. 88.5 88.5 88.5 87.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 

10/7.5 ............................................... 89.5 90.2 89.5 88.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 

15/11 ................................................ 89.5 90.2 91.0 89.5 88.5 90.2 91.0 90.2 

20/15 ................................................ 90.2 91.0 91.0 90.2 89.5 90.2 91.0 90.2 

25/18.5 ............................................. 90.2 91.7 91.7 91.0 89.5 91.7 92.4 91.0 

30/22 ................................................ 91.0 92.4 92.4 91.0 91.0 91.7 92.4 91.0 

40/30 ................................................ 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 

50/37 ................................................ 91.7 93.0 93.0 92.4 91.7 93.0 93.0 92.4 

60/45 ................................................ 92.4 93.6 93.6 93.0 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0 

75/55 ................................................ 93.6 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.0 93.6 94.1 93.0 

100/75 .............................................. 93.6 94.1 94.1 93.0 93.0 94.1 94.5 93.6 

125/90 .............................................. 93.6 94.1 94.5 93.6 93.6 94.1 94.5 94.5 

150/110 ............................................ 93.6 94.5 95.0 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5 

200/150 ............................................ 93.6 94.5 95.0 94.5 94.1 95.0 95.0 95.0 

250/186 ............................................ 94.5 95.4 95.4 94.5 94.5 95.0 95.0 95.4 

300/224 ............................................ .................. 95.4 95.4 95.0 .................. 95.0 95.4 95.4 

350/261 ............................................ .................. 95.4 95.4 95.0 .................. 95.0 95.4 95.4 

400/298 ............................................ .................. .................. 95.4 95.4 .................. .................. 95.4 95.4 

450/336 ............................................ .................. .................. 95.8 95.8 .................. .................. 95.4 95.4 

500/373 ............................................ .................. .................. 95.8 95.8 .................. .................. 95.8 95.4 

(c) Except as provided for fire pump 

electric motors in paragraph (b) of this 

section, each general purpose electric 

motor (subtype II) with a power rating 

of 1 horsepower or greater, but not 

greater than 200 horsepower, including 

a NEMA Design B or an equivalent IEC 

Design N motor that is a general purpose 

electric motor (subtype II), 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26637 

manufactured (alone or as a component 

of another piece of equipment) on or 

after December 19, 2010, shall have a 

nominal full-load efficiency that is not 

less than the following: 

TABLE 3—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF GENERAL PURPOSE ELECTRIC MOTORS (SUBTYPE II), EXCEPT FIRE

PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS

Motor horsepower/ 

standard kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency 

Open motors 

(number of poles) 

Enclosed motors 

(number of poles) 

8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2 

1/.75 ................................................. 74.0 80.0 82.5 .................. 74.0 80.0 82.5 75.5 

1.5/1.1 .............................................. 75.5 84.0 84.0 82.5 77.0 85.5 84.0 82.5 

2/1.5 ................................................. 85.5 85.5 84.0 84.0 82.5 86.5 84.0 84.0 

3/2.2 ................................................. 86.5 86.5 86.5 84.0 84.0 87.5 87.5 85.5 

5/3.7 ................................................. 87.5 87.5 87.5 85.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 

7.5/5.5 .............................................. 88.5 88.5 88.5 87.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 

10/7.5 ............................................... 89.5 90.2 89.5 88.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 

15/11 ................................................ 89.5 90.2 91.0 89.5 88.5 90.2 91.0 90.2 

20/15 ................................................ 90.2 91.0 91.0 90.2 89.5 90.2 91.0 90.2 

25/18.5 ............................................. 90.2 91.7 91.7 91.0 89.5 91.7 92.4 91.0 

30/22 ................................................ 91.0 92.4 92.4 91.0 91.0 91.7 92.4 91.0 

40/30 ................................................ 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 

50/37 ................................................ 91.7 93.0 93.0 92.4 91.7 93.0 93.0 92.4 

60/45 ................................................ 92.4 93.6 93.6 93.0 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0 

75/55 ................................................ 93.6 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.0 93.6 94.1 93.0 

100/75 .............................................. 93.6 94.1 94.1 93.0 93.0 94.1 94.5 93.6 

125/90 .............................................. 93.6 94.1 94.5 93.6 93.6 94.1 94.5 94.5 

150/110 ............................................ 93.6 94.5 95.0 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5 

200/150 ............................................ 93.6 94.5 95.0 94.5 94.1 95.0 95.0 95.0 

(d) Each NEMA Design B or an 

equivalent IEC Design N motor that is a 

general purpose electric motor (subtype 

I) or general purpose electric motor 

(subtype II), excluding fire pump 

electric motors, with a power rating of 

more than 200 horsepower, but not 

greater than 500 horsepower, 

manufactured (alone or as a component 

of another piece of equipment) on or 

after December 19, 2010, shall have a 

nominal full-load efficiency that is not 

less than the following: 

TABLE 4—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN B GENERAL PURPOSE ELECTRIC MOTORS (SUBTYPE I 

AND II), EXCEPT FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS

Motor horsepower/ 

standard kilowatt equivalent 

Nominal full-load efficiency 

Open motors 

(number of poles) 

Enclosed motors 

(number of poles) 

8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2 

250/186 ............................................ 94.5 95.4 95.4 94.5 94.5 95.0 95.0 95.4 

300/224 ............................................ .................. 95.4 95.4 95.0 .................. 95.0 95.4 95.4 

350/261 ............................................ .................. 95.4 95.4 95.0 .................. 95.0 95.4 95.4 

400/298 ............................................ .................. .................. 95.4 95.4 .................. .................. 95.4 95.4 

450/336 ............................................ .................. .................. 95.8 95.8 .................. .................. 95.4 95.4 

500/373 ............................................ .................. .................. 95.8 95.8 .................. .................. 95.8 95.4 

(e) For purposes of determining the 

required minimum nominal full-load 

efficiency of an electric motor that has 

a horsepower or kilowatt rating between 

two horsepower or two kilowatt ratings 

listed in any table of energy 

conservation standards in paragraphs (a) 

through (d) of this section, each such 

motor shall be deemed to have a listed 

horsepower or kilowatt rating, 

determined as follows: 

(1) A horsepower at or above the 

midpoint between the two consecutive 

horsepowers shall be rounded up to the 

higher of the two horsepowers; 

(2) A horsepower below the midpoint 

between the two consecutive 

horsepowers shall be rounded down to 

the lower of the two horsepowers; or 

(3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly 

converted from kilowatts to horsepower 

using the formula 1 kilowatt = (1⁄0.746) 

horsepower. The conversion should be 

calculated to three significant decimal 

places, and the resulting horsepower 

shall be rounded in accordance with 

paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this section, 

whichever applies. 

(f) This section does not apply to 

definite purpose motors, special 

purpose motors, or those motors 

exempted by the Secretary. 

■ 10. Remove § 431.30. 

■ 11. Section 431.31, paragraph (a)(2) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 431.31 Labeling requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Display of required information. 

All orientation, spacing, type sizes, type 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26638 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1Components of similar design may be 

substituted without requiring additional testing if 

the represented measures of energy consumption 

continue to satisfy the applicable sampling 

provision. 

faces, and line widths to display this 

required information shall be the same 

as or similar to the display of the other 

performance data on the motor’s 

permanent nameplate. The nominal fullload efficiency shall be identified either 

by the term ‘‘Nominal Efficiency’’ or 

‘‘Nom. Eff.’’ or by the terms specified in 

paragraph 12.58.2 of NEMA MG1–2009, 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15) 

as for example ‘‘NEMA Nom. Eff. ll.’’ 

The Compliance Certification number 

issued pursuant to § 431.36 shall be in 

the form ‘‘CC ll.’’ 

* * * * * 

§ 431.36 [Amended] 

■ 12. Amend § 431.36 by removing 

‘‘Beginning April 26, 2003, a’’ from the 

first sentence in paragraph (a) and 

adding ‘‘A’’ in its place. 

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 431 

[Removed and Reserved] 

■ 13. Remove and reserve appendix A to 

subpart B of part 431. 

■ 14. 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 

Nominal Full-Load Efficiency of 

Electric Motors 

1. Definitions. 

Definitions contained in §§ 431.2 and 

431.12 are applicable to this appendix. 

2. Test Procedures. 

Efficiency and losses shall be determined 

in accordance with NEMA MG1–2009, 

paragraph 12.58.1, ‘‘Determination of Motor 

Efficiency and Losses,’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.15) and either: 

(1) CSA C390–10, (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.15), or 

(2) IEEE Std 112–2004 Test Method B, 

Input-Output With Loss Segregation, 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15). 

3. Amendments to test procedures. 

Any revision to IEEE Std 112–2004 Test 

Method B, NEMA MG1–2009, or CSA C390– 

10, (incorporated by reference, see § 431.15) 

shall not be effective for purposes of 

certification and compliance testing unless 

and until this appendix and 10 CFR Part 431 

are amended to incorporate that revision. 

■ 15. Section 431.441 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.441 Purpose and scope. 

This subpart contains definitions, test 

procedures, and energy conservation 

requirements for small electric motors, 

pursuant to Part A–1 of Title III of the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6311–6317. This 

subpart does not cover ‘‘electric 

motors,’’ which are addressed in subpart 

B of this part. 

§ 431.442 [Amended] 

■ 16. Amend § 431.442, by removing 

‘‘CAN/CSA’’ and adding ‘‘CSA’’ in its 

place. 

■ 17. Amend § 431.443 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1) 

and (c)(2); and 

■ b. Adding a new paragraph (b)(2). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 431.443 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) CSA C747–09 (‘‘CSA C747’’), 

Energy efficiency test methods for small 

motors, October 2009, IBR approved for 

§§ 431.444; 431.447. 

(2) CSA C390–10, Test methods, 

marking requirements, and energy 

efficiency levels for three-phase 

induction motors, March 2010, IBR 

approved for §§ 431.444; 431.447. 

(c) * * * 

(1) IEEE Std 112–2004, Test Procedure 

for Polyphase Induction Motors and 

Generators, approved February 9, 2004, 

IBR approved as follows: 

(i) Section 6.3, Efficiency Test Method 

A, Input-Output, IBR approved for 

§§ 431.444; 431.447; 

(ii) Section 6.4, Efficiency Test 

Method B, Input-Output with Loss 

Segregation, IBR approved for 

§§ 431.444; 431.447. 

(2) IEEE Std 114–2010, Test Procedure 

for Single-Phase Induction Motors, 

approved September 30, 2010, IBR 

approved for §§ 431.444; 431.447. 

■ 18. Section 431.444, paragraph (b) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 431.444 Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy efficiency. 

* * * * * 

(b) Testing and Calculations. 

Determine the energy efficiency and 

losses by using one of the following test 

methods: 

(1) Single-phase small electric motors: 

Either IEEE Std 114–2010 or CSA C747 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.443); 

(2) Polyphase small electric motors 

less than or equal to 1 horsepower (0.75 

kW): Either IEEE Std 112–2004 Test 

Method A or CSA C747 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.443); or 

(3) Polyphase small electric motors 

greater than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW): 

Either IEEE Std 112–2004 Test Method 

B or CSA C390–10 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.443). 

■ 19. Section 431.445, paragraph (b)(5) 

is added and paragraph (c) is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 431.445 Determination of small electric 

motor efficiency. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) Use of a certification program. (i) 

A manufacturer may use a certification 

program, that DOE has classified as 

nationally recognized under § 431.447, 

to certify the average full-load efficiency 

of a basic model of small electric motor, 

and issue a certificate of conformity for 

the small electric motor. 

(ii) For each basic model for which a 

certification program is not used as 

described in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this 

section, any testing of a motor to 

determine its energy efficiency must be 

carried out in accordance with 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Additional testing requirements 

applicable when a certification program 

is not used—(1) Selection of basic 

models for testing. (i) Basic models must 

be selected for testing in accordance 

with the following criteria: 

(A) Two of the basic models must be 

among the five basic models that have 

the highest unit volumes of production 

by the manufacturer in the prior year, or 

during the prior 12 calendar month 

period beginning in 2015, whichever is 

later, and comply with the standards set 

forth in § 431.446; 

(B) The basic models should be of 

different horsepowers without 

duplication; 

(C) At least one basic model should be 

selected from each of the frame number 

series for which the manufacturer is 

seeking compliance; and 

(D) Each basic model should have the 

lowest average full-load efficiency 

among the basic models with the same 

rating (‘‘rating’’ as used here has the 

same meaning as it has in the definition 

of ‘‘basic model’’). 

(ii) In any instance where it is 

impossible for a manufacturer to select 

basic models for testing in accordance 

with all of these criteria, the criteria 

shall be given priority in the order in 

which they are listed. Within the limits 

imposed by the criteria, basic models 

shall be selected randomly. 

(2) Selection of units for testing within 

a basic model. For each basic model 

selected for testing,1 a sample of units 

shall be selected at random and tested. 

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 no fewer than five units, except when 

fewer than five units of a basic model 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26639 

would be produced over a reasonable 

period of time (approximately 180 

days). In such cases, each unit produced 

shall be tested. 

(3) Applying results of testing. When 

applying the test results to determine 

whether a motor complies with the 

required average efficiency level: 

The average full-load efficiency of the 

sample, X ̄ which is defined by 

where Xi is the measured full-load efficiency 

of unit i and n is the number of units tested, 

shall satisfy the condition: 

where RE is the required average full-load 

efficiency. 

■ 20. A new § 431.447 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.447 Department of Energy 

recognition of nationally recognized 

certification programs. 

(a) Petition. For a certification 

program to be classified by the 

Department of Energy as being 

nationally recognized in the United 

States (‘‘nationally recognized’’), the 

organization operating the program 

must submit a petition to the 

Department requesting such 

classification, in accordance with 

paragraph (c) of this section and 

§ 431.448. 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 small 

electric motors continue to conform to 

the efficiency levels for which they were 

certified, and for granting a certificate of 

conformity. 

(2) It must be independent of small 

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. 

(3) It must be qualified to operate a 

certification system in a highly 

competent manner. 

(4) It must be expert in the content 

and application of the test procedures 

and methodologies in IEEE Std 112– 

2004 Test Methods A and B, IEEE Std 

114–2010, CSA C390–10, and CSA C747 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.443) or similar procedures and 

methodologies for determining the 

energy efficiency of small electric 

motors. It must have satisfactory criteria 

and procedures for the selection and 

sampling of electric motors tested for 

energy efficiency. 

(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 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 determining the 

compliance of small electric motors 

with the applicable energy efficiency 

standards. It should explain why it 

believes such relationship would not 

compromise its independence in 

operating a certification program. 

(3) Qualifications to operate a 

certification system. Experience in 

operating a certification system 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 65, General 

requirements for bodies operating 

product certification systems, 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, and ISO/IEC 

Guide 28, General rules for a model 

third-party certification system for 

products, 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. 

(4) Expertise in small electric motor 

test procedures. The petition should set 

forth the program’s experience with the 

test procedures and methodologies in 

IEEE Std 112–2004 Test Methods A and 

B, IEEE Std 114–2010, CSA C390–10, 

and CSA C747– (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.443) and with 

similar procedures and methodologies. 

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 to energy efficiency testing 

for electric motors. 

(5) The ISO/IEC Guides referenced in 

paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) of this 

section are not incorporated by 

reference, but are for information and 

guidance only. International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO), 

1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH– 

1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland/ 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission, 3, rue de Varembe ́, P.O. 

Box 131, CH–1211 Geneva 20, 

Switzerland. 

(d) Disposition. The Department will 

evaluate the petition in accordance with 

§ 431.448, and will determine whether 

the applicant meets the criteria in 

paragraph (b) of this section for 

classification as a nationally recognized 

certification program. 

■ 21. Add a new § 431.448 to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.448 Procedures for recognition and 

withdrawal of recognition of certification 

programs. 

(a) Filing of petition. Any petition 

submitted to the Department pursuant 

to § 431.447(a), shall be entitled 

‘‘Petition for Recognition’’ (‘‘Petition’’) 

and must be submitted, in triplicate to 

the Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Forrestal 

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2ER04MY12.000</GPH> ER04MY12.001</GPH>
26640 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 a notice 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 the 

Department believes that a certification 

program that has been recognized under 

§ 431.447 is failing to meet the criteria 

of paragraph (b) of the section under 

which it is recognized, the Department 

will so advise such entity and request 

that it take appropriate corrective 

action. The Department will give the 

entity an opportunity to respond. If after 

receiving such response, or no response, 

the Department believes satisfactory 

corrective action has not been made, the 

Department will withdraw its 

recognition from that entity. 

(2) Voluntary withdrawal. A 

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 a 

certification organization, the 

manufacturers) of such withdrawal. 

(3) Notice of withdrawal of 

recognition. The Department will 

publish in the Federal Register a notice 

of any withdrawal of recognition that 

occurs pursuant to this paragraph (g). 

[FR Doc. 2012–10434 Filed 5–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2