Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 32059 

1The December 22, 2008, notice of proposed 

rulemaking that addressed test procedures for 

measuring the energy efficiency of small electric 

motors proposed in section III.A of the preamble a 

new ‘‘Subpart T—Small Electric Motors,’’ under 10 

CFR part 431. 73 FR 78220, 78237. Subsequent to 

that notice, DOE became aware that ‘‘Subpart T’’ 

had been used in an earlier rulemaking for 

certification, compliance, and enforcement 

requirements for consumer products and 

commercial equipment. 71 FR 42178, 42214 (July 

25, 2006). Consequently, today’s final rule reformats 

‘‘Subpart T’’ to read ‘‘Subpart X’’ and renumbers the 

‘‘431.340’’ series to read ‘‘431.440.’’ 

Notwithstanding, certain passages, comments, and 

references that follow make reference to ‘‘Subpart 

T’’ because that language was used in the NOPR. 

This is addressed further in section III.E of the 

preamble that follows. 

due to quarantine, boycott, or refusal of 

any person to accept production. 

11. Duties in the Event of Damage or 

Loss. 

In addition to the requirements of 

section 14 of the Basic Provisions, the 

following will apply: 

* * * * * 

(c) If the crop has been damaged 

during the growing season and you 

previously gave notice in accordance 

with section 14 of the Basic Provisions, 

you must also provide notice at least 15 

days prior to the beginning of harvest if 

you intend to claim an indemnity as a 

result of the damage previously 

reported. You must not destroy the 

damaged crop until the earlier of 15 

days from the date you gave notice of 

loss, or our written consent to do so. If 

you fail to meet requirements of this 

section all such production will be 

considered undamaged and included as 

production to count. 

* * * * * 

12. Settlement of Claim. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Multiplying each result in section 

12(b)(1) by the respective price election 

you selected for each type or variety; 

* * * * * 

(4) Multiplying the total production to 

count of each type or variety, if 

applicable, (see section 12(c)) by the 

respective price election you selected; 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Unharvested production that 

meets, or would meet if properly 

handled, the state quality standards, if 

specified in the Special Provisions, or 

the appropriate USDA grade standard (if 

no state standard is specified); and 

* * * * * 

Signed in Washington, DC, on June 24, 

2009. 

William J. Murphy, 

Acting Manager, Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. E9–15498 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–TP–0008] 

RIN 1904–AB71 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Small Electric Motors 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) is prescribing test procedures for 

measuring the energy efficiency of 

single-phase and polyphase small 

electric motors. The final rule 

incorporates by reference industry test 

procedures already in use when 

measuring the energy efficiency of these 

types of motors. Additionally, the final 

rule clarifies definitions applying to 

small electric motors and identifies 

issues that will be further addressed 

later in a related supplemental notice. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 6, 

2009. The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in this rule 

was approved by the Director of the 

Federal Register on August 6, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of 

all materials related to this rulemaking 

at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC, 

(202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at the above telephone number 

for additional information regarding 

visiting the Resource Room. Please note 

that the DOE’s Freedom of Information 

Reading Room no longer houses 

rulemaking materials. 

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. E-mail: 

Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov. In the Office of 

the General Counsel, contact Mr. 

Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–72, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 

(202) 586–9507. E-mail: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Today’s 

final rule incorporates by reference, into 

subpart X of Title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations, part 431 (10 CFR part 

431),1 the following industry standards 

from the Canadian Standards 

Association and the Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers: 

• CAN/CSA–C747–94 (Reaffirmed 

2005), (‘‘CAN/CSA–C747’’), Energy 

Efficiency Test Methods for Single- and 

Three-Phase Small Motors. 

• IEEE Std 114–2001TM (Revision of 

IEEE Std 114–1982TM), (‘‘IEEE Std 

114’’), ‘‘IEEE Standard Test Procedure 

for Single-Phase Induction Motors,’’ 

approved December 6, 2001. 

• IEEE Std 112TM–2004 (Revision of 

IEEE Std 112–1996), (‘‘IEEE Std 112’’), 

‘‘IEEE Standard Test Procedure for 

Polyphase Induction Motors and 

Generators,’’ approved February 9, 2004. 

Copies of CAN/CSA–C747 can be 

obtained from the Canadian Standards 

Association, Sales Department, 5060 

Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga, 

Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1–800–463– 

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

onlinestore/welcome.asp. 

Copies of IEEE Std 112 and 114 can 

be obtained 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. 

You can also view copies of these 

standards at the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 

20024, (202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Definition of Small Electric Motor 

1. International Electrotechnical 

Commission Motors 

2. Insulation System Class 

3. Definition of Basic Model 

B. Test Procedures for the Measurement of 

Energy Efficiency 

1. Single-Phase Small Electric Motor Test 

Method 

2. Polyphase Small Electric Motor Test 

Method 

C. Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Method 

1. Statistical Basis for an Alternative 

Efficiency Determination Method 

2. Sample Size for Substantiating an 

Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Method 

3. Omission of Alternative Efficiency 

Determination Method Substantiation 

32060 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

2For editorial reasons, Parts B (consumer 

products) and C (commercial equipment) of Title III 

of EPCA were redesignated as Parts A and A–1, 

respectively, in the United States Code. 

3A small electric motor is a machine that 

converts electric power (either single-phase or 

polyphase alternating current) into rotational 

mechanical power. Single-phase electric power 

varies all the voltages of the supply in unison, 

while a polyphase (three-phase) system has three 

alternating currents offset from one another by onethird of their period, or 120 degrees. See 73 FR 

78221. 

4The IEEE Standards addressed in this notice are 

generally listed chronologically by their last date of 

revision and adoption rather than their sequential 

number. 

5 DOE is addressing the small motors test 

procedure issues in today’s notice to ensure its 

compliance with the Consent Decree deadline 

established by Federal District Court for the 

Southern District of New York on November 6, 2006 

in the consolidated cases of New York v. Bodman, 

Case No. 05 Civ. 7807 (JES), and Natural Resources 

Defense Council v. Bodman, Case No. 05 Civ. 7808 

(JES). Unlike the test procedures for small electric 

motors, the test procedure rulemaking for electric 

motors (i.e. 1–200 hp) is not part of the Consent 

Decree schedule. 

D. Testing Laboratory Accreditation 

E. Certification and Enforcement 

F. Other Issues Raised 

1. Definition of ‘‘Nominal Full-Load 

Efficiency’’ 

2. Materials Incorporated by Reference 

3. Labeling Requirements 

4. Preemption of State Standards and 

Labeling 

5. Petitions and Waivers 

IV. Procedural Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. National Environmental Policy Act 

E. Executive Order 13132 

F. Executive Order 12988 

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

H. Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Executive Order 12630 

J. Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Executive Order 13211 

L. Section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974 

M. Congressional Notification 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

Part A–1 of Title III of the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act, as 

amended, (EPCA) provides for an energy 

conservation program for certain 

commercial and industrial equipment.2

(42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) In particular, 

section 346(b)(1) of EPCA directs the 

Secretary of Energy to prescribe testing 

requirements and energy conservation 

standards for those small electric motors 

for which the Secretary determines that 

standards would be technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in significant energy 

savings. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)) 

B. Background 

On July 10, 2006, the Department of 

Energy (DOE) published in the Federal 

Register a positive determination that 

energy conservation standards for 

certain single-phase and polyphase 

small electric motors appear 

technologically feasible, economically 

justified and would result in significant 

energy savings.3 71 FR 38799. Further, 

DOE stated in its determination notice 

that it will initiate the development of 

test procedures for certain small electric 

motors. 71 FR 38807. DOE then 

published proposed test procedures and 

requested comment on those 

procedures. 73 FR 78220 (December 22, 

2008). Today’s final rule prescribes test 

procedures for measuring the energy 

efficiency of certain small electric 

motors with ratings of 1⁄4 to 3 

horsepower (hp), which are built in a 

two-digit National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 

frame number series. Although both 

could have the same horsepower 

ratings, small electric motors, which are 

covered in today’s final rule, differ from 

electric motors, which are built in a 

three-digit NEMA frame number series 

and have other differentiating features 

and performance characteristics. This 

test procedure is also applicable to 

NEMA-equivalent International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 

standard motors (metric motors), which 

are equivalent to small electric motors, 

as defined in EPCA (see section III.A.1 

in today’s final rule). See 42 U.S.C. 

6311(13)(G). 

In the notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NOPR), DOE proposed to (1) establish 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency for small electric motors and 

(2) amend the test procedures for 

electric motors (i.e. 1–200 hp) by 

revising and expanding their current 

scope and to extend coverage of those 

procedures to include electric motors 

with ratings between 201 and 500 hp. 73 

FR 78220. These proposed changes 

would amend the regulations currently 

found at 10 CFR part 431. DOE 

identified several issues in the NOPR on 

which it sought public comment. For 

small electric motors, DOE specifically 

sought comments on three issues: (1) 

The proposed test procedure for small 

electric motors, based on the Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers 

(IEEE) Std 114–2001, ‘‘Test Procedure 

for Single-Phase Induction Motors,’’ and 

IEEE Std 112–2004, ‘‘Test Procedure for 

Polyphase Induction Motors and 

Generators;’’ (2) the proposal to allow 

manufacturers to use Canadian 

Standards Association (CAN/CSA) 

C747–94, ‘‘Energy Efficiency Test 

Methods for Single- and Three-Phase 

Small Motors,’’ as an alternative to IEEE 

Std 114 and 112; and (3) the proposal 

to use an alternative efficiency 

determination method (AEDM) as a 

means for calculating the total power 

loss and average full load efficiency of 

a small electric motor.4 With respect to 

this last item, DOE discussed proposed 

requirements for a manufacturer to 

substantiate: (i) The accuracy and 

reliability of its AEDM, (ii) a statistically 

valid number of basic models and units 

to be tested, and (iii) the accuracy of the 

predictive capabilities of the AEDM 

relative to actual testing. 

On January 29, 2009, DOE held a 

public meeting to receive comments, 

data, and information on its NOPR. On 

March 9, 2009, the NOPR comment 

period closed. In addition to the oral 

comments presented at the public 

meeting and recorded in the official 

transcript, DOE received three 

additional written comments. In view of 

the comments received, DOE 

subsequently decided to separate the 

two major rulemaking activities 

originally contained in the NOPR—one 

to address the test procedure for small 

electric motors, and the other to address 

the revision and expansion of the test 

procedure for electric motors found in 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 431.5 The 

issues relevant to the small electric 

motors test procedure are addressed in 

today’s final rule. Issues affecting 

electric motors will be addressed in a 

separate supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNOPR), which 

DOE will publish at a later date. 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

Today’s final rule establishes new test 

procedures for measuring the energy 

efficiency of certain general purpose, 

single-phase and polyphase small 

electric motors built in a two-digit 

NEMA frame series. The test procedures 

incorporate by reference IEEE Std 112 

(Test Method A and Test Method B), 

IEEE Std 114, and CAN/CSA C747 for 

single-phase small electric motors. 

Also, today’s final rule does the 

following: (1) Codifies the statutory 

definition for the term ‘‘small electric 

motor;’’ (2) clarifies the definition of the 

term ‘‘basic model’’ and the relationship 

of the term to certain equipment classes 

and compliance certification reporting 

requirements; and (3) codifies the ability 

of manufacturers to use an AEDM to 

reduce testing burden while 

maintaining accuracy and ensuring 

compliance with potential future energy 

conservation standards. Finally, today’s 

notice also discusses matters of 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 32061 

6A notation in the form ‘‘NEMA, No. 2 at p. 2’’ 

refers to (1) a statement that was submitted by the 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association and 

is recorded in the docket ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors,’’ 

Docket Number EERE–2008–BT–TP–0008, as 

comment number 2; and (2) a passage that appears 

on page 2 of that document. Likewise, a notation 

in the form ‘‘Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

8 at p. 75’’ refers to (1) a statement by Baldor 

Electric Company and is recorded in the docket as 

comment number 8; and (2) a passage that appears 

on page 75 of the transcript, ‘‘Public Meeting on 

Test Procedures for Small Electric Motors and 

Electric Motors,’’ dated January 29, 2009. 

7This comment was made by Adjuvant 

Consulting, which represented both the Northwest 

Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and the 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. For 

referencing purposes, throughout this notice, 

comments from these groups will be cited as NEEA. 

laboratory accreditation, compliance 

certification, and enforcement for small 

electric motors. 

III. Discussion 

Small electric motors covered in 

today’s final rule are general purpose 

rotating machines that use either singlephase or polyphase electricity, and 

provide sufficient torque to drive 

equipment such as blowers, fans, 

conveyors, and pumps. Today’s final 

rule does not cover small electric motors 

that are components of a covered 

product under section 322(a) of EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) For example, a 

small electric motor that is a component 

of a covered consumer appliance, such 

as a refrigerator, is not covered in 

today’s final rule. The following 

discussion provides some background 

for today’s final rule. 

On July 10, 2006, DOE published in 

the Federal Register a positive 

determination with respect to testing 

requirements and energy conservation 

standards for small electric motors. DOE 

preliminarily determined that standards 

for small electric motors would be 

‘‘technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings.’’ 71 FR 

38807. Thereafter, DOE began to 

develop a test procedure for small 

electric motors and an analysis of 

potential energy conservation standards 

levels. As part of this analysis, DOE 

prepared a framework document that 

described the standards rulemaking 

process and provided details regarding 

the procedural and analytical 

approaches DOE anticipated using to 

evaluate energy conservation standards 

for small electric motors. See generally, 

Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Framework Document for 

Small Electric Motors, at pp. 9–33 (July 

30, 2007) (available at http://www1.eere.

energy.gov/buildings/appliance_

standards/commercial/pdfs/small_

motors_framework_073007.pdf). 

On August 10, 2007, DOE published 

a Federal Register notice that initiated 

a rulemaking addressing energy 

conservation standards for small electric 

motors and announced both the 

availability of the framework document 

and a public meeting to discuss and 

receive comments, data, and 

information about issues DOE would 

address in the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. 72 FR 44990. 

NEMA responded to the notice by 

pointing out that its members use IEEE 

Std 112 for measuring the efficiency of 

polyphase small electric motors and 

IEEE Std 114 for measuring the 

efficiency of single-phase small electric 

motors. (NEMA, No. 2 at p. 2) 6 DOE 

examined these industry standards as 

well as CAN/CSA–C747, and concluded 

that these test procedures provide the 

necessary methodology and technical 

requirements to accurately determine 

the energy efficiency of the small 

electric motors covered in its 

rulemaking. 

On December 22, 2008, DOE 

published a NOPR that, in part, 

proposed to create new Subpart T, 

‘‘Small Electric Motors,’’ (now Subpart 

X) in 10 CFR part 431, to set forth 

definitions and prescribe test 

procedures for small electric motors. 73 

FR 78220. In particular, the NOPR 

invited interested parties to submit 

comments, data, and information on the 

proposed test methods for small electric 

motors (IEEE Std 112 and IEEE Std 114) 

and whether CAN/CSA C747 could be 

used as an alternative test method to the 

IEEE standards for the same equipment. 

DOE held a public meeting on January 

29, 2009, to address, in part, its 

proposed test procedures for small 

electric motors and solicit comments 

from interested parties. In addition to 

oral comments recorded in the 

transcript from the public meeting, DOE 

received three sets of written comments, 

all of which are addressed in today’s 

rulemaking. 

A. Definition of Small Electric Motor 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed to codify 

the statutory definition of ‘‘small 

electric motor’’ into ‘‘Subpart T—Small 

Electric Motors’’ of 10 CFR part 431. 73 

FR 78223. Section 340(13)(G) of EPCA, 

as amended by the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007) (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)), 

defines the term ‘‘small electric motor’’ 

as ‘‘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.’’ In today’s final rule, DOE is 

codifying this definition under 10 CFR 

431.442 of a new Subpart X for small 

electric motors. 

Interested parties raised two general 

issues that are addressed in this section: 

(1) Whether DOE considers NEMAequivalent IEC standard motors (metric 

motors) to be covered under 10 CFR part 

431; and (2) whether in paragraph MG1– 

1.05 of NEMA Standards Publication 

MG1–1987 the classification of 

insulation system prescribed for small 

motors is a potential means to 

circumvent the applicable compliance 

requirements in 10 CFR part 431. 

1. International Electrotechnical 

Commission Motors 

As discussed above, EPCA defines 

‘‘small electric motor’’ on the basis of 

NEMA Standards Publication MG1– 

1987, ‘‘Motors and Generators.’’ Section 

340(13)(G) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 

6311(13)(G). The elements that comprise 

the EPCA definition of ‘‘small electric 

motor’’ are based on the construction 

and rating system in paragraph MG1– 

1.05 of NEMA MG1–1987, which use 

U.S. customary units of measurement, 

rather than metric units. Today’s 

codified definition describes generalpurpose small electric motors in terms 

that are used in common parlance for 

the U.S. market. 

By contrast, general-purpose small 

electric motors manufactured outside 

the U.S. and Canada generally are 

defined and described in terms of IEC 

Standards. For example, IEC 60034- 

series, ‘‘Rotating Electrical Machines,’’ 

sets forth terminology and performance 

criteria that are different from those in 

the EPCA definition of small electric 

motor. Further, ‘‘IEC motors’’ are rated 

under IEC 60034–1, ‘‘Rating and 

Performance,’’ which uses metric units 

of measurement and a construction and 

rating system different from NEMA 

MG1–1987. For example, where NEMA 

standards rate the output power of small 

electric motors in terms of horsepower, 

IEC standards rate the input power of 

(equivalent) small electric motors in 

terms of kilowatts. 

Baldor Electric Company (Baldor), 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 

(NEEA), and NEMA commented that 

IEC motors of equivalent ratings should 

be considered covered equipment. 

Baldor asserted that IEC motors should 

be covered because it is possible for 

foreign IEC motors to be brought into 

the United States and used in the same 

applications as EPCA-defined small 

electric motors. (Baldor, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 8 at p. 75). NEEA7 noted 

that the test procedures and any energy 

conservation standards for small electric 

32062 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

motors should apply to the equivalent 

IEC motors. (NEEA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 8 at pp. 81–82). NEEA 

also submitted a written comment 

stating its shared concerns with 

manufacturers about DOE’s ability to 

enforce efficiency standards in cases 

involving covered products arriving 

from overseas as components of OEM 

equipment, including compatibility 

with IEC-based testing and rating. NEEA 

urges DOE to work with manufacturers 

and other interested parties to develop 

a plan that does not place an 

asymmetric burden on U.S. 

manufacturers in providing for 

reasonable enforcement of the 

standards. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 6) NEMA 

commented that when DOE codified the 

provisions for electric motors into 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 pursuant 

to the Energy Policy Act of 1992 

(EPACT 1992), DOE recognized that IEC 

motors equivalent to (and used as 

substitutes for) NEMA ‘‘electric motors’’ 

should be considered covered products. 

Consistent with that interpretation, 

NEMA requested that DOE include 

equivalent IEC motors in the definition 

of ‘‘small electric motor.’’ (NEMA, No. 

12 at p. 2) Interested parties did not 

submit comments opposing this 

approach. 

DOE agrees that IEC-equivalent small 

electric motors should be covered 

equipment. DOE understands that while 

the statutory definition of ‘‘small 

electric motor’’ does not explicitly 

address IEC motors, Congress directed 

DOE to consider small electric motors 

built in accordance with NEMA MG1– 

1987. NEMA MG1 specifies a broad 

array of requirements which also 

generally apply to IEC motors, and do 

not affect the purpose or design 

characteristics of these devices. Three 

reasons support the view that IEC 

motors identical or equivalent to NEMA 

motors are covered: 

(1) Both motors perform the same 

functions. IEC-equivalent small electric 

motors generally can perform the 

identical functions of EPCA-defined 

small electric motors. IEC small electric 

motors are designed and rated according 

to criteria in IEC 60034–1, whereas 

EPCA defines small electric motor in 

terms of design and rating criteria set 

forth in NEMA MG1. The differences in 

criteria concern primarily 

nomenclature, units of measurement, 

standard motor configurations, and 

design details, but have little bearing on 

motor function. Comparable motors of 

either type can provide virtually 

equivalent power to operate the same 

piece of machinery or equipment. Thus, 

in most general purpose applications, 

such IEC motors can be used 

interchangeably with EPCA-defined 

small electric motors. 

(2) Any broad exclusion of IECequivalent motors from test procedures 

or any future energy efficiency 

requirements would conflict with the 

energy conservation goal of EPCA and 

create a regulatory gap that would 

permit the use of non-compliant small 

motors, which Congress likely did not 

intend. Furthermore, any efficiency 

standards prescribed for small electric 

motors would be readily applicable to 

both standard and nonstandard 

equivalent IEC motors. 

(3) Placing energy efficiency 

requirements on EPCA-defined small 

electric motors while permitting 

equivalent IEC motors to remain 

unregulated would effectively give 

preferential treatment to those 

companies who manufacture IEC 

motors. Such a situation would likely 

lead to a reduction in the production of 

NEMA motors while encouraging the 

increased production of IEC motors, 

which would be unregulated. 

DOE notes that it made similar 

findings in the past to justify the 

coverage of equivalent IEC motors. In a 

prior rulemaking notice addressing 

1–200 horsepower electric motors, 

‘‘Energy Efficiency Program for Certain 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment: 

Test Procedures, Labeling, and 

Certification Requirements for Electric 

Motors,’’ 61 FR 60440, 60442–43 

(November 27, 1996), DOE stated the 

following: 

The Department interprets the Act as 

requiring that IEC motors satisfy the same 

energy efficiency requirements that the 

statute applies to identical or equivalent to 

NEMA motors. Thus, under the regulation 

proposed today, the definition of ‘‘electric 

motor’’ includes IEC motors that have 

physical and performance characteristics 

which are either identical or equivalent to 

the characteristics of NEMA motors that fit 

within the statutory definition. In the 

Department’s view, there can be no question 

that EPCA’s requirements cover any motor 

whose physical and performance 

characteristics fit within the statutory 

definition of ‘‘electric motor.’’ This is true 

regardless of the measuring units used to 

describe the motor’s performance or 

characteristics, or of the criteria pursuant to 

which it was designed. 

The Department also understands that 

comparable IEC and NEMA motors typically 

are closely equivalent but not identical, and 

that the characteristics of many IEC motors 

closely match EPCA’s definition of ‘‘electric 

motor’’ but deviate from it in minor respects. 

It also appears that, for most general purpose 

applications, such IEC motors can be used 

interchangeably with the NEMA motors. In 

addition, as discussed below, the efficiency 

standards prescribed for standard 

horsepower motors are readily applicable to 

both standard and nonstandard kilowatt 

motors. The Department believes that a broad 

exclusion of IEC motors from energy 

efficiency requirements would conflict with 

the energy conservation goal of the Act, was 

not intended by Congress, and would be 

irrational. Furthermore, the Department 

agrees with the views of commenters that 

placing energy efficiency requirements on 

NEMA motors but not on equivalent IEC 

motors could have the effect of giving 

preferential treatment to the IEC motors. 

Thus, the Department construes the EPCA 

definition of electric motor to include motors 

that have characteristics equivalent to those 

set forth in that definition. 61 FR 60443. 

As a result, the definition of the term 

‘‘electric motor’’ was codified under 10 

CFR 431.2 to include reference both to 

NEMA MG1 and IEC-equivalent design, 

duty rating, dimensions, and 

performance characteristics. 64 FR 

54114 (October 5, 1999). In addition, 

each element of the codified definition 

made reference to the applicable 

provisions in NEMA and IEC standards, 

which were then incorporated by 

reference under 10 CFR 431.22. See 64 

FR 54142. 

For all the above reasons and finding 

no evidence or receiving any comment 

to the contrary, DOE concludes that IECequivalent motors are subject to the 

same test procedures and any potential 

energy efficiency standards that apply to 

EPCA-defined small electric motors. 

Further, IEEE Std 112, IEEE Std 114, 

and CAN/CSA–C747, as applicable to 

small electric motors, are also 

applicable to those IEC motors that have 

physical and performance 

characteristics that are identical or 

equivalent to those characteristics of the 

EPCA-defined small electric motors. In 

DOE’s view, EPCA’s requirements cover 

any motor whose physical and 

performance characteristics fit within 

the statutory definition of ‘‘small 

electric motor,’’ regardless of the 

nomenclature, design descriptors, or 

units expressed that characterize 

performance. Today’s final rule applies 

the statutory definition in a manner 

consistent with EPCA and includes 

motors that have characteristics 

equivalent to those set forth in that 

definition. Accordingly, the complete 

definition codified in today’s final rule 

reads: ‘‘Small electric motor means a 

NEMA general purpose alternating 

current single-speed induction motor, 

built in a two-digit frame number series 

in accordance with NEMA Standards 

Publication MG1–1987, including IEC 

metric equivalent motors.’’ 

2. Insulation System Class 

Section 340(13)(G) of EPCA defines 

the term ‘‘small electric motor’’ as a 

‘‘NEMA general purpose alternating 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 32063 

8 Insulation systems are rated by standard NEMA 

classifications according to maximum allowable 

operating temperatures, which are: Class A—105 °C 

(221 °F); Class B—130 °C (266 °F); Class F—155 °C 

(311 °F); and Class H—180 °C (356 °F). 

9As indicated earlier, the sections affecting small 

electric motors will be in a new Subpart X. 

Accordingly, the reference to section 431.346 in this 

definition is updated in today’s final regulatory text 

to reflect that fact and read as section 431.446. 

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)) Where EPCA refers to 

NEMA MG1–1987, paragraph MG1–1.0 

within that document defines the term 

‘‘general purpose’’ motor as one that 

incorporates, in part, a Class A8

insulation system with temperature rise 

as specified in MG1–12.43 for small 

motors. Advanced Energy asserted that 

there could be a problem with limiting 

the definition of general purpose small 

electric motors to one with Class A 

insulation. (Advanced Energy, No. 11 at 

pp. 3–4) Advanced Energy argued that 

insulation systems used in small electric 

motors have improved since this 

definition of general purpose was first 

standardized in NEMA MG1–1987. 

Further, as new insulation technologies 

have improved and material costs have 

decreased, it has become increasingly 

common for manufacturers to use 

insulation temperature classes higher 

than Class A. Thus, if DOE limits 

coverage to small electric motors with 

Class A insulation, a manufacturer 

could potentially choose between the 

cost of compliance or moving to a 

higher insulation class to avoid 

regulation. 

DOE understands the risk that 

migration from one insulation class to 

another might be used as a means of 

circumventing an energy conservation 

standard. Similarly, DOE is concerned 

that if IEC motors are not covered, it 

could open a regulatory gap in coverage. 

Moreover, DOE is equally concerned 

that any relatively inexpensive or minor 

redesign of an existing line of small 

electric motors (which could include 

altering the type of insulation used in 

these products) would enable a 

manufacturer to circumvent the 

statutory framework established by 

Congress. 

As part of its technical analysis for the 

upcoming standards rulemaking for 

small electric motors, on December 30, 

2008, DOE published a notice 

announcing the availability of a 

preliminary technical support 

document. 73 FR 79723. DOE examined 

both the EPCA definition of ‘‘small 

electric motor’’ and the current use of 

‘‘general purpose’’ in paragraph 1.6.1 of 

MG1–2006, Revision 1, and found that 

the insulation-class coverage of what is 

considered ‘‘general purpose’’ has in 

fact expanded beyond Class A. In light 

of this observation, one potential 

solution would be to apply the term 

‘‘general purpose’’ to more than one 

insulation class by modifying the 

current requirement to cover products 

equipped with a ‘‘Class A or higher 

rated insulation system.’’ DOE plans to 

more fully address this issue as part of 

its energy conservation standards 

rulemaking for small electric motors. 

3. Definition of Basic Model 

It is common for a manufacturer to 

make numerous models of a product 

covered under EPCA and for each model 

to be subject to testing to determine 

compliance with an energy conservation 

standard. To reduce any undue burden 

of testing, DOE provides for 

manufacturers to group together product 

models having essentially identical 

energy consumption characteristics into 

a single family of models, collectively 

called a ‘‘basic model.’’ This concept is 

well established both for residential 

appliances and commercial and 

industrial equipment covered under 

EPCA. For example, refrigerators are 

often manufactured according to the 

same elementary or basic blueprint 

design and any particular model could 

incorporate modifications that include 

type of finish, shelf or drawer 

arrangement, or some other feature that 

does not significantly affect the energy 

efficiency or performance of that 

appliance. Requiring manufacturers to 

test the energy efficiency of each model 

with a different cosmetic feature—e.g., 

red with four shelves, or bisque with 

two shelves and two drawers—would 

create significant and redundant testing 

burdens for models that share the same 

energy efficiency performance. 

The term ‘‘basic model’’ for electric 

motors is defined in relevant part as: 

‘‘all units of a given type of electric 

motor (or class thereof) manufactured by 

a single manufacturer and which have 

the same rating, have electrical 

characteristics that are essentially 

identical, and do not have any differing 

physical or functional characteristics 

which affect energy consumption or 

efficiency.’’ 10 CFR 431.12. Except for 

changes to reflect the type of product at 

issue, this basic model definition also 

appears in 10 CFR part 431 for products 

as diverse as commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers 

(Subpart C of 10 CFR part 431), 

distribution transformers (Subpart K of 

10 CFR part 431), illuminated exit signs 

(Subpart L of 10 CFR part 431), and 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines (Subpart Q of 10 CFR 

part 431). For covered products and 

equipment, the characteristics 

differentiating basic models will vary 

with the specific designs, features and 

attributes of the products or equipment. 

Each manufacturer can then test a 

sufficient, representative sample of 

units of each basic model it 

manufactures, and derive an efficiency 

rating for each basic model that would 

apply to all models subsumed by that 

basic model. 

DOE proposed a basic model 

definition for small electric motors that 

incorporated these concepts. 73 FR 

78223 and 78237–38. The proposed 

definition read: 

Basic model means, with respect to a small 

electric motor, all units of a given type of 

small electric motor (or class thereof) 

manufactured by a single manufacturer, and 

which have the same rating, have electrical 

characteristics that are essentially identical, 

and do not have any differing physical or 

functional characteristics which affect energy 

consumption or efficiency. For the purpose 

of this definition, ‘‘rating’’ means a 

combination of the small electric motor’s 

group (i.e., capacitor-start, capacitor-run; 

capacitor-start, induction-run; or polyphase), 

horsepower rating (or standard kilowatt 

equivalent), and number of poles with 

respect to which section 431.346 prescribes 

nominal full load efficiency standards.9

NEMA commented that the only 

electrical characteristic that may be 

important among basic models is the 

stator winding configuration. It noted 

that it is possible to use different 

winding configurations, e.g., lap 

winding or concentric winding, to 

produce the same performance, 

including efficiency, for a small electric 

motor. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2) Further, 

NEMA offered an example of this type 

of change by explaining that a small 

electric motor incorporating an internal 

fan for air movement may have the same 

efficiency as one which uses blades on 

the rotor end rings for moving air 

through the motor. In view of the 

winding configuration and cooling fan 

examples, NEMA did not believe the 

design difference is important with 

respect to the concept of a ‘‘basic 

model’’ when the efficiency remains the 

same. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2) Finally, 

NEMA recommended that DOE define 

‘‘basic model’’ as ‘‘all units of a given 

type of small electric motor (or class 

thereof) manufactured by a single 

manufacturer, and which have the same 

rating and nominal efficiency.’’ (NEMA, 

No. 12 at p. 2) 

In its written comments, NEEA 

asserted that ‘‘basic model’’ is one of the 

most important terms to clearly define 

for a rulemaking. NEEA summarized the 

32064 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

10A CSIR motor is a single-phase motor with a 

main winding arranged for direct connection to a 

source of power and an auxiliary winding 

connected in series with a capacitor. The motor has 

a capacitor phase, which is in the circuit only 

during the starting period. A CSCR motor is a 

single-phase motor which has different values of 

effective capacitance for the starting and running 

conditions. A polyphase motor is an electric motor 

that uses the phase changes of the electrical supply 

to induce a rotational magnetic field and thereby 

supply torque to the rotor. (See Chapter 2: 

Analytical Framework, Comments from Interested 

Parties, and DOE Responses, at p. 2–7 (December 

30, 2008) (available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/

ch_2_small_motors_nopr_tsd.pdf). 

11For covered products in 10 CFR part 431, DOE 

uses the phrase ‘‘equipment classes’’ and for 

covered products in 10 CFR part 430, DOE uses the 

phrase ‘‘product classes.’’ They signify exactly the 

same concept, but use slightly different language 

meant to reflect the use of the word ‘‘product’’ for 

residential appliances in 10 CFR part 430 and the 

word ‘‘equipment’’ for commercial and industrial 

units in 10 CFR part 431. 

12See: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/commercial/small_electric_

motors_nopr_pub_mtg.html. 

13For the purpose of this definition, ‘‘rating’’ 

means a combination of the horsepower (or 

standard kilowatt hour equivalent), number of 

poles, and motor type (i.e., capacitor-start, 

capacitor-run; a capacitor-start, induction-run; or a 

polyphase small electric motor). 

industry’s view that the basic model 

regime used for covered (1–200 

horsepower) electric motors [as defined 

in 10 CFR 431.12] be applied to small 

electric motors, provided that the basic 

model ‘‘boxes’’ for each motor are 

carefully specified. NEEA added that 

such ‘‘boxes’’ would be synonymous 

with DOE’s equipment classes (i.e., a 

unique combination of the motor’s 

horsepower, number of poles, and 

whether the design is a capacitor-start, 

induction run (CSIR), capacitor-start, 

capacitor run (CSCR), or polyphase 

motor).10 (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 3) 

Emerson commented that its design 

engineers routinely make changes to 

their electric motors but maintain the 

same efficiency level. Emerson 

continued by noting that some 

manufacturers use more copper and less 

core steel, while other manufacturers 

use less copper and more steel. A 

manufacturer may also make 

modifications to meet other 

performance requirements requested by 

customers, including efficiency, torque, 

power factor, and inertia. In all, 

Emerson noted that 15 or 20 different 

criteria that manufacturers must meet to 

have a marketable product. Emerson 

noted that it is able to maintain specific 

efficiency levels by using AEDM 

programs that are correlated with actual 

testing methods. Emerson speculated 

that the definition of ‘‘basic model’’ for 

small electric motors [under the new 10 

CFR 431.342] will follow the same or 

similar definition found in 10 CFR 

431.12 for 1–200 horsepower electric 

motors, which potentially will result in 

fewer basic models of small electric 

motors than the current 113 basic 

models of electric motors [in 10 CFR 

431.25]. (Emerson, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 8 at pp. 51–52) 

DOE notes that there are wellestablished differences in its regulatory 

program between equipment classes,11

basic models, and compliance 

certification reporting. From the 

comments submitted, it appears that 

interested parties did not fully 

understand these differences. The 

following discussion clarifies these 

three important concepts as they apply 

to small electric motors. 

The concept of a basic model was 

created to help reduce repetitive testing 

burdens on manufacturers while 

ensuring that energy efficiency 

standards are maintained. Equipment 

classes for small electric motors are 

represented by the number of boxes 

contained in the three matrices (i.e., 

CSIR, CSCR, and polyphase small 

electric motors) of horsepower ratings 

and number of poles contained in the 

chart that organizes these items. In its 

Preliminary Technical Support 

Document, the engineering analysis 

addressed 72 potential equipment 

classes for small electric motors.12 See 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/commercial/

small_electric_motors_nopr_tsd.html. 

The equipment classes are the smallest 

subgroups of small electric motors 

where DOE would establish discrete 

efficiency levels—i.e., there would be 

one efficiency value or equation for each 

equipment class. 

Basic models represent all units of a 

given type of small electric motor (or 

class thereof) manufactured by a single 

manufacturer, having the same rating 13

and electrical characteristics that are 

essentially identical, and which do not 

have any differing physical or 

functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption or efficiency. In 

essence, basic models are unique 

blueprints for each electrical motor 

design generated by a manufacturer, 

even if a particular catalog model 

incorporates minor design changes as 

described by Emerson. Minor design 

changes can occur every day due to 

customer needs, material costs, and the 

intrinsic nature of the manufacturing 

and testing processes. These basic 

models may have the same numerical 

efficiency percentages, but they are not 

the same basic model if they are 

incorporating design changes that affect 

their rated nominal full load efficiency 

(e.g., a stator loss increase offset by a 

rotor loss decrease). 

For 1 through 200 hp electric motors, 

one manufacturer can have thousands of 

basic models in any one equipment 

class. The regulations require each 

covered electric motor to have a 

‘‘nominal full load efficiency of not less 

than’’ (emphasis added) the prescribed 

efficiency level. See 10 CFR 431.25(a) 

(listing electric motor efficiency 

standards), 431.36(b)(1)(i) (requiring 

certification of efficiency requirements), 

and 431.36(e) (requiring certification for 

each basic model). Thus, the regulations 

allow a manufacturer to conservatively 

rate their products within a certain 

efficiency range according to the 

definition of ‘‘nominal full load 

efficiency,’’ pursuant to 10 CFR 431.12. 

In other words, the regulations do not 

prohibit manufacturers from combining 

a number of basic models into a single 

basic model and then reporting the 

combined set at the lowest nominal full 

load efficiency within that aggregated 

basic model. 

Individual manufacturer burdens are 

further reduced by simplifying the 

reporting requirements manufacturers 

need to meet. For 1–200 hp electric 

motors, under 10 CFR 431.36(b)(2), a 

manufacturer must report the nominal 

full load efficiency of the ‘‘least efficient 

basic model within that rating.’’ The 

same holds true under 10 CFR 431.36(e) 

where a new Compliance Certification 

must be submitted for a new basic 

model only if the new basic model has 

a lower nominal full load efficiency 

than otherwise previously certified. 

Therefore, while a manufacturer may be 

preparing thousands of designs for a 

given equipment class, the manufacturer 

would only report to DOE (for 

compliance purposes) the nominal full 

load efficiency of the least-efficient 

basic model within any given 

equipment class. DOE then compares 

the reported efficiency against the 

required nominal full load efficiency 

level to verify that all basic models 

within a given equipment class by that 

manufacturer are in compliance. In a 

future rulemaking, DOE intends to 

consider similar burden-reducing 

provisions for small electric motors (the 

product covered in today’s final rule), 

should DOE establish energy 

conservation standards for small electric 

motors. 

As discussed earlier in this section, 

NEMA proposed a new definition for 

the term ‘‘basic model.’’ (NEMA, No. 12 

at p. 2) DOE cannot accept NEMA’s 

proposed definition because it is not 

consistent with the long established and 

widely accepted basic model concept 

throughout both 10 CFR parts 430 and 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 32065 

431. DOE understands that NEMA’s 

proposed definition would allow a 

single basic model to include many 

different designs of small electric 

motors that have significantly different 

utility or performance-related features 

that affect their efficiency, but which 

have the same numerical nominal 

efficiency value. In other words, these 

motors could have different operating 

voltages, winding configurations, or 

other design changes that would make 

them separate and distinct basic models 

in view of DOE’s national regulatory 

program. Thus, DOE believes that 

NEMA’s proposed definition is 

inconsistent with the ‘‘basic model’’ 

concept as it has long been applied and 

understood across a range of covered 

consumer products and commercial 

equipment. 

DOE continues to believe that any 

definition of basic model must require 

that all the included models have 

virtually identical energy consumption 

characteristics and be within the same 

equipment class. Such an approach is 

necessary to assure that the efficiency 

rating derived for a particular basic 

model accurately represents the 

efficiency of all of the small electric 

motors encompassed therein. Therefore, 

DOE is defining ‘‘basic model’’ for small 

electric motors by including a 

requirement that any small electric 

motors falling into a basic model 

grouping ‘‘not have any differentiating 

electrical, physical or functional 

features that affect energy 

consumption.’’ A few examples of 

electrical, physical, and functional 

features that may affect energy 

consumption for small electric motors 

include, among others, changing: The 

operating voltage, the electrical steel, 

the stack height, the wire in the 

windings, the insulation rating, and the 

air gap between the stator and rotor. 

DOE recognizes that manufacturers 

will have many basic models that fit 

under today’s definition of basic model 

for each small electric motor equipment 

class, i.e., each combination of the 

group (i.e., capacitor-start, capacitorrun; capacitor-start, induction-run; or 

polyphase), horsepower rating (or 

standard kilowatt equivalent), and 

number of poles. The basic model 

concept ensures that no design 

manufactured and distributed in 

commerce would be below the 

minimum regulatory standard. 

However, DOE is unaware of any 

practicable way to aggregate models 

with different energy consumption 

characteristics, for purposes of testing, 

which would produce an accurate 

efficiency rating for each model 

included in an aggregated group of 

models. 

To address undue testing burdens on 

an individual manufacturer, as 

discussed later in this notice, DOE is 

adopting in today’s final rule a 

provision that permits the use of an 

AEDM, which, once substantiated by a 

manufacturer, will allow that 

manufacturer to rate the efficiency of 

many small electric motors based on 

calculations and software modeling 

instead of physical testing. In addition, 

DOE intends to propose in a future 

rulemaking the compliance certification 

provisions for small electric motors, 

which would likely be based on the 

established and recognized reporting 

requirements for (1–200 hp) electric 

motors at 10 CFR 431.36. These 

provisions require manufacturers to 

report only the least efficient rated basic 

model within an equipment class. 

Taken together, DOE believes these two 

provisions will greatly reduce testing 

and reporting burden on manufacturers 

of small electric motors while adhering 

to the existing requirements that apply 

to both manufacturers of electric motors 

and other commercial and industrial 

equipment covered under 10 CFR part 

431. 

Therefore, in view of all the above, 

today’s final rule defines a basic model 

for small electric motors as all units of 

a given type of small electric motor (or 

class thereof) manufactured by a single 

manufacturer, having the same rating 

and electrical characteristics that are 

essentially identical, and which do not 

have any differing physical or 

functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption or efficiency. For 

the purpose of this definition, ‘‘rating’’ 

means a combination of the horsepower 

(or standard kilowatt hour equivalent), 

number of poles, and whether the motor 

is a capacitor-start, capacitor-run; 

capacitor-start, induction-run; or 

polyphase small electric motor, with 

respect to which 10 CFR 431.446 

prescribes nominal full load efficiency 

standards. 

B. Test Procedures for the Measurement 

of Energy Efficiency 

DOE proposed that the test procedure 

for measuring the energy efficiency of a 

small electric motor be based on one of 

the following methods: IEEE Std 114, 

IEEE Std 112, or CAN/CSA–C747–94. 

(73 FR 78223 and 78238) DOE 

understands that the scope of small 

electric motors includes single-phase 

and polyphase designs that cover 

fractional and integral horsepower 

ratings that can be tested according to 

somewhat different but equivalent 

methodologies, using the same 

measurements and producing virtually 

the same results. The application of 

these methods and commenter 

responses to them are further discussed 

below. 

1. Single-Phase Small Electric Motor 

Test Method 

For single-phase small electric 

motors, DOE proposed to incorporate 

the test method in IEEE Std 114, which 

measures and compares output power 

and input power. In addition, DOE 

proposed CAN/CSA–C747 as an 

alternative test method, believing that it 

would provide equivalent rigor and 

render virtually equivalent results. 

Advanced Energy and NEEA agreed 

both with the use of IEEE Std 114 and 

CAN/CSA–C747 as an alternative 

method. Advanced Energy commented 

that IEEE Std 114 and the CAN/CSA– 

C747 are both input-output methods 

with minor differences and 

recommended that these test methods 

be used for single-phase small electric 

motors. (Advanced Energy, No. 11 at pp. 

1–3) NEEA also agreed with DOE’s 

proposal to use IEEE Std 114 and CAN/ 

CSA–C747 as an alternative test method. 

(NEEA, No. 10 at p. 1) DOE did not 

receive any comments objecting to the 

adoption of either test method. 

Therefore, in today’s final rule, DOE is 

incorporating by reference IEEE Std 114 

and the CAN/CSA–C747 as test methods 

for single-phase small electric motors. 

2. Polyphase Small Electric Motor Test 

Method 

For polyphase small electric motors, 

DOE proposed the use of IEEE Std 112, 

without specifying the use of one of the 

particular test methods available in that 

test procedure, such as Method A or 

Method B. DOE also proposed that 

manufacturers be allowed to use CAN/ 

CSA–C747 as an alternative test method 

on the basis that it would provide 

equivalent rigor and render equivalent 

results with IEEE Std 112, while offering 

manufacturers some flexibility on 

testing methods used. 

In general, interested parties were 

receptive to DOE’s proposal, but 

requested that DOE specify which test 

method to use. During the public 

meeting, a consensus developed that 

CAN/CSA–C747 is consistent with the 

IEEE Std 112 Test Method A, but that a 

different CAN/CSA test method should 

be used if DOE adopts IEEE Std 112 Test 

Method B. 

Concerning which IEEE Std 112 test 

method DOE should adopt, Advanced 

Energy stated that there are several 

methods in IEEE Std 112 but 

highlighted Test Methods A and B. 

(IEEE Std 112 Test Method B has 

32066 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

14CAN/CSA–C390 Test Method 1 is the Canadian 

test method that is considered to be equivalent to 

IEEE 112 Std Test Method B. In the existing test 

procedure for electric motors in Appendix B to 

Subpart B of 10 CFR part 431, manufacturers 

determine efficiency and losses according to either 

IEEE 112 Std Test Method B or CAN/CSA–C390 

Test Method 1. 

15Section 6.2.1 on page 34 of IEEE Std 112 states 

‘‘[t]he input-output method (Efficiency Test Method 

A) should be limited to machines with ratings less 

than 1 kW.’’ 

already been incorporated by reference 

for 1–200 hp electric motors in 10 CFR 

431.15(b)(2).) Advanced Energy 

described IEEE Std 112 Test Method B 

as the ‘‘loss segregation method.’’ This 

method determines efficiency by 

calculating the constituent losses of the 

motor, including stray load losses, 

through its measurements and 

methodology. (Advanced Energy, No. 11 

at pp. 1–2) However, Advanced Energy 

asserted that IEEE Std 112 Test Method 

B cannot be adopted for all small 

electric motors because: (1) IEEE Std 

112 recommends Test Method A for 

motors rated less than 1 kilowatt (kW), 

which covers most of the small electric 

motors under consideration; and (2) 

there is an inherently significant 

difference between the input-output 

calculation method (IEEE Std 112 Test 

Method A, consistent with CAN/CSA– 

C747) and the loss-segregation method 

(IEEE Std 112 Test Method B, consistent 

with CAN/CSA–C390 Test Method 1 14). 

Advanced Energy stated that if a 

polyphase small electric motor were 

tested according to IEEE Std 112 Test 

Method B and CAN/CSA–C747, the 

difference in the efficiency results 

would be significant; whereas if the 

same test was done between IEEE Std 

112 Test Method A and CAN/CSA– 

C747, the results would be similar. 

(Advanced Energy, No. 11 at pp. 1–2) 

Advanced Energy summarized its 

comments as follows: (1) The test 

procedure for polyphase small electric 

motors should be IEEE Std 112 Test 

Method A and the test procedure for 

single-phase small electric motors 

should be IEEE Std 114; (2) the CAN/ 

CSA–C747 and IEEE Std 114 test 

methods are essentially direct inputoutput methodologies that produce 

equivalent test results; (3) use of IEEE 

Std 112 Test Method B for polyphase 

small electric motors compared to CAN/ 

CSA–C747 would produce significant 

variations in measured efficiency for the 

same motor; and (4) CAN/CSA–C747 

may be used as an alternative test 

method alongside IEEE Std 112 Test 

Method A and IEEE Std 114. (Advanced 

Energy, No. 11 at p. 3) 

NEMA echoed many of the same 

points raised by Advanced Energy. 

According to NEMA, IEEE Std 112 lists 

11 different procedures for testing 

polyphase motors. NEMA commented 

that DOE should identify a specific test 

procedure to be used for determining 

the efficiency of small electric motors. 

(NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 3–4) It noted that 

IEEE Std 112 Test Method A is the 

method commonly used by the motor 

industry for testing small electric 

motors. While the NOPR proposed the 

use of ‘‘IEEE Standard 112,’’ it did not 

identify a particular test method that 

accounts for motor size, such as a (Tframe) ‘‘electric motor’’ or a (two-digit 

frame) ‘‘small electric motor.’’ (73 FR 

78238) Further, IEEE Std 112 

recommends that Test Method A be 

limited to motors rated less than 1 kW 

(1.34 hp). Test Method B is 

recommended for motors rated 1–300 

kW and is the test method prescribed in 

appendix B to subpart B for ‘‘electric 

motors.’’ Test Method A in IEEE Std 112 

for polyphase motors is essentially the 

same as the test methods in IEEE Std 

114 for single-phase motors and in 

CAN/CSA–C747 both for three-phase 

small motors (up to 0.746 kW at 1800 

revolutions per minute (rpm)) and 

single-phase small motors (up to 7.5 

kW). NEMA noted that Test Method B 

in IEEE Std 112 is essentially equivalent 

to Test Method 1 in CAN/CSA–C390 for 

polyphase motors rated 0.746 kW or 

greater at 1800 rpm. The specific ratings 

for the application of the CAN/CSA 

standards are based on a kW rating at 

1800 RPM. For other speeds it is 

assumed that the corresponding rating is 

based on constant torque, such that the 

kW rating at some other speed ‘‘S’’ 

would be equal to kW@1800 * S/1800. 

To cover the required test procedures 

adequately, NEMA encouraged DOE to 

add an appendix B to the proposed 

subpart T (now Subpart X) of 10 CFR 

part 431, similar to appendix B to 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 431. Also, 

NEMA recommended that DOE adopt 

the use of the various IEEE and CAN/ 

CSA test procedures along with their 

respective hp/kW ranges, as indicated 

above. (NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 3–4) 

During the public meeting, Baldor 

added that, for polyphase small electric 

motors, DOE should adopt both IEEE 

Std 112 Test Method A and Test Method 

B. Baldor noted that IEEE Std 112 Test 

Method A is similar to the test method 

DOE is adopting for single-phase small 

electric motors (IEEE Std 114). (Baldor, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p. 

32) DOE did not receive any comments 

objecting to this approach. 

DOE considered all these comments 

on the testing methodologies for 

polyphase small electric motors and, 

consistent with the majority of 

interested parties, including NEMA, is 

adopting both IEEE Std 112 Test Method 

A and Test Method B in today’s final 

rule. DOE is apportioning the covered 

motors to these two different test 

methods according to the guidance 

provided in IEEE Std 112.15

DOE had proposed adopting IEEE Std 

112 in its entirety, but today’s final rule 

modifies that proposal by delineating 

the scope of coverage for the test 

procedure consistent with the 

recommendation in IEEE Std 112. 

However, since DOE intends to establish 

its regulatory standard on the basis of 

standard horsepower ratings, DOE will 

not be assigning motors to be tested 

with IEEE Std 112 Test Method A or 

Test Method B according to a kilowatt 

rating. Instead, DOE is basing the 

applicable test method on horsepower 

ratings. Since IEEE Std 112 Test Method 

A is applicable to polyphase small 

electric motors below 1 kilowatt (1.34 

horsepower), DOE is applying this 

method to small electrical motors rated 

at or below 1 horsepower. A 

demarcation based on horsepower 

rather than kilowatts makes this 

division more practicable since 

manufacturer literature indicates that 

small electric motors marketed for the 

U.S. are generally grouped by 

horsepower ratings, with 1 hp being the 

first common horsepower rating below 1 

kilowatt (1.34 horsepower). Similarly, 

IEEE Std Test Method B will be 

applicable to polyphase small electric 

motors rated greater than 1 horsepower. 

Furthermore, in today’s final rule, 

while DOE is adopting CAN/CSA–C747 

for single-phase small electric motors, 

DOE is not adopting any alternative test 

methods promulgated today for 

polyphase small electric motors based 

on CAN/CSA–C747 or CAN/CSA–C390 

Test Method 1 because there may be an 

inconsistency in the measured 

efficiency associated with units tested 

under IEEE Std 112 Test Method B and 

CAN/CSA–C747. Instead, DOE plans to 

raise this issue in a SNOPR and propose 

adopting: (1) CAN/CSA–C747 as an 

alternative to IEEE Std Test Method A 

for polyphase small electric motors 

rated less than or equal to one 

horsepower (0.746 kilowatt) and (2) 

CAN/CSA–C390, ‘‘Energy Efficiency 

Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction 

Motors’’ (Test Method 1) as an 

alternative to IEEE Std Test Method B 

for polyphase small electric motors that 

have a rating greater than one 

horsepower (0.746 kilowatt). 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 32067 

C. Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Method 

1. Statistical Basis for an Alternative 

Efficiency Determination Method 

DOE proposed that the efficiency of a 

small electric motor must be determined 

either through actual testing or by using 

an AEDM, provided that its reliability 

and accuracy are substantiated by 

testing five basic models that are based 

on a sample of five production units 

selected at random and tested. 73 FR 

78238–39. 

In view of the above, NEEA 

commented that while it supported the 

use of an AEDM methodology, it 

expressed concern that DOE’s proposal 

to substantiate the AEDM for small 

electric motors by testing a minimum of 

five motors, each from a minimum of 

five basic models, may not produce a 

statistically defensible model. (NEEA, 

No. 10 at p. 2) NEEA also questioned 

whether AEDMs were sufficiently 

rigorous to predict total power loss 

within ten percent of the mean total 

power loss, compared to actual testing. 

NEEA asserted that total power loss will 

likely range from 10 to 30 percent, 

depending on the basic model and the 

standards that are set. Consequently, the 

magnitude of AEDM error will approach 

the difference between two prescribed 

standard efficiency levels, thereby 

making it more difficult to justify the 

standard levels. NEEA requested more 

discussion about whether a given 

AEDM’s accuracy properly accounts for 

(1) variability in manufacturing and 

product performance and (2) limitations 

in the calculations used to represent the 

design, construction, and operating 

conditions of the motors being tested. 

(NEEA, No. 10 at p. 2) 

DOE understands NEEA’s concerns 

about the adequacy of using an AEDM 

for small electric motors and whether it 

is sufficient to determine which level of 

efficiency is supported by testing 

samples selected from the total 

population. NEEA’s concern appears to 

be with overlapping nominal efficiency 

distributions and the probability that 

the sample tested may indicate an 

incorrect nominal efficiency for the 

basic model. DOE understands that two 

populations of motors could intersect 

each other, given the variations inherent 

in the manufacturing process and 

efficiency testing. This situation is a 

result of basing calculations on 

efficiency, when the criteria for 

selecting discrete values of nominal 

efficiency for marking small electric 

motors would be based on step changes 

in the total losses. Also, the difference 

in losses between efficiency levels that 

may appear would be slight, primarily 

due to mathematical rounding when 

calculating the efficiency values. 

Nevertheless, DOE believes that the 

probability of overlapping efficiency 

levels is small because the AEDM is 

substantiated through the modeling and 

construction of actual small electric 

motors. As a result, in DOE’s view, the 

use of proposed AEDM is reasonable for 

compliance certification because it 

balances the manufacturer’s and 

consumer’s risks that the minimum 

permissible value of average efficiency 

for the sample falls between the 

nominal efficiency value to be declared 

by the manufacturer and the next lower 

value of nominal efficiency. 

Moreover, the proposed AEDM 

follows the widely accepted precedent 

for (1–200 hp) electric motors, at 10 CFR 

431.17, which is based on National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) Internal Report 6092, January 

1998, ‘‘Analysis of Proposals for 

Compliance and Enforcement Testing 

Under the New Part 431; Title 10, Code 

of Federal Regulations.’’ That report 

analyzed a variety of criteria and 

sampling plans for establishing 

compliance with standards prescribed 

by EPCA. DOE concluded that the 

findings of this study, which indicated 

that the sampling plan for electric 

motors was statistically sound and 

sufficiently rigorous to ensure 

compliance with a regulatory standard, 

were also appropriate and applicable to 

the testing of small electric motors. 

Furthermore, under the new 10 CFR 

431.445(b)(3) adopted today, as with 10 

CFR 431.17(a)(3), the accuracy and 

reliability of any AEDM must be 

substantiated through statistically valid 

sampling and testing in accordance with 

established industry standards. 

Therefore, DOE believes the proposed 

AEDM requirements are sufficiently 

rigorous for compliance, without being 

unduly burdensome to a manufacturer. 

2. Sample Size for Substantiating an 

Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Method 

DOE proposed a statistical sampling 

regimen for selecting representative 

basic models out of a population of 

small electric motors for testing, to 

validate an AEDM. (73 FR 78239) 

NEMA pointed out that according to the 

proposed section 431.345(b)(1)(i)(C), 

‘‘the [five] basic models should be of 

different frame number series without 

duplication.’’ In contrast, the two-digit 

NEMA frame number series consists 

only of three values: 42, 48, and 56. 

While the proposed 10 CFR 

431.345(b)(1)(ii) in the NOPR provided 

instructions for when section 

431.345(b)(1)(i)(C) cannot be satisfied, 

NEMA believed it preferable to 

recognize this testing requirement at the 

outset. NEMA suggested that the 

provision at 10 CFR 431.345(b)(1)(i)(C) 

be changed to read ‘‘At least one basic 

model should be selected from each of 

the frame number series for the designs 

of small electric motors for which the 

AEDM is to be used.’’ (NEMA, No. 12 

at p. 4) 

DOE understands that modifying the 

proposed sampling regimen is necessary 

to reflect the frame number series 

available for sampling small electric 

motors given the relative paucity of twodigit frame number series identified in 

Table 4–2 in NEMA Standards 

Publication MG1–2006 (Table 11–1 in 

NEMA Standards Publication MG1– 

1987), which has only three frame 

numbers in the two-digit series. DOE 

also understands that any sampling plan 

should represent the total population 

and, in this case, reflect the importance 

of substantiating an AEDM by selecting 

at least one basic model from each frame 

number series. Consequently, DOE is 

adopting NEMA’s proposed language for 

section 431.445(b)(1)(i)(C). 

3. Omission of Alternative Efficiency 

Determination Method Substantiation 

The NOPR proposed a new section 

431.345(b)(2), which would have 

provided details regarding the manner 

in which to select units for testing 

within a basic model. However, NEMA 

pointed out that the proposed section 

431.345(b)(2) did not specify what 

manufacturers should do with the 

results of the tests of those five units in 

determining whether the basic model 

complies with any efficiency standards 

that DOE may set in the future. NEMA 

recommended that DOE establish a clear 

set of rules to follow as part of the test 

procedure to determine whether the 

basic model is in compliance based on 

the tests of the five units. (NEMA, No. 

12 at p. 5) 

NEMA also commented that if DOE 

intended to follow the existing 

requirements in section 431.17(b)(2) for 

electric motors, it may need to ascertain 

whether the same requirements apply to 

small electric motors, because this 

section is based on the NEMA nominal 

and corresponding minimum efficiency 

values for electric motors from NEMA 

MG1–12.58.2 (2006). Since the NOPR 

only proposed to define the term 

‘‘average full-load efficiency,’’ DOE 

would need to define the term ‘‘nominal 

full-load efficiency’’ in order to adopt 

the same requirements for small electric 

motors that currently apply to electric 

motors under section 431.17(b)(2). 

NEMA also pointed out that the electric 

motors covered under NEMA MG1– 

32068 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

16Further, 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 CAN/ 

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). 

12.58.2 (2006) are tested according to 

IEEE Std 112 Test Method B and not 

Test Method A. NEMA offered to assist 

DOE in developing the proper analysis 

of the results of the tests of the five units 

of a basic model, to determine if the 

basic model complies with any 

efficiency standard that DOE might 

establish. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 5) 

DOE appreciates NEMA’s comments, 

but notes that nominal full-load 

efficiency values need only be defined 

if and when DOE adopts energy 

conservation standards for small electric 

motors. The test procedure is only 

intended to measure the losses of a 

particular motor in a sample of motors, 

which it does. Measured losses can then 

be used to determine the full-load 

efficiency for the one motor and, 

thereafter, to calculate the average of the 

full-load efficiencies of the several 

motors in the sample. DOE believes it 

will become necessary to establish 

nominal full-load efficiency values in 

the future, values that would be selected 

from a table similar to Table 12–10 for 

1 to 200 hp electric motors, in MG1– 

2006. Recognizing that this table is 

based on efficiency measurements using 

IEEE Std 112 Test Method B, DOE 

invites NEMA and other interested 

parties to provide additional input, data, 

and information about what a table of 

nominal full-load efficiencies for small 

electric motors, tested according to IEEE 

Std 112 Test Method A and IEEE Std 

114, might look like. DOE intends to 

address the matter of nominal full-load 

efficiency levels as part of its energy 

conservation standards rulemaking for 

small electric motors. 

D. Testing Laboratory Accreditation 

EPCA provides different requirements 

for determining the energy efficiency of 

(two-digit NEMA frame) small electric 

motors and (three-digit NEMA frame) 

electric motors. Specifically, 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.’’ 16 (42 

U.S.C. 6316(c)) Section 342(b) of EPCA 

establishes the applicable energy 

efficiency standards for electric motors. 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(b)) EPCA, however, 

does not include compliance 

certification requirements for small 

electric motors. Because small electric 

motors are covered under section 346(b) 

of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)), the 

certification requirements that apply to 

electric motors do not apply to small 

electric motors. 

DOE proposed in the NOPR to allow 

a manufacturer to self-certify the 

efficiency test results for its small 

electric motors (i.e., not require 

‘‘independent testing’’), which DOE 

believes is consistent with the 

compliance certification requirements 

for other commercial products such as 

high-intensity discharge lamps and 

distribution transformers covered under 

section 346 of EPCA. Nevertheless, DOE 

is considering proposing at a later date 

compliance certification requirements 

for small electric motors equivalent to 

those in place for electric motors (i.e., 

requiring manufacturers to test small 

electric motors through an independent 

testing or certification program 

nationally recognized in the United 

States). 

NEMA observed that 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 any efficiency standard 

developed for small electric motors. 

(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 4) NEMA noted 

that the only means to certify 

compliance for electric motors in 

Canada is through the CAN/CSA Energy 

Efficiency Verification Program. 

Further, given the likelihood that the 

Canadian government will require small 

electric motors to be certified through 

the same CAN/CSA Energy Efficiency 

Verification Program, NEMA requested 

that DOE recognize independent third 

party efficiency certification programs 

for small electric motors. However, 

NEMA was clear that it was not 

encouraging DOE to 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 voluntary use of 

certification through third parties, such 

as NIST/NVLAP. 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 Std 112 Method A, IEEE Std 114, 

or CAN/CSA–C747 currently exist. 

NEEA expressed its support for a 

nationally recognized certification 

program or accredited laboratory, 

according to the requirements 

established in 10 CFR 431.17(a)(5). 

Further, it recommended that DOE 

apply the same requirements to the 

small electric motors covered in this 

rulemaking. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 2) 

In view of the above comments, DOE 

intends to address these matters as part 

of a SNOPR for electric motor test 

procedures, and will invite comments as 

to whether independent third party 

compliance certification or laboratory 

accredited programs for small electric 

motors should (1) be established and (2) 

be made mandatory or voluntary. 

E. Certification and Enforcement 

NEMA expressed concern that the 

proposed subpart T (now Subpart X) of 

10 CFR part 431 did not include a 

means for identifying the test procedure 

to follow when certifying the efficiency 

of a small electric motor. (NEMA, No. 12 

at p. 5) Also, NEMA questioned how 

DOE would enforce any potential energy 

efficiency standards for small electric 

motors, particularly for those small 

electric motors incorporated into 

equipment that is imported into the 

United States. NEMA asked how DOE 

intends to make enforcement applicable 

to small electric motors in 10 CFR part 

431. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 6) 

DOE notes that it published in the 

Federal Register a NOPR that, in part, 

included provisions under a new 

Subpart T—Certification and 

Enforcement to ensure compliance with 

EPCA’s energy conservation standards, 

which, with minor modifications could 

apply to small electric motors. 71 FR 

42178, 42214 (July 25, 2006). In that 

NOPR, DOE proposed a new section 

431.370 that described the purpose and 

scope of a proposed subpart T of 10 CFR 

part 431. Subpart T would set forth the 

procedures to be followed for 

manufacturer compliance certifications 

of all covered equipment except electric 

motors (which are not small electric 

motors). Subpart T would also set forth 

details regarding the determination of 

whether a basic model of covered 

equipment, other than electric motors 

and distribution transformers, complies 

with the applicable energy or water 

conservation standard set forth in 10 

CFR part 431. 

Although Subpart T—Certification 

and Enforcement as proposed in the July 

2006 NOPR would not apply to 1–200 

horsepower electric motors, it would 

apply to small electric motors, should 

DOE promulgate energy conservation 

standards for this equipment. However, 

because the July 26, 2006, NOPR 

remains an active and on-going 

rulemaking at DOE and, to avoid 

confusion, DOE chose not to propose 

certification and enforcement 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 32069 

17Average full-load efficiency is defined as ‘‘the 

arithmetic mean of the full-load efficiencies of a 

population of electric motors of duplicate design, 

where the full-load efficiency of each motor in the 

population is the ratio (expressed as a percentage) 

of the motor’s useful power output to its total power 

input when the motor is operated at its full rated 

load, rated voltage, and rated frequency.’’ 10 CFR 

431.12. 

18Nominal full-load efficiency is defined as ‘‘a 

representative value of efficiency selected from 

Column A of Table 12–8, NEMA Standards 

Publication MG1–1993, (incorporated by reference, 

see 10 CFR 431.15), that is not greater than the 

average full-load efficiency of a population of 

motors of the same design.’’ 10 CFR 431.12. 

requirements in its December 2008 

NOPR. 73 FR 78220. 

F. Other Issues Raised 

In response to the December 2008 

NOPR, interested parties drawing 

comparisons between provisions for 

electric motors in 10 CFR part 431 and 

the proposed test procedure for small 

electric motors submitted questions 

concerning issues and requirements that 

were not included in the NOPR. These 

issues are addressed below. 

1. Definition of ‘‘Nominal Full-Load 

Efficiency’’ 

NEMA noted that for electric motors 

covered under Subpart B of 10 CFR part 

431, the term ‘‘nominal full-load 

efficiency’’ is the metric for determining 

compliance with the applicable energy 

efficiency standards in 10 CFR 431.25. 

The term ‘‘nominal full-load efficiency’’ 

is defined under 10 CFR 431.12 and, in 

part, elements of the definition refer to 

NEMA MG1–1993 Table 12–8, which 

provides a column of nominal efficiency 

values and a column of corresponding 

minimum efficiency values. NEMA 

expressed concern that the NOPR did 

not specify which nominal full load 

efficiency values DOE plans to use 

when determining small electric motor 

compliance. NEMA offered to assist 

DOE in this regard. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 

3) 

DOE appreciates NEMA’s offer and 

recognizes that there are different fullload efficiency values defined in 10 CFR 

431.12: average full-load efficiency 17

and nominal full-load efficiency.18 Also, 

DOE recognizes that the efficiency 

values presented in NEMA MG1–1993 

Table 12–8 were created using IEEE Std 

112 Test Method B, and may not apply 

to all small electric motors, most of 

which will be measured for efficiency 

using IEEE Std 114 and IEEE Std 112 

Test Method A. 

DOE is concerned about the actual 

measured energy efficiency and AEDMmodeled energy efficiency, making the 

output of the measured or modeled 

efficiency value the most relevant factor 

when comparing energy efficiency 

standards. As a result, DOE plans to 

define nominal full-load efficiency for 

small electric motors under a separate 

rulemaking. 

2. Materials Incorporated by Reference 

In its December 2008 NOPR, DOE 

proposed test procedures for small 

electric motors by incorporating by 

reference IEEE Std 112, ‘‘Test Procedure 

for Polyphase Induction Motors and 

Generators,’’ IEEE Std 114, ‘‘Test 

Procedure for Single-Phase Motors,’’ 

and CAN/CSA–C747, ‘‘Energy 

Efficiency for Single- and Three-Phase 

Small Motors.’’ In addition, DOE 

proposed to update the citations of 

industry standards that are incorporated 

by reference under 10 CFR 431.15, 

which included NEMA Standards 

Publication MG1, ‘‘Motors and 

Generators;’’ IEEE Std 112, ‘‘Test 

Procedure for Polyphase Induction 

Motors and Generators;’’ and CAN/ 

CSA–C390, ‘‘Energy Efficiency Test 

Methods for Three-Phase Induction 

Motors.’’ 73 FR 78221. 

NEMA expressed concern that DOE 

proposed for incorporation by reference 

into new 10 CFR 431.343 for small 

electric motors, only certain test 

methods in IEEE Std 112 and 114, and, 

separately, CAN/CSA C747 and C390. 

This was in contrast to DOE’s inclusion 

of construction and performance 

standards for ‘‘electric motors’’ in 10 

CFR 431.15. In NEMA’s view, this 

omission was particularly troubling 

because DOE overlooked incorporating 

by reference certain IEC standards into 

the new proposed Subpart T (now 

Subpart X) of 10 CFR part 431. NEMA 

requested that DOE include the 

appropriate NEMA and IEC standards in 

the list of materials incorporated by 

reference and identify the source for 

those materials. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3) 

DOE did not incorporate by reference 

construction and performance standards 

for small electric motors in the NOPR 

because of statutory limitations. Outside 

of clarifying the EPCA definition of 

‘‘small electric motor,’’ 42 U.S.C. 

6311(13)(G), DOE’s mandate for 

establishing test procedures and energy 

conservation standards for small electric 

motors does not extend to prescribing 

construction or performance standards. 

Where 10 CFR 431.15 prescribes certain 

provisions in NEMA Standards 

Publication MG1 and IEC 60050–411, 

60072–1, and 60034–12, which, 

collectively, include dimensions, 

mounting, frames, and performance 

characteristics, DOE made such 

provisions to clarify the scope of 

coverage of electric motors. 64 FR 54114 

(October 5, 1999) (final rule covering 

test procedures, labeling, and 

certification requirements for electric 

motors). At the time of that rulemaking, 

DOE added a policy statement as 

appendix A to Subpart A of 10 CFR part 

431 (presently appendix A to Subpart B 

of 10 CFR part 431) to provide 

additional guidance as to which types of 

motors are ‘‘electric motors.’’ 

Notwithstanding the provisions under 

10 CFR 431.15, other products covered 

in 10 CFR part 431 do not address 

construction and performance standards 

or similar requirements. DOE addresses 

scope of coverage matters in section 

III.A of today’s rule, and clarifies what 

it considers IEC-equivalent small motors 

that could be used as substitutes for 

covered small electric motors. 

Therefore, DOE makes no changes in 

today’s final rule that would otherwise 

pertain to construction and performance 

standards for small electric motors. As 

explained above, DOE considers IECequivalent motors, which can be used as 

substitutes for small electric motors, to 

be covered. 

3. Labeling Requirements 

The December 2008 NOPR did not 

provide requirements for labeling 

energy efficiency or compliance 

certification for small electric motors. 

NEMA argued that DOE omitted 

provisions for labeling energy efficiency 

and compliance certification 

information for small electric motors in 

the newly proposed Subpart T (now 

Subpart X) of 10 CFR part 431. NEMA 

recommended that DOE include such 

provisions, similar to those in 10 CFR 

431.30 [10 CFR 431.31] for ‘‘electric 

motors.’’ Further, NEMA suggested that 

DOE permit a manufacturer, both of 

electric motors and small electric 

motors, to use the same compliance 

certification number on both its electric 

motors and small electric motors. 

(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 5) 

The NOPR did not provide labeling 

requirements for small electric motors 

because DOE has not yet established 

whether energy conservation standards 

will be adopted for small electric 

motors. Once DOE establishes these 

standards, it will prescribe labeling 

requirements consistent with the 

statute. (42 U.S.C. 6317). 

4. Preemption of State Standards and 

Labeling 

Sections 431.26 and 431.32 of 10 CFR 

part 431 cover electric motors and 

provide for preemption of State 

regulations, both for energy 

conservation standards and disclosure 

of electric motor information with 

respect to energy consumption. The 

NOPR does not address preemption of 

State regulation. 

32070 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

19Although NEMA says ‘‘Subpart L, General 

Provisions’’ from the context of their comment, it 

is clear it meant ‘‘Subpart V, General Provisions.’’ 

Subpart L was redesignated Subpart V on October 

18, 2005. 70 FR 60417. 

20 DOE notes that Section 323(e) of EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6293(e)), which requires DOE to consider the 

impacts of a test procedure amendment to the 

applicable energy efficiency or energy use of a 

covered product, does not apply in this instance 

because DOE is promulgating a new test procedure 

for small electric motors and no energy 

conservation standards are currently in effect. 

NEMA noted that the NOPR did not 

include a specific preemption provision 

for small electric motors in new Subpart 

T (now Subpart X) of 10 CFR part 431, 

and recommended that DOE include 

such a provision for preemption much 

like the one that currently applies to 

electric motors in 10 CFR 431.26. 

(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 5) 

As a preliminary matter, DOE notes 

that Congress specifically provided for 

the preemption of electric motors. See 

42 U.S.C. 6316(a). However, a similar 

provision was not included for small 

electric motors. However, small electric 

motors standards would be covered 

under general preemption principles. 

Energy conservation standards that are 

established under, or promulgated 

pursuant to, EPCA are national 

standards. In general, these standards 

preempt State and local regulations 

when those regulations conflict with the 

national standards unless otherwise 

provided by law. With respect to the 

energy conservation standards, States 

may petition DOE for a waiver from 

these standards. By statute, a State must 

demonstrate that unusual and 

compelling State or local energy 

interests exist that would justify the 

granting of such a waiver. Accordingly, 

DOE does not believe that the inclusion 

of a specific preemption provision is 

required. 

5. Petitions and Waivers 

Subpart V—General Provisions of 10 

CFR part 431 prescribes requirements 

for the submissions of petitions for 

waiver and interim waivers for any 

basic model of electric motor covered 

under 10 CFR 431.16. The NOPR did 

not address petitions for waiver, and 

applications for interim waiver, of test 

procedures for small electric motors. 

NEMA questioned whether DOE 

intends to make applicable to small 

electric motors the relevant parts of 

‘‘Subpart L, General Provisions’’ 19 for 

electric motors, or create a new subpart. 

(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 6) 

DOE intends to address this issue 

specifically in a separate rulemaking.20

IV. Procedural Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866 

Today’s regulatory action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58 

FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). 

Accordingly, this action was not subject 

to review under that Executive Order by 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis for any rule that by law must 

be proposed for public comment, unless 

DOE 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. 

DOE reviewed today’s final rule under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the policies and 

procedures published on February 19, 

2003. DOE tentatively certified in the 

December 22, 2008 NOPR that the 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 73 FR 78232. 

In the NOPR, DOE made this tentative 

certification for small electric motors 

based on the fact that: (1) DOE is not 

imposing any additional testing 

requirements or higher accuracy 

tolerances beyond what is already 

contained in the industry standards 

documents incorporated by reference for 

this equipment (i.e., IEEE Std 114, IEEE 

Std 112 and CSA C747); (2) DOE is 

adopting testing requirements that the 

industry already follows, avoiding any 

significant increase in testing or 

compliance costs; and (3) DOE is 

consistent with current industry test 

procedures and methodologies, thereby 

eliminating confusion and any undue 

burden from determining the efficiency 

of an electric motor according to two 

separate test procedures for potentially 

the same result. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

addressing small business impacts for 

manufacturers of small electric motors. 

Thus, DOE reaffirms and certifies that 

this rule will have no significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), a 

person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information by a Federal 

agency unless the collection displays a 

valid OMB control number. In today’s 

final rule, DOE adopts new test 

procedures and associated 

documentation retention and reporting 

requirements for small electric motors. 

However, unless and until DOE requires 

manufacturers of small electric motors 

to comply with energy conservation 

standards, a manufacturer would not be 

required to comply with these recordkeeping provisions because of the 

absence of certification/compliance 

requirements applicable to the test 

procedures. Therefore, today’s final rule 

would not impose any new reporting 

requirements requiring approval by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

D. National Environmental Policy Act 

In this rule, DOE adopts new test 

procedures that are used to measure and 

determine the energy efficiency of small 

electric motors. This rule falls into a 

class of actions that are categorically 

excluded from review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 

and DOE’s implementing regulations at 

10 CFR part 1021. DOE has determined 

that this rule is covered under the 

Categorical Exclusion found in DOE’s 

National Environmental Policy Act 

regulations at paragraph A.6 of 

Appendix A to Subpart D, 10 CFR part 

1021, which applies to rulemakings that 

are strictly procedural. Accordingly, 

neither an environmental assessment 

nor an environmental impact statement 

is required. 

E. Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 10, 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. DOE 

examined this final rule and determined 

that it would not have a substantial 

direct effect on the States, on the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 32071 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Accordingly, 

Executive Order 13132 requires no 

further action. 

F. 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 (February 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; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Regarding the 

review required by section 3(a), section 

3(b) of Executive Order 12988 

specifically requires, among other 

things, that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation (1) clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this rule meets 

the relevant standards of Executive 

Order 12988. 

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4; UMRA) 

generally requires Federal agencies to 

examine closely the impacts of 

regulatory actions on State, local, and 

Tribal governments. Subsection 101(5) 

of title I of that law defines a Federal 

intergovernmental mandate to include 

any regulation that would impose upon 

State, local, or Tribal governments an 

enforceable duty, except a condition of 

Federal assistance or a duty arising from 

participating in a voluntary Federal 

program. Title II of UMRA requires each 

Federal agency to assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. For proposed regulatory 

actions likely to result in a rule that may 

cause expenditures by State, local, and 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more (adjusted annually for inflation), 

section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal 

agency to publish estimates of the 

resulting costs, benefits, and other 

effects on the national economy. Section 

204 of 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.’’ 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. Today’s final 

rule would establish new test 

procedures that would be used in 

measuring the energy efficiency of small 

electric motors. Today’s rule contains 

neither an intergovernmental mandate, 

nor a mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any year. 

Accordingly, no assessment or analysis 

is required under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 

H. 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 rule would not have any impact 

on the autonomy or integrity of the 

family as an institution. Accordingly, 

DOE has concluded that it is 

unnecessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this rule 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 2001 

The Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

(Pub. L. 106–554, codified at 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 notice under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any proposed 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgated or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that (1) is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, or any successor order; and (2) 

is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy; or (3) is designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action. For any proposed 

significant energy action, the agency 

must give a detailed statement of any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use should the proposal 

be implemented, and of reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Today’s regulatory 

action is not a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866 or 

any successor order; would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy; and has 

not been designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, this rule is not 

a significant energy action. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects. 

L. Section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91), DOE must comply with all laws 

applicable to the former Federal Energy 

Administration, including section 32 of 

the Federal Energy Administration Act 

of 1974 (Pub. L. 93–275), as amended by 

the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95– 

70). (15 U.S.C. 788) Section 32 provides 

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. Section 

32072 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

32(c) also requires DOE to consult with 

the Department of Justice and the 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

concerning the impact of commercial or 

industry standards on competition. 

Certain of the amendments and 

revisions in this final rule incorporate 

testing methods contained in the 

following commercial standards: (1) 

IEEE Std 114, ‘‘IEEE Standard Test 

Procedure for Single-Phase Induction 

Motors’’; (2) IEEE Std 112, ‘‘IEEE 

Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase 

Induction Motors and Generators’’; and 

CAN/CSA C747, ‘‘Energy Efficiency Test 

Methods for Single- and Three-Phase 

Small Motors.’’ As stated in the 

December 22, 2008 NOPR, DOE has 

evaluated these 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). 73 

FR 48054, 48079. DOE has consulted 

with the Attorney General and the 

Chairman of the FTC concerning the 

impact on competition of requiring 

manufacturers to use the test methods 

contained in these standards, and 

neither recommended against 

incorporation by reference of these 

standards. 

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. 801(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 practice and 

procedure, Commercial and industrial 

equipment, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 29, 

2009. 

Steven G. Chalk, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

part 431 of chapter II of title 10, Code 

of Federal Regulations, is amended 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. Add a new subpart X to part 431 

to read as follows: 

Subpart X—Small Electric Motors 

Sec. 

431.441 Purpose and scope. 

431.442 Definitions. 

Test Procedures 

431.443 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

431.444 Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy efficiency. 

431.445 Determination of small electric 

motor energy efficiency. 

Energy Conservation Standards 

431.446 Small electric motors energy 

conservation standards and their 

effective dates. 

§ 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. 

§ 431.442 Definitions. 

The following definitions are 

applicable to this subpart: 

Alternative efficiency determination 

method, or AEDM, means, with respect 

to a small electric motor, a method of 

calculating the total power loss and 

average full-load efficiency. 

Average full-load efficiency means the 

arithmetic mean of the full-load 

efficiencies of a population of small 

electric motors of duplicate design, 

where the full-load efficiency of each 

motor in the population is the ratio 

(expressed as a percentage) of the 

motor’s useful power output to its total 

power input when the motor is operated 

at its full rated load, rated voltage, and 

rated frequency. 

Basic model means, with respect to a 

small electric motor, all units of a given 

type of small electric motor (or class 

thereof) manufactured by a single 

manufacturer, and which have the same 

rating, have electrical characteristics 

that are essentially identical, and do not 

have any differing physical or 

functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption or efficiency. For 

the purpose of this definition, ‘‘rating’’ 

means a combination of the small 

electric motor’s group (i.e., capacitorstart, capacitor-run; capacitor-start, 

induction-run; or polyphase), 

horsepower rating (or standard kilowatt 

equivalent), and number of poles with 

respect to which § 431.446 prescribes 

nominal full load efficiency standards. 

CAN/CSA means Canadian Standards 

Association. 

DOE or the Department means the 

U.S. Department of Energy. 

EPCA means the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

IEC means International 

Electrotechnical Commission. 

IEEE means Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers, Inc. 

NEMA means National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association. 

Small electric motor means a NEMA 

general purpose alternating current 

single-speed induction motor, built in a 

two-digit frame number series in 

accordance with NEMA Standards 

Publication MG1–1987, including IEC 

metric equivalent motors. 

Test Procedures 

§ 431.443 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) General. The Department 

incorporates by reference the following 

standards into Subpart X of part 431. 

The Director of the Federal Register has 

approved the material listed in 

paragraph (b) of this section 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 the DOE test procedures unless 

and until the DOE amends its test 

procedures. DOE incorporates the 

material 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 

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. Also, 

this material is available for inspection 

at 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/. 

Standards can be obtained from the 

sources below. 

(b) CAN/CSA. Canadian Standards 

Association, Sales Department, 5060 

Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga, 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 32073 

Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1–800–463– 

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

onlinestore/welcome.asp. 

(1) CAN/CSA–C747–94 (‘‘CAN/CSA– 

C747’’) (Reaffirmed 2005), Energy 

Efficiency Test Methods for Single- and 

Three-Phase Small Motors, IBR 

approved for § 431.444. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(c) 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 

go to http://www.ieee.org/web/

publications/home/index.html. 

(1) IEEE Std 112TM–2004 (Revision of 

IEEE Std 112–1996) (‘‘IEEE Std 112’’), 

IEEE Standard Test Procedure for 

Polyphase Induction Motors and 

Generators, approved February 9, 2004, 

IBR approved for § 431.444. 

(2) IEEE Std 114–2001TM (Revision of 

IEEE Std 114–1982) (‘‘IEEE Std 114’’), 

IEEE Standard Test Procedure for 

Single-Phase Induction Motors, 

approved December 6, 2001, IBR 

approved for § 431.444. 

§ 431.444 Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy efficiency. 

(a) Scope. Pursuant to section 

346(b)(1) of EPCA, this section provides 

the test procedures for measuring, 

pursuant to EPCA, the efficiency of 

small electric motors pursuant to EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)) For purposes of 

this Part 431 and EPCA, the test 

procedures for measuring the efficiency 

of small electric motors shall be the test 

procedures specified in § 431.444(b). 

(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, (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.443), or CAN/CSA 

C747, (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.443); 

(2) Polyphase small electric motors 

less than or equal to 1 horsepower 

(0.746 kW): IEEE Std 112 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.443), Test 

Method A; or 

(3) Polyphase small electric motors 

greater than 1 horsepower (0.746 kW): 

IEEE Std 112 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 431.443), Test Method B. 

§ 431.445 Determination of small electric 

motor efficiency. 

(a) Scope. When a party determines 

the energy efficiency of a small electric 

motor to comply with an obligation 

imposed on it by or pursuant to Part A– 

1 of Title III of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311– 

6317, this section applies. 

(b) Provisions applicable to all small 

electric motors—(1) General 

requirements. The average full-load 

efficiency of each basic model of small 

electric motor must be determined 

either by testing in accordance with 

§ 431.444 of this subpart, or by 

application of an alternative efficiency 

determination method (AEDM) that 

meets the requirements of paragraphs 

(a)(2) and (3) of this section, provided, 

however, that an AEDM may be used to 

determine the average full-load 

efficiency of one or more of a 

manufacturer’s basic models only if the 

average full-load efficiency of at least 

five of its other basic models is 

determined through testing. 

(2) Alternative efficiency 

determination method. An AEDM 

applied to a basic model must be: 

(i) Derived from a mathematical 

model that represents the mechanical 

and electrical characteristics of that 

basic model, and 

(ii) Based on engineering or statistical 

analysis, computer simulation or 

modeling, or other analytic evaluation 

of performance data. 

(3) Substantiation of an alternative 

efficiency determination method. Before 

an AEDM is used, its accuracy and 

reliability must be substantiated as 

follows: 

(i) The AEDM must be applied to at 

least five basic models that have been 

tested in accordance with § 431.444; and 

(ii) The predicted total power loss for 

each such basic model, calculated by 

applying the AEDM, must be within 

plus or minus 10 percent of the mean 

total power loss determined from the 

testing of that basic model. 

(4) Subsequent verification of an 

AEDM. (i) Each manufacturer that has 

used an AEDM under this section shall 

have available for inspection by the 

Department of Energy records showing 

the method or methods used; the 

mathematical model, the engineering or 

statistical analysis, computer simulation 

or modeling, and other analytic 

evaluation of performance data on 

which the AEDM is based; complete test 

data, product information, and related 

information that the manufacturer has 

generated or acquired pursuant to 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and the 

calculations used to determine the 

efficiency and total power losses of each 

basic model to which the AEDM was 

applied. 

(ii) If requested by the Department, 

the manufacturer shall conduct 

simulations to predict the performance 

of particular basic models of small 

electric motors specified by the 

Department, analyses of previous 

simulations conducted by the 

manufacturer, sample testing of basic 

models selected by the Department, or 

a combination of the foregoing. 

(c) Additional testing requirements— 

(1) Selection of basic models for testing 

if an AEDM is to be applied. 

(i) A manufacturer must select basic 

models for testing in accordance with 

the criteria that follow: 

(A) Two of the basic models must be 

among the five basic models with the 

highest unit volumes of production by 

the manufacturer in the prior year, or 

during the prior 12-month period before 

the effective date of the energy 

efficiency standard, whichever is later, 

and in identifying these five basic 

models, any small electric motor that 

does not comply with § 431.446 shall be 

excluded from consideration; 

(B) The basic models should be of 

different horsepower ratings without 

duplication; 

(C) At least one basic model should be 

selected from each of the frame number 

series for the designs of small electric 

motors for which the AEDM is to be 

used; and 

(D) Each basic model should have the 

lowest nominal 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) If 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) [RESERVED] 

Energy Conservation Standards 

§ 431.446 Small electric motors energy 

conservation standards and their effective 

dates. 

[Reserved] 

[FR Doc. E9–15795 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0042; Airspace 

Docket No. 09–ANM–1] 

Modification of Class E Airspace; 

Montrose, CO 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action will modify Class 

E airspace at Montrose Regional Airport,