[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 7, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32059-32073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15795]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#367c5f5b18645754577653531852595318515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="29634044077b484b48694c4c074d464c074e465f">[email protected]</span></a>. 
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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#15587c767d7470793b5e7c717a557d643b717a703b727a63"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="135e7a707b72767f3d587a777c537b623d777c763d747c65">[email protected]</span></a>.

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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> CAN/CSA-C747-94 (Reaffirmed 2005), (``CAN/CSA-C747''), 
Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Single- and Three-Phase Small 
Motors.
    <bullet> IEEE Std 114-2001<SUP>TM</SUP> (Revision of IEEE Std 114-
1982<SUP>TM</SUP>), (``IEEE Std 114''), ``IEEE Standard Test Procedure 
for Single-Phase Induction Motors,'' approved December 6, 2001.
    <bullet> IEEE Std 112<SUP>TM</SUP>-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

[[Page 32060]]

    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))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A 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 one-third of their period, or 120 degrees. See 73 FR 78221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The IEEE Standards addressed in this notice are generally 
listed chronologically by their last date of revision and adoption 
rather than their sequential number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 32061]]

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 single-phase 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NEMA-equivalent 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 general-
purpose 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). NEEA\7\ noted that the test 
procedures and any energy conservation standards for small electric

[[Page 32062]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 IEC-equivalent 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 IEC-equivalent 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

[[Page 32063]]

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 A\8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Insulation systems are rated by standard NEMA 
classifications according to maximum allowable operating 
temperatures, which are: Class A--105 [deg]C (221 [deg]F); Class B--
130 [deg]C (266 [deg]F); Class F--155 [deg]C (311 [deg]F); and Class 
H--180 [deg]C (356 [deg]F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As 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.

    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

[[Page 32064]]

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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 well-established 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/small_electric_motors_nopr_pub_mtg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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, capacitor-run; 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

[[Page 32066]]

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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ CAN/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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 input-output 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 (T-frame) ``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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Section 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).

[[Page 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 two-digit 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-

[[Page 32068]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Further, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 32069]]

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 full-load 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Average 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.
    \18\ Nominal 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is concerned about the actual measured energy efficiency and 
AEDM-modeled 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 IEC-equivalent 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.

[[Page 32070]]

    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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Although 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE intends to address this issue specifically in a separate 
rulemaking.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 record-
keeping 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 32072]]

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.

0
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

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

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

0
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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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., capacitor-start, capacitor-run; capacitor-start, 
induction-run; or polyphase), horsepower rating (or standard kilowatt 
equivalent), and number of poles with respect to which Sec.  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


Sec.  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,

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 112<SUP>TM</SUP>-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 Sec.  431.444.
    (2) IEEE Std 114-2001<SUP>TM</SUP> (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 Sec.  
431.444.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  431.443), or CAN/CSA C747, 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.443);
    (2) Polyphase small electric motors less than or equal to 1 
horsepower (0.746 kW): IEEE Std 112 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
431.443), Test Method B.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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


Sec.  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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>