[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26607-26640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10434]



[[Page 26607]]

Vol. 77

Friday,

No. 87

May 4, 2012

Part II





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Part 431





Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors and 
Small Electric Motors; Final Rules

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

[[Page 26608]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-TP-0008]
RIN 1904-AC05


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors 
and Small Electric Motors

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On January 5, 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued 
a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the test 
procedures for electric motors and small electric motors. That 
supplemental proposal, along with an earlier proposal from December 22, 
2008, form the basis for today's action to amend the current test 
procedures used to measure the energy efficiency of electric and small 
electric motors. These changes will be mandatory to demonstrate 
compliance with the current energy efficiency standards starting 180 
days after publication. The final rule clarifies the scope of 
regulatory coverage for electric motors and ensures the accurate and 
consistent measurement of electric motor and small electric motor 
energy efficiency through changes to the current test procedures. These 
changes also clarify certain regulatory terms and language related to 
electric motors and small electric motors, clarify the scope of energy 
conservation standards for electric motors, update references to 
several industry and testing standards for electric motors, incorporate 
by reference and update alternative test methods that manufacturers may 
use when certifying polyphase and single-phase small electric motors as 
compliant, and specify the determination of efficiency requirements for 
small electric motors.

DATES: Effective date: June 4, 2012.
    Compliance dates: The final rule changes will be required for 
equipment testing starting October 31, 2012. Representations either in 
writing or in any broadcast advertisement respecting energy consumption 
must also be made using the revised DOE test procedure starting on 
October 31, 2012. DOE is also establishing a compliance date for energy 
conservation standards for IEC 100 mm frame series electric motors (as 
well as motors built in a frame that is not necessarily a NEMA-
equivalent but otherwise covered under EISA 2007) that is June 4, 2015. 
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the 
rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on June 4, 
2012.

ADDRESSES: The docket is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, framework 
documents, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and 
other supporting documents/materials. Link to the docket by entering 
EERE-2008-BT-TP-0008 in the ``Search ID'' window. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However, not 
all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    A link to the docket web page can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/small_electric_motors.html for small electric motors and http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/electric_motors.html for electric motors. This web page will contain a 
link to the docket for this notice on the regulations.gov site.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. 
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8654. Email: Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov.
    For legal issues, Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121, Telephone: (202) 586-8145, Email: 
Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov or Ms. Ami Grace-Tardy, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, Telephone: (202) 586-5709, Email: 
Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference 
the following standards into part 431:

    (1) CSA C390-10, Test methods, marking requirements, and energy 
efficiency levels for three-phase induction motors, March 2010.
    (2) CSA C747-09, Energy efficiency test methods for small 
motors, October 2009.
    (3) IEC Standard 60034-1, Rotating Electrical Machines, Part 1: 
Rating and Performance, Section 4: Duty, clause 4.2.1 and Figure 1, 
February 2010.
    (4) IEC Standard 60034-12, Rotating Electrical Machines, Part 
12: Starting Performance of Single-Speed Three-Phase Cage Induction 
Motors, clauses 5.2, 5.4, 6, and 8, and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 
7, September 2007.
    (5) The following provisions of IEEE Standard 112-2004, Test 
Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators, approved 
February 9, 2004:
    (i) Section 6.3, Efficiency Test Method A, Input-Output; and
    (ii) Section 6.4, Efficiency Test Method B, Input-Output with 
Loss Segregation.
    (6) IEEE Standard 114-2010, Test Procedure for Single-Phase 
Induction Motors, approved September 30, 2010.
    (7) The following provisions of NEMA Standards Publication MG1-
2009, Motors and Generators, 2009:
    (i) Section I, General Standards Applying to All Machines, Part 
1, Referenced Standards and Definitions, paragraphs 1.18.1, 
1.18.1.1, 1.19.1.1, 1.19.1.2, 1.19.1.3, and 1.40.1;
    (ii) Section I, General Standards Applying to All Machines, Part 
4, Dimensions, Tolerances, and Mounting, paragraphs 4.1, 4.2.1, 
4.2.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, and 4.4.6, Figures 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 
4-4, and 4-5, and Table 4-2;
    (iii) Section II, Small (Fractional) and Medium (Integral) 
Machines, Part 12, Tests and Performance--AC and DC Motors, 
paragraphs 12.35.1, 12.38.1, 12.38.2, 12.39.1, 12.39.2, and 12.40.1, 
12.40.2, 12.58.1, and Tables 12-2, 12-3, and 12-10; and
    (iv) Section II, Small (Fractional) and Medium (Integral) 
Machines, Part 14, Application Data--AC and DC Small and Medium 
Machines, paragraphs 14.2 and 14.3.
    (8) The following provisions of NEMA Standards Publication MG1-
1967, Motors and Generators, January 1968:
    (i) Part 11, Dimensions; and
    (ii) Part 13, Frame Assignments--A-C Integral-Horsepower Motors.
    (9) NFPA Standard 20-2010, Standard for the Installation of 
Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection, section 9.5, approved August 
26, 2009.

    Copies of the CSA standards are available from the Canadian 
Standards Association, Sales Department, 5060 Spectrum Way, Suite 100, 
Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1-800-463-6727, or go to http://www.shopcsa.ca/onlinestore/welcome.asp.
    Copies of the IEC standards are available from the International 
Electrotechnical Commission Central Office, 3, rue de Varemb[eacute], 
P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 GENEVA 20, Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 11, or go 
to http://webstore.iec.ch.
    Copies of the IEEE standards are available from the Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 
1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, 1-800-678-IEEE (4333), or http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/home/index.html.
    Copies of the NEMA standard are available from the National 
Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 North

[[Page 26609]]

17th Street, Suite 1752, Rosslyn, Virginia 22209, 703-841-3200, or go 
to http://www.nema.org/.
    Copies of the NFPA standard are available from the National Fire 
Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, 
617-770-3000, or go to http://nfpa.org/.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    1. Electric Motors
    2. Small Electric Motors
    3. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Definition of Electric Motor
    B. Definition of General Purpose Electric Motors Subtypes I and 
II
    C. Definition of General Purpose Electric Motor
    D. Definition of NEMA Design B Motors
    E. Fire Pump Motors Definition
    F. Fire Pump Motor Coverage
    G. Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors
    H. International Electrotechnical Commission Standards 
Incorporated by Reference
    I. References to Various Industry Standards
    J. National Institute of Standards and Technology/National 
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program Handbook 150-10 Update 
and Checklist
    K. Appendix A to Subpart B of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, Part 431
    L. Definition of Small Electric Motor
    M. Canadian Standards Association Test Procedures for Small 
Electric Motors
    N. Small Electric Motor Represented Efficiency Value
    O. Validation of the Small Electric Motor Alternative Efficiency 
Determination Method
    P. Small Electric Motor Nationally Recognized Certification and 
Testing Laboratory Accreditation Programs
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Congressional Notification
    N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'' or, ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve appliance and commercial equipment 
energy efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer to the statute as 
amended through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 
2007), Public Law 110-140 (December 19, 2007)). Part C of Title III (42 
U.S.C. 6311-6317), which was subsequently redesignated as Part A-1 for 
editorial reasons, establishes an energy conservation program for 
certain industrial equipment, which includes electric motors and small 
electric motors, the subject of today's notice. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A), 
6313(b))
    Under EPCA, this program consists essentially of three parts: (1) 
Testing, (2) labeling, and (3) Federal energy conservation standards 
(referred to herein as ``energy conservation standards,'' ``energy 
efficiency levels,'' or ``energy efficiency standards''). The testing 
requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered 
products or equipment must use as the basis for certifying to DOE that 
their products or equipment comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and for making 
representations about the efficiency of those products or equipment. 
Similarly, DOE must use these test requirements to determine whether 
the products or equipment comply with any relevant standards 
promulgated under EPCA.
    In the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992), Public Law 102-486 
(October 24, 1992), Congress amended EPCA to establish: (1) Energy 
conservation standards, (2) test procedures, (3) compliance 
certification, and (4) labeling requirements for certain electric 
motors.\1\ In addition, EPACT 1992 directed the Secretary of Energy to 
determine whether energy conservation standards for small electric 
motors would be technologically feasible and economically justified, 
and would result in significant energy savings.\2\ On October 5, 1999, 
DOE issued a final rule setting forth procedures to determine the 
energy efficiency of electric motors. 64 FR 54114. After determining 
that energy conservation standards for small electric motors would be 
technologically feasible and economically justified, see 71 FR 38799 
(July 10, 2006), DOE initiated a rulemaking to begin the development of 
standards for small electric motors.\3\ Related to these efforts was 
DOE's publication of a final rule prescribing test procedures for small 
electric motors. 74 FR 32059 (July 7, 2009). That rule followed from an 
earlier December 2008 proposal to amend test procedures for electric 
and small electric motors. See 73 FR 78220 (December 22, 2008). DOE 
finalized key provisions related to small electric motor testing in the 
July 2009 final rule, but opted to solicit further comment on certain 
issues from the December 2008 proposal. To this end, DOE issued a 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, which also raised other 
related issues. 76 FR 648 (January 5, 2011) Today's final rule 
addresses these remaining issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPCA, as amended by EPACT 1992, had previously defined an 
``electric motor'' as any motor which is a general purpose T-frame, 
single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction motor 
of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Design A and 
B, continuous rated, operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60 
Hertz line power as defined in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987. 
(42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (1992)) Through subsequent amendments to 
EPCA, Congress removed this definition and replaced it with the 
heading ``Electric motors'' and added language denoting two new 
subtypes of electric motors: general purpose electric motor (subtype 
I) and general purpose electric motor (subtype II). (See 42 U.S.C. 
6311(13)(A)-(B) (2010))
    \2\ EPCA, as amended by EPACT 1992, defines the term ``small 
electric motor'' to mean a NEMA general purpose alternating current 
single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number 
series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987. (42 
U.S.C. 6311(13)(G))
    \3\ A single-phase small electric motor is a rotating electrical 
machine that operates on single-phase electrical power, which refers 
to a single alternating voltage sinusoidal waveform. Similarly, a 
polyphase small electric motor is a rotating electrical machine that 
operates on three-phase electrical power, which refers to the 
sinusoidal waveforms of three supply conductors that are offset from 
one another by 120 degrees. Small electric motors are generally used 
as components to drive commercial and industrial pumps, fans, 
conveyors, and other equipment that require low power. 73 FR 78220, 
78221 n.2 (December 22, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Electric Motors

    EPCA, through EPACT 1992, initially required that DOE adopt the 
then-current test procedures prescribed by the National Electrical 
Manufacturers Association (NEMA) in its MG1-1987 publication and those 
procedures contained in IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) when 
determining an electric motor's efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A)) 
MG1 is a voluntary industry standards publication produced by NEMA that 
facilitates communication between manufacturers and users about the 
selection and application of electric motors and generators. MG1 
provides practical information to electric motor manufacturers and 
users concerning the construction, testing, performance, and safety of 
alternating current (AC) and direct current (DC) motors and generators. 
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) is an industry-accepted test method 
that outlines the methods and

[[Page 26610]]

calculations that manufacturers should use to determine their electric 
motors' full-load efficiencies. EPCA required DOE to conform its 
procedures to any amendments to these protocols unless the Secretary 
determines, by rule, that the amended procedures are not reasonably 
designed to produce results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, 
and estimated operating costs, and would be unduly burdensome to 
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B)) Consistent with this requirement, 
DOE has amended its regulations to incorporate more recent versions of 
these procedures.
    In addition, DOE incorporated Canadian Standards Association (CSA) 
C390-93, ``Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction 
Motors'' into the October 5, 1999, final rule as a widely recognized 
alternative that is consistent with IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B). 
64 FR 54114 (October 5, 1999).\4\ In light of changes to the CSA test 
procedure, DOE reexamined and updated its test procedures consistent 
with its practice of ensuring that the latest industry practices (and 
related equivalent procedures) are incorporated into DOE's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See also MG1-1993 with Revision 1, section MG1-12.58.1, 
which states: ``Efficiency and losses shall be determined in 
accordance with IEEE Std 112 or Canadian Standards Association 
Standard C390.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The testing protocols considered by DOE have all been updated--MG1 
on April 9, 2010, IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) on February 9, 
2004, and CSA C390 on March 22, 2010 (``Test methods, marking 
requirements, and energy efficiency levels for three-phase induction 
motors''). Consistent with its obligations under EPCA, DOE had proposed 
to incorporate the most current versions of the IEEE and NEMA protocols 
into its regulations. 73 FR 78220 (December 22, 2008).

2. Small Electric Motors

    Among its many requirements, EPCA requires DOE to prescribe test 
procedures for those small electric motors for which the Secretary of 
Energy makes a positive determination that energy conservation 
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, 
and would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)) 
Consistent with this requirement, DOE indicated it would initiate the 
development of test procedures for certain small electric motors. 71 FR 
38807 (July 10, 2006).
    DOE proposed possible test methods for measuring the energy 
efficiency of both small electric motors and electric motors in the 
December 2008 notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR). 73 FR 78220. For 
small electric motors, DOE proposed to base its test procedure on IEEE 
Standard 114-2001, ``Test Procedure for Single-Phase Induction 
Motors,'' IEEE Standard 112-2004, ``Test Procedure for Polyphase 
Induction Motors and Generators,'' and CSA C747-94, ``Energy Efficiency 
Test Methods for Single- and Three-Phase Small Motors.'' \5\ DOE 
proposed these three procedures based in part on their wide use and 
acceptance by small electric motor manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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 July 7, 2009, DOE published a final rule adopting test 
procedures for measuring the energy efficiency of small electric 
motors. 74 FR 32059. However, certain subsidiary issues raised in 
response to the December 2008 NOPR required additional consideration by 
DOE. These issues are addressed in today's final rule.

3. Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In January 2011, DOE published a supplemental notice of proposed 
rulemaking (SNOPR) that attempted to address a variety of issues 
related to the test procedures for electric motors and small electric 
motors. 76 FR 648. Among these issues included those items that 
remained unresolved from the July 2009 test procedure final rule, along 
with other issues raised in the interim since that rule's publication.
    For electric motors, the SNOPR proposed to clarify certain terms 
and language in the DOE regulations. Specifically, DOE proposed to 
revise the definitions of certain terms related to electric motors, 
clarify the scope of energy conservation standards for electric motors, 
and update references to several industry and testing standards for 
electric motors. These proposals were made in an effort to help clarify 
the scope of regulatory coverage for electric motors and ensure the 
accurate and consistent measurement of energy efficiency.
    For small electric motors, the SNOPR proposed to revise the 
definitions of certain terms, incorporate by reference and update 
alternative test methods for polyphase and single-phase small electric 
motors, and specify the determination of efficiency requirements. As 
with electric motors, DOE made these proposals to ensure the accurate 
and consistent measurement of energy efficiency.
    For both motor types, the January 2011 SNOPR invited comments on 
the issues presented and requested comments, data, and other 
information that would enable DOE to promulgate a final rule. In 
response, DOE received comments addressing its supplemental notice. 
Today's notice addresses these issues.

4. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

    EPCA, through 42 U.S.C. 6314, sets forth the criteria and 
procedures DOE must generally follow when prescribing or amending test 
procedures for commercial or industrial equipment. That provision 
generally requires that a test procedure that is either prescribed or 
amended shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which 
measure energy efficiency, energy use, and the estimated annual 
operating cost of a type of covered equipment during a representative 
average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) In instances 
where the test procedure is one that determines annual operating costs, 
the costs must be calculated from energy use measurements taken during 
a representative average use cycle and from the average unit costs of 
the energy needed to operate such equipment. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(3))
    When amending a test procedure, DOE must determine the extent to 
which a proposed procedure will alter the measured energy efficiency of 
a given type of covered equipment when compared to the current 
procedure. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(C) (incorporating the procedural 
steps of 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) for electric motors)) As described later in 
this notice, DOE compared IEEE Standard 112-1996 (Test Method B) and 
CSA C390-93 with IEEE Standard 112-2004 (Test Method B) and CSA C390-
10, respectively, and determined that there were no substantive 
differences that would alter the measured efficiency of the covered 
motors.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

    Today's final rule, which is based on feedback received in response 
to the December 2008 and January 2011 notices, amends the current DOE 
test procedures and definitions for electric motors and small electric 
motors. These changes will not affect the measured efficiency of this 
equipment. Instead, these changes will primarily clarify certain terms, 
language and the scope of energy conservation standards for electric 
motors. They will also minimize any potential ambiguity contained in 
the test procedures for electric motors and small electric motors.

[[Page 26611]]

Electric Motors
    Today's rule makes four changes with respect to electric motors. 
First, it clarifies the definitions for ``electric motor,'' ``fire pump 
motor,'' ``general purpose electric motor (subtype I),'' ``general 
purpose electric motor (subtype II),'' and ``NEMA Design B motor.'' 
Each of these terms was either added or modified by EISA 2007. 
Additionally, the rule clarifies that the term ``general purpose 
electric motor'' denotes a ``general purpose motor'' to ensure the use 
of consistent terminology in DOE's regulations. These revisions, in 
addition to addressing the specific comments raised by interested 
parties, will help ensure that the test procedures are applied 
appropriately.
    Second, today's final rule clarifies the scope of existing energy 
conservation standards for electric motors (10 CFR 431.25).
    Third, the rule updates the references to (1) NIST Handbook 150-10, 
``Efficiency of Electric Motors,'' and the associated NIST Handbook 
150-10 checklist, (2) IEC standards documents, (3) CSA C390, (4) CSA 
C747, (5) NEMA MG1, and (6) IEEE Standard 112 throughout subpart B of 
10 CFR part 431.
    Finally, today's rule removes the guidance from appendix A to 
subpart B, of 10 CFR part 431. That guidance, which will be updated to 
maintain consistency with the more recent amendments made by EISA 2007, 
will be posted on DOE's Web site as a vehicle for DOE to periodically 
update its interpretive guidance with respect to the treatment of 
certain aspects related to electric motors. Separating this guidance 
and placing it on the agency's public Web site will enable DOE to 
periodically update this guidance more expeditiously in response to 
public feedback and changing conditions in the industry. The updates 
may also serve as the basis for future rulemaking amendments as 
required.
Small Electric Motors
    Today's final rule addresses two related matters that clarify the 
codified definition of ``small electric motor'' and should alleviate 
any potential undue testing burden related to small electric motors. 
These changes will help clarify aspects of the July 2009 final rule for 
small electric motors.
    First, the rule clarifies the terms ``represented efficiency 
value'' and ``average full-load efficiency'' for small electric motors.
    Second, the rule adds CSA C747-09 and CSA C390-10 as alternative 
test procedures that manufacturers may use for measuring the energy 
efficiency of polyphase small electric motors. After receiving comments 
and data from multiple interested parties, DOE found that both test 
methods are equivalent to IEEE Standard 112 Test Methods A and B, 
respectively, which were adopted in the July 2009 final rule. DOE is 
also updating its current CSA C747 references to account for the latest 
version of that protocol.
    Finally, although DOE had contemplated in the SNOPR providing a 
method to validate an alternative efficiency determination method 
(AEDM) for small electric motors, including the statistical 
requirements needed to substantiate the AEDM, it has elected to address 
these requirements in a separate rulemaking currently under 
development. To this end, DOE has initiated a separate rulemaking 
effort to address the AEDM requirements for all products and equipment 
for which DOE has test procedures, including motors.
    The revisions are summarized in the table below and addressed in 
detail in the following section. Note that all citations to 10 CFR part 
431 in today's notice refer to the current version of 10 CFR part 431. 
The corresponding revisions to the regulatory text follow the preamble 
to this final rule.

    Table II.1--Summary of Changes Promulgated in This Final Rule and
                  Affected Sections of 10 CFR Part 431
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Section in 10 CFR Part 431            Summary of modifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 431.11 of Subpart B--Purpose      Clarifies that subpart
 and Scope.                               B is applicable to ``electric
                                          motors,'' but not ``small
                                          electric motors.''
Section 431.12 of Subpart B--             Revises the
 Definitions.                             definitions of
                                          ``accreditation,'' ``definite
                                          purpose motor,'' ``general
                                          purpose electric motor
                                          (subtype I),'' ``general
                                          purpose electric motor
                                          (subtype II),'' and ``nominal
                                          full-load efficiency.''
                                          Adds new definitions
                                          for ``electric motor,'' ``fire
                                          pump motor,'' ``general
                                          purpose electric motor,'' and
                                          ``NEMA Design B motor.''
                                          Removes definition of
                                          ``general purpose motor.''
Section 431.14 of Subpart B--Sources      Moves the list of
 for information and guidance.            references from 431.15 into a
                                          new section.
Section 431.15 of Subpart B--Materials    Updates reference to
 incorporated by reference.               CSA-C390.
                                          Updates references to
                                          IEC standards.
                                          Updates reference to
                                          IEEE Standard 112.
                                          Updates reference to
                                          NEMA MG1.
Section 431.18 of Subpart B--Testing      Updates reference to
 Laboratories.                            NIST Handbook 150-10.
Section 431.19 of Subpart B--Department   Updates references to
 of Energy recognition of accreditation   IEEE Standard 112 and CSA
 bodies.                                  C390.
Section 431.20 of Subpart B--Department   Updates references to
 of Energy recognition of nationally      IEEE Standard 112 and CSA C390
 recognized certification programs.       for electric motors.
Section 431.25 of Subpart B--Energy       Removes the existing
 conservation standards and effective     431.25(a).
 dates.                                   Clarifies the scope of
                                          efficiency standards in
                                          431.25(a) through (d).
                                          Inserts kilowatt
                                          equivalent power ratings in
                                          the efficiency standard
                                          tables.
Section 431.31 of Subpart B--Labeling     Updates reference to
 Requirements.                            NEMA MG1.
Appendix A to Subpart B--Policy           Removes appendix A to
 Statement for Electric Motors Covered    subpart B; guidance will be
 Under the Energy Policy and              posted on the DOE Appliance
 Conservation Act.                        Standards Program website.
Appendix B to Subpart B--Uniform Test     Updates references to
 Method for Measuring Nominal Full-Load   NEMA MG1, IEEE Standard 112,
 Efficiency of Electric Motors.           and CSA C390.
Section 431.441 of Subpart X--Purpose     Clarifies that subpart
 and Scope.                               X is applicable to ``small
                                          electric motors,'' but not
                                          ``electric motors.''
Section 431.443 of Subpart X--Materials   Updates reference to
 incorporated by reference.               CSA C747.
                                          Adds reference to CSA
                                          C390.
                                          Updates references to
                                          IEEE Standard 112 and 114.

[[Page 26612]]

 
Section 431.444 of Subpart X--Test        Updates reference to
 procedures for measurement of energy     CSA C747.
 efficiency.                              Adds reference to CSA
                                          C390.
                                          Updates reference to
                                          IEEE Standard 114.
Section 431.445 of Subpart X--            Adds additional
 Determination of small electric motor    guidelines on use of a
 efficiency.                              certification program and
                                          references section 431.447 for
                                          small electric motors.
                                          Clarifies the term
                                          ``represented average full-
                                          load efficiency'' and renames
                                          as ``required average full-
                                          load efficiency''.
Section 431.447 of Subpart X--            Adds a section on
 Department of Energy recognition of      nationally recognized
 nationally recognized certification      certification programs for
 programs.                                small electric motors similar
                                          to section 431.20 for electric
                                          motors.
Section 431.448 of Subpart X--            Adds a section on
 Procedures for recognition and           procedures for recognition of
 withdrawal of recognition of             certification programs for
 certification programs.                  small electric motors similar
                                          to section 431.21 for electric
                                          motors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted earlier, DOE developed today's rule after considering 
input, including written comments, from a variety of interested parties 
that represent a variety of interests. All commenters, their 
corresponding abbreviations and type are listed in Table II.2 below. 
The issues raised by these commenters are addressed in the various 
discussions that follow.

                                     Table II.2--Summary of SNOPR Commenters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Company                                  Abbreviation                    Interested party type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baldor Electric Co.....................  Baldor......................................  Manufacturer.
WEG Electric...........................  WEG.........................................  Manufacturer.
Advanced Energy........................  Advanced Energy.............................  Independent Test
                                                                                        Laboratory.
National Electrical Manufacturers        NEMA........................................  Trade Association.
 Association.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance...  NEEA........................................  Efficiency/Environmental
                                                                                        Advocate.
Grundfos Pumps Co......................  Grundfos....................................  Manufacturer.
Habasit America, Rossi Gearmotor         Rossi.......................................  Manufacturer.
 Division.
GEA Mechanical Eq. US, Inc.............  GEA.........................................  Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance,    NEEA, et al.................................  Efficiency/Environmental
 Appliance Standards Awareness Project,                                                 Advocate Group.
 American Council for an Energy
 Efficient Economy, Earthjustice,
 Natural Resources Defense Council,
 Alliance to Save Energy.
National Electrical Manufacturers        NEMA and ACEEE..............................  Trade Groups.
 Association and the American Council
 for an Energy Efficient Economy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

A. Definition of Electric Motor

    Before the enactment of EISA 2007, EPCA defined the term ``electric 
motor'' as any motor that is a general purpose T-frame, single-speed, 
foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction motor of the National 
Electrical Manufacturers Association, Design A and B, continuous rated, 
operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60 Hertz line power as defined 
in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) 
(2006)) Section 313(a)(2) of EISA 2007 removed that definition, 
inserted a new ``Electric motors'' heading, and created two new 
subtypes of electric motors: General purpose electric motor (subtype I) 
and general purpose electric motor (subtype II). (42 U.S.C. 
6311(13)(A)-(B)(2011)) In addition, section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 
established energy conservation standards for four types of electric 
motors: general purpose electric motors (subtype I) (i.e., subtype I 
motors) with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; fire pump motors; 
general purpose electric motor (subtype II) (i.e., subtype II motors) 
with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; and NEMA Design B, general 
purpose electric motors with a power rating of more than 200 
horsepower, but less than or equal to 500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(b)(2)) These standards were set out in statutory provisions that 
referenced specific tables from the 2006 version of NEMA MG1. All of 
these standards apply to covered motors that are manufactured alone or 
as a component of another piece of equipment. The term ``electric 
motor'' (which frequently appears throughout EPCA, as amended by EISA 
2007, and various subparts of 10 CFR part 431) was left undefined. 
Consequently, DOE noted that the absence of a definition may cause 
confusion about which electric motors are required to comply with 
mandatory test procedures and energy conservation standards. 73 FR 
78225.
    In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify the EISA 2007 
term ``electric motor'' to mean any of the following four types of 
motors: a subtype I motor, a fire pump motor, a subtype II motor, or a 
NEMA Design B general purpose electric motor. 73 FR 78225 and 78235. In 
DOE's view, applying the term ``electric motor'' in this manner would 
clarify that the test procedures prescribed for electric motors would 
also apply to each of the four types of motors. 73 FR 78225. In the 
January 2011 SNOPR, DOE revisited this issue and proposed to broadly 
define ``electric motor'' to mean ``a machine which converts electrical 
power into rotational mechanical power.'' 76 FR 651.
    In a comment submitted jointly with other interested parties, the 
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) responded to the SNOPR and 
asserted that DOE could create either a broad, high-level definition of 
electric motor that is carefully broken down into various subtypes of 
electric motors, or a narrow definition exclusive to these electric 
motors that are currently subject to standards. Ultimately, NEEA agreed 
with the approach proposed by DOE to

[[Page 26613]]

broadly define an electric motor. NEEA believed that this approach 
would minimize confusion by providing stability to the ``electric 
motor'' definition. It added that DOE's proposed approach could provide 
the foundation for extending standards to other electric motors not 
currently covered by DOE regulations. Further, they noted that using a 
narrower definition would have the disadvantage of requiring DOE to 
redefine the term ``electric motor'' each time the scope of energy 
conservation standards for electric motors changes. (NEEA, et al., No. 
24 at p. 2) \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Notations of this form appear throughout this document and 
identify statements made in written comments or at public hearings 
that DOE has received and has included in the docket for this 
rulemaking. For example, ``NEEA, et al., No. 24 at p. 2'' refers to: 
(1) A comment from advocates referred to collectively as the 
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, et al.; (2) in document number 
24 in the docket of this rulemaking; and (3) appearing on page 2 of 
the submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separately, a joint comment from NEMA and ACEEE supported DOE's 
intent to modify the definition for ``electric motors'' to include a 
common definition of the term. However, NEMA and ACEEE added that the 
proposed definition was too broad, stating that such a definition would 
make all references to ``electric motor'' in subparts B and U of 10 CFR 
part 431 apply to all possible types of motors, including direct 
current, single-phase, variable speed, and multi-speed motors. In their 
view, the proposal would eliminate qualifiers that are necessary to 
narrow the definition to include only motors for which energy 
efficiency standards are prescribed. Commenters also asserted that such 
a change would alter the ``covered equipment'' provision at 10 CFR 
431.12 to include a set of motors for which no energy conservation 
standards are prescribed. NEMA and ACEEE suggested the following 
definition as an alternative for DOE to consider: ``Electric motor 
means a machine that converts electrical power into rotational 
mechanical power and is configured as a general purpose electric motor 
(subtype I) or general purpose electric motor (subtype II).''
    Further, NEMA and ACEEE recommended that if DOE believes that fire 
pump motors require a classification separate from general purpose 
electric motors (subtype I and II), then the definition should be 
changed to, ``electric motor means a machine that converts electrical 
power into rotational mechanical power and is configured as a general 
purpose electric motor (subtype I) or general purpose electric motor 
(subtype II), including, but not limited to, fire pump electric 
motors.'' (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 3 and 4)
    Although Congress retained the term ``electric motors'' as part of 
EPCA, it removed the definition that had previously been in place. In 
its place, Congress added two new electric motor subtypes--general 
purpose electric motor (subtype I) and general purpose electric motor 
(subtype II). (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)) As NEMA and ACEEE observed in 
its comments to the recent framework document for electric motors, the 
removal of this definition also removed the prior limits that narrowly 
defined what types of motors would be considered as electric motors. 
These commenters asserted that DOE already has the statutory authority 
to regulate definite and special purpose motors. (ASAP and NEMA, No. 
12.1\7\ at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This comment comes from the docket EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027 for 
electric motors standards and was jointly submitted on behalf of 
ACEEE, ASE, Advanced Energy, Earthjustice, NRDC, the Northeast 
Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and NEEA by NEMA and ASAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE believes that a definition for ``electric motor'' is necessary 
and today's rule retains the broader approach proposed in the SNOPR. 
The definition that DOE is adopting should be sufficiently broad to 
encompass all electric motor subtypes. At this time, while the 
definition covers a large set of motors, only those for which energy 
conservation standards have been set are currently regulated 
equipment--i.e., subtype I and II motors, fire pump motors that are 
subtype I or II motors, and Design B motors that are subtype I or II 
motors. This approach allows DOE to fill the definitional gap created 
by the EISA 2007 amendments while providing DOE with the flexibility to 
set energy conservation standards for other types of electric motors 
without having to continuously update the definition of ``electric 
motors'' each time DOE sets energy conservation standards for a new 
subset of electric motors. Accordingly, DOE is declining to adopt the 
approach suggested by NEMA and ACEEE.

B. Definition of General Purpose Electric Motors Subtypes I and II

    Before the enactment of EISA 2007, EPCA defined a general purpose 
electric motor (subtype I) as a motor that meets the definition of 
``general purpose'' that was in effect in DOE's regulations at the time 
of EISA 2007's enactment. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)(2006)) At that 
time, 10 CFR part 431 did not contain a definition of ``general 
purpose,'' but instead defined the term ``general purpose motor.'' That 
term was defined to refer to a motor designed in standard ratings with 
either:
    (1) Standard operating characteristics and standard mechanical 
construction for use under usual service conditions, such as those 
specified in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, paragraph 14.02, 
``Usual Service Conditions,'' and without restriction to a particular 
application or type of application; or
    (2) Standard operating characteristics or standard mechanical 
construction for use under unusual service conditions, such as those 
specified in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, paragraph 14.03, 
``Unusual Service conditions,'' or for a particular type of 
application, and which can be used in most general purpose 
applications.

See 64 FR 54142 (codified at 10 CFR 431.12).

    Consistent with the EISA 2007 amendments, DOE subsequently adopted 
this definition of ``general purpose motor'' as the definition of 
``general purpose electric motor (subtype I).'' 74 FR 12058, 12071 
(March 23, 2009) (codified at 10 CFR 431.12). DOE did not propose any 
changes to this definition in its December 2008 proposal. 73 FR 78220.
    DOE also adopted a definition for ``general purpose electric motor 
(subtype II).'' 74 FR 12071 (codified at 10 CFR 431.12). This 
definition mirrored the statute, which defined this type of motor as 
one that incorporates the design elements of a subtype I motor but is 
configured as one of the following:
    (i) A U-frame motor;
    (ii) A Design C motor;
    (iii) A close-coupled pump motor;
    (iv) A footless motor;
    (v) A vertical solid shaft normal thrust motor (as tested in a 
horizontal configuration);
    (vi) An 8-pole motor (900 rpm); or
    (vii) A polyphase motor with voltage of not more than 600 volts 
(other than 230 or 460 volts).
(See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(B))
    Responding to comments received in response to the December 2008 
NOPR, DOE proposed in the January 2011 SNOPR to clarify the definition 
for a subtype I motor. Particularly, DOE proposed adding parentheticals 
referring to either MG1 or IEC to denote those terms that were used by 
those protocols with respect to certain motors or motor 
characteristics. See 76 FR 652.
    In the regulatory text following the proposed definition, DOE added 
a note to clarify that the descriptive elements in this definition 
followed by the parenthetical ``MG1'' must be construed

[[Page 26614]]

with reference to provisions in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-2009 and 
elements followed by the parenthetical ``IEC'' must be construed with 
reference to the International Electrotechnical Commission Standards. 
The note also stated that 10 CFR part 431, subpart B applies even if 
the NEMA or IEC-equivalent frame size or design element has been 
discontinued or is discontinued in the future. 76 FR 655, 665. DOE had 
intended for the note to help ensure that manufacturers apply the 
various technical characteristics included as part of the definition in 
a consistent and appropriate manner (examples of these types of 
characteristics include performance characteristics of NEMA Design A or 
IEC Design N motors). A similar note was also proposed for inclusion to 
follow the definition of a subtype II motor.
    In distinguishing between subtype I and subtype II motors, DOE 
looks to whether the motor is configured to have one or more of the 
design or performance elements listed in the definition of subtype II 
motors at 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(B). For example, a subtype I motor could 
be built in accordance with NEMA T-frame dimensions and could have the 
performance characteristics of a NEMA Design A motor. In contrast, a 
motor built with all of these same design elements but with the 
performance characteristics of a NEMA Design C motor would be a subtype 
II motor. To clarify this interpretation of the subtype II motor 
statutory definition, DOE proposed to modify the introductory text of 
the subtype II definition to read, ``means any general purpose electric 
motor that incorporates design elements of a general purpose electric 
motor (subtype I) but, unlike a general purpose electric motor (subtype 
I), is configured in one or more of the following ways.'' A list of the 
seven different characteristics added by EISA 2007 then followed. And 
consistent with the subtype I definition, DOE proposed to add 
references to MG1 and IEC standards in the subtype II definition to 
clarify the terms ``U-frame,'' ``NEMA Design C,'' and ``vertical solid 
shaft normal thrust motor.'' 76 FR 653.
    The SNOPR also proposed to include a note as part of the 
definitions of ``general purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' and 
``general purpose electric motor (subtype II)'' to indicate that 
electric motors that are built according to IEC standards but that 
otherwise meet the proposed definition of a subtype I or II motor, 
would be considered covered motors under EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, 
even if the NEMA-equivalent frame size had already been discontinued. 
76 FR 665. DOE explained that it proposed to add this note to address 
situations such as the one presented by IEC 100 millimeter (mm) frame 
sized motors, which DOE had previously indicated were not covered in 
large part because of the limitations imposed by the prior statutory 
definition of ``electric motor.'' See 76 FR 653 (explaining DOE's 
tentative determination that IEC 100 mm frame-sized motors were not 
covered under the previous statutory definition then in place for 
electric motors). DOE understands that these motors can be used in many 
of the same applications where other covered electric motors are used, 
such as fans, pumps, conveyors, machine tools, and gear reducers.
    With respect to IEC 100 mm frame-sized motors that fall into the 
subtype I or II categories, DOE notes that under the previous statutory 
definition of ``electric motor,'' an electric motor was a motor that 
possessed certain characteristics. That statutory definition also 
referenced MG1-1987, an industry-developed guidance document. The 
inclusion of that reference to MG1-1987 suggested its significance with 
respect to whether a given motor would be considered an ``electric 
motor'' as defined under the statute. MG1-1987 omitted any 
specifications related to motors equivalent to an IEC 100 mm motor.
    Meanwhile, NEMA and electric motor manufacturers had submitted 
information to DOE indicating that a motor that was equivalent to the 
IEC 100 mm motors--the 160-series T-frame motor--had already been 
discontinued by motor manufacturers. As a result of this information, 
coupled with the fact that the relevant industry guidance (MG1-1987) 
referenced in the prior statutory definition for ``electric motor'' no 
longer included any technical specifications related to the 160-series 
T-frame motor, DOE concluded that IEC 100 mm motors were not considered 
covered ``electric motors'' for purposes of statutory coverage. 
Therefore, DOE tentatively decided not to treat IEC 100 mm frame size 
motors as covered electric motors. 61 FR 60440, 60443 (November 27, 
1996).
    Upon reconsideration and in light of the EISA 2007 amendments to 
EPCA, which eliminated the previous and more limiting ``electric 
motor'' definition, DOE proposed as part of the January SNOPR to 
include both NEMA and IEC frame size motors as covered motors, 
regardless of whether the equivalent NEMA or IEC frame size had been 
discontinued. 76 FR 653.
    NEEA viewed DOE's proposals for the definitions of ``general 
purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' and ``general purpose electric 
motor (subtype II)'' as reasonable. (NEEA, et al., No. 24 at p. 2) 
Other commenters focused on the proposed inclusion of the note to these 
definitions and made suggestions on how to characterize U-frame motors. 
NEMA and ACEEE supported DOE's proposal to include the IEC 100 mm frame 
size as covered equipment, but otherwise asserted that DOE failed to 
achieve this goal by the addition of its proposed ``note'' to the 
subtype I and II definitions. They explained that there were never 
alternating current motors in the NEMA 160T frame size and, therefore, 
no NEMA-equivalent to the IEC 100 mm frame size. For this reason, in 
their view, the added text included in the SNOPR to address the IEC 100 
mm frame motor, which generally refers to frame sizes that have already 
been discontinued, would not cover IEC 100 mm frame motors. Also, NEMA 
stated that it is unaware of any discontinued T-frame sizes and 
expressed concern about using a ``note'' in the definitions section 
because, in the motor industry, a ``note'' to a standard is not viewed 
as part of the standard itself. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 4, 5)
    As to the proposed definition for ``general purpose electric motor 
(subtype II)'' and how it relates to U-frame motors, NEMA and ACEEE 
also pointed out that the NEMA U-frame was discontinued as a standard 
frame size when the NEMA T-frame became the standard frame size. NEMA 
and ACEEE stated that despite the U-frame being directly referenced in 
the configurations for subtype II motors, the proposed note in the 
subtype I motor definition would, in their view, imply that motors 
constructed in a discontinued NEMA U-frame size would be considered a 
``general purpose electric motor (subtype I).'' (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 
at p. 6)
    Responding to these comments, DOE has modified its approach. For 
the subtype I and II definitions, DOE removed the portion of the 
proposed note regarding discontinued frame sizes. Instead, DOE is 
adding language to the subtype I and II definitions to include frame 
sizes that are between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes or their IEC 
metric equivalents. This language extends coverage to those motors 
built in accordance with an IEC 100 mm frame. DOE notes that the 
modification to the subtype I ``note'' also addresses NEMA and ACEEE's 
concerns regarding U-frame motors and the potential confusion related 
to them in the context of the subtype I definition.

[[Page 26615]]

    NEMA and ACEEE also stated that DOE's reference to MG1-2009 in the 
proposed definition of ``general purpose electric motor (subtype II)'' 
is incorrect, as dimensions for U-frame motors were not included in 
MG1-2009. Instead, they suggested that a more appropriate reference for 
DOE to use is a 1967 edition of a NEMA document entitled, ``NEMA Motor 
Standards,'' which, according to these commenters, later became known 
as a ``Condensed MG1.'' (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 6) DOE 
understands that the industry transitioned from the U-frame motor 
design to the T-frame motor design after publication of the 1967 
edition of ``NEMA Motor Standards'' and that this industry standards 
document was the last to contain dimensional specifications for U-frame 
designs. Today's final rule accounts for this situation by adding 
language referencing NEMA MG1-1967 as part of the subtype II definition 
in 10 CFR 431.12. Specifically, the amended definition explicitly 
indicates that those motors built in accordance with the NEMA U-frame 
dimensions as described in that 1967 document will be treated as 
subtype II motors.
    Additionally, interested parties expressed concern about when 
manufacturers of IEC 100 mm frame motors would need to comply with the 
appropriate energy efficiency standards. Given that DOE had previously 
decided that these motors were not covered, NEMA and ACEEE argued that 
requiring IEC 100 mm frame motors to comply with standards immediately 
could have ``serious repercussions on manufacturers and motor users 
where significant changes in the motor design and size may be required 
to achieve a sudden increase in efficiency of several NEMA nominal 
efficiency bands.'' (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 5-6). Both requested 
that DOE establish a compliance date that is not less than three years 
after these motors become covered under 10 CFR 431.12 and that the 
required efficiency level be equivalent to that for a subtype II motor. 
Both also cited precedents under EPCA, noting specifically that 
amendments added by Congress through EPACT 1992 provided 60 months for 
compliance (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1)) and that the EISA 2007 amendments 
provided three years for compliance (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)) (NEMA and 
ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 5-6)
    In addition, Grundfos Pumps Co. expressed concern over the timing 
of enforcing standards for the IEC 100 mm frame size. Grundfos believed 
that a short grace period or no grace period will harm only foreign 
manufacturers. It requested a grace period of at least 12 months to 
minimize these effects. (Grundfos, No. 21 at p. 1).
    DOE understands the concerns of motor manufacturers and realizes 
that a change from DOE's previous views regarding the coverage of these 
motors could have significant manufacturing redesign and financial 
impacts on manufacturers and users of such motors. DOE seeks to ensure 
that these motors satisfy the relevant efficiency standards as 
expeditiously as possible. Therefore, to mitigate the effects of this 
transition and to ensure that manufacturers have sufficient time to 
adjust to this change and certify compliance, DOE is allowing three 
years from the effective date of today's notice for IEC 100 mm frame 
series motors (as well as motors built in a frame that is not 
necessarily a NEMA-equivalent but otherwise covered under EISA 2007) to 
meet the EISA 2007 standards. The three-year timeline is consistent 
with the deadline recommended by NEMA and ACEEE and reflects the three 
years that manufacturers had to comply with energy conservation 
standards established in EISA 2007. The three-year compliance date also 
recognizes the change in DOE's previous views regarding 100 mm frame-
sized motors. When standards for these 100 mm motors (as well as all 
other motors built in a frame that is not a direct NEMA-equivalent but 
is otherwise covered under EISA 2007) become effective, only those 
motors that also meet the subtype I or II definitions will be subject 
to the subtype I or subtype II standards, respectively.
    Finally, DOE also received comments regarding voltage ratings as it 
pertains to subtype II motors. NEMA and ACEEE commented that DOE should 
clarify which voltages apply to this definition by making the language 
consistent with the subtype I definition. They suggested restating item 
(vii) of the definition to read ``is a polyphase motor with voltage of 
not more than 600 volts (other than 230 or 460 volts or useable on 230 
or 460 volts).'' (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 6) Although the 
commenters did not offer an explicit reason for their proposed 
language, DOE has modified the language regarding subtype II voltages 
to distinguish the standard voltages associated with the definition for 
subtype I motors from the special voltages that could cause an electric 
motor to be classified as a subtype II motor. DOE has modified the 
subtype II definition to clarify that those motors that are not rated 
for 230 or 460 volts and cannot operate on 230 or 460 volts are subtype 
II motors because of their voltage rating. (Note that motors that are 
rated for 230 or 460 volts or can be used on 230 or 460 may also be 
deemed subtype II based on another characteristic--for example, by 
being a footless motor).

C. Definition of General Purpose Electric Motor

    DOE proposed to amend the definition of ``general purpose motor'' 
in 10 CFR 431.12 by adding the word ``electric'' in front of the word 
``motor'' to clarify that a general purpose motor is a type of electric 
motor. This proposed change would create consistency between the 
``electric motor'' and ``general purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' 
definitions, the latter of which refers to a ``general purpose motor.'' 
(See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)) Additionally, DOE proposed updating the 
references to NEMA MG1 from NEMA MG1-1993 to the most recent 
publication, NEMA MG1-2009. Finally, DOE proposed adding text to the 
end of the definition emphasizing that the various examples of standard 
operating characteristics and mechanical construction cited as part of 
the definition were illustrative and not comprehensive. The purpose of 
the additional text was to reiterate the ``such as those specified'' 
qualifier used in the references to NEMA MG1-2009 in both the current 
and proposed ``general purpose electric motor'' definition.
    Although DOE is not aware of any other standard operating 
characteristics and mechanical construction for usual or unusual 
service conditions, DOE anticipates that there may be now, or in the 
future, IEC or other standards that may develop such specifications. To 
address that possibility, DOE proposed to modify its definition to 
cover those electric motors that are designed in standard ratings and 
have either: (1) Standard operating characteristics and mechanical 
construction for use under usual service conditions, such as those 
specified in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-2009, paragraph 14.2, 
``Usual Service Conditions,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.15) and without restriction to a particular application or type of 
application; or (2) standard operating characteristics or standard 
mechanical construction for use under unusual service conditions, such 
as those specified in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-2009, paragraph 
14.3, ``Unusual Service Conditions,'' (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.15) or for a particular type of application, and which can be 
used in most general purpose applications. 76 FR 665.
    The proposed definition also included at the end a brief statement 
noting that ``[t]hese cited examples of standard

[[Page 26616]]

operating characteristics and mechanical construction are for 
illustrative purposes only.'' 76 FR 665.
    In response to this proposal, NEMA and ACEEE raised concerns 
regarding this final sentence to the proposed definition for ``general 
purpose electric motor''. NEMA and ACEEE suggested that including this 
language would create confusion, nullify the current references to NEMA 
MG1, and invalidate the second part of the definition that lays out the 
characteristics and construction under unusual service conditions. In 
their view, the language of the proposed regulatory text appeared to 
apply only to electric motors designed for unusual service conditions. 
ACEEE and NEMA also questioned what other examples of ``standard 
operating characteristics and mechanical construction'' would qualify a 
motor as a general purpose electric motor. Finally, the commenters 
stated the added text should be removed from the definition to remove 
any confusion and ambiguity. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 7)
    DOE has reconsidered its proposed definition for ``general purpose 
electric motor'' and, in today's final rule, DOE is codifying the 
definition proposed in the SNOPR without the language noted above. 
Without that language, the definition remains consistent with previous 
versions of the definition codified in 10 CFR 431, with the exception 
of updated references to NEMA MG1. Additionally, DOE believes that this 
approach will not limit the scope of motors considered as ``general 
purpose electric motors'' for purposes of satisfying the standards 
prescribed by EISA 2007. DOE notes, however, that it is removing the 
proposed text because it is duplicative of the language in the current 
definition that already notes NEMA MG1 is an example of, but not the 
only standard for, standard operating characteristics and mechanical 
construction. DOE does not agree with commenters that the text would 
have added confusion to the existing definition because the text simply 
repeated the illustrative nature of the standard operating 
characteristics and mechanical construction listed in the definition.
    Finally, today's rule moves the ``cannot be used in most general 
purpose applications'' qualifier used in the proposed update to the 
``definite purpose motor'' definition to the beginning of the 
definition. This change does not alter the ``definite purpose motor'' 
definition as proposed, but clarifies that definite purpose motors 
cannot be used in most general purpose applications regardless of 
whether they are designed for unusual service conditions or for use on 
a particular type of application.

D. Definition of NEMA Design B Motor

    In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed a definition for the term 
``NEMA Design B, general purpose electric motor'' that was based on the 
definition of general purpose electric motor provided in paragraph 
1.19.1.2, ``Design B,'' of NEMA MG 1-2006 Revision 1, but with three 
changes. See 73 FR 78235. First, the proposed definition removed the 
reference to 50 hertz and corresponding performance characteristics 
because the EISA 2007-prescribed efficiency standards for ``NEMA Design 
B, general purpose electric motors'' at 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(D) cover 
only 60-hertz motors. (See NEMA MG-1 (2006) Table 12-11) Second, it 
limited the maximum rated slip at rated load (i.e., the amount of 
physical force a motor is designed to output) to less than 5 percent 
for motors with fewer than 10 poles, because the EISA 2007-prescribed 
energy conservation standards only cover 2-, 4-, 6-, and 8-pole motors 
and, according to the footnote to MG1-2006 paragraph 1.19.1.2, motors 
with 10 or more poles are permitted to have slip slightly greater than 
5 percent. Third, it corrected the referenced 60-hertz locked-rotor 
current paragraph from 12.35.3 to 12.35.1, because there is no 
paragraph 12.35.3 in MG1-2006 and the table under paragraph 12.35.1 
contains the maximum currents associated with a locked rotor.
    In response to comments received regarding the 2008 NOPR, the 
January 2011 SNOPR incorporated several changes to the initially 
proposed ``NEMA Design B motor'' definition. In the SNOPR, DOE proposed 
to adopt a broad definition of a NEMA Design B motor to include 
provisions regarding 50 hertz motors. Furthermore, DOE proposed to 
update the reference to ``NEMA MG1-2006'' to reflect the 2009 version 
of this document (``NEMA MG1-2009''). Finally, DOE proposed eliminating 
references to NEMA Design B motors to remove any confusion that these 
motors are solely a subpart of general purpose electric motors because 
a NEMA Design B motor may be configured in a manner that falls outside 
of the general purpose electric motor category. 76 FR 653-54. DOE 
indicated that it is inaccurate and inconsistent with industry practice 
to narrowly categorize NEMA Design B motors as only a subset of general 
purpose electric motor (subtype I). Instead, in DOE's view, a NEMA 
Design B motor can also fall under the category of general purpose 
electric motor (subtype II), such as a footless NEMA Design B motor, or 
other type of electric motor. 76 FR 654.
    NEMA and ACEEE expressed concerns over the proposed changes for 
NEMA Design B motors. Both pointed out that the term ``NEMA Design B'' 
has been included as part of the DOE's definition of ``electric motor'' 
(now as a part of the definition for ``general purpose electric motor 
(subtype I) and, by extension, the definition of ``general purpose 
electric motor (subtype II)'') since 10 CFR part 431 was first codified 
in 1999. They stated that it was not separately defined then, and there 
is no need to do so now. Instead, they indicated that the reference to 
NEMA MG1 for the meaning of ``Design B'' in the proposed definition of 
``general purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' is sufficient. (NEMA and 
ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 8) NEMA and ACEEE also questioned why DOE did not 
incorporate a definition for NEMA Design A, NEMA Design C, or IEC 
Design N (which they stated is the equivalent to NEMA Design B) motors. 
(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 8) In its submitted comment, NEEA offered 
no explicit feedback on DOE's proposed definition for NEMA Design B 
motors, but instead deferred to electric motor industry experts for 
comments on the necessity for, and the use of, the ``NEMA Design B'' 
designation as a further sub-category. (NEEA, et al., No. 24 at p. 2)
    In addition to the above comments, NEMA and ACEEE stated that EISA 
2007 categorized ``electric motors'' into two groups, general purpose 
electric motors subtypes I and II. NEMA and ACEEE explained that they 
believed the standards in section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 are for four 
particular groupings of ``electric motors'' based on those two 
classifications. They added that the terms ``NEMA Design B'' and 
``General Purpose'' are qualifiers used to identify particular 
characteristics of one such grouping of ``electric motor'' selected 
from these two classifications. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 8) 
Furthermore, in response to the proposed definition, NEMA and ACEEE 
argued that the reasoning for proposing a definition of ``NEMA Design B 
motor'' in 10 CFR 431.12 appeared to be related, in their view, to DOE 
incorrectly changing the type of motors identified under section 
313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 as ``NEMA Design B, General Purpose Electric 
Motors'' to that of a ``NEMA Design B motor that is a general purpose 
electric motor'' in 10 CFR 431.25(d). They believed that had DOE kept 
the original EISA 2007 language, it should be clear that no definition 
of ``NEMA Design B motor'' is required in part 431. With the

[[Page 26617]]

original language, they argued, it is clear that NEMA Design B is 
simply a qualifier for the broader term ``electric motor.'' They added 
that because this term, NEMA Design B, was not defined previously but 
was understood, it remains unnecessary to define it now. Finally, NEMA 
and ACEEE reiterated the connection between NEMA Design B and IEC 
Design N motors, and stated that the standards prescribed by section 
313(b)(2)(D) of EISA 2007 should apply to both motor designs, but only 
those that also meet the definition of either subtype I or II motors. 
(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 7-9)
    While DOE appreciates the concerns raised by NEMA and ACEEE, DOE is 
broadly defining the term ``NEMA Design B motor'' to preserve its 
flexibility to regulate electric motors covered under EPCA. 
Additionally, DOE is codifying only the definition of ``NEMA Design B 
motor'' (rather than NEMA Design A, B, C and IEC Design N) because the 
most recent industry standard defining this term (NEMA MG1-2009) 
appears to contain typographical errors--namely, erroneous table 
references related to performance characteristics that NEMA Design B 
motors must meet (i.e., locked-rotor current). Therefore, DOE wishes to 
clarify its interpretation of the term ``NEMA Design B'' and is 
codifying that term in today's rule. For ``NEMA Design A'' and ``IEC 
Design N'' motors, DOE believes that the industry standards referenced 
in its definitions of subtype I and II motors do not contain any 
errors. Accordingly, referring the reader to the specific industry 
standards that define these terms should be sufficient and require no 
further clarification. Consequently, DOE is not inclined to codify 
these definitions at this time. However, for ``NEMA Design C,'' since 
the SNOPR's publication, DOE has become aware of a typographical error 
in MG1-2009's definition of this term. Although DOE is not defining 
this term today, in large part because such a definition had not been 
proposed, DOE may clarify its interpretation of this term in the 
future.
    As discussed previously, DOE disagrees with NEMA and ACEEE that 
EISA 2007 narrowed the definition of ``electric motors'' to only 
subtype I and subtype II motors. DOE also disagrees that changing the 
description for the group of motors described as ``NEMA Design B, 
general purpose electric motors'' in EISA 2007 to a ``NEMA Design B 
motor that is a general purpose electric motor'' is confusing or 
problematic. The proposed modification to this language was designed to 
clarify the terminology without changing the meaning and to establish 
consistency with other covered electric motors.
    Although DOE is currently taking a broad approach in defining 
``NEMA Design B'' motors, these motors are only required to meet energy 
conservation standards to the extent to which the energy conservation 
standards at 10 CFR 431.25 apply. In other words, only those NEMA 
Design B motors that fall into either the subtype I or subtype II 
categories are required to meet the applicable subtype I or subtype II 
energy efficiency levels prescribed by EISA 2007. Those NEMA Design B 
motors that fall outside of subtype I or II are not required to satisfy 
specific energy conservation standards at this time. For these reasons, 
DOE is clarifying that a NEMA Design B motor that is configured as a 
general purpose electric motor (subtype I or II) must meet the 
standards prescribed at 10 CFR 431.25(d). See Section F. ``Energy 
Conservation Standards for Electric Motors,'' infra. This approach also 
addresses the concern that DOE's proposal attempted to regulate 50 Hz 
motors. Because general purpose electric motors (subtypes I and II) are 
60 Hz motors by definition, 60 Hz motors are, therefore, the only 
motors that are currently required to meet energy conservation 
standards in 10 CFR 431.25.

E. Fire Pump Motors Definition

    EPCA section 342(b), as amended by section 313(b)(1)(B) of EISA 
2007, prescribes energy efficiency standards for fire pump motors, 
which were subsequently codified at 10 CFR 431.25(d). 74 FR 12072. 
However, EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, does not define the term ``fire 
pump motor.'' DOE proposed in its December 2008 NOPR to define ``fire 
pump motor'' as ``a Design B polyphase motor, as defined in NEMA MG1-
2006, rated 500 horsepower (373 kW) or less, 600 volts or less, and 
that is intended for use in accordance with the National Fire 
Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 20-2007, `Standard for the 
Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection.''' 73 FR 78235. 
DOE based this proposed definition primarily on the scope of the 
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard 1004A-2001, ``Fire Pump 
Motors,'' and NFPA Standard 20-2007.
    DOE's January 2011 SNOPR raised the possibility of modifying the 
proposed ``fire pump motor'' definition from the December NOPR by 
adding a publication date for the cited NFPA standard, making a 
correction to the title of the relevant NFPA standard, and adding a 
citation to UL Standard 1004-5 (2008). (This UL standard is the latest 
version to address fire pump motors.) This revised proposal would 
define a fire pump motor as an electric motor that is required to meet 
the performance and construction requirements set forth by NFPA 
Standard 20-2010, section 9.5, and UL Standard 1004-5 (2008). Based on 
its understanding of fire pump motors, DOE does not believe that these 
motors are necessarily a subset of general purpose electric motors (as 
defined in the January 2011 SNOPR). With this understanding, DOE, 
consistent with the statute, proposed that all fire pump motors, 
irrespective of whether they meet the design constraints of subtype I 
motors, would each be subject to the same efficiency level--i.e., the 
more lenient standards afforded to subtype II motors. 76 FR 654. (See 
also 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B))
    Regarding the SNOPR, NEMA and ACEEE raised concerns over the 
definition of ``fire pump motor.'' In their view, EISA 2007 defines 
only two types of motors: ``general purpose electric motors (subtype 
I)'' and ``general purpose electric motors (subtype II).'' Furthermore, 
they believe that EISA 2007 inadvertently omitted the word ``electric'' 
from the description of ``fire pump motors'' in section 313(b)(2)(B). 
Although they state that there is no need for a fire pump motor 
definition, NEMA and ACEEE contend that these motors should only 
consist of what they deem ``electric motors'' (i.e., subtype I and II 
motors) that are used with fire pumps. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 
10-11)
    Additionally, NEMA and ACEEE expressed concern over the inclusion 
of UL 1004-5 in the definition because UL 1004-5 states that the 
performance and construction standards for fire pump motors are given 
in other standards, such as NEMA MG1. Also, UL 1004-5 is not considered 
a performance and construction standard in the motor industry. As such, 
the definition of ``fire pump motor'' should not include it. 
Furthermore, they commented that the references to NFPA 20 and UL 1004-
5 do not recognize the use of IEC motors with fire pumps and DOE should 
ensure that, if it chooses to maintain a definition for ``fire pump 
motor,'' it should cover those motors. They added that, if DOE opts to 
define ``fire pump motor'' without removing the UL 1004-5 reference 
from the proposed definition, DOE should add UL 1004-5 to the industry 
standards incorporated by reference and included at 10 CFR 431.14 and 
10 CFR 431.15. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 11) NEMA and ACEEE 
asserted that if UL 1004-5 is not dropped from the definition, then UL

[[Page 26618]]

674, which relates to explosion-proof motors (a specific characteristic 
covered under the subtype I motor definition), should also be included. 
Furthermore, to harmonize with other international protocols related to 
explosion-proof motors, DOE would need to include CSA C22.2 No. 145 and 
the appropriate IEC protocols as part of the referenced industry 
provisions in DOE's regulations.
    Finally, NEMA and ACEEE made specific recommendations about DOE's 
definitions as they relate to ``fire pump motor.'' First, they stated 
that if DOE believes that fire pump motors should be a separate 
classification, an ``electric motor'' should be defined as ``a machine 
that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power and is 
configured as a general purpose electric motor (subtype I) or general 
purpose electric motor (subtype II), including, but not limited to, 
fire pump electric motors.'' (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 3 and 4) 
Second, NEMA and ACEEE recommended that ``fire pump motor'' should be 
changed to ``fire pump electric motor'' and suggested that a fire pump 
electric motor be defined as an electric motor that meets the 
requirements of sections 9.5.1.1 and 9.5.1.7 of the National Fire 
Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 20-2010, ``Standard for the 
Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection.'' NEMA and ACEEE 
specifically cited sections 9.5.1.1 and 9.5.1.7 of NFPA 20-2010 rather 
than 9.5 as a whole because these are the only provisions of that 
section that they believe apply to the fire pump electric motors that 
should be subject to energy conservation standards (i.e., those that 
are also subtype I or II motors). (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 9-11) 
In other words, according to NEMA and ACEEE, if an electric motor meets 
the definition of subtype I or subtype II motor, it only has to meet 
the requirements of provisions 9.5.1.1 and 9.5.1.7 to be deemed a 
``fire pump electric motor'' as DOE should define the term. The other 
sections of 9.5 of NFPA 20-2010 provide performance specifications that 
must be met by electric motors that fall outside the scope of subtype I 
and II motors (e.g., direct-current, universal, or single-phase motors) 
to be deemed fire pump motors.
    As discussed in section III.A, DOE disagrees with NEMA and ACEEE 
that EISA 2007 narrowed the definition of ``electric motors'' to 
address only subtype I and subtype II motors. However, DOE agrees with 
NEMA and ACEEE that ``fire pump motors'' should be defined within the 
context of the broader term ``electric motors.'' DOE also agrees that 
IEC-equivalent motors should be included within the scope of the 
definition of ``fire pump electric motor,'' although NFPA 20 and UL 
1004-5 do not explicitly recognize the use of IEC motors with fire 
pumps. DOE believes this change will help prevent any circumvention of 
energy conservation standards and will be consistent with the 
definitions for other motor categories.
    DOE also agrees with commenters that referencing UL 1004-5 in the 
``fire pump electric motor'' definition is unnecessary, particularly 
given its potential for confusion regarding performance and 
construction. Accordingly, DOE has dropped this reference from the 
final definition.
    Finally, DOE disagrees with narrowing the cited sections of NFPA 
from 9.5 to reference only 9.5.1.1 and 9.5.1.7. As stated earlier in 
the context of NEMA Design B motors, DOE does not wish to limit the 
scope of motors for which it may establish energy conservation 
standards and is opting to take a broader approach that will help 
preserve its flexibility in regulating motors. Therefore, DOE is 
referencing all of section 9.5 in its definition of fire pump electric 
motor, including those sections that apply to motors that are not 
currently required to meet energy conservation standards.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Although DOE is adopting a broad definition of ``fire pump 
electric motor,'' DOE notes that only fire pump electric motors that 
are general purpose electric motors (subtypes I or II) are currently 
required to meet energy conservation standards. These motors must 
satisfy those levels that are equivalent to those prescribed for 
subtype II motors (i.e., NEMA MG1-2009 Table 12-11 levels). See 42 
U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)-(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Fire Pump Motor Coverage

    Section 313(b)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended EPCA section 342(b) by 
requiring that fire pump motors meet the efficiency levels prescribed 
in NEMA MG 1-2006 Table 12-11. That provision required fire pump motors 
manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) to 
have a nominal full-load efficiency that is not less than as defined in 
NEMA MG-1 (2006) Table 12-11. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)) The provision 
also provided manufacturers with a three-year grace period starting 
from EISA 2007's enactment before these motors would need to comply 
with these efficiency levels. Consequently, manufacturers were required 
to comply with these levels starting on December 19, 2010.
    On March 23, 2009, DOE formally codified the MG1-2006 efficiency 
levels into 10 CFR part 431. 74 FR 12072. These efficiency values cover 
motors with a range from 1 through 500 horsepower and address motors 
built in 2-pole, 4-pole, 6-pole, and 8-pole configurations. Both open 
and enclosed fire pump motors are also addressed by this table. 74 FR 
12061, 12072.
    In response to the December 2008 NOPR, in which DOE did not 
explicitly define a horsepower range, several interested parties sought 
clarity over whether the covered range of horsepower ratings for fire 
pump motors was from 1- to 200-horsepower or 1- to 500-horsepower. (GE, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p. 147; WEG, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 8 at pp. 148-49; NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 8-9; NEEA, No. 10 
at p. 2) Furthermore, Baldor noted that an excerpt of the language 
under EPCA section 342(b), as amended by section 313(b)(1)(B) of EISA 
2007, mentions a 1- to 200-horsepower range for subtype I motors. 
Baldor stated that whether a fire pump motor covered under this EISA 
2007 amendment--codified at 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)--was limited to the 
same 1- to 200-horsepower range as a subtype I motor was a matter of 
statutory interpretation. (Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at 
pp. 112-13, 145, 149-50)
    EISA 2007 prescribes energy conservation standards for general 
purpose electric motors (subtype I) rated from 1 through 200-
horsepower. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(A)) EISA 2007 also separately 
prescribes standards for fire pump motors without specifying any 
particular horsepower range. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)) In DOE's 
view, with the inclusion of this separate fire pump motor section, 
Congress excluded fire pump motors from being treated solely as subtype 
I motors. Instead, fire pump motors, as a separate motor category under 
the statute, must satisfy the efficiency levels laid out in NEMA 
Standard MG1-2006, Table 12-11, which covers 1- through 500-horsepower 
motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)) Consistent with this view, DOE 
proposed in its SNOPR that fire pump motor energy conservation 
standards apply to fire pump motors rated from 1- through 500-
horsepower. 76 FR 655. DOE continues to hold the view that the energy 
conservation standards promulgated in the March 23, 2009, technical 
amendment are consistent with the manner in which EISA 2007 categorized 
these motors and prescribed their specific efficiency levels. (See 42 
U.S.C. 6313(b)(1)(B)) Accordingly, DOE believes that EISA 2007 
established fire pump motors as an individual class of electric motors 
separate from subtype I motors.
    NEMA and ACEEE agreed with DOE's interpretation of EISA 2007 that 
the

[[Page 26619]]

sections establishing standards for ``general purpose electric motors 
(subtype I)'' and ``fire pump motors'' (sections 313(b)(2)(A) and 
313(b)(2)(B), respectively), do not preclude standards for ``fire pump 
motors'' rated higher than 200 horsepower but less than or equal to 500 
horsepower. They noted that if a definition for ``fire pump motors'' is 
established and includes a reference to 9.5.1.1 of NFPA 20, which 
stipulates that fire pump motors must be NEMA Design B, the higher 
horsepower fire pump motors will be covered by the standards 
established for NEMA Design B motors (section 313(b)(2)(D) of EISA 
2007) falling within the range from 200 through 500 horsepower. (NEMA 
and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 12)
    Finally, NEMA and ACEEE stated that the provisions in 10 CFR 431.25 
should be modified and suggested that DOE explicitly state that the 
standards in 10 CFR 431.25 that apply to both subtypes of general 
purpose electric motors should exclude ``fire pump motors'' and refer 
the reader to the ``fire pump motors'' paragraph. Additionally, they 
stated that the paragraph for ``fire pump motors,'' currently in 10 CFR 
431.25(d), should only include ratings up to 200 horsepower. They claim 
that those higher horsepower ``fire pump motors'' can be captured 
implicitly by the standards established for NEMA Design B motors 
currently referenced in 10 CFR 431.25(f). (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at 
pp. 13-15)
    DOE appreciates the comments of interested parties and, in today's 
final rule, it has incorporated a number of these suggestions. As 
stated in the previous section, DOE believes that a ``fire pump 
electric motor'' is a distinct category of ``electric motor'' that 
includes motors that are not necessarily ``general purpose electric 
motor (subtype I)'' or ``general purpose electric motor (subtype II).'' 
However, as described earlier, today's final rule clarifies that DOE 
views the relevant standards to apply only to those fire pump electric 
motors that are also subtype I or subtype II motors. DOE is adopting 
this more limited approach in light of the fact that the vast majority 
of fire pump motors fall into either the subtype I or II category. 
Moreover, without this initial limitation, the fire pump motor 
standards would apply to all motor types that may serve as fire pump 
motors, including several motor types that do not currently have energy 
conservation standards--e.g., direct current motors, universal motors, 
and single-phase motors. This fact is significant because DOE's current 
test procedures are not designed to measure the energy efficiency of 
such motor types. As a result, although the standards set by Congress 
do not appear to contemplate a restriction on which fire pump electric 
motors need to satisfy the prescribed standards, this limitation is 
necessary for the short-term until a suitable procedure can be 
developed to measure the efficiency of these other types of electric 
motors.
    In the future, DOE may consider whether separate standards for 
these types of motors would be technologically feasible and 
economically justified. Until it reaches a determination on this issue 
and promulgates an appropriate test procedure for such motors, DOE is 
applying the fire pump motors standards only to those motors that fall 
within subtypes I or II. Therefore, at this time, DOE is codifying 
under 10 CFR 431.25(b) that only those ``fire pump electric motors'' 
that also satisfy the subtype I or subtype II definitions are required 
to meet specific energy conservation standards. These motors would need 
to satisfy the standards set out in the EISA 2007 amendments--i.e. the 
efficiency levels found in Table 12-11 of MG1-2006.
    Furthermore, DOE is also modifying the language in 10 CFR 431.25 to 
more precisely state which motors are covered by the standards 
prescribed in each section. DOE notes that it is not relying on higher 
horsepower ``fire pump electric motors'' to be implicitly covered under 
the standards for NEMA Design B motors and is continuing to provide 
explicit language under a separate ``fire pump electric motors'' 
subsection (10 CFR 431.25(b)). These motors are required to meet energy 
conservation standards equivalent to Table 12-11, as prescribed by EISA 
2007.

G. Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors

    Interested parties also requested that DOE clarify several issues 
related to the scope of coverage and the efficiency levels in the 
tables of electric motor efficiency standards in 10 CFR 431.25.
    First, under 10 CFR 431.25(a), electric motor manufacturers must 
comply with the energy efficiency levels that were prescribed by EPACT 
1992. That provision, however, specifies no sunset date. Section 313(b) 
of EISA 2007 amended EPCA by prescribing energy conservation standards 
for subtype I and subtype II motors that manufacturers needed to meet 
for covered motors manufactured or imported on or after December 19, 
2010. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) These standards, and the compliance date, 
were subsequently codified at 10 CFR 431.25(c) and (e), respectively. 
Because the standards set by section 431.25(a), which applied to 
subtype I motors, have been superseded by the EISA 2007 levels but have 
no specified end date, NEMA argued that this situation was potentially 
confusing for manufacturers in deciding which provisions apply to their 
subtype I motors--the EPACT 1992 levels or the EISA 2007 levels. 
Consequently, NEMA requested guidance on the proper energy conservation 
standards for subtype I motors. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 9) DOE addressed 
this issue in the 2011 SNOPR by proposing to delete 10 CFR 431.25(a) to 
clarify that the standards in this section no longer applied.
    In view of the above statutory history and relationship of EPCA to 
EPACT 1992 and EISA 2007, it is DOE's view that an electric motor 
covered under 10 CFR 431.25(a) is a general purpose electric motor 
(subtype I), which is now required to meet the EISA 2007 energy 
efficiency levels. In other words, a subtype I motor--previously known 
simply as an ``electric motor''--that was manufactured or imported 
(alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) before December 
19, 2010, is subject to the EPACT 1992 energy efficiency standards; a 
subtype I motor that was manufactured or imported (alone or as a 
component of another piece of equipment) on or after December 19, 2010, 
is subject to the EISA 2007 energy efficiency standards.
    In response to these proposed changes, NEMA and ACEEE expressed 
concern over the removal of the table of efficiency standards that 
applied to motors manufactured or imported prior to December 19, 2010, 
from 10 CFR Part 431. They commented that many such motors manufactured 
prior to December 19, 2010, still remain in commerce and are certified 
to the efficiency levels in place at that time. They argued that the 
standards codified on March 23, 2009, should remain in place for a 
reasonable amount of time, so that these motors may lawfully remain in 
commerce. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 13)
    Today's rule conforms with the 2011 SNOPR regarding the removal of 
the EPACT 1992 energy efficiency levels from the CFR. While DOE 
understands stakeholder desire to verify that motors manufactured or 
imported prior to December 19, 2010, meet EPACT 1992 levels, DOE notes 
that the removal of the current table of standards located at 10 CFR 
431.25(a) does not mean that electric motors manufactured or imported 
prior to December 19, 2010, that conform to EPACT 1992 levels and that 
are still in commerce violate DOE energy conservation standards. Motors 
manufactured or imported prior to

[[Page 26620]]

December 19, 2010, would need to satisfy the EPACT 1992 levels. To the 
extent that DOE pursues a compliance violation regarding pre-December 
19, 2010 motors, those motors would be evaluated against the EPACT 1992 
efficiency levels.
    In addition, removing the existing tables in 10 CFR 431.25(a) that 
detail the previous efficiency levels that were required under EPACT 
1992 will reduce potential confusion. Specifically, the EISA 2007 
standards have displaced the older standards that Congress established 
in EPACT 1992 and the regulations should be updated to reflect that 
fact. Removal of the previous standards will help clarify the 
requirements that manufacturers must now satisfy by reducing the 
complexity of the regulatory text.
    Second, in the December 2008 NOPR, DOE did not explicitly state 
that a NEMA Design B general purpose electric motor that otherwise 
meets the definition of a subtype I motor is subject to the EISA 2007 
energy conservation standards that are codified at 10 CFR 431.25(c). 
NEMA noted that, given the proposed definitions and structure of 10 CFR 
431.25, NEMA Design B general purpose electric motors rated from 1 
horsepower up to and including 200 horsepower, would appear to remain 
at the same efficiency levels established by EPACT 1992 (codified at 10 
CFR 431.25(a)) rather than the higher efficiency levels prescribed by 
EISA 2007.
    To clarify the scope of energy conservation standards for NEMA 
Design B motors from 1 through 200 horsepower, DOE proposed two 
modifications of 10 CFR 431.25 in the 2011 SNOPR. Because subtype I 
motors include certain NEMA Design B motors, DOE proposed to specify 
that NEMA Design B motors rated 1 through 200 horsepower that are also 
subtype I motors are subject to the energy conservation standards in 10 
CFR 431.25(c) (i.e., those for subtype I motors). In addition, since 
subtype II motors include certain NEMA Design B motors (e.g., footless 
motors), DOE proposed to specify that NEMA Design B motors rated 1 
through 200 horsepower that are also subtype II motors are subject to 
energy conservation standards in 10 CFR 431.25(e) (i.e., those for 
subtype II motors). 76 FR 655.
    Regarding NEMA Design B motors from 200 through 500 horsepower, 
EISA 2007 also established energy conservation standards for ``NEMA 
Design B, general purpose electric motors'' rated greater than 200 
horsepower but less than or equal to 500 horsepower, which were later 
codified into the current version of 10 CFR 431.25(f). In response to 
the 2008 NOPR, NEMA asserted that the motor industry recognizes a 
``NEMA Design B, general purpose electric motor'' as a specific group 
of motors that fit the definition of either ``electric motor'' from 
EPACT 1992 or ``general purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' from EISA 
2007.
    In the January 2011 SNOPR, DOE noted that EISA 2007 did not define 
the terms ``NEMA Design B, general purpose electric motor,'' ``NEMA 
Design B motor,'' or ``general purpose electric motor.'' In the absence 
of any statutory definition and the statute's apparent reliance on the 
agency's then-existing definition of ``general purpose motor,'' DOE 
views the regulatory definition of ``general purpose motor'' that was 
in place on EISA 2007's enactment date as the proper definition for 
``general purpose electric motor'' as used in the term ``NEMA Design B, 
general purpose electric motor.'' The ``general purpose motor'' 
definition in place at the time of EISA 2007's enactment is the same as 
the ``general purpose electric motor'' definition proposed in the 
SNOPR, with minor differences for standards updates. DOE proposed that 
this definition, when read in conjunction with the definition of ``NEMA 
Design B'' proposed in the 2011 SNOPR, would adequately identify the 
motors regulated under 10 CFR 431.25(f). DOE realized that this 
interpretation could potentially include NEMA Design B motors that are 
general purpose electric motors that do not meet the proposed 
definition of ``general purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' or 
``general purpose electric motor (subtype II).'' 76 FR 655. It is DOE's 
understanding, however, that there are few, if any, NEMA Design B 
motors that would be neither a subtype I nor a subtype II general 
purpose electric motor. 76 FR 655. Such motors that do not fall within 
one of the subtypes are not currently subject to energy conservation 
standards.
    Third, at the time of the December 2008 NOPR, the energy efficiency 
standards tables contained in 10 CFR 431.25(c)-(f) listed motor ratings 
in horsepower, but not equivalent kilowatts. NEMA requested, in 
comments to that notice, that DOE include kilowatt power ratings in the 
then-newly codified tables that detail the EISA 2007 efficiency 
standards. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 9) Without this change, NEMA raised 
concerns that metric-rated motors would not be covered. To ensure that 
the tables under 10 CFR 431.25(c)-(f) apply to metric-rated, kilowatt-
equivalent motors, DOE subsequently proposed the possibility of 
amending the tables to provide an equivalent kilowatt rating for each 
horsepower. 76 FR 656.
    Although the EISA 2007 definitions for subtype I and subtype II 
motors do not specifically mention motors rated in kilowatts, which is 
how IEC motors are rated, DOE believes that the statute covers IEC 
motors that are identical or equivalent to motors included in the 
statutory definitions. DOE understands that IEC motors generally 
perform identical functions as EISA 2007-covered electric motors. 
Comparable motors of both types provide virtually identical amounts of 
rotational mechanical power, and generally operate or provide power for 
the same pieces of machinery or equipment. A given industrial central 
air conditioner, for example, could operate with either an IEC or NEMA 
motor with little or no effect on performance. Providing equivalent 
kilowatt/horsepower ratings would be consistent with the already-
codified EPACT 1992 levels and clarify their applicability. DOE is 
maintaining this approach for today's final rule and has codified 
kilowatt equivalents to horsepower ratings for each table of energy 
conservation standards in 10 CFR 431.25.
    Finally, in the SNOPR, DOE proposed to clarify in 10 CFR 431.11, 
Purpose and scope, that the electric motors covered under subpart B are 
not small electric motors. DOE believes that this clarification is 
necessary because electric motors (covered under 10 CFR part 431, 
subpart B) and small electric motors (covered under 10 CFR part 431, 
subpart X) are separate and unique covered equipment subject to 
different regulatory requirements. DOE received no comments regarding 
this topic and is maintaining this proposed approach in today's final 
rule.

H. International Electrotechnical Commission Standards Incorporated by 
Reference

    After EISA 2007 removed the definition of electric motor under 42 
U.S.C. 6311(13), DOE subsequently proposed in the December 2008 NOPR to 
remove the corresponding test protocols incorporated by reference under 
10 CFR 431.15. These protocols helped clarify critical elements in the 
previous electric motor definition. 73 FR 78227. These protocols 
included IEC Standards 60034-1 (1996), 60050-411 (1996), 60072-1 
(1991), and 60034-12 (1980). Removal of these references was necessary 
in order to account for the statutory changes introduced by the removal 
of the ``electric motor'' definition that had previously been in place 
as part of EPCA.

[[Page 26621]]

    In response to the December 2008 NOPR, NEMA commented that when DOE 
adopted the content of EPACT 1992 into 10 CFR part 431, it recognized 
the necessity of including for coverage purposes those equivalent 
motors designed in accordance with IEC standards that could be used in 
the same applications as motors designed in accordance with the NEMA 
MG1 standards. NEMA asserted that although the IEC standards do not 
particularly identify ``general purpose motors,'' those motors built 
according to IEC specifications can be used interchangeably with NEMA 
motors in most general purpose applications. Because of this fact, NEMA 
argued that the applicable IEC standards should be retained in 10 CFR 
part 431, and that motors constructed in accordance with those 
standards in metric-equivalent ratings should be considered as covered 
equipment under 10 CFR part 431. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 10)
    In the January 2011 SNOPR, DOE explained that it previously took 
such an approach when addressing IEC metric motors in the October 1999 
electric motor test procedure final rule because of the 
interchangeability between IEC motors that are identical or equivalent 
to motors constructed in accordance with NEMA MG1. See 64 FR 54142-43 
(October 5, 1999). The inclusion of parenthetical references to the IEC 
standards in the codified definition of ``electric motor'' under 10 CFR 
431.2 (2000) clarified the applicability and coverage of IEC (i.e., 
metric-equivalent) electric motors. For example, under the EPACT 1992 
definition of ``electric motor,'' a motor had to be ``continuous 
rated.'' DOE later clarified ``continuous rated'' in 10 CFR 431.2 
(2000) to mean ``is rated for continuous duty (MG1) operation, or is 
rated duty type S1 (IEC).'' Although the statutory definition did not 
explicitly mention IEC motors, DOE had previously proposed that the 
term ``continuous rated'' apply to those electric motors that are 
equivalent to the ``continuous duty operation'' rating denoted by the 
parenthetical ``MG1'' or the equivalent IEC duty type ``S1.'' See 61 FR 
60442. DOE later codified this approach at 10 CFR 431.2. 64 FR 54142 
(October 5, 1999).
    DOE believes that EISA 2007 provides the same breadth of coverage 
as EPACT 1992 did over IEC motors that are identical or equivalent to 
electric motors built in accordance with MG1. In the SNOPR, DOE 
proposed revised definitions for ``general purpose electric motor 
(subtype I)'' and ``general purpose electric motor (subtype II)'' that 
incorporated IEC-equivalent motors. Thus, in the SNOPR, DOE proposed to 
retain the IEC references in 10 CFR 431.15. In addition, DOE proposed 
to adopt the updated versions of two of the IEC standards, IEC 
Standards 60034-1 and 60034-12, to the 2004 and 2007 versions, 
respectively. 76 FR 656.
    NEMA also noted in its comments to the December 2008 NOPR that a 
source to obtain IEC standards does not appear in 10 CFR 431.15(d). 
(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 10) In today's rule and in response to NEMA's 
comment, DOE reorganizes and updates 10 CFR 431.15, as it proposed in 
the SNOPR, to include each IEC standard incorporated by reference with 
corresponding updated information about how to obtain copies of these 
documents.

I. References to Various Industry Standards

    DOE noted in the SNOPR that the current version of 10 CFR part 431 
references several outdated standards, such as NEMA MG1-1993, IEEE 
Standard 112-1996 (Test Method B), and CSA C390-93 (Test Method 1). In 
the SNOPR, DOE proposed to update those references throughout 10 CFR 
part 431 to be consistent with the current, industry standards and test 
procedures--i.e., NEMA MG1-2009, IEEE Standard 112-2004 (Test Methods A 
and B), IEEE Standard 114-2001, CSA C390-10, CSA C747-09, IEC 60034-1 
(2010), IEC 60050-411 (1996), IEC 60072-1 (1991), and IEC 60034-12 
(2007) . 76 FR 656, 666, and 674. Additionally, after reviewing these 
updated protocols, DOE indicated that the exceptions to IEEE Standard 
112-1996 (Test Method B) contained in paragraph (2) of appendix B to 
subpart B, ``2. Test Procedures,'' which were intended to clarify steps 
of the test procedure and various values for constants and equations, 
and to provide additional context where needed, are incorporated within 
the updated version of IEEE Standard 112-2004 Test Method B. 76 FR 656. 
DOE sought comment on whether this assessment of the updated test 
method was accurate and if the proposed procedure would adversely 
affect the measured losses and efficiency determined for an electric 
motor.
    In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE stated that it had examined the 
current protocols from IEEE, CSA, and IEC. The agency concluded after 
this review that the proposed updates are consistent with the previous 
methodologies and will have neither an adverse effect on the 
measurement of losses or the determination of efficiency. DOE proposed 
adopting the IEEE test methods because: (1) Each represents an approach 
that is consistent with the existing test methods for electric motors, 
which have been in effect without issue since November 1999 as part of 
10 CFR part 431; (2) they are the most current versions in use by 
industry and have been periodically updated to reflect the best 
approaches for measuring and determining the efficiency of electric 
motors (including small electric motors); and (3) they will, in DOE's 
view, provide accurate and repeatable measurements because they have 
tightly defined tolerances, provide necessary test equipment 
calibration specifications, and contain methods and procedures 
developed by electric motor manufacturers to fairly assess the 
performance characteristics of their products. 73 FR 78223.
    NEMA and ACEEE had several comments in response to the SNOPR. 
First, they commented that the IEC standards proposed for inclusion in 
10 CFR 431.15(e)(2)(ii)-(vi) that define the metric-designs equivalent 
to the covered NEMA motors should be updated to the most recent 
versions. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 15) In particular, references 
to International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60034-1 (1996), 
Rotating Electrical Machines, Part 1: Rating and Performance should be 
updated to the 2010 version. DOE agrees with this suggestion and, as 
with its other efforts at updating references to the test procedures, 
will update these IEC references.
    Second, NEMA and ACEEE noted that the newest version of CSA C390, 
CSA C390-10, is no longer technically equivalent to IEEE Standard 112-
2004 (Test Method B) and asserted that the preferred test standard in 
the U.S. should remain IEEE Standard 112-2004 (Test Method B). However, 
they also recommended that DOE examine the differences between IEEE 
Standard 112-2004 (Test Method B) and CSA C390-10 to determine if the 
CSA standard should be updated to reference CSA C390-10 (previously CSA 
C390-93 (Test Method 1)) and whether this more recent CSA standard 
would be permissible to use when determining motor efficiency. (NEMA 
and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 15)
    Advanced Energy supported DOE's proposal to incorporate the updated 
versions of the referenced standards in 10 CFR part 431. It also 
concurred with NEMA and ACEEE that there are differences between IEEE 
Standard 112 Test Method B and CSA C390-10, the most significant of 
these differences being how the magnetic core losses are determined 
under these protocols. Magnetic core losses are losses that

[[Page 26622]]

manifest themselves as heat in the steel components of an electric 
motor. These losses are important factors because they, along with 
I\2\R (i.e., resistive) losses, comprise the most significant 
inefficiencies in an electric motor.\9\ With respect to how magnetic 
core losses are determined, Advanced Energy explained that CSA C390-10 
is more closely aligned with IEC 60034-2-1 '' Rotating Electrical 
Machines--Part 2-1: Standard Methods for Determining Losses and 
Efficiency from Tests'' than IEEE Standard 112-2004. However, Advanced 
Energy did not believe that the differences between IEEE Standard 112-
2004 (Test Method B) and CSA C390-10 significantly affect the measured 
efficiency numbers, based on a number of studies comparing the 
efficiency differences between IEEE Standard 112-2004 (Test Method B), 
IEC 60034-2-1, and CSA C390-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Magnetic core losses are generated by two electromagnetic 
phenomena: hysteresis losses and eddy currents. Hysteresis losses 
are caused by magnetic domains resisting reorientation to the 
alternating magnetic field. Eddy currents are physical currents that 
are induced in the steel laminations by the magnetic flux of the 
windings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of that view, Advanced Energy cited data from LTEE 
Hydro-Quebec in Canada, which found during testing a maximum difference 
of 0.13 percent efficiency points among the three standards. A 
University of Nottingham test of five motors obtained a maximum 
difference of 0.1 percent efficiency points between IEEE Standard 112-
2004 (Test Method B) efficiency and IEC 60034-2-1. From its own tests, 
Advanced Energy concluded that differences between all three standards 
would result in full-load efficiency values that differed by less than 
0.2 percentage points. Advanced Energy did this by providing two sets 
of test results. The first demonstrated that the same motor tested 
using IEC 60034-2-1 and CSA C390-10 would show no difference in full-
load efficiency and the second demonstrated that the difference between 
IEC 60034-2-1 and IEEE Standard 112-2004 (Test Method B) would result 
in full-load efficiency values that differed by less than 0.2 
percentage points. Therefore, Advanced Energy argued that because these 
data showed that IEC 60034-2-1 was equivalent to CSA C390-10, the data 
demonstrated that the difference between CSA C390-10 and IEEE Standard 
112-2004 (Test Method B) would also be less than 0.2 percentage points. 
(Advanced Energy, No. 23 at p. 3) Advanced Energy noted that while it 
believes these differences are small, DOE will need to determine if 
these differences are small enough to consider these test methods 
equivalent. (Advanced Energy, No. 23 at pp. 2-3)
    In view of the above comments about the equivalence of IEEE 
Standard 112-2004 (Test Method B) and CSA C390-10, including the 
results of the LTEE Hydro-Quebec, University of Nottingham, and 
Advanced Energy studies, DOE conferred with independent experts about 
IEEE Standard 112-2004 (Test Method B) and CSA C390-10, the 
methodologies, measurement of losses, and calculated efficiency. DOE 
understands that the test methods are not identical, but DOE believes 
that the differences are minimal and both tests will result in an 
accurate and similar measurement of efficiency. Given the variable 
nature of tested efficiency values for electric motors due to 
manufacturing and material differences, DOE believes that the variation 
in the calculated efficiency is insignificant and not likely to result 
in any manipulation of energy efficiency test results.\10\ Moreover, 
DOE believes that removing CSA C390-10 would cause unnecessary 
disruption in current testing practices and compliance certification. 
Therefore, DOE is continuing to allow manufacturers to use either test 
method to certify compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ According to a study conducted by the Electrical Apparatus 
Service Association and the Association of Electrical and Mechanical 
Trades, ``The Effect of Repair/Rewinding on Motor Efficiency,'' the 
same motor tested at multiple locations showed a variation of up to 
0.9 percent, even though the same test procedure was used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On a related note, GEA requested that IEC 60034-2-1 be included as 
an acceptable test method in 10 CFR Part 431. (GEA, No. 26 at p. 1) GEA 
considered the efficiency test methods of IEEE Standard 112 (Test 
Method B) and IEC 60034-2-1 to be almost identical to each other and 
asserted that both methods achieve the desired result of measuring the 
energy efficiency of a motor. While GEA provided no data to support its 
claim that IEC 60034-2-1 is almost identical to IEEE Standard 112 (Test 
Method B), Advanced Energy provided data in support of that view. As 
described previously, Advanced Energy provided test results using IEEE 
Standard 112-2004 (Test Method B), IEC 60034-2-1, and CSA C390-10 that 
demonstrated that the test procedures would result in full-load 
efficiency values that differed by less than 0.2 percentage points. 
(Advanced Energy, No. 23 at p. 3)
    Additionally, NEMA and ACEEE noted that they were not aware of 
whether DOE had examined IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method E) for testing 
vertical motors (i.e., motors that are designed to be mounted in a 
vertical configuration), and they requested that DOE carry out this 
determination. NEMA and ACEEE requested that, if DOE determines IEEE 
Standard 112 (Test Method E) is acceptable, DOE should include it in 10 
CFR Part 431. Otherwise, if it is not acceptable, they requested that 
DOE provide a test procedure that is acceptable. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 
25 at p. 15)
    DOE appreciates the comments about IEC 60034-2-1 and IEEE Standard 
112 (Test Method E). DOE will examine them further and may address them 
as part of a separate rulemaking.
    Finally, GEA believed that DOE had made progress by including IEC 
standards for frame sizes that are consistent with NEMA frame sizes but 
noted that there had been no reference to the IEC motor efficiency 
classifications. GEA requested that DOE add a reference to the 
efficiency classifications laid out in IEC 60034-30, ``Rotating 
Electrical Machines--Part 30: Efficiency Classes of Single-Speed, 
Three-Phase, Cage-Induction Motors (IE-code)'' in the CFR. (GEA, No. 26 
at p. 1) It asserted that the IE2 energy efficiency and IE3 premium 
efficiency ratings of IEC 60034-30 are comparable to NEMA MG1-2009 
tables 12-11 and 12-12 respectively. Although DOE appreciates GEA's 
comment, it believes that incorporating a reference to the IEC tables 
of efficiency levels is unnecessary because the actual efficiency 
standards are included as a part of 10 CFR 431.25.

J. National Institute of Standards and Technology/National Voluntary 
Laboratory Accreditation Program Handbook 150-10 Update and Checklist

    In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed updating the references in 
the regulations from: (1) The 1994 edition of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology/National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation 
Program (NIST/NVLAP) Handbook 150, ``Procedures and General 
Requirements'' to the 2006 edition; and (2) the 1995 edition of the 
NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10, ``Efficiency of Electric Motors'' to the 
2007 edition. 73 FR 78228, 78236. Although following the NIST/NVLAP 
handbooks is not a required part of the electric motors test procedure, 
the handbook provides important guidance for assuring testing 
laboratory competency and is used by test facilities seeking 
accreditation under 10 CFR 431.18, 431.19, and 431.36(a)(2).
    During the January 30, 2009, public meeting to discuss the December 
2008 NOPR, two issues were raised regarding this proposed update. 
First, Baldor expressed concern that an update to

[[Page 26623]]

NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10 could be problematic because it refers to 
test methods that are different from the updated test methods proposed 
by DOE. For example, the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10 refers to 
proficiency in IEEE Standard 112-1996 (Test Method B) and CSA C390-93 
(Test Method 1) to become an accredited laboratory. (Baldor, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p. 178) Because these industry test 
methods have been revised, DOE proposed in the December 2008 NOPR to 
update 10 CFR 431.16, appendix A to subpart B, and 10 CFR 431.15 to be 
consistent with current industry practice. 73 FR 78228. DOE indicated 
that it would consult with NIST and consider appropriate updates 
regarding the references in NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10.
    Subsequently, NIST reviewed its Handbook 150-10 and issued a formal 
Laboratory Bulletin on March 19, 2009 (Lab Bulletin LB-42-2009) about 
the Efficiency of Electric Motors Program, available at http://www.nist.gov/nvlap/upload/LB_42_2009-1.pdf. That bulletin contains a 
series of updates to the industry standards referenced in Handbook 150-
10. Although NIST did not update its references of CSA C390, DOE and 
NIST evaluated potential differences between the 1993 and 2010 versions 
of the Canadian standard and determined that there are no substantial 
differences between them that would result in a significant change in 
measured efficiency. Therefore, in the January 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed 
to adopt the 2007 edition of NIST Handbook 150-10. DOE is maintaining 
this approach for its final rule. Additionally, in today's rule, DOE is 
adopting the March 2009 NVLAP Lab Bulletin, which contains the updates 
to industry references in the NIST handbook.
    Second, Baldor commented that the 2007 edition of the handbook does 
not address the procedure used for accrediting a laboratory, which is 
contained in a checklist that it was unable to obtain and examine. 
(Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at pp. 166-167) NEMA 
commented that it found a ``significant difference'' between the 1995 
and 2007 editions of the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10. NEMA noted that 
the 1995 edition provides (1) information on the required accuracy of 
the test equipment, (2) details of the test procedure to be used for 
testing induction motors, and (3) a checklist for the purpose of 
evaluating the test facility. NEMA expressed concern that the 2007 
edition does not contain that technical information and noted that 
clause 1.6.2 of the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10 (2007) indicates that 
all NVLAP programs must use the NIST Handbook 150 Checklist. NEMA 
commented that DOE should not incorporate by reference the 2007 edition 
of NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10 until the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10 
Checklist is available to the public and DOE has examined it to be 
certain it contains the same information about the accuracy of test 
equipment and the procedure for testing as the 1995 edition. (NEMA, No. 
12 at pp. 11-12)
    DOE consulted with NIST about the above matters and learned that 
the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10 (2007) and the on-site assessment NIST/
NVLAP Handbook 150-10 Checklist are available through the web links 
http://www.nist.gov/nvlap/nvlap-handbooks.cfm and http://www.nist.gov/nvlap/upload/NIST-HB-150-10-Checklist.pdf respectively.
    After considering the comments from Baldor and NEMA, DOE further 
examined the 1995 and 2007 Checklists. In DOE's view, these two 
testing-related documents share the same information related to 
equipment accuracy, test procedures, and procedures for laboratory 
accreditation. Accordingly, DOE believes that the 2007 Checklist is a 
proper replacement for the provisions in the 1995 edition and is 
updating the regulations to include the new edition of the NIST 
Handbook 150-10 Checklist (Rev. 2007-05-04).
    Because the two NIST/NVLAP handbooks, the lab bulletin, and the 
checklist are not requirements of the test procedure itself, but rather 
documents used to accredit a testing facility as being capable of 
conducting the necessary tests for evaluating the energy efficiency of 
an electric motor, DOE is providing all of the necessary information 
for these documents in 10 CFR 431.14 ``Sources for information and 
guidance.''
    NEMA and ACEEE also had concerns with 10 CFR 431.18 and the 
continued use of the phrase ``the initial effective date'' in the 
statement ``[c]hanges in NIST/NVLAP's criteria, procedures, policies, 
standards, or other bases for granting accreditation occurring after 
the initial effective date of 10 CFR Part 431 shall not apply to 
accreditation under this part unless approved in writing by the 
Department of Energy.'' NEMA and ACEEE believed the phrase the 
``initial effective date,'' which refers to October 5, 1999, may be 
confusing because neither commenter was aware of any established 
procedure for informing test facilities when DOE has approved a 
revision of the accreditation program. Both commenters encouraged DOE 
to establish and apply such a procedure to certification and 
accreditation programs. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 16)
    DOE appreciates the concerns that NEMA and ACEEE have raised 
regarding 10 CFR 431.18, ``Testing Laboratories.'' To eliminate any 
potential confusion over this issue, DOE is removing the sentence, 
``Changes in NIST/NVLAP's criteria, procedures, policies, standards or 
other bases for granting accreditation, occurring subsequent to the 
initial effective date occurring subject to the initial effective date 
of 10 CFR Part 431, shall not apply to accreditation under this Part 
unless approved in writing by the Department of Energy.'' Reference to 
the effective date of the regulation is unnecessary as the date has 
passed, and any change approved in writing will be reflected in the 
regulatory text at the time of the change. DOE notes that the NIST/
NVLAP criteria currently incorporated into the DOE regulations remain 
effective, and changes to these criteria shall not apply unless the 
changes are approved in writing by the Department.

K. Appendix A to Subpart B of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, Part 431

    Prior to EISA 2007, the Policy Statement under appendix A to 
subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 provided interpretive guidance as to which 
types of motors DOE viewed as covered under EPCA. This policy statement 
was published in the Federal Register on November 5, 1997, in response 
to concerns expressed from manufacturers regarding uncertainty as to 
whether motors with certain modifications were ``electric motors'' 
covered under the statute. DOE based its guidance on the 
recommendations of motor manufacturers, original equipment 
manufacturers, energy efficiency advocates, trade associations, testing 
laboratories, and other government officials. 62 FR 59978.
    In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed to delete the contents of 
appendix A to subpart B since the appendix was no longer an 
interpretation of current law in light of the EISA 2007 amendments to 
EPCA. The appendix had been heavily based on the previous definition of 
``electric motors'' that Congress removed. With the removal of that 
definition, much of the interpretive basis surrounding the policy 
statement required significant reconsideration. 73 FR 78228.
    During the January 29, 2009, public meeting, Baldor commented that 
removing appendix A would result in no guidance and leave open the

[[Page 26624]]

possibility to greatly expanded guidance in the future. (Baldor, Public 
Meeting Transcript No. 8, p. 118) NEMA submitted a comment suggesting 
that DOE attempt to revise the guidance that appears in appendix A 
rather than deleting it completely. NEMA argued that this would help 
clarify some of the new interpretations that DOE would have in view of 
the EISA 2007 legislation. (NEMA, No. 12, p. 12)
    In response, the January SNOPR included an alternative to the 
removal of appendix A--revision of the contents of appendix A to 
reflect the EISA 2007 changes to EPCA. Specifically, DOE proposed to: 
(1) Eliminate references to enactment dates that no longer apply; (2) 
update the scope of coverage to include subtype I and II motors; and 
(3) address the bounds of standard shaft dimensions applicable to 
subtype I and II motors. DOE did not propose language regarding fire 
pump or NEMA Design B motors because DOE did not believe that such 
guidance was necessary at that time, although DOE indicated that it may 
add such guidance at a future date. DOE specifically noted that, as a 
``Policy Statement,'' appendix A represented DOE's interpretation of 
existing statutes and regulations but did not, and was not intended to, 
have the force and effect of law. 76 FR 657.
    In response to the SNOPR, DOE received multiple comments from 
interested parties regarding appendix A. Multiple interested parties 
expressed support for DOE's plans to provide additional guidance on the 
bounds of standard shaft dimensions applicable to subtype I and II 
motors. These interested parties also expressed support for time phased 
implementation dates before such guidance takes effect, although 
suggested phase-in periods varied. Additionally, some interested 
parties requested clarification on certain categories of electric 
motors, such as gearmotors. Finally, ACEEE and NEMA suggested specific 
updates to the table that DOE proposed in its regulatory text for 
appendix A to Subpart B of Part 431. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 16-
17)
    In light of the comments received and DOE's desire to provide the 
public and all interested parties with guidance in a more expeditious 
manner, in today's final rule, DOE is removing appendix A from the Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR), reformatting the information contained 
therein, and will post the contents on DOE's Web site as guidance 
(``Electric Motors Guidance''). The removal of appendix A from the CFR 
does not change the legal effect or authority of appendix A as appendix 
A was a ``Policy Statement'' that merely provided users with guidance 
as to DOE's interpretation of existing statutes and regulations. Unlike 
EPCA, as amended, and DOE's electric motor regulations, appendix A was 
never intended to have, and never had, the force and effect of law.
    By placing appendix A on DOE's Web site as guidance, DOE will be 
able to respond more efficiently to questions regarding general 
electric motors coverage and share DOE's responses to all interested 
persons at the same time. Moving appendix A to DOE's Web site will also 
eliminate any potential confusion as to the legal effect of appendix A. 
The updated guidance document will be available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1. The guidance 
will incorporate changes based on comments received in this rulemaking 
regarding appendix A.
    The updated guidance will address the bounds of standard shaft 
dimensions applicable to subtype I and subtype II motors. DOE 
understands that NEMA Standard MG1-2009 and IEC Standard 60072-1 (1991) 
specify tolerances for the shaft extension diameter and keyset that 
relate to the fit between the shaft and the device mounted on the 
shaft. DOE is aware that shafts of special diameter, length, or design 
are often provided at a customer's request for use in particular 
applications. However, there are electric motors with non-standard 
shafts that could be used in most general purpose applications and 
would then be considered subtype I or subtype II general purpose 
electric motors. DOE received inquiries regarding whether motors with 
shaft designs that are not necessarily in conformance with the standard 
shaft types and dimensions in NEMA MG1 or IEC 60072-1 were covered 
under EPCA. (Baldor, No. 16; WEG, No. 17) In response to such 
inquiries, and in view of possible confusion in the marketplace, DOE 
proposed to add guidance on shaft diameter, length, shoulder location, 
and special designs under section III of appendix A to subpart B of 10 
CFR part 431 in the January 2011 SNOPR. 76 FR 658.
    The Electric Motors Guidance will specify for certain design 
features the range of variation in motor characteristics beyond which a 
motor would no longer be considered by DOE as general purpose. 
Manufacturers should not attempt to circumvent the efficiency standards 
by making minor modifications to a motor in an attempt to characterize 
an otherwise general purpose electric motor as a non-general purpose 
electric motor. Whether a user can use a motor in most general purpose 
applications is a critical factor in assessing whether a given motor is 
a general purpose electric motor.
    DOE proposed language to provide guidance on the amount of 
variation from standard characteristics that would enable a motor to 
maintain its general purpose classification, as follows:

            Table III.1--Allowable Shaft Dimension Variations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Variation allowed
                  Design feature                        from standard
                                                       characteristic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaft Diameter....................................  Any variation in the
                                                     shaft diameter
                                                     between the
                                                     standard shaft
                                                     diameter of the
                                                     next lower and
                                                     higher frame
                                                     numbers series
                                                     maintains the
                                                     general purpose
                                                     classification of a
                                                     motor.
Shaft Length......................................  Any shaft length
                                                     between and
                                                     inclusive of 0.5 to
                                                     1.25 times the
                                                     standard shaft
                                                     length of the motor
                                                     maintains the
                                                     general purpose
                                                     classification of
                                                     the motor.
Shoulder Location.................................  An increase less
                                                     than or equal to 25
                                                     percent in either
                                                     the ``BA'' (MG1) or
                                                     ``C'' (IEC)
                                                     dimensions of the
                                                     standard motor
                                                     frame dimensions
                                                     maintains the
                                                     general purpose
                                                     classification of
                                                     the motor.
Special Shaft Designs.............................  The special shaft
                                                     designs of a flat
                                                     section in shaft
                                                     (for pulley
                                                     mounting) and
                                                     shafts with a
                                                     threaded hole
                                                     maintain the
                                                     general purpose
                                                     classification of
                                                     the motor.
                                                     Alternatively,
                                                     shafts with threads
                                                     on the outside of
                                                     the shaft or a
                                                     stepped shaft do
                                                     not currently
                                                     maintain their
                                                     general purpose
                                                     classification. If
                                                     DOE receives
                                                     information that
                                                     manufacturers are
                                                     switching to motors
                                                     with outside
                                                     threads and stepped-
                                                     shaft design
                                                     variants to avoid
                                                     efficiency
                                                     improvements, then
                                                     DOE may change the
                                                     guidance to
                                                     classify motors
                                                     with outside
                                                     threads and stepped
                                                     shafts as general
                                                     purpose electric
                                                     motors. 76 FR 658,
                                                     673.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 26625]]

    NEEA stated that it ``strongly supports'' DOE actions to clarify 
regulations and prevent circumvention of standards and in this regard 
supported DOE's decision to regulate non-standard shaft dimensions. It 
recommended that up to one year should be allowed for such motors to 
come into compliance with the applicable standards established by EISA 
2007. (NEEA, et al., No. 24 at p. 3) Several interested parties 
indicated their concern over the enforcement of these shaft and 
shoulder dimensions. Particularly, these parties were concerned that if 
DOE took the position that motors with non-standard shaft lengths and 
sizes would be treated as general purpose electric motors for purposes 
of compliance with the EISA 2007 standards, manufacturers would require 
additional time to adjust to this new policy. NEMA noted that its 
members and their customers have spent a considerable amount of time 
and effort to adopt the EISA 2007 standards by the effective date of 
December 19, 2010, and have made significant changes both in 
manufacturing processes for motors and the equipment that use the 
motors to comply with the applicable provisions under 10 CFR Part 431. 
In view of these concerns, NEMA and ACEEE have requested a time-phased 
implementation of three years for the changes in guidance pertaining to 
special shafts. They believe that this will allow motor users and 
manufacturers the necessary time to implement the required changes. 
(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 17-18).
    Regarding DOE's enforcement of its electric motors regulations in 
light of DOE guidance, DOE reminds stakeholders that the former 
appendix A was a guidance document and did not constitute a regulatory 
requirement. Similarly, any future guidance does not change the scope 
of coverage for electric motors. Therefore, although DOE understands 
that some electric motors may require some design modifications, DOE 
declines to establish an implementation date for the enforcement of 
energy conservation standards for motors with special shaft dimensions. 
DOE will consider cases on an individual basis when evaluating any 
potential noncompliance.
    In response to the January 2011 SNOPR, the Rossi Gearmotor Division 
of Habasit America (Rossi) commented that integral gearmotors are 
effectively general purpose electric motors with relatively simple 
modifications that would not affect energy efficiency. While these 
motors often cannot be used independent of the gear reducer, they can 
be technologically and economically manufactured to the energy 
efficiency levels of a standard NEMA or IEC motor, which is evidenced 
by the fact that most integral gearmotor manufacturers selling in the 
U.S. market offer a high efficiency gearmotor. However, it added that 
the majority of those manufacturers would want DOE to continue to 
consider such motors outside the scope of regulation, which would 
continue to allow standard efficient integral gearmotors to be offered 
at lower first costs relative to energy efficient integral gearmotors. 
Rossi stated that manufacturers of integral gearmotors have a statutory 
responsibility to meet energy efficiency standards where it is 
technologically feasible and economically justified. (Rossi, No. 22 at 
pp. 1-2).
    NEMA and ACEEE requested that DOE clarify that only motors 
connected to a stand-alone gear assembly would be treated as covered 
equipment. NEMA and ACEEE stated that a separately contained gear 
assembly can be intended for mounting on a C-face or D-flange on a 
motor of otherwise standard construction. They added that such a gear 
assembly is not generally a ``stand-alone'' unit and the assembly with 
the motor would not be an ``integral gearmotor.'' (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 
25 at p. 26)
    As stated in the former appendix A, DOE only considers a motor to 
be an ``integral gearmotor'' if it is a combination of a motor and a 
gear drive (or assembly of gears). In this combined package, the gear 
drive (or assembly of gears) and the motor are not stand-alone 
entities. Also as noted in the former appendix A, DOE did not consider 
such equipment to be covered by EPCA. The motor portion of an integral 
gearmotor is usually not a complete motor and thus not capable of being 
used in most general purpose applications. Additionally, integral 
gearmotors are generally not constructed with a T- or U-frame and they 
can have unique performance characteristics, physical dimensions, and 
casing, flange, and shafting dimensions. As a result, DOE considers 
such motors outside the scope of EPCA as amended by EISA 2007. Finally, 
DOE recognizes that an electric motor could be connected to a stand-
alone gear drive (or assembly of gears) and clarifies that it does not 
consider such a configuration to be an integral gearmotor. If an 
electric motor is connected to a stand-alone gear drive (or assembly of 
gears), DOE considers it covered equipment if it also meets the 
definition of subtype I or subtype II.

L. Definition of Small Electric Motor

    Subsequent to the publication of the July 7, 2009, small electric 
motor test procedures final rule (74 FR 32059), Baldor expressed 
concern over the clarity of certain key terms contained within the 
statutory definition of a small electric motor, asking DOE to clarify 
the statutory definition of ``small electric motor'' by interpreting 
key phrases in the definition, specifically: ``general purpose,'' 
``induction motor,'' ``two-digit frame number series,'' and ``IEC 
metric equivalent motors.'' (Baldor, No. 15 at p. 2) Baldor suggested 
that DOE consider clarifying the definition by adding parenthetical 
identifiers ``(MG1)'' and ``(IEC)'' to the definition after each of 
these four key phrases to indicate the industry reference from which 
DOE interprets the meaning of that phrase. (Baldor, No. 15 at p. 2)
    Section 340(G) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G), defines the term 
``small electric motor'' to mean a NEMA general purpose alternating 
current single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number 
series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987. When DOE 
codified this definition into the CFR, DOE added the phrase ``including 
IEC metric equivalent motors'' to clearly signal that a motor that 
otherwise satisfied the technical requirements spelled out in the 
statutory definition would not be exempt from coverage simply because 
it was built using metric--rather than English (Imperial)--units. 74 FR 
32072. DOE applied the term ``small electric motors'' to refer to those 
motors that are built in a two-digit frame series and that are general 
purpose and possess standard ratings and standard operating 
characteristics, an application that a Federal appellate court has 
upheld as permissible. See National Electrical Manufacturers 
Association v. DOE, 654 F.3d 496 (4th Cir. 2011). However, should it 
become necessary, DOE may consider providing further clarification as 
required.

M. Canadian Standards Association Test Procedures for Small Electric 
Motors

    In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed permitting manufacturers to 
select one of three test methods to measure the energy efficiency of 
its covered small electric motors: IEEE Standard 114, IEEE Standard 
112, or CAN/CSA C747-94. 73 FR 78223, 78238. These choices were 
consistent with those for electric motors listed in 10 CFR 431.16. 
Under that provision, a manufacturer may select either an IEEE or CSA 
test method for determining the

[[Page 26626]]

efficiency of covered 1-200 horsepower electric motors. DOE adopted 
IEEE Standard 114-2001 for single-phase small electric motors and both 
IEEE Standard 112-2004 Test Method A and Test Method B in its final 
rule for polyphase small electric motors. 74 FR 32065-66, 32073-74. 
Since IEEE Standard 112 Test Method A applies to polyphase small 
electric motors below 1 kilowatt (1.34 horsepower), DOE determined that 
Test Method A would apply to polyphase small electric motors rated at 
or below 1 horsepower, which is the first common horsepower rating 
below 1 kilowatt (1.34 horsepower). Similarly, IEEE Standard 112 Test 
Method B would apply to polyphase small electric motors rated greater 
than 1 horsepower. DOE also adopted CAN/CSA-C747-94 as an alternative 
test method for single-phase motors. In the small electric motors test 
procedure final rule, DOE stated that it was not adopting alternative 
test methods for polyphase small electric motors based on CAN/CSA-747-
94 or CSA C390-10 because of potential inconsistencies in the measured 
efficiency associated with units tested under IEEE Standard 112-2004 
(Test Method B). 74 FR 32066.
    In the January 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed to add alternatives to 
provide manufacturers with greater testing flexibility. In particular, 
DOE proposed to permit testing using: (1) CSA C747-09 as an alternative 
to IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method A) for polyphase small electric 
motors rated less than or equal to 1 horsepower (0.746 kilowatt); and 
(2) CSA C390-10, as an alternative to IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) 
for polyphase small electric motors that have a rating greater than 1 
horsepower (0.746 kilowatt). DOE indicated that using the CSA C747-09 
and CSA C390-10 in this manner will result in consistent measurements 
compared to the applicable IEEE Standard 112 and IEEE Standard 114 test 
methods adopted in the small electric motors final rule, and help 
promote the harmonization of test methods internationally. 76 FR 658.
    NEMA and ACEEE suggested including CSA C747-09 as an equivalent 
protocol to the appropriate IEEE 114 and 112 Methods. (NEMA and ACEEE, 
No. 25 at p. 18) They also provided comments on CSA C390-10 as it 
relates to IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B), which are addressed in 
section III.I of today's notice. Advanced Energy pointed out that an 
updated version of the IEEE Standard 114 was published in December 2010 
and advised DOE to reference this standard rather than the superseded 
IEEE Standard 114-2001. (Advanced Energy, No. 23 at p. 4)
    DOE has decided to codify the changes proposed in the SNOPR with 
the addition of the changes suggested by interested parties--namely, to 
update IEEE Standard 114 to the 2010 version and allow the use of CSA 
C390-10 as an equivalent to IEEE Standard 112. DOE believes that it is 
important to have the most current standards referenced in its 
regulatory text and it understands that the new version of CSA C390 is 
essentially equivalent to IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B). DOE will 
update the referenced IEEE Standard 114 to the most recent December 
2010 version because it reflects the most current industry practices. 
Because DOE believes the two methods are equivalent, DOE may use either 
test procedure when testing electric motors for compliance with EPCA, 
as amended.

N. Small Electric Motor Represented Efficiency Value

    In DOE's notice proposing energy conservation standards for small 
electric motors, the term ``nominal full-load efficiency'' was defined 
as the arithmetic mean of the full-load efficiency of a population of 
motors. DOE received numerous comments on this definition, all of which 
were summarized in its final rule on energy conservation standards for 
small electric motors. 75 FR 10874 (March 9, 2010). Ultimately, DOE 
agreed with comments made by NEMA and Baldor and opted not to establish 
energy conservation standards in terms of nominal efficiency. 75 FR 
10914. Instead, DOE established energy conservation standards for small 
electric motors in terms of ``average full-load efficiency.'' 75 FR 
10947.
    NEMA had also sought clarity on the term ``nominal full-load 
efficiency'' in the context of the December 2008 proposal. It noted 
that DOE had not fully explained the efficiency value for which test 
results are to be compared for the purpose of determining compliance. 
NEMA asked how DOE would require the full-load efficiency to be 
represented on small electric motors, noting that motors are not marked 
with the average full-load efficiency. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3)
    In developing the January 2011 SNOPR, DOE considered the relevant 
comments submitted during the small electric motors rulemaking 
proceedings. DOE recognized that its standards for electric motors and 
small electric motors use different metrics--i.e., nominal full-load 
efficiency (electric motors) and average full-load efficiency (small 
electric motors). The nominal efficiency values for electric motors are 
based on a logical sequence of standard values in NEMA Standard MG1-
2009 (Table 12-10) and are familiar to motor users. However, there is 
no comparable set of standardized values adopted by NEMA for small 
electric motors and there is no statutory requirement that efficiency 
standards for these motors be set in terms of their nominal full-load 
efficiency.
    As mentioned earlier, DOE established small electric motor energy 
conservation standards in terms of ``average full-load efficiency'' in 
the final rule. 75 FR 10914, 10947 (March 9, 2010). The analyses and 
results supporting the final energy conservation standard levels for 
small electric motors were calculated using an average efficiency 
metric. In the 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed procedures for reporting the 
average full-load efficiency of these small electric motors that would 
be consistent with the energy conservation standards set in the March 
2010 rule. With respect to the term ``nominal full-load efficiency,'' 
since this term is not used in the small electric motors standard, DOE 
proposed leaving the term undefined. If DOE amended the test procedure 
to measure the nominal full-load efficiency of small electric motors, 
the change would alter the applicable metric, which, in turn, could 
require a change in the energy efficiency standard levels for small 
electric motors because the average full-load efficiency standards in 
place would need to be recalculated in terms of nominal full-load 
efficiencies. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)) NEMA viewed the average full-load 
efficiency definition in the small electric motors energy conservation 
standards final rule as ambiguous and noted that the term ``represented 
efficiency'' had yet to be defined. Therefore, in the 2011 SNOPR, DOE 
proposed procedures for determining the represented efficiency of small 
electric motors and how that value relates to the average full-load 
efficiency of a sample of motors.
    In the SNOPR preamble, DOE proposed to treat the represented 
efficiency as the efficiency that corresponds to a 5 percent increase 
in losses, compared to the tested efficiency of a random sample of five 
or more units of a basic model. 76 FR 659. However, this approach was 
not fully consistent with the language and equations proposed in 10 CFR 
431.445 of the proposed regulatory text, which suggested that the 
average full-load efficiency of a sample of motors must be greater than 
or equal to a motor's represented efficiency with an increase of 5 
percent in motor losses. 76 FR 674-75. In other words, if the motor's 
represented efficiency is adjusted to a

[[Page 26627]]

new efficiency that equates to an increase in motor losses of 5 
percent, the average full-load efficiency of the tested sample must be 
greater than or equal to that new, adjusted, efficiency.
    NEMA and ACEEE had several comments regarding DOE's January 2011 
proposal to define ``represented efficiency value.'' First, NEMA and 
ACEEE argued that no definition is needed in addition to the previously 
defined terms ``average full-load efficiency'' and ``NEMA nominal 
efficiency,'' which are already in use by the industry. They commented 
that the representative efficiency used to check the average efficiency 
of a sample should be the nominal full-load efficiency value for the 
small electric motors, and did not believe that a separately defined 
``representative efficiency'' is necessary. They asserted that the 
definition of ``nominal full-load efficiency'' in 10 CFR 431.12 should 
be added to 10 CFR 431.442 to cover small electric motors. Furthermore, 
NEMA and ACEEE commented that the relationship between average full-
load efficiency and represented efficiency, as defined in 10 CFR 
431.445(c)(3), conflicts with the statement in the 2011 SNOPR preamble 
that ``represented efficiency'' is ``that efficiency that corresponds 
to a 5 percent increase in losses, compared to the tested efficiency of 
a random sample of five or more units of a basic model.'' (NEMA and 
ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 19)
    NEMA and ACEEE also expressed concern that the ``arbitrary 5% 
increase in losses'' proposed by DOE that a manufacturer would use when 
reporting and certifying its equipment would require a manufacturer to 
understate the actual value efficiency of its motors. In their view, 
DOE does not require a manufacturer of any other covered product in 
Part 431 to understate the actual efficiency, and DOE should not 
require electric motor manufacturers to do so. Furthermore, NEMA and 
ACEEE disagreed with the selection of the 5 percent factor. They noted 
that the value of 5 percent chosen for electric motors was supported by 
NEMA round robin tests and studies by NIST/NVLAP in developing the 
accreditation program for test facilities to follow when determining 
electric motor efficiency. It was their opinion that until sufficient 
studies have been performed to determine how the ``average full-load 
efficiency'' will be determined for a large population of small 
electric motors based on a sample of five motors, this margin should be 
increased to no less than 15 percent. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 20)
    Finally, NEMA and ACEEE expressed concern over the sample size of 
five motors for the ``tested efficiency.'' In their view, the proposal 
fails to recognize that this sample of five motors could be taken from 
a population of thousands of small electric motors of the same design. 
This situation leaves open the possibility that the selected motors 
could be outliers to the general population of small electric motors 
produced by a manufacturer. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 19)
    DOE notes that it did not propose a definition for the term 
``represented average full-load efficiency.'' DOE agrees with the 
commenters that such a definition is unnecessary, given that the term 
``average full-load efficiency'' is already defined and will be used 
with respect to small electric motors in a similar manner as ``nominal-
full-load efficiency'' is used with respect to electric motors (as 
represented on the electric motor nameplate). For electric motors, the 
term ``represented nominal full load efficiency'' is understood by 
electric motor manufacturers as denoting the efficiency of a basic 
model for which a manufacturer is attempting to demonstrate compliance. 
(See 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2).)
    To make these concepts clearer with respect to small electric 
motors, DOE is replacing the term ``represented average-full load 
efficiency'' with the term ``required average-full load efficiency.'' 
In the context of small electric motors, the term ``required average-
full load efficiency'' refers to the average full-load efficiency that 
a small electric motor basic model must satisfy to comply with the 
applicable standard. DOE believes that ``required'' is a preferable 
term for small electric motors because it does not connote labeling 
requirements as ``represented'' does for electric motors.
    This change is important for two reasons. First, there are no 
labeling requirements currently in place for small electric motors. 
Second, manufacturers prefer to use nominal full-load efficiency values 
on their labels and to represent the efficiency of a large population 
of motors with the same design (both electric motors and small electric 
motors) with a single efficiency value. Because the standards for small 
electric motors are in terms of average full-load efficiencies (and not 
standardized nominal values used for labeling electric motors), using 
the term ``required'' distinguishes the rating for small electric 
motors from the nominal full-load efficiency values used to rate 
electric motors.
    In addition to these revisions, DOE is clarifying one portion of 
the text within Section 431.445(c)(2). DOE is making this change to 
ensure that the limited conditions under which substitute components 
may be used are more easily understood. These changes are being made to 
improve the overall readability of this section and are consistent with 
DOE's proposal.
    DOE also clarifies that the regulatory text and equations appearing 
in the SNOPR correctly lay out the manner in which manufacturers are to 
determine the certified efficiency of their motors. See 76 FR 674-75. 
DOE's proposal regarding the represented (now required) efficiency of a 
small electric motor was intended to be consistent with DOE's current 
regulations for electric motors. In other words, DOE is clarifying that 
the average full-load efficiency of a sample should be greater than or 
equal to the required efficiency (plus a 5 percent increase in losses) 
for that sample.
    DOE notes that in the context of all other regulated consumer 
products and commercial equipment, manufacturers are required to rate 
the energy efficiency performance of their products or equipment in a 
conservative manner not only to ensure that those products and 
equipment satisfy the required energy conservation standards, but also 
to ensure that the final product or equipment performs at least as well 
as the represented efficiency. Against this background, DOE notes that 
its proposal centers on requiring manufacturers to apply test results 
when determining the energy efficiency of a particular basic model and 
to certify compliance using the applicable small electric motor energy 
efficiency level. The average efficiency of the required sample must be 
greater than or equal to the required efficiency level plus a 5 percent 
increase in motor losses. For example, if a manufacturer has a small 
electric motor with a required energy conservation standard level of 
88.5 percent, demonstrating that a small electric motor basic model 
meets that level would require that the average of a sample of at least 
5 tested motors must be greater than or equal to 88.5 percent plus a 5 
percent increase in motor losses, or 88.0 percent.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Motor losses (ML) are calculated using the equation ML = 
(100/[micro])-1, where [micro] equals efficiency. Consider the 
example in the text. At 88.5 percent efficient, ML = 0.130, and a 5 
percent increase would make ML = 0.136. Then, the previous equation 
can be rearranged as follows, [micro] = 100/(ML+1). Plugging in 
0.136 for ML and solving for [micro] yields a new efficiency of 88.0 
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, DOE emphasizes that a manufacturer seeking to certify 
a particular basic model must test at least 5 units (or samples) of a 
basic model. If

[[Page 26628]]

a manufacturer believes that this sample size will not be 
representative of their population of that basic model, it may test 
more units at its discretion to determine its certified efficiency.
    DOE appreciates the comments regarding the use of ``nominal full-
load efficiency'' when referring to a small electric motor's 
``represented full-load efficiency,'' now ``required full-load 
efficiency.'' However, because ``nominal full-load efficiency'' is not 
used in the small electric motors standard, DOE has decided to leave 
the term undefined. Should DOE amend the test procedure to measure the 
nominal full-load efficiency of small electric motors, it would likely 
necessitate changes to the energy conservation standards as well. If 
such a change were made to the regulated metric, DOE would alter, as 
appropriate, the applicable methodology and then make a corresponding 
change in the energy conservation standards consistent with other 
statutory requirements. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)). Consequently, DOE is not 
requiring the ``required full-load efficiency'' to be stated or 
reported in terms of ``nominal full-load efficiency.'' However, DOE 
realizes that this is the industry standard for labeling motors and is 
clarifying that small electric motor manufacturers can still use the 
standardized values for nominal full-load efficiency that appear in 
NEMA MG1-2009 Table 12-10 to label their motors. Consistent with 42 
U.S.C. 6317(d), DOE will consider the promulgation of detailed 
requirements related to this equipment.
    Finally, in response to the comments by NEMA and ACEEE suggesting 
that DOE raise the proposed power loss factor from 5 to 15 percent, DOE 
is not inclined to change its proposal for a number of reasons. First, 
the proposed value is consistent with the value used for medium 
electric motors. That value, as NEMA and ACEEE pointed out, was based 
on round robin testing and testing from NIST/NVLAP that supported its 
use. DOE also notes that the 5 percent allowance has been an accepted 
tolerance for electric motors since DOE published its first final rule 
for electric motors test procedures on October 5, 1999. 64 FR 54153 
Second, there is no reason to believe that the variation in performance 
of small electric motors should be any different from medium electric 
motors. At the lowest horsepower ratings covered for medium electric 
motors, the standard frame sizes are very similar to those used for 
small electric motors. Third, DOE understands that small electric 
motors and medium electric motors are built with the same materials 
that have the same variations in properties that affect motor losses. 
As a result, there are no engineering reasons that would necessitate 
the use of a power loss factor for small electric motors that exceeds 
by three-fold the loss factor provided for electric motors. These facts 
collectively suggest that whether a motor is a small or medium electric 
motor does not have a significant bearing on the variation in tested 
efficiency and it would be unnecessary to provide an additional 10 
percent of loss variation for small electric motors. Finally, adopting 
the approach suggested by NEMA and ACEEE would have the effect of 
lowering the permitted efficiency level for a basic model by one NEMA 
nominal efficiency band. DOE notes that such a significant increase in 
the permitted motor loss value would allow manufacturers to produce 
motors at significantly reduced efficiency levels and potentially 
undercut the applicable energy conservation standard.
    DOE also notes that, contrary to the assertions made by NEMA and 
ACEEE, consumer products and other commercial equipment are required to 
meet a prescribed efficiency level without the benefit of an added loss 
factor. In that sense, motor manufacturers are presented with an 
additional margin for compliance when compared to other types of 
commercial equipment or consumer products. DOE's inclusion of this 
factor is in recognition of the changes in motor performance that are 
observed because of material variability and engineering limitations 
inherent in certain aspects of motor manufacturing. Given continuing 
advances in manufacturing, however, DOE may revisit the continued 
inclusion of a standard power loss factor as part of future revisions 
to its standards. DOE notes that in its most recent Certification, 
Compliance and Enforcement rule, there is no allowance for efficiency 
losses. See 76 FR 12422 (March 6, 2011).
    Furthermore, based on small electric motor test data generated by 
an independent laboratory, a 5 percent increase in losses has been 
shown to be a reasonable allowance for an increase in losses relative 
to a motor's labeled full-load efficiency. This 5 percent value falls 
within the margin of error for state-of-the-art testing equipment used 
to measure the efficiency losses in a motor relative to its labeled 
full-load efficiency value. Based on testing information DOE has 
reviewed, small electric motors were able to meet the 5 percent 
variation.
    DOE's analysis of small electric motor efficiency included a review 
of test results from 27 small electric motors as provided by an 
independent laboratory. Although the tests show a range of rated 
losses, ranging from 81 percent to 179 percent of rated losses 
(excluding one outlier), nine of these tests demonstrate that a 5 
percent increase in losses is reasonable. This is significant for two 
reasons. First, these tests show that a 5 percent loss is 
technologically feasible today. Second, DOE anticipates that the same 
tests conducted after manufacturers are required to comply with the 
small electric motor standards would show much less variation in rated 
losses resulting from the standard. Moreover, NEMA/ACEEE did not 
provide DOE with any studies or data contradicting the proposed 5 
percent motor loss value.
    As an added check, DOE also reviewed the test data that examined 
electric motor efficiency. Those tests indicated that when tolerance 
levels are prescribed, the measured efficiency remains within the 
prescribed band--in this case, the prescribed band is delineated by the 
NEMA-developed efficiency bands found in MG-1. Given that there are no 
engineering reasons that would limit the ability of manufacturers to 
meet a prescribed efficiency value under similar conditions, 
manufacturers should be capable of meeting the required efficiency 
levels when applying the same motor loss value for small electric 
motors as well.

O. Validation of the Small Electric Motor Alternative Efficiency 
Determination Method

    Section 343(a)(2) of EPCA requires that test procedures prescribed 
for electric motors be ``reasonably designed to produce test results 
which reflect energy efficiency,'' yet not be ``unduly burdensome'' to 
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) As discussed in section III.D.3 of the 
December 22, 2008 NOPR, DOE recognizes that manufacturers produce large 
numbers of basic models of small electric motors, numbering in the 
thousands. 73 FR 78223. These large numbers are due in part to the 
frequency with which units are modified because of material price 
fluctuations which, in turn, often necessitate the development of new 
basic models.
    In view of the substantial number of small electric motors that 
could be subject to an individual testing requirement for each basic 
model, the final small electric motors test procedure rule included the 
use of an alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM). 74 FR 
32067, 32073. An AEDM is a predictive mathematical model developed from 
engineering

[[Page 26629]]

analyses of design data and substantiated by actual testing. It 
represents the energy consumption characteristics of one or more basic 
models. Before using an AEDM, a manufacturer must determine its 
accuracy and reliability through actual testing of a statistically 
valid sample of at least five basic models. (10 CFR 431.445) For each 
basic model, the manufacturer must test a sample size of at least five 
units selected at random according to the criteria adopted in section 
10 CFR 431.445. After validating an AEDM's accuracy, the manufacturer 
may use that AEDM to determine the efficiencies of other basic models 
of small electric motors without further testing. DOE may consider 
requiring periodic verification subsequent to initial substantiation in 
a separate rulemaking on compliance, certification, and enforcement.
    In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt procedures for 
small electric motors that would allow a manufacturer to certify 
compliance by using an AEDM and a statistically meaningful sampling 
procedure for selecting test specimens that would be consistent with 
the existing requirements in 10 CFR 431.17 that currently apply to 
electric motors. 73 FR 78223-24, 78238-39. In the January 2011 SNOPR, 
DOE proposed additional requirements that are consistent with the AEDM 
approach already adopted for 1-200 horsepower electric motors. These 
proposals helped clarify portions of the AEDM procedure adopted in the 
final rule for small electric motors. DOE requested comments from 
interested parties on these requirements for a manufacturer to 
substantiate the accuracy of its AEDM. 76 FR 660.
    In response to the January 2011 SNOPR, NEMA and ACEEE supported the 
adoption of AEDM usage and verification procedures for small electric 
motors that would be based on the procedures already in place for 
electric motors. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 22) Advanced Energy also 
agreed with DOE's proposal to use actual testing to validate an AEDM 
model for small electric motors. However, it requested that DOE place 
more emphasis on an AEDM's subsequent verification. Advanced Energy 
noted that it would be helpful for the current language, which calls 
for subsequent verification of AEDMs to be conducted on a ``periodic'' 
basis using a specific time period, such as annually, to provide 
quality control to the process of AEDMs. (Advanced Energy, No. 23 at p. 
4)
    DOE appreciates these comments. However, as noted previously, DOE 
is planning on addressing these comments in a separate rulemaking. 
Between publication of the SNOPR and this final rule, DOE initiated a 
rulemaking specifically for AEDMs for all products and equipment; these 
comments will be addressed in that rulemaking.

P. Small Electric Motor Nationally Recognized Certification and Testing 
Laboratory Accreditation Programs

    EPCA provides different requirements for determining the energy 
efficiency of regulated small electric motors and electric motors. In 
particular, section 345(c) of EPCA directs the Secretary of Energy to 
require manufacturers of ``electric motors'' to certify, through an 
independent testing or certification program nationally recognized in 
the United States, that any electric motor subject to EPCA efficiency 
standards meets the applicable standard.\12\ (42 U.S.C. 6316(c)) No 
such requirement for independent testing or certification applies to 
small electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed to allow a manufacturer to 
self-certify its small electric motors (i.e., not require ``independent 
testing''). This approach would be consistent with the compliance 
certification requirements for other commercial equipment such as high-
intensity discharge lamps and distribution transformers, which are 
covered equipment under section 346 of EPCA. 73 FR 78224.
    In its comments to the NOPR, at 74 FR 32068 (July 7, 2009), NEMA 
observed that many small electric motors sold in the U.S. are also sold 
in Canada, and that Canadian regulatory entities are considering 
following DOE's lead in developing energy efficiency standards for 
small electric motors. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 4) NEMA noted that because 
the only means to certify compliance for electric motors in Canada is 
through the CSA Energy Efficiency Verification Program, it is likely 
that the Canadian government will require small electric motors to be 
certified through the same CSA Energy Efficiency Verification Program. 
NEMA requested that DOE recognize independent third party efficiency 
certification programs for small electric motors, but not mandate the 
use of independent third party certification programs or accreditation 
programs for testing facilities. Rather, it stressed that DOE 
recognition of such programs would encourage motor manufacturers to use 
third party accreditation programs, such as NVLAP, to accredit their 
own test facility, which could then be used to self-certify under 10 
CFR 431.17(a)(5)(ii). In addition, NEMA recommended that DOE allow 
sufficient time for the approval of such programs and manufacturer 
participation in such programs because no accreditation programs for 
testing in accordance with IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method A), IEEE 
Standard 114, or CSA C747 currently exist. (NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 4-5)
    NEEA supported the creation of a nationally recognized 
certification program or accredited laboratory, according to the 
requirements that currently apply to electric motors. (See 10 CFR 
431.17(a)(5)) It recommended that DOE apply the same requirements to 
small electric motors. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 2)
    Responding to these comments, DOE proposed in the January 2011 
SNOPR to add the same provisions regarding nationally recognized 
certification programs to the small electric motors regulations as are 
currently found in the electric motors regulations at 10 CFR 
431.17(a)(5), 431.20, and 431.21. DOE proposed to allow the use of such 
approved programs but it added that it may also, in the future, require 
manufacturers to test small electric motors through a nationally 
recognized certification program or a testing laboratory that has been 
accredited through a process similar to that of NIST/NVLAP. 76 FR 660. 
DOE notes that 10 CFR sections 431.19 and 431.20, respectively, provide 
for DOE recognition of accreditation bodies and nationally recognized 
certification programs.
    In written comments, NEMA and ACEEE agreed that independent third 
party compliance certification programs for small electric motors 
should be approved as DOE had proposed through the additions of 
sections 431.447 and 431.448. However, they stressed that any approved 
certification program for small electric motors should not be 
mandatory--these programs should continue to be one of the procedures 
available to manufacturers when certifying their small electric motors 
to the applicable standards. Furthermore, they commented that, similar 
to electric motors, participation in a laboratory accreditation program 
for the testing of small electric motor efficiency should not be 
mandatory if it is possible to obtain equivalent recognition of the 
test facility through participation in a certification program. (NEMA 
and

[[Page 26630]]

ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 22) NEMA and ACEEE also noted that in DOE's SNOPR, 
DOE did not include sections for small electric motors corresponding to 
the provisions currently in place for electric motors--10 CFR 431.18 
(``Testing Laboratories'') and 10 CFR 431.19 (``Department of Energy 
recognition of accreditation bodies''). These commenters urged DOE to 
begin the process of establishing proper certification and 
accreditation programs in the immediate future. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 
at pp. 22-23)
    Advanced Energy recommended that third party accreditation programs 
and laboratory accreditation programs be established and made available 
for motor manufacturers seeking compliance for small electric motors. 
Furthermore, it commented that these programs should be made mandatory 
to match the testing and certification policies of electric motors. 
Advanced Energy suggested that DOE and NIST work together to develop 
laboratory accredited programs for all new test standards referenced in 
the SNOPR, and that all third party certification programs currently 
recognized by DOE should have NVLAP accreditation for motor efficiency 
testing because it improves testing consistency and expertise of the 
programs for determining motor efficiency.
    In view of the above comments, DOE will codify the proposed 
requirements for sections 431.447 and 431.448 in today's final rule, 
with one minor change. DOE believes that an independent third party 
certification should not be mandatory at this time because such a 
requirement would conflict with DOE's goal of reducing testing burdens 
for small electric motor manufacturers. Furthermore, mandatory use of 
third-party certification would also nullify the advantage that 
manufacturers would gain through the use of an AEDM, which DOE 
currently believes offers a reasonably accurate method of demonstrating 
the efficiency of a given basic model of a small electric motor. In 
sum, until there is a DOE-approved nationally recognized certification 
program for small electric motors, manufacturers must self-certify 
their small electric motors as required in today's rule at section 
431.445(b)(5)(ii). Section 431.445(b)(5)(i) of today's rule differs 
from the proposed rule in that it allows a manufacturer to ``use'' a 
certification program rather than ``have'' a certification program. 
This minor change clarifies that manufacturers can use their own 
approved certification program or an approved third-party certification 
program. In terms of participation in laboratory accreditation, DOE 
will continue to work with NIST/NVLAP to develop such accreditation 
procedures in the near future.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that test 
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by 
law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies 
that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by 
Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: http://www.gc.doe.gov.
    As described in the preamble, today's final rule presents 
additional test procedure options consistent with current industry 
practice that manufacturers may use when certifying their equipment as 
compliant, clarifies definitions for certain key terms, clarifies the 
scope of energy conservation standards for electric motors, and updates 
references to standards publications and test procedures otherwise 
incorporated by reference. DOE certified to the Office of Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration (SBA) that the proposed test 
procedures for electric motors and small electric motors would not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. After consideration of comments received on the economic 
impact of the rule, discussed in more detail below and elsewhere in the 
preamble, DOE continues to certify that the test procedures would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows:
    To estimate the number of small businesses impacted by the rule, 
DOE considered the size standards for a small business listed by the 
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and 
description under 13 CFR 121.201. To be considered a small business, a 
manufacturer of electric motors or small electric motors and its 
affiliates may employ a maximum of 1,000 employees. DOE estimates that 
there are approximately 20 domestic motor manufacturers that 
manufacture electric motors or small electric motors covered by EPCA, 
and no more than six of these manufacturers are small businesses 
employing a maximum of 1,000 employees. These estimates are based on 
analyses DOE conducted in the final rule establishing energy 
conservation standards for small electric motors at 75 FR 10874 (March 
9, 2010) and the final rule that set forth test procedures for electric 
motors at 64 FR 54114 (October 5, 1999). In these previous rules, DOE 
calculated the number of motor manufacturers, including the number of 
manufacturers qualifying as small businesses, based on interviews with 
motor manufacturers and publicly available data. Since the promulgation 
of those rules, and after further examining the motor industry, which 
included surveying the motor industry and determining the number of 
manufacturers remaining, DOE has not discovered the presence of any new 
manufacturers of electric or small electric motors that would 
necessitate a change to these previous estimates.
    To determine the anticipated economic impact of the testing 
requirements on small manufacturers, DOE examined current industry 
practices and steps taken in the design of the rule to minimize the 
testing burden on manufacturers. Today's final rule will continue to 
allow a manufacturer to certify compliance through its election of 
either an independent testing program or a certification program. 
Today's rule will also continue to follow the NEMA sampling plan for 
determining compliance, which DOE adopted on October 5, 1999, (64 FR 
54114). Use of the sampling plan is consistent with industry practice. 
In addition, today's final rule is consistent with current test 
procedures and methodologies that the industry already uses (i.e., IEEE 
Standard 114, IEEE Standard 112, CSA C390, and CSA C747.) DOE examined 
these methodologies in the December 22, 2008, test procedure notice of 
proposed rulemaking, which today's

[[Page 26631]]

final rule supplements. The 2008 proposal stated that because DOE 
proposed adopting those requirements that the industry already follows, 
DOE did not find that the revisions in that proposal would result in 
any significant increase in testing or compliance costs, or otherwise 
be unduly burdensome. 73 FR 78220. Today's rule does not increase the 
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements beyond those 
requirements already established for the testing and compliance 
certification of electric motors and small electric motors. Moreover, 
today's final rule does not adopt additional testing requirements, 
tighter tolerances, or greater accuracy than what is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. In addition, DOE continues to 
believe that allowing a manufacturer to choose between two equally 
valid test procedures will reduce undue burden on that manufacturer or 
private labeler.
    DOE did not receive any comments from SBA or the public in response 
to its certification. DOE did receive comments from stakeholders on the 
potential economic impacts of the rule. These comments, which are 
addressed in the preamble, all urged DOE to give manufacturers one to 
three years to comply with energy conservation standards for motors 
types not previously covered--i.e., special shaft and 100 mm frame 
motors. In response to these comments, the Department has agreed to 
give manufacturers of IEC 100 mm frame size motors three years after 
the effective date of today's rule to comply with energy conservation 
standards and relevant test procedures. (As described in today's rule, 
DOE declines to establish an implementation date for the enforcement of 
energy conservation standards for motors with special shaft dimensions 
because shaft dimensions were addressed in guidance and guidance does 
not change the scope of coverage for electric motors.)
    In view of the foregoing, DOE certifies that today's final rule 
would not impose significant economic impacts on a substantial number 
of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE has provided its 
certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review 
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of covered electric motors must certify to DOE that 
their electric motors comply with any applicable energy conservation 
standard. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their 
electric motors according to the relevant DOE test procedure, including 
any amendments adopted for that test procedure. DOE has established 
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for 
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment. 76 FR 12422 
(March 7, 2011); 10 CFR Part 431, Subpart B.
    The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and 
recordkeeping provisions related to electric motors is subject to 
review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement was approved by OMB 
and is current under OMB Control Number 1910-1400. DOE estimated the 
reporting burden for the certification to average 20 hours per 
response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    This final rule amends certain aspects related to the test 
procedures for electric and small electric motors. DOE has determined 
that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically 
excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 
CFR part 1021. Specifically, this rule amends an existing rule without 
affecting the amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, 
therefore, will not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this 
rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 
1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that interprets or 
amends an existing rule without changing the environmental effect of 
that rule. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an 
environmental impact statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

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

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order

[[Page 26632]]

12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of 
applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether 
they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has 
completed the required review and determined that, to the extent 
permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of 
Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at http://www.gc.doe.gov. DOE examined today's final rule according to 
UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains 
neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in 
the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these 
requirements do not apply.

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), 
and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). 
DOE has reviewed today's final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines 
and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in 
those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

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

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

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed 
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The final rule in this notice incorporates testing methods 
contained in the following commercial standards: (1) CSA C390-10, Test 
methods, marking requirements, and energy efficiency levels for three-
phase induction motors, March 22, 2010; (2) CSA C747-09, Energy 
efficiency test methods for small motors, October 1, 2009; (3) IEC 
Standard 60034-1 (2010), Rotating Electrical Machines, Part 1: Rating 
and Performance, Section 4: Duty, clause 4.2.1 and Figure 1; (4) IEC 
Standard 60034-12 (2007), Rotating Electrical Machines, Part 12: 
Starting Performance of Single-Speed Three-Phase Cage Induction Motors, 
clauses 5.2, 5.4, 6, and 8, and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7; (5) 
NEMA Standards Publication MG1-2009 Section I (Part 1), Section I (Part 
4), Section II (Part 12), and Section II (Part 14); (6) NEMA Standards 
Publication Mg1-1967 Section C and Section D; and (7) IEEE Standard 
114, Standard Test Procedure for Single-Phase Induction Motors, 
December 23, 2010.
    DOE has evaluated these revised standards and is unable to conclude 
whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act (i.e., that they were developed in a 
manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and 
review). DOE has consulted with the Attorney General and the Chairman 
of the FTC about the impact of these test procedures on competition and 
received no objections to their use.

[[Page 26633]]

M. Congressional Notification

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

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practices and procedure, Energy conservation, 
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 25, 2012.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 431 of 
chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 
below.

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

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

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


0
2. Section 431.11 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  431.11  Purpose and scope.

    This subpart contains energy conservation requirements for electric 
motors. It contains test procedures that EPCA requires DOE to 
prescribe, related requirements, energy conservation standards 
prescribed by EPCA, labeling rules, and compliance procedures. It also 
identifies materials incorporated by reference in this part. This 
subpart does not cover ``small electric motors,'' which are addressed 
in subpart X of this part.

0
3. Section 431.12 is amended by:
0
a. Removing from the introductory text, ``K through M'' and adding ``U 
and V'' in its place;
0
b. Revising the definitions of ``accreditation,'' ``CSA,'' ``definite 
purpose motor,'' ``general purpose electric motor (subtype I),'' 
``general purpose electric motor (subtype II),'' and ``nominal full-
load efficiency;''
0
c. Removing the definition of ``general purpose motor;'' and
0
d. Adding in alphabetical order, new definitions for ``electric 
motor,'' ``fire pump electric motor,'' ``general purpose electric 
motor,'' and ``NEMA Design B motor.''
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  431.12  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Accreditation means recognition by an accreditation body that a 
laboratory is competent to test the efficiency of electric motors 
according to the scope and procedures given in Test Method B of IEEE 
Std 112-2004 and CSA C390-10 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.15).
* * * * *
    CSA means Canadian Standards Association.
    Definite purpose motor means any motor that cannot be used in most 
general purpose applications and is designed either:
    (1) To standard ratings with standard operating characteristics or 
standard mechanical construction for use under service conditions other 
than usual, such as those specified in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 14.3, 
``Unusual Service Conditions,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.15); or
    (2) For use on a particular type of application.
    Electric motor means a machine that converts electrical power into 
rotational mechanical power.
* * * * *
    Fire pump electric motor means an electric motor, including any 
IEC-equivalent, that meets the requirements of section 9.5 of NFPA 20 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15).
    General purpose electric motor means any electric motor that is 
designed in standard ratings with either:
    (1) Standard operating characteristics and mechanical construction 
for use under usual service conditions, such as those specified in NEMA 
MG1-2009, paragraph 14.2, ``Usual Service Conditions,'' (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  431.15) and without restriction to a particular 
application or type of application; or
    (2) Standard operating characteristics or standard mechanical 
construction for use under unusual service conditions, such as those 
specified in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 14.3, ``Unusual Service 
Conditions,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15) or for a 
particular type of application, and which can be used in most general 
purpose applications.
    General purpose electric motor (subtype I) means a general purpose 
electric motor that:
    (1) Is a single-speed, induction motor;
    (2) Is rated for continuous duty (MG1) operation or for duty type 
S1 (IEC);
    (3) Contains a squirrel-cage (MG1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
    (4) Has foot-mounting that may include foot-mounting with flanges 
or detachable feet;
    (5) Is built in accordance with NEMA T-frame dimensions or their 
IEC metric equivalents, including a frame size that is between two 
consecutive NEMA frame sizes or their IEC metric equivalents;
    (6) Has performance in accordance with NEMA Design A (MG1) or B 
(MG1) characteristics or equivalent designs such as IEC Design N (IEC);
    (7) Operates on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal 
power, and:
    (i) Is rated at 230 or 460 volts (or both) including motors rated 
at multiple voltages that include 230 or 460 volts (or both), or
    (ii) Can be operated on 230 or 460 volts (or both); and
    (8) Includes, but is not limited to, explosion-proof construction.

    Note to Definition of General purpose electric motor (subtype 
I):  References to ``MG1'' above refer to NEMA Standards Publication 
MG1-2009 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  431.15). References to 
``IEC'' above refer to IEC 60034-1, 60034-12, 60050-411, and 60072-1 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  431.15), as applicable.

    General purpose electric motor (subtype II) means any general 
purpose electric motor that incorporates design elements of a general 
purpose electric motor (subtype I) but, unlike a general purpose 
electric motor (subtype I), is configured in one or more of the 
following ways:
    (1) Is built in accordance with NEMA U-frame dimensions as 
described in NEMA MG1-1967 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.15) or in accordance with the IEC metric equivalents, including a 
frame size that is between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes or their 
IEC metric equivalents;
    (2) Has performance in accordance with NEMA Design C 
characteristics as described in MG1 or an equivalent IEC design(s) such 
as IEC Design H;
    (3) Is a close-coupled pump motor;
    (4) Is a footless motor;
    (5) Is a vertical solid shaft normal thrust motor (as tested in a 
horizontal configuration) built and designed in a manner consistent 
with MG1;
    (6) Is an eight-pole motor (900 rpm); or
    (7) Is a polyphase motor with a voltage rating of not more than 600 
volts, is not rated at 230 or 460 volts (or both), and cannot be 
operated on 230 or 460 volts (or both).

    Note to Definition of General purpose electric motor (subtype 
II):  With the

[[Page 26634]]

exception of the NEMA Motor Standards MG1-1967 (incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  431.15), references to ``MG1'' above refer to the 
2009 NEMA MG1-2009 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  431.15). 
References to ``IEC'' above refer to IEC 60034-1, 60034-12, 60050-
411, and 60072-1 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  431.15), as 
applicable.



* * * * *
    NEMA Design B motor means a squirrel-cage motor that is:
    (1) Designed to withstand full-voltage starting;
    (2) Develops locked-rotor, breakdown, and pull-up torques adequate 
for general application as specified in sections 12.38, 12.39 and 12.40 
of NEMA MG1-2009 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15);
    (3) Draws locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in 
section 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and 12.35.2 for 50 hertz of NEMA MG1-2009; 
and
    (4) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for motors with 
fewer than 10 poles.
    Nominal full-load efficiency means, with respect to an electric 
motor, a representative value of efficiency selected from the ``nominal 
efficiency'' column of Table 12-10, NEMA MG1-2009, (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.15), that is not greater than the average 
full-load efficiency of a population of motors of the same design.
* * * * *

0
4. A new Sec.  431.14 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  431.14  Sources for information and guidance.

    (a) General. The standards listed in this paragraph are referred to 
in the DOE procedures for testing laboratories, and recognition of 
accreditation bodies and certification programs but are not 
incorporated by reference. These sources are given here for information 
and guidance.
    (b) NVLAP. National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, M/S 
2140, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140, 301-975-4016, or go to http://www.nist.gov/nvlap/. Also see http://www.nist.gov/nvlap/nvlap-handbooks.cfm.
    (1) NVLAP Handbook 150, Procedures and General Requirements, 
February 2006.
    (2) NVLAP Handbook 150-10, Efficiency of Electric Motors, February 
2007.
    (3) NIST Handbook 150-10 Checklist, Efficiency of Electric Motors 
Program, (2007-05-04).
    (4) NVLAP Lab Bulletin Number: LB-42-2009, Changes to NVLAP 
Efficiency of Electric Motors Program, March 19, 2009.
    (c) ISO/IEC. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 
1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH- 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland/
International Electrotechnical Commission, 3, rue de Varemb[eacute], 
P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.
    (1) ISO/IEC Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of 
calibration and testing laboratories, 1990.
    (2) ISO Guide 27, Guidelines for corrective action to be taken by a 
certification body in the event of either misapplication of its mark of 
conformity to a product, or products which bear the mark of the 
certification body being found to subject persons or property to risk, 
1983.
    (3) ISO/IEC Guide 28, General rules for a model third-party 
certification system for products, 2004.
    (4) ISO/IEC Guide 58, Calibration and testing laboratory 
accreditation systems--General requirements for operation and 
recognition, 1993.
    (5) ISO/IEC Guide 65, General requirements for bodies operating 
product certification systems, 1996.

0
5. Section 431.15 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  431.15  Materials incorporated by reference.

    (a) General. The Department of Energy incorporates by reference the 
following standards and test procedures into subpart B of part 431. The 
Director of the Federal Register has approved the material listed for 
incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 
part 51. Any subsequent amendment to a standard by the standard-setting 
organization will not affect DOE regulations unless and until DOE 
amends its test procedures. Material is incorporated as it exists on 
the date of the approval, and a notice of any change in the material 
will be published in the Federal Register. All approved material is 
available for inspection at the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, 
Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-
2945, or go to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. Also, this material is available for inspection at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on 
the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: 
 http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (b) CSA. Canadian Standards Association, Sales Department, 5060 
Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1-800-
463-6727, or go to http://www.shopcsa.ca/onlinestore/welcome.asp.
    (1) CSA C390-10, Test methods, marking requirements, and energy 
efficiency levels for three-phase induction motors, March 2010, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  431.12; 431.19; 431.20; appendix B to subpart B 
of part 431.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (c) IEC. International Electrotechnical Commission Central Office, 
3, rue de Varemb[eacute], P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 GENEVA 20, Switzerland, 
+41 22 919 02 11, or go to http://webstore.iec.ch.
    (1) IEC 60034-1 Edition 12.0 2010-02, (``IEC 60034-1''), Rotating 
Electrical Machines, Part 1: Rating and Performance, February 2010, IBR 
approved as follows: section 4: Duty, clause 4.2.1 and Figure 1, IBR 
approved for Sec.  431.12.
    (2) IEC 60034-12 Edition 2.1 2007-09, (``IEC 60034-12''), Rotating 
Electrical Machines, Part 12: Starting Performance of Single-Speed 
Three-Phase Cage Induction Motors, September 2007, IBR approved as 
follows: clauses 5.2, 5.4, 6, and 8, and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 
7, IBR approved for Sec.  431.12.
    (3) IEC 60050-411, International Electrotechnical Vocabulary 
Chapter 411: Rotating machines, 1996, IBR approved as follows: sections 
411-33-07 and 411-37-26, IBR approved for Sec.  431.12.
    (4) IEC 60072-1, Dimensions and Output Series for Rotating 
Electrical Machines--Part 1: Frame numbers 56 to 400 and flange numbers 
55 to 1080, 1991, IBR approved as follows: clauses 2, 3, 4.1, 6.1, 7, 
and 10, and Tables 1, 2 and 4, IBR approved for Sec.  431.12.
    (d) IEEE. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 
445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, 1-800-678-IEEE 
(4333), or http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/home/index.html.
    (1) IEEE Std 112-2004, Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction 
Motors and Generators, approved February 9, 2004, IBR approved as 
follows: section 6.4, Efficiency Test Method B, Input-Output with Loss 
Segregation, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  431.12; 431.19; 431.20; 
appendix B to subpart B of part 431.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (e) NEMA. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 North 
17th Street, Suite 1752, Rosslyn,

[[Page 26635]]

Virginia 22209, 703-841-3200, or go to http://www.nema.org/.
    (1) NEMA Standards Publication MG1-2009 (``NEMA MG1-2009''), Motors 
and Generators, copyright 2009, IBR approved as follows:
    (i) Section I, General Standards Applying to All Machines, Part 1, 
Referenced Standards and Definitions, paragraphs 1.18.1, 1.18.1.1, 
1.19.1.1, 1.19.1.2, 1.19.1.3, and 1.40.1, IBR approved for Sec.  
431.12;
    (ii) Section I, General Standards Applying to All Machines, Part 4, 
Dimensions, Tolerances, and Mounting, paragraphs 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 
4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, and 4.4.6, Figures 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, and 
4-5, and Table 4-2, IBR approved for Sec.  431.12;
    (iii) Section II, Small (Fractional) and Medium (Integral) 
Machines, Part 12, Tests and Performance--AC and DC Motors:
    (A) Paragraphs 12.35.1, 12.35.2, 12.38.1, 12.38.2, 12.39.1, 
12.39.2, and 12.40.1, 12.40.2, and Tables 12-2, 12-3, and 12-10, IBR 
approved for Sec.  431.12;
    (B) Paragraph 12.58.1, IBR approved for Sec.  431.12 and appendix B 
to subpart B of part 431;
    (C) Paragraph 12.58.2, IBR approved for Sec.  431.31.
    (iv) Section II, Small (Fractional) and Medium (Integral) Machines, 
Part 14, Application Data--AC and DC Small and Medium Machines, 
paragraphs 14.2 and 14.3, IBR approved for Sec.  431.12.
    (2) NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1967, (``NEMA MG1-1967''), 
Motors and Generators, January 1968, IBR approved as follows:
    (i) Part 11, Dimensions, IBR approved for Sec.  431.12;
    (ii) Part 13, Frame Assignments--A-C Integral-Horsepower Motors, 
IBR approved for Sec.  431.12.
    (f) NFPA. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch 
Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, 617-770-3000, or go to http://nfpa.org/.
    (1) NFPA 20, 2010 Edition, Standard for the Installation of 
Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection, section 9.5, IBR approved for 
Sec.  431.12.
    (2) (Reserved)

0
6. Section 431.18, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  431.18  Testing laboratories.

* * * * *
    (b) NIST/NVLAP is under the auspices of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST)/National Voluntary Laboratory 
Accreditation Program (NVLAP), which is part of the U.S. Department of 
Commerce. NIST/NVLAP accreditation is granted on the basis of 
conformance with criteria published in 15 CFR Part 285. The National 
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, ``Procedures and General 
Requirements,'' NIST Handbook 150-10, February 2007, and Lab Bulletin 
LB-42-2009, Efficiency of Electric Motors Program, (referenced for 
guidance only, see Sec.  431.14) present the technical requirements of 
NVLAP for the Efficiency of Electric Motors field of accreditation. 
This handbook supplements NIST Handbook 150, National Voluntary 
Laboratory Accreditation Program ``Procedures and General 
Requirements,'' which contains 15 CFR part 285 plus all general NIST/
NVLAP procedures, criteria, and policies. Information regarding NIST/
NVLAP and its Efficiency of Electric Motors Program (EEM) can be 
obtained from NIST/NVLAP, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2140, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140, (301) 975-4016 (telephone), or (301) 926-
2884 (fax).

0
7. Section 431.19 is amended by:
0
a. Adding at the end of the last sentence in paragraph (c)(3) 
``(referenced for guidance only, see Sec.  431.14)''; and
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(4), to read as follows:


Sec.  431.19  Department of Energy recognition of accreditation bodies.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) It must be expert in the content and application of the test 
procedures and methodologies in IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Method B or CSA 
C390-10, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15).
    (c) * * *
    (4) Expertise in electric motor test procedures. The petition 
should set forth the organization's experience with the test procedures 
and methodologies in IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Method B and CSA C390-10, 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15). This part of the 
petition should include items such as, but not limited to, a 
description of prior projects and qualifications of staff members. Of 
particular relevance would be documentary evidence that establishes 
experience in applying the guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 
25, General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration and Testing 
Laboratories, (referenced for guidance only, see Sec.  431.14) to 
energy efficiency testing for electric motors.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 431.20 is amended by:
0
a. Adding at the end of the last sentence of paragraph (c)(3) 
``(referenced for guidance only, see Sec.  431.14)''; and
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  431.20  Department of Energy recognition of nationally recognized 
certification programs.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) It must be expert in the content and application of the test 
procedures and methodologies in IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Method B or CSA 
C390-10, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15). It must have 
satisfactory criteria and procedures for the selection and sampling of 
electric motors tested for energy efficiency.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Expertise in electric motor test procedures. The petition 
should set forth the program's experience with the test procedures and 
methodologies in IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Method B or CSA C390-10, 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15). This part of the 
petition should include items such as, but not limited to, a 
description of prior projects and qualifications of staff members. Of 
particular relevance would be documentary evidence that establishes 
experience in applying guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25, 
General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration and Testing 
Laboratories (referenced for guidance only, see 431.14) to energy 
efficiency testing for electric motors.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 431.25 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  431.25  Energy conservation standards and effective dates.

    (a) Except as provided for fire pump electric motors in paragraph 
(b) of this section, each general purpose electric motor (subtype I) 
with a power rating of 1 horsepower or greater, but not greater than 
200 horsepower, including a NEMA Design B or an equivalent IEC Design N 
motor that is a general purpose electric motor (subtype I), 
manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) on 
or after December 19, 2010, shall have a nominal full-load efficiency 
that is not less than the following:

[[Page 26636]]



    Table 1--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of General Purpose Electric Motors (Subtype I), Except Fire Pump
                                                 Electric Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Nominal full-load efficiency
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt       Open motors  (number of poles)    Enclosed motors  (number of poles)
               equivalent                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               6           4           2           6           4           2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75...................................        82.5        85.5        77.0        82.5        85.5        77.0
1.5/1.1.................................        86.5        86.5        84.0        87.5        86.5        84.0
2/1.5...................................        87.5        86.5        85.5        88.5        86.5        85.5
3/2.2...................................        88.5        89.5        85.5        89.5        89.5        86.5
5/3.7...................................        89.5        89.5        86.5        89.5        89.5        88.5
7.5/5.5.................................        90.2        91.0        88.5        91.0        91.7        89.5
10/7.5..................................        91.7        91.7        89.5        91.0        91.7        90.2
15/11...................................        91.7        93.0        90.2        91.7        92.4        91.0
20/15...................................        92.4        93.0        91.0        91.7        93.0        91.0
25/18.5.................................        93.0        93.6        91.7        93.0        93.6        91.7
30/22...................................        93.6        94.1        91.7        93.0        93.6        91.7
40/30...................................        94.1        94.1        92.4        94.1        94.1        92.4
50/37...................................        94.1        94.5        93.0        94.1        94.5        93.0
60/45...................................        94.5        95.0        93.6        94.5        95.0        93.6
75/55...................................        94.5        95.0        93.6        94.5        95.4        93.6
100/75..................................        95.0        95.4        93.6        95.0        95.4        94.1
125/90..................................        95.0        95.4        94.1        95.0        95.4        95.0
150/110.................................        95.4        95.8        94.1        95.8        95.8        95.0
200/150.................................        95.4        95.8        95.0        95.8        96.2        95.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Each fire pump electric motor that is a general purpose 
electric motor (subtype I) or general purpose electric motor (subtype 
II) manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of 
equipment) on or after December 19, 2010, shall have a nominal full-
load efficiency that is not less than the following:

                                          Table 2--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of Fire Pump Electric Motors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Nominal full-load efficiency
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Motor horsepower/standard  kilowatt equivalent               Open motors  (number of poles)                Enclosed motors  (number of poles)
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               8           6           4           2           8           6           4           2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75...................................................        74.0        80.0        82.5  ..........        74.0        80.0        82.5        75.5
1.5/1.1.................................................        75.5        84.0        84.0        82.5        77.0        85.5        84.0        82.5
2/1.5...................................................        85.5        85.5        84.0        84.0        82.5        86.5        84.0        84.0
3/2.2...................................................        86.5        86.5        86.5        84.0        84.0        87.5        87.5        85.5
5/3.7...................................................        87.5        87.5        87.5        85.5        85.5        87.5        87.5        87.5
7.5/5.5.................................................        88.5        88.5        88.5        87.5        85.5        89.5        89.5        88.5
10/7.5..................................................        89.5        90.2        89.5        88.5        88.5        89.5        89.5        89.5
15/11...................................................        89.5        90.2        91.0        89.5        88.5        90.2        91.0        90.2
20/15...................................................        90.2        91.0        91.0        90.2        89.5        90.2        91.0        90.2
25/18.5.................................................        90.2        91.7        91.7        91.0        89.5        91.7        92.4        91.0
30/22...................................................        91.0        92.4        92.4        91.0        91.0        91.7        92.4        91.0
40/30...................................................        91.0        93.0        93.0        91.7        91.0        93.0        93.0        91.7
50/37...................................................        91.7        93.0        93.0        92.4        91.7        93.0        93.0        92.4
60/45...................................................        92.4        93.6        93.6        93.0        91.7        93.6        93.6        93.0
75/55...................................................        93.6        93.6        94.1        93.0        93.0        93.6        94.1        93.0
100/75..................................................        93.6        94.1        94.1        93.0        93.0        94.1        94.5        93.6
125/90..................................................        93.6        94.1        94.5        93.6        93.6        94.1        94.5        94.5
150/110.................................................        93.6        94.5        95.0        93.6        93.6        95.0        95.0        94.5
200/150.................................................        93.6        94.5        95.0        94.5        94.1        95.0        95.0        95.0
250/186.................................................        94.5        95.4        95.4        94.5        94.5        95.0        95.0        95.4
300/224.................................................  ..........        95.4        95.4        95.0  ..........        95.0        95.4        95.4
350/261.................................................  ..........        95.4        95.4        95.0  ..........        95.0        95.4        95.4
400/298.................................................  ..........  ..........        95.4        95.4  ..........  ..........        95.4        95.4
450/336.................................................  ..........  ..........        95.8        95.8  ..........  ..........        95.4        95.4
500/373.................................................  ..........  ..........        95.8        95.8  ..........  ..........        95.8        95.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Except as provided for fire pump electric motors in paragraph 
(b) of this section, each general purpose electric motor (subtype II) 
with a power rating of 1 horsepower or greater, but not greater than 
200 horsepower, including a NEMA Design B or an equivalent IEC Design N 
motor that is a general purpose electric motor (subtype II),

[[Page 26637]]

manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) on 
or after December 19, 2010, shall have a nominal full-load efficiency 
that is not less than the following:

                Table 3--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of General Purpose Electric Motors (Subtype II), Except Fire Pump Electric Motors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Nominal full-load efficiency
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Motor horsepower/ standard kilowatt equivalent               Open motors  (number of poles)                Enclosed motors  (number of poles)
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               8           6           4           2           8           6           4           2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75...................................................        74.0        80.0        82.5  ..........        74.0        80.0        82.5        75.5
1.5/1.1.................................................        75.5        84.0        84.0        82.5        77.0        85.5        84.0        82.5
2/1.5...................................................        85.5        85.5        84.0        84.0        82.5        86.5        84.0        84.0
3/2.2...................................................        86.5        86.5        86.5        84.0        84.0        87.5        87.5        85.5
5/3.7...................................................        87.5        87.5        87.5        85.5        85.5        87.5        87.5        87.5
7.5/5.5.................................................        88.5        88.5        88.5        87.5        85.5        89.5        89.5        88.5
10/7.5..................................................        89.5        90.2        89.5        88.5        88.5        89.5        89.5        89.5
15/11...................................................        89.5        90.2        91.0        89.5        88.5        90.2        91.0        90.2
20/15...................................................        90.2        91.0        91.0        90.2        89.5        90.2        91.0        90.2
25/18.5.................................................        90.2        91.7        91.7        91.0        89.5        91.7        92.4        91.0
30/22...................................................        91.0        92.4        92.4        91.0        91.0        91.7        92.4        91.0
40/30...................................................        91.0        93.0        93.0        91.7        91.0        93.0        93.0        91.7
50/37...................................................        91.7        93.0        93.0        92.4        91.7        93.0        93.0        92.4
60/45...................................................        92.4        93.6        93.6        93.0        91.7        93.6        93.6        93.0
75/55...................................................        93.6        93.6        94.1        93.0        93.0        93.6        94.1        93.0
100/75..................................................        93.6        94.1        94.1        93.0        93.0        94.1        94.5        93.6
125/90..................................................        93.6        94.1        94.5        93.6        93.6        94.1        94.5        94.5
150/110.................................................        93.6        94.5        95.0        93.6        93.6        95.0        95.0        94.5
200/150.................................................        93.6        94.5        95.0        94.5        94.1        95.0        95.0        95.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Each NEMA Design B or an equivalent IEC Design N motor that is 
a general purpose electric motor (subtype I) or general purpose 
electric motor (subtype II), excluding fire pump electric motors, with 
a power rating of more than 200 horsepower, but not greater than 500 
horsepower, manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of 
equipment) on or after December 19, 2010, shall have a nominal full-
load efficiency that is not less than the following:

      Table 4--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design B General Purpose Electric Motors (Subtype I and II), Except Fire Pump Electric Motors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Nominal full-load efficiency
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Motor horsepower/ standard kilowatt equivalent               Open motors  (number of poles)                Enclosed motors  (number of poles)
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               8           6           4           2           8           6           4           2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
250/186.................................................        94.5        95.4        95.4        94.5        94.5        95.0        95.0        95.4
300/224.................................................  ..........        95.4        95.4        95.0  ..........        95.0        95.4        95.4
350/261.................................................  ..........        95.4        95.4        95.0  ..........        95.0        95.4        95.4
400/298.................................................  ..........  ..........        95.4        95.4  ..........  ..........        95.4        95.4
450/336.................................................  ..........  ..........        95.8        95.8  ..........  ..........        95.4        95.4
500/373.................................................  ..........  ..........        95.8        95.8  ..........  ..........        95.8        95.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) For purposes of determining the required minimum nominal full-
load efficiency of an electric motor that has a horsepower or kilowatt 
rating between two horsepower or two kilowatt ratings listed in any 
table of energy conservation standards in paragraphs (a) through (d) of 
this section, each such motor shall be deemed to have a listed 
horsepower or kilowatt rating, determined as follows:
    (1) A horsepower at or above the midpoint between the two 
consecutive horsepowers shall be rounded up to the higher of the two 
horsepowers;
    (2) A horsepower below the midpoint between the two consecutive 
horsepowers shall be rounded down to the lower of the two horsepowers; 
or
    (3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly converted from kilowatts to 
horsepower using the formula 1 kilowatt = (\1/0\.746) horsepower. The 
conversion should be calculated to three significant decimal places, 
and the resulting horsepower shall be rounded in accordance with 
paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this section, whichever applies.
    (f) This section does not apply to definite purpose motors, special 
purpose motors, or those motors exempted by the Secretary.

0
10. Remove Sec.  431.30.

0
11. Section 431.31, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  431.31  Labeling requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Display of required information. All orientation, spacing, type 
sizes, type

[[Page 26638]]

faces, and line widths to display this required information shall be 
the same as or similar to the display of the other performance data on 
the motor's permanent nameplate. The nominal full-load efficiency shall 
be identified either by the term ``Nominal Efficiency'' or ``Nom. 
Eff.'' or by the terms specified in paragraph 12.58.2 of NEMA MG1-2009, 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15) as for example ``NEMA 
Nom. Eff. ----.'' The Compliance Certification number issued pursuant 
to Sec.  431.36 shall be in the form ``CC ----.''
* * * * *


Sec.  431.36  [Amended]

0
12. Amend Sec.  431.36 by removing ``Beginning April 26, 2003, a'' from 
the first sentence in paragraph (a) and adding ``A'' in its place.

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 431 [Removed and Reserved]

0
13. Remove and reserve appendix A to subpart B of part 431.

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

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

    1. Definitions.
    Definitions contained in Sec. Sec.  431.2 and 431.12 are 
applicable to this appendix.
    2. Test Procedures.
    Efficiency and losses shall be determined in accordance with 
NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.58.1, ``Determination of Motor 
Efficiency and Losses,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.15) and either:
    (1) CSA C390-10, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15), 
or
    (2) IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Method B, Input-Output With Loss 
Segregation, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15).
    3. Amendments to test procedures.
    Any revision to IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Method B, NEMA MG1-2009, 
or CSA C390-10, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.15) shall 
not be effective for purposes of certification and compliance 
testing unless and until this appendix and 10 CFR Part 431 are 
amended to incorporate that revision.


0
15. Section 431.441 is revised to read as follows:


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. This subpart does not cover ``electric motors,'' 
which are addressed in subpart B of this part.


Sec.  431.442  [Amended]

0
16. Amend Sec.  431.442, by removing ``CAN/CSA'' and adding ``CSA'' in 
its place.

0
17. Amend Sec.  431.443 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1) and (c)(2); and
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (b)(2).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  431.443  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) CSA C747-09 (``CSA C747''), Energy efficiency test methods for 
small motors, October 2009, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  431.444; 
431.447.
    (2) CSA C390-10, Test methods, marking requirements, and energy 
efficiency levels for three-phase induction motors, March 2010, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  431.444; 431.447.
    (c) * * *
    (1) IEEE Std 112-2004, Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction 
Motors and Generators, approved February 9, 2004, IBR approved as 
follows:
    (i) Section 6.3, Efficiency Test Method A, Input-Output, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  431.444; 431.447;
    (ii) Section 6.4, Efficiency Test Method B, Input-Output with Loss 
Segregation, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  431.444; 431.447.
    (2) IEEE Std 114-2010, Test Procedure for Single-Phase Induction 
Motors, approved September 30, 2010, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
431.444; 431.447.
0
18. Section 431.444, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  431.444  Test procedures for the measurement of energy 
efficiency.

* * * * *
    (b) Testing and Calculations. Determine the energy efficiency and 
losses by using one of the following test methods:
    (1) Single-phase small electric motors: Either IEEE Std 114-2010 or 
CSA C747 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.443);
    (2) Polyphase small electric motors less than or equal to 1 
horsepower (0.75 kW): Either IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Method A or CSA 
C747 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.443); or
    (3) Polyphase small electric motors greater than 1 horsepower (0.75 
kW): Either IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Method B or CSA C390-10 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.443).


0
19. Section 431.445, paragraph (b)(5) is added and paragraph (c) is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  431.445  Determination of small electric motor efficiency.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Use of a certification program. (i) A manufacturer may use a 
certification program, that DOE has classified as nationally recognized 
under Sec.  431.447, to certify the average full-load efficiency of a 
basic model of small electric motor, and issue a certificate of 
conformity for the small electric motor.
    (ii) For each basic model for which a certification program is not 
used as described in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section, any testing 
of a motor to determine its energy efficiency must be carried out in 
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) Additional testing requirements applicable when a certification 
program is not used--(1) Selection of basic models for testing. (i) 
Basic models must be selected for testing in accordance with the 
following criteria:
    (A) Two of the basic models must be among the five basic models 
that have the highest unit volumes of production by the manufacturer in 
the prior year, or during the prior 12 calendar month period beginning 
in 2015, whichever is later, and comply with the standards set forth in 
Sec.  431.446;
    (B) The basic models should be of different horsepowers without 
duplication;
    (C) At least one basic model should be selected from each of the 
frame number series for which the manufacturer is seeking compliance; 
and
    (D) Each basic model should have the lowest average full-load 
efficiency among the basic models with the same rating (``rating'' as 
used here has the same meaning as it has in the definition of ``basic 
model'').
    (ii) In any instance where it is impossible for a manufacturer to 
select basic models for testing in accordance with all of these 
criteria, the criteria shall be given priority in the order in which 
they are listed. Within the limits imposed by the criteria, basic 
models shall be selected randomly.
    (2) Selection of units for testing within a basic model. For each 
basic model selected for testing,\1\ a sample of units shall be 
selected at random and tested. The sample shall be comprised of 
production units of the basic model, or units that are representative 
of such production units. The sample size shall be no fewer than five 
units, except when fewer than five units of a basic model

[[Page 26639]]

would be produced over a reasonable period of time (approximately 180 
days). In such cases, each unit produced shall be tested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Components of similar design may be substituted without 
requiring additional testing if the represented measures of energy 
consumption continue to satisfy the applicable sampling provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Applying results of testing. When applying the test results to 
determine whether a motor complies with the required average efficiency 
level:
    The average full-load efficiency of the sample, X which is defined 
by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04MY12.000


where Xi is the measured full-load efficiency of unit i 
and n is the number of units tested, shall satisfy the condition:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04MY12.001


where RE is the required average full-load efficiency.


0
20. A new Sec.  431.447 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  431.447  Department of Energy recognition of nationally 
recognized certification programs.

    (a) Petition. For a certification program to be classified by the 
Department of Energy as being nationally recognized in the United 
States (``nationally recognized''), the organization operating the 
program must submit a petition to the Department requesting such 
classification, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section and 
Sec.  431.448. The petition must demonstrate that the program meets the 
criteria in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) Evaluation criteria. For a certification program to be 
classified by the Department as nationally recognized, it must meet the 
following criteria:
    (1) It must have satisfactory standards and procedures for 
conducting and administering a certification system, including periodic 
follow up activities to assure that basic models of small electric 
motors continue to conform to the efficiency levels for which they were 
certified, and for granting a certificate of conformity.
    (2) It must be independent of small electric motor manufacturers, 
importers, distributors, private labelers or vendors. It cannot be 
affiliated with, have financial ties with, be controlled by, or be 
under common control with any such entity.
    (3) It must be qualified to operate a certification system in a 
highly competent manner.
    (4) It must be expert in the content and application of the test 
procedures and methodologies in IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Methods A and B, 
IEEE Std 114-2010, CSA C390-10, and CSA C747 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.443) or similar procedures and methodologies 
for determining the energy efficiency of small electric motors. It must 
have satisfactory criteria and procedures for the selection and 
sampling of electric motors tested for energy efficiency.
    (c) Petition format. Each petition requesting classification as a 
nationally recognized certification program must contain a narrative 
statement as to why the program meets the criteria listed in paragraph 
(b) of this section, must be signed on behalf of the organization 
operating the program by an authorized representative, and must be 
accompanied by documentation that supports the narrative statement. The 
following provides additional guidance as to the specific criteria:
    (1) Standards and procedures. A copy of the standards and 
procedures for operating a certification system and for granting a 
certificate of conformity should accompany the petition.
    (2) Independent status. The petitioning organization should 
identify and describe any relationship, direct or indirect, that it or 
the certification program has with an electric motor manufacturer, 
importer, distributor, private labeler, vendor, trade association or 
other such entity, as well as any other relationship it believes might 
appear to create a conflict of interest for the certification program 
in operating a certification system for determining the compliance of 
small electric motors with the applicable energy efficiency standards. 
It should explain why it believes such relationship would not 
compromise its independence in operating a certification program.
    (3) Qualifications to operate a certification system. Experience in 
operating a certification system should be discussed and substantiated 
by supporting documents. Of particular relevance would be documentary 
evidence that establishes experience in the application of guidelines 
contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 65, General requirements for bodies 
operating product certification systems, ISO/IEC Guide 27, Guidelines 
for corrective action to be taken by a certification body in the event 
of either misapplication of its mark of conformity to a product, or 
products which bear the mark of the certification body being found to 
subject persons or property to risk, and ISO/IEC Guide 28, General 
rules for a model third-party certification system for products, as 
well as experience in overseeing compliance with the guidelines 
contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25, General requirements for the 
competence of calibration and testing laboratories.
    (4) Expertise in small electric motor test procedures. The petition 
should set forth the program's experience with the test procedures and 
methodologies in IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Methods A and B, IEEE Std 114-
2010, CSA C390-10, and CSA C747- (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.443) and with similar procedures and methodologies. This part of 
the petition should include items such as, but not limited to, a 
description of prior projects and qualifications of staff members. Of 
particular relevance would be documentary evidence that establishes 
experience in applying guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25, 
General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration and Testing 
Laboratories to energy efficiency testing for electric motors.
    (5) The ISO/IEC Guides referenced in paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) 
of this section are not incorporated by reference, but are for 
information and guidance only. International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO), 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH- 1211 Geneva 
20, Switzerland/International Electrotechnical Commission, 3, rue de 
Varemb[eacute], P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.
    (d) Disposition. The Department will evaluate the petition in 
accordance with Sec.  431.448, and will determine whether the applicant 
meets the criteria in paragraph (b) of this section for classification 
as a nationally recognized certification program.


0
21. Add a new Sec.  431.448 to read as follows:


Sec.  431.448  Procedures for recognition and withdrawal of recognition 
of certification programs.

    (a) Filing of petition. Any petition submitted to the Department 
pursuant to Sec.  431.447(a), shall be entitled ``Petition for 
Recognition'' (``Petition'') and must be submitted, in triplicate to 
the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. In accordance with the provisions set 
forth in 10 CFR 1004.11, any request for confidential treatment of any 
information contained in such a Petition or in supporting documentation 
must be accompanied by a copy of the Petition

[[Page 26640]]

or supporting documentation from which the information claimed to be 
confidential has been deleted.
    (b) Public notice and solicitation of comments. DOE shall publish 
in the Federal Register the Petition from which confidential 
information, as determined by DOE, has been deleted in accordance with 
10 CFR 1004.11 and shall solicit comments, data and information on 
whether the Petition should be granted. The Department shall also make 
available for inspection and copying the Petition's supporting 
documentation from which confidential information, as determined by 
DOE, has been deleted in accordance with 10 CFR 1004.11. Any person 
submitting written comments to DOE with respect to a Petition shall 
also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner.
    (c) Responsive statement by the petitioner. A petitioner may, 
within 10 working days of receipt of a copy of any comments submitted 
in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, respond to such 
comments in a written statement submitted to the Assistant Secretary 
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. A petitioner may address 
more than one set of comments in a single responsive statement.
    (d) Public announcement of interim determination and solicitation 
of comments. The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy shall issue an interim determination on the Petition 
as soon as is practicable following receipt and review of the Petition 
and other applicable documents, including, but not limited to, comments 
and responses to comments. The petitioner shall be notified in writing 
of the interim determination. DOE shall also publish in the Federal 
Register the interim determination and shall solicit comments, data and 
information with respect to that interim determination. Written 
comments and responsive statements may be submitted as provided in 
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
    (e) Public announcement of final determination. The Assistant 
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy shall, as soon as 
practicable, following receipt and review of comments and responsive 
statements on the interim determination publish in the Federal Register 
a notice of final determination on the Petition.
    (f) Additional information. The Department may, at any time during 
the recognition process, request additional relevant information or 
conduct an investigation concerning the Petition. The Department's 
determination on a Petition may be based solely on the Petition and 
supporting documents, or may also be based on such additional 
information as the Department deems appropriate.
    (g) Withdrawal of recognition--(1) Withdrawal by the Department. If 
the Department believes that a certification program that has been 
recognized under Sec.  431.447 is failing to meet the criteria of 
paragraph (b) of the section under which it is recognized, the 
Department will so advise such entity and request that it take 
appropriate corrective action. The Department will give the entity an 
opportunity to respond. If after receiving such response, or no 
response, the Department believes satisfactory corrective action has 
not been made, the Department will withdraw its recognition from that 
entity.
    (2) Voluntary withdrawal. A certification program may withdraw 
itself from recognition by the Department by advising the Department in 
writing of such withdrawal. It must also advise those that use it (for 
a certification organization, the manufacturers) of such withdrawal.
    (3) Notice of withdrawal of recognition. The Department will 
publish in the Federal Register a notice of any withdrawal of 
recognition that occurs pursuant to this paragraph (g).

[FR Doc. 2012-10434 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P