Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Small Electric Motors, 32059-32073 [E9-15795]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
due to quarantine, boycott, or refusal of
any person to accept production.
11. Duties in the Event of Damage or
Loss.
In addition to the requirements of
section 14 of the Basic Provisions, the
following will apply:
*
*
*
*
*
(c) If the crop has been damaged
during the growing season and you
previously gave notice in accordance
with section 14 of the Basic Provisions,
you must also provide notice at least 15
days prior to the beginning of harvest if
you intend to claim an indemnity as a
result of the damage previously
reported. You must not destroy the
damaged crop until the earlier of 15
days from the date you gave notice of
loss, or our written consent to do so. If
you fail to meet requirements of this
section all such production will be
considered undamaged and included as
production to count.
*
*
*
*
*
12. Settlement of Claim.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) Multiplying each result in section
12(b)(1) by the respective price election
you selected for each type or variety;
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Multiplying the total production to
count of each type or variety, if
applicable, (see section 12(c)) by the
respective price election you selected;
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Unharvested production that
meets, or would meet if properly
handled, the state quality standards, if
specified in the Special Provisions, or
the appropriate USDA grade standard (if
no state standard is specified); and
*
*
*
*
*
Signed in Washington, DC, on June 24,
2009.
William J. Murphy,
Acting Manager, Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation.
[FR Doc. E9–15498 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–TP–0008]
RIN 1904–AB71
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedures for Small Electric Motors
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:44 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy
(DOE) is prescribing test procedures for
measuring the energy efficiency of
single-phase and polyphase small
electric motors. The final rule
incorporates by reference industry test
procedures already in use when
measuring the energy efficiency of these
types of motors. Additionally, the final
rule clarifies definitions applying to
small electric motors and identifies
issues that will be further addressed
later in a related supplemental notice.
DATES: This rule is effective August 6,
2009. The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in this rule
was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on August 6, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may review copies of
all materials related to this rulemaking
at the U.S. Department of Energy,
Resource Room of the Building
Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant
Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC,
(202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda
Edwards at the above telephone number
for additional information regarding
visiting the Resource Room. Please note
that the DOE’s Freedom of Information
Reading Room no longer houses
rulemaking materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–8654. E-mail:
Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov. In the Office of
the General Counsel, contact Mr.
Michael Kido, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–72, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone:
(202) 586–9507. E-mail:
Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.
Today’s
final rule incorporates by reference, into
subpart X of Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations, part 431 (10 CFR part
431),1 the following industry standards
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 The December 22, 2008, notice of proposed
rulemaking that addressed test procedures for
measuring the energy efficiency of small electric
motors proposed in section III.A of the preamble a
new ‘‘Subpart T—Small Electric Motors,’’ under 10
CFR part 431. 73 FR 78220, 78237. Subsequent to
that notice, DOE became aware that ‘‘Subpart T’’
had been used in an earlier rulemaking for
certification, compliance, and enforcement
requirements for consumer products and
commercial equipment. 71 FR 42178, 42214 (July
25, 2006). Consequently, today’s final rule reformats
‘‘Subpart T’’ to read ‘‘Subpart X’’ and renumbers the
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32059
from the Canadian Standards
Association and the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers:
• CAN/CSA–C747–94 (Reaffirmed
2005), (‘‘CAN/CSA–C747’’), Energy
Efficiency Test Methods for Single- and
Three-Phase Small Motors.
• IEEE Std 114–2001TM (Revision of
IEEE Std 114–1982TM), (‘‘IEEE Std
114’’), ‘‘IEEE Standard Test Procedure
for Single-Phase Induction Motors,’’
approved December 6, 2001.
• IEEE Std 112TM–2004 (Revision of
IEEE Std 112–1996), (‘‘IEEE Std 112’’),
‘‘IEEE Standard Test Procedure for
Polyphase Induction Motors and
Generators,’’ approved February 9, 2004.
Copies of CAN/CSA–C747 can be
obtained from the Canadian Standards
Association, Sales Department, 5060
Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga,
Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1–800–463–
6727, or https://www.shopcsa.ca/
onlinestore/welcome.asp.
Copies of IEEE Std 112 and 114 can
be obtained from the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
Inc., 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331,
Piscataway, NJ 08855–1331, 1–800–
678–IEEE (4333), or https://www.ieee.
org/web/publications/home/.
You can also view copies of these
standards at the U.S. Department of
Energy, Resource Room of the Building
Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant
Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC
20024, (202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Definition of Small Electric Motor
1. International Electrotechnical
Commission Motors
2. Insulation System Class
3. Definition of Basic Model
B. Test Procedures for the Measurement of
Energy Efficiency
1. Single-Phase Small Electric Motor Test
Method
2. Polyphase Small Electric Motor Test
Method
C. Alternative Efficiency Determination
Method
1. Statistical Basis for an Alternative
Efficiency Determination Method
2. Sample Size for Substantiating an
Alternative Efficiency Determination
Method
3. Omission of Alternative Efficiency
Determination Method Substantiation
‘‘431.340’’ series to read ‘‘431.440.’’
Notwithstanding, certain passages, comments, and
references that follow make reference to ‘‘Subpart
T’’ because that language was used in the NOPR.
This is addressed further in section III.E of the
preamble that follows.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
32060
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
D. Testing Laboratory Accreditation
E. Certification and Enforcement
F. Other Issues Raised
1. Definition of ‘‘Nominal Full-Load
Efficiency’’
2. Materials Incorporated by Reference
3. Labeling Requirements
4. Preemption of State Standards and
Labeling
5. Petitions and Waivers
IV. Procedural Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. National Environmental Policy Act
E. Executive Order 13132
F. Executive Order 12988
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Executive Order 12630
J. Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Executive Order 13211
L. Section 32 of the Federal Energy
Administration Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Part A–1 of Title III of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended, (EPCA) provides for an energy
conservation program for certain
commercial and industrial equipment.2
(42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) In particular,
section 346(b)(1) of EPCA directs the
Secretary of Energy to prescribe testing
requirements and energy conservation
standards for those small electric motors
for which the Secretary determines that
standards would be technologically
feasible and economically justified, and
would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1))
B. Background
On July 10, 2006, the Department of
Energy (DOE) published in the Federal
Register a positive determination that
energy conservation standards for
certain single-phase and polyphase
small electric motors appear
technologically feasible, economically
justified and would result in significant
energy savings.3 71 FR 38799. Further,
DOE stated in its determination notice
that it will initiate the development of
test procedures for certain small electric
2 For editorial reasons, Parts B (consumer
products) and C (commercial equipment) of Title III
of EPCA were redesignated as Parts A and A–1,
respectively, in the United States Code.
3 A small electric motor is a machine that
converts electric power (either single-phase or
polyphase alternating current) into rotational
mechanical power. Single-phase electric power
varies all the voltages of the supply in unison,
while a polyphase (three-phase) system has three
alternating currents offset from one another by onethird of their period, or 120 degrees. See 73 FR
78221.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:44 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
motors. 71 FR 38807. DOE then
published proposed test procedures and
requested comment on those
procedures. 73 FR 78220 (December 22,
2008). Today’s final rule prescribes test
procedures for measuring the energy
efficiency of certain small electric
motors with ratings of 1⁄4 to 3
horsepower (hp), which are built in a
two-digit National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
frame number series. Although both
could have the same horsepower
ratings, small electric motors, which are
covered in today’s final rule, differ from
electric motors, which are built in a
three-digit NEMA frame number series
and have other differentiating features
and performance characteristics. This
test procedure is also applicable to
NEMA-equivalent International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
standard motors (metric motors), which
are equivalent to small electric motors,
as defined in EPCA (see section III.A.1
in today’s final rule). See 42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(G).
In the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NOPR), DOE proposed to (1) establish
test procedures to measure the energy
efficiency for small electric motors and
(2) amend the test procedures for
electric motors (i.e. 1–200 hp) by
revising and expanding their current
scope and to extend coverage of those
procedures to include electric motors
with ratings between 201 and 500 hp. 73
FR 78220. These proposed changes
would amend the regulations currently
found at 10 CFR part 431. DOE
identified several issues in the NOPR on
which it sought public comment. For
small electric motors, DOE specifically
sought comments on three issues: (1)
The proposed test procedure for small
electric motors, based on the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE) Std 114–2001, ‘‘Test Procedure
for Single-Phase Induction Motors,’’ and
IEEE Std 112–2004, ‘‘Test Procedure for
Polyphase Induction Motors and
Generators;’’ (2) the proposal to allow
manufacturers to use Canadian
Standards Association (CAN/CSA)
C747–94, ‘‘Energy Efficiency Test
Methods for Single- and Three-Phase
Small Motors,’’ as an alternative to IEEE
Std 114 and 112; and (3) the proposal
to use an alternative efficiency
determination method (AEDM) as a
means for calculating the total power
loss and average full load efficiency of
a small electric motor.4 With respect to
this last item, DOE discussed proposed
4 The IEEE Standards addressed in this notice are
generally listed chronologically by their last date of
revision and adoption rather than their sequential
number.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
requirements for a manufacturer to
substantiate: (i) The accuracy and
reliability of its AEDM, (ii) a statistically
valid number of basic models and units
to be tested, and (iii) the accuracy of the
predictive capabilities of the AEDM
relative to actual testing.
On January 29, 2009, DOE held a
public meeting to receive comments,
data, and information on its NOPR. On
March 9, 2009, the NOPR comment
period closed. In addition to the oral
comments presented at the public
meeting and recorded in the official
transcript, DOE received three
additional written comments. In view of
the comments received, DOE
subsequently decided to separate the
two major rulemaking activities
originally contained in the NOPR—one
to address the test procedure for small
electric motors, and the other to address
the revision and expansion of the test
procedure for electric motors found in
subpart B of 10 CFR part 431.5 The
issues relevant to the small electric
motors test procedure are addressed in
today’s final rule. Issues affecting
electric motors will be addressed in a
separate supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNOPR), which
DOE will publish at a later date.
II. Summary of the Final Rule
Today’s final rule establishes new test
procedures for measuring the energy
efficiency of certain general purpose,
single-phase and polyphase small
electric motors built in a two-digit
NEMA frame series. The test procedures
incorporate by reference IEEE Std 112
(Test Method A and Test Method B),
IEEE Std 114, and CAN/CSA C747 for
single-phase small electric motors.
Also, today’s final rule does the
following: (1) Codifies the statutory
definition for the term ‘‘small electric
motor;’’ (2) clarifies the definition of the
term ‘‘basic model’’ and the relationship
of the term to certain equipment classes
and compliance certification reporting
requirements; and (3) codifies the ability
of manufacturers to use an AEDM to
reduce testing burden while
maintaining accuracy and ensuring
compliance with potential future energy
conservation standards. Finally, today’s
notice also discusses matters of
5 DOE is addressing the small motors test
procedure issues in today’s notice to ensure its
compliance with the Consent Decree deadline
established by Federal District Court for the
Southern District of New York on November 6, 2006
in the consolidated cases of New York v. Bodman,
Case No. 05 Civ. 7807 (JES), and Natural Resources
Defense Council v. Bodman, Case No. 05 Civ. 7808
(JES). Unlike the test procedures for small electric
motors, the test procedure rulemaking for electric
motors (i.e. 1–200 hp) is not part of the Consent
Decree schedule.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
laboratory accreditation, compliance
certification, and enforcement for small
electric motors.
III. Discussion
Small electric motors covered in
today’s final rule are general purpose
rotating machines that use either singlephase or polyphase electricity, and
provide sufficient torque to drive
equipment such as blowers, fans,
conveyors, and pumps. Today’s final
rule does not cover small electric motors
that are components of a covered
product under section 322(a) of EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) For example, a
small electric motor that is a component
of a covered consumer appliance, such
as a refrigerator, is not covered in
today’s final rule. The following
discussion provides some background
for today’s final rule.
On July 10, 2006, DOE published in
the Federal Register a positive
determination with respect to testing
requirements and energy conservation
standards for small electric motors. DOE
preliminarily determined that standards
for small electric motors would be
‘‘technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would result
in significant energy savings.’’ 71 FR
38807. Thereafter, DOE began to
develop a test procedure for small
electric motors and an analysis of
potential energy conservation standards
levels. As part of this analysis, DOE
prepared a framework document that
described the standards rulemaking
process and provided details regarding
the procedural and analytical
approaches DOE anticipated using to
evaluate energy conservation standards
for small electric motors. See generally,
Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking Framework Document for
Small Electric Motors, at pp. 9–33 (July
30, 2007) (available at https://www1.eere.
energy.gov/buildings/appliance_
standards/commercial/pdfs/small_
motors_framework_073007.pdf).
On August 10, 2007, DOE published
a Federal Register notice that initiated
a rulemaking addressing energy
conservation standards for small electric
motors and announced both the
availability of the framework document
and a public meeting to discuss and
receive comments, data, and
information about issues DOE would
address in the energy conservation
standards rulemaking. 72 FR 44990.
NEMA responded to the notice by
pointing out that its members use IEEE
Std 112 for measuring the efficiency of
polyphase small electric motors and
IEEE Std 114 for measuring the
efficiency of single-phase small electric
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:44 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
motors. (NEMA, No. 2 at p. 2) 6 DOE
examined these industry standards as
well as CAN/CSA–C747, and concluded
that these test procedures provide the
necessary methodology and technical
requirements to accurately determine
the energy efficiency of the small
electric motors covered in its
rulemaking.
On December 22, 2008, DOE
published a NOPR that, in part,
proposed to create new Subpart T,
‘‘Small Electric Motors,’’ (now Subpart
X) in 10 CFR part 431, to set forth
definitions and prescribe test
procedures for small electric motors. 73
FR 78220. In particular, the NOPR
invited interested parties to submit
comments, data, and information on the
proposed test methods for small electric
motors (IEEE Std 112 and IEEE Std 114)
and whether CAN/CSA C747 could be
used as an alternative test method to the
IEEE standards for the same equipment.
DOE held a public meeting on January
29, 2009, to address, in part, its
proposed test procedures for small
electric motors and solicit comments
from interested parties. In addition to
oral comments recorded in the
transcript from the public meeting, DOE
received three sets of written comments,
all of which are addressed in today’s
rulemaking.
A. Definition of Small Electric Motor
In the NOPR, DOE proposed to codify
the statutory definition of ‘‘small
electric motor’’ into ‘‘Subpart T—Small
Electric Motors’’ of 10 CFR part 431. 73
FR 78223. Section 340(13)(G) of EPCA,
as amended by the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA 2007) (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)),
defines the term ‘‘small electric motor’’
as ‘‘a NEMA general purpose
alternating-current single-speed
induction motor, built in a two-digit
frame number series in accordance with
NEMA Standards Publication MG1–
1987.’’ In today’s final rule, DOE is
codifying this definition under 10 CFR
431.442 of a new Subpart X for small
electric motors.
Interested parties raised two general
issues that are addressed in this section:
6 A notation in the form ‘‘NEMA, No. 2 at p. 2’’
refers to (1) a statement that was submitted by the
National Electrical Manufacturers Association and
is recorded in the docket ‘‘Energy Conservation
Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors,’’
Docket Number EERE–2008–BT–TP–0008, as
comment number 2; and (2) a passage that appears
on page 2 of that document. Likewise, a notation
in the form ‘‘Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
8 at p. 75’’ refers to (1) a statement by Baldor
Electric Company and is recorded in the docket as
comment number 8; and (2) a passage that appears
on page 75 of the transcript, ‘‘Public Meeting on
Test Procedures for Small Electric Motors and
Electric Motors,’’ dated January 29, 2009.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32061
(1) Whether DOE considers NEMAequivalent IEC standard motors (metric
motors) to be covered under 10 CFR part
431; and (2) whether in paragraph MG1–
1.05 of NEMA Standards Publication
MG1–1987 the classification of
insulation system prescribed for small
motors is a potential means to
circumvent the applicable compliance
requirements in 10 CFR part 431.
1. International Electrotechnical
Commission Motors
As discussed above, EPCA defines
‘‘small electric motor’’ on the basis of
NEMA Standards Publication MG1–
1987, ‘‘Motors and Generators.’’ Section
340(13)(G) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(G). The elements that comprise
the EPCA definition of ‘‘small electric
motor’’ are based on the construction
and rating system in paragraph MG1–
1.05 of NEMA MG1–1987, which use
U.S. customary units of measurement,
rather than metric units. Today’s
codified definition describes generalpurpose small electric motors in terms
that are used in common parlance for
the U.S. market.
By contrast, general-purpose small
electric motors manufactured outside
the U.S. and Canada generally are
defined and described in terms of IEC
Standards. For example, IEC 60034series, ‘‘Rotating Electrical Machines,’’
sets forth terminology and performance
criteria that are different from those in
the EPCA definition of small electric
motor. Further, ‘‘IEC motors’’ are rated
under IEC 60034–1, ‘‘Rating and
Performance,’’ which uses metric units
of measurement and a construction and
rating system different from NEMA
MG1–1987. For example, where NEMA
standards rate the output power of small
electric motors in terms of horsepower,
IEC standards rate the input power of
(equivalent) small electric motors in
terms of kilowatts.
Baldor Electric Company (Baldor),
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
(NEEA), and NEMA commented that
IEC motors of equivalent ratings should
be considered covered equipment.
Baldor asserted that IEC motors should
be covered because it is possible for
foreign IEC motors to be brought into
the United States and used in the same
applications as EPCA-defined small
electric motors. (Baldor, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 8 at p. 75). NEEA7 noted
that the test procedures and any energy
conservation standards for small electric
7 This comment was made by Adjuvant
Consulting, which represented both the Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and the
Northwest Power and Conservation Council. For
referencing purposes, throughout this notice,
comments from these groups will be cited as NEEA.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
32062
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
motors should apply to the equivalent
IEC motors. (NEEA, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 8 at pp. 81–82). NEEA
also submitted a written comment
stating its shared concerns with
manufacturers about DOE’s ability to
enforce efficiency standards in cases
involving covered products arriving
from overseas as components of OEM
equipment, including compatibility
with IEC-based testing and rating. NEEA
urges DOE to work with manufacturers
and other interested parties to develop
a plan that does not place an
asymmetric burden on U.S.
manufacturers in providing for
reasonable enforcement of the
standards. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 6) NEMA
commented that when DOE codified the
provisions for electric motors into
subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 pursuant
to the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(EPACT 1992), DOE recognized that IEC
motors equivalent to (and used as
substitutes for) NEMA ‘‘electric motors’’
should be considered covered products.
Consistent with that interpretation,
NEMA requested that DOE include
equivalent IEC motors in the definition
of ‘‘small electric motor.’’ (NEMA, No.
12 at p. 2) Interested parties did not
submit comments opposing this
approach.
DOE agrees that IEC-equivalent small
electric motors should be covered
equipment. DOE understands that while
the statutory definition of ‘‘small
electric motor’’ does not explicitly
address IEC motors, Congress directed
DOE to consider small electric motors
built in accordance with NEMA MG1–
1987. NEMA MG1 specifies a broad
array of requirements which also
generally apply to IEC motors, and do
not affect the purpose or design
characteristics of these devices. Three
reasons support the view that IEC
motors identical or equivalent to NEMA
motors are covered:
(1) Both motors perform the same
functions. IEC-equivalent small electric
motors generally can perform the
identical functions of EPCA-defined
small electric motors. IEC small electric
motors are designed and rated according
to criteria in IEC 60034–1, whereas
EPCA defines small electric motor in
terms of design and rating criteria set
forth in NEMA MG1. The differences in
criteria concern primarily
nomenclature, units of measurement,
standard motor configurations, and
design details, but have little bearing on
motor function. Comparable motors of
either type can provide virtually
equivalent power to operate the same
piece of machinery or equipment. Thus,
in most general purpose applications,
such IEC motors can be used
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:44 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
interchangeably with EPCA-defined
small electric motors.
(2) Any broad exclusion of IECequivalent motors from test procedures
or any future energy efficiency
requirements would conflict with the
energy conservation goal of EPCA and
create a regulatory gap that would
permit the use of non-compliant small
motors, which Congress likely did not
intend. Furthermore, any efficiency
standards prescribed for small electric
motors would be readily applicable to
both standard and nonstandard
equivalent IEC motors.
(3) Placing energy efficiency
requirements on EPCA-defined small
electric motors while permitting
equivalent IEC motors to remain
unregulated would effectively give
preferential treatment to those
companies who manufacture IEC
motors. Such a situation would likely
lead to a reduction in the production of
NEMA motors while encouraging the
increased production of IEC motors,
which would be unregulated.
DOE notes that it made similar
findings in the past to justify the
coverage of equivalent IEC motors. In a
prior rulemaking notice addressing
1–200 horsepower electric motors,
‘‘Energy Efficiency Program for Certain
Commercial and Industrial Equipment:
Test Procedures, Labeling, and
Certification Requirements for Electric
Motors,’’ 61 FR 60440, 60442–43
(November 27, 1996), DOE stated the
following:
The Department interprets the Act as
requiring that IEC motors satisfy the same
energy efficiency requirements that the
statute applies to identical or equivalent to
NEMA motors. Thus, under the regulation
proposed today, the definition of ‘‘electric
motor’’ includes IEC motors that have
physical and performance characteristics
which are either identical or equivalent to
the characteristics of NEMA motors that fit
within the statutory definition. In the
Department’s view, there can be no question
that EPCA’s requirements cover any motor
whose physical and performance
characteristics fit within the statutory
definition of ‘‘electric motor.’’ This is true
regardless of the measuring units used to
describe the motor’s performance or
characteristics, or of the criteria pursuant to
which it was designed.
The Department also understands that
comparable IEC and NEMA motors typically
are closely equivalent but not identical, and
that the characteristics of many IEC motors
closely match EPCA’s definition of ‘‘electric
motor’’ but deviate from it in minor respects.
It also appears that, for most general purpose
applications, such IEC motors can be used
interchangeably with the NEMA motors. In
addition, as discussed below, the efficiency
standards prescribed for standard
horsepower motors are readily applicable to
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
both standard and nonstandard kilowatt
motors. The Department believes that a broad
exclusion of IEC motors from energy
efficiency requirements would conflict with
the energy conservation goal of the Act, was
not intended by Congress, and would be
irrational. Furthermore, the Department
agrees with the views of commenters that
placing energy efficiency requirements on
NEMA motors but not on equivalent IEC
motors could have the effect of giving
preferential treatment to the IEC motors.
Thus, the Department construes the EPCA
definition of electric motor to include motors
that have characteristics equivalent to those
set forth in that definition. 61 FR 60443.
As a result, the definition of the term
‘‘electric motor’’ was codified under 10
CFR 431.2 to include reference both to
NEMA MG1 and IEC-equivalent design,
duty rating, dimensions, and
performance characteristics. 64 FR
54114 (October 5, 1999). In addition,
each element of the codified definition
made reference to the applicable
provisions in NEMA and IEC standards,
which were then incorporated by
reference under 10 CFR 431.22. See 64
FR 54142.
For all the above reasons and finding
no evidence or receiving any comment
to the contrary, DOE concludes that IECequivalent motors are subject to the
same test procedures and any potential
energy efficiency standards that apply to
EPCA-defined small electric motors.
Further, IEEE Std 112, IEEE Std 114,
and CAN/CSA–C747, as applicable to
small electric motors, are also
applicable to those IEC motors that have
physical and performance
characteristics that are identical or
equivalent to those characteristics of the
EPCA-defined small electric motors. In
DOE’s view, EPCA’s requirements cover
any motor whose physical and
performance characteristics fit within
the statutory definition of ‘‘small
electric motor,’’ regardless of the
nomenclature, design descriptors, or
units expressed that characterize
performance. Today’s final rule applies
the statutory definition in a manner
consistent with EPCA and includes
motors that have characteristics
equivalent to those set forth in that
definition. Accordingly, the complete
definition codified in today’s final rule
reads: ‘‘Small electric motor means a
NEMA general purpose alternating
current single-speed induction motor,
built in a two-digit frame number series
in accordance with NEMA Standards
Publication MG1–1987, including IEC
metric equivalent motors.’’
2. Insulation System Class
Section 340(13)(G) of EPCA defines
the term ‘‘small electric motor’’ as a
‘‘NEMA general purpose alternating
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
current single-speed induction motor,
built in a two-digit frame number series
in accordance with NEMA Standards
Publication MG1–1987.’’ (42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(G)) Where EPCA refers to
NEMA MG1–1987, paragraph MG1–1.0
within that document defines the term
‘‘general purpose’’ motor as one that
incorporates, in part, a Class A8
insulation system with temperature rise
as specified in MG1–12.43 for small
motors. Advanced Energy asserted that
there could be a problem with limiting
the definition of general purpose small
electric motors to one with Class A
insulation. (Advanced Energy, No. 11 at
pp. 3–4) Advanced Energy argued that
insulation systems used in small electric
motors have improved since this
definition of general purpose was first
standardized in NEMA MG1–1987.
Further, as new insulation technologies
have improved and material costs have
decreased, it has become increasingly
common for manufacturers to use
insulation temperature classes higher
than Class A. Thus, if DOE limits
coverage to small electric motors with
Class A insulation, a manufacturer
could potentially choose between the
cost of compliance or moving to a
higher insulation class to avoid
regulation.
DOE understands the risk that
migration from one insulation class to
another might be used as a means of
circumventing an energy conservation
standard. Similarly, DOE is concerned
that if IEC motors are not covered, it
could open a regulatory gap in coverage.
Moreover, DOE is equally concerned
that any relatively inexpensive or minor
redesign of an existing line of small
electric motors (which could include
altering the type of insulation used in
these products) would enable a
manufacturer to circumvent the
statutory framework established by
Congress.
As part of its technical analysis for the
upcoming standards rulemaking for
small electric motors, on December 30,
2008, DOE published a notice
announcing the availability of a
preliminary technical support
document. 73 FR 79723. DOE examined
both the EPCA definition of ‘‘small
electric motor’’ and the current use of
‘‘general purpose’’ in paragraph 1.6.1 of
MG1–2006, Revision 1, and found that
the insulation-class coverage of what is
considered ‘‘general purpose’’ has in
fact expanded beyond Class A. In light
of this observation, one potential
8 Insulation systems are rated by standard NEMA
classifications according to maximum allowable
operating temperatures, which are: Class A—105 °C
(221 °F); Class B—130 °C (266 °F); Class F—155 °C
(311 °F); and Class H—180 °C (356 °F).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:44 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
solution would be to apply the term
‘‘general purpose’’ to more than one
insulation class by modifying the
current requirement to cover products
equipped with a ‘‘Class A or higher
rated insulation system.’’ DOE plans to
more fully address this issue as part of
its energy conservation standards
rulemaking for small electric motors.
3. Definition of Basic Model
It is common for a manufacturer to
make numerous models of a product
covered under EPCA and for each model
to be subject to testing to determine
compliance with an energy conservation
standard. To reduce any undue burden
of testing, DOE provides for
manufacturers to group together product
models having essentially identical
energy consumption characteristics into
a single family of models, collectively
called a ‘‘basic model.’’ This concept is
well established both for residential
appliances and commercial and
industrial equipment covered under
EPCA. For example, refrigerators are
often manufactured according to the
same elementary or basic blueprint
design and any particular model could
incorporate modifications that include
type of finish, shelf or drawer
arrangement, or some other feature that
does not significantly affect the energy
efficiency or performance of that
appliance. Requiring manufacturers to
test the energy efficiency of each model
with a different cosmetic feature—e.g.,
red with four shelves, or bisque with
two shelves and two drawers—would
create significant and redundant testing
burdens for models that share the same
energy efficiency performance.
The term ‘‘basic model’’ for electric
motors is defined in relevant part as:
‘‘all units of a given type of electric
motor (or class thereof) manufactured by
a single manufacturer and which have
the same rating, have electrical
characteristics that are essentially
identical, and do not have any differing
physical or functional characteristics
which affect energy consumption or
efficiency.’’ 10 CFR 431.12. Except for
changes to reflect the type of product at
issue, this basic model definition also
appears in 10 CFR part 431 for products
as diverse as commercial refrigerators,
freezers, and refrigerator-freezers
(Subpart C of 10 CFR part 431),
distribution transformers (Subpart K of
10 CFR part 431), illuminated exit signs
(Subpart L of 10 CFR part 431), and
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage
vending machines (Subpart Q of 10 CFR
part 431). For covered products and
equipment, the characteristics
differentiating basic models will vary
with the specific designs, features and
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32063
attributes of the products or equipment.
Each manufacturer can then test a
sufficient, representative sample of
units of each basic model it
manufactures, and derive an efficiency
rating for each basic model that would
apply to all models subsumed by that
basic model.
DOE proposed a basic model
definition for small electric motors that
incorporated these concepts. 73 FR
78223 and 78237–38. The proposed
definition read:
Basic model means, with respect to a small
electric motor, all units of a given type of
small electric motor (or class thereof)
manufactured by a single manufacturer, and
which have the same rating, have electrical
characteristics that are essentially identical,
and do not have any differing physical or
functional characteristics which affect energy
consumption or efficiency. For the purpose
of this definition, ‘‘rating’’ means a
combination of the small electric motor’s
group (i.e., capacitor-start, capacitor-run;
capacitor-start, induction-run; or polyphase),
horsepower rating (or standard kilowatt
equivalent), and number of poles with
respect to which section 431.346 prescribes
nominal full load efficiency standards.9
NEMA commented that the only
electrical characteristic that may be
important among basic models is the
stator winding configuration. It noted
that it is possible to use different
winding configurations, e.g., lap
winding or concentric winding, to
produce the same performance,
including efficiency, for a small electric
motor. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2) Further,
NEMA offered an example of this type
of change by explaining that a small
electric motor incorporating an internal
fan for air movement may have the same
efficiency as one which uses blades on
the rotor end rings for moving air
through the motor. In view of the
winding configuration and cooling fan
examples, NEMA did not believe the
design difference is important with
respect to the concept of a ‘‘basic
model’’ when the efficiency remains the
same. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2) Finally,
NEMA recommended that DOE define
‘‘basic model’’ as ‘‘all units of a given
type of small electric motor (or class
thereof) manufactured by a single
manufacturer, and which have the same
rating and nominal efficiency.’’ (NEMA,
No. 12 at p. 2)
In its written comments, NEEA
asserted that ‘‘basic model’’ is one of the
most important terms to clearly define
for a rulemaking. NEEA summarized the
9 As indicated earlier, the sections affecting small
electric motors will be in a new Subpart X.
Accordingly, the reference to section 431.346 in this
definition is updated in today’s final regulatory text
to reflect that fact and read as section 431.446.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
32064
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
industry’s view that the basic model
regime used for covered (1–200
horsepower) electric motors [as defined
in 10 CFR 431.12] be applied to small
electric motors, provided that the basic
model ‘‘boxes’’ for each motor are
carefully specified. NEEA added that
such ‘‘boxes’’ would be synonymous
with DOE’s equipment classes (i.e., a
unique combination of the motor’s
horsepower, number of poles, and
whether the design is a capacitor-start,
induction run (CSIR), capacitor-start,
capacitor run (CSCR), or polyphase
motor).10 (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 3)
Emerson commented that its design
engineers routinely make changes to
their electric motors but maintain the
same efficiency level. Emerson
continued by noting that some
manufacturers use more copper and less
core steel, while other manufacturers
use less copper and more steel. A
manufacturer may also make
modifications to meet other
performance requirements requested by
customers, including efficiency, torque,
power factor, and inertia. In all,
Emerson noted that 15 or 20 different
criteria that manufacturers must meet to
have a marketable product. Emerson
noted that it is able to maintain specific
efficiency levels by using AEDM
programs that are correlated with actual
testing methods. Emerson speculated
that the definition of ‘‘basic model’’ for
small electric motors [under the new 10
CFR 431.342] will follow the same or
similar definition found in 10 CFR
431.12 for 1–200 horsepower electric
motors, which potentially will result in
fewer basic models of small electric
motors than the current 113 basic
models of electric motors [in 10 CFR
431.25]. (Emerson, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 8 at pp. 51–52)
DOE notes that there are wellestablished differences in its regulatory
program between equipment classes,11
10 A CSIR motor is a single-phase motor with a
main winding arranged for direct connection to a
source of power and an auxiliary winding
connected in series with a capacitor. The motor has
a capacitor phase, which is in the circuit only
during the starting period. A CSCR motor is a
single-phase motor which has different values of
effective capacitance for the starting and running
conditions. A polyphase motor is an electric motor
that uses the phase changes of the electrical supply
to induce a rotational magnetic field and thereby
supply torque to the rotor. (See Chapter 2:
Analytical Framework, Comments from Interested
Parties, and DOE Responses, at p. 2–7 (December
30, 2008) (available at https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/
ch_2_small_motors_nopr_tsd.pdf).
11 For covered products in 10 CFR part 431, DOE
uses the phrase ‘‘equipment classes’’ and for
covered products in 10 CFR part 430, DOE uses the
phrase ‘‘product classes.’’ They signify exactly the
same concept, but use slightly different language
meant to reflect the use of the word ‘‘product’’ for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:44 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
basic models, and compliance
certification reporting. From the
comments submitted, it appears that
interested parties did not fully
understand these differences. The
following discussion clarifies these
three important concepts as they apply
to small electric motors.
The concept of a basic model was
created to help reduce repetitive testing
burdens on manufacturers while
ensuring that energy efficiency
standards are maintained. Equipment
classes for small electric motors are
represented by the number of boxes
contained in the three matrices (i.e.,
CSIR, CSCR, and polyphase small
electric motors) of horsepower ratings
and number of poles contained in the
chart that organizes these items. In its
Preliminary Technical Support
Document, the engineering analysis
addressed 72 potential equipment
classes for small electric motors.12 See
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/commercial/
small_electric_motors_nopr_tsd.html.
The equipment classes are the smallest
subgroups of small electric motors
where DOE would establish discrete
efficiency levels—i.e., there would be
one efficiency value or equation for each
equipment class.
Basic models represent all units of a
given type of small electric motor (or
class thereof) manufactured by a single
manufacturer, having the same rating 13
and electrical characteristics that are
essentially identical, and which do not
have any differing physical or
functional characteristics that affect
energy consumption or efficiency. In
essence, basic models are unique
blueprints for each electrical motor
design generated by a manufacturer,
even if a particular catalog model
incorporates minor design changes as
described by Emerson. Minor design
changes can occur every day due to
customer needs, material costs, and the
intrinsic nature of the manufacturing
and testing processes. These basic
models may have the same numerical
efficiency percentages, but they are not
the same basic model if they are
incorporating design changes that affect
their rated nominal full load efficiency
residential appliances in 10 CFR part 430 and the
word ‘‘equipment’’ for commercial and industrial
units in 10 CFR part 431.
12 See: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/commercial/small_electric_
motors_nopr_pub_mtg.html.
13 For the purpose of this definition, ‘‘rating’’
means a combination of the horsepower (or
standard kilowatt hour equivalent), number of
poles, and motor type (i.e., capacitor-start,
capacitor-run; a capacitor-start, induction-run; or a
polyphase small electric motor).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(e.g., a stator loss increase offset by a
rotor loss decrease).
For 1 through 200 hp electric motors,
one manufacturer can have thousands of
basic models in any one equipment
class. The regulations require each
covered electric motor to have a
‘‘nominal full load efficiency of not less
than’’ (emphasis added) the prescribed
efficiency level. See 10 CFR 431.25(a)
(listing electric motor efficiency
standards), 431.36(b)(1)(i) (requiring
certification of efficiency requirements),
and 431.36(e) (requiring certification for
each basic model). Thus, the regulations
allow a manufacturer to conservatively
rate their products within a certain
efficiency range according to the
definition of ‘‘nominal full load
efficiency,’’ pursuant to 10 CFR 431.12.
In other words, the regulations do not
prohibit manufacturers from combining
a number of basic models into a single
basic model and then reporting the
combined set at the lowest nominal full
load efficiency within that aggregated
basic model.
Individual manufacturer burdens are
further reduced by simplifying the
reporting requirements manufacturers
need to meet. For 1–200 hp electric
motors, under 10 CFR 431.36(b)(2), a
manufacturer must report the nominal
full load efficiency of the ‘‘least efficient
basic model within that rating.’’ The
same holds true under 10 CFR 431.36(e)
where a new Compliance Certification
must be submitted for a new basic
model only if the new basic model has
a lower nominal full load efficiency
than otherwise previously certified.
Therefore, while a manufacturer may be
preparing thousands of designs for a
given equipment class, the manufacturer
would only report to DOE (for
compliance purposes) the nominal full
load efficiency of the least-efficient
basic model within any given
equipment class. DOE then compares
the reported efficiency against the
required nominal full load efficiency
level to verify that all basic models
within a given equipment class by that
manufacturer are in compliance. In a
future rulemaking, DOE intends to
consider similar burden-reducing
provisions for small electric motors (the
product covered in today’s final rule),
should DOE establish energy
conservation standards for small electric
motors.
As discussed earlier in this section,
NEMA proposed a new definition for
the term ‘‘basic model.’’ (NEMA, No. 12
at p. 2) DOE cannot accept NEMA’s
proposed definition because it is not
consistent with the long established and
widely accepted basic model concept
throughout both 10 CFR parts 430 and
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
431. DOE understands that NEMA’s
proposed definition would allow a
single basic model to include many
different designs of small electric
motors that have significantly different
utility or performance-related features
that affect their efficiency, but which
have the same numerical nominal
efficiency value. In other words, these
motors could have different operating
voltages, winding configurations, or
other design changes that would make
them separate and distinct basic models
in view of DOE’s national regulatory
program. Thus, DOE believes that
NEMA’s proposed definition is
inconsistent with the ‘‘basic model’’
concept as it has long been applied and
understood across a range of covered
consumer products and commercial
equipment.
DOE continues to believe that any
definition of basic model must require
that all the included models have
virtually identical energy consumption
characteristics and be within the same
equipment class. Such an approach is
necessary to assure that the efficiency
rating derived for a particular basic
model accurately represents the
efficiency of all of the small electric
motors encompassed therein. Therefore,
DOE is defining ‘‘basic model’’ for small
electric motors by including a
requirement that any small electric
motors falling into a basic model
grouping ‘‘not have any differentiating
electrical, physical or functional
features that affect energy
consumption.’’ A few examples of
electrical, physical, and functional
features that may affect energy
consumption for small electric motors
include, among others, changing: The
operating voltage, the electrical steel,
the stack height, the wire in the
windings, the insulation rating, and the
air gap between the stator and rotor.
DOE recognizes that manufacturers
will have many basic models that fit
under today’s definition of basic model
for each small electric motor equipment
class, i.e., each combination of the
group (i.e., capacitor-start, capacitorrun; capacitor-start, induction-run; or
polyphase), horsepower rating (or
standard kilowatt equivalent), and
number of poles. The basic model
concept ensures that no design
manufactured and distributed in
commerce would be below the
minimum regulatory standard.
However, DOE is unaware of any
practicable way to aggregate models
with different energy consumption
characteristics, for purposes of testing,
which would produce an accurate
efficiency rating for each model
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:44 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
included in an aggregated group of
models.
To address undue testing burdens on
an individual manufacturer, as
discussed later in this notice, DOE is
adopting in today’s final rule a
provision that permits the use of an
AEDM, which, once substantiated by a
manufacturer, will allow that
manufacturer to rate the efficiency of
many small electric motors based on
calculations and software modeling
instead of physical testing. In addition,
DOE intends to propose in a future
rulemaking the compliance certification
provisions for small electric motors,
which would likely be based on the
established and recognized reporting
requirements for (1–200 hp) electric
motors at 10 CFR 431.36. These
provisions require manufacturers to
report only the least efficient rated basic
model within an equipment class.
Taken together, DOE believes these two
provisions will greatly reduce testing
and reporting burden on manufacturers
of small electric motors while adhering
to the existing requirements that apply
to both manufacturers of electric motors
and other commercial and industrial
equipment covered under 10 CFR part
431.
Therefore, in view of all the above,
today’s final rule defines a basic model
for small electric motors as all units of
a given type of small electric motor (or
class thereof) manufactured by a single
manufacturer, having the same rating
and electrical characteristics that are
essentially identical, and which do not
have any differing physical or
functional characteristics that affect
energy consumption or efficiency. For
the purpose of this definition, ‘‘rating’’
means a combination of the horsepower
(or standard kilowatt hour equivalent),
number of poles, and whether the motor
is a capacitor-start, capacitor-run;
capacitor-start, induction-run; or
polyphase small electric motor, with
respect to which 10 CFR 431.446
prescribes nominal full load efficiency
standards.
B. Test Procedures for the Measurement
of Energy Efficiency
DOE proposed that the test procedure
for measuring the energy efficiency of a
small electric motor be based on one of
the following methods: IEEE Std 114,
IEEE Std 112, or CAN/CSA–C747–94.
(73 FR 78223 and 78238) DOE
understands that the scope of small
electric motors includes single-phase
and polyphase designs that cover
fractional and integral horsepower
ratings that can be tested according to
somewhat different but equivalent
methodologies, using the same
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32065
measurements and producing virtually
the same results. The application of
these methods and commenter
responses to them are further discussed
below.
1. Single-Phase Small Electric Motor
Test Method
For single-phase small electric
motors, DOE proposed to incorporate
the test method in IEEE Std 114, which
measures and compares output power
and input power. In addition, DOE
proposed CAN/CSA–C747 as an
alternative test method, believing that it
would provide equivalent rigor and
render virtually equivalent results.
Advanced Energy and NEEA agreed
both with the use of IEEE Std 114 and
CAN/CSA–C747 as an alternative
method. Advanced Energy commented
that IEEE Std 114 and the CAN/CSA–
C747 are both input-output methods
with minor differences and
recommended that these test methods
be used for single-phase small electric
motors. (Advanced Energy, No. 11 at pp.
1–3) NEEA also agreed with DOE’s
proposal to use IEEE Std 114 and CAN/
CSA–C747 as an alternative test method.
(NEEA, No. 10 at p. 1) DOE did not
receive any comments objecting to the
adoption of either test method.
Therefore, in today’s final rule, DOE is
incorporating by reference IEEE Std 114
and the CAN/CSA–C747 as test methods
for single-phase small electric motors.
2. Polyphase Small Electric Motor Test
Method
For polyphase small electric motors,
DOE proposed the use of IEEE Std 112,
without specifying the use of one of the
particular test methods available in that
test procedure, such as Method A or
Method B. DOE also proposed that
manufacturers be allowed to use CAN/
CSA–C747 as an alternative test method
on the basis that it would provide
equivalent rigor and render equivalent
results with IEEE Std 112, while offering
manufacturers some flexibility on
testing methods used.
In general, interested parties were
receptive to DOE’s proposal, but
requested that DOE specify which test
method to use. During the public
meeting, a consensus developed that
CAN/CSA–C747 is consistent with the
IEEE Std 112 Test Method A, but that a
different CAN/CSA test method should
be used if DOE adopts IEEE Std 112 Test
Method B.
Concerning which IEEE Std 112 test
method DOE should adopt, Advanced
Energy stated that there are several
methods in IEEE Std 112 but
highlighted Test Methods A and B.
(IEEE Std 112 Test Method B has
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
32066
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
already been incorporated by reference
for 1–200 hp electric motors in 10 CFR
431.15(b)(2).) Advanced Energy
described IEEE Std 112 Test Method B
as the ‘‘loss segregation method.’’ This
method determines efficiency by
calculating the constituent losses of the
motor, including stray load losses,
through its measurements and
methodology. (Advanced Energy, No. 11
at pp. 1–2) However, Advanced Energy
asserted that IEEE Std 112 Test Method
B cannot be adopted for all small
electric motors because: (1) IEEE Std
112 recommends Test Method A for
motors rated less than 1 kilowatt (kW),
which covers most of the small electric
motors under consideration; and (2)
there is an inherently significant
difference between the input-output
calculation method (IEEE Std 112 Test
Method A, consistent with CAN/CSA–
C747) and the loss-segregation method
(IEEE Std 112 Test Method B, consistent
with CAN/CSA–C390 Test Method 1 14).
Advanced Energy stated that if a
polyphase small electric motor were
tested according to IEEE Std 112 Test
Method B and CAN/CSA–C747, the
difference in the efficiency results
would be significant; whereas if the
same test was done between IEEE Std
112 Test Method A and CAN/CSA–
C747, the results would be similar.
(Advanced Energy, No. 11 at pp. 1–2)
Advanced Energy summarized its
comments as follows: (1) The test
procedure for polyphase small electric
motors should be IEEE Std 112 Test
Method A and the test procedure for
single-phase small electric motors
should be IEEE Std 114; (2) the CAN/
CSA–C747 and IEEE Std 114 test
methods are essentially direct inputoutput methodologies that produce
equivalent test results; (3) use of IEEE
Std 112 Test Method B for polyphase
small electric motors compared to CAN/
CSA–C747 would produce significant
variations in measured efficiency for the
same motor; and (4) CAN/CSA–C747
may be used as an alternative test
method alongside IEEE Std 112 Test
Method A and IEEE Std 114. (Advanced
Energy, No. 11 at p. 3)
NEMA echoed many of the same
points raised by Advanced Energy.
According to NEMA, IEEE Std 112 lists
11 different procedures for testing
polyphase motors. NEMA commented
that DOE should identify a specific test
14 CAN/CSA–C390 Test Method 1 is the Canadian
test method that is considered to be equivalent to
IEEE 112 Std Test Method B. In the existing test
procedure for electric motors in Appendix B to
Subpart B of 10 CFR part 431, manufacturers
determine efficiency and losses according to either
IEEE 112 Std Test Method B or CAN/CSA–C390
Test Method 1.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:44 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
procedure to be used for determining
the efficiency of small electric motors.
(NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 3–4) It noted that
IEEE Std 112 Test Method A is the
method commonly used by the motor
industry for testing small electric
motors. While the NOPR proposed the
use of ‘‘IEEE Standard 112,’’ it did not
identify a particular test method that
accounts for motor size, such as a (Tframe) ‘‘electric motor’’ or a (two-digit
frame) ‘‘small electric motor.’’ (73 FR
78238) Further, IEEE Std 112
recommends that Test Method A be
limited to motors rated less than 1 kW
(1.34 hp). Test Method B is
recommended for motors rated 1–300
kW and is the test method prescribed in
appendix B to subpart B for ‘‘electric
motors.’’ Test Method A in IEEE Std 112
for polyphase motors is essentially the
same as the test methods in IEEE Std
114 for single-phase motors and in
CAN/CSA–C747 both for three-phase
small motors (up to 0.746 kW at 1800
revolutions per minute (rpm)) and
single-phase small motors (up to 7.5
kW). NEMA noted that Test Method B
in IEEE Std 112 is essentially equivalent
to Test Method 1 in CAN/CSA–C390 for
polyphase motors rated 0.746 kW or
greater at 1800 rpm. The specific ratings
for the application of the CAN/CSA
standards are based on a kW rating at
1800 RPM. For other speeds it is
assumed that the corresponding rating is
based on constant torque, such that the
kW rating at some other speed ‘‘S’’
would be equal to kW@1800 * S/1800.
To cover the required test procedures
adequately, NEMA encouraged DOE to
add an appendix B to the proposed
subpart T (now Subpart X) of 10 CFR
part 431, similar to appendix B to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 431. Also,
NEMA recommended that DOE adopt
the use of the various IEEE and CAN/
CSA test procedures along with their
respective hp/kW ranges, as indicated
above. (NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 3–4)
During the public meeting, Baldor
added that, for polyphase small electric
motors, DOE should adopt both IEEE
Std 112 Test Method A and Test Method
B. Baldor noted that IEEE Std 112 Test
Method A is similar to the test method
DOE is adopting for single-phase small
electric motors (IEEE Std 114). (Baldor,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p.
32) DOE did not receive any comments
objecting to this approach.
DOE considered all these comments
on the testing methodologies for
polyphase small electric motors and,
consistent with the majority of
interested parties, including NEMA, is
adopting both IEEE Std 112 Test Method
A and Test Method B in today’s final
rule. DOE is apportioning the covered
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
motors to these two different test
methods according to the guidance
provided in IEEE Std 112.15
DOE had proposed adopting IEEE Std
112 in its entirety, but today’s final rule
modifies that proposal by delineating
the scope of coverage for the test
procedure consistent with the
recommendation in IEEE Std 112.
However, since DOE intends to establish
its regulatory standard on the basis of
standard horsepower ratings, DOE will
not be assigning motors to be tested
with IEEE Std 112 Test Method A or
Test Method B according to a kilowatt
rating. Instead, DOE is basing the
applicable test method on horsepower
ratings. Since IEEE Std 112 Test Method
A is applicable to polyphase small
electric motors below 1 kilowatt (1.34
horsepower), DOE is applying this
method to small electrical motors rated
at or below 1 horsepower. A
demarcation based on horsepower
rather than kilowatts makes this
division more practicable since
manufacturer literature indicates that
small electric motors marketed for the
U.S. are generally grouped by
horsepower ratings, with 1 hp being the
first common horsepower rating below 1
kilowatt (1.34 horsepower). Similarly,
IEEE Std Test Method B will be
applicable to polyphase small electric
motors rated greater than 1 horsepower.
Furthermore, in today’s final rule,
while DOE is adopting CAN/CSA–C747
for single-phase small electric motors,
DOE is not adopting any alternative test
methods promulgated today for
polyphase small electric motors based
on CAN/CSA–C747 or CAN/CSA–C390
Test Method 1 because there may be an
inconsistency in the measured
efficiency associated with units tested
under IEEE Std 112 Test Method B and
CAN/CSA–C747. Instead, DOE plans to
raise this issue in a SNOPR and propose
adopting: (1) CAN/CSA–C747 as an
alternative to IEEE Std Test Method A
for polyphase small electric motors
rated less than or equal to one
horsepower (0.746 kilowatt) and (2)
CAN/CSA–C390, ‘‘Energy Efficiency
Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction
Motors’’ (Test Method 1) as an
alternative to IEEE Std Test Method B
for polyphase small electric motors that
have a rating greater than one
horsepower (0.746 kilowatt).
15 Section 6.2.1 on page 34 of IEEE Std 112 states
‘‘[t]he input-output method (Efficiency Test Method
A) should be limited to machines with ratings less
than 1 kW.’’
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
C. Alternative Efficiency Determination
Method
1. Statistical Basis for an Alternative
Efficiency Determination Method
DOE proposed that the efficiency of a
small electric motor must be determined
either through actual testing or by using
an AEDM, provided that its reliability
and accuracy are substantiated by
testing five basic models that are based
on a sample of five production units
selected at random and tested. 73 FR
78238–39.
In view of the above, NEEA
commented that while it supported the
use of an AEDM methodology, it
expressed concern that DOE’s proposal
to substantiate the AEDM for small
electric motors by testing a minimum of
five motors, each from a minimum of
five basic models, may not produce a
statistically defensible model. (NEEA,
No. 10 at p. 2) NEEA also questioned
whether AEDMs were sufficiently
rigorous to predict total power loss
within ten percent of the mean total
power loss, compared to actual testing.
NEEA asserted that total power loss will
likely range from 10 to 30 percent,
depending on the basic model and the
standards that are set. Consequently, the
magnitude of AEDM error will approach
the difference between two prescribed
standard efficiency levels, thereby
making it more difficult to justify the
standard levels. NEEA requested more
discussion about whether a given
AEDM’s accuracy properly accounts for
(1) variability in manufacturing and
product performance and (2) limitations
in the calculations used to represent the
design, construction, and operating
conditions of the motors being tested.
(NEEA, No. 10 at p. 2)
DOE understands NEEA’s concerns
about the adequacy of using an AEDM
for small electric motors and whether it
is sufficient to determine which level of
efficiency is supported by testing
samples selected from the total
population. NEEA’s concern appears to
be with overlapping nominal efficiency
distributions and the probability that
the sample tested may indicate an
incorrect nominal efficiency for the
basic model. DOE understands that two
populations of motors could intersect
each other, given the variations inherent
in the manufacturing process and
efficiency testing. This situation is a
result of basing calculations on
efficiency, when the criteria for
selecting discrete values of nominal
efficiency for marking small electric
motors would be based on step changes
in the total losses. Also, the difference
in losses between efficiency levels that
may appear would be slight, primarily
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:44 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
due to mathematical rounding when
calculating the efficiency values.
Nevertheless, DOE believes that the
probability of overlapping efficiency
levels is small because the AEDM is
substantiated through the modeling and
construction of actual small electric
motors. As a result, in DOE’s view, the
use of proposed AEDM is reasonable for
compliance certification because it
balances the manufacturer’s and
consumer’s risks that the minimum
permissible value of average efficiency
for the sample falls between the
nominal efficiency value to be declared
by the manufacturer and the next lower
value of nominal efficiency.
Moreover, the proposed AEDM
follows the widely accepted precedent
for (1–200 hp) electric motors, at 10 CFR
431.17, which is based on National
Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) Internal Report 6092, January
1998, ‘‘Analysis of Proposals for
Compliance and Enforcement Testing
Under the New Part 431; Title 10, Code
of Federal Regulations.’’ That report
analyzed a variety of criteria and
sampling plans for establishing
compliance with standards prescribed
by EPCA. DOE concluded that the
findings of this study, which indicated
that the sampling plan for electric
motors was statistically sound and
sufficiently rigorous to ensure
compliance with a regulatory standard,
were also appropriate and applicable to
the testing of small electric motors.
Furthermore, under the new 10 CFR
431.445(b)(3) adopted today, as with 10
CFR 431.17(a)(3), the accuracy and
reliability of any AEDM must be
substantiated through statistically valid
sampling and testing in accordance with
established industry standards.
Therefore, DOE believes the proposed
AEDM requirements are sufficiently
rigorous for compliance, without being
unduly burdensome to a manufacturer.
2. Sample Size for Substantiating an
Alternative Efficiency Determination
Method
DOE proposed a statistical sampling
regimen for selecting representative
basic models out of a population of
small electric motors for testing, to
validate an AEDM. (73 FR 78239)
NEMA pointed out that according to the
proposed section 431.345(b)(1)(i)(C),
‘‘the [five] basic models should be of
different frame number series without
duplication.’’ In contrast, the two-digit
NEMA frame number series consists
only of three values: 42, 48, and 56.
While the proposed 10 CFR
431.345(b)(1)(ii) in the NOPR provided
instructions for when section
431.345(b)(1)(i)(C) cannot be satisfied,
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32067
NEMA believed it preferable to
recognize this testing requirement at the
outset. NEMA suggested that the
provision at 10 CFR 431.345(b)(1)(i)(C)
be changed to read ‘‘At least one basic
model should be selected from each of
the frame number series for the designs
of small electric motors for which the
AEDM is to be used.’’ (NEMA, No. 12
at p. 4)
DOE understands that modifying the
proposed sampling regimen is necessary
to reflect the frame number series
available for sampling small electric
motors given the relative paucity of twodigit frame number series identified in
Table 4–2 in NEMA Standards
Publication MG1–2006 (Table 11–1 in
NEMA Standards Publication MG1–
1987), which has only three frame
numbers in the two-digit series. DOE
also understands that any sampling plan
should represent the total population
and, in this case, reflect the importance
of substantiating an AEDM by selecting
at least one basic model from each frame
number series. Consequently, DOE is
adopting NEMA’s proposed language for
section 431.445(b)(1)(i)(C).
3. Omission of Alternative Efficiency
Determination Method Substantiation
The NOPR proposed a new section
431.345(b)(2), which would have
provided details regarding the manner
in which to select units for testing
within a basic model. However, NEMA
pointed out that the proposed section
431.345(b)(2) did not specify what
manufacturers should do with the
results of the tests of those five units in
determining whether the basic model
complies with any efficiency standards
that DOE may set in the future. NEMA
recommended that DOE establish a clear
set of rules to follow as part of the test
procedure to determine whether the
basic model is in compliance based on
the tests of the five units. (NEMA, No.
12 at p. 5)
NEMA also commented that if DOE
intended to follow the existing
requirements in section 431.17(b)(2) for
electric motors, it may need to ascertain
whether the same requirements apply to
small electric motors, because this
section is based on the NEMA nominal
and corresponding minimum efficiency
values for electric motors from NEMA
MG1–12.58.2 (2006). Since the NOPR
only proposed to define the term
‘‘average full-load efficiency,’’ DOE
would need to define the term ‘‘nominal
full-load efficiency’’ in order to adopt
the same requirements for small electric
motors that currently apply to electric
motors under section 431.17(b)(2).
NEMA also pointed out that the electric
motors covered under NEMA MG1–
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
32068
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
12.58.2 (2006) are tested according to
IEEE Std 112 Test Method B and not
Test Method A. NEMA offered to assist
DOE in developing the proper analysis
of the results of the tests of the five units
of a basic model, to determine if the
basic model complies with any
efficiency standard that DOE might
establish. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 5)
DOE appreciates NEMA’s comments,
but notes that nominal full-load
efficiency values need only be defined
if and when DOE adopts energy
conservation standards for small electric
motors. The test procedure is only
intended to measure the losses of a
particular motor in a sample of motors,
which it does. Measured losses can then
be used to determine the full-load
efficiency for the one motor and,
thereafter, to calculate the average of the
full-load efficiencies of the several
motors in the sample. DOE believes it
will become necessary to establish
nominal full-load efficiency values in
the future, values that would be selected
from a table similar to Table 12–10 for
1 to 200 hp electric motors, in MG1–
2006. Recognizing that this table is
based on efficiency measurements using
IEEE Std 112 Test Method B, DOE
invites NEMA and other interested
parties to provide additional input, data,
and information about what a table of
nominal full-load efficiencies for small
electric motors, tested according to IEEE
Std 112 Test Method A and IEEE Std
114, might look like. DOE intends to
address the matter of nominal full-load
efficiency levels as part of its energy
conservation standards rulemaking for
small electric motors.
D. Testing Laboratory Accreditation
EPCA provides different requirements
for determining the energy efficiency of
(two-digit NEMA frame) small electric
motors and (three-digit NEMA frame)
electric motors. Specifically, section
345(c) of EPCA directs the Secretary of
Energy to require manufacturers of
‘‘electric motors’’ to ‘‘certify, through an
independent testing or certification
program nationally recognized in the
United States, that [any electric motor
subject to EPCA efficiency standards]
meets the applicable standard.’’ 16 (42
U.S.C. 6316(c)) Section 342(b) of EPCA
establishes the applicable energy
efficiency standards for electric motors.
16 Further, 10 CFR 431.17(a)(5) provides for a
manufacturer to establish compliance either
through (1) a certification program that DOE has
classified as nationally recognized, such as CAN/
CSA or Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., or (2)
testing in any laboratory that is accredited by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology/
National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation
Program (NIST/NVLAP).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:44 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
(42 U.S.C. 6313(b)) EPCA, however,
does not include compliance
certification requirements for small
electric motors. Because small electric
motors are covered under section 346(b)
of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)), the
certification requirements that apply to
electric motors do not apply to small
electric motors.
DOE proposed in the NOPR to allow
a manufacturer to self-certify the
efficiency test results for its small
electric motors (i.e., not require
‘‘independent testing’’), which DOE
believes is consistent with the
compliance certification requirements
for other commercial products such as
high-intensity discharge lamps and
distribution transformers covered under
section 346 of EPCA. Nevertheless, DOE
is considering proposing at a later date
compliance certification requirements
for small electric motors equivalent to
those in place for electric motors (i.e.,
requiring manufacturers to test small
electric motors through an independent
testing or certification program
nationally recognized in the United
States).
NEMA observed that small electric
motors sold in the U.S. are also sold in
Canada, and that Canadian regulatory
entities are considering following DOE’s
lead in any efficiency standard
developed for small electric motors.
(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 4) NEMA noted
that the only means to certify
compliance for electric motors in
Canada is through the CAN/CSA Energy
Efficiency Verification Program.
Further, given the likelihood that the
Canadian government will require small
electric motors to be certified through
the same CAN/CSA Energy Efficiency
Verification Program, NEMA requested
that DOE recognize independent third
party efficiency certification programs
for small electric motors. However,
NEMA was clear that it was not
encouraging DOE to mandate the use of
independent third party certification
programs or accreditation programs for
testing facilities. Rather, it stressed that
DOE recognition of such programs
would encourage voluntary use of
certification through third parties, such
as NIST/NVLAP. In addition, NEMA
recommended that DOE allow sufficient
time for the approval of such programs
and manufacturer participation in such
programs because no accreditation
programs for testing in accordance with
IEEE Std 112 Method A, IEEE Std 114,
or CAN/CSA–C747 currently exist.
NEEA expressed its support for a
nationally recognized certification
program or accredited laboratory,
according to the requirements
established in 10 CFR 431.17(a)(5).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Further, it recommended that DOE
apply the same requirements to the
small electric motors covered in this
rulemaking. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 2)
In view of the above comments, DOE
intends to address these matters as part
of a SNOPR for electric motor test
procedures, and will invite comments as
to whether independent third party
compliance certification or laboratory
accredited programs for small electric
motors should (1) be established and (2)
be made mandatory or voluntary.
E. Certification and Enforcement
NEMA expressed concern that the
proposed subpart T (now Subpart X) of
10 CFR part 431 did not include a
means for identifying the test procedure
to follow when certifying the efficiency
of a small electric motor. (NEMA, No. 12
at p. 5) Also, NEMA questioned how
DOE would enforce any potential energy
efficiency standards for small electric
motors, particularly for those small
electric motors incorporated into
equipment that is imported into the
United States. NEMA asked how DOE
intends to make enforcement applicable
to small electric motors in 10 CFR part
431. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 6)
DOE notes that it published in the
Federal Register a NOPR that, in part,
included provisions under a new
Subpart T—Certification and
Enforcement to ensure compliance with
EPCA’s energy conservation standards,
which, with minor modifications could
apply to small electric motors. 71 FR
42178, 42214 (July 25, 2006). In that
NOPR, DOE proposed a new section
431.370 that described the purpose and
scope of a proposed subpart T of 10 CFR
part 431. Subpart T would set forth the
procedures to be followed for
manufacturer compliance certifications
of all covered equipment except electric
motors (which are not small electric
motors). Subpart T would also set forth
details regarding the determination of
whether a basic model of covered
equipment, other than electric motors
and distribution transformers, complies
with the applicable energy or water
conservation standard set forth in 10
CFR part 431.
Although Subpart T—Certification
and Enforcement as proposed in the July
2006 NOPR would not apply to 1–200
horsepower electric motors, it would
apply to small electric motors, should
DOE promulgate energy conservation
standards for this equipment. However,
because the July 26, 2006, NOPR
remains an active and on-going
rulemaking at DOE and, to avoid
confusion, DOE chose not to propose
certification and enforcement
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
requirements in its December 2008
NOPR. 73 FR 78220.
F. Other Issues Raised
In response to the December 2008
NOPR, interested parties drawing
comparisons between provisions for
electric motors in 10 CFR part 431 and
the proposed test procedure for small
electric motors submitted questions
concerning issues and requirements that
were not included in the NOPR. These
issues are addressed below.
1. Definition of ‘‘Nominal Full-Load
Efficiency’’
NEMA noted that for electric motors
covered under Subpart B of 10 CFR part
431, the term ‘‘nominal full-load
efficiency’’ is the metric for determining
compliance with the applicable energy
efficiency standards in 10 CFR 431.25.
The term ‘‘nominal full-load efficiency’’
is defined under 10 CFR 431.12 and, in
part, elements of the definition refer to
NEMA MG1–1993 Table 12–8, which
provides a column of nominal efficiency
values and a column of corresponding
minimum efficiency values. NEMA
expressed concern that the NOPR did
not specify which nominal full load
efficiency values DOE plans to use
when determining small electric motor
compliance. NEMA offered to assist
DOE in this regard. (NEMA, No. 12 at p.
3)
DOE appreciates NEMA’s offer and
recognizes that there are different fullload efficiency values defined in 10 CFR
431.12: average full-load efficiency 17
and nominal full-load efficiency.18 Also,
DOE recognizes that the efficiency
values presented in NEMA MG1–1993
Table 12–8 were created using IEEE Std
112 Test Method B, and may not apply
to all small electric motors, most of
which will be measured for efficiency
using IEEE Std 114 and IEEE Std 112
Test Method A.
DOE is concerned about the actual
measured energy efficiency and AEDMmodeled energy efficiency, making the
output of the measured or modeled
efficiency value the most relevant factor
when comparing energy efficiency
17 Average full-load efficiency is defined as ‘‘the
arithmetic mean of the full-load efficiencies of a
population of electric motors of duplicate design,
where the full-load efficiency of each motor in the
population is the ratio (expressed as a percentage)
of the motor’s useful power output to its total power
input when the motor is operated at its full rated
load, rated voltage, and rated frequency.’’ 10 CFR
431.12.
18 Nominal full-load efficiency is defined as ‘‘a
representative value of efficiency selected from
Column A of Table 12–8, NEMA Standards
Publication MG1–1993, (incorporated by reference,
see 10 CFR 431.15), that is not greater than the
average full-load efficiency of a population of
motors of the same design.’’ 10 CFR 431.12.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:44 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
standards. As a result, DOE plans to
define nominal full-load efficiency for
small electric motors under a separate
rulemaking.
2. Materials Incorporated by Reference
In its December 2008 NOPR, DOE
proposed test procedures for small
electric motors by incorporating by
reference IEEE Std 112, ‘‘Test Procedure
for Polyphase Induction Motors and
Generators,’’ IEEE Std 114, ‘‘Test
Procedure for Single-Phase Motors,’’
and CAN/CSA–C747, ‘‘Energy
Efficiency for Single- and Three-Phase
Small Motors.’’ In addition, DOE
proposed to update the citations of
industry standards that are incorporated
by reference under 10 CFR 431.15,
which included NEMA Standards
Publication MG1, ‘‘Motors and
Generators;’’ IEEE Std 112, ‘‘Test
Procedure for Polyphase Induction
Motors and Generators;’’ and CAN/
CSA–C390, ‘‘Energy Efficiency Test
Methods for Three-Phase Induction
Motors.’’ 73 FR 78221.
NEMA expressed concern that DOE
proposed for incorporation by reference
into new 10 CFR 431.343 for small
electric motors, only certain test
methods in IEEE Std 112 and 114, and,
separately, CAN/CSA C747 and C390.
This was in contrast to DOE’s inclusion
of construction and performance
standards for ‘‘electric motors’’ in 10
CFR 431.15. In NEMA’s view, this
omission was particularly troubling
because DOE overlooked incorporating
by reference certain IEC standards into
the new proposed Subpart T (now
Subpart X) of 10 CFR part 431. NEMA
requested that DOE include the
appropriate NEMA and IEC standards in
the list of materials incorporated by
reference and identify the source for
those materials. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3)
DOE did not incorporate by reference
construction and performance standards
for small electric motors in the NOPR
because of statutory limitations. Outside
of clarifying the EPCA definition of
‘‘small electric motor,’’ 42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(G), DOE’s mandate for
establishing test procedures and energy
conservation standards for small electric
motors does not extend to prescribing
construction or performance standards.
Where 10 CFR 431.15 prescribes certain
provisions in NEMA Standards
Publication MG1 and IEC 60050–411,
60072–1, and 60034–12, which,
collectively, include dimensions,
mounting, frames, and performance
characteristics, DOE made such
provisions to clarify the scope of
coverage of electric motors. 64 FR 54114
(October 5, 1999) (final rule covering
test procedures, labeling, and
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32069
certification requirements for electric
motors). At the time of that rulemaking,
DOE added a policy statement as
appendix A to Subpart A of 10 CFR part
431 (presently appendix A to Subpart B
of 10 CFR part 431) to provide
additional guidance as to which types of
motors are ‘‘electric motors.’’
Notwithstanding the provisions under
10 CFR 431.15, other products covered
in 10 CFR part 431 do not address
construction and performance standards
or similar requirements. DOE addresses
scope of coverage matters in section
III.A of today’s rule, and clarifies what
it considers IEC-equivalent small motors
that could be used as substitutes for
covered small electric motors.
Therefore, DOE makes no changes in
today’s final rule that would otherwise
pertain to construction and performance
standards for small electric motors. As
explained above, DOE considers IECequivalent motors, which can be used as
substitutes for small electric motors, to
be covered.
3. Labeling Requirements
The December 2008 NOPR did not
provide requirements for labeling
energy efficiency or compliance
certification for small electric motors.
NEMA argued that DOE omitted
provisions for labeling energy efficiency
and compliance certification
information for small electric motors in
the newly proposed Subpart T (now
Subpart X) of 10 CFR part 431. NEMA
recommended that DOE include such
provisions, similar to those in 10 CFR
431.30 [10 CFR 431.31] for ‘‘electric
motors.’’ Further, NEMA suggested that
DOE permit a manufacturer, both of
electric motors and small electric
motors, to use the same compliance
certification number on both its electric
motors and small electric motors.
(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 5)
The NOPR did not provide labeling
requirements for small electric motors
because DOE has not yet established
whether energy conservation standards
will be adopted for small electric
motors. Once DOE establishes these
standards, it will prescribe labeling
requirements consistent with the
statute. (42 U.S.C. 6317).
4. Preemption of State Standards and
Labeling
Sections 431.26 and 431.32 of 10 CFR
part 431 cover electric motors and
provide for preemption of State
regulations, both for energy
conservation standards and disclosure
of electric motor information with
respect to energy consumption. The
NOPR does not address preemption of
State regulation.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
32070
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
NEMA noted that the NOPR did not
include a specific preemption provision
for small electric motors in new Subpart
T (now Subpart X) of 10 CFR part 431,
and recommended that DOE include
such a provision for preemption much
like the one that currently applies to
electric motors in 10 CFR 431.26.
(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 5)
As a preliminary matter, DOE notes
that Congress specifically provided for
the preemption of electric motors. See
42 U.S.C. 6316(a). However, a similar
provision was not included for small
electric motors. However, small electric
motors standards would be covered
under general preemption principles.
Energy conservation standards that are
established under, or promulgated
pursuant to, EPCA are national
standards. In general, these standards
preempt State and local regulations
when those regulations conflict with the
national standards unless otherwise
provided by law. With respect to the
energy conservation standards, States
may petition DOE for a waiver from
these standards. By statute, a State must
demonstrate that unusual and
compelling State or local energy
interests exist that would justify the
granting of such a waiver. Accordingly,
DOE does not believe that the inclusion
of a specific preemption provision is
required.
5. Petitions and Waivers
Subpart V—General Provisions of 10
CFR part 431 prescribes requirements
for the submissions of petitions for
waiver and interim waivers for any
basic model of electric motor covered
under 10 CFR 431.16. The NOPR did
not address petitions for waiver, and
applications for interim waiver, of test
procedures for small electric motors.
NEMA questioned whether DOE
intends to make applicable to small
electric motors the relevant parts of
‘‘Subpart L, General Provisions’’ 19 for
electric motors, or create a new subpart.
(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 6)
DOE intends to address this issue
specifically in a separate rulemaking.20
19 Although NEMA says ‘‘Subpart L, General
Provisions’’ from the context of their comment, it
is clear it meant ‘‘Subpart V, General Provisions.’’
Subpart L was redesignated Subpart V on October
18, 2005. 70 FR 60417.
20 DOE notes that Section 323(e) of EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6293(e)), which requires DOE to consider the
impacts of a test procedure amendment to the
applicable energy efficiency or energy use of a
covered product, does not apply in this instance
because DOE is promulgating a new test procedure
for small electric motors and no energy
conservation standards are currently in effect.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:44 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
IV. Procedural Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Today’s regulatory action is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58
FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).
Accordingly, this action was not subject
to review under that Executive Order by
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis for any rule that by law must
be proposed for public comment, unless
DOE certifies that the rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. As required by
Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the DOE
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s Web site, https://
www.gc.doe.gov.
DOE reviewed today’s final rule under
the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the policies and
procedures published on February 19,
2003. DOE tentatively certified in the
December 22, 2008 NOPR that the
proposed rule would not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. 73 FR 78232.
In the NOPR, DOE made this tentative
certification for small electric motors
based on the fact that: (1) DOE is not
imposing any additional testing
requirements or higher accuracy
tolerances beyond what is already
contained in the industry standards
documents incorporated by reference for
this equipment (i.e., IEEE Std 114, IEEE
Std 112 and CSA C747); (2) DOE is
adopting testing requirements that the
industry already follows, avoiding any
significant increase in testing or
compliance costs; and (3) DOE is
consistent with current industry test
procedures and methodologies, thereby
eliminating confusion and any undue
burden from determining the efficiency
of an electric motor according to two
separate test procedures for potentially
the same result.
DOE did not receive any comments
addressing small business impacts for
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
manufacturers of small electric motors.
Thus, DOE reaffirms and certifies that
this rule will have no significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), a
person is not required to respond to a
collection of information by a Federal
agency unless the collection displays a
valid OMB control number. In today’s
final rule, DOE adopts new test
procedures and associated
documentation retention and reporting
requirements for small electric motors.
However, unless and until DOE requires
manufacturers of small electric motors
to comply with energy conservation
standards, a manufacturer would not be
required to comply with these recordkeeping provisions because of the
absence of certification/compliance
requirements applicable to the test
procedures. Therefore, today’s final rule
would not impose any new reporting
requirements requiring approval by
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
In this rule, DOE adopts new test
procedures that are used to measure and
determine the energy efficiency of small
electric motors. This rule falls into a
class of actions that are categorically
excluded from review under the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.,
and DOE’s implementing regulations at
10 CFR part 1021. DOE has determined
that this rule is covered under the
Categorical Exclusion found in DOE’s
National Environmental Policy Act
regulations at paragraph A.6 of
Appendix A to Subpart D, 10 CFR part
1021, which applies to rulemakings that
are strictly procedural. Accordingly,
neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement
is required.
E. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have Federalism implications. The
Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. DOE
examined this final rule and determined
that it would not have a substantial
direct effect on the States, on the
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Accordingly,
Executive Order 13132 requires no
further action.
F. Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996),
imposes on Federal agencies the general
duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and
(3) provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard and promote simplification
and burden reduction. Regarding the
review required by section 3(a), section
3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires, among other
things, that Executive agencies make
every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction; (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires Executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE has completed the required
review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this rule meets
the relevant standards of Executive
Order 12988.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4; UMRA)
generally requires Federal agencies to
examine closely the impacts of
regulatory actions on State, local, and
Tribal governments. Subsection 101(5)
of title I of that law defines a Federal
intergovernmental mandate to include
any regulation that would impose upon
State, local, or Tribal governments an
enforceable duty, except a condition of
Federal assistance or a duty arising from
participating in a voluntary Federal
program. Title II of UMRA requires each
Federal agency to assess the effects of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:44 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. For proposed regulatory
actions likely to result in a rule that may
cause expenditures by State, local, and
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector, of $100 million or
more (adjusted annually for inflation),
section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal
agency to publish estimates of the
resulting costs, benefits, and other
effects on the national economy. Section
204 of UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected
officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a proposed ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate.’’ On March
18, 1997, DOE published a statement of
policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under
UMRA (62 FR 12820) (also available at
https://www.gc.doe.gov. Today’s final
rule would establish new test
procedures that would be used in
measuring the energy efficiency of small
electric motors. Today’s rule contains
neither an intergovernmental mandate,
nor a mandate that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more in any year.
Accordingly, no assessment or analysis
is required under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
H. Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being.
Today’s rule would not have any impact
on the autonomy or integrity of the
family as an institution. Accordingly,
DOE has concluded that it is
unnecessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.
I. Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630,
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988),
DOE has determined that this rule
would not result in any takings that
might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
J. Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
The Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
(Pub. L. 106–554, codified at 44 U.S.C.
3516 note) provides for agencies to
review most disseminations of
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32071
information to the public under
guidelines established by each agency
pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published
at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and
DOE’s guidelines were published at 67
FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed today’s notice under the OMB
and DOE guidelines and has concluded
that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
K. Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to OMB a Statement
of Energy Effects for any proposed
significant energy action. A ‘‘significant
energy action’’ is defined as any action
by an agency that promulgated or is
expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that (1) is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, or any successor order; and (2)
is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant
energy action. For any proposed
significant energy action, the agency
must give a detailed statement of any
adverse effects on energy supply,
distribution, or use should the proposal
be implemented, and of reasonable
alternatives to the action and their
expected benefits on energy supply,
distribution, and use. Today’s regulatory
action is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866 or
any successor order; would not have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; and has
not been designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant
energy action. Therefore, this rule is not
a significant energy action. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared a Statement of
Energy Effects.
L. Section 32 of the Federal Energy
Administration Act of 1974
Under section 301 of the Department
of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95–
91), DOE must comply with all laws
applicable to the former Federal Energy
Administration, including section 32 of
the Federal Energy Administration Act
of 1974 (Pub. L. 93–275), as amended by
the Federal Energy Administration
Authorization Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95–
70). (15 U.S.C. 788) Section 32 provides
that where a proposed rule authorizes or
requires use of commercial standards,
the notice of proposed rulemaking must
inform the public of the use and
background of such standards. Section
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
32072
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
32(c) also requires DOE to consult with
the Department of Justice and the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
concerning the impact of commercial or
industry standards on competition.
Certain of the amendments and
revisions in this final rule incorporate
testing methods contained in the
following commercial standards: (1)
IEEE Std 114, ‘‘IEEE Standard Test
Procedure for Single-Phase Induction
Motors’’; (2) IEEE Std 112, ‘‘IEEE
Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase
Induction Motors and Generators’’; and
CAN/CSA C747, ‘‘Energy Efficiency Test
Methods for Single- and Three-Phase
Small Motors.’’ As stated in the
December 22, 2008 NOPR, DOE has
evaluated these standards and is unable
to conclude whether they fully comply
with the requirements of section 32(b) of
the Federal Energy Administration Act
(i.e., that they were developed in a
manner that fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review). 73
FR 48054, 48079. DOE has consulted
with the Attorney General and the
Chairman of the FTC concerning the
impact on competition of requiring
manufacturers to use the test methods
contained in these standards, and
neither recommended against
incorporation by reference of these
standards.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
of today’s rule before its effective date.
The report will state that it has been
determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and
procedure, Commercial and industrial
equipment, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 29,
2009.
Steven G. Chalk,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
part 431 of chapter II of title 10, Code
of Federal Regulations, is amended as
set forth below:
■
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:44 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.
2. Add a new subpart X to part 431
to read as follows:
■
Subpart X—Small Electric Motors
Sec.
431.441
431.442
Purpose and scope.
Definitions.
Test Procedures
431.443 Materials incorporated by
reference.
431.444 Test procedures for the
measurement of energy efficiency.
431.445 Determination of small electric
motor energy efficiency.
Energy Conservation Standards
431.446 Small electric motors energy
conservation standards and their
effective dates.
§ 431.441
Purpose and scope.
This subpart contains definitions, test
procedures, and energy conservation
requirements for small electric motors,
pursuant to Part A–1 of Title III of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6311–6317.
§ 431.442
Definitions.
The following definitions are
applicable to this subpart:
Alternative efficiency determination
method, or AEDM, means, with respect
to a small electric motor, a method of
calculating the total power loss and
average full-load efficiency.
Average full-load efficiency means the
arithmetic mean of the full-load
efficiencies of a population of small
electric motors of duplicate design,
where the full-load efficiency of each
motor in the population is the ratio
(expressed as a percentage) of the
motor’s useful power output to its total
power input when the motor is operated
at its full rated load, rated voltage, and
rated frequency.
Basic model means, with respect to a
small electric motor, all units of a given
type of small electric motor (or class
thereof) manufactured by a single
manufacturer, and which have the same
rating, have electrical characteristics
that are essentially identical, and do not
have any differing physical or
functional characteristics that affect
energy consumption or efficiency. For
the purpose of this definition, ‘‘rating’’
means a combination of the small
electric motor’s group (i.e., capacitorstart, capacitor-run; capacitor-start,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
induction-run; or polyphase),
horsepower rating (or standard kilowatt
equivalent), and number of poles with
respect to which § 431.446 prescribes
nominal full load efficiency standards.
CAN/CSA means Canadian Standards
Association.
DOE or the Department means the
U.S. Department of Energy.
EPCA means the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 6291–6317.
IEC means International
Electrotechnical Commission.
IEEE means Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, Inc.
NEMA means National Electrical
Manufacturers Association.
Small electric motor means a NEMA
general purpose alternating current
single-speed induction motor, built in a
two-digit frame number series in
accordance with NEMA Standards
Publication MG1–1987, including IEC
metric equivalent motors.
Test Procedures
§ 431.443 Materials incorporated by
reference.
(a) General. The Department
incorporates by reference the following
standards into Subpart X of part 431.
The Director of the Federal Register has
approved the material listed in
paragraph (b) of this section for
incorporation by reference in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. Any subsequent
amendment to a standard by the
standard-setting organization will not
affect the DOE test procedures unless
and until the DOE amends its test
procedures. DOE incorporates the
material as it exists on the date of the
approval and a notice of any change in
the material will be published in the
Federal Register. All approved material
is available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html. Also,
this material is available for inspection
at U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Building Technologies Program,
Sixth Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW.,
Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945,
or go to https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/.
Standards can be obtained from the
sources below.
(b) CAN/CSA. Canadian Standards
Association, Sales Department, 5060
Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga,
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1–800–463–
6727, or go to https://www.shopcsa.ca/
onlinestore/welcome.asp.
(1) CAN/CSA–C747–94 (‘‘CAN/CSA–
C747’’) (Reaffirmed 2005), Energy
Efficiency Test Methods for Single- and
Three-Phase Small Motors, IBR
approved for § 431.444.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) IEEE. Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445 Hoes
Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ
08855–1331, 1–800–678–IEEE (4333), or
go to https://www.ieee.org/web/
publications/home/.
(1) IEEE Std 112TM–2004 (Revision of
IEEE Std 112–1996) (‘‘IEEE Std 112’’),
IEEE Standard Test Procedure for
Polyphase Induction Motors and
Generators, approved February 9, 2004,
IBR approved for § 431.444.
(2) IEEE Std 114–2001TM (Revision of
IEEE Std 114–1982) (‘‘IEEE Std 114’’),
IEEE Standard Test Procedure for
Single-Phase Induction Motors,
approved December 6, 2001, IBR
approved for § 431.444.
§ 431.444 Test procedures for the
measurement of energy efficiency.
(a) Scope. Pursuant to section
346(b)(1) of EPCA, this section provides
the test procedures for measuring,
pursuant to EPCA, the efficiency of
small electric motors pursuant to EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)) For purposes of
this Part 431 and EPCA, the test
procedures for measuring the efficiency
of small electric motors shall be the test
procedures specified in § 431.444(b).
(b) Testing and Calculations.
Determine the energy efficiency and
losses by using one of the following test
methods:
(1) Single-phase small electric motors:
either IEEE Std 114, (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.443), or CAN/CSA
C747, (incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.443);
(2) Polyphase small electric motors
less than or equal to 1 horsepower
(0.746 kW): IEEE Std 112 (incorporated
by reference, see § 431.443), Test
Method A; or
(3) Polyphase small electric motors
greater than 1 horsepower (0.746 kW):
IEEE Std 112 (incorporated by reference,
see § 431.443), Test Method B.
§ 431.445 Determination of small electric
motor efficiency.
(a) Scope. When a party determines
the energy efficiency of a small electric
motor to comply with an obligation
imposed on it by or pursuant to Part A–
1 of Title III of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311–
6317, this section applies.
(b) Provisions applicable to all small
electric motors—(1) General
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:44 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
requirements. The average full-load
efficiency of each basic model of small
electric motor must be determined
either by testing in accordance with
§ 431.444 of this subpart, or by
application of an alternative efficiency
determination method (AEDM) that
meets the requirements of paragraphs
(a)(2) and (3) of this section, provided,
however, that an AEDM may be used to
determine the average full-load
efficiency of one or more of a
manufacturer’s basic models only if the
average full-load efficiency of at least
five of its other basic models is
determined through testing.
(2) Alternative efficiency
determination method. An AEDM
applied to a basic model must be:
(i) Derived from a mathematical
model that represents the mechanical
and electrical characteristics of that
basic model, and
(ii) Based on engineering or statistical
analysis, computer simulation or
modeling, or other analytic evaluation
of performance data.
(3) Substantiation of an alternative
efficiency determination method. Before
an AEDM is used, its accuracy and
reliability must be substantiated as
follows:
(i) The AEDM must be applied to at
least five basic models that have been
tested in accordance with § 431.444; and
(ii) The predicted total power loss for
each such basic model, calculated by
applying the AEDM, must be within
plus or minus 10 percent of the mean
total power loss determined from the
testing of that basic model.
(4) Subsequent verification of an
AEDM. (i) Each manufacturer that has
used an AEDM under this section shall
have available for inspection by the
Department of Energy records showing
the method or methods used; the
mathematical model, the engineering or
statistical analysis, computer simulation
or modeling, and other analytic
evaluation of performance data on
which the AEDM is based; complete test
data, product information, and related
information that the manufacturer has
generated or acquired pursuant to
paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and the
calculations used to determine the
efficiency and total power losses of each
basic model to which the AEDM was
applied.
(ii) If requested by the Department,
the manufacturer shall conduct
simulations to predict the performance
of particular basic models of small
electric motors specified by the
Department, analyses of previous
simulations conducted by the
manufacturer, sample testing of basic
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32073
models selected by the Department, or
a combination of the foregoing.
(c) Additional testing requirements—
(1) Selection of basic models for testing
if an AEDM is to be applied.
(i) A manufacturer must select basic
models for testing in accordance with
the criteria that follow:
(A) Two of the basic models must be
among the five basic models with the
highest unit volumes of production by
the manufacturer in the prior year, or
during the prior 12-month period before
the effective date of the energy
efficiency standard, whichever is later,
and in identifying these five basic
models, any small electric motor that
does not comply with § 431.446 shall be
excluded from consideration;
(B) The basic models should be of
different horsepower ratings without
duplication;
(C) At least one basic model should be
selected from each of the frame number
series for the designs of small electric
motors for which the AEDM is to be
used; and
(D) Each basic model should have the
lowest nominal full-load efficiency
among the basic models with the same
rating (‘‘rating’’ as used here has the
same meaning as it has in the definition
of ‘‘basic model’’).
(ii) If it is impossible for a
manufacturer to select basic models for
testing in accordance with all of these
criteria, the criteria shall be given
priority in the order in which they are
listed. Within the limits imposed by the
criteria, basic models shall be selected
randomly.
(2) [RESERVED]
Energy Conservation Standards
§ 431.446 Small electric motors energy
conservation standards and their effective
dates.
[Reserved]
[FR Doc. E9–15795 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA–2009–0042; Airspace
Docket No. 09–ANM–1]
Modification of Class E Airspace;
Montrose, CO
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This action will modify Class
E airspace at Montrose Regional Airport,
E:\FR\FM\07JYR1.SGM
07JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 7, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32059-32073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15795]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-TP-0008]
RIN 1904-AB71
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Small Electric
Motors
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is prescribing test procedures
for measuring the energy efficiency of single-phase and polyphase small
electric motors. The final rule incorporates by reference industry test
procedures already in use when measuring the energy efficiency of these
types of motors. Additionally, the final rule clarifies definitions
applying to small electric motors and identifies issues that will be
further addressed later in a related supplemental notice.
DATES: This rule is effective August 6, 2009. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this rule was approved by
the Director of the Federal Register on August 6, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may review copies of all materials related to this
rulemaking at the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource Room of the
Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600,
Washington, DC, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards
at the above telephone number for additional information regarding
visiting the Resource Room. Please note that the DOE's Freedom of
Information Reading Room no longer houses rulemaking materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8654. E-mail: Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov.
In the Office of the General Counsel, contact Mr. Michael Kido, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-72, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-
9507. E-mail: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Today's final rule incorporates by
reference, into subpart X of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations,
part 431 (10 CFR part 431),\1\ the following industry standards from
the Canadian Standards Association and the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The December 22, 2008, notice of proposed rulemaking that
addressed test procedures for measuring the energy efficiency of
small electric motors proposed in section III.A of the preamble a
new ``Subpart T--Small Electric Motors,'' under 10 CFR part 431. 73
FR 78220, 78237. Subsequent to that notice, DOE became aware that
``Subpart T'' had been used in an earlier rulemaking for
certification, compliance, and enforcement requirements for consumer
products and commercial equipment. 71 FR 42178, 42214 (July 25,
2006). Consequently, today's final rule reformats ``Subpart T'' to
read ``Subpart X'' and renumbers the ``431.340'' series to read
``431.440.'' Notwithstanding, certain passages, comments, and
references that follow make reference to ``Subpart T'' because that
language was used in the NOPR. This is addressed further in section
III.E of the preamble that follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAN/CSA-C747-94 (Reaffirmed 2005), (``CAN/CSA-C747''),
Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Single- and Three-Phase Small
Motors.
IEEE Std 114-2001TM (Revision of IEEE Std 114-
1982TM), (``IEEE Std 114''), ``IEEE Standard Test Procedure
for Single-Phase Induction Motors,'' approved December 6, 2001.
IEEE Std 112TM-2004 (Revision of IEEE Std 112-
1996), (``IEEE Std 112''), ``IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase
Induction Motors and Generators,'' approved February 9, 2004.
Copies of CAN/CSA-C747 can be obtained from the Canadian Standards
Association, Sales Department, 5060 Spectrum Way, Suite 100,
Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1-800-463-6727, or https://www.shopcsa.ca/onlinestore/welcome.asp.
Copies of IEEE Std 112 and 114 can be obtained from the Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box
1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, 1-800-678-IEEE (4333), or https://www.ieee.org/web/publications/home/.
You can also view copies of these standards at the U.S. Department
of Energy, Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program, 950
L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945,
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Definition of Small Electric Motor
1. International Electrotechnical Commission Motors
2. Insulation System Class
3. Definition of Basic Model
B. Test Procedures for the Measurement of Energy Efficiency
1. Single-Phase Small Electric Motor Test Method
2. Polyphase Small Electric Motor Test Method
C. Alternative Efficiency Determination Method
1. Statistical Basis for an Alternative Efficiency Determination
Method
2. Sample Size for Substantiating an Alternative Efficiency
Determination Method
3. Omission of Alternative Efficiency Determination Method
Substantiation
[[Page 32060]]
D. Testing Laboratory Accreditation
E. Certification and Enforcement
F. Other Issues Raised
1. Definition of ``Nominal Full-Load Efficiency''
2. Materials Incorporated by Reference
3. Labeling Requirements
4. Preemption of State Standards and Labeling
5. Petitions and Waivers
IV. Procedural Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. National Environmental Policy Act
E. Executive Order 13132
F. Executive Order 12988
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Executive Order 12630
J. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Executive Order 13211
L. Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Part A-1 of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended, (EPCA) provides for an energy conservation program for certain
commercial and industrial equipment.\2\ (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) In
particular, section 346(b)(1) of EPCA directs the Secretary of Energy
to prescribe testing requirements and energy conservation standards for
those small electric motors for which the Secretary determines that
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified,
and would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For editorial reasons, Parts B (consumer products) and C
(commercial equipment) of Title III of EPCA were redesignated as
Parts A and A-1, respectively, in the United States Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Background
On July 10, 2006, the Department of Energy (DOE) published in the
Federal Register a positive determination that energy conservation
standards for certain single-phase and polyphase small electric motors
appear technologically feasible, economically justified and would
result in significant energy savings.\3\ 71 FR 38799. Further, DOE
stated in its determination notice that it will initiate the
development of test procedures for certain small electric motors. 71 FR
38807. DOE then published proposed test procedures and requested
comment on those procedures. 73 FR 78220 (December 22, 2008). Today's
final rule prescribes test procedures for measuring the energy
efficiency of certain small electric motors with ratings of \1/4\ to 3
horsepower (hp), which are built in a two-digit National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA) frame number series. Although both
could have the same horsepower ratings, small electric motors, which
are covered in today's final rule, differ from electric motors, which
are built in a three-digit NEMA frame number series and have other
differentiating features and performance characteristics. This test
procedure is also applicable to NEMA-equivalent International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard motors (metric motors),
which are equivalent to small electric motors, as defined in EPCA (see
section III.A.1 in today's final rule). See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A small electric motor is a machine that converts electric
power (either single-phase or polyphase alternating current) into
rotational mechanical power. Single-phase electric power varies all
the voltages of the supply in unison, while a polyphase (three-
phase) system has three alternating currents offset from one another
by one-third of their period, or 120 degrees. See 73 FR 78221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), DOE proposed to (1)
establish test procedures to measure the energy efficiency for small
electric motors and (2) amend the test procedures for electric motors
(i.e. 1-200 hp) by revising and expanding their current scope and to
extend coverage of those procedures to include electric motors with
ratings between 201 and 500 hp. 73 FR 78220. These proposed changes
would amend the regulations currently found at 10 CFR part 431. DOE
identified several issues in the NOPR on which it sought public
comment. For small electric motors, DOE specifically sought comments on
three issues: (1) The proposed test procedure for small electric
motors, based on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE) Std 114-2001, ``Test Procedure for Single-Phase Induction
Motors,'' and IEEE Std 112-2004, ``Test Procedure for Polyphase
Induction Motors and Generators;'' (2) the proposal to allow
manufacturers to use Canadian Standards Association (CAN/CSA) C747-94,
``Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Single- and Three-Phase Small
Motors,'' as an alternative to IEEE Std 114 and 112; and (3) the
proposal to use an alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM)
as a means for calculating the total power loss and average full load
efficiency of a small electric motor.\4\ With respect to this last
item, DOE discussed proposed requirements for a manufacturer to
substantiate: (i) The accuracy and reliability of its AEDM, (ii) a
statistically valid number of basic models and units to be tested, and
(iii) the accuracy of the predictive capabilities of the AEDM relative
to actual testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The IEEE Standards addressed in this notice are generally
listed chronologically by their last date of revision and adoption
rather than their sequential number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 29, 2009, DOE held a public meeting to receive comments,
data, and information on its NOPR. On March 9, 2009, the NOPR comment
period closed. In addition to the oral comments presented at the public
meeting and recorded in the official transcript, DOE received three
additional written comments. In view of the comments received, DOE
subsequently decided to separate the two major rulemaking activities
originally contained in the NOPR--one to address the test procedure for
small electric motors, and the other to address the revision and
expansion of the test procedure for electric motors found in subpart B
of 10 CFR part 431.\5\ The issues relevant to the small electric motors
test procedure are addressed in today's final rule. Issues affecting
electric motors will be addressed in a separate supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNOPR), which DOE will publish at a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ DOE is addressing the small motors test procedure issues in
today's notice to ensure its compliance with the Consent Decree
deadline established by Federal District Court for the Southern
District of New York on November 6, 2006 in the consolidated cases
of New York v. Bodman, Case No. 05 Civ. 7807 (JES), and Natural
Resources Defense Council v. Bodman, Case No. 05 Civ. 7808 (JES).
Unlike the test procedures for small electric motors, the test
procedure rulemaking for electric motors (i.e. 1-200 hp) is not part
of the Consent Decree schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of the Final Rule
Today's final rule establishes new test procedures for measuring
the energy efficiency of certain general purpose, single-phase and
polyphase small electric motors built in a two-digit NEMA frame series.
The test procedures incorporate by reference IEEE Std 112 (Test Method
A and Test Method B), IEEE Std 114, and CAN/CSA C747 for single-phase
small electric motors.
Also, today's final rule does the following: (1) Codifies the
statutory definition for the term ``small electric motor;'' (2)
clarifies the definition of the term ``basic model'' and the
relationship of the term to certain equipment classes and compliance
certification reporting requirements; and (3) codifies the ability of
manufacturers to use an AEDM to reduce testing burden while maintaining
accuracy and ensuring compliance with potential future energy
conservation standards. Finally, today's notice also discusses matters
of
[[Page 32061]]
laboratory accreditation, compliance certification, and enforcement for
small electric motors.
III. Discussion
Small electric motors covered in today's final rule are general
purpose rotating machines that use either single-phase or polyphase
electricity, and provide sufficient torque to drive equipment such as
blowers, fans, conveyors, and pumps. Today's final rule does not cover
small electric motors that are components of a covered product under
section 322(a) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) For example, a small
electric motor that is a component of a covered consumer appliance,
such as a refrigerator, is not covered in today's final rule. The
following discussion provides some background for today's final rule.
On July 10, 2006, DOE published in the Federal Register a positive
determination with respect to testing requirements and energy
conservation standards for small electric motors. DOE preliminarily
determined that standards for small electric motors would be
``technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result
in significant energy savings.'' 71 FR 38807. Thereafter, DOE began to
develop a test procedure for small electric motors and an analysis of
potential energy conservation standards levels. As part of this
analysis, DOE prepared a framework document that described the
standards rulemaking process and provided details regarding the
procedural and analytical approaches DOE anticipated using to evaluate
energy conservation standards for small electric motors. See generally,
Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework Document for Small
Electric Motors, at pp. 9-33 (July 30, 2007) (available at https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/small_motors_framework_073007.pdf).
On August 10, 2007, DOE published a Federal Register notice that
initiated a rulemaking addressing energy conservation standards for
small electric motors and announced both the availability of the
framework document and a public meeting to discuss and receive
comments, data, and information about issues DOE would address in the
energy conservation standards rulemaking. 72 FR 44990. NEMA responded
to the notice by pointing out that its members use IEEE Std 112 for
measuring the efficiency of polyphase small electric motors and IEEE
Std 114 for measuring the efficiency of single-phase small electric
motors. (NEMA, No. 2 at p. 2) \6\ DOE examined these industry standards
as well as CAN/CSA-C747, and concluded that these test procedures
provide the necessary methodology and technical requirements to
accurately determine the energy efficiency of the small electric motors
covered in its rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A notation in the form ``NEMA, No. 2 at p. 2'' refers to (1)
a statement that was submitted by the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association and is recorded in the docket ``Energy
Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors,'' Docket
Number EERE-2008-BT-TP-0008, as comment number 2; and (2) a passage
that appears on page 2 of that document. Likewise, a notation in the
form ``Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p. 75'' refers to
(1) a statement by Baldor Electric Company and is recorded in the
docket as comment number 8; and (2) a passage that appears on page
75 of the transcript, ``Public Meeting on Test Procedures for Small
Electric Motors and Electric Motors,'' dated January 29, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 22, 2008, DOE published a NOPR that, in part, proposed
to create new Subpart T, ``Small Electric Motors,'' (now Subpart X) in
10 CFR part 431, to set forth definitions and prescribe test procedures
for small electric motors. 73 FR 78220. In particular, the NOPR invited
interested parties to submit comments, data, and information on the
proposed test methods for small electric motors (IEEE Std 112 and IEEE
Std 114) and whether CAN/CSA C747 could be used as an alternative test
method to the IEEE standards for the same equipment. DOE held a public
meeting on January 29, 2009, to address, in part, its proposed test
procedures for small electric motors and solicit comments from
interested parties. In addition to oral comments recorded in the
transcript from the public meeting, DOE received three sets of written
comments, all of which are addressed in today's rulemaking.
A. Definition of Small Electric Motor
In the NOPR, DOE proposed to codify the statutory definition of
``small electric motor'' into ``Subpart T--Small Electric Motors'' of
10 CFR part 431. 73 FR 78223. Section 340(13)(G) of EPCA, as amended by
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) (42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(G)), defines the term ``small electric motor'' as ``a NEMA
general purpose alternating-current single-speed induction motor, built
in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with NEMA Standards
Publication MG1-1987.'' In today's final rule, DOE is codifying this
definition under 10 CFR 431.442 of a new Subpart X for small electric
motors.
Interested parties raised two general issues that are addressed in
this section: (1) Whether DOE considers NEMA-equivalent IEC standard
motors (metric motors) to be covered under 10 CFR part 431; and (2)
whether in paragraph MG1-1.05 of NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987
the classification of insulation system prescribed for small motors is
a potential means to circumvent the applicable compliance requirements
in 10 CFR part 431.
1. International Electrotechnical Commission Motors
As discussed above, EPCA defines ``small electric motor'' on the
basis of NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987, ``Motors and
Generators.'' Section 340(13)(G) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G). The
elements that comprise the EPCA definition of ``small electric motor''
are based on the construction and rating system in paragraph MG1-1.05
of NEMA MG1-1987, which use U.S. customary units of measurement, rather
than metric units. Today's codified definition describes general-
purpose small electric motors in terms that are used in common parlance
for the U.S. market.
By contrast, general-purpose small electric motors manufactured
outside the U.S. and Canada generally are defined and described in
terms of IEC Standards. For example, IEC 60034-series, ``Rotating
Electrical Machines,'' sets forth terminology and performance criteria
that are different from those in the EPCA definition of small electric
motor. Further, ``IEC motors'' are rated under IEC 60034-1, ``Rating
and Performance,'' which uses metric units of measurement and a
construction and rating system different from NEMA MG1-1987. For
example, where NEMA standards rate the output power of small electric
motors in terms of horsepower, IEC standards rate the input power of
(equivalent) small electric motors in terms of kilowatts.
Baldor Electric Company (Baldor), Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (NEEA), and NEMA commented that IEC motors of equivalent
ratings should be considered covered equipment. Baldor asserted that
IEC motors should be covered because it is possible for foreign IEC
motors to be brought into the United States and used in the same
applications as EPCA-defined small electric motors. (Baldor, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p. 75). NEEA\7\ noted that the test
procedures and any energy conservation standards for small electric
[[Page 32062]]
motors should apply to the equivalent IEC motors. (NEEA, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 8 at pp. 81-82). NEEA also submitted a written comment
stating its shared concerns with manufacturers about DOE's ability to
enforce efficiency standards in cases involving covered products
arriving from overseas as components of OEM equipment, including
compatibility with IEC-based testing and rating. NEEA urges DOE to work
with manufacturers and other interested parties to develop a plan that
does not place an asymmetric burden on U.S. manufacturers in providing
for reasonable enforcement of the standards. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 6)
NEMA commented that when DOE codified the provisions for electric
motors into subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 pursuant to the Energy Policy
Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992), DOE recognized that IEC motors equivalent to
(and used as substitutes for) NEMA ``electric motors'' should be
considered covered products. Consistent with that interpretation, NEMA
requested that DOE include equivalent IEC motors in the definition of
``small electric motor.'' (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2) Interested parties did
not submit comments opposing this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This comment was made by Adjuvant Consulting, which
represented both the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and
the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. For referencing
purposes, throughout this notice, comments from these groups will be
cited as NEEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE agrees that IEC-equivalent small electric motors should be
covered equipment. DOE understands that while the statutory definition
of ``small electric motor'' does not explicitly address IEC motors,
Congress directed DOE to consider small electric motors built in
accordance with NEMA MG1-1987. NEMA MG1 specifies a broad array of
requirements which also generally apply to IEC motors, and do not
affect the purpose or design characteristics of these devices. Three
reasons support the view that IEC motors identical or equivalent to
NEMA motors are covered:
(1) Both motors perform the same functions. IEC-equivalent small
electric motors generally can perform the identical functions of EPCA-
defined small electric motors. IEC small electric motors are designed
and rated according to criteria in IEC 60034-1, whereas EPCA defines
small electric motor in terms of design and rating criteria set forth
in NEMA MG1. The differences in criteria concern primarily
nomenclature, units of measurement, standard motor configurations, and
design details, but have little bearing on motor function. Comparable
motors of either type can provide virtually equivalent power to operate
the same piece of machinery or equipment. Thus, in most general purpose
applications, such IEC motors can be used interchangeably with EPCA-
defined small electric motors.
(2) Any broad exclusion of IEC-equivalent motors from test
procedures or any future energy efficiency requirements would conflict
with the energy conservation goal of EPCA and create a regulatory gap
that would permit the use of non-compliant small motors, which Congress
likely did not intend. Furthermore, any efficiency standards prescribed
for small electric motors would be readily applicable to both standard
and nonstandard equivalent IEC motors.
(3) Placing energy efficiency requirements on EPCA-defined small
electric motors while permitting equivalent IEC motors to remain
unregulated would effectively give preferential treatment to those
companies who manufacture IEC motors. Such a situation would likely
lead to a reduction in the production of NEMA motors while encouraging
the increased production of IEC motors, which would be unregulated.
DOE notes that it made similar findings in the past to justify the
coverage of equivalent IEC motors. In a prior rulemaking notice
addressing 1-200 horsepower electric motors, ``Energy Efficiency
Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Test
Procedures, Labeling, and Certification Requirements for Electric
Motors,'' 61 FR 60440, 60442-43 (November 27, 1996), DOE stated the
following:
The Department interprets the Act as requiring that IEC motors
satisfy the same energy efficiency requirements that the statute
applies to identical or equivalent to NEMA motors. Thus, under the
regulation proposed today, the definition of ``electric motor''
includes IEC motors that have physical and performance
characteristics which are either identical or equivalent to the
characteristics of NEMA motors that fit within the statutory
definition. In the Department's view, there can be no question that
EPCA's requirements cover any motor whose physical and performance
characteristics fit within the statutory definition of ``electric
motor.'' This is true regardless of the measuring units used to
describe the motor's performance or characteristics, or of the
criteria pursuant to which it was designed.
The Department also understands that comparable IEC and NEMA
motors typically are closely equivalent but not identical, and that
the characteristics of many IEC motors closely match EPCA's
definition of ``electric motor'' but deviate from it in minor
respects. It also appears that, for most general purpose
applications, such IEC motors can be used interchangeably with the
NEMA motors. In addition, as discussed below, the efficiency
standards prescribed for standard horsepower motors are readily
applicable to both standard and nonstandard kilowatt motors. The
Department believes that a broad exclusion of IEC motors from energy
efficiency requirements would conflict with the energy conservation
goal of the Act, was not intended by Congress, and would be
irrational. Furthermore, the Department agrees with the views of
commenters that placing energy efficiency requirements on NEMA
motors but not on equivalent IEC motors could have the effect of
giving preferential treatment to the IEC motors. Thus, the
Department construes the EPCA definition of electric motor to
include motors that have characteristics equivalent to those set
forth in that definition. 61 FR 60443.
As a result, the definition of the term ``electric motor'' was
codified under 10 CFR 431.2 to include reference both to NEMA MG1 and
IEC-equivalent design, duty rating, dimensions, and performance
characteristics. 64 FR 54114 (October 5, 1999). In addition, each
element of the codified definition made reference to the applicable
provisions in NEMA and IEC standards, which were then incorporated by
reference under 10 CFR 431.22. See 64 FR 54142.
For all the above reasons and finding no evidence or receiving any
comment to the contrary, DOE concludes that IEC-equivalent motors are
subject to the same test procedures and any potential energy efficiency
standards that apply to EPCA-defined small electric motors. Further,
IEEE Std 112, IEEE Std 114, and CAN/CSA-C747, as applicable to small
electric motors, are also applicable to those IEC motors that have
physical and performance characteristics that are identical or
equivalent to those characteristics of the EPCA-defined small electric
motors. In DOE's view, EPCA's requirements cover any motor whose
physical and performance characteristics fit within the statutory
definition of ``small electric motor,'' regardless of the nomenclature,
design descriptors, or units expressed that characterize performance.
Today's final rule applies the statutory definition in a manner
consistent with EPCA and includes motors that have characteristics
equivalent to those set forth in that definition. Accordingly, the
complete definition codified in today's final rule reads: ``Small
electric motor means a NEMA general purpose alternating current single-
speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in
accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987, including IEC
metric equivalent motors.''
2. Insulation System Class
Section 340(13)(G) of EPCA defines the term ``small electric
motor'' as a ``NEMA general purpose alternating
[[Page 32063]]
current single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number
series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987.'' (42
U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) Where EPCA refers to NEMA MG1-1987, paragraph MG1-
1.0 within that document defines the term ``general purpose'' motor as
one that incorporates, in part, a Class A\8\ insulation system with
temperature rise as specified in MG1-12.43 for small motors. Advanced
Energy asserted that there could be a problem with limiting the
definition of general purpose small electric motors to one with Class A
insulation. (Advanced Energy, No. 11 at pp. 3-4) Advanced Energy argued
that insulation systems used in small electric motors have improved
since this definition of general purpose was first standardized in NEMA
MG1-1987. Further, as new insulation technologies have improved and
material costs have decreased, it has become increasingly common for
manufacturers to use insulation temperature classes higher than Class
A. Thus, if DOE limits coverage to small electric motors with Class A
insulation, a manufacturer could potentially choose between the cost of
compliance or moving to a higher insulation class to avoid regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Insulation systems are rated by standard NEMA
classifications according to maximum allowable operating
temperatures, which are: Class A--105 [deg]C (221 [deg]F); Class B--
130 [deg]C (266 [deg]F); Class F--155 [deg]C (311 [deg]F); and Class
H--180 [deg]C (356 [deg]F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE understands the risk that migration from one insulation class
to another might be used as a means of circumventing an energy
conservation standard. Similarly, DOE is concerned that if IEC motors
are not covered, it could open a regulatory gap in coverage. Moreover,
DOE is equally concerned that any relatively inexpensive or minor
redesign of an existing line of small electric motors (which could
include altering the type of insulation used in these products) would
enable a manufacturer to circumvent the statutory framework established
by Congress.
As part of its technical analysis for the upcoming standards
rulemaking for small electric motors, on December 30, 2008, DOE
published a notice announcing the availability of a preliminary
technical support document. 73 FR 79723. DOE examined both the EPCA
definition of ``small electric motor'' and the current use of ``general
purpose'' in paragraph 1.6.1 of MG1-2006, Revision 1, and found that
the insulation-class coverage of what is considered ``general purpose''
has in fact expanded beyond Class A. In light of this observation, one
potential solution would be to apply the term ``general purpose'' to
more than one insulation class by modifying the current requirement to
cover products equipped with a ``Class A or higher rated insulation
system.'' DOE plans to more fully address this issue as part of its
energy conservation standards rulemaking for small electric motors.
3. Definition of Basic Model
It is common for a manufacturer to make numerous models of a
product covered under EPCA and for each model to be subject to testing
to determine compliance with an energy conservation standard. To reduce
any undue burden of testing, DOE provides for manufacturers to group
together product models having essentially identical energy consumption
characteristics into a single family of models, collectively called a
``basic model.'' This concept is well established both for residential
appliances and commercial and industrial equipment covered under EPCA.
For example, refrigerators are often manufactured according to the same
elementary or basic blueprint design and any particular model could
incorporate modifications that include type of finish, shelf or drawer
arrangement, or some other feature that does not significantly affect
the energy efficiency or performance of that appliance. Requiring
manufacturers to test the energy efficiency of each model with a
different cosmetic feature--e.g., red with four shelves, or bisque with
two shelves and two drawers--would create significant and redundant
testing burdens for models that share the same energy efficiency
performance.
The term ``basic model'' for electric motors is defined in relevant
part as: ``all units of a given type of electric motor (or class
thereof) manufactured by a single manufacturer and which have the same
rating, have electrical characteristics that are essentially identical,
and do not have any differing physical or functional characteristics
which affect energy consumption or efficiency.'' 10 CFR 431.12. Except
for changes to reflect the type of product at issue, this basic model
definition also appears in 10 CFR part 431 for products as diverse as
commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers (Subpart
C of 10 CFR part 431), distribution transformers (Subpart K of 10 CFR
part 431), illuminated exit signs (Subpart L of 10 CFR part 431), and
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines (Subpart Q of
10 CFR part 431). For covered products and equipment, the
characteristics differentiating basic models will vary with the
specific designs, features and attributes of the products or equipment.
Each manufacturer can then test a sufficient, representative sample of
units of each basic model it manufactures, and derive an efficiency
rating for each basic model that would apply to all models subsumed by
that basic model.
DOE proposed a basic model definition for small electric motors
that incorporated these concepts. 73 FR 78223 and 78237-38. The
proposed definition read:
Basic model means, with respect to a small electric motor, all
units of a given type of small electric motor (or class thereof)
manufactured by a single manufacturer, and which have the same
rating, have electrical characteristics that are essentially
identical, and do not have any differing physical or functional
characteristics which affect energy consumption or efficiency. For
the purpose of this definition, ``rating'' means a combination of
the small electric motor's group (i.e., capacitor-start, capacitor-
run; capacitor-start, induction-run; or polyphase), horsepower
rating (or standard kilowatt equivalent), and number of poles with
respect to which section 431.346 prescribes nominal full load
efficiency standards.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As indicated earlier, the sections affecting small electric
motors will be in a new Subpart X. Accordingly, the reference to
section 431.346 in this definition is updated in today's final
regulatory text to reflect that fact and read as section 431.446.
NEMA commented that the only electrical characteristic that may be
important among basic models is the stator winding configuration. It
noted that it is possible to use different winding configurations,
e.g., lap winding or concentric winding, to produce the same
performance, including efficiency, for a small electric motor. (NEMA,
No. 12 at p. 2) Further, NEMA offered an example of this type of change
by explaining that a small electric motor incorporating an internal fan
for air movement may have the same efficiency as one which uses blades
on the rotor end rings for moving air through the motor. In view of the
winding configuration and cooling fan examples, NEMA did not believe
the design difference is important with respect to the concept of a
``basic model'' when the efficiency remains the same. (NEMA, No. 12 at
p. 2) Finally, NEMA recommended that DOE define ``basic model'' as
``all units of a given type of small electric motor (or class thereof)
manufactured by a single manufacturer, and which have the same rating
and nominal efficiency.'' (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2)
In its written comments, NEEA asserted that ``basic model'' is one
of the most important terms to clearly define for a rulemaking. NEEA
summarized the
[[Page 32064]]
industry's view that the basic model regime used for covered (1-200
horsepower) electric motors [as defined in 10 CFR 431.12] be applied to
small electric motors, provided that the basic model ``boxes'' for each
motor are carefully specified. NEEA added that such ``boxes'' would be
synonymous with DOE's equipment classes (i.e., a unique combination of
the motor's horsepower, number of poles, and whether the design is a
capacitor-start, induction run (CSIR), capacitor-start, capacitor run
(CSCR), or polyphase motor).\10\ (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A CSIR motor is a single-phase motor with a main winding
arranged for direct connection to a source of power and an auxiliary
winding connected in series with a capacitor. The motor has a
capacitor phase, which is in the circuit only during the starting
period. A CSCR motor is a single-phase motor which has different
values of effective capacitance for the starting and running
conditions. A polyphase motor is an electric motor that uses the
phase changes of the electrical supply to induce a rotational
magnetic field and thereby supply torque to the rotor. (See Chapter
2: Analytical Framework, Comments from Interested Parties, and DOE
Responses, at p. 2-7 (December 30, 2008) (available at https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/ch_2_small_motors_nopr_tsd.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson commented that its design engineers routinely make changes
to their electric motors but maintain the same efficiency level.
Emerson continued by noting that some manufacturers use more copper and
less core steel, while other manufacturers use less copper and more
steel. A manufacturer may also make modifications to meet other
performance requirements requested by customers, including efficiency,
torque, power factor, and inertia. In all, Emerson noted that 15 or 20
different criteria that manufacturers must meet to have a marketable
product. Emerson noted that it is able to maintain specific efficiency
levels by using AEDM programs that are correlated with actual testing
methods. Emerson speculated that the definition of ``basic model'' for
small electric motors [under the new 10 CFR 431.342] will follow the
same or similar definition found in 10 CFR 431.12 for 1-200 horsepower
electric motors, which potentially will result in fewer basic models of
small electric motors than the current 113 basic models of electric
motors [in 10 CFR 431.25]. (Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8
at pp. 51-52)
DOE notes that there are well-established differences in its
regulatory program between equipment classes,\11\ basic models, and
compliance certification reporting. From the comments submitted, it
appears that interested parties did not fully understand these
differences. The following discussion clarifies these three important
concepts as they apply to small electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For covered products in 10 CFR part 431, DOE uses the
phrase ``equipment classes'' and for covered products in 10 CFR part
430, DOE uses the phrase ``product classes.'' They signify exactly
the same concept, but use slightly different language meant to
reflect the use of the word ``product'' for residential appliances
in 10 CFR part 430 and the word ``equipment'' for commercial and
industrial units in 10 CFR part 431.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The concept of a basic model was created to help reduce repetitive
testing burdens on manufacturers while ensuring that energy efficiency
standards are maintained. Equipment classes for small electric motors
are represented by the number of boxes contained in the three matrices
(i.e., CSIR, CSCR, and polyphase small electric motors) of horsepower
ratings and number of poles contained in the chart that organizes these
items. In its Preliminary Technical Support Document, the engineering
analysis addressed 72 potential equipment classes for small electric
motors.\12\ See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/small_electric_motors_nopr_tsd.html. The
equipment classes are the smallest subgroups of small electric motors
where DOE would establish discrete efficiency levels--i.e., there would
be one efficiency value or equation for each equipment class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/small_electric_motors_nopr_pub_mtg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic models represent all units of a given type of small electric
motor (or class thereof) manufactured by a single manufacturer, having
the same rating \13\ and electrical characteristics that are
essentially identical, and which do not have any differing physical or
functional characteristics that affect energy consumption or
efficiency. In essence, basic models are unique blueprints for each
electrical motor design generated by a manufacturer, even if a
particular catalog model incorporates minor design changes as described
by Emerson. Minor design changes can occur every day due to customer
needs, material costs, and the intrinsic nature of the manufacturing
and testing processes. These basic models may have the same numerical
efficiency percentages, but they are not the same basic model if they
are incorporating design changes that affect their rated nominal full
load efficiency (e.g., a stator loss increase offset by a rotor loss
decrease).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For the purpose of this definition, ``rating'' means a
combination of the horsepower (or standard kilowatt hour
equivalent), number of poles, and motor type (i.e., capacitor-start,
capacitor-run; a capacitor-start, induction-run; or a polyphase
small electric motor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For 1 through 200 hp electric motors, one manufacturer can have
thousands of basic models in any one equipment class. The regulations
require each covered electric motor to have a ``nominal full load
efficiency of not less than'' (emphasis added) the prescribed
efficiency level. See 10 CFR 431.25(a) (listing electric motor
efficiency standards), 431.36(b)(1)(i) (requiring certification of
efficiency requirements), and 431.36(e) (requiring certification for
each basic model). Thus, the regulations allow a manufacturer to
conservatively rate their products within a certain efficiency range
according to the definition of ``nominal full load efficiency,''
pursuant to 10 CFR 431.12. In other words, the regulations do not
prohibit manufacturers from combining a number of basic models into a
single basic model and then reporting the combined set at the lowest
nominal full load efficiency within that aggregated basic model.
Individual manufacturer burdens are further reduced by simplifying
the reporting requirements manufacturers need to meet. For 1-200 hp
electric motors, under 10 CFR 431.36(b)(2), a manufacturer must report
the nominal full load efficiency of the ``least efficient basic model
within that rating.'' The same holds true under 10 CFR 431.36(e) where
a new Compliance Certification must be submitted for a new basic model
only if the new basic model has a lower nominal full load efficiency
than otherwise previously certified. Therefore, while a manufacturer
may be preparing thousands of designs for a given equipment class, the
manufacturer would only report to DOE (for compliance purposes) the
nominal full load efficiency of the least-efficient basic model within
any given equipment class. DOE then compares the reported efficiency
against the required nominal full load efficiency level to verify that
all basic models within a given equipment class by that manufacturer
are in compliance. In a future rulemaking, DOE intends to consider
similar burden-reducing provisions for small electric motors (the
product covered in today's final rule), should DOE establish energy
conservation standards for small electric motors.
As discussed earlier in this section, NEMA proposed a new
definition for the term ``basic model.'' (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2) DOE
cannot accept NEMA's proposed definition because it is not consistent
with the long established and widely accepted basic model concept
throughout both 10 CFR parts 430 and
[[Page 32065]]
431. DOE understands that NEMA's proposed definition would allow a
single basic model to include many different designs of small electric
motors that have significantly different utility or performance-related
features that affect their efficiency, but which have the same
numerical nominal efficiency value. In other words, these motors could
have different operating voltages, winding configurations, or other
design changes that would make them separate and distinct basic models
in view of DOE's national regulatory program. Thus, DOE believes that
NEMA's proposed definition is inconsistent with the ``basic model''
concept as it has long been applied and understood across a range of
covered consumer products and commercial equipment.
DOE continues to believe that any definition of basic model must
require that all the included models have virtually identical energy
consumption characteristics and be within the same equipment class.
Such an approach is necessary to assure that the efficiency rating
derived for a particular basic model accurately represents the
efficiency of all of the small electric motors encompassed therein.
Therefore, DOE is defining ``basic model'' for small electric motors by
including a requirement that any small electric motors falling into a
basic model grouping ``not have any differentiating electrical,
physical or functional features that affect energy consumption.'' A few
examples of electrical, physical, and functional features that may
affect energy consumption for small electric motors include, among
others, changing: The operating voltage, the electrical steel, the
stack height, the wire in the windings, the insulation rating, and the
air gap between the stator and rotor.
DOE recognizes that manufacturers will have many basic models that
fit under today's definition of basic model for each small electric
motor equipment class, i.e., each combination of the group (i.e.,
capacitor-start, capacitor-run; capacitor-start, induction-run; or
polyphase), horsepower rating (or standard kilowatt equivalent), and
number of poles. The basic model concept ensures that no design
manufactured and distributed in commerce would be below the minimum
regulatory standard. However, DOE is unaware of any practicable way to
aggregate models with different energy consumption characteristics, for
purposes of testing, which would produce an accurate efficiency rating
for each model included in an aggregated group of models.
To address undue testing burdens on an individual manufacturer, as
discussed later in this notice, DOE is adopting in today's final rule a
provision that permits the use of an AEDM, which, once substantiated by
a manufacturer, will allow that manufacturer to rate the efficiency of
many small electric motors based on calculations and software modeling
instead of physical testing. In addition, DOE intends to propose in a
future rulemaking the compliance certification provisions for small
electric motors, which would likely be based on the established and
recognized reporting requirements for (1-200 hp) electric motors at 10
CFR 431.36. These provisions require manufacturers to report only the
least efficient rated basic model within an equipment class. Taken
together, DOE believes these two provisions will greatly reduce testing
and reporting burden on manufacturers of small electric motors while
adhering to the existing requirements that apply to both manufacturers
of electric motors and other commercial and industrial equipment
covered under 10 CFR part 431.
Therefore, in view of all the above, today's final rule defines a
basic model for small electric motors as all units of a given type of
small electric motor (or class thereof) manufactured by a single
manufacturer, having the same rating and electrical characteristics
that are essentially identical, and which do not have any differing
physical or functional characteristics that affect energy consumption
or efficiency. For the purpose of this definition, ``rating'' means a
combination of the horsepower (or standard kilowatt hour equivalent),
number of poles, and whether the motor is a capacitor-start, capacitor-
run; capacitor-start, induction-run; or polyphase small electric motor,
with respect to which 10 CFR 431.446 prescribes nominal full load
efficiency standards.
B. Test Procedures for the Measurement of Energy Efficiency
DOE proposed that the test procedure for measuring the energy
efficiency of a small electric motor be based on one of the following
methods: IEEE Std 114, IEEE Std 112, or CAN/CSA-C747-94. (73 FR 78223
and 78238) DOE understands that the scope of small electric motors
includes single-phase and polyphase designs that cover fractional and
integral horsepower ratings that can be tested according to somewhat
different but equivalent methodologies, using the same measurements and
producing virtually the same results. The application of these methods
and commenter responses to them are further discussed below.
1. Single-Phase Small Electric Motor Test Method
For single-phase small electric motors, DOE proposed to incorporate
the test method in IEEE Std 114, which measures and compares output
power and input power. In addition, DOE proposed CAN/CSA-C747 as an
alternative test method, believing that it would provide equivalent
rigor and render virtually equivalent results.
Advanced Energy and NEEA agreed both with the use of IEEE Std 114
and CAN/CSA-C747 as an alternative method. Advanced Energy commented
that IEEE Std 114 and the CAN/CSA-C747 are both input-output methods
with minor differences and recommended that these test methods be used
for single-phase small electric motors. (Advanced Energy, No. 11 at pp.
1-3) NEEA also agreed with DOE's proposal to use IEEE Std 114 and CAN/
CSA-C747 as an alternative test method. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 1) DOE did
not receive any comments objecting to the adoption of either test
method. Therefore, in today's final rule, DOE is incorporating by
reference IEEE Std 114 and the CAN/CSA-C747 as test methods for single-
phase small electric motors.
2. Polyphase Small Electric Motor Test Method
For polyphase small electric motors, DOE proposed the use of IEEE
Std 112, without specifying the use of one of the particular test
methods available in that test procedure, such as Method A or Method B.
DOE also proposed that manufacturers be allowed to use CAN/CSA-C747 as
an alternative test method on the basis that it would provide
equivalent rigor and render equivalent results with IEEE Std 112, while
offering manufacturers some flexibility on testing methods used.
In general, interested parties were receptive to DOE's proposal,
but requested that DOE specify which test method to use. During the
public meeting, a consensus developed that CAN/CSA-C747 is consistent
with the IEEE Std 112 Test Method A, but that a different CAN/CSA test
method should be used if DOE adopts IEEE Std 112 Test Method B.
Concerning which IEEE Std 112 test method DOE should adopt,
Advanced Energy stated that there are several methods in IEEE Std 112
but highlighted Test Methods A and B. (IEEE Std 112 Test Method B has
[[Page 32066]]
already been incorporated by reference for 1-200 hp electric motors in
10 CFR 431.15(b)(2).) Advanced Energy described IEEE Std 112 Test
Method B as the ``loss segregation method.'' This method determines
efficiency by calculating the constituent losses of the motor,
including stray load losses, through its measurements and methodology.
(Advanced Energy, No. 11 at pp. 1-2) However, Advanced Energy asserted
that IEEE Std 112 Test Method B cannot be adopted for all small
electric motors because: (1) IEEE Std 112 recommends Test Method A for
motors rated less than 1 kilowatt (kW), which covers most of the small
electric motors under consideration; and (2) there is an inherently
significant difference between the input-output calculation method
(IEEE Std 112 Test Method A, consistent with CAN/CSA-C747) and the
loss-segregation method (IEEE Std 112 Test Method B, consistent with
CAN/CSA-C390 Test Method 1 \14\). Advanced Energy stated that if a
polyphase small electric motor were tested according to IEEE Std 112
Test Method B and CAN/CSA-C747, the difference in the efficiency
results would be significant; whereas if the same test was done between
IEEE Std 112 Test Method A and CAN/CSA-C747, the results would be
similar. (Advanced Energy, No. 11 at pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ CAN/CSA-C390 Test Method 1 is the Canadian test method that
is considered to be equivalent to IEEE 112 Std Test Method B. In the
existing test procedure for electric motors in Appendix B to Subpart
B of 10 CFR part 431, manufacturers determine efficiency and losses
according to either IEEE 112 Std Test Method B or CAN/CSA-C390 Test
Method 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Energy summarized its comments as follows: (1) The test
procedure for polyphase small electric motors should be IEEE Std 112
Test Method A and the test procedure for single-phase small electric
motors should be IEEE Std 114; (2) the CAN/CSA-C747 and IEEE Std 114
test methods are essentially direct input-output methodologies that
produce equivalent test results; (3) use of IEEE Std 112 Test Method B
for polyphase small electric motors compared to CAN/CSA-C747 would
produce significant variations in measured efficiency for the same
motor; and (4) CAN/CSA-C747 may be used as an alternative test method
alongside IEEE Std 112 Test Method A and IEEE Std 114. (Advanced
Energy, No. 11 at p. 3)
NEMA echoed many of the same points raised by Advanced Energy.
According to NEMA, IEEE Std 112 lists 11 different procedures for
testing polyphase motors. NEMA commented that DOE should identify a
specific test procedure to be used for determining the efficiency of
small electric motors. (NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 3-4) It noted that IEEE Std
112 Test Method A is the method commonly used by the motor industry for
testing small electric motors. While the NOPR proposed the use of
``IEEE Standard 112,'' it did not identify a particular test method
that accounts for motor size, such as a (T-frame) ``electric motor'' or
a (two-digit frame) ``small electric motor.'' (73 FR 78238) Further,
IEEE Std 112 recommends that Test Method A be limited to motors rated
less than 1 kW (1.34 hp). Test Method B is recommended for motors rated
1-300 kW and is the test method prescribed in appendix B to subpart B
for ``electric motors.'' Test Method A in IEEE Std 112 for polyphase
motors is essentially the same as the test methods in IEEE Std 114 for
single-phase motors and in CAN/CSA-C747 both for three-phase small
motors (up to 0.746 kW at 1800 revolutions per minute (rpm)) and
single-phase small motors (up to 7.5 kW). NEMA noted that Test Method B
in IEEE Std 112 is essentially equivalent to Test Method 1 in CAN/CSA-
C390 for polyphase motors rated 0.746 kW or greater at 1800 rpm. The
specific ratings for the application of the CAN/CSA standards are based
on a kW rating at 1800 RPM. For other speeds it is assumed that the
corresponding rating is based on constant torque, such that the kW
rating at some other speed ``S'' would be equal to kW@1800 * S/1800. To
cover the required test procedures adequately, NEMA encouraged DOE to
add an appendix B to the proposed subpart T (now Subpart X) of 10 CFR
part 431, similar to appendix B to subpart B of 10 CFR part 431. Also,
NEMA recommended that DOE adopt the use of the various IEEE and CAN/CSA
test procedures along with their respective hp/kW ranges, as indicated
above. (NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 3-4)
During the public meeting, Baldor added that, for polyphase small
electric motors, DOE should adopt both IEEE Std 112 Test Method A and
Test Method B. Baldor noted that IEEE Std 112 Test Method A is similar
to the test method DOE is adopting for single-phase small electric
motors (IEEE Std 114). (Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p.
32) DOE did not receive any comments objecting to this approach.
DOE considered all these comments on the testing methodologies for
polyphase small electric motors and, consistent with the majority of
interested parties, including NEMA, is adopting both IEEE Std 112 Test
Method A and Test Method B in today's final rule. DOE is apportioning
the covered motors to these two different test methods according to the
guidance provided in IEEE Std 112.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Section 6.2.1 on page 34 of IEEE Std 112 states ``[t]he
input-output method (Efficiency Test Method A) should be limited to
machines with ratings less than 1 kW.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE had proposed adopting IEEE Std 112 in its entirety, but today's
final rule modifies that proposal by delineating the scope of coverage
for the test procedure consistent with the recommendation in IEEE Std
112. However, since DOE intends to establish its regulatory standard on
the basis of standard horsepower ratings, DOE will not be assigning
motors to be tested with IEEE Std 112 Test Method A or Test Method B
according to a kilowatt rating. Instead, DOE is basing the applicable
test method on horsepower ratings. Since IEEE Std 112 Test Method A is
applicable to polyphase small electric motors below 1 kilowatt (1.34
horsepower), DOE is applying this method to small electrical motors
rated at or below 1 horsepower. A demarcation based on horsepower
rather than kilowatts makes this division more practicable since
manufacturer literature indicates that small electric motors marketed
for the U.S. are generally grouped by horsepower ratings, with 1 hp
being the first common horsepower rating below 1 kilowatt (1.34
horsepower). Similarly, IEEE Std Test Method B will be applicable to
polyphase small electric motors rated greater than 1 horsepower.
Furthermore, in today's final rule, while DOE is adopting CAN/CSA-
C747 for single-phase small electric motors, DOE is not adopting any
alternative test methods promulgated today for polyphase small electric
motors based on CAN/CSA-C747 or CAN/CSA-C390 Test Method 1 because
there may be an inconsistency in the measured efficiency associated
with units tested under IEEE Std 112 Test Method B and CAN/CSA-C747.
Instead, DOE plans to raise this issue in a SNOPR and propose adopting:
(1) CAN/CSA-C747 as an alternative to IEEE Std Test Method A for
polyphase small electric motors rated less than or equal to one
horsepower (0.746 kilowatt) and (2) CAN/CSA-C390, ``Energy Efficiency
Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction Motors'' (Test Method 1) as an
alternative to IEEE Std Test Method B for polyphase small electric
motors that have a rating greater than one horsepower (0.746 kilowatt).
[[Page 32067]]
C. Alternative Efficiency Determination Method
1. Statistical Basis for an Alternative Efficiency Determination Method
DOE proposed that the efficiency of a small electric motor must be
determined either through actual testing or by using an AEDM, provided
that its reliability and accuracy are substantiated by testing five
basic models that are based on a sample of five production units
selected at random and tested. 73 FR 78238-39.
In view of the above, NEEA commented that while it supported the
use of an AEDM methodology, it expressed concern that DOE's proposal to
substantiate the AEDM for small electric motors by testing a minimum of
five motors, each from a minimum of five basic models, may not produce
a statistically defensible model. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 2) NEEA also
questioned whether AEDMs were sufficiently rigorous to predict total
power loss within ten percent of the mean total power loss, compared to
actual testing. NEEA asserted that total power loss will likely range
from 10 to 30 percent, depending on the basic model and the standards
that are set. Consequently, the magnitude of AEDM error will approach
the difference between two prescribed standard efficiency levels,
thereby making it more difficult to justify the standard levels. NEEA
requested more discussion about whether a given AEDM's accuracy
properly accounts for (1) variability in manufacturing and product
performance and (2) limitations in the calculations used to represent
the design, construction, and operating conditions of the motors being
tested. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 2)
DOE understands NEEA's concerns about the adequacy of using an AEDM
for small electric motors and whether it is sufficient to determine
which level of efficiency is supported by testing samples selected from
the total population. NEEA's concern appears to be with overlapping
nominal efficiency distributions and the probability that the sample
tested may indicate an incorrect nominal efficiency for the basic
model. DOE understands that two populations of motors could intersect
each other, given the variations inherent in the manufacturing process
and efficiency testing. This situation is a result of basing
calculations on efficiency, when the criteria for selecting discrete
values of nominal efficiency for marking small electric motors would be
based on step changes in the tota