Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors and Small Electric Motors, 26608-26640 [2012-10434]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
26608
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–TP–0008]
RIN 1904–AC05
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedures for Electric Motors and
Small Electric Motors
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
On January 5, 2011, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) issued a
supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking to amend the test
procedures for electric motors and small
electric motors. That supplemental
proposal, along with an earlier proposal
from December 22, 2008, form the basis
for today’s action to amend the current
test procedures used to measure the
energy efficiency of electric and small
electric motors. These changes will be
mandatory to demonstrate compliance
with the current energy efficiency
standards starting 180 days after
publication. The final rule clarifies the
scope of regulatory coverage for electric
motors and ensures the accurate and
consistent measurement of electric
motor and small electric motor energy
efficiency through changes to the
current test procedures. These changes
also clarify certain regulatory terms and
language related to electric motors and
small electric motors, clarify the scope
of energy conservation standards for
electric motors, update references to
several industry and testing standards
for electric motors, incorporate by
reference and update alternative test
methods that manufacturers may use
when certifying polyphase and singlephase small electric motors as
compliant, and specify the
determination of efficiency
requirements for small electric motors.
DATES: Effective date: June 4, 2012.
Compliance dates: The final rule
changes will be required for equipment
testing starting October 31, 2012.
Representations either in writing or in
any broadcast advertisement respecting
energy consumption must also be made
using the revised DOE test procedure
starting on October 31, 2012. DOE is
also establishing a compliance date for
energy conservation standards for IEC
100 mm frame series electric motors (as
well as motors built in a frame that is
not necessarily a NEMA-equivalent but
otherwise covered under EISA 2007)
that is June 4, 2015. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
listed in the rule was approved by the
Director of the Federal Register on June
4, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The docket is available for
review at https://www.regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices,
framework documents, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials. Link to the docket
by entering EERE–2008–BT–TP–0008 in
the ‘‘Search ID’’ window. All documents
in the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. However,
not all documents listed in the index
may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public
disclosure.
A link to the docket web page can be
found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/
commercial/small_electric_motors.html
for small electric motors and https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/commercial/
electric_motors.html for electric motors.
This web page will contain a link to the
docket for this notice on the
regulations.gov site.
For further information on how to
review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda
Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–8654. Email:
Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov.
For legal issues, Mr. Michael Kido,
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC–71, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121,
Telephone: (202) 586–8145, Email:
Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov or Ms. Ami
Grace-Tardy, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121,
Telephone: (202) 586–5709, Email:
Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final
rule incorporates by reference the
following standards into part 431:
(1) CSA C390–10, Test methods, marking
requirements, and energy efficiency levels for
three-phase induction motors, March 2010.
(2) CSA C747–09, Energy efficiency test
methods for small motors, October 2009.
(3) IEC Standard 60034–1, Rotating
Electrical Machines, Part 1: Rating and
Performance, Section 4: Duty, clause 4.2.1
and Figure 1, February 2010.
(4) IEC Standard 60034–12, Rotating
Electrical Machines, Part 12: Starting
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Performance of Single-Speed Three-Phase
Cage Induction Motors, clauses 5.2, 5.4, 6,
and 8, and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7,
September 2007.
(5) The following provisions of IEEE
Standard 112–2004, Test Procedure for
Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators,
approved February 9, 2004:
(i) Section 6.3, Efficiency Test Method A,
Input-Output; and
(ii) Section 6.4, Efficiency Test Method B,
Input-Output with Loss Segregation.
(6) IEEE Standard 114–2010, Test
Procedure for Single-Phase Induction Motors,
approved September 30, 2010.
(7) The following provisions of NEMA
Standards Publication MG1–2009, Motors
and Generators, 2009:
(i) Section I, General Standards Applying
to All Machines, Part 1, Referenced
Standards and Definitions, paragraphs 1.18.1,
1.18.1.1, 1.19.1.1, 1.19.1.2, 1.19.1.3, and
1.40.1;
(ii) Section I, General Standards Applying
to All Machines, Part 4, Dimensions,
Tolerances, and Mounting, paragraphs 4.1,
4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, and
4.4.6, Figures 4–1, 4–2, 4–3, 4–4, and 4–5,
and Table 4–2;
(iii) Section II, Small (Fractional) and
Medium (Integral) Machines, Part 12, Tests
and Performance—AC and DC Motors,
paragraphs 12.35.1, 12.38.1, 12.38.2, 12.39.1,
12.39.2, and 12.40.1, 12.40.2, 12.58.1, and
Tables 12–2, 12–3, and 12–10; and
(iv) Section II, Small (Fractional) and
Medium (Integral) Machines, Part 14,
Application Data—AC and DC Small and
Medium Machines, paragraphs 14.2 and 14.3.
(8) The following provisions of NEMA
Standards Publication MG1–1967, Motors
and Generators, January 1968:
(i) Part 11, Dimensions; and
(ii) Part 13, Frame Assignments—A–C
Integral-Horsepower Motors.
(9) NFPA Standard 20–2010, Standard for
the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire
Protection, section 9.5, approved August 26,
2009.
Copies of the CSA standards are
available from the Canadian Standards
Association, Sales Department, 5060
Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga,
Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1–800–463–
6727, or go to https://www.shopcsa.ca/
onlinestore/welcome.asp.
Copies of the IEC standards are
available from the International
Electrotechnical Commission Central
´
Office, 3, rue de Varembe, P.O. Box 131,
CH–1211 GENEVA 20, Switzerland, +41
22 919 02 11, or go to https://
webstore.iec.ch.
Copies of the IEEE standards are
available from the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445
Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway,
NJ 08855–1331, 1–800–678–IEEE (4333),
or https://www.ieee.org/web/
publications/home/.
Copies of the NEMA standard are
available from the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association, 1300 North
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
17th Street, Suite 1752, Rosslyn,
Virginia 22209, 703–841–3200, or go to
https://www.nema.org/.
Copies of the NFPA standard are
available from the National Fire
Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch
Park, Quincy, MA 02169–7471, 617–
770–3000, or go to https://nfpa.org/.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
1. Electric Motors
2. Small Electric Motors
3. General Test Procedure Rulemaking
Process
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Definition of Electric Motor
B. Definition of General Purpose Electric
Motors Subtypes I and II
C. Definition of General Purpose Electric
Motor
D. Definition of NEMA Design B Motors
E. Fire Pump Motors Definition
F. Fire Pump Motor Coverage
G. Energy Conservation Standards for
Electric Motors
H. International Electrotechnical
Commission Standards Incorporated by
Reference
I. References to Various Industry Standards
J. National Institute of Standards and
Technology/National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program
Handbook 150–10 Update and Checklist
K. Appendix A to Subpart B of Title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 431
L. Definition of Small Electric Motor
M. Canadian Standards Association Test
Procedures for Small Electric Motors
N. Small Electric Motor Represented
Efficiency Value
O. Validation of the Small Electric Motor
Alternative Efficiency Determination
Method
P. Small Electric Motor Nationally
Recognized Certification and Testing
Laboratory Accreditation Programs
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal
Energy Administration Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291, et
seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’ or, ‘‘the Act’’) sets forth a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
variety of provisions designed to
improve appliance and commercial
equipment energy efficiency. (All
references to EPCA refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA 2007), Public Law 110–140
(December 19, 2007)). Part C of Title III
(42 U.S.C. 6311–6317), which was
subsequently redesignated as Part A–1
for editorial reasons, establishes an
energy conservation program for certain
industrial equipment, which includes
electric motors and small electric
motors, the subject of today’s notice. (42
U.S.C. 6311(1)(A), 6313(b))
Under EPCA, this program consists
essentially of three parts: (1) Testing, (2)
labeling, and (3) Federal energy
conservation standards (referred to
herein as ‘‘energy conservation
standards,’’ ‘‘energy efficiency levels,’’
or ‘‘energy efficiency standards’’). The
testing requirements consist of test
procedures that manufacturers of
covered products or equipment must
use as the basis for certifying to DOE
that their products or equipment
comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under
EPCA and for making representations
about the efficiency of those products or
equipment. Similarly, DOE must use
these test requirements to determine
whether the products or equipment
comply with any relevant standards
promulgated under EPCA.
In the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(EPACT 1992), Public Law 102–486
(October 24, 1992), Congress amended
EPCA to establish: (1) Energy
conservation standards, (2) test
procedures, (3) compliance certification,
and (4) labeling requirements for certain
electric motors.1 In addition, EPACT
1992 directed the Secretary of Energy to
determine whether energy conservation
standards for small electric motors
would be technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would result
in significant energy savings.2 On
1 EPCA, as amended by EPACT 1992, had
previously defined an ‘‘electric motor’’ as any motor
which is a general purpose T-frame, single-speed,
foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction
motor of the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association, Design A and B, continuous rated,
operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60 Hertz
line power as defined in NEMA Standards
Publication MG1–1987. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)
(1992)) Through subsequent amendments to EPCA,
Congress removed this definition and replaced it
with the heading ‘‘Electric motors’’ and added
language denoting two new subtypes of electric
motors: general purpose electric motor (subtype I)
and general purpose electric motor (subtype II). (See
42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)–(B) (2010))
2 EPCA, as amended by EPACT 1992, defines the
term ‘‘small electric motor’’ to mean a NEMA
general purpose alternating current single-speed
induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
26609
October 5, 1999, DOE issued a final rule
setting forth procedures to determine
the energy efficiency of electric motors.
64 FR 54114. After determining that
energy conservation standards for small
electric motors would be
technologically feasible and
economically justified, see 71 FR 38799
(July 10, 2006), DOE initiated a
rulemaking to begin the development of
standards for small electric motors.3
Related to these efforts was DOE’s
publication of a final rule prescribing
test procedures for small electric
motors. 74 FR 32059 (July 7, 2009). That
rule followed from an earlier December
2008 proposal to amend test procedures
for electric and small electric motors.
See 73 FR 78220 (December 22, 2008).
DOE finalized key provisions related to
small electric motor testing in the July
2009 final rule, but opted to solicit
further comment on certain issues from
the December 2008 proposal. To this
end, DOE issued a supplemental notice
of proposed rulemaking, which also
raised other related issues. 76 FR 648
(January 5, 2011) Today’s final rule
addresses these remaining issues.
1. Electric Motors
EPCA, through EPACT 1992, initially
required that DOE adopt the thencurrent test procedures prescribed by
the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA) in its MG1–1987
publication and those procedures
contained in IEEE Standard 112 (Test
Method B) when determining an electric
motor’s efficiency. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(5)(A)) MG1 is a voluntary
industry standards publication
produced by NEMA that facilitates
communication between manufacturers
and users about the selection and
application of electric motors and
generators. MG1 provides practical
information to electric motor
manufacturers and users concerning the
construction, testing, performance, and
safety of alternating current (AC) and
direct current (DC) motors and
generators. IEEE Standard 112 (Test
Method B) is an industry-accepted test
method that outlines the methods and
series in accordance with NEMA Standards
Publication MG1–1987. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G))
3 A single-phase small electric motor is a rotating
electrical machine that operates on single-phase
electrical power, which refers to a single alternating
voltage sinusoidal waveform. Similarly, a
polyphase small electric motor is a rotating
electrical machine that operates on three-phase
electrical power, which refers to the sinusoidal
waveforms of three supply conductors that are
offset from one another by 120 degrees. Small
electric motors are generally used as components to
drive commercial and industrial pumps, fans,
conveyors, and other equipment that require low
power. 73 FR 78220, 78221 n.2 (December 22,
2008).
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
26610
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
calculations that manufacturers should
use to determine their electric motors’
full-load efficiencies. EPCA required
DOE to conform its procedures to any
amendments to these protocols unless
the Secretary determines, by rule, that
the amended procedures are not
reasonably designed to produce results
that reflect energy efficiency, energy
use, and estimated operating costs, and
would be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B))
Consistent with this requirement, DOE
has amended its regulations to
incorporate more recent versions of
these procedures.
In addition, DOE incorporated
Canadian Standards Association (CSA)
C390–93, ‘‘Energy Efficiency Test
Methods for Three-Phase Induction
Motors’’ into the October 5, 1999, final
rule as a widely recognized alternative
that is consistent with IEEE Standard
112 (Test Method B). 64 FR 54114
(October 5, 1999).4 In light of changes to
the CSA test procedure, DOE
reexamined and updated its test
procedures consistent with its practice
of ensuring that the latest industry
practices (and related equivalent
procedures) are incorporated into DOE’s
regulations.
The testing protocols considered by
DOE have all been updated—MG1 on
April 9, 2010, IEEE Standard 112 (Test
Method B) on February 9, 2004, and
CSA C390 on March 22, 2010 (‘‘Test
methods, marking requirements, and
energy efficiency levels for three-phase
induction motors’’). Consistent with its
obligations under EPCA, DOE had
proposed to incorporate the most
current versions of the IEEE and NEMA
protocols into its regulations. 73 FR
78220 (December 22, 2008).
2. Small Electric Motors
Among its many requirements, EPCA
requires DOE to prescribe test
procedures for those small electric
motors for which the Secretary of
Energy makes a positive determination
that energy conservation standards
would be technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would result
in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C.
6317(b)(1)) Consistent with this
requirement, DOE indicated it would
initiate the development of test
procedures for certain small electric
motors. 71 FR 38807 (July 10, 2006).
DOE proposed possible test methods
for measuring the energy efficiency of
both small electric motors and electric
4 See also MG1–1993 with Revision 1, section
MG1–12.58.1, which states: ‘‘Efficiency and losses
shall be determined in accordance with IEEE Std
112 or Canadian Standards Association Standard
C390.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
motors in the December 2008 notice of
proposed rulemaking (NOPR). 73 FR
78220. For small electric motors, DOE
proposed to base its test procedure on
IEEE Standard 114–2001, ‘‘Test
Procedure for Single-Phase Induction
Motors,’’ IEEE Standard 112–2004,
‘‘Test Procedure for Polyphase
Induction Motors and Generators,’’ and
CSA C747–94, ‘‘Energy Efficiency Test
Methods for Single- and Three-Phase
Small Motors.’’ 5 DOE proposed these
three procedures based in part on their
wide use and acceptance by small
electric motor manufacturers.
On July 7, 2009, DOE published a
final rule adopting test procedures for
measuring the energy efficiency of small
electric motors. 74 FR 32059. However,
certain subsidiary issues raised in
response to the December 2008 NOPR
required additional consideration by
DOE. These issues are addressed in
today’s final rule.
3. Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
In January 2011, DOE published a
supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNOPR) that attempted to
address a variety of issues related to the
test procedures for electric motors and
small electric motors. 76 FR 648. Among
these issues included those items that
remained unresolved from the July 2009
test procedure final rule, along with
other issues raised in the interim since
that rule’s publication.
For electric motors, the SNOPR
proposed to clarify certain terms and
language in the DOE regulations.
Specifically, DOE proposed to revise the
definitions of certain terms related to
electric motors, clarify the scope of
energy conservation standards for
electric motors, and update references to
several industry and testing standards
for electric motors. These proposals
were made in an effort to help clarify
the scope of regulatory coverage for
electric motors and ensure the accurate
and consistent measurement of energy
efficiency.
For small electric motors, the SNOPR
proposed to revise the definitions of
certain terms, incorporate by reference
and update alternative test methods for
polyphase and single-phase small
electric motors, and specify the
determination of efficiency
requirements. As with electric motors,
DOE made these proposals to ensure the
accurate and consistent measurement of
energy efficiency.
5 The IEEE Standards addressed in this notice are
generally listed chronologically by their last date of
revision and adoption rather than their sequential
number.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
For both motor types, the January
2011 SNOPR invited comments on the
issues presented and requested
comments, data, and other information
that would enable DOE to promulgate a
final rule. In response, DOE received
comments addressing its supplemental
notice. Today’s notice addresses these
issues.
4. General Test Procedure Rulemaking
Process
EPCA, through 42 U.S.C. 6314, sets
forth the criteria and procedures DOE
must generally follow when prescribing
or amending test procedures for
commercial or industrial equipment.
That provision generally requires that a
test procedure that is either prescribed
or amended shall be reasonably
designed to produce test results which
measure energy efficiency, energy use,
and the estimated annual operating cost
of a type of covered equipment during
a representative average use cycle or
period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) In
instances where the test procedure is
one that determines annual operating
costs, the costs must be calculated from
energy use measurements taken during
a representative average use cycle and
from the average unit costs of the energy
needed to operate such equipment. (See
42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(3))
When amending a test procedure,
DOE must determine the extent to
which a proposed procedure will alter
the measured energy efficiency of a
given type of covered equipment when
compared to the current procedure. (See
42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(C) (incorporating
the procedural steps of 42 U.S.C.
6293(e) for electric motors)) As
described later in this notice, DOE
compared IEEE Standard 112–1996
(Test Method B) and CSA C390–93 with
IEEE Standard 112–2004 (Test Method
B) and CSA C390–10, respectively, and
determined that there were no
substantive differences that would alter
the measured efficiency of the covered
motors.
II. Summary of the Final Rule
Today’s final rule, which is based on
feedback received in response to the
December 2008 and January 2011
notices, amends the current DOE test
procedures and definitions for electric
motors and small electric motors. These
changes will not affect the measured
efficiency of this equipment. Instead,
these changes will primarily clarify
certain terms, language and the scope of
energy conservation standards for
electric motors. They will also minimize
any potential ambiguity contained in
the test procedures for electric motors
and small electric motors.
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Electric Motors
Today’s rule makes four changes with
respect to electric motors. First, it
clarifies the definitions for ‘‘electric
motor,’’ ‘‘fire pump motor,’’ ‘‘general
purpose electric motor (subtype I),’’
‘‘general purpose electric motor
(subtype II),’’ and ‘‘NEMA Design B
motor.’’ Each of these terms was either
added or modified by EISA 2007.
Additionally, the rule clarifies that the
term ‘‘general purpose electric motor’’
denotes a ‘‘general purpose motor’’ to
ensure the use of consistent terminology
in DOE’s regulations. These revisions, in
addition to addressing the specific
comments raised by interested parties,
will help ensure that the test procedures
are applied appropriately.
Second, today’s final rule clarifies the
scope of existing energy conservation
standards for electric motors (10 CFR
431.25).
Third, the rule updates the references
to (1) NIST Handbook 150–10,
‘‘Efficiency of Electric Motors,’’ and the
associated NIST Handbook 150–10
checklist, (2) IEC standards documents,
(3) CSA C390, (4) CSA C747, (5) NEMA
MG1, and (6) IEEE Standard 112
throughout subpart B of 10 CFR part
431.
Finally, today’s rule removes the
guidance from appendix A to subpart B,
of 10 CFR part 431. That guidance,
which will be updated to maintain
consistency with the more recent
amendments made by EISA 2007, will
be posted on DOE’s Web site as a
vehicle for DOE to periodically update
its interpretive guidance with respect to
the treatment of certain aspects related
to electric motors. Separating this
guidance and placing it on the agency’s
public Web site will enable DOE to
periodically update this guidance more
expeditiously in response to public
feedback and changing conditions in the
industry. The updates may also serve as
the basis for future rulemaking
amendments as required.
Small Electric Motors
Today’s final rule addresses two
related matters that clarify the codified
definition of ‘‘small electric motor’’ and
should alleviate any potential undue
testing burden related to small electric
motors. These changes will help clarify
aspects of the July 2009 final rule for
small electric motors.
First, the rule clarifies the terms
‘‘represented efficiency value’’ and
‘‘average full-load efficiency’’ for small
electric motors.
Second, the rule adds CSA C747–09
and CSA C390–10 as alternative test
procedures that manufacturers may use
26611
for measuring the energy efficiency of
polyphase small electric motors. After
receiving comments and data from
multiple interested parties, DOE found
that both test methods are equivalent to
IEEE Standard 112 Test Methods A and
B, respectively, which were adopted in
the July 2009 final rule. DOE is also
updating its current CSA C747
references to account for the latest
version of that protocol.
Finally, although DOE had
contemplated in the SNOPR providing a
method to validate an alternative
efficiency determination method
(AEDM) for small electric motors,
including the statistical requirements
needed to substantiate the AEDM, it has
elected to address these requirements in
a separate rulemaking currently under
development. To this end, DOE has
initiated a separate rulemaking effort to
address the AEDM requirements for all
products and equipment for which DOE
has test procedures, including motors.
The revisions are summarized in the
table below and addressed in detail in
the following section. Note that all
citations to 10 CFR part 431 in today’s
notice refer to the current version of 10
CFR part 431. The corresponding
revisions to the regulatory text follow
the preamble to this final rule.
TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES PROMULGATED IN THIS FINAL RULE AND AFFECTED SECTIONS OF 10 CFR PART 431
Section in 10 CFR Part 431
Summary of modifications
Section 431.11 of Subpart B—Purpose and Scope ................................
• Clarifies that subpart B is applicable to ‘‘electric motors,’’ but not
‘‘small electric motors.’’
• Revises the definitions of ‘‘accreditation,’’ ‘‘definite purpose motor,’’
‘‘general purpose electric motor (subtype I),’’ ‘‘general purpose electric motor (subtype II),’’ and ‘‘nominal full-load efficiency.’’
• Adds new definitions for ‘‘electric motor,’’ ‘‘fire pump motor,’’ ‘‘general
purpose electric motor,’’ and ‘‘NEMA Design B motor.’’
• Removes definition of ‘‘general purpose motor.’’
• Moves the list of references from 431.15 into a new section.
• Updates reference to CSA–C390.
• Updates references to IEC standards.
• Updates reference to IEEE Standard 112.
• Updates reference to NEMA MG1.
• Updates reference to NIST Handbook 150–10.
• Updates references to IEEE Standard 112 and CSA C390.
Section 431.12 of Subpart B—Definitions ................................................
Section 431.14 of Subpart B—Sources for information and guidance ....
Section 431.15 of Subpart B—Materials incorporated by reference .......
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Section 431.18 of Subpart B—Testing Laboratories ...............................
Section 431.19 of Subpart B—Department of Energy recognition of accreditation bodies.
Section 431.20 of Subpart B—Department of Energy recognition of nationally recognized certification programs.
Section 431.25 of Subpart B—Energy conservation standards and effective dates.
Section 431.31 of Subpart B—Labeling Requirements ...........................
Appendix A to Subpart B—Policy Statement for Electric Motors Covered Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
Appendix B to Subpart B—Uniform Test Method for Measuring Nominal
Full-Load Efficiency of Electric Motors.
Section 431.441 of Subpart X—Purpose and Scope ..............................
Section 431.443 of Subpart X—Materials incorporated by reference .....
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
• Updates references to IEEE Standard 112 and CSA C390 for electric motors.
• Removes the existing 431.25(a).
• Clarifies the scope of efficiency standards in 431.25(a) through (d).
• Inserts kilowatt equivalent power ratings in the efficiency standard tables.
• Updates reference to NEMA MG1.
• Removes appendix A to subpart B; guidance will be posted on the
DOE Appliance Standards Program website.
• Updates references to NEMA MG1, IEEE Standard 112, and CSA
C390.
• Clarifies that subpart X is applicable to ‘‘small electric motors,’’ but
not ‘‘electric motors.’’
• Updates reference to CSA C747.
• Adds reference to CSA C390.
• Updates references to IEEE Standard 112 and 114.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
26612
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES PROMULGATED IN THIS FINAL RULE AND AFFECTED SECTIONS OF 10 CFR PART
431—Continued
Section in 10 CFR Part 431
Summary of modifications
Section 431.444 of Subpart X—Test procedures for measurement of
energy efficiency.
Section 431.445 of Subpart X—Determination of small electric motor
efficiency.
Section 431.447 of Subpart X—Department of Energy recognition of
nationally recognized certification programs.
Section 431.448 of Subpart X—Procedures for recognition and withdrawal of recognition of certification programs.
As noted earlier, DOE developed
today’s rule after considering input,
including written comments, from a
variety of interested parties that
•
•
•
•
Updates reference to CSA C747.
Adds reference to CSA C390.
Updates reference to IEEE Standard 114.
Adds additional guidelines on use of a certification program and references section 431.447 for small electric motors.
• Clarifies the term ‘‘represented average full-load efficiency’’ and renames as ‘‘required average full-load efficiency’’.
• Adds a section on nationally recognized certification programs for
small electric motors similar to section 431.20 for electric motors.
• Adds a section on procedures for recognition of certification programs for small electric motors similar to section 431.21 for electric
motors.
represent a variety of interests. All
commenters, their corresponding
abbreviations and type are listed in
Table II.2 below. The issues raised by
these commenters are addressed in the
various discussions that follow.
TABLE II.2—SUMMARY OF SNOPR COMMENTERS
Company
Abbreviation
Baldor Electric Co ...........................................................................................
WEG Electric ..................................................................................................
Advanced Energy ...........................................................................................
National Electrical Manufacturers Association ...............................................
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance .............................................................
Grundfos Pumps Co .......................................................................................
Habasit America, Rossi Gearmotor Division ..................................................
GEA Mechanical Eq. US, Inc .........................................................................
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Appliance Standards Awareness
Project, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Earthjustice,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Alliance to Save Energy.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association and the American Council for
an Energy Efficient Economy.
Baldor .................................
WEG ...................................
Advanced Energy ...............
NEMA .................................
NEEA ..................................
Grundfos .............................
Rossi ..................................
GEA ....................................
NEEA, et al ........................
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Independent Test Laboratory.
Trade Association.
Efficiency/Environmental Advocate.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Efficiency/Environmental Advocate
Group.
NEMA and ACEEE ............
Trade Groups.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
III. Discussion
A. Definition of Electric Motor
Before the enactment of EISA 2007,
EPCA defined the term ‘‘electric motor’’
as any motor that is a general purpose
T-frame, single-speed, foot-mounting,
polyphase squirrel-cage induction motor
of the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association, Design A and B,
continuous rated, operating on 230/460
volts and constant 60 Hertz line power
as defined in NEMA Standards
Publication MG1–1987. (See 42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(A) (2006)) Section 313(a)(2) of
EISA 2007 removed that definition,
inserted a new ‘‘Electric motors’’
heading, and created two new subtypes
of electric motors: General purpose
electric motor (subtype I) and general
purpose electric motor (subtype II). (42
U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)–(B)(2011)) In
addition, section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007
established energy conservation
standards for four types of electric
motors: general purpose electric motors
(subtype I) (i.e., subtype I motors) with
a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
fire pump motors; general purpose
electric motor (subtype II) (i.e., subtype
II motors) with a power rating of 1 to
200 horsepower; and NEMA Design B,
general purpose electric motors with a
power rating of more than 200
horsepower, but less than or equal to
500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2))
These standards were set out in
statutory provisions that referenced
specific tables from the 2006 version of
NEMA MG1. All of these standards
apply to covered motors that are
manufactured alone or as a component
of another piece of equipment. The term
‘‘electric motor’’ (which frequently
appears throughout EPCA, as amended
by EISA 2007, and various subparts of
10 CFR part 431) was left undefined.
Consequently, DOE noted that the
absence of a definition may cause
confusion about which electric motors
are required to comply with mandatory
test procedures and energy conservation
standards. 73 FR 78225.
In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE
proposed to clarify the EISA 2007 term
‘‘electric motor’’ to mean any of the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Interested party type
following four types of motors: a
subtype I motor, a fire pump motor, a
subtype II motor, or a NEMA Design B
general purpose electric motor. 73 FR
78225 and 78235. In DOE’s view,
applying the term ‘‘electric motor’’ in
this manner would clarify that the test
procedures prescribed for electric
motors would also apply to each of the
four types of motors. 73 FR 78225. In
the January 2011 SNOPR, DOE revisited
this issue and proposed to broadly
define ‘‘electric motor’’ to mean ‘‘a
machine which converts electrical
power into rotational mechanical
power.’’ 76 FR 651.
In a comment submitted jointly with
other interested parties, the Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA)
responded to the SNOPR and asserted
that DOE could create either a broad,
high-level definition of electric motor
that is carefully broken down into
various subtypes of electric motors, or a
narrow definition exclusive to these
electric motors that are currently subject
to standards. Ultimately, NEEA agreed
with the approach proposed by DOE to
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
broadly define an electric motor. NEEA
believed that this approach would
minimize confusion by providing
stability to the ‘‘electric motor’’
definition. It added that DOE’s proposed
approach could provide the foundation
for extending standards to other electric
motors not currently covered by DOE
regulations. Further, they noted that
using a narrower definition would have
the disadvantage of requiring DOE to
redefine the term ‘‘electric motor’’ each
time the scope of energy conservation
standards for electric motors changes.
(NEEA, et al., No. 24 at p. 2) 6
Separately, a joint comment from
NEMA and ACEEE supported DOE’s
intent to modify the definition for
‘‘electric motors’’ to include a common
definition of the term. However, NEMA
and ACEEE added that the proposed
definition was too broad, stating that
such a definition would make all
references to ‘‘electric motor’’ in
subparts B and U of 10 CFR part 431
apply to all possible types of motors,
including direct current, single-phase,
variable speed, and multi-speed motors.
In their view, the proposal would
eliminate qualifiers that are necessary to
narrow the definition to include only
motors for which energy efficiency
standards are prescribed. Commenters
also asserted that such a change would
alter the ‘‘covered equipment’’ provision
at 10 CFR 431.12 to include a set of
motors for which no energy
conservation standards are prescribed.
NEMA and ACEEE suggested the
following definition as an alternative for
DOE to consider: ‘‘Electric motor means
a machine that converts electrical power
into rotational mechanical power and is
configured as a general purpose electric
motor (subtype I) or general purpose
electric motor (subtype II).’’
Further, NEMA and ACEEE
recommended that if DOE believes that
fire pump motors require a classification
separate from general purpose electric
motors (subtype I and II), then the
definition should be changed to,
‘‘electric motor means a machine that
converts electrical power into rotational
mechanical power and is configured as
a general purpose electric motor
(subtype I) or general purpose electric
motor (subtype II), including, but not
limited to, fire pump electric motors.’’
6 Notations of this form appear throughout this
document and identify statements made in written
comments or at public hearings that DOE has
received and has included in the docket for this
rulemaking. For example, ‘‘NEEA, et al., No. 24 at
p. 2’’ refers to: (1) A comment from advocates
referred to collectively as the Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance, et al.; (2) in document number
24 in the docket of this rulemaking; and (3)
appearing on page 2 of the submission.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 3 and
4)
Although Congress retained the term
‘‘electric motors’’ as part of EPCA, it
removed the definition that had
previously been in place. In its place,
Congress added two new electric motor
subtypes—general purpose electric
motor (subtype I) and general purpose
electric motor (subtype II). (See 42
U.S.C. 6311(13)) As NEMA and ACEEE
observed in its comments to the recent
framework document for electric
motors, the removal of this definition
also removed the prior limits that
narrowly defined what types of motors
would be considered as electric motors.
These commenters asserted that DOE
already has the statutory authority to
regulate definite and special purpose
motors. (ASAP and NEMA, No. 12.17 at
p. 1)
DOE believes that a definition for
‘‘electric motor’’ is necessary and
today’s rule retains the broader
approach proposed in the SNOPR. The
definition that DOE is adopting should
be sufficiently broad to encompass all
electric motor subtypes. At this time,
while the definition covers a large set of
motors, only those for which energy
conservation standards have been set
are currently regulated equipment—i.e.,
subtype I and II motors, fire pump
motors that are subtype I or II motors,
and Design B motors that are subtype I
or II motors. This approach allows DOE
to fill the definitional gap created by the
EISA 2007 amendments while providing
DOE with the flexibility to set energy
conservation standards for other types
of electric motors without having to
continuously update the definition of
‘‘electric motors’’ each time DOE sets
energy conservation standards for a new
subset of electric motors. Accordingly,
DOE is declining to adopt the approach
suggested by NEMA and ACEEE.
B. Definition of General Purpose Electric
Motors Subtypes I and II
Before the enactment of EISA 2007,
EPCA defined a general purpose electric
motor (subtype I) as a motor that meets
the definition of ‘‘general purpose’’ that
was in effect in DOE’s regulations at the
time of EISA 2007’s enactment. (See 42
U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)(2006)) At that time,
10 CFR part 431 did not contain a
definition of ‘‘general purpose,’’ but
instead defined the term ‘‘general
purpose motor.’’ That term was defined
7 This comment comes from the docket EERE–
2010–BT–STD–0027 for electric motors standards
and was jointly submitted on behalf of ACEEE,
ASE, Advanced Energy, Earthjustice, NRDC, the
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and
NEEA by NEMA and ASAP.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
26613
to refer to a motor designed in standard
ratings with either:
(1) Standard operating characteristics
and standard mechanical construction
for use under usual service conditions,
such as those specified in NEMA
Standards Publication MG1–1993,
paragraph 14.02, ‘‘Usual Service
Conditions,’’ and without restriction to
a particular application or type of
application; or
(2) Standard operating characteristics
or standard mechanical construction for
use under unusual service conditions,
such as those specified in NEMA
Standards Publication MG1–1993,
paragraph 14.03, ‘‘Unusual Service
conditions,’’ or for a particular type of
application, and which can be used in
most general purpose applications.
See 64 FR 54142 (codified at 10 CFR
431.12).
Consistent with the EISA 2007
amendments, DOE subsequently
adopted this definition of ‘‘general
purpose motor’’ as the definition of
‘‘general purpose electric motor
(subtype I).’’ 74 FR 12058, 12071 (March
23, 2009) (codified at 10 CFR 431.12).
DOE did not propose any changes to
this definition in its December 2008
proposal. 73 FR 78220.
DOE also adopted a definition for
‘‘general purpose electric motor
(subtype II).’’ 74 FR 12071 (codified at
10 CFR 431.12). This definition
mirrored the statute, which defined this
type of motor as one that incorporates
the design elements of a subtype I motor
but is configured as one of the
following:
(i) A U-frame motor;
(ii) A Design C motor;
(iii) A close-coupled pump motor;
(iv) A footless motor;
(v) A vertical solid shaft normal thrust
motor (as tested in a horizontal
configuration);
(vi) An 8-pole motor (900 rpm); or
(vii) A polyphase motor with voltage
of not more than 600 volts (other than
230 or 460 volts).
(See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(B))
Responding to comments received in
response to the December 2008 NOPR,
DOE proposed in the January 2011
SNOPR to clarify the definition for a
subtype I motor. Particularly, DOE
proposed adding parentheticals
referring to either MG1 or IEC to denote
those terms that were used by those
protocols with respect to certain motors
or motor characteristics. See 76 FR 652.
In the regulatory text following the
proposed definition, DOE added a note
to clarify that the descriptive elements
in this definition followed by the
parenthetical ‘‘MG1’’ must be construed
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26614
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
with reference to provisions in NEMA
Standards Publication MG1–2009 and
elements followed by the parenthetical
‘‘IEC’’ must be construed with reference
to the International Electrotechnical
Commission Standards. The note also
stated that 10 CFR part 431, subpart B
applies even if the NEMA or IECequivalent frame size or design element
has been discontinued or is
discontinued in the future. 76 FR 655,
665. DOE had intended for the note to
help ensure that manufacturers apply
the various technical characteristics
included as part of the definition in a
consistent and appropriate manner
(examples of these types of
characteristics include performance
characteristics of NEMA Design A or
IEC Design N motors). A similar note
was also proposed for inclusion to
follow the definition of a subtype II
motor.
In distinguishing between subtype I
and subtype II motors, DOE looks to
whether the motor is configured to have
one or more of the design or
performance elements listed in the
definition of subtype II motors at 42
U.S.C. 6311(13)(B). For example, a
subtype I motor could be built in
accordance with NEMA T-frame
dimensions and could have the
performance characteristics of a NEMA
Design A motor. In contrast, a motor
built with all of these same design
elements but with the performance
characteristics of a NEMA Design C
motor would be a subtype II motor. To
clarify this interpretation of the subtype
II motor statutory definition, DOE
proposed to modify the introductory
text of the subtype II definition to read,
‘‘means any general purpose electric
motor that incorporates design elements
of a general purpose electric motor
(subtype I) but, unlike a general purpose
electric motor (subtype I), is configured
in one or more of the following ways.’’
A list of the seven different
characteristics added by EISA 2007 then
followed. And consistent with the
subtype I definition, DOE proposed to
add references to MG1 and IEC
standards in the subtype II definition to
clarify the terms ‘‘U-frame,’’ ‘‘NEMA
Design C,’’ and ‘‘vertical solid shaft
normal thrust motor.’’ 76 FR 653.
The SNOPR also proposed to include
a note as part of the definitions of
‘‘general purpose electric motor
(subtype I)’’ and ‘‘general purpose
electric motor (subtype II)’’ to indicate
that electric motors that are built
according to IEC standards but that
otherwise meet the proposed definition
of a subtype I or II motor, would be
considered covered motors under EPCA,
as amended by EISA 2007, even if the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
NEMA-equivalent frame size had
already been discontinued. 76 FR 665.
DOE explained that it proposed to add
this note to address situations such as
the one presented by IEC 100 millimeter
(mm) frame sized motors, which DOE
had previously indicated were not
covered in large part because of the
limitations imposed by the prior
statutory definition of ‘‘electric motor.’’
See 76 FR 653 (explaining DOE’s
tentative determination that IEC 100
mm frame-sized motors were not
covered under the previous statutory
definition then in place for electric
motors). DOE understands that these
motors can be used in many of the same
applications where other covered
electric motors are used, such as fans,
pumps, conveyors, machine tools, and
gear reducers.
With respect to IEC 100 mm framesized motors that fall into the subtype
I or II categories, DOE notes that under
the previous statutory definition of
‘‘electric motor,’’ an electric motor was
a motor that possessed certain
characteristics. That statutory definition
also referenced MG1–1987, an industrydeveloped guidance document. The
inclusion of that reference to MG1–1987
suggested its significance with respect
to whether a given motor would be
considered an ‘‘electric motor’’ as
defined under the statute. MG1–1987
omitted any specifications related to
motors equivalent to an IEC 100 mm
motor.
Meanwhile, NEMA and electric motor
manufacturers had submitted
information to DOE indicating that a
motor that was equivalent to the IEC 100
mm motors—the 160-series T-frame
motor—had already been discontinued
by motor manufacturers. As a result of
this information, coupled with the fact
that the relevant industry guidance
(MG1–1987) referenced in the prior
statutory definition for ‘‘electric motor’’
no longer included any technical
specifications related to the 160-series
T-frame motor, DOE concluded that IEC
100 mm motors were not considered
covered ‘‘electric motors’’ for purposes
of statutory coverage. Therefore, DOE
tentatively decided not to treat IEC 100
mm frame size motors as covered
electric motors. 61 FR 60440, 60443
(November 27, 1996).
Upon reconsideration and in light of
the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA,
which eliminated the previous and
more limiting ‘‘electric motor’’
definition, DOE proposed as part of the
January SNOPR to include both NEMA
and IEC frame size motors as covered
motors, regardless of whether the
equivalent NEMA or IEC frame size had
been discontinued. 76 FR 653.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
NEEA viewed DOE’s proposals for the
definitions of ‘‘general purpose electric
motor (subtype I)’’ and ‘‘general purpose
electric motor (subtype II)’’ as
reasonable. (NEEA, et al., No. 24 at p.
2) Other commenters focused on the
proposed inclusion of the note to these
definitions and made suggestions on
how to characterize U-frame motors.
NEMA and ACEEE supported DOE’s
proposal to include the IEC 100 mm
frame size as covered equipment, but
otherwise asserted that DOE failed to
achieve this goal by the addition of its
proposed ‘‘note’’ to the subtype I and II
definitions. They explained that there
were never alternating current motors in
the NEMA 160T frame size and,
therefore, no NEMA-equivalent to the
IEC 100 mm frame size. For this reason,
in their view, the added text included
in the SNOPR to address the IEC 100
mm frame motor, which generally refers
to frame sizes that have already been
discontinued, would not cover IEC 100
mm frame motors. Also, NEMA stated
that it is unaware of any discontinued
T-frame sizes and expressed concern
about using a ‘‘note’’ in the definitions
section because, in the motor industry,
a ‘‘note’’ to a standard is not viewed as
part of the standard itself. (NEMA and
ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 4, 5)
As to the proposed definition for
‘‘general purpose electric motor
(subtype II)’’ and how it relates to Uframe motors, NEMA and ACEEE also
pointed out that the NEMA U-frame was
discontinued as a standard frame size
when the NEMA T-frame became the
standard frame size. NEMA and ACEEE
stated that despite the U-frame being
directly referenced in the configurations
for subtype II motors, the proposed note
in the subtype I motor definition would,
in their view, imply that motors
constructed in a discontinued NEMA Uframe size would be considered a
‘‘general purpose electric motor
(subtype I).’’ (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25
at p. 6)
Responding to these comments, DOE
has modified its approach. For the
subtype I and II definitions, DOE
removed the portion of the proposed
note regarding discontinued frame sizes.
Instead, DOE is adding language to the
subtype I and II definitions to include
frame sizes that are between two
consecutive NEMA frame sizes or their
IEC metric equivalents. This language
extends coverage to those motors built
in accordance with an IEC 100 mm
frame. DOE notes that the modification
to the subtype I ‘‘note’’ also addresses
NEMA and ACEEE’s concerns regarding
U-frame motors and the potential
confusion related to them in the context
of the subtype I definition.
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
NEMA and ACEEE also stated that
DOE’s reference to MG1–2009 in the
proposed definition of ‘‘general purpose
electric motor (subtype II)’’ is incorrect,
as dimensions for U-frame motors were
not included in MG1–2009. Instead,
they suggested that a more appropriate
reference for DOE to use is a 1967
edition of a NEMA document entitled,
‘‘NEMA Motor Standards,’’ which,
according to these commenters, later
became known as a ‘‘Condensed MG1.’’
(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 6) DOE
understands that the industry
transitioned from the U-frame motor
design to the T-frame motor design after
publication of the 1967 edition of
‘‘NEMA Motor Standards’’ and that this
industry standards document was the
last to contain dimensional
specifications for U-frame designs.
Today’s final rule accounts for this
situation by adding language referencing
NEMA MG1–1967 as part of the subtype
II definition in 10 CFR 431.12.
Specifically, the amended definition
explicitly indicates that those motors
built in accordance with the NEMA Uframe dimensions as described in that
1967 document will be treated as
subtype II motors.
Additionally, interested parties
expressed concern about when
manufacturers of IEC 100 mm frame
motors would need to comply with the
appropriate energy efficiency standards.
Given that DOE had previously decided
that these motors were not covered,
NEMA and ACEEE argued that requiring
IEC 100 mm frame motors to comply
with standards immediately could have
‘‘serious repercussions on
manufacturers and motor users where
significant changes in the motor design
and size may be required to achieve a
sudden increase in efficiency of several
NEMA nominal efficiency bands.’’
(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 5–6).
Both requested that DOE establish a
compliance date that is not less than
three years after these motors become
covered under 10 CFR 431.12 and that
the required efficiency level be
equivalent to that for a subtype II motor.
Both also cited precedents under EPCA,
noting specifically that amendments
added by Congress through EPACT 1992
provided 60 months for compliance (42
U.S.C. 6313(b)(1)) and that the EISA
2007 amendments provided three years
for compliance (42 U.S.C. 6313(b))
(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 5–6)
In addition, Grundfos Pumps Co.
expressed concern over the timing of
enforcing standards for the IEC 100 mm
frame size. Grundfos believed that a
short grace period or no grace period
will harm only foreign manufacturers. It
requested a grace period of at least 12
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
months to minimize these effects.
(Grundfos, No. 21 at p. 1).
DOE understands the concerns of
motor manufacturers and realizes that a
change from DOE’s previous views
regarding the coverage of these motors
could have significant manufacturing
redesign and financial impacts on
manufacturers and users of such motors.
DOE seeks to ensure that these motors
satisfy the relevant efficiency standards
as expeditiously as possible. Therefore,
to mitigate the effects of this transition
and to ensure that manufacturers have
sufficient time to adjust to this change
and certify compliance, DOE is allowing
three years from the effective date of
today’s notice for IEC 100 mm frame
series motors (as well as motors built in
a frame that is not necessarily a NEMAequivalent but otherwise covered under
EISA 2007) to meet the EISA 2007
standards. The three-year timeline is
consistent with the deadline
recommended by NEMA and ACEEE
and reflects the three years that
manufacturers had to comply with
energy conservation standards
established in EISA 2007. The threeyear compliance date also recognizes
the change in DOE’s previous views
regarding 100 mm frame-sized motors.
When standards for these 100 mm
motors (as well as all other motors built
in a frame that is not a direct NEMAequivalent but is otherwise covered
under EISA 2007) become effective,
only those motors that also meet the
subtype I or II definitions will be subject
to the subtype I or subtype II standards,
respectively.
Finally, DOE also received comments
regarding voltage ratings as it pertains to
subtype II motors. NEMA and ACEEE
commented that DOE should clarify
which voltages apply to this definition
by making the language consistent with
the subtype I definition. They suggested
restating item (vii) of the definition to
read ‘‘is a polyphase motor with voltage
of not more than 600 volts (other than
230 or 460 volts or useable on 230 or
460 volts).’’ (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25
at p. 6) Although the commenters did
not offer an explicit reason for their
proposed language, DOE has modified
the language regarding subtype II
voltages to distinguish the standard
voltages associated with the definition
for subtype I motors from the special
voltages that could cause an electric
motor to be classified as a subtype II
motor. DOE has modified the subtype II
definition to clarify that those motors
that are not rated for 230 or 460 volts
and cannot operate on 230 or 460 volts
are subtype II motors because of their
voltage rating. (Note that motors that are
rated for 230 or 460 volts or can be used
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
26615
on 230 or 460 may also be deemed
subtype II based on another
characteristic—for example, by being a
footless motor).
C. Definition of General Purpose Electric
Motor
DOE proposed to amend the
definition of ‘‘general purpose motor’’ in
10 CFR 431.12 by adding the word
‘‘electric’’ in front of the word ‘‘motor’’
to clarify that a general purpose motor
is a type of electric motor. This
proposed change would create
consistency between the ‘‘electric
motor’’ and ‘‘general purpose electric
motor (subtype I)’’ definitions, the latter
of which refers to a ‘‘general purpose
motor.’’ (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A))
Additionally, DOE proposed updating
the references to NEMA MG1 from
NEMA MG1–1993 to the most recent
publication, NEMA MG1–2009. Finally,
DOE proposed adding text to the end of
the definition emphasizing that the
various examples of standard operating
characteristics and mechanical
construction cited as part of the
definition were illustrative and not
comprehensive. The purpose of the
additional text was to reiterate the
‘‘such as those specified’’ qualifier used
in the references to NEMA MG1–2009 in
both the current and proposed ‘‘general
purpose electric motor’’ definition.
Although DOE is not aware of any
other standard operating characteristics
and mechanical construction for usual
or unusual service conditions, DOE
anticipates that there may be now, or in
the future, IEC or other standards that
may develop such specifications. To
address that possibility, DOE proposed
to modify its definition to cover those
electric motors that are designed in
standard ratings and have either: (1)
Standard operating characteristics and
mechanical construction for use under
usual service conditions, such as those
specified in NEMA Standards
Publication MG1–2009, paragraph 14.2,
‘‘Usual Service Conditions,’’
(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15)
and without restriction to a particular
application or type of application; or (2)
standard operating characteristics or
standard mechanical construction for
use under unusual service conditions,
such as those specified in NEMA
Standards Publication MG1–2009,
paragraph 14.3, ‘‘Unusual Service
Conditions,’’ (incorporated by reference,
see § 431.15) or for a particular type of
application, and which can be used in
most general purpose applications. 76
FR 665.
The proposed definition also included
at the end a brief statement noting that
‘‘[t]hese cited examples of standard
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26616
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
operating characteristics and
mechanical construction are for
illustrative purposes only.’’ 76 FR 665.
In response to this proposal, NEMA
and ACEEE raised concerns regarding
this final sentence to the proposed
definition for ‘‘general purpose electric
motor’’. NEMA and ACEEE suggested
that including this language would
create confusion, nullify the current
references to NEMA MG1, and
invalidate the second part of the
definition that lays out the
characteristics and construction under
unusual service conditions. In their
view, the language of the proposed
regulatory text appeared to apply only
to electric motors designed for unusual
service conditions. ACEEE and NEMA
also questioned what other examples of
‘‘standard operating characteristics and
mechanical construction’’ would qualify
a motor as a general purpose electric
motor. Finally, the commenters stated
the added text should be removed from
the definition to remove any confusion
and ambiguity. (NEMA and ACEEE, No.
25 at p. 7)
DOE has reconsidered its proposed
definition for ‘‘general purpose electric
motor’’ and, in today’s final rule, DOE
is codifying the definition proposed in
the SNOPR without the language noted
above. Without that language, the
definition remains consistent with
previous versions of the definition
codified in 10 CFR 431, with the
exception of updated references to
NEMA MG1. Additionally, DOE
believes that this approach will not
limit the scope of motors considered as
‘‘general purpose electric motors’’ for
purposes of satisfying the standards
prescribed by EISA 2007. DOE notes,
however, that it is removing the
proposed text because it is duplicative
of the language in the current definition
that already notes NEMA MG1 is an
example of, but not the only standard
for, standard operating characteristics
and mechanical construction. DOE does
not agree with commenters that the text
would have added confusion to the
existing definition because the text
simply repeated the illustrative nature
of the standard operating characteristics
and mechanical construction listed in
the definition.
Finally, today’s rule moves the
‘‘cannot be used in most general
purpose applications’’ qualifier used in
the proposed update to the ‘‘definite
purpose motor’’ definition to the
beginning of the definition. This change
does not alter the ‘‘definite purpose
motor’’ definition as proposed, but
clarifies that definite purpose motors
cannot be used in most general purpose
applications regardless of whether they
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
are designed for unusual service
conditions or for use on a particular
type of application.
D. Definition of NEMA Design B Motor
In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE
proposed a definition for the term
‘‘NEMA Design B, general purpose
electric motor’’ that was based on the
definition of general purpose electric
motor provided in paragraph 1.19.1.2,
‘‘Design B,’’ of NEMA MG 1–2006
Revision 1, but with three changes. See
73 FR 78235. First, the proposed
definition removed the reference to 50
hertz and corresponding performance
characteristics because the EISA 2007prescribed efficiency standards for
‘‘NEMA Design B, general purpose
electric motors’’ at 42 U.S.C.
6313(b)(2)(D) cover only 60-hertz
motors. (See NEMA MG–1 (2006) Table
12–11) Second, it limited the maximum
rated slip at rated load (i.e., the amount
of physical force a motor is designed to
output) to less than 5 percent for motors
with fewer than 10 poles, because the
EISA 2007-prescribed energy
conservation standards only cover 2-,
4-, 6-, and 8-pole motors and, according
to the footnote to MG1–2006 paragraph
1.19.1.2, motors with 10 or more poles
are permitted to have slip slightly
greater than 5 percent. Third, it
corrected the referenced 60-hertz
locked-rotor current paragraph from
12.35.3 to 12.35.1, because there is no
paragraph 12.35.3 in MG1–2006 and the
table under paragraph 12.35.1 contains
the maximum currents associated with
a locked rotor.
In response to comments received
regarding the 2008 NOPR, the January
2011 SNOPR incorporated several
changes to the initially proposed
‘‘NEMA Design B motor’’ definition. In
the SNOPR, DOE proposed to adopt a
broad definition of a NEMA Design B
motor to include provisions regarding
50 hertz motors. Furthermore, DOE
proposed to update the reference to
‘‘NEMA MG1–2006’’ to reflect the 2009
version of this document (‘‘NEMA
MG1–2009’’). Finally, DOE proposed
eliminating references to NEMA Design
B motors to remove any confusion that
these motors are solely a subpart of
general purpose electric motors because
a NEMA Design B motor may be
configured in a manner that falls outside
of the general purpose electric motor
category. 76 FR 653–54. DOE indicated
that it is inaccurate and inconsistent
with industry practice to narrowly
categorize NEMA Design B motors as
only a subset of general purpose electric
motor (subtype I). Instead, in DOE’s
view, a NEMA Design B motor can also
fall under the category of general
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
purpose electric motor (subtype II), such
as a footless NEMA Design B motor, or
other type of electric motor. 76 FR 654.
NEMA and ACEEE expressed
concerns over the proposed changes for
NEMA Design B motors. Both pointed
out that the term ‘‘NEMA Design B’’ has
been included as part of the DOE’s
definition of ‘‘electric motor’’ (now as a
part of the definition for ‘‘general
purpose electric motor (subtype I) and,
by extension, the definition of ‘‘general
purpose electric motor (subtype II)’’)
since 10 CFR part 431 was first codified
in 1999. They stated that it was not
separately defined then, and there is no
need to do so now. Instead, they
indicated that the reference to NEMA
MG1 for the meaning of ‘‘Design B’’ in
the proposed definition of ‘‘general
purpose electric motor (subtype I)’’ is
sufficient. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at
p. 8) NEMA and ACEEE also questioned
why DOE did not incorporate a
definition for NEMA Design A, NEMA
Design C, or IEC Design N (which they
stated is the equivalent to NEMA Design
B) motors. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25
at p. 8) In its submitted comment, NEEA
offered no explicit feedback on DOE’s
proposed definition for NEMA Design B
motors, but instead deferred to electric
motor industry experts for comments on
the necessity for, and the use of, the
‘‘NEMA Design B’’ designation as a
further sub-category. (NEEA, et al., No.
24 at p. 2)
In addition to the above comments,
NEMA and ACEEE stated that EISA
2007 categorized ‘‘electric motors’’ into
two groups, general purpose electric
motors subtypes I and II. NEMA and
ACEEE explained that they believed the
standards in section 313(b)(2) of EISA
2007 are for four particular groupings of
‘‘electric motors’’ based on those two
classifications. They added that the
terms ‘‘NEMA Design B’’ and ‘‘General
Purpose’’ are qualifiers used to identify
particular characteristics of one such
grouping of ‘‘electric motor’’ selected
from these two classifications. (NEMA
and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 8) Furthermore,
in response to the proposed definition,
NEMA and ACEEE argued that the
reasoning for proposing a definition of
‘‘NEMA Design B motor’’ in 10 CFR
431.12 appeared to be related, in their
view, to DOE incorrectly changing the
type of motors identified under section
313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 as ‘‘NEMA
Design B, General Purpose Electric
Motors’’ to that of a ‘‘NEMA Design B
motor that is a general purpose electric
motor’’ in 10 CFR 431.25(d). They
believed that had DOE kept the original
EISA 2007 language, it should be clear
that no definition of ‘‘NEMA Design B
motor’’ is required in part 431. With the
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
original language, they argued, it is clear
that NEMA Design B is simply a
qualifier for the broader term ‘‘electric
motor.’’ They added that because this
term, NEMA Design B, was not defined
previously but was understood, it
remains unnecessary to define it now.
Finally, NEMA and ACEEE reiterated
the connection between NEMA Design B
and IEC Design N motors, and stated
that the standards prescribed by section
313(b)(2)(D) of EISA 2007 should apply
to both motor designs, but only those
that also meet the definition of either
subtype I or II motors. (NEMA and
ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 7–9)
While DOE appreciates the concerns
raised by NEMA and ACEEE, DOE is
broadly defining the term ‘‘NEMA
Design B motor’’ to preserve its
flexibility to regulate electric motors
covered under EPCA. Additionally, DOE
is codifying only the definition of
‘‘NEMA Design B motor’’ (rather than
NEMA Design A, B, C and IEC Design
N) because the most recent industry
standard defining this term (NEMA
MG1–2009) appears to contain
typographical errors—namely,
erroneous table references related to
performance characteristics that NEMA
Design B motors must meet (i.e., lockedrotor current). Therefore, DOE wishes to
clarify its interpretation of the term
‘‘NEMA Design B’’ and is codifying that
term in today’s rule. For ‘‘NEMA Design
A’’ and ‘‘IEC Design N’’ motors, DOE
believes that the industry standards
referenced in its definitions of subtype
I and II motors do not contain any
errors. Accordingly, referring the reader
to the specific industry standards that
define these terms should be sufficient
and require no further clarification.
Consequently, DOE is not inclined to
codify these definitions at this time.
However, for ‘‘NEMA Design C,’’ since
the SNOPR’s publication, DOE has
become aware of a typographical error
in MG1–2009’s definition of this term.
Although DOE is not defining this term
today, in large part because such a
definition had not been proposed, DOE
may clarify its interpretation of this
term in the future.
As discussed previously, DOE
disagrees with NEMA and ACEEE that
EISA 2007 narrowed the definition of
‘‘electric motors’’ to only subtype I and
subtype II motors. DOE also disagrees
that changing the description for the
group of motors described as ‘‘NEMA
Design B, general purpose electric
motors’’ in EISA 2007 to a ‘‘NEMA
Design B motor that is a general purpose
electric motor’’ is confusing or
problematic. The proposed modification
to this language was designed to clarify
the terminology without changing the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
meaning and to establish consistency
with other covered electric motors.
Although DOE is currently taking a
broad approach in defining ‘‘NEMA
Design B’’ motors, these motors are only
required to meet energy conservation
standards to the extent to which the
energy conservation standards at 10 CFR
431.25 apply. In other words, only those
NEMA Design B motors that fall into
either the subtype I or subtype II
categories are required to meet the
applicable subtype I or subtype II energy
efficiency levels prescribed by EISA
2007. Those NEMA Design B motors
that fall outside of subtype I or II are not
required to satisfy specific energy
conservation standards at this time. For
these reasons, DOE is clarifying that a
NEMA Design B motor that is
configured as a general purpose electric
motor (subtype I or II) must meet the
standards prescribed at 10 CFR
431.25(d). See Section F. ‘‘Energy
Conservation Standards for Electric
Motors,’’ infra. This approach also
addresses the concern that DOE’s
proposal attempted to regulate 50 Hz
motors. Because general purpose
electric motors (subtypes I and II) are 60
Hz motors by definition, 60 Hz motors
are, therefore, the only motors that are
currently required to meet energy
conservation standards in 10 CFR
431.25.
E. Fire Pump Motors Definition
EPCA section 342(b), as amended by
section 313(b)(1)(B) of EISA 2007,
prescribes energy efficiency standards
for fire pump motors, which were
subsequently codified at 10 CFR
431.25(d). 74 FR 12072. However,
EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, does
not define the term ‘‘fire pump motor.’’
DOE proposed in its December 2008
NOPR to define ‘‘fire pump motor’’ as ‘‘a
Design B polyphase motor, as defined in
NEMA MG1–2006, rated 500
horsepower (373 kW) or less, 600 volts
or less, and that is intended for use in
accordance with the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) Standard
20–2007, ‘Standard for the Installation
of Stationary Pumps for Fire
Protection.’’’ 73 FR 78235. DOE based
this proposed definition primarily on
the scope of the Underwriters
Laboratories (UL) Standard 1004A–
2001, ‘‘Fire Pump Motors,’’ and NFPA
Standard 20–2007.
DOE’s January 2011 SNOPR raised the
possibility of modifying the proposed
‘‘fire pump motor’’ definition from the
December NOPR by adding a
publication date for the cited NFPA
standard, making a correction to the title
of the relevant NFPA standard, and
adding a citation to UL Standard 1004–
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
26617
5 (2008). (This UL standard is the latest
version to address fire pump motors.)
This revised proposal would define a
fire pump motor as an electric motor
that is required to meet the performance
and construction requirements set forth
by NFPA Standard 20–2010, section 9.5,
and UL Standard 1004–5 (2008). Based
on its understanding of fire pump
motors, DOE does not believe that these
motors are necessarily a subset of
general purpose electric motors (as
defined in the January 2011 SNOPR).
With this understanding, DOE,
consistent with the statute, proposed
that all fire pump motors, irrespective of
whether they meet the design
constraints of subtype I motors, would
each be subject to the same efficiency
level—i.e., the more lenient standards
afforded to subtype II motors. 76 FR
654. (See also 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B))
Regarding the SNOPR, NEMA and
ACEEE raised concerns over the
definition of ‘‘fire pump motor.’’ In their
view, EISA 2007 defines only two types
of motors: ‘‘general purpose electric
motors (subtype I)’’ and ‘‘general
purpose electric motors (subtype II).’’
Furthermore, they believe that EISA
2007 inadvertently omitted the word
‘‘electric’’ from the description of ‘‘fire
pump motors’’ in section 313(b)(2)(B).
Although they state that there is no need
for a fire pump motor definition, NEMA
and ACEEE contend that these motors
should only consist of what they deem
‘‘electric motors’’ (i.e., subtype I and II
motors) that are used with fire pumps.
(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 10–
11)
Additionally, NEMA and ACEEE
expressed concern over the inclusion of
UL 1004–5 in the definition because UL
1004–5 states that the performance and
construction standards for fire pump
motors are given in other standards,
such as NEMA MG1. Also, UL 1004–5
is not considered a performance and
construction standard in the motor
industry. As such, the definition of ‘‘fire
pump motor’’ should not include it.
Furthermore, they commented that the
references to NFPA 20 and UL 1004–5
do not recognize the use of IEC motors
with fire pumps and DOE should ensure
that, if it chooses to maintain a
definition for ‘‘fire pump motor,’’ it
should cover those motors. They added
that, if DOE opts to define ‘‘fire pump
motor’’ without removing the UL 1004–
5 reference from the proposed
definition, DOE should add UL 1004–5
to the industry standards incorporated
by reference and included at 10 CFR
431.14 and 10 CFR 431.15. (NEMA and
ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 11) NEMA and
ACEEE asserted that if UL 1004–5 is not
dropped from the definition, then UL
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26618
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
674, which relates to explosion-proof
motors (a specific characteristic covered
under the subtype I motor definition),
should also be included. Furthermore,
to harmonize with other international
protocols related to explosion-proof
motors, DOE would need to include
CSA C22.2 No. 145 and the appropriate
IEC protocols as part of the referenced
industry provisions in DOE’s
regulations.
Finally, NEMA and ACEEE made
specific recommendations about DOE’s
definitions as they relate to ‘‘fire pump
motor.’’ First, they stated that if DOE
believes that fire pump motors should
be a separate classification, an ‘‘electric
motor’’ should be defined as ‘‘a machine
that converts electrical power into
rotational mechanical power and is
configured as a general purpose electric
motor (subtype I) or general purpose
electric motor (subtype II), including,
but not limited to, fire pump electric
motors.’’ (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at
pp. 3 and 4) Second, NEMA and ACEEE
recommended that ‘‘fire pump motor’’
should be changed to ‘‘fire pump
electric motor’’ and suggested that a fire
pump electric motor be defined as an
electric motor that meets the
requirements of sections 9.5.1.1 and
9.5.1.7 of the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) Standard 20–2010,
‘‘Standard for the Installation of
Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection.’’
NEMA and ACEEE specifically cited
sections 9.5.1.1 and 9.5.1.7 of NFPA 20–
2010 rather than 9.5 as a whole because
these are the only provisions of that
section that they believe apply to the
fire pump electric motors that should be
subject to energy conservation standards
(i.e., those that are also subtype I or II
motors). (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at
pp. 9–11) In other words, according to
NEMA and ACEEE, if an electric motor
meets the definition of subtype I or
subtype II motor, it only has to meet the
requirements of provisions 9.5.1.1 and
9.5.1.7 to be deemed a ‘‘fire pump
electric motor’’ as DOE should define
the term. The other sections of 9.5 of
NFPA 20–2010 provide performance
specifications that must be met by
electric motors that fall outside the
scope of subtype I and II motors (e.g.,
direct-current, universal, or single-phase
motors) to be deemed fire pump motors.
As discussed in section III.A, DOE
disagrees with NEMA and ACEEE that
EISA 2007 narrowed the definition of
‘‘electric motors’’ to address only
subtype I and subtype II motors.
However, DOE agrees with NEMA and
ACEEE that ‘‘fire pump motors’’ should
be defined within the context of the
broader term ‘‘electric motors.’’ DOE
also agrees that IEC-equivalent motors
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
should be included within the scope of
the definition of ‘‘fire pump electric
motor,’’ although NFPA 20 and UL
1004–5 do not explicitly recognize the
use of IEC motors with fire pumps. DOE
believes this change will help prevent
any circumvention of energy
conservation standards and will be
consistent with the definitions for other
motor categories.
DOE also agrees with commenters that
referencing UL 1004–5 in the ‘‘fire
pump electric motor’’ definition is
unnecessary, particularly given its
potential for confusion regarding
performance and construction.
Accordingly, DOE has dropped this
reference from the final definition.
Finally, DOE disagrees with
narrowing the cited sections of NFPA
from 9.5 to reference only 9.5.1.1 and
9.5.1.7. As stated earlier in the context
of NEMA Design B motors, DOE does
not wish to limit the scope of motors for
which it may establish energy
conservation standards and is opting to
take a broader approach that will help
preserve its flexibility in regulating
motors. Therefore, DOE is referencing
all of section 9.5 in its definition of fire
pump electric motor, including those
sections that apply to motors that are
not currently required to meet energy
conservation standards.8
F. Fire Pump Motor Coverage
Section 313(b)(1)(B) of EISA 2007
amended EPCA section 342(b) by
requiring that fire pump motors meet
the efficiency levels prescribed in
NEMA MG 1–2006 Table 12–11. That
provision required fire pump motors
manufactured (alone or as a component
of another piece of equipment) to have
a nominal full-load efficiency that is not
less than as defined in NEMA MG–1
(2006) Table 12–11. (42 U.S.C.
6313(b)(2)(B)) The provision also
provided manufacturers with a threeyear grace period starting from EISA
2007’s enactment before these motors
would need to comply with these
efficiency levels. Consequently,
manufacturers were required to comply
with these levels starting on December
19, 2010.
On March 23, 2009, DOE formally
codified the MG1–2006 efficiency levels
into 10 CFR part 431. 74 FR 12072.
These efficiency values cover motors
8 Although DOE is adopting a broad definition of
‘‘fire pump electric motor,’’ DOE notes that only fire
pump electric motors that are general purpose
electric motors (subtypes I or II) are currently
required to meet energy conservation standards.
These motors must satisfy those levels that are
equivalent to those prescribed for subtype II motors
(i.e., NEMA MG1–2009 Table 12–11 levels). See 42
U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)–(C).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with a range from 1 through 500
horsepower and address motors built in
2-pole, 4-pole, 6-pole, and 8-pole
configurations. Both open and enclosed
fire pump motors are also addressed by
this table. 74 FR 12061, 12072.
In response to the December 2008
NOPR, in which DOE did not explicitly
define a horsepower range, several
interested parties sought clarity over
whether the covered range of
horsepower ratings for fire pump motors
was from 1- to 200-horsepower or 1- to
500-horsepower. (GE, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 8 at p. 147; WEG, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at pp. 148–49;
NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 8–9; NEEA, No. 10
at p. 2) Furthermore, Baldor noted that
an excerpt of the language under EPCA
section 342(b), as amended by section
313(b)(1)(B) of EISA 2007, mentions a 1to 200-horsepower range for subtype I
motors. Baldor stated that whether a fire
pump motor covered under this EISA
2007 amendment—codified at 42 U.S.C.
6313(b)(2)(B)—was limited to the same
1- to 200-horsepower range as a subtype
I motor was a matter of statutory
interpretation. (Baldor, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 8 at pp. 112–13, 145,
149–50)
EISA 2007 prescribes energy
conservation standards for general
purpose electric motors (subtype I) rated
from 1 through 200-horsepower. (42
U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(A)) EISA 2007 also
separately prescribes standards for fire
pump motors without specifying any
particular horsepower range. (See 42
U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)) In DOE’s view,
with the inclusion of this separate fire
pump motor section, Congress excluded
fire pump motors from being treated
solely as subtype I motors. Instead, fire
pump motors, as a separate motor
category under the statute, must satisfy
the efficiency levels laid out in NEMA
Standard MG1–2006, Table 12–11,
which covers 1- through 500horsepower motors. (42 U.S.C.
6313(b)(2)(B)) Consistent with this view,
DOE proposed in its SNOPR that fire
pump motor energy conservation
standards apply to fire pump motors
rated from 1- through 500-horsepower.
76 FR 655. DOE continues to hold the
view that the energy conservation
standards promulgated in the March 23,
2009, technical amendment are
consistent with the manner in which
EISA 2007 categorized these motors and
prescribed their specific efficiency
levels. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1)(B))
Accordingly, DOE believes that EISA
2007 established fire pump motors as an
individual class of electric motors
separate from subtype I motors.
NEMA and ACEEE agreed with DOE’s
interpretation of EISA 2007 that the
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
sections establishing standards for
‘‘general purpose electric motors
(subtype I)’’ and ‘‘fire pump motors’’
(sections 313(b)(2)(A) and 313(b)(2)(B),
respectively), do not preclude standards
for ‘‘fire pump motors’’ rated higher
than 200 horsepower but less than or
equal to 500 horsepower. They noted
that if a definition for ‘‘fire pump
motors’’ is established and includes a
reference to 9.5.1.1 of NFPA 20, which
stipulates that fire pump motors must be
NEMA Design B, the higher horsepower
fire pump motors will be covered by the
standards established for NEMA Design
B motors (section 313(b)(2)(D) of EISA
2007) falling within the range from 200
through 500 horsepower. (NEMA and
ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 12)
Finally, NEMA and ACEEE stated that
the provisions in 10 CFR 431.25 should
be modified and suggested that DOE
explicitly state that the standards in 10
CFR 431.25 that apply to both subtypes
of general purpose electric motors
should exclude ‘‘fire pump motors’’ and
refer the reader to the ‘‘fire pump
motors’’ paragraph. Additionally, they
stated that the paragraph for ‘‘fire pump
motors,’’ currently in 10 CFR 431.25(d),
should only include ratings up to 200
horsepower. They claim that those
higher horsepower ‘‘fire pump motors’’
can be captured implicitly by the
standards established for NEMA Design
B motors currently referenced in 10 CFR
431.25(f). (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at
pp. 13–15)
DOE appreciates the comments of
interested parties and, in today’s final
rule, it has incorporated a number of
these suggestions. As stated in the
previous section, DOE believes that a
‘‘fire pump electric motor’’ is a distinct
category of ‘‘electric motor’’ that
includes motors that are not necessarily
‘‘general purpose electric motor
(subtype I)’’ or ‘‘general purpose electric
motor (subtype II).’’ However, as
described earlier, today’s final rule
clarifies that DOE views the relevant
standards to apply only to those fire
pump electric motors that are also
subtype I or subtype II motors. DOE is
adopting this more limited approach in
light of the fact that the vast majority of
fire pump motors fall into either the
subtype I or II category. Moreover,
without this initial limitation, the fire
pump motor standards would apply to
all motor types that may serve as fire
pump motors, including several motor
types that do not currently have energy
conservation standards—e.g., direct
current motors, universal motors, and
single-phase motors. This fact is
significant because DOE’s current test
procedures are not designed to measure
the energy efficiency of such motor
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
types. As a result, although the
standards set by Congress do not appear
to contemplate a restriction on which
fire pump electric motors need to satisfy
the prescribed standards, this limitation
is necessary for the short-term until a
suitable procedure can be developed to
measure the efficiency of these other
types of electric motors.
In the future, DOE may consider
whether separate standards for these
types of motors would be
technologically feasible and
economically justified. Until it reaches
a determination on this issue and
promulgates an appropriate test
procedure for such motors, DOE is
applying the fire pump motors
standards only to those motors that fall
within subtypes I or II. Therefore, at this
time, DOE is codifying under 10 CFR
431.25(b) that only those ‘‘fire pump
electric motors’’ that also satisfy the
subtype I or subtype II definitions are
required to meet specific energy
conservation standards. These motors
would need to satisfy the standards set
out in the EISA 2007 amendments—i.e.
the efficiency levels found in Table 12–
11 of MG1–2006.
Furthermore, DOE is also modifying
the language in 10 CFR 431.25 to more
precisely state which motors are
covered by the standards prescribed in
each section. DOE notes that it is not
relying on higher horsepower ‘‘fire
pump electric motors’’ to be implicitly
covered under the standards for NEMA
Design B motors and is continuing to
provide explicit language under a
separate ‘‘fire pump electric motors’’
subsection (10 CFR 431.25(b)). These
motors are required to meet energy
conservation standards equivalent to
Table 12–11, as prescribed by EISA
2007.
G. Energy Conservation Standards for
Electric Motors
Interested parties also requested that
DOE clarify several issues related to the
scope of coverage and the efficiency
levels in the tables of electric motor
efficiency standards in 10 CFR 431.25.
First, under 10 CFR 431.25(a), electric
motor manufacturers must comply with
the energy efficiency levels that were
prescribed by EPACT 1992. That
provision, however, specifies no sunset
date. Section 313(b) of EISA 2007
amended EPCA by prescribing energy
conservation standards for subtype I and
subtype II motors that manufacturers
needed to meet for covered motors
manufactured or imported on or after
December 19, 2010. (42 U.S.C.
6313(b)(2)) These standards, and the
compliance date, were subsequently
codified at 10 CFR 431.25(c) and (e),
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
26619
respectively. Because the standards set
by section 431.25(a), which applied to
subtype I motors, have been superseded
by the EISA 2007 levels but have no
specified end date, NEMA argued that
this situation was potentially confusing
for manufacturers in deciding which
provisions apply to their subtype I
motors—the EPACT 1992 levels or the
EISA 2007 levels. Consequently, NEMA
requested guidance on the proper
energy conservation standards for
subtype I motors. (NEMA, No. 12 at p.
9) DOE addressed this issue in the 2011
SNOPR by proposing to delete 10 CFR
431.25(a) to clarify that the standards in
this section no longer applied.
In view of the above statutory history
and relationship of EPCA to EPACT
1992 and EISA 2007, it is DOE’s view
that an electric motor covered under 10
CFR 431.25(a) is a general purpose
electric motor (subtype I), which is now
required to meet the EISA 2007 energy
efficiency levels. In other words, a
subtype I motor—previously known
simply as an ‘‘electric motor’’—that was
manufactured or imported (alone or as
a component of another piece of
equipment) before December 19, 2010,
is subject to the EPACT 1992 energy
efficiency standards; a subtype I motor
that was manufactured or imported
(alone or as a component of another
piece of equipment) on or after
December 19, 2010, is subject to the
EISA 2007 energy efficiency standards.
In response to these proposed
changes, NEMA and ACEEE expressed
concern over the removal of the table of
efficiency standards that applied to
motors manufactured or imported prior
to December 19, 2010, from 10 CFR Part
431. They commented that many such
motors manufactured prior to December
19, 2010, still remain in commerce and
are certified to the efficiency levels in
place at that time. They argued that the
standards codified on March 23, 2009,
should remain in place for a reasonable
amount of time, so that these motors
may lawfully remain in commerce.
(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 13)
Today’s rule conforms with the 2011
SNOPR regarding the removal of the
EPACT 1992 energy efficiency levels
from the CFR. While DOE understands
stakeholder desire to verify that motors
manufactured or imported prior to
December 19, 2010, meet EPACT 1992
levels, DOE notes that the removal of
the current table of standards located at
10 CFR 431.25(a) does not mean that
electric motors manufactured or
imported prior to December 19, 2010,
that conform to EPACT 1992 levels and
that are still in commerce violate DOE
energy conservation standards. Motors
manufactured or imported prior to
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26620
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
December 19, 2010, would need to
satisfy the EPACT 1992 levels. To the
extent that DOE pursues a compliance
violation regarding pre-December 19,
2010 motors, those motors would be
evaluated against the EPACT 1992
efficiency levels.
In addition, removing the existing
tables in 10 CFR 431.25(a) that detail the
previous efficiency levels that were
required under EPACT 1992 will reduce
potential confusion. Specifically, the
EISA 2007 standards have displaced the
older standards that Congress
established in EPACT 1992 and the
regulations should be updated to reflect
that fact. Removal of the previous
standards will help clarify the
requirements that manufacturers must
now satisfy by reducing the complexity
of the regulatory text.
Second, in the December 2008 NOPR,
DOE did not explicitly state that a
NEMA Design B general purpose
electric motor that otherwise meets the
definition of a subtype I motor is subject
to the EISA 2007 energy conservation
standards that are codified at 10 CFR
431.25(c). NEMA noted that, given the
proposed definitions and structure of 10
CFR 431.25, NEMA Design B general
purpose electric motors rated from 1
horsepower up to and including 200
horsepower, would appear to remain at
the same efficiency levels established by
EPACT 1992 (codified at 10 CFR
431.25(a)) rather than the higher
efficiency levels prescribed by EISA
2007.
To clarify the scope of energy
conservation standards for NEMA
Design B motors from 1 through 200
horsepower, DOE proposed two
modifications of 10 CFR 431.25 in the
2011 SNOPR. Because subtype I motors
include certain NEMA Design B motors,
DOE proposed to specify that NEMA
Design B motors rated 1 through 200
horsepower that are also subtype I
motors are subject to the energy
conservation standards in 10 CFR
431.25(c) (i.e., those for subtype I
motors). In addition, since subtype II
motors include certain NEMA Design B
motors (e.g., footless motors), DOE
proposed to specify that NEMA Design
B motors rated 1 through 200
horsepower that are also subtype II
motors are subject to energy
conservation standards in 10 CFR
431.25(e) (i.e., those for subtype II
motors). 76 FR 655.
Regarding NEMA Design B motors
from 200 through 500 horsepower, EISA
2007 also established energy
conservation standards for ‘‘NEMA
Design B, general purpose electric
motors’’ rated greater than 200
horsepower but less than or equal to 500
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
horsepower, which were later codified
into the current version of 10 CFR
431.25(f). In response to the 2008 NOPR,
NEMA asserted that the motor industry
recognizes a ‘‘NEMA Design B, general
purpose electric motor’’ as a specific
group of motors that fit the definition of
either ‘‘electric motor’’ from EPACT
1992 or ‘‘general purpose electric motor
(subtype I)’’ from EISA 2007.
In the January 2011 SNOPR, DOE
noted that EISA 2007 did not define the
terms ‘‘NEMA Design B, general
purpose electric motor,’’ ‘‘NEMA Design
B motor,’’ or ‘‘general purpose electric
motor.’’ In the absence of any statutory
definition and the statute’s apparent
reliance on the agency’s then-existing
definition of ‘‘general purpose motor,’’
DOE views the regulatory definition of
‘‘general purpose motor’’ that was in
place on EISA 2007’s enactment date as
the proper definition for ‘‘general
purpose electric motor’’ as used in the
term ‘‘NEMA Design B, general purpose
electric motor.’’ The ‘‘general purpose
motor’’ definition in place at the time of
EISA 2007’s enactment is the same as
the ‘‘general purpose electric motor’’
definition proposed in the SNOPR, with
minor differences for standards updates.
DOE proposed that this definition, when
read in conjunction with the definition
of ‘‘NEMA Design B’’ proposed in the
2011 SNOPR, would adequately identify
the motors regulated under 10 CFR
431.25(f). DOE realized that this
interpretation could potentially include
NEMA Design B motors that are general
purpose electric motors that do not meet
the proposed definition of ‘‘general
purpose electric motor (subtype I)’’ or
‘‘general purpose electric motor
(subtype II).’’ 76 FR 655. It is DOE’s
understanding, however, that there are
few, if any, NEMA Design B motors that
would be neither a subtype I nor a
subtype II general purpose electric
motor. 76 FR 655. Such motors that do
not fall within one of the subtypes are
not currently subject to energy
conservation standards.
Third, at the time of the December
2008 NOPR, the energy efficiency
standards tables contained in 10 CFR
431.25(c)–(f) listed motor ratings in
horsepower, but not equivalent
kilowatts. NEMA requested, in
comments to that notice, that DOE
include kilowatt power ratings in the
then-newly codified tables that detail
the EISA 2007 efficiency standards.
(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 9) Without this
change, NEMA raised concerns that
metric-rated motors would not be
covered. To ensure that the tables under
10 CFR 431.25(c)–(f) apply to metricrated, kilowatt-equivalent motors, DOE
subsequently proposed the possibility of
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
amending the tables to provide an
equivalent kilowatt rating for each
horsepower. 76 FR 656.
Although the EISA 2007 definitions
for subtype I and subtype II motors do
not specifically mention motors rated in
kilowatts, which is how IEC motors are
rated, DOE believes that the statute
covers IEC motors that are identical or
equivalent to motors included in the
statutory definitions. DOE understands
that IEC motors generally perform
identical functions as EISA 2007covered electric motors. Comparable
motors of both types provide virtually
identical amounts of rotational
mechanical power, and generally
operate or provide power for the same
pieces of machinery or equipment. A
given industrial central air conditioner,
for example, could operate with either
an IEC or NEMA motor with little or no
effect on performance. Providing
equivalent kilowatt/horsepower ratings
would be consistent with the alreadycodified EPACT 1992 levels and clarify
their applicability. DOE is maintaining
this approach for today’s final rule and
has codified kilowatt equivalents to
horsepower ratings for each table of
energy conservation standards in 10
CFR 431.25.
Finally, in the SNOPR, DOE proposed
to clarify in 10 CFR 431.11, Purpose and
scope, that the electric motors covered
under subpart B are not small electric
motors. DOE believes that this
clarification is necessary because
electric motors (covered under 10 CFR
part 431, subpart B) and small electric
motors (covered under 10 CFR part 431,
subpart X) are separate and unique
covered equipment subject to different
regulatory requirements. DOE received
no comments regarding this topic and is
maintaining this proposed approach in
today’s final rule.
H. International Electrotechnical
Commission Standards Incorporated by
Reference
After EISA 2007 removed the
definition of electric motor under 42
U.S.C. 6311(13), DOE subsequently
proposed in the December 2008 NOPR
to remove the corresponding test
protocols incorporated by reference
under 10 CFR 431.15. These protocols
helped clarify critical elements in the
previous electric motor definition. 73
FR 78227. These protocols included IEC
Standards 60034–1 (1996), 60050–411
(1996), 60072–1 (1991), and 60034–12
(1980). Removal of these references was
necessary in order to account for the
statutory changes introduced by the
removal of the ‘‘electric motor’’
definition that had previously been in
place as part of EPCA.
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
In response to the December 2008
NOPR, NEMA commented that when
DOE adopted the content of EPACT
1992 into 10 CFR part 431, it recognized
the necessity of including for coverage
purposes those equivalent motors
designed in accordance with IEC
standards that could be used in the
same applications as motors designed in
accordance with the NEMA MG1
standards. NEMA asserted that although
the IEC standards do not particularly
identify ‘‘general purpose motors,’’
those motors built according to IEC
specifications can be used
interchangeably with NEMA motors in
most general purpose applications.
Because of this fact, NEMA argued that
the applicable IEC standards should be
retained in 10 CFR part 431, and that
motors constructed in accordance with
those standards in metric-equivalent
ratings should be considered as covered
equipment under 10 CFR part 431.
(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 10)
In the January 2011 SNOPR, DOE
explained that it previously took such
an approach when addressing IEC
metric motors in the October 1999
electric motor test procedure final rule
because of the interchangeability
between IEC motors that are identical or
equivalent to motors constructed in
accordance with NEMA MG1. See 64 FR
54142–43 (October 5, 1999). The
inclusion of parenthetical references to
the IEC standards in the codified
definition of ‘‘electric motor’’ under 10
CFR 431.2 (2000) clarified the
applicability and coverage of IEC (i.e.,
metric-equivalent) electric motors. For
example, under the EPACT 1992
definition of ‘‘electric motor,’’ a motor
had to be ‘‘continuous rated.’’ DOE later
clarified ‘‘continuous rated’’ in 10 CFR
431.2 (2000) to mean ‘‘is rated for
continuous duty (MG1) operation, or is
rated duty type S1 (IEC).’’ Although the
statutory definition did not explicitly
mention IEC motors, DOE had
previously proposed that the term
‘‘continuous rated’’ apply to those
electric motors that are equivalent to the
‘‘continuous duty operation’’ rating
denoted by the parenthetical ‘‘MG1’’ or
the equivalent IEC duty type ‘‘S1.’’ See
61 FR 60442. DOE later codified this
approach at 10 CFR 431.2. 64 FR 54142
(October 5, 1999).
DOE believes that EISA 2007 provides
the same breadth of coverage as EPACT
1992 did over IEC motors that are
identical or equivalent to electric motors
built in accordance with MG1. In the
SNOPR, DOE proposed revised
definitions for ‘‘general purpose electric
motor (subtype I)’’ and ‘‘general purpose
electric motor (subtype II)’’ that
incorporated IEC-equivalent motors.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
Thus, in the SNOPR, DOE proposed to
retain the IEC references in 10 CFR
431.15. In addition, DOE proposed to
adopt the updated versions of two of the
IEC standards, IEC Standards 60034–1
and 60034–12, to the 2004 and 2007
versions, respectively. 76 FR 656.
NEMA also noted in its comments to
the December 2008 NOPR that a source
to obtain IEC standards does not appear
in 10 CFR 431.15(d). (NEMA, No. 10 at
p. 10) In today’s rule and in response to
NEMA’s comment, DOE reorganizes and
updates 10 CFR 431.15, as it proposed
in the SNOPR, to include each IEC
standard incorporated by reference with
corresponding updated information
about how to obtain copies of these
documents.
I. References to Various Industry
Standards
DOE noted in the SNOPR that the
current version of 10 CFR part 431
references several outdated standards,
such as NEMA MG1–1993, IEEE
Standard 112–1996 (Test Method B),
and CSA C390–93 (Test Method 1). In
the SNOPR, DOE proposed to update
those references throughout 10 CFR part
431 to be consistent with the current,
industry standards and test
procedures—i.e., NEMA MG1–2009,
IEEE Standard 112–2004 (Test Methods
A and B), IEEE Standard 114–2001, CSA
C390–10, CSA C747–09, IEC 60034–1
(2010), IEC 60050–411 (1996), IEC
60072–1 (1991), and IEC 60034–12
(2007) . 76 FR 656, 666, and 674.
Additionally, after reviewing these
updated protocols, DOE indicated that
the exceptions to IEEE Standard 112–
1996 (Test Method B) contained in
paragraph (2) of appendix B to subpart
B, ‘‘2. Test Procedures,’’ which were
intended to clarify steps of the test
procedure and various values for
constants and equations, and to provide
additional context where needed, are
incorporated within the updated version
of IEEE Standard 112–2004 Test Method
B. 76 FR 656. DOE sought comment on
whether this assessment of the updated
test method was accurate and if the
proposed procedure would adversely
affect the measured losses and
efficiency determined for an electric
motor.
In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE
stated that it had examined the current
protocols from IEEE, CSA, and IEC. The
agency concluded after this review that
the proposed updates are consistent
with the previous methodologies and
will have neither an adverse effect on
the measurement of losses or the
determination of efficiency. DOE
proposed adopting the IEEE test
methods because: (1) Each represents an
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
26621
approach that is consistent with the
existing test methods for electric motors,
which have been in effect without issue
since November 1999 as part of 10 CFR
part 431; (2) they are the most current
versions in use by industry and have
been periodically updated to reflect the
best approaches for measuring and
determining the efficiency of electric
motors (including small electric
motors); and (3) they will, in DOE’s
view, provide accurate and repeatable
measurements because they have tightly
defined tolerances, provide necessary
test equipment calibration
specifications, and contain methods and
procedures developed by electric motor
manufacturers to fairly assess the
performance characteristics of their
products. 73 FR 78223.
NEMA and ACEEE had several
comments in response to the SNOPR.
First, they commented that the IEC
standards proposed for inclusion in 10
CFR 431.15(e)(2)(ii)–(vi) that define the
metric-designs equivalent to the covered
NEMA motors should be updated to the
most recent versions. (NEMA and
ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 15) In particular,
references to International
Electrotechnical Commission Standard
60034–1 (1996), Rotating Electrical
Machines, Part 1: Rating and
Performance should be updated to the
2010 version. DOE agrees with this
suggestion and, as with its other efforts
at updating references to the test
procedures, will update these IEC
references.
Second, NEMA and ACEEE noted that
the newest version of CSA C390, CSA
C390–10, is no longer technically
equivalent to IEEE Standard 112–2004
(Test Method B) and asserted that the
preferred test standard in the U.S.
should remain IEEE Standard 112–2004
(Test Method B). However, they also
recommended that DOE examine the
differences between IEEE Standard 112–
2004 (Test Method B) and CSA C390–
10 to determine if the CSA standard
should be updated to reference CSA
C390–10 (previously CSA C390–93 (Test
Method 1)) and whether this more
recent CSA standard would be
permissible to use when determining
motor efficiency. (NEMA and ACEEE,
No. 25 at p. 15)
Advanced Energy supported DOE’s
proposal to incorporate the updated
versions of the referenced standards in
10 CFR part 431. It also concurred with
NEMA and ACEEE that there are
differences between IEEE Standard 112
Test Method B and CSA C390–10, the
most significant of these differences
being how the magnetic core losses are
determined under these protocols.
Magnetic core losses are losses that
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26622
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
manifest themselves as heat in the steel
components of an electric motor. These
losses are important factors because
they, along with I2R (i.e., resistive)
losses, comprise the most significant
inefficiencies in an electric motor.9
With respect to how magnetic core
losses are determined, Advanced Energy
explained that CSA C390–10 is more
closely aligned with IEC 60034–2–1 ’’
Rotating Electrical Machines—Part 2–1:
Standard Methods for Determining
Losses and Efficiency from Tests’’ than
IEEE Standard 112–2004. However,
Advanced Energy did not believe that
the differences between IEEE Standard
112–2004 (Test Method B) and CSA
C390–10 significantly affect the
measured efficiency numbers, based on
a number of studies comparing the
efficiency differences between IEEE
Standard 112–2004 (Test Method B),
IEC 60034–2–1, and CSA C390–10.
In support of that view, Advanced
Energy cited data from LTEE HydroQuebec in Canada, which found during
testing a maximum difference of 0.13
percent efficiency points among the
three standards. A University of
Nottingham test of five motors obtained
a maximum difference of 0.1 percent
efficiency points between IEEE Standard
112–2004 (Test Method B) efficiency
and IEC 60034–2–1. From its own tests,
Advanced Energy concluded that
differences between all three standards
would result in full-load efficiency
values that differed by less than 0.2
percentage points. Advanced Energy did
this by providing two sets of test results.
The first demonstrated that the same
motor tested using IEC 60034–2–1 and
CSA C390–10 would show no difference
in full-load efficiency and the second
demonstrated that the difference
between IEC 60034–2–1 and IEEE
Standard 112–2004 (Test Method B)
would result in full-load efficiency
values that differed by less than 0.2
percentage points. Therefore, Advanced
Energy argued that because these data
showed that IEC 60034–2–1 was
equivalent to CSA C390–10, the data
demonstrated that the difference
between CSA C390–10 and IEEE
Standard 112–2004 (Test Method B)
would also be less than 0.2 percentage
points. (Advanced Energy, No. 23 at p.
3) Advanced Energy noted that while it
believes these differences are small,
DOE will need to determine if these
differences are small enough to consider
these test methods equivalent.
(Advanced Energy, No. 23 at pp. 2–3)
In view of the above comments about
the equivalence of IEEE Standard 112–
2004 (Test Method B) and CSA C390–
10, including the results of the LTEE
Hydro-Quebec, University of
Nottingham, and Advanced Energy
studies, DOE conferred with
independent experts about IEEE
Standard 112–2004 (Test Method B) and
CSA C390–10, the methodologies,
measurement of losses, and calculated
efficiency. DOE understands that the
test methods are not identical, but DOE
believes that the differences are minimal
and both tests will result in an accurate
and similar measurement of efficiency.
Given the variable nature of tested
efficiency values for electric motors due
to manufacturing and material
differences, DOE believes that the
variation in the calculated efficiency is
insignificant and not likely to result in
any manipulation of energy efficiency
test results.10 Moreover, DOE believes
that removing CSA C390–10 would
cause unnecessary disruption in current
testing practices and compliance
certification. Therefore, DOE is
continuing to allow manufacturers to
use either test method to certify
compliance.
On a related note, GEA requested that
IEC 60034–2–1 be included as an
acceptable test method in 10 CFR Part
431. (GEA, No. 26 at p. 1) GEA
considered the efficiency test methods
of IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B)
and IEC 60034–2–1 to be almost
identical to each other and asserted that
both methods achieve the desired result
of measuring the energy efficiency of a
motor. While GEA provided no data to
support its claim that IEC 60034–2–1 is
almost identical to IEEE Standard 112
(Test Method B), Advanced Energy
provided data in support of that view.
As described previously, Advanced
Energy provided test results using IEEE
Standard 112–2004 (Test Method B),
IEC 60034–2–1, and CSA C390–10 that
demonstrated that the test procedures
would result in full-load efficiency
values that differed by less than 0.2
percentage points. (Advanced Energy,
No. 23 at p. 3)
Additionally, NEMA and ACEEE
noted that they were not aware of
whether DOE had examined IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method E) for testing
vertical motors (i.e., motors that are
9 Magnetic core losses are generated by two
electromagnetic phenomena: hysteresis losses and
eddy currents. Hysteresis losses are caused by
magnetic domains resisting reorientation to the
alternating magnetic field. Eddy currents are
physical currents that are induced in the steel
laminations by the magnetic flux of the windings.
10 According to a study conducted by the
Electrical Apparatus Service Association and the
Association of Electrical and Mechanical Trades,
‘‘The Effect of Repair/Rewinding on Motor
Efficiency,’’ the same motor tested at multiple
locations showed a variation of up to 0.9 percent,
even though the same test procedure was used.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
designed to be mounted in a vertical
configuration), and they requested that
DOE carry out this determination.
NEMA and ACEEE requested that, if
DOE determines IEEE Standard 112
(Test Method E) is acceptable, DOE
should include it in 10 CFR Part 431.
Otherwise, if it is not acceptable, they
requested that DOE provide a test
procedure that is acceptable. (NEMA
and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 15)
DOE appreciates the comments about
IEC 60034–2–1 and IEEE Standard 112
(Test Method E). DOE will examine
them further and may address them as
part of a separate rulemaking.
Finally, GEA believed that DOE had
made progress by including IEC
standards for frame sizes that are
consistent with NEMA frame sizes but
noted that there had been no reference
to the IEC motor efficiency
classifications. GEA requested that DOE
add a reference to the efficiency
classifications laid out in IEC 60034–30,
‘‘Rotating Electrical Machines—Part 30:
Efficiency Classes of Single-Speed,
Three-Phase, Cage-Induction Motors (IEcode)’’ in the CFR. (GEA, No. 26 at p.
1) It asserted that the IE2 energy
efficiency and IE3 premium efficiency
ratings of IEC 60034–30 are comparable
to NEMA MG1–2009 tables 12–11 and
12–12 respectively. Although DOE
appreciates GEA’s comment, it believes
that incorporating a reference to the IEC
tables of efficiency levels is unnecessary
because the actual efficiency standards
are included as a part of 10 CFR 431.25.
J. National Institute of Standards and
Technology/National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program
Handbook 150–10 Update and Checklist
In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE
proposed updating the references in the
regulations from: (1) The 1994 edition of
the National Institute of Standards and
Technology/National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program
(NIST/NVLAP) Handbook 150,
‘‘Procedures and General Requirements’’
to the 2006 edition; and (2) the 1995
edition of the NIST/NVLAP Handbook
150–10, ‘‘Efficiency of Electric Motors’’
to the 2007 edition. 73 FR 78228, 78236.
Although following the NIST/NVLAP
handbooks is not a required part of the
electric motors test procedure, the
handbook provides important guidance
for assuring testing laboratory
competency and is used by test facilities
seeking accreditation under 10 CFR
431.18, 431.19, and 431.36(a)(2).
During the January 30, 2009, public
meeting to discuss the December 2008
NOPR, two issues were raised regarding
this proposed update. First, Baldor
expressed concern that an update to
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150–10 could
be problematic because it refers to test
methods that are different from the
updated test methods proposed by DOE.
For example, the NIST/NVLAP
Handbook 150–10 refers to proficiency
in IEEE Standard 112–1996 (Test
Method B) and CSA C390–93 (Test
Method 1) to become an accredited
laboratory. (Baldor, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 8 at p. 178) Because
these industry test methods have been
revised, DOE proposed in the December
2008 NOPR to update 10 CFR 431.16,
appendix A to subpart B, and 10 CFR
431.15 to be consistent with current
industry practice. 73 FR 78228. DOE
indicated that it would consult with
NIST and consider appropriate updates
regarding the references in NIST/
NVLAP Handbook 150–10.
Subsequently, NIST reviewed its
Handbook 150–10 and issued a formal
Laboratory Bulletin on March 19, 2009
(Lab Bulletin LB–42–2009) about the
Efficiency of Electric Motors Program,
available at https://www.nist.gov/nvlap/
upload/LB_42_2009–1.pdf. That bulletin
contains a series of updates to the
industry standards referenced in
Handbook 150–10. Although NIST did
not update its references of CSA C390,
DOE and NIST evaluated potential
differences between the 1993 and 2010
versions of the Canadian standard and
determined that there are no substantial
differences between them that would
result in a significant change in
measured efficiency. Therefore, in the
January 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed to
adopt the 2007 edition of NIST
Handbook 150–10. DOE is maintaining
this approach for its final rule.
Additionally, in today’s rule, DOE is
adopting the March 2009 NVLAP Lab
Bulletin, which contains the updates to
industry references in the NIST
handbook.
Second, Baldor commented that the
2007 edition of the handbook does not
address the procedure used for
accrediting a laboratory, which is
contained in a checklist that it was
unable to obtain and examine. (Baldor,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at pp.
166–167) NEMA commented that it
found a ‘‘significant difference’’
between the 1995 and 2007 editions of
the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150–10.
NEMA noted that the 1995 edition
provides (1) information on the required
accuracy of the test equipment, (2)
details of the test procedure to be used
for testing induction motors, and (3) a
checklist for the purpose of evaluating
the test facility. NEMA expressed
concern that the 2007 edition does not
contain that technical information and
noted that clause 1.6.2 of the NIST/
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
NVLAP Handbook 150–10 (2007)
indicates that all NVLAP programs must
use the NIST Handbook 150 Checklist.
NEMA commented that DOE should not
incorporate by reference the 2007
edition of NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150–
10 until the NIST/NVLAP Handbook
150–10 Checklist is available to the
public and DOE has examined it to be
certain it contains the same information
about the accuracy of test equipment
and the procedure for testing as the
1995 edition. (NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 11–
12)
DOE consulted with NIST about the
above matters and learned that the
NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150–10 (2007)
and the on-site assessment NIST/
NVLAP Handbook 150–10 Checklist are
available through the web links https://
www.nist.gov/nvlap/nvlaphandbooks.cfm and https://www.nist.
gov/nvlap/upload/NIST-HB-150-10Checklist.pdf respectively.
After considering the comments from
Baldor and NEMA, DOE further
examined the 1995 and 2007 Checklists.
In DOE’s view, these two testing-related
documents share the same information
related to equipment accuracy, test
procedures, and procedures for
laboratory accreditation. Accordingly,
DOE believes that the 2007 Checklist is
a proper replacement for the provisions
in the 1995 edition and is updating the
regulations to include the new edition
of the NIST Handbook 150–10 Checklist
(Rev. 2007–05–04).
Because the two NIST/NVLAP
handbooks, the lab bulletin, and the
checklist are not requirements of the test
procedure itself, but rather documents
used to accredit a testing facility as
being capable of conducting the
necessary tests for evaluating the energy
efficiency of an electric motor, DOE is
providing all of the necessary
information for these documents in 10
CFR 431.14 ‘‘Sources for information
and guidance.’’
NEMA and ACEEE also had concerns
with 10 CFR 431.18 and the continued
use of the phrase ‘‘the initial effective
date’’ in the statement ‘‘[c]hanges in
NIST/NVLAP’s criteria, procedures,
policies, standards, or other bases for
granting accreditation occurring after
the initial effective date of 10 CFR Part
431 shall not apply to accreditation
under this part unless approved in
writing by the Department of Energy.’’
NEMA and ACEEE believed the phrase
the ‘‘initial effective date,’’ which refers
to October 5, 1999, may be confusing
because neither commenter was aware
of any established procedure for
informing test facilities when DOE has
approved a revision of the accreditation
program. Both commenters encouraged
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
26623
DOE to establish and apply such a
procedure to certification and
accreditation programs. (NEMA and
ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 16)
DOE appreciates the concerns that
NEMA and ACEEE have raised
regarding 10 CFR 431.18, ‘‘Testing
Laboratories.’’ To eliminate any
potential confusion over this issue, DOE
is removing the sentence, ‘‘Changes in
NIST/NVLAP’s criteria, procedures,
policies, standards or other bases for
granting accreditation, occurring
subsequent to the initial effective date
occurring subject to the initial effective
date of 10 CFR Part 431, shall not apply
to accreditation under this Part unless
approved in writing by the Department
of Energy.’’ Reference to the effective
date of the regulation is unnecessary as
the date has passed, and any change
approved in writing will be reflected in
the regulatory text at the time of the
change. DOE notes that the NIST/
NVLAP criteria currently incorporated
into the DOE regulations remain
effective, and changes to these criteria
shall not apply unless the changes are
approved in writing by the Department.
K. Appendix A to Subpart B of Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part
431
Prior to EISA 2007, the Policy
Statement under appendix A to subpart
B of 10 CFR part 431 provided
interpretive guidance as to which types
of motors DOE viewed as covered under
EPCA. This policy statement was
published in the Federal Register on
November 5, 1997, in response to
concerns expressed from manufacturers
regarding uncertainty as to whether
motors with certain modifications were
‘‘electric motors’’ covered under the
statute. DOE based its guidance on the
recommendations of motor
manufacturers, original equipment
manufacturers, energy efficiency
advocates, trade associations, testing
laboratories, and other government
officials. 62 FR 59978.
In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE
proposed to delete the contents of
appendix A to subpart B since the
appendix was no longer an
interpretation of current law in light of
the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA.
The appendix had been heavily based
on the previous definition of ‘‘electric
motors’’ that Congress removed. With
the removal of that definition, much of
the interpretive basis surrounding the
policy statement required significant
reconsideration. 73 FR 78228.
During the January 29, 2009, public
meeting, Baldor commented that
removing appendix A would result in
no guidance and leave open the
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
26624
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
possibility to greatly expanded guidance
in the future. (Baldor, Public Meeting
Transcript No. 8, p. 118) NEMA
submitted a comment suggesting that
DOE attempt to revise the guidance that
appears in appendix A rather than
deleting it completely. NEMA argued
that this would help clarify some of the
new interpretations that DOE would
have in view of the EISA 2007
legislation. (NEMA, No. 12, p. 12)
In response, the January SNOPR
included an alternative to the removal
of appendix A—revision of the contents
of appendix A to reflect the EISA 2007
changes to EPCA. Specifically, DOE
proposed to: (1) Eliminate references to
enactment dates that no longer apply;
(2) update the scope of coverage to
include subtype I and II motors; and (3)
address the bounds of standard shaft
dimensions applicable to subtype I and
II motors. DOE did not propose language
regarding fire pump or NEMA Design B
motors because DOE did not believe that
such guidance was necessary at that
time, although DOE indicated that it
may add such guidance at a future date.
DOE specifically noted that, as a ‘‘Policy
Statement,’’ appendix A represented
DOE’s interpretation of existing statutes
and regulations but did not, and was not
intended to, have the force and effect of
law. 76 FR 657.
In response to the SNOPR, DOE
received multiple comments from
interested parties regarding appendix A.
Multiple interested parties expressed
support for DOE’s plans to provide
additional guidance on the bounds of
standard shaft dimensions applicable to
subtype I and II motors. These
interested parties also expressed
support for time phased implementation
dates before such guidance takes effect,
although suggested phase-in periods
varied. Additionally, some interested
parties requested clarification on certain
categories of electric motors, such as
gearmotors. Finally, ACEEE and NEMA
suggested specific updates to the table
that DOE proposed in its regulatory text
for appendix A to Subpart B of Part 431.
(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 16–
17)
In light of the comments received and
DOE’s desire to provide the public and
all interested parties with guidance in a
more expeditious manner, in today’s
final rule, DOE is removing appendix A
from the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), reformatting the information
contained therein, and will post the
contents on DOE’s Web site as guidance
(‘‘Electric Motors Guidance’’). The
removal of appendix A from the CFR
does not change the legal effect or
authority of appendix A as appendix A
was a ‘‘Policy Statement’’ that merely
provided users with guidance as to
DOE’s interpretation of existing statutes
and regulations. Unlike EPCA, as
amended, and DOE’s electric motor
regulations, appendix A was never
intended to have, and never had, the
force and effect of law.
By placing appendix A on DOE’s Web
site as guidance, DOE will be able to
respond more efficiently to questions
regarding general electric motors
coverage and share DOE’s responses to
all interested persons at the same time.
Moving appendix A to DOE’s Web site
will also eliminate any potential
confusion as to the legal effect of
appendix A. The updated guidance
document will be available at https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/
default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1. The
guidance will incorporate changes based
on comments received in this
rulemaking regarding appendix A.
The updated guidance will address
the bounds of standard shaft dimensions
applicable to subtype I and subtype II
motors. DOE understands that NEMA
Standard MG1–2009 and IEC Standard
60072–1 (1991) specify tolerances for
the shaft extension diameter and keyset
that relate to the fit between the shaft
and the device mounted on the shaft.
DOE is aware that shafts of special
diameter, length, or design are often
provided at a customer’s request for use
in particular applications. However,
there are electric motors with nonstandard shafts that could be used in
most general purpose applications and
would then be considered subtype I or
subtype II general purpose electric
motors. DOE received inquiries
regarding whether motors with shaft
designs that are not necessarily in
conformance with the standard shaft
types and dimensions in NEMA MG1 or
IEC 60072–1 were covered under EPCA.
(Baldor, No. 16; WEG, No. 17) In
response to such inquiries, and in view
of possible confusion in the
marketplace, DOE proposed to add
guidance on shaft diameter, length,
shoulder location, and special designs
under section III of appendix A to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 in the
January 2011 SNOPR. 76 FR 658.
The Electric Motors Guidance will
specify for certain design features the
range of variation in motor
characteristics beyond which a motor
would no longer be considered by DOE
as general purpose. Manufacturers
should not attempt to circumvent the
efficiency standards by making minor
modifications to a motor in an attempt
to characterize an otherwise general
purpose electric motor as a non-general
purpose electric motor. Whether a user
can use a motor in most general purpose
applications is a critical factor in
assessing whether a given motor is a
general purpose electric motor.
DOE proposed language to provide
guidance on the amount of variation
from standard characteristics that would
enable a motor to maintain its general
purpose classification, as follows:
TABLE III.1—ALLOWABLE SHAFT DIMENSION VARIATIONS
Design feature
Variation allowed from standard characteristic
Shaft Diameter ..........................................
Any variation in the shaft diameter between the standard shaft diameter of the next lower and higher
frame numbers series maintains the general purpose classification of a motor.
Any shaft length between and inclusive of 0.5 to 1.25 times the standard shaft length of the motor
maintains the general purpose classification of the motor.
An increase less than or equal to 25 percent in either the ‘‘BA’’ (MG1) or ‘‘C’’ (IEC) dimensions of
the standard motor frame dimensions maintains the general purpose classification of the motor.
The special shaft designs of a flat section in shaft (for pulley mounting) and shafts with a threaded
hole maintain the general purpose classification of the motor. Alternatively, shafts with threads on
the outside of the shaft or a stepped shaft do not currently maintain their general purpose classification. If DOE receives information that manufacturers are switching to motors with outside
threads and stepped-shaft design variants to avoid efficiency improvements, then DOE may
change the guidance to classify motors with outside threads and stepped shafts as general purpose electric motors. 76 FR 658, 673.
Shaft Length ..............................................
Shoulder Location .....................................
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Special Shaft Designs ...............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
NEEA stated that it ‘‘strongly
supports’’ DOE actions to clarify
regulations and prevent circumvention
of standards and in this regard
supported DOE’s decision to regulate
non-standard shaft dimensions. It
recommended that up to one year
should be allowed for such motors to
come into compliance with the
applicable standards established by
EISA 2007. (NEEA, et al., No. 24 at p.
3) Several interested parties indicated
their concern over the enforcement of
these shaft and shoulder dimensions.
Particularly, these parties were
concerned that if DOE took the position
that motors with non-standard shaft
lengths and sizes would be treated as
general purpose electric motors for
purposes of compliance with the EISA
2007 standards, manufacturers would
require additional time to adjust to this
new policy. NEMA noted that its
members and their customers have
spent a considerable amount of time and
effort to adopt the EISA 2007 standards
by the effective date of December 19,
2010, and have made significant
changes both in manufacturing
processes for motors and the equipment
that use the motors to comply with the
applicable provisions under 10 CFR Part
431. In view of these concerns, NEMA
and ACEEE have requested a timephased implementation of three years
for the changes in guidance pertaining
to special shafts. They believe that this
will allow motor users and
manufacturers the necessary time to
implement the required changes.
(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 17–18).
Regarding DOE’s enforcement of its
electric motors regulations in light of
DOE guidance, DOE reminds
stakeholders that the former appendix A
was a guidance document and did not
constitute a regulatory requirement.
Similarly, any future guidance does not
change the scope of coverage for electric
motors. Therefore, although DOE
understands that some electric motors
may require some design modifications,
DOE declines to establish an
implementation date for the
enforcement of energy conservation
standards for motors with special shaft
dimensions. DOE will consider cases on
an individual basis when evaluating any
potential noncompliance.
In response to the January 2011
SNOPR, the Rossi Gearmotor Division of
Habasit America (Rossi) commented
that integral gearmotors are effectively
general purpose electric motors with
relatively simple modifications that
would not affect energy efficiency.
While these motors often cannot be used
independent of the gear reducer, they
can be technologically and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
economically manufactured to the
energy efficiency levels of a standard
NEMA or IEC motor, which is
evidenced by the fact that most integral
gearmotor manufacturers selling in the
U.S. market offer a high efficiency
gearmotor. However, it added that the
majority of those manufacturers would
want DOE to continue to consider such
motors outside the scope of regulation,
which would continue to allow
standard efficient integral gearmotors to
be offered at lower first costs relative to
energy efficient integral gearmotors.
Rossi stated that manufacturers of
integral gearmotors have a statutory
responsibility to meet energy efficiency
standards where it is technologically
feasible and economically justified.
(Rossi, No. 22 at pp. 1–2).
NEMA and ACEEE requested that
DOE clarify that only motors connected
to a stand-alone gear assembly would be
treated as covered equipment. NEMA
and ACEEE stated that a separately
contained gear assembly can be
intended for mounting on a C-face or Dflange on a motor of otherwise standard
construction. They added that such a
gear assembly is not generally a ‘‘standalone’’ unit and the assembly with the
motor would not be an ‘‘integral
gearmotor.’’ (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25
at p. 26)
As stated in the former appendix A,
DOE only considers a motor to be an
‘‘integral gearmotor’’ if it is a
combination of a motor and a gear drive
(or assembly of gears). In this combined
package, the gear drive (or assembly of
gears) and the motor are not stand-alone
entities. Also as noted in the former
appendix A, DOE did not consider such
equipment to be covered by EPCA. The
motor portion of an integral gearmotor
is usually not a complete motor and
thus not capable of being used in most
general purpose applications.
Additionally, integral gearmotors are
generally not constructed with a T- or
U-frame and they can have unique
performance characteristics, physical
dimensions, and casing, flange, and
shafting dimensions. As a result, DOE
considers such motors outside the scope
of EPCA as amended by EISA 2007.
Finally, DOE recognizes that an electric
motor could be connected to a standalone gear drive (or assembly of gears)
and clarifies that it does not consider
such a configuration to be an integral
gearmotor. If an electric motor is
connected to a stand-alone gear drive (or
assembly of gears), DOE considers it
covered equipment if it also meets the
definition of subtype I or subtype II.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
26625
L. Definition of Small Electric Motor
Subsequent to the publication of the
July 7, 2009, small electric motor test
procedures final rule (74 FR 32059),
Baldor expressed concern over the
clarity of certain key terms contained
within the statutory definition of a small
electric motor, asking DOE to clarify the
statutory definition of ‘‘small electric
motor’’ by interpreting key phrases in
the definition, specifically: ‘‘general
purpose,’’ ‘‘induction motor,’’ ‘‘twodigit frame number series,’’ and ‘‘IEC
metric equivalent motors.’’ (Baldor, No.
15 at p. 2) Baldor suggested that DOE
consider clarifying the definition by
adding parenthetical identifiers
‘‘(MG1)’’ and ‘‘(IEC)’’ to the definition
after each of these four key phrases to
indicate the industry reference from
which DOE interprets the meaning of
that phrase. (Baldor, No. 15 at p. 2)
Section 340(G) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(G), defines the term ‘‘small
electric motor’’ to mean a NEMA general
purpose alternating current single-speed
induction motor, built in a two-digit
frame number series in accordance with
NEMA Standards Publication MG1–
1987. When DOE codified this
definition into the CFR, DOE added the
phrase ‘‘including IEC metric equivalent
motors’’ to clearly signal that a motor
that otherwise satisfied the technical
requirements spelled out in the
statutory definition would not be
exempt from coverage simply because it
was built using metric—rather than
English (Imperial)—units. 74 FR 32072.
DOE applied the term ‘‘small electric
motors’’ to refer to those motors that are
built in a two-digit frame series and that
are general purpose and possess
standard ratings and standard operating
characteristics, an application that a
Federal appellate court has upheld as
permissible. See National Electrical
Manufacturers Association v. DOE, 654
F.3d 496 (4th Cir. 2011). However,
should it become necessary, DOE may
consider providing further clarification
as required.
M. Canadian Standards Association
Test Procedures for Small Electric
Motors
In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE
proposed permitting manufacturers to
select one of three test methods to
measure the energy efficiency of its
covered small electric motors: IEEE
Standard 114, IEEE Standard 112, or
CAN/CSA C747–94. 73 FR 78223,
78238. These choices were consistent
with those for electric motors listed in
10 CFR 431.16. Under that provision, a
manufacturer may select either an IEEE
or CSA test method for determining the
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26626
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
efficiency of covered 1–200 horsepower
electric motors. DOE adopted IEEE
Standard 114–2001 for single-phase
small electric motors and both IEEE
Standard 112–2004 Test Method A and
Test Method B in its final rule for
polyphase small electric motors. 74 FR
32065–66, 32073–74. Since IEEE
Standard 112 Test Method A applies to
polyphase small electric motors below 1
kilowatt (1.34 horsepower), DOE
determined that Test Method A would
apply to polyphase small electric motors
rated at or below 1 horsepower, which
is the first common horsepower rating
below 1 kilowatt (1.34 horsepower).
Similarly, IEEE Standard 112 Test
Method B would apply to polyphase
small electric motors rated greater than
1 horsepower. DOE also adopted CAN/
CSA–C747–94 as an alternative test
method for single-phase motors. In the
small electric motors test procedure
final rule, DOE stated that it was not
adopting alternative test methods for
polyphase small electric motors based
on CAN/CSA–747–94 or CSA C390–10
because of potential inconsistencies in
the measured efficiency associated with
units tested under IEEE Standard 112–
2004 (Test Method B). 74 FR 32066.
In the January 2011 SNOPR, DOE
proposed to add alternatives to provide
manufacturers with greater testing
flexibility. In particular, DOE proposed
to permit testing using: (1) CSA C747–
09 as an alternative to IEEE Standard
112 (Test Method A) for polyphase
small electric motors rated less than or
equal to 1 horsepower (0.746 kilowatt);
and (2) CSA C390–10, as an alternative
to IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B)
for polyphase small electric motors that
have a rating greater than 1 horsepower
(0.746 kilowatt). DOE indicated that
using the CSA C747–09 and CSA C390–
10 in this manner will result in
consistent measurements compared to
the applicable IEEE Standard 112 and
IEEE Standard 114 test methods adopted
in the small electric motors final rule,
and help promote the harmonization of
test methods internationally. 76 FR 658.
NEMA and ACEEE suggested
including CSA C747–09 as an
equivalent protocol to the appropriate
IEEE 114 and 112 Methods. (NEMA and
ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 18) They also
provided comments on CSA C390–10 as
it relates to IEEE Standard 112 (Test
Method B), which are addressed in
section III.I of today’s notice. Advanced
Energy pointed out that an updated
version of the IEEE Standard 114 was
published in December 2010 and
advised DOE to reference this standard
rather than the superseded IEEE
Standard 114–2001. (Advanced Energy,
No. 23 at p. 4)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
DOE has decided to codify the
changes proposed in the SNOPR with
the addition of the changes suggested by
interested parties—namely, to update
IEEE Standard 114 to the 2010 version
and allow the use of CSA C390–10 as an
equivalent to IEEE Standard 112. DOE
believes that it is important to have the
most current standards referenced in its
regulatory text and it understands that
the new version of CSA C390 is
essentially equivalent to IEEE Standard
112 (Test Method B). DOE will update
the referenced IEEE Standard 114 to the
most recent December 2010 version
because it reflects the most current
industry practices. Because DOE
believes the two methods are
equivalent, DOE may use either test
procedure when testing electric motors
for compliance with EPCA, as amended.
N. Small Electric Motor Represented
Efficiency Value
In DOE’s notice proposing energy
conservation standards for small electric
motors, the term ‘‘nominal full-load
efficiency’’ was defined as the
arithmetic mean of the full-load
efficiency of a population of motors.
DOE received numerous comments on
this definition, all of which were
summarized in its final rule on energy
conservation standards for small electric
motors. 75 FR 10874 (March 9, 2010).
Ultimately, DOE agreed with comments
made by NEMA and Baldor and opted
not to establish energy conservation
standards in terms of nominal
efficiency. 75 FR 10914. Instead, DOE
established energy conservation
standards for small electric motors in
terms of ‘‘average full-load efficiency.’’
75 FR 10947.
NEMA had also sought clarity on the
term ‘‘nominal full-load efficiency’’ in
the context of the December 2008
proposal. It noted that DOE had not
fully explained the efficiency value for
which test results are to be compared for
the purpose of determining compliance.
NEMA asked how DOE would require
the full-load efficiency to be represented
on small electric motors, noting that
motors are not marked with the average
full-load efficiency. (NEMA, No. 12 at
p. 3)
In developing the January 2011
SNOPR, DOE considered the relevant
comments submitted during the small
electric motors rulemaking proceedings.
DOE recognized that its standards for
electric motors and small electric
motors use different metrics—i.e.,
nominal full-load efficiency (electric
motors) and average full-load efficiency
(small electric motors). The nominal
efficiency values for electric motors are
based on a logical sequence of standard
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
values in NEMA Standard MG1–2009
(Table 12–10) and are familiar to motor
users. However, there is no comparable
set of standardized values adopted by
NEMA for small electric motors and
there is no statutory requirement that
efficiency standards for these motors be
set in terms of their nominal full-load
efficiency.
As mentioned earlier, DOE
established small electric motor energy
conservation standards in terms of
‘‘average full-load efficiency’’ in the
final rule. 75 FR 10914, 10947 (March
9, 2010). The analyses and results
supporting the final energy conservation
standard levels for small electric motors
were calculated using an average
efficiency metric. In the 2011 SNOPR,
DOE proposed procedures for reporting
the average full-load efficiency of these
small electric motors that would be
consistent with the energy conservation
standards set in the March 2010 rule.
With respect to the term ‘‘nominal fullload efficiency,’’ since this term is not
used in the small electric motors
standard, DOE proposed leaving the
term undefined. If DOE amended the
test procedure to measure the nominal
full-load efficiency of small electric
motors, the change would alter the
applicable metric, which, in turn, could
require a change in the energy efficiency
standard levels for small electric motors
because the average full-load efficiency
standards in place would need to be
recalculated in terms of nominal fullload efficiencies. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e))
NEMA viewed the average full-load
efficiency definition in the small
electric motors energy conservation
standards final rule as ambiguous and
noted that the term ‘‘represented
efficiency’’ had yet to be defined.
Therefore, in the 2011 SNOPR, DOE
proposed procedures for determining
the represented efficiency of small
electric motors and how that value
relates to the average full-load efficiency
of a sample of motors.
In the SNOPR preamble, DOE
proposed to treat the represented
efficiency as the efficiency that
corresponds to a 5 percent increase in
losses, compared to the tested efficiency
of a random sample of five or more units
of a basic model. 76 FR 659. However,
this approach was not fully consistent
with the language and equations
proposed in 10 CFR 431.445 of the
proposed regulatory text, which
suggested that the average full-load
efficiency of a sample of motors must be
greater than or equal to a motor’s
represented efficiency with an increase
of 5 percent in motor losses. 76 FR 674–
75. In other words, if the motor’s
represented efficiency is adjusted to a
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
new efficiency that equates to an
increase in motor losses of 5 percent,
the average full-load efficiency of the
tested sample must be greater than or
equal to that new, adjusted, efficiency.
NEMA and ACEEE had several
comments regarding DOE’s January
2011 proposal to define ‘‘represented
efficiency value.’’ First, NEMA and
ACEEE argued that no definition is
needed in addition to the previously
defined terms ‘‘average full-load
efficiency’’ and ‘‘NEMA nominal
efficiency,’’ which are already in use by
the industry. They commented that the
representative efficiency used to check
the average efficiency of a sample
should be the nominal full-load
efficiency value for the small electric
motors, and did not believe that a
separately defined ‘‘representative
efficiency’’ is necessary. They asserted
that the definition of ‘‘nominal full-load
efficiency’’ in 10 CFR 431.12 should be
added to 10 CFR 431.442 to cover small
electric motors. Furthermore, NEMA
and ACEEE commented that the
relationship between average full-load
efficiency and represented efficiency, as
defined in 10 CFR 431.445(c)(3),
conflicts with the statement in the 2011
SNOPR preamble that ‘‘represented
efficiency’’ is ‘‘that efficiency that
corresponds to a 5 percent increase in
losses, compared to the tested efficiency
of a random sample of five or more units
of a basic model.’’ (NEMA and ACEEE,
No. 25 at p. 19)
NEMA and ACEEE also expressed
concern that the ‘‘arbitrary 5% increase
in losses’’ proposed by DOE that a
manufacturer would use when reporting
and certifying its equipment would
require a manufacturer to understate the
actual value efficiency of its motors. In
their view, DOE does not require a
manufacturer of any other covered
product in Part 431 to understate the
actual efficiency, and DOE should not
require electric motor manufacturers to
do so. Furthermore, NEMA and ACEEE
disagreed with the selection of the 5
percent factor. They noted that the value
of 5 percent chosen for electric motors
was supported by NEMA round robin
tests and studies by NIST/NVLAP in
developing the accreditation program
for test facilities to follow when
determining electric motor efficiency. It
was their opinion that until sufficient
studies have been performed to
determine how the ‘‘average full-load
efficiency’’ will be determined for a
large population of small electric motors
based on a sample of five motors, this
margin should be increased to no less
than 15 percent. (NEMA and ACEEE,
No. 25 at p. 20)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
Finally, NEMA and ACEEE expressed
concern over the sample size of five
motors for the ‘‘tested efficiency.’’ In
their view, the proposal fails to
recognize that this sample of five motors
could be taken from a population of
thousands of small electric motors of the
same design. This situation leaves open
the possibility that the selected motors
could be outliers to the general
population of small electric motors
produced by a manufacturer. (NEMA
and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 19)
DOE notes that it did not propose a
definition for the term ‘‘represented
average full-load efficiency.’’ DOE
agrees with the commenters that such a
definition is unnecessary, given that the
term ‘‘average full-load efficiency’’ is
already defined and will be used with
respect to small electric motors in a
similar manner as ‘‘nominal-full-load
efficiency’’ is used with respect to
electric motors (as represented on the
electric motor nameplate). For electric
motors, the term ‘‘represented nominal
full load efficiency’’ is understood by
electric motor manufacturers as
denoting the efficiency of a basic model
for which a manufacturer is attempting
to demonstrate compliance. (See 10 CFR
431.17(b)(2).)
To make these concepts clearer with
respect to small electric motors, DOE is
replacing the term ‘‘represented averagefull load efficiency’’ with the term
‘‘required average-full load efficiency.’’
In the context of small electric motors,
the term ‘‘required average-full load
efficiency’’ refers to the average fullload efficiency that a small electric
motor basic model must satisfy to
comply with the applicable standard.
DOE believes that ‘‘required’’ is a
preferable term for small electric motors
because it does not connote labeling
requirements as ‘‘represented’’ does for
electric motors.
This change is important for two
reasons. First, there are no labeling
requirements currently in place for
small electric motors. Second,
manufacturers prefer to use nominal
full-load efficiency values on their
labels and to represent the efficiency of
a large population of motors with the
same design (both electric motors and
small electric motors) with a single
efficiency value. Because the standards
for small electric motors are in terms of
average full-load efficiencies (and not
standardized nominal values used for
labeling electric motors), using the term
‘‘required’’ distinguishes the rating for
small electric motors from the nominal
full-load efficiency values used to rate
electric motors.
In addition to these revisions, DOE is
clarifying one portion of the text within
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
26627
Section 431.445(c)(2). DOE is making
this change to ensure that the limited
conditions under which substitute
components may be used are more
easily understood. These changes are
being made to improve the overall
readability of this section and are
consistent with DOE’s proposal.
DOE also clarifies that the regulatory
text and equations appearing in the
SNOPR correctly lay out the manner in
which manufacturers are to determine
the certified efficiency of their motors.
See 76 FR 674–75. DOE’s proposal
regarding the represented (now
required) efficiency of a small electric
motor was intended to be consistent
with DOE’s current regulations for
electric motors. In other words, DOE is
clarifying that the average full-load
efficiency of a sample should be greater
than or equal to the required efficiency
(plus a 5 percent increase in losses) for
that sample.
DOE notes that in the context of all
other regulated consumer products and
commercial equipment, manufacturers
are required to rate the energy efficiency
performance of their products or
equipment in a conservative manner not
only to ensure that those products and
equipment satisfy the required energy
conservation standards, but also to
ensure that the final product or
equipment performs at least as well as
the represented efficiency. Against this
background, DOE notes that its proposal
centers on requiring manufacturers to
apply test results when determining the
energy efficiency of a particular basic
model and to certify compliance using
the applicable small electric motor
energy efficiency level. The average
efficiency of the required sample must
be greater than or equal to the required
efficiency level plus a 5 percent increase
in motor losses. For example, if a
manufacturer has a small electric motor
with a required energy conservation
standard level of 88.5 percent,
demonstrating that a small electric
motor basic model meets that level
would require that the average of a
sample of at least 5 tested motors must
be greater than or equal to 88.5 percent
plus a 5 percent increase in motor
losses, or 88.0 percent.11
Furthermore, DOE emphasizes that a
manufacturer seeking to certify a
particular basic model must test at least
5 units (or samples) of a basic model. If
11 Motor losses (ML) are calculated using the
equation ML = (100/m)¥1, where m equals
efficiency. Consider the example in the text. At 88.5
percent efficient, ML = 0.130, and a 5 percent
increase would make ML = 0.136. Then, the
previous equation can be rearranged as follows, m
= 100/(ML+1). Plugging in 0.136 for ML and solving
for m yields a new efficiency of 88.0 percent.
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26628
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
a manufacturer believes that this sample
size will not be representative of their
population of that basic model, it may
test more units at its discretion to
determine its certified efficiency.
DOE appreciates the comments
regarding the use of ‘‘nominal full-load
efficiency’’ when referring to a small
electric motor’s ‘‘represented full-load
efficiency,’’ now ‘‘required full-load
efficiency.’’ However, because ‘‘nominal
full-load efficiency’’ is not used in the
small electric motors standard, DOE has
decided to leave the term undefined.
Should DOE amend the test procedure
to measure the nominal full-load
efficiency of small electric motors, it
would likely necessitate changes to the
energy conservation standards as well. If
such a change were made to the
regulated metric, DOE would alter, as
appropriate, the applicable methodology
and then make a corresponding change
in the energy conservation standards
consistent with other statutory
requirements. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)).
Consequently, DOE is not requiring the
‘‘required full-load efficiency’’ to be
stated or reported in terms of ‘‘nominal
full-load efficiency.’’ However, DOE
realizes that this is the industry
standard for labeling motors and is
clarifying that small electric motor
manufacturers can still use the
standardized values for nominal fullload efficiency that appear in NEMA
MG1–2009 Table 12–10 to label their
motors. Consistent with 42 U.S.C.
6317(d), DOE will consider the
promulgation of detailed requirements
related to this equipment.
Finally, in response to the comments
by NEMA and ACEEE suggesting that
DOE raise the proposed power loss
factor from 5 to 15 percent, DOE is not
inclined to change its proposal for a
number of reasons. First, the proposed
value is consistent with the value used
for medium electric motors. That value,
as NEMA and ACEEE pointed out, was
based on round robin testing and testing
from NIST/NVLAP that supported its
use. DOE also notes that the 5 percent
allowance has been an accepted
tolerance for electric motors since DOE
published its first final rule for electric
motors test procedures on October 5,
1999. 64 FR 54153 Second, there is no
reason to believe that the variation in
performance of small electric motors
should be any different from medium
electric motors. At the lowest
horsepower ratings covered for medium
electric motors, the standard frame sizes
are very similar to those used for small
electric motors. Third, DOE understands
that small electric motors and medium
electric motors are built with the same
materials that have the same variations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
in properties that affect motor losses. As
a result, there are no engineering
reasons that would necessitate the use
of a power loss factor for small electric
motors that exceeds by three-fold the
loss factor provided for electric motors.
These facts collectively suggest that
whether a motor is a small or medium
electric motor does not have a
significant bearing on the variation in
tested efficiency and it would be
unnecessary to provide an additional 10
percent of loss variation for small
electric motors. Finally, adopting the
approach suggested by NEMA and
ACEEE would have the effect of
lowering the permitted efficiency level
for a basic model by one NEMA nominal
efficiency band. DOE notes that such a
significant increase in the permitted
motor loss value would allow
manufacturers to produce motors at
significantly reduced efficiency levels
and potentially undercut the applicable
energy conservation standard.
DOE also notes that, contrary to the
assertions made by NEMA and ACEEE,
consumer products and other
commercial equipment are required to
meet a prescribed efficiency level
without the benefit of an added loss
factor. In that sense, motor
manufacturers are presented with an
additional margin for compliance when
compared to other types of commercial
equipment or consumer products. DOE’s
inclusion of this factor is in recognition
of the changes in motor performance
that are observed because of material
variability and engineering limitations
inherent in certain aspects of motor
manufacturing. Given continuing
advances in manufacturing, however,
DOE may revisit the continued
inclusion of a standard power loss factor
as part of future revisions to its
standards. DOE notes that in its most
recent Certification, Compliance and
Enforcement rule, there is no allowance
for efficiency losses. See 76 FR 12422
(March 6, 2011).
Furthermore, based on small electric
motor test data generated by an
independent laboratory, a 5 percent
increase in losses has been shown to be
a reasonable allowance for an increase
in losses relative to a motor’s labeled
full-load efficiency. This 5 percent value
falls within the margin of error for stateof-the-art testing equipment used to
measure the efficiency losses in a motor
relative to its labeled full-load efficiency
value. Based on testing information DOE
has reviewed, small electric motors
were able to meet the 5 percent
variation.
DOE’s analysis of small electric motor
efficiency included a review of test
results from 27 small electric motors as
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
provided by an independent laboratory.
Although the tests show a range of rated
losses, ranging from 81 percent to 179
percent of rated losses (excluding one
outlier), nine of these tests demonstrate
that a 5 percent increase in losses is
reasonable. This is significant for two
reasons. First, these tests show that a 5
percent loss is technologically feasible
today. Second, DOE anticipates that the
same tests conducted after
manufacturers are required to comply
with the small electric motor standards
would show much less variation in
rated losses resulting from the standard.
Moreover, NEMA/ACEEE did not
provide DOE with any studies or data
contradicting the proposed 5 percent
motor loss value.
As an added check, DOE also
reviewed the test data that examined
electric motor efficiency. Those tests
indicated that when tolerance levels are
prescribed, the measured efficiency
remains within the prescribed band—in
this case, the prescribed band is
delineated by the NEMA-developed
efficiency bands found in MG–1. Given
that there are no engineering reasons
that would limit the ability of
manufacturers to meet a prescribed
efficiency value under similar
conditions, manufacturers should be
capable of meeting the required
efficiency levels when applying the
same motor loss value for small electric
motors as well.
O. Validation of the Small Electric
Motor Alternative Efficiency
Determination Method
Section 343(a)(2) of EPCA requires
that test procedures prescribed for
electric motors be ‘‘reasonably designed
to produce test results which reflect
energy efficiency,’’ yet not be ‘‘unduly
burdensome’’ to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2)) As discussed in section
III.D.3 of the December 22, 2008 NOPR,
DOE recognizes that manufacturers
produce large numbers of basic models
of small electric motors, numbering in
the thousands. 73 FR 78223. These large
numbers are due in part to the
frequency with which units are
modified because of material price
fluctuations which, in turn, often
necessitate the development of new
basic models.
In view of the substantial number of
small electric motors that could be
subject to an individual testing
requirement for each basic model, the
final small electric motors test
procedure rule included the use of an
alternative efficiency determination
method (AEDM). 74 FR 32067, 32073.
An AEDM is a predictive mathematical
model developed from engineering
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
analyses of design data and
substantiated by actual testing. It
represents the energy consumption
characteristics of one or more basic
models. Before using an AEDM, a
manufacturer must determine its
accuracy and reliability through actual
testing of a statistically valid sample of
at least five basic models. (10 CFR
431.445) For each basic model, the
manufacturer must test a sample size of
at least five units selected at random
according to the criteria adopted in
section 10 CFR 431.445. After validating
an AEDM’s accuracy, the manufacturer
may use that AEDM to determine the
efficiencies of other basic models of
small electric motors without further
testing. DOE may consider requiring
periodic verification subsequent to
initial substantiation in a separate
rulemaking on compliance, certification,
and enforcement.
In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE
proposed to adopt procedures for small
electric motors that would allow a
manufacturer to certify compliance by
using an AEDM and a statistically
meaningful sampling procedure for
selecting test specimens that would be
consistent with the existing
requirements in 10 CFR 431.17 that
currently apply to electric motors. 73 FR
78223–24, 78238–39. In the January
2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed additional
requirements that are consistent with
the AEDM approach already adopted for
1–200 horsepower electric motors.
These proposals helped clarify portions
of the AEDM procedure adopted in the
final rule for small electric motors. DOE
requested comments from interested
parties on these requirements for a
manufacturer to substantiate the
accuracy of its AEDM. 76 FR 660.
In response to the January 2011
SNOPR, NEMA and ACEEE supported
the adoption of AEDM usage and
verification procedures for small electric
motors that would be based on the
procedures already in place for electric
motors. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at
p. 22) Advanced Energy also agreed
with DOE’s proposal to use actual
testing to validate an AEDM model for
small electric motors. However, it
requested that DOE place more
emphasis on an AEDM’s subsequent
verification. Advanced Energy noted
that it would be helpful for the current
language, which calls for subsequent
verification of AEDMs to be conducted
on a ‘‘periodic’’ basis using a specific
time period, such as annually, to
provide quality control to the process of
AEDMs. (Advanced Energy, No. 23 at
p. 4)
DOE appreciates these comments.
However, as noted previously, DOE is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
planning on addressing these comments
in a separate rulemaking. Between
publication of the SNOPR and this final
rule, DOE initiated a rulemaking
specifically for AEDMs for all products
and equipment; these comments will be
addressed in that rulemaking.
P. Small Electric Motor Nationally
Recognized Certification and Testing
Laboratory Accreditation Programs
EPCA provides different requirements
for determining the energy efficiency of
regulated small electric motors and
electric motors. In particular, section
345(c) of EPCA directs the Secretary of
Energy to require manufacturers of
‘‘electric motors’’ to certify, through an
independent testing or certification
program nationally recognized in the
United States, that any electric motor
subject to EPCA efficiency standards
meets the applicable standard.12 (42
U.S.C. 6316(c)) No such requirement for
independent testing or certification
applies to small electric motors.
In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE
proposed to allow a manufacturer to
self-certify its small electric motors (i.e.,
not require ‘‘independent testing’’). This
approach would be consistent with the
compliance certification requirements
for other commercial equipment such as
high-intensity discharge lamps and
distribution transformers, which are
covered equipment under section 346 of
EPCA. 73 FR 78224.
In its comments to the NOPR, at 74 FR
32068 (July 7, 2009), NEMA observed
that many small electric motors sold in
the U.S. are also sold in Canada, and
that Canadian regulatory entities are
considering following DOE’s lead in
developing energy efficiency standards
for small electric motors. (NEMA, No.
12 at p. 4) NEMA noted that because the
only means to certify compliance for
electric motors in Canada is through the
CSA Energy Efficiency Verification
Program, it is likely that the Canadian
government will require small electric
motors to be certified through the same
CSA Energy Efficiency Verification
Program. NEMA requested that DOE
recognize independent third party
efficiency certification programs for
small electric motors, but not mandate
the use of independent third party
certification programs or accreditation
programs for testing facilities. Rather, it
12 Further, 10 CFR 431.17(a)(5) provides for a
manufacturer to establish compliance either
through: (1) A certification program that DOE has
classified as nationally recognized, such as CSA or
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., or (2) testing in any
laboratory that is accredited by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology/National
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NIST/
NVLAP).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
26629
stressed that DOE recognition of such
programs would encourage motor
manufacturers to use third party
accreditation programs, such as NVLAP,
to accredit their own test facility, which
could then be used to self-certify under
10 CFR 431.17(a)(5)(ii). In addition,
NEMA recommended that DOE allow
sufficient time for the approval of such
programs and manufacturer
participation in such programs because
no accreditation programs for testing in
accordance with IEEE Standard 112
(Test Method A), IEEE Standard 114, or
CSA C747 currently exist. (NEMA, No.
12 at pp. 4–5)
NEEA supported the creation of a
nationally recognized certification
program or accredited laboratory,
according to the requirements that
currently apply to electric motors. (See
10 CFR 431.17(a)(5)) It recommended
that DOE apply the same requirements
to small electric motors. (NEEA, No. 10
at p. 2)
Responding to these comments, DOE
proposed in the January 2011 SNOPR to
add the same provisions regarding
nationally recognized certification
programs to the small electric motors
regulations as are currently found in the
electric motors regulations at 10 CFR
431.17(a)(5), 431.20, and 431.21. DOE
proposed to allow the use of such
approved programs but it added that it
may also, in the future, require
manufacturers to test small electric
motors through a nationally recognized
certification program or a testing
laboratory that has been accredited
through a process similar to that of
NIST/NVLAP. 76 FR 660. DOE notes
that 10 CFR sections 431.19 and 431.20,
respectively, provide for DOE
recognition of accreditation bodies and
nationally recognized certification
programs.
In written comments, NEMA and
ACEEE agreed that independent third
party compliance certification programs
for small electric motors should be
approved as DOE had proposed through
the additions of sections 431.447 and
431.448. However, they stressed that
any approved certification program for
small electric motors should not be
mandatory—these programs should
continue to be one of the procedures
available to manufacturers when
certifying their small electric motors to
the applicable standards. Furthermore,
they commented that, similar to electric
motors, participation in a laboratory
accreditation program for the testing of
small electric motor efficiency should
not be mandatory if it is possible to
obtain equivalent recognition of the test
facility through participation in a
certification program. (NEMA and
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
26630
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 22) NEMA and
ACEEE also noted that in DOE’s SNOPR,
DOE did not include sections for small
electric motors corresponding to the
provisions currently in place for electric
motors—10 CFR 431.18 (‘‘Testing
Laboratories’’) and 10 CFR 431.19
(‘‘Department of Energy recognition of
accreditation bodies’’). These
commenters urged DOE to begin the
process of establishing proper
certification and accreditation programs
in the immediate future. (NEMA and
ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 22–23)
Advanced Energy recommended that
third party accreditation programs and
laboratory accreditation programs be
established and made available for
motor manufacturers seeking
compliance for small electric motors.
Furthermore, it commented that these
programs should be made mandatory to
match the testing and certification
policies of electric motors. Advanced
Energy suggested that DOE and NIST
work together to develop laboratory
accredited programs for all new test
standards referenced in the SNOPR, and
that all third party certification
programs currently recognized by DOE
should have NVLAP accreditation for
motor efficiency testing because it
improves testing consistency and
expertise of the programs for
determining motor efficiency.
In view of the above comments, DOE
will codify the proposed requirements
for sections 431.447 and 431.448 in
today’s final rule, with one minor
change. DOE believes that an
independent third party certification
should not be mandatory at this time
because such a requirement would
conflict with DOE’s goal of reducing
testing burdens for small electric motor
manufacturers. Furthermore, mandatory
use of third-party certification would
also nullify the advantage that
manufacturers would gain through the
use of an AEDM, which DOE currently
believes offers a reasonably accurate
method of demonstrating the efficiency
of a given basic model of a small electric
motor. In sum, until there is a DOEapproved nationally recognized
certification program for small electric
motors, manufacturers must self-certify
their small electric motors as required in
today’s rule at section 431.445(b)(5)(ii).
Section 431.445(b)(5)(i) of today’s rule
differs from the proposed rule in that it
allows a manufacturer to ‘‘use’’ a
certification program rather than ‘‘have’’
a certification program. This minor
change clarifies that manufacturers can
use their own approved certification
program or an approved third-party
certification program. In terms of
participation in laboratory accreditation,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
DOE will continue to work with NIST/
NVLAP to develop such accreditation
procedures in the near future.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
has determined that test procedure
rulemakings do not constitute
‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under
the Executive Order by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of a regulatory flexibility analysis for
any rule that by law must be proposed
for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. As required by Executive Order
13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR
53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small
entities are properly considered during
the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR
7990. DOE has made its procedures and
policies available on the Office of the
General Counsel’s Web site: https://
www.gc.doe.gov.
As described in the preamble, today’s
final rule presents additional test
procedure options consistent with
current industry practice that
manufacturers may use when certifying
their equipment as compliant, clarifies
definitions for certain key terms,
clarifies the scope of energy
conservation standards for electric
motors, and updates references to
standards publications and test
procedures otherwise incorporated by
reference. DOE certified to the Office of
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA) that the proposed
test procedures for electric motors and
small electric motors would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
After consideration of comments
received on the economic impact of the
rule, discussed in more detail below and
elsewhere in the preamble, DOE
continues to certify that the test
procedures would not have a significant
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The factual
basis for this certification is as follows:
To estimate the number of small
businesses impacted by the rule, DOE
considered the size standards for a small
business listed by the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS)
code and description under 13 CFR
121.201. To be considered a small
business, a manufacturer of electric
motors or small electric motors and its
affiliates may employ a maximum of
1,000 employees. DOE estimates that
there are approximately 20 domestic
motor manufacturers that manufacture
electric motors or small electric motors
covered by EPCA, and no more than six
of these manufacturers are small
businesses employing a maximum of
1,000 employees. These estimates are
based on analyses DOE conducted in the
final rule establishing energy
conservation standards for small electric
motors at 75 FR 10874 (March 9, 2010)
and the final rule that set forth test
procedures for electric motors at 64 FR
54114 (October 5, 1999). In these
previous rules, DOE calculated the
number of motor manufacturers,
including the number of manufacturers
qualifying as small businesses, based on
interviews with motor manufacturers
and publicly available data. Since the
promulgation of those rules, and after
further examining the motor industry,
which included surveying the motor
industry and determining the number of
manufacturers remaining, DOE has not
discovered the presence of any new
manufacturers of electric or small
electric motors that would necessitate a
change to these previous estimates.
To determine the anticipated
economic impact of the testing
requirements on small manufacturers,
DOE examined current industry
practices and steps taken in the design
of the rule to minimize the testing
burden on manufacturers. Today’s final
rule will continue to allow a
manufacturer to certify compliance
through its election of either an
independent testing program or a
certification program. Today’s rule will
also continue to follow the NEMA
sampling plan for determining
compliance, which DOE adopted on
October 5, 1999, (64 FR 54114). Use of
the sampling plan is consistent with
industry practice. In addition, today’s
final rule is consistent with current test
procedures and methodologies that the
industry already uses (i.e., IEEE
Standard 114, IEEE Standard 112, CSA
C390, and CSA C747.) DOE examined
these methodologies in the December
22, 2008, test procedure notice of
proposed rulemaking, which today’s
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
final rule supplements. The 2008
proposal stated that because DOE
proposed adopting those requirements
that the industry already follows, DOE
did not find that the revisions in that
proposal would result in any significant
increase in testing or compliance costs,
or otherwise be unduly burdensome. 73
FR 78220. Today’s rule does not
increase the reporting, recordkeeping, or
other compliance requirements beyond
those requirements already established
for the testing and compliance
certification of electric motors and small
electric motors. Moreover, today’s final
rule does not adopt additional testing
requirements, tighter tolerances, or
greater accuracy than what is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. In addition, DOE
continues to believe that allowing a
manufacturer to choose between two
equally valid test procedures will
reduce undue burden on that
manufacturer or private labeler.
DOE did not receive any comments
from SBA or the public in response to
its certification. DOE did receive
comments from stakeholders on the
potential economic impacts of the rule.
These comments, which are addressed
in the preamble, all urged DOE to give
manufacturers one to three years to
comply with energy conservation
standards for motors types not
previously covered—i.e., special shaft
and 100 mm frame motors. In response
to these comments, the Department has
agreed to give manufacturers of IEC 100
mm frame size motors three years after
the effective date of today’s rule to
comply with energy conservation
standards and relevant test procedures.
(As described in today’s rule, DOE
declines to establish an implementation
date for the enforcement of energy
conservation standards for motors with
special shaft dimensions because shaft
dimensions were addressed in guidance
and guidance does not change the scope
of coverage for electric motors.)
In view of the foregoing, DOE certifies
that today’s final rule would not impose
significant economic impacts on a
substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
regulatory flexibility analysis for this
rulemaking. DOE has provided its
certification and supporting statement
of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for review under 5
U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of covered electric
motors must certify to DOE that their
electric motors comply with any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
applicable energy conservation
standard. In certifying compliance,
manufacturers must test their electric
motors according to the relevant DOE
test procedure, including any
amendments adopted for that test
procedure. DOE has established
regulations for the certification and
recordkeeping requirements for all
covered consumer products and
commercial equipment. 76 FR 12422
(March 7, 2011); 10 CFR Part 431,
Subpart B.
The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and
recordkeeping provisions related to
electric motors is subject to review and
approval by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement
was approved by OMB and is current
under OMB Control Number 1910–1400.
DOE estimated the reporting burden for
the certification to average 20 hours per
response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
This final rule amends certain aspects
related to the test procedures for electric
and small electric motors. DOE has
determined that this rule falls into a
class of actions that are categorically
excluded from review under the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part
1021. Specifically, this rule amends an
existing rule without affecting the
amount, quality or distribution of
energy usage, and, therefore, will not
result in any environmental impacts.
Thus, this rulemaking is covered by
Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR
part 1021, subpart D, which applies to
any rulemaking that interprets or
amends an existing rule without
changing the environmental effect of
that rule. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
26631
certain requirements on agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have Federalism implications. The
Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive Order also requires agencies
to have an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have Federalism implications. On
March 14, 2000, DOE published a
statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process
it will follow in the development of
such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE
examined this final rule and determined
that it will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to
energy conservation for the equipment
covered by today’s final rule. States can
petition DOE for exemption from such
preemption to the extent, and based on
criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6297(d)) No further action is required by
Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996),
imposes on Federal agencies the general
duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; (3)
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of
Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that Executive agencies make
every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction; (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
26632
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
12988 requires Executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE has completed the required
review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this final rule
meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec.
201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
regulatory action resulting in a rule that
may cause the expenditure by State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section
202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency
to publish a written statement that
estimates the resulting costs, benefits,
and other effects on the national
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The
UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit
timely input by elected officers of State,
local, and Tribal governments on a
proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental
mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan
for giving notice and opportunity for
timely input to potentially affected
small governments before establishing
any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its
process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR
12820; also available at https://
www.gc.doe.gov. DOE examined today’s
final rule according to UMRA and its
statement of policy and determined that
the rule contains neither an
intergovernmental mandate, nor a
mandate that may result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more in
any year, so these requirements do not
apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being.
Today’s final rule will not have any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of
the family as an institution.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive
Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859
(March 18, 1988), that this regulation
will not result in any takings that might
require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under guidelines established by
each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed today’s final rule under the
OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with
applicable policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
significant energy action. A ‘‘significant
energy action’’ is defined as any action
by an agency that promulgated or is
expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, or any successor order; and (2)
is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant
energy action. For any significant energy
action, the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use if the
regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and
their expected benefits on energy
supply, distribution, and use.
Today’s regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it
would not have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, nor has it been designated as
a significant energy action by the
Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is
not a significant energy action, and,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department
of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95–
91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply
with section 32 of the Federal Energy
Administration Act of 1974, as amended
by the Federal Energy Administration
Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C.
788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially
provides in relevant part that, where a
proposed rule authorizes or requires use
of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the
public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section
32(c) requires DOE to consult with the
Attorney General and the Chairman of
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
concerning the impact of the
commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The final rule in this notice
incorporates testing methods contained
in the following commercial standards:
(1) CSA C390–10, Test methods,
marking requirements, and energy
efficiency levels for three-phase
induction motors, March 22, 2010; (2)
CSA C747–09, Energy efficiency test
methods for small motors, October 1,
2009; (3) IEC Standard 60034–1 (2010),
Rotating Electrical Machines, Part 1:
Rating and Performance, Section 4:
Duty, clause 4.2.1 and Figure 1; (4) IEC
Standard 60034–12 (2007), Rotating
Electrical Machines, Part 12: Starting
Performance of Single-Speed ThreePhase Cage Induction Motors, clauses
5.2, 5.4, 6, and 8, and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, and 7; (5) NEMA Standards
Publication MG1–2009 Section I (Part
1), Section I (Part 4), Section II (Part 12),
and Section II (Part 14); (6) NEMA
Standards Publication Mg1–1967
Section C and Section D; and (7) IEEE
Standard 114, Standard Test Procedure
for Single-Phase Induction Motors,
December 23, 2010.
DOE has evaluated these revised
standards and is unable to conclude
whether they fully comply with the
requirements of section 32(b) of the
Federal Energy Administration Act (i.e.,
that they were developed in a manner
that fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review).
DOE has consulted with the Attorney
General and the Chairman of the FTC
about the impact of these test
procedures on competition and received
no objections to their use.
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
of today’s rule before its effective date.
The report will state that it has been
determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practices and
procedure, Energy conservation,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 25,
2012.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE amends part 431 of
chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations, as set forth below.
PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.
2. Section 431.11 is revised to read as
follows:
■
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
§ 431.11
Purpose and scope.
This subpart contains energy
conservation requirements for electric
motors. It contains test procedures that
EPCA requires DOE to prescribe, related
requirements, energy conservation
standards prescribed by EPCA, labeling
rules, and compliance procedures. It
also identifies materials incorporated by
reference in this part. This subpart does
not cover ‘‘small electric motors,’’
which are addressed in subpart X of this
part.
■ 3. Section 431.12 is amended by:
■ a. Removing from the introductory
text, ‘‘K through M’’ and adding ‘‘U and
V’’ in its place;
■ b. Revising the definitions of
‘‘accreditation,’’ ‘‘CSA,’’ ‘‘definite
purpose motor,’’ ‘‘general purpose
electric motor (subtype I),’’ ‘‘general
purpose electric motor (subtype II),’’
and ‘‘nominal full-load efficiency;’’
■ c. Removing the definition of ‘‘general
purpose motor;’’ and
■ d. Adding in alphabetical order, new
definitions for ‘‘electric motor,’’ ‘‘fire
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
pump electric motor,’’ ‘‘general purpose
electric motor,’’ and ‘‘NEMA Design B
motor.’’
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 431.12
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Accreditation means recognition by
an accreditation body that a laboratory
is competent to test the efficiency of
electric motors according to the scope
and procedures given in Test Method B
of IEEE Std 112–2004 and CSA C390–
10 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.15).
*
*
*
*
*
CSA means Canadian Standards
Association.
Definite purpose motor means any
motor that cannot be used in most
general purpose applications and is
designed either:
(1) To standard ratings with standard
operating characteristics or standard
mechanical construction for use under
service conditions other than usual,
such as those specified in NEMA MG1–
2009, paragraph 14.3, ‘‘Unusual Service
Conditions,’’ (incorporated by reference,
see § 431.15); or
(2) For use on a particular type of
application.
Electric motor means a machine that
converts electrical power into rotational
mechanical power.
*
*
*
*
*
Fire pump electric motor means an
electric motor, including any IECequivalent, that meets the requirements
of section 9.5 of NFPA 20 (incorporated
by reference, see § 431.15).
General purpose electric motor means
any electric motor that is designed in
standard ratings with either:
(1) Standard operating characteristics
and mechanical construction for use
under usual service conditions, such as
those specified in NEMA MG1–2009,
paragraph 14.2, ‘‘Usual Service
Conditions,’’ (incorporated by reference,
see § 431.15) and without restriction to
a particular application or type of
application; or
(2) Standard operating characteristics
or standard mechanical construction for
use under unusual service conditions,
such as those specified in NEMA MG1–
2009, paragraph 14.3, ‘‘Unusual Service
Conditions,’’ (incorporated by reference,
see § 431.15) or for a particular type of
application, and which can be used in
most general purpose applications.
General purpose electric motor
(subtype I) means a general purpose
electric motor that:
(1) Is a single-speed, induction motor;
(2) Is rated for continuous duty (MG1)
operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
26633
(3) Contains a squirrel-cage (MG1) or
cage (IEC) rotor;
(4) Has foot-mounting that may
include foot-mounting with flanges or
detachable feet;
(5) Is built in accordance with NEMA
T-frame dimensions or their IEC metric
equivalents, including a frame size that
is between two consecutive NEMA
frame sizes or their IEC metric
equivalents;
(6) Has performance in accordance
with NEMA Design A (MG1) or B (MG1)
characteristics or equivalent designs
such as IEC Design N (IEC);
(7) Operates on polyphase alternating
current 60-hertz sinusoidal power, and:
(i) Is rated at 230 or 460 volts (or both)
including motors rated at multiple
voltages that include 230 or 460 volts
(or both), or
(ii) Can be operated on 230 or 460
volts (or both); and
(8) Includes, but is not limited to,
explosion-proof construction.
Note to Definition of General purpose
electric motor (subtype I): References to
‘‘MG1’’ above refer to NEMA Standards
Publication MG1–2009 (incorporated by
reference in § 431.15). References to ‘‘IEC’’
above refer to IEC 60034–1, 60034–12,
60050–411, and 60072–1 (incorporated by
reference in § 431.15), as applicable.
General purpose electric motor
(subtype II) means any general purpose
electric motor that incorporates design
elements of a general purpose electric
motor (subtype I) but, unlike a general
purpose electric motor (subtype I), is
configured in one or more of the
following ways:
(1) Is built in accordance with NEMA
U-frame dimensions as described in
NEMA MG1–1967 (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.15) or in accordance
with the IEC metric equivalents,
including a frame size that is between
two consecutive NEMA frame sizes or
their IEC metric equivalents;
(2) Has performance in accordance
with NEMA Design C characteristics as
described in MG1 or an equivalent IEC
design(s) such as IEC Design H;
(3) Is a close-coupled pump motor;
(4) Is a footless motor;
(5) Is a vertical solid shaft normal
thrust motor (as tested in a horizontal
configuration) built and designed in a
manner consistent with MG1;
(6) Is an eight-pole motor (900 rpm);
or
(7) Is a polyphase motor with a
voltage rating of not more than 600
volts, is not rated at 230 or 460 volts (or
both), and cannot be operated on 230 or
460 volts (or both).
Note to Definition of General purpose
electric motor (subtype II): With the
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
26634
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
exception of the NEMA Motor Standards
MG1–1967 (incorporated by reference in
§ 431.15), references to ‘‘MG1’’ above refer to
the 2009 NEMA MG1–2009 (incorporated by
reference in § 431.15). References to ‘‘IEC’’
above refer to IEC 60034–1, 60034–12,
60050–411, and 60072–1 (incorporated by
reference in § 431.15), as applicable.
*
*
*
*
*
NEMA Design B motor means a
squirrel-cage motor that is:
(1) Designed to withstand full-voltage
starting;
(2) Develops locked-rotor, breakdown,
and pull-up torques adequate for general
application as specified in sections
12.38, 12.39 and 12.40 of NEMA MG1–
2009 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.15);
(3) Draws locked-rotor current not to
exceed the values shown in section
12.35.1 for 60 hertz and 12.35.2 for 50
hertz of NEMA MG1–2009; and
(4) Has a slip at rated load of less than
5 percent for motors with fewer than 10
poles.
Nominal full-load efficiency means,
with respect to an electric motor, a
representative value of efficiency
selected from the ‘‘nominal efficiency’’
column of Table 12–10, NEMA MG1–
2009, (incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.15), that is not greater than the
average full-load efficiency of a
population of motors of the same
design.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. A new § 431.14 is added to read as
follows:
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
§ 431.14 Sources for information and
guidance.
(a) General. The standards listed in
this paragraph are referred to in the DOE
procedures for testing laboratories, and
recognition of accreditation bodies and
certification programs but are not
incorporated by reference. These
sources are given here for information
and guidance.
(b) NVLAP. National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program,
National Institute of Standards and
Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, M/S
2140, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–2140,
301–975–4016, or go to https://www.nist.
gov/nvlap/. Also see https://
www.nist.gov/nvlap/nvlaphandbooks.cfm.
(1) NVLAP Handbook 150, Procedures
and General Requirements, February
2006.
(2) NVLAP Handbook 150–10,
Efficiency of Electric Motors, February
2007.
(3) NIST Handbook 150–10 Checklist,
Efficiency of Electric Motors Program,
(2007–05–04).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
(4) NVLAP Lab Bulletin Number: LB–
42–2009, Changes to NVLAP Efficiency
of Electric Motors Program, March 19,
2009.
(c) ISO/IEC. International
Organization for Standardization (ISO),
1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH–
1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland/
International Electrotechnical
´
Commission, 3, rue de Varembe, P.O.
Box 131, CH–1211 Geneva 20,
Switzerland.
(1) ISO/IEC Guide 25, General
requirements for the competence of
calibration and testing laboratories,
1990.
(2) ISO Guide 27, Guidelines for
corrective action to be taken by a
certification body in the event of either
misapplication of its mark of conformity
to a product, or products which bear the
mark of the certification body being
found to subject persons or property to
risk, 1983.
(3) ISO/IEC Guide 28, General rules
for a model third-party certification
system for products, 2004.
(4) ISO/IEC Guide 58, Calibration and
testing laboratory accreditation
systems—General requirements for
operation and recognition, 1993.
(5) ISO/IEC Guide 65, General
requirements for bodies operating
product certification systems, 1996.
■ 5. Section 431.15 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 431.15 Materials incorporated by
reference.
(a) General. The Department of Energy
incorporates by reference the following
standards and test procedures into
subpart B of part 431. The Director of
the Federal Register has approved the
material listed for incorporation by
reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Any
subsequent amendment to a standard by
the standard-setting organization will
not affect DOE regulations unless and
until DOE amends its test procedures.
Material is incorporated as it exists on
the date of the approval, and a notice of
any change in the material will be
published in the Federal Register. All
approved material is available for
inspection at the U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950
L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC
20024, (202) 586–2945, or go to https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/. Also, this
material is available for inspection at
the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
(b) CSA. Canadian Standards
Association, Sales Department, 5060
Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga,
Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1–800–463–
6727, or go to https://www.shopcsa.ca/
onlinestore/welcome.asp.
(1) CSA C390–10, Test methods,
marking requirements, and energy
efficiency levels for three-phase
induction motors, March 2010, IBR
approved for §§ 431.12; 431.19; 431.20;
appendix B to subpart B of part 431.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) IEC. International Electrotechnical
Commission Central Office, 3, rue de
´
Varembe, P.O. Box 131, CH–1211
GENEVA 20, Switzerland, +41 22 919
02 11, or go to https://webstore.iec.ch.
(1) IEC 60034–1 Edition 12.0 2010–02,
(‘‘IEC 60034–1’’), Rotating Electrical
Machines, Part 1: Rating and
Performance, February 2010, IBR
approved as follows: section 4: Duty,
clause 4.2.1 and Figure 1, IBR approved
for § 431.12.
(2) IEC 60034–12 Edition 2.1 2007–09,
(‘‘IEC 60034–12’’), Rotating Electrical
Machines, Part 12: Starting Performance
of Single-Speed Three-Phase Cage
Induction Motors, September 2007, IBR
approved as follows: clauses 5.2, 5.4, 6,
and 8, and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and
7, IBR approved for § 431.12.
(3) IEC 60050–411, International
Electrotechnical Vocabulary Chapter
411: Rotating machines, 1996, IBR
approved as follows: sections 411–33–
07 and 411–37–26, IBR approved for
§ 431.12.
(4) IEC 60072–1, Dimensions and
Output Series for Rotating Electrical
Machines—Part 1: Frame numbers 56 to
400 and flange numbers 55 to 1080,
1991, IBR approved as follows: clauses
2, 3, 4.1, 6.1, 7, and 10, and Tables 1,
2 and 4, IBR approved for § 431.12.
(d) IEEE. Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445 Hoes
Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ
08855–1331, 1–800–678–IEEE (4333), or
https://www.ieee.org/web/publications/
home/.
(1) IEEE Std 112–2004, Test Procedure
for Polyphase Induction Motors and
Generators, approved February 9, 2004,
IBR approved as follows: section 6.4,
Efficiency Test Method B, Input-Output
with Loss Segregation, IBR approved for
§§ 431.12; 431.19; 431.20; appendix B to
subpart B of part 431.
(2) [Reserved]
(e) NEMA. National Electrical
Manufacturers Association, 1300 North
17th Street, Suite 1752, Rosslyn,
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Virginia 22209, 703–841–3200, or go to
https://www.nema.org/.
(1) NEMA Standards Publication
MG1–2009 (‘‘NEMA MG1–2009’’),
Motors and Generators, copyright 2009,
IBR approved as follows:
(i) Section I, General Standards
Applying to All Machines, Part 1,
Referenced Standards and Definitions,
paragraphs 1.18.1, 1.18.1.1, 1.19.1.1,
1.19.1.2, 1.19.1.3, and 1.40.1, IBR
approved for § 431.12;
(ii) Section I, General Standards
Applying to All Machines, Part 4,
Dimensions, Tolerances, and Mounting,
paragraphs 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.2,
4.4.4, 4.4.5, and 4.4.6, Figures 4–1, 4–2,
4–3, 4–4, and 4–5, and Table 4–2, IBR
approved for § 431.12;
(iii) Section II, Small (Fractional) and
Medium (Integral) Machines, Part 12,
Tests and Performance—AC and DC
Motors:
(A) Paragraphs 12.35.1, 12.35.2,
12.38.1, 12.38.2, 12.39.1, 12.39.2, and
12.40.1, 12.40.2, and Tables 12–2, 12–3,
and 12–10, IBR approved for § 431.12;
(B) Paragraph 12.58.1, IBR approved
for § 431.12 and appendix B to subpart
B of part 431;
(C) Paragraph 12.58.2, IBR approved
for § 431.31.
(iv) Section II, Small (Fractional) and
Medium (Integral) Machines, Part 14,
Application Data—AC and DC Small
and Medium Machines, paragraphs 14.2
and 14.3, IBR approved for § 431.12.
(2) NEMA Standards Publication
MG1–1967, (‘‘NEMA MG1–1967’’),
Motors and Generators, January 1968,
IBR approved as follows:
(i) Part 11, Dimensions, IBR approved
for § 431.12;
(ii) Part 13, Frame Assignments—A–C
Integral-Horsepower Motors, IBR
approved for § 431.12.
(f) NFPA. National Fire Protection
Association, 1 Batterymarch Park,
Quincy, MA 02169–7471, 617–770–
3000, or go to https://nfpa.org/.
(1) NFPA 20, 2010 Edition, Standard
for the Installation of Stationary Pumps
for Fire Protection, section 9.5, IBR
approved for § 431.12.
(2) (Reserved)
■ 6. Section 431.18, paragraph (b) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 431.18
Testing laboratories.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) NIST/NVLAP is under the
auspices of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)/
National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NVLAP), which
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
is part of the U.S. Department of
Commerce. NIST/NVLAP accreditation
is granted on the basis of conformance
with criteria published in 15 CFR Part
285. The National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program, ‘‘Procedures and
General Requirements,’’ NIST Handbook
150–10, February 2007, and Lab
Bulletin LB–42–2009, Efficiency of
Electric Motors Program, (referenced for
guidance only, see § 431.14) present the
technical requirements of NVLAP for
the Efficiency of Electric Motors field of
accreditation. This handbook
supplements NIST Handbook 150,
National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program ‘‘Procedures and
General Requirements,’’ which contains
15 CFR part 285 plus all general NIST/
NVLAP procedures, criteria, and
policies. Information regarding NIST/
NVLAP and its Efficiency of Electric
Motors Program (EEM) can be obtained
from NIST/NVLAP, 100 Bureau Drive,
Mail Stop 2140, Gaithersburg, MD
20899–2140, (301) 975–4016
(telephone), or (301) 926–2884 (fax).
■ 7. Section 431.19 is amended by:
■ a. Adding at the end of the last
sentence in paragraph (c)(3)
‘‘(referenced for guidance only, see
§ 431.14)’’; and
■ b. Revising paragraphs (b)(4) and
(c)(4), to read as follows:
§ 431.19 Department of Energy recognition
of accreditation bodies.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) It must be expert in the content
and application of the test procedures
and methodologies in IEEE Std 112–
2004 Test Method B or CSA C390–10,
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.15).
(c) * * *
(4) Expertise in electric motor test
procedures. The petition should set
forth the organization’s experience with
the test procedures and methodologies
in IEEE Std 112–2004 Test Method B
and CSA C390–10, (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.15). This part of the
petition should include items such as,
but not limited to, a description of prior
projects and qualifications of staff
members. Of particular relevance would
be documentary evidence that
establishes experience in applying the
guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC
Guide 25, General Requirements for the
Competence of Calibration and Testing
Laboratories, (referenced for guidance
only, see § 431.14) to energy efficiency
testing for electric motors.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
26635
8. Section 431.20 is amended by:
a. Adding at the end of the last
sentence of paragraph (c)(3)
‘‘(referenced for guidance only, see
§ 431.14)’’; and
■ b. Revising paragraphs (b)(4) and
(c)(4) to read as follows:
■
■
§ 431.20 Department of Energy recognition
of nationally recognized certification
programs.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) It must be expert in the content
and application of the test procedures
and methodologies in IEEE Std 112–
2004 Test Method B or CSA C390–10,
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.15). It must have satisfactory
criteria and procedures for the selection
and sampling of electric motors tested
for energy efficiency.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(4) Expertise in electric motor test
procedures. The petition should set
forth the program’s experience with the
test procedures and methodologies in
IEEE Std 112–2004 Test Method B or
CSA C390–10, (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.15). This part of the
petition should include items such as,
but not limited to, a description of prior
projects and qualifications of staff
members. Of particular relevance would
be documentary evidence that
establishes experience in applying
guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC
Guide 25, General Requirements for the
Competence of Calibration and Testing
Laboratories (referenced for guidance
only, see 431.14) to energy efficiency
testing for electric motors.
*
*
*
*
*
9. Section 431.25 is revised to read as
follows:
■
§ 431.25 Energy conservation standards
and effective dates.
(a) Except as provided for fire pump
electric motors in paragraph (b) of this
section, each general purpose electric
motor (subtype I) with a power rating of
1 horsepower or greater, but not greater
than 200 horsepower, including a
NEMA Design B or an equivalent IEC
Design N motor that is a general purpose
electric motor (subtype I), manufactured
(alone or as a component of another
piece of equipment) on or after
December 19, 2010, shall have a
nominal full-load efficiency that is not
less than the following:
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
26636
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF GENERAL PURPOSE ELECTRIC MOTORS (SUBTYPE I), EXCEPT FIRE
PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS
Nominal full-load efficiency
Open motors
(number of poles)
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent
6
1/.75 .............................................................................................
1.5/1.1 ..........................................................................................
2/1.5 .............................................................................................
3/2.2 .............................................................................................
5/3.7 .............................................................................................
7.5/5.5 ..........................................................................................
10/7.5 ...........................................................................................
15/11 ............................................................................................
20/15 ............................................................................................
25/18.5 .........................................................................................
30/22 ............................................................................................
40/30 ............................................................................................
50/37 ............................................................................................
60/45 ............................................................................................
75/55 ............................................................................................
100/75 ..........................................................................................
125/90 ..........................................................................................
150/110 ........................................................................................
200/150 ........................................................................................
(b) Each fire pump electric motor that
is a general purpose electric motor
(subtype I) or general purpose electric
4
82.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
Enclosed motors
(number of poles)
2
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.8
6
77.0
84.0
85.5
85.5
86.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
95.0
motor (subtype II) manufactured (alone
or as a component of another piece of
equipment) on or after December 19,
4
82.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.8
95.8
2
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
96.2
77.0
84.0
85.5
86.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
95.0
95.0
95.4
2010, shall have a nominal full-load
efficiency that is not less than the
following:
TABLE 2—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS
Nominal full-load efficiency
Motor horsepower/standard
kilowatt equivalent
Open motors
(number of poles)
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
8
1/.75 .................................................
1.5/1.1 ..............................................
2/1.5 .................................................
3/2.2 .................................................
5/3.7 .................................................
7.5/5.5 ..............................................
10/7.5 ...............................................
15/11 ................................................
20/15 ................................................
25/18.5 .............................................
30/22 ................................................
40/30 ................................................
50/37 ................................................
60/45 ................................................
75/55 ................................................
100/75 ..............................................
125/90 ..............................................
150/110 ............................................
200/150 ............................................
250/186 ............................................
300/224 ............................................
350/261 ............................................
400/298 ............................................
450/336 ............................................
500/373 ............................................
6
74.0
75.5
85.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.6
93.6
93.6
93.6
93.6
94.5
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
80.0
84.0
85.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.4
95.4
95.4
..................
..................
..................
(c) Except as provided for fire pump
electric motors in paragraph (b) of this
section, each general purpose electric
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
Enclosed motors
(number of poles)
4
2
82.5
84.0
84.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.8
8
6
..................
82.5
84.0
84.0
85.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.8
95.8
74.0
77.0
82.5
84.0
85.5
85.5
88.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.5
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
80.0
85.5
86.5
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
..................
..................
..................
motor (subtype II) with a power rating
of 1 horsepower or greater, but not
greater than 200 horsepower, including
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
4
2
82.5
84.0
84.0
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
92.4
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
75.5
82.5
84.0
85.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
a NEMA Design B or an equivalent IEC
Design N motor that is a general purpose
electric motor (subtype II),
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
26637
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
manufactured (alone or as a component
of another piece of equipment) on or
after December 19, 2010, shall have a
nominal full-load efficiency that is not
less than the following:
TABLE 3—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF GENERAL PURPOSE ELECTRIC MOTORS (SUBTYPE II), EXCEPT FIRE
PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS
Nominal full-load efficiency
Motor horsepower/
standard kilowatt equivalent
Open motors
(number of poles)
8
1/.75 .................................................
1.5/1.1 ..............................................
2/1.5 .................................................
3/2.2 .................................................
5/3.7 .................................................
7.5/5.5 ..............................................
10/7.5 ...............................................
15/11 ................................................
20/15 ................................................
25/18.5 .............................................
30/22 ................................................
40/30 ................................................
50/37 ................................................
60/45 ................................................
75/55 ................................................
100/75 ..............................................
125/90 ..............................................
150/110 ............................................
200/150 ............................................
6
74.0
75.5
85.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.6
93.6
93.6
93.6
93.6
(d) Each NEMA Design B or an
equivalent IEC Design N motor that is a
general purpose electric motor (subtype
I) or general purpose electric motor
(subtype II), excluding fire pump
Enclosed motors
(number of poles)
4
80.0
84.0
85.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
2
82.5
84.0
84.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
8
..................
82.5
84.0
84.0
85.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.5
6
74.0
77.0
82.5
84.0
85.5
85.5
88.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
electric motors, with a power rating of
more than 200 horsepower, but not
greater than 500 horsepower,
manufactured (alone or as a component
of another piece of equipment) on or
4
80.0
85.5
86.5
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
95.0
95.0
2
82.5
84.0
84.0
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
92.4
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
75.5
82.5
84.0
85.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.5
94.5
95.0
after December 19, 2010, shall have a
nominal full-load efficiency that is not
less than the following:
TABLE 4—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN B GENERAL PURPOSE ELECTRIC MOTORS (SUBTYPE I
AND II), EXCEPT FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS
Nominal full-load efficiency
Motor horsepower/
standard kilowatt equivalent
Open motors
(number of poles)
8
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
250/186
300/224
350/261
400/298
450/336
500/373
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
6
94.5
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
95.4
95.4
95.4
..................
..................
..................
(e) For purposes of determining the
required minimum nominal full-load
efficiency of an electric motor that has
a horsepower or kilowatt rating between
two horsepower or two kilowatt ratings
listed in any table of energy
conservation standards in paragraphs (a)
through (d) of this section, each such
motor shall be deemed to have a listed
horsepower or kilowatt rating,
determined as follows:
(1) A horsepower at or above the
midpoint between the two consecutive
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
Enclosed motors
(number of poles)
4
2
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.8
8
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.8
95.8
6
94.5
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
95.0
95.0
95.0
..................
..................
..................
horsepowers shall be rounded up to the
higher of the two horsepowers;
(2) A horsepower below the midpoint
between the two consecutive
horsepowers shall be rounded down to
the lower of the two horsepowers; or
(3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly
converted from kilowatts to horsepower
using the formula 1 kilowatt = (1⁄0.746)
horsepower. The conversion should be
calculated to three significant decimal
places, and the resulting horsepower
shall be rounded in accordance with
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
4
2
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this section,
whichever applies.
(f) This section does not apply to
definite purpose motors, special
purpose motors, or those motors
exempted by the Secretary.
■ 10. Remove § 431.30.
■ 11. Section 431.31, paragraph (a)(2) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 431.31
Labeling requirements.
(a) * * *
(2) Display of required information.
All orientation, spacing, type sizes, type
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
26638
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
faces, and line widths to display this
required information shall be the same
as or similar to the display of the other
performance data on the motor’s
permanent nameplate. The nominal fullload efficiency shall be identified either
by the term ‘‘Nominal Efficiency’’ or
‘‘Nom. Eff.’’ or by the terms specified in
paragraph 12.58.2 of NEMA MG1–2009,
(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15)
as for example ‘‘NEMA Nom. Eff. ll.’’
The Compliance Certification number
issued pursuant to § 431.36 shall be in
the form ‘‘CC ll.’’
*
*
*
*
*
§ 431.36
[Amended]
12. Amend § 431.36 by removing
‘‘Beginning April 26, 2003, a’’ from the
first sentence in paragraph (a) and
adding ‘‘A’’ in its place.
■
Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 431
[Removed and Reserved]
13. Remove and reserve appendix A to
subpart B of part 431.
■
14. Appendix B to subpart B of part
431 is revised to read as follows:
■
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431—
Uniform Test Method for Measuring
Nominal Full-Load Efficiency of
Electric Motors
1. Definitions.
Definitions contained in §§ 431.2 and
431.12 are applicable to this appendix.
2. Test Procedures.
Efficiency and losses shall be determined
in accordance with NEMA MG1–2009,
paragraph 12.58.1, ‘‘Determination of Motor
Efficiency and Losses,’’ (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.15) and either:
(1) CSA C390–10, (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.15), or
(2) IEEE Std 112–2004 Test Method B,
Input-Output With Loss Segregation,
(incorporated by reference, see § 431.15).
3. Amendments to test procedures.
Any revision to IEEE Std 112–2004 Test
Method B, NEMA MG1–2009, or CSA C390–
10, (incorporated by reference, see § 431.15)
shall not be effective for purposes of
certification and compliance testing unless
and until this appendix and 10 CFR Part 431
are amended to incorporate that revision.
15. Section 431.441 is revised to read
as follows:
■
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
§ 431.441
Purpose and scope.
This subpart contains definitions, test
procedures, and energy conservation
requirements for small electric motors,
pursuant to Part A–1 of Title III of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6311–6317. This
subpart does not cover ‘‘electric
motors,’’ which are addressed in subpart
B of this part.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
§ 431.442
[Amended]
16. Amend § 431.442, by removing
‘‘CAN/CSA’’ and adding ‘‘CSA’’ in its
place.
■ 17. Amend § 431.443 by:
■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1)
and (c)(2); and
■ b. Adding a new paragraph (b)(2).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
§ 431.443 Materials incorporated by
reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) CSA C747–09 (‘‘CSA C747’’),
Energy efficiency test methods for small
motors, October 2009, IBR approved for
§§ 431.444; 431.447.
(2) CSA C390–10, Test methods,
marking requirements, and energy
efficiency levels for three-phase
induction motors, March 2010, IBR
approved for §§ 431.444; 431.447.
(c) * * *
(1) IEEE Std 112–2004, Test Procedure
for Polyphase Induction Motors and
Generators, approved February 9, 2004,
IBR approved as follows:
(i) Section 6.3, Efficiency Test Method
A, Input-Output, IBR approved for
§§ 431.444; 431.447;
(ii) Section 6.4, Efficiency Test
Method B, Input-Output with Loss
Segregation, IBR approved for
§§ 431.444; 431.447.
(2) IEEE Std 114–2010, Test Procedure
for Single-Phase Induction Motors,
approved September 30, 2010, IBR
approved for §§ 431.444; 431.447.
■ 18. Section 431.444, paragraph (b) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 431.444 Test procedures for the
measurement of energy efficiency.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Testing and Calculations.
Determine the energy efficiency and
losses by using one of the following test
methods:
(1) Single-phase small electric motors:
Either IEEE Std 114–2010 or CSA C747
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.443);
(2) Polyphase small electric motors
less than or equal to 1 horsepower (0.75
kW): Either IEEE Std 112–2004 Test
Method A or CSA C747 (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.443); or
(3) Polyphase small electric motors
greater than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW):
Either IEEE Std 112–2004 Test Method
B or CSA C390–10 (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.443).
19. Section 431.445, paragraph (b)(5)
is added and paragraph (c) is revised to
read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
§ 431.445 Determination of small electric
motor efficiency.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(5) Use of a certification program. (i)
A manufacturer may use a certification
program, that DOE has classified as
nationally recognized under § 431.447,
to certify the average full-load efficiency
of a basic model of small electric motor,
and issue a certificate of conformity for
the small electric motor.
(ii) For each basic model for which a
certification program is not used as
described in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this
section, any testing of a motor to
determine its energy efficiency must be
carried out in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Additional testing requirements
applicable when a certification program
is not used—(1) Selection of basic
models for testing. (i) Basic models must
be selected for testing in accordance
with the following criteria:
(A) Two of the basic models must be
among the five basic models that have
the highest unit volumes of production
by the manufacturer in the prior year, or
during the prior 12 calendar month
period beginning in 2015, whichever is
later, and comply with the standards set
forth in § 431.446;
(B) The basic models should be of
different horsepowers without
duplication;
(C) At least one basic model should be
selected from each of the frame number
series for which the manufacturer is
seeking compliance; and
(D) Each basic model should have the
lowest average full-load efficiency
among the basic models with the same
rating (‘‘rating’’ as used here has the
same meaning as it has in the definition
of ‘‘basic model’’).
(ii) In any instance where it is
impossible for a manufacturer to select
basic models for testing in accordance
with all of these criteria, the criteria
shall be given priority in the order in
which they are listed. Within the limits
imposed by the criteria, basic models
shall be selected randomly.
(2) Selection of units for testing within
a basic model. For each basic model
selected for testing,1 a sample of units
shall be selected at random and tested.
The sample shall be comprised of
production units of the basic model, or
units that are representative of such
production units. The sample size shall
be no fewer than five units, except when
fewer than five units of a basic model
1 Components of similar design may be
substituted without requiring additional testing if
the represented measures of energy consumption
continue to satisfy the applicable sampling
provision.
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
where RE is the required average full-load
efficiency.
20. A new § 431.447 is added to read
as follows:
■
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
§ 431.447 Department of Energy
recognition of nationally recognized
certification programs.
(a) Petition. For a certification
program to be classified by the
Department of Energy as being
nationally recognized in the United
States (‘‘nationally recognized’’), the
organization operating the program
must submit a petition to the
Department requesting such
classification, in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section and
§ 431.448. The petition must
demonstrate that the program meets the
criteria in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Evaluation criteria. For a
certification program to be classified by
the Department as nationally
recognized, it must meet the following
criteria:
(1) It must have satisfactory standards
and procedures for conducting and
administering a certification system,
including periodic follow up activities
to assure that basic models of small
electric motors continue to conform to
the efficiency levels for which they were
certified, and for granting a certificate of
conformity.
(2) It must be independent of small
electric motor manufacturers, importers,
distributors, private labelers or vendors.
It cannot be affiliated with, have
financial ties with, be controlled by, or
be under common control with any such
entity.
(3) It must be qualified to operate a
certification system in a highly
competent manner.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
products, as well as experience in
overseeing compliance with the
guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC
Guide 25, General requirements for the
competence of calibration and testing
laboratories.
(4) Expertise in small electric motor
test procedures. The petition should set
forth the program’s experience with the
test procedures and methodologies in
IEEE Std 112–2004 Test Methods A and
B, IEEE Std 114–2010, CSA C390–10,
and CSA C747– (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.443) and with
similar procedures and methodologies.
This part of the petition should include
items such as, but not limited to, a
description of prior projects and
qualifications of staff members. Of
particular relevance would be
documentary evidence that establishes
experience in applying guidelines
contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25,
General Requirements for the
Competence of Calibration and Testing
Laboratories to energy efficiency testing
for electric motors.
(5) The ISO/IEC Guides referenced in
paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) of this
section are not incorporated by
reference, but are for information and
guidance only. International
Organization for Standardization (ISO),
1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH–
1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland/
International Electrotechnical
´
Commission, 3, rue de Varembe, P.O.
Box 131, CH–1211 Geneva 20,
Switzerland.
(d) Disposition. The Department will
evaluate the petition in accordance with
§ 431.448, and will determine whether
the applicant meets the criteria in
paragraph (b) of this section for
classification as a nationally recognized
certification program.
21. Add a new § 431.448 to read as
follows:
■
§ 431.448 Procedures for recognition and
withdrawal of recognition of certification
programs.
(a) Filing of petition. Any petition
submitted to the Department pursuant
to § 431.447(a), shall be entitled
‘‘Petition for Recognition’’ (‘‘Petition’’)
and must be submitted, in triplicate to
the Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S.
Department of Energy, Forrestal
Building, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. In
accordance with the provisions set forth
in 10 CFR 1004.11, any request for
confidential treatment of any
information contained in such a Petition
or in supporting documentation must be
accompanied by a copy of the Petition
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
ER04MY12.001</GPH>
where Xi is the measured full-load efficiency
of unit i and n is the number of units tested,
shall satisfy the condition:
(4) It must be expert in the content
and application of the test procedures
and methodologies in IEEE Std 112–
2004 Test Methods A and B, IEEE Std
114–2010, CSA C390–10, and CSA C747
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.443) or similar procedures and
methodologies for determining the
energy efficiency of small electric
motors. It must have satisfactory criteria
and procedures for the selection and
sampling of electric motors tested for
energy efficiency.
(c) Petition format. Each petition
requesting classification as a nationally
recognized certification program must
contain a narrative statement as to why
the program meets the criteria listed in
paragraph (b) of this section, must be
signed on behalf of the organization
operating the program by an authorized
representative, and must be
accompanied by documentation that
supports the narrative statement. The
following provides additional guidance
as to the specific criteria:
(1) Standards and procedures. A copy
of the standards and procedures for
operating a certification system and for
granting a certificate of conformity
should accompany the petition.
(2) Independent status. The
petitioning organization should identify
and describe any relationship, direct or
indirect, that it or the certification
program has with an electric motor
manufacturer, importer, distributor,
private labeler, vendor, trade association
or other such entity, as well as any other
relationship it believes might appear to
create a conflict of interest for the
certification program in operating a
certification system for determining the
compliance of small electric motors
with the applicable energy efficiency
standards. It should explain why it
believes such relationship would not
compromise its independence in
operating a certification program.
(3) Qualifications to operate a
certification system. Experience in
operating a certification system should
be discussed and substantiated by
supporting documents. Of particular
relevance would be documentary
evidence that establishes experience in
the application of guidelines contained
in the ISO/IEC Guide 65, General
requirements for bodies operating
product certification systems, ISO/IEC
Guide 27, Guidelines for corrective
action to be taken by a certification body
in the event of either misapplication of
its mark of conformity to a product, or
products which bear the mark of the
certification body being found to subject
persons or property to risk, and ISO/IEC
Guide 28, General rules for a model
third-party certification system for
ER04MY12.000</GPH>
would be produced over a reasonable
period of time (approximately 180
days). In such cases, each unit produced
shall be tested.
(3) Applying results of testing. When
applying the test results to determine
whether a motor complies with the
required average efficiency level:
The average full-load efficiency of the
¯
sample, X which is defined by
26639
26640
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
or supporting documentation from
which the information claimed to be
confidential has been deleted.
(b) Public notice and solicitation of
comments. DOE shall publish in the
Federal Register the Petition from
which confidential information, as
determined by DOE, has been deleted in
accordance with 10 CFR 1004.11 and
shall solicit comments, data and
information on whether the Petition
should be granted. The Department
shall also make available for inspection
and copying the Petition’s supporting
documentation from which confidential
information, as determined by DOE, has
been deleted in accordance with 10 CFR
1004.11. Any person submitting written
comments to DOE with respect to a
Petition shall also send a copy of such
comments to the petitioner.
(c) Responsive statement by the
petitioner. A petitioner may, within 10
working days of receipt of a copy of any
comments submitted in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section, respond to
such comments in a written statement
submitted to the Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy. A petitioner may address more
than one set of comments in a single
responsive statement.
(d) Public announcement of interim
determination and solicitation of
comments. The Assistant Secretary for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy shall issue an interim
determination on the Petition as soon as
is practicable following receipt and
review of the Petition and other
applicable documents, including, but
not limited to, comments and responses
to comments. The petitioner shall be
notified in writing of the interim
determination. DOE shall also publish
in the Federal Register the interim
determination and shall solicit
comments, data and information with
respect to that interim determination.
Written comments and responsive
statements may be submitted as
provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section.
(e) Public announcement of final
determination. The Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy shall, as soon as practicable,
following receipt and review of
comments and responsive statements on
the interim determination publish in the
Federal Register a notice of final
determination on the Petition.
(f) Additional information. The
Department may, at any time during the
recognition process, request additional
relevant information or conduct an
investigation concerning the Petition.
The Department’s determination on a
Petition may be based solely on the
Petition and supporting documents, or
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
may also be based on such additional
information as the Department deems
appropriate.
(g) Withdrawal of recognition—(1)
Withdrawal by the Department. If the
Department believes that a certification
program that has been recognized under
§ 431.447 is failing to meet the criteria
of paragraph (b) of the section under
which it is recognized, the Department
will so advise such entity and request
that it take appropriate corrective
action. The Department will give the
entity an opportunity to respond. If after
receiving such response, or no response,
the Department believes satisfactory
corrective action has not been made, the
Department will withdraw its
recognition from that entity.
(2) Voluntary withdrawal. A
certification program may withdraw
itself from recognition by the
Department by advising the Department
in writing of such withdrawal. It must
also advise those that use it (for a
certification organization, the
manufacturers) of such withdrawal.
(3) Notice of withdrawal of
recognition. The Department will
publish in the Federal Register a notice
of any withdrawal of recognition that
occurs pursuant to this paragraph (g).
[FR Doc. 2012–10434 Filed 5–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM
04MYR2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26608-26640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10434]
[[Page 26607]]
Vol. 77
Friday,
No. 87
May 4, 2012
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors and
Small Electric Motors; Final Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Rules and
Regulations
[[Page 26608]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-TP-0008]
RIN 1904-AC05
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors
and Small Electric Motors
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 5, 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued
a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the test
procedures for electric motors and small electric motors. That
supplemental proposal, along with an earlier proposal from December 22,
2008, form the basis for today's action to amend the current test
procedures used to measure the energy efficiency of electric and small
electric motors. These changes will be mandatory to demonstrate
compliance with the current energy efficiency standards starting 180
days after publication. The final rule clarifies the scope of
regulatory coverage for electric motors and ensures the accurate and
consistent measurement of electric motor and small electric motor
energy efficiency through changes to the current test procedures. These
changes also clarify certain regulatory terms and language related to
electric motors and small electric motors, clarify the scope of energy
conservation standards for electric motors, update references to
several industry and testing standards for electric motors, incorporate
by reference and update alternative test methods that manufacturers may
use when certifying polyphase and single-phase small electric motors as
compliant, and specify the determination of efficiency requirements for
small electric motors.
DATES: Effective date: June 4, 2012.
Compliance dates: The final rule changes will be required for
equipment testing starting October 31, 2012. Representations either in
writing or in any broadcast advertisement respecting energy consumption
must also be made using the revised DOE test procedure starting on
October 31, 2012. DOE is also establishing a compliance date for energy
conservation standards for IEC 100 mm frame series electric motors (as
well as motors built in a frame that is not necessarily a NEMA-
equivalent but otherwise covered under EISA 2007) that is June 4, 2015.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the
rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on June 4,
2012.
ADDRESSES: The docket is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, framework
documents, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and
other supporting documents/materials. Link to the docket by entering
EERE-2008-BT-TP-0008 in the ``Search ID'' window. All documents in the
docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. However, not
all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
A link to the docket web page can be found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/small_electric_motors.html for small electric motors and https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/electric_motors.html for electric motors. This web page will contain a
link to the docket for this notice on the regulations.gov site.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8654. Email: Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov.
For legal issues, Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121, Telephone: (202) 586-8145, Email:
Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov or Ms. Ami Grace-Tardy, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, Telephone: (202) 586-5709, Email:
Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference
the following standards into part 431:
(1) CSA C390-10, Test methods, marking requirements, and energy
efficiency levels for three-phase induction motors, March 2010.
(2) CSA C747-09, Energy efficiency test methods for small
motors, October 2009.
(3) IEC Standard 60034-1, Rotating Electrical Machines, Part 1:
Rating and Performance, Section 4: Duty, clause 4.2.1 and Figure 1,
February 2010.
(4) IEC Standard 60034-12, Rotating Electrical Machines, Part
12: Starting Performance of Single-Speed Three-Phase Cage Induction
Motors, clauses 5.2, 5.4, 6, and 8, and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and
7, September 2007.
(5) The following provisions of IEEE Standard 112-2004, Test
Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators, approved
February 9, 2004:
(i) Section 6.3, Efficiency Test Method A, Input-Output; and
(ii) Section 6.4, Efficiency Test Method B, Input-Output with
Loss Segregation.
(6) IEEE Standard 114-2010, Test Procedure for Single-Phase
Induction Motors, approved September 30, 2010.
(7) The following provisions of NEMA Standards Publication MG1-
2009, Motors and Generators, 2009:
(i) Section I, General Standards Applying to All Machines, Part
1, Referenced Standards and Definitions, paragraphs 1.18.1,
1.18.1.1, 1.19.1.1, 1.19.1.2, 1.19.1.3, and 1.40.1;
(ii) Section I, General Standards Applying to All Machines, Part
4, Dimensions, Tolerances, and Mounting, paragraphs 4.1, 4.2.1,
4.2.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, and 4.4.6, Figures 4-1, 4-2, 4-3,
4-4, and 4-5, and Table 4-2;
(iii) Section II, Small (Fractional) and Medium (Integral)
Machines, Part 12, Tests and Performance--AC and DC Motors,
paragraphs 12.35.1, 12.38.1, 12.38.2, 12.39.1, 12.39.2, and 12.40.1,
12.40.2, 12.58.1, and Tables 12-2, 12-3, and 12-10; and
(iv) Section II, Small (Fractional) and Medium (Integral)
Machines, Part 14, Application Data--AC and DC Small and Medium
Machines, paragraphs 14.2 and 14.3.
(8) The following provisions of NEMA Standards Publication MG1-
1967, Motors and Generators, January 1968:
(i) Part 11, Dimensions; and
(ii) Part 13, Frame Assignments--A-C Integral-Horsepower Motors.
(9) NFPA Standard 20-2010, Standard for the Installation of
Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection, section 9.5, approved August
26, 2009.
Copies of the CSA standards are available from the Canadian
Standards Association, Sales Department, 5060 Spectrum Way, Suite 100,
Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1-800-463-6727, or go to https://www.shopcsa.ca/onlinestore/welcome.asp.
Copies of the IEC standards are available from the International
Electrotechnical Commission Central Office, 3, rue de Varemb[eacute],
P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 GENEVA 20, Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 11, or go
to https://webstore.iec.ch.
Copies of the IEEE standards are available from the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box
1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, 1-800-678-IEEE (4333), or https://www.ieee.org/web/publications/home/.
Copies of the NEMA standard are available from the National
Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 North
[[Page 26609]]
17th Street, Suite 1752, Rosslyn, Virginia 22209, 703-841-3200, or go
to https://www.nema.org/.
Copies of the NFPA standard are available from the National Fire
Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471,
617-770-3000, or go to https://nfpa.org/.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
1. Electric Motors
2. Small Electric Motors
3. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Definition of Electric Motor
B. Definition of General Purpose Electric Motors Subtypes I and
II
C. Definition of General Purpose Electric Motor
D. Definition of NEMA Design B Motors
E. Fire Pump Motors Definition
F. Fire Pump Motor Coverage
G. Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors
H. International Electrotechnical Commission Standards
Incorporated by Reference
I. References to Various Industry Standards
J. National Institute of Standards and Technology/National
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program Handbook 150-10 Update
and Checklist
K. Appendix A to Subpart B of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 431
L. Definition of Small Electric Motor
M. Canadian Standards Association Test Procedures for Small
Electric Motors
N. Small Electric Motor Represented Efficiency Value
O. Validation of the Small Electric Motor Alternative Efficiency
Determination Method
P. Small Electric Motor Nationally Recognized Certification and
Testing Laboratory Accreditation Programs
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C.
6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'' or, ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve appliance and commercial equipment
energy efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer to the statute as
amended through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA
2007), Public Law 110-140 (December 19, 2007)). Part C of Title III (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317), which was subsequently redesignated as Part A-1 for
editorial reasons, establishes an energy conservation program for
certain industrial equipment, which includes electric motors and small
electric motors, the subject of today's notice. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A),
6313(b))
Under EPCA, this program consists essentially of three parts: (1)
Testing, (2) labeling, and (3) Federal energy conservation standards
(referred to herein as ``energy conservation standards,'' ``energy
efficiency levels,'' or ``energy efficiency standards''). The testing
requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered
products or equipment must use as the basis for certifying to DOE that
their products or equipment comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and for making
representations about the efficiency of those products or equipment.
Similarly, DOE must use these test requirements to determine whether
the products or equipment comply with any relevant standards
promulgated under EPCA.
In the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992), Public Law 102-486
(October 24, 1992), Congress amended EPCA to establish: (1) Energy
conservation standards, (2) test procedures, (3) compliance
certification, and (4) labeling requirements for certain electric
motors.\1\ In addition, EPACT 1992 directed the Secretary of Energy to
determine whether energy conservation standards for small electric
motors would be technologically feasible and economically justified,
and would result in significant energy savings.\2\ On October 5, 1999,
DOE issued a final rule setting forth procedures to determine the
energy efficiency of electric motors. 64 FR 54114. After determining
that energy conservation standards for small electric motors would be
technologically feasible and economically justified, see 71 FR 38799
(July 10, 2006), DOE initiated a rulemaking to begin the development of
standards for small electric motors.\3\ Related to these efforts was
DOE's publication of a final rule prescribing test procedures for small
electric motors. 74 FR 32059 (July 7, 2009). That rule followed from an
earlier December 2008 proposal to amend test procedures for electric
and small electric motors. See 73 FR 78220 (December 22, 2008). DOE
finalized key provisions related to small electric motor testing in the
July 2009 final rule, but opted to solicit further comment on certain
issues from the December 2008 proposal. To this end, DOE issued a
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, which also raised other
related issues. 76 FR 648 (January 5, 2011) Today's final rule
addresses these remaining issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPCA, as amended by EPACT 1992, had previously defined an
``electric motor'' as any motor which is a general purpose T-frame,
single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction motor
of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Design A and
B, continuous rated, operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60
Hertz line power as defined in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (1992)) Through subsequent amendments to
EPCA, Congress removed this definition and replaced it with the
heading ``Electric motors'' and added language denoting two new
subtypes of electric motors: general purpose electric motor (subtype
I) and general purpose electric motor (subtype II). (See 42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(A)-(B) (2010))
\2\ EPCA, as amended by EPACT 1992, defines the term ``small
electric motor'' to mean a NEMA general purpose alternating current
single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number
series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987. (42
U.S.C. 6311(13)(G))
\3\ A single-phase small electric motor is a rotating electrical
machine that operates on single-phase electrical power, which refers
to a single alternating voltage sinusoidal waveform. Similarly, a
polyphase small electric motor is a rotating electrical machine that
operates on three-phase electrical power, which refers to the
sinusoidal waveforms of three supply conductors that are offset from
one another by 120 degrees. Small electric motors are generally used
as components to drive commercial and industrial pumps, fans,
conveyors, and other equipment that require low power. 73 FR 78220,
78221 n.2 (December 22, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Electric Motors
EPCA, through EPACT 1992, initially required that DOE adopt the
then-current test procedures prescribed by the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA) in its MG1-1987 publication and those
procedures contained in IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) when
determining an electric motor's efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A))
MG1 is a voluntary industry standards publication produced by NEMA that
facilitates communication between manufacturers and users about the
selection and application of electric motors and generators. MG1
provides practical information to electric motor manufacturers and
users concerning the construction, testing, performance, and safety of
alternating current (AC) and direct current (DC) motors and generators.
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) is an industry-accepted test method
that outlines the methods and
[[Page 26610]]
calculations that manufacturers should use to determine their electric
motors' full-load efficiencies. EPCA required DOE to conform its
procedures to any amendments to these protocols unless the Secretary
determines, by rule, that the amended procedures are not reasonably
designed to produce results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use,
and estimated operating costs, and would be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B)) Consistent with this requirement,
DOE has amended its regulations to incorporate more recent versions of
these procedures.
In addition, DOE incorporated Canadian Standards Association (CSA)
C390-93, ``Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction
Motors'' into the October 5, 1999, final rule as a widely recognized
alternative that is consistent with IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B).
64 FR 54114 (October 5, 1999).\4\ In light of changes to the CSA test
procedure, DOE reexamined and updated its test procedures consistent
with its practice of ensuring that the latest industry practices (and
related equivalent procedures) are incorporated into DOE's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See also MG1-1993 with Revision 1, section MG1-12.58.1,
which states: ``Efficiency and losses shall be determined in
accordance with IEEE Std 112 or Canadian Standards Association
Standard C390.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The testing protocols considered by DOE have all been updated--MG1
on April 9, 2010, IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) on February 9,
2004, and CSA C390 on March 22, 2010 (``Test methods, marking
requirements, and energy efficiency levels for three-phase induction
motors''). Consistent with its obligations under EPCA, DOE had proposed
to incorporate the most current versions of the IEEE and NEMA protocols
into its regulations. 73 FR 78220 (December 22, 2008).
2. Small Electric Motors
Among its many requirements, EPCA requires DOE to prescribe test
procedures for those small electric motors for which the Secretary of
Energy makes a positive determination that energy conservation
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified,
and would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1))
Consistent with this requirement, DOE indicated it would initiate the
development of test procedures for certain small electric motors. 71 FR
38807 (July 10, 2006).
DOE proposed possible test methods for measuring the energy
efficiency of both small electric motors and electric motors in the
December 2008 notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR). 73 FR 78220. For
small electric motors, DOE proposed to base its test procedure on IEEE
Standard 114-2001, ``Test Procedure for Single-Phase Induction
Motors,'' IEEE Standard 112-2004, ``Test Procedure for Polyphase
Induction Motors and Generators,'' and CSA C747-94, ``Energy Efficiency
Test Methods for Single- and Three-Phase Small Motors.'' \5\ DOE
proposed these three procedures based in part on their wide use and
acceptance by small electric motor manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The IEEE Standards addressed in this notice are generally
listed chronologically by their last date of revision and adoption
rather than their sequential number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 7, 2009, DOE published a final rule adopting test
procedures for measuring the energy efficiency of small electric
motors. 74 FR 32059. However, certain subsidiary issues raised in
response to the December 2008 NOPR required additional consideration by
DOE. These issues are addressed in today's final rule.
3. Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In January 2011, DOE published a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNOPR) that attempted to address a variety of issues
related to the test procedures for electric motors and small electric
motors. 76 FR 648. Among these issues included those items that
remained unresolved from the July 2009 test procedure final rule, along
with other issues raised in the interim since that rule's publication.
For electric motors, the SNOPR proposed to clarify certain terms
and language in the DOE regulations. Specifically, DOE proposed to
revise the definitions of certain terms related to electric motors,
clarify the scope of energy conservation standards for electric motors,
and update references to several industry and testing standards for
electric motors. These proposals were made in an effort to help clarify
the scope of regulatory coverage for electric motors and ensure the
accurate and consistent measurement of energy efficiency.
For small electric motors, the SNOPR proposed to revise the
definitions of certain terms, incorporate by reference and update
alternative test methods for polyphase and single-phase small electric
motors, and specify the determination of efficiency requirements. As
with electric motors, DOE made these proposals to ensure the accurate
and consistent measurement of energy efficiency.
For both motor types, the January 2011 SNOPR invited comments on
the issues presented and requested comments, data, and other
information that would enable DOE to promulgate a final rule. In
response, DOE received comments addressing its supplemental notice.
Today's notice addresses these issues.
4. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
EPCA, through 42 U.S.C. 6314, sets forth the criteria and
procedures DOE must generally follow when prescribing or amending test
procedures for commercial or industrial equipment. That provision
generally requires that a test procedure that is either prescribed or
amended shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which
measure energy efficiency, energy use, and the estimated annual
operating cost of a type of covered equipment during a representative
average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) In instances
where the test procedure is one that determines annual operating costs,
the costs must be calculated from energy use measurements taken during
a representative average use cycle and from the average unit costs of
the energy needed to operate such equipment. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(3))
When amending a test procedure, DOE must determine the extent to
which a proposed procedure will alter the measured energy efficiency of
a given type of covered equipment when compared to the current
procedure. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(C) (incorporating the procedural
steps of 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) for electric motors)) As described later in
this notice, DOE compared IEEE Standard 112-1996 (Test Method B) and
CSA C390-93 with IEEE Standard 112-2004 (Test Method B) and CSA C390-
10, respectively, and determined that there were no substantive
differences that would alter the measured efficiency of the covered
motors.
II. Summary of the Final Rule
Today's final rule, which is based on feedback received in response
to the December 2008 and January 2011 notices, amends the current DOE
test procedures and definitions for electric motors and small electric
motors. These changes will not affect the measured efficiency of this
equipment. Instead, these changes will primarily clarify certain terms,
language and the scope of energy conservation standards for electric
motors. They will also minimize any potential ambiguity contained in
the test procedures for electric motors and small electric motors.
[[Page 26611]]
Electric Motors
Today's rule makes four changes with respect to electric motors.
First, it clarifies the definitions for ``electric motor,'' ``fire pump
motor,'' ``general purpose electric motor (subtype I),'' ``general
purpose electric motor (subtype II),'' and ``NEMA Design B motor.''
Each of these terms was either added or modified by EISA 2007.
Additionally, the rule clarifies that the term ``general purpose
electric motor'' denotes a ``general purpose motor'' to ensure the use
of consistent terminology in DOE's regulations. These revisions, in
addition to addressing the specific comments raised by interested
parties, will help ensure that the test procedures are applied
appropriately.
Second, today's final rule clarifies the scope of existing energy
conservation standards for electric motors (10 CFR 431.25).
Third, the rule updates the references to (1) NIST Handbook 150-10,
``Efficiency of Electric Motors,'' and the associated NIST Handbook
150-10 checklist, (2) IEC standards documents, (3) CSA C390, (4) CSA
C747, (5) NEMA MG1, and (6) IEEE Standard 112 throughout subpart B of
10 CFR part 431.
Finally, today's rule removes the guidance from appendix A to
subpart B, of 10 CFR part 431. That guidance, which will be updated to
maintain consistency with the more recent amendments made by EISA 2007,
will be posted on DOE's Web site as a vehicle for DOE to periodically
update its interpretive guidance with respect to the treatment of
certain aspects related to electric motors. Separating this guidance
and placing it on the agency's public Web site will enable DOE to
periodically update this guidance more expeditiously in response to
public feedback and changing conditions in the industry. The updates
may also serve as the basis for future rulemaking amendments as
required.
Small Electric Motors
Today's final rule addresses two related matters that clarify the
codified definition of ``small electric motor'' and should alleviate
any potential undue testing burden related to small electric motors.
These changes will help clarify aspects of the July 2009 final rule for
small electric motors.
First, the rule clarifies the terms ``represented efficiency
value'' and ``average full-load efficiency'' for small electric motors.
Second, the rule adds CSA C747-09 and CSA C390-10 as alternative
test procedures that manufacturers may use for measuring the energy
efficiency of polyphase small electric motors. After receiving comments
and data from multiple interested parties, DOE found that both test
methods are equivalent to IEEE Standard 112 Test Methods A and B,
respectively, which were adopted in the July 2009 final rule. DOE is
also updating its current CSA C747 references to account for the latest
version of that protocol.
Finally, although DOE had contemplated in the SNOPR providing a
method to validate an alternative efficiency determination method
(AEDM) for small electric motors, including the statistical
requirements needed to substantiate the AEDM, it has elected to address
these requirements in a separate rulemaking currently under
development. To this end, DOE has initiated a separate rulemaking
effort to address the AEDM requirements for all products and equipment
for which DOE has test procedures, including motors.
The revisions are summarized in the table below and addressed in
detail in the following section. Note that all citations to 10 CFR part
431 in today's notice refer to the current version of 10 CFR part 431.
The corresponding revisions to the regulatory text follow the preamble
to this final rule.
Table II.1--Summary of Changes Promulgated in This Final Rule and
Affected Sections of 10 CFR Part 431
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section in 10 CFR Part 431 Summary of modifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 431.11 of Subpart B--Purpose Clarifies that subpart
and Scope. B is applicable to ``electric
motors,'' but not ``small
electric motors.''
Section 431.12 of Subpart B-- Revises the
Definitions. definitions of
``accreditation,'' ``definite
purpose motor,'' ``general
purpose electric motor
(subtype I),'' ``general
purpose electric motor
(subtype II),'' and ``nominal
full-load efficiency.''
Adds new definitions
for ``electric motor,'' ``fire
pump motor,'' ``general
purpose electric motor,'' and
``NEMA Design B motor.''
Removes definition of
``general purpose motor.''
Section 431.14 of Subpart B--Sources Moves the list of
for information and guidance. references from 431.15 into a
new section.
Section 431.15 of Subpart B--Materials Updates reference to
incorporated by reference. CSA-C390.
Updates references to
IEC standards.
Updates reference to
IEEE Standard 112.
Updates reference to
NEMA MG1.
Section 431.18 of Subpart B--Testing Updates reference to
Laboratories. NIST Handbook 150-10.
Section 431.19 of Subpart B--Department Updates references to
of Energy recognition of accreditation IEEE Standard 112 and CSA
bodies. C390.
Section 431.20 of Subpart B--Department Updates references to
of Energy recognition of nationally IEEE Standard 112 and CSA C390
recognized certification programs. for electric motors.
Section 431.25 of Subpart B--Energy Removes the existing
conservation standards and effective 431.25(a).
dates. Clarifies the scope of
efficiency standards in
431.25(a) through (d).
Inserts kilowatt
equivalent power ratings in
the efficiency standard
tables.
Section 431.31 of Subpart B--Labeling Updates reference to
Requirements. NEMA MG1.
Appendix A to Subpart B--Policy Removes appendix A to
Statement for Electric Motors Covered subpart B; guidance will be
Under the Energy Policy and posted on the DOE Appliance
Conservation Act. Standards Program website.
Appendix B to Subpart B--Uniform Test Updates references to
Method for Measuring Nominal Full-Load NEMA MG1, IEEE Standard 112,
Efficiency of Electric Motors. and CSA C390.
Section 431.441 of Subpart X--Purpose Clarifies that subpart
and Scope. X is applicable to ``small
electric motors,'' but not
``electric motors.''
Section 431.443 of Subpart X--Materials Updates reference to
incorporated by reference. CSA C747.
Adds reference to CSA
C390.
Updates references to
IEEE Standard 112 and 114.
[[Page 26612]]
Section 431.444 of Subpart X--Test Updates reference to
procedures for measurement of energy CSA C747.
efficiency. Adds reference to CSA
C390.
Updates reference to
IEEE Standard 114.
Section 431.445 of Subpart X-- Adds additional
Determination of small electric motor guidelines on use of a
efficiency. certification program and
references section 431.447 for
small electric motors.
Clarifies the term
``represented average full-
load efficiency'' and renames
as ``required average full-
load efficiency''.
Section 431.447 of Subpart X-- Adds a section on
Department of Energy recognition of nationally recognized
nationally recognized certification certification programs for
programs. small electric motors similar
to section 431.20 for electric
motors.
Section 431.448 of Subpart X-- Adds a section on
Procedures for recognition and procedures for recognition of
withdrawal of recognition of certification programs for
certification programs. small electric motors similar
to section 431.21 for electric
motors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted earlier, DOE developed today's rule after considering
input, including written comments, from a variety of interested parties
that represent a variety of interests. All commenters, their
corresponding abbreviations and type are listed in Table II.2 below.
The issues raised by these commenters are addressed in the various
discussions that follow.
Table II.2--Summary of SNOPR Commenters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Abbreviation Interested party type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baldor Electric Co..................... Baldor...................................... Manufacturer.
WEG Electric........................... WEG......................................... Manufacturer.
Advanced Energy........................ Advanced Energy............................. Independent Test
Laboratory.
National Electrical Manufacturers NEMA........................................ Trade Association.
Association.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance... NEEA........................................ Efficiency/Environmental
Advocate.
Grundfos Pumps Co...................... Grundfos.................................... Manufacturer.
Habasit America, Rossi Gearmotor Rossi....................................... Manufacturer.
Division.
GEA Mechanical Eq. US, Inc............. GEA......................................... Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, NEEA, et al................................. Efficiency/Environmental
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Advocate Group.
American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy, Earthjustice,
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Alliance to Save Energy.
National Electrical Manufacturers NEMA and ACEEE.............................. Trade Groups.
Association and the American Council
for an Energy Efficient Economy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion
A. Definition of Electric Motor
Before the enactment of EISA 2007, EPCA defined the term ``electric
motor'' as any motor that is a general purpose T-frame, single-speed,
foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction motor of the National
Electrical Manufacturers Association, Design A and B, continuous rated,
operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60 Hertz line power as defined
in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)
(2006)) Section 313(a)(2) of EISA 2007 removed that definition,
inserted a new ``Electric motors'' heading, and created two new
subtypes of electric motors: General purpose electric motor (subtype I)
and general purpose electric motor (subtype II). (42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(A)-(B)(2011)) In addition, section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007
established energy conservation standards for four types of electric
motors: general purpose electric motors (subtype I) (i.e., subtype I
motors) with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; fire pump motors;
general purpose electric motor (subtype II) (i.e., subtype II motors)
with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; and NEMA Design B, general
purpose electric motors with a power rating of more than 200
horsepower, but less than or equal to 500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C.
6313(b)(2)) These standards were set out in statutory provisions that
referenced specific tables from the 2006 version of NEMA MG1. All of
these standards apply to covered motors that are manufactured alone or
as a component of another piece of equipment. The term ``electric
motor'' (which frequently appears throughout EPCA, as amended by EISA
2007, and various subparts of 10 CFR part 431) was left undefined.
Consequently, DOE noted that the absence of a definition may cause
confusion about which electric motors are required to comply with
mandatory test procedures and energy conservation standards. 73 FR
78225.
In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify the EISA 2007
term ``electric motor'' to mean any of the following four types of
motors: a subtype I motor, a fire pump motor, a subtype II motor, or a
NEMA Design B general purpose electric motor. 73 FR 78225 and 78235. In
DOE's view, applying the term ``electric motor'' in this manner would
clarify that the test procedures prescribed for electric motors would
also apply to each of the four types of motors. 73 FR 78225. In the
January 2011 SNOPR, DOE revisited this issue and proposed to broadly
define ``electric motor'' to mean ``a machine which converts electrical
power into rotational mechanical power.'' 76 FR 651.
In a comment submitted jointly with other interested parties, the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) responded to the SNOPR and
asserted that DOE could create either a broad, high-level definition of
electric motor that is carefully broken down into various subtypes of
electric motors, or a narrow definition exclusive to these electric
motors that are currently subject to standards. Ultimately, NEEA agreed
with the approach proposed by DOE to
[[Page 26613]]
broadly define an electric motor. NEEA believed that this approach
would minimize confusion by providing stability to the ``electric
motor'' definition. It added that DOE's proposed approach could provide
the foundation for extending standards to other electric motors not
currently covered by DOE regulations. Further, they noted that using a
narrower definition would have the disadvantage of requiring DOE to
redefine the term ``electric motor'' each time the scope of energy
conservation standards for electric motors changes. (NEEA, et al., No.
24 at p. 2) \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Notations of this form appear throughout this document and
identify statements made in written comments or at public hearings
that DOE has received and has included in the docket for this
rulemaking. For example, ``NEEA, et al., No. 24 at p. 2'' refers to:
(1) A comment from advocates referred to collectively as the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, et al.; (2) in document number
24 in the docket of this rulemaking; and (3) appearing on page 2 of
the submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separately, a joint comment from NEMA and ACEEE supported DOE's
intent to modify the definition for ``electric motors'' to include a
common definition of the term. However, NEMA and ACEEE added that the
proposed definition was too broad, stating that such a definition would
make all references to ``electric motor'' in subparts B and U of 10 CFR
part 431 apply to all possible types of motors, including direct
current, single-phase, variable speed, and multi-speed motors. In their
view, the proposal would eliminate qualifiers that are necessary to
narrow the definition to include only motors for which energy
efficiency standards are prescribed. Commenters also asserted that such
a change would alter the ``covered equipment'' provision at 10 CFR
431.12 to include a set of motors for which no energy conservation
standards are prescribed. NEMA and ACEEE suggested the following
definition as an alternative for DOE to consider: ``Electric motor
means a machine that converts electrical power into rotational
mechanical power and is configured as a general purpose electric motor
(subtype I) or general purpose electric motor (subtype II).''
Further, NEMA and ACEEE recommended that if DOE believes that fire
pump motors require a classification separate from general purpose
electric motors (subtype I and II), then the definition should be
changed to, ``electric motor means a machine that converts electrical
power into rotational mechanical power and is configured as a general
purpose electric motor (subtype I) or general purpose electric motor
(subtype II), including, but not limited to, fire pump electric
motors.'' (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 3 and 4)
Although Congress retained the term ``electric motors'' as part of
EPCA, it removed the definition that had previously been in place. In
its place, Congress added two new electric motor subtypes--general
purpose electric motor (subtype I) and general purpose electric motor
(subtype II). (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)) As NEMA and ACEEE observed in
its comments to the recent framework document for electric motors, the
removal of this definition also removed the prior limits that narrowly
defined what types of motors would be considered as electric motors.
These commenters asserted that DOE already has the statutory authority
to regulate definite and special purpose motors. (ASAP and NEMA, No.
12.1\7\ at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This comment comes from the docket EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027 for
electric motors standards and was jointly submitted on behalf of
ACEEE, ASE, Advanced Energy, Earthjustice, NRDC, the Northeast
Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and NEEA by NEMA and ASAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE believes that a definition for ``electric motor'' is necessary
and today's rule retains the broader approach proposed in the SNOPR.
The definition that DOE is adopting should be sufficiently broad to
encompass all electric motor subtypes. At this time, while the
definition covers a large set of motors, only those for which energy
conservation standards have been set are currently regulated
equipment--i.e., subtype I and II motors, fire pump motors that are
subtype I or II motors, and Design B motors that are subtype I or II
motors. This approach allows DOE to fill the definitional gap created
by the EISA 2007 amendments while providing DOE with the flexibility to
set energy conservation standards for other types of electric motors
without having to continuously update the definition of ``electric
motors'' each time DOE sets energy conservation standards for a new
subset of electric motors. Accordingly, DOE is declining to adopt the
approach suggested by NEMA and ACEEE.
B. Definition of General Purpose Electric Motors Subtypes I and II
Before the enactment of EISA 2007, EPCA defined a general purpose
electric motor (subtype I) as a motor that meets the definition of
``general purpose'' that was in effect in DOE's regulations at the time
of EISA 2007's enactment. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)(2006)) At that
time, 10 CFR part 431 did not contain a definition of ``general
purpose,'' but instead defined the term ``general purpose motor.'' That
term was defined to refer to a motor designed in standard ratings with
either:
(1) Standard operating characteristics and standard mechanical
construction for use under usual service conditions, such as those
specified in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, paragraph 14.02,
``Usual Service Conditions,'' and without restriction to a particular
application or type of application; or
(2) Standard operating characteristics or standard mechanical
construction for use under unusual service conditions, such as those
specified in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, paragraph 14.03,
``Unusual Service conditions,'' or for a particular type of
application, and which can be used in most general purpose
applications.
See 64 FR 54142 (codified at 10 CFR 431.12).
Consistent with the EISA 2007 amendments, DOE subsequently adopted
this definition of ``general purpose motor'' as the definition of
``general purpose electric motor (subtype I).'' 74 FR 12058, 12071
(March 23, 2009) (codified at 10 CFR 431.12). DOE did not propose any
changes to this definition in its December 2008 proposal. 73 FR 78220.
DOE also adopted a definition for ``general purpose electric motor
(subtype II).'' 74 FR 12071 (codified at 10 CFR 431.12). This
definition mirrored the statute, which defined this type of motor as
one that incorporates the design elements of a subtype I motor but is
configured as one of the following:
(i) A U-frame motor;
(ii) A Design C motor;
(iii) A close-coupled pump motor;
(iv) A footless motor;
(v) A vertical solid shaft normal thrust motor (as tested in a
horizontal configuration);
(vi) An 8-pole motor (900 rpm); or
(vii) A polyphase motor with voltage of not more than 600 volts
(other than 230 or 460 volts).
(See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(B))
Responding to comments received in response to the December 2008
NOPR, DOE proposed in the January 2011 SNOPR to clarify the definition
for a subtype I motor. Particularly, DOE proposed adding parentheticals
referring to either MG1 or IEC to denote those terms that were used by
those protocols with respect to certain motors or motor
characteristics. See 76 FR 652.
In the regulatory text following the proposed definition, DOE added
a note to clarify that the descriptive elements in this definition
followed by the parenthetical ``MG1'' must be construed
[[Page 26614]]
with reference to provisions in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-2009 and
elements followed by the parenthetical ``IEC'' must be construed with
reference to the International Electrotechnical Commission Standards.
The note also stated that 10 CFR part 431, subpart B applies even if
the NEMA or IEC-equivalent frame size or design element has been
discontinued or is discontinued in the future. 76 FR 655, 665. DOE had
intended for the note to help ensure that manufacturers apply the
various technical characteristics included as part of the definition in
a consistent and appropriate manner (examples of these types of
characteristics include performance characteristics of NEMA Design A or
IEC Design N motors). A similar note was also proposed for inclusion to
follow the definition of a subtype II motor.
In distinguishing between subtype I and subtype II motors, DOE
looks to whether the motor is configured to have one or more of the
design or performance elements listed in the definition of subtype II
motors at 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(B). For example, a subtype I motor could
be built in accordance with NEMA T-frame dimensions and could have the
performance characteristics of a NEMA Design A motor. In contrast, a
motor built with all of these same design elements but with the
performance characteristics of a NEMA Design C motor would be a subtype
II motor. To clarify this interpretation of the subtype II motor
statutory definition, DOE proposed to modify the introductory text of
the subtype II definition to read, ``means any general purpose electric
motor that incorporates design elements of a general purpose electric
motor (subtype I) but, unlike a general purpose electric motor (subtype
I), is configured in one or more of the following ways.'' A list of the
seven different characteristics added by EISA 2007 then followed. And
consistent with the subtype I definition, DOE proposed to add
references to MG1 and IEC standards in the subtype II definition to
clarify the terms ``U-frame,'' ``NEMA Design C,'' and ``vertical solid
shaft normal thrust motor.'' 76 FR 653.
The SNOPR also proposed to include a note as part of the
definitions of ``general purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' and
``general purpose electric motor (subtype II)'' to indicate that
electric motors that are built according to IEC standards but that
otherwise meet the proposed definition of a subtype I or II motor,
would be considered covered motors under EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007,
even if the NEMA-equivalent frame size had already been discontinued.
76 FR 665. DOE explained that it proposed to add this note to address
situations such as the one presented by IEC 100 millimeter (mm) frame
sized motors, which DOE had previously indicated were not covered in
large part because of the limitations imposed by the prior statutory
definition of ``electric motor.'' See 76 FR 653 (explaining DOE's
tentative determination that IEC 100 mm frame-sized motors were not
covered under the previous statutory definition then in place for
electric motors). DOE understands that these motors can be used in many
of the same applications where other covered electric motors are used,
such as fans, pumps, conveyors, machine tools, and gear reducers.
With respect to IEC 100 mm frame-sized motors that fall into the
subtype I or II categories, DOE notes that under the previous statutory
definition of ``electric motor,'' an electric motor was a motor that
possessed certain characteristics. That statutory definition also
referenced MG1-1987, an industry-developed guidance document. The
inclusion of that reference to MG1-1987 suggested its significance with
respect to whether a given motor would be considered an ``electric
motor'' as defined under the statute. MG1-1987 omitted any
specifications related to motors equivalent to an IEC 100 mm motor.
Meanwhile, NEMA and electric motor manufacturers had submitted
information to DOE indicating that a motor that was equivalent to the
IEC 100 mm motors--the 160-series T-frame motor--had already been
discontinued by motor manufacturers. As a result of this information,
coupled with the fact that the relevant industry guidance (MG1-1987)
referenced in the prior statutory definition for ``electric motor'' no
longer included any technical specifications related to the 160-series
T-frame motor, DOE concluded that IEC 100 mm motors were not considered
covered ``electric motors'' for purposes of statutory coverage.
Therefore, DOE tentatively decided not to treat IEC 100 mm frame size
motors as covered electric motors. 61 FR 60440, 60443 (November 27,
1996).
Upon reconsideration and in light of the EISA 2007 amendments to
EPCA, which eliminated the previous and more limiting ``electric
motor'' definition, DOE proposed as part of the January SNOPR to
include both NEMA and IEC frame size motors as covered motors,
regardless of whether the equivalent NEMA or IEC frame size had been
discontinued. 76 FR 653.
NEEA viewed DOE's proposals for the definitions of ``general
purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' and ``general purpose electric
motor (subtype II)'' as reasonable. (NEEA, et al., No. 24 at p. 2)
Other commenters focused on the proposed inclusion of the note to these
definitions and made suggestions on how to characterize U-frame motors.
NEMA and ACEEE supported DOE's proposal to include the IEC 100 mm frame
size as covered equipment, but otherwise asserted that DOE failed to
achieve this goal by the addition of its proposed ``note'' to the
subtype I and II definitions. They explained that there were never
alternating current motors in the NEMA 160T frame size and, therefore,
no NEMA-equivalent to the IEC 100 mm frame size. For this reason, in
their view, the added text included in the SNOPR to address the IEC 100
mm frame motor, which generally refers to frame sizes that have already
been discontinued, would not cover IEC 100 mm frame motors. Also, NEMA
stated that it is unaware of any discontinued T-frame sizes and
expressed concern about using a ``note'' in the definitions section
because, in the motor industry, a ``note'' to a standard is not viewed
as part of the standard itself. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 4, 5)
As to the proposed definition for ``general purpose electric motor
(subtype II)'' and how it relates to U-frame motors, NEMA and ACEEE
also pointed out that the NEMA U-frame was discontinued as a standard
frame size when the NEMA T-frame became the standard frame size. NEMA
and ACEEE stated that despite the U-frame being directly referenced in
the configurations for subtype II motors, the proposed note in the
subtype I motor definition would, in their view, imply that motors
constructed in a discontinued NEMA U-frame size would be considered a
``general purpose electric motor (subtype I).'' (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25
at p. 6)
Responding to these comments, DOE has modified its approach. For
the subtype I and II definitions, DOE removed the portion of the
proposed note regarding discontinued frame sizes. Instead, DOE is
adding language to the subtype I and II definitions to include frame
sizes that are between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes or their IEC
metric equivalents. This language extends coverage to those motors
built in accordance with an IEC 100 mm frame. DOE notes that the
modification to the subtype I ``note'' also addresses NEMA and ACEEE's
concerns regarding U-frame motors and the potential confusion related
to them in the context of the subtype I definition.
[[Page 26615]]
NEMA and ACEEE also stated that DOE's reference to MG1-2009 in the
proposed definition of ``general purpose electric motor (subtype II)''
is incorrect, as dimensions for U-frame motors were not included in
MG1-2009. Instead, they suggested that a more appropriate reference for
DOE to use is a 1967 edition of a NEMA document entitled, ``NEMA Motor
Standards,'' which, according to these commenters, later became known
as a ``Condensed MG1.'' (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 6) DOE
understands that the industry transitioned from the U-frame motor
design to the T-frame motor design after publication of the 1967
edition of ``NEMA Motor Standards'' and that this industry standards
document was the last to contain dimensional specifications for U-frame
designs. Today's final rule accounts for this situation by adding
language referencing NEMA MG1-1967 as part of the subtype II definition
in 10 CFR 431.12. Specifically, the amended definition explicitly
indicates that those motors built in accordance with the NEMA U-frame
dimensions as described in that 1967 document will be treated as
subtype II motors.
Additionally, interested parties expressed concern about when
manufacturers of IEC 100 mm frame motors would need to comply with the
appropriate energy efficiency standards. Given that DOE had previously
decided that these motors were not covered, NEMA and ACEEE argued that
requiring IEC 100 mm frame motors to comply with standards immediately
could have ``serious repercussions on manufacturers and motor users
where significant changes in the motor design and size may be required
to achieve a sudden increase in efficiency of several NEMA nominal
efficiency bands.'' (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 5-6). Both requested
that DOE establish a compliance date that is not less than three years
after these motors become covered under 10 CFR 431.12 and that the
required efficiency level be equivalent to that for a subtype II motor.
Both also cited precedents under EPCA, noting specifically that
amendments added by Congress through EPACT 1992 provided 60 months for
compliance (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1)) and that the EISA 2007 amendments
provided three years for compliance (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)) (NEMA and
ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 5-6)
In addition, Grundfos Pumps Co. expressed concern over the timing
of enforcing standards for the IEC 100 mm frame size. Grundfos believed
that a short grace period or no grace period will harm only foreign
manufacturers. It requested a grace period of at least 12 months to
minimize these effects. (Grundfos, No. 21 at p. 1).
DOE understands the concerns of motor manufacturers and realizes
that a change from DOE's previous views regarding the coverage of these
motors could have significant manufacturing redesign and financial
impacts on manufacturers and users of such motors. DOE seeks to ensure
that these motors satisfy the relevant efficiency standards as
expeditiously as possible. Therefore, to mitigate the effects of this
transition and to ensure that manufacturers have sufficient time to
adjust to this change and certify compliance, DOE is allowing three
years from the effective date of today's notice for IEC 100 mm frame
series motors (as well as motors built in a frame that is not
necessarily a NEMA-equivalent but otherwise covered under EISA 2007) to
meet the EISA 2007 standards. The three-year timeline is consistent
with the deadline recommended by NEMA and ACEEE and reflects the three
years that manufacturers had to comply with energy conservation
standards established in EISA 2007. The three-year compliance date also
recognizes the change in DOE's previous views regarding 100 mm frame-
sized motors. When standards for these 100 mm motors (as well as all
other motors built in a frame that is not a direct NEMA-equivalent but
is otherwise covered under EISA 2007) become effective, only those
motors that also meet the subtype I or II definitions will be subject
to the subtype I or subtype II standards, respectively.
Finally, DOE also received comments regarding voltage ratings as it
pertains to subtype II motors. NEMA and ACEEE commented that DOE should
clarify which voltages apply to this definition by making the language
consistent with the subtype I definition. They suggested restating item
(vii) of the definition to read ``is a polyphase motor with voltage of
not more than 600 volts (other than 230 or 460 volts or useable on 230
or 460 volts).'' (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 6) Although the
commenters did not offer an explicit reason for their proposed
language, DOE has modified the language regarding subtype II voltages
to distinguish the standard voltages associated with the definition for
subtype I motors from the special voltages that could cause an electric
motor to be classified as a subtype II motor. DOE has modified the
subtype II definition to clarify that those motors that are not rated
for 230 or 460 volts and cannot operate on 230 or 460 volts are subtype
II motors because of their voltage rating. (Note that motors that are
rated for 230 or 460 volts or can be used on 230 or 460 may also be
deemed subtype II based on another characteristic--for example, by
being a footless motor).
C. Definition of General Purpose Electric Motor
DOE proposed to amend the definition of ``general purpose motor''
in 10 CFR 431.12 by adding the word ``electric'' in front of the word
``motor'' to clarify that a general purpose motor is a type of electric
motor. This proposed change would create consistency between the
``electric motor'' and ``general purpose electric motor (subtype I)''
definitions, the latter of which refers to a ``general purpose motor.''
(See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)) Additionally, DOE proposed updating the
references to NEMA MG1 from NEMA MG1-1993 to the most recent
publication, NEMA MG1-2009. Finally, DOE proposed adding text to the
end of the definition emphasizing that the various examples of standard
operating characteristics and mechanical construction cited as part of
the definition were illustrative and not comprehensive. The purpose of
the additional text was to reiterate the ``such as those specified''
qualifier used in the references to NEMA MG1-2009 in both the current
and proposed ``general purpose electric motor'' definition.
Although DOE is not aware of any other standard operating
characteristics and mechanical construction for usual or unusual
service conditions, DOE anticipates that there may be now, or in the
future, IEC or other standards that may develop such specifications. To
address that possibility, DOE proposed to modify its definition to
cover those electric motors that are designed in standard ratings and
have either: (1) Standard operating characteristics and mechanical
construction for use under usual service conditions, such as those
specified in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-2009, paragraph 14.2,
``Usual Service Conditions,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.15) and without restriction to a particular application or type of
application; or (2) standard operating characteristics or standard
mechanical construction for use under unusual service conditions, such
as those specified in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-2009, paragraph
14.3, ``Unusual Service Conditions,'' (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.15) or for a particular type of application, and which can be
used in most general purpose applications. 76 FR 665.
The proposed definition also included at the end a brief statement
noting that ``[t]hese cited examples of standard
[[Page 26616]]
operating characteristics and mechanical construction are for
illustrative purposes only.'' 76 FR 665.
In response to this proposal, NEMA and ACEEE raised concerns
regarding this final sentence to the proposed definition for ``general
purpose electric motor''. NEMA and ACEEE suggested that including this
language would create confusion, nullify the current references to NEMA
MG1, and invalidate the second part of the definition that lays out the
characteristics and construction under unusual service conditions. In
their view, the language of the proposed regulatory text appeared to
apply only to electric motors designed for unusual service conditions.
ACEEE and NEMA also questioned what other examples of ``standard
operating characteristics and mechanical construction'' would qualify a
motor as a general purpose electric motor. Finally, the commenters
stated the added text should be removed from the definition to remove
any confusion and ambiguity. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 7)
DOE has reconsidered its proposed definition for ``general purpose
electric motor'' and, in today's final rule, DOE is codifying the
definition proposed in the SNOPR without the language noted above.
Without that language, the definition remains consistent with previous
versions of the definition codified in 10 CFR 431, with the exception
of updated references to NEMA MG1. Additionally, DOE believes that this
approach will not limit the scope of motors considered as ``general
purpose electric motors'' for purposes of satisfying the standards
prescribed by EISA 2007. DOE notes, however, that it is removing the
proposed text because it is duplicative of the language in the current
definition that already notes NEMA MG1 is an example of, but not the
only standard for, standard operating characteristics and mechanical
construction. DOE does not agree with commenters that the text would
have added confusion to the existing definition because the text simply
repeated the illustrative nature of the standard operating
characteristics and mechanical construction listed in the definition.
Finally, today's rule moves the ``cannot be used in most general
purpose applications'' qualifier used in the proposed update to the
``definite purpose motor'' definition to the beginning of the
definition. This change does not alter the ``definite purpose motor''
definition as proposed, but clarifies that definite purpose motors
cannot be used in most general purpose applications regardless of
whether they are designed for unusual service conditions or for use on
a particular type of application.
D. Definition of NEMA Design B Motor
In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed a definition for the term
``NEMA Design B, general purpose electric motor'' that was based on the
definition of general purpose electric motor provided in paragraph
1.19.1.2, ``Design B,'' of NEMA MG 1-2006 Revision 1, but with three
changes. See 73 FR 78235. First, the proposed definition removed the
reference to 50 hertz and corresponding performance characteristics
because the EISA 2007-prescribed efficiency standards for ``NEMA Design
B, general purpose electric motors'' at 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(D) cover
only 60-hertz motors. (See NEMA MG-1 (2006) Table 12-11) Second, it
limited the maximum rated slip at rated load (i.e., the amount of
physical force a motor is designed to output) to less than 5 percent
for motors with fewer than 10 poles, because the EISA 2007-prescribed
energy conservation standards only cover 2-, 4-, 6-, and 8-pole motors
and, according to the footnote to MG1-2006 paragraph 1.19.1.2, motors
with 10 or more poles are permitted to have slip slightly greater than
5 percent. Third, it corrected the referenced 60-hertz locked-rotor
current paragraph from 12.35.3 to 12.35.1, because there is no
paragraph 12.35.3 in MG1-2006 and the table under paragraph 12.35.1
contains the maximum currents associated with a locked rotor.
In response to comments received regarding the 2008 NOPR, the
January 2011 SNOPR incorporated several changes to the initially
proposed ``NEMA Design B motor'' definition. In the SNOPR, DOE proposed
to adopt a broad definition of a NEMA Design B motor to include
provisions regarding 50 hertz motors. Furthermore, DOE proposed to
update the reference to ``NEMA MG1-2006'' to reflect the 2009 version
of this document (``NEMA MG1-2009''). Finally, DOE proposed eliminating
references to NEMA Design B motors to remove any confusion that these
motors are solely a subpart of general purpose electric motors because
a NEMA Design B motor may be configured in a manner that falls outside
of the general purpose electric motor category. 76 FR 653-54. DOE
indicated that it is inaccurate and inconsistent with industry practice
to narrowly categorize NEMA Design B motors as only a subset of general
purpose electric motor (subtype I). Instead, in DOE's view, a NEMA
Design B motor can also fall under the category of general purpose
electric motor (subtype II), such as a footless NEMA Design B motor, or
other type of electric motor. 76 FR 654.
NEMA and ACEEE expressed concerns over the proposed changes for
NEMA Design B motors. Both pointed out that the term ``NEMA Design B''
has been included as part of the DOE's definition of ``electric motor''
(now as a part of the definition for ``general purpose electric motor
(subtype I) and, by extension, the definition of ``general purpose
electric motor (subtype II)'') since 10 CFR part 431 was first codified
in 1999. They stated that it was not separately defined then, and there
is no need to do so now. Instead, they indicated that the reference to
NEMA MG1 for the meaning of ``Design B'' in the proposed definition of
``general purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' is sufficient. (NEMA and
ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 8) NEMA and ACEEE also questioned why DOE did not
incorporate a definition for NEMA Design A, NEMA Design C, or IEC
Design N (which they stated is the equivalent to NEMA Design B) motors.
(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 8) In its submitted comment, NEEA offered
no explicit feedback on DOE's proposed definition for NEMA Design B
motors, but instead deferred to electric motor industry experts for
comments on the necessity for, and the use of, the ``NEMA Design B''
designation as a further sub-category. (NEEA, et al., No. 24 at p. 2)
In addition to the above comments, NEMA and ACEEE stated that EISA
2007 categorized ``electric motors'' into two groups, general purpose
electric motors subtypes I and II. NEMA and ACEEE explained that they
believed the standards in section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 are for four
particular groupings of ``electric motors'' based on those two
classifications. They added that the terms ``NEMA Design B'' and
``General Purpose'' are qualifiers used to identify particular
characteristics of one such grouping of ``electric motor'' selected
from these two classifications. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 8)
Furthermore, in response to the proposed definition, NEMA and ACEEE
argued that the reasoning for proposing a definition of ``NEMA Design B
motor'' in 10 CFR 431.12 appeared to be related, in their view, to DOE
incorrectly changing the type of motors identified under section
313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 as ``NEMA Design B, General Purpose Electric
Motors'' to that of a ``NEMA Design B motor that is a general purpose
electric motor'' in 10 CFR 431.25(d). They believed that had DOE kept
the original EISA 2007 language, it should be clear that no definition
of ``NEMA Design B motor'' is required in part 431. With the
[[Page 26617]]
original language, they argued, it is clear that NEMA Design B is
simply a qualifier for the broader term ``electric motor.'' They added
that because this term, NEMA Design B, was not defined previously but
was understood, it remains unnecessary to define it now. Finally, NEMA
and ACEEE reiterated the connection between NEMA Design B and IEC
Design N motors, and stated that the standards prescribed by section
313(b)(2)(D) of EISA 2007 should apply to both motor designs, but only
those that also meet the definition of either subtype I or II motors.
(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 7-9)
While DOE appreciates the concerns raised by NEMA and ACEEE, DOE is
broadly defining the term ``NEMA Design B motor'' to preserve its
flexibility to regulate electric motors covered under EPCA.
Additionally, DOE is codifying only the definition of ``NEMA Design B
motor'' (rather than NEMA Design A, B, C and IEC Design N) because the
most recent industry standard defining this term (NEMA MG1-2009)
appears to contain typographical errors--namely, erroneous table
references related to performance characteristics that NEMA Design B
motors must meet (i.e., locked-rotor current). Therefore, DOE wishes to
clarify its interpretation of the term ``NEMA Design B'' and is
codifying that term in today's rule. For ``NEMA Design A'' and ``IEC
Design N'' motors, DOE believes that the industry standards referenced
in its definitions of subtype I and II motors do not contain any
errors. Accordingly, referring the reader to the specific industry
standards that define these terms should be sufficient and require no
further clarification. Consequently, DOE is not inclined to codify
these definitions at this time. However, for ``NEMA Design C,'' since
the SNOPR's publication, DOE has become aware of a typographical error
in MG1-2009's definition of this term. Although DOE is not defining
this term today, in large part because such a definition had not been
proposed, DOE may clarify its interpretation of this term in the
future.
As discussed previously, DOE disagrees with NEMA and ACEEE that
EISA 2007 narrowed the definition of ``electric motors'' to only
subtype I and subtype II motors. DOE also disagrees that changing the
description for the group of motors described as ``NEMA Design B,
general purpose electric motors'' in EISA 2007 to a ``NEMA Design B
motor that is a general purpose electric motor'' is confusing or
problematic. The proposed modification to this language was designed to
clarify the terminology without changing the meaning and to establish
consistency with other covered electric motors.
Although DOE is currently taking a broad approach in defining
``NEMA Design B'' motors, these motors are only required to meet energy
conservation standards to the extent to which the energy conservation
standards at 10 CFR 431.25 apply. In other words, only those NEMA
Design B motors that fall into either the subtype I or subtype II
categories are required to meet the applicable subtype I or subtype II
energy efficiency levels prescribed by EISA 2007. Those NEMA Design B
motors that fall outside of subtype I or II are not required to satisfy
specific energy conservation standards at this time. For these reasons,
DOE is clarifying that a NEMA Design B motor that is configured as a
general purpose electric motor (subtype I or II) must meet the
standards prescribed at 10 CFR 431.25(d). See Section F. ``Energy
Conservation Standards for Electric Motors,'' infra. This approach also
addresses the concern that DOE's proposal attempted to regulate 50 Hz
motors. Because general purpose electric motors (subtypes I and II) are
60 Hz motors by definition, 60 Hz motors are, therefore, the only
motors that are currently required to meet energy conservation
standards in 10 CFR 431.25.
E. Fire Pump Motors Definition
EPCA section 342(b), as amended by section 313(b)(1)(B) of EISA
2007, prescribes energy efficiency standards for fire pump motors,
which were subsequently codified at 10 CFR 431.25(d). 74 FR 12072.
However, EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, does not define the term ``fire
pump motor.'' DOE proposed in its December 2008 NOPR to define ``fire
pump motor'' as ``a Design B polyphase motor, as defined in NEMA MG1-
2006, rated 500 horsepower (373 kW) or less, 600 volts or less, and
that is intended for use in accordance with the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 20-2007, `Standard for the
Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection.''' 73 FR 78235.
DOE based this proposed definition primarily on the scope of the
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard 1004A-2001, ``Fire Pump
Motors,'' and NFPA Standard 20-2007.
DOE's January 2011 SNOPR raised the possibility of modifying the
proposed ``fire pump motor'' definition from the December NOPR by
adding a publication date for the cited NFPA standard, making a
correction to the title of the relevant NFPA standard, and adding a
citation to UL Standard 1004-5 (2008). (This UL standard is the latest
version to address fire pump motors.) This revised proposal would
define a fire pump motor as an electric motor that is required to meet
the performance and construction requirements set forth by NFPA
Standard 20-2010, section 9.5, and UL Standard 1004-5 (2008). Based on
its understanding of fire pump motors, DOE does not believe that these
motors are necessarily a subset of general purpose electric motors (as
defined in the January 2011 SNOPR). With this understanding, DOE,
consistent with the statute, proposed that all fire pump motors,
irrespective of whether they meet the design constraints of subtype I
motors, would each be subject to the same efficiency level--i.e., the
more lenient standards afforded to subtype II motors. 76 FR 654. (See
also 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B))
Regarding the SNOPR, NEMA and ACEEE raised concerns over the
definition of ``fire pump motor.'' In their view, EISA 2007 defines
only two types of motors: ``general purpose electric motors (subtype
I)'' and ``general purpose electric motors (subtype II).'' Furthermore,
they believe that EISA 2007 inadvertently omitted the word ``electric''
from the description of ``fire pump motors'' in section 313(b)(2)(B).
Although they state that there is no need for a fire pump motor
definition, NEMA and ACEEE contend that these motors should only
consist of what they deem ``electric motors'' (i.e., subtype I and II
motors) that are used with fire pumps. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp.
10-11)
Additionally, NEMA and ACEEE expressed concern over the inclusion
of UL 1004-5 in the definition because UL 1004-5 states that the
performance and construction standards for fire pump motors are given
in other standards, such as NEMA MG1. Also, UL 1004-5 is not considered
a performance and construction standard in the motor industry. As such,
the definition of ``fire pump motor'' should not include it.
Furthermore, they commented that the references to NFPA 20 and UL 1004-
5 do not recognize the use of IEC motors with fire pumps and DOE should
ensure that, if it chooses to maintain a definition for ``fire pump
motor,'' it should cover those motors. They added that, if DOE opts to
define ``fire pump motor'' without removing the UL 1004-5 reference
from the proposed definition, DOE should add UL 1004-5 to the industry
standards incorporated by reference and included at 10 CFR 431.14 and
10 CFR 431.15. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 11) NEMA and ACEEE
asserted that if UL 1004-5 is not dropped from the definition, then UL
[[Page 26618]]
674, which relates to explosion-proof motors (a specific characteristic
covered under the subtype I motor definition), should also be included.
Furthermore, to harmonize with other international protocols related to
explosion-proof motors, DOE would need to include CSA C22.2 No. 145 and
the appropriate IEC protocols as part of the referenced industry
provisions in DOE's regulations.
Finally, NEMA and ACEEE made specific recommendations about DOE's
definitions as they relate to ``fire pump motor.'' First, they stated
that if DOE believes that fire pump motors should be a separate
classification, an ``electric motor'' should be defined as ``a machine
that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power and is
configured as a general purpose electric motor (subtype I) or general
purpose electric motor (subtype II), including, but not limited to,
fire pump electric motors.'' (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 3 and 4)
Second, NEMA and ACEEE recommended that ``fire pump motor'' should be
changed to ``fire pump electric motor'' and suggested that a fire pump
electric motor be defined as an electric motor that meets the
requirements of sections 9.5.1.1 and 9.5.1.7 of the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 20-2010, ``Standard for the
Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection.'' NEMA and ACEEE
specifically cited sections 9.5.1.1 and 9.5.1.7 of NFPA 20-2010 rather
than 9.5 as a whole because these are the only provisions of that
section that they believe apply to the fire pump electric motors that
should be subject to energy conservation standards (i.e., those that
are also subtype I or II motors). (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 9-11)
In other words, according to NEMA and ACEEE, if an electric motor meets
the definition of subtype I or subtype II motor, it only has to meet
the requirements of provisions 9.5.1.1 and 9.5.1.7 to be deemed a
``fire pump electric motor'' as DOE should define the term. The other
sections of 9.5 of NFPA 20-2010 provide performance specifications that
must be met by electric motors that fall outside the scope of subtype I
and II motors (e.g., direct-current, universal, or single-phase motors)
to be deemed fire pump motors.
As discussed in section III.A, DOE disagrees with NEMA and ACEEE
that EISA 2007 narrowed the definition of ``electric motors'' to
address only subtype I and subtype II motors. However, DOE agrees with
NEMA and ACEEE that ``fire pump motors'' should be defined within the
context of the broader term ``electric motors.'' DOE also agrees that
IEC-equivalent motors should be included within the scope of the
definition of ``fire pump electric motor,'' although NFPA 20 and UL
1004-5 do not explicitly recognize the use of IEC motors with fire
pumps. DOE believes this change will help prevent any circumvention of
energy conservation standards and will be consistent with the
definitions for other motor categories.
DOE also agrees with commenters that referencing UL 1004-5 in the
``fire pump electric motor'' definition is unnecessary, particularly
given its potential for confusion regarding performance and
construction. Accordingly, DOE has dropped this reference from the
final definition.
Finally, DOE disagrees with narrowing the cited sections of NFPA
from 9.5 to reference only 9.5.1.1 and 9.5.1.7. As stated earlier in
the context of NEMA Design B motors, DOE does not wish to limit the
scope of motors for which it may establish energy conservation
standards and is opting to take a broader approach that will help
preserve its flexibility in regulating motors. Therefore, DOE is
referencing all of section 9.5 in its definition of fire pump electric
motor, including those sections that apply to motors that are not
currently required to meet energy conservation standards.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Although DOE is adopting a broad definition of ``fire pump
electric motor,'' DOE notes that only fire pump electric motors that
are general purpose electric motors (subtypes I or II) are currently
required to meet energy conservation standards. These motors must
satisfy those levels that are equivalent to those prescribed for
subtype II motors (i.e., NEMA MG1-2009 Table 12-11 levels). See 42
U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)-(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Fire Pump Motor Coverage
Section 313(b)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended EPCA section 342(b) by
requiring that fire pump motors meet the efficiency levels prescribed
in NEMA MG 1-2006 Table 12-11. That provision required fire pump motors
manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) to
have a nominal full-load efficiency that is not less than as defined in
NEMA MG-1 (2006) Table 12-11. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)) The provision
also provided manufacturers with a three-year grace period starting
from EISA 2007's enactment before these motors would need to comply
with these efficiency levels. Consequently, manufacturers were required
to comply with these levels starting on December 19, 2010.
On March 23, 2009, DOE formally codified the MG1-2006 efficiency
levels into 10 CFR part 431. 74 FR 12072. These efficiency values cover
motors with a range from 1 through 500 horsepower and address motors
built in 2-pole, 4-pole, 6-pole, and 8-pole configurations. Both open
and enclosed fire pump motors are also addressed by this table. 74 FR
12061, 12072.
In response to the December 2008 NOPR, in which DOE did not
explicitly define a horsepower range, several interested parties sought
clarity over whether the covered range of horsepower ratings for fire
pump motors was from 1- to 200-horsepower or 1- to 500-horsepower. (GE,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p. 147; WEG, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 8 at pp. 148-49; NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 8-9; NEEA, No. 10
at p. 2) Furthermore, Baldor noted that an excerpt of the language
under EPCA section 342(b), as amended by section 313(b)(1)(B) of EISA
2007, mentions a 1- to 200-horsepower range for subtype I motors.
Baldor stated that whether a fire pump motor covered under this EISA
2007 amendment--codified at 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)--was limited to the
same 1- to 200-horsepower range as a subtype I motor was a matter of
statutory interpretation. (Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at
pp. 112-13, 145, 149-50)
EISA 2007 prescribes energy conservation standards for general
purpose electric motors (subtype I) rated from 1 through 200-
horsepower. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(A)) EISA 2007 also separately
prescribes standards for fire pump motors without specifying any
particular horsepower range. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)) In DOE's
view, with the inclusion of this separate fire pump motor section,
Congress excluded fire pump motors from being treated solely as subtype
I motors. Instead, fire pump motors, as a separate motor category under
the statute, must satisfy the efficiency levels laid out in NEMA
Standard MG1-2006, Table 12-11, which covers 1- through 500-horsepower
motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)) Consistent with this view, DOE
proposed in its SNOPR that fire pump motor energy conservation
standards apply to fire pump motors rated from 1- through 500-
horsepower. 76 FR 655. DOE continues to hold the view that the energy
conservation standards promulgated in the March 23, 2009, technical
amendment are consistent with the manner in which EISA 2007 categorized
these motors and prescribed their specific efficiency levels. (See 42
U.S.C. 6313(b)(1)(B)) Accordingly, DOE believes that EISA 2007
established fire pump motors as an individual class of electric motors
separate from subtype I motors.
NEMA and ACEEE agreed with DOE's interpretation of EISA 2007 that
the
[[Page 26619]]
sections establishing standards for ``general purpose electric motors
(subtype I)'' and ``fire pump motors'' (sections 313(b)(2)(A) and
313(b)(2)(B), respectively), do not preclude standards for ``fire pump
motors'' rated higher than 200 horsepower but less than or equal to 500
horsepower. They noted that if a definition for ``fire pump motors'' is
established and includes a reference to 9.5.1.1 of NFPA 20, which
stipulates that fire pump motors must be NEMA Design B, the higher
horsepower fire pump motors will be covered by the standards
established for NEMA Design B motors (section 313(b)(2)(D) of EISA
2007) falling within the range from 200 through 500 horsepower. (NEMA
and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 12)
Finally, NEMA and ACEEE stated that the provisions in 10 CFR 431.25
should be modified and suggested that DOE explicitly state that the
standards in 10 CFR 431.25 that apply to both subtypes of general
purpose electric motors should exclude ``fire pump motors'' and refer
the reader to the ``fire pump motors'' paragraph. Additionally, they
stated that the paragraph for ``fire pump motors,'' currently in 10 CFR
431.25(d), should only include ratings up to 200 horsepower. They claim
that those higher horsepower ``fire pump motors'' can be captured
implicitly by the standards established for NEMA Design B motors
currently referenced in 10 CFR 431.25(f). (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at
pp. 13-15)
DOE appreciates the comments of interested parties and, in today's
final rule, it has incorporated a number of these suggestions. As
stated in the previous section, DOE believes that a ``fire pump
electric motor'' is a distinct category of ``electric motor'' that
includes motors that are not necessarily ``general purpose electric
motor (subtype I)'' or ``general purpose electric motor (subtype II).''
However, as described earlier, today's final rule clarifies that DOE
views the relevant standards to apply only to those fire pump electric
motors that are also subtype I or subtype II motors. DOE is adopting
this more limited approach in light of the fact that the vast majority
of fire pump motors fall into either the subtype I or II category.
Moreover, without this initial limitation, the fire pump motor
standards would apply to all motor types that may serve as fire pump
motors, including several motor types that do not currently have energy
conservation standards--e.g., direct current motors, universal motors,
and single-phase motors. This fact is significant because DOE's current
test procedures are not designed to measure the energy efficiency of
such motor types. As a result, although the standards set by Congress
do not appear to contemplate a restriction on which fire pump electric
motors need to satisfy the prescribed standards, this limitation is
necessary for the short-term until a suitable procedure can be
developed to measure the efficiency of these other types of electric
motors.
In the future, DOE may consider whether separate standards for
these types of motors would be technologically feasible and
economically justified. Until it reaches a determination on this issue
and promulgates an appropriate test procedure for such motors, DOE is
applying the fire pump motors standards only to those motors that fall
within subtypes I or II. Therefore, at this time, DOE is codifying
under 10 CFR 431.25(b) that only those ``fire pump electric motors''
that also satisfy the subtype I or subtype II definitions are required
to meet specific energy conservation standards. These motors would need
to satisfy the standards set out in the EISA 2007 amendments--i.e. the
efficiency levels found in Table 12-11 of MG1-2006.
Furthermore, DOE is also modifying the language in 10 CFR 431.25 to
more precisely state which motors are covered by the standards
prescribed in each section. DOE notes that it is not relying on higher
horsepower ``fire pump electric motors'' to be implicitly covered under
the standards for NEMA Design B motors and is continuing to provide
explicit language under a separate ``fire pump electric motors''
subsection (10 CFR 431.25(b)). These motors are required to meet energy
conservation standards equivalent to Table 12-11, as prescribed by EISA
2007.
G. Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors
Interested parties also requested that DOE clarify several issues
related to the scope of coverage and the efficiency levels in the
tables of electric motor efficiency standards in 10 CFR 431.25.
First, under 10 CFR 431.25(a), electric motor manufacturers must
comply with the energy efficiency levels that were prescribed by EPACT
1992. That provision, however, specifies no sunset date. Section 313(b)
of EISA 2007 amended EPCA by prescribing energy conservation standards
for subtype I and subtype II motors that manufacturers needed to meet
for covered motors manufactured or imported on or after December 19,
2010. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) These standards, and the compliance date,
were subsequently codified at 10 CFR 431.25(c) and (e), respectively.
Because the standards set by section 431.25(a), which applied to
subtype I motors, have been superseded by the EISA 2007 levels but have
no specified end date, NEMA argued that this situation was potentially
confusing for manufacturers in deciding which provisions apply to their
subtype I motors--the EPACT 1992 levels or the EISA 2007 levels.
Consequently, NEMA requested guidance on the proper energy conservation
standards for subtype I motors. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 9) DOE addressed
this issue in the 2011 SNOPR by proposing to delete 10 CFR 431.25(a) to
clarify that the standards in this section no longer applied.
In view of the above statutory history and relationship of EPCA to
EPACT 1992 and EISA 2007, it is DOE's view that an electric motor
covered under 10 CFR 431.25(a) is a general purpose electric motor
(subtype I), which is now required to meet the EISA 2007 energy
efficiency levels. In other words, a subtype I motor--previously known
simply as an ``electric motor''--that was manufactured or imported
(alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) before December
19, 2010, is subject to the EPACT 1992 energy efficiency standards; a
subtype I motor that was manufactured or imported (alone or as a
component of another piece of equipment) on or after December 19, 2010,
is subject to the EISA 2007 energy efficiency standards.
In response to these proposed changes, NEMA and ACEEE expressed
concern over the removal of the table of efficiency standards that
applied to motors manufactured or imported prior to December 19, 2010,
from 10 CFR Part 431. They commented that many such motors manufactured
prior to December 19, 2010, still remain in commerce and are certified
to the efficiency levels in place at that time. They argued that the
standards codified on March 23, 2009, should remain in place for a
reasonable amount of time, so that these motors may lawfully remain in
commerce. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 13)
Today's rule conforms with the 2011 SNOPR regarding the removal of
the EPACT 1992 energy efficiency levels from the CFR. While DOE
understands stakeholder desire to verify that motors manufactured or
imported prior to December 19, 2010, meet EPACT 1992 levels, DOE notes
that the removal of the current table of standards located at 10 CFR
431.25(a) does not mean that electric motors manufactured or imported
prior to December 19, 2010, that conform to EPACT 1992 levels and that
are still in commerce violate DOE energy conservation standards. Motors
manufactured or imported prior to
[[Page 26620]]
December 19, 2010, would need to satisfy the EPACT 1992 levels. To the
extent that DOE pursues a compliance violation regarding pre-December
19, 2010 motors, those motors would be evaluated against the EPACT 1992
efficiency levels.
In addition, removing the existing tables in 10 CFR 431.25(a) that
detail the previous efficiency levels that were required under EPACT
1992 will reduce potential confusion. Specifically, the EISA 2007
standards have displaced the older standards that Congress established
in EPACT 1992 and the regulations should be updated to reflect that
fact. Removal of the previous standards will help clarify the
requirements that manufacturers must now satisfy by reducing the
complexity of the regulatory text.
Second, in the December 2008 NOPR, DOE did not explicitly state
that a NEMA Design B general purpose electric motor that otherwise
meets the definition of a subtype I motor is subject to the EISA 2007
energy conservation standards that are codified at 10 CFR 431.25(c).
NEMA noted that, given the proposed definitions and structure of 10 CFR
431.25, NEMA Design B general purpose electric motors rated from 1
horsepower up to and including 200 horsepower, would appear to remain
at the same efficiency levels established by EPACT 1992 (codified at 10
CFR 431.25(a)) rather than the higher efficiency levels prescribed by
EISA 2007.
To clarify the scope of energy conservation standards for NEMA
Design B motors from 1 through 200 horsepower, DOE proposed two
modifications of 10 CFR 431.25 in the 2011 SNOPR. Because subtype I
motors include certain NEMA Design B motors, DOE proposed to specify
that NEMA Design B motors rated 1 through 200 horsepower that are also
subtype I motors are subject to the energy conservation standards in 10
CFR 431.25(c) (i.e., those for subtype I motors). In addition, since
subtype II motors include certain NEMA Design B motors (e.g., footless
motors), DOE proposed to specify that NEMA Design B motors rated 1
through 200 horsepower that are also subtype II motors are subject to
energy conservation standards in 10 CFR 431.25(e) (i.e., those for
subtype II motors). 76 FR 655.
Regarding NEMA Design B motors from 200 through 500 horsepower,
EISA 2007 also established energy conservation standards for ``NEMA
Design B, general purpose electric motors'' rated greater than 200
horsepower but less than or equal to 500 horsepower, which were later
codified into the current version of 10 CFR 431.25(f). In response to
the 2008 NOPR, NEMA asserted that the motor industry recognizes a
``NEMA Design B, general purpose electric motor'' as a specific group
of motors that fit the definition of either ``electric motor'' from
EPACT 1992 or ``general purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' from EISA
2007.
In the January 2011 SNOPR, DOE noted that EISA 2007 did not define
the terms ``NEMA Design B, general purpose electric motor,'' ``NEMA
Design B motor,'' or ``general purpose electric motor.'' In the absence
of any statutory definition and the statute's apparent reliance on the
agency's then-existing definition of ``general purpose motor,'' DOE
views the regulatory definition of ``general purpose motor'' that was
in place on EISA 2007's enactment date as the proper definition for
``general purpose electric motor'' as used in the term ``NEMA Design B,
general purpose electric motor.'' The ``general purpose motor''
definition in place at the time of EISA 2007's enactment is the same as
the ``general purpose electric motor'' definition proposed in the
SNOPR, with minor differences for standards updates. DOE proposed that
this definition, when read in conjunction with the definition of ``NEMA
Design B'' proposed in the 2011 SNOPR, would adequately identify the
motors regulated under 10 CFR 431.25(f). DOE realized that this
interpretation could potentially include NEMA Design B motors that are
general purpose electric motors that do not meet the proposed
definition of ``general purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' or
``general purpose electric motor (subtype II).'' 76 FR 655. It is DOE's
understanding, however, that there are few, if any, NEMA Design B
motors that would be neither a subtype I nor a subtype II general
purpose electric motor. 76 FR 655. Such motors that do not fall within
one of the subtypes are not currently subject to energy conservation
standards.
Third, at the time of the December 2008 NOPR, the energy efficiency
standards tables contained in 10 CFR 431.25(c)-(f) listed motor ratings
in horsepower, but not equivalent kilowatts. NEMA requested, in
comments to that notice, that DOE include kilowatt power ratings in the
then-newly codified tables that detail the EISA 2007 efficiency
standards. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 9) Without this change, NEMA raised
concerns that metric-rated motors would not be covered. To ensure that
the tables under 10 CFR 431.25(c)-(f) apply to metric-rated, kilowatt-
equivalent motors, DOE subsequently proposed the possibility of
amending the tables to provide an equivalent kilowatt rating for each
horsepower. 76 FR 656.
Although the EISA 2007 definitions for subtype I and subtype II
motors do not specifically mention motors rated in kilowatts, which is
how IEC motors are rated, DOE believes that the statute covers IEC
motors that are identical or equivalent to motors included in the
statutory definitions. DOE understands that IEC motors generally
perform identical functions as EISA 2007-covered electric motors.
Comparable motors of both types provide virtually identical amounts of
rotational mechanical power, and generally operate or provide power for
the same pieces of machinery or equipment. A given industrial central
air conditioner, for example, could operate with either an IEC or NEMA
motor with little or no effect on performance. Providing equivalent
kilowatt/horsepower ratings would be consistent with the already-
codified EPACT 1992 levels and clarify their applicability. DOE is
maintaining this approach for today's final rule and has codified
kilowatt equivalents to horsepower ratings for each table of energy
conservation standards in 10 CFR 431.25.
Finally, in the SNOPR, DOE proposed to clarify in 10 CFR 431.11,
Purpose and scope, that the electric motors covered under subpart B are
not small electric motors. DOE believes that this clarification is
necessary because electric motors (covered under 10 CFR part 431,
subpart B) and small electric motors (covered under 10 CFR part 431,
subpart X) are separate and unique covered equipment subject to
different regulatory requirements. DOE received no comments regarding
this topic and is maintaining this proposed approach in today's final
rule.
H. International Electrotechnical Commission Standards Incorporated by
Reference
After EISA 2007 removed the definition of electric motor under 42
U.S.C. 6311(13), DOE subsequently proposed in the December 2008 NOPR to
remove the corresponding test protocols incorporated by reference under
10 CFR 431.15. These protocols helped clarify critical elements in the
previous electric motor definition. 73 FR 78227. These protocols
included IEC Standards 60034-1 (1996), 60050-411 (1996), 60072-1
(1991), and 60034-12 (1980). Removal of these references was necessary
in order to account for the statutory changes introduced by the removal
of the ``electric motor'' definition that had previously been in place
as part of EPCA.
[[Page 26621]]
In response to the December 2008 NOPR, NEMA commented that when DOE
adopted the content of EPACT 1992 into 10 CFR part 431, it recognized
the necessity of including for coverage purposes those equivalent
motors designed in accordance with IEC standards that could be used in
the same applications as motors designed in accordance with the NEMA
MG1 standards. NEMA asserted that although the IEC standards do not
particularly identify ``general purpose motors,'' those motors built
according to IEC specifications can be used interchangeably with NEMA
motors in most general purpose applications. Because of this fact, NEMA
argued that the applicable IEC standards should be retained in 10 CFR
part 431, and that motors constructed in accordance with those
standards in metric-equivalent ratings should be considered as covered
equipment under 10 CFR part 431. (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 10)
In the January 2011 SNOPR, DOE explained that it previously took
such an approach when addressing IEC metric motors in the October 1999
electric motor test procedure final rule because of the
interchangeability between IEC motors that are identical or equivalent
to motors constructed in accordance with NEMA MG1. See 64 FR 54142-43
(October 5, 1999). The inclusion of parenthetical references to the IEC
standards in the codified definition of ``electric motor'' under 10 CFR
431.2 (2000) clarified the applicability and coverage of IEC (i.e.,
metric-equivalent) electric motors. For example, under the EPACT 1992
definition of ``electric motor,'' a motor had to be ``continuous
rated.'' DOE later clarified ``continuous rated'' in 10 CFR 431.2
(2000) to mean ``is rated for continuous duty (MG1) operation, or is
rated duty type S1 (IEC).'' Although the statutory definition did not
explicitly mention IEC motors, DOE had previously proposed that the
term ``continuous rated'' apply to those electric motors that are
equivalent to the ``continuous duty operation'' rating denoted by the
parenthetical ``MG1'' or the equivalent IEC duty type ``S1.'' See 61 FR
60442. DOE later codified this approach at 10 CFR 431.2. 64 FR 54142
(October 5, 1999).
DOE believes that EISA 2007 provides the same breadth of coverage
as EPACT 1992 did over IEC motors that are identical or equivalent to
electric motors built in accordance with MG1. In the SNOPR, DOE
proposed revised definitions for ``general purpose electric motor
(subtype I)'' and ``general purpose electric motor (subtype II)'' that
incorporated IEC-equivalent motors. Thus, in the SNOPR, DOE proposed to
retain the IEC references in 10 CFR 431.15. In addition, DOE proposed
to adopt the updated versions of two of the IEC standards, IEC
Standards 60034-1 and 60034-12, to the 2004 and 2007 versions,
respectively. 76 FR 656.
NEMA also noted in its comments to the December 2008 NOPR that a
source to obtain IEC standards does not appear in 10 CFR 431.15(d).
(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 10) In today's rule and in response to NEMA's
comment, DOE reorganizes and updates 10 CFR 431.15, as it proposed in
the SNOPR, to include each IEC standard incorporated by reference with
corresponding updated information about how to obtain copies of these
documents.
I. References to Various Industry Standards
DOE noted in the SNOPR that the current version of 10 CFR part 431
references several outdated standards, such as NEMA MG1-1993, IEEE
Standard 112-1996 (Test Method B), and CSA C390-93 (Test Method 1). In
the SNOPR, DOE proposed to update those references throughout 10 CFR
part 431 to be consistent with the current, industry standards and test
procedures--i.e., NEMA MG1-2009, IEEE Standard 112-2004 (Test Methods A
and B), IEEE Standard 114-2001, CSA C390-10, CSA C747-09, IEC 60034-1
(2010), IEC 60050-411 (1996), IEC 60072-1 (1991), and IEC 60034-12
(2007) . 76 FR 656, 666, and 674. Additionally, after reviewing these
updated protocols, DOE indicated that the exceptions to IEEE Standard
112-1996 (Test Method B) contained in paragraph (2) of appendix B to
subpart B, ``2. Test Procedures,'' which were intended to clarify steps
of the test procedure and various values for constants and equations,
and to provide additional context where needed, are incorporated within
the updated version of IEEE Standard 112-2004 Test Method B. 76 FR 656.
DOE sought comment on whether this assessment of the updated test
method was accurate and if the proposed procedure would adversely
affect the measured losses and efficiency determined for an electric
motor.
In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE stated that it had examined the
current protocols from IEEE, CSA, and IEC. The agency concluded after
this review that the proposed updates are consistent with the previous
methodologies and will have neither an adverse effect on the
measurement of losses or the determination of efficiency. DOE proposed
adopting the IEEE test methods because: (1) Each represents an approach
that is consistent with the existing test methods for electric motors,
which have been in effect without issue since November 1999 as part of
10 CFR part 431; (2) they are the most current versions in use by
industry and have been periodically updated to reflect the best
approaches for measuring and determining the efficiency of electric
motors (including small electric motors); and (3) they will, in DOE's
view, provide accurate and repeatable measurements because they have
tightly defined tolerances, provide necessary test equipment
calibration specifications, and contain methods and procedures
developed by electric motor manufacturers to fairly assess the
performance characteristics of their products. 73 FR 78223.
NEMA and ACEEE had several comments in response to the SNOPR.
First, they commented that the IEC standards proposed for inclusion in
10 CFR 431.15(e)(2)(ii)-(vi) that define the metric-designs equivalent
to the covered NEMA motors should be updated to the most recent
versions. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 15) In particular, references
to International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60034-1 (1996),
Rotating Electrical Machines, Part 1: Rating and Performance should be
updated to the 2010 version. DOE agrees with this suggestion and, as
with its other efforts at updating references to the test procedures,
will update these IEC references.
Second, NEMA and ACEEE noted that the newest version of CSA C390,
CSA C390-10, is no longer technically equivalent to IEEE Standard 112-
2004 (Test Method B) and asserted that the preferred test standard in
the U.S. should remain IEEE Standard 112-2004 (Test Method B). However,
they also recommended that DOE examine the differences between IEEE
Standard 112-2004 (Test Method B) and CSA C390-10 to determine if the
CSA standard should be updated to reference CSA C390-10 (previously CSA
C390-93 (Test Method 1)) and whether this more recent CSA standard
would be permissible to use when determining motor efficiency. (NEMA
and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 15)
Advanced Energy supported DOE's proposal to incorporate the updated
versions of the referenced standards in 10 CFR part 431. It also
concurred with NEMA and ACEEE that there are differences between IEEE
Standard 112 Test Method B and CSA C390-10, the most significant of
these differences being how the magnetic core losses are determined
under these protocols. Magnetic core losses are losses that
[[Page 26622]]
manifest themselves as heat in the steel components of an electric
motor. These losses are important factors because they, along with
I\2\R (i.e., resistive) losses, comprise the most significant
inefficiencies in an electric motor.\9\ With respect to how magnetic
core losses are determined, Advanced Energy explained that CSA C390-10
is more closely aligned with IEC 60034-2-1 '' Rotating Electrical
Machines--Part 2-1: Standard Methods for Determining Losses and
Efficiency from Tests'' than IEEE Standard 112-2004. However, Advanced
Energy did not believe that the differences between IEEE Standard 112-
2004 (Test Method B) and CSA C390-10 significantly affect the measured
efficiency numbers, based on a number of studies comparing the
efficiency differences between IEEE Standard 112-2004 (Test Method B),
IEC 60034-2-1, and CSA C390-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Magnetic core losses are generated by two electromagnetic
phenomena: hysteresis losses and eddy currents. Hysteresis losses
are caused by magnetic domains resisting reorientation to the
alternating magnetic field. Eddy currents are physical currents that
are induced in the steel laminations by the magnetic flux of the
windings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of that view, Advanced Energy cited data from LTEE
Hydro-Quebec in Canada, which found during testing a maximum difference
of 0.13 percent efficiency points among the three standards. A
University of Nottingham test of five motors obtained a maximum
difference of 0.1 percent efficiency points between IEEE Standard 112-
2004 (Test Method B) efficiency and IEC 60034-2-1. From its own tests,
Advanced Energy concluded that differences between all three standards
would result in full-load efficiency values that differed by less than
0.2 percentage points. Advanced Energy did this by providing two sets
of test results. The first demonstrated that the same motor tested
using IEC 60034-2-1 and CSA C390-10 would show no difference in full-
load efficiency and the second demonstrated that the difference between
IEC 60034-2-1 and IEEE Standard 112-2004 (Test Method B) would result
in full-load efficiency values that differed by less than 0.2
percentage points. Therefore, Advanced Energy argued that because these
data showed that IEC 60034-2-1 was equivalent to CSA C390-10, the data
demonstrated that the difference between CSA C390-10 and IEEE Standard
112-2004 (Test Method B) would also be less than 0.2 percentage points.
(Advanced Energy, No. 23 at p. 3) Advanced Energy noted that while it
believes these differences are small, DOE will need to determine if
these differences are small enough to consider these test methods
equivalent. (Advanced Energy, No. 23 at pp. 2-3)
In view of the above comments about the equivalence of IEEE
Standard 112-2004 (Test Method B) and CSA C390-10, including the
results of the LTEE Hydro-Quebec, University of Nottingham, and
Advanced Energy studies, DOE conferred with independent experts about
IEEE Standard 112-2004 (Test Method B) and CSA C390-10, the
methodologies, measurement of losses, and calculated efficiency. DOE
understands that the test methods are not identical, but DOE believes
that the differences are minimal and both tests will result in an
accurate and similar measurement of efficiency. Given the variable
nature of tested efficiency values for electric motors due to
manufacturing and material differences, DOE believes that the variation
in the calculated efficiency is insignificant and not likely to result
in any manipulation of energy efficiency test results.\10\ Moreover,
DOE believes that removing CSA C390-10 would cause unnecessary
disruption in current testing practices and compliance certification.
Therefore, DOE is continuing to allow manufacturers to use either test
method to certify compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ According to a study conducted by the Electrical Apparatus
Service Association and the Association of Electrical and Mechanical
Trades, ``The Effect of Repair/Rewinding on Motor Efficiency,'' the
same motor tested at multiple locations showed a variation of up to
0.9 percent, even though the same test procedure was used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a related note, GEA requested that IEC 60034-2-1 be included as
an acceptable test method in 10 CFR Part 431. (GEA, No. 26 at p. 1) GEA
considered the efficiency test methods of IEEE Standard 112 (Test
Method B) and IEC 60034-2-1 to be almost identical to each other and
asserted that both methods achieve the desired result of measuring the
energy efficiency of a motor. While GEA provided no data to support its
claim that IEC 60034-2-1 is almost identical to IEEE Standard 112 (Test
Method B), Advanced Energy provided data in support of that view. As
described previously, Advanced Energy provided test results using IEEE
Standard 112-2004 (Test Method B), IEC 60034-2-1, and CSA C390-10 that
demonstrated that the test procedures would result in full-load
efficiency values that differed by less than 0.2 percentage points.
(Advanced Energy, No. 23 at p. 3)
Additionally, NEMA and ACEEE noted that they were not aware of
whether DOE had examined IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method E) for testing
vertical motors (i.e., motors that are designed to be mounted in a
vertical configuration), and they requested that DOE carry out this
determination. NEMA and ACEEE requested that, if DOE determines IEEE
Standard 112 (Test Method E) is acceptable, DOE should include it in 10
CFR Part 431. Otherwise, if it is not acceptable, they requested that
DOE provide a test procedure that is acceptable. (NEMA and ACEEE, No.
25 at p. 15)
DOE appreciates the comments about IEC 60034-2-1 and IEEE Standard
112 (Test Method E). DOE will examine them further and may address them
as part of a separate rulemaking.
Finally, GEA believed that DOE had made progress by including IEC
standards for frame sizes that are consistent with NEMA frame sizes but
noted that there had been no reference to the IEC motor efficiency
classifications. GEA requested that DOE add a reference to the
efficiency classifications laid out in IEC 60034-30, ``Rotating
Electrical Machines--Part 30: Efficiency Classes of Single-Speed,
Three-Phase, Cage-Induction Motors (IE-code)'' in the CFR. (GEA, No. 26
at p. 1) It asserted that the IE2 energy efficiency and IE3 premium
efficiency ratings of IEC 60034-30 are comparable to NEMA MG1-2009
tables 12-11 and 12-12 respectively. Although DOE appreciates GEA's
comment, it believes that incorporating a reference to the IEC tables
of efficiency levels is unnecessary because the actual efficiency
standards are included as a part of 10 CFR 431.25.
J. National Institute of Standards and Technology/National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program Handbook 150-10 Update and Checklist
In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed updating the references in
the regulations from: (1) The 1994 edition of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology/National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation
Program (NIST/NVLAP) Handbook 150, ``Procedures and General
Requirements'' to the 2006 edition; and (2) the 1995 edition of the
NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10, ``Efficiency of Electric Motors'' to the
2007 edition. 73 FR 78228, 78236. Although following the NIST/NVLAP
handbooks is not a required part of the electric motors test procedure,
the handbook provides important guidance for assuring testing
laboratory competency and is used by test facilities seeking
accreditation under 10 CFR 431.18, 431.19, and 431.36(a)(2).
During the January 30, 2009, public meeting to discuss the December
2008 NOPR, two issues were raised regarding this proposed update.
First, Baldor expressed concern that an update to
[[Page 26623]]
NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10 could be problematic because it refers to
test methods that are different from the updated test methods proposed
by DOE. For example, the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10 refers to
proficiency in IEEE Standard 112-1996 (Test Method B) and CSA C390-93
(Test Method 1) to become an accredited laboratory. (Baldor, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p. 178) Because these industry test
methods have been revised, DOE proposed in the December 2008 NOPR to
update 10 CFR 431.16, appendix A to subpart B, and 10 CFR 431.15 to be
consistent with current industry practice. 73 FR 78228. DOE indicated
that it would consult with NIST and consider appropriate updates
regarding the references in NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10.
Subsequently, NIST reviewed its Handbook 150-10 and issued a formal
Laboratory Bulletin on March 19, 2009 (Lab Bulletin LB-42-2009) about
the Efficiency of Electric Motors Program, available at https://www.nist.gov/nvlap/upload/LB_42_2009-1.pdf. That bulletin contains a
series of updates to the industry standards referenced in Handbook 150-
10. Although NIST did not update its references of CSA C390, DOE and
NIST evaluated potential differences between the 1993 and 2010 versions
of the Canadian standard and determined that there are no substantial
differences between them that would result in a significant change in
measured efficiency. Therefore, in the January 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed
to adopt the 2007 edition of NIST Handbook 150-10. DOE is maintaining
this approach for its final rule. Additionally, in today's rule, DOE is
adopting the March 2009 NVLAP Lab Bulletin, which contains the updates
to industry references in the NIST handbook.
Second, Baldor commented that the 2007 edition of the handbook does
not address the procedure used for accrediting a laboratory, which is
contained in a checklist that it was unable to obtain and examine.
(Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at pp. 166-167) NEMA
commented that it found a ``significant difference'' between the 1995
and 2007 editions of the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10. NEMA noted that
the 1995 edition provides (1) information on the required accuracy of
the test equipment, (2) details of the test procedure to be used for
testing induction motors, and (3) a checklist for the purpose of
evaluating the test facility. NEMA expressed concern that the 2007
edition does not contain that technical information and noted that
clause 1.6.2 of the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10 (2007) indicates that
all NVLAP programs must use the NIST Handbook 150 Checklist. NEMA
commented that DOE should not incorporate by reference the 2007 edition
of NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10 until the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10
Checklist is available to the public and DOE has examined it to be
certain it contains the same information about the accuracy of test
equipment and the procedure for testing as the 1995 edition. (NEMA, No.
12 at pp. 11-12)
DOE consulted with NIST about the above matters and learned that
the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10 (2007) and the on-site assessment NIST/
NVLAP Handbook 150-10 Checklist are available through the web links
https://www.nist.gov/nvlap/nvlap-handbooks.cfm and https://www.nist.gov/nvlap/upload/NIST-HB-150-10-Checklist.pdf respectively.
After considering the comments from Baldor and NEMA, DOE further
examined the 1995 and 2007 Checklists. In DOE's view, these two
testing-related documents share the same information related to
equipment accuracy, test procedures, and procedures for laboratory
accreditation. Accordingly, DOE believes that the 2007 Checklist is a
proper replacement for the provisions in the 1995 edition and is
updating the regulations to include the new edition of the NIST
Handbook 150-10 Checklist (Rev. 2007-05-04).
Because the two NIST/NVLAP handbooks, the lab bulletin, and the
checklist are not requirements of the test procedure itself, but rather
documents used to accredit a testing facility as being capable of
conducting the necessary tests for evaluating the energy efficiency of
an electric motor, DOE is providing all of the necessary information
for these documents in 10 CFR 431.14 ``Sources for information and
guidance.''
NEMA and ACEEE also had concerns with 10 CFR 431.18 and the
continued use of the phrase ``the initial effective date'' in the
statement ``[c]hanges in NIST/NVLAP's criteria, procedures, policies,
standards, or other bases for granting accreditation occurring after
the initial effective date of 10 CFR Part 431 shall not apply to
accreditation under this part unless approved in writing by the
Department of Energy.'' NEMA and ACEEE believed the phrase the
``initial effective date,'' which refers to October 5, 1999, may be
confusing because neither commenter was aware of any established
procedure for informing test facilities when DOE has approved a
revision of the accreditation program. Both commenters encouraged DOE
to establish and apply such a procedure to certification and
accreditation programs. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 16)
DOE appreciates the concerns that NEMA and ACEEE have raised
regarding 10 CFR 431.18, ``Testing Laboratories.'' To eliminate any
potential confusion over this issue, DOE is removing the sentence,
``Changes in NIST/NVLAP's criteria, procedures, policies, standards or
other bases for granting accreditation, occurring subsequent to the
initial effective date occurring subject to the initial effective date
of 10 CFR Part 431, shall not apply to accreditation under this Part
unless approved in writing by the Department of Energy.'' Reference to
the effective date of the regulation is unnecessary as the date has
passed, and any change approved in writing will be reflected in the
regulatory text at the time of the change. DOE notes that the NIST/
NVLAP criteria currently incorporated into the DOE regulations remain
effective, and changes to these criteria shall not apply unless the
changes are approved in writing by the Department.
K. Appendix A to Subpart B of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 431
Prior to EISA 2007, the Policy Statement under appendix A to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 provided interpretive guidance as to which
types of motors DOE viewed as covered under EPCA. This policy statement
was published in the Federal Register on November 5, 1997, in response
to concerns expressed from manufacturers regarding uncertainty as to
whether motors with certain modifications were ``electric motors''
covered under the statute. DOE based its guidance on the
recommendations of motor manufacturers, original equipment
manufacturers, energy efficiency advocates, trade associations, testing
laboratories, and other government officials. 62 FR 59978.
In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed to delete the contents of
appendix A to subpart B since the appendix was no longer an
interpretation of current law in light of the EISA 2007 amendments to
EPCA. The appendix had been heavily based on the previous definition of
``electric motors'' that Congress removed. With the removal of that
definition, much of the interpretive basis surrounding the policy
statement required significant reconsideration. 73 FR 78228.
During the January 29, 2009, public meeting, Baldor commented that
removing appendix A would result in no guidance and leave open the
[[Page 26624]]
possibility to greatly expanded guidance in the future. (Baldor, Public
Meeting Transcript No. 8, p. 118) NEMA submitted a comment suggesting
that DOE attempt to revise the guidance that appears in appendix A
rather than deleting it completely. NEMA argued that this would help
clarify some of the new interpretations that DOE would have in view of
the EISA 2007 legislation. (NEMA, No. 12, p. 12)
In response, the January SNOPR included an alternative to the
removal of appendix A--revision of the contents of appendix A to
reflect the EISA 2007 changes to EPCA. Specifically, DOE proposed to:
(1) Eliminate references to enactment dates that no longer apply; (2)
update the scope of coverage to include subtype I and II motors; and
(3) address the bounds of standard shaft dimensions applicable to
subtype I and II motors. DOE did not propose language regarding fire
pump or NEMA Design B motors because DOE did not believe that such
guidance was necessary at that time, although DOE indicated that it may
add such guidance at a future date. DOE specifically noted that, as a
``Policy Statement,'' appendix A represented DOE's interpretation of
existing statutes and regulations but did not, and was not intended to,
have the force and effect of law. 76 FR 657.
In response to the SNOPR, DOE received multiple comments from
interested parties regarding appendix A. Multiple interested parties
expressed support for DOE's plans to provide additional guidance on the
bounds of standard shaft dimensions applicable to subtype I and II
motors. These interested parties also expressed support for time phased
implementation dates before such guidance takes effect, although
suggested phase-in periods varied. Additionally, some interested
parties requested clarification on certain categories of electric
motors, such as gearmotors. Finally, ACEEE and NEMA suggested specific
updates to the table that DOE proposed in its regulatory text for
appendix A to Subpart B of Part 431. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at pp. 16-
17)
In light of the comments received and DOE's desire to provide the
public and all interested parties with guidance in a more expeditious
manner, in today's final rule, DOE is removing appendix A from the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR), reformatting the information contained
therein, and will post the contents on DOE's Web site as guidance
(``Electric Motors Guidance''). The removal of appendix A from the CFR
does not change the legal effect or authority of appendix A as appendix
A was a ``Policy Statement'' that merely provided users with guidance
as to DOE's interpretation of existing statutes and regulations. Unlike
EPCA, as amended, and DOE's electric motor regulations, appendix A was
never intended to have, and never had, the force and effect of law.
By placing appendix A on DOE's Web site as guidance, DOE will be
able to respond more efficiently to questions regarding general
electric motors coverage and share DOE's responses to all interested
persons at the same time. Moving appendix A to DOE's Web site will also
eliminate any potential confusion as to the legal effect of appendix A.
The updated guidance document will be available at https://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1. The guidance
will incorporate changes based on comments received in this rulemaking
regarding appendix A.
The updated guidance will address the bounds of standard shaft
dimensions applicable to subtype I and subtype II motors. DOE
understands that NEMA Standard MG1-2009 and IEC Standard 60072-1 (1991)
specify tolerances for the shaft extension diameter and keyset that
relate to the fit between the shaft and the device mounted on the
shaft. DOE is aware that shafts of special diameter, length, or design
are often provided at a customer's request for use in particular
applications. However, there are electric motors with non-standard
shafts that could be used in most general purpose applications and
would then be considered subtype I or subtype II general purpose
electric motors. DOE received inquiries regarding whether motors with
shaft designs that are not necessarily in conformance with the standard
shaft types and dimensions in NEMA MG1 or IEC 60072-1 were covered
under EPCA. (Baldor, No. 16; WEG, No. 17) In response to such
inquiries, and in view of possible confusion in the marketplace, DOE
proposed to add guidance on shaft diameter, length, shoulder location,
and special designs under section III of appendix A to subpart B of 10
CFR part 431 in the January 2011 SNOPR. 76 FR 658.
The Electric Motors Guidance will specify for certain design
features the range of variation in motor characteristics beyond which a
motor would no longer be considered by DOE as general purpose.
Manufacturers should not attempt to circumvent the efficiency standards
by making minor modifications to a motor in an attempt to characterize
an otherwise general purpose electric motor as a non-general purpose
electric motor. Whether a user can use a motor in most general purpose
applications is a critical factor in assessing whether a given motor is
a general purpose electric motor.
DOE proposed language to provide guidance on the amount of
variation from standard characteristics that would enable a motor to
maintain its general purpose classification, as follows:
Table III.1--Allowable Shaft Dimension Variations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variation allowed
Design feature from standard
characteristic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaft Diameter.................................... Any variation in the
shaft diameter
between the
standard shaft
diameter of the
next lower and
higher frame
numbers series
maintains the
general purpose
classification of a
motor.
Shaft Length...................................... Any shaft length
between and
inclusive of 0.5 to
1.25 times the
standard shaft
length of the motor
maintains the
general purpose
classification of
the motor.
Shoulder Location................................. An increase less
than or equal to 25
percent in either
the ``BA'' (MG1) or
``C'' (IEC)
dimensions of the
standard motor
frame dimensions
maintains the
general purpose
classification of
the motor.
Special Shaft Designs............................. The special shaft
designs of a flat
section in shaft
(for pulley
mounting) and
shafts with a
threaded hole
maintain the
general purpose
classification of
the motor.
Alternatively,
shafts with threads
on the outside of
the shaft or a
stepped shaft do
not currently
maintain their
general purpose
classification. If
DOE receives
information that
manufacturers are
switching to motors
with outside
threads and stepped-
shaft design
variants to avoid
efficiency
improvements, then
DOE may change the
guidance to
classify motors
with outside
threads and stepped
shafts as general
purpose electric
motors. 76 FR 658,
673.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26625]]
NEEA stated that it ``strongly supports'' DOE actions to clarify
regulations and prevent circumvention of standards and in this regard
supported DOE's decision to regulate non-standard shaft dimensions. It
recommended that up to one year should be allowed for such motors to
come into compliance with the applicable standards established by EISA
2007. (NEEA, et al., No. 24 at p. 3) Several interested parties
indicated their concern over the enforcement of these shaft and
shoulder dimensions. Particularly, these parties were concerned that if
DOE took the position that motors with non-standard shaft lengths and
sizes would be treated as general purpose electric motors for purposes
of compliance with the EISA 2007 standards, manufacturers would require
additional time to adjust to this new policy. NEMA noted that its
members and their customers have spent a considerable amount of time
and effort to adopt the EISA 2007 standards by the effective date of
December 19, 2010, and have made significant changes both in
manufacturing processes for motors and the equipment that use the
motors to comply with the applicable provisions under 10 CFR Part 431.
In view of these concerns, NEMA and ACEEE have requested a time-phased
implementation of three years for the changes in guidance pertaining to
special shafts. They believe that this will allow motor users and
manufacturers the necessary time to implement the required changes.
(NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 17-18).
Regarding DOE's enforcement of its electric motors regulations in
light of DOE guidance, DOE reminds stakeholders that the former
appendix A was a guidance document and did not constitute a regulatory
requirement. Similarly, any future guidance does not change the scope
of coverage for electric motors. Therefore, although DOE understands
that some electric motors may require some design modifications, DOE
declines to establish an implementation date for the enforcement of
energy conservation standards for motors with special shaft dimensions.
DOE will consider cases on an individual basis when evaluating any
potential noncompliance.
In response to the January 2011 SNOPR, the Rossi Gearmotor Division
of Habasit America (Rossi) commented that integral gearmotors are
effectively general purpose electric motors with relatively simple
modifications that would not affect energy efficiency. While these
motors often cannot be used independent of the gear reducer, they can
be technologically and economically manufactured to the energy
efficiency levels of a standard NEMA or IEC motor, which is evidenced
by the fact that most integral gearmotor manufacturers selling in the
U.S. market offer a high efficiency gearmotor. However, it added that
the majority of those manufacturers would want DOE to continue to
consider such motors outside the scope of regulation, which would
continue to allow standard efficient integral gearmotors to be offered
at lower first costs relative to energy efficient integral gearmotors.
Rossi stated that manufacturers of integral gearmotors have a statutory
responsibility to meet energy efficiency standards where it is
technologically feasible and economically justified. (Rossi, No. 22 at
pp. 1-2).
NEMA and ACEEE requested that DOE clarify that only motors
connected to a stand-alone gear assembly would be treated as covered
equipment. NEMA and ACEEE stated that a separately contained gear
assembly can be intended for mounting on a C-face or D-flange on a
motor of otherwise standard construction. They added that such a gear
assembly is not generally a ``stand-alone'' unit and the assembly with
the motor would not be an ``integral gearmotor.'' (NEMA and ACEEE, No.
25 at p. 26)
As stated in the former appendix A, DOE only considers a motor to
be an ``integral gearmotor'' if it is a combination of a motor and a
gear drive (or assembly of gears). In this combined package, the gear
drive (or assembly of gears) and the motor are not stand-alone
entities. Also as noted in the former appendix A, DOE did not consider
such equipment to be covered by EPCA. The motor portion of an integral
gearmotor is usually not a complete motor and thus not capable of being
used in most general purpose applications. Additionally, integral
gearmotors are generally not constructed with a T- or U-frame and they
can have unique performance characteristics, physical dimensions, and
casing, flange, and shafting dimensions. As a result, DOE considers
such motors outside the scope of EPCA as amended by EISA 2007. Finally,
DOE recognizes that an electric motor could be connected to a stand-
alone gear drive (or assembly of gears) and clarifies that it does not
consider such a configuration to be an integral gearmotor. If an
electric motor is connected to a stand-alone gear drive (or assembly of
gears), DOE considers it covered equipment if it also meets the
definition of subtype I or subtype II.
L. Definition of Small Electric Motor
Subsequent to the publication of the July 7, 2009, small electric
motor test procedures final rule (74 FR 32059), Baldor expressed
concern over the clarity of certain key terms contained within the
statutory definition of a small electric motor, asking DOE to clarify
the statutory definition of ``small electric motor'' by interpreting
key phrases in the definition, specifically: ``general purpose,''
``induction motor,'' ``two-digit frame number series,'' and ``IEC
metric equivalent motors.'' (Baldor, No. 15 at p. 2) Baldor suggested
that DOE consider clarifying the definition by adding parenthetical
identifiers ``(MG1)'' and ``(IEC)'' to the definition after each of
these four key phrases to indicate the industry reference from which
DOE interprets the meaning of that phrase. (Baldor, No. 15 at p. 2)
Section 340(G) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G), defines the term
``small electric motor'' to mean a NEMA general purpose alternating
current single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number
series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987. When DOE
codified this definition into the CFR, DOE added the phrase ``including
IEC metric equivalent motors'' to clearly signal that a motor that
otherwise satisfied the technical requirements spelled out in the
statutory definition would not be exempt from coverage simply because
it was built using metric--rather than English (Imperial)--units. 74 FR
32072. DOE applied the term ``small electric motors'' to refer to those
motors that are built in a two-digit frame series and that are general
purpose and possess standard ratings and standard operating
characteristics, an application that a Federal appellate court has
upheld as permissible. See National Electrical Manufacturers
Association v. DOE, 654 F.3d 496 (4th Cir. 2011). However, should it
become necessary, DOE may consider providing further clarification as
required.
M. Canadian Standards Association Test Procedures for Small Electric
Motors
In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed permitting manufacturers to
select one of three test methods to measure the energy efficiency of
its covered small electric motors: IEEE Standard 114, IEEE Standard
112, or CAN/CSA C747-94. 73 FR 78223, 78238. These choices were
consistent with those for electric motors listed in 10 CFR 431.16.
Under that provision, a manufacturer may select either an IEEE or CSA
test method for determining the
[[Page 26626]]
efficiency of covered 1-200 horsepower electric motors. DOE adopted
IEEE Standard 114-2001 for single-phase small electric motors and both
IEEE Standard 112-2004 Test Method A and Test Method B in its final
rule for polyphase small electric motors. 74 FR 32065-66, 32073-74.
Since IEEE Standard 112 Test Method A applies to polyphase small
electric motors below 1 kilowatt (1.34 horsepower), DOE determined that
Test Method A would apply to polyphase small electric motors rated at
or below 1 horsepower, which is the first common horsepower rating
below 1 kilowatt (1.34 horsepower). Similarly, IEEE Standard 112 Test
Method B would apply to polyphase small electric motors rated greater
than 1 horsepower. DOE also adopted CAN/CSA-C747-94 as an alternative
test method for single-phase motors. In the small electric motors test
procedure final rule, DOE stated that it was not adopting alternative
test methods for polyphase small electric motors based on CAN/CSA-747-
94 or CSA C390-10 because of potential inconsistencies in the measured
efficiency associated with units tested under IEEE Standard 112-2004
(Test Method B). 74 FR 32066.
In the January 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed to add alternatives to
provide manufacturers with greater testing flexibility. In particular,
DOE proposed to permit testing using: (1) CSA C747-09 as an alternative
to IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method A) for polyphase small electric
motors rated less than or equal to 1 horsepower (0.746 kilowatt); and
(2) CSA C390-10, as an alternative to IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B)
for polyphase small electric motors that have a rating greater than 1
horsepower (0.746 kilowatt). DOE indicated that using the CSA C747-09
and CSA C390-10 in this manner will result in consistent measurements
compared to the applicable IEEE Standard 112 and IEEE Standard 114 test
methods adopted in the small electric motors final rule, and help
promote the harmonization of test methods internationally. 76 FR 658.
NEMA and ACEEE suggested including CSA C747-09 as an equivalent
protocol to the appropriate IEEE 114 and 112 Methods. (NEMA and ACEEE,
No. 25 at p. 18) They also provided comments on CSA C390-10 as it
relates to IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B), which are addressed in
section III.I of today's notice. Advanced Energy pointed out that an
updated version of the IEEE Standard 114 was published in December 2010
and advised DOE to reference this standard rather than the superseded
IEEE Standard 114-2001. (Advanced Energy, No. 23 at p. 4)
DOE has decided to codify the changes proposed in the SNOPR with
the addition of the changes suggested by interested parties--namely, to
update IEEE Standard 114 to the 2010 version and allow the use of CSA
C390-10 as an equivalent to IEEE Standard 112. DOE believes that it is
important to have the most current standards referenced in its
regulatory text and it understands that the new version of CSA C390 is
essentially equivalent to IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B). DOE will
update the referenced IEEE Standard 114 to the most recent December
2010 version because it reflects the most current industry practices.
Because DOE believes the two methods are equivalent, DOE may use either
test procedure when testing electric motors for compliance with EPCA,
as amended.
N. Small Electric Motor Represented Efficiency Value
In DOE's notice proposing energy conservation standards for small
electric motors, the term ``nominal full-load efficiency'' was defined
as the arithmetic mean of the full-load efficiency of a population of
motors. DOE received numerous comments on this definition, all of which
were summarized in its final rule on energy conservation standards for
small electric motors. 75 FR 10874 (March 9, 2010). Ultimately, DOE
agreed with comments made by NEMA and Baldor and opted not to establish
energy conservation standards in terms of nominal efficiency. 75 FR
10914. Instead, DOE established energy conservation standards for small
electric motors in terms of ``average full-load efficiency.'' 75 FR
10947.
NEMA had also sought clarity on the term ``nominal full-load
efficiency'' in the context of the December 2008 proposal. It noted
that DOE had not fully explained the efficiency value for which test
results are to be compared for the purpose of determining compliance.
NEMA asked how DOE would require the full-load efficiency to be
represented on small electric motors, noting that motors are not marked
with the average full-load efficiency. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3)
In developing the January 2011 SNOPR, DOE considered the relevant
comments submitted during the small electric motors rulemaking
proceedings. DOE recognized that its standards for electric motors and
small electric motors use different metrics--i.e., nominal full-load
efficiency (electric motors) and average full-load efficiency (small
electric motors). The nominal efficiency values for electric motors are
based on a logical sequence of standard values in NEMA Standard MG1-
2009 (Table 12-10) and are familiar to motor users. However, there is
no comparable set of standardized values adopted by NEMA for small
electric motors and there is no statutory requirement that efficiency
standards for these motors be set in terms of their nominal full-load
efficiency.
As mentioned earlier, DOE established small electric motor energy
conservation standards in terms of ``average full-load efficiency'' in
the final rule. 75 FR 10914, 10947 (March 9, 2010). The analyses and
results supporting the final energy conservation standard levels for
small electric motors were calculated using an average efficiency
metric. In the 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed procedures for reporting the
average full-load efficiency of these small electric motors that would
be consistent with the energy conservation standards set in the March
2010 rule. With respect to the term ``nominal full-load efficiency,''
since this term is not used in the small electric motors standard, DOE
proposed leaving the term undefined. If DOE amended the test procedure
to measure the nominal full-load efficiency of small electric motors,
the change would alter the applicable metric, which, in turn, could
require a change in the energy efficiency standard levels for small
electric motors because the average full-load efficiency standards in
place would need to be recalculated in terms of nominal full-load
efficiencies. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)) NEMA viewed the average full-load
efficiency definition in the small electric motors energy conservation
standards final rule as ambiguous and noted that the term ``represented
efficiency'' had yet to be defined. Therefore, in the 2011 SNOPR, DOE
proposed procedures for determining the represented efficiency of small
electric motors and how that value relates to the average full-load
efficiency of a sample of motors.
In the SNOPR preamble, DOE proposed to treat the represented
efficiency as the efficiency that corresponds to a 5 percent increase
in losses, compared to the tested efficiency of a random sample of five
or more units of a basic model. 76 FR 659. However, this approach was
not fully consistent with the language and equations proposed in 10 CFR
431.445 of the proposed regulatory text, which suggested that the
average full-load efficiency of a sample of motors must be greater than
or equal to a motor's represented efficiency with an increase of 5
percent in motor losses. 76 FR 674-75. In other words, if the motor's
represented efficiency is adjusted to a
[[Page 26627]]
new efficiency that equates to an increase in motor losses of 5
percent, the average full-load efficiency of the tested sample must be
greater than or equal to that new, adjusted, efficiency.
NEMA and ACEEE had several comments regarding DOE's January 2011
proposal to define ``represented efficiency value.'' First, NEMA and
ACEEE argued that no definition is needed in addition to the previously
defined terms ``average full-load efficiency'' and ``NEMA nominal
efficiency,'' which are already in use by the industry. They commented
that the representative efficiency used to check the average efficiency
of a sample should be the nominal full-load efficiency value for the
small electric motors, and did not believe that a separately defined
``representative efficiency'' is necessary. They asserted that the
definition of ``nominal full-load efficiency'' in 10 CFR 431.12 should
be added to 10 CFR 431.442 to cover small electric motors. Furthermore,
NEMA and ACEEE commented that the relationship between average full-
load efficiency and represented efficiency, as defined in 10 CFR
431.445(c)(3), conflicts with the statement in the 2011 SNOPR preamble
that ``represented efficiency'' is ``that efficiency that corresponds
to a 5 percent increase in losses, compared to the tested efficiency of
a random sample of five or more units of a basic model.'' (NEMA and
ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 19)
NEMA and ACEEE also expressed concern that the ``arbitrary 5%
increase in losses'' proposed by DOE that a manufacturer would use when
reporting and certifying its equipment would require a manufacturer to
understate the actual value efficiency of its motors. In their view,
DOE does not require a manufacturer of any other covered product in
Part 431 to understate the actual efficiency, and DOE should not
require electric motor manufacturers to do so. Furthermore, NEMA and
ACEEE disagreed with the selection of the 5 percent factor. They noted
that the value of 5 percent chosen for electric motors was supported by
NEMA round robin tests and studies by NIST/NVLAP in developing the
accreditation program for test facilities to follow when determining
electric motor efficiency. It was their opinion that until sufficient
studies have been performed to determine how the ``average full-load
efficiency'' will be determined for a large population of small
electric motors based on a sample of five motors, this margin should be
increased to no less than 15 percent. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 20)
Finally, NEMA and ACEEE expressed concern over the sample size of
five motors for the ``tested efficiency.'' In their view, the proposal
fails to recognize that this sample of five motors could be taken from
a population of thousands of small electric motors of the same design.
This situation leaves open the possibility that the selected motors
could be outliers to the general population of small electric motors
produced by a manufacturer. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 19)
DOE notes that it did not propose a definition for the term
``represented average full-load efficiency.'' DOE agrees with the
commenters that such a definition is unnecessary, given that the term
``average full-load efficiency'' is already defined and will be used
with respect to small electric motors in a similar manner as ``nominal-
full-load efficiency'' is used with respect to electric motors (as
represented on the electric motor nameplate). For electric motors, the
term ``represented nominal full load efficiency'' is understood by
electric motor manufacturers as denoting the efficiency of a basic
model for which a manufacturer is attempting to demonstrate compliance.
(See 10 CFR 431.17(b)(2).)
To make these concepts clearer with respect to small electric
motors, DOE is replacing the term ``represented average-full load
efficiency'' with the term ``required average-full load efficiency.''
In the context of small electric motors, the term ``required average-
full load efficiency'' refers to the average full-load efficiency that
a small electric motor basic model must satisfy to comply with the
applicable standard. DOE believes that ``required'' is a preferable
term for small electric motors because it does not connote labeling
requirements as ``represented'' does for electric motors.
This change is important for two reasons. First, there are no
labeling requirements currently in place for small electric motors.
Second, manufacturers prefer to use nominal full-load efficiency values
on their labels and to represent the efficiency of a large population
of motors with the same design (both electric motors and small electric
motors) with a single efficiency value. Because the standards for small
electric motors are in terms of average full-load efficiencies (and not
standardized nominal values used for labeling electric motors), using
the term ``required'' distinguishes the rating for small electric
motors from the nominal full-load efficiency values used to rate
electric motors.
In addition to these revisions, DOE is clarifying one portion of
the text within Section 431.445(c)(2). DOE is making this change to
ensure that the limited conditions under which substitute components
may be used are more easily understood. These changes are being made to
improve the overall readability of this section and are consistent with
DOE's proposal.
DOE also clarifies that the regulatory text and equations appearing
in the SNOPR correctly lay out the manner in which manufacturers are to
determine the certified efficiency of their motors. See 76 FR 674-75.
DOE's proposal regarding the represented (now required) efficiency of a
small electric motor was intended to be consistent with DOE's current
regulations for electric motors. In other words, DOE is clarifying that
the average full-load efficiency of a sample should be greater than or
equal to the required efficiency (plus a 5 percent increase in losses)
for that sample.
DOE notes that in the context of all other regulated consumer
products and commercial equipment, manufacturers are required to rate
the energy efficiency performance of their products or equipment in a
conservative manner not only to ensure that those products and
equipment satisfy the required energy conservation standards, but also
to ensure that the final product or equipment performs at least as well
as the represented efficiency. Against this background, DOE notes that
its proposal centers on requiring manufacturers to apply test results
when determining the energy efficiency of a particular basic model and
to certify compliance using the applicable small electric motor energy
efficiency level. The average efficiency of the required sample must be
greater than or equal to the required efficiency level plus a 5 percent
increase in motor losses. For example, if a manufacturer has a small
electric motor with a required energy conservation standard level of
88.5 percent, demonstrating that a small electric motor basic model
meets that level would require that the average of a sample of at least
5 tested motors must be greater than or equal to 88.5 percent plus a 5
percent increase in motor losses, or 88.0 percent.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Motor losses (ML) are calculated using the equation ML =
(100/[micro])-1, where [micro] equals efficiency. Consider the
example in the text. At 88.5 percent efficient, ML = 0.130, and a 5
percent increase would make ML = 0.136. Then, the previous equation
can be rearranged as follows, [micro] = 100/(ML+1). Plugging in
0.136 for ML and solving for [micro] yields a new efficiency of 88.0
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, DOE emphasizes that a manufacturer seeking to certify
a particular basic model must test at least 5 units (or samples) of a
basic model. If
[[Page 26628]]
a manufacturer believes that this sample size will not be
representative of their population of that basic model, it may test
more units at its discretion to determine its certified efficiency.
DOE appreciates the comments regarding the use of ``nominal full-
load efficiency'' when referring to a small electric motor's
``represented full-load efficiency,'' now ``required full-load
efficiency.'' However, because ``nominal full-load efficiency'' is not
used in the small electric motors standard, DOE has decided to leave
the term undefined. Should DOE amend the test procedure to measure the
nominal full-load efficiency of small electric motors, it would likely
necessitate changes to the energy conservation standards as well. If
such a change were made to the regulated metric, DOE would alter, as
appropriate, the applicable methodology and then make a corresponding
change in the energy conservation standards consistent with other
statutory requirements. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)). Consequently, DOE is not
requiring the ``required full-load efficiency'' to be stated or
reported in terms of ``nominal full-load efficiency.'' However, DOE
realizes that this is the industry standard for labeling motors and is
clarifying that small electric motor manufacturers can still use the
standardized values for nominal full-load efficiency that appear in
NEMA MG1-2009 Table 12-10 to label their motors. Consistent with 42
U.S.C. 6317(d), DOE will consider the promulgation of detailed
requirements related to this equipment.
Finally, in response to the comments by NEMA and ACEEE suggesting
that DOE raise the proposed power loss factor from 5 to 15 percent, DOE
is not inclined to change its proposal for a number of reasons. First,
the proposed value is consistent with the value used for medium
electric motors. That value, as NEMA and ACEEE pointed out, was based
on round robin testing and testing from NIST/NVLAP that supported its
use. DOE also notes that the 5 percent allowance has been an accepted
tolerance for electric motors since DOE published its first final rule
for electric motors test procedures on October 5, 1999. 64 FR 54153
Second, there is no reason to believe that the variation in performance
of small electric motors should be any different from medium electric
motors. At the lowest horsepower ratings covered for medium electric
motors, the standard frame sizes are very similar to those used for
small electric motors. Third, DOE understands that small electric
motors and medium electric motors are built with the same materials
that have the same variations in properties that affect motor losses.
As a result, there are no engineering reasons that would necessitate
the use of a power loss factor for small electric motors that exceeds
by three-fold the loss factor provided for electric motors. These facts
collectively suggest that whether a motor is a small or medium electric
motor does not have a significant bearing on the variation in tested
efficiency and it would be unnecessary to provide an additional 10
percent of loss variation for small electric motors. Finally, adopting
the approach suggested by NEMA and ACEEE would have the effect of
lowering the permitted efficiency level for a basic model by one NEMA
nominal efficiency band. DOE notes that such a significant increase in
the permitted motor loss value would allow manufacturers to produce
motors at significantly reduced efficiency levels and potentially
undercut the applicable energy conservation standard.
DOE also notes that, contrary to the assertions made by NEMA and
ACEEE, consumer products and other commercial equipment are required to
meet a prescribed efficiency level without the benefit of an added loss
factor. In that sense, motor manufacturers are presented with an
additional margin for compliance when compared to other types of
commercial equipment or consumer products. DOE's inclusion of this
factor is in recognition of the changes in motor performance that are
observed because of material variability and engineering limitations
inherent in certain aspects of motor manufacturing. Given continuing
advances in manufacturing, however, DOE may revisit the continued
inclusion of a standard power loss factor as part of future revisions
to its standards. DOE notes that in its most recent Certification,
Compliance and Enforcement rule, there is no allowance for efficiency
losses. See 76 FR 12422 (March 6, 2011).
Furthermore, based on small electric motor test data generated by
an independent laboratory, a 5 percent increase in losses has been
shown to be a reasonable allowance for an increase in losses relative
to a motor's labeled full-load efficiency. This 5 percent value falls
within the margin of error for state-of-the-art testing equipment used
to measure the efficiency losses in a motor relative to its labeled
full-load efficiency value. Based on testing information DOE has
reviewed, small electric motors were able to meet the 5 percent
variation.
DOE's analysis of small electric motor efficiency included a review
of test results from 27 small electric motors as provided by an
independent laboratory. Although the tests show a range of rated
losses, ranging from 81 percent to 179 percent of rated losses
(excluding one outlier), nine of these tests demonstrate that a 5
percent increase in losses is reasonable. This is significant for two
reasons. First, these tests show that a 5 percent loss is
technologically feasible today. Second, DOE anticipates that the same
tests conducted after manufacturers are required to comply with the
small electric motor standards would show much less variation in rated
losses resulting from the standard. Moreover, NEMA/ACEEE did not
provide DOE with any studies or data contradicting the proposed 5
percent motor loss value.
As an added check, DOE also reviewed the test data that examined
electric motor efficiency. Those tests indicated that when tolerance
levels are prescribed, the measured efficiency remains within the
prescribed band--in this case, the prescribed band is delineated by the
NEMA-developed efficiency bands found in MG-1. Given that there are no
engineering reasons that would limit the ability of manufacturers to
meet a prescribed efficiency value under similar conditions,
manufacturers should be capable of meeting the required efficiency
levels when applying the same motor loss value for small electric
motors as well.
O. Validation of the Small Electric Motor Alternative Efficiency
Determination Method
Section 343(a)(2) of EPCA requires that test procedures prescribed
for electric motors be ``reasonably designed to produce test results
which reflect energy efficiency,'' yet not be ``unduly burdensome'' to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) As discussed in section III.D.3 of the
December 22, 2008 NOPR, DOE recognizes that manufacturers produce large
numbers of basic models of small electric motors, numbering in the
thousands. 73 FR 78223. These large numbers are due in part to the
frequency with which units are modified because of material price
fluctuations which, in turn, often necessitate the development of new
basic models.
In view of the substantial number of small electric motors that
could be subject to an individual testing requirement for each basic
model, the final small electric motors test procedure rule included the
use of an alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM). 74 FR
32067, 32073. An AEDM is a predictive mathematical model developed from
engineering
[[Page 26629]]
analyses of design data and substantiated by actual testing. It
represents the energy consumption characteristics of one or more basic
models. Before using an AEDM, a manufacturer must determine its
accuracy and reliability through actual testing of a statistically
valid sample of at least five basic models. (10 CFR 431.445) For each
basic model, the manufacturer must test a sample size of at least five
units selected at random according to the criteria adopted in section
10 CFR 431.445. After validating an AEDM's accuracy, the manufacturer
may use that AEDM to determine the efficiencies of other basic models
of small electric motors without further testing. DOE may consider
requiring periodic verification subsequent to initial substantiation in
a separate rulemaking on compliance, certification, and enforcement.
In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt procedures for
small electric motors that would allow a manufacturer to certify
compliance by using an AEDM and a statistically meaningful sampling
procedure for selecting test specimens that would be consistent with
the existing requirements in 10 CFR 431.17 that currently apply to
electric motors. 73 FR 78223-24, 78238-39. In the January 2011 SNOPR,
DOE proposed additional requirements that are consistent with the AEDM
approach already adopted for 1-200 horsepower electric motors. These
proposals helped clarify portions of the AEDM procedure adopted in the
final rule for small electric motors. DOE requested comments from
interested parties on these requirements for a manufacturer to
substantiate the accuracy of its AEDM. 76 FR 660.
In response to the January 2011 SNOPR, NEMA and ACEEE supported the
adoption of AEDM usage and verification procedures for small electric
motors that would be based on the procedures already in place for
electric motors. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 22) Advanced Energy also
agreed with DOE's proposal to use actual testing to validate an AEDM
model for small electric motors. However, it requested that DOE place
more emphasis on an AEDM's subsequent verification. Advanced Energy
noted that it would be helpful for the current language, which calls
for subsequent verification of AEDMs to be conducted on a ``periodic''
basis using a specific time period, such as annually, to provide
quality control to the process of AEDMs. (Advanced Energy, No. 23 at p.
4)
DOE appreciates these comments. However, as noted previously, DOE
is planning on addressing these comments in a separate rulemaking.
Between publication of the SNOPR and this final rule, DOE initiated a
rulemaking specifically for AEDMs for all products and equipment; these
comments will be addressed in that rulemaking.
P. Small Electric Motor Nationally Recognized Certification and Testing
Laboratory Accreditation Programs
EPCA provides different requirements for determining the energy
efficiency of regulated small electric motors and electric motors. In
particular, section 345(c) of EPCA directs the Secretary of Energy to
require manufacturers of ``electric motors'' to certify, through an
independent testing or certification program nationally recognized in
the United States, that any electric motor subject to EPCA efficiency
standards meets the applicable standard.\12\ (42 U.S.C. 6316(c)) No
such requirement for independent testing or certification applies to
small electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Further, 10 CFR 431.17(a)(5) provides for a manufacturer to
establish compliance either through: (1) A certification program
that DOE has classified as nationally recognized, such as CSA or
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., or (2) testing in any laboratory
that is accredited by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology/National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program
(NIST/NVLAP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed to allow a manufacturer to
self-certify its small electric motors (i.e., not require ``independent
testing''). This approach would be consistent with the compliance
certification requirements for other commercial equipment such as high-
intensity discharge lamps and distribution transformers, which are
covered equipment under section 346 of EPCA. 73 FR 78224.
In its comments to the NOPR, at 74 FR 32068 (July 7, 2009), NEMA
observed that many small electric motors sold in the U.S. are also sold
in Canada, and that Canadian regulatory entities are considering
following DOE's lead in developing energy efficiency standards for
small electric motors. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 4) NEMA noted that because
the only means to certify compliance for electric motors in Canada is
through the CSA Energy Efficiency Verification Program, it is likely
that the Canadian government will require small electric motors to be
certified through the same CSA Energy Efficiency Verification Program.
NEMA requested that DOE recognize independent third party efficiency
certification programs for small electric motors, but not mandate the
use of independent third party certification programs or accreditation
programs for testing facilities. Rather, it stressed that DOE
recognition of such programs would encourage motor manufacturers to use
third party accreditation programs, such as NVLAP, to accredit their
own test facility, which could then be used to self-certify under 10
CFR 431.17(a)(5)(ii). In addition, NEMA recommended that DOE allow
sufficient time for the approval of such programs and manufacturer
participation in such programs because no accreditation programs for
testing in accordance with IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method A), IEEE
Standard 114, or CSA C747 currently exist. (NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 4-5)
NEEA supported the creation of a nationally recognized
certification program or accredited laboratory, according to the
requirements that currently apply to electric motors. (See 10 CFR
431.17(a)(5)) It recommended that DOE apply the same requirements to
small electric motors. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 2)
Responding to these comments, DOE proposed in the January 2011
SNOPR to add the same provisions regarding nationally recognized
certification programs to the small electric motors regulations as are
currently found in the electric motors regulations at 10 CFR
431.17(a)(5), 431.20, and 431.21. DOE proposed to allow the use of such
approved programs but it added that it may also, in the future, require
manufacturers to test small electric motors through a nationally
recognized certification program or a testing laboratory that has been
accredited through a process similar to that of NIST/NVLAP. 76 FR 660.
DOE notes that 10 CFR sections 431.19 and 431.20, respectively, provide
for DOE recognition of accreditation bodies and nationally recognized
certification programs.
In written comments, NEMA and ACEEE agreed that independent third
party compliance certification programs for small electric motors
should be approved as DOE had proposed through the additions of
sections 431.447 and 431.448. However, they stressed that any approved
certification program for small electric motors should not be
mandatory--these programs should continue to be one of the procedures
available to manufacturers when certifying their small electric motors
to the applicable standards. Furthermore, they commented that, similar
to electric motors, participation in a laboratory accreditation program
for the testing of small electric motor efficiency should not be
mandatory if it is possible to obtain equivalent recognition of the
test facility through participation in a certification program. (NEMA
and
[[Page 26630]]
ACEEE, No. 25 at p. 22) NEMA and ACEEE also noted that in DOE's SNOPR,
DOE did not include sections for small electric motors corresponding to
the provisions currently in place for electric motors--10 CFR 431.18
(``Testing Laboratories'') and 10 CFR 431.19 (``Department of Energy
recognition of accreditation bodies''). These commenters urged DOE to
begin the process of establishing proper certification and
accreditation programs in the immediate future. (NEMA and ACEEE, No. 25
at pp. 22-23)
Advanced Energy recommended that third party accreditation programs
and laboratory accreditation programs be established and made available
for motor manufacturers seeking compliance for small electric motors.
Furthermore, it commented that these programs should be made mandatory
to match the testing and certification policies of electric motors.
Advanced Energy suggested that DOE and NIST work together to develop
laboratory accredited programs for all new test standards referenced in
the SNOPR, and that all third party certification programs currently
recognized by DOE should have NVLAP accreditation for motor efficiency
testing because it improves testing consistency and expertise of the
programs for determining motor efficiency.
In view of the above comments, DOE will codify the proposed
requirements for sections 431.447 and 431.448 in today's final rule,
with one minor change. DOE believes that an independent third party
certification should not be mandatory at this time because such a
requirement would conflict with DOE's goal of reducing testing burdens
for small electric motor manufacturers. Furthermore, mandatory use of
third-party certification would also nullify the advantage that
manufacturers would gain through the use of an AEDM, which DOE
currently believes offers a reasonably accurate method of demonstrating
the efficiency of a given basic model of a small electric motor. In
sum, until there is a DOE-approved nationally recognized certification
program for small electric motors, manufacturers must self-certify
their small electric motors as required in today's rule at section
431.445(b)(5)(ii). Section 431.445(b)(5)(i) of today's rule differs
from the proposed rule in that it allows a manufacturer to ``use'' a
certification program rather than ``have'' a certification program.
This minor change clarifies that manufacturers can use their own
approved certification program or an approved third-party certification
program. In terms of participation in laboratory accreditation, DOE
will continue to work with NIST/NVLAP to develop such accreditation
procedures in the near future.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that test
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by
law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies
that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by
Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's Web site: https://www.gc.doe.gov.
As described in the preamble, today's final rule presents
additional test procedure options consistent with current industry
practice that manufacturers may use when certifying their equipment as
compliant, clarifies definitions for certain key terms, clarifies the
scope of energy conservation standards for electric motors, and updates
references to standards publications and test procedures otherwise
incorporated by reference. DOE certified to the Office of Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration (SBA) that the proposed test
procedures for electric motors and small electric motors would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. After consideration of comments received on the economic
impact of the rule, discussed in more detail below and elsewhere in the
preamble, DOE continues to certify that the test procedures would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows:
To estimate the number of small businesses impacted by the rule,
DOE considered the size standards for a small business listed by the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and
description under 13 CFR 121.201. To be considered a small business, a
manufacturer of electric motors or small electric motors and its
affiliates may employ a maximum of 1,000 employees. DOE estimates that
there are approximately 20 domestic motor manufacturers that
manufacture electric motors or small electric motors covered by EPCA,
and no more than six of these manufacturers are small businesses
employing a maximum of 1,000 employees. These estimates are based on
analyses DOE conducted in the final rule establishing energy
conservation standards for small electric motors at 75 FR 10874 (March
9, 2010) and the final rule that set forth test procedures for electric
motors at 64 FR 54114 (October 5, 1999). In these previous rules, DOE
calculated the number of motor manufacturers, including the number of
manufacturers qualifying as small businesses, based on interviews with
motor manufacturers and publicly available data. Since the promulgation
of those rules, and after further examining the motor industry, which
included surveying the motor industry and determining the number of
manufacturers remaining, DOE has not discovered the presence of any new
manufacturers of electric or small electric motors that would
necessitate a change to these previous estimates.
To determine the anticipated economic impact of the testing
requirements on small manufacturers, DOE examined current industry
practices and steps taken in the design of the rule to minimize the
testing burden on manufacturers. Today's final rule will continue to
allow a manufacturer to certify compliance through its election of
either an independent testing program or a certification program.
Today's rule will also continue to follow the NEMA sampling plan for
determining compliance, which DOE adopted on October 5, 1999, (64 FR
54114). Use of the sampling plan is consistent with industry practice.
In addition, today's final rule is consistent with current test
procedures and methodologies that the industry already uses (i.e., IEEE
Standard 114, IEEE Standard 112, CSA C390, and CSA C747.) DOE examined
these methodologies in the December 22, 2008, test procedure notice of
proposed rulemaking, which today's
[[Page 26631]]
final rule supplements. The 2008 proposal stated that because DOE
proposed adopting those requirements that the industry already follows,
DOE did not find that the revisions in that proposal would result in
any significant increase in testing or compliance costs, or otherwise
be unduly burdensome. 73 FR 78220. Today's rule does not increase the
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements beyond those
requirements already established for the testing and compliance
certification of electric motors and small electric motors. Moreover,
today's final rule does not adopt additional testing requirements,
tighter tolerances, or greater accuracy than what is technologically
feasible and economically justified. In addition, DOE continues to
believe that allowing a manufacturer to choose between two equally
valid test procedures will reduce undue burden on that manufacturer or
private labeler.
DOE did not receive any comments from SBA or the public in response
to its certification. DOE did receive comments from stakeholders on the
potential economic impacts of the rule. These comments, which are
addressed in the preamble, all urged DOE to give manufacturers one to
three years to comply with energy conservation standards for motors
types not previously covered--i.e., special shaft and 100 mm frame
motors. In response to these comments, the Department has agreed to
give manufacturers of IEC 100 mm frame size motors three years after
the effective date of today's rule to comply with energy conservation
standards and relevant test procedures. (As described in today's rule,
DOE declines to establish an implementation date for the enforcement of
energy conservation standards for motors with special shaft dimensions
because shaft dimensions were addressed in guidance and guidance does
not change the scope of coverage for electric motors.)
In view of the foregoing, DOE certifies that today's final rule
would not impose significant economic impacts on a substantial number
of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory
flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE has provided its
certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of covered electric motors must certify to DOE that
their electric motors comply with any applicable energy conservation
standard. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their
electric motors according to the relevant DOE test procedure, including
any amendments adopted for that test procedure. DOE has established
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment. 76 FR 12422
(March 7, 2011); 10 CFR Part 431, Subpart B.
The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and
recordkeeping provisions related to electric motors is subject to
review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement was approved by OMB
and is current under OMB Control Number 1910-1400. DOE estimated the
reporting burden for the certification to average 20 hours per
response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
This final rule amends certain aspects related to the test
procedures for electric and small electric motors. DOE has determined
that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically
excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10
CFR part 1021. Specifically, this rule amends an existing rule without
affecting the amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and,
therefore, will not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this
rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part
1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that interprets or
amends an existing rule without changing the environmental effect of
that rule. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined
that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State
regulations as to energy conservation for the equipment covered by
today's final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
[[Page 26632]]
12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of
applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether
they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has
completed the required review and determined that, to the extent
permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at https://www.gc.doe.gov. DOE examined today's final rule according to
UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains
neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in
the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these
requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
Today's final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002),
and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002).
DOE has reviewed today's final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines
and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in
those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA)
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The final rule in this notice incorporates testing methods
contained in the following commercial standards: (1) CSA C390-10, Test
methods, marking requirements, and energy efficiency levels for three-
phase induction motors, March 22, 2010; (2) CSA C747-09, Energy
efficiency test methods for small motors, October 1, 2009; (3) IEC
Standard 60034-1 (2010), Rotating Electrical Machines, Part 1: Rating
and Performance, Section 4: Duty, clause 4.2.1 and Figure 1; (4) IEC
Standard 60034-12 (2007), Rotating Electrical Machines, Part 12:
Starting Performance of Single-Speed Three-Phase Cage Induction Motors,
clauses 5.2, 5.4, 6, and 8, and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7; (5)
NEMA Standards Publication MG1-2009 Section I (Part 1), Section I (Part
4), Section II (Part 12), and Section II (Part 14); (6) NEMA Standards
Publication Mg1-1967 Section C and Section D; and (7) IEEE Standard
114, Standard Test Procedure for Single-Phase Induction Motors,
December 23, 2010.
DOE has evaluated these revised standards and is unable to conclude
whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the
Federal Energy Administration Act (i.e., that they were developed in a
manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and
review). DOE has consulted with the Attorney General and the Chairman
of the FTC about the impact of these test procedures on competition and
received no objections to their use.
[[Page 26633]]
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of today's rule before its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practices and procedure, Energy conservation,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 25, 2012.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 431 of
chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below.
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
0
2. Section 431.11 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.11 Purpose and scope.
This subpart contains energy conservation requirements for electric
motors. It contains test procedures that EPCA requires DOE to
prescribe, related requirements, energy conservation standards
prescribed by EPCA, labeling rules, and compliance procedures. It also
identifies materials incorporated by reference in this part. This
subpart does not cover ``small electric motors,'' which are addressed
in subpart X of this part.
0
3. Section 431.12 is amended by:
0
a. Removing from the introductory text, ``K through M'' and adding ``U
and V'' in its place;
0
b. Revising the definitions of ``accreditation,'' ``CSA,'' ``definite
purpose motor,'' ``general purpose electric motor (subtype I),''
``general purpose electric motor (subtype II),'' and ``nominal full-
load efficiency;''
0
c. Removing the definition of ``general purpose motor;'' and
0
d. Adding in alphabetical order, new definitions for ``electric
motor,'' ``fire pump electric motor,'' ``general purpose electric
motor,'' and ``NEMA Design B motor.''
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 431.12 Definitions.
* * * * *
Accreditation means recognition by an accreditation body that a
laboratory is competent to test the efficiency of electric motors
according to the scope and procedures given in Test Method B of IEEE
Std 112-2004 and CSA C390-10 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.15).
* * * * *
CSA means Canadian Standards Association.
Definite purpose motor means any motor that cannot be used in most
general purpose applications and is designed either:
(1) To standard ratings with standard operating characteristics or
standard mechanical construction for use under service conditions other
than usual, such as those specified in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 14.3,
``Unusual Service Conditions,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.15); or
(2) For use on a particular type of application.
Electric motor means a machine that converts electrical power into
rotational mechanical power.
* * * * *
Fire pump electric motor means an electric motor, including any
IEC-equivalent, that meets the requirements of section 9.5 of NFPA 20
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15).
General purpose electric motor means any electric motor that is
designed in standard ratings with either:
(1) Standard operating characteristics and mechanical construction
for use under usual service conditions, such as those specified in NEMA
MG1-2009, paragraph 14.2, ``Usual Service Conditions,'' (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 431.15) and without restriction to a particular
application or type of application; or
(2) Standard operating characteristics or standard mechanical
construction for use under unusual service conditions, such as those
specified in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 14.3, ``Unusual Service
Conditions,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15) or for a
particular type of application, and which can be used in most general
purpose applications.
General purpose electric motor (subtype I) means a general purpose
electric motor that:
(1) Is a single-speed, induction motor;
(2) Is rated for continuous duty (MG1) operation or for duty type
S1 (IEC);
(3) Contains a squirrel-cage (MG1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
(4) Has foot-mounting that may include foot-mounting with flanges
or detachable feet;
(5) Is built in accordance with NEMA T-frame dimensions or their
IEC metric equivalents, including a frame size that is between two
consecutive NEMA frame sizes or their IEC metric equivalents;
(6) Has performance in accordance with NEMA Design A (MG1) or B
(MG1) characteristics or equivalent designs such as IEC Design N (IEC);
(7) Operates on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal
power, and:
(i) Is rated at 230 or 460 volts (or both) including motors rated
at multiple voltages that include 230 or 460 volts (or both), or
(ii) Can be operated on 230 or 460 volts (or both); and
(8) Includes, but is not limited to, explosion-proof construction.
Note to Definition of General purpose electric motor (subtype
I): References to ``MG1'' above refer to NEMA Standards Publication
MG1-2009 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 431.15). References to
``IEC'' above refer to IEC 60034-1, 60034-12, 60050-411, and 60072-1
(incorporated by reference in Sec. 431.15), as applicable.
General purpose electric motor (subtype II) means any general
purpose electric motor that incorporates design elements of a general
purpose electric motor (subtype I) but, unlike a general purpose
electric motor (subtype I), is configured in one or more of the
following ways:
(1) Is built in accordance with NEMA U-frame dimensions as
described in NEMA MG1-1967 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.15) or in accordance with the IEC metric equivalents, including a
frame size that is between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes or their
IEC metric equivalents;
(2) Has performance in accordance with NEMA Design C
characteristics as described in MG1 or an equivalent IEC design(s) such
as IEC Design H;
(3) Is a close-coupled pump motor;
(4) Is a footless motor;
(5) Is a vertical solid shaft normal thrust motor (as tested in a
horizontal configuration) built and designed in a manner consistent
with MG1;
(6) Is an eight-pole motor (900 rpm); or
(7) Is a polyphase motor with a voltage rating of not more than 600
volts, is not rated at 230 or 460 volts (or both), and cannot be
operated on 230 or 460 volts (or both).
Note to Definition of General purpose electric motor (subtype
II): With the
[[Page 26634]]
exception of the NEMA Motor Standards MG1-1967 (incorporated by
reference in Sec. 431.15), references to ``MG1'' above refer to the
2009 NEMA MG1-2009 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 431.15).
References to ``IEC'' above refer to IEC 60034-1, 60034-12, 60050-
411, and 60072-1 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 431.15), as
applicable.
* * * * *
NEMA Design B motor means a squirrel-cage motor that is:
(1) Designed to withstand full-voltage starting;
(2) Develops locked-rotor, breakdown, and pull-up torques adequate
for general application as specified in sections 12.38, 12.39 and 12.40
of NEMA MG1-2009 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15);
(3) Draws locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in
section 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and 12.35.2 for 50 hertz of NEMA MG1-2009;
and
(4) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for motors with
fewer than 10 poles.
Nominal full-load efficiency means, with respect to an electric
motor, a representative value of efficiency selected from the ``nominal
efficiency'' column of Table 12-10, NEMA MG1-2009, (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.15), that is not greater than the average
full-load efficiency of a population of motors of the same design.
* * * * *
0
4. A new Sec. 431.14 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 431.14 Sources for information and guidance.
(a) General. The standards listed in this paragraph are referred to
in the DOE procedures for testing laboratories, and recognition of
accreditation bodies and certification programs but are not
incorporated by reference. These sources are given here for information
and guidance.
(b) NVLAP. National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, M/S
2140, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140, 301-975-4016, or go to https://www.nist.gov/nvlap/. Also see https://www.nist.gov/nvlap/nvlap-handbooks.cfm.
(1) NVLAP Handbook 150, Procedures and General Requirements,
February 2006.
(2) NVLAP Handbook 150-10, Efficiency of Electric Motors, February
2007.
(3) NIST Handbook 150-10 Checklist, Efficiency of Electric Motors
Program, (2007-05-04).
(4) NVLAP Lab Bulletin Number: LB-42-2009, Changes to NVLAP
Efficiency of Electric Motors Program, March 19, 2009.
(c) ISO/IEC. International Organization for Standardization (ISO),
1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH- 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland/
International Electrotechnical Commission, 3, rue de Varemb[eacute],
P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.
(1) ISO/IEC Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of
calibration and testing laboratories, 1990.
(2) ISO Guide 27, Guidelines for corrective action to be taken by a
certification body in the event of either misapplication of its mark of
conformity to a product, or products which bear the mark of the
certification body being found to subject persons or property to risk,
1983.
(3) ISO/IEC Guide 28, General rules for a model third-party
certification system for products, 2004.
(4) ISO/IEC Guide 58, Calibration and testing laboratory
accreditation systems--General requirements for operation and
recognition, 1993.
(5) ISO/IEC Guide 65, General requirements for bodies operating
product certification systems, 1996.
0
5. Section 431.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.15 Materials incorporated by reference.
(a) General. The Department of Energy incorporates by reference the
following standards and test procedures into subpart B of part 431. The
Director of the Federal Register has approved the material listed for
incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Any subsequent amendment to a standard by the standard-setting
organization will not affect DOE regulations unless and until DOE
amends its test procedures. Material is incorporated as it exists on
the date of the approval, and a notice of any change in the material
will be published in the Federal Register. All approved material is
available for inspection at the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program,
Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-
2945, or go to https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. Also, this material is available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) CSA. Canadian Standards Association, Sales Department, 5060
Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1-800-
463-6727, or go to https://www.shopcsa.ca/onlinestore/welcome.asp.
(1) CSA C390-10, Test methods, marking requirements, and energy
efficiency levels for three-phase induction motors, March 2010, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 431.12; 431.19; 431.20; appendix B to subpart B
of part 431.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) IEC. International Electrotechnical Commission Central Office,
3, rue de Varemb[eacute], P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 GENEVA 20, Switzerland,
+41 22 919 02 11, or go to https://webstore.iec.ch.
(1) IEC 60034-1 Edition 12.0 2010-02, (``IEC 60034-1''), Rotating
Electrical Machines, Part 1: Rating and Performance, February 2010, IBR
approved as follows: section 4: Duty, clause 4.2.1 and Figure 1, IBR
approved for Sec. 431.12.
(2) IEC 60034-12 Edition 2.1 2007-09, (``IEC 60034-12''), Rotating
Electrical Machines, Part 12: Starting Performance of Single-Speed
Three-Phase Cage Induction Motors, September 2007, IBR approved as
follows: clauses 5.2, 5.4, 6, and 8, and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and
7, IBR approved for Sec. 431.12.
(3) IEC 60050-411, International Electrotechnical Vocabulary
Chapter 411: Rotating machines, 1996, IBR approved as follows: sections
411-33-07 and 411-37-26, IBR approved for Sec. 431.12.
(4) IEC 60072-1, Dimensions and Output Series for Rotating
Electrical Machines--Part 1: Frame numbers 56 to 400 and flange numbers
55 to 1080, 1991, IBR approved as follows: clauses 2, 3, 4.1, 6.1, 7,
and 10, and Tables 1, 2 and 4, IBR approved for Sec. 431.12.
(d) IEEE. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, 1-800-678-IEEE
(4333), or https://www.ieee.org/web/publications/home/.
(1) IEEE Std 112-2004, Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction
Motors and Generators, approved February 9, 2004, IBR approved as
follows: section 6.4, Efficiency Test Method B, Input-Output with Loss
Segregation, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 431.12; 431.19; 431.20;
appendix B to subpart B of part 431.
(2) [Reserved]
(e) NEMA. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 North
17th Street, Suite 1752, Rosslyn,
[[Page 26635]]
Virginia 22209, 703-841-3200, or go to https://www.nema.org/.
(1) NEMA Standards Publication MG1-2009 (``NEMA MG1-2009''), Motors
and Generators, copyright 2009, IBR approved as follows:
(i) Section I, General Standards Applying to All Machines, Part 1,
Referenced Standards and Definitions, paragraphs 1.18.1, 1.18.1.1,
1.19.1.1, 1.19.1.2, 1.19.1.3, and 1.40.1, IBR approved for Sec.
431.12;
(ii) Section I, General Standards Applying to All Machines, Part 4,
Dimensions, Tolerances, and Mounting, paragraphs 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2,
4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, and 4.4.6, Figures 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, and
4-5, and Table 4-2, IBR approved for Sec. 431.12;
(iii) Section II, Small (Fractional) and Medium (Integral)
Machines, Part 12, Tests and Performance--AC and DC Motors:
(A) Paragraphs 12.35.1, 12.35.2, 12.38.1, 12.38.2, 12.39.1,
12.39.2, and 12.40.1, 12.40.2, and Tables 12-2, 12-3, and 12-10, IBR
approved for Sec. 431.12;
(B) Paragraph 12.58.1, IBR approved for Sec. 431.12 and appendix B
to subpart B of part 431;
(C) Paragraph 12.58.2, IBR approved for Sec. 431.31.
(iv) Section II, Small (Fractional) and Medium (Integral) Machines,
Part 14, Application Data--AC and DC Small and Medium Machines,
paragraphs 14.2 and 14.3, IBR approved for Sec. 431.12.
(2) NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1967, (``NEMA MG1-1967''),
Motors and Generators, January 1968, IBR approved as follows:
(i) Part 11, Dimensions, IBR approved for Sec. 431.12;
(ii) Part 13, Frame Assignments--A-C Integral-Horsepower Motors,
IBR approved for Sec. 431.12.
(f) NFPA. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch
Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, 617-770-3000, or go to https://nfpa.org/.
(1) NFPA 20, 2010 Edition, Standard for the Installation of
Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection, section 9.5, IBR approved for
Sec. 431.12.
(2) (Reserved)
0
6. Section 431.18, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.18 Testing laboratories.
* * * * *
(b) NIST/NVLAP is under the auspices of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)/National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NVLAP), which is part of the U.S. Department of
Commerce. NIST/NVLAP accreditation is granted on the basis of
conformance with criteria published in 15 CFR Part 285. The National
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, ``Procedures and General
Requirements,'' NIST Handbook 150-10, February 2007, and Lab Bulletin
LB-42-2009, Efficiency of Electric Motors Program, (referenced for
guidance only, see Sec. 431.14) present the technical requirements of
NVLAP for the Efficiency of Electric Motors field of accreditation.
This handbook supplements NIST Handbook 150, National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program ``Procedures and General
Requirements,'' which contains 15 CFR part 285 plus all general NIST/
NVLAP procedures, criteria, and policies. Information regarding NIST/
NVLAP and its Efficiency of Electric Motors Program (EEM) can be
obtained from NIST/NVLAP, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2140,
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140, (301) 975-4016 (telephone), or (301) 926-
2884 (fax).
0
7. Section 431.19 is amended by:
0
a. Adding at the end of the last sentence in paragraph (c)(3)
``(referenced for guidance only, see Sec. 431.14)''; and
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(4), to read as follows:
Sec. 431.19 Department of Energy recognition of accreditation bodies.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) It must be expert in the content and application of the test
procedures and methodologies in IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Method B or CSA
C390-10, (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15).
(c) * * *
(4) Expertise in electric motor test procedures. The petition
should set forth the organization's experience with the test procedures
and methodologies in IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Method B and CSA C390-10,
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15). This part of the
petition should include items such as, but not limited to, a
description of prior projects and qualifications of staff members. Of
particular relevance would be documentary evidence that establishes
experience in applying the guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide
25, General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration and Testing
Laboratories, (referenced for guidance only, see Sec. 431.14) to
energy efficiency testing for electric motors.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 431.20 is amended by:
0
a. Adding at the end of the last sentence of paragraph (c)(3)
``(referenced for guidance only, see Sec. 431.14)''; and
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 431.20 Department of Energy recognition of nationally recognized
certification programs.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) It must be expert in the content and application of the test
procedures and methodologies in IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Method B or CSA
C390-10, (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15). It must have
satisfactory criteria and procedures for the selection and sampling of
electric motors tested for energy efficiency.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) Expertise in electric motor test procedures. The petition
should set forth the program's experience with the test procedures and
methodologies in IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Method B or CSA C390-10,
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15). This part of the
petition should include items such as, but not limited to, a
description of prior projects and qualifications of staff members. Of
particular relevance would be documentary evidence that establishes
experience in applying guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25,
General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration and Testing
Laboratories (referenced for guidance only, see 431.14) to energy
efficiency testing for electric motors.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 431.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.25 Energy conservation standards and effective dates.
(a) Except as provided for fire pump electric motors in paragraph
(b) of this section, each general purpose electric motor (subtype I)
with a power rating of 1 horsepower or greater, but not greater than
200 horsepower, including a NEMA Design B or an equivalent IEC Design N
motor that is a general purpose electric motor (subtype I),
manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) on
or after December 19, 2010, shall have a nominal full-load efficiency
that is not less than the following:
[[Page 26636]]
Table 1--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of General Purpose Electric Motors (Subtype I), Except Fire Pump
Electric Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt Open motors (number of poles) Enclosed motors (number of poles)
equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 4 2 6 4 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75................................... 82.5 85.5 77.0 82.5 85.5 77.0
1.5/1.1................................. 86.5 86.5 84.0 87.5 86.5 84.0
2/1.5................................... 87.5 86.5 85.5 88.5 86.5 85.5
3/2.2................................... 88.5 89.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 86.5
5/3.7................................... 89.5 89.5 86.5 89.5 89.5 88.5
7.5/5.5................................. 90.2 91.0 88.5 91.0 91.7 89.5
10/7.5.................................. 91.7 91.7 89.5 91.0 91.7 90.2
15/11................................... 91.7 93.0 90.2 91.7 92.4 91.0
20/15................................... 92.4 93.0 91.0 91.7 93.0 91.0
25/18.5................................. 93.0 93.6 91.7 93.0 93.6 91.7
30/22................................... 93.6 94.1 91.7 93.0 93.6 91.7
40/30................................... 94.1 94.1 92.4 94.1 94.1 92.4
50/37................................... 94.1 94.5 93.0 94.1 94.5 93.0
60/45................................... 94.5 95.0 93.6 94.5 95.0 93.6
75/55................................... 94.5 95.0 93.6 94.5 95.4 93.6
100/75.................................. 95.0 95.4 93.6 95.0 95.4 94.1
125/90.................................. 95.0 95.4 94.1 95.0 95.4 95.0
150/110................................. 95.4 95.8 94.1 95.8 95.8 95.0
200/150................................. 95.4 95.8 95.0 95.8 96.2 95.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Each fire pump electric motor that is a general purpose
electric motor (subtype I) or general purpose electric motor (subtype
II) manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of
equipment) on or after December 19, 2010, shall have a nominal full-
load efficiency that is not less than the following:
Table 2--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of Fire Pump Electric Motors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent Open motors (number of poles) Enclosed motors (number of poles)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75................................................... 74.0 80.0 82.5 .......... 74.0 80.0 82.5 75.5
1.5/1.1................................................. 75.5 84.0 84.0 82.5 77.0 85.5 84.0 82.5
2/1.5................................................... 85.5 85.5 84.0 84.0 82.5 86.5 84.0 84.0
3/2.2................................................... 86.5 86.5 86.5 84.0 84.0 87.5 87.5 85.5
5/3.7................................................... 87.5 87.5 87.5 85.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5
7.5/5.5................................................. 88.5 88.5 88.5 87.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 88.5
10/7.5.................................................. 89.5 90.2 89.5 88.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5
15/11................................................... 89.5 90.2 91.0 89.5 88.5 90.2 91.0 90.2
20/15................................................... 90.2 91.0 91.0 90.2 89.5 90.2 91.0 90.2
25/18.5................................................. 90.2 91.7 91.7 91.0 89.5 91.7 92.4 91.0
30/22................................................... 91.0 92.4 92.4 91.0 91.0 91.7 92.4 91.0
40/30................................................... 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7
50/37................................................... 91.7 93.0 93.0 92.4 91.7 93.0 93.0 92.4
60/45................................................... 92.4 93.6 93.6 93.0 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0
75/55................................................... 93.6 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.0 93.6 94.1 93.0
100/75.................................................. 93.6 94.1 94.1 93.0 93.0 94.1 94.5 93.6
125/90.................................................. 93.6 94.1 94.5 93.6 93.6 94.1 94.5 94.5
150/110................................................. 93.6 94.5 95.0 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5
200/150................................................. 93.6 94.5 95.0 94.5 94.1 95.0 95.0 95.0
250/186................................................. 94.5 95.4 95.4 94.5 94.5 95.0 95.0 95.4
300/224................................................. .......... 95.4 95.4 95.0 .......... 95.0 95.4 95.4
350/261................................................. .......... 95.4 95.4 95.0 .......... 95.0 95.4 95.4
400/298................................................. .......... .......... 95.4 95.4 .......... .......... 95.4 95.4
450/336................................................. .......... .......... 95.8 95.8 .......... .......... 95.4 95.4
500/373................................................. .......... .......... 95.8 95.8 .......... .......... 95.8 95.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Except as provided for fire pump electric motors in paragraph
(b) of this section, each general purpose electric motor (subtype II)
with a power rating of 1 horsepower or greater, but not greater than
200 horsepower, including a NEMA Design B or an equivalent IEC Design N
motor that is a general purpose electric motor (subtype II),
[[Page 26637]]
manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) on
or after December 19, 2010, shall have a nominal full-load efficiency
that is not less than the following:
Table 3--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of General Purpose Electric Motors (Subtype II), Except Fire Pump Electric Motors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/ standard kilowatt equivalent Open motors (number of poles) Enclosed motors (number of poles)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75................................................... 74.0 80.0 82.5 .......... 74.0 80.0 82.5 75.5
1.5/1.1................................................. 75.5 84.0 84.0 82.5 77.0 85.5 84.0 82.5
2/1.5................................................... 85.5 85.5 84.0 84.0 82.5 86.5 84.0 84.0
3/2.2................................................... 86.5 86.5 86.5 84.0 84.0 87.5 87.5 85.5
5/3.7................................................... 87.5 87.5 87.5 85.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5
7.5/5.5................................................. 88.5 88.5 88.5 87.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 88.5
10/7.5.................................................. 89.5 90.2 89.5 88.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5
15/11................................................... 89.5 90.2 91.0 89.5 88.5 90.2 91.0 90.2
20/15................................................... 90.2 91.0 91.0 90.2 89.5 90.2 91.0 90.2
25/18.5................................................. 90.2 91.7 91.7 91.0 89.5 91.7 92.4 91.0
30/22................................................... 91.0 92.4 92.4 91.0 91.0 91.7 92.4 91.0
40/30................................................... 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7
50/37................................................... 91.7 93.0 93.0 92.4 91.7 93.0 93.0 92.4
60/45................................................... 92.4 93.6 93.6 93.0 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0
75/55................................................... 93.6 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.0 93.6 94.1 93.0
100/75.................................................. 93.6 94.1 94.1 93.0 93.0 94.1 94.5 93.6
125/90.................................................. 93.6 94.1 94.5 93.6 93.6 94.1 94.5 94.5
150/110................................................. 93.6 94.5 95.0 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5
200/150................................................. 93.6 94.5 95.0 94.5 94.1 95.0 95.0 95.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Each NEMA Design B or an equivalent IEC Design N motor that is
a general purpose electric motor (subtype I) or general purpose
electric motor (subtype II), excluding fire pump electric motors, with
a power rating of more than 200 horsepower, but not greater than 500
horsepower, manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of
equipment) on or after December 19, 2010, shall have a nominal full-
load efficiency that is not less than the following:
Table 4--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design B General Purpose Electric Motors (Subtype I and II), Except Fire Pump Electric Motors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/ standard kilowatt equivalent Open motors (number of poles) Enclosed motors (number of poles)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
250/186................................................. 94.5 95.4 95.4 94.5 94.5 95.0 95.0 95.4
300/224................................................. .......... 95.4 95.4 95.0 .......... 95.0 95.4 95.4
350/261................................................. .......... 95.4 95.4 95.0 .......... 95.0 95.4 95.4
400/298................................................. .......... .......... 95.4 95.4 .......... .......... 95.4 95.4
450/336................................................. .......... .......... 95.8 95.8 .......... .......... 95.4 95.4
500/373................................................. .......... .......... 95.8 95.8 .......... .......... 95.8 95.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) For purposes of determining the required minimum nominal full-
load efficiency of an electric motor that has a horsepower or kilowatt
rating between two horsepower or two kilowatt ratings listed in any
table of energy conservation standards in paragraphs (a) through (d) of
this section, each such motor shall be deemed to have a listed
horsepower or kilowatt rating, determined as follows:
(1) A horsepower at or above the midpoint between the two
consecutive horsepowers shall be rounded up to the higher of the two
horsepowers;
(2) A horsepower below the midpoint between the two consecutive
horsepowers shall be rounded down to the lower of the two horsepowers;
or
(3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly converted from kilowatts to
horsepower using the formula 1 kilowatt = (\1/0\.746) horsepower. The
conversion should be calculated to three significant decimal places,
and the resulting horsepower shall be rounded in accordance with
paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this section, whichever applies.
(f) This section does not apply to definite purpose motors, special
purpose motors, or those motors exempted by the Secretary.
0
10. Remove Sec. 431.30.
0
11. Section 431.31, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.31 Labeling requirements.
(a) * * *
(2) Display of required information. All orientation, spacing, type
sizes, type
[[Page 26638]]
faces, and line widths to display this required information shall be
the same as or similar to the display of the other performance data on
the motor's permanent nameplate. The nominal full-load efficiency shall
be identified either by the term ``Nominal Efficiency'' or ``Nom.
Eff.'' or by the terms specified in paragraph 12.58.2 of NEMA MG1-2009,
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15) as for example ``NEMA
Nom. Eff. ----.'' The Compliance Certification number issued pursuant
to Sec. 431.36 shall be in the form ``CC ----.''
* * * * *
Sec. 431.36 [Amended]
0
12. Amend Sec. 431.36 by removing ``Beginning April 26, 2003, a'' from
the first sentence in paragraph (a) and adding ``A'' in its place.
Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 431 [Removed and Reserved]
0
13. Remove and reserve appendix A to subpart B of part 431.
0
14. Appendix B to subpart B of part 431 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
Nominal Full-Load Efficiency of Electric Motors
1. Definitions.
Definitions contained in Sec. Sec. 431.2 and 431.12 are
applicable to this appendix.
2. Test Procedures.
Efficiency and losses shall be determined in accordance with
NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.58.1, ``Determination of Motor
Efficiency and Losses,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.15) and either:
(1) CSA C390-10, (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15),
or
(2) IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Method B, Input-Output With Loss
Segregation, (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15).
3. Amendments to test procedures.
Any revision to IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Method B, NEMA MG1-2009,
or CSA C390-10, (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15) shall
not be effective for purposes of certification and compliance
testing unless and until this appendix and 10 CFR Part 431 are
amended to incorporate that revision.
0
15. Section 431.441 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.441 Purpose and scope.
This subpart contains definitions, test procedures, and energy
conservation requirements for small electric motors, pursuant to Part
A-1 of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 6311-6317. This subpart does not cover ``electric motors,''
which are addressed in subpart B of this part.
Sec. 431.442 [Amended]
0
16. Amend Sec. 431.442, by removing ``CAN/CSA'' and adding ``CSA'' in
its place.
0
17. Amend Sec. 431.443 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1) and (c)(2); and
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (b)(2).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 431.443 Materials incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) CSA C747-09 (``CSA C747''), Energy efficiency test methods for
small motors, October 2009, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 431.444;
431.447.
(2) CSA C390-10, Test methods, marking requirements, and energy
efficiency levels for three-phase induction motors, March 2010, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 431.444; 431.447.
(c) * * *
(1) IEEE Std 112-2004, Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction
Motors and Generators, approved February 9, 2004, IBR approved as
follows:
(i) Section 6.3, Efficiency Test Method A, Input-Output, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 431.444; 431.447;
(ii) Section 6.4, Efficiency Test Method B, Input-Output with Loss
Segregation, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 431.444; 431.447.
(2) IEEE Std 114-2010, Test Procedure for Single-Phase Induction
Motors, approved September 30, 2010, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
431.444; 431.447.
0
18. Section 431.444, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.444 Test procedures for the measurement of energy
efficiency.
* * * * *
(b) Testing and Calculations. Determine the energy efficiency and
losses by using one of the following test methods:
(1) Single-phase small electric motors: Either IEEE Std 114-2010 or
CSA C747 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.443);
(2) Polyphase small electric motors less than or equal to 1
horsepower (0.75 kW): Either IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Method A or CSA
C747 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.443); or
(3) Polyphase small electric motors greater than 1 horsepower (0.75
kW): Either IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Method B or CSA C390-10
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.443).
0
19. Section 431.445, paragraph (b)(5) is added and paragraph (c) is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.445 Determination of small electric motor efficiency.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) Use of a certification program. (i) A manufacturer may use a
certification program, that DOE has classified as nationally recognized
under Sec. 431.447, to certify the average full-load efficiency of a
basic model of small electric motor, and issue a certificate of
conformity for the small electric motor.
(ii) For each basic model for which a certification program is not
used as described in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section, any testing
of a motor to determine its energy efficiency must be carried out in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Additional testing requirements applicable when a certification
program is not used--(1) Selection of basic models for testing. (i)
Basic models must be selected for testing in accordance with the
following criteria:
(A) Two of the basic models must be among the five basic models
that have the highest unit volumes of production by the manufacturer in
the prior year, or during the prior 12 calendar month period beginning
in 2015, whichever is later, and comply with the standards set forth in
Sec. 431.446;
(B) The basic models should be of different horsepowers without
duplication;
(C) At least one basic model should be selected from each of the
frame number series for which the manufacturer is seeking compliance;
and
(D) Each basic model should have the lowest average full-load
efficiency among the basic models with the same rating (``rating'' as
used here has the same meaning as it has in the definition of ``basic
model'').
(ii) In any instance where it is impossible for a manufacturer to
select basic models for testing in accordance with all of these
criteria, the criteria shall be given priority in the order in which
they are listed. Within the limits imposed by the criteria, basic
models shall be selected randomly.
(2) Selection of units for testing within a basic model. For each
basic model selected for testing,\1\ a sample of units shall be
selected at random and tested. The sample shall be comprised of
production units of the basic model, or units that are representative
of such production units. The sample size shall be no fewer than five
units, except when fewer than five units of a basic model
[[Page 26639]]
would be produced over a reasonable period of time (approximately 180
days). In such cases, each unit produced shall be tested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Components of similar design may be substituted without
requiring additional testing if the represented measures of energy
consumption continue to satisfy the applicable sampling provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Applying results of testing. When applying the test results to
determine whether a motor complies with the required average efficiency
level:
The average full-load efficiency of the sample, X which is defined
by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04MY12.000
where Xi is the measured full-load efficiency of unit i
and n is the number of units tested, shall satisfy the condition:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04MY12.001
where RE is the required average full-load efficiency.
0
20. A new Sec. 431.447 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 431.447 Department of Energy recognition of nationally
recognized certification programs.
(a) Petition. For a certification program to be classified by the
Department of Energy as being nationally recognized in the United
States (``nationally recognized''), the organization operating the
program must submit a petition to the Department requesting such
classification, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section and
Sec. 431.448. The petition must demonstrate that the program meets the
criteria in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Evaluation criteria. For a certification program to be
classified by the Department as nationally recognized, it must meet the
following criteria:
(1) It must have satisfactory standards and procedures for
conducting and administering a certification system, including periodic
follow up activities to assure that basic models of small electric
motors continue to conform to the efficiency levels for which they were
certified, and for granting a certificate of conformity.
(2) It must be independent of small electric motor manufacturers,
importers, distributors, private labelers or vendors. It cannot be
affiliated with, have financial ties with, be controlled by, or be
under common control with any such entity.
(3) It must be qualified to operate a certification system in a
highly competent manner.
(4) It must be expert in the content and application of the test
procedures and methodologies in IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Methods A and B,
IEEE Std 114-2010, CSA C390-10, and CSA C747 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.443) or similar procedures and methodologies
for determining the energy efficiency of small electric motors. It must
have satisfactory criteria and procedures for the selection and
sampling of electric motors tested for energy efficiency.
(c) Petition format. Each petition requesting classification as a
nationally recognized certification program must contain a narrative
statement as to why the program meets the criteria listed in paragraph
(b) of this section, must be signed on behalf of the organization
operating the program by an authorized representative, and must be
accompanied by documentation that supports the narrative statement. The
following provides additional guidance as to the specific criteria:
(1) Standards and procedures. A copy of the standards and
procedures for operating a certification system and for granting a
certificate of conformity should accompany the petition.
(2) Independent status. The petitioning organization should
identify and describe any relationship, direct or indirect, that it or
the certification program has with an electric motor manufacturer,
importer, distributor, private labeler, vendor, trade association or
other such entity, as well as any other relationship it believes might
appear to create a conflict of interest for the certification program
in operating a certification system for determining the compliance of
small electric motors with the applicable energy efficiency standards.
It should explain why it believes such relationship would not
compromise its independence in operating a certification program.
(3) Qualifications to operate a certification system. Experience in
operating a certification system should be discussed and substantiated
by supporting documents. Of particular relevance would be documentary
evidence that establishes experience in the application of guidelines
contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 65, General requirements for bodies
operating product certification systems, ISO/IEC Guide 27, Guidelines
for corrective action to be taken by a certification body in the event
of either misapplication of its mark of conformity to a product, or
products which bear the mark of the certification body being found to
subject persons or property to risk, and ISO/IEC Guide 28, General
rules for a model third-party certification system for products, as
well as experience in overseeing compliance with the guidelines
contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25, General requirements for the
competence of calibration and testing laboratories.
(4) Expertise in small electric motor test procedures. The petition
should set forth the program's experience with the test procedures and
methodologies in IEEE Std 112-2004 Test Methods A and B, IEEE Std 114-
2010, CSA C390-10, and CSA C747- (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.443) and with similar procedures and methodologies. This part of
the petition should include items such as, but not limited to, a
description of prior projects and qualifications of staff members. Of
particular relevance would be documentary evidence that establishes
experience in applying guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25,
General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration and Testing
Laboratories to energy efficiency testing for electric motors.
(5) The ISO/IEC Guides referenced in paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4)
of this section are not incorporated by reference, but are for
information and guidance only. International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH- 1211 Geneva
20, Switzerland/International Electrotechnical Commission, 3, rue de
Varemb[eacute], P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.
(d) Disposition. The Department will evaluate the petition in
accordance with Sec. 431.448, and will determine whether the applicant
meets the criteria in paragraph (b) of this section for classification
as a nationally recognized certification program.
0
21. Add a new Sec. 431.448 to read as follows:
Sec. 431.448 Procedures for recognition and withdrawal of recognition
of certification programs.
(a) Filing of petition. Any petition submitted to the Department
pursuant to Sec. 431.447(a), shall be entitled ``Petition for
Recognition'' (``Petition'') and must be submitted, in triplicate to
the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. In accordance with the provisions set
forth in 10 CFR 1004.11, any request for confidential treatment of any
information contained in such a Petition or in supporting documentation
must be accompanied by a copy of the Petition
[[Page 26640]]
or supporting documentation from which the information claimed to be
confidential has been deleted.
(b) Public notice and solicitation of comments. DOE shall publish
in the Federal Register the Petition from which confidential
information, as determined by DOE, has been deleted in accordance with
10 CFR 1004.11 and shall solicit comments, data and information on
whether the Petition should be granted. The Department shall also make
available for inspection and copying the Petition's supporting
documentation from which confidential information, as determined by
DOE, has been deleted in accordance with 10 CFR 1004.11. Any person
submitting written comments to DOE with respect to a Petition shall
also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner.
(c) Responsive statement by the petitioner. A petitioner may,
within 10 working days of receipt of a copy of any comments submitted
in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, respond to such
comments in a written statement submitted to the Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. A petitioner may address
more than one set of comments in a single responsive statement.
(d) Public announcement of interim determination and solicitation
of comments. The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy shall issue an interim determination on the Petition
as soon as is practicable following receipt and review of the Petition
and other applicable documents, including, but not limited to, comments
and responses to comments. The petitioner shall be notified in writing
of the interim determination. DOE shall also publish in the Federal
Register the interim determination and shall solicit comments, data and
information with respect to that interim determination. Written
comments and responsive statements may be submitted as provided in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(e) Public announcement of final determination. The Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy shall, as soon as
practicable, following receipt and review of comments and responsive
statements on the interim determination publish in the Federal Register
a notice of final determination on the Petition.
(f) Additional information. The Department may, at any time during
the recognition process, request additional relevant information or
conduct an investigation concerning the Petition. The Department's
determination on a Petition may be based solely on the Petition and
supporting documents, or may also be based on such additional
information as the Department deems appropriate.
(g) Withdrawal of recognition--(1) Withdrawal by the Department. If
the Department believes that a certification program that has been
recognized under Sec. 431.447 is failing to meet the criteria of
paragraph (b) of the section under which it is recognized, the
Department will so advise such entity and request that it take
appropriate corrective action. The Department will give the entity an
opportunity to respond. If after receiving such response, or no
response, the Department believes satisfactory corrective action has
not been made, the Department will withdraw its recognition from that
entity.
(2) Voluntary withdrawal. A certification program may withdraw
itself from recognition by the Department by advising the Department in
writing of such withdrawal. It must also advise those that use it (for
a certification organization, the manufacturers) of such withdrawal.
(3) Notice of withdrawal of recognition. The Department will
publish in the Federal Register a notice of any withdrawal of
recognition that occurs pursuant to this paragraph (g).
[FR Doc. 2012-10434 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
