# Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors and Small Electric Motors > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2010-33069 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** January 5, 2011 - **Citation:** 76 FR 648 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-TP-0008] RIN 1904-AB71 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Electric Motors and Small Electric Motors AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) proposes to clarify certain terms and language in our regulations for certain commercial and industrial equipment, as follows: revise the definitions of certain terms 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 for polyphase and single-phase small electric motors, and specify the determination of efficiency requirements for small electric motors. These actions are being proposed to clarify the scope of regulatory coverage for small electric motors and electric motors and ensure the accurate and consistent measurement of energy efficiency. This notice invites comments on U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposals and the issues presented herein, and requests comments, data, and other information that would enable DOE to promulgate a final rule. DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the SNOPR until February 4, 2011. See section IV, “Public Participation,” of this supplemental proposed rule for details. ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted must identify the SNOPR on Test Procedures for Electric Motors and provide the docket number EERE-2008-BT-TP-0008 and/or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1904-AB71. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: small_electric_motors_tp.rulemaking@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number EERE-2008-BT-TP-0008 and/or RIN 1904-AB71 in the subject line of the message. • Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please submit one signed paper original. Due to the potential delays in DOE's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, DOE encourages respondents to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. • Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one signed paper original. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section IV, “Public Participation,” of this document. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 for additional information about visiting the Resource Room. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8654. E-mail: Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov . In the Office of the General Counsel, contact Ms. Ami Grace-Tardy, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-5709. E-mail: Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov . For information about how to submit or review public comments, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, 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) 586-2945. E-mail: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Authority B. Background 1. Electric Motors 2. Small Electric Motors II. Summary of Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking III. Discussion A. Definition of Electric Motor B. Definition of General Purpose Electric Motors, Subtypes I and II C. Definition of NEMA Design B Motor D. Fire Pump Motors Definition E. Fire Pump Motor Coverage F. Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors G. References to International Electrotechnical Commission, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and Canadian Standards Association Standards for Electric Motors H. National Institute of Standards and Technology/National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program Handbook 150-10 Update and Checklist I. Appendix A to Subpart B of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 431 J. Definition of Small Electric Motor K. Canadian Standards Association Test Procedures for Small Electric Motors L. Small Electric Motor Represented Efficiency Value M. Validation of the Small Electric Motor Alternative Efficiency Determination Method N. Small Electric Motor Nationally Recognized Certification Program O. Issues Related to Compliance Certification and Enforcement of Electric Motors and Small Electric Motors. IV. Public Participation A. Submission of Comments B. Issues on Which the Department of Energy Seeks Comment 1. Definition of Electric Motor 2. Definition of General Purpose Electric Motors, Subtypes I and II 3. Definition of NEMA Design B Motor 4. Fire Pump Motors Definition 5. Fire Pump Motor Coverage 6. Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors 7. References to International Electrotechnical Commission, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and Canadian Standards Association Standards for Electric Motors 8. National Institute of Standards and Technology/National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program Handbook 150-10 Update and Checklist 9. Appendix A to Subpart B of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 431 10. Canadian Standards Association Test Procedure for Small Electric Motors 11. Small Electric Motor Represented Efficiency Value 12. Validation of the Small Electric Motor Alternative Efficiency Determination Method 13. Small Electric Motor Nationally Recognized Certification Program 14. Issues Related to Compliance Certification and Enforcement of Electric Motors and Small Electric Motors V. 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 D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act 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 the 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 VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Introduction A. Authority Part A-1 of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), provides the Department of Energy (“DOE” or, in context, “the Department”) with the authority to promulgate energy conservation standards and related test procedures for certain commercial and industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking addresses issues raised in response to an earlier notice of proposed rulemaking, 73 FR 78220 (December 22, 2008). B. Background In the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486 (October 24, 1992) (EPAct 1992), Congress amended EPCA to establish energy conservation standards, test procedures, compliance certification, and 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 published in the Federal Register , a final rule that set 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 July 7, 2009 final rule prescribing test procedures for small electric motors. 74 FR 32059. Today's supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) proposes revisions, as summarized below, to the test procedures and definitions related to electric motors and small electric motors that were not addressed in previous rulemakings. 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 language denoting two new subtypes of general purpose electric motors. ( 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 ( i.e., approximately 3 horsepower and below). 73 FR 78220, 78221 n.2 (December 22, 2008) 1. Electric Motors Section 343(a)(5)(A) of EPCA requires that test procedures for electric motor efficiency shall be the test procedures specified in the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Standards Publication MG1-1987 and IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B for electric motor efficiency, as in effect on the date of enactment of EPAct 1992. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A)) Section 343(a)(5)(B) of EPCA directs that if the NEMA and IEEE test procedures are amended, the Secretary of Energy shall amend the efficiency test procedures for electric motors to conform to the amended NEMA and IEEE test procedures, unless the Secretary determines, by rule, that 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)) Subsequently, once newer versions of these industry test procedures became available, DOE amended its regulations to include more recent versions of these procedures. MG1-1993 and IEEE Standard 112-1996 were codified at 10 CFR 431.22 (now codified at 10 CFR 431.16 and appendix B to subpart B). In addition, the equivalent CAN/CSA C390-93, “Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction Motors” was added in the final rule published on October 5, 1999. 64 FR 54114. These changes were made to ensure that the latest industry practices were incorporated into DOE's regulations and to incorporate related equivalent procedures. NEMA Standards Publication MG1 was most recently revised and published on April 9, 2010, IEEE Standard 112 was most recently amended in November 2004, and CAN/CSA C390 was most recently amended on March 22, 2010 (as the renamed “Test methods, marking requirements, and energy efficiency levels for three-phase induction motors.”) As directed by section 343(a)(5)(B) of EPCA, DOE proposed in a December 22, 2008, test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) (December 2008 NOPR) to update the test procedures in 10 CFR part 431 by incorporating by reference the test methods from the most current versions (at that time) of those industry testing standards. 73 FR 78220. DOE received several comments on its proposed updates as well as on other issues and is addressing them in today's SNOPR for further public review. 2. Small Electric Motors Section 346 of 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 announced its intention in the determination notice to initiate the development of test procedures for certain small electric motors. 71 FR 38807 (July 10, 2006). Pursuant to section 346(b)(1) of EPCA, in the December 2008 NOPR, DOE presented potential test methods for measuring the energy efficiency of small electric motors that DOE was considering incorporating into its regulations. 73 FR 78220. 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 Canadian Standards Association (CAN/CSA) C747-94, “Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Single- and Three-Phase Small Motors.” 4 All of these testing standards are industry-based test procedures that are well-known and commonly used by small electric motor manufacturers. 4 The IEEE Standards addressed in this notice are generally listed chronologically by their last date of revision and adoption rather than their sequential number. On July 7, 2009, DOE published a final rule adopting test procedures for measuring the energy efficiency of small electric motors. 74 FR 32059. However, there were certain subsidiary issues raised in the December 2008 NOPR that required additional consideration before a final decision could be made on how to address them in light of comments received from interested parties. These issues are addressed in today's SNOPR. II. Summary of Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Today's SNOPR addresses and solicits comment on particular issues concerning definitions and test procedures for electric motors and small electric motors. DOE prepared this SNOPR to ensure clarity in the definitions and test procedures for electric motors and small electric motors and to address public comments received in response to the December NOPR. With respect to electric motors, DOE proposes to take four actions. First, DOE proposes to clarify definitions for the terms “electric motor,” “fire pump motor,” “general purpose electric motor (subtype I),” “general purpose electric motor (subtype II),” and “NEMA Design B.” In addition, DOE proposes to rename the term “general purpose motor” to be “general purpose electric motor” consistent with terminology used in the regulations. DOE believes that the proposed revisions to these terms will make the applicable test procedures contained in 10 CFR part 431 appropriate for this equipment while addressing comments from interested parties submitted in response to the December 2008 NOPR. Second, today's notice proposes to clarify the scope of existing and pending energy conservation standards for electric motors in 10 CFR 431.25. Third, DOE proposes to update the references to NIST Handbook 150-10, “Efficiency of Electric Motors,” and the associated NIST Handbook 150-10 Checklist, IEC standards documents, CAN/CSA C390, and NEMA MG1 throughout subpart B of 10 CFR part 431. Fourth, DOE proposes revisions to appendix A to subpart B, of 10 CFR part 431, to maintain consistency with the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA 2007) amendments to the electric motor scope of coverage, and to address acceptable bounds for shaft dimensions for covered general purposes electric motors. With respect to small electric motors, on July 7, 2009, DOE published a final rule that prescribed test procedures to measure the energy efficiency of small electric motors (July 2009 final rule). 74 FR 32059. Today's SNOPR addresses three related matters that would clarify the scope of coverage and alleviate potential undue testing burdens. First, DOE proposes to define the represented efficiency value and average full load efficiency for small electric motors. Second, DOE proposes to include the following test procedures as alternative methodologies for measuring the energy efficiency of polyphase small electric motors: CAN/CSA C747 and CAN/CSA C390. DOE understands 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 existing references to CAN/CSA C747 to the latest version of the standard. Finally, DOE proposes a method to validate an alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) for small electric motors, including the statistical requirements to substantiate the AEDM. While the AEDM was addressed in the December 2008 NOPR, comments to that notice indicated that the agency needed to provide additional clarification regarding how manufacturers should use the sample of basic models tested when validating their AEDMs. Today's notice clarifies that issue by proposing an approach based on the AEDM substantiation requirements for 1-200 horsepower electric motors. The proposed revisions are summarized in the table below and addressed in detail in the following section. Note that all citations to various sections of 10 CFR part 431 throughout this SNOPR preamble refer to the current version of 10 CFR part 431. The proposed regulatory text follows the preamble to this notice. DOE seeks comments from interested parties on each of the proposed revisions. Table 1—Summary of Changes Proposed in This SNOPR and Affected Sections of 10 CFR Part 431 Existing Section in 10 CFR Part 431 Summary of Proposed Modifications Section 431.11 of Subpart B—Purpose and Scope • Clarifies that subpart B is applicable to “electric motors,” but not “small electric motors.” Section 431.12 of Subpart B—Definitions • 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.” Section 431.14 of Subpart B— Sources for information and guidance • Removes sources for information and guidance from Section 431.15 and places it in new Section 431.14. Section 431.15 of Subpart B—Materials incorporated by reference • Updates reference to CAN/CSA-C390. • Updates references to IEC standards. • Updates reference to IEEE 112. • Updates reference to NEMA MG1. Section 431.18 of Subpart B—Testing Laboratories • Updates reference to NIST Handbook 150-10. Section 431.19 of Subpart B—Department of Energy recognition of accreditation bodies • Updates references to IEEE 112 and CAN/CSA C390. Section 431.20 of Subpart B—Department of Energy recognition of nationally recognized certification programs • Updates references to IEEE 112 and CAN/CSA-C390 for electric motors. Section 431.25 of Subpart B—Energy conservation standards and effective dates • Clarifies the scope of efficiency standards in 431.25(a) through (e). • Inserts kilowatt equivalent power ratings in the efficiency standard tables. Section 431.31 of Subpart B—Labeling Requirements • Updates reference to NEMA MG1. Appendix A to Subpart B—Policy Statement for Electric Motors Covered Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act • Revised for consistency with EISA 2007 amendments. • Includes guidance regarding special shaft designs for motors. Appendix B to Subpart B—Uniform Test Method for Measuring Nominal Full Load Efficiency of Electric Motors • Updates references to NEMA MG1, IEEE 112, and CAN/CSA C390. Section 431.441 of Subpart X—Purpose and Scope • Clarifies that subpart X is applicable to “small electric motors,” but not “electric motors.” Section 431.443 of Subpart X—Materials incorporated by reference • Updates reference to CAN/CSA-C747. • Adds reference to CSA-C390. • Updates references to IEEE 112 and 114. Section 431.444 of Subpart X—Test procedures for measurement of energy efficiency • Updates reference to CAN/CSA-C747. • Adds reference to CAN/CSA-C390. Section 431.445 of Subpart X—Determination of small electric motor efficiency • Adds additional guidelines on use of a certification program and references section 431.447 for small electric motors. • Defines the represented efficiency value. Section 431.447 of Subpart X—Department of Energy recognition of nationally recognized certification programs • Adds a section on nationally recognized certification programs for small electric motors similar to section 431.20 for electric motors. Section 431.448 of Subpart X—Procedures for recognition and withdrawal of recognition of certification programs • Adds a section on procedures for recognition of certification programs for small electric motors similar to section 431.21 for electric motors. III. Discussion A. Definition of Electric Motor Before the enactment of EISA 2007, section 340(13)(A) of EPCA, as amended, defined the term “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.” Section 313(a)(2) of EISA 2007 struck that definition and established two subtypes: General purpose electric motor (subtype I) and general purpose electric motor (subtype II). (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)) In addition, section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 established energy conservation standards for four types of motors: General purpose electric motor (subtype I) with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; fire pump motors; general purpose electric motor (subtype II) 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 to 500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) 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, and various subparts of 10 CFR part 431) was left undefined. Consequently, DOE expressed concern 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 definition of “electric motor” to mean any of the following four types of motors: A general purpose electric motor (subtype I), a fire pump motor, a general purpose electric motor (subtype II), 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 equally apply to each of the four types of motors. 73 FR 78225. Whereas DOE proposed to separate (and define) the covered electric motors into four distinct and separate types, NEMA asserted that section 313(a)(2) of EISA 2007 categorized covered electric motors into two types: General purpose electric motor (subtype I) and general purpose electric motor (subtype II). Further, NEMA commented that under the DOE-proposed definition of electric motor, a NEMA Design B general purpose electric motor and a fire pump motor would be viewed as separate and apart from general purpose electric motor (subtype I), when in reality they are considered subsets of general purpose electric motors (subtype I). (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 7) 5 5 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, “NEMA, No. 12 at p. 7” refers to a comment: (1) From the National Electrical Manufacturers Association; (2) in document number 12 in the docket of this rulemaking; and (3) appearing on page 7 of the submission. In view of the above and with the term “electric motor” as yet unclear, today's SNOPR proposes to clarify the term “electric motor” to mean “a machine which converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power.” Additionally, as discussed below, DOE is proposing to clarify what constitutes a “general purpose electric motor (subtype I)” by enumerating certain design and performance elements, and what constitutes a “general purpose electric motor (subtype II)” by explicitly drawing the distinction between a subtype I and subtype II. B. Definition of General Purpose Electric Motors, Subtypes I and II EISA 2007 defines a general purpose electric motor (subtype I) as a motor that meets the definition of “general purpose” which was in effect at the time of enactment of EISA 2007. At that time, 10 CFR part 431 did not contain a definition of “general purpose,” although the regulations did define “general purpose motor” as 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. 64 FR 54142 (codified at 10 CFR 431.12). 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) In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE did not propose any changes to the definition of “general purpose electric motor (subtype I).” DOE also did not propose any changes to the definition of “general purpose electric motor (subtype II)” in the December 2008 NOPR because this term was defined in section 313(a)(2) of EISA 2007 and was incorporated without modification into 10 CFR 431.12. 74 FR 12071. The statute defines a subtype II general purpose motor as any motor incorporating the design elements of a general purpose electric motor (subtype I) 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). (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(B)) In response to the December 2008 NOPR, NEMA and Baldor commented that Congress created confusion when it struck the EPAct 1992 definition of electric motor from section 340(13)(A) of EPCA via section 313(a)(2) of EISA 2007 and subsequently inserted the terms “general purpose electric motor (subtype I)” and “general purpose electric motor (subtype II)” under the umbrella heading “Electric motor” without further clarification. According to NEMA and Baldor, the DOE definition of general purpose electric motor (subtype I) does not provide the essential elements that would differentiate a general purpose electric motor (subtype II) from a general purpose electric motor (subtype I)—the subtype II characteristics described in the statute are also shared with subtype I motors. Consequently, NEMA requested that DOE clarify how it intends to distinguish between a general purpose electric motor (subtype I) and general purpose electric motor (subtype II), particularly because EISA 2007 prescribes different efficiency levels for subtype I and subtype II motors. Further, Baldor suggested that DOE restore the original [EPAct 1992] definition of electric motor, which was struck by the EISA 2007 amendment to EPCA, and from that [EPAct 1992] definition derive clear definitions to differentiate general purpose electric motor (subtype I) and (subtype II). (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 11; Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at 116-119) In addition, NEMA commented that section 313(a)(2) of EISA 2007 defines a general purpose electric motor (subtype II) as one that incorporates the design elements of a subtype I general purpose electric motor and that is “configured as 1 of several distinct configurations, such as “Design C” or “U-Frame” construction. (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)-(B)). NEMA asked DOE to clarify how it would interpret the clause “configured as 1 of” in EISA 2007's definition of general purpose electric motor (subtype II). Otherwise, according to NEMA, it is possible that a general purpose motor could be configured in a manner that uses combinations of the various configurations specified by EISA 2007, that is, a Design C motor could be constructed in a U-frame. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 11) In view of the above, DOE proposes first to clarify the definition of “electric motor” by describing what an electric motor is and what it does, rather than listing categories of covered electric motors. Second, DOE proposes to clarify the definition of “general purpose electric motor (subtype I)” by specifying certain design and performance elements. Third, DOE proposes to clarify the relationship between a general purpose electric motor subtype I and a general purpose electric motor subtype II. NEMA commented that the definition of “general purpose electric motor (subtype I)” in the December 2008 NOPR is confusing because the only identifying characteristic is that the motor is “constructed for use in general purpose applications or can be used in most general purpose applications.” Further, NEMA asserted that design characteristics (such as T-frame, single speed, foot-mounting, polyphase, squirrel-cage induction motor, Design A and B, continuous rated, operating on 230/460 volts or constant 60 Hertz line power, etc. ), which were essential elements under the EPAct 1992 definition of “electric motor,” are not included in the EISA 2007 definition. In addition, NEMA commented that when [in 1999] DOE originally codified regulations for electric motors into 10 CFR part 431, it determined that motors designed in accordance with IEC standards, and which could be used in the same general purpose applications as NEMA motors, be included as covered equipment. 61 FR 60442-43, 60449-50 (November 27, 1996) and 64 FR 54131. Whereas the definition for “general purpose electric motor (subtype I),” proposed in the December 2008 NOPR, failed to include IEC motors of similar design and use, NEMA requested that DOE explicitly include equivalent IEC motors as covered equipment. (NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 9 and 11) In view of the above comments, DOE is proposing to clarify what constitutes a “general purpose electric motor (subtype I)” by referencing the enumerated design and performance elements under the definition of “electric motor,” set forth in EPCA, as amended by EPAct 1992 and codified in 10 CFR 431.2 (January 1, 2000). DOE would also include references to IEC standards to clarify that IEC-equivalent electric motors are subject to energy conservation standards. DOE requests comment on the following proposed definition for “general purpose electric motor (subtype I)”: General purpose electric motor (subtype I) means a general purpose electric motor that: (1) Is a single-speed induction motor (MG1); (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 (MG1) or their IEC metric equivalents (IEC); (6) Has performance in accordance with NEMA Design A (MG1) or B characteristics or equivalent designs such as IEC Design N (IEC); (7) Operates on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal power, and: (i) Is rated 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. Terms in this definition followed by the parenthetical “MG1” must be construed with reference to provisions in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-2009 and elements followed by the parenthetical “IEC” must be construed with reference to the IEC Standards. 10 CFR part 431, subpart B applies to general purpose electric motors (subtype I) even if the NEMA or IEC-equivalent frame size or design element has been discontinued or is discontinued in the future. To be consistent with the proposed definition of “electric motor” and corresponding use of the term “general purpose electric motor” in the definition of “general purpose electric motor (subtype I),” DOE proposes 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. Furthermore, DOE proposes to update references to NEMA MG1, from NEMA MG1-1993 to NEMA MG1-2009 in this definition. DOE distinguishes between a general purpose electric motor subtype I and subtype II based on whether the motor is configured to have one or more of the design or performance elements listed in the definition of general purpose electric motor (subtype II) 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 the same design elements as the above mentioned motor but with the performance characteristics of a NEMA Design C motor would be a subtype II motor. To clarify this interpretation of the statutory definition of “general purpose electric motor (subtype I),” DOE proposes to modify the introductory text of the 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.” For clarification, DOE is also proposing to add references to MG1 and IEC standards in the definition of “general purpose electric motor (subtype II)” to clarify the terms “U-frame,” “NEMA Design C,” and “vertical solid shaft normal thrust motor.” Finally, DOE has received inquiries regarding whether motors designed in accordance with IEC standards are covered motors under EPCA, as amended by EISA, if there is no longer a NEMA MG1-equivalent design standard. Specifically, manufacturers are requesting guidance as to whether IEC 100 millimeter frame motors are covered motors under EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, because the equivalent NEMA 160 frame size was discontinued as a standard NEMA frame. Before EISA 2007 was enacted, DOE addressed this question in the 1996 electric motors test procedure NOPR. 61 FR 60440, 60443 (November 27, 1996). At that time, DOE considered whether the proposed scenario was covered under the then-current definition of “electric motor.” 6 The Department tentatively decided that the IEC 100 millimeter frame motor was not covered by EPCA because the “electric motor” definition required the motor to be a T-frame motor as defined in NEMA MG1-1987, but the NEMA T-frame motor that was equivalent to an IEC 100 millimeter frame motor had been discontinued. 6 Section 340(13)(A) of EPCA, as amended, defined the term “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.” DOE has reassessed this previous preliminary determination in light of the EISA 2007 amendment that struck the definition of “electric motor” relied upon in the above analysis, and today's proposal to include references to IEC standards to clarify that IEC-equivalent electric motors are subject to energy conservation standards. Upon reconsideration of the issue, DOE proposes that IEC 100 millimeter frame motors, and other electric motors built to IEC standards, that otherwise meet the proposed definition of “general purpose electric motor (subtype I)” are covered motors under EPCA, even though the NEMA-equivalent frame size has been discontinued. C. Definition of NEMA Design B Motor In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt a definition for the term “NEMA Design B, general purpose electric motor.” 73 FR 78235. This definition was based on the definition of general purpose electric motor in paragraph 1.19.1.2, “Design B,” of NEMA MG1-2006 Revision 1, with three changes. 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 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 paragraph12.35.3 in MG1-2006 and the table under paragraph 12.35.1 contains the maximum currents associated with a locked rotor. Several interested parties expressed concern over DOE's proposed definition for a NEMA Design B, general purpose electric motor. NEMA and Baldor urged DOE not to change the NEMA MG1 definition of Design B where it refers to MG1-12.35.[2] for 50 hertz, stating that the industry definition has existed for many years and should be maintained, and that EISA 2007 does not explicitly limit coverage to 60 hertz. (Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p. 159, NEMA, No. 12 at p. 10) NEMA also noted that Table 12-11 of NEMA MG1 (the applicable efficiency standards for NEMA Design B, general purpose electric motors) applies both to 60-hertz and 50-hertz rated motors. In sum, NEMA requested that DOE incorporate the definition of NEMA Design B, general purpose electric motor from NEMA MG1-2006 in its entirety and refer to paragraph 1.19.1.2 of NEMA MG1-2006. Notwithstanding this request, NEMA asserts that it is not condoning the inclusion of efficiency standards for 50-hertz motors in 10 CFR part 431. NEMA also commented that even though NEMA Design B motors are a subset of general purpose electric motor (subtype I), if DOE deems it necessary, NEMA would support adding a separate definition for NEMA Design B general purpose electric motor in § 431.12, as long as it was clearly classified as a general purpose electric motor (subtype I) with some specific characteristics. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 10) In addition, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) agreed that it could see no benefit to making changes to an industry-wide and well-accepted definition for a NEMA Design B general purpose motor that includes 50-hertz motors and energy efficiency levels for 8-pole motors. NEEA recommended that DOE adopt the NEMA MG1 1.19.1.2 definition without amending it. (NEEA, No. 10 at pp. 2-3) In response, due to the NEMA MG1 technical error in referencing section 12.35.3 for 60 Hz motors, DOE cannot simply adopt or reference the NEMA MG1 1.19.1.2 definition for Design B without any amendments, as suggested by NEMA and NEEA. Furthermore, it is common and within DOE's authority to adopt a long-standing industry definition and adapt the definition to make it more precise for regulatory purposes. Therefore, DOE intends to adopt a definition of NEMA Design B motor that includes corrections to the reference to section 12.35.1 of MG1. In addition, for consistency with the footnote to the definition in NEMA MG1-2009, DOE intends to maintain the limitation that the maximum rated slip at rated load to less than 5 percent for only motors with fewer than 10 poles. DOE agrees with commenters that there is limited benefit to constraining the definition of NEMA Design B to only 60-hertz motors. Though DOE's proposed definitions of general purpose electric motor (subtype I) and (subtype II) limit those regulations to 60-hertz motors, DOE could consider expanding energy conservation standards to 50-hertz motors in the future. Including provisions for 50-hertz motors would maintain consistency with the industry definition and preserve DOE's flexibility to regulate electric motors covered under EPCA. In addition, DOE believes 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). It is DOE's understanding that NEMA Design B motors can also fall under the category of general purpose electric motor (subtype II) ( e.g., a footless NEMA Design B motor), or other type of electric motor. For all of these reasons, DOE proposes to adopt a broad definition of a NEMA Design B motor similar to that which was proposed for “NEMA Design B, general purpose electric motor” in the December 2008 NOPR with three revisions. First, DOE proposes to include provisions regarding 50 hertz motors. Second, DOE intends to modify the proposal to update the reference to “NEMA MG1-2006” to “NEMA MG1-2009.” Third, DOE proposes to eliminate any reference to NEMA Design B motors necessarily being general purpose electric motors. D. Fire Pump Motors Definition EPCA section 342(b), as amended by section 313(b)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140), prescribes energy efficiency standards for fire pump motors, which were subsequently codified at 10 CFR 431.25(d). 74 FR 12072. However, section 340(13) of EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, does not define the term “fire pump motor.” DOE proposed a definition for fire pump motors in its December 2008 NOPR to mean “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. In the NOPR, DOE based the definition primarily on the scope of the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard 1004A-2001, “Fire Pump Motors,” and NFPA Standard 20-2007. Further, DOE proposed to make two modifications to the definition by inserting a publication date for the cited NFPA standard and correcting the title of NFPA Standard 20. In response to the NOPR, NEMA raised concerns that fire pump motors should not be required to meet any efficiency standards because they are expected to operate on an emergency basis for a relatively short time with virtually no opportunity to save a significant amount of energy. Further, NEMA asserted that motors identified as “fire pump motors” are recognized by the industry as both EPAct 1992 electric motors or EISA 2007 general purpose electric motors (subtype I) and, therefore, should not be listed as a separate motor type under the electric motor definition as proposed in the December 2008 NOPR. Notwithstanding this argument, NEMA supports DOE adding the definition of “fire pump motor” to 10 CFR 431.12, provided that it is characterized as being a “general purpose electric motor (subtype I)” with some specific characteristics. (NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 8-9) Additionally, NEMA noted that the UL Standard 1004A-2001, “Fire Pump Motors,” has been replaced by UL Standard 1004-5 (2008), and that DOE should reference the newest standard if it is necessary to define a fire pump motor. (NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 8-9) Similarly, other attendees at the January 29, 2009, public meeting questioned the proposed definition and scope of coverage for fire pump motors. (Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at pp. 112-113, 116-119, 133-136) DOE examined UL Standard 1004-5 (2008), including paragraph 1.2, which reads as follows: “Standard covers Design B polyphase motors, as defined in NEMA MG 1, Motors and Generators, rated 500 horsepower (373 kW) or less, 600 volts or less, that are intended for use in accordance with NFPA 20, the Standard for the Installation of Centrifugal Fire Pumps.” DOE then compared UL Standard 1004-5 (2008) with the comparable text in UL Standard 1004A-2001, which contains virtually identical language and concludes that the documents share the same scope of coverage. In today's SNOPR, DOE proposes to further clarify that a fire pump motor is an electric motor that is required to meet certain safety and performance requirements set forth by NFPA Standard 20-2010, section 9.5, and UL Standard 1004-5 (2008). However, similar to DOE's above proposal to adopt a broad definition for a NEMA Design B motor, DOE does not agree that fire pump motors are necessarily a subset of general purpose electric motors (subtype I) or general purpose electric motors (as defined in this SNOPR). It is DOE's understanding that all fire pump motors, irrespective of whether they are considered general purpose or meet the design constraints of general purpose electric motor (subtype I), would be subject to energy conservation standards. For all of these reasons, in today's SNOPR DOE proposes to 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). E. Fire Pump Motor Coverage Section 313(b)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amends EPCA section 342(b), to prescribe energy conservation standards for fire pump motors by referring to NEMA MG 1-2006 Table 12-11. That provision reads as follows: (B) FIRE PUMP MOTORS—Each fire pump motor manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) after the 3-year period beginning on the date of enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 shall have 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)) On March 23, 2009, DOE published a technical amendment to 10 CFR part 431 to adopt the energy conservation standards for fire pump motors prescribed by EISA 2007. 74 FR 12058, 12072. The technical amendment codified the energy conservation standards for fire pump motors, contained in Table 12-11 of NEMA Standards Publication MG1-2006 (and Revision 1 to MG1-2006) which contains energy efficiency values from 1 through 500 horsepower and covers 2-pole, 4-pole, 6-pole, and 8-pole, open and enclosed fire pump motors. 74 FR 12061, 12072. During the January 29, 2009, public meeting there appeared to be some confusion over whether the covered range of horsepowers for fire pump motors is 1-200 horsepower or 1-500 horsepower. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p. 147; Navigant Consulting, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at pp. 147-148; WEG, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at pp. 148-149; NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 8-9; NEEA, No. 10 at p. 2). Further, Baldor alluded to an excerpt of the language under EPCA section 342(b), as amended by section 313(b)(1)(B) of EISA 2007, which provides “GENERAL PURPOSE ELECTRIC MOTORS (SUBTYPE I).—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), each general purpose electric motor (subtype I) with a power rating of 1 horsepower or greater, but not greater than 200 horsepower.” (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(A)) Baldor opined that whether a fire pump motor covered under 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B) was limited to the same 1-200 horsepower range as a general purpose electric motor (subtype I) was a matter of statutory interpretation. (Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at pp. 112-113,145, 149-50). DOE understands that EISA 2007 section 313(b)(1)(A) sets energy conservation standards for general purpose electric motors (subtype I) with a rating of 1 through 200 horsepower and clearly excepts fire pump motors from this subsection. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(A)) EISA 2007 section 313(b)(1)(B), which prescribes energy conservation standards for fire pump motors, does not, however, explicitly limit the standard based on a motor's horsepower rating. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)) Instead, fire pump motor manufacturers are required to meet the requirements of NEMA Standard MG1-2006 Table 12-11, which covers 1 through 500 horsepower motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)) Consequently, DOE continues to believe that energy conservation standards DOE promulgated in its March 23, 2009, technical amendment are the logical result of provisions set forth in EISA section 313(b)(1)(B) and cannot be construed as being a subset of subsection EISA section 313(b)(1)(A) or subject to any constraints contained in subparagraph (A), including horsepower rating constraints. DOE, therefore, proposes in today's SNOPR that fire pump motor energy conservation standards apply to fire pump motors rated 1 through 500 horsepower. F. Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors In addition to the above comments submitted about the definitions for “electric motor,” “general purpose electric motor (subtype I),” “general purpose electric motor (subtype II),” “NEMA Design B motor,” and “fire pump motor,” commenters also submitted comments (shown below) requesting clarification of the tables of electric motor efficiency standards in 10 CFR 431.25. DOE's current regulations require manufacturers of “electric motors” to comply with the energy efficiency levels in 10 CFR 431.25(a), which were prescribed by EPAct in 1992, but do not specify a sunset date. Section 313(b) of EISA 2007 amended EPCA to prescribe energy conservation standards for general purpose electric motors (subtype I and subtype II), with a compliance date of 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 EPAct does not specify an apparent terminus for the 1992 efficiency levels, NEMA argued that this was potentially confusing for manufacturers to decide which provisions apply—the EPAct 1992 levels or the EISA 2007 levels. Consequently, NEMA requested guidance on the proper energy conservation standards for general purpose electric motors (subtype I). (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 9) To address this issue, DOE proposes to delete 10 CFR 431.25(a) to clarify that the standards in this section no longer apply. In view of the above statutory history and relationship of EPCA to EPAct 1992 and to EISA 2007, DOE believes that the electric motor standards prescribed by EPAct 1992 apply only to general purpose electric motors (subtype I). DOE proposes that electric motors covered under EPAct 1992 (general purpose electric motor (subtype I)), which are manufactured or imported prior to December 19, 2010, were subject to the EPAct 1992 energy conservation standards codified at 10 CFR 431.25(a). Further, DOE proposes that a general purpose electric motor (subtype I) that is manufactured or imported on or after December 19, 2010, is subject to the EISA 2007 energy conservation standards that are codified at 10 CFR 431.25(c). In addition, in the December 2008 NOPR, DOE did not explicitly state that a NEMA Design B general purpose electric motors that otherwise meets the definition of a general purpose electric motors (subtype I) is subject to the EISA 2007 energy conservation standards that are codified at 10 CFR 431.25(c) NEMA expressed concern in responding to the December 2008 NOPR that given the proposed definitions and structure of 10 CFR 431.25, NEMA Design B general purpose electric motors rated 1 horsepower or greater, but not greater than 200 horsepower, would appear to remain at the levels established by EPAct 1992 (codified at 10 CFR 431.25(a)). To clarify the scope of energy conservation standards for NEMA Design B motors from 1 through 200 horsepower, DOE proposes two modifications of 10 CFR 431.25. First, because general purpose electric motors (subtype I) include certain NEMA Design B motors, DOE proposes to specify that NEMA Design B motors, rated 1 through 200 horsepower, that are also general purpose electric motors (subtype I), are subject to energy conservations standards in 10 CFR 431.25(c). Second, and similarly, as general purpose electric motors (subtype II) include certain NEMA Design B motors ( e.g., footless motors), DOE proposes to specify that NEMA Design B motors, rated 1 through 200 horsepower, that are also general purpose electric motors (subtype II), are subject to energy conservation standards in 10 CFR 431.25(e). EISA 2007 also established energy conservations 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). NEMA asserts 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. DOE notes that EISA 2007 did not define “NEMA Design B, general purpose electric motor,” “NEMA Design B motor,” or “general purpose electric motor.” In the absence of any statutory definition, DOE views the regulatory definition of “general purpose motor” that was in place on EISA2007'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's enactment is the same as the “general purpose electric motor” definition proposed today, with minor differences for standards updates. DOE proposes that this definition, read in conjunction with the definition of “NEMA Design B” proposed in today's SNOPR, delineates the motors regulated under 10 CFR 431.25(f). DOE realizes 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).” It is DOE's understanding, however, that there are few, if any, NEMA Design B motors that would be neither a subtype I or subtype II general purpose electric motor. DOE requests comment on this specific issue. Based on these comments and any additional information collected, DOE may revise this proposed approach. NEMA also noted that the energy efficiency standards tables contained in 10 CFR 431.25(c)-(f) list motor ratings in horsepower but not equivalent kilowatts. NEMA requested that DOE include kilowatt power ratings in the newly codified tables that promulgate 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 proposes to amend the tables to provide an equivalent kilowatt rating for each horsepower. Although the EISA 2007 definition for general purpose electric motor (subtype I and subtype II) does not specifically mention motors rated in kilowatts, as motors are rated under (IEC) standards, DOE believes that the statute covers IEC motors that are identical or equivalent to motors included in the statutory definition. DOE understands that IEC motors generally can perform the identical functions of EISA-covered electric motors. Comparable motors of both types provide virtually identical amounts of rotational mechanical power, and generally can 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 EPAct 1992 levels that are codified at 10 CFR 431.25(a), and would clarify the applicability of these standards levels. Finally, DOE proposes to clarify in 10 CFR 431.11 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 with particular regulatory requirements. G. References to International Electrotechnical Commission, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and Canadian Standards Association Standards for Electric Motors After EISA 2007 struck and replaced 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 standards incorporated by reference under 10 CFR 431.15. These test standards helped clarify critical elements in the definition of electric motor under 10 CFR 431.12. 73 FR 78227. The standards incorporated by reference included IEC Standards 60034-1 (1996), 60050-411 (1996), 60072-1 (1991), and 60034-12 (1980). NEMA commented that when DOE adopted the content of EPAct 1992 into 10 CFR part 431, it recognized the necessity of including equivalent motors designed in accordance with IEC standards that could be used in the same applications as motors designed in accordance with NEMA MG1 standards. Although the IEC standards do not particularly identify “general purpose motors,” 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) DOE previously took such an approach when addressing IEC metric motors in the final test procedure rule for electric motors at 64 FR 54142 (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 then-statutory definition did not explicitly mention IEC motors, DOE 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 60440, 60442 (November 27, 1996) where it states that “[A]lthough the statutory definition of `electric motor' does not specifically mention IEC motors, the Department believes that the Act covers IEC motors that are identical or equivalent to motors included in the statutory definition.”) DOE later codified this approach at 10 CFR 431.2. 64 FR 54143 (October 5, 1999). DOE believes that EISA 2007 provides the same breadth of coverage over IEC motors that are identical or equivalent to electric motors built in accordance with MG1. As discussed earlier in this SNOPR, DOE is proposing a revised definition of “general purpose electric motor (subtype I)” and “general purpose electric motor (subtype II)” which would incorporate IEC-equivalent motors. Thus, DOE proposes to maintain IEC standards incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 431.15. In addition, DOE proposes 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. NEMA also notes that a source to obtain IEC standards does not appear in 10 CFR 431.15(d). (NEMA, No. 10 at p. 10) In response to NEMA's comment, DOE proposes to reorganize and update 10 CFR 431.15 to include each standard incorporated by reference with corresponding updated information about how to obtain copies of these documents. In addition, DOE notes that several electric motor definitions and sections of 10 CFR part 431 reference outdated standards, such as NEMA MG1-1993, IEEE 112-1996 Test Method B, CAN/CSA C390-93 (Test Method 1). In this SNOPR, DOE proposes to update the following references throughout 10 CFR part 431 to be consistent with current industry standards: NEMA MG1-2009, IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B, and CAN/CSA C390-10. DOE believes that the exceptions to IEEE 112-1996 Test Method B contained in paragraph (2) of appendix B to subpart B, 2. Test Procedures, are contained in the updated version of IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B, although DOE accepts comments on this assessment. DOE does not believe that the updated standards and test procedures will adversely affect the measured losses and determined efficiency of an electric motor, nor significantly change the meaning of a definition. Finally, NEMA recently provided comments on the electric motors framework document indicating that while the test data collection methods for the updated versions of IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B and CAN/CSA 390-10 are the same, there are differences in the methods in which the efficiency is determined from the data. 7 (NEMA, No. 0013 at p. 2) DOE requests comment on this issue. 7 The written comments cited in this paragraph were submitted to the docket of the energy conservation standards rulemaking for electric motors (refer to http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027; RIN number 1904-AC28). H. 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 current reference to the 1995 edition of the NIST Handbook 150-10 to the 2007 edition. 73 FR 78228. Although following the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 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). At the January 30, 2009, public meeting, Baldor Electric expressed concern that an update to 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 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 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. Also, DOE proposed that NIST review this matter and consider updating the industry test methods referenced in its 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. The Lab Bulletin made a series of updates and corrections. Although NIST did not update its references to CSA C390-93 Test Method 1, DOE and NIST have evaluated the differences between the 1993 version and the updated version of the Canadian standard and have initially determined that there is no substantive difference between the two standards that would result in a significant change in measured efficiency. Therefore, DOE is proposing to adopt NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10 that references IEEE 112-2004 (November 2001), CSA C390-10 (March 2010), and NEMA MG1-2009 (April 2009). A second issue relating to NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10 was raised both at the January 30, 2009 public meeting and in subsequent written comments. Baldor commented that while the NIST/NVLAP 150-10 Handbook is available online, Baldor has had difficulty locating the current checklist, formerly in the 1995 version of the handbook, which systematically lists the laboratory testing requirements and the applicable test procedures. Further, the 2007 edition of the handbook does not address the test procedure used for accrediting a laboratory. (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. NEMA noted that according to clause 1.6.2 of NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10 (2007), all NVLAP programs use a NIST Handbook 150 Checklist, but the document is not easily found on the NIST Web site at http://www.nist.gov/index.html. NEMA commented that DOE should not 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 that is in the 1995 edition. NEMA requests that if DOE finds the checklist to be a proper substitute for the provisions in the 1995 edition, then DOE should update 10 CFR 431.15(e)(2)(i) to refer to the 2007 edition of NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10 and add the 2007 Checklist 150-10 to the list of documents incorporated by reference. (NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 11-12) DOE consulted with NIST on this matter and learned that the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10 (2007) Checklist is available on the NIST Web site at: http://ts.nist.gov/Standards/Accreditation/upload/NIST_HB_150_10_Checklist.pdf. Although there are minor differences between the 1995 and 2007 Checklists, DOE is satisfied with the rigor and requirements presented in the 2007 Checklist, which NIST has established as the requirements for accreditation of a laboratory under NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10. However, DOE does not agree with NEMA's recommendation to incorporate by reference the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10 (2007) checklist into 10 CFR 431.15(e). The checklist is not a requirement of the test procedure itself, but rather a document used to accredit a testing facility as being capable of conducting the necessary tests for evaluating the energy efficiency of an electric motor. Finally, while DOE is aware that the 2007 version of the checklist references IEEE 112-1996 and MG1-1993, DOE considers these referenced documents to be updated by NIST Lab Bulletin LB-42-2009, issued on March 19, 2009. DOE has also asked NIST to further update the referenced standards to include IEEE 112-2004, CSA C390-10, and NEMA MG1-2009. I. Appendix A to Subpart B of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 431 Section 313(a)(2) of EISA 2007 amended EPCA section 340(13)(A) to set forth a new definition of “electric motor,” which included motors not previously covered under EPCA, such as a footless motor, close-coupled pump motor, and a vertical solid shaft normal thrust motor. 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 and how DOE would apply energy conservation standards to electric motors that are components of certain equipment. To accommodate the changes to section 340(13)(A) of EPCA that EISA 2007 introduced, which removed much of the basis for DOE's previous interpretive guidance, in the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed to delete the contents of appendix A to subpart B, and replace the existing policy statement with the term “[Reserved].” DOE also proposed to maintain the outline structure of this subpart should DOE decide in the future to clarify the scope of covered electric motors in its regulations. 73 FR 78228 and 78237. During the January 29, 2009, public meeting, Baldor commented that removing the guidelines from appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 would result in no guidance at present and leave open the possibility to greatly expanded guidance in the future. (Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript No. 8, p. 118) To address this possibility, DOE is proposing, as an alternative, to revise the contents of appendix A to provide guidance that corresponds with EISA 2007 regarding general purpose electric motors. As guidance, appendix A represents DOE's interpretation of existing statutes and regulations but does not, and is not intended to, have the force and effect of law. Specifically, DOE proposes to eliminate references to enactment dates that are no longer applicable and update the scope of coverage to include general purpose electric motors (subtype I) and general purpose electric motors (subtype II). DOE is not proposing to provide guidance in-line with EISA 2007 for fire pump or NEMA Design B motors because DOE does not think such guidance is necessary at this time, although DOE may add such guidance at a future date. In addition, the Policy Statement addresses the bounds of standard shaft dimensions applicable to general purpose electric motors (subtype I) and general purpose electric motors (subtype II). It is DOE's understanding 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 which could be used in most general purpose applications and would then be considered “general purpose electric motors (subtype I)” and “general purpose electric motors (subtype II).” DOE has 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 are covered under EPCA. (Baldor, No. 16; WEG, No. 17) In response to such inquiries and in view of possible confusion in the marketplace, DOE is proposing 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. DOE's guidance specifies the range of variation in motor characteristics beyond which DOE interprets a motor to no longer be general purpose for some specific technical design features. DOE provides this guidance to help avoid market conditions where motor manufacturers and manufacturers of equipment using motors avoid increases in motor efficiency by making technical changes in motor characteristics that do not make substantial changes in motor application or use. DOE considers an empirical test of whether a particular motor design variant can be used in many general purpose applications to be whether many users of general purpose motors might be willing to switch such motor design variants given a relatively modest price differential between a general purpose motor and the motor design variant. Four general purpose motor design features that may technically be changed while maintaining the general purpose application of a motor include: (1) Shaft diameter, (2) shaft length, (3) shoulder location, and (4) special shaft design features. In the proposed regulatory text, DOE provides the following guidance on the amount of variation from standard characteristics that maintains the general purpose classification of a motor. For shaft diameter, DOE provides guidance that 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. For shaft length, DOE provides guidance that 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. For shoulder location, DOE provides guidance that an increase less than or equal to 25% in either the “BA” (MG1) or “C” (IEC) dimensions of the standard motor frame dimensions maintains the general purpose classification of the motor. For special shaft designs, DOE provides guidance that 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, DOE is proposing guidance that 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 thread 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. J. 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) These citations would then be expanded upon in the second paragraph of the definition by providing explicit references to the relevant sections of these industry documents. (Baldor, No. 15 at pp. 2-3) DOE is currently involved in litigation regarding the final rule on energy conservation standards for small electric motors. 75 FR 10874 (March 9, 2010). Because the definition of “small electric motor” is at issue in the litigation, it is inappropriate for DOE to respond to Baldor's concerns at this time. K. Canadian Standards Association Test Procedures for Small Electric Motors In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed three test methods from which a manufacturer could select to measure the energy efficiency of its covered small electric motors: IEEE Standard 114, IEEE Standard 112, or CAN/CSA Standard C747-94. 73 FR 78223, 78238. The choice of test procedures was consistent with the choice of test methods for electric motors listed in 10 CFR 431.16, where a manufacturer could select either an IEEE or CSA test method for determining the 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 small electric motors test procedures. 74 FR 32065-32066, 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 be applicable 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 any alternative test methods for polyphase small electric motors based on CAN/CSA-747-94 or CAN/CSA-C390-10 Test Method 1 because there may be an inconsistency in the measured efficiency associated with units tested under IEEE Standard 112-2004 Test Method B and CAN/CSA-C747-94. 74 FR 32066. In today's SNOPR, DOE proposes that a manufacturer may test according to: (1) CAN/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) CAN/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 believes that using the CAN/CSA Standard C747-09 or CAN/CSA Standard C390-10 in this manner will result in consistent measurements of energy efficiency compared to the applicable IEEE Standard 112 and IEEE Standard 114 test methods adopted in the small electric motors final rule and helps promote harmonization of test methods internationally. L. 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 are 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 concluded in its final rule that it was not bound to establish energy conservation standards in terms of nominal efficiency. Instead, DOE established energy conservation standards for small electric motors in terms of “average full load efficiency.” 75 FR 10914. At the NOPR public meeting for small electric motor energy conservation standards, held December 17, 2009, Baldor made several comments regarding DOE's proposed definition for “nominal full load efficiency” pertaining to small electric motors. 74 FR 61500 (November 24, 2009). First, Baldor commented that the proposed definition was too similar to the existing definition for “average full load efficiency” and that it differed from the definition in NEMA MG-1, which would confuse users of that voluntary industry guidance. (Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 112, 126-27). 75 FR 10914 (March 9, 2010). Next, Baldor commented that the proposed definition provided no guidance for what constitutes a population of motors, and suggested that the term be clarified. (Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 112-13) These two comments were echoed by NEMA in its written comments. (NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 10-16) Finally, Baldor commented that the proposed definition infers that the arithmetic mean of the full-load efficiencies of the population of motors is known and that the nominal full load efficiency must be specified to be equal to the arithmetic mean, which would provide no limit to the number of different values of efficiency that might be marked on nameplates. In other words, there are many populations or production runs of motors of identical design, wherein each motor could have a slightly different efficiency because of variations in materials, the manufacturing process, and testing equipment. Consequently, there could be no limit to the different arithmetic averages marked on small motor nameplates. As such, Baldor requested further clarification on the determination of any relationship between nominal full load efficiency and calculated efficiency. (Baldor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20.4 at pp. 114, 125) 8 8 The written comments cited in this paragraph were submitted to the docket of the small electric motors energy conservation standards rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007; RIN number 1904-AB70). In response to the December 2008 NOPR about test procedures for small electric motors, NEMA also sought clarity on the use of the term “nominal full load efficiency.” NEMA noted that DOE had not provided information on the value of efficiency 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 today's SNOPR, DOE considered the relevant comments submitted to the energy conservation standards and test procedures rulemakings. DOE recognizes 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 Table 12-10 and is 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. 74 FR 61431-32 (November 24, 2009). As mentioned earlier, DOE established 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 standards levels for small electric motors were calculated using a metric of average efficiency and DOE in this SNOPR proposes procedures for reporting the average full load efficiency of motors, consistent with the conservations standards for small electric motors. With respect to the term “nominal full load efficiency,” since this term is not used in the small electric motors standard, DOE proposes leaving the term undefined. If DOE amends this test procedure to measure the nominal full load efficiency of small electric motors, this change will alter the applicable metric and will require a change in the standard levels for small electric motors to reflect the change in the efficiency metric. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)). However, DOE understands Baldor's concern to be primarily related to the ambiguity of the definitions proposed in the energy conservations standards NOPR and recognizes that the represented efficiency value has yet to be defined. Therefore, in this SNOPR, DOE proposes procedures for determining the represented efficiency for small electric motors where the 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. A very specific technical issue on which DOE invites comment is whether the 5 percent margin between the losses of the represented efficiency and the losses corresponding to the sample average efficiency is large enough to assure that the population of motor basic models is at least as efficient as the represented efficiency. M. 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 the December 2008 NOPR, DOE recognizes that manufacturers produce large numbers of basic models of small electric motors, numbering in the thousands. 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, in the final small electric motors test procedure rule, DOE adopted a certification program that consisted of an alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM). 74 FR 32067, 32073. An AEDM is a predictive mathematical model developed from engineering 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, “Determination of Small Electric Motor Efficiency.” 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. In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed guidance about the certification program for testing small electric motors, selecting units from a basic model, and applying the results of the actual testing to substantiate an AEDM. 73 FR 78223-24, 78238-39. Today, DOE proposes additional requirements that are consistent with the AEDM approach adopted for 1-200 horsepower electric motors. These proposals help clarify portions of the AEDM procedure adopted in the final rule for small electric motors. DOE invites comments from interested parties on these requirements for a manufacturer to substantiate the accuracy of its AEDM. N. Small Electric Motor Nationally Recognized Certification Program EPCA provides different requirements for determining the energy efficiency of regulated small electric motors (two-digit NEMA frame) and electric motors (three-digit NEMA frame). 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.” 9 (42 U.S.C. 6316(c)) No such requirement for independent testing or certification applies to small electric motors. 9 Further, 10 CFR 431.17(a)(5) provides for a manufacturer to establish compliance either through (1) a certification program that DOE has classified as nationally recognized, such as CAN/CSA or Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., or (2) testing in any laboratory that is accredited by the National Institute of Standards and Technology/National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NIST/NVLAP). In the December 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed to allow a manufacturer to self-certify its small electric motors ( i.e., not require “independent testing”), which DOE believes is consistent with the compliance certification requirements for other commercial products such as high-intensity discharge lamps and distribution transformers covered under section 346 of EPCA. In its comments to the NOPR, 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 CAN/CSA Energy Efficiency Verification Program, it is likely that the Canadian government will require small electric motors to be certified through the same CAN/CSA Energy Efficiency Verification Program. NEMA requested that DOE recognize independent third party efficiency certification programs for small electric motors, but not mandate use of independent third party certification programs or accreditation programs for testing facilities. Rather, it stressed that DOE recognition of such programs would encourage voluntary use of certification through third parties, such as NIST/NVLAP. In addition, NEMA recommended that DOE allow sufficient time for the approval of such programs and manufacturer participation in such programs because no accreditation programs for testing in accordance with IEEE Standard 112 Method A, IEEE Standard 114, or CAN/CSA-C747 currently exist. NEEA expressed its support for 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 the small electric motors covered in this rulemaking. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 2) In view of the above comments, in this SNOPR, DOE is proposing 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 is proposing to allow the use of such approved programs although, in the future, DOE may require manufacturers to test small electric motors through a nationally recognized certification program or an independent testing program. O. Issues Related to Compliance Certification and Enforcement of Electric Motors and Small Electric Motors In response to the December 2008 test procedure NOPR and the March 2010 small electric motor energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE received comments on several topics pertaining to the compliance certification and enforcement of electric motors and small electric motors. These issues included: Definitions of “basic model” for electric motors and small electric motors, enforcement of energy conservation standards for electric motors and small electric motors, compliance certification and submission of data requirements for electric motors and small electric motors, and labeling requirements for small electric motors. DOE plans to address these issues and others in the second phase of its Compliance Certification and Enforcement rulemaking. In this SNOPR, however, DOE requests further comment and specific suggestions on how DOE should amend the provisions listed above. IV. Public Participation A. Submission of Comments DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice or any aspect of this rulemaking no later than February 4, 2011. Comments, data, and information submitted to DOE's e-mail address for this rulemaking should be provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, portable data format (PDF), or text (ASCII) file format. Interested parties should avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption, and wherever possible, comments should include the electronic signature of the author, if possible. Comments, data, and information submitted to DOE by mail or hand delivery/courier should include one signed original paper copy. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies of the information: One copy of the document including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Although DOE will consider the submitter's views, DOE will make its own determination as to the confidential status of the information, and treat the information according to its determination. Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known or available from public sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure, (6) a date after which such information might no longer be considered confidential, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest. (10 CFR 1004.11(f)) After the close of the comment period, DOE will review the comments received and conduct further analyses as needed. B. Issues on Which the Department of Energy Seeks Comment Comments are welcome on all the issues raised in this SNOPR. However, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments concerning the following issues: 1. Definition of Electric Motor DOE invites comment on its proposed definition for “electric motor.” DOE's proposed definition is intended to clarify the term “electric motor” in the context of EPCA, and to ensure that all four motor types covered under EISA 2007 are covered under the broad definition of electric motor. See section III.A for details. 2. Definition of General Purpose Electric Motors, Subtypes I and II DOE invites comment on its proposed definitions for “general purpose electric motor (subtype I),” “general purpose electric motor (subtype II),” and “general purpose electric motor.” See section III.B for details. 3. Definition of NEMA Design B Motor DOE invites comment on its revised definition for “NEMA Design B Motor,” which adopts a broad definition of a NEMA Design B motor similar to that which was proposed in the December 2008, NOPR, but maintains the provisions regarding 50 hertz, updates the NEMA MG1 reference, and eliminates any reference to NEMA Design B motors necessarily being general purpose electric motors. See section III.C for details. 4. Fire Pump Motors Definition DOE invites comment on its proposed definition for “fire pump motors.” See section III.D for details. 5. Fire Pump Motor Coverage DOE invites comment on its interpretation of the scope of coverage for fire pump motors. See section III.E for details. 6. Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors DOE invites comment on its clarification of the applicability of the energy conservation standards tables contained in 10 CFR 431.25. See section III.F for details. 7. References to International Electrotechnical Commission, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and Canadian Standards Association Standards for Electric Motors DOE invites comment on its proposal to incorporate updated versions of the IEC, NEMA, IEEE, and CSA standards into 10 CFR part 431 to facilitate and clarify coverage of electric motors, including metric-equivalent motors. DOE also invites comments on whether the updates to the test methods will change the efficiency of motors tested. See section III.G for details. 8. National Institute of Standards and Technology/National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program Handbook 150-10 Update and Checklist DOE invites comment on its proposal to reference NIST Handbook 150-10, which has been updated by NIST to incorporate references to the same test procedures proposed by DOE in the December 2008 NOPR. See section III.H for details. 9. Appendix A to Subpart B of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 431 DOE invites comment on its revision of the contents of appendix A to provide guidance in line with the changes promulgated by EISA 2007, including its proposed guidance concerning shaft dimensions, length, shoulder location, and special designs. See section III.I for details. 10. Canadian Standards Association Test Procedure for Small Electric Motors DOE invites comment on its proposal to allow a manufacturer to use CAN/CSA Standard C747-09 as an alternative to the IEEE Standard 112 Test Method A and IEEE Standard 114; and CAN/CSA Standard C390-10 as an alternative to the IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B for small electric motors. DOE may or may not promulgate these two alternative standards in the final rule of this test procedure based on comments from interested parties. See section III.K for details. 11. Small Electric Motor Represented Efficiency Value DOE invites comment on its proposed definition of the represented efficiency value. See section III.L for details. 12. Validation of the Small Electric Motor Alternative Efficiency Determination Method DOE invites comment on its proposed approach for using actual testing to validate an AEDM model. The proposed method is consistent with the approach followed by electric motor manufacturers for 1-200 horsepower motors currently in place. See section III.M for details. 13. Small Electric Motor Nationally Recognized Certification Program DOE invites comment on its proposed approach to allow manufacturers to certify compliance using a nationally recognized certification program, similar to the program used for electric motors. DOE specifically would like to know if independent third party compliance certification or laboratory accredited programs for small electric motors (1) currently exist for the appropriate small electric motors test procedures, (2) if not should they be established, and (3) should they be made mandatory or voluntary. See section III.N for details. 14. Issues Related to Compliance Certification and Enforcement of Electric Motors and Small Electric Motors DOE invites comment and specific suggestions on how DOE should amend the provisions related to compliance certification and enforcement, including the definition of “basic model,” enforcement of energy conservation standards, and compliance certification and submission of data requirements for electric motors and small electric motors, as well as labeling requirements for small electric motors. See section III.O for details. V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test procedure rulemakings do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this proposed action is not subject to review under that Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB. B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996) requires preparation of an initial 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 have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Also, 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 at http://www.gc.doe.gov . DOE reviewed today's SNOPR under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. 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 which of those manufacturers are small businesses, based on interviews with motor manufacturers and publicly available data. The SNOPR proposes additional test procedures that are consistent with current industry practice, 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 believes that the cost of complying with the test procedures proposed in this SNOPR would not impose significant economic costs on motor manufacturers that are small businesses because many, if not most, motor manufacturers are already manufacturing their electric motors or small electric motors to the latest industry-developed energy efficiency performance standards that are the basis for the standards in EPCA and in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 431 (10 CFR part 431). In addition, the SNOPR promotes consistency with current industry test procedures and methodologies because the SNOPR is not proposing any additional testing requirements or higher accuracy tolerances beyond what is already contained in the industry standards documents incorporated by reference for this equipment ( i.e., IEEE Std 114, IEEE Std 112; CSA C390, and CAN/CSA C747.) DOE elaborated on these analyses in the December 22, 2008, test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), which today's SNOPR supplements. 73 FR 78220. DOE believes that the costs imposed on manufacturers of electric motors and small electric motors as a result of today's SNOPR are not greater than the costs that would have been imposed on these manufacturers under the December 22, 2008 NOPR. Moreover, DOE previously considered the one comment it received regarding impacts on small businesses in the small motors test procedure rulemaking at 64 FR 54114 (October 5, 1999). The commenter recommended that DOE provide more than one agency to certify and/or accredit labs and provide a simple procedure to verify electric motor compliance with EPCA efficiency levels. DOE addressed these concerns by finalizing a rule that provided multiple ways to certify compliance and adopted simple, repeatable, and statistically valid sampling procedures. Based on the above, DOE believes that the test procedure amendments proposed in today's SNOPR will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and that a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is therefore not required. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE provided the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration a certification and supporting statement of factual basis pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b). C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 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 DOE test procedure for electric motors, including any amendments adopted for that test procedure. DOE has proposed regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including electric motors. 75 FR 56796 (September 16, 2010). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated 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. Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121 and e-mail to Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov. 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 In this notice, DOE proposes limited revisions to new and amended test procedures that are used to measure and determine the energy efficiency of certain types of electric motors. This proposed rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. In particular, today's proposed rule is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5, for rulemakings that interpret or amend an existing rule without changing the environmental effect, as set forth in DOE's NEPA regulations in appendix A to subpart D of 10 CFR part 1021. Today's proposed rule will not affect the amount, quality, or distribution of energy usage, and therefore will not result in any environmental impacts. 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 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The executive order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountability process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in developing 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 developing such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this proposed rule and determined that it does 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. Accordingly, no action is required under Executive Order 13132. F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires, among other things, that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this rulemaking 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) (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) generally requires Federal agencies to examine closely the impacts of regulatory actions on State, local, or Tribal governments. Subsection 101(5) of title I of that law defines a Federal intergovernmental mandate to include a regulation that would impose upon State, local, or Tribal governments an enforceable duty, except a condition of Federal assistance or a duty arising from participating in a voluntary Federal program. Title II of that law requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, other than to the extent such actions merely incorporate requirements specifically set forth in a statute. Section 202 of the title requires a Federal agency to perform a detailed assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of any rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in costs State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation). (2 U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b)) Section 204 of that title requires each agency that proposed a rule containing a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate to develop an effective process for obtaining meaningful and timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments. (2 U.S.C. 1534) On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820 (also available at http://www.gc.doe.gov ). Today's supplemental proposed rule does not establish any new or amended test procedures that would be used in measuring the energy efficiency of electric motors or small electric motors—it merely clarifies existing definitions and test procedures. This supplemental proposed rule would, therefore, not result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year. Accordingly, no assessment or analysis is required under the UMRA. 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 supplemental proposed rule to amend DOE test procedures would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is unnecessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment. I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), DOE has determined that this supplemental proposed rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554, 44 U.S.C. 3516) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency under 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 supplemental proposed 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 proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated a final rule or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. Because this rulemaking is not expected to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866; it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; and has not been designated a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA, DOE has determined that this rule is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects for this rulemaking. 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), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275), as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-70). (15 U.S.C. 788) Section 32 provides that where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the NOPR must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition. The rule proposed in this notice incorporates testing methods contained in the following commercial standards: (1) CAN/CSA C390-10, Test methods, marking requirements, and energy efficiency levels for three-phase induction motors, March 22, 2010; (2) CAN/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) 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; and (5) NEMA Standards Publication MG1-2009 Section I (Part 1), Section I (Part 4), Section II (Part 12), and Section II (Part 14). 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 will consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact of these test procedures on competition. VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Issued in Washington, DC, on December 15, 2010. Cathy Zoi, Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 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: § 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 revising the introductory text, revising the definitions of “accreditation,” “definite purpose motor,” “general purpose electric motor (subtype I),” “general purpose electric motor (subtype II),” and “nominal full load efficiency,” by removing the definition of “general purpose motor” and by adding in alphabetical order, new definitions for “electric motor,” “fire pump motor,” “general purpose electric motor,” and “NEMA Design B motor” to read as follows: § 431.12 Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of this subpart, and of subparts U and V of this part. Any words or terms not defined in this section or elsewhere in this part shall be defined as provided in Section [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2010-33069. Public record. Not legal advice.