[Federal Register: November 27, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 230)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 60439-60475]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27no96-35]

      

[[Page 60439]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VII





Department of Energy





_______________________________________________________________________



Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy



_______________________________________________________________________



10 CFR Part 431



Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial 
Equipment: Test Procedures, Labeling and Certification Requirements for 
Electric Motors; Proposed Rule


[[Page 60440]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket No. EE-RM-96-400]

 
Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial 
Equipment: Test Procedures, Labeling, and Certification Requirements 
for Electric Motors

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

ACTION: Proposed Rule and Public Hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, (the Act 
or EPCA) establishes energy efficiency standards and test procedures 
for commercial and industrial electric motors. EPCA also directs the 
Department of Energy (DOE or Department) to establish efficiency 
labeling requirements and compliance certification requirements for 
motors. Today, DOE proposes regulations to implement these 
requirements.

DATES: The Department will accept written statements, comments, data, 
and information regarding this notice no later than February 17, 1997.
    Oral views, data, and arguments may be presented at the public 
hearing to be held in Washington, D.C., on January 15-16, 1997. 
Requests to speak at the hearing must be received by the Department no 
later than 4 p.m., January 6, 1997. Ten (10) copies of statements to be 
given at the public hearing must be received by the Department no later 
than 4 p.m., January 6, 1997. (See Section XIII-B below for further 
details.)

ADDRESSES: Written comments, written statements, and requests to speak 
at the public hearing, should be labeled ``Electric Motor Rulemaking'' 
(Docket No. EE-RM-96-400), and submitted to: U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of Codes and Standards, EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, 
Room 1J-018, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7574.
    The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. on January 15, 1997, and will 
be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-
245, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC.
    Requests to speak may be hand delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. 
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Such 
requests should be labeled ``Electric Motor Rulemaking,'' Docket No. 
EE-RM-96-400, both on the document and on the envelope.
    Copies of the transcript of the public hearing and public comments 
received may be read at the Freedom of Information Reading Room, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-190, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0101, telephone (202) 
586-6020, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    The Department proposes to incorporate by reference, test 
procedures from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers/
American National Standards Institute (IEEE/ANSI), the National 
Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), and the Canadian Standards 
Association (CSA). These test procedures are set forth in the standards 
publications listed below:
    1. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Standards 
Publication MG1-1993 with Revision 1, ``Motors and Generators,'' 
paragraph MG1-12.58.1, ``Determination of Motor Efficiency and 
Losses.''
    2. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ``Standard 
Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators,'' IEEE 
112-1991 (ANSI/IEEE 112-1992).
    3. Canadian Standards Association ``Energy Efficiency Test Methods 
for Three-Phase Induction Motors,'' C390-93.
    Copies of these standards publications may be viewed at the 
Department of Energy Freedom of Information Reading Room at the address 
stated above. Copies of the National Electrical Manufacturers 
Association standards may also be obtained from the National Electrical 
Manufacturers Association, 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1847, Rosslyn, 
VA 22209. Copies of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers standards may also be obtained from the Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 
1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, or the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI), 11 West 42nd Street, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10036 
as ANSI/IEEE 112-1992. Copies of Canadian Standards Association 
standards may also be obtained from the Canadian Standards Association, 
178 Rexdale Boulevard, Rexdale (Toronto), Ontario, Canada M9W 1R3.
    For more information concerning public participation in this 
rulemaking proceeding, see section XIII of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, (202) 586-8654
Edward Levy, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General 
Counsel, Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
D.C. 20585-0103, (202) 586-9507

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
II. General Discussion
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
    A. Definitions
    1. Electric Motor
    2. Metric Equivalents
    3. Basic Model
    4. General Purpose Motor, Definite Purpose Motor, and Special 
Purpose Motor
    5. Enclosed Motor and Open Motor
    6. Efficiency and Nominal Full Load Efficiency
    B. Test Procedures for the Measurement of Energy Efficiency
    C. Units to be Tested
    D. Energy Efficiency Standards
    1. Standards for Metric Motors
    2. Standards for Horsepowers not Listed in Statute, and for Non-
standard Kilowatt Ratings
    3. Electric Motors as Components of Systems
    E. Labeling
    1. Statutory Provisions
    2. Information on Motor Nameplate
    3. Disclosure of Efficiency Information in Marketing Materials
    4. Other Matters
    F. Certification
    1. Statutory Provisions
    2. Basis for Certification
    a. Independent Testing Program
    b. Laboratory Accreditation
    c. Certification Program
    d. National Recognition
    e. Proposal
    3. Form of Certification
    a. Compliance Statement
    b. New Models
    G. Enforcement
IV. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
V. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review''
VI. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
VII. Review Under Executive Order 12612, ``Federalism''
VIII. Review Under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights''
IX. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
X. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
XI. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act 
of 1974

[[Page 60441]]

XII. Review Under Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
XIII. Public Comment
    A. Written Comment Procedures
    B. Public Hearing
    1. Procedures for Submitting Requests to Speak
    2. Conduct of Hearing
    C. Issues for Public Comment

I. Introduction

A. Authority

    Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 
1975, Pub. L. 94-163, as amended, by the National Energy Conservation 
Policy Act of 1978 (NECPA), Pub. L. 95-619, the National Appliance 
Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Pub. L. 100-12, the National 
Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988), Pub. L. 
100-357, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), Pub. L. 102-486, 
established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products other 
than Automobiles. Part 3 of Title IV of NECPA amended EPCA to add 
``Energy Efficiency of Industrial Equipment,'' which includes electric 
motors. EPAct also amended EPCA with respect to electric motors, 
providing definitions in section 122(a), test procedures in section 
122(b), labeling provisions in section 122(c), energy efficiency 
standards in section 122(d), and compliance certification requirements 
in section 122(e).
    EPCA defines ``electric motor'' as any motor which is ``general 
purpose T-frame, single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage 
induction of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 
Designs A and B, continuous-rated, operating on 230/460 volts and 
constant 60 Hertz line power, as defined in NEMA Standards Publication 
MG1-1987.'' EPCA section 340(13)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A).
    EPCA then prescribes efficiency standards for electric motors that 
are 1 through 200 horsepower, and ``manufactured (alone or as a 
component of another piece of equipment),'' except for ``definite 
purpose motors, special purpose motors, and those motors exempted by 
the Secretary.'' EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). 
Furthermore, it provides for exemption of certain types or classes of 
electric motors. EPCA section 342(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2).
    The Act also requires that testing procedures for motor efficiency 
shall be the test procedures specified in NEMA Standards Publication 
MG1-1987, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 
(IEEE) Standard 112 Test Method B for motor efficiency, as in effect on 
October 24, 1992. EPCA section 343(a)(5)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A). 
If the test procedure requirements of NEMA MG1-1987 and IEEE Standard 
112 Test Method B for motor efficiency are amended, the Act directs the 
Secretary to amend these testing procedures to conform to such amended 
test procedures in the NEMA and IEEE standards, unless the Secretary 
determines, by rule, that to do so would not produce results that 
reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs, 
and would be unduly burdensome to conduct. EPCA section 343(a)(5) (B) 
and (C), 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5) (B) and (C).
    Additionally, EPCA directs the Secretary, after consultation with 
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), to prescribe rules requiring motor 
labeling to indicate the energy efficiency on the permanent nameplate, 
to display the motor energy efficiency prominently in catalogs and 
other marketing materials, and to include other markings to facilitate 
enforcement of the energy efficiency standards. EPCA section 344(f), 42 
U.S.C. 6315(f) and 344(d), 42 U.S.C. 6315(d).
    Finally, the Act directs the Secretary to require motor 
manufacturers to certify compliance with the applicable energy 
efficiency standards through an independent testing or certification 
program nationally recognized in the United States. EPCA section 
345(c), 42 U.S.C. 6316(c).

B. Background

    The Department held a public meeting on June 2, 1995, to discuss 
issues and gather information related to the energy efficiency 
requirements for electric motors covered under EPCA, as amended. 
Comments were sought on the following issues: which equipment is 
covered by the statute; the nature and scope of required testing; use 
of independent testing and certification programs to establish 
compliance with applicable standards; the means of certifying such 
compliance to DOE; and possible labeling requirements.
    Statements received after publication of the Notice of that public 
meeting in the Federal Register (60 FR 27051, May 22, 1995), and at the 
public meeting itself, have helped to refine the issues involved in 
this rulemaking, and have provided information that has contributed to 
DOE's proposed resolution of these issues. Portions of many of the 
statements are quoted and summarized in section III., Discussion of 
Proposed Rule. A parenthetical reference at the end of a quotation or 
passage in section III provides the location index in the public record 
of the portion of a statement that is being quoted or discussed.<;SUP>1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Example: ``(ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.a.2.)'' refers to (1) a 
statement that was submitted by the American Council for an Energy 
Efficient Economy and is recorded in the DOE Freedom of Information 
Reading Room in the docket under ``Motors Workshop,'' June 2, 1995, 
as comment number seven; and (2) a passage that appears in paragraph 
3.a.2. of that statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. General Discussion

    The Department's energy conservation program for consumer products 
is conducted pursuant to Part B of Title III of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6291-
6309. Under EPCA, the consumer appliance standards program essentially 
consists of three parts: Testing; Federal energy conservation 
standards; and labeling. The appliance products covered by these parts 
include refrigerators and freezers, room air conditioners, central air 
conditioners and heat pumps, water heaters, furnaces, dishwashers, 
clothes washers and dryers, direct heating equipment, ranges and ovens, 
pool heaters, and fluorescent lamp ballasts. The program is codified in 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 430--Energy 
Conservation Program for Consumer Products.
    Since 10 CFR part 430 covers consumer products as distinct from 
commercial and industrial equipment, the Department proposes to create 
a new part 431 in the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 431), 
Energy Conservation Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment, to 
cover certain commercial and industrial equipment covered under the 
Act. These include commercial heating and air-conditioning equipment, 
water heaters, certain lighting products, distribution transformers, 
and electric motors. This new commercial and industrial equipment 
program will consist of the same elements as the program covering 
consumer products: Testing; Federal energy efficiency standards; 
labeling; and certification and enforcement.
    The Department of Energy today proposes to incorporate the energy 
efficiency standards and test procedures prescribed by EPCA for 
commercial and industrial electric motors, provisions to clarify and 
implement those requirements, and energy efficiency labeling and 
certification requirements for such motors into the new part 431. These 
include: Definitions in accordance with section 340(13)(A) of EPCA, 42 
U.S.C. 6311(13)(A); test procedures prescribed by section 343(a)(5)(A) 
of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A); standards prescribed section 
342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.

[[Page 60442]]

6313(b)(1); labeling requirements in accordance with section 344(d) of 
EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6315(d); compliance certification requirements in 
accordance with section 345(c) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6316(c).
    Among the matters DOE addresses in this Notice are requirements for 
testing by manufacturers (including provisions as to confidence levels 
for results and sample size), use of mathematical methods to calculate 
energy efficiency as an alternative to actual testing, accreditation of 
testing laboratories, recognition of certification programs, testing 
during enforcement proceedings, and information to be displayed on a 
motor nameplate. The Department is incorporating from 10 CFR part 430 
procedures for waiver of test procedures, procedures to exempt state 
regulation from preemption, and provisions for imported and exported 
equipment.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

A. Definitions

1. Electric Motor
    EPCA prescribes energy efficiency standards for each ``electric 
motor'' with a horsepower rating from 1 through 200 horsepower and 
certain other characteristics. EPCA section 342(b), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b). 
``Electric motor'' is defined 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 (``NEMA'') 
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'' (NEMA MG1-1987). EPCA section 340(13)(A), 42 U.S.C. 
6311(13)(A). The Department is concerned, however, that many of the 
terms in the foregoing definition are not sufficiently clear to 
identify which motors should be covered by the regulations.
    NEMA suggests that DOE adopt a definition of ``electric motor'' 
which clarifies those terms as follows: (1) ``Continuous rated'' refers 
to ``continuous duty operation;'' (2) ``Foot-mounting'' encompasses 
foot-mounting ``motors with flanges and motors with explosion proof 
construction,'' but flange-mounting motors without feet are not 
included; and (3) ``Operating on 230/460 volts'' applies to ``motors 
that are rated at 230 volts, 460 volts, or multi-voltages that include 
230 and/or 460 volts,'' and to motors that are ``arbitrarily rated at 
voltages other than 230 or 460 volts, but that may be operated on 230 
and/or 460 volts, or any combination of the two.'' (NEMA, No. 9 at 
A.1.).
    The Department agrees with and is proposing to adopt these NEMA 
proposals. (NEMA proposals to include metric equivalent motors within 
the definition of ``electric motor'' are discussed below.) In addition, 
as to the term ``foot-mounting,'' the Department proposes to make clear 
that motors with detachable feet are included within the definition of 
``electric motor.'' The Department also proposes to add a definition to 
clarify the term, ``general purpose'' motor. The definition is drawn, 
in part, from language suggested by NEMA (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.3; 
NEMA, No. 9 at 4.; and Public Meeting, Tr. pgs. 36-41) and is discussed 
at greater length in section III.A.4. below. The definition of 
``general purpose'' motor would give effect to the statutory 
definitions of both ``electric motor'' and ``definite purpose motor.'' 
The Department understands that some motors are essentially general 
purpose motors with, for example, minor modifications such as the 
addition of temperature sensors or a heater, or modifications in 
exterior features such as motor housing. Such motors can still be used 
for most general purpose applications, and the modifications have 
little or no effect on motor performance. Nor do the modifications 
affect energy efficiency. DOE does not believe that the modifications 
justify excluding these motors from meeting statutory energy efficiency 
levels, or that Congress intended to exclude them from coverage.
2. Metric Equivalents
    EPCA defines ``electric motor'' on the basis of NEMA Standards 
Publication MG1-1987, Motors and Generators. EPCA section 340(13)(A), 
42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A). The definition provides, for example, that the 
motor must be ``a general purpose T-frame, . . . squirrel-cage . . . 
motor of the (NEMA) Design A and B . . . as defined in . . . MG1-
1987.'' The Act prescribes nominal full load energy efficiency 
standards for electric motors that have certain combinations of 
horsepower, number of poles (speed in revolutions per minute), and 
enclosure type, EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), all of 
which are based on the construction and rating system in NEMA MG1-1987 
which utilizes English or customary units of measurement. The specific 
combinations in the statute are the typical motors available in the 
United States, and such motors constructed in accordance with the 
standards in MG1 are often referred to as ``NEMA motors.''
    By contrast, general purpose electric motors manufactured outside 
the United States and Canada are defined and described with reference 
to International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 34 series, 
Rotating electrical machines, which employs terminology and criteria 
different from those used in the EPCA definition for motors. The 
performance attributes of these ``IEC motors'' are rated pursuant to 
IEC Standard 34-1, Rating and performance, which uses metric units of 
measurement and a different construction and rating system than NEMA 
MG1-1987. It employs, for example, units such as kilowatts instead of 
horsepower. As with NEMA motors, standard IEC motors exist, consisting 
of specific combinations of kilowatts and other IEC rating factors.
    Although 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.
    The Department understands that IEC motors generally can perform 
the identical functions of NEMA 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.
    It is also DOE's understanding, however, that small differences 
between the two types of motors affect their suitability for particular 
applications. For example, IEC motors tend to be slightly smaller than 
comparable NEMA motors and the shaft dimensions of the two types of 
motors are slightly different. Thus, in some situations, differing 
physical characteristics could render it difficult or impossible to 
install one type of motor in a piece of machinery designed to be 
operated by the other type. By way of further example, IEC motors have 
higher in-rush currents than comparable NEMA motors, and thus will tend 
to start and reach normal performance levels more slowly than NEMA 
motors. Consequently, IEC motors will not be suitable for machinery 
requiring a high torque start, but will be more suitable where a 
gradual start is appropriate.
    As mentioned above, IEC motors are designed and rated according to 
criteria in IEC Standard 34-1, whereas EPCA defines electric motor in 
terms of design and rating criteria set forth in NEMA

[[Page 60443]]

MG1. It is DOE's understanding that the differences in criteria concern 
primarily nomenclature, units of measurement, standard motor 
configurations, and design details, but have little bearing on motor 
function. For example, under EPCA, an electric motor must be a 
``squirrel cage'' motor (i.e., have a certain physical shape) and be 
``continuous rated'' (i.e., designed for continuous operation). IEC 
Standard 34-1 does not use either of these terms, but uses the term 
``cage'' to refer to the same shape as is referred to by the term 
``squirrel cage,'' and uses the term ``duty type S-1'' to refer to 
motors designed for continuous operation.
    Similarly, the different measures for rating motor power--IEC 
Standard 34-1 uses kilowatts and NEMA's Publication MG1-1987 uses 
horsepower--do not affect the quality or quantity of a given motor's 
power. They are simply different ways to express that power. Under well 
established rules for conversation, one horsepower equals .746 
kilowatts, and one kilowatt equals 1.34 horsepower. Thus, for example, 
a standard 5 horsepower motor has an output that can also be expressed 
as 3.73 kilowatts, and a standard 15 kilowatt motor has a horsepower of 
20.1.
    As commenters indicated, however, the standard power ratings for 
IEC and NEMA motors are not exactly equal, although the differences are 
slight. A standard 7.5 horsepower motor, for example, would have an 
exact metric equivalent of 5.59 kilowatts, but the closest equivalent 
standard power for an IEC motor is 5.5 kilowatts. (WE, No. 2 at 3a(1); 
Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.1). IEC publishes a table of standard kilowatt 
ratings and equivalent standard horsepower ratings for general purpose 
motors, in IEC 72-1, Dimensions and output series for rotating 
electrical machines, (6th ed. 1991-02), section D.5.1, at page 119. 
(NEMA, No. 9 at Exhibit 1) The table shows a very close match between 
the two sets of standard ratings. For example, the standard 5 
horsepower and 15 kilowatt motors mentioned above equal 3.73 kilowatts 
and 20.1 horsepower, respectively, and the IEC table shows that 
corresponding standard IEC and NEMA motors are 3.7 kilowatts and 20 
horsepower. This close match between standard power ratings tends to 
support the conclusion that EPCA requirements cover IEC motors, 
although the differences do raise an issue, discussed below, as to how 
EPCA's efficiency standards apply to IEC motors.
    Several commenters asserted that IEC motors should be covered by 
EPCA's efficiency standards. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.a.1; Brook Hansen, No. 
5; Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.1; NEMA, No. 9 at A.2.). The American Council 
for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) states that ``metric rated 
motors should be considered covered by the standard, and that the 
minimum efficiency of the class (open or closed and number of poles) 
for the corresponding equivalent or next-highest power rating NEMA 
motors be applied. Efficiency of metric motors must be determined by 
IEEE method 112(b) or CSA C390.'' (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.a.1). In 
explaining its view, Reliance Electric Company (Reliance) states as 
follows: ``An equivalent IEC motor exists for each NEMA motor 
identified in the Act. IEC and NEMA motors can be used interchangeably 
in most general purpose applications. Placing efficiency requirements 
on NEMA horsepower rated motors but not on IEC equivalent motors may 
give preferential treatment to the IEC motors which may be offered at 
lower than the required efficiency levels. It is therefore in the 
interest of the intended goal of energy conservation to include 
coverage of IEC or metric motors in the proposed rules to implement the 
EPAct requirements for motors.'' (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.1).
    One element of EPCA's definition of ``electric motor'' is that the 
motor be a NEMA ``T-frame'' motor, meaning that it meets certain 
dimensional standards. In asserting that IEC motors are covered by the 
Act, NEMA indicates that certain IEC motors have dimensions comparable 
to T-frame motors, and states that DOE's regulations should make clear 
these IEC motors are covered. EPCA also states that an ``electric 
motor'' must be NEMA ``Design A and B.'' NEMA asserts that IEC Design N 
motors are comparable to the NEMA Design A and B motors. (NEMA, No. 9 
at A.1.).
    The Department interprets the Act as requiring that IEC motors 
satisfy the same energy efficiency requirements that the statute 
applies to identical or equivalent to NEMA motors. Thus, under the 
regulation proposed today, the definition of ``electric motor'' 
includes IEC motors that have physical and performance characteristics 
which are either identical or equivalent to the characteristics of NEMA 
motors that fit within the statutory definition. In the Department's 
view, there can be no question that EPCA's requirements cover any motor 
whose physical and performance characteristics fit within the statutory 
definition of ``electric motor.'' This is true regardless of the 
measuring units used to describe the motor's performance or 
characteristics, or of the criteria pursuant to which it was designed.
    The Department also understands that comparable IEC and NEMA motors 
typically are closely equivalent but not identical, and that the 
characteristics of many IEC motors closely match EPCA's definition of 
``electric motor'' but deviate from it in minor respects. It also 
appears that, for most general purpose applications, such IEC motors 
can be used interchangeably with the NEMA motors. In addition, as 
discussed below, the efficiency standards prescribed for standard 
horsepower motors are readily applicable to both standard and non-
standard kilowatt motors. The Department believes that a broad 
exclusion of IEC motors from energy efficiency requirements would 
conflict with the energy conservation goal of the Act, was not intended 
by Congress, and would be irrational. Furthermore, the Department 
agrees with the views of commenters that placing energy efficiency 
requirements on NEMA motors but not on equivalent IEC motors could have 
the effect of giving preferential treatment to the IEC motors. Thus, 
the Department construes the EPCA definition of electric motor to 
include motors that have characteristics equivalent to those set forth 
in that definition.
    Finally, statements at the public meeting and in written comments 
addressed whether IEC 100 millimeter frame size motors in particular 
are covered by energy efficiency requirements. As previously stated, 
the statutory definition of ``electric motor'' incorporates frame size 
by requiring a motor to be ``T-frame'' as defined in NEMA MG1-1987. 
NEMA states that the IEC 100 millimeter frame motor is equivalent to 
the discontinued NEMA 160 frame size (NEMA, No. 9 at A.2.), and 
examination of NEMA MG1-1987 confirms that it does not include T-frame 
motors that are 160 series. Therefore, since the IEC 100 frame motor 
apparently is not equivalent to any T-frame motor, it appears not to be 
covered by the Act.
3. Basic Model
    It is common for a single motor manufacturer to make numerous 
models of the electric motors covered by EPCA, and under the Act each 
model is potentially subject to testing for energy efficiency. Often, 
however, several models are essentially the same motor, but with each 
model having some refinement that does not significantly affect the 
energy efficiency or performance of the motor. One way to meet the EPCA 
mandate that test procedures ``not be unduly burdensome to conduct,'' 
EPCA section 343(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2), is to determine which

[[Page 60444]]

models have electrical and mechanical characteristics, such as 
horsepower, speed, and enclosure type, that are essentially identical. 
Each such group of models would be categorized into a family and only 
representative samples within each family would be tested. The 
Department proposes to use the term ``basic model'' to identify a 
family of commercial or industrial motors, following the approach it 
employs for residential appliance products.
    With regard to the residential appliance program, the term ``basic 
model'' is defined as follows: ``Basic model means all units of a given 
type of covered product (or class thereof) manufactured by one 
manufacturer and--. . . [as to dishwashers, for example] which have 
electrical characteristics that are essentially identical, and which do 
not have any differing physical or functional characteristics which 
affect energy consumption.'' 10 CFR 430.2. ``Basic model'' is a term 
used to describe products or items of equipment whose performance, 
design, mechanical, and functional characteristics are essentially the 
same. Components of similar design may be substituted in a basic model 
without requiring additional testing if the represented measures of 
energy consumption continue to satisfy applicable provisions for 
sampling and testing. In the case of electric motors, a manufacturer 
may produce numerous models that have different model numbers but are 
essentially the same, all based on variations in design features that 
do not affect energy consumption.
    In the notice of public meeting that solicited comments on issues 
involved in this rulemaking, the Department stated that it was 
considering the following definition of ``basic model'' for electric 
motors:

all units . . . manufactured by one manufacturer and . . . having 
the same rating, electrical characteristics that are essentially 
identical, and no differing physical or functional characteristics 
which affect energy consumption or efficiency.

60 FR at 27052. Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), ACEEE, and NEMA 
all support such a definition. (UL, No. 4 at ``Basic Model''; ACEEE, 
No. 7 at 3.a.2; NEMA, No. 9 at A.3.) The Department proposes to adopt 
this definition of ``basic model.''
    NEMA suggests that the proposed rule require each basic model to 
consist of units that have one of the 113 combinations of horsepower 
(or kilowatts), number of poles, and open or closed construction for 
which section 342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), specifies an 
efficiency standard. NEMA, as well as Reliance, suggest that this 
proposal be implemented by defining the term ``rating,'' which is part 
of the basic model definition, as being one of the 113 combinations in 
EPCA section 342(b)(1). (For this purpose, NEMA proposes that motors 
with a horsepower rating between two levels specified in the Act be 
treated as having the higher level, i.e. their horsepowers would be 
``rounded up.'') The Department agrees with these suggestions by NEMA 
and Reliance, and in the attached rule proposes to adopt them, with one 
exception. Rather than ``rounding up'' all horsepowers that are at 
levels between those specified in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA, DOE would 
use the rounding method described in Part III-D-1 below.
    The Department believes the foregoing approach to defining ``basic 
model'' is a sound means to reduce the burden of testing. It would 
apply an approach to electric motors that has proven effective in the 
residential appliance program, but with appropriate modifications given 
the nature of these motors.
    4. General Purpose Motor, Definite Purpose Motor, and Special 
Purpose Motor. As already discussed, EPCA prescribes efficiency 
standards for certain ``electric motors.'' EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 
U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), The standards do not apply to ``definite purpose 
motors'' or ``special purpose motors.'' These three terms are defined 
as follows:

    The term ``electric motor'' means 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. EPCA section 340(13)(A), 42 U.S.C. 
6311(13)(A). (Emphasis added.)
    The term ``definite purpose motor'' means any motor designed in 
standard ratings with standard operating characteristics or standard 
mechanical construction for use under service conditions other than 
usual or for use on a particular type of application and which 
cannot be used in most general purpose applications. EPCA section 
340(13)(B), 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(B).
    The term ``special purpose motor'' means any motor, other than a 
general purpose motor or definite purpose motor, which has special 
operating characteristics or special mechanical construction, or 
both, designed for a particular application. EPCA section 
340(13)(C), 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(C).

The definitions are not straightforward, however, and raise questions 
as to which motors the efficiency standards apply to. The Department is 
also concerned about the possibility that a manufacturer could make 
modifications to an ``electric motor'' subject to efficiency standards, 
particularly minor modifications, and improperly claim that the motor 
is an exempt definite or special purpose motor. To address these 
concerns, the Department proposes (1) a definition of ``general purpose 
motor,'' which is a term used as part of EPCA's definition of 
``electric motor'' but is not itself defined in EPCA, and (2) to define 
``special purpose motor'' using language that is different from the 
wording of the EPCA definition of that term, but that has the same 
meaning as the statutory definition. The Department also proposes to 
adopt verbatim the statutory definition of ``definite purpose motor.''
    Before discussing these proposals, the Department notes that the 
terms EPCA uses to refer to particular motors may differ from terms 
commonly used in the industry. The Department understands, for example, 
that the term ``stock motor,'' rather than ``general purpose motor,'' 
is often used to refer to standard motors typically sold through 
distributors, and that ``custom motor'' refers to a motor designed for 
use in unusual conditions, or for particular applications or types of 
applications. As indicated below, depending upon its precise 
characteristics, such a ``custom motor'' could be either a definite, 
special or even general purpose motor as those terms are used in EPCA. 
To avoid confusion, and because this notice concerns rules to implement 
EPCA, the discussion here uses the terms used in the statute. The 
industry should keep in mind, however, that the failure here to use a 
common designation for a type of motor, such as ``stock motor,'' does 
not mean that such type of motor is not addressed by this notice.
    Section 340(13) of EPCA clearly defines electric, definite purpose 
and special purpose motors as being mutually exclusive. In the 
definition of ``electric motor,'' relevant for present purposes is that 
it must be ``a general purpose . . . motor.'' By contrast, ``definite 
purpose motor'' is defined in part as a motor that ``cannot be used in 
most general purpose applications,'' and ``special purpose motor'' is 
defined in part as ``other than a general purpose . . . or definite 
purpose motor.'' The Act does not clearly spell out, however, the 
precise distinctions between these different types of motors.
    Section 340(13)(A) of EPCA provides that the definition of 
``general purpose motor'' shall be drawn from NEMA MG1-1987. That NEMA 
MG1-1987

[[Page 60445]]

definition, in pertinent part, is as follows: <;SUP>2

    \2\ The definition is contained in section MG 1-1.05 of NEMA 
MG1-1987. Other parts of the definition are either incorporated 
directly into the EPCA definition of ``electric motor,'' 
incorporated into other statutory provisions, or grouped with such 
elements. The Department believes that those portions of section 
MG1-1.05 are irrelevant for purposes of defining ``general purpose'' 
in the DOE regulations.

. . . designed in standard ratings with standard operating 
characteristics and mechanical construction for use under usual 
service conditions without restriction to a particular application 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
or type of application.

NEMA suggests that the Department adopt this language, with minor 
modifications, as the sole definition of ``general purpose.'' This 
definition appears to complement the NEMA MG1-1987 definition of 
``definite purpose motor,'' which in essence is part of the EPCA 
definition of that term, and which reads as follows:

. . . any motor designed in standard ratings with standard operating 
characteristics or mechanical construction for use under service 
conditions other than usual or for use on a particular type of 
application.

NEMA MG1-1.09. These two definitions do not overlap, and appear to 
include virtually all motors with standard designs. They appear to 
contemplate that a general purpose motor modified so as to be suitable 
for unusual conditions or a particular type of application would be 
classified as a definite purpose motor.
    But the EPCA definition of ``definite purpose motor'' states in 
addition that the motor ``cannot be used in most general 
applications.'' Thus, for example, a general purpose motor modified so 
as to be suitable for use on a particular application, but that can 
still be used in most general purpose applications, is not a ``definite 
purpose motor'' under the statute. The same would be true of a motor 
designed with standard ratings and operating characteristics, but for 
use under unusual service conditions, and which is also capable of most 
general purpose uses. Nor would such motors be within the NEMA MG1-1987 
definition of ``general purpose motor,'' since they are not designed 
``for use under usual service conditions without restriction to a 
particular application.'' The NEMA MG1-1987 definition of ``general 
purpose motor,'' therefore, does not closely complement the statutory 
definition of ``definite purpose motor.'' If the Department were to 
adopt the NEMA MG1-1987 definition of ``general purpose motor,'' as 
suggested by NEMA, certain motors of standard design would be neither 
``general purpose'' nor ``definite purpose'' (nor ``special purpose'') 
under the regulations. Consequently, they would not be covered by 
efficiency standards, or excluded from coverage. The Department 
believes this would be an unsound interpretation of EPCA.
    In the Department's view, a motor designed with standard features 
(i.e. with standard ratings, and standard operating characteristics or 
mechanical construction) for use under unusual conditions or for a 
particular type of application, and that can still ``be used in most 
general purpose applications,'' EPCA section 340(13)(B), 42 U.S.C. 
6311(13)(B), is covered by the statute. That type of motor is 
specifically excluded from the definition of ``definite purpose 
motor.'' We are aware of no reason why Congress would have created such 
an exclusion other than to require that such motors meet efficiency 
standards. The statute states that definite purpose motors need not 
meet the standards. The sole reason for carving out from that 
classification a type of motor that would otherwise fall within it, 
would be to require that the motor meet the efficiency standards.
    The Department's interpretation of EPCA also will serve the energy 
conservation goals of the statute and makes sense as a practical 
matter. First, there seem to be strong reasons in favor of, and no 
reasons against, applying the standards to any motor that is designed 
in standard ratings, has standard operating characteristics or 
mechanical construction, and is capable of being used in most general 
purpose applications, even if it is designed for a particular use. The 
Department understands that the features making such a motor suitable 
for a particular use have little or no effect on the performance of the 
motor as such, or on its efficiency. Moreover, it appears that often a 
particular use motor of a given rating, and a motor of the same rating 
that meets the definition of ``general purpose'' under NEMA MG1-1987, 
would be the same ``basic model,'' and be equally capable of meeting 
efficiency standards. Thus, particular use motors that can be used in 
general purpose applications should be treated the same under EPCA as 
general purpose motors, and energy savings achieved under the Act would 
be enhanced by applying its standards to such particular use motors.
    Second, this interpretation of EPCA addresses a possible means of 
evading the statute, by reducing the risk that general purpose motors 
that comply with EPCA's efficiency standards will be replaced by 
definite purpose motors that do not. To manufacture a general purpose 
motor that complies with EPCA may sometimes be more burdensome than to 
manufacture a non-complying general purpose motor that has been 
modified to be suitable for certain definite purpose uses, but that 
remains capable of satisfying most general purpose applications. For 
example, a non-complying general purpose motor could be modified by 
adding a heater to make it suitable for use in certain high humidity 
conditions, or by adding screening (to an open motor) to protect 
against invasion by rodents in applications such as agricultural 
environments. It might be cheaper to manufacture such motors than to 
manufacture a comparable general purpose motor that meets EPCA's energy 
efficiency standards. In such a situation, a manufacturer would have an 
incentive to try to sell the modified, non-complying motor in the 
general purpose market. The statutory definition of ``definite purpose 
motor'' appears designed to prevent that result.
    Based on the foregoing, the Department proposes a two-part 
definition of ``general purpose motor.'' The first part in essence 
provides that a motor is ``general purpose'' if it meets the criteria 
in NEMA MG1-1987, and largely incorporates the language suggested by 
NEMA. (NEMA, No. 9 at A.4.). This includes NEMA's suggestion that 
section 14.02 of NEMA MG1-1993 be cited as providing examples of 
``usual service conditions,'' although not its suggestion that the 
words ``for general purpose applications'' be included in the 
definition. The latter language is not in the NEMA MG1 definition of 
``general purpose,'' and appears to be redundant here. The second part 
of the Department's proposed definition in effect provides that, 
alternatively, a motor is also ``general purpose'' if it meets the EPCA 
criteria for a definite purpose motor except that it can be used in 
most general purpose applications.
    As stated above, the Department is proposing to adopt without 
change the EPCA definition of ``definite purpose motor.'' One element 
of that definition is that a motor be designed for ``service conditions 
other than usual.'' The Department agrees with and accepts the comments 
that an exhaustive list of such conditions cannot be developed, and 
should not be included in the regulations. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.3; 
NEMA, No. 9 at A.4.). ACEEE ``recommends that `definite purpose' motors 
be defined as all motors that do not meet the specifications for `usual 
service conditions' as defined in NEMA MG1-1993-14.02.'' (ACEEE, No. 7 
at 3.a.3). The Department declines to accept that suggestion because it 
agrees

[[Page 60446]]

with NEMA and Reliance that section 14.02 does not provide a conclusive 
list of ``usual service conditions.''
    NEMA recommends that ``motors designed for explosion-proof 
conditions, which could be considered an unusual service condition 
under NEMA MG1-1993, be expressly defined as covered products. The Act 
expressly authorizes a two-year extension of the effective date for 
efficiency standards for `motors which require listing or certification 
by a nationally recognized safety testing laboratory.' EPCA section 
342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). This reference was intended to apply 
to explosion-proof motors which, despite their use in unusual service 
conditions, are otherwise general purpose motors.'' (NEMA, No. 9 at 
A.4.). The Department agrees with NEMA that explosion-proof motors are 
covered by EPCA, and believes that the proposed definition of ``general 
purpose motor'' would include such motors and therefore render them 
subject to the efficiency requirements. Nevertheless, to avoid possible 
uncertainty, and to address NEMA's concern, the Department proposes to 
accept NEMA's suggestion that explosion-proof motors be expressly 
defined as covered products. The proposed definition of ``electric 
motor,'' therefore, includes such motors.
    Finally, the Department believes there is potential for uncertainty 
as to whether particular motors meet EPCA's definition of ``special 
purpose motor,'' or instead are ``general purpose'' or ``definite 
purpose'' motors. Although the definition of ``special purpose motor'' 
states in part that it is ``other than a general purpose motor or a 
definite purpose motor,'' the remaining criteria defining a special 
purpose motor closely resemble certain of the criteria defining a 
definite purpose motor. Significant potential exists for misclassifying 
a motor, because fine distinctions must sometimes be made to determine 
precisely which set of criteria a motor meets. Such determinations can 
be significant, because if a motor meets the ``definite purpose'' 
criteria, it would be covered by the standards if it can be used for 
most general purpose applications. The Department therefore proposes a 
definition of ``special purpose motor'' that clarifies the EPCA 
definition but does not alter its substance, i.e., the proposed 
definition includes the same motors as the statutory definition. As 
suggested by NEMA, the Department does not attempt to elaborate on the 
statutory definition of ``special purpose motor.''
5. Enclosed Motor and Open Motor
    The Department proposes to incorporate the statutory definitions of 
the terms ``enclosed motor'' and ``open motor.''
6. Efficiency and Nominal Full Load Efficiency
    The Department proposes to incorporate the statutory definition of 
the term ``efficiency'' into a definition of ``average full load 
efficiency.'' Under the Act and the proposed regulations, it is the 
average full load efficiency of a motor that must be measured through 
test procedures. The proposed rule also defines ``nominal full load 
efficiency'' in terms that differ from the language used in the statute 
to define that term, and that clarify and implement, but do not deviate 
from, the substance of the statutory definition.

B. Test Procedures for the Measurement of Energy Efficiency

    EPCA requires that the regulatory test procedures for electric 
motors shall be the test procedures specified in NEMA MG1-1987 and IEEE 
Standard 112 Test Method B for motor efficiency, as in effect on the 
date of the enactment of EPAct. EPCA section 343(a)(5)(A), 42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(5)(A). If the test procedures in NEMA MG1 and IEEE Standard 112 
are subsequently amended, the Secretary is required to revise the 
regulatory test procedures for electric motors to conform to such 
amendments, unless the Secretary determines by rule, supported by clear 
and convincing evidence, that to do so would not meet the requirements 
for test procedures described in sections 343(a) (2) and (3) of EPCA, 
42 U.S.C. 6314(a) (2) and (3).<;SUP>3 EPCA section 343(a)(5)(B), 42 
U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 343(a)(2) of EPCA reads as follows: ``Test 
procedures prescribed in accordance with this section shall be 
reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy 
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of a type of 
industrial equipment (or class thereof) during a representative 
average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary), and shall not be 
unduly burdensome to conduct.''
    Section 343(a)(3) of EPCA reads as follows: ``If the test 
procedure is a procedure for determining estimated annual operating 
costs, such procedure shall provide that such costs shall be 
calculated from measurements of energy use in a representative 
average-use cycle (as determined by the Secretary), and from 
representative average unit costs of the energy needed to operate 
such equipment during such cycle. The Secretary shall provide 
information to manufacturers of covered equipment respecting 
representative average unit costs of energy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA MG1-1987 was revised and superseded by NEMA MG1-1993, which 
was issued on November 19, 1992, and published in October 1993. 
Revision 1 to NEMA MG1-1993, was added on December 7, 1993. Whereas 
NEMA MG1-1987 required ``efficiency and losses'' to be determined in 
accordance with IEEE Standard 112, NEMA MG1-1993 with Revision 1 now 
permits such determinations based on application of either IEEE 
Standard 112 or Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard C390. In 
addition, whereas NEMA MG1-1987 was silent on determination of motor 
efficiency for polyphase motors greater than 125 horsepower covered by 
the statute, NEMA MG1-1993 with Revision 1 now permits testing such 
motors in accordance with IEEE 112, with stray-load loss determined by 
direct measurement or indirect measurement. Since enactment of section 
343(a)(5)(B) of EPCA, no other substantive amendments have been made to 
the test procedures in either NEMA MG1-1987 or IEEE Standard 112 Test 
Method B.
    ACEEE, Reliance, and NEMA support the adoption of NEMA MG1-1993 
with Revision 1. ACEEE explains that the CSA Standard C390-93 test 
procedures are a refinement of the IEEE 112 Test Method B, offering 
advantages in clarity which can lead to greater reproducibility of test 
results. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.b.1).
    The Department will adopt the new test procedure provisions of NEMA 
MG1-1993 with Revision 1, to permit use of CSA Standard C390-93 Test 
Method (1) and testing covered motors greater that 125 horsepower. The 
Department does not intend to determine that these amendments to MG1-
1987 fail to meet the requirements of sections 343(a) (2) and (3) of 
EPCA.

C. Units to be Tested

    EPCA requires that the test procedures prescribed for motors by DOE 
be ``reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy 
efficiency,'' yet not be ``unduly burdensome'' to conduct. EPCA 
Sec. 343(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2). Efficiency testing of each unit 
of an electric motor covered by EPCA could take ten to twelve hours and 
cost up to $2,000.00. As discussed above, the classification of motors 
into ``basic models'' is one step to prevent expenditure of excessive 
time and money on testing. The Department also proposes to permit use 
of a statistically meaningful sampling procedure for selecting test 
specimens, so as to further reduce the testing burden on manufacturers 
while giving sufficient assurance that the true mean energy efficiency 
of a basic model meets or exceeds the applicable energy efficiency 
standard established in EPCA. But

[[Page 60447]]

notwithstanding adoption of these measures, because a motor 
manufacturer sometimes will produce a substantial number of basic 
models, it could still face a potentially substantial testing burden. 
Therefore, the Department also proposes to permit use of alternative 
methods, other than actual testing, for determining the efficiency of 
some basic models.
    ACEEE, Reliance, and NEMA assert that it is impractical to require 
testing of every motor manufactured, or even of samples of each basic 
model. They find it acceptable to randomly test representative samples 
of some motor designs, and to use alternative methods for determining 
the efficiency of other motors. The purpose of sample testing would be 
to determine whether the average full load efficiency of the basic 
model meets or exceeds the EPCA requirement, not to confirm the 
efficiency level of each individual motor. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.b.2 &amp; 
3.b.3; Reliance, No. 8 at 3.b.2; and NEMA, No. 9 at B.2). Underwriters 
Laboratories (UL, No. 4 at ``Testing Sampling Plan''), Reliance and 
NEMA describe various methods of determining the number of motors to be 
tested, including 100 percent of production, sampling by attributes 
according to Military Standard MIL-STD-105E, and sampling a minimum of 
five units produced over a specified time, such as two months.
    The Department reviewed the industry sampling recommendations and 
other sampling systems that could provide guidance as to how many and 
which units should be tested to determine compliance. Criteria used by 
the Department in this process include:
    (1) Minimizing manufacturer's testing costs;
    (2) Limiting the calendar time required for testing;
    (3) Assuring compatibility with the sampling plan promulgated for 
the Department's commercial labeling program;
    (4) Providing a high statistically valid probability that basic 
models that are tested meet applicable energy efficiency standards; and
    (5) Providing a high statistically valid probability that a 
manufacturer preliminarily found to be in noncompliance will actually 
be in noncompliance.
    Based on a review of the industry statements, three alternatives as 
to sample size were considered:
    (1) Test the total population (100%) of covered equipment;
    (2) For each basic model, test a predetermined fixed number of 
production units; and
    (3) For each basic model, test one unit at a time or batches, until 
a determination can be made that the basic model is in compliance or 
noncompliance.
    Explanations of all three sampling procedures are contained in the 
``Final Rulemaking Regarding the Sampling Requirements of Consumer 
Product; Test Procedures,'' 44 FR 22410-18 (April 13, 1979) and the 
``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products,'' 45 FR 43976-
44087 (June 30, 1980).
    The first sampling procedure would test every unit of a covered 
motor and is the only way to determine with 100 percent certainty that 
every motor manufactured is in compliance with the statute. Even 
assuming such approach is authorized by the Act, the cost and time 
constraints associated with this alternative make it infeasible.
    A second alternative is to test a predetermined fixed number of 
production units for each basic model. In order to use this approach, 
sufficient numbers of units must be tested to yield results with high 
levels (e.g. 90 percent) of statistical confidence. The determination 
of the number of units to be tested is based in part on expected unit-
to-unit variability. However, reliable estimates of unit-to-unit 
variability of motors are often unavailable and significant differences 
may exist among basic models and manufacturers. Thus, the Department 
concludes that a single sample size giving sufficiently high assurance 
of compliance cannot be established that will apply to all motors and 
manufacturers, and that will not impose unreasonably high testing costs 
for some manufacturers.
    The third alternative considered was testing until a determination 
can be made that a basic model is in compliance or noncompliance. In 
this alternative, the size of the total sample is not determined in 
advance. Instead, after each unit or group of units is tested, a 
decision is made to (1) accept, (2) reject, or (3) suspend judgment and 
continue testing additional sample units until a decision is ultimately 
reached. This method often permits reaching a decision on the basis of 
fewer tests than fixed number sampling plans. The Department notes that 
this third alternative is the basis for most of the statistical 
sampling procedures established for consumer appliance products at 10 
CFR 430.24, Units to be Tested. The Department proposes to adapt such 
sampling procedures to electric motors. The Department believes that 
motor manufacturers utilizing production techniques that assure low 
variance among units of a particular basic model could test fewer units 
to demonstrate compliance.
    In the case of actual testing, the proposed procedures require a 
sample of units of a basic model to be randomly selected and tested. A 
simple average of the values would be calculated, which would be the 
actual mean value of the sample. For each basic model of electric 
motor, a sample of sufficient size would be selected at random and 
tested to ensure that any represented value of energy efficiency is no 
greater than the lower of (A) the mean of the sample or (B) the lower 
90 percent confidence limit of the mean of the entire population of 
that basic model, divided by a coefficient applicable to the 
represented value. The coefficient applicable to a given represented 
value would be the ratio of the minimum efficiency, as provided in NEMA 
MG1-1993, Table 12-8, to the corresponding nominal full load efficiency 
in Table 12-8 that (1) equals the represented value, or (2) is the 
closest lower value to the represented value. Thus, the coefficient 
would be derived from the 20 percent loss difference on which NEMA 
bases the minimum efficiency in Table 12-8.
    This approach is similar to the methodology used in the 
Department's consumer appliance program, which is intended to provide 
an acceptable level of assurance that test results will be applicable 
to all units of a basic model, without creating an undue testing burden 
for manufacturers. Like the consumer appliance program, the sampling 
plan for electric motors incorporates a confidence limit approach, 
which would give assurance at a specified level of confidence that the 
mean efficiency of the total population of units being manufactured and 
sold is at or above the represented value of energy efficiency (e.g., 
the efficiency set forth in a certification of compliance or on a 
label). The proposed rule, however, takes a slightly different approach 
than is used in the appliance program, at 10 CFR 430.24, for 
calculating an ``adjusted lower 90 percent confidence limit.'' Under 
Sec. 430.24, a single factor is specified for each product, and the 
``adjusted confidence limit'' for each basic model of that product is 
calculated by dividing the lower confidence limit for all units of that 
basic model by the specified factor. Under the proposed rule, by 
contrast, the divisor is a factor that relates to the efficiency level 
of the particular motor being analyzed. As with the sampling plans for 
consumer appliances, this factor and other elements of the statistical 
sampling plan

[[Page 60448]]

for electric motors are intended to reasonably reflect variations in 
materials, and in the manufacturing and testing processes.
    NEMA has recommended that the confidence limit constraint for 
representations of motor efficiency be the lower 90 percent confidence 
limit of the true mean divided by 0.95. (NEMA, No. 9 at B.2.). It 
appears that NEMA is proposing the same methodology used in the 
appliance program to account for measurement uncertainties and product 
variability. The Department agrees with the apparent intent of the NEMA 
recommendation, as well as its goal that, ``. . . the confidence limit 
[of the represented energy efficiency] should be chosen so that it is 
consistent with MGl's tolerance factor for losses.'' However, the 
Department believes that the method NEMA puts forth does not best 
achieve these objectives.
    Electric motors differ substantially from the products covered 
under part 430. For each of 113 ratings of electric motor, EPCA 
specifies a minimum nominal efficiency. By contrast, under Part 430 
minimum efficiencies are set forth at most for 16 different types of a 
product (in the case of direct heating equipment), and for most covered 
products efficiencies are specified for two to five types of the 
product. 10 CFR Sec. 430.32. For central air conditioners, which NEMA 
cites as an example in support of its confidence limit methodology, 
energy conservation standards are specified for only two types of the 
product: the Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) must be equal to 
or greater than 10 for split systems and 9.7 for single package 
systems. The Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI), which 
in some respects functions for that industry as NEMA does for the 
motors industry, has prescribed performance criteria that these classes 
of central air conditioners must meet in order to use the ARI 
certification symbol and to be listed in the ARI Directory of Certified 
Unitary Air-Conditioner Equipment. Specifically, the SEER determined by 
laboratory testing may not be less than .95 of the SEER represented by 
the manufacturer. Thus, in specifying a divisor of .95 for central air 
conditioners, part 430 conforms with industry guidelines regarding 
measurement uncertainties and product variability for that product.
    For electric motors, NEMA uses a maximum 20 percent loss difference 
to establish the minimum efficiencies that are associated with the 
standard nominal efficiencies. See MG1-1993, Table 12.8. This 20 
percent loss tolerance is the motor industry's benchmark for taking 
into account measurement uncertainty and product variability. It is a 
constant fraction of the total percentage of energy losses. Thus, 
because the percentage of energy losses decreases as efficiency 
increases, it appears that the percentage of losses allowable as a 
tolerance also decreases with increasing efficiency. This would mean, 
for example, that the measurement uncertainty and product variability 
for a motor with a nominal full load efficiency of 95 percent may be 
expected to differ substantially from those for a motor with a nominal 
full load efficiency of 75.5 percent.
    The Department believes that the use of a single factor for all 
motors covered under part 431, as proposed by NEMA, does not adequately 
differentiate among the levels of efficiency established by the Act. 
The Department proposes, therefore, to establish coefficients, based on 
the NEMA MG1 minimum efficiency standards, for each nominal full load 
efficiency established by the Act and to include these in tabular form 
in new part 431.
    In incorporating this method, it should be noted that the proposed 
part 431 would not set or enforce minimum energy efficiency standards. 
Since a unit or units of a basic model could fall below the NEMA 
minimum efficiency during efficiency testing and the basic model could 
still be found to meet with the represented energy efficiency, no 
minimum efficiency is set or enforced. Rather, the NEMA minimum 
efficiencies are used to provide a reasonable estimate of the 
measurement uncertainties and product variabilities that are likely to 
be encountered during actual testing.
    The proposed 90 percent confidence limit was recommended by NEMA, 
and appears to the Department to be appropriate for electric motors. As 
just discussed, however, the divisor proposed by the Department differs 
from that proposed by NEMA. The Department specifically seeks comment 
on both of these proposals, including its proposed table of divisor 
coefficients, and on whether alternatives will better serve the 
objectives of providing both reasonable assurance that test results 
will apply to all units of a basic model, and reasonable allowance for 
product variability and measurement uncertainty.
    In sum, the Department proposes that when an electric motor is 
subjected to actual testing to determine whether it complies with 
EPCA's efficiency standards, a sample shall be selected and tested 
comprised of units which are production units, or representative of 
production units, of the basic model being tested. The sample must be 
of sufficient size, selected at random, and tested in accordance with 
the DOE test procedures adopted pursuant to section 343 of EPCA, 42 
U.S.C. 6314. The test sample results would have to be within prescribed 
confidence limits.
    The Department also proposes to permit manufacturers of electric 
motors to determine motor efficiency through predictive mathematical 
calculations developed from engineering analyses of design data and 
substantiated by actual test data. This would be similar to the 
approach found at 10 CFR part 430, Sec. 430.24(m)(2)(ii), which permits 
manufacturers of central air conditioners to use ``alternative rating 
methods.'' Statements from Reliance and NEMA support the use of such 
alternative efficiency determination methods. They assert it would be 
prohibitively expensive and time consuming to test all the many basic 
models that manufacturers produce. In addition, the Department 
understands that the manufacturers and independent testing laboratories 
do not have sufficient resources to test so many basic models. NEMA 
advocates use of ``alternative correlation methods'' (synonymous with 
the Department's term ``alternative efficiency determination methods'') 
that are based on engineering or statistical analyses, computer 
simulation, mathematical modeling, or other analytical evaluation of 
performance data. Furthermore, NEMA proposes using actual testing to 
substantiate such alternative methods.
    According to NEMA, ``A manufacturer must substantiate an 
alternative correlation method by actual testing of at least five basic 
models, using DOE-prescribed test procedures. Substantiation would 
require testing that demonstrates that predicted total power losses of 
a basic model design are within plus or minus ten (10) percent of the 
mean actual total power losses for the sample of each of the basic 
models tested.'' NEMA further states that manufacturers would be 
required to test ``two among the five basic models with the highest 
unit-volume of production and that at least two [of the five] models 
have predicted total losses which differ by at least 20 percent. Each 
of the five basic models should be of a different rating.''
    ``In lieu of advance approval, each manufacturer would be required 
to notify DOE of its use of alternative correlation methods in its 
compliance certification. Each manufacturer would stand ready to submit 
its alternative correlation test results (and underlying models and 
simulations) to DOE for review.'' (NEMA, No. 9 at B.3.).

[[Page 60449]]

    Based on the information discussed above, the Department agrees 
that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for each 
manufacturer to do actual testing, to determine energy efficiency, for 
each basic model of motor it manufactures. The Department proposes to 
adopt procedures whereby a manufacturer would certify compliance for 
basic models through an alternative efficiency determination method 
(AEDM). The Department's proposal largely incorporates the criteria and 
procedures suggested by NEMA for use of such alternative methods. For 
example, a manufacturer would be required to do actual testing of at 
least five basic models.
    The models selected for testing should be selected at random, 
subject to the following selection criteria: Two of the basic models 
tested would be required to be among the five basic models with the 
highest unit volumes of production by the manufacturer. Within any 
limitation imposed by that criterion, the basic models tested should be 
of different horsepower without duplication. The next priority would be 
to select basic models of different frame sizes without duplication. 
And finally, to the extent possible, each basic model selected should 
have the lowest full load efficiency among the basic models with the 
same rating.
    A manufacturer could use only AEDMs that it had substantiated. 
Prior to using the AEDM, the manufacturer would be required to apply it 
to at least five motors on which the manufacturer had performed actual 
tests in accordance with DOE test procedures. The AEDM would be 
``substantiated,'' and could be used by the manufacturer, only if, for 
each of the tested basic models to which it was applied, the predicted 
total power losses upon application of the AEDM are within plus or 
minus ten percent of the total power losses that were measured for that 
basic model during the actual testing. (``Total power loss'' here 
refers not to the arithmetic total of the losses for all of the units 
tested, but rather to average total losses for the tested units.)
    The Department believes that the foregoing approach to permitting 
use of AEDMs for motors would ensure compliance with EPCA, while 
avoiding imposition of an undue burden on the industry.

D. Energy Efficiency Standards

    EPCA prescribes standards for electric motors that are 1 through 
200 horsepower, and manufactured ``alone or as a component of another 
piece of equipment,'' except for ``definite purpose motors, special 
purpose motors, and those motors exempted by the Secretary.'' EPCA 
section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). The Department proposes to 
incorporate these standards into 10 CFR part 431.
1. Standards for Metric Motors
    As discussed above, a table in IEC 72-1 matches each standard 
kilowatt rating to the equivalent standard horsepower rating. Section 
342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), specifies efficiency standards 
for many of these standard horsepower ratings. The matching kilowatt 
and horsepower values in IEC 72-1 are not exact conversion values, but 
in each instance are virtually equal. The Department proposes in 
Sec. 431.42, to utilize the horsepower to standard kilowatt equivalents 
prescribed in IEC 72-1 in order to determine the required energy 
efficiency of a covered motor when such motor is rated in kilowatts.
    Wisconsin Electric Power Company asserts that ``the kilowatt 
ratings established by international standards (cf IEC 34) are based on 
a different numerical progression than the NEMA horsepower ratings 
standard in the United States. Thus, there is no true `equivalence' 
between those NEMA horsepower ratings and corresponding kilowatt 
values.'' (WE, No. 2 at 3a 1)).
    The Department agrees that such IEC motors are manufactured 
according to a standard series of kilowatt output ratings that do not 
mathematically synchronize exactly with the North American standard 
series of horsepower output ratings. When the standard IEC kilowatt 
ratings are directly converted into horsepower using the formula, 1 
kilowatt = (1/0.746) horsepower, the standard IEC ratings fall between 
the standard horsepower ratings specified in EPCA section 342(b)(1), 
although they are very close to the standard horsepower ratings.
    ACEEE states that a metric rated motor should be required to meet 
the efficiency rating for its corresponding equivalent horsepower 
rating, or the next-highest efficiency rating. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.a.1). 
The Department agrees with ACEEE to the extent that a motor rated in 
kilowatts should meet the same nominal full load energy efficiency as 
an equivalent motor rated in horsepower.
    Reliance advocates use of ``the primary series of standardized IEC 
kW [``kilowatt''] equivalents to the hp [``horsepower''] ratings given 
in IEC Standard 72-1, Clause D.5.1 when referring to the values of 
horsepower specified in the Act. These equivalents are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Horsepower                            Kilowatts            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                   .75              
1.5.................................                   1.1              
2...................................                   1.5              
3...................................                   2.2              
5...................................                   3.7              
7.5.................................                   5.5              
10..................................                   7.5              
15..................................                    11              
20..................................                    15              
25..................................                  18.5              
30..................................                    22              
40..................................                    30              
50..................................                    37              
60..................................                    45              
75..................................                    55              
100.................................                    75              
125.................................                    90              
150.................................                   110              
200.................................                   150              
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``While the above suggestion should include the majority of motors 
rated in kilowatt, it is possible for motors to be rated in kilowatt 
values other than those indicated based on a secondary series of 
standardized kilowatt ratings given in IEC Standard 72-1.''
    ``The metric equivalent kilowatt ratings could then be incorporated 
by a definition that the table of efficiency values also apply to the 
exact kilowatt equivalent rating to each reference horsepower rating by 
the relationship that 1 horsepower is equal to .746 kilowatts. For 
reference this conversion would give the following results:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Horsepower                            Kilowatts            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                  .746              
1.5.................................                  1.12              
2...................................                  1.49              
3...................................                  2.24              
5...................................                  3.73              
7.5.................................                  5.60              
10..................................                  7.46              
15..................................                  11.2              
20..................................                  14.9              
25..................................                  18.7              
30..................................                  22.4              
40..................................                  29.8              
50..................................                  37.3              
60..................................                  44.8              
75..................................                  56.0              
100.................................                  74.6              
125.................................                  93.3              
150.................................                   112              
200.................................                   149              
------------------------------------------------------------------------

An advantage of using the first set of kilowatt versus horsepower 
relationship values based on recommended kilowatt ratings in IEC 
Standard 72-1 would be the convenience of easily identifying standard 
kilowatt rated motors in the resulting table to find the required 
efficiency value rather than having to locate every standard kilowatt 
rating between two values of the exact kilowatt equivalents.'' 
(Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.1).

[[Page 60450]]

    ``NEMA recommends that the IEC standard kilowatt equivalents be 
used for specifying efficiency standards, rather than an exact metric 
conversion from round-number English measurements to fractional metric 
measurements. Metric-denominated general purpose motors are generally 
manufactured with standard kilowatt ratings, which should provide the 
basis for classification of motors and the specification of class-
specific energy efficiency standards.'' (NEMA, No. 9 at A.2.).
    The Department agrees with NEMA and Reliance, and believes that 
kilowatt to horsepower equivalency could be addressed without confusion 
by utilizing the series of standardized equivalents given in IEC 
Standard 72-1, annex D.5., Preferred rated output values. The 
Department proposes, at 10 CFR 431.42, that the efficiency standard 
applicable to a standard horsepower rating as specified in section 
342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6313(b)(1), applies to the 
corresponding standard kilowatt equivalent rating.
2. Standards for Horsepowers Not Listed in Statute, and for Non-
standard Kilowatt Ratings
    EPCA specifies efficiency standards only for electric motors with 
19 specific horsepower ratings, all of which fall within the range of 1 
through 200 horsepower. EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). 
NEMA asserts that efficiency standards should apply to all ``electric 
motors'' motors that have ratings from 1 through 200 horsepower (or 
standard kilowatt equivalents). According to NEMA, a motor with a 
rating between two of the horsepower ratings specified in EPCA section 
342(b)(1), or between two of the ratings specified in standard kilowatt 
equivalents, should be required to meet the efficiency standard set 
forth for the next highest horsepower (or kilowatt) rating specified in 
the statutory table. NEMA states that this would prevent circumvention 
of statutory efficiency requirements by designating a horsepower rating 
that is fractionally different from the standard ratings in the 
statute. (NEMA, No. 9 at A.1.).
    The Department understands that the statute's table of motor 
horsepowers is based on the preferred or standardized horsepower 
ratings established at NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, paragraph 
10.32.4, Polyphase Medium Induction Motors. NEMA recognizes that it is 
not practical to build motors of all horsepower ratings for all of the 
standard voltages (cite NEMA MG1-1993, paragraph 10.30 NOTE). However, 
an ``electric motor'' could be built and, for example, rated 35 
horsepower, or 90 horsepower, or 175 horsepower, and so forth.
    The Department agrees with NEMA that efficiency standards apply to 
all electric motors that have ratings from 1 through 200 horsepower (or 
standard kilowatt equivalents), including motors with a rating between 
two of the horsepower ratings specified in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA. 
The Department disagrees, however, that a motor with a rating between 
two of the horsepower ratings specified in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA, 
or between two of the ratings specified in a standard kilowatt 
equivalent table, should be treated as having the horsepower (or 
kilowatt) rating equal to the next highest rating specified in the 
statutory table (or standard kilowatt equivalent table) for purposes of 
determining the efficiency standard applicable to such motor.
    Applying NEMA's position to a hypothetical situation, a 32 
horsepower electric motor would be required to meet the energy 
efficiency level prescribed for a 40 horsepower motor. To meet that 
energy efficiency level could require significant changes in design of 
the 32 horsepower motor, including the addition of electrical steel and 
copper, which in turn could result in changes to the motor's physical 
dimensions to such a degree that it would no longer fit its normal 
applications. Rounding up presents a particular problem with respect to 
IEC motors, because they are generally smaller or more compact than the 
NEMA ``T'' frame sizes. Rounding up would make it very difficult for 
some sizes of motors to meet the statutory energy efficiency levels. 
Thus, the practice of rounding up could have the effect of banning or 
limiting the use of certain motors, because motors that meet the next 
higher energy efficiency level may be physically larger and may not fit 
into machines or packages which have been designed for more compact 
motors. The Department believes that use of such a rounding up 
procedure could result in an undue burden on manufacturers.
    Other interpolative methods could include a sliding scale of energy 
efficiencies that correspond to intermediate horsepowers, or 
arbitrarily rounding down to the next lower horsepower. The Department 
believes neither method is sound. The sliding scale approach implies a 
degree of accuracy in achieving and measuring motor efficiency, and 
significant differences in the required efficiency levels between 
different horsepowers, that do not exist. In addition, EPCA's 
efficiency standards for motors, EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 
6313(b)(1), are nominal full load efficiencies taken from a table of 
standardized values in MG1-1987, and standardized values would not be 
available to be the efficiency standards for intermediate horsepower 
motors. In addition, EPCA section 342(b)(1) prescribes, for example, 
identical efficiency levels for certain 40 and 50 horsepower motors, 
and levels that differ by only .6 for 30 and 40 horsepower motors. As 
to rounding a horsepower down to the next lower horsepower, that 
approach could encourage production of less efficient motors and thus 
conflict with EPCA's purpose to save energy. It would create an 
incentive to manufacture motors with horsepowers just below the 
horsepower levels at which efficiency levels are specified in the Act, 
so that the motors would then be required to comply with the efficiency 
standard prescribed for the lower level.
    The Department proposes to utilize simple mathematical rules of 
rounding to determine the required energy efficiency of a motor whose 
horsepower (or equivalent kilowatt) rating is between two of the 
ratings specified in EPCA section 342(b)(1). Horsepower values that 
fall at or above the midpoint between two horsepower ratings specified 
in EPCA section 342(b)(1) should be rounded up to the next higher 
specified horsepower rating to determine the required energy 
efficiency. Horsepower values that fall below the midpoint between two 
specified horsepower ratings should be rounded down to the next lower 
specified horsepower rating to determine the required energy 
efficiency. Motor kilowatt ratings that fall between standard kilowatt 
equivalents would be arithmetically converted directly into horsepower 
using the formula: 1 kilowatt = (1/0.746) horsepower. (In making such 
arithmetic conversions, no rounding would be permitted.) Resultant 
horsepower values would then be rounded using the rules of rounding 
just described, to determine the next higher or lower statutory 
horsepower and corresponding energy efficiency. The Department believes 
such procedures are appropriate to the design and application 
considerations of energy efficient motors, and would tend to cluster a 
family of motor horsepowers (or kilowatt ratings) and corresponding 
energy efficiencies around the family of applications for which the 
motors are designed without undue burden to the manufacturer. 
Nevertheless, in light of NEMA's advocacy of the ``rounding up'' 
procedure, the Department specifically seeks further comments on its 
rounding

[[Page 60451]]

proposal and will consider alternative approaches.
3. Electric Motors as Components of Systems
    The question of how this regulation would affect motors that are 
components of other equipment that is also covered under the Act is 
raised by the Air-Conditioning &amp; Refrigeration Institute (ARI). ARI 
believes that the standards for electric motors at section 342(b) of 
EPCA should not apply to motors used as components in commercial air-
conditioners, for example, because such air-conditioners are already 
covered by efficiency standards at section 342(a) of EPCA. ARI 
interprets section 342(a) of EPCA to mean that standards established 
for a system should take precedence over standards established for a 
component of that system. Further, ARI expresses concern that frequent 
changes in standards could lead to premature redesigns of equipment. 
(ARI, No. 3).
    The Department understands that air-conditioning equipment 
components, such as the compressor, the condenser, and the motor, must 
be designed and built to function integrally with each other in order 
to meet overall system efficiency requirements. Nevertheless, section 
342(b)(1) of EPCA explicitly imposes efficiency standards for ``each 
electric motor manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece 
of equipment).'' (Emphasis added.) Thus, every ``electric motor'' that 
is manufactured must meet the standards imposed by section 342(b)(1) of 
EPCA, regardless of whether it is manufactured ``alone,'' and then 
inserted into another piece of equipment, or manufactured ``as a 
component of another piece of equipment.'' The Department finds no 
language in the requirements for system efficiency at section 342(a) 
that explicitly or implicitly renders the efficiency standards in 
section 342(b)(1) inapplicable to motors used in air conditioning or 
other equipment covered by section 342(a).
    Section 342(b)(1) sharply contrasts in this respect with section 
346(b)(3) of EPCA. EPCA authorizes, but does not require, efficiency 
standards for ``small electric motors.'' Section 346(b)(3) states that 
such standards ``shall not apply to any small electric motor which is a 
component of'' another product or piece of equipment to which standards 
apply.
    In summary, contrary to ARI's position, EPCA cannot be construed so 
that the efficiency standards for electric motors do not apply to such 
motors when used in air conditioners also covered by standards. The 
Department is sympathetic to ARI's concern about the possibility that 
manufacturers might have to increase the frequency with which they 
modify the air conditioning equipment they manufacture to accommodate 
new motors that have been re-designed to comply with efficiency 
standards for motors and to comply with standards applicable to the 
equipment itself. But this concern cannot be addressed by the creation 
of an unauthorized exemption from the statutory standards for electric 
motors.

E. Labeling

1. Statutory Provisions
    Under section 344(a) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6315(a), if the Department 
has adopted test procedures for a type of ``covered equipment,'' such 
as motors, it must prescribe a labeling rule for that equipment. 
Section 344(b) provides that such rule must require disclosure of the 
motor's energy efficiency, and may require disclosure of estimated 
operating cost and energy use, determined in accordance with the test 
procedures. Section 344(c) authorizes inclusion in the rule of 
additional requirements ``likely to assist purchasers in making 
purchasing decisions.'' Statutory examples of such additional 
requirements concern display of the label, providing information as to 
energy consumption, and disclosing in printed matter efficiency 
information required to be on labels.
    Section 344(d) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6315(d), requires that within 12 
months of establishing test procedures, ``the Secretary shall prescribe 
labeling rules . . . applicable to electric motors taking into 
consideration NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987.'' Such rules shall 
require that electric motors be labeled to: ``(1) Indicate the energy 
efficiency of the motor on the permanent nameplate attached to such 
motor; (2) prominently display the energy efficiency of the motor in 
equipment catalogs and other material used to market the equipment; and 
(3) include such other markings as the Secretary determines necessary, 
solely to facilitate enforcement of the standards established for 
electric motors under section 342.''
    All of the foregoing provisions are subject to section 344(h) of 
EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6315(h), which states in essence that no labeling rule 
shall be promulgated for a type of covered equipment unless: (1) Such 
labeling is technologically and economically feasible with respect to 
such class; (2) significant energy savings will likely result from the 
labeling; and (3) the labeling is likely to assist consumers in making 
purchasing decisions.
2. Information on Motor Nameplate
    Nominal full load efficiency. The Department understands that 
current, typical industry practice is to mark on each motor nameplate 
the motor's nominal full load efficiency, which is a value selected 
from the standardized values in NEMA MG1-1993, Table 12-8, column A. To 
determine the nominal full load efficiency for a particular motor, the 
manufacturer first determines the average efficiency of the motors it 
produces of that same design. It then selects from Table 12-8, Column 
A, the standardized value that is the closest lower value to, or that 
equals, such average efficiency figure. Each of the required efficiency 
values in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA is identical to one of these 
standardized values.
    The Department proposes that each motor nameplate include a 
standardized value contained in Table 12-8. The manufacturer would 
determine the average efficiency for a basic model of motor through 
actual testing or application of an AEDM, as required under DOE test 
procedure regulations, would select the nominal efficiency for each 
motor in the same manner currently used by the industry, and would 
place that value on the nameplate.
    This approach would satisfy the statutory requirements that the 
label of each electric motor disclose ``the energy efficiency'' of such 
motor, ``determined in accordance with test procedures'' promulgated 
under EPCA. EPCA sections 344 (b) and (d)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6315 (b) and 
(d)(1). Although the efficiencies stated on the labels would be 
standardized values, and often would not match precisely the test 
procedure results for the type of motor being labeled, the intervals 
between standardized values are small, and differences among efficiency 
values within a given interval are not significant. The Department 
believes, therefore, that such standardized values would accurately 
represent both the energy efficiency of a given motor, and the 
differences in efficiency among motors. The Act also requires the 
Secretary to consider NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987 in 
prescribing labeling rules for electric motors. EPCA section 344(d), 42 
U.S.C. 6315(d). This requirement would be met because the Department 
proposes to use the approach and the standardized values in NEMA MG1-
1993, which, as relevant here, are identical to those in NEMA MG1-1987.
    Because the proposed labeling requirement adopts current industry 
practice, the Department concludes that

[[Page 60452]]

such labeling would be technically feasible and economically justified. 
The Department also believes that such labeling would be likely to 
assist consumers in making purchasing decisions by distinguishing 
motors of greater and lesser efficiency, enabling consumers to make 
comparisons among competing manufacturers and to confirm their 
selection upon delivery, all of which can lead to significant energy 
savings. As suggested by NEMA, the information in the proposed 
efficiency label would describe the motor as manufactured.
    Manufacturer number and ``ee'' logo. NEMA and Reliance recommend 
that, to identify motors that comply with EPCA, the nameplate also be 
required to include an encircled ``ee,'' or other logo, and an 
identification number supplied by DOE upon receipt of the 
manufacturer's compliance certification. (NEMA, No. 9 at C.; Reliance, 
No. 8 at 3.c). ACEEE and UL support use of the logo, but do not address 
requirement of an identification number. (UL, No. 4 at Labeling; ACEEE, 
No. 7 at 3.c). The Department proposes to require that the nameplate of 
every motor that has been certified as complying with EPCA include a 
manufacturer compliance certification number, essentially as 
recommended by NEMA and Reliance, and to permit but not require 
nameplates of complying motors to include an ``ee'' logo.
    With respect to the required identification number, the Department 
contemplates that it would issue an identification number to each motor 
manufacturer upon determining that the manufacturer had certified, in a 
form that satisfies the regulations, that its motors comply with EPCA. 
The manufacturer would then be required, within 90 days or upon the 
effective date of the labeling regulations, whichever is later, to 
include the number on its motor nameplates. The proposal also makes 
provision for including the number on motors certified subsequent to a 
manufacturer's initial certification.
    The Department believes that such a number is necessary to help 
enforce the efficiency standards. Reliance asserts that requiring the 
number on a motor would discourage a manufacturer from attaching an 
``ee'' mark to a non-complying motor. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.c). DOE 
agrees. In addition, requirement of the ID number would discourage 
manufacture of non-complying motors. For example, a manufacturer or 
distributor would not be allowed to ship covered motors into or within 
the United States unless the nameplate contains such an identification 
number. (The identification number would not be required when a covered 
motor is exported from the United States.) Moreover, use of a 
fraudulent number on a non-complying motor could easily be traced, 
since only DOE would issue the numbers and each manufacturer would have 
a unique number.
    Based on the statements of support by NEMA and Reliance, the 
Department concludes that such an identification number would be 
technologically feasible and economically justified. Energy savings 
would likely occur as a result of deterring the manufacture and 
shipment of covered motors that are not in compliance with the statute, 
and of facilitating identification of any non-complying motors sold in 
violation of the statute. Moreover, as NEMA points out, covered motors 
are sold almost entirely to highly sophisticated purchasers. These 
purchasers would be aware that the identification number connotes that 
the motor has been certified as complying with EPCA's efficiency 
standards. Thus, the number would aid consumers in making purchasing 
decisions, by calling attention to motors for which required 
certification have been submitted.
    The Department is concerned, however, about possible abuse of the 
manufacturer's identification number. An unscrupulous manufacturer 
could certify one or a few motors as being in compliance, obtain a 
number from DOE, and then use that number on the nameplate of motors 
for which it did not properly certify compliance. In such an instance, 
the number would provide a misleading indication of compliance. 
Moreover, even absent a requirement that each motor bear an ID number, 
an inquiry to the Department could easily determine whether a 
particular manufacturer had certified a given motor. The Department 
seeks comment on the validity of such concerns, and on whether they 
outweigh the value of requiring the number on the motor nameplate.
    As to inclusion of the ``ee'' logo or similar designation on the 
nameplate of a motor that complies with EPCA, there are considerations 
militating for and against such a requirement. On the one hand, as 
stated above, the purchasers of covered motors are almost entirely 
industrial and commercial consumers who are sophisticated purchasers 
and highly aware of energy efficiency concerns. The benefit to them of 
an ``ee'' logo seems limited, since they will be aware that general 
purpose motors must comply with EPCA's efficiency standards. On the 
other hand, the ``ee'' logo would distinguish such motors from definite 
and special purpose motors that need not and do not comply, its 
voluntary use on non-covered motors could encourage their compliance 
with efficiency standards, and both the motor industry and energy 
efficiency advocates support use of the logo.
    The Department is also concerned that inclusion of the ``ee'' logo 
on motors that comply with EPCA's nominal full load efficiency 
standards might be misleading. Under NEMA MG1-1993, to be classified as 
``energy efficient'' a motor must meet both a nominal efficiency 
identical to the efficiency level required by EPCA, and the applicable 
minimum efficiency prescribed by Table 12-10 of NEMA MG1-1993. NEMA 
MG1-1987 had a similar requirement. Given the practice under NEMA MG1, 
if the Department were to require or permit the ``ee'' logo on motors 
based solely on their meeting only the EPCA standards, purchasers might 
assume that such motors necessarily meet corresponding minimums for 
energy efficiency even though EPCA does not require motors to meet such 
minimums.
    One way to avoid such confusion would be for the Department to 
require that a motor labeled with the ``ee'' logo, or as ``energy 
efficient,'' meet the minimum efficiency associated with its nominal 
efficiency. Another possibility would be to follow ACEEE's 
recommendation that, in addition to nominal efficiency, minimum 
efficiency be required on the motor nameplate, in catalogs, and in 
other marketing materials (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.c). NEMA, however, opposes 
any requirement that nameplates or promotional materials disclose a 
motor's minimum efficiency. (NEMA, No. 9 at C.)
    Clearly, to mark the minimum efficiency on a motor nameplate, and 
in marketing materials, would provide a more complete picture of the 
energy efficiency characteristics of that motor. EPCA, however, 
prescribes standards for a motor's ``nominal full load efficiency.'' 
EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). As explained above, the 
nominal efficiency is based on the average efficiency for that type of 
motor. The term ``nominal full load efficiency'' neither implies nor 
subsumes a minimum efficiency level; nor do EPCA's standards explicitly 
state that a motor must have a minimum efficiency. Thus, because motors 
can, in theory, comply with EPCA without meeting minimum efficiency 
levels, the Department does not believe it can require such levels to 
be met or be displayed on labels or in marketing materials.

[[Page 60453]]

    Nevertheless, it is the Department's understanding that, as a 
practical matter, it would be very unlikely that a manufacturer could 
meet EPCA's nominal efficiency standard for a motor if it produces some 
motors of that design with efficiencies below the corresponding minimum 
in Table 12-10 of NEMA MG1-1993. Moreover, DOE understands that the 
provisions of NEMA MG1 will continue to exist and be in force alongside 
EPCA, and the Department has received no indication that NEMA MG1 will 
be modified to eliminate the requirement that each motor have a nominal 
efficiency as well as an associated minimum. Thus, DOE assumes that, 
independent of DOE requirements under EPCA, under NEMA MG1-1993 a motor 
could not be labeled as ``energy efficient'' or have an ``ee'' logo or 
other similar designation, unless it meets both the applicable nominal 
efficiency specified in Table 12-10 of MG1-1993 (which would be the 
same as the applicable EPCA standard), as well as the associated 
minimum efficiency specified in Table 12-10. In effect, therefore, 
motors complying with EPCA standards can be expected to have an 
appropriate minimum efficiency.
    Based on these understandings, the Department proposes that 
manufacturers be permitted to label covered motors as ``energy 
efficient,'' or with the ``ee'' logo, or with some comparable 
designation or logo, when a motor meets the applicable nominal full 
load efficiency standard in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA. The Department 
assumes that this would, in effect, authorize manufacturers to continue 
to follow the industry practice of classifying a motor as ``energy 
efficient'' only when it meets both the applicable nominal and the 
applicable minimum efficiency level prescribed in Table 12-10 of MG1-
1993 with Revision 1. The Department sees considerable merit in such an 
approach, which might also partially satisfy ACEEE's concern about 
including minimum efficiency levels in labels. Moreover, the fact that 
industry is following this approach indicates that it is 
technologically and economically feasible. This proposal, if adopted, 
would not require a manufacturer to include an ``ee'' or ``energy 
efficient'' designation on its nameplates. A manufacturer that made a 
complying motor would be free not to place an ``ee'' logo or similar 
designation on its motor nameplates.
    The Department continues to consider the option, however, of 
requiring that a manufacturer, in conjunction with using a label with 
the ``ee'' logo or ``energy efficient'' designation, display the 
minimum efficiency of the motor on the motor nameplate, and/or include 
such minimum efficiency in its compliance certification. The Department 
solicits comments on these approaches.
    Finally, presumably anticipating required use of the ``ee'' logo, 
Reliance recommends that the Department consider recognizing marks of 
energy efficiency from other countries when such marks are equivalent 
to the mark required by the Department. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.c). As 
discussed below, the Department does not propose to require the use of 
any such mark. But in light of the National Voluntary Laboratory 
Accreditation Program discussed below, the Department understands the 
principle advanced by Reliance of mutual recognition between the U.S. 
and other countries. The Department contemplates that its proposal 
permitting use of the ``ee'' logo or other ``energy efficiency'' 
designation would permit use of the energy efficiency mark from another 
country. In other words, where a motor meets the requirements for use 
of the ``ee'' or other ``energy efficiency'' designation, it can 
display a foreign energy efficiency mark.
3. Disclosure of Efficiency Information in Marketing Materials.
    EPCA directs the Secretary to require that the energy efficiency of 
each electric motor be ``prominently'' displayed ``in equipment 
catalogs and other material used to market the equipment.'' EPCA 
section 344(d)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6315(d)(2)). To implement this provision, 
the Department proposes to require that catalogs and other marketing 
materials for a motor prominently display the same nominal full load 
efficiency rating that must appear on the motor's label. Further 
authority for such a requirement is provided by section 344(c)(3) of 
EPCA, which authorizes adoption of requirements ``likely to assist 
purchasers in making purchasing decisions,'' including required 
disclosure in ``printed matter which is displayed or distributed at the 
point of sale'' of the motor of efficiency information required to be 
on the label of the motor. The Department also proposes (1) To require 
that catalogs and other marketing materials for a complying motor 
display the manufacturer number required to be placed on the label of 
such motor, and (2) that the provisions concerning inclusion on a label 
of the ``ee'' logo, the ``energy efficiency'' designation, or other 
similar logo or designation, also apply to printed materials.
    NEMA asserts that Congress intended the labeling rules for electric 
motors to ``facilitate enforcement of the efficiency standards,'' not 
to educate consumers. The language of the Act does not support this 
claim. Section 344(d) of EPCA, after directing the Secretary to 
promulgate requirements for disclosure of a motor's energy efficiency, 
directs that ``such other markings'' shall be required ``as the 
Secretary determines necessary, solely to facilitate enforcement of the 
standards established for electric motors.'' The ``facilitate 
enforcement'' criterion applies only to ``such other markings'' 
required by the Secretary. It does not apply either to section 344(d)'s 
specific requirements concerning disclosure of a motor's efficiency, or 
to its general directive to ``prescribe labeling rules . . . applicable 
to electric motors.'' Furthermore, section 344(c) lists examples of 
labeling requirements that are authorized for ``covered equipment,'' 
including motors, clearly stating in language that precedes such 
requirements that they should be ``likely to assist purchasers in 
making purchasing decisions.'' In summary, the ``facilitate 
enforcement'' language quoted by NEMA governs neither most of the 
labeling provisions applicable to motors specifically, nor any of the 
labeling provisions in sections 344 (a)-(c) that are generally 
applicable both to motors and to other covered equipment.
    The Department believes that the nominal full load efficiency and 
the manufacturer's number ``prominently displayed'' in catalogs and 
other marketing material would likely assist even knowledgeable 
purchasers by clearly identifying an electric motor that is in 
compliance with the EPCA. Reliance Electric expresses concern that 
inclusion of such markings in catalogs could be unduly burdensome, 
given the length of time it takes to update catalog information to 
include new or modified motors. The Department believes that this 
concern is addressed by the provisions of proposed Sec. 431.122(a)(4), 
which provide in effect that the labeling provisions applicable to 
catalogs do not apply to catalogs distributed before the effective date 
of the labeling rule. In addition, under the proposed 
Sec. 431.82(b)(1), the requirement that marketing material include 
information concerning a particular motor would apply only to the 
extent that the motor is mentioned in such material. Thus, for example, 
catalogs would have to be updated to include the nominal full load 
efficiency and the manufacturer's number applicable to a motor only 
when the catalog is revised to include that motor. This would be a 
technically feasible and economically justifiable means to satisfy the 
requirement in

[[Page 60454]]

section 344(d)(2) of EPCA to ``prominently display the energy 
efficiency of the motor in equipment catalogs and other materials to 
market the equipment.''
    Both Reliance and NEMA assert that energy efficiency markings 
should be required on import documents to assist Customs officials with 
identifying motors that comply with EPCA. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.c and 
NEMA, No. 9 at C). The Department understands that Customs inspectors 
may not be able to directly examine an imported motor that is packaged 
for shipping, or one that is a component in a larger piece of 
equipment. Therefore, the Department proposes that import documents for 
any covered electric motor disclose the date of the Compliance 
Certification and the DOE number for that motor, whether the motor is 
imported alone or as a component of another piece of equipment. The 
Department believes such identification information is consistent with 
requirements placed on U.S. manufacturers and would facilitate 
enforcement by Customs officials.
    The Department does not propose to require that Customs documents 
include a motor's nominal full load efficiency. The Department has 
doubts about whether it will be practical for Customs officials to 
check during the import process on whether a motor complies the 
applicable minimum efficiency standard. The Department is still 
considering, however, whether such a requirement is warranted and 
requests comment on this point.
4. Other Matters
    EPCA authorizes required displays of information about electric 
motor energy efficiency which are likely to assist purchasers in making 
purchasing decisions, including instructions for maintenance, use, or 
repair of the motor, and information on energy use. EPCA section 
344(c), 42 U.S.C. 6315(c). Most commenters agree that displays of such 
information would often be impractical and should be optional, not 
required. (Nailen, No. 2 at 3c; UL, No. 4 at Labeling; ACEEE, No. 7 at 
3.c; Reliance, No. 8 at 3.c; and NEMA, No. 9 at C). The Department has 
no information to the contrary, and therefore does not propose to 
require display of such information.
    Baldor Electric Company (``Baldor'') raises a concern about the 
need for performance warnings on motors that will comply with EPCA's 
efficiency standards, and about the potential waste of energy when such 
a motor is misapplied. Since these motors typically run faster, and 
might have less starting torque than less efficient motors, Baldor 
recommends that a warning label be required on each covered motor to 
alert users to verify load requirements before installation, and to 
prevent possible misapplication and wasted energy. (Baldor, at 10).
    The Department believes that Baldor's concerns have some merit, but 
do not warrant a labeling requirement. As to starting torque, EPCA does 
not require manufacturers to reduce starting torque to meet the 
required levels of efficiency. The Department understands that 
manufacturers are already offering for sale NEMA Design A and B motors 
that meet EPCA efficiency standards and that have the same starting 
torque capabilities as existing, less efficient NEMA Design A and B 
motors. In any event, the Department believes that any performance 
differences between covered motors that will comply with EPCA, and less 
efficient versions of such motors, are minor and will affect only a 
relatively small number of specific applications. Those situations 
would appear to be best addressed not by general labeling requirements, 
but rather by consultation between the motor user and seller during the 
process of selecting a motor, to assure that particular application 
requirements are satisfied by the performance capabilities of the motor 
purchased. DOE concludes that the addition of a warning label should be 
at the discretion of the manufacturer.
    EPCA authorizes the Secretary to test the accuracy of information 
disclosed pursuant to labeling requirements for covered equipment. EPCA 
section344(i), 42 U.S.C. 6315(i). NEMA recommends that DOE not exercise 
its authority to test the accuracy of the efficiency marked on a motor 
nameplate, so long as such marking is based on a substantiated 
alternative correlation method, or, apparently, on actual testing. NEMA 
suggests that any DOE enforcement testing be limited to auditing the 
substantiation of the alternative correlation method. (NEMA, No. 9 at 
C.).
    The Department understands that the efficiency marked on the 
nameplate of a motor identifies the average efficiency of a population 
of motors, and may not be the exact efficiency of that particular 
motor. Therefore, parallel with provisions applicable in the appliance 
efficiency program, the enforcement provisions proposed here would 
require examination of a manufacturer's prior compliance determinations 
before enforcement testing may proceed, and any such testing would 
determine compliance through tests of a sample of units of the motor. 
Presumably, in some instances, examination of the prior compliance 
determinations would obviate the need for further testing and establish 
the validity of the energy efficiency marked on a label. But the 
Department's proposal permits further testing, at its discretion, to 
determine the accuracy of a manufacturer's required information 
disclosures. The Department sees no basis for agreeing to relinquish or 
limit its authority under section 344(i) of EPCA to perform such 
further testing.
    The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulates energy efficiency 
labeling for appliances, and the approach the Department proposes here 
is similar to that adopted by the FTC in 16 CFR 305.15(b) and 305.16. 
These provisions implement section 326(b)(3)(B) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 
6296(b)(3)(B), which, in language similar to section 344(i), authorizes 
the FTC to test products to determine the accuracy of label 
information. As in the Department's proposal here, the FTC procedures 
require examination of a manufacturer's prior compliance determinations 
before enforcement testing may proceed. But the FTC has not 
relinquished its authority to conduct further testing that it deems 
appropriate.
    NEMA also suggests that manufacturers be permitted to use the 
encircled ``ee'' logo for motors that meet EPCA efficiency standards, 
even if such motors are manufactured before the effective date of the 
standards, or are definite or special purpose motors. (NEMA, No. 9 at 
C.). The Department finds substantial merit in NEMA's proposal. The 
Department believes it is in the national interest to save energy both 
through regulatory programs and voluntary programs, and understands 
that the statute does not prohibit voluntary compliance. Therefore, the 
Department proposes that, where an electric motor is in compliance with 
the energy efficiency testing and standards requirements of the 
statute, even though it is not covered equipment, a manufacturer may 
voluntarily comply with the proposed labeling provisions. The 
manufacturer could comply with one or more of these provisions. It 
would have to meet the requirements of any provision that it purports 
to comply with, and it would be subject to enforcement action if it 
fails to meet such requirements. For example, if the label of a special 
purpose motor were to include the nominal full load efficiency of the 
motor, such efficiency rating would have to be derived in accordance 
with application of the DOE test procedures prescribed in 
Sec. 431.82(a)(1)(i) of the proposed labeling rule.

[[Page 60455]]

F. Certification

1. Statutory Provisions
    EPCA requires ``manufacturers to certify, through an independent 
testing or certification program nationally recognized in the United 
States, that such motor meets the applicable [nominal full load 
efficiency standard].'' EPCA section 345(c), 42 U.S.C. 6316(c). The 
Department understands the statutory language to provide manufacturers 
with two separate ways to fulfill the certification requirement: (1) 
Manufacturers may certify, through an independent testing program 
nationally recognized in the United States, that such motor meets the 
standards; or (2) manufacturers may certify, through an independent 
certification program nationally recognized in the United States, that 
such motor meets the standards. Section 345(c) does not specify what is 
meant by ``independent testing,'' ``certification program,'' or 
``nationally recognized.'' Moreover, little insight into the meaning of 
the latter two terms is provided by other provisions of EPCA or by 
operation of the consumer appliance energy efficiency program. The term 
``independent testing'' also is not used elsewhere in the Act. EPCA 
requirements concerning test procedures, however, make clear that 
``testing'' refers to tests of products (in this case motors) to 
determine whether they satisfy efficiency requirements. Such tests to 
certify compliance with EPCA's efficiency standards have commonly been 
performed in manufacturers' own facilities, and no other provision of 
EPCA or the DOE regulations calls for ``independent'' testing. By 
stating that a compliance certification based on testing shall be 
through an ``independent testing'' program, section 345(c) of EPCA 
appears to require a different approach. Given the normal meaning of 
``independent,'' section 345(c) may call for testing to be conducted at 
a facility not under the control of or affiliated with the 
manufacturer.
2. Basis for Certification
    a. Independent Testing Program. The Department conducted an 
informal investigation and, in addition, solicited statements during 
the aforementioned public meeting held June 2, 1995, in order to 
understand the nature of ``independent testing'' and ``certification'' 
programs, and to learn what programs exist that manufacturers could use 
to certify compliance with the energy efficiency requirements of the 
statute. The question of who should conduct the required testing for 
the program elicited considerable comment, especially concerning the 
adequacy of the number of independent testing facilities. Statements 
provided by Wisconsin Electric, Reliance, ACEEE, NEMA, Nielsen 
Engineering Inc., and UL indicate that only a few independent 
facilities in the United States and Canada have the capability to test 
motor efficiency as required by EPCA. According to Reliance, for 
example, the number of third party test facilities available in North 
America is so limited that reliance on such facilities to conduct an 
independent testing program would present a major roadblock to 
compliance certification by the electric motor industry. (Reliance, No. 
8 at 3.d.2). ACEEE adds that it is unlikely that the number of 
independent test facilities could be rapidly increased, since there are 
very few experts familiar with the design of test facilities and the 
details of performing such tests. It would likely take ten years to 
construct the facilities, install the equipment, and train staff for 
the testing capacity necessary to independently certify all motor 
models covered by EPCA. (ACEEE letter to DOE, 11/20/95).
    The Department understands there are considerable variations in the 
primary components of electric motors, which include the stator 
assembly; the rotor assembly; the enclosure, which includes bearings, a 
lubrication system and other mechanical or small electrical assemblies; 
and the shaft. Such variations are part of the means by which motors 
are classified. For example, the enclosure may be open or totally-
enclosed; the motor may operate from an alternating current power 
supply at any one of several voltage levels; or the motor may operate 
at any one of several speeds. The number of different motor 
configurations increases rapidly due to the numerous combinations of 
other electrical and physical characteristics possible. These 
characteristics relate to method of starting, enclosure type, 
horsepower rating, speed, torque, voltage, and temperature rise. The 
list of such variations is significant. According to one DOE 
study,<;SUP>4 for example, considering only motors above 5 horsepower, 
there are approximately 5,300 different possible covered motors. The 
potential number of motors requiring testing, however, would be reduced 
under the statutory definition of ``basic model.'' Even so, testimony 
from the June 2, 1995, public meeting and written statements from 
manufacturers and NEMA speak of different basic models still numbering 
in the thousands that are being manufactured and could potentially be 
required to undergo testing for efficiency. (Public Meeting, Tr. pgs. 
33, 63, and 88; <;SUP>5 Reliance, No. 8 at 3.b.3; and NEMA, No. 9 at 
B.3.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Classification and Evaluation of Electric Motors and 
Pumps,'' DOE/TIC-11339, 9/80, sec. III.
    \5\ ``Public Meeting, Tr. pgs. 33, 63 and 88,'' refers to the 
page numbers of the transcript of the ``Public Meeting on Energy 
Efficiency Standards, Test Procedures, Labeling and Certification 
Reporting for Certain Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors,'' 
held in Washington, DC, June 2, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The foregoing indicates that only a small number of existing 
independent laboratories are capable of testing electric motors for 
energy efficiency, and that a very substantial volume of motors will 
require testing. Because of the insufficient testing capacity, the 
Department believes it will be impossible for all or most manufacturers 
to test their motors in test facilities other than their own 
laboratories. Thus, manufacturers would not be able to comply with a 
narrow reading of the ``independent testing'' aspect of the statute.
    The Department believes that the goal and intent of this provision 
of the statute, however, is to provide assurance that test results are 
accurate, valid, and capable of being replicated. Tests must be 
performed, for example, with a degree of independence so that the 
results are not influenced by marketing and production concerns. The 
issue of how to assure that test results are comparable to those 
conducted in an independent testing laboratory is fundamental to this 
program. This question is addressed in many of the statements received 
as a result of the aforementioned informal investigation and the June 
2, 1995, public meeting.
    NEMA, for example, asserts that the statutory provision for 
``independent testing'' must be interpreted in light of the reality 
that there is insufficient capacity in independent test laboratories. 
NEMA believes the only technically feasible and economically 
justifiable means to comply is by using manufacturers' own 
laboratories. (NEMA, No. 9 at D.2.). In its November 20, 1995, letter 
to the Department, ACEEE agrees with this position, adding that ``the 
only way to make the required testing capacity available would be to 
accredit the testing facilities of motor manufacturers and allow them 
to certify the efficiency of motors.'' (ACEEE letter to DOE, 11/20/95).
    Both Reliance and NEMA describe two possible options for programs 
which could fulfill the requirements of ``independent testing'': 
Testing performed at a third party independent accredited facility 
which has some type

[[Page 60456]]

of national recognition; or testing at an accredited manufacturer's 
facility that is considered independent under the requirements for 
accreditation. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.d.2 and NEMA, No. 9 at D.2.). As 
mentioned above, manufacturers' laboratories have been widely used to 
test products for compliance with efficiency requirements imposed under 
section 325 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295. A laboratory accreditation program 
could also play a role for electric motors, provided the laboratory is 
accredited to test electric motors for energy efficiency according to 
the procedures in IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B and CSA Standard C390 
Test Method 1.
    b. Laboratory Accreditation. In researching how laboratory 
accreditation programs could satisfy the independent testing provision 
of the statute, the Department has reviewed a number of publications, 
directories, and programs.<;SUP>6 Such documents frame the qualities of 
a laboratory accreditation program, which include: Assessment criteria 
or procedures which determine, for example, the laboratory's 
independence within the manufacturer's organizational structure so that 
test results are not influenced by such factors as marketing and 
production sides; on-site inspection of the laboratories; qualification 
requirements for laboratory staff; requirements to ensure the identity 
and integrity of test samples; periodic re-audit of facilities; 
laboratory participation in a proficiency testing program; and 
requirements for the adequacy, maintenance, and calibration of 
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Laboratory Accreditation in the United States, Maureen A. 
Breitenberg, May 1991, NISTIR 4576.
    Director of State and Local Government Laboratory Accreditation/
Designation Programs, Charles W. Hyer, Editor, July 1991, NIST 
Special Publication 815.
    Directory of Professional/Trade Organization Laboratory 
Accreditation/Designation Programs, Charles W. Hyer, Editor, March 
1992, NIST Special Publication 831.
    Test laboratory accreditation criteria published in 15 CFR part 
285.
    National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program Handbook 
150, Procedures and General Requirements.
    ISO/IEC Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of 
calibration and testing laboratories.
    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
laboratory accreditation program conducted in accordance with 29 CFR 
1910.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ACEEE states that the Department should ``facilitate the 
development of independent, accredited motor testing capability in the 
United States to allow for independent verification of manufacturer 
test results.'' According to ACEEE, such accreditation increases 
confidence in the validity of manufacturer test results, and provides 
an alternate means of testing for manufacturers who do not operate 
their own accredited test laboratory. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.d).
    Statements received from ACEEE, the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST), Reliance, and NEMA support laboratory 
accreditation as a means to augment the number of existing independent 
laboratories in order to comply with the ``independent testing'' aspect 
of the statute, and recommend the NIST National Voluntary Laboratory 
Accreditation Program (NVLAP) as a source of accrediting laboratories 
to test motors for energy efficiency. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.d; NIST, No. 
1; Reliance, No. 8 at 3.d.2; and NEMA, No. 9 at D.2.).
    According to NIST, NVLAP is the only general accreditation program 
in the Federal system. It is a completely independent third party 
accreditation program that operates under the Procedures and 
Requirements published in 15 CFR part 285, and has mutual recognition 
agreements with national accreditation organizations in other 
countries, including Canada. Both the U.S. and Canada use one 
procedures handbook (the NIST Handbook 150-10, Efficiency of Electric 
Motors), and NVLAP's proficiency testing program. Under NIST Handbook 
150-10, Sec. 285.33(h)(1), laboratories are accredited to use both the 
IEEE 112 Test Method B, the motor efficiency test procedure prescribed 
by the Act, and CSA Standard C390 Test Method 1, which MG1-1993 
incorporated as an alternative test procedure. (As discussed above, the 
Department proposes, in accordance with EPCA, to allow use of this 
alternative.) NIST adds that industry representatives support NVLAP and 
its mutual recognition agreements with other countries. (NIST, No. 1). 
ACEEE adds that it sees no problem with accepting test results from 
laboratories in Canada or other countries if the laboratories receive 
NVLAP accreditation or if accreditation from their national body is 
accepted by the NIST as meeting NVLAP standards. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.d).
    Reliance notes that at present, NVLAP is the only accreditation 
program which has established a complete manual on the requirements for 
laboratory accreditation for determining the efficiency of electric 
motors. This accreditation program was created by NVLAP with the 
cooperation of motor manufacturers. Reliance points out, however, that 
since there are over 300 accrediting bodies in the United States, it is 
possible that several could conduct a program to accredit laboratories 
for performing motor efficiency testing described in IEEE 112 or CSA 
C390. Reliance asserts that recognition of any test facility which has 
been accredited by a national accrediting body as an ``independent test 
facility'' should be considered, and that international standards 
provide a precedent for this. ``To receive accreditation under 
international standards for laboratory accreditation a facility must 
meet certain requirements for classification as an independent 
facility, even if it is within the manufacturing complex for which it 
would be performing the product testing. To quote from Clause 4.2 of 
ISO/IEC Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of 
calibration and testing laboratories, `(b) the laboratory shall have 
arrangements to ensure that its personnel are free from any commercial, 
financial, and other pressures which might adversely affect the quality 
of their work and (c) be organized in such a way that confidence in its 
independence (emphasis added) of judgment and integrity is maintained 
at all times.' In short, accreditation to standards of recognized 
accreditation organizations is equivalent to a recognition of 
independence. This could provide the independence needed to meet the 
requirements of an independent testing or certification program.'' 
(Reliance, No. 8 at 3.d.2).
    The Department recognizes the possibility that accreditation bodies 
other than NVLAP could accredit motor testing laboratories. For 
example, the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) 
is a nonprofit, scientific, membership organization dedicated to the 
formal recognition of testing laboratories and related organizations 
which have achieved a demonstrated level of competence. According to 
literature published by A2LA, accreditation is available to all 
laboratories regardless of whether they are owned by private companies 
or government bodies. One essential requirement, of course, is that 
laboratories be accredited competent to perform testing in accordance 
with the test procedures prescribed pursuant to EPCA for electric 
motors. A2LA accreditation can be obtained for all types of tests, 
measurements and observations that are reproducible, properly 
documented, and generally available to everyone. A2LA's general 
accreditation criteria are those of ISO/IEC Guide 25: 1990, General 
requirements for the competence of calibration and testing 
laboratories. Guide 25 is followed by NVLAP and other accrediting 
bodies.

[[Page 60457]]

    c. Certification Program. EPCA also provides that a manufacturer 
can use a ``certification program nationally recognized in the United 
States,'' instead of an independent testing program, to certify that 
its motors meet EPCA efficiency standards. EPCA section 345(c), 42 
U.S.C. 6316(c). The Department understands the word ``certification'' 
to mean a procedure by which a third party gives written assurance that 
a product, process or service conforms to specified requirements.
    With regard to the nature, identity, and capabilities of any 
nationally recognized program or programs for the certification of 
electric motors for energy efficiency, Reliance describes two existing 
certification programs in North America, one conducted by CSA, and the 
other by UL. Reliance states that both are generally regarded by 
industry as ``nationally recognized.'' Reliance notes that these 
programs are in place now and are independently verifying motor 
efficiency. Reliance suggests that these programs could directly 
fulfill the requirements of EPCA without modification. Both programs 
entail (1) submittal by the manufacturer of the declared nominal 
efficiency of the motors to be certified at the time of application 
into the program, (2) examination of the manufacturer's testing 
facility to determine that it is competent in performing the test 
procedure in the IEEE 112 or CSA C390 Standards, (3) random selection 
by the certification agency of the ratings of some motors to be tested 
in the presence of an assessor from the certification agency, (4) 
testing of the selected motors in the manufacturer's test facility, (5) 
testing the same motors at an independent laboratory for comparison of 
the results of the two tests, and (6) yearly follow-up audits which 
include additional random sample testing to determine that the test 
facility maintains its ability to perform the test and that the 
manufacturer has not changed the motor design in any way that affects 
the efficiency. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.d.2). Reliance adds that it is 
not necessary to limit independent certification to CSA or UL. What is 
necessary is that the certification program be conducted by an 
organization in which the consumer will have full faith and confidence.
    UL asserts that the Act's requirements are met by its Energy 
Verification Service, wherein a motor manufacturer's production and 
testing operations are evaluated and representative samples are tested 
to applicable standards. Following initial verification, follow-up 
audits of products and on-going testing by the manufacturer is 
required. Essentially the steps set forth in the above paragraph are 
followed. UL notes that its Energy Verification Service is in 
compliance with Federal law in Canada, and is accredited by the 
Standards Council of Canada. As an alternative to DOE developing 
criteria for the acceptance of testing laboratories and certification 
bodies, UL recommends that established ISO/IEC international criteria 
be utilized. (UL, No. 4 at Certification).
    The UL statement then lists the following ISO/IEC international 
criteria applicable to testing laboratories and certification bodies: 
ISO/IEC Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of 
calibration and testing laboratories; ISO Guide 27, Guidelines for 
corrective action to be taken by a certification body in the event of 
either misapplication of its mark of conformity to a product, or 
products which bear the mark of the certification body being found to 
subject persons or property to risk; ISO/IEC Guide 28, General rules 
for a model third-party certification system for products; and ISO/IEC 
Guide 40, General requirements for the acceptance of certification 
bodies.<;SUP>7 UL recommends that DOE use the criteria in the foregoing 
Guides as the basis for recognizing that a test laboratory or 
certification organization is competent to perform required tests or 
operate a certification program. The Department understands that these 
are internationally recognized documents utilized by testing 
laboratories, accreditation bodies, and certification bodies in the 
U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ISO/IEC Guide 40 has been superseded by ISO/IEC 65-1996, 
General requirements for bodies operating product certification 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. National Recognition. Under EPCA, a testing or certification 
program used to certify compliance must be ``nationally recognized.'' 
EPCA section 345(c), 42 U.S.C. 6316(c).
    The question of national recognition has been addressed at 29 CFR 
part 1910, by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (OSHA), which uses third-party (or independent) 
testing laboratories to ensure that certain equipment and materials are 
safe for workplace use. The OSHA final rule at 53 FR 12102-12125 (April 
12, 1988) includes a requirement that testing laboratories listing or 
approving products or equipment required to be approved under Part 1910 
be recognized as Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTL) by 
OSHA. Under that rule, OSHA evaluates applicant testing and control 
programs against the NRTL definitional requirements, and issues a 
written ``recognition'' letter. This is done in accordance with 29 CFR 
1910.7 appendix A. OSHA also provides for continuing surveillance over 
OSHA-recognized NRTLs to assure conformance with the requirements of 
its rule. The definition of NRTL includes the following requirements:
    (1) Capability to examine specific equipment for workplace safety;
    (2) Provision of controls and services necessary for assuring and 
demonstrating original conformity of equipment to appropriate test 
standards;
    (3) Independence from manufacturers, suppliers and vendors of 
products, and from other employers; and
    (4) Procedures for producing creditable findings and reports and 
for handling complaints and disputes. (Department of Labor, No. 11).
    The Association of Independent Scientific, Engineering and Testing 
Firms (formerly the American Council of Independent Laboratories 
(ACIL)) appears to claim that section 345(c) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 
6316(c), does not allow a manufacturer to certify compliance with 
efficiency standards through testing in its own laboratory, even if the 
laboratory is accredited. ACIL asserts that section 345(c) must be 
interpreted consistently with sections 342(b) and 346(b)(3) of the 
statute, which refer to listing or certifying motors by a nationally 
recognized testing laboratory (NRTL). ACIL recommends that DOE 
reference the OSHA program to accredit such laboratories, and ``codify 
reliance on these NRTLs to certify electric motors.'' (ACIL, No. 6). 
Although ACIL does not so state, the Department understands that these 
laboratories are independent, and not controlled by a manufacturer of 
the product being tested.
    The Department cannot agree with ACIL's apparent view that, because 
manufacturers do not control the safety testing laboratories referred 
to in sections 342(b) and 346(b)(3) of EPCA, the efficiency testing 
programs required to be used under section 345(c) also must be free of 
manufacturer control. First, different considerations may apply to 
safety testing and to efficiency testing in determining the required 
degree of independence of a testing facility. Second, EPCA's references 
to safety testing laboratories are incidental to EPCA's efficiency 
requirements, and unrelated to the requirements of section 345(c). 
Those references provide little guidance in interpreting section 
345(c). Finally, as discussed above, implementation of section 345(c) 
would be impossible if it were construed as prohibiting compliance 
certification

[[Page 60458]]

based on testing in manufacturers' own laboratories.
    Substantial potential may exist for NRTLs to make future 
contributions to the EPCA program by performing energy efficiency 
testing. But contrary to ACIL's recommendation, the Department cannot 
yet rely on these laboratories to meet EPCA requirements, because it 
has no indication that they currently are qualified to do efficiency 
testing. And certainly the Department cannot rely on OSHA's NRTL 
recognition process. The references to test laboratories in sections 
342(b) and 346(b)(3) of EPCA, as well as OSHA's accreditation of NRTLs, 
address safety testing. The procedures and equipment for efficiency 
testing are different from the procedures and equipment for testing 
whether a motor will operate safely.
    The Department believes that the NRTL program does, however, 
provide an approach for determining when a program is ``nationally 
recognized.'' As further discussed below, the Department proposes to 
adopt formal procedures similar to those utilized by the OSHA NRTL 
program for purposes of establishing when a certification program is 
``nationally recognized'' within the meaning of section 345(c).
    e. Proposal. The Department proposes that the statutory requirement 
for certification through an ``independent testing program'' be met by 
using a laboratory, operated by either a third party or a manufacturer, 
that has been accredited to perform the DOE test procedures. Given the 
paucity of test facilities not controlled by manufacturers, the 
Department believes that testing at manufacturers' laboratories that 
have been accredited would satisfy the intent of the ``independent 
testing'' aspect of EPCA section 345(c). Such accreditation would 
provide many of the protections as to accuracy, bias, and independence 
of judgment that would be provided by testing at non-manufacturer 
facilities. Accreditation would also give additional assurance that the 
laboratory is fully capable of testing a motor's energy efficiency, and 
would reduce concerns with respect to variability and repeatability of 
testing and test results. Accreditation of non-manufacturer 
laboratories is proposed to assure an equal degree of reliability with 
manufacturers' laboratories, and, as discussed below, to satisfy the 
section 345(c) requirement that testing programs be nationally 
recognized.
    In accordance with section 345(c), the Department's proposed 
regulation also permits a manufacturer to certify compliance through an 
independent certification program. Such a program would have to be 
essentially as described above by UL and Reliance. Manufacturers that 
elect to use a certification program would not be required to have 
their own laboratory accredited.
    Finally, section 345(c) requires that compliance be certified 
through a testing or certification program that is ``nationally 
recognized.'' The Department proposes that this requirement shall be 
met (1) by a testing facility that has been accredited either by NVLAP 
or by an accrediting body that DOE classifies as nationally recognized 
to accredit facilities to test motors for efficiency, or (2) by a 
certification program that DOE has classified as nationally recognized. 
The Department proposes criteria and procedures under which it would 
make such classifications. Included would be the application of 
appropriate ISO/IEC criteria. Accrediting bodies and certification 
programs would seek such classification by submitting a petition to the 
Department, accompanied by supporting documentation.
    Under the Department's proposal, NVLAP accreditation of motor 
testing laboratories would be pursuant to NVLAP's existing approach to 
granting such accreditation, set forth in 15 CFR part 285 and NIST 
Handbook 150-10. The Department is reviewing, and requests comment on, 
whether these provisions are in any way inconsistent with EPCA 
requirements or any portion of the proposed part 431. The Department 
also proposes that if NVLAP alters its approach to accrediting motor 
testing laboratories, subsequent to DOE adoption of a final rule in 
this proceeding, such changes would become applicable to accreditation 
under part 431 only if approved by DOE. The Department seeks comment on 
whether such a provision is needed, and will suffice, to assure that 
NVLAP accreditation methods will continue to be consistent with the DOE 
energy efficiency program for motors.
    In summary, the Department proposes implementation of the 
requirement for ``manufacturers to certify, through an independent 
testing or certification program nationally recognized in the United 
States, that such motor meets the applicable [energy efficiency 
standards],'' by either (i) testing at a third party independent 
laboratory accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting body, such 
as NVLAP, (ii) testing at the manufacturer's own laboratory if it is 
accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting body, such as 
NVLAP,<;SUP>8 or (iii) certification by a nationally recognized third-
party certification program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The proposed regulations would permit testing at a 
laboratory accredited by a foreign organization recognized by NVLAP. 
Any test results produced by such laboratory would, of course, 
establish compliance with the Act and DOE's regulations only if the 
underlying testing were performed in accordance with the DOE test 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Form of Certification
    a. Compliance Statement. EPCA states that, ``the Secretary shall 
require manufacturers to certify'' that each electric motor meets 
applicable efficiency standards. EPCA section 345(c), 42 U.S.C. 
6316(c). An example of how such language can be applied is found at 10 
CFR 430.62, Submission of data, which requires manufacturers of 
consumer appliance products to submit a compliance statement, as well 
as a certification report that provides information for each basic 
model of a product. It appears, however, that there are many more basic 
models of electric motors than of each consumer appliance, and strictly 
applying the Sec. 430.62 requirements to electric motors could be 
unduly burdensome to manufacturers and to the Department. The 
Department is aware of at least one manufacturer that claims to 
manufacture thousands of basic models of electric motors covered by the 
statute.
    Statements from Reliance and NEMA address the difficulty of 
requiring compliance statements for all basic models a manufacturer 
produces. Reliance emphasizes that a manufacturer is likely to make a 
very large number of basic models. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.b.3 and 
3.d.1). Reliance also asserts that the Act requires manufacturers to 
certify that the nominal efficiency of the basic model meets or exceeds 
the level specified at section 342(b)(1) of EPCA for its rating, not 
the actual value of nominal efficiency for the motor. Reliance and NEMA 
recommend that each manufacturer submit a simplified compliance 
statement to certify that all its basic models of covered electric 
motors have a nominal full load efficiency equal to or in excess of the 
statutory nominal full load efficiency standards, as determined by 
actual testing or application of a substantiated alternative 
correlation method. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.d.1 and NEMA, No. 9 at D.).
    NEMA proposes as an alternative, that each manufacturer submit a 
compliance statement along with a certification report that provides 
information on each of the 113 ratings within which it produces motors. 
The 113 ratings refers

[[Page 60459]]

to the combinations of horsepowers, number of poles, and types of 
enclosure in the table of nominal full load efficiencies at section 
342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). According to NEMA, the 
certification report would include, for each rating of electric motor 
which a manufacturer or private labeler manufactures, the nominal full 
load efficiency of the least efficient basic model with that rating. 
(NEMA, No. 9 at D.).
    The Department believes that, contrary to the assertion by 
Reliance, it has the authority under the Act to require motor 
manufacturers to certify the nominal full load efficiency of a motor. 
But because there are so many basic models of electric motors, the 
Department proposes to require a single Compliance Certification that 
is quite similar to NEMA's alternative suggestion for certification. 
The proposed approach is designed to minimize the reporting burden on 
manufacturers, while fulfilling the purposes served by the statement of 
compliance and certification report required for appliances at 10 CFR 
430.62. The proposed Compliance Certification at 10 CFR 431.123 would 
be a one-time statement which affirms that each basic model of electric 
motor meets the energy efficiency requirements of the statute, based 
upon actual testing or application of a substantiated alternative 
efficiency determination method. For each of the 113 ratings within 
which the manufacturer produces electric motors, it would identify the 
nominal full load efficiency of the basic model that has the lowest 
efficiency. At most, efficiencies would be included for 113 ratings. 
The Compliance Certification would also, in effect, certify that all 
basic models produced within each rating have a nominal full load 
efficiency equal to or in excess of the efficiency represented in the 
Compliance Certification for that rating.
    b. New Models. EPCA requires each electric motor manufactured after 
the 60-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
subsection, or in the case of an electric motor which requires listing 
or certification by a nationally recognized safety testing laboratory, 
after the 84-month period beginning on such date, to meet a prescribed 
nominal full load efficiency level. EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 
6313(b)(1). A manufacturer is required to comply with the statutory 
efficiency standards both for each motor it manufacturers as of the 
statutory effective dates, and for each new basic model it begins to 
manufacture thereafter.
    In order to comply with the statutory certification requirements, 
NEMA proposes that a manufacturer be required to submit a new 
certificate of compliance for a new basic model only if the new model's 
nominal full load efficiency is less than the nominal full load 
efficiency of other basic models, within the same rating, that are 
already being produced by the manufacturer and that have been 
previously certified to be in compliance with EPCA and DOE regulations. 
NEMA reasons that, ``If a manufacturer's original certification reports 
only compliance by each class of 113 ratings, there is no need to 
require detailed reporting on the nominal efficiency of each new basic 
model, provided that such new basic model has a nominal full load 
efficiency in excess of the statutory standard and the efficiency 
certificated on the compliance statement for the relevant rating.'' 
(NEMA, No. 9 at D.3.).
    Given the Department's proposal as to the initial Compliance 
Certification, NEMA's reasoning is persuasive. Moreover, based on 
information provided by manufacturers, there appears to be a potential 
for the introduction of numerous new basic models having the same 
ratings as motors already being manufactured. The Department seeks to 
avoid imposing a possible undue burden of excessive reporting of 
compliance of such new basic models. Therefore, it is proposed that 
submission of a Compliance Certification for a new basic model would be 
required only if (1) the manufacturer has not previously submitted to 
DOE a Compliance Statement for a motor having the same rating as the 
new basic model, or (2) the new model has the same rating as one or 
more of the basic models that have previously been produced and 
certified by the same manufacturer, but has a lower nominal full load 
efficiency than any of those previously certified basic models.

G. Enforcement

    The Department proposes to establish procedures for enforcement 
testing which are appropriate for the equipment being tested for energy 
efficiency, in this case 1 through 200 horsepower alternating current 
electric motors. The proposed sampling plan for enforcement testing at 
appendix C to subpart G of this part is a departure from the procedures 
established at appendix B to subpart F of 10 CFR part 430--Sampling 
Plan for Enforcement Testing. The proposed sampling plan for 
enforcement testing is based upon NEMA MG1-12.58.2, Efficiency of 
Polyphase Squirrel-cage Medium Motors with Continuous Ratings, and NEMA 
MG1 Table 12-8, Efficiency Levels, which establish a logical series of 
nominal motor efficiencies and the minimum associated with each nominal 
based on 20 percent loss difference. NIST formulated the proposed 
sampling plan for enforcement testing.
    The sampling plan for enforcement testing of electric motors would 
aid the Department in performing actual testing pursuant to the test 
procedures prescribed in 10 CFR 431.23, and in achieving uniform 
application of enforcement testing. The objectives of the sampling plan 
for enforcement testing are (1) to provide for each motor an estimate 
of the true mean full load efficiency, (2) to establish reasonable 
measurement tolerances for motor efficiencies, and (3) to ensure that 
the result of the test is significant within these tolerances.
    The sampling plan for enforcement testing assumes that the 
efficiencies of the entire population of motors are normally 
distributed about the true mean and that the true mean full load 
efficiency and standard deviation of the motor efficiencies are not 
known. Compliance (or non-compliance) can be determined when the mean 
efficiency of the basic model is not less than the statutory full load 
efficiency (SFE), thus only a lower bound for the mean efficiency must 
be specified. The proposed sampling plan for enforcement testing seeks 
to estimate the true mean efficiency of the basic model and to ensure 
that this mean efficiency is not less than the SFE, with high 
probability.
    The Department believes that the best estimate of the true mean 
efficiency that may be obtained by tests conducted on a random sample 
is the mean efficiency of that sample (X). The reliability of this 
estimate depends on two factors: (1) the size of the sample, i.e., the 
number of motors tested, and (2) the underlying variability of the 
entire population. The standard error in the mean (SE(X)), i.e., the 
standard deviation of the sample divided by the square root of the 
sample size, is one measure of the variability of the sample mean. In 
general, the ratio of the difference between X and the true mean to 
SE(X) is distributed according to a probability density function known 
in statistics literature as the t-distribution. Percentiles of this 
distribution are to determine confidence intervals and, in this case, 
to establish a lower bound. These percentiles are readily available and 
are included in many references on statistics.
    The lower bound benchmark is calculated by determining the figure 
that would result if a population of motors meets the statutory 
standard

[[Page 60460]]

(i.e., the mean full load efficiency for the population meets or 
exceeds the statutory full load efficiency). If this is the case, and 
if t is the 90th percentile of the t-distribution appropriate for the 
sample size, then at least 90 percent of the time the average 
efficiency will be greater than the lower control limit, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.000


    The Department understands that in any statistical test there is a 
possibility of obtaining a false result by chance. In this case, by 
assumption, the basic model is in compliance and the sampling plan for 
enforcement testing should, with high probability, correctly 
demonstrate compliance or non-compliance. By design, the probability 
that the mean efficiency of a random sample drawn from this population 
would fall below the lower control limit and, hence, the risk of 
incorrectly concluding non-compliance, is no greater than 10 percent.
    To apply this method, a random sample is tested and the mean and 
standard error in the mean are calculated. Based on the size of the 
sample and the confidence desired the appropriate t value is selected 
and the lower control limit calculated. For example, for 90 percent 
confidence and a sample of five units t equals 1.533. Provided the mean 
efficiency obtained from the random sample is not less than the lower 
control limit, the Department can determine with 90 percent confidence 
that the true mean efficiency of the entire population is not less than 
the statutory level.
    Following this procedure, there is some probability that the 
estimate of the standard deviation and, therefore, the estimated 
standard error in the mean is too large and that the lower control 
limit may be set, by chance, to a value that defeats the purpose of the 
sampling plan for enforcement testing. To avoid this circumstance, it 
is sufficient to establish an upper limit for the standard error in the 
mean. The tolerance in the standard error should be chosen to be 
appropriate for the size and type of motor.
    The strategy proposed here is to establish reasonable benchmarks 
for the standard error in the mean. One possible solution is to base 
these tolerances on the existing NEMA guidelines for identifying motor 
efficiency levels at NEMA MG1-12.58.2 and NEMA Table 12-8. Such 
guidelines were developed by consensus among motor manufacturers and 
they are followed, on a voluntary basis, by a large segment of the 
motor manufacturers. Under the NEMA guidelines, no single unit can have 
energy losses more than 20 percent greater than the average losses for 
that type of motor, i.e., a 20 percent loss tolerance is permitted for 
a given unit but the average must still be met.
    The NEMA guidelines serve to provide uniformity in motor efficiency 
labeling and can be used for purposes of quality control by 
manufacturers, and may, therefore, provide a reasonable basis for 
estimating efficiency tolerances among motors of different size and 
type. The Department believes that the 20 percent loss tolerance is 
reasonable and meaningful.
    The variability in the motor efficiencies allowed, when X=SFE, may 
be calculated by setting the true mean efficiency equal to the 
statutory value. The results of this procedure are presented below in 
Table 1. The Department assumes for these data that the sample size is 
five, and uses a single sided t-test and a 90% confidence level, i.e., 
t has been set to 1.533. Comparison of the standard deviation allowed 
by the sampling plan for enforcement testing with the NEMA 20 percent 
loss tolerance shows that the variability allowed corresponds to the 
NEMA guidelines.
    To determine compliance (or non-compliance) for the purpose of 
enforcement testing, (a) the sample mean shall not be less than the 
LCL, as defined above, and (b) the product of the t percentile and the 
standard error in the mean may not exceed a 20 percent loss tolerance.

   Table 1.--Comparison of the NEMA 20 Percent Loss Tolerance and the   
Standard Deviations Allowed by the Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Enforcement   
    Statutory        NEMA minimum      NEMA 20% loss        standard    
    efficiency        efficiency         tolerance         deviation    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
75.5.............          72.0               3.5                5.1    
80.0.............          77.0               3.0                4.4    
82.5.............          80.0               2.5                3.6    
84.0.............          81.5               2.5                3.6    
85.5.............          82.5               3.0                4.4    
86.5.............          84.0               2.5                2.5    
87.5.............          85.5               2.0                3.0    
88.5.............          86.5               2.0                3.0    
89.5.............          87.5               2.0                3.0    
90.2.............          88.5               1.7                2.5    
91.0.............          89.5               1.5                2.2    
91.7.............          90.2               1.5                2.2    
92.4.............          91.0               1.4                2.0    
93.0.............          91.7               1.3                1.9    
93.6.............          92.4               1.2                1.8    
94.1.............          93.0               1.1                1.6    
94.5.............          93.6               0.9                1.3    
95.0.............          94.1               0.9                1.3    
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    Pursuant to section 7(c)(2) of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275, 15 U.S.C. 766(a)), a copy of this notice 
has been submitted to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency for comments concerning the impact of this proposed rulemaking 
on the quality of the environment.
    In this rule, the Department proposes provisions to implement 
statutorily mandated energy efficiency standards and test procedures 
for electric motors. Implementation of the proposed rule would not 
result in environmental impacts. The Department has therefore 
determined that the proposed rule is covered under the Categorical 
Exclusion found at paragraph A.6 of appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR 
part 1021, which applies to the establishment of procedural 
rulemakings. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an 
environmental impact statement is required.

V. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review''

    This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' October 4, 
1993. Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the 
Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

VI. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 603, requires the 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for every 
rule which by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
A regulatory flexibility analysis examines the impact of the rule on 
small entities and considers alternative ways of reducing negative 
impacts.
    The Department used the small business size standards published on 
January 31, 1996 by the Small Business Administration to determine 
whether any small entities would be required to comply with the 
proposed rule. 61 FR 3280 (to be codified at 13 CFR part 121). The size 
standards are listed by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 
and industry description. Electric motor manufacturing is SIC 3621. To 
be considered a small business, a manufacturer of electric motors and 
its

[[Page 60461]]

affiliates may employ a maximum of 1,000 employees.
    The Department estimates there are approximately 27 domestic firms 
and 14 foreign firms which manufacture electric motors covered under 
EPCA. Many of the domestic motor manufacturers are affiliated with 
larger U.S. or foreign firms. The sizes of motor manufacturing 
companies in the U.S. range from fewer than 100 employees to several 
thousand employees. The Department estimates that there are four to six 
firms in the United States that both manufacture electric motors 
covered by EPCA, and have, together with their affiliates, 1,000 or 
fewer employees.
    EPCA prescribes efficiency standards for electric motors of 
specified horsepowers, with some exceptions permitted. 42 U.S.C. 
6313(b) (1) and (2). The statutory energy efficiency standards are 
incorporated in the proposed rule, although the standards do not depend 
on rulemaking for their implementation. The Act also requires DOE to 
prescribe test procedures for measuring motor efficiency, and it 
further requires the use, initially, of the test procedures in NEMA 
Standards Publication MG1-1987 and IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B, as 
in effect on October 24, 1992. 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A). If the test 
procedures for motor efficiency are amended by those standards bodies, 
DOE is required to amend its test procedures accordingly unless to do 
so would not meet certain statutory criteria for test procedures. 42 
U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B). The Act also requires DOE, by rule, to require 
motor manufacturers to include the energy efficiency of the motor on 
the permanent nameplate; to display the motor energy efficiency 
prominently in any catalogs and other materials used to market motors; 
and to include other markings DOE determines are necessary to 
facilitate enforcement of the energy efficiency standards. 42 U.S.C. 
6315 (a) and (d). DOE also is directed by the Act to require 
manufacturers of covered motors to certify that the motor meets the 
applicable energy efficiency standard, through an independent testing 
program or certification program that is nationally recognized in the 
United States. 42 U.S.C. 6316(c).
    Since approximately 1992, many manufacturers have been redesigning 
electric motors and testing them for compliance with the industry-
developed energy efficiency performance standards that are the basis 
for the standards in the Act. Some manufacturers, including some small 
manufacturers, will need to make additional design changes and conduct 
verification testing to bring all of their basic models into compliance 
with EPCA standards. DOE believes that the cost of complying with the 
proposed rule (excluding the cost of compliance with the energy 
efficiency standards and test procedures directly imposed by EPCA) 
would not impose significant economic costs on a significant number of 
small manufacturers.
    The test procedures mandated by EPCA are test procedures already in 
general use in the industry. Small manufacturers contacted by the 
Department stated that they currently test electric motors in 
accordance with IEEE Standard 112, Test Method B. The proposed rule has 
been drafted to minimize the burden of testing for manufacturers, and 
the proposed rule relies heavily on industry practice and 
recommendations that have been submitted by manufacturers. Because 
there are so many basic models of electric motors, the Department 
proposes to require a compliance certification that includes listing, 
for each rating of electric motor, of the average efficiency only of 
the basic model that has the lowest efficiency. Consequently, 
efficiencies would be included for 113 ratings, at most. The proposed 
statistical sampling procedures are based on statistical sampling 
procedures established for consumer appliance products at 10 CFR 
430.24, and recommendations submitted by the National Electrical 
Manufacturers Association (NEMA). The sampling procedures are designed 
to keep the testing burden on manufacturers as low as possible, while 
still providing confidence that the test results of units tested can be 
applied to units of the same basic model. The proposed maintenance of 
records and compliance reporting requirements are based largely on the 
statements and recommendations of NEMA.
    DOE proposed labeling rules, required by the Act, also follow 
current practice and recommendations submitted by manufacturers through 
NEMA. The Department believes that the cost of including the energy 
efficiency and a Compliance Certification number on the permanent 
nameplate of electric motors covered under the Act would be negligible. 
Nameplates already are attached to motors, and standards generally 
followed in the industry require the energy efficiency to be marked on 
the nameplate. The proposed requirement to display the energy 
efficiency of motors in marketing materials only applies to materials 
the manufacturer otherwise chooses to distribute or publish. Thus, for 
example, catalogs would have to be updated to include the energy 
efficiency number and the Compliance Certification number applicable to 
a motor only when the catalog is revised to include that motor.
    Some manufacturers may not be able to certify compliance by October 
24, 1997, the effective date as to most basic models for the standards 
and test procedures. The proposed rule eases the burden of compliance 
for such manufacturers of electric motors, including small 
manufacturers, by providing that the compliance certification 
requirement would not become effective until 24 months after the 
effective date of the rule. Furthermore, disclosure in a catalog of 
energy efficiency information concerning a particular motor would not 
be required until either the re-publication of the catalog after the 
rule becomes effective, or until the motor is subsequently included in 
the catalog.
    It should be pointed out that DOE has limited discretion to apply 
different requirements to small manufacturers. EPCA mandates the use of 
uniform standards and testing procedures for all electric motors. EPCA 
also contains the basic requirements for labeling and certification. In 
this regard, it is noteworthy that although EPCA contains a ``small 
manufacturer exemption'' for consumer appliance product manufacturers 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(t)), no such exemption is included for manufacturers of 
commercial and industrial equipment.
    The Department invites public comment on its conclusion that the 
incremental costs of complying with the proposed rule (not including 
the cost of requirements that are directly imposed by EPCA, such as the 
energy efficiency standards) would neither affect a substantial number 
of small businesses, nor impose a significant economic impact on such 
businesses.

VII. Review Under Executive Order 12612, ``Federalism''

    Executive Order 12612, ``Federalism,'' 52 FR 41685 (October 30, 
1987), requires that regulations, rules, legislation, and any other 
policy actions be reviewed for any substantial direct effect on States, 
on the relationship between the National Government and States, or in 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of 
government. If there are substantial effects, then the Executive Order 
requires preparation of a federalism assessment to be used in all 
decisions involved in promulgating and implementing a policy action.
    The proposed rules published today would not regulate the States. 
They

[[Page 60462]]

primarily would affect the manner in which DOE promulgates commercial 
and industrial equipment energy efficiency standards, test procedures, 
labeling, and certification of compliance by manufacturers, prescribed 
under the Energy Conservation and Policy Act. State regulation in this 
area is largely preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. 
The proposed rules published today would not alter the distribution of 
authority and responsibility to regulate in this area. Accordingly, DOE 
has determined that preparation of a federalism assessment is 
unnecessary.

VIII. Review Under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and 
Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights''

    It has been determined pursuant to Executive Order 12630, 
``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights,'' 52 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation 
would not result in any takings which might require compensation under 
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

IX. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

    As explained above, the proposed rule includes certain labeling 
requirements, requires manufacturers to maintain records concerning 
their determinations of the energy efficiency of electric motors, and 
precludes distribution of any electric motor not covered by a 
certification of compliance submitted to the Department. These proposed 
information collection and recordkeeping requirements have been 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and 
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The 
proposed collections of information are necessary for implementing and 
monitoring compliance with the efficiency standards, testing, labeling 
and certification requirements for commercial and industrial electric 
motors mandated by EPCA. In developing the proposed information 
collection requirements, DOE considered the views of stakeholders that 
were received at a public meeting held in May of 1995, in written 
comments solicited in the notice of that meeting, and in subsequent 
informal contacts.
    DOE estimates the number of covered manufacturing firms to be 41 
and the number of hours required to comply with the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements in the proposed rule to be approximately 200 
to 300 hours per year per firm. The total annual reporting and 
recordkeeping burden from compliance with the proposed rule is expected 
to be from 8,200 to 12,300 hours (41 x 200-300 hours per year). These 
estimates include time for reviewing instructions, searching existing 
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing 
the collection of information.
    In developing the burden estimates, DOE considered that each 
manufacturer is required to comply with the statutory energy efficiency 
standards for each motor it is manufacturing on the effective date of 
the Act, and for each model it begins to manufacture after that date. 
The required certification would be a one-time submission stating that 
the manufacturer has determined, by employing actual testing or an 
alternative method, that the basic model of electric motor meets the 
applicable energy efficiency standard. The certification also includes 
the energy efficiency for the least efficient basic model within each 
rating, and identifies those basic models that have undergone actual 
testing. Under the proposed rule, a compliance certification for a new 
basic model would be required only if (1) the manufacturer has not 
previously certified a motor having the same rating as the new basic 
model, or (2) the energy efficiency of the new model is less than the 
efficiency of previously-certified basic models of the same rating 
produced by the same manufacturer. Many manufacturers already submit 
this type of information to voluntary national electronic marketing 
programs, such as the Washington State Energy Office's ``Motor Master'' 
program, or develop it for the design or marketing of energy efficient 
motors. Those manufacturers should be able to comply with the 
certification required by the proposed rule without much additional 
burden.
    Similarly, the remaining information collection requirements in the 
proposed rule would also impose little additional burden. Most 
manufacturers already voluntarily provide the energy efficiency of an 
electric motor on a motor's permanent nameplate and in their catalogs 
and other marketing materials, as would be required under the proposed 
rule. Inclusion of the CC number on motor nameplates was advocated by 
motor manufacturers, and this number could easily be included on 
nameplates and in marketing materials. A very limited amount of 
additional information would be required on import documents, at what 
the Department believes would be negligible cost. And, finally, the 
Department understands that manufacturers already maintain the records 
the proposed rule would require them to keep.
    The collections of information contained in this proposed rule are 
considered the least burdensome for meeting the legal requirements and 
achieving the program objectives of the DOE compliance certification 
program for electric motors. However, public comments are requested 
concerning the accuracy of the estimated paperwork reporting burden. 
Send comments regarding the recordkeeping and reporting burden 
estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information, to the 
Department in accordance with the instructions in the Dates and 
Addresses sections of this notice, as well as Section XIII, and to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for 
DOE.''

X. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''

    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 
executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following 
requirement: (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. With regard to the review 
required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of the Executive Order 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of the Executive Order requires Executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it 
is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE reviewed today's final 
regulations under the standards of section 3 of the Executive Order and 
determined that, to the extent permitted

[[Page 60463]]

by law, they meet the requirements of those standards.

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

    Pursuant to section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization 
Act (Pub. L. 95-91), the Department of Energy is required to comply 
with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as 
amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. 
15 U.S.C. 788. Section 32 provides in essence that, where a proposed 
rule contains or involves use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards.
    The rule proposed in this notice incorporates a number of 
commercial standards which the Act requires to be used. For example, 
the procedures required for measuring the efficiency of electric motors 
come from the NEMA Publication ``Motors and Generators,'' MG1-1993 
Revision 1; the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 
``Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and 
Generators,'' IEEE Standard 112-1991 Test Method B for motor 
efficiency; and the Canadian Standards Association Standard C390-93 
``Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction Motors.'' By 
way of further example, certain definitions in the proposed rule are 
drawn from NEMA Publication MG1. Because DOE has no discretion to not 
include these standards, section 32 of the FEAA has no application to 
them.
    As part of its definition of electric motor, however, the proposed 
rule does employ one commercial standard, the International 
Electrotechnical Commission Standard 34-1, that the Act does not direct 
the Department to adopt. The Department has evaluated this Standard and 
is unable to conclude whether it fully complies with the requirements 
of section 32(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act, i.e., that 
it was developed in a manner which fully provides for public 
participation, comment, and review.
    As required by section 32(c) of the Act, the FEAA, Department will 
consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade 
Commission concerning the impact of this standard on competition, prior 
to prescribing a final rule.

XII. Review Under Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded 
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the 
Department prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a 
rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by 
state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. The budgetary 
impact statement must include: (i) Identification of the Federal law 
under which the rule is promulgated; (ii) a qualitative and 
quantitative assessment of anticipated costs and benefits of the 
Federal mandate and an analysis of the extent to which such costs to 
state, local, and tribal governments may be paid with Federal financial 
assistance; (iii) if feasible, estimates of the future compliance costs 
and of any disproportionate budgetary effects the mandate has on 
particular regions, communities, non-Federal units of government, or 
sectors of the economy; (iv) if feasible, estimates of the effect on 
the national economy; and (v) a description of the Department's prior 
consultation with elected representatives of state, local, and tribal 
governments and a summary and evaluation of the comments and concerns 
presented.
    The Department has determined that the action proposed today does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of 
$100 million or more to state, local or to tribal governments in the 
aggregate or to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of 
sections 203 and 204 of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this 
action.

XIII. Public Comment

A. Written Comment Procedures

    Interested persons are invited to participate in the rulemaking by 
submitting data, comments, or information with respect to the proposed 
test procedures set forth in this notice to the address indicated at 
the beginning of the notice.
    Comments should be identified both on the envelope and on the 
documents as ``Test Procedures and Certification Requirements for 
Electric Motors, Docket No. EE-RM-96-400.'' Ten (10) copies are 
requested to be submitted. In addition, the Department requests that an 
electronic copy (3\1/2\'' diskette) of the comments on WordPerfect 
<;SUP>TM 6.1 be provided. All submittals received by the date specified 
at the beginning of this notice will be considered by the Department in 
developing the final rule.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting 
information which he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by 
law from public disclosure should submit one complete copy of the 
document and ten (10) copies, if possible, from which the information 
believed to be confidential has been deleted. The Department of Energy 
will make its own determination with regard to the confidential status 
of the information and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to the Department when evaluating requests to 
treat as confidential information that has been submitted include: (1) 
A description of the items; (2) an indication as to whether and why 
such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; 
(3) whether the information is generally known by or available from 
other 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) an indication as to when 
such information might lose its confidential character due to the 
passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be 
contrary to the public interest.

B. Public Hearing

1. Procedures for Submitting Requests to Speak
    The time and place of the public hearing are indicated at the 
beginning of this notice. The Department invites any person who has an 
interest in today's notice, or who is a representative of a group or 
class of persons that has an interest in these proposed test 
procedures, to make a request for an opportunity to make an oral 
presentation. Such requests should be directed to the address indicated 
at the beginning of this notice. Requests may be hand delivered to such 
address between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. Requests should be labeled ``Test Procedures 
and Certification Requirements for Electric Motors, Docket No. EE-RM-
96-400,'' both on the document and on the envelope.
    The person making the request should briefly describe the interest 
concerned and state why he or she, either individually or as a 
representative of a group or class of persons that have such an 
interest, is an appropriate spokesperson, and give a telephone number 
where he or she may be contacted.
    Each person selected to be heard is requested to submit advance 
copies of his or her statement prior to the hearing,

[[Page 60464]]

as indicated at the beginning of this notice. Any person wishing to 
testify who cannot meet this requirement, may at the Department's 
discretion be permitted to testify if that person has made alternative 
arrangements with the Office of Codes and Standards in advance. The 
letter making a request to give an oral presentation shall ask that 
such alternative arrangements be made.
2. Conduct of Hearing
    A Department of Energy official will be designated to preside at 
the hearing. The hearing will not be a judicial or an evidentiary-type 
hearing, but will be conducted in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553 and 
section 336 of the Act. The Department of Energy reserves the right to 
select the persons to be heard at the hearing, to schedule the 
respective presentations, and to establish the procedures governing the 
conduct of the hearing.
    Each participant will be permitted to make a prepared general 
statement, limited to five (5) minutes, prior to the discussion of 
specific topics. The general statement should not address these 
specific topics. Other participants will be permitted to briefly 
comment on any general statements. The hearing will then be divided 
into segments, with each segment consisting of one or more topics 
covered by this notice, as follows: (1) Test procedures; (2) coverage 
and application of efficiency standards; (3) labeling; (4) 
certification; (5) enforcement; and (6) general statutory requirements 
(the matters in sections IV-XII above). Any issue concerning a 
definition in the proposed rule should be addressed during the 
discussion of the topic(s) to which that issue pertains.
    The Department will introduce each topic with a brief summary of 
the relevant provisions of the proposed rule, and the significant 
issues involved. Participants in the hearing will then be permitted to 
make a prepared statement limited to five (5) minutes on that topic. At 
the end of all prepared statements on a topic, each participant will be 
permitted to briefly clarify his or her statement and comment on 
statements made by others. The Department is particularly interested in 
having participants address in their statements the specific issues set 
forth below in Section XIII-C, ``Issues for Public Comment,'' and 
participants should be prepared to answer questions by the Department 
concerning these issues. Representatives of the Department may also ask 
questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to the 
hearing. The total cumulative amount of time allowed for each 
participant to make prepared statements shall be 20 minutes.
    The official conducting the hearing will accept additional comments 
or questions from those attending, as time permits. Any further 
procedural rules, or modification of the above procedures, needed for 
the proper conduct of the hearing will be announced by the presiding 
official.
    A transcript of the hearing will be made, and the entire record of 
this rulemaking, including the transcript, will be retained by the 
Department of Energy and made available for inspection at the 
Department of Energy Freedom of Information Reading Room, Forrestal 
Building, Room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0101, (202) 586-6020, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Any person may purchase 
a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.

C. Issues for Public Comment

    The Department of Energy is interested in receiving comments and 
data concerning the accuracy and workability of these proposals and 
welcomes discussion on improvements or alternatives to these 
approaches. In particular, the Department is interested in gathering 
comments on the following:
    1. Does the definition of ``basic model'' appropriately delineate 
motors with similar or different characteristics, and which should be 
grouped together or distinguished for purposes of measuring efficiency? 
What constitutes a difference between ``basic models?'' What are some 
examples of different basic models? Within a given rating, what is the 
likelihood of having different basic models?
    2. Which electric motors are covered and which are not covered 
under the Act's definitions of ``electric motor,'' ``definite purpose 
motor,'' and ``special purpose motor?'' Comments are also sought on the 
Department's interpretation of these definitions, as expressed in this 
notice, and on whether the proposed definitions should be modified in 
any way. Do the definitions in the proposed regulation pose any 
practical problems, and are there particular motors that appear to be 
excluded from coverage that should be covered, and vice versa?
    3. Is the proposed statistical sampling plan for testing 
appropriate for electric motors? Should a confidence limit higher than 
90 percent be adopted? Should a different approach, or different 
figures, be adopted in place of the proposed divisor/coefficient?
    4. In conjunction with using a label with the ``ee'' logo or 
``energy efficient'' designation, should a manufacturer be required to 
display the minimum efficiency of the motor on the motor nameplate, 
and/or include such minimum efficiency in its compliance certification? 
Should the ``ee'' logo be required for complying motors, and if so, 
under what conditions?
    5. Should the Department require that a Compliance Certification 
number be displayed on the nameplate of an electric motor, and in 
marketing materials for that motor? What are the benefits of such 
requirement(s)?
    6. In addition to the proposal that import documents disclose the 
date of the Compliance Certification and the CC number for that motor, 
should import documents include a motor's nominal full load efficiency 
or other information? What will be the practical effect of requiring 
information on import documents?
    7. What ``independent testing'' and ``certification'' programs 
exist or could come into existence within the next several years? 
Comments are also sought on the proposed provisions concerning 
recognition of accrediting bodies and certification organizations by 
the Department.
    8. Does the sampling plan for enforcement testing: (1) Permit the 
Department to obtain an estimate of the true mean full load efficiency 
of the population of motors; (2) establish reasonable measurement 
tolerances for motor efficiencies; and (3) ensure that the results 
obtained by actual testing are significant within these tolerances?

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation, 
Incorporation by reference.

    Issued in Washington, DC, October 30, 1996.
Christine A. Ervin,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Chapter II of Title 10, 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), is proposed to be amended by adding 
new part 431 to read as set forth below.

[[Page 60465]]

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND 
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT: TEST PROCEDURES, LABELING, AND CERTIFICATION 
REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS

Subpart A--General Provisions

Sec.
431.1  Purpose and scope.
431.2  Definitions.

Subpart B--Test Procedures and Materials Incorporated

431.21  Purpose and scope.
431.22  Reference sources.
431.23  Test procedures for measurement of energy efficiency.
431.24  Units to be tested.
431.25  Testing laboratories.
431.26  Department of Energy recognition of accreditation bodies.
431.27  Department of Energy recognition of nationally recognized 
certification programs.
431.28  Petitions for waiver and applications for interim waiver.

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

Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431--Nominal Full Load Efficiency and 
Corresponding Coefficient K.

Subpart C--Energy Efficiency Standards

431.41  Purpose and scope.
431.42  Energy efficiency standards and effective dates.
Subpart D--Petitions to Exempt State Regulation from Preemption; 
Petitions to Withdraw Exemption of State Regulation
431.61  Purpose and scope.

Subpart E--Labeling

431.81  Purpose and scope.
431.82  Labeling requirements.

Subpart F--[Reserved]

Subpart G--Certification and Enforcement

431.121  Purpose and scope.
431.122  Prohibited acts.
431.123  Compliance Certification.
431.124  Maintenance of records.
431.125  Imported equipment.
431.126  Exported equipment.
431.127  Enforcement.
431.128  Cessation of distribution of a basic model.
431.129  Subpoena.
431.130  Remedies.
431.131  Hearings and appeals.
431.132  Confidentiality.

Appendix A to Subpart G of Part 431--Compliance Certification

Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 431--Sampling Plan for Enforcement 
Testing

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6311-6316.

Subpart A--General Provisions


Sec. 431.1  Purpose and scope.

    This part establishes the regulations for the implementation of 
Part C of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as 
amended, 42 U.S.C 6311-6316, which establishes an energy conservation 
program for certain industrial equipment.


Sec. 431.2  Definitions.

    For purposes of this part, words shall be defined as provided for 
in section 340 of the Act and as follows--
    Accreditation means recognition by an authoritative body that a 
laboratory is competent to perform all of the specific test procedures 
that are required by or incorporated into this part.
    Accreditation body means an organization or entity that conducts 
and administers an accreditation system and grants accreditation.
    Accreditation system means a set of requirements to be fulfilled by 
a testing laboratory, as well as rules of procedure and management, 
that are used to accredit laboratories.
    Accredited laboratory means a testing laboratory to which 
accreditation has been granted.
    Act means the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.).
    Alternative efficiency determination method or AEDM means a method 
of calculating the total power loss and average full load efficiency of 
an electric motor.
    ANSI means American National Standards Institute.
    Average full load efficiency means the average efficiency of a 
population of electric motors of duplicate design, where the efficiency 
of each motor in the population is the ratio (expressed as a 
percentage) of the motor's useful power output to its total power input 
when the motor is operated at its full rated load.
    Basic model means all units of a given type of covered equipment 
(or class thereof) manufactured by a single manufacturer, and, with 
respect to electric motors, which have the same rating, have electrical 
characteristics that are essentially identical, and do not have any 
differing physical or functional characteristics which affect energy 
consumption or efficiency. For purpose of this definition, ``rating'' 
means one of the 113 combinations of an electric motor's horsepower (or 
standard kilowatt equivalent), number of poles, and open or enclosed 
construction, with respect to which Sec. 431.42 prescribes nominal full 
load efficiency standards.
    Certificate of conformity means a document that is issued by a 
certification program, and that gives written assurance that an 
electric motor complies with the energy efficiency standard applicable 
to that motor, as specified in 10 CFR 431.42.
    Certification program means a certification system that determines 
conformity by electric motors with the energy efficiency standards 
prescribed by and pursuant to the Act.
    Certification system means a system, that has its own rules of 
procedure and management, for giving written assurance that a product, 
process, or service conforms to a specific standard or other specified 
requirements, and that is operated by an entity independent of both the 
party seeking the written assurance and the party providing the 
product, process or service.
    Covered equipment means industrial equipment of a type specified in 
section 340 of the Act.
    CSA means the Canadian Standards Association.
    Definite purpose motor means any motor designed in standard ratings 
with standard operating characteristics or standard mechanical 
construction for use under service conditions other than usual, or for 
use on a particular type of application, and which cannot be used in 
most general purpose applications.
    Electric motor means a machine which converts electrical power into 
rotational mechanical power and which:
    (1) Is a general purpose motor, including but not limited to motors 
with explosion-proof construction;
    (2) Is a single speed, induction motor;
    (3) Is rated for continuous duty operation, or is rated duty type 
S-1 (IEC);
    (4) Contains a squirrel-cage or cage (IEC) rotor, and has foot-
mounting, including foot-mounting with flanges or detachable feet;
    (5) Is built in accordance with NEMA T-frame dimensions, or IEC 
metric equivalents (IEC);
    (6) Has performance in accordance with NEMA Design A or B 
characteristics, or equivalent designs such as IEC Design N (IEC); and
    (7) Operates on polyphase alternating current 60-Hertz sinusoidal 
power, and is:
     (i) Rated 230 volts or 460 volts, or both, including any motor 
that is rated at multi-voltages that include 230 volts or 460 volts, or
    (ii) Can be operated on 230 volts or 460 volts, or both.


[[Page 60466]]


(Terms in this definition followed by the parenthetical ``IEC'' shall 
be construed with reference to IEC Standard 34-1. Other terms in this 
definition, if not defined in this Sec. 431.2, shall be construed with 
reference to NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987.)
    Enclosed motor means an electric motor so constructed as to prevent 
the free exchange of air between the inside and outside of the case but 
not sufficiently enclosed to be termed airtight.
    EPCA means the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.).
    General purpose motor means any motor which is designed in standard 
ratings with either:
    (1) Standard operating characteristics and mechanical construction 
for use under usual service conditions, such as those specified in NEMA 
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, or for a 
particular type of application, and which can be used in most general 
purpose applications.
    IEC means the International Electrotechnical Commission.
    IIEEE means the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
    NEMA means the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
    Nominal full load efficiency of an electric motor means the nominal 
efficiency in Column A of Table 12-8, NEMA Standards Publication MG1-
1993, that is either the closest lower value to, or that equals, the 
average full load efficiency of electric motors of the same design.
    Open motor means an electric motor having ventilating openings 
which permit passage of external cooling air over and around the 
windings of the machine.
    Special purpose motor means any motor that is designed for a 
particular application, and that either:
    (1) Is designed in non-standard ratings with special operating 
characteristics or special mechanical construction, or
    (2) Has special operating characteristics and special mechanical 
construction.
    Total power loss means that portion of the energy used by an 
electric motor not converted to rotational mechanical power, expressed 
in percent.

Subpart B--Test Procedures and Materials Incorporated


Sec. 431.21  Purpose and scope.

    This subpart contains test procedures for electric motors, required 
to be prescribed by DOE pursuant to section 343 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 
6314, and identifies materials incorporated by reference in this Part.


Sec. 431.22  Reference sources.

    (a) Materials Incorporated by Reference--(1) General. The following 
standards which are not otherwise set forth in this part 431 are 
incorporated by reference. The material listed in paragraph (a)(2) of 
this section has been approved for incorporation by reference by the 
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 
1 CFR part 51. Any subsequent amendment to a standard by the standard-
setting organization will not affect the DOE test procedures unless and 
until amended by DOE. Material is incorporated as it exists on the date 
of the approval and a notice of any change in the material will be 
published in the Federal Register.
    (2) List of standards incorporated by reference.
    (i) National Electrical Manufacturers Association Standards 
Publication MG1-1993 with Revision 1, Motors and Generators, section 
12.58.1, (``Determination of Motor Efficiency Losses''), Table 12-8 
(``Efficiency Levels''), and section 14.02 (``Usual Service 
Conditions'').
    (ii) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 
Standard 112-1991, Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and 
Generators.
    (iii) Canadian Standards Association Standard C390-93, Energy 
Efficiency Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction Motors.
    (3) Inspection of standards. The standards incorporated by 
reference are available for inspection at:
    (i) Office of the Federal Register Information Center, 800 North 
Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC;
    (ii) U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Hearings and Dockets, ``Test Procedures, Labeling, 
and Certification Requirements for Electric Motors,'' Docket No. EE-RM-
96-400, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 
DC 20585.
    (4) Availability of standards. Standards incorporated by reference 
may be obtained from the following sources:
    (i) Copies of IEEE Standard 112-1991 can be obtained from the 
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445 Hoes Lane, 
P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, 1-800-678-IEEE; or the 
American National Standards Institute, 11 West 42nd Street, 13th Floor, 
New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900 as ANSI/IEEE 112-1992;
    (ii) Copies of NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993 can be obtained 
from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 North 17th 
Street, Suite 1847, Rosslyn, VA 22209, (703) 841-3200;
    (iii) Copies of CSA Standard C390-93 can be obtained from the 
Canadian Standards Association, 178 Rexdale Boulevard, Rexdale 
(Toronto), Ontario, Canada M9W 1R3, (416) 747-4044.


Sec. 431.23  Test procedures for the measurement of energy efficiency.

    The test procedures for measurement of whether an electric motor 
complies with the energy efficiency standards in Sec. 431.42 shall be 
the test procedures specified in appendix A to this subpart B.


Sec. 431.24  Units to be tested.

    When testing of an electric motor is required in order for a 
manufacturer to comply with an obligation imposed on it by or pursuant 
to Part C of Title III of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311-6316, this section 
applies. This section does not apply to enforcement testing conducted 
pursuant to Sec. 431.127.
    (a) General requirements. The average full load efficiency of each 
basic model of electric motor shall be determined either by testing 
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, or by application of an 
alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) that meets the 
requirements of paragraphs (b) (2) and (3) of this section, provided, 
however, that an AEDM may be used to determine the average full load 
efficiency of one or more of a manufacturer's basic models only if the 
average full load efficiency of at least five of its other basic models 
is determined through testing.
    (b) Specific requirements--(1) Testing. (i) Basic models shall be 
selected for testing in accordance with the following criteria:
    (A) Two of the basic models must be among the five basic models 
with the highest unit volumes of production by the manufacturer in the 
prior year;
    (B) The basic models should be of different horsepowers without 
duplication;
    (C) The basic models should have different frame sizes without 
duplication; and
    (D) Each basic model should be expected to have the lowest nominal 
full load efficiency among the basic models with the same rating.

[[Page 60467]]

    (ii) In any instance where it is impossible for a manufacturer to 
select basic models for testing in accordance with all of the criteria 
in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the criteria shall be given 
priority in the order in which they are listed. Within the limits 
imposed by the criteria, basic models shall be selected randomly.
    (iii) For each basic model selected for testing,<;SUP>9 a sample of 
units shall be selected at random and tested in accordance with 
Secs. 431.23 and 431.25, and appendix A, of this subpart. The sample 
shall be comprised of production units of the basic model, or units 
that are representative of such production units, and shall be of 
sufficient size to ensure that any represented value of the nominal or 
average full load efficiency of the basic model is no greater than the 
lesser of:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Components of similar design may be substituted without 
requiring additional testing if the represented measures of energy 
consumption continue to satisfy the applicable sampling provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The average full load efficiency of the sample, or
    (B) The lower 90 percent confidence limit of the average full load 
efficiency of the entire population divided by the coefficient ``K'' 
applicable to the represented value. The coefficients are set forth in 
appendix B of this subpart.
    (2) Alternative efficiency determination method. An AEDM applied to 
a basic model must be:
    (i) Derived from a mathematical model that accurately represents 
the mechanical and electrical characteristics of that basic model, and
    (ii) Based on engineering or statistical analysis, computer 
simulation or modeling, or other analytic evaluation of performance 
data.
    (3) Substantiation of an alternative efficiency determination 
method. Before an AEDM is used, its accuracy and reliability must be 
substantiated as follows:
    (i) The AEDM must be applied to at least five basic models that 
have been selected for testing and tested in accordance with paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section, and
    (ii) The predicted total power loss for each such basic model, 
calculated by applying the AEDM, must be within plus or minus ten 
percent of the mean total power loss determined from the actual testing 
of that basic model.
    (4) Subsequent verification of an AEDM. (i) Each manufacturer shall 
periodically select basic models representative of those to which it 
has applied an AEDM, and for each basic model selected shall either:
    (A) Subject a sample of units to testing in accordance with 
Secs. 431.23 and 431.24(b)(1)(iii) by an accredited laboratory that 
meets the requirements of Sec. 431.25,
    (B) Have a certification body recognized under Sec. 431.27 certify 
its nominal full load efficiency, or
    (C) Have an independent state-registered professional engineer, who 
is not an employee of the manufacturer, review the manufacturer's 
representations and certify that the results of the AEDM accurately 
represent the total power loss and nominal full load efficiency of the 
basic model.
    (ii) Each manufacturer that has used an AEDM under this section 
shall have available for inspection by the Department of Energy records 
showing: The method or methods used; the mathematical model, the 
engineering or statistical analysis, computer simulation or modeling, 
and other analytic evaluation of performance data on which the AEDM is 
based; complete test data, product information, and related information 
that the manufacturer has generated or acquired pursuant to paragraphs 
(a)(3) and (a)(4)(i) of this section; and the calculations used to 
determine the average full load efficiency and total power losses of 
each basic model to which an AEDM was applied.
    (iii) If requested by the Department, the manufacturer shall 
conduct simulations to predict the performance of particular basic 
models of electric motors specified by the Department, analyses of 
previous simulations conducted by the manufacturer, sample testing of 
basic models selected by the Department, or a combination of the 
foregoing.


Sec. 431.25  Testing laboratories.

    (a) Unless a certificate of conformity for a basic model of an 
electric motor is obtained from a certification program classified by 
DOE as nationally recognized under Sec. 431.27, all testing of that 
basic model to meet the requirements of Sec. 431.24 shall be carried 
out in an accredited laboratory for which the accreditation body was:
    (1) The National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 
(NVLAP), or
    (2) A foreign organization recognized by NVLAP, or
    (3) An organization classified by the Department, pursuant to 
Sec. 431.26, as an accreditation body.
    (b) NVLAP is under the auspices of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST) which is part of the U.S. Department of 
Commerce. NVLAP accreditation is granted on the basis of conformance 
with criteria published in 15 CFR part 285, The National Voluntary 
Laboratory Accreditation Program Procedures and General Requirements. 
NIST Handbook 150-10, August 1995, presents the technical requirements 
of the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program for the 
Efficiency of Electric Motors field of accreditation. This handbook 
supplements NIST Handbook 150, National Voluntary Laboratory 
Accreditation Program Procedures and General Requirements, which 
contains part 285 of Title 15 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 
plus all general NVLAP procedures, criteria, and policies. Changes in 
NVLAP's criteria, procedures, policies, standards or other bases for 
granting accreditation, occurring subsequent to the initial effective 
date of 10 CFR part 431, shall not apply to accreditation under this 
part unless approved in writing by the Department of Energy. 
Information regarding NVLAP can be obtained from NIST/NVLAP, Building 
411, Room A162, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, telephone (301) 975-4016, or 
telefax (301) 926-2884.


Sec. 431.26  Department of Energy recognition of accreditation bodies.

    (a) Petition. An organization requesting classification by the 
Department of Energy as an accreditation body must submit a petition to 
the Department requesting such classification, and must demonstrate 
that it meets the criteria in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) Evaluation criteria. To be classified as an accreditation body 
by the Department, the organization must meet the following criteria:
    (1) It must have standards and procedures for conducting and 
administering an accreditation system and for granting accreditation.
    (2) It must be independent of electric motor manufacturers, 
importers, distributors, private labelers or vendors. It cannot be 
affiliated with, have financial ties with, be controlled by, or be 
under common control with any such entity.
    (3) It must be qualified to perform the accrediting function in a 
highly competent manner.
    (4) It must be expert in the content and application of the test 
procedures and methodologies in IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B and CSA 
Standard C390 Test Method (1), or similar procedures and methodologies 
for determining the energy efficiency of electric motors.
    (c) Petition format. Each petition requesting classification as an

[[Page 60468]]

accreditation body must contain a narrative statement as to why the 
organization meets the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this 
section, must be signed on behalf of the organization by an authorized 
representative, and must be accompanied by documentation that supports 
the narrative statement. The following provides additional guidance:
    (1) Standards and procedures. A copy of the organization's 
standards and procedures for operating an accreditation system and for 
granting accreditation should accompany the petition.
    (2) Independent status. The petitioning organization should 
identify and describe any relationship, direct or indirect, that it has 
with an electric motor manufacturer, importer, distributor, private 
labeler, vendor, trade association or other such entity, as well as any 
other relationship it believes might appear to create a conflict of 
interest for it in performing as an accreditation body for electric 
motor testing laboratories. It should explain why it believes such 
relationship(s) would not compromise its independence as an 
accreditation body.
    (3) Qualifications to do accrediting. Experience in accrediting 
should be discussed and substantiated by supporting documents. Of 
particular relevance would be documentary evidence that establishes 
experience in the application of guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC 
Guide 58, Calibration and testing laboratory accreditation systems--
General requirements for operation and recognition, as well as 
experience in overseeing compliance with the guidelines contained in 
the ISO/IEC Guide 25, General Requirements for the Competence of 
Calibration and Testing Laboratories.
    (4) Expertise in electric motor test procedures. The petition 
should set forth the organization's experience with the test procedures 
and methodologies in IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B and CSA Standard 
C390 Test Method (1), and with similar procedures and methodologies. 
This part of the petition should include description of prior projects, 
qualifications of staff members, and the like. Of particular relevance 
would be documentary evidence that establishes experience in applying 
the guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25, General Requirements 
for the Competence of Calibration and Testing Laboratories, to energy 
efficiency testing for electric motors.
    (d) Disposition. The Department will evaluate the petition, 
determine whether the applicant meets the criteria in paragraph (b) of 
this section to be classified as an accrediting body, advise the 
applicant of its determination, and give public notice of any 
affirmative determination. The Department's determination may be based 
solely on the applicant's petition and supporting documents, or may 
also be based on such additional information as it deems appropriate. 
The Department may request that the applicant provide additional 
relevant information to supplement its petition, or may conduct an 
investigation.


Sec. 431.27  Department of Energy recognition of nationally recognized 
certification programs.

    (a) Petition. For a certification program to be classified by the 
Department of Energy as being nationally recognized in the United 
States for the purposes of section 345 of EPCA (``nationally 
recognized''), the organization operating the program must demonstrate 
the program's eligibility for such classification, and must submit a 
petition to the Department requesting such classification.
    (b) Evaluation criteria. For a certification program to be 
classified by the Department as nationally recognized, it must meet the 
following criteria:
    (1) It must have standards and procedures for conducting and 
administering a certification system and for granting a certificate of 
conformity.
    (2) It must be independent of electric motor manufacturers, 
importers, distributors, private labelers or vendors. It cannot be 
affiliated with, have financial ties with, be controlled by, or be 
under common control with any such entity.
    (3) It must be qualified to operate a certification system in a 
highly competent manner.
    (4) It must be expert in the content and application of the test 
procedures and methodologies in IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B and CSA 
Standard C390 Test Method (1), or similar procedures and methodologies 
for determining the energy efficiency of electric motors.
    (c) Petition format. Each petition requesting classification as a 
nationally recognized certification program must contain a narrative 
statement as to why the program meets the criteria listed in paragraph 
(b) of this section, must be signed on behalf of the organization 
operating the program by an authorized representative, and must be 
accompanied by documentation that supports the narrative statement. The 
following provides additional guidance as to the specific criteria:
    (1) Standards and procedures. A copy of the standards and 
procedures for operating a certification system and for granting a 
certificate of conformity should accompany the petition.
    (2) Independent status. The petitioning organization should 
identify and describe any relationship, direct or indirect, that it or 
the certification program has with an electric motor manufacturer, 
importer, distributor, private labeler, vendor, trade association or 
other such entity, as well as any other relationship it believes might 
appear to create a conflict of interest for the certification program 
in operating a certification system for compliance by electric motors 
with energy efficiency standards. It should explain why it believes 
such relationship would not compromise its independence in operating a 
certification program.
    (3) Qualifications to operate a certification system. Experience in 
operating a certification system should be discussed and substantiated 
by supporting documents. Of particular relevance would be documentary 
evidence that establishes experience in the application of guidelines 
contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 65, General requirements for bodies 
operating product certification systems, ISO/IEC Guide 27, Guidelines 
for corrective action to be taken by a certification body in the event 
of either misapplication of its mark of conformity to a product, or 
products which bear the mark of the certification body being found to 
subject persons or property to risk, and ISO/IEC Guide 28, General 
rules for a model third-party certification system for products, as 
well as experience in overseeing compliance with the guidelines 
contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25, General Requirements for the 
Competence of Calibration and Testing Laboratories.
    (4) Expertise in electric motor test procedures. The petition 
should set forth the program's experience with the test procedures and 
methodologies in IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B and CSA Standard C390 
Test Method (1), and with similar procedures and methodologies. This 
part of the petition should include description of prior projects, 
qualifications of staff members, and the like. Of particular relevance 
would be documentary evidence that establishes experience in applying 
guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25, General Requirements for 
the Competence of Calibration and Testing Laboratories, to energy 
efficiency testing for electric motors.
    (d) Disposition. The Department will evaluate the petition, 
determine whether the applicant meets the criteria

[[Page 60469]]

in paragraph (b) of this section for classification as a nationally 
recognized certification program, advise the applicant of its 
determination, and give public notice of any affirmative determination. 
The Department's determination may be based solely on the applicant's 
petition and supporting documents, or may also be based on such 
additional information as it deems appropriate. The Department may 
request that the applicant provide additional relevant information to 
supplement its petition, or may conduct an investigation.


Sec. 431.28  Petitions for waiver and applications for interim waiver.

    The provisions of 10 CFR 430.27 shall apply with respect to this 
part 431, to the same extent and in the same manner as they apply in 
part 430. In applying Sec. 430.27 for purposes of this part, the term 
``Sec. 430.22'' shall be deemed to mean ``section 431.23,'' and the 
term ``Sec. 322(a)'' shall be deemed to mean ``section 340(1).''

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

1. Definitions

    Definitions contained in Sec. 431.2 are applicable to this 
appendix.

2. Test procedures

    Efficiency and losses shall be determined in accordance with 
NEMA MG1-1993 with Revision 1, section 12.58.1, Determination of 
Motor Efficiency and Losses, and either IEEE Standard 112 Test 
Method B, Input-Output with Loss Segregation, or Canadian Standards 
Association Standard C390 Test Method (1), Input-Output Method with 
Indirect Measurement of the Stray-Load Loss and Direct Measurement 
of the Stator Winding (I<;SUP>2R), Rotor Winding (I<;SUP>2R), Core and 
Windage-Friction Losses.

3. Amendments to test procedures

    Any revision to IEEE Standard 112-1991, Test Method B, to 
Sec. 12.58.1 of NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993 with Revision 1, 
or to CSA Standard C390-93, Test Method (1), subsequent to 
promulgation of this appendix A, shall not be effective for purposes 
of test procedures required under part 431 and this appendix A, 
unless and until part 431 and this appendix A are amended.

Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431--Nominal Full Load Efficiency and 
Corresponding Coefficient K

    The coefficient K is used for calculating permitted represented 
values of energy efficiency. From the table below, select the 
coefficient K for the nominal full load efficiency that is equal to, 
or is the closest lower value to, the represented value.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Nominal full load  efficiency                Coefficient K           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
99.0...............................                    0.998            
98.9...............................                    0.998            
98.8...............................                    0.998            
98.7...............................                    0.998            
98.6...............................                    0.998            
98.5...............................                    0.997            
98.4...............................                    0.996            
98.2...............................                    0.996            
98.0...............................                    0.996            
97.8...............................                    0.996            
97.6...............................                    0.995            
97.4...............................                    0.994            
97.1...............................                    0.994            
96.8...............................                    0.994            
96.5...............................                    0.993            
96.2...............................                    0.992            
95.8...............................                    0.992            
95.4...............................                    0.991            
95.0...............................                    0.990            
94.5...............................                    0.990            
94.1...............................                    0.988            
93.6...............................                    0.987            
93.0...............................                    0.986            
92.4...............................                    0.985            
91.7...............................                    0.984            
91.0...............................                    0.984            
90.2...............................                    0.981            
89.5...............................                    0.978            
88.5...............................                    0.977            
87.5...............................                    0.977            
86.5...............................                    0.971            
85.5...............................                    0.965            
84.0...............................                    0.970            
82.5...............................                    0.970            
81.5...............................                    0.963            
80.0...............................                    0.963            
78.5...............................                    0.962            
77.0...............................                    0.961            
75.5...............................                    0.954            
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart C--Energy Efficiency Standards


Sec. 431.41  Purpose and scope.

    This subpart contains energy efficiency standards for certain types 
of covered equipment pursuant to Part C--Certain Industrial Equipment, 
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6211 et 
seq.).


Sec. 431.42  Energy efficiency standards and effective dates.

    (a) Each electric motor manufactured (alone or as a component of 
another piece of equipment) after October 24, 1997, or in the case of 
an electric motor which requires listing or certification by a 
nationally recognized safety testing laboratory, after October 24, 
1999, shall have a nominal full load efficiency of not less than the 
following:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Nominal full load efficiency                        
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Number of poles                        Open motors                          Enclosed motors           
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         6            4            2            6            4            2     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Horsepower/Standard Kilowatt                                                                              
 Equivalent                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75.............................         80.0         82.5  ...........         80.0         82.5         75.5
1.5/1.1...........................         84.0         84.0         82.5         85.5         84.0         82.5
2/1.5.............................         85.5         84.0         84.0         86.5         84.0         84.0
3/2.2.............................         86.5         86.5         84.0         87.5         87.5         85.5
5/3.7.............................         87.5         87.5         85.5         87.5         87.5         87.5
7.5/5.5...........................         88.5         88.5         87.5         89.5         89.5         88.5
10/7.5............................         90.2         89.5         88.5         89.5         89.5         89.5
15/11.............................         90.2         91.0         89.5         90.2         91.0         90.2
20/15.............................         91.0         91.0         90.2         90.2         91.0         90.2
25/18.5...........................         91.7         91.7         91.0         91.7         92.4         91.0
30/22.............................         92.4         92.4         91.0         91.7         92.4         91.0
40/30.............................         93.0         93.0         91.7         93.0         93.0         91.7
50/37.............................         93.0         93.0         92.4         93.0         93.0         92.4
60/45.............................         93.6         93.6         93.0         93.6         93.6         93.0
75/55.............................         93.6         94.1         93.0         93.6         94.1         93.0
100/75............................         94.1         94.1         93.0         94.1         94.5         93.6
125/90............................         94.1         94.5         93.6         94.1         94.5         94.5
150/110...........................         94.5         95.0         93.6         95.0         95.0         94.5

[[Page 60470]]

                                                                                                                
200/150...........................         94.5         95.0         94.5         95.0         95.0         95.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) For purposes of determining the required minimum nominal full 
load efficiency of an electric motor that has a horsepower or kilowatt 
rating between two horsepowers or kilowattages listed consecutively in 
paragraph (a) of this section, each such motor shall be deemed to have 
a horsepower or kilowatt rating that is listed in paragraph (a) of this 
section. The rating that the motor is deemed to have shall be 
determined as follows:
    (1) A horsepower at or above the midpoint between the two 
consecutive horsepowers shall be rounded up to the higher of the two 
horsepowers;
    (2) A horsepower below the midpoint between the two consecutive 
horsepowers shall be rounded down to the lower of the two horsepowers, 
or
    (3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly converted from kilowatts to 
horsepower using the formula, 1 kilowatt = (1/0.746) horsepower, 
without calculating beyond three significant decimal places, and the 
resulting horsepower shall be rounded in accordance with paragraph 
(b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, whichever applies.
    (c) This section does not apply to definite purpose motors, special 
purpose motors, and those motors exempted by the Secretary.

Subpart D--Petitions To Exempt State Regulation From Preemption; 
Petitions To Withdraw Exemption of State Regulation


Sec. 431.61  Purpose and scope.

    The provisions of 10 CFR 430.40 through 430.49 shall apply with 
respect to this part 431, to the same extent and in the same manner as 
they apply in part 430. In applying Secs. 430.40 through 430.49 for 
purposes of this part, the term ``energy conservation standard'' shall 
be deemed to mean ``energy efficiency standard,'' and the term 
``product'' shall be deemed to mean ``equipment.''

Subpart E--Labeling


Sec. 431.81  Purpose and scope.

    This subpart establishes labeling rules for electric motors 
pursuant to section 344 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6315. It addresses labeling 
and marking the equipment with information indicating its energy 
efficiency and compliance with applicable standards under section 342 
of EPCA, 42 U.S.C 6313, and the inclusion of such information in other 
material used to market the equipment.


Sec. 431.82  Labeling requirements.

    (a) Electric motor nameplate--(1) Required information. The 
permanent nameplate of an electric motor for which standards are 
prescribed in Sec. 431.42 shall be marked clearly with the following 
information:
    (i) The motor's nominal full load efficiency (as of the date of 
manufacture), derived from the motor's average full load efficiency as 
determined pursuant to subpart B of this part;
    (ii) The Compliance Certification (``CC'') number supplied by DOE 
to the manufacturer pursuant to Sec. 431.123(e), and applicable to that 
motor. A CC number shall be applicable to a motor 90 days after either:
    (A) The manufacturer has received the number upon submitting a 
Compliance Certification covering that motor, or
    (B) The expiration of 21 days from DOE's receipt of a Compliance 
Certification covering that motor, if the manufacturer has not been 
advised by DOE that the Compliance Certification fails to satisfy 
Sec. 431.123.
    (2) Display of required information. All orientation, spacing, type 
sizes, type faces, and line widths to display this required information 
shall be the same as or similar to the display of the other performance 
data on the motor's permanent nameplate. The nominal full load 
efficiency shall be identified either by the term ``Nominal 
Efficiency'' or ``Nom. Eff.'' or by the terms specified in Sec. 12.58.2 
of NEMA MG1-1993, as for example ``NEMA Nom. Eff. ________________.'' 
The DOE number shall be in the form ``CC________________.''
    (3) Optional display. The permanent nameplate of an electric motor, 
a separate plate, or decalcomania, may be marked with the words 
``energy efficient,'' or with the encircled lower case letters ``ee'', 
or with some comparable designation or logo, if the motor meets the 
applicable standard prescribed in Sec. 431.42, as determined pursuant 
to subpart B of this part, and is covered by a Compliance Certification 
that satisfies Sec. 431.123.
    (b) Disclosure of efficiency information in marketing materials. 
(1) The same information that must appear on an electric motor's 
permanent nameplate pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, shall 
be prominently displayed:
    (i) On each page of a catalog that lists the motor, and
    (ii) In other materials used to market the motor.
    (2) The ``ee'' logo, the words ``energy efficient,'' or other 
similar logo or designations, may also be used in catalogs and other 
materials to the same extent they may be used on labels under paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section.
    (c) Import documents. Any electric motor imported into the United 
States shall be accompanied by shipping papers that disclose clearly 
the date of the Compliance Certification for that motor, and the 
Compliance Certification number applicable to that motor in accordance 
with paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (d) Other motors. A manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private 
labeler may voluntarily comply with or implement any of the 
subparagraphs of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section with respect to 
any electric motor manufactured prior to October 24, 1997, any definite 
purpose motor, or any special purpose motor. Any such motor that is 
labeled with information required or permitted for electric motors 
under this section, shall be deemed to be an ``electric motor'' for 
purposes of:
    (1) The provision of this section that requires or permits such 
labeling information, and
    (2) The requirements of this part concerning standards, testing, 
certification and enforcement that are related to that provision. Any 
certification of compliance submitted for purposes of this paragraph 
shall be submitted on a Compliance Certification that covers only non-
covered motors, and that is clearly labeled as such on the first page 
and on the first page of the attachment.

Subpart F--[Reserved]

Subpart G--Certification and Enforcement


Sec. 431.121  Purpose and scope.

    The regulations in this subpart set forth the procedures for 
manufacturers to certify that electric motors comply

[[Page 60471]]

with the applicable energy efficiency standards set forth in subpart C 
of this part, and set forth standards and procedures for enforcement of 
this part and the underlying provisions of the Act.


Sec. 431.122  Prohibited acts.

    (a) Each of the following is a prohibited act pursuant to sections 
332 and 345 of the Act:
    (1) Distribution in commerce by a manufacturer or private labeler 
of any new covered equipment which is not labeled in accordance with an 
applicable labeling rule prescribed in accordance with section 344 of 
the Act, and in this part;
    (2) Removal from any new covered equipment or rendering illegible, 
by a manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler, of any 
label required under this part to be provided with such equipment;
    (3) Failure to permit access to, or copying of records required to 
be supplied under the Act and this part, or failure to make reports or 
provide other information required to be supplied under the Act and 
this part;
    (4) Advertisement of covered equipment, by a manufacturer, 
distributor, retailer, or private labeler, in a catalog from which the 
equipment may be purchased, without including in the catalog all 
information as required by Sec. 431.82(b)(2), provided, however, that 
this shall not apply to an advertisement of covered equipment in a 
catalog if distribution of the catalog began before the effective date 
of the labeling rule applicable to that equipment;
    (5) Failure of a manufacturer to supply at his expense a reasonable 
number of units of an electric motor to a test laboratory designated by 
the Secretary;
    (6) Failure of a manufacturer to permit a representative designated 
by the Secretary to observe any testing required by the Act and this 
part, and to inspect the results of such testing; and
    (7) Distribution in commerce by a manufacturer or private labeler 
of any new covered equipment which is not in compliance with an 
applicable energy efficiency standard prescribed under the Act and this 
part.
    (b) In accordance with sections 333 and 345 of the Act, any person 
who knowingly violates any provision of paragraph (a) of this section 
may be subject to assessment of a civil penalty of no more than $100 
for each violation. Each violation of paragraphs (a) (1), (2), and (7) 
of this section shall constitute a separate violation with respect to 
each unit of covered equipment, and each day of noncompliance with 
paragraphs (a) (3) through (6) of this section shall constitute a 
separate violation.
    (c) For purposes of this section, the term new covered equipment 
means covered equipment the title of which has not passed to a 
purchaser who buys such equipment for purposes other than
    (1) Reselling such equipment, or
    (2) Leasing such equipment for a period in excess of one year.


Sec. 431.123  Compliance Certification.

    (a) General. Beginning 24 months after [effective date of rule], a 
manufacturer or private labeler shall not distribute in commerce any 
basic model of an electric motor subject to an energy efficiency 
standard set forth in subpart C of this part unless it has submitted to 
the Department a Compliance Certification certifying, in accordance 
with the provisions of this section, that the basic model meets the 
requirements of the applicable standard. Such certification must be 
based upon a determination made in accordance with the applicable 
requirements of subpart B of this part.
    (b) Required contents. (1) General representations. Each Compliance 
Certification shall certify that:
    (i) The nominal full load efficiency for each basic model of 
electric motor distributed is not less than the minimum nominal full 
load efficiency required for that motor by Sec. 431.42;
    (ii) All required determinations on which the Compliance 
Certification is based were made in compliance with the applicable 
requirements prescribed in subpart B of this part;
    (iii) All information reported in the Compliance Certification is 
true, accurate, and complete; and
    (iv) The manufacturer or private labeler is aware of the penalties 
associated with violations of the Act and the regulations thereunder, 
and 18 U.S.C. 1001 which prohibits knowingly making false statements to 
the Federal Government.
    (2) Specific data. (i) For each rating of electric motor (as the 
term ``rating'' is defined in the definition of basic model) which a 
manufacturer or private labeler distributes, the Compliance 
Certification shall report the average full load efficiency, determined 
pursuant to Secs. 431.23 and 431.24, of the least efficient basic model 
within that rating.
    (ii) The Compliance Certification shall identify the basic models 
on which actual testing has been performed to meet the requirements of 
Sec. 431.24.
    (iii) The format for a Compliance Certification is set forth in 
appendix A of this subpart.
    (c) Signature and submission. A manufacturer or private labeler 
shall submit the Compliance Certification either on its own behalf, 
signed by a corporate officer of the company, or through a third party 
(for example, a trade association or other authorized representative) 
acting on its behalf. Where a third party is used, the Compliance 
Certification shall identify the official of the manufacturer or 
private labeler who authorized the third party to make representations 
on the company's behalf, and shall be signed by a corporate official of 
the third party. The Compliance Certification shall be submitted to the 
Department by certified mail, to Department of Energy, Assistant 
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Codes 
and Standards, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, 
Washington, DC 20585-0121.
    (d) New basic models. For electric motors, a Compliance 
Certification shall be submitted for a new basic model only if the 
manufacturer or private labeler has not previously submitted to DOE a 
Compliance Certification, that meets the requirements of Sec. 431.123, 
for a basic model that has the same rating as the new basic model, and 
that has a lower nominal full load efficiency than the new basic model.
    (e) Response to Certification; Certification Number for Electric 
Motors. Promptly upon receipt of a Compliance Certification, the 
Department shall determine whether the document contains all of the 
elements required by this section, and may, in its discretion, 
determine whether all or part of the information provided in the 
document is accurate. The Department shall then advise the submitting 
party in writing either that the Compliance Certification does not 
satisfy the requirements of this section, in which case the document 
shall be returned, or that the Compliance Certification satisfies this 
section, and the basis for the determination. When advising that the 
initial Compliance Certification submitted by or on behalf of a 
manufacturer or private labeler is acceptable, DOE shall provide a 
unique number, ``CC ________________,'' to the manufacturer or private 
labeler.


Sec. 431.124  Maintenance of records.

    (a) The manufacturer of any electric motor subject to energy 
efficiency standards prescribed under section 342 of the Act shall 
establish, maintain and retain records of the following: The underlying 
test data for all actual testing conducted under this part; the 
development, substantiation, application, and subsequent verification 
of any AEDM used under this part; and any certificate of conformity 
relied on

[[Page 60472]]

under the provisions of this part. Such records shall be organized and 
indexed in a fashion which makes them readily accessible for review. 
The records should include the supporting test data associated with 
tests performed on any test units to satisfy the requirements of this 
subpart (except tests performed by the Department directly).
    (b) All such records shall be retained by the manufacturer for a 
period of two years from the date that production of the applicable 
basic model of electric motor has ceased. Records shall be retained in 
a form allowing ready access to the Department upon request.


Sec. 431.125  Imported equipment.

    The provisions of 10 CFR 430.64 shall apply with respect to this 
part 431, to the same extent and in the same manner as they apply in 
part 430. In applying Sec. 430.64 for purposes of this part, the term 
``section 331'' shall be deemed to mean ``sections 331 and 345,'' and 
the term ``product'' shall be deemed to mean ``equipment.''


Sec. 431.126  Exported equipment.

    The provisions of 10 CFR 430.65 shall apply with respect to this 
part 431, to the same extent and in the same manner as they apply in 
part 430. In applying Sec. 430.65 for purposes of this part, the term 
``sections 330 and 345'' shall be substituted for the term ``section 
330,'' and the term ``equipment'' shall be substituted for the term 
``product.''


Sec. 431.127  Enforcement.

    (a) Test notice. Upon receiving information in writing, concerning 
the energy performance of a particular electric motor sold by a 
particular manufacturer or private labeler, which indicates that the 
electric motor may not be in compliance with the applicable energy 
efficiency standard, or upon undertaking to ascertain the accuracy of 
information disclosed pursuant to subpart E of this part, the Secretary 
may conduct testing of that covered equipment under this subpart by 
means of a test notice addressed to the manufacturer in accordance with 
the following requirements:
    (1) The test notice procedure will only be followed after the 
Secretary or his/her designated representative has examined the 
underlying test data (or, where appropriate, data as to use of an 
alternative efficiency determination method) provided by the 
manufacturer and after the manufacturer has been offered the 
opportunity to meet with the Department to verify compliance with the 
applicable efficiency standard. In addition, where compliance of a 
basic model was certified based on an AEDM, the Department shall have 
the discretion to pursue the provisions of Sec. 431.24(b)(4)(iii) prior 
to invoking the test notice procedure. A representative designated by 
the Secretary shall be permitted to observe any reverification 
procedures undertaken pursuant to this subpart, and to inspect the 
results of such reverification.
    (2) The test notice will be signed by the Secretary or his/her 
designee. The test notice will be mailed or delivered by the Department 
to the plant manager or other responsible official, as designated by 
the manufacturer.
    (3) The test notice will specify the model or basic model to be 
selected for testing, the method of selecting the test sample, the date 
and time at which testing shall be initiated, the date by which testing 
is scheduled to be completed and the facility at which testing will be 
conducted. The test notice may also provide for situations in which the 
selected basic model is unavailable for testing, and may include 
alternative basic models.
    (4) The Secretary may require in the test notice that the 
manufacturer of an electric motor shall ship at his expense a 
reasonable number of units of a basic model specified in such test 
notice to a testing laboratory designated by the Secretary. The number 
of units of a basic model specified in a test notice shall not exceed 
twenty (20).
    (5) Within five working days of the time the units are selected, 
the manufacturer shall ship the specified test units of a basic model 
to the testing laboratory.
    (b) Testing laboratory. Whenever the Department conducts 
enforcement testing at a designated laboratory in accordance with a 
test notice under this section, the resulting test data shall 
constitute official test data for that basic model. Such test data will 
be used by the Department to make a determination of compliance or 
noncompliance if a sufficient number of tests have been conducted to 
satisfy the requirements of appendix C of this subpart.
    (c) Sampling. The determination that a manufacturer's basic model 
complies with the applicable energy efficiency standard shall be based 
on the testing conducted in accordance with the statistical sampling 
procedures set forth in appendix B of this subpart and the test 
procedures set forth in subpart B of this part.
    (d) Test unit selection. A Department inspector shall select a 
batch, a batch sample, and test units from the batch sample in 
accordance with the provisions of this paragraph and the conditions 
specified in the test notice.
    (1) The batch may be subdivided by the Department utilizing 
criteria specified in the test notice.
    (2) A batch sample of up to 20 units will then be randomly selected 
from one or more subdivided groups within the batch. The manufacturer 
shall keep on hand all units in the batch sample until such time as the 
basic model is determined to be in compliance or non-compliance.
    (3) Individual test units comprising the test sample shall be 
randomly selected from the batch sample.
    (4) All random selection shall be achieved by sequentially 
numbering all of the units in a batch sample and then using a table of 
random numbers to select the units to be tested.
    (e) Test unit preparation. (1) Prior to and during the testing, a 
test unit selected in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section 
shall not be prepared, modified, or adjusted in any manner unless such 
preparation, modification, or adjustment is allowed by the applicable 
Department of Energy test procedure. One test shall be conducted for 
each test unit in accordance with the applicable test procedures 
prescribed in subpart B of this part.
    (2) No quality control, testing, or assembly procedures shall be 
performed on a test unit, or any parts and sub-assemblies thereof, that 
is not performed during the production and assembly of all other units 
included in the basic model.
    (3) A test unit shall be considered defective if such unit is 
inoperative or is found to be in noncompliance due to failure of the 
unit to operate according to the manufacturer's design and operating 
instructions. Defective units, including those damaged due to shipping 
or handling, shall be reported immediately to the Department. The 
Department shall authorize testing of an additional unit on a case-by-
case basis.
    (f) Testing at manufacturer's option. (1) If a manufacturer's basic 
model is determined to be in noncompliance with the applicable energy 
performance standard at the conclusion of Department testing in 
accordance with the sampling plan specified in appendix C of this 
subpart, the manufacturer may request that the Department conduct 
additional testing of the basic model according to procedures set forth 
in appendix B of this subpart.
    (2) All units tested under this paragraph shall be selected and 
tested in accordance with the provisions given in paragraphs (a) 
through (e) of this section.
    (3) The manufacturer shall bear the cost of all testing conducted 
under this paragraph.

[[Page 60473]]

    (4) The manufacturer shall cease distribution of the basic model 
tested under the provisions of this paragraph from the time the 
manufacturer elects to exercise the option provided in this paragraph 
until the basic model is determined to be in compliance. The Department 
may seek civil penalties for all units distributed during such period.
    (5) If the additional testing results in a determination of 
compliance, a notice of allowance to resume distribution shall be 
issued by the Department.


Sec. 431.128  Cessation of distribution of a basic model.

    The provisions of 10 CFR 430.71 shall apply with respect to this 
part 431, to the same extent and in the same manner they apply in part 
430. In applying Sec. 430.71 for purposes of this part, the term 
``Sec. 430.70'' shall be deemed to mean ``Sec. 431.127.''


Sec. 431.129  Subpoena.

    The provisions of 10 CFR 430.72 shall apply with respect to this 
part 431, to the same extent and in the same manner as they apply in 
part 430. In applying Sec. 430.72 for purposes of this part, the term 
``section 329(a)'' shall be deemed to mean ``sections 329(a) and 345.''


Sec. 431.130  Remedies.

    The provisions of 10 CFR 430.73 shall apply with respect to this 
part 431, to the same extent and in the same manner as they apply in 
part 430. In applying Sec. 430.73 for purposes of this part, the term 
``conservation'' shall be deemed to mean ``efficiency,'' the term 
``section 334'' shall be deemed to mean ``sections 334 and 345'' and 
the term ``section 333'' shall be deemed to mean ``sections 333 and 
345.''


Sec. 431.131  Hearings and appeals.

    The provisions of 10 CFR 430.74 shall apply with respect to this 
part 431, to the same extent and in the same manner as they apply in 
part 430. In applying Sec. 430.74 for purposes of this part, the term 
``conservation'' shall be deemed to mean ``efficiency,'' the term 
``section 334'' shall be deemed to mean ``sections 334 and 345'' and 
the term ``section 333'' shall be deemed to mean ``sections 333 and 
345.''


Sec. 431.132  Confidentiality.

    The provisions of 10 CFR 430.75 shall apply with respect to this 
part 431, to the same extent and in the same manner as it applies in 
part 430.

Appendix A to Subpart G of Part 431--Compliance Certification

Certification of Compliance With Energy Efficiency Standards for 
Electric Motors

    Name and Address of Company (the ``company''):

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

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

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

.----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Type(s) of Electric Motor(s):

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

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

    Submit by Certified Mail to: U.S. Department of Energy, Office 
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Codes and 
Standards, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121.
    This Compliance Certification reports on and certifies 
compliance with requirements contained in 10 CFR Part 431 (Energy 
Conservation Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial 
Equipment) and Part C of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
(Public Law 94-163), and amendments thereto. It is signed by a 
responsible official of the above named company. Attached and 
incorporated as part of this Compliance Certification is a Listing 
of Electric Motor Efficiencies. For each rating of electric motor * 
for which the Listing specifies the nominal full load efficiency of 
a basic model, the company distributes no less efficient basic model 
with that rating and all basic models with that rating comply with 
the applicable energy efficiency standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * The term ``rating'' means one of the 113 combinations of an 
electric motor's horsepower (or standard kilowatt equivalent), 
number of poles, and open or enclosed construction, with respect to 
which section 431.42 of 10 CFR Part 431 prescribes nominal full load 
efficiency standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Name of Person to Contact for Further Information:

Name:------------------------------------------------------------------

Address:---------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Telephone Number:------------------------------------------------------

Facsimile Number:------------------------------------------------------

    If any part of this Compliance Certification, including the 
Attachment, was prepared by a third party organization under the 
provisions of section 431.123 of 10 CFR Part 431, the company 
official authorizing third party representations:

Name:------------------------------------------------------------------

Address:---------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Telephone Number:------------------------------------------------------

Facsimile Number:------------------------------------------------------

    The third party organization officially acting as 
representative:
Third Party Organization:----------------------------------------------

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

Name:------------------------------------------------------------------

Address:---------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Telephone Number:------------------------------------------------------


Facsimile Number:------------------------------------------------------

    All required determinations on which this Compliance 
Certification is based were made in conformance with the applicable 
requirements in 10 CFR Part 431, subpart B. All information reported 
in this Compliance Certification is true, accurate, and complete. 
The company is aware of the penalties associated with violations of 
the Act and the regulations thereunder, and is also aware of the 
provisions contained in 18 U.S.C 1001, which prohibits knowingly 
making false statements to the Federal Government.

Signature:-------------------------------------------------------------

Date:------------------------------------------------------------------

Name:------------------------------------------------------------------

Title:-----------------------------------------------------------------

Firm or Organization:--------------------------------------------------

Attachment to Certification of Compliance With Energy Efficiency 
Standards for Electric Motors Listing of Electric Motor Efficiencies

Date:------------------------------------------------------------------

Name of company--------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Rating of electric motor                                                                         
-------------------------------------------------------                                                         
                                             Open or    Least efficient basic model       Average full load     
      Motor  horsepower        Number of     enclosed         (model number(s))               efficiency        
                                 poles        motor                                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................           6         Open   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
1...........................           4         Open   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
1...........................           6     Enclosed   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
1...........................           4     Enclosed   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
1...........................           2     Enclosed   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
1.5.........................           6         Open   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
1.5.........................           4         Open   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         

[[Page 60474]]

                                                                                                                
1.5.........................           2         Open   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
1.5.........................           6     Enclosed   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
1.5.........................           4     Enclosed   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
1.5.........................           2     Enclosed   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
etc.........................         etc          etc   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Rating of electric motor                                                                         
-------------------------------------------------------                                                         
                                             Open or    Least efficient basic model       Average full load     
      Motor  kilowatts         Number of     enclosed         (model number(s))               efficiency        
                                 poles        motor                                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.75.........................           6         Open   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
.75.........................           4         Open   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
.75.........................           6     Enclosed   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
.75.........................           4     Enclosed   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
.75.........................           2     Enclosed   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
1.1.........................           6         Open   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
1.1.........................           4         Open   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
1.1.........................           2         Open   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
1.1.........................           6     Enclosed   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
1.1.........................           4     Enclosed   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
1.1.........................           2     Enclosed   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
etc.........................         etc          etc   ___________________________  ___________________________
                                                         _________________.           _________________         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The manufacturer shall place an asterisk beside each reported nominal full load efficiency that is        
  determined by actual testing rather than by application of an alternative efficiency determination method. The
  manufacturer shall also list below additional basic models that were subjected to actual testing.             
Basic Model means all units of a given type of covered equipment (or class thereof) manufactured by one         
  manufacturer, and, with respect to electric motors, having (i) the same rating, (ii) electrical design        
  characteristics that are essentially identical, and (iii) no differing mechanical or functional               
  characteristics that affect energy consumption or efficiency.                                                 
Rating means one of the 113 combinations of an electric motor's horsepower (or standard kilowatt equivalent),   
  number of poles, and open or enclosed construction, with respect to which section 431.42 of 10 CFR Part 431   
  prescribes nominal full load efficiency standards.                                                            


                    Additional Models Actually Tested                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Rating of electric motor                                       
------------------------------------------  Least efficient             
 Motor power                                  basic model      Average  
output  (e.g.   Number of      Open or          (model        full load 
 1 hp or .75      poles        enclosed       number(s))      efficiency
     kW)                        motor                                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________                                                           
 _______.....  ___________                                              
                    _____   _____________                               
                                 _______   ________________             
                                                   _______   ___________
                                                                  _____ 
_____________                                                           
 _______.....  ___________                                              
                    _____   _____________                               
                                 _______   ________________             
                                                   _______   ___________
                                                                  _____ 
_____________                                                           
 _______.....  ___________                                              
                    _____   _____________                               
                                 _______   ________________             
                                                   _______   ___________
                                                                  _____ 
_____________                                                           
 _______.....  ___________                                              
                    _____   _____________                               
                                 _______   ________________             
                                                   _______   ___________
                                                                  _____ 
_____________                                                           
 _______.....  ___________                                              
                    _____   _____________                               
                                 _______   ________________             
                                                   _______   ___________
                                                                  _____ 
_____________                                                           
 _______.....  ___________                                              
                    _____   _____________                               
                                 _______   ________________             
                                                   _______   ___________
                                                                  _____ 
_____________                                                           
 _______.....  ___________                                              
                    _____   _____________                               
                                 _______   ________________             
                                                   _______   ___________
                                                                  _____ 
etc..........         etc            etc               etc          etc 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 431--Sampling Plan for Enforcement 
Testing

    Step 1. The first sample size (n<;INF>1) must be five or more 
units.
    Step 2. Compute the mean (X<;INF>1) of the measured energy 
performance of the n<;INF>1 units in the first sample as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.001

where X<;INF>i is the measured full load efficiency of unit i.

    Step 3. Compute the sample standard deviation (S<;INF>1) of the 
measured full load efficiency of the n<;INF>1 units in the first 
sample as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.002

    Step 4. Compute the standard error (SE(X<;INF>1)) of the mean 
full load efficiency of the first sample as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.003

    Step 5. Compute the lower control limit (LCL<;INF>1) for the mean 
of the first sample using the applicable statutory full load 
efficiency (SFE) as the desired mean as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.004

Here t is 10th percentile of a t-distribution for a sample size of 
n<;INF>1 and yields a 90 percent confidence level for a one-tailed t-
test.
    Step 6. Compare the mean of the first sample (X<;INF>1) with the 
lower control limit (LCL<;INF>1) to determine one of the following:
    (i) If the mean of the first sample is below the lower control 
limit, then the basic model is in noncompliance and testing is at an 
end.

[[Page 60475]]

    (ii) If the mean is equal to or greater than the lower control 
limit, no final determination of compliance or noncompliance can be 
made; proceed to Step 7.
    Step 7. Determine the recommended sample size (n) as follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.005
    
where S<;INF>1 and t have the values used in Steps 4 and 5, 
respectively. The factor
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.006

is based on a 20 percent tolerance in the total power loss at full 
load.
    Given the value of n, determine one of the following:
    (i) If the value of n is less than or equal to n<;INF>1 and if 
the mean energy efficiency of the first sample (X<;INF>1) is equal to 
or greater than the lower control limit (LCL<;INF>1), the basic model 
is in compliance and testing is at an end.
    (ii) If the value of n is greater than n<;INF>1, the basic model 
is in noncompliance. The size of a second sample n<;INF>2 is 
determined to be the smallest integer equal to or greater than the 
difference n-n<;INF>1. If the value of n<;INF>2 so calculated is 
greater than 20-n<;INF>1, set n<;INF>2 equal to 20-n<;INF>1.
    Step 8. Compute the combined mean (X<;INF>2) of the measured 
energy performance of the n<;INF>1 and n<;INF>2 units of the combined 
first and second samples as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.007

    Step 9. Compute the standard error (SE(X<;INF>2)) of the mean 
full load efficiency of the n<;INF>1 and n<;INF>2 units in the 
combined first and second samples as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.008

(Note that S<;INF>1 is the value obtained above in Step 3.)
    Step 10. Set the lower control limit (LCL<;INF>2) to,
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.009
    
and compare the combined sample mean (X<;INF>2) to the lower control 
limit (LCL<;INF>2) to find one of the following:
    (i) If the mean of the combined sample (X<;INF>2) is less than 
the lower control limit (LCL<;INF>2), the basic model is in 
noncompliance and testing is at an end.
    (ii) If the mean of the combined sample (X<;INF>2) is equal to or 
greater than the lower control limit (LCL<;INF>2), the basic model is 
in compliance and testing is at an end.

MANUFACTURER-OPTION TESTING

    If a determination of non-compliance is made in Steps 6, 7 or 
11, above, the manufacturer may request that additional testing be 
conducted, in accordance with the following procedures.
    Step A. The manufacturer requests that an additional number, 
n<;INF>3, of units be tested, with n<;INF>3 chosen such that n<;INF>1 + 
n<;INF>2 + n<;INF>3 does not exceed 20.
    Step B. Compute the mean full load efficiency, standard error, 
and lower control limit of the new combined sample in accordance 
with the procedures prescribed in Steps 8, 9, and 10, above.
    Step C. Compare the mean performance of the new combined sample 
to the lower control limit (LCL<;INF>2) to determine one of the 
following:
    (a) If the new combined sample mean is equal to or greater than 
the lower control limit, the basic model is in compliance and 
testing is at an end.
    (b) If the new combined sample mean is less than the lower 
control limit and the value of n<;INF>1 + n<;INF>2 + n<;INF>3 is less 
than 20, the manufacturer may request that additional units be 
tested. The total of all units tested may not exceed 20. Steps A, B, 
and C are then repeated.
    (c) Otherwise, the basic model is determined to be in 
noncompliance.

[FR Doc. 96-29048 Filed 11-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P