Tuesday

October 5, 1999

M

8

Part III

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; Final Rule

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54114 Federal Register /Vol. 64. No. 192 /Tuesday. October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 431

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

RIN 1904-AA82

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 : Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and

Conservation Act, as amended. 42

U.S.C. 6291-6317 (the Act or EPCA)

establishes energy efficiency standards

and test procedures for commercial and

industrial electric motors. Today's final

rule establishes regulations to

implement these requirements, and to

establish efficiency labeling and

compliance certification requirements

for motors. as directed by EPCA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

November 4. 1999. The incorporation by

reference of certain publications listed

in the regulations is approved by the

Director of the Federal Register as of

November 4. 1999.

ADDRESSES : For the availability of

material incorporated by reference, see

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE41, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585-0121,

telephone (202) 586-8654, telefax

(202) 586-4617, or:

C".doe.gov

Edward Levy` Esq., U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of General Counsel,

Mail Station GC-72, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585-0103, (202)

586-9507, tElefax (202) 586-4116, or:

edward.levy@hq.dc)e.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department of Energy (DOE or

Department) is incorporating by

reference, test procedures and

definitional information from the

Institute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), the National

Electrical Manufacturers Association

(NEMA). the CSA International (CSA).t

I The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) in

this matter contains many references to the

and the International Electrotechnical

Commission (IEC). These test

procedures and definitional information

are set forth in the standards

publications listed below:

1. National Electrical Manufacturers

Association Standards Publication

MG1-1993, Motors and Generators, and

Revisions 1. 2, 3 and 4.

2. Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers. Inc., Standard

Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction

Motors and Generators, IEEE Std 112-

1996, and the correction to the

calculation at item (28) in section 10.2

Form B-Test Method B'issued by IEEE

on January 20. 1998.

3. CSA International (or Canadian

Standards Association) Standard C390-

93. Energy Efficiency Test Methods for

Three-Phase Induction Motors.

4. International Electrotechnical

Commission Standard 60034-1 (1996),

Rotating electrical machines, Part 1:

Rating and performance, and

Amendment 1 (1997).

5. International Electrotechnical

Commission Standard 60050-411

(1996), International Electrotechnical

Vocabulary Chapter 411: Rotating

machinery.

6. International Electrotechnical

Commission Standard 60072-I (1991),

Dimensions and output series for

rotating electrical machines-Part 1:

Frame numbers 56 to 400 and flange

numbers 55 to 1080.

7. International Electrotechnical

Commission Standard 60034-12 (1980),

Starting performance of single-speed

three-phase cage induction motors for

voltages up to and including 660 V. and

Amendment 1 (1992) and Amendment 2

(1995).

Copies of these standards publications

may be viewed at the Freedom of

Information Reading Room, U.S.

Department of Energy, Forrestal

Building, Room IE-190, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585-0101, telephone

(202) 586-3142, between the hours of 9

a.m. and 4 p.m.. Monday through

Friday. except Federal holidays.

Copies of the NEMA standards and

the International Electrotechnical

Commission standards can be obtained

from Global Engineering Documents, 15

Inverness Way East, Englewood,

Colorado 80112-5776. Copies of the

IEEE standards can be obtained from the

Institute of Electrical and Electronics

"Canadian Standards Association." Since

publication of the NOPR . that organization has

changed its name to CSA International. In this

Notice and today's final rule. therefore. the latter

name is used to refer to the organization . although

abbreviated references use the abbreviation "CSA"

as in the NOPR.

Engineers. Inc.. 445 Hoes Lane. P.O. Box

1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331.

Copies of the CSA standards can be

obtained from CSA International, 178

Rexdale Boulevard, Etobicoke (Toronto).

Ontario, Canada M9W l R3.

1. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

C. Summary of Rule

II. Discussion

A. Definitions

1. Electric Motor

2. Basic Model

3. General Purpose

4. Special Purpose Motor

5. Accreditation

6. Average Full Load Efficiency

7. Nominal Full Load Efficiency

B. Test Procedures

1. NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-

1993. with Revisions I through 4

2. Modifications to the IEEE Std 112-1996

Test Method B

a. Typographical Errors

b. Provisions Subject to Interpretation

c. Incorrect Information

d. Summary

C. Determination of a Motor's Efficiency:

Use of Accredited Laboratories and

Certification Programs. Selection of Basic

Models for Testing. Alternative Means to

Measure Efficiency. and Sampling Plans

for Testing

1. Summary of DOE's Proposals

2. Issues Involving Both Use of Accredited

Laboratories and Use of Certification

Organizations

3. Issues Concerning Use of Certification

Organizations

4. Compliance Testing When a

Manufacturer Does Not Use a

Certification Program (Independence and

Performance of an Accredited

Laboratory. Selection of Basic Models for

Testing, Sampling Plan) and

Enforcement Testing Sampling Plan

a. Accredited Laboratories

b. Selection of Basic Models for Testing

c. Sampling Plans for Compliance and

Enforcement Testing

(1) Sampling Plan for Compliance Testing

(2) Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing

D. Energy Efficiency Standards

1. Non-standardized Horsepower Ratings

2. Motor Horsepower and Standard

Kilowatt Equivalent

3. World Trade Organization (WTO)

Agreements and the Trans Atlantic

Business Dialogue (TABD)

4. Electric Motors as Components of

Systems

E. Labeling

1. Statutory Provisions

2. Provisions of Regulation

a. Use of the Words "Energy Efficient"

b. Use of Standardized Nominal Full Load

Efficiency Values

c. Minimum Efficiency

d. Display of Nominal Efficiency,

Compliance Certification Number. "ee"

Logo, and Date of Compliance

e. Labeling of Motors Not Covered by EPCA

f. Enforcement Testing Where Violation of

a Labeling Representation is Alleged

1 ,

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192/Tuesday, October 5, 1999/Rules and Regulations 54115

g. Imported Motors

h. Weights of Conductors and Magnetic

Materials

F. Certification of Compliance

1. Reference to Certification Programs

2. Nominal Versus Average Full Load

Efficiency

3. Other Information to Be Reported

4. Compliance Certification Number

G. Other Matters

1. Standards Incorporated by Reference

2. Enforcement : Determining What

Constitutes a "Separate Violation"

3. Technical Corrections

a. References to International Standards

b. Use of Term "Energy Conservation

Standard"

c. Preemption of State Regulations

d. Provisions Incorporated from Part 430

e. Amount of Penalty

f. Prohibited Acts-Section 431.122

g. Language Changes in Sections 431.23

and 431 . 124(a)

111. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

B. Review Under Executive Order 12866.

"Regulatory Planning and Review''

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act

D. Review Under Executive Order 12612.

"Federalism"

E. Review Under Executive Order 12630.

"Governmental Actions and Interference

with Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights''

F. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction

Act

G. Review Under Executive Order 12988.

"Civil Justice Reform"

H. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal

Energy Administration Act

1. Review Under Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act

J. Review Under Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act

1. Introduction

A. Authority

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy

and Conservation Act of 1975, Public

Law 94-163, as amended, by the

National Energy Conservation Policy

Act of 1978 (NECPA), Public Law 95-

619, the National Appliance Energy

Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA),

Public Law 100-12, the National

Appliance Energy Conservation

Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988),

Public Law 100-357, and the Energy

Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), Public Law

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).2

EPCA defines "electric motor" as any

motor which is "general purpose Tframe. 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

§ 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 § 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C.

6313(b)(1).

The Act also requires that testing

procedures for electric motor efficiency

shall be the test procedures specified in

NEMA Standards Publication MGI1987, and the Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers, Inc., (IEEE)

Standard 112 Test Method B for motor

efficiency, as in effect on October 24,

1992. EPCA §343(a)(5)(A), 42 U.S.C.

6314(a)(5)(A). If those specified test

procedures are amended, the Secretary

must amend the testing procedures

under EPCA to conform to such

amended test procedures in the NEMA

and IEEE standards, unless the Secretary

determines, by rule, that the amended

test procedures are not reasonably

designed to produce results that reflect

energy efficiency, energy use. and

estimated operating costs, and would be

unduly burdensome to conduct. EPCA

§343(a)(5) (B) and (C), 42 U.S.C.

6314(a)(5) (B) and (C).

Additionally. EPCA directs the

Secretary. subject to certain conditions

and after consultation with the Federal

Trade Commission (FTC), to prescribe

efficiency labeling rules for electric

motors. EPCA §344(d), (f), and (h) 42

U.S.C. 6315(d), (f) and (h).

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 § 345(c), 42 U.S.C.

6316(c).

B. Background

The Department held a public

meeting on June 2, 1995, to discuss

2 These requirernents are codified in Part C of

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Ac[.

as amended . 42 U.S.C. 6311-6317.

issues and gather information related to

the energy efficiency requirements for

electric motors covered under EPCA.

The meeting covered the following

questions: How should key terms be

defined? Which equipment is covered

by the statute? What is the nature and

scope of required testing? How can

independent testing and certification

programs be used to establish

compliance with applicable standards?

What are the means of certifying such

compliance to DOE? What are possible

labeling requirements? What other

issues need resolution? Statements

received after publication of the Notice

of that public meeting (60 FR 27051,

May 22, 1995), and at the meeting itself,

helped to refine the issues involved in

this rulemaking, and provided

information that contributed to DOE's

proposed resolution of these issues.

On November 27, 1996, DOE

published in the Federal Register a

proposed rule (NOPR), to create a new

part 431 in the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR Part 431), entitled

the Energy Conservation Program for

Commercial and Industrial Equipment.

61 FR 60440 (November 27, 1996). This

NOPR set forth energy efficiency

requirements for electric motors. As

with the program for consumer

products, the proposed rule

encompassed the following: test

procedures: Federal energy conservation

standards: labeling: and certification

and enforcement. The testing and

standards requirements prescribed by

EPCA were incorporated in the

proposed rule. Labeling requirements in

accordance with EPCA's criteria for

electric motor labels, and certification,

enforcement and state law pre-emption

provisions, largely patterned after those

applicable to consumer products, were

proposed. In addition, to implement

EPCA's testing and certification

requirements, the NOPR proposed

requirements concerning the selection

of electric motors for testing and the

entities that could be used to establish

that a motor complies with the

applicable standard. Finally, the NOPR

proposed provisions to clarify which

motors are covered by EPCA, including

clarification of the statutory definition

of "electric motor."

Despite these clarifications,

manufacturers expressed uncertainty as

to which electric motors, with which

modifications, are covered under EPCA.

They also questioned their ability to

comply with the statute by the effective

date of October 24, 1997 with respect to

certain motors. To address these issues,

the Department, on November 5, 1997,

published Policies on Coverage and

Enforcement of Energy Efficiency

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54116 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

Requirements for Electric Motors: Final

Rule, 62 FR 59978 (November 5. 1997)

(Policy Statement). This Policy

Statement , based on recommendations

from motor manufacturers and energy

efficiency advocates, provided guidance

as to which modifications of electric

motors are "general purpose," "definite

purpose," and "special purpose" under

EPCA. The Policy Statement also stated

circumstances under which the

Department would refrain from taking

enforcement action with respect to

certain limited categories of motors that

would not meet the energy efficiency

standards by the October 25, 1997

effective date.

Comments presented at the public

hearing on January 15, 1997, and

additional written comments submitted

following the public hearing have

helped the Department to refine and

resolve the issues involved in this

rulemaking . Portions of many of the

statements are quoted and summarized

in section 11, Discussion of Comments. A

parenthetical reference at the end of a

quotation or passage in section II

provides the location index in the

public record of the portion of a

statement that is being quoted or

discussed.3

The hearing and written comments, as

well as the Department's further review

of the proposed rule, gave rise to several

issues that were subsequently addressed

in a notice reopening the comment

period for the proposed rule, which was

published in the Federal Register at 63

FR 34758 (June 25, 1998) ("reopening

notice"). The issues concerned (1)

modifications to the IEEE Std 112-1996

Method B test procedures, (2) adoption

of sampling plans for compliance and

enforcement proposed by the National

Electrical Manufacturers Association in

lieu of the sampling plans in the

proposed rule, (3) sampling plans where

a motor's efficiency is established

through a i:ei iificaiion organization

rather than through testing in an

accredited laboratory, (4) enforcement

testing where violation of a labeling

representation is alleged , and (5)

procedures for the withdrawal of

recognition from an organization DOE

has classified as an accreditation body,

or as a nationally recognized

certification program . Comments

received as a result of the reopening

3 For example : -(UL. No. 9 at pg . 1)" refers to(])

a statement that was submitted by Underwriters

Laboratories Inc. and is recorded in the DOE

Freedom of Information Reading Room in the

docket under "Energy Efficiency Program for

Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Test

Procedures. Labeling. and Certification

Requirements for Electric Motors." Docket Number

EE-RM-96-400. as comment number nine ; and (2)

a passage that appears on page I of that statement.

notice have further helped the

Department to refine and resolve the

issues in this rulemaking.

C. Summary of Rule

Today's final rule incorporates the

energy efficiency test procedures and

standards established by EPCA for

certain commercial and industrial

electric motors. EPCA sections 343(a)(5),

42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5), and 342(b)(1), 42

U.S.C. 6313(b) (1). It also establishes

efficiency labeling requirements and

compliance certification requirements

for motors, as directed by EPCA. EPCA

sections 344. 42 U.S.C. 6315, and 345(c),

42 U.S.C. 6316(c). Among its provisions,

today's final rule (1) defines terms used

in the rule. including definitions that

clarify which motors, including metric,

are covered under SPCA; 4 (2)

incorporates by reference the IEEE

Standard 112 Test Method B (with

minor modifications). CSA Standard

C390 Test Method (1), and portions of

other industry standards; (3) sets forth

methods for establishing compliance,

such as a sampling plan for selecting

motors for testing, calculation in some

instances of a motor's efficiency, use of

an accredited laboratory for testing, and

use of a certification program; (4)

establishes criteria for recognizing

laboratory accreditation organizations

and certification programs: and (5)

requires the energy efficiency value of

an electric motor, and a Department of

Energy Compliance Certification

number, to be both marked on the

nameplate and disclosed in marketing

materials, and allows use of an "ee"

logo or other similar logo. The rule also

addresses waiver of the test procedures,

pre-emption of state regulations, and

enforcement.

II. Discussion

The Department received

approximately 31 sets of written

comments on the proposed rule, from

motor manufacturers, original

equipment manufacturers, energy

efficiency advocates, trade associations,

other government agencies. and

individuals. The Department received

data and recommendations related to

the accuracy and workability of many

provisions in the proposed rule.

I Section 340(13) of EPCA defines "electric

motor" and "nominal full load efficiency" by

reference to NEMA Standards Publication MGI1987. However. a more recent version of MG 1.

MCI-1993. is more readily available. Therefore,

references to MGI in the definitions in today's rule

are to MGI-1993 rather than MG1-1987. whenever

reference to the current version results in the rule

having the same substance and coverage as it would

have with a reference to MGI-1987.

A. Definitions

1. Electric Motor

Section 340(13) (A) of EPCA defines

the term "electric motor" as "any motor

which is a general purpose T-frame,

single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase

squirrel-cage induction motor of the

National Electrical Manufacturers

Association, Design A and B.

continuous rated, operating on 230/460

volts and constant 60 Hertz line power

as defined in NEMA Standards

Publication MG1-1987."

In the NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify

this definition. Hence the proposed rule

included an expanded definition of

"electric motor" as well as a definition

of "general purpose motor," a term that

is an important element of EPCA's

definition of electric motor but that is

not defined in EPCA. 61 FR 60442-46,

60465-66 (November 27, 1996).

Although some comments, discussed

below, raised issues concerning specific

elements of the proposed definition of

"electric motor," none objected to

DOE's overall approach or to the

definition of "general purpose motor."

The Department understands,

however, that there exist a wide variety

of motors that are modifications to the

generic general purpose motor, and that

motor manufacturers are concerned as

to precisely which of these motors,

having various features and

characteristics, are covered under the

statute. There seems to be a consensus

that, due to the large number and the

constant changes of motor designs, it

would be impractical and unwise for the

DOE regulations to try to exhaustively

delineate the specific types of motors

that are covered.

In its opening statement at the January

15, 1997, public hearing (Public Hearing

Tr. pg. 42),5 NEMA suggested instead

the use of guidelines, along with a

matrix setting forth various motor

designs, as an aid in construing the

statute and regulations. (NEMA, No.

18).6 The Department agrees with this

approach, and believes the guidelines

and the matrix provided in the Policy

Statement, in conjunction with

definitions in the proposed rule, make

clear whether a motor is covered under

EPCA and today's regulations.

Therefore, today's rule adopts, with

minor technical changes, the "electric

motor" and related definitions of the

proposed rule, and incorporates the

s "Public Hearing. Tr. pg. 42." refers to the page

number of the transcript of the "Public Hearing on

Energy Efficiency Standards. Test Procedures.

Labeling, and Certification Reporting for Certain

Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors." held in

Washington. DC. January 15. 1997.

6See footnote 2.

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192/Tuesday, October 5, 1999/ Rules and Regulations 54117

Policy Statement as appendix A to

subpart A of 10 CFR Part 431 of the rule.

The following addresses the

comments concerning specific elements

of the proposed definition of "electric

motor:"

NEMA Electrical Designs A, B, and C.

Sections 342 through 345 of EPCA

require only certain motors to meet

applicable energy efficiency

requirements. In accordance with

EPCA's definition of "electric motor,"

quoted above, section 431.2 of the

proposed rule, 61 FR 60465 (November

27, 1996), and of today's final rule, state

that an electric motor "(6) Has

performance in accordance with NEMA

Design A or B characteristics, or

equivalent designs such as IEC Design

N * * *„

Toshiba advocates that Design C

motors be covered by EPCA. (Toshiba,

No. 14, p. 2.). Standard efficiency stock

motors are generally Design A or B, and

Mr. W. Treffinger asserts that several

manufacturers offer such motors as

Design C. He raises the question as to

whether a manufacturer could renameplate these motors as "Design C

definite purpose/conveyor duty" in

order to continue selling current designs

that do not meet EPCA efficiency

standards. (Treffinger, No. 4 at 3.).

The purpose of this rulemaking is to

implement EPCA's efficiency

requirements for electric motors. Since

EPCA imposes such requirements only

for Designs A and B. as categorized in

NEMA MCI, for the Department to

cover Design C motors in today's rule

would go beyond the requirements of

EPCA and the scope of this rulemaking.

Therefore, the Department cannot

accept Toshiba's apparent suggestion

that it extend EPCA efficiency

requirements directly to Design C

motors. In addition, it is questionable

whether the Department has the

discretion to take such action, absent an

amendme.-,t to LPCA. See EPCA sections

340-341. 42 U.S.C. 6311-6312. On the

other hand, a motor that exhibits the

performance characteristics of NEMA

Designs A or B, and that is mis-labeled

NEMA Design C, is obviously covered

by EPCA.

Additional Motor Designs and

Characteristics. Toshiba International

Corporation and Mr. W. Treffinger assert

that EPCA should cover as large a

population of motors as possible to

maximize energy savings. Both would

extend EPCA coverage to include

footless or round body motors which are

face-mounting or flange-mounting,

motors operating on 200 volts or 575

volts, definite-purpose motors.such as

close-coupled pump motors, and motors

with 8 or more poles. Toshiba and Mr.

Treffinger argue that such motors have

essentially the same electrical

characteristics as covered electric

motors, and the addition of such motors

would maximize energy savings.

(Toshiba, No. 14. and Treffinger. No. 4

at 1.).

The Department is sympathetic to the

potential energy savings that could be

achieved if the aforementioned types of

motors were covered by EPCA. In the

Department's view, however, as with

Design C motors. EPCA does not impose

efficiency requirements for the types of

motors described by Toshiba and Mr.

Treffinger, and hence they are outside

the scope of this rulemaking. The

Department, nevertheless, encourages

motor manufacturers to voluntarily

improve the efficiency of any motor

designs, if the improvements are

technically feasible, economical, and

energy-saving.

Voltage raring. Section 340(13) (A) of

EPCA defines "electric motor," in part,

as "operating on 230/460 volts and 60

Hertz line power." The DOE proposed

rule (61 FR 60465. November 27, 1996)

clarifies this part of the EPCA definition

as meaning a motor that "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."

The joint comments of the

Washington State University

Cooperative Extension Energy Program

and the Washington State Department of

Community, Trade and Economic

Development (WSU/WSD) state that

motors designed for standard service

voltages of 240 and 480 volts are rated

at 230 and /or 460 volts, from zero to

eight percent lower than those standard

service voltages, to allow for presumed

distribution system voltage drop. They

assert that a tolerance be placed on the

230/460 volt stipulation to allow for

deviations that occur in this rating

among motor models intended for the

same service voltage, and give examples

of motors on the market which are rated

at 220 and 440, and others rated at 480

volts. WSU/WSD recommend at least a

10 percent tolerance be applied to the

230 volts and 460 volts prescribed by

EPCA, and that item (7)(ii) in the

"electric motor" definition in section

431.2 of the final rule explicitly state:

"Can be operated on 230 volts or 460

volts without exceeding the 10% over/

under voltage tolerance stipulated in

NEMA MCI 1993 R1, section 12.44."

(WSU/WSD. No. 5, at I1.A.).

The Department agrees with WSU/

WSD's apparent assumption that motors

with voltages within the 10 percent

tolerance meet EPCA 's definition of

"electric motor," and with WSU /WSD's

statement that such motors meet the

"electric motor" definition in the

proposed rule. (WSU/WSD . No. 5 at

II.A.).

In its Policy Statement, issued

subsequent to the filing of WSU/WSD's

comments. the Department stated that

the criteria in NEMA MGI-1993,

paragraph 12.44, "Variations from Rated

Voltage and Rated Frequency ," which

includes the 10 percent voltage

tolerance criterion , should be used to

determine whether a motor not rated at

230 or 460 volts or 60 Hertz would

nevertheless be within EPCA's

definition of "electric motor." The

Department also indicated in the Policy

Statement , and continues to believe,

that such criteria apply in determining

whether a motor meets the "electric

motor" definition in the proposed rule.

The Department is aware of no

opposition to these positions, including

its view that the 10 percent tolerance is

to be used to determine which motors

are covered by EPCA efficiency

requirements. Moreover, DOE sees no

reason to include this tolerance in the

regulatory definition of electric motor,

but not the other variations addressed in

NEMA MCI-1993 paragraph 12.44. To

include all of these variations, however,

would increase substantially the

complexity of the definition . For these

reasons, DOE believes that it is

unnecessary to add to the final rule

language proposed by WSU/WSD on

this point.

2. Basic Model

The proposed rule defines "basic

model " to mean " 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." As

used in this definition, "rating" is "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

prescribes nominal full load efficiency

standards." 61 FR 60465 (November 27,

1996).

WSU/ WSD support the idea of

defining "basic model", but assert that

the limits on what electric motors can

be consolidated into a particular basic

model need to be more specific. WSU/

WSD suggest that electric motors

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54118 Federal Register /Vol. 64. No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5 . 1999 / Rules and Regulations

consolidated into a basic model have

the following criteria : ( 1) identical

enclosure designation; (2) identical and

interchangeable stator cores; (3)

electrically identical windings, i.e.

circular mils and ampere-turns per slot.

winding pattern, and resistance in

milliohms per rated volt; and (4)

identical and interchangeable rotor core

and cage . WSU/WSD also recommended

that no untested model of motor be

adopted into a basic model

consolidation if it has mechanical

features that tend to increase friction or

windage above tested models. Such

features could include larger bearings,

sealed versus shielded bearings , a larger

or higher capacity cooling fan , or shaft

grounding brushes. (WSU/WSD , No. 5 at

The Department believes that many

enclosure designations are based on

physical or functional characteristics

which have nothing to do with the

energy consumption or efficiency

performance of a motor . For example,

the same electrical design may be put

into enclosures identified as open,

dripproof, splash-proof, semi-guarded.

guarded , or dripproof guarded , yet the

enclosures may differ only in the

location and size of the ventilation holes

in the frame . Because all of these

enclosures would have different

designations using standardized

industry terminology , to define "basic

model" i n terms such as "identical

enclosure designations " or "electrically

identical windings ," as recommended

by WSU/WSD, would appear to increase,

the number of basic models immensely

without apparent benefit . In another

example , the same electrical design is

often used in general purpose enclosed

motors and explosion -proof motors,

differing only in the construction and fit

of the joints and frame openings (shaft

and conduit box leads) to meet

hazardous location requirements. In this

case , the two separate motors would

necessarily have different enclosure

designations. Both would be considered

enclosed motors that could be included

within the same basic model as that

term is defined as in section 431.2 of the

proposed rule. 61 FR 60465 (November

27. 1996), although under the WSU/

WSD approach they would be different

basic models. The Department

concludes that the WSU/WSD criteria

for characterizing "basic model." would

lead to additional testing and reporting

that are unnecessary to achieve

compliance with EPCA efficiency

requirements. and would be unduly

burdensome to manufacturers.

Therefore, the Department is adopting,

in today's final rule, the definition of

"basic model" at 61 FR 60465

(November 27, 1996) in the proposed

rule.

3. General Purpose

The descriptor "general purpose," is

one element both of the definition of

"electric motor" and "definite purpose

motor" at sections 340(13)(A) and (B) of

SPCA, respectively. EPCA characterizes,

in part, a "definite purpose motor" as

any motor for use under service

conditions other than usual" and

"which cannot be used in most general

purpose applications." EPCA defines

neither "general purpose" nor "service

conditions other that usual."

Section 431.2 in the proposed rule

defines the term "general purpose

motor" as "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 MC1-1993. 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." 61 FR 60466

(November 27, 1996).

Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL)

expresses difficulty interpreting what is

meant by "other than usual" service

conditions. UL asserts that (1) the

potential for misclassifying a motor is

prominent, (2) it would be difficult to

conclusively list "unusual service

conditions," and (3) it would be

beneficial to have criteria for "other

than usual" service conditions. (UL, No.

9, at pg. 1.).

The Department agrees that it would

be beneficial to have criteria to judge

"other than usual" service conditions,

and that would be a formidable task to

develop criteria that would account for

the many environmental, power supply,

and equipment operating characteristics

which individually or in combination

would constitute a service condition

that is "other than usual." NEMA

Standards Publication MCI-1993

paragraph 14.03. "Unusual Service

Conditions" lists examples. however, of

operating conditions which require the

manufacturer's consultation, to

determine the suitability of a particular

general purpose motor being considered

for an application. The Department

believes that no single item exemplified

in paragraph 14.03, by itself, necessarily

establishes the existence of unusual

service conditions, and that paragraph

14.03 does not contain an exhaustive

list of such conditions. Nevertheless, to

provide guidance as to the meaning of

this term, in the definitions of both

"general purpose motor" and "definite

purpose motor" the final -ruie cites

paragraph 14.03 as providing examples

of unusual service conditions. This is

done in the same way that the proposed

and final rules amplify the term "usual

service conditions" by stating "such as

those specified" in paragraph 14.02 of

MG1-1993, "Usual Service Conditions."

4. Special Purpose Motor

Section 340(13)(C) of EPCA defines

"special purpose motor" as "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." Section 431.2,

"Definitions," in the proposed rule,

clarifies the term "special purpose

motor" to mean "any motor that is

designed for a particular application,

and that either (1) is designed in nonstandard ratings with special operating

characteristics or special mechanical

construction, or (2) has special

operating characteristics and special

mechanical construction."

NEMA objects to the qualifying

language, "non-standard ratings," in the

proposed rule, asserting that it is

common for special purpose motors to

have standard ratings, not non-standard

ratings. NEMA further asserts that it is

unclear what the Department means by

"non-standard rating." It states that the

term "rating" in section 431.2 of the

proposed rule, is used as a qualifier in

the definition of "basic model," to refer

to one of the 113 combinations of

horsepower, poles, and open or

enclosed construction, and as such

appears to be in conflict with section

431.42(b) in the proposed rule, which

applies the requirements in EPCA to

non-standard ratings through an

interpolation methodology. As to Part 2

of the proposed definition of "special

purpose motor," NEMA alleges a

conflict with the language of the EPCA

definition. NEMA claims that if the

Department deleted the text "in nonstandard ratings" from the NOPR's

proposed definition of special purpose

motor, the resulting definition would be

consistent with the EPCA definition.

(NEMA, No. 18 at page 4.).

The Department's proposed definition

of "special purpose motor" was

intended to clarify the distinction

between that type of motor and motors

that would be "definite purpose"

motors but for the fact that they can be

used in most general purpose

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192/Tuesday, October 5, 1999/Rules and Regulations 54119

applications, and are therefore covered

by EPCA requirements. Upon further

review, the Department has decided that

EPCA's definitions sufficiently

distinguish between these types of

motors, and agrees with NEMA that the

substance of DOE's proposed definition

departs from the statutory definition.

Therefore, the definition of "special

purpose motor" in the final rule is

identical to the statutory definition of

that term. The Department disagrees,

however, with NEMA's assertion that

the meaning given to the term "rating"

in the definition of "basic model"

apparently conflicts with other parts of

the rule and creates uncertainty. The

proposed rule's "basic model"

definition states that such meaning of

"rating" is "for purpose [sic] of this

definition." Thus such meaning does

not apply throughout the rule.

5. Accreditation

Section 431.2 of the proposed rule

defines "accreditation" as "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." 61 FR 60465 (November 27,

1.996) .

NEMA asserts that it is not clear as to

which "test procedures" are being

referred to in the definition. NEMA '

states that the electric motor industry

uses the term "test procedures" to apply

to the IEEE Standard 1] 2-1996 or CSA

Standard C390-93 methods of

conducting tests to measure motor

efficiency. These methods have formed

the basis of proposed accreditation

programs to date. (NEMA, No. 18 at

page 4.).

The Department agrees that the

proposed definition needs to be

clarified, and that accreditation to

perform test procedures for electric

motors is with reference to IEEE

Standard 1121 est Method B and CSA

Standard C390 Test Method (1). The

Department also notes, however,

accreditation would generally have to be

based on the version of the test method

currently incorporated into the DOE

regulations. For these reasons, in today's

final rule, the term "accreditation" is

defined at section 431.2 of 10 CFR Part

431, as recognizing competence to

perform the IEEE Std 112-1996 Test

Method B and CSA Standard C390-93

Test Method (1) for electric motors.

6. Average Full Load Efficiency

Section 431.2 of the proposed rule

defines "average full load efficiency" to

mean "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."

NEMA recommends that the

clarifying text, "rated voltage, and rated

frequency," be added after the words

"full rated load," in the definition of

"average full load efficiency." (NEMA.

No. 18 at page 4.). Washington State

asserts that it would be more precise to

define "average full load efficiency" as

the "arithmetic mean efficiency." since

"average" could convey various

measures of central tendencies, such as

median or mode. (WSU/WSD, No. 5 at

II.N.).

The Department believes that the

clarifying text, "rated voltage, and rated

frequency." proposed by NEMA, is

consistent with the EPCA definition of

"electric motor," which refers to

"Design A and B" and "operating on

230/460 volts and constant 60 Hertz line

power as defined in NEMA Standards

Publication MC1-1987." Moreover, the

clarifying text provides a benchmark for

measuring the average full load

efficiency of a population of electric

motors of duplicate design by screening

out voltage and frequency variations

which could be deleterious to efficiency

under running conditions. Therefore,

the Department is adding the words

"rated voltage. and rated frequency" in

today's final rule. The Department also

understands the need for clarity in the

definition of "average efficiency" per

WSU/WSD's comment, and is adding

the term "arithmetic mean efficiency"

in the definition of "average full load

efficiency."

7. Nominal Full Load Efficiency

The term "nominal full load

efficiency" in section 341(13)(H) of

EPCA means "the average efficiency of

a population of motors of duplicate

design as determined in accordance

with NEMA Standards Publication

MCI-1987." Section 431.2 in the

proposed rule defines the term

"nominal full load efficiency" as it

applies to an electric motor, to mean

"the nominal efficiency in Column A of

Table 12-8. NEMA Standards

Publication MCI-1993. that is either the

closest lower value to, or that equals,

the average full load efficiency of

electric motors of the same design."

NEMA encourages the Department to

use a definition of "nominal full load

efficiency" as it is in NEMA MGI-1993,

to avoid the confusion of more than one

definition of "nominal full load

efficiency." NEMA acknowledges that

the MCI definition does not require the

manufacturer to select a single value for

nominal efficiency from Table 12-8 in

NEMA MCI, but that the manufacturer

could select any value that does not

exceed the average full load efficiency

of the population of motors. NEMA

contends that the EPCA definition takes

the same approach. (NEMA. No. 18 at p.

5.)

Based on testimony at the Public

Hearing on January 15, 1997 (TR pgs.

57-60), the Department understands

that the fixed values in Table 12-6B in

NEMA MGI-1987 (Table 12-8 in MGI1993) are an adopted set of incremental

values that manufacturers have chosen

to use as labeling values. The

Department is aware that the NEMA

MG 1 Table 12-6B was created to

prevent mismarking or confusion that

could occur if one manufacturer, for

example, labeled a motor 93.53 percent

efficient and another manufacturer

marked a motor 93.57 percent efficient.

Variations in materials, manufacturing

processes, and tests can result in motorto-motor variations for a given motor

design, so that the full load efficiency

for motors of a single design is not a

unique efficiency but rather a band of

efficiency. The NEMA MCI Table 12-

6B established a logical series of

"nominal" motor efficiencies, from

which the motor nameplate efficiency

marking is selected, to avoid the

inference of unrealistic accuracy that

might be assumed from a potentially

infinite number of labeled efficiency

values. Thus, paragraph 12.58.2 of

NEMA MGI-1993 provides that the full

load efficiency of a motor shall be

identified by a nominal efficiency value

selected from Table 12-8 (previously

Table 12-6B in NEMA MGI-1987),

"which shall be not greater than the

average efficiency of a large population"

of such motors. Such nominal value

could, in theory, be any value listed in

Table 12-8 that is not greater than the

average efficiency of the large

population.

The Department's proposed definition

resulted from a belief that

manufacturers should be required to use

for each motor the nominal full load

value that corresponds most closely to

the efficiency test or calculation results

for that motor. NEMA has stated,

however, that other analysis might

influence a manufacturer to select a

lower value for a particular motor, and

that a manufacturer would be unlikely

to select a value lower than the greatest

value that could be supported.

Notwithstanding its view that its

proposed definition of "nominal full

load efficiency" is supported by the

definition of that term in EPCA, the

Department also believes the Act can be

construed as supporting use of the

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54120 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5. 1999 /Rules and Regulations

approach in MC1-1993. In light of

NEMA's comments, the Department is

adopting, in today's final rule, a,

definition of "nominal full load

efficiency" that conforms to the use of

that term in paragraph 12.58.2 of MCi1993.

B. Test Procedures

Section 343(a)(5)(A) of EPCA requires

that the test procedures to determine the

efficiency of electric motors under

EPCA shall be the test procedures

specified in NEMA MCI -1987 and IEEE

Standard 112 Test Method B (IEEE 112)

for motor efficiency, as in effect on the

date of the enactment of the Energy

Policy Act of 1992. If the test procedures

in NEMA MG I and IEEE 112 are

subsequently amended, the Secretary of

Energy 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.

In general, the Edison Electric

Institute (EEI) supports the energy

efficiency test procedures prescribed in

the proposed rule because they are

consistent with the IEEE and the

American National Standards institute

procedures. (EEl, No. 15)

1. NEMA Standards Publication MGI1993, with Revisions I through 4

In the NOPR, the Department stated

its intention to adopt the test procedures

for the measurement of energy

efficiency in NEMA MG1-1993 with

Revision 1. 61 FR 60446, 60466, 60469

(November 27, 1996). Revision 2, 3 and

4 have also been added to MG1-1993.

Revisions 2 and 3 make editorial

clarifications to the determination of

efficiency and losses under MG 1-

12.58.1. Whereas in MG 1 Revision 1,

motors from 1 to 125 horsepower were

tested by dynamometer according to

IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B or

CSA Standard C390 Test Method (1),

MG1 Revision 4 extends testing by

dynamometer up to 400 horsepower

under MGI-12.58.1, thereby including

the I through 200 range of horsepower

ratings under EPCA.

The Department does not intend to

determine that the test procedure

amendments in Revisions 2-4 of MGI1993 fail to meet the requirements of

sections 343(a)(2) and (3) of EPCA, 42

U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3), except to the

extent that such a determination iswarranted, as discussed below, with

respect to certain provisions of IEEE Std

112-1996 Test Method B (which MCI

references). The Department is adopting,

in today's final rule, the test procedure

requirements to measure energy

efficiency and losses in NEMA MGI

with Revisions I through 4, but with

certain modifications to IEEE Std 112-

1996 Test Method B.

2. Modifications to the IEEE Std 112-

1996 Test Method B

IEEE Std 112-1991 Test Method B

was incorporated into the proposed

rule. but was revised and superseded by

IEEE Std 112-1996, which was

published May 8. 1997. A minor

revision was made in IEEE Std 112-

1996 on January 20, 1998, when IEEE

issued a notice of correction for the

calculation at item (28) in section 10.2

Form B-Test Method B: "Calculation

form for input-output test of induction

machine with segregation of losses and

smoothing of stray-load loss." Under

section 343(a)(5)(B) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.

6314(a)(5)(B), DOE must now adopt the

test procedures in IEEE Std 112-1996

with the minor revision, unless clear

and convincing evidence supports a

conclusion that such test procedures are

not reasonably designed to produce test

results which reflect energy efficiency.

or are unduly burdensome to conduct.

The Department compared IEEE Std

112-1991 to IEEE Std 112-1996 to

determine whether there were

differences in the two versions of Test

Method B. and, if so, whether to adopt

Test Method B in IEEE Std 112-1996

into the final rule for electric motors. As

a result of its analysis, the Department

believes Test Method B in IEEE Std

112-1996 improves upon the version of

that test method in IEEE Std 112-1991,

because IEEE Std 112-1996 includes:

tightened tolerances on metering

instrumentation (IEEE 112, clause 4): a

more comprehensive and consolidated

verbal description of the components of

Test Method B (IEEE 112, clause 6.4):

and specific formulae provided for

calculation of stator 12R losses (IEEE

112, clause 5.1).

After publication of IEEE Std 112-

1996 in May 1997, however, the

Department became aware, through

information submitted by a testing

laboratory that has gained experience

using the test procedure, that Test

Method B in IEEE Std 112-1996

contains 1) typographical errors, 2)

statements of procedure that are open to

interpretation, and 3) incorrect

information. For a given motor, these

defects could cause varying

measurements of efficiency, or errors

ranging from plus or minus one-half to

one and one-half percentage points in

measured efficiency, thereby throwing

an electric motor into the next higher or

lower level of nominal efficiency, and

effectively rendering it either in or out

of compliance with the applicable EPCA

efficiency standard. Subsequently. the

Department confirmed the existence of

these types of problems with IEEE Std

112-1996 through contacts with other

testing laboratories, a certification

organization, and manufacturers, each

known to have experience with IEEE

Standard 112-1996, and through

discussions with the Chairman of the

IEEE Induction Power Subcommittee.

(IEEE has since corrected one such

error, in its January 1998 notice of

correction.) In sum, although Test

Method B in IEEE Std 112-1996 has

several advantages, mentioned above, it

also has typographical errors, provisions

subject to interpretation, and incorrect

information.

The Department announced its

intention, in the Federal Register, at 63

FR 34758 (June 25, 1998), that the final

rule would prescribe IEEE Std 112-1996

Test Method B, with the January 1998

correction , as a test procedure under

EPCA for determining the energy

efficiency of electric motors, but with

certain modifications set forth at 63 FR

34759-62 (June 25, 1998). The

Department reopened the comment

period on the proposed rule for motors,

in part to solicit comments on these

modifications. The Department noted,

63 FR 34759 (June 25, 1998), that it was

not altering the IEEE test procedure, but

was "proposing only to mandate certain

modifications to IEEE 112-1996 Test

Method B when it is used for purposes

of measuring efficiency under EPCA."

The Department received six sets of

comments on these proposed

modifications to IEEE Std 112-1996

Test Method B. There is general

acknowledgment that IEEE Std 112-

1996 Test Method B needs modification

or correction, but some commenters

opposed changes by the Department for

purposes of EPCA. In general, Advanced

Energy Corporation and Zentralverband

Elektrotechnik-und Elektronikindustrie

e.V. (ZVEI) support the Department's

corrections and modifications to IEEE

Std 112-1996. (AEC, No. 35 and ZVEI,

No. 37 pgs. 2-3.). GE Motors, NEMA

and ACEEE, however, assert that

corrections and modifications to IEEE

Standard 112-1996 Test Method B

should be accomplished instead through

the voluntary standards making process

(GE, No. 39, and NEMA/ACEEE, No.

38). NEMA and ACEEE oppose the

Department's making any modifications

or corrections to the IEEE Standard 112-

1996 Test Method B on grounds that

such changes could (1) unnecessarily

lengthen the time for completion of the

final rule for motors; (2) differ from

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

changes which might be made by IEEE;

(3) delay manufacturers from certifying

compliance and disrupt laboratory

accreditation programs: and (4) create

confusion in the industry because there

would be two versions of IEEE Standard

112, one for electric motors covered by

EPCA and one for motors not covered by

EPCA. NEMA and ACEEE also assert

that the many typographical errors and

provisions subject to interpretation have

been dealt with by motor manufacturers

and are not a problem. NEMA and

ACEEE recommend that the Department

adopt IEEE Std 112-1996, with the

January 20, 1998 revision, and without

the corrections and modifications

proposed in the reopening notice

(NEMA/ACEEE, No. 38). GE Motors

agrees with the Department that

typographical errors in IEEE Standard

112 should be corrected, but asserts that

instead of changing the IEEE Standard

112 Test Method B for use under EPCA,

the Department should communicate its

understanding of the needed corrections

and modifications to the National

Institute of Standards and Technology/

National Voluntary Laboratory

Accreditation Program (NIST/NVLAP)

for application in its proficiency testing

program for electric motors. (GE, Nos.

39, 46). IEEE submitted the

Department's June 25, 1998, reopening

notice to the IEEE Induction Machinery'

Subcommittee for its review and

recommendations, and stated that it

would "take any action deemed

necessary to update or amend" IEEE Std

112-1996. But IEEE did not indicate

when it would address the points in the

reopening notice. (IEEE, No. 34).

The Department understands that

IEEE typically updates its standards

approximately every five years, and that

the next revision of IEEE Std 112-1996

is scheduled for the year 2001, although

it might be published in the year 2000.

(Martine/Knab, No. 41: IEEE. No. 46). In

the Department's view, this would be

too great a delay in correcting IEEE

Standard 112 for use under EPCA. The

Department also understands industry

concern that, subsequent to any changes

the Department would make, IEEE

might make different changes to IEEE

Standard 112. Nevertheless, if and when

such changes are forthcoming from

IEEE, the Department will essentially be

required, under section 343(a)(5)(B) of

EPCA, to incorporate such changes in to

the DOE test procedures under EPCA,

unless the Secretary properly

determines otherwise. In regard to

laboratory accreditation programs, any

changes to IEEE Standard 112 Test

Method B for purposes of EPCA would

be applied, for consistency, in the NIST/

NVLAP accreditation program. NIST/

NVLAP has advised DOE, however, that

the changes in today's final rule would

not affect existing or future NIST/

NVLAP accreditations of laboratories to

test motors for energy efficiency. (NIST/

NVLAP, No. 45). As to the assertion that

the typographical errors and procedures

subject to interpretation are not

problematic, use of IEEE Standard 112

has been voluntary until recently. But

under today's rule, it will be mandatory,

and will be the basis for determining

whether manufacturers are complying

with EPCA and can sell their products.

When a test procedure is used in this

type of mandatory environment, there is

greater need than in a voluntary

environment for it to be precise and

uniformly applied.

Upon consideration of the comments

received and further review of the

issues, the Department continues to

believe, for the reasons stated in the

reopening notice and this notice, that

IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B

should be adopted as the EPCA test

procedure for electric motors, but with

certain modifications and corrections.

The Department emphasizes, however,

that such modifications and corrections

in today's rule do not fundamentally or

extensively alter IEEE Std 112-1996

Test Method B. Rather, these changes

are essentially technical corrections and

interpretations of Test Method B, which

fine tune and clarify it, will enable it to

work better. and realize the intent of the

test procedure. The Department

disagrees with the claims that these

changes will delay compliance

certification or create a second version

of IEEE Standard 112 that will cause

confusion. Instead, the test procedure in

today's rule in essence conforms to IEEE

Std 112-1996. Furthermore, as

demonstrated by the discussion in this

notice and in the reopening notice,

absent the changes contained in this

rule, IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B

would not be reasonably designed to

produce results that reflect energy

efficiency and would be unduly

burdensome to conduct. Consequently,

changes in Test Method B, as described

in the following passages, are

incorporated into today's rule.

a. Typographical Errors

Page 17, subclause 6.4.1.3, No-load

test, currently reads: "See 5.3 including

5.33. * ." In today's final rule, this

reference is changed to read: "See 5.3

including 5.3.3. * * *

Page 48, item (24). the formula for

shaft power in watts. currently reads: "Is

equal to 1(23) • (11)1/k2", but the

constant k2 is not defined. At section

II.A.I.b. of the reopening notice, the

54121

Department proposed to correct the

constant in item (24) to the

constant "k". The formula in item (24)

would then read: "Is equal to 1(23) •

(1 1))/k". 63 FR 34759 (June 25. 1998).

Also, page 48, item (29) currently reads:

"See 4.3.2.2 Eq. 4." The Department

stated, at section II.A. 2.c., that such

reference to equation (4) in subclause

4.3.2.2, Slip correction for temperature,

without explanation, could cause

confusion and errors, since the terms in

equation (4) used to correct slip

measurements to the specified stator

temperature, are defined differently

from similar terms used in 10.2 Form B.

63 FR 34760 (June 25, 1998).

NEMA and ACEEE assert that it is

preferable to change the constant "k" in

item (22) to "k2" since this would

follow in sequence the previous

appearance of the constant "k," in item

(16). Such a change would also

eliminate some of the confusion the

Department notes in section II.A.2.c. of

the reopening notice, concerning the

different definitions given for "k" in

subclause 4.3.2.2 and "k" in item (22)

on page 48, since "k" would no longer

be included in item (22). (NEMA/

ACEEE No. 38 at pg. 2).

The Department understands that

there is not a consistent definition of

terms throughout IEEE Std 112-1996.

For example, the term "k" is used in

sections 4.3.1, 7.2.2, 7.3.2.1, 7.3.2.2,

7.3.2.3, 10.1 and 10.2 of IEEE Std 112-

1996 to convert power in watts to

torque, and in sections 4.2.3, 4.3.2.2 and

8.3.3 as the temperature intercept for

computing the resistance. The term "k"

without subscripts in IEEE Standard 112

is used often to mean different things,

and therefore it has been the practice to

define its meaning within each section

where it is used. (NIST/NVLAP, No. 45).

The Department believes that the NEMA

and ACEEE change has merit and would

eliminate some of the confusion

described in sections II.A.l.b. and

II.A.2.c. of the reopening notice, both

with page 48, item (24) in the formula

for shaft power in watts, and subclause

4.3.2.2 equation (4). 63 FR 34759.

Therefore, in lieu of the change

proposed by the Department in its

reopening notice for page 48, item (24),

the Department will change the torque

constant at page 48, item (22) of IEEE

Standard 112 Test Method B, from "k"

to "k2", in today's final rule. The term

"k2" at item (22) would then read: "k2

= 9.549 for torque, in N•m" and "k2 =

7.043 for torque, in lbf•ft." Both the

formula at page 48, item (24), and the

constant "k" for conductivity at page 7,

subclause 4.3.2.2 equation (4), are

adopted without change from the IEEE

Std 112-1996 Test Method B.

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54122 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5. 1999 /Rules and Regulations

b. Provisions Subject to Interpretation

Page 8, subclause 5.1.1, "Specified

temperature" provides three methods,

listed in order of preference, to

determine the "specified temperature"

used in making resistance corrections:

(a) measured temperature rise by

resistance from a rated load temperature

test; (b) measured temperature rise on a

duplicate machine; and (c) use of a

temperature correction table when rated

load temperature has not been

measured. The Department understands

that only options "a" or "b" in

subclause 5.1.1 are applicable to Test

Method B. Information provided to the

Department indicated, however. that

option "c" is being misapplied to Test

Method B. Therefore, at section II.A.2.a.

of the reopening notice, the Department

sought comment on whether its test

procedure rule should incorporate into

subclause 5.1.1 the following language:

"(Method B only allows the use of

preference a) or b).)" 63 FR 34759-60

Qune 25, 1998).

AEC supports the Department's

suggested modification of section 5.1.1.

AEC agrees that a complete and

thorough reading of IEEE Standard 112-

1996 would make it clear that

preference "c" is not compatible with

Test Method B, as the Department

argues at section II.A.2.a. of its

reopening notice, 63 FR 34760 (June 25,

1998). However, AEC asserts that IEEE

Standard 112-1996 is frequently used as

a reference document where only a few

clauses are reviewed at a given time,

and that the proposed modification

would preclude the inadvertent

application of "c" to Test Method B.

(AEC, No. 35 at pg. 2). Also,

Underwriters Laboratories, Lincoln

Electric, and NIST/NVLAP agree with

the proposed revision to make clear at

subclause 5.1.1 that only options "a" or

"b" are applicable to Test Method B.

(UL, No. 43, Lincoln, No. 44, and NIST/

NVLAP, No. 45).

The Department concludes, based on

the aforementioned comments, that the

proposed change is warranted and

would eliminate the possibility of

misinterpreting subclause 5.1.1, which

could lead to distortion of efficiency

values by misapplication of option "c."

Consequently, in today's final rule, the

Department incorporates into the first

sentence of subclause 5.1.1 the

following language: "(Test Method B

only allows the use of preference a) or

b) .)"

Page 47, the procedure to measure

temperature in item (4) Rated Load Heat

Run Stator Winding Temperature is not

defined. Information in the footnote at

the bottom of page 47, 10.2 Form B,

indicates that the temperature for item

(7), which is used as a basis for the

temperatures in items (4). (27), and (16),

can be either determined from a

temperature detector or derived from

measurement of the stator resistance

during the test. The Department

proposed, at section Il.A.2.b. of its

reopening notice, 63 FR 34760 Qune 25,

1998), that the method of measuring

both items (4) and (7) be consistent.

There were no comments to the

contrary. NIST/NVLAP concurs that the

modification to the footnote is

appropriate and will not affect its

accreditation of laboratories. (N1ST/

NVLAP, No. 45). Therefore, the

Department will. in today's final rule,

incorporate a second sentence to the

footnote at the bottom of page 47, 10.2

Form B. to read: "The values for tt and

t, shall be based on the same method of

temperature measurement, selected

from the four methods in subclause

8.3."

Page 48, item (27) defines Stator 12R

Loss, in W, at (t.,)°C, and item (29)

defines Corrected Slip, in r/min, on IEEE

Std 112-1996 10.2 Form B. Page 48,

item (29) currently reads: "See 4.3.2.2,

Eq 4." The Department believes that

such reference, without explanation, to

equation (4) in subclause 4.3.2.2, Slip

correction for temperature, can cause

confusion and errors, since the terms in

equation (4) used to correct slip

measurements to the specified stator

temperature are defined differently from

similar terms used in 10.2 Form B. As

set forth at section II.A.2.c. of the

reopening notice, based on its

examination of 10.2 Form B and

supporting sections of IEEE Standard

112, the Department proposed the

following modifications to clarify the

temperatures to be used for correcting

the stator and rotor loss: (1) at the top

of 10.2 Form B and below the line that

defines "rated load heat run stator

winding resistance," insert a new line

that will define "t,," as it is defined in

6.4.3.2 and 6.4.3.3: "Temperature for

Resistance Correction (t.<) = °C (See

6.4.3.2):" (2) add a note at the bottom of

10.2 Form B to read: "NOTE: The

temperature for resistance correction (tx)

is equal to [(4) - (5) + 25°CJ:" (3) add the

reference "see 6.4.3.2" to the end of

item (27) on page 48: and (4) change

item (29) on page 48, which presently

states "See 4.3.2.2, eq. 4," to state: "Is

equal to (10) • [k, + (4) - (5) + 25°C) /

[k, + (7)]. see 6.4.3.3". 63 FR 37460-1

(June 25, 1998).

There were no objections to the

proposed clarifications of temperatures

to be used for correcting stator and rotor

loss. The Department concludes that the

proposed modifications will reduce

confusion and errors in the IEEE Test

Method B, and therefore incorporates

the aforementioned modifications into

today's final rule.

Page 48, item (32), the equation to

correct stray-load loss currently reads:

"Is equal to AT2 where A = slope of the

curve of (26) vs. (23) 2 using a linear

regression analysis, see 6.4.2.7," and "T

= corrected torque = (23)." In the

reopening notice, the Department states

both its concerns about this equation as

well as considerations supporting use of

the equation as written. The Department

stated that it intends to adopt IEEE Std

112-1996, subclause 6.4.2.7, Smoothing

of the stray-load loss, without change,

but is still considering the option of

making the change to add a restriction

on the allowable value of the intercept.

Also, the Department invited the

submission of data that would show if

any significant differences do occur

between the final determined value of

efficiency at 100 percent rated load, for

various values of the stray-load loss

intercept in repeated tests of the same

motor. 63 FR 34761-62 Qune 25, 1998).

AEC supports the modification to

subclause 6.4.2.7 to add a restriction on

the allowable value of the y intercept,

and advises the Department that it finds

such a check to be useful in verifying

the validity of test data. (AEC, No. 35 at

pg. 2).

ZVEI cites problems with the

influence of a systematic measurement

error on determined stray load losses,

and rejects modification to the equation

to correct stray load loss on the basis

that it would only offset stochastic

measurement errors. (ZVE1, No. 37 pgs.

2-3.).

The Department has been advised that

it would be premature to require the

absolute value of B to be less than 10

percent of the total loss. (NIST/NVLAP,

No. 45). During the NIST/NVLAP

accreditation process this limit on the

absolute value of B was not a

requirement. However, the data from

some demonstration tests made during

the on-site inspections of the

laboratories requesting accreditation

were all well within the 10 percent limit

discussed in the reopening notice. The

Department believes that future

investigation of this subject is

warranted. Presently, however, there is

insufficient data available to support a

specific limit for the value of B.

Therefore, the Department will

incorporate, into today's final rule, IEEE

Std 112-1996, subclause 6.4.2.7,

Smoothing of the stray-load loss,

without change. Nevertheless, the

Department continues to be interested

in receiving data on this subject for

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5. 1999 / Rules and Regulations 54123

future consideration of a restriction on

the allowable value of the intercept.

Page 17, subclause 6.4.1.3. "No-load

test, "in the secc-id sentence, currently

reads: "Prior to making this test, the

machine shall be operated at no-load

until both the temperature and the input

have stabilized." Information provided

to the Department indicated that the

requirements for temperature and input

stabilization during the no-load test

appear to be undefined and could cause

confusion. To clarify the pertinent

subclause for temperature stabilization,

the Department proposed, at section

II.A.2.e. of the reopening notice, to

modify the second sentence in 6.4.1.3 to

read: "Prior to making this test, the

machine shall be operated at no-load

until both the temperature has stabilized

(see 8.6.3) and the input has stabilized."

63 FR 34762 (June 25. 1998).

AEC disagrees with the Department's

proposal to modify subclause 6.4.1.3 by

specifying temperature stabilization per

subclause 8.6.3. AEC asserts that

subclause 8.6.3 is a temperature

stabilization definition for determining

the end of a rated-load heat-run, is

much too stringent a requirement for the

no-load test, and would add

approximately two hours of testing time

to each motor test. Also, according to

AEC, the proposed modification would

create confusion with the execution of

no-load stabilization, as defined in

sections 5.3 and 4.3.1.1 of IEEE

Standard 112 Test Method B. AEC

suggests that subclause 6.4.1.3 be

modified to omit the reference to

temperature stabilization, i.e., remove

the words "both the temperature and

the input have," and replace them with

"the input has." AEC explains that

subclause 6.4.1.3 already references

subclause 5.3, Core loss and

stabilization, which defines "power

stabilization." AEC asserts that its

modification will retain the "power

et-bilization" component. produce

consistent, repeatable test results, and

make subclause 6.4.1.3 consistent with

subclauses 5.3 and 4.3.1.1, as well as

with the no-load test as defined in IEEE

Std 112-1991 Test Method B.

Further, AEC asserts that there is no

need for temperature stabilization as

part of a no-load test, based upon

indications that the reference to

"temperature stabilization at no-load"

in subclause 6.4.1.3 was not one of the

IEEE Induction Power Subcommittee's

proposed changes in drafting IEEE Std

112-1996 Test Method B. (AEC, No. 35

and Martiny, No. 42). The Department

has been advised through NIST/NVLAP

that laboratories testing motors

according to IEEE Standard 112-1996

Test Method B typically interpret

subclause 6.4.1.3 to require only that the

input watt reading not vary over 3

percent. and to disregard any

requirement for temperature

stabilization. (NIST/NVLAP. No. 45).

Since the no-load test is made after the

load test and dynamometer correction

test. the motor is usually substantially

below rated temperature and the

temperature changes are small with

time. Consequently, the Department

withdraws its proposed modification, at

section 11.A.2.e. of the reopening notice,

to include "temperature stabilization"

in subclause 6.4.1.3 of the IEEE

Standard 112 Test Method B. Instead,

the Department is persuaded by AEC's

comments to modify the second

sentence in 6.4.1.3 and will incorporate

the following into today's final rule:

"Prior to making this test, the machine

shall be operated at no-load until the

input has stabilized." (AEC, No. 35).

The Department believes the

modification provided by AEC will

eliminate the confusion with subclause

6.4.1.3, which is identified at section

II.A.2.e. of the reopening notice, and

will not be unduly burdensome on

manufacturers.

c. Incorrect Information

Page 40. subclause 8.6.3, Termination

of test. the first and third sentences

currently read : "For continuously rated

machines, readings shall be taken at

intervals of I/z h(ourj or less . ' * * For

continuous rated machines. the

temperature test shall continue until

there is I °C or less change in

temperature rise between two

successive readings." As written,

however, this language allows

temperature readings to be taken at

intervals as brief as five seconds, for

example. If such short intervals are

used , there could be little or no rise in

temperature between any two

consecutive readings, even if the motor

temperature is actually still rising.

Consequently , the motor's temperature

could be misconstrued as being stable.

The Department proposed , at section

II.A.3. in the reopening notice, to

change the third sentence in subclause

8.6.3 (the second clause quoted above)

to read : "For continuous rated

machines, the temperature test shall

continue until there is 1 °C or less

change in temperature rise over a 30-

minute time period."

NIST/NVLAP concurs with the

proposed change to subclause 8.6.3,

because it is consistent with the manner

in which accredited laboratories are

interpreting the temperature

measurement procedure . (NIST/NVLAP,

No. 45). No comments were received to

contradict this proposed change and for

the reasons stated in the reopening

notice, the Department adopts this

proposed change in today's final rule.

d., Summary

In sum, the Department is convinced

that there is sufficient evidence to

warrant use of IEEE Std 112-1996 Test

Method B, with the aforementioned

corrections, and no substantial evidence

to the contrary. Such corrections would

provide an accurate measurement of the

energy efficiency of the motor being

tested, and a measurement that is

repeatable from one test to the next of

the same motor or comparable motors.

In addition, the Department believes

that, with these corrections,

manufacturers would not be burdened

by having to resolve problems related to

typographical errors, unclear provisions,

and unnecessary references to other

parts of IEEE Standard 112. Therefore,

the Department incorporates, into

today's final rule for motors, the test

procedures in IEEE Std 112-1996 Test

Method B, the correction to the

calculation at item (28) in section 10.2

Form B-Test Method B issued by IEEE

on January 20, 1998, and the

aforementioned corrections and

modifications.

C. Determination of a Motor's Efficiency:

Use of Accredited Laboratories and

Certification Programs, Selection of

Basic Models for Testing, Alternative

Means To Measure Efficiency, and

Sampling Plans for Testing

1. Summary of DOE's Proposals

Section 343(a)(2) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.

6314(a)(2), requires that the test

procedures prescribed for electric

motors by DOE be "reasonably designed

to produce test results which reflect

energy efficiency," yet not be "unduly

burdensome" to conduct. As per the

proposed rule at 10 CFR 431.24, Units

to be tested, a manufacturer would

initially determine the efficiency of at

least five basic models by testing, and of

its remaining models either by testing or

by use of an Alternative Efficiency

Determination Method (AEDM). 61 FR

60466-67 (November 27, 1996). (Such

testing to initially determine efficiency

is referred to as "compliance testing.")

Section 431.24 provides (1) criteria for

deciding which basic models should

undergo compliance testing. (2) a

sampling plan for determining, for each

such basic model, how many and which

units must be tested, (3) criteria for the

acceptability of an AEDM, including a

requirement that the AEDM be

substantiated by applying it to five basic

models that have been tested for

efficiency, and (4) requirements for

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54124 Federal Register /Vol. 64. No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5. 1999 / Rules and Regulations

subsequent verification of an AEDM.

Under section 431.25 of the proposed

rule, the efficiency of a basic model

must be either certified by a third-party

certification organization, or based on

testing (compliance testing and, where

an AEDM is used, testing to substantiate

the AEDM) that has been conducted in

an accredited laboratory.

As per the proposed 10 CFR 431.127,

Enforcement, the Department would

ascertain in an enforcement proceeding,

which could include testing

("enforcement testing"), whether a

motor complies with the applicable

energy ef:iciency standard and with the

labeled value of efficiency. 61 FR 60472,

60474-75 (November 27, 1996).

Proposed section 431.27 includes a

sampling procedure for enforcement

testing.

In the reopening notice, the

Department proposed for consideration

that the final rule prescribe neither

criteria for selecting the basic models for

compliance testing, nor a sampling plan

for such testing, when a motor's

efficiency is certified by a certification

program. The Department also stated

that it was considering adoption of

revised sampling plans for compliance

and enforcement testing, and of

provisions for withdrawal of DOE

recognition from an accreditation

organization or certification program

that deviates from the standards for

recognition.

Many provisions of the proposed rule

were the subject of little or no comment

or dispute, including (1) the

requirement that a manufacturer

determine through testing the efficiency

of five or more basic models (proposed

section 431.24(a)), (2) allowing the use

of AEDMs for other basic models

(proposed section 431.24(a)), (3) the

criteria for an AEDM (proposed section

431.24(a)(2)), (4) the basic approach in

Section 431.24 (a) (3) for establishing the

acrurary and reliability of an AEDM ,

and (5) the provisions for subsequent

verification of an AEDM (proposed

section 431.24(b)(4)). The following

addresses matters on which significant

comments were received.

2. Issues Involving Both Use of

Accredited Laboratories and Use of

Certification Organizations

EPCA directs the Department to

"require manufacturers to certify

through an independent testing or

certification program nationally

recognized in the United States, that

[any electric motor subject to EPCA

efficiency standards] meets the

applicable standard." EPCA section

345(c), 42 U.S.C. 6316(c). Consistent

with the approach in DOE's program

concerning the energy efficiency of

residential appliances. section 431.123

of the proposed rule provides that a

manufacturer must certify to DOE the

compliance and the efficiency levels of

the electric motors it manufactures. 61

FR 60471 (November 27, 1996). The

proposed rule meets the statutory

mandate that certification be "through"

an independent testing or certification

program by requiring a manufacturer to

base its certification on use of such a

program , i.e., a manufacturer must use

an independent testing program or a

certification program to establish a

motor's efficiency level and compliance,

which it then certifies to DOE. See 61

FR 60458 (November 27, 1996).

To satisfy the intent of the

"independent testing" provision of

Section 345(c) of EPCA, and given the

relative paucity of independent testing

laboratories, the Department proposed

that a manufacturer be permitted to

establish compliance based on testing

carried out in a laboratory accredited by

a nationally recognized program such as

the National Institute of Standards and

Technology/National Voluntary

Laboratory Accreditation Program

(NIST/NVLAP). The laboratory could be

the manufacturer's own laboratory. As

required under section 345 (c), the

Department also permits a manufacturer

to certify compliance based on its

participation in a certification program.

61 FR 60455- 56, 60458, 60467

(November 27, 1996).

The majority of comments were

supportive of these proposals. For

example , the Association of

Independent Scientific . Engineering and

Testing Firms ("ACIL", formerly the

American Council of Independent

Laboratories) supports the adoption of

the proposed rule regarding test

procedures and certification for energy

efficiency of electric motors, and in

particular , the Department's proposal to

allow electric motor manufacturers

three approaches for establishing

compliance : testing in the

manufacturer's accredited laboratory;

testing in an accredited independent

testing laboratory : or use of a third-party

certification program (ACIL, No. 7 and

Public Hearing Tr . Pgs. 123-124 7).

However, some commenters expressed

concern about these options for

compliance certification.

Zentralverband Elektrotechnik- and

Elektronikindustrie e.V. (ZVEI) asserts

that the manufacturer 's declaration

"'Public Hearing. Tr. Pgs. 123-124." refers to the

page numbers of the transcript of the "Public

Hearing on Energy Efficiency Standards. Test

Procedures. Labeling. and Certification Reporting

for Certain Commercial and Industrial Electric

Motors.- held in Washington. DC. January 15. 1997.

should be the preferred method

compared with third-parry certification.

and should also be accepted without

requiring testing in an accredited

laboratory. (ZVEI, No. 37, pg. 2-3). As

to third party certification, on the one

hand the proposed rule requires the

manufacturer to certify compliance to

DOE, a requirement that is retained in

today's final rule. Thus, ZVEI appears to

have the erroneous view that DOE treats

third party certification as an alternative

to a declaration by the manufacturer. As

indicated above, the third party

certification contemplated under today's

rule is a basis for the manufacturer's

declaration. On the other hand, section

345(c) of EPCA clearly directs the

Department to require manufacturers to

certify compliance through either a

testing program or a certification

program. A preference for one over the

other might be barred by the statute,

and, in any event, DOE believes such a

preference is unwarranted at this time

given the potential benefits from using

a certification program. See 61 FR 60457

(November 27, 1996). Concerning

accreditation, as noted above use of an

accredited laboratory serves to satisfy

the EPCA provision calling for

"independent" testing, and a

manufacturer's declaration in and of

itself would not in DOE's view satisfy

the intent of this provision. To the

extent ZVEI is concerned that foreign

manufacturers would be unfairly

burdened by having to test in

laboratories accredited in the United

States, DOE notes that today's final rule

permits testing at a laboratory

accredited by an accreditation body

having a mutual recognition

arrangement with NIST/NVLAP.

Sterling Electric, Inc. supports the

need for more than one choice when

selecting an accrediting body or

certification organization to fulfill the

requirement for compliance with EPCA

efficiency standards. (Sterling, No. 13).

The ACIL is concerned that the NOPR

refers to only two private organizations

that could certify electric motors to the

Department's efficiency standards, and

asks that the final proposal not refer to

any one certification body or

accreditation body. (ACIL, No. 7.).

These organizations were identified by

a manufacturer, 61 FR 60457 (November

27, 1996), which added that it is not

necessary to limit independent

certification-that is, certification of

energy-efficient electric motors by a

nationally recognized program-to two

particular certification organizations.

The apparent concern that the

Department might limit a manufacturer

to only certain choices when selecting

an agency to accredit its testing

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 54125

laboratory or to certify the efficiency of

its motors is unfounded. Sections

431.26, Department of Energy

recognition of accreditation bodies, and

431.27, Department of Energy

recognition of nationally recognized

certification programs. of the proposed

rule essentially provide that any

accreditation body or certification

organization can request classification

by the Department as being nationally

recognized in the United States for the

purposes of section 345 of EPCA.

Section 431.25(a) of the proposed rule

permits a certificate of conformity for a

basic model of an electric motor to be

obtained from any certification program

classified by DOE as nationally

recognized under section 431.27, and

permits testing in any laboratory

accredited by NIST/NVLAP, by a foreign

organization recognized by NIST/

NVLAP, or by an organization classified

by the Department, pursuant to section

431.26, as an accreditation body. Thus,

a manufacturer would be able to

establish compliance with EPCA

standards through its own choice of any

testing laboratory or certification

program that meets these standards. In

this regard, the Department will make

no change to today's final rule.

Comments from Reliance Electric

Company encourage the Department to

include a separate and clearly ident,fied

paragraph in the final rule which states

the "methods" that can be used for

determining compliance with EPCA.

Reliance suggests the following: (i)

actual testing of a basic model of electric

motor, (ii) use of an alternative

efficiency determination method

(AEDM), and (iii) use of a third party

certification agency (Reliance. No. 11 at

pgs. 6 and 7). Reliance, in

recommending "methods," including

actual testing, use of an AEDM, and a

third party certification agency, also

asserts that accreditation "in and of

itself, is not an actual means for

determining compliance." (Reliance,

No. 11, p. 7).

The Department believes Reliance is

addressing two related issues: (1)

accreditation should not be considered

an optional "method'; and (2) the

Department should explicitly recognize

certification programs as an option. As

to Reliance's proposed methods, the

Department questions whether a

certification program is a method for

determining compliance, comparable to

testing and use of an AEDM, because a

certification program often determines

the efficiency of an electric motor using

one or both of these approaches, as well

as other methods. However, the

Department agrees that accreditation is

not a method for determining whether

electric motors are in compliance.

Rather it is a means for assuring that a

laboratory can perform the test

procedures. and that a manufacturer's

efficiency representations, to the extent

they are based on the laboratory's test

measurements, are accurate and reliable.

In this regard , use of an accredited

laboratory serves a function very similar

to use of a certification organization. In

section 431.25(a) of the proposed rule,

the Department 's objective is to provide

options for determining compliance to

manufacturers faced with a small

number of existing third party

laboratories. These options will

continue to be offered to manufacturers

in today's final rule.

The Department agrees with Reliance

that the use of a certification program as

a means for determining compliance

could be more explicitly stated. The

Department is therefore re-organizing

and revising Section 431.24 of today's

final rule , and adopting additional

language in Section 431.123(a), to make

clear that a manufacturer can use such

a program to establish the efficiency of

its motors and as a basis for certifying

to DOE that the motors comply with

EPCA requirements.

NIST asserts that the proposed rule

would create two different compliance

procedures. accreditation and

certification , with unequal criteria for

determining compliance with energy

efficiency requirements. (NIST, No.10 at

section 2.). Statistical sampling

procedures and test data, NIST

contends. should be uniform and based

on proficiency testing under a roundrobin type program, to assure a common

basis for determining whether a motor is

in compliance . According to NIST, test

facility competence would be based on

the requirement of laboratory

accreditation by NVLAP to assure

confidence in test data, and the validity,

reliability , reproducibility . and accuracy

of test measurements. The Department

understands that NIST advocates that all

efficiency testing of motors under EPCA

be performed in laboratories accredited

by NVLAP, including testing that is

under the auspices of a certification

program.

The Department notes that

accreditation is being required under

today's rule to satisfy the intent of the

"independent testing" provision of

section 345 (e) of EPCA. and that section

345(e) allows use of an "independent

certification program" as an alternative

means of establishing compliance. In

addition , the Department understands

that a certification program is a

continuous assessment to assure that

new products and subsequent

production conform to specified

requirements. Under a certification

program, such as the ones conducted by

Underwriters Laboratories (UL) or CSA

International (CSA). a motor

manufacturer's production and testing

operations would be evaluated and

representative samples of electric

motors would be tested to applicable

standards. Following an initial

verification, follow-up audits of motors

and on-going testing by the

manufacturer would be required. Such

programs are in compliance with

Federal law in Canada, and are

accredited by the Standards Council of

Canada, with whom NVLAP holds an

agreement of mutual recognition.

The issue is one of confidence, that is.

confidence that a manufacturer's

production units are being produced in

conformance with EPCA requirements.

The Department believes that use of an

independent certification program

without testing in an accredited facility

will provide adequate assurance of

compliance with EPCA's energy

efficiency requirements. Consequently,

the Department is adopting the options

for determining compliance that were

set forth in the proposed rule.

As mentioned above, Section 345(c) of

EPCA requires that compliance be

certified through a testing or

certification program that is "nationally

recognized." The proposed rule, at

sections 431.26 and 431.27. provides

criteria and general procedures for DOE

recognition of accreditation bodies and

certification programs, to meet this

requirement. These sections have been

incorporated into the final rule virtually

unchanged. In addition, section 431.28

of the final rule also adds specific

procedures, including an opportunity

for public participation, that the

Department will follow in considering

petitions for recognition under sections

431.26 and 431.27.

Neither of these sections, however,

addresses a situation where DOE has

classified an organization as an

accreditation body, or as a nationally

recognized certification program, and

the organization subsequently ceases to

comply with the conditions for such

classification.R Therefore, in the

reopening notice, 63 FR 34766 (June 25,

"One of the conditions stated in the proposed

rule is that the organization must have "standards

and procedures" for carrying out accreditation or a

certification program. 61 FR 60467, 60468

(November 27. 1996). The proposed rule

contemplates. at sections 431.26(d) and 431.27(d)

for example, that this condition would be met only

if the Department found acceptable the

organization's standards and procedures for

carrying out its program. The final rule reinforces

and clarifies this point by adding the word

"satisfactory" before "standards and procedures" in

sections 431.26(b)(1) and 431.27(b)(1).

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54126 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5. 1999 / Rules and Regulations

1998), the Department proposed to add

provisions to (1) notify an accreditation

body or a certification organization of

failure to comply with the conditions of

section 431.26 or 431.27, respectively,

(2) request appropriate corrective action,

(3) provide an opportunity to respond,

and (4) withdraw recognition. Also, the

Department proposed to permit an

accreditation body or certification

organization to withdraw itself from

recognition by the Department.

NEMA and ACEEE support the

Department's procedure for notification

and corrective action. Further, NEMA

and ACEEE recommend that the rule

also require DOE to notify

manufacturers that use an accreditation

body or certification program that

recognition will be withdrawn, and to

allow time for the manufacturer to

change its procedures for determining

compliance. (NEMA/ACEEE, No. 38 at

pages 6 and 7.) In section 431.28 of

today's final rule, the Department

includes provisions for withdrawing

recognition from an accreditation body

or certification organization, and for

publishing in the Federal Register

notice of such action. However, because

the Department would often be unaware

of which manufacturers are using a

particular accreditation body or

certification organization, the final rule

contains no provision for the

Department to directly notify them of its

action.

The final rule also does not

incorporate language to specifically

"allow time" for a manufacturer to

change its compliance procedures when

recognition has been withdrawn from an

accreditation body or certification

organization it is using. To the extent

NEMA and ACEEE are suggesting that,

during a period after such withdrawal of

recognition, the rule should permit a

manufacturer temporarily to distribute

an electric motor without certifying its

Compii i ice with the applicable

standard, or to certify the motor without

using an accredited laboratory or a

recognized certification program, DOE

believes a sufficient showing has not

been made to justify such an approach.

In addition, the proposed and final rules

do not per se require a manufacturer to

continuously maintain an accredited

laboratory. And although they

contemplate continuous participation in

a certification program when such a

program is used, no provision precludes

a temporary lapse in such participation

caused by a withdrawal of recognition.

Hence, the Department believes that the

final rule will allow a manufacturer a

reasonable amount of time to replace an

accrediting body or certification

program that has lost its recognition.

Finally, the Department's energy

conservation program has not had

experience with this type recognition

requirement. and the Department is

uncertain as to the effects of possible

withdrawals of recognition. For these

reasons. the Department will address

consequences to manufacturers of

withdrawals of recognition on a case by

case basis, as necessary, rather than by

including specific language on this issue

in today's final rule. DOE will consider

amending the rule to include such

language only if experience indicates a

need to do so.

3. Issues Concerning Use of Certification

Organizations

As discussed above, proposed section

431.24 prescribes for compliance testing

(including testing to substantiate an

AEDM) criteria for selecting basic

models for testing, and a sampling plan

for picking the particular units to be

tested. These requirements apply both

when a manufacturer establishes a

motor's efficiency without using a

certification program (i.e., required

testing is performed in an accredited

laboratory), and when a manufacturer

uses a certification program. 61 FR

60466-67 (November 27, 1996).

In their comments on the NOPR, both

NEMA and Reliance Electric asserted

that DOE-should not impose its

sampling plan for compliance testing

when a manufacturer uses a certification

program to establish compliance. They

stated that such a program's own testing

and sampling procedures will give

adequate assurance of the accuracy of

any reported efficiency level, and

NEMA recommended that the

Department review and approve a

certification program's testing

procedures before according the

program "nationally recognized" status

for purposes of EPCA. (Reliance. No. I I

at pg. 7; NEMA, No. 18 at pgs. 8-9).

Recognizing that these contentions had

merit, in the reopening notice the

Department proposed that, when a

manufacturer establishes a motor's

efficiency under EPCA through a

certification program, the final rule

would not require use of the rule's

criteria for identifying basic models for

compliance testing, or its sampling

provisions for selecting units for such

testing. 63 FR 34765 (Lune 25, 1998). In

addition. DOE proposed that review and

approval of a certification program's

criteria for selecting basic models for

testing, and its sampling plan. would be

included in the Department's evaluation

of whether to grant a program

"nationally recognized" status for

purposes of EPCA. The NEMA

comments support these DOE proposals

(NEMA, No. 38 at C., pages 4 and 5),

and they are incorporated into today's

rule.

NEMA also asserts that "DOE should

accept existing certifications that are in

good standing" when the final rule is

published. (NEMA, No. 38 at C., page

5.). Initially, the Department notes that

a third party certification would not

normally be provided to it. Rather,

under section 431.123 of today's final

rule, each manufacturer must submit its

own Compliance Certification(s) to

DOE, although such Certification may

be based on an efficiency certification

provided by a certification program.

Consistent with NEMA's suggestion,

however, under both the proposed and

final versions of section 431.123, the

Compliance Certification may contain

motor efficiency information developed

before the effective date of the rule.

Thus, a Compliance Certification could

be based on a third-party efficiency

certification that (1) was issued by a

DOE-recognized certification program

prior to the effective date of the rule, (2)

was based on use of the criteria and

procedures incorporated into the rule,

and (3) remains in effect at the time of

the Compliance Certification. This

assumes, of course, that information in

the third-party certification supports the

representations in the Compliance

Certification. Moreover, the certification

organization used by the manufacturer

must receive recognition from DOE

under section 431.27 after the effective

date of the rule, even though it met the

criteria for such recognition before the

effective date of the rule. In sum, the

Department does not intend to conclude

that a Compliance Certification violates

431.123 solely because the applicable

determinations underlying the

Certification, such as those described in

section 431.123(b)(1)(ii), were made

before the effective date of the rule.

Proposed section 431.25(a), Testing

laboratories, provides in essence that all

testing of a basic model to meet the

requirements of section 431.24, Units to

be tested, shall be carried out in an

accredited laboratory, unless a

certificate of conformity for that basic

model is obtained from a certification

program classified by DOE as nationally

recognized. 61 FR 60467, 60468-69

(November 27, 1996). This applies, for

example, to testing required by

proposed section 431.24(b)(3) to

substantiate an AEDM. Under these

provisions, therefore, when a

manufacturer uses a certification

program to establish the efficiency of a

basic model, testing of the basic model,

including testing used to substantiate an

AEDM, would not need to be performed

in an accredited laboratory. Reliance

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192/Tuesday, October 5, 1999/Rules and Regulations 54127

Electric asserts that the proposed rule is

unclear on this point. (Reliance. No.11

at pgs 5 and 6: see ACEEE/NEMA, No.

38 at pg. 5). The Department has revised

proposed sections 431.24 and 431.25 in

the final rule to further clarify that

testing of a basic model to substantiate

an AEDM need not be in an accredited

laboratory when a certification program

certifies the basic model's efficiency.

Reliance Electric also agrees with the

proposal that five basic models be tested

as part of the initial substantiation of an

AEDM, but that the methods for initial

substantiation of an AEDM under

section 431.24(h)(3) should otherwise be

the same as the methods permitted

under section 431.24(b) (4) (i) (A)-(C) for

subsequent verification of an AEDM.

(Reliance, No.l l at pgs. 5 and 6). Two

of the methods permitted for such

subsequent verification are testing in an

accredited laboratory and use of a

certification organization. As indicated

above and as the final rule makes clear,

both can be used to initially substantiate

an AEDM. The third method for

subsequent verification of an AEDM,

however, is the use of a professional

engineer, and the Department does not

agree it is appropriate for initial

substantiation of an AEDM.

First, the Department believes that

initial substantiation of an AEDM

should be inherently stringent because

an AEDM could underlie compliance

determinations for many motors. The

Department believes that such

stringency will exist when the initial

substantiation of an AEDM is based on

testing in an accredited laboratory that

meets the requirements of section

431.25, or on use of a certification

program classified by DOE as nationally

recognized under section 431.27.

However, having a professional engineer

review the results of the manufacturer's

testing, and initially certify the accuracy

of the AEDM, would not be as

inherently rigorous, or provide the same

likelihood of uniform results. Both the

proposed and final rules allow the use

of a professional engineer for

verification of an AEDM because that

would be only a check on the initial

determination of the AEDM's validity,

and would be applied to a limited

number of basic models. In addition, the

provisions in DOE's rule for initial

substantiation of an AEDM implement

the statutory requirement for a

manufacturer to certify, through an

independent testing or certification

program nationally recognized in the

United States, that an electric motor

meets the applicable efficiency

standard. It appears to the Department

that use of a professional engineer for

initial substantiation of an AEDM would

fail to meet this statutory requirement.

A professional engineer neither carries

national recognition nor is the

equivalent of a certification program.

and proposed section 431.24(b)(4)(i)(C)

does not require the professional

engineer to perform testing.

Finally, the Department proposed in

the reopening notice to require that,

when a motor's efficiency rating is

derived from use of an AEDM, the

AEDM could not be subsequently

verified by the certification organization

that had initially certified the motor's

efficiency rating. 63 FR 34765 Oune 25,

1998). NEMA and ACEEE jointly assert

that DOE should permit the use of the

same certification organization for both

substantiation and verification of an

AEDM. To require one certification

organization to be used for

substantiation and a different one for

verification of an AEDM would cause

manufacturers to participate in multiple

certification programs to accomplish the

same thing. (NEMA/ACEEE, No. 38 at

page 5). The Department understands.

from the NEMA/ACEEE comments, that

the proposal contemplated in the

reopening notice would be burdensome

for manufacturers. Therefore. the

Department will not adopt this proposal

in the final rule.

4. Compliance Testing When a

Manufacturer Does Not Use a

Certification Program (Independence

and Performance of an Accredited

Laboratory, Selection of Basic Models

for Testing. Sampling Plan) and

Enforcement Testing Sampling Plan

a. Accredited Laboratories

As discussed above, the Department

proposed that a manufacturer could

meet the statutory provision for

certification through an "independent

testing program" by using a laboratory,

operated by either a third party or the

manufacturer, that has been accredited

to perform the DOE test procedures.

Commenting on the meaning of

"independence," ACIL opines that the

proposed rule implies that once a

laboratory is accredited, its

independence is assured. ACIL asserts

that while accreditation assures a

laboratory's technical competence, and

that testing will be conducted free from

certain marketing pressures, it does not

mean that the laboratory is autonomous.

(ACIL, No. 7., and Public Hearing, Tr.

pgs. 124-131.).

Independence is a criterion, used for

example under NVLAP accreditation

procedures, to verify that a laboratory is

able to "maintain an independent

decisional relationship between itself

and its clients, affiliates, or other

organizations so that the laboratory's

capacity to render calibration or test

reports objectively and without bias is

not adversely affected." 9 The

Department believes this means that an

accredited laboratory will be

independent in the sense that it will

perform tests without influence "by

marketing and production concerns."

and "with assurance that test results are

accurate, valid, and capable of being

replicated." 61 FR 60455 (November 27,

1996). The Department agrees with

ACIL that accreditation assures

technical competency, and does not

confer on a laboratory independence in'

the sense of autonomy.

WSUMISD expressed concern about a

manufacturer's own (accredited)

laboratory sufficing as an

"independent" laboratory. WSU/WSD

posited that if subsequent testing by

outside laboratories finds efficiencies

being overstated, then the

manufacturer's laboratory should be

subject to disaccreditation. (WSU/WSD,

No. 5, p.6).

Section 431.26 of the proposed rule

provides criteria and procedures by

which the Department of Energy would

recognize an accreditation body. To

meet the conditions of proposed section

431.26, the accreditation body would

have to assume the responsibility (1) to

periodically audit and review a testing

laboratory to verify continued

compliance with the conditions of its

accreditation, and (2) to make provision

for withdrawal of accreditation where a

testing laboratory fails to comply with

the conditions of its accreditation,

including failure to provide accurate

test results. Similarly, section 285.24,

"Denying, suspending, and revoking

accreditation," implicitly makes such

provision in the NIST/NVLAP

Handbook 150, "Procedures and

General Requirements." Furthermore,

under section 285.22(b) (7) of "Assessing

and evaluating a laboratory" in NIST/

NVLAP Handbook 150-10, "Efficiency

of Electric Motors," where problems are

indicated by proficiency testing and the

test laboratory fails to resolve the

problems in a timely manner, NIST/

NVLAP may revoke or suspend its

accreditation of that laboratory. In the

final rule, the Department has added

language to section 431.26 to explicitly

provide that, to be recognized by DOE,

an accreditation body must periodically

audit laboratories it accredits, and

withdraw accreditation from those that

do not adhere to the conditions of their

9 NIST Handbook 150. National Voluntary

Laboratory Accreditation Program Procedures and

General Requirements March 1994, section

285.32(a)(10), pg. 20.

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54128 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

accreditation. Moreover, where a

manufacturer has certified its electric

motors to be in compliance with EPCA

energy efficiency standards based on

testing in an accredited laboratory,

including its own laboratory, and

subsequently its motors are determined

not in compliance under section

431.127, "Enforcement," that

manufacturer would be required, for

example, to immediately cease

distribution in commerce of that basic

model motor, under section 431.128 of

the rule.

b. Selection of Basic Models for Testing

Proposed section 431.24(b)(1)(i)-(ii)

provides criteria that a manufacturer

must use to decide which basic models

to test. Subsection 431.24(b)(1)(i)(A)

states that two of the basic models

selected for testing must be among the

five basic models with the highest unit

volumes of production by the

manufacturer in the prior year.

Washington State opines that the unit

volume should be horsepower weighted,

otherwise there would be a bias toward

the more numerous small motors. Also,

Washington State asserts that the

Department of Energy should retain the

right of selecting basic models, whether

to verify compliance through actual

testing or application of an alternative

efficiency determination method.

(WSU/WSD, No. 5 at pg. 6, items II.P.

and Q.).

The Department expects that the basic

models with the highest unit volumes of

production would be those in the lower

horsepower ratings. If the Department

were to require all basic models selected

for testing to be from those with the

highest unit volumes of production,

then Washington State's concern might

be significant. However, only two of the

basic models selected must be from

those with the highest unit volumes of

production. Other criteria for selection

are that the basic models be of different

horsepowers and different frame series.

Thus, for example, under today's final

rule, the two basic models with the

highest volume of production must, if

possible, span two different frame

series. (See discussion below on use of

frame series rather than frame size.)

Therefore, the Department declines to

adopt the WSU/WSD suggestion to

weight by horsepower the basic models

for testing under section

431.24(b)(1)(i)(A) of today's final rule.

Furthermore, because it would not be

feasible for the Department to select

models for compliance testing, it does

not intend to retain the right to make

such selection as suggested by WSU/

WSD. Nevertheless, under the final rule

the Department of Energy can select

models for testing to verify an AEDM

under section 431.24(b)(5)(iii). and can

direct enforcement testing of any basic

model if warranted under section

431.127 of today's final rule.

Also, Reliance Electric opines that the

requirement in proposed section

431.24(b)(1)(i)(A), that basic models

selected based on production during the

"prior year," might be inappropriate for

the initial years in which 10 CFR Part

431 for electric motors becomes

effective. For example, according to

Reliance Electric, selection by a

manufacturer in 1998 of the basic

models produced in the highest unit

volumes by that manufacturer in 1997

might include basic models which have

efficiencies below EPCA levels.

Consequently, the basis of

substantiation of the AEDM would be

dependent on basic models with

efficiency levels that can no longer be

manufactured for sale in the United

States. (Reliance, No. 11 at pg. 1).

Had this rule gone into effect prior to

the latter part of 1998. Reliance's point

would have been well taken. EPCA's

efficiency standards. however, became

applicable to electric motors on October

24, 1997. and by the time this rule

becomes effective the standards will

have been in effect for most motors for

at least a year. Moreover, because

today's rule does not require

manufacturers to certify compliance

until 24 months after its effective date,

the Department presumes that most

testing covered by this part of the rule

(i.e., testing in accredited laboratories)

will occur during calendar year 1999 or

later. Therefore, it is unlikely that

models selected for testing under this

criterion would have efficiency levels

below EPCA levels. Nevertheless, some

manufacturers might have begun testing

prior to the end of 1998, and the

Department in its Policy Statement

acknowledges the possibility that some

motors could continue to be

manufactured in non-compliance with

EPCA standards after October 1998.

Therefore, today's rule allows

manufacturers that began testing in 1998

to select units for testing under this

criterion based on 12 months of

production that begins on November 1

or December 1 of 1997, and provides

that no motor manufactured in

noncompliance with EPCA standards,

pursuant to the Policy Statement or

otherwise, shall be considered under

this criterion.

The Department has also reviewed

section 431.24(b)(1)(i)(C) and has

determined that motors selected for

testing should be from different frame

number series, rather than frame sizes,

when possible. (Frame series

designations are set forth in NEMA MG I

Table 11-1, Medium Machine Frame

Numbering.) Motors such as a 143T and

145T, for example, are different frame

sizes but are in the same frame series

and are quite similar in size , whereas

143T and 182T, for example, are in

different frame number series and are

very different in size. Under the

proposed rule, a manufacturer could test

motors that are all similar in size, by

selecting motors in one or possibly two

frame series. This would defeat the

Department's goal of having a

manufacturer establish compliance by

testing a range of motor sizes. Also,

because there are only nine frame

number series covered by EPCA,

requiring tested basic models to be from

different number series, when possible,

could cover over half of the sizes of

motors made by any manufacturer. The

Department understands that this would

include a greater percentage of the

product line for manufacturers not

producing motors over the full range of

ratings covered by EPCA. The

Department also believes that selecting

basic models based on different frame

number series would show an AEDM to

be accurate over a wider range of motors

to which it is applied. thereby covering

a greater expanse of basic models

produced and without adding burden to

the manufacturer. Therefore, the

Department modifies proposed section

431.24(b)(1)(i)(C) to read "frame number

series" in today's final rule.

c. Sampling Plans for Compliance and

Enforcement Testing

Sampling plans for compliance and

enforcement testing are at proposed

sections 431.24 and 431.27(c),

respectively. They are intended to

provide statistically meaningful

sampling procedures for conducting

tests, so as to reduce the testing burden

while giving sufficient assurance (1) in

the case of the compliance plan, that the

true mean energy efficiency of a basic

model (i.e., the average efficiency of all

units manufactured) meets or exceeds

the applicable energy efficiency

standard established in EPCA and the

basic model's labeled efficiency level,

and (2) in the case of the enforcement

plan, that an electric motor found to be

in noncompliance will actually be in

noncompliance. The November 27, 1996

Federal Register notice (61 FR 60440),

at section XIII.C.3. and 8., Issues for

Public Comment, requested comments

on these proposed sampling plans.

In response, the National Electrical

Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and

motor manufacturers raised issues

concerning the proposed sampling

plans, and NEMA submitted to the

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 54129

Department alternative approaches, one

for compliance testing and another for

enforcement testing. NISTIR 6092

"Analysis of Proposals for Compliance

and Enforcement Testing Under the

New Part 431; Title 10, Code of Federal

Regulations," January 1998, (the NIST

analysis) compared the DOE's proposed

rule and the NEMA proposals through

model calculations of their operating

characteristics, i.e., the estimated

probability of demonstrating

compliance for a given true average of

efficiency.

In the reopening notice, the

Department stated that, although it

continued to consider adoption of the

NOPR's sampling plans, it was also

considering adopting instead NEMA's

proposed sampling plans, or variations

of those sampling plans. 63 FR 34762-

64 (June 25, 1998). Comments and data

were requested concerning the accuracy

and workability of NEMA's proposals.

(1) Sampling Plan for Compliance

Testing

Section II.B2. of the reopening notice,

63 FR 34764 (June 25, 1998), requests

comments on whether DOE should

adopt the NEMA proposal for

compliance testing, or alternatively.

adopt the NEMA proposal but substitute

a coefficient of 1.03 or 1.01 for the 1.05

coefficient in the NEMA formula. Also,

the reopening notice states that DOE

could adopt the NEMA proposal, with

or without change in the 1.05

coefficient, but with a requirement that

the number of units to be tested be

fixed, at five motors for example.

The American Council for an Energy

Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and NEMA

jointly advocate adoption of the "NEMA

proposal." 10 as it is referred to in the

reopening notice, 63 FR 34763 (June 25.

1998), for compliance testing as well as

enforcement testing. As to the sampling

plan for compliance at proposed section

4024tU)t1Jt11lJ, 61 FR 60467

(November 27, 1996), ACEEE and

NEMA contend that, given the actual

variations in the performance of electric

motors and the accuracy of any test

procedure to measure efficiency,

"requiring the average efficiency of any

sample to be not less than the

represented efficiency places an

unreasonable burden on manufacturers

and would require that all electric

motors be designed to substantially

exceed the represented value [of

efficiency] to assure that any sample

1 "Proposal for the Method of Determining

Compliance and Enforcement for Electric Motors

Under the Efficiency Labeling Program of DOE 10

CFR Part 431." NEMA Motor and Generator

Section. Friday. April 18. 1997 (Docket No. EERM-96-400. No. 23) (the "NEMA proposal").

would pass the compliance test." The

same concerns would be raised, they

contend. by reducing the 1.05

coefficient in the NEMA proposal for

compliance, to a number such as 1.03 or

1.01. (ACEEE/NEMA. No. 38 at pg.3).

Also, ACEEE and NEMA recommend

that the Department not specify a fixed

sample size, but rather specify a

minimum sample size of five units for

the compliance sampling plan. Further,

a sample size of fewer than five units

should be permitted when the basic

model is of a rare design for which

fewer than five units would be

produced over a reasonable period of

time. ACEEE and NEMA assert that the

absolute pass or fail nature of their joint

sampling plan proposal would also not

cause undue burden on motor

manufacturers. (ACEEE/NEMA. No. 38

at pgs. 3 and 4).

Sterling Electric, Inc., asserts that it is

a small manufacturer with "limited

resources," and advocates a "simple

statistical procedure" to verify that its

motors comply with EPCA efficiency

standards. (Sterling, No. 13).

Based on the NIST analysis, and on

further review of the sampling criteria

for compliance testing in the proposed

rule and in the NEMA proposal, the

Department believes that the NEMA

proposal and the comments by ACEEE,

NEMA and Sterling Electric have

substantial merit. To begin with, the

Department has determined that the

NEMA proposal for compliance testing

provides statistically meaningful

sampling procedures for conducting

tests for electric motors, so as to reduce

the testing burden while giving

sufficient assurance that the true mean

energy efficiency of a basic model (i.e.,

the average efficiency of all units

manufactured) meets the motor's

represented energy efficiency level.

Furthermore, the NEMA proposal is

closely aligned with existing industry

approaches for rating and labeling the

efficiency of electric motors. Under

NEMA Standard MG 1, a manufacturer

determines the nominal efficiency of

each design of electric motor, and each

individual motor of such design must be

labeled with that value and have a

corresponding minimum efficiency.

Manufacturers design a motor to

perform at or above its labeled nominal

efficiency and, generally, the nominal

efficiency will closely reflect the actual

average efficiency of motors of that

design. Consistent with this approach,

under the NEMA proposal there is a

high probability that. if the entire

population of a basic model of motor

averages a given efficiency, tests of a

sample of such motors will indicate that

the basic model performs at that level.

Under DOE's proposed compliance

sampling plan. however, such a high

probability would not exist. The NEMA

compliance sampling proposal also

provides that a basic model cannot be

determined to meet a given nominal

efficiency level if the measured

efficiency of any of the test specimens

is below a level analogous to the

minimum efficiency specified for a

motor in MC 1. Thus, the NEMA

proposal has the advantage of

incorporating methods that

manufacturers are familiar and

comfortable with.

In addition, the efficiency

requirements mandated by EPCA for

electric motors consist largely of

industry standards contained in NEMA

MCI. Section 343(a)(5)(A) of EPCA

prescribes the test procedure contained

in MGi, the mandatory efficiency

standards in section 342(b)(1) are taken

from MGI, and the definitions of

"electric motor" and "nominal full load

efficiency," in sections 340(13)(A) and

(H), respectively, must be construed

with reference to MCI. Thus, the

Congress apparently intended that

efficiency requirements for motors

would adhere to industry standards

where possible, see also EPCA section

343(a)(5)(B), providing further support

for DOE's adoption of the NEMA

sampling proposal for compliance

testing.

The Department is also persuaded by

the contention of NEMA and ACEEE

that the compliance sampling

provisions in the proposed rule could

unreasonably burden motor

manufacturers. These provisions could

in effect require that electric motors be

designed to exceed represented

efficiency values, and values prescribed

by section 342(b)(1) of EPCA, which

DOE believes would be unwarranted. To

begin with, the amount of such required

"overdesign" could be substantial. For

example, NIST states in its analysis that,

if two units of a basic model are tested,

for the model to have a 90 percent

probability of being found in

compliance with a given nominal

efficiency, the average efficiency of the

entire population would have to be

above the next higher nominal value.

Testing large numbers of units would be

one way, under the DOE proposal, to

increase the likelihood that the sample

tests would indicate a given efficiency

level, and to reduce the need for

"overdesign." This would not be an

option, however, for the many basic

models of electric motor that are

produced in small quantities. Finally,

DOE's understanding is that, given the

nature of the "electric motors" covered

by EPCA, the burdens created by any

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54130 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5. 1999 /Rules and Regulations

need to "overdesign" their efficiency

might well be far greater than for all or

most other products regulated under

EPCA. (For example. increasing the

quantity and quality of materials in such

a motor are virtually the only ways to

improve its efficiency, and any changes

to improve efficiency are highly likely

to necessitate other changes in the

product.)

For all of these reasons, in today's

final rule the Department adopts the

NEMA sampling proposal for

compliance testing of electric motors,

with a required minimum sample size of

five units. A minimum sample size of

five units shall be required for basic

models for which more than five units

would be produced over a reasonable

time (approximately 180 days). Where

fewer than five units of a basic model

are produced over a reasonable time,

then each unit shall be tested for

compliance. This latter provision is

designed to address a situation where a

basic model is of a rare design, such as

a design that is not mass produced or is

built to order, and for which

manufacturing and delivery schedules

are uncertain.

(2) Sampling Plan for Enforcement

Testing

DOE's proposed sampling plan for

enfcrcement testing at section

431.127(c), Sampling. and appendix B

of subpart G, 61 FR 60472, 60474-5

(November 27. 1996), assumes that the

true mean full load efficiency and

standard deviation of the motor

efficiencies are not known. The

proposed sampling plan establishes

benchmarks for the standard error in the

mean, based on the existing NEMA

guidelines for identifying motor

efficiency levels at NEMA MG1-12.58,

and NEMA Table 12-8. Under the

NEMA guidelines, no single unit can

have energy tosses 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.

Section III .G. of the preamble to the

proposed rule states the Department's

belief that the 20 percent loss tolerance

is reasonable and meaningful. 61 FR

60459-60, 60474-75 (November 27,

1996). NEMA's sampling plan for

enforcement testing is very similar to its

plan for compliance testing, and

provides that the same conditions must

be met to establish that a motor

complies with the applicable EPCA

standard , except that the coefficient is

based on the total variation in energy

efficiency permitted by NEMA MG I

paragraph 12.59, "Efficiency Levels of

Energy Efficient Polyphase Squirrel-cage

Induction Motors."

Section II.B.2. of the reopening notice

describes the NEMA sampling plan for

enforcement. 63 FR 34763 (June 25.

1998), and states that DOE could adopt

the NEMA plan with or without

modification of the coefficient. 63 FR

34764 (June 25, 1998). Alternatively, the

reopening notice states, DOE could

retain the sampling plan for

enforcement in the proposed rule with

the statistical confidence level increased

from 90 percent to 99 percent, or some

other value higher than 90 percent.

Also, as further discussed below in

Section E.2. DOE stated its intention in

the reopening notice that the

enforcement procedures in the final

rule, including the enforcement

sampling plan, would apply to

allegations both of labeling violations as

well as non-compliance with the

applicable standard for efficiency. 63 FR

34765-66 (June 25, 1998).

As with sampling for compliance

testing. ACEEE and NEMA jointly

advocate adoption of the April 18, 1997.

"NEMA proposal" as it pertains to

enforcement sampling. (ACEEE/NEMA,

No. 38 at pg. 4). ACEEE and NEMA

assert that the only difference between

their joint proposals for compliance and

enforcement are the coefficients that

represent the variation in total losses for

the sample or population. They opine

that the values for enforcement are

greater in order to account for the added

variation that results when efficiency is

determined through testing at different

test facilities. They also state that their

enforcement sampling plan would apply

to both the accuracy of the nameplate

efficiency. as well as compliance with

the applicable EPCA efficiency value.

(ACEEE/NEMA, No. 38 at pgs. 5-6).

Based on the NIST analysis of the

operating characteristics of the

enforcement sampling plan proposed by

NEMA. at NISTIR 6092 (January 1998),

pages 4 through 7, the Department finds

that the industry plan for enforcement

sampling makes little distinction

between energy efficiency performance

at and significantly below an efficiency

standard prescribed by EPCA.

According to the NIST analysis of the

NEMA proposal for enforcement testing,

the NEMA plan may not adequately

differentiate between significant levels

of performance. For example, there

appears to be no appreciable change in

the outcome of testing between a test of

a basic model for which the true mean

efficiency is equal to a given nominal

value and a test of a basic model for

which the true efficiency is equal to the

next lower NEMA nominal value. Also,

the Department is not convinced that

the added variation allowed under the

NEMA proposal for enforcement would

necessarily account for testing

variations at different test facilities.

The proposed sampling plan for

enforcement is designed to be different

from the sampling plan for compliance.

It is based on the t-statistic , which is

used at appendix B to subpart F of 10

CFR Part 430-Sampling Plan for

Enforcement Testing, and is tailored for

enforcement testing of electric motors,

based upon NEMA MG1-1993

paragraphs 12.58 and 12.59. According

to NIST, the t-test is not strongly

influenced by the exact form of the

underlying distribution, it is a widely

accepted basis for a testing protocol, and

the likelihood of a correct determination

increases with sample size. The

Department finds that the likelihood of

a correct determination increasing with

sample size is consistent with the

ACEEE/NEMA recommendation that a

minimum of five units be tested,

although ACEEE/NEMA opine that there

should be no upper limit placed on the

sample size. As a practical matter, the

Department has determined that the

upper limit of the sample size should be

fixed at 20 units, as it is in appendix B

to subpart F of 10 CFR Part 430. Based

on NISTIR 6092, pages 6-7, the

Department agrees with NIST that it is

highly unlikely that a motor that is

labeled in accordance with the NEMA

MG1 energy efficiency standards would

require testing beyond the initial sample

of five, and that any risk of additional

testing is more than offset by the

increased value of the test in assuring

that the manufacturer's interests are

protected. Moreover, if enforcement

testing is carried on up to 20 units, there

would be likely indications of other

fundamental problems in the

manufacture and/or testing of such basic

model which could be ascertained and

corrected through other means, such as

examination of the underlying data

according to the aforementioned "test

notice" procedure described at 10 CFR

431.127(a)(1).

The Department agrees with NIST,

NISTIR 6092 at page 6, that the

performance of the Sampling Plan for

Enforcement Testing with the statistical

confidence of 90 percent could imply

that the likelihood of a false conclusion

that a product is not in compliance

could be as high as 10 percent, and that

this level of assurance may not

adequately protect the manufacturer's

interests. The Department has

considered various levels of statistical

confidence, other than 90 percent. and

has determined that the Sampling Plan

for Enforcement Testing in today's final

rule will be based on 97.5 percent

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64. No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5. 1999 /Rules and Regulations 54131

statistical confidence, as has been

established at appendix B to subpart F

of 10 CFR Part 430.

In sum, with this modification, the

Department concludes that the

Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing.

as set forth at proposed appendix B to

subpart G of Part 431, will apply to a

test of whether an electric motor's

nominal full load efficiency complies

with section 342(b)(1) of EPCA as well

as to a test of the accuracy of the labeled

efficiency of a motor.

D. Energy Efficiency Standards

Section 342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.

6313(b)(1), prescribes energy efficiency

standards for electric motors that are I

through 200 horsepower. Section 431.42

of the proposed rule incorporates these

efficiency standards, and for each

horsepower rating to which a group of

standards applies, states the equivalent

kilowatt rating which those standards

also apply. The NOPR proposes the

following criteria for determining the

standard that applies to an electric

motor that has a horsepower or kilowatt

rating between two horsepowers or

kilowattages listed consecutively in

section 342(b)(1) of EPCA and section

431.42(a) of the proposed rule: (1) a

horsepower at or above the midpoint

between the two consecutive

horsepowers would be rounded up to

the higher of the two horsepowers; (2)

a horsepower below the midpoint

between two consecutive horsepowers

would be rounded down to the lower of

the two horsepowers; or (3) a kilowatt

rating would be directly converted from

kilowatts to horsepower and the

resulting horsepower rounded as stated

above. 61 FR 60470 (November 27,

1996).

1. Non-standardized Horsepower

Ratings

Washington State University

Cooperative Extension Energy Program

and the Washington State Department of

Community, Trade and Economic

Development (WSU/WSD) address

DOE's concern, in the preamble to the

proposed rule at section IIl.D.2,

"Standards for Horsepowers Not Listed

in Statute, and for Non-standard

Kilowatt Ratings," 61 FR 60450

(November 27, 1996), about efficiency

levels that would be applicable to

electric motors manufactured to nonstandard horsepower ratings. WSU/

WSD assert that the output rating of an

electric motor is not the maximum

horsepower the motor will produce but

is a nominal output power at which

nameplate and catalog performance

parameters are tabulated. Most motors,

they explain, can operate near

nameplate efficiency at loads down to

50 percent and can sustain operation in

ideal conditions at power demand 15

percent higher than their rating. They

appear to recommend that a motor with

a rated horsepower that exceeds a power

rating specified in EPCA. by greater than

one percent. should be required to meet

the efficiency rating prescribed for the

next higher horsepower specified in

EPCA. In other words, WSU/WSD

apparently advocate the one percent

point for rounding up. (WSU/WSD. No.

5 at page 5. item D.).

The issue here is whether to round up

or down from the mid-point between

two horsepowers, as DOE proposed at

section 431.42(b) in the rule, or from the

1 percent point, as WSD suggests. The

WSU/WSD approach to rounding up is

similar to the NEMA position described

at page 60450 in the preamble to the

proposed rule, where a motor with

rating between two of the horsepower

ratings specified by EPCA would be

required to meet the efficiency standard

for the next highest horsepower. For the

reasons stated in the preamble, the

Department continues to believe that

such rounding up to the next energy

efficiency level could make it very

difficult for some sizes of motors to

meet the statutory energy efficiency

levels and could have the effect of

banning or limiting their use. 61 FR

60450 (November 27, 1996). This would

be true for an electric motor used as a

component of a compressor. for

example. where the compressor is

designed around the size of the motor to

allow for air flow and cooling

requirements. Such space requirements

and restrictions could prevent the use of

a larger motor, such as an electric motor

that must be physically larger to meet

the next higher energy efficiency level.

(Kaeser Compressors, No. 48). Also, the

Department believes that rounding up or

down from the mid-point is not

sufficient incentive for a manufacturer

to produce new intermediate

horsepower ratings, such as the 12

horsepower rating contemplated by

WSU/WSD. If that were to occur,

however, the Department could

consider amending the rule to adopt

alternative rounding approaches.

2. Motor Horsepower and Standard

Kilowatt Equivalent

The joint comments of WSU/WSD

recommend that an electric motor rated

in kilowatts be allowed to meet the

energy efficiency of the nearest lower

horsepower equivalent if the motor's

kilowatt rating is within one percent of

that lower horsepower equivalent, and

not be required to meet the efficiency

rating of the next higher horsepower

(WSU/WSD, No. 5 at II.D.).

The Department believes that WSU/

WSD may have misconstrued section

431.42 in the proposed rule. They

incorrectly state that "the Department

proposes that IEC motors with ratings

falling between two standard

horsepower ratings should be required

to meet the more stringent rating of the

higher horsepower." (WSU/WSD, No. 5

at II.D.). First, as to an electric motor

with a standard kilowatt rating, the

Department proposed in section

431.42(a) that the required efficiency

level be that prescribed for motors with

the equivalent horsepower rating

specified in IEC Standard 60072-1. 61

FR 60449-50, 60469 (November 27,

1996). As demonstrated by examination

of these specified equivalencies and the

exact conversions of standard kilowatt

ratings to horsepowers-no standard

kilowatt rating exactly equals a standard

horsepower rating-an IEC motor with a

standard kW rating must sometimes

meet the efficiency standard for the next

higher horsepower and sometimes for

the next lower. Id. In all cases the

standard it must meet is prescribed for

a horsepower that is very close to an

exact conversion from its kilowatt

rating. Id. Second, as to motors with

non-standard kilowatt ratings. section

431.42(6)(3) of the proposed rule

provides that the kilowatt rating would

be arithmetically converted to its

equivalent horsepower rating, and then,

based on whether the motor falls above

or below the midpoint between

consecutive horsepower ratings. would

be required to meet the corresponding

higher or lower energy efficiency level,

respectively. The Department believes

that such rounding from the midpoint

between two non-standard kilowattages

further addresses WSU/WSD's concern

about requiring IEC motors to meet the

next higher levels of efficiency.

Therefore, the Department will make no

change in this regard in today's final

rule.

3. World Trade Organization (WTO)

Agreements and the Trans Atlantic

Business Dialogue (TABD)

Zentralverband Elektrotechnik-und

Elektronikindustrie e.V. (ZVEI)

advocates that the Department's

standards regulations for electric motors

be set up according to the principles of

the WTO and the TABD, using

international standards as much as

possible. (ZVEI, No. 37 pg. 2).

The energy efficiency test procedures

and standards for electric motors are

established by sections 343(a) (5) (A) and

342(b)(1), respectively, of EPCA. To the

extent possible under EPCA, the

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54132 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

proposed rule takes international

requirements into account. Section

431.42, Energy efficiency standards and

effective dates, of the proposed rule, for

example. prescribes the EPCA energy

efficiency levels in terms of both

horsepower and equivalent kilowatt

ratings based on IEC Standard 60072-1.

Similarly, the definition of "electric

motor" in section 431.2 of the proposed

rule uses various descriptive terms in

the definition which are followed by the

parenthetical "IEC" as referenced to the

IEC Standards 60034-1, 60034-12,

60050-411 and 60072-1. Also, sections

431.26 and 431.27, which pertain to

Department of Energy recognition of

accrediting bodies and certification

programs, cite ISO/IEC Guides 25,

General requirements for the

competence of calibration and testing

laboratories, 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, 28, General rules for a model thirdparty certification system for products,

58, Calibration and testing laboratory

accreditation systems-General

requirements for operation and

recognition. and 65, General

requirements for bodies operating

product certification systems. There is

no change to such provisions in today's

final rule.

4. Electric Motors as Components of

Systems

Section 342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.

6313(b)(1), imposes efficiency standards

for "each electric motor manufactured

(alone or as a component of another

piece of equipment)." Consistent with

the above provision of EPCA, the

proposed rule covers every "electric

motor" that is manufactured, regardless

of whetl;er it is manufactured "alone,"

and then inserted into another piece of

equipment, or manufactured "as a

component of another piece of

equipment."

York International (York) asserts that

that standards imposed by section

342(b)(1) of EPCA do not apply to

motors used as components in certain

commercial heating, ventilating, and airconditioning equipment covered by the

energy efficiency standards at section

342(a) of EPCA. (York, No. 6)

Section III.D.3., "Electric Motors as

Components of Systems," 61 FR 60451

(November 27, 1996), of the preamble to

the proposed rule, addresses concerns

from the Air-Conditioning &

Refrigeration Institute similar to those of

York. The Department finds no

provision in the requirements for system

efficiency at section 342(a) of EPCA 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).

Consequently, there is no change in

today's final rule.

E. Labeling

1. Statutory Provisions

Section 344(a) of EPCA provides that,

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," such as requirements for

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 SPCA, 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 MCI-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 customers in

making purchases.

2. Provisions of Regulation

Section 431.82(a) of the proposed rule

sets forth efficiency labeling

requirements for the permanent

nameplate of an electric motor.

Proposed section 431.82(a)(1) and (2).

requires the nameplate to display the

motor's nominal full load efficiency and

the Compliance Certification number,

and states how such information is to be

displayed. Proposed section 431.82(a)(3)

allows the words "energy efficient," or

the encircled lower case letters "ee." i

or some comparable designation or logo.

to be displayed at the manufacturer's

option on a motor that meets the

applicable efficiency standard and

compliance certification requirements.

Section 431.82(b) sets forth the

requirements for disclosure of

information in marketing materials.

Section 431.82(c) proposes that certain

information be disclosed on import

documents. Section 431.82(d) deals

with voluntary compliance with the

aforementioned labeling requirements

for motors that would otherwise not be

covered under EPCA.

a. Use of the Words "Energy Efficient"

Washington State asserts that "energy

efficient" is the official NEMA term for

motors that meet the requirements of

paragraph MCI-12.59 and Table 12-10

in NEMA Standards Publication MGI,

"Motors and Generators." While that

table currently is identical to section

342(b)(1) of EPCA, it encompasses more

motors than the electric motors covered

under EPCA. Consequently, use of the

term "energy efficient" should be

avoided. (WSU/WSD, No. 5 at II.J.).

NEMA recommends that the words

"energy efficient" not be used, even as

an option, since the nominal full load

efficiency values, and their associated

minimum efficiency values, in MGl1993 are subject to change and,

subsequently, could become

inconsistent with the EPCA efficiency

levels for electric motors. (NEMA, No.

18 at 9.).

EPCA requires an electric motor to

meet a specified level of nominal

efficiency, and does not require an

electric motor to be labeled with a

minimum efficiency value. Under the

NEMA convention, a motor that is

labeled as "energy efficient" must meet

both a specified nominal efficiency and

a minimum efficiency associated with

that nominal efficiency. In view of the

comments from both Washington State

and NEMA, the Department

understands that confusion could arise

from allowing the term "energy

"See §431. 82(a)(3).

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192/Tuesday, October 5, 1999/ Rules and Regulations 54133

efficient" being used to connote

compliance with EPCA. Consequently,

the Department withdraws its proposed

use of the term "energy efficient" in

section 431.82(a) (3) and (b) (2) of today's

final rule.

b. Use of Standardized Nominal Full

Load Efficiency Values

As explained in section II.A.7. above,

NEMA MCI establishes a logical series

of standard nominal motor efficiencies,

from which the motor nameplate

efficiency marking is selected, to avoid

the inference of unrealistic accuracy in

manufacturing and testing that might be

assumed from a potentially infinite

number of labeled efficiency values.

One commenter queried whether only

the statutory nominal full load

efficiency values would be allowed on

the electric motor nameplate, or some

intermediate level of actual efficiency,

as determined by testing that particular

motor. (Treffinger, No. 4 at 4.).

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

that such standardized values accurately

represent both the energy efficiency of

a given motor, and the differences in

efficiency among motors. Consequently,

the Department is adopting in today's

final rule the proposed requirement that

motors be labeled with nominal full

load efficiency values which are

identical to the standardized values

contained in NEMA MG1-1993, Table

12-8.

c. Minimum Efficiency

In the preamble to the proposed rule,

at section III.E.2., Information on Motor

Nameplate, the Department considered

the requirement to display both the

nominal and applicable minimum

efficiency on the nameplate of an

electric motor. For the reasons given,

the Department stated its belief that it

could not require the minimum

efficiency to be displayed on labels or

in marketing material. See 61 FR 60452

and 53 (November 27, 1996).

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., the

Joint comments of WSU/WSD, and

NEMA recommend against labeling

electric motors with a minimum

efficiency value . WSU/WSD assert that

the term "minimum efficiency" is

confusing and has "little basis in

reality." They assert that, even though

there is popular belief that the

minimum efficiency is a "guaranteed"

minimum, their review of actual motor

efficiency from motor testing

laboratories shows that many individual

motors fall both below the statutory

nominal efficiency and the voluntary

minimum efficiency associated with a

particular nominal efficiency.

Washington State believes that rigorous

verification of compliance with the

nominal efficiency will reduce

occurrences of electric motor efficiency

falling below the minimum. (UL, No. 9

at page 2; WSU/WSD, No. 5 at II.G; and

NEMA, Public Hearing, Tr., pg. 180).

Having given this issue further

consideration, the Department now

believes it may have the authority under

section 344(c)(2) of EPCA to require

display of minimum efficiency levels on

labels or in marketing materials.

Nevertheless, in light of the comments,

the Department will not adopt such a

requirement in today's final rule.

d. Display of Nominal Efficiency,

Compliance Certification Number, "ee"

Logo, and Date of Compliance

Section 431.82(a)(1) of the proposed

rule requires that the permanent

nameplate of an electric motor be

marked with the motor's nominal full

load efficiency and the Compliance

Certification number supplied by DOE.

Also, proposed section 431.82(a)(3)

provides for optional display of the

encircled lower case letters "ee," or

comparable logo, if the motor both

meets the applicable standard and is

covered by a Compliance Certification.

Several commenters support the use

of the Compliance Certification number

and the "ee" logo. (Treffinger, No. 4 at

paragraph 6: WSU/WSD, No. 5 at Il.J;

UL, No. 9, at page 2: ACEEE, Public

Hearing, Tr. Pg. 204; and NEMA. No. 18

at pages 9 and 10; and NEMA, Public

Hearing. Tr., pg. 180). UL opines that

use of the "ee" mark would be a simple

means to identify a motor that is in

compliance, but cautions that DOE

would have difficulty controlling its

fraudulent use. (UL, No. 9, at page 2).

The Department also received

comments concerning the location of

the Compliance Certification number,

and the additional requirement of a date

or other information on the nameplate.

ACEEE supports display of a CC

number, date of compliance, and "ee"

logo on the nameplate of each

complying motor, but asserts that

information beyond that would not

contribute to enforcement. (ACEEE,

Public Hearing, Tr. pg. 204.). In

testimony, NEMA asserted that the

motor nameplate should contain the

nominal efficiency and Compliance

Certification number, and that display

of a standardized DOE logo be optional.

(NEMA, Public Hearing. Tr. pg. 180). In

its written comments, however, NEMA

asserts that the location of the

Compliance Certification number

should be optional to the manufacturer.

(NEMA. No. 18 at page 11).

Section 431.82(a)(l)(ii) and (2) of the

proposed rule requires the Compliance

Certification number to be marked on

the permanent nameplate of an electric

motor. The Department believes that

marking the Compliance Certification

number on the permanent nameplate of

a covered motor is necessary to help

enforce the efficiency standards

established for electric motors under

section 342 of EPCA, since the

permanent nameplate provides the most

durable, common location from which

to glean standardized information

concerning the identity of the

manufacturer of that motor,

construction data , operational data,

energy efficiency data , and other data.

Also, the Department understands that

most electric motors are often

purchased, sight unseen, through

catalogs and other marketing materials,

and the permanent nameplate is often

not a factor in motor selection. The

information marked on the permanent

nameplate would provide some

assurance to a purchaser that it had

received a motor that has been certified

as complying with EPCA, and provide

traceability that would assist agencies

that enforce the energy efficiency

standards for electric motors under

EPCA.

The Department believes that the

proposed rule provides for the markings

necessary to facilitate enforcement, in

accordance with section 344(d)(3) of

EPCA, and sees little value in requiring

the date of compliance on the nameplate

of each complying motor, as ACEEE

recommends. This view is supported by

NEMA's assertion that disclosing the

date of compliance on shipping

documents would serve no useful

purpose. (NEMA, No. 18 at page 10).

For the above reasons, the Department

will not require the date of compliance

to be marked on the nameplate of a

complying electric motor, and the

provisions proposed at section 431.82(a)

for marking an electric motor with the

nominal full load efficiency, the

Compliance Certification number, and

the encircled letters "ee" will remain

largely unchanged in today's final rule.

(Discussion below at section II.F.4.

further addresses use of the Compliance

Certification number on motor labels.)

e. Labeling of Motors Not Covered by

EPCA

Section 431.82(d), "Other motors," of

the proposed rule permits a "nonEE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54134 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5 , 1999 /Rules and Regulations

covered" motor, including a motor considerable burdens on DOE. The

manufactured prior to the effective date Department would have to process any

of EPCA for electric motors, to be Compliance Certifications submitted for

labeled with the information required or such motors, and address any

permitted for electric motors, and complaints of mislabeling and of nonprovides that the "non-covered" motor compliance with efficiency standards

will then become subject to the and test procedures. This could detract

requirements of 10 CFR Part 431 from the Department's activities as to

concerning standards, testing, motors and other products that are

certification and enforcement. clearly covered by EPCA. The

Mr. W. Treffinger supports retroactive Department does not believe that such

use of the encircled "ee" marking for use of its resources, even if legally

units currently in stock. 12 (Treffinger, permitted, is justified at this time.

No. 4 at paragraph 6.). Both NEMA and Second, the Department believes it

ACEEE support use of the encircled would be problematic, under the

"ee" logo for motors that meet EPCA statutory provisions for enforcement at

efficiency standards, even if such sections 332. 333, and 345 of EPCA as

motors are manufactured before the to whether DOE could take enforcement

effective date of the standards, or are action and impose sanctions as to a

definite or special purpose motors. motor that is not covered under EPCA.

(NEMA, Public Meeting, June 2, 1995. Consequently, today's final rule will not

Tr. pgs. 195-6; NEMA, No. 9 at pg. 13 include the provisions proposed at

and appendix C, pgs. 11-12; NEMA, No. section 431.82(d) for motors that are not

9 at C.; NEMA, No. 38 at pg. 15; and covered under EPCA, thereby rendering

ACEEE, Public Meeting, June 2, 1995, moot the aforementioned comments.

Tr. pg. 201.) Washington State asserts

that any "non-covered " motor model,

having an enclosure and speed

equivalent to a covered motor, which

bears the "ee " mark should be subject

to the same testing requirements as

covered motors. (WSU/WSD, No. 5 at

II.J.). NEMA expresses concern,

Notwithstanding today's final rule,

the Department understands that the

Federal Trade Commission would have

jurisdiction, under section 5(a)(1) of the

Federal Trade Commission Act, 15

U.S.C. 45(a)(1), for example. to address

efficiency mislabeling of motors not

covered by EPCA. The Department also

however, that under proposed section understands that motors not covered

431.82(d), any motor for which nominal under the statutory definition of

efficiency is marked on the nameplate "electric motor" are typically tested for

would be classified as an "electric energy efficiency, in the same manner as

motor," and that many types of non- covered electric motors, under IEEE

covered motors are marked with the Standard 112-1996 Test Method B or

applicable nominal efficiency value. CSA Standard C390-93 Test Method (1),

NEMA asserts that classifying a non- and such motors that are not covered

covered motor as an "electric motor," could be generically represented as

however, should be at the option of the "energy efficient" according to the

manufacturer, and should only occur voluntary labeling provisions in NEMA

when the manufacturer uses the MG1-1993, apart from the provisions of

Compliance Certification number and EPCA.

"ee" logo. (NEMA, No. 18 at pg. 10, and

No. 38 at pg. 15).

In section III.E.4., "Other Matters," in

the preamble to the proposed rule, 61

FR 60454 (November 27, 1996), the

Department states that there is merit in

the proposal to permit manufacturers to

use the encircled "ee" logo for motors

that meet EPCA efficiency standards,

even if such motors are manufactured

before the effective date, or are definite

or special purpose motors. However,

after further review, the Department has

decided to exclude proposed section

431.82(d) from the final rule. First,

monitoring whether "non-covered"

motors meet requirements imposed by

and under EPCA could impose

72 The Department infers that "units currently in

stock" refers to motors manufactured prior to the

effective date of EPCA. and that would be covered

equipment if they had been manufactured after

such effective date.

f. Enforcement Testing Where Violation

of a Labeling Representation is Alleged

The proposed rule could be

interpreted as providing that the

enforcement procedures, set forth in

section 431.27 of the proposed rule,

would be used only to address

allegations of non-compliance with the

applicable regulatory standard for

efficiency. In the reopening notice, at

Section Il.D.. Enforcement Testing

Where Violation of a Labeling

Representation Is Alleged, 63 FR 34765-

66 (June 25, 1998), DOE stated its

intention to make clear in the final rule

that the enforcement procedures would

also apply in determining whether the

labeled efficiency rating for a motor is

erroneous, and the reopening notice

sought comments on this issue.

The ACEEE and NEMA support use of

the enforcement procedures for

determining both the accuracy of the

nameplate efficiency, as well as

compliance with the applicable EPCA

efficiency value. (NEMA/ACEEE, No. 38

at D.) There were no comments to the

contrary. The final rule provides that

these procedures, including the

proposed sampling plan at section

431.127(c), will be used to determine

the validity of labeling representations

for an electric motor, and not just

whether the motor meets or exceeds the

regulatory standard for efficiency. The

Department has made necessary

modifications in the language of section

431.127(a)(1) and appendix B to subpart

G, and has modified section 431.127(c),

Sampling, to read, "The determination

that a manufacturer's basic model

complies with the applicable energy

efficiency standard, or with its labeled

efficiency, must be based on testing

conducted in accordance with the

statistical sampling procedures set forth

in appendix B of this subpart and the

test procedures set forth in Appendix A

to subpart B of this part."

g. Imported Motors

Section 431.82(c) of the proposed rule

would require any electric motor

imported into the United States to be

accompanied by shipping papers that

disclose clearly the date of the

Compliance Certification for that motor,

and the applicable Compliance

Certification number.

NEMA asserts that shipping

documents should show the

Compliance Certification number(s) for

the electric motor(s) covered under

EPCA, for example, "EPACT CC No.

XXX IMPORTED FOR SALE IN USA."

NEMA objects to disclosing the date of

the Compliance Certification and energy

efficiency of the motor or motors on

import documents. NEMA also asserts

that shipping documents should list

motors that are not covered by EPCA

with the reason they are not covered, for

example, "DEF. PURPOSE MOTOR

EXEMPT FROM EPACT IMPORTED

FOR SALE IN USA." (NEMA, No. 18 at

pages 9 and 10, and exhibits B, C, and

D).

Proposed section 431.82(c), was

intended to aid the U.S. Customs

Service in preventing entry into the

United States of motors that do not

comply with EPCA. In discussions with

the Department, however, the Customs

Service has raised questions as to

whether the provisions of proposed

section 431.82(c) would help them.

Consequently, the Department had

decided to delay final action on this

section until it has had further

consultations with Customs. The

Department intends to include in those

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 54135

discussions the subject of requirements

for imported motors not covered by

EPCA. Therefore. today's final rule

includes no pro-: isions concerning

import documents.

h. Weights of Conductors and Magnetic

Materials

One commenter proposed that the

motor nameplate list the weight of the

copper or aluminum conductors used in

the motor, and the weight of the

magnetic iron used in the construction

of the motor. (Angelo Ruggiero, No. 17.).

The Department understands that a

relationship exists between the

efficiency of an electric motor and the

quantity and quality of active materials,

such as copper and magnetic steel, used

in the motor. In the Department's view,

marking the measured weight of copper,

aluminum, or magnetic steel content for

a particular basic model electric motor

might provide some indication of motor

efficiency, but it would be of limited

value because it is only one of several

variables affecting efficiency that could

also be marked on the nameplate of a

motor. On the other hand, marking of all

of these values on the nameplate would

be very burdensome and might not be

technically feasible. Therefore, the

Department does not believe that it

should require such markings under

section 344 of EPCA and the final rule

contains no such requirement.

F. Certification of Compliance

EPCA directs the Department to

require manufacturers to certify that

each motor meets the applicable EPCA

efficiency standard. EPCA section

345(c). 42 U.S.C. 6316(c). Section

431.123 of the proposed rule establishes

the requirements for manufacturers to

certify compliance, including a

reference to Appendix A of subpart G,

which sets forth the format for a

Compliance Certification. 61 FR 60371,

60473-60474 November 27, 1996).

The first sentence of proposed Section

431.123(a) states that no electric motor

"subject to an energy efficiency

standard set forth in subpart C of this

part" may be distributed unless it is

covered by a Compliance Certification.

Thus, because proposed section 431.42

in subpart C provides that only electric

motors manufactured after October 24,

1997 (or October 24, 1999 for certain

motors) are subject to standards, the

proposed rule as written would require

a Compliance Certification to be

submitted only for an electric motor

manufactured after whichever of the

two dates applies to that motor. 61 FR

60469-70 (November 27, 1996). For the

same reason, proposed section

431.123(a) would not bar the

distribution of a non-complying motor

manufactured before the applicable

date. Consequently. the Department has

not added to proposed section

431.123(a) the language "manufactured

after October 24, 1997" to qualify the

term "electric motor," as suggested by

NEMA (NEMA, No. 18, p. 12), because

to do so would create a redundancy.

The following addresses issues

concerning the content and format of

the Compliance Certification, and

concerning issuance and use of

Compliance Certification numbers.

1. Reference to Certification Programs

The Compliance Certification form in

Appendix A of subpart G in the

proposed rule includes tables for

reporting the efficiencies of electric

motors. A "Note" to the tables, 61 FR

60474 (November 27. 1996), directs

manufacturers to "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." Reliance Electric encourages

the Department to modify the

Compliance Certification in appendix A

of subpart G to also include

identification of motors for which a

certification organization was used.

(Reliance. No. 11. pp. 6-7; Reliance No.

47).

Whether a manufacturer uses its own

accredited laboratory, a third party

accredited laboratory or a certification

program, the manufacturer bears

ultimate responsibility for certifying

compliance under 431.123 of the rule.

The Department believes that there is no

need to specify that a certification

program is contributing to the

determination, since the manufacturer is

listed on the Compliance Certification.

Consequently. in today's final rule the

Department will not require the

Compliance Certification to identify

motors for which a certification

organization was used.

2. Nominal Versus Average Full Load

Efficiency

Each efficiency standard prescribed

by EPCA for an electric motor is a

specified minimum "nominal full load

efficiency." EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42

U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). The preamble to the

proposed rule, in section III.E.2..

"Information on Motor Nameplate."

discusses nominal full load efficiency as

the efficiency that industry currently

marks on the motor nameplate, and that

the Department will require be on the

nameplate. "Nominal full load

efficiency" is defined in the rule at

section 431.2 as being derived from the

"average full load efficiency" of a

population of motors of the same

design. Pursuant to sections 431.2 and

431.24 of the proposed and final rules.

"average full load efficiency" refers to

the average of the individual efficiencies

of such a population of motors,

determined through testing or use of an

AEDM. Section 431.123(b)(2)(i) of the

proposed rule requires that the

Compliance Certification report the

average full load efficiency of an electric

motor, as is designated on the sample

Compliance Certification in appendix A

to subpart G of part 431.

Reliance Electric encourages the

Department to modify this requirement,

so that the efficiency value to be

reported is the declared "nominal full

load efficiency" and not the "average

full load efficiency." Reliance states this

would be consistent with both the

instructions in the Note on the

Compliance Certification, and the

efficiency which is marked on the

motor, rather "than a value of efficiency

not found In any publication, database,

or on the motor itself." (Reliance, No. 11

at pg. 7)

The Department recognizes that

"nominal full load efficiency" is used in

EPCA, and has been in use by industry,

to represent the energy efficiency of a

motor. Moreover, as indicated in

Section II.A.7. above, the definition of

"nominal full load efficiency" in today's

final rule is based on the Department's

acceptance of the view that the

measured average full load efficiency of

a motor could sometimes overstate the

motor's efficiency, and could contain

fractional values that would suggest an

unrealistic degree of precision in

determining efficiency. The Department

also believes at this point that its receipt

of average full load efficiency figures in

Compliance Certifications would not

significantly aid in achieving

compliance with EPCA. For all of these

reasons, today's final rule requires

nominal full load efficiency to be

reported under section 431.123(b) (2)(i),

and on the sample Compliance

Certification in appendix A to subpart G

of the final rule.

3. Other Information To Be Reported

As indicated above, the proposed

Appendix A to Subpart G provides for

reporting the efficiencies of electric

motors. Specifically, pursuant to

proposed section 431.123(b)(2)(i),

Appendix A's "Attachment to

Compliance Certification"

("Attachment") contains two tables (one

for motors rated in horsepower and the

other for motors rated in kilowatts) for

reporting the efficiency of the least

efficient basic model within each

category for which EPCA prescribes a

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54136 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

minimum efficiency. The purpose of

these tables is to enable a manufacturer

or private labeler support its

certification of compliance, by reporting

motor efficiencies which show that the

least efficient basic model in each

category is at or above the EPCA

standard for that category.

As also described above, the Note to

the Attachment directs that an asterisk

identify each reported efficiency that is

determined through testing rather than

use of an AEDM. The Note also directs

listing of other basic models that have

been tested, and the Attachment

contains a table for providing such a

list. 61 FR 60474. These provisions were

intended to implement section

431.123(b)(2)(ii), which requires that the

Compliance Certification identify all

basic models that have been tested

pursuant to section 431.24. (Such

testing occurs either (1) to determine a

basic model's efficiency for purposes of

certifying its compliance to DOE and of

labeling or (2) to substantiate an AEDM.)

Identification of these basic models

would indicate whether five or more

basic models were tested, as is generally

required by section 431.24. The

Attachment is not intended to require a

manufacturer to report to DOE

efficiency tests it performs for other

purposes, such as quality control.

Reliance suggests certain changes in

the tables of the Attachment. (Reliance

No. 47) First, it recommends that the

two tables for reporting motor

efficiencies be combined into one, with

the title of the first column to be "Motor

horsepower/kilowatts." The Department

believes that combining the two tables

would simplify the format of the

attachment, reduce in some instances

the amount of information that would

have to be reported, and still provide

the necessary information for certifying

compliance. Consequently, the

Attachment in the final rule combines

these -vc tables as recommended by

Reliance. Second, in the table for listing

other basic models that have been

tested, the heading of the fourth column

refers to the "least efficient basic

model." Reliance points out that this

seems to call for reporting on the same

basic models that would be included in

the aforementioned table for reporting

efficiencies, and would not provide for

identification of more efficient basic

models that had been tested to

substantiate an AEDM. On this point as

well, the Department agrees with

Reliance's comments. The Department

erroneously included the term "least

efficient" in this table, and its retention

would prevent the table from serving its

intended purpose of assuring that the

Compliance Certification identifies all

testing undertaken to comply with the

DOE regulation. Accordingly. the term

is deleted from the heading of the fourth

column. Finally, in today's final rule the

Department has changed the title of this

table to "Models Actually Tested and

Not Previously Identified", as suggested

by Reliance. Reliance points out that the

title in the proposed rule, "Additional

Motors Actually Tested", erroneously

assumes that the table for reporting

motor efficiencies will identify at least

one basic model that has been tested.

4. Compliance Certification Number

Section 431.123(e), Response to

Certification; Certification Number for

Electric Motor, in the proposed rule,

requires DOE to provide an

identification number to each

manufacturer or private labeler to

signify compliance with section

431.123, Compliance Certification.

Section 431.82(a) (1) (ii), Electric motor

nameplate, in turn, requires the

manufacturer to display the Compliance

Certification number ("CC number") on

the permanent nameplate of the electric

motor. (As written, the proposed rule

does not allow for a "private labeler's"

Compliance Certification number to be

marked on the nameplate.) The

Department believes that such a number

is necessary to help enforce the

efficiency standards, under section

344(d) of EPCA, because it would

provide traceability directly to the

manufacturer or private labeler. and

would discourage distribution of noncomplying motors.

NEMA and ACEEE recommend that

one number be assigned to each

manufacturer, unless the manufacturer

requests additional numbers. (NEMA,

No. 18 at page 11: and NEMA/ACEEE.

No. 38 at pages 16 and 17). Also, NEMA

recommends that each manufacturer

marketing an electric motor under its

own name receive its own CC number,

and that a private labeler should have

the option to receive its own number, or

arrange to use a manufacturer's number.

(Public Hearing, Tr., pg. 180).

Leeson Electric asserts that a CC

number on the nameplate should

identify the party responsible for the

energy efficiency of that motor. Leeson

conjectures, for example, that it could

design and test a motor for efficiency,

and through contractual arrangements

have another manufacturer produce that

motor complete with a Leeson

nameplate and traceable to Leeson.

Alternatively and with proper

arrangements, Leeson conjectures that it

could manufacture a motor using

someone else's design and number. In

either case, the CC number should

identify a party responsible for the

motor's efficiency. (Leeson. Public

Hearing, Tr., pgs. 191-92). GE Motors

recommends that the name on the

nameplate be consistent with the

Compliance Certification number. (GE.

Public Hearing. Tr. pg. 192-93).

The Department understands that a

motor manufacturer could manufacture

a motor for sale (1) under its own name,

(2) by another motor manufacturer, (3)

by a private labeler. or (4) by any

combination of these three means. For

reasons of contractual obligation or

product differentiation, a motor

manufacturer might not want to indicate

on a motor nameplate or in marketing

materials that, for example, its Motor A

and competitor's Motor A are both made

by the competitor. Similarly, a company

owning a private label might not want

to disclose the identity of the motor

manufacturer on its motor nameplate or

in marketing materials for economic or

marketing reasons, such as using a

variety of manufacturers to supply the

same type motor, or maintaining the

focus of recognition on its private label

to the exclusion of identifying the

source of the motor. On the other hand,

because of contractual or other

considerations, a private labeler or a

manufacturer selling a motor made by

another manufacturer, might wish to

include on the motor's nameplate the

CC number of the firm that

manufactured the motor.

The Department is persuaded that the

final rule should allow a private labeler,

or a manufacturer distributing a motor

it did not manufacture, to m ark a motor

with its own CC number or the number

of the motor's manufacturer. Use of the

CC number is intended to discourage

distribution of non-complying motors,

to provide a marking to identify a motor

that has been certified to be in

compliance with 10 CFR Part 431 and

to identify the source of the Compliance

Certification, not necessarily to identify

the manufacturer to the consumer.

The proposed rule would already

permit (1) a private labeler to mark a

motor's nameplate with the

manufacturer's CC number, and (2) a

manufacturer distributing a motor it had

not manufactured to use either its own

CC number or the number of the

manufacturer. The final rule provides

likewise. In light of the foregoing

discussion, however, proposed section

431.82(a)(1)(ii) is revised in the final

rule to permit a private labeler to use its

own CC number. DOE does not believe

that any purpose would be served by

requiring the CC number on a motor to

be the number provided to the party

named on the motor nameplate, as

apparently recommended by CE Motors.

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday. October 5. 1999 /Rules and Regulations 54137

As to the issuance of more than one

CC number to a manufacturer (or private

labeler), in the Department's view this

would be warranted only in limited

circumstances. Although the

commenters that made this proposal

gave no reasons for it. it appears that a

manufacturer or private labeler that

distributes motors under different brand

names, trademarks or labels, might wish

to obtain more than one number to

preserve the separate identities of these

motors. The Department believes that,

in such a situation, a manufacturer or

private labeler should be permitted to

obtain a CC number that would apply to

motors it distributes under a name that

does not overlap with other names

under which it sells motors. Issuance of

more than one CC number under other

circumstances, however, would be

unnecessarily burdensome to the

Department, and could conflict with the

use of the CC number as a means of

discouraging distribution of noncomplying motors and readily

identifying the source of the

Compliance Certification. Thus, for

example. if Company XYZ, a motor

manufacturer or private labeler, sells

electric motors under the "XYZ" brand

name or label, and also under the

"ABC" brand name or label, it should be

permitted to obtain one CC number for

each of these labels or brand names. But

it should not be permitted. for example,

to obtain one CC number for motors sold

under the "XYZ Premium" or "XYZ"

label, and another for motors sold under

the "XYZ Standard" or "XYZ/ABC"

label. Accordingly, section 431.123(c)

and provisions in section 431.123(f)

have been added to the final rule to

allow a manufacturer or private labeler

to request and obtain a separate CC

number for any unique name under

which it distributes electric motors.

Underwriters Laboratories contends

that a database of information related to

the Compliance Certification number

will be needed for use by enforcement

agencies, such as the U.S. Customs

Service. Otherwise, motors could be

labeled as being in compliance even

though they have not been certified

under section 431.123 and appendix A

to subpart C. (UL, No. 9 at page 2.). The

Department is likewise concerned about

keeping records of Compliance

Certification that would facilitate

enforcement. As with compliance

statements and certification reports filed

with the Department of Energy under 10

CFR 430.62. Submission of data, for

residential appliances, the Department

intends to maintain such files for

electric motors. These will be available

to the U.S. Customs Service and any

other enforcement agencies.

G. Other Matters

1. Standards Incorporated by Reference

Section 340(13)(A) of EPCA, which

defines the term "electric motor." states

that the terms in that definition shall be

used "as defined in NEMA Standards

Publication MG1-1987." Under section

340(13)(H) of EPCA, "nominal full load

efficiency" is an average efficiency "as

determined in accordance with" NEMA

MGI-1987. Section 343(a)(5) of the Act

requires that testing procedures for

motor efficiency shall be the test

procedures specified in NEMA

Standards Publication MG1-1987,

unless those are amended.

First, consistent with the EPCA

directive that the definition of "electric

motor" be based on NEMA MGI, section

431.2 of the proposed rule states, for the

most part. that the terms used to define

"electric motor" shall be construed with

reference to provisions in the NEMA

Standards Publication MG1-1987. 61 FR

60466 (November 27, 1996). In addition,

section 431.2 of the proposed rule

defines the term "general purpose"-

one element in the EPCA definition of

"electric motor"-by reference to the

service conditions specified in NEMA

MCI paragraph 14.02, "Usual Service

Conditions."

Second. consistent with section

340(13)(H) of EPCA, the proposed rule

defines "nominal full load efficiency"

with reference to Table 12-8 of NEMA

MC 1-1 993.

Third, consistent with the EPCA

directive that the test procedures be

those specified in NEMA MCI, section

431.22(a)(2)(i) of the proposed rule.

Reference sources, incorporates by

reference NEMA MGI with Revision 1,

paragraph 12.58.1, "Determination of

Motor Efficiency Losses", and Table 12-

8, "Efficiency Levels." 61 FR 60466

(November 27. 1996).

Among the comments received

concerning the proposed rule were

requests from NEMA and ACEEE that

the Department make reference to the

complete NEMA MCI. including

updates through Revision 4 (June 1997).

since they provide the details necessary

to understand other requirements of the

definition of electric motor, such as

Design A and B characteristics. (NEMA,

No. 18 at pg. 5: and NEMA/ACEEE, No.

38 at pg. 14.)

The Department believes it is

inappropriate and impractical to

incorporate into the final rule the

entirety of NEMA MG 1. Many parts of

MGI concern motors that are not

covered by EPCA. Other parts of MGI,

although relevant to motors that are

covered, are irrelevant to issues of motor

efficiency, or do not concern any of the

matters, discussed above, on which

EPCA directs that MG 1 be followed.

Rather they concern subjects such as

aspects of the construction and

performance of motors that do not bear

upon the definition of "electric motor,"

the test procedures for measuring

efficiency, or determination of nominal

efficiency. Thus, to incorporate all of

MGI into the final rule would result in

the rule's containing a considerable

amount of material that is irrelevant to

compliance with EPCA. Moreover, MG1

is a sizable volume. If it were

incorporated into the final rule, a

substantial amount of material would

become part of the rule, and the

Department would have to have

complete copies of this material

available for inspection both at the

Federal Register and the Department.

For all of these reasons, the final rule

does not incorporate by reference the

entirety of MG1.

The final rule, however, particularly

in the definition of "electric motor."

refers to MGI more extensively and

with greater specificity than does the

proposed rule. Moreover, the final rule

incorporates by reference all of the MGI

provisions referred to in the rule. As

indicated above, the proposed rule

states only that terms in the "electric

motor" definition that are not defined in

the rule or with reference to IEC

standards, "shall be construed with

reference to * * * MGI-1987." 61 FR

60466 (November 27, 1996). The final

rule specifically identifies each such

term that is defined in MG I, cites the

provision or provisions of MGI

containing the definition, and states that

the term must be construed with

reference to the cited provision or

provisions.

All of these references are to

provisions of MG 1-1993 with Revisions

1-4. Several of the referenced

provisions (e.g., paragraphs 1.16.1, 4.01

and 12.40.1) contain differences in

numbering, language, or format, but not

substance, from the corresponding

provisions of MG 1-1987. Referencing

these MG1-1993 paragraphs in the final

rule raises no issue as to the rule's

conformity with EPCA's requirement

that terms in the definition of electric

motor be used "as defined in MG1-

1987." The final rule's references to

paragraphs 11.31, 11.34 and 11.36 of

MG1-1993, however, to construe the

term "NEMA T-frame dimensions,"

specifically exclude the dimension

values in those paragraphs for motors

with frame sizes 447 and 449. These

values were not included in MGI-1987

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54138 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

and these motors were not considered to

be NEMA T-frame motors under MC1-

1987. 1

In an additional departure from MCI1987, paragraph 11.31 of,MG1-1993

does not contain values for the "Bmax"

dimension-the maximum sizes for the

"B" dimension. Consequently, MGI1993 appears to define "T-frame" more

broadly than it was defined in MG1987, and to increase the number of

motors that meet the T-frame

classification. The Department

understands, however, that even while

operating under MG1-1987, the

industry widely ignored the Bmax

dimension, considered motors with B

dimensions in excess of Bmax to be Tframe, and did not view Bmax as critical

in defining what constituted a T-frame

motor. Thus, MCI-1987 as applied

excluded the Bmax dimension, and

when the "electric motor" definition

was added to EPCA, in 1992, "T-frame,

* * * motor * * * as defined in MGI1987" meant a motor with T-frame

dimensions without regard to Bmax. For

these reasons, the final rule references

and incorporates paragraph 11.31 of

MG1-1993 without altering its

exclusion of the Bmax dimension.

Finally, the final rule retains the

proposed rule's references to MG1-1993

in the definitions of "general purpose"

and "nominal full load efficiency", and

adds references to MG1-1993's

description of "unusual service

conditions" in the definitions of

"definition purpose motor" and

"general purpose." With respect to the

test procedure, the final rule also retains

the proposed rule's references to MGI1993 but adds references to Revisions 1-

4.

2. Enforcement: Determining What

Constitutes a "Separate Violation"

Sections 332, 333(a) and 345(a) of

EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6302, 6303(a) and

6316(a) set forth actions that violate

EPCA requirements for electric motors,

and the penalties associated with each

violation. Section 431.122, Prohibited

acts, in the proposed rule incorporates

and implements these provisions. It

provides in paragraph (b) that, for each

motor a manufacturer distributes that

does not comply with applicable

efficiency standard, a separate violation

occurs. NEMA questions whether the

Department intends "that the total

penalty for distribution of a noncompliant motor be limited to $100,"

and recommends that distribution of a

motor that does not comply with the

applicable efficiency standard be-a

separate violation for each day of

noncompliance. (NEMA, No. 18 at pgs.

10-11; emphasis added.)

The Department believes that NEMA

has misconstrued the proposed rule.

Proposed section 431.122(b) provides,

and DOE intends. that distribution of

"each unit" of an electric motor that

fails to comply with the applicable

EPCA efficiency standard would be a

separate violation. Thus, for example, if

a manufacturer were to distribute 1,000

motors that do not meet the applicable

standard, that would constitute 1,000

violations. and the total penalty would

be $100,000 ($100 times 1,000).

In this and other respects, proposed

section 431.122 closely adheres to the

EPCA provisions that delineate

violations of efficiency requirements,

and penalties for such violations. In

particular, sections 332(a), 333(a), and

345(a) of EPCA provide that a separate

violation occurs, (1) for "each violation"

of the prohibition against distributing

any new covered equipment that does

not conform to an applicable EPCA

standard, and (2) for "each day" a

manufacturer fails to provide required

information, or comply with certain

requirements of section 326 of EPCA.

Those sections do not provide that each

day of noncompliance with an

applicable standard is a violation, as

NEMA recommends. It is questionable,

therefore, whether the Department

could adopt such a provision in today's

regulations. Nor is such a provision in

10 CFR section 430.61, which

implements these same sections of

EPCA for consumer products. The

Department sees no basis at this time for

taking a different approach in Part 431.

Accordingly, today's rule does not

incorporate NEMA's suggestion that

each day of noncompliance with an

applicable standard would be a separate

violation.

3. Technical Corrections

Today's final rule makes a number of

changes to the proposed rule that do not

alter the substance or intended effect of

the rule. These changes, for example,

expand or correct references, conform

language in the rule to statutory

language, or clarify the language of the

rule. They are as follows:

a. References to International Standards

The definition of "electric motor" at

section 431.2 of the proposed rule states

that four terms in the definition shall be

construed with reference to IEC

Standard 34-1. 61 FR 60465-66

(November 27, 1996). The Department

has determined that three of these

terms-"cage." "IEC metric equivalents

(to T-frame dimensions)" and "Design

N''-must instead be construed with

reference to certain provisions in three

IEC standards other than Standard 34-

1. (The fourth term is construed with

reference to certain provisions of

Standard 34-1.) The final rule revises

the definition of "electric motor" to

reference the current versions of these

provisions. In addition, because they

must be used to construe the terms used

in the definition, section 431.22 of the

final rule incorporates these provisions

by reference. The Department has also

added a definitions of "ISO"-

"International Organization for

Standardization"-to section 431.2 of

the final rule, because of the many

references to ISO in the rule.

b. Use of Term "Energy Conservation

Standard"

Part C of EPCA, which governs this

final rule, uses the term "energy

conservation standard" to refer to a

level of energy efficiency required under

Part C. See EPCA section 340, 42 U.S.C.

6311. In the final rule, therefore, that

term is used in place of the term

"energy efficiency standard", as for

example in sections 431.41 and 431.42.

c. Preemption of State Regulations

Section 431.43 of today's final rule

concerns preemption of state energy

efficiency requirements for electric

motors. It contains, with minor

technical modifications, the language of

10 CFR section 430.33, which concerns

preemption of state efficiency

requirements for products covered by

Part 430. Similarly, section 431.83 of

today's final rule concerns preemption

of state efficiency labeling requirements

for electric motors. It contains, with

minor technical modifications, the

language of 16 CFR section 305.17, a

Federal Trade Commission regulation

that concerns preemption of state

labeling requirements for products

covered by Part 430. Neither section

431.33 nor section 431.83 was in the

proposed rule, but each merely

incorporates pre-emption requirements

specified by sections 327 and 345 of

EPCA and neither changes the

substance, force or effect of the

provisions of the proposed rule.

d. Provisions Incorporated from Part 430

Sections 431.28, 431.61, 431.125,

431.126, 431.128, 431.129, 431.130,

431.131, and 431.132 of the proposed

rule incorporate sections of 10 CFR Part

430. These proposed sections do not

repeat the language of the Part 430

provisions, but merely specify the

changes that must be made in that

language when it is used in Part 431.

NEMA requests that the language of

these sections be printed in full in Part

431, so that Part 431 will be selfcontained, and its users will not have to

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64. No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

consult Part 430 to find pertinent

requirements. (NEMA. No. 18 at pg. 13).

Today's final rule accepts NEMA's

suggestion, and contains the language of

each of these sections in full. This

results in no substantive change from

the proposed rule.

e. Amount of Penalty

Section 345 (a) of EPCA , 42 U.S.C.

6316(a), applies the civil monetary

penalty provisions of Section 333(a) of

EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6303 (a), to electric

motors. Section 333(a) provides for a

maximum civil penalty of $ 100 for each

violation of an EPCA requirement. As

proposed , section 431.122(b)

incorporated the provisions of section

333(a), including the $100 penalty.

Subsequent to issuance of the proposed

rule, the Department adjusted civil

monetary penalties under its

jurisdiction , as required by the Federal

Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act

of 1990 , 28 U.S . C. 2461 note, as

amended by the Debt Collection

Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-

134). 62 FR 46181 (September 2, 1997).

The Department increased to $110 the

penalty amount specified by section

333(a). This increase was reflected in an

amendment to 10 CFR section 430.61.

62 FR 46181 , 46183 (September 2,

1997). Accordingly, DOE has adjusted

the penalty amount in section

431.122(b) of the final rule to

incorporate the $110 penalty, to reflect

the increase in all civil penalties set by

EPCA.

f. Prohibited Acts-Section 431.122

Proposed section 431.122(a)(4)

provides that it would be a prohibited

act under EPCA to advertise in a catalog

from which an electric motor can be

purchased without including in the

catalog the information "required by

section 431.82(b)(2)." This section

reference is erroneous. It is section

431.82 b)(1\ t_. ^t ), fat„ei i}7nrl Section

431.82(b)(2), that requires inclusion of

certain information in catalogs.

Therefore, in the final rule, the section

cited in section 431.122(a) (4) is

corrected to 431.82(b)(1).

The final rule also adds to paragraph

(c) of section 431.122 the definition of

"knowingly" that is contained in

section 333(b) of EPCA.

g. Language Changes in Sections 431.23

and 431.124(a)

As proposed, section 431.23 could

give the impression that the test

procedures prescribed in the regulation

are mandatory only for determining

whether a motor satisfies the applicable

energy conservation standard. However,

as demonstrated by EPCA provisions

such as sections 343(d)(l) and 344(b). 42

U.S.C. 6214((d)(1) and 6215(b), and as

recognized in other provisions of the

final rule such as sections 431.24 and

431.82(a), the test procedures in the

final rule must be used to measure an

electric motor's efficiency for all

purposes under EPCA. Section 431.23 of

the final rule has been revised to make

this clear.

Language has been added to section

431.124. Maintenance of records, to

make clear that a manufacturer must

keep records of any written certification

it receives from a certification

organization and relies upon under the

Part 431. The manufacturer's recordkeeping obligation is not be limited to

certifications that attest to a motor's

compliance with the applicable

standard. as suggested by the proposed

rule. A manufacturer also must keep, for

example. certifications in which a

certification organization attests to the

numerical efficiency ratings of

particular motors. This is consistent

with the understanding of the

Department and the industry that

certification organizations do not merely

certify a motor's compliance with a

standard, but also certify its level of

performance. 61 FR 60457 (November

27, 1996), section II.C.1-3 above,

Reliance No. I 1 at p. 7, NEMA No. 38

at p. 5.

111. Procedural Issues and Regulatory

Review

A. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

This rule was reviewed for

environmental impacts and the

Department concluded that neither an

environmental assessment nor an

environmental impact statement is

required. 61 FR at 60460. There were no

comments on this issue. Therefore, the

Department will take no further action

in today's final rule with respect to the

National Environmental Policy Act.

B. Review Under Executive Order 12866,

"Regulatory Planning and Review"

This regulatory action was reviewed

pursuant to Executive Order 12866,

"Regulatory Planning and Review,"

October 4, 1993. The Department

concluded that this action was not

subject to review under the Executive

Order by the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs. There were no

comments concerning Executive Order

12866. Therefore, the Department will

take no further action in today's final

rule with respect to Executive Order

12866.

54139

C. Review Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule was reviewed pursuant to

the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5

U.S.C. 601 et seq., which 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 included an analysis of

small entity impact in the NOPR, 61 FR

60460-61 (November 27, 1996). In

summary, DOE estimates there are

approximately 27 domestic firms and 14

foreign firms that manufacture electric

motors covered under EPCA. Of these

firms, DOE estimates there are four to

six electric motor manufacturers that are

small businesses under the size

standards published by the Small

Business Administration. The NOPR

analysis examined the anticipated

economic impact of the proposed rule

on small manufacturers. taking into

account current industry practices and

steps taken in the design of the rule to

keep the testing burden on

manufacturers as low as possible. DOE

concluded that the cost of complying

with the 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.

Only Sterling Electric, Inc. submitted

comments concerning the possible effect

of the proposed rule, and in particular

its provisions pertinent to sampling

plans and compliance certification, on

small business. (Sterling, No. 13).

Sterling Electric requested that the

Department "keep the small

manufacturer in mind" as the final rule

is written and recommended (1) "more

than one choice selecting an agency to

either certify and/or accredit labs," and

(2) "a simple statistical procedure" to

verify that its electric motors are in

compliance with EPCA efficiency levels.

The Sterling comments are addressed

at sections II.C.2. "Issues involving both

use of accredited laboratories and use of

certification organizations," and

II.C.4.c.(1), "Sampling Plan for

Compliance Testing," in the preamble to

today's final rule. In sum, today's final

rule at section 431.25(a) allows a

manufacturer to certify compliance

through its election of either an

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54140 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

independent testing or a certification

program, and adopts the NEMA

sampling plan for determining

compliance, which the Department

believes is a sample statistical

procedure that is consistent with

industry practice. Furthermore, and as

pointed out in the Department's

regulatory flexibility analysis, 61 FR

60461 (November 27, 1996), the

compliance certification requirement

would not become effective until 24

months after the effective date of the

final rule. As per its analysis in the

NOPR. and in view of the Department's

response to the aforementioned

comments from Sterling Electric, the

Department certifies that today's final

rule will not impose significant

economic costs on a substantial number

of small manufacturers.

D. Review Under Executive Order

12612, "Federalism"

This rule was reviewed pursuant to

Executive Order 12612, "Federalism,"

52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987), which

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.

The Department set forth its analysis

in the NOPR, 61 FR 60461-62

(November 27, 1996), and concluded

that the proposed rule would not alter

the distribution of authority, nor would

it regulate the States. There were no

comments concerning Executive Order

12612. Therefore, the Department will

take no further action in today's final

rule with respect to Executive Order

12612.

E. Review Under Executive Order 12630,

"Governmental Actions and

Interference With Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights"

The Department determined, 61 FR

60462 (November 27, 1996), 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.

There were no comments concerning

Executive Order 12630. Therefore, the

Department will take no further action

in today's final rule with respect to

Executive Order 12630.

F. Review Under the Paperwork

Reduction Act

This rule was reviewed pursuant to

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

44 U.S.C. 3501. et seq. The proposed

rule requires collections of information

necessary for implementing and

monitoring compliance with the

efficiency standards. testing. labeling

and certification requirements for

electric motors, as mandated by EPCA.

The Department set forth its analysis,

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, in

the NOPR, 61 FR 60462 (November 27,

1996).

The recordkeeping and reporting

requirements in the proposed rule, such

as disclosing energy efficiency on the

nameplate of a motor and in marketing

materials. maintaining records that

substantiate the efficiency of an electric

motor for two years, and a one-time

Compliance Certification that affirms

that each basic model meets the

applicable EPCA efficiency standard,

were based on current industry practice

and the views of stakeholders received

at a public meeting held in May 1995,

in written comments solicited in the

notice of that meeting, and in

subsequent informal contacts.

Comments relevant to the information

and recordkeeping requirements that

were considered under the Paperwork

Reduction Act, such as comments on

labeling, disclosure of efficiency

information in marketing materials,

compliance certification and

recordkeeping, were submitted by

NEMA. Reliance Electric. Underwriters

Laboratories, and the American Council

for an Energy Efficient Economy, and

were addressed in the NOPR, 61 FR

60451-54: 60458-59 (November 27,

1996). (NEMA, No. 9 at C., D. and D.3.;

Reliance, No. 8 at 3.b.3, 3.c. and 3.d.1;

UL, No. 4 at Labeling: ACEEE, No. 7 at

3.c). Subsequent comments concerning

the information and recordkeeping

requirements at proposed sections

431.24(b)(4)(ii), 431.82, 431.123 and

appendix A to subpart G, and 431.124

in the proposed rule, were addressed

above (Treffinger. No. 4; WSU/WSD, No.

5; UL, No. 9; Ruggiero. No. 17: and

NEMA, No. 18). Commenters were, in

general, supportive of the proposed rule.

The information collection and

recordkeeping requirements in this final

rule have been approved by the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB)

under the provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.) and have been assigned OMB

control number 1910-5104. OMB

assigns a control number for each

collection of information it approves.

DOE may not conduct or sponsor, and

a person is not required to respond to,

a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB number.

G. 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 (4) 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 rule under the standards of section

3 of the Executive Order and

determined that, to the extent permitted

by law, they meet the requirements of

those standards.

H. Review Under Section 32 of the

Federal Energy Administration Act

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 (FEAA), as

amended by the Federal Energy

Administration Authorization Act of

1977. 15 U.S.C. 788.

The final rule incorporates a number

of commercial standards that are

essentially required by the Act. For

example, the procedures required for

measuring the efficiency of electric

motors come from the NEMA

publication, "Motors and Generators,"

MGI-1993 Revisions I through 4; the

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /-V61. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 54141

Institute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers, Inc., "Standard Test

Procedure for Polyphase Induction

Motors and Generators," IEEE Std 112-

1996 Test Method B for motor

efficiency; and CSA International

Standard C390-93, "Energy Efficiency

Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction

Motors," Test Method (1). By way of

further example, certain definitions in

the final rule are drawn from NEMA

Publication MGI. Because the

Department has little discretion to omit

these standards from its regulation,

section 32 of the FEAA has no

application to them.

As part of its definition of electric

motor, however, the final rule does

employ the commercial IntemationaL_

Electrotechnical Commission Standards

60034-1, 60034-12. 60050(411) and

60072-1, which the Act does not direct

the Department to adopt. In addition, as

proposed in the NOPR, 61 FR 60449-50,

60469-70 (November 27, 1996), the

Department has incorporated into the

final rule the standard kilowatt

equivalents specified in IEC Standard

72-1 for the horsepower ratings that

EPC.A prescribes standards for.

As required by section 32(c) of the

FEAA, the Department has consulted

with the Attorney General and the

Chairman of the Federal Trade

Commission concerning the impact of

these standards on competition, and

neither has recommended against

incorporation or use of these standards.

1. Review Under the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act

This regulatory action was reviewed

.pursuant to the Unfunded.._Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA1, and the

Department concluded that the

requirements of sections 203 and 204 of

the UMRA did not apply to today's final

rule. 61 FR 60463 (November 27, 1996).

There were no comments concerning

the UMRA. Therefore, the Department

will take no further action in today's

final rule with respect to the UMRA.

J. Review Under the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

Consistent with Subtitle E of the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801-808,

DOE will submit to Congress a report

regarding the issuance of today's final

rule before the effective date set forth in

the outset of this notice. The report will

state that it has been determined that.

this rule is not a "major rule" as defiiled

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

Administrative practice and

procedure, Energy conservation.

Incorporation by reference.

Issued in Washington. DC. July 26. 1999. Subpart F-[Reserved]

Dan W. Reicher,

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble . Chapter 11 of Title 10, Code.of

Federal Regulations (CFR), is amended

by adding new Part 431 to read as set

forth below.

PART 431-ENERGY EFFICIENCY

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL

EQUIPMENT

Subpart A-General Provisions

Sec.

431.1 Purpose and scope.

431.2 Definitions.

Appendix A to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 431.

Policy Statement for Electric Motors

Covered Under the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act

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 Determination of efficiency.

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 Procedures for recognition and

withdrawal of recognition of

accreditation bodies and certification

programs.

431.29 Petitions for waiver. and

applications for interim waiver. of test

procedure. _

Appendi5,-Xt9o Subpart B of Part 431

Uniform Test Method for Measuring

Nominal Full Load Efficiency of Electric

Motors

Subpart C-Energy Conservation Standards

431.41 Purpose and scope.

431.42 Energy conservation standards and

effective dates.

431.43 Preemption of state regulations.

Subpart D-Petitions to Exempt State

Regulation from Preemption; Petitions to

Withdraw Exemption of State Regulation

431.61 Purpose and scope.

431.62 Prescriptions of a rule.

431.63 Filing requirements.

431.64 Notice of petition.

431.65 Consolidation.

431.66 Hearing.

431.67 Disposition of petitions.

431.68 Effective dates of final rules.

431.69 Request for reconsideration.

431.70 Finality of decision.

Subpart E-Labeling

431.81 Purpose and scope.

431.82 Labeling requirements.

431.83 Preemption of state regulations.

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

§ 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.

§ 431.2 Definitions.

For purposes of this part, words shall

be defined as provided for in section

340 of the Act and as followsAccreditation means recognition by

an accreditation body that a laboratory

is competent to test the efficiency of

electric motors according to the scope

and procedures given in Test Method B

of IEEE Standard 112-1296, Test

Procedure for Polyphase Induction

Motors and Generators, and Test

Method (1) of CSA Standard C390-93,

Energy Efficient Test Methods for ThreePhase Induction Motors.

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. 6291 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.

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54142 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5. 1999 /Rules and Regulations

Average full load efficiency means the

arithmetic mean of the full load

efficiencies of a population of electric

motors of duplicate design, where the

full load efficiency of each motor in the

population is the ratio (expressed as a

percentage) of the motor's useful power

output to its total power input when the

motor is operated at its full rated load,

rated voltage, and rated frequency.

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

the 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

§ 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, forgiving 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 CSA International.

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, such as those specified in NEMA

Standards Publication MC1-1993,

Motors and Generators, paragraph

14.03, "Unusual Service Conditions," or

for use on a particular type of

application, and which cannot be used

in most general purpose applications.

DOE or the Department means the

Department of Energy.

Electric motor is defined as follows:

(1) "Electric motor" means a machine

which converts electrical power into

rotational mechanical power and which:

(i) is a general purpose motor,

including but not limited to motors with

explosion-proof construction:

(ii) is a single speed, induction motor

(MC 0:

(iii) is rated for continuous duty

(MG1) operation. or is rated duty type

Si (IEC):

(iv) contains a squirrel-cage (MG1) or

cage (IEC) rotor. and has foot-mounting,

including foot-mounting with flanges or

detachable feet:

(v) is built in accordance with NEMA

T-frame dimensions (MCI), or IEC

metric equivalents (IEC);

(vi) has performance in accordance

with NEMA Design A (MCI) or B (MCI)

characteristics, or equivalent designs

such as IEC Design N (IEC); and

(vii) operates on polyphase alternating

current 60-Hertz sinusoidal power, and:

(A) is 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

(B) can be operated on 230 volts or

460 volts, or both.

(2) Terms in this definition followed

by the parenthetical "MCI" must be

construed with reference to provisions

in NEMA Standards Publication MGI1993. Motors and Generators, with

Revisions 1. 2, 3 and 4, as follows:

(i) Section 1, General Standards

Applying to All Machines. Part 1,

Referenced Standards and Definitions,

paragraphs 1.16.1, 1.16.1.1, 1.17.1.1,

1.17.1.2, and 1.40.1 pertain to the terms

"induction motor," "squirrel-cage,"

"NEMA Design A," "NEMA Design B,"

and "continuous duty" respectively:

(ii) Section 1, General Standards

Applying to All Machines, Part 4,

Dimensions, Tolerances, and Mounting,

paragraph 4.01 and Figures 4-1, 4-2, 4-

3, and 4-4 pertain to "NEMA T-frame

dimensions;"

(iii) Section 11, Small (Fractional) and

Medium (Integral) Machines, Part 11,

Dimensions-A C and DC Small and

Medium Machines, paragraphs 11.01.2.

11.31 (except the lines for frames 447T,

447TS. 449T and449TS), 11.32, 11.34

(except the line for frames 447TC and

449TC. and the line for frames 447TSC

and 449TSC), 11.35, and 11.36 (except

the line for frames 447TD and 449TD,

and the line for frames 447TSD and

449TSD), and Table 11-1, pertain to

"NEMA T-frame dimensions;" and

(iv) Section II, Small (Fractional) and

Medium (Integral) Machines, Part 12,

Tests and Performance-AC and DC

Motors, paragraphs 12.35.1. 12.35.5,

12.38.1, 12.39.1, and 12.40.1, and Table

12-2, pertain both to "NEMA Design A"

and "NEMA Design B."

(3) Terms in this definition followed

by the parenthetical "IEC" must be

construed with reference to provisions

in IEC Standards as follows:

(i) IEC Standard 6003411 (1996),

Rotating electrical machines, Part 1:

Rating and performance. with

Amendment 1 (1997). Section 3: Duty,

clause 3.2.1 and figure 1 pertain to

"duty type Si":

(ii) IEC Standard 60050-411 (1996),

International Electrotechnical

Vocabulary Chapter 411: Rotating

machines, sections 411-33-07 and 411-

37-26, pertain to "cage":

(iii) IEC Standard 60072-1 (1991),

Dimensions and output series for

rotating electrical machines-Part 1:

Frame numbers 56 to 400 and flange

numbers 55 to 1080, clauses 2, 3, 4.1,

6.1, 7, and 10, and Tables 1, 2 and 4,

pertain to "IEC metric equivalents" to

"T-frame" dimensions; and

(iv) IEC Standard 60034-12 (1980),

Rotating electrical machines, Part 12:

Starting performance of single-speed

three-phase cage induction motors for

voltages up to and including 660 V,

with Amendment 1 (1992) and

Amendment 2 (1995), clauses 1, 2, 3.1,

4, 5, and 6, and Tables 1, II, and III,

pertain to "IEC Design N."

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. 6291 et seq.).

General purpose motor means any

motor which is designed in standard

ratings with either:

(1) Standard operating characteristics

and standard mechanical construction

for use under usual service conditions,

such as those specified in NEMA

Standards Publication MG1-1993,

paragraph 14.02, "Usual Service

Conditions," and without restriction to

a particular application or type of

application; or

(2) Standard operating characteristics

or standard mechanical construction for

use under unusual service conditions,

such as those specified in NEMA

Standards Publication MG1-1993,

paragraph 14.03, "Unusual Service

Conditions," or for a particular type of

application, and which can be used in

most general purpose applications.

IEC means the International

Electrotechnical Commission.

IEEE means the Institute of Electrical

and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 54143

ISO means International Organization

for Standardization.

Manufacture means to manufacture,

produce, assemble, or import.

NEMA means the National Electrical

Manufacturers Association.

Nominal full load efficiency of an

electric motor means a representative

value of efficiency selected from

Column A of Table 12-8. NEMA

Standards Publication MG 1-1993, that

is not greater than the average full load

efficiency of a population of 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.

Secretary means the Secretary of the

Department of Energy.

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

certification that covered motors comply

with the standards.

Section 340(13)(A) of EPCA defines

the term "electric motor" based

essentially on the construction and

rating system in the National Electrical

Manufacturers Association (NEMA)

Standards Publication MGI. Sections

340(13)(B) and (C) of EPCA define the

terms "definite purpose motor" and

"special purpose motor," respectively,

for which the statute prescribes no

efficiency standards.

In its proposed rule to implement the

EPCA provisions that apply to motors

(61 FR 60440. November 27, 1996), DOE

has proposed to clarify the statutory

definition of "electric motor," to mean

a machine which converts electrical

power into rotational mechanical power

and which: (1) is a general purpose

modifications are covered under the

statute, and as to whether manufacturers

will be able to comply with the statute

by October 25, 1997 with respect to all

of these covered motors. Consequently,

motor manufacturers have requested

that the Department provide additional

guidance as to which types of motors

are "electric motors," "definite purpose

motors," and "special purpose motors"

under EPCA. The policy statement that

follows is based upon input from motor

manufacturers and energy efficiency

advocates, and provides such guidance.

II. Guidelines for Determining Whether

a Motor Is Covered by EPCA

A. General

EPCA specifies minimum nominal

full-load energy efficiency standards for

1 to 200 horsepower electric motors,

and, to measure compliance with those

standards, prescribes use of the test

procedures in NEMA Standard MGI and

Institute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers. Inc., (IEEE) Standard 112. In

DOE's view, as stated in Assistant

Secretary Ervin's letter of May 9. 1996,

to NEMA's Malcolm O'Hagan, until

DOE's regulations become effective,

manufacturers can establish compliance

with these EPCA requirements through

use of competent and reliable

procedures or methods that give

reasonable assurance of such

compliance. So long as these criteria are

met, manufacturers may conduct

required testing in their own

laboratories or in independent

laboratories, and may employ

alternative correlation methods (in lieu

of actual testing) for some motors.

Manufacturers may also establish their

compliance with EPCA standards and

test procedures through use of third

party certification or verification

programs such as those recognized by

Natural Resources Canada. Labeling and

certification requirements will become

effective only after DOE has

promulgated a final rule prescribing

such requirements.

Motors with features or characteristics

that do not meet the statutory definition

of "electric motor" are not covered, and

therefore are not required to meet EPCA

requirements. Examples include motors

without feet and without provisions for

feet, and variable speed motors operated

on a variable frequency power supply.

Similarly, multispeed motors and

variable speed motors, such as inverter

duty motors, are not covered equipment,

based on their intrinsic design for use at

variable speeds. However, NEMA

Design A or B motors that are single

speed, meet all other criteria under the

definitions in EPCA for covered

g. application. with flanges or detachable feet' (6) is

Total power loss means that portion of built in accordance with NEMA T-frame

the energy used by an electric motor not dimensions, or IEC metric equivalents

converted to rotational mechanical (IEC); (7) has performance in accordance

power, expressed in percent. with NEMA Design A or B

Appendix A to Subpart A of 10 CFR characteristics, or equivalent designs

Part 431 , Policy Statement for Electric

Motors Covered Under the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act

This is a reprint of a policy statement

which was published on November 5,

1997 at 62 FR 59978.

Policy Statement for Electric Motors

Covered Under the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act

1. Introduction

The Energy Policy and Conservation

Act (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. 6311, etseq.,

estahitchas Pnero v efficiency standards

and test procedures for certain

commercial and industrial electric

motors 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, 1999.1

EPCA also directs the Department of

Energy (DOE or Department) to

implement the statutory test procedures

prescribed for motors, and to require

efficiency labeling of motors and

r The term " manufacture " means "to

manufacture, produce. assemble or import." EPCA

section 321 (10). Thus. the standards apply to

motors produced. assembled . imported or

manufactured after these statutory deadlines.

motor, including motors with explosionproof construction: 2 (2) is a single

speed . induction motor: (3) is rated for

continuous duty operation , or is rated

duty type S-1 (IEC) 3; (4) contains a

squirrel-cage or cage (IEC) rotor ; (5) has

foot-mountin including foot-mounting

such as IEC Design N (IEC): and (8)

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.

Notwithstanding the clarification

provided in the proposed rule, there

still appears to be uncertainty as to

which motors EPCA covers. It is widely

understood that the statute covers

"general purpose" motors that are

manufactured for a variety of

applications, and that meet EPCA's

definition of "electric motor." Many

modifications. however, can be made to

such generic motors. Motor

manufacturers have expressed concern

as to precisely which motors with such

2Section 342(h) (1) of EPCA recognizes that

EPCA's efficiency standards cover-motors which

require listing or certification by a nationally

recognized safety testing laboratory.' This applies,

for example. to explosion-proof motors which are

otherwise general purpose motors.

3Terms followed by the parenthetical "IEC" are

referred to in the International Electrorechnical

Commission (IEC) Standard 34-1. Such terms are

included in DOE's proposed definition of "electric

motor" because DOE believes EPCA's efficiency

requirements apply to metric system motors that

conform to IEC Standard 34. and that are identical

or equivalent to motors constructed in accordance

with NEMA MGI and covered by the statute.

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54144 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

equipment, and can be used with an

inverter in variable speed applications

as an additional feature, are covered

equipment under EPCA. In other words.

being suitable for use on an inverter by

itself does not exempt a motor from

EPCA requirements.

Section 340(13)(F) of EPCA, defines a

"small electric motor" as "a NEMA

general purpose alternating current

single-speed induction motor, built in a

two-digit frame number series in

accordance with NEMA Standards

Publication MG 1-1987." Section 346 of

EPCA requires DOE to prescribe testing

requirements and efficiency standards

only for those small electric motors for

which the Secretary determines that

standards are warranted. The

Department has not yet made such a

determination.

B. Electrical Features

As noted above, the Department's

proposed definition of "electric motor"

provides in part that it is a motor that

"operates on polyphase alternating

current 60-Hertz sinusoidal power, and

* * * can be operated on 230 volts or

460 volts, or both." In DOE's view, "can

be operated" implicitly means that the

motor can be operated successfully.

According to NEMA Standards

Publication MG1-1993, paragraph

12.44, "Variations from Rated Voltage

and Rated Frequency," alternatingcurrent motors must operate

successfully under running conditions

at rated load with a variation in the

voltage or the frequency up to the

following: plus or minus 10 percent of

rated voltage, with rated frequency for

induction motors;4 plus or minus 5

percent of rated frequency, with rated

voltage; and a combined variation in

voltage and frequency of 10 percent

(sum of absolute values) of the rated

values, provided the frequency variation

does not exceed plus or minus 5 percent

of rated frequency. DOE believes that,

for purposes of determining whether a

motor meets EPCA's definition of

"electric motor," these criteria should

be used to determine when a motor that

is not rated at 230 or 460 volts or 60

Hertz can be operated at such voltage

and frequency.5

4For example, a motor that is rated at 220 volts

should operate successfully on 230 volts, since 220

+ .10(220) = 242 volts. A 208 volt motor, however,

would not be expected to operate successfully on

230 volts, since 208 + .10(208) = 228.8 volts.

.'The Department understands that a motor that

can operate at such voltage and frequency, based on

variations defined for successful operation, will not

necessarily perform in accordance with the industry

standards established for operation at the motor's

rated voltage and frequency. In addition. under the

test procedures prescribed by EPCA, motors are to

be tested at their rated values. Therefore, in DOE's

NEMA Standards Publication MGI

categorizes electrical modifications to

motors according to performance

characteristics that include locked rotor

torque, breakdown torque, pull-up

torque. locked rotor current, and slip at

rated load. and assigns design letters,

such as Design A. B. C, D, or E, to

identify various combinations of such

electrical performance characteristics.

Under section 340(13)(A) of EPCA,

electric motors subject to EPCA

efficiency requirements include only

motors that fall within NEMA "Design

A and B - * * as defined in (NEMAI

Standards Publication MG1-1987." As

to locked rotor torque, for example,

MG1 specifies a minimum performance

value for a Design A or B' motor of a

given speed and horsepower, and

somewhat higher minimum values for

Design C and D motors of the same

speed and horsepower. The Department

understands that, under MG1, the

industry classifies a motor as Design A

or B if it has a locked rotor torque at or

above the minimum for A and B but

below the minimum for Design C, so

long as it otherwise meets the criteria

for Design A or B. Therefore, in the

Department's view, such a motor is

covered by EPCA's requirements for

electric motors. By contrast a motor that

meets or exceeds the minimum locked

rotor torque for Design C or D is not

covered by EPCA. In sum, if a motor has

electrical modifications that meet

Design A or B performance

requirements it is covered by EPCA, and

if its characteristics meet Design C, D or

E it is not covered.

C. Size

Motors designed for use on a

particular type of application which are

in a frame size that is one or more frame

series larger than the frame size assigned

to that rating by sections 1.2 and 1.3 of

NEMA Standards Publication MC 13-

1984 (R1990), "Frame Assignments for

Alternating Current Integral -Horsepower

Induction Motors," are not, in the

Department 's view, usable in most

general purpose applications. This is

due to the physical size increase

associated with a frame series change. A

frame series is defined as the first two

digits of the frame size designation. For

example, 324T and 326T are both in the

same frame series. while 364T is in the

next larger frame series. Hence, in the

view a motor that is not rated for 230 or 460 volts.

or 60 Hertz. but that can be successfully operated

at these levels, must meet the energy efficiency

requirements at its rated voltage(s) and frequency.

DOE also notes that when a motor is rated to

include a wider voltage range that includes 230/460

volts, the motor should meet the energy efficiency

requirements at 230 volts or 460 volts.

Department's view, a motor that is of a

larger frame series than normally

assigned to that standard rating of motor

is not covered by EPCA. A physically

larger motor within the same frame

series would be covered, however,

because it would be usable in most

general purpose applications.

Motors built in a T-frame series or a

T-frame size smaller than that assigned

by MG 13-1984 (81990) are also

considered usable in most general

purpose applications. This is because

simple modifications can generally be

made to fit a smaller motor in place of

a motor with a larger frame size

assigned in conformity with NEMA MG

13. Therefore, DOE believes that such

smaller motors are covered by SPCA.

D. Motors with Seals

Some electric motors have seals to

prevent ingress of water, dust, oil, and

other foreign materials into the motor.

DOE understands that, typically, a

manufacturer will add seals to a motor

that it manufactures, so that it will sell

two motors that are identical except that

one has seals and the other does not. In

such a situation, if the motor without

seals is "general purpose" and covered

by EPCA's efficiency requirements. then

the motor with seals will also be

covered because it can still be used in

most general purpose applications. DOE

understands, however, that

manufacturers previously believed

motors with seals were not covered

under EPCA, in part because IEEE

Standard 112, "Test Procedure for

Polyphase Induction Motors and

Generators," prescribed by EPCA, does

not address how to test a motor with

seals installed.

The efficiency rating of such a motor,

if determined with seals installed and

when the motor is new, apparently

would significantly understate the

efficiency of the motor as operated. New

seals are stiff, and provide friction that

is absent after their initial break-in

period. DOE understands that, after this

initial period, the efficiency ratings

determined for the same motor with and

without seals would be virtually

identical. To construe EPCA, therefore,

as requiring such separate efficiency

determinations would impose an

unnecessary burden on manufacturers.

In light of the foregoing, the

Department believes that EPCA

generally permits the efficiency of a

motor with seals to be determined

without the seals installed.

Furthermore, notwithstanding the prior

belief that such motors are not covered

by EPCA, use of this approach to

determining efficiency will enable

manufacturers to meet EPCA's standards

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 54145

with respect to covered motors with

seals by the date the standards go into

effect on October 25, 1997.

111. Discussion of How DOE Would

Apply EPCA Definitions, Using the

Foregoing Guidelines

Using the foregoing guidelines, the

attached matrix provides DOE's view as

to which motors with common features

are covered by EPCA. Because

manufacturers produce many basic

models that have many modifications of

generic general purpose motors, the

Department does not represent that the

matrix is all-inclusive. Rather it is a set

of examples demonstrating how DOE

would apply EPCA definitions, as

construed by the above guidelines, to

various motor types. By extension of

these examples, most motors currently

in production, or to be designed in the

future, could probably be classified. The

matrix classifies motors into five

categories, which are discussed in the

following passages.

Category ]-For "electric motors"

(manufactured alone or as a component

of another piece of equipment) in

Category 1, DOE will enforce EPCA

efficiency standards and test procedures

beginning on October 25, 1997

The Department understands that

some motors essentially are relatively

simple modifications of generic general

purpose motors. Modifications could

consist, for example, of minor changes

such as the addition of temperature

sensors or a heater, the addition of a

shaft extension and a brake disk from a

kit, or changes in exterior features such

as the 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.

Category 11-.For certain motors that are

"definite purpose" according to present

industry practice, but that can be used

in most general purpose applications,

DOE will generally enforce EPCA

efficiency standards and test procedures

beginning no later than October 25,

1999

General Statement

EPCA does not prescribe standards

and test procedures for "definite

purpose motors." Section 340(13)(B) of

EPCA defines the term "definite

purpose motor" as "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 Thus, the Department intends to refrain

in most general purpose applications." from taking enforcement action for two

[Emphasis added.] Except, significantly, years, until October 25, 1999, with

for exclusion of the italicized language , respect to motors with horsepower

the industry definition of "definite ratings that fall between the horsepower

purpose motor," set forth in NEMA ratings in section 342(b)(1) of SPCA.

MCI, is identical to the foregoing. thermally protected motors, and motors

Category 11 consists of electric motors with roller bearings. Manufacturers are

with horsepower ratings that fall encouraged, however, to manufacture

between the horsepower ratings in these motors in compliance with EPCA

section 342(b)(1) of EPCA, thermally at the earliest possible date.

protected motors, and motors with roller The following sets forth in greater

bearings. As with motors in Category I, detail, for each of these types of motors,

these motors are essentially the basis for the Department's policy to

modifications of generic general refrain from enforcement for two years.

purpose motors. Generally, however, the Also set forth is additional explanation

modifications contained in these motors of the Department's understanding as to

are more extensive and complex than why manufacturers previously believed

the modifications in Category I motors. intermediate horsepower motors were

These Category 11 motors have been not covered by EPCA.

considered "definite purpose" in Intermediate Horsepower Ratings common industry parlance, but are

covered equipment under EPCA because Section 342(b)(1) of EPCA specifies

they can be used in most general efficiency standards for electric motors

purpose applications. with 19 specific horsepower ratings,

According to statements provided ranging from one through 200

during the January 15, 1997, Public horsepower. Each is a preferred or

Hearing. Tr. pgs. 238-239, Category 11 standardized horsepower rating as

motors were, until recently. viewed by reflected in the table in NEMA

most manufacturers as definite purpose Standards Publication MG1-1993,

motors, consistent with the industry paragraph 10.32.4, Polyphase Medium

definition that did not contain the Induction Motors. However, an "electric

clause "which cannot be used in most motor," as defined by EPCA, can be

general purpose applications." Hence, built at other horsepower ratings, such

DOE understands that many as 6 horsepower, 65 horsepower, or 175

manufacturers assumed these motors horsepower. Such motors, rated at

were not subject to EPCA's efficiency horsepower levels between any two

standards. During the period prior and adjacent horsepower ratings identified

subsequent to the hearing, discussions in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA will be

among manufacturers resulted in a new referred to as "intermediate horsepower

understanding that such motors are motors." In the Department's view,

general purpose under EPCA, since they efficiency standards apply to every

can be used in most general purpose motor that has a rating from one through

applications. Thus, the industry only 200 horsepower (or kilowatt

recently recognized that such motors are equivalents), and that otherwise meets

covered under EPCA. Although the the criteria for an "electric motor"

statutory definition adopted in 1992 under EPCA, including an electric

contained the above-quoted definition motor with an intermediate horsepower

of "definite purpose," the delay in (or kW) rating.

issuing regulations which embody this To date, these motors have typically

definition may have contributed to been designed in conjunction with and

industry's delay in recognizing that supplied to a specific customer to fulfill

these motors are covered. certain performance and design

The Department understands that requirements of a particular application,

redesign and testing these motors in as for example to run a certain type of

order to meet the efficiency standards in equipment. See the discussion in

the statute may require a substantial Section IV below on "original

amount of time. Given the recent equipment " and "original equipment

recognition that they are covered, it is manufacturers." In large part for these

not realistic to expect these motors will reasons, manufacturers believed

be able to comply by October 25, 1997. intermediate horsepower motors to be

A substantial period beyond that will be "definite purpose motors" that were not

required. Moreover, the Department covered by SPCA. Despite their specific

believes different manufacturers will uses, however, these motors are electric

need to take different approaches to motors under EPCA when they are

achieving compliance with respect to capable of being used in most general

these motors, and that, for a particular purpose applications.

type of motor, some manufacturers will Features of a motor that are directly

be able to comply sooner than others. related to its horsepower rating include

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54146 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

its physical size, and the ratings of its

controller and protective devices. These

aspects of a 175 horsepower motor, for

example, which is an intermediate .

horsepower motor, must be appropriate

to that horsepower, and would generally

differ from the same aspects of 150 and

200 horsepower motors, the two

standard horsepower ratings closest to

175. To re-design an existing

intermediate horsepower electric motor

so that it complies with EPCA could

involve alI of these elements of a

motor's design. For example, the

addition of material necessary to

achieve EPCA's prescribed level of

efficiency could cause the size of the

motor to increase . The addition of

magnetic material would invite higher

inrush current that could cause an

incorrectly sized motor controller to

malfunction, or the circuit breaker with

a standard rating to trip unnecessarily,

or both. The Department believes motor

manufacturers will require a substantial

amount of time to redesign and retest

each intermediate horsepower electric

motor they manufacture.

To the extent such intermediate

horsepower electric motors become

unavailable because motor

manufacturers have recognized only

recently that they are covered by EPCA,

equipment in which they are

incorporated would temporarily become

unavailable also. Moreover, re-design of

such a motor to comply with EPCA

could cause changes in the motor that

require re-design of the equipment in

which the motor is used. For example,

if an intermediate horsepower electric

motor becomes larger, it might no longer

fit in the equipment for which it was

designed. In such instances, the

equipment would have to be redesigned. Because these motors were

previously thought not to be covered,

equipment manufacturers may not have

had sufficient lead time to make the

necessary changes to the equipment

without interrupting its production.

With respect to intermediate

horsepower motors, the Department

intends to refrain from enforcing EPCA

for a period of 24 months only as to

such motor designs that were being

manufactured prior to the date this

Policy Statement was issued. The

Department is concerned that small

adjustments could be made to the

horsepower rating of an existing electric

motor, in an effort to delay compliance

with EPCA, if it delayed enforcement as

to all intermediate horsepower motors

produced during the 24 month period.

For example, a 50 horsepower motor

that has a service factor of 1.15 could be

renameplated as a 571/r horsepower

motor that has a 1.0 service factor. By

making this delay in enforcement

applicable only to pre-existing designs

of intermediate horsepower motors, the

Department believes it has made

adequate provision for the manufacture

of bona fide intermediate horsepower

motor designs that cannot be changed to

be in compliance with EPCA by October

25. 1997.

Thermally Protected Motors

The Department understands that in

order to redesign a thermally protected

motor to improve its efficiency so that

it complies with EPCA, various changes

in the windings must be made which

will require the thermal protector to be

re-selected. Such devices sense the

inrush and running current of the

motor, as well as the operating

temperature. Any changes to a motor

that affect these characteristics will

prevent the protector from operating

correctly. When a new protector is

selected, the motor must be tested to

verify proper operation of the device in

the motor. The motor manufacturer

would test the locked rotor and overload

conditions, which could take several

days, and the results may dictate that a

second selection is needed with

additional testing. When the

manufacturer has finished testing,

typically the manufacturer will have a

third party conduct additional testing.

This testing may include cycling the

motor in a locked-rotor condition to

verify that the protector functions

properly. This testing may take days or

even weeks to perform for a particular

model of motor.

Since it was only recently recognized

by industry that these motors are

covered by EPCA, in the Department's

view the total testing program makes it

impossible for manufacturers to comply

with the EPCA efficiency levels in

thermally protected motors by October

25, 1997, especially since each different

motor winding must be tested and

motor winding/thermal protector

combinations number in the thousands.

Motors With Roller Bearings

Motors with roller bearings fit within

the definition of electric motor under

the statute. However, because the IEEE

Standard 112 Test Method B does not

provide measures to test motors with

roller bearings installed, manufacturers

mistakenly believed such motors were

not covered. Under IEEE Standard 112,

a motor with roller bearings could only

be tested for efficiency with the roller

bearings removed and standard ball

bearings installed as temporary

substitutes. Then on the basis of the

energy efficiency information gained

from that test, the manufacturer may

need to redesign the motor in order to

comply with the statute. In this

situation, the Department understands

that testing, redesigning, and retesting

lines of motors with roller bearings, to

establish compliance, would be difficult

and time consuming.

Categories III, IV and V-Motors not

within EPCA's definition of "electric

motor," and not covered by EPCA

Close-coupled Pump Motors

NEMA Standards Publication MGl1993, with revisions one through three,

Part 18, "Definite-Purpose Machines,"

defines "a face-mounting close-coupled

pump motor" as "a medium alternatingcurrent squirrel-cage induction open or

totally enclosed motor, with or without

feet, having a shaft suitable for

mounting an impeller and sealing

device." Paragraphs MG I-18.601-

18.614 specify its performance, face and

shaft mounting dimensions, and frame

assignments that replace the suffix

letters T and TS with the suffix letters

JM and JP.

The Department understands that

such motors are designed in standard

ratings with standard operating

characteristics for use in certain closecoupled pumps and pumping

applications, but cannot be used in nonpumping applications. such as, for

example, conveyors. Consequently, the

Department believes close-coupled

pump motors are definite-purpose

motors not covered by EPCA. However,

a motor that meets EPCA's definition of

"electric motor," and which can be

coupled to a pump, for example by

means of a C-face or D-flange endshield,

as depicted in NEMA Standards

Publication MG1, Part 4, "Dimensions,

Tolerances, and Mounting," is covered.

Totally-enclosed Non-ventilated (TENV)

and Totally-enclosed Air-over (TEAO)

Motors

A motor designated in NEMA MG1-

1993, paragraph MG1-1.26.1, as

"totally-enclosed non-ventilated (IP54,

IC410)" ' is "not equipped for cooling

by means external to the enclosing

parts." This means that the motor, when

properly applied, does not require the

use of any additional means of cooling

6IP refers to the IEC Standard 34-5: Classification

of degrees of protection provided by enclosures for

rotating machines. IC refers to the IEC Standard 34-

6: Methods of cooling rotating machinery. The IP

and IC codes are referenced in the NEMA

designations for TENV and TEAO motors in MGI1993 Part 1. "Classification According to

Environmental Protection and Methods of Cooling."

as a Suggested Standard for Future Design. since the

TENV and TEAO motors conform to IEC Standards.

Details of protection (IP) and methods of cooling

(IC) are defined in MGI Part 5 and Part 6.

respectively.

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192/Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

installed external to the motor

enclosure. The TENV motor is cooled by

natural conduction and natural

convection of the motor heat into the

surrounding environment. As stated in

NEMA MGI-1993. Suggested Standard

for Future Design, paragraph MG1-

1.26.1a, a TENV motor "is only

equipped for cooling by free

convection." The general requirement

for the installation of the TENV motor

is that it not he placed in a restricted

space that would inhibit this natural

dissipation of the motor heat. Most

general purpose applications use motors

which include a means for forcing air

flow through or around the motor and

usually through the enclosed space and,

therefore, can be used in spaces that are

more restrictive than those required for

TENV motors. Placing a TENV motor in

such common restricted areas is likely

to cause the motor to overheat. The

TENV motor may also be larger than the

motors used in most general purpose

applications, and would take up more of

the available space, thus reducing the

size of the open area surrounding the

motor. Installation of a TENV motor

might require, therefore, an additional

means of ventilation to continually

exchange the ambient around the motor.

A motor designated in NEMA MG1-

1993 as "totally-enclosed air-over (IP54,

IC417)" is intended to be cooled by

ventilation means external to (i.e.,

separate and independent from) the

motor, such as a fan. The motor must be

provided with the additional ventilation

to prevent it from overheating.

Consequently, neither the TENV

motor nor the TEAO motor would be

suitable for most general purpose

applications, and, DOE believes they are

definite-purpose motors not covered by

EPCA.

Integral Gearmotors

An "integral gearmotor" is an

assembly of a motor and a specific gear

drive or assembly of gears, such as a

gear reducer, as a unified package. The

motor portion of an integral gearmotor

is not necessarily a complete motor,

since the end bracket or mounting

flange of the motor portion is also part

of the gear assembly and cannot be

operated when separated from the

complete gear assembly. Typically, an

integral gearmotor is not manufactured

to standard T-frame dimensions

specified in NEMA MGI. Moreover,

neither the motor portion, nor the entire

integral gearmotor, are capable of being

used in most general purpose

applications without significant

modifications. An integral gearmotor is

also designed for a specific purpose and

can have unique performance

characteristics, physical dimensions.

and casing. flange and shafting

configurations. Consequently. integral

gearmotors are outside the scope of the

EPCA definition of "electric motor" and

are not covered under EPCA.

However. an "electric motor," as

defined by EPCA. which is connected to

a stand alone mechanical gear drive or

an assembly of gears, such as a gear

reducer connected by direct coupling,

belts, bolts, a kit, or other means, is

covered equipment under EPCA.

IV. Electric Motors That Are

Components in Certain Equipment

The primary function of an electric

motor is to convert electrical energy to

mechanical energy which then directly

drives machinery such as pumps, fans,

or compressors. Thus, an electric motor

is always connected to a driven machine

or apparatus. Typically the motor is

incorporated into a finished product

such as an air conditioner, a refrigerator,

a machine tool, food processing

equipment. or other commercial or

industrial machinery. These products

are commonly known as "original

equipment" or "end-use equipment,"

and are manufactured by firms known

as "original equipment manufacturers"

(OEMs).

Many types of motors used in original

equipment are covered under EPCA. As

noted above, EPCA prescribes efficiency

standards to be met by all covered

electric motors manufactured after

October 24, 1997, except that covered

motors which require listing or

certification by a nationally recognized

safety testing laboratory need not meet

the standards until after October 24,

1999. Thus, for motors that must

comply after October 24. 1997, once

inventories of motors manufactured

before the deadline have been

exhausted, only complying motors

would be available for purchase and use

by OEMs in manufacturing original

equipment. Any non-complying motors

previously included in such equipment

would no longer be available.

The physical, and sometimes

operational, characteristics of motors

that meet EPCA efficiency standards

normally differ from the characteristics

of comparable existing motors that do

not meet those standards. In part

because of such differences, the

Department is aware of two types of

situations where strict application of the

October 24. 1997 deadline could

temporarily prevent the manufacture of,

and remove from the marketplace,

currently available original equipment.

One such situation is where an

original equipment manufacturer uses

an electric motor as a component in

54147

end-use equipment that requires listing

or certification by a nationally

recognized safety testing laboratory.

even though the motor itself does not

require listing or certification. In some

of these instances, the file for listing or

certification specifies the particular

motor to be used. No substitution could

be made for the motor without review

and approval of the new motor and the

entire system by the safety testing

laboratory. Consequently, a specified

motor that does not meet EPCA

standards could not be replaced by a

complying motor without such review

and approval.

This re-listing or re-certification

process is subject to substantial

variation from one piece of original

equipment to the next. For some

equipment, it could be a simple

paperwork transaction between the

safety listing or certification

organization and the OEM, taking

approximately four to eight weeks to

complete. But the process could raise

more complex system issues involving

redesign of the motor or piece of

equipment, or both. and actual testing to

assure that safety and performance

criteria are met, and could take several

months to complete. The completion

time could also vary depending on the

response time of the particular safety

approval agency. Moreover, in the

period immediately after October 24, the

Department believes wholesale changes

could occur in equipment lines when

OEMs must begin using motors that

comply with EPCA. These changes are

likely to be concentrated in the period

immediately after EPCA goes into effect

on October 24, and if many OEMs seek

to re-list or re-certify equipment at the

same time, substantial delays in the

review and approval process at the

safety approval agencies could occur.

For these reasons, the Department is

concerned that certain end-user

equipment that requires safety listing or

certification could become unavailable

in the marketplace, because an electric

motor specifically identified in a listing

or certification is covered by EPCA and

will become unavailable, and the steps

have not been completed to obtain

safety approval of the equipment when

manufactured with a complying motor.

Second, a situation could exist where

an electric motor covered by EPCA is

constructed in a T-frame series or Tframe size that is smaller (but still

standard) than that assigned by NEMA

Standards Publication MG 13-1984

(R1990), sections 1.2 and 1.3, in order

to fit into a restricted mounting space

that is within certain end-use

equipment. (Motors in IEC metric frame

sizes and kilowatt ratings could also be

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54148 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

involved in this type of situation.) In as follows: For the period of time

such cases, the manufacturer of the end- necessary for the OEM to obtain a

use equipment might need to redesign revised safety listing or certification for

the equipment containing the mounting that piece of equipment, with a motor

space to accommodate a larger motor specified that complies with EPCA, but

that complies with EPCA. These in no event beyond October 24, 1999,

circumstances as well could result in the Department would refrain from

certain currently available equipment taking enforcement action under EPCA

becoming temporarily unavailable in the with respect to manufacture of the

market, since the smaller size motor motor for installation in such original

would become unavailable before the equipment. This policy would apply

original equipment had been re- only where the motor has been

designed to accommodate the larger, manufactured and specified in the

complying motor. approved safety listing or certification

The Department understands that prior to October 25, 1997.

many motor manufacturers and OEMs Where a particular electric motor is

became aware only recently that the used in a piece of original equipment

electric motors addressed in the and manufactured in a smaller than

preceding paragraphs were covered by assigned frame size or series, and the

EPCA. This is largely for the same motor does not meet the applicable

reasons, discussed above, that EPCA efficiency standard in EPCA, the

coverage of Category II motors was only Department's policy will be as follows:

recently recognized. In addition, the For the period of time necessary for the

Department understands that some OEM to re-design the piece of

motor manufacturers and original equipment to accommodate a motor that

equipment manufacturers confused complies with EPCA, but in no event

motors that themselves require safety beyond October 24. 1999, the

listing or certification, which need not Department would refrain from

comply until October 25, 1999, with enforcing the standard with respect to

motors that, while not subject to such manufacture of the motor for

requirements, are included in original installation in such original equipment.

equipment that requires safety listing or This policy would apply only to a

certification. Consequently, motor model of motor that has been

manufacturers and original equipment manufactured and included in the

manufacturers took insufficient action original equipment prior to October 25,

to assure that appropriate complying 1997.

motors would be available for the To allow the Department to monitor

original equipment involved, and that application of the policy set forth in the

the equipment could accommodate such prior two paragraphs, the Department

motors. OEMs involved in such needs to be informed as to the motors

situations may often be unable to switch being manufactured under the policy.

to motors that meet EPCA standards in Therefore, each motor manufacturer and

the period immediately following OEM should jointly notify the

October 24. To mitigate any hardship to Department as to each motor they will

purchasers of the original equipment, be manufacturing and using,

the Department intends to refrain from respectively, after October 24, 1997, in

enforcing EPCA in certain limited the belief that it is covered by the

circumstances, under the conditions policy. The notification should set forth:

described below. (1) the name of the motor manufacturer,

Where a particular electric motor is and a description of the motor by type,

specified in an approved safety listing model number, and date of design or

or certification for a piece of original production: (2) the name of the original

equipment, and the motor does not meet equipment manufacturer, and a

the applicable efficiency standard in description of the application where the

EPCA, the Department's policy will be motor is to be used: (3) the safety listing

or safety certification organization and

the existing listing or certification file or

document number for which re-listing

or re-certification will be requested, if

applicable; (4) the reason and amount of

time required for continued production

of the motor, with a statement that a

substitute electric motor that complies

with EPCA could not be obtained by an

earlier date; and (5) the name, address.

and telephone number of the person to

contact for further information. The

joint request should be signed by a

responsible official of each requesting

company, and sent to: U.S. Department

of Energy, Assistant Secretary for Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office

of Building Research and Standards,

EE-41, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW, Room IJ018, Washington, DC 20585-0121. The

Department does not intend to apply

this policy to any motor for which it

does not receive such a notification.

Moreover, the Department may use the

notification, and make further inquiries,

to be sure motors listed in the

notification meet the criteria for

application of the policy.

This part of the Policy Statement will

not apply to a motor in Category 11.

discussed above in section III. Because

up to 24 months is contemplated for

compliance by Category 11 motors, the

Department believes any issues that

might warrant a delay of enforcement

for such motors can be addressed during

that time period.

V. Further Information

The Department intends to

incorporate this Policy Statement into

an appendix to its final rule to

implement the EPCA provisions that

apply to motors. Any comments or

suggestions with respect to this Policy

Statement, as well as requests for further

information, should be addressed to the

Director, Office of Building Research

and Standards, EE-41, U.S. Department

of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue.

SW. Washington, DC 20585-0121.

BILLING CODE 6456-01-P

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
EXAMPLES OF MANY COMMON FEATURES OR MOTOR MODIFICATIONS TO ILLUSTRATE HOW THE EPCA DEFINITIONS AND DOE

GUIDELINES WOULD BE APPLIED TO MOTOR CATEGORIES : GENERAL PURPOSE; DEFINITE PURPOSE ; AND SPECIAL PURPOSE

CATEGORY

MOTOR MODIFICATION I II III IV V

EXPLANATION

A. ELECTRICAL MODIFICATIONS

1 [ALTITUDE X General purpose up to a frame series change larger.

2 AMBIENT X General purpose up to a frame series change larger.

3 MULTISPEED X EPCA applies to single speed only.

4 SPECIAL LEADS X

5 SPECIAL INSULATION X

6 ENCAPSULATION X Due to special construction.

7 HIGH SERVICE FACTOR X General purpose up to a frame series chan ge la er.

8 SPACE HEATERS X

9 E DELTA START X

10 PART WINDING START X

11 TEMPERATURE RISE X General purpose up to a frame series change larger.

12 THERMALLY PROTECTED X Requires retesting and third party agency approval.

13 THERMOSTAT/THERMISTOR X

14 SPECIAL VOLTAGES X EPCA applies to motors operating on 230/460 voltag es at 60 Hertz.

15 INTERMEDIATE

HORSEPOWER$

X Round horsepower according to 10 CFR 431.42 for efficiency.

16 FREQUENCY X EPCA a lies to motors operating on 230/480 voltages at 60 Hertz.

17 FUNGUSITROP INSULATION X

Category I - General purpose electric motors as defined in EPCA.

Category Il - Definite purpose electric motors that can be used in most general purpose applications as defined in EPCA.

Category III - Definite purpose motors as defined in EPCA.

Category IV - Special purpose motors as defined in EPCA.

Category V - Outside the scope of "electric motor" as defined in EPCA.

ca

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
B. MECHANICAL MODIFICATIONS

18 SPECIAL BALANCE X

19, BEARING TEMP. DETECTOR X

20 SPECIAL BASEIFEET X Does not meet definition of T-frame

21 SPECIAL CONDUIT BOX X

22 AUXIUARY CONDUIT BOX X

23 SPECIAL PAINT/COATING X

24 DRAINS X

2S DRIP COVER X

28 GROUND. LUGIHOLE X

27 SCREENS ON ODP ENCLOSURE X

28 MOUNTING F1 F2• W1-4• Cl 2 X Foot-mounting, id base, and resilient base.

C. BEARINGS

29 BEARING CAPS X

30 ROLLER BEARINGS X Test with a standard bearing.

31 SHIELDED BEARINGS X

32 SEALED BEARINGS X Test with a standard bean .

33 THRUST BEARINGS X S cial mechanical construction.

34 CLAMPED BEARINGS X

35 SLEEVE BEARINGS X S ial mechanical construction.

D. SPECIAL ENDSHIELDS

36 C FACE X As defined in NEMA MG-1.

37 D FLANGE X As defined in NEMA MG-1.

38 CUSTOMER DEFINED 4-- X S Gal design for a parlicular application.

E. SEALS

39 CONTACT SEALS X Includes lip seals and taconite seals - test with seals removed.

40 NON-CONTACT SEAL X Includes labyrinth and sli er seals - test with seals Installed.

CA

Ln

0

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
F. SHAFTS

41 STANDARD SHAFTS/NEMA MG-1 X Includes single and double, cylindrical, tapered, and short shafts.

42 NON STANDARD MATERIAL X

0. FANS

43 SPECIAL MATERIAL X

44 QUIET DESIGN X

H. OTHER MOTORS

45 WASHDOWN X Test with seals removed.

46 CLOSE- COUPLED PUMP X JM and JP frame assignments.

47 INTEGRAL GEAR MOTOR X Typically special mechanical design, and not a T-frame; motor and

gearbox inseparable and operate as one system .

46 VERTICAL - NORMAL THRUST X EPCA covers foot-mounting.

49 SAW ARBOR X Special electrical/mechanical design.

50 TENV X Totally-enclosed non-ventilated not equipped for cooling (11354, IC410).

51 TEAO X Totally-enclosed air-over requires airflow from external source (IP54,

IC417 .

52 FIRE PUMP X When safety certification is not required. See also EPCA §342(b)(1).

53 NON-CONTINUOUS X EPCA covers continuous ratings.

54 INTEGRAL BRAKE MOTOR X Integral brake design factory built within the motor.

9/10/97

i

w

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54152 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 9

Subpart B-Test Procedures and

Materials Incorporated

§ 431.21 Purpose find 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.

Medium Machines, paragraphs 14.02

and 14.03.

(ii) Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers, Inc.. Standard

112-1996, Test Procedure for Polyphase

Induction Motors and Generators. Test

Method B, and the correction to the

calculation at item (28) in section 10.2

Form B-Test Method B issued by IEEE

on January 20, 1998. (Note: Paragraph 2

of Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 431

sets forth modifications to this Standard

when it is used for purposes of Part 431

and EPCA.)

(iii) CSA International Standard

C390-93. Energy Efficiency Test

Methods for Three-Phase Induction

Motors. Test Method (1).

(iv) International Electrotechnical

Commission Standard 60034-1 (1996),

Rotating electrical machines, Part 1:

Rating and performance, with

Amendment 1 (1997). Section 3: Duty,

clause 3.2.1 and figure 1.

(v) International Electrotechnical

Commission Standard 60050-411

(1996). International Electrotechnical

Vocabulary Chapter 411: Rotating

machines, sections 411-33-07 and 411-

37-26.

(vi) International Electrotechnical

Commission Standard 60072-1 (1991),

Dimensions and output series for

rotating electrical machines-Part 1:

Frame numbers 56 to 400 and flange

numbers 55 to 1080. clauses 2, 3, 4.1,

6.1, 7, and 10. and Tables 1, 2 and 4.

(vii) International Electrotechnical

Commission Standard 60034-12 (1980),

Rotating electrical machines. Part 12:

Starting performance of single-speed

three-phase cage induction motors for

voltages up to and including 660 V,

with Amendment 1 (1992) and

Amendment 2 (1995), clauses 1, 2, 3.1,

4, 5, and 6, and Tables 1, 11, and 111.

(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.

(4) Availability of standards.

Standards incorporated by reference

may be obtained from the following

sources:

(i) Copies of IEEE Standard 112-1996

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:

(ii) Copies of NEMA Standards

Publication MCI-1993 with Revisions

1, 2, 3, and 4, and copies of

International Electrotechnical

Commission standards can be obtained

from Global Engineering Documents, 15

Inverness Way East, Englewood,

Colorado 80112-5776, 1-800-854-7179

(within the U.S.) or (303) 397-7956

(international).

(iii) Copies of CSA International

Standard C390-93 can be obtained from

1

§ 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) The following provisions of

National Electrical Manufacturers

Association Standards Publication

MG1-1993, Motors and Generators,

with Revisions 1, 2, 3 and 4:

(A) Section 1, General Standards

Applying to All Machines, Part 1,

Referenced Standards and Definitions,

paragraphs 1.16.1, 1.16.1.1, 1.17.1.1,

1.17.1.2, and 1.40.1;

(B) Section 1, General Standards

Applying to All Machines. Part 4,

Dimensions, Tolerances, and Mounting,

paragraph 4.01 and Figures 4-1, 4-2. 4-

3, and 4-4;

(C) Section II, Small (Fractional) and

".1cdium Integral) lviachines, Part 11,

Dimensions-AC and DC Small and

Medium Machines, paragraphs 11.01.2,

11.31 (except the lines for frames 447T,

447TS, 449T and 449TS), 11.32, 11.34

(except the line for frames 447TC and

449TC, and the line for frames 447TSC

and 449TSC), 11.35, and 11.36 (except

the line for frames 447TD and 449TD,

and the line for frames 447TSD and

449TSD), and Table 11-1;

(D) Section II, Small (Fractional) and

Medium (Integral) Machines, Part 12,

Tests and Performance-AC and DC

Motors, paragraphs 12.35.1, 12.35.5,

12.38.1, 12.39.1, and 12.40.1, 12.58.1,

and Tables 12-2 and 12-8; and

(E) Section 11, Small (Fractional) and

Medium (Integral) Machines, Part 14,

Application Data-AC and DC Small and

CSA International, 178 Rexdale

Boulevard , Etobicoke (Toronto).

Ontario, Canada M9W 1R3. (416) 747-

4044;

(b) Reference Standards.-(1) General.

The standards listed in this paragraph

are referred to in the DOE procedures

for testing laboratories, and recognition

of accreditation bodies and certification

programs but are not incorporated by

reference. These sources are given here

for information and guidance.

(2) List of References.

(i) National Voluntary Laboratory

Accreditation Program Handbooks 150,

"Procedures and General

Requirements," March 1994, and 150-

10, "Efficiency of Electric Motors,"

August 1995. National Voluntary

Laboratory Accreditation Program,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, Gaithersburg. MD 20899.

(ii) ISO/IEC Guide 25, "General

requirements for the competence of

calibration and testing laboratories."

(iii) 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."

(iv) ISO/IEC Guide 28, "General rules

for a model third-party certification

system for products."

(v) ISO/IEC Guide 58. "Calibration

and testing laboratory accreditation

systems-General requirements for

operation and recognition."

(vi) ISO/IEC Guide 65, "General

requirements for bodies operating

product certification systems."

§ 431.23 Test procedures for the

measurement of energy efficiency.

For purposes of 10 CFR Part 431 and

EPCA, the test procedures for measuring

the energy efficiency of an electric

motor shall be the test procedures

specified in appendix A to this subpart

B.

§ 431.24 Determination of efficiency.

When a party determines the energy

efficiency of an electric motor in order

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
I Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5. 1999 /Rules and Regulations 54153

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 § 431.127.

(a) Provisions applicable to all electric

motors.

(1) General Requirements. The

average full load efficiency of each basic

model of electric motor must be

determined either by testing in

accordance with § 431.23 of this

subpart. or by application of an

alternative efficiency determination

method (AEDM) that meets the

requirements of paragraphs (a)(2) and

(3) of this section, provided, however,

that an AEDM may be used to determine

the average full load efficiency of one or

more of a manufacturer's basic models

only if the average full load efficiency

of at least five of its other basic models

is determined through testing.

(2) Alternative efficiency

determination method. An AEDM

applied to a basic model must be:

(i) Derived from a mathematical

model that represents the mechanical

and electrical characteristics of that

basic model, and

(ii) Based on engineering or statistical

analysis, computer simulation or

modeling, or other analytic evaluation

of performance data.

(3) Substantiation of an alternative

efficiency determination method. Before

an AEDM is used, its accuracy and

reliability must be substantiated as

follows:

(i) The AEDM must be applied to at

least five basic-models that have been

tested in accordance with § 431.23 of

this subpart, 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

testing of that basic model.

(4) Subsequent verification of an

AEDA1.

(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 §§ 431.23

and 431.24(b)(2) by an accredited

laboratory that meets the requirements

of § 431.25,

(B) Have a certification body

recognized under § 431.27 certify its

nominal full load efficiency, or

(C) Have an independent stateregistered professional engineer, who is

qualified to perform an evaluation of

electric motor efficiency in a highly

competent manner and 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

§§ 431.24 (a) (3) and (a) (4) (i); and the

calculations used to determine the

average full load efficiency and total

power losses of each basic model to

which the 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.

(5) Use of a certification program or

accredited laboratory.

(i) A manufacturer may have a

certification program, that DOE has

classified as nationally recognized

under § 431.27, certify the nominal full

load efficiency of a basic model of

electric motor, and issue a certificate of

conformity for the motor.

(ii) For each basic model for which a

certification program is not used as

described in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this

section, any testing of the motor

pursuant to § 431.24(a)(1) through (3) to

determine its energy efficiency must be

carried out in accordance with

§ 431.24(b). in an accredited laboratory

that meets the requirements of § 431.25.

(This includes testing of the basic

model, pursuant to § 431.24(a)(3)(i), to

substantiate an AEDM.)

(b) Additional testing requirements

applicable when a certification program

is not used.

(1) Selection of basic models for

testing.

(i) Basic models must be selected for

testing in accordance with the following

criteria:

(A) Two of the basic models must be

among the five basic models with the

highest unit volumes of production by

the manufacturer in the prior year, or

during the prior 12 calendar month

period beginning in 1997,1 whichever is

later;

(B) The basic models should be of

different horsepowers without

duplication;

(C) The basic models should be of

different frame number series 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 ("rating" as

used here has the same meaning as it

has in the definition of "basic model").

(ii) In any instance where it is

impossible for a manufacturer to select

basic models for testing in accordance

with all of these criteria, the criteria

shall be given priority in the order in

which they are listed. Within the limits

imposed by the criteria, basic models

shall be selected randomly.

(2) Selection of units for testing. For

each basic model selected for testing,2 a

sample of units shall be selected at

random and tested. The sample shall be

comprised of production units of the

basic model, or units that are

representative of such production units.

The sample size shall be not fewer than

five units, except that when fewer than

five units of a basic model would be

produced over a reasonable period of

time (approximately 180 days), then

each unit shall be tested. In a test of

compliance with a represented average

or nominal efficiency:

(i) The average full-load efficiency of

the sample X which is defined by

1

n ;=1

where X; is the measured full-load

efficiency of unit i and n is the number

of units tested, shall satisfy the

condition:

100 X^!

1+1.05

100

lll

where RE is the represented nominal

full-load efficiency, and

(ii) The lowest full-load efficiency in

the sample X,,,;,,, which is defined by

Xmin = mtn(X; )

shall satisfy the condition

In identifying these five basic models. any

electric motor that does not comply with § 431.42,

shall be excluded from consideration.

2Components of similar design may be

substituted without requiring additional testing if

the represented measures of energy consumption

continue to satisfy the applicable sampling

provision.

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54154 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

100

Xmin 0

1 00

1+L15 -

RE

(3) Substantiation of an alternative

efficiency determination method. The

basic models tested under

§ 431.24(a)(3)(i) must be selected for

testing in accordance with paragraph

(b)(1), and units of each such basic

model must be tested in accordance

with paragraph (b)(2) by an accredited

laboratory that meets the requirements

of § 431.25.

§ 431.25 Testing laboratories.

(a) Testing pursuant to

§431.24(a)(5)(ii) must be conducted in

an accredited laboratory for which the

accreditation body was:

(1) The National Institute of Standards

arid Technology/National Voluntary

Laboratory Accreditation Program

(NIST/NVLAP), or

(2) A laboratory accreditation body

having a mutual recognition

arrangement with NIST/NVLAP, or

(3) An organization classified by the

Department, pursuant to section 431.26,

as an accreditation body.

(b) NIST/NVLAP is under the

auspices of the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST)

which is part of the U.S. Department of

Commerce. NIST/NVLAP accreditation

is granted on the basis of conformance

with criteria published in 15 CFR Part

285, The National Voluntary Laboratory

Accreditation Program Procedures and

General Requirements. NIST Handbook

150-10, 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

Genera! Requ remelts, which contains

15 CFR Part 285 of the U.S. Code of

Federal Regulations plus all general

NIST/NVLAP procedures, criteria, and

policies. Changes in NIST/NVLAP's

criteria, procedures, policies, standards

or other bases for granting accreditation,

occurring subsequent to the initial

eflective date of 10 CFR part 431 shall

not apply to accreditation under this

part unless approved in writing by the

Department of Energy. Copies of NIST

Handbooks 150 and 150-10 and

information regarding NIST/NVLAP and

its Efficiency of Electric Motors Program

(EEM) can be obtained from NIST/

NVLAP, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop

2140, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140,

telephone (301) 975-4016, or telefax

(301) 926-2884.

§431.26 Department of Energy recognition

of accreditation bodies.

(a) Petition. To be classified by the

Department of Energy as an

accreditation body, an organization

must submit a petition to the

Department requesting such

classification. in accordance with

paragraph (c) of this section and

§ 431.28 of this part. The petition must

demonstrate that the organization 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 satisfactory standards

and procedures for conducting and

administering an accreditation system

and for granting accreditation. This

must include provisions for periodic

audits to verify that the laboratories

receiving its accreditation continue to

conform to the criteria by which they

were initially accredited, and for

withdrawal of accreditation where such

conformance does not occur, including

failure to provide accurate test results.

(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

112-1996 Test Method B and CSA

Standard C390-93 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

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 112-1996 Test Method

B and CSA Standard C390-93 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 in accordance with

section 431.28, and will determine

whether the applicant meets the criteria

in paragraph (b) of this section to be

classified as an accrediting body.

§ 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 submit a petition to the

Department requesting such

classification, in accordance with

paragraph (c) of this section and section

431.28 of this part. The petition must

demonstrate that the program meets the

criteria in paragraph (b) of this section.

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 54155

(b) Evaluation criteria. For a

certification program to be classified by

the Department as nationally

recognized, it must meet the following

criteria:

(1) It must have satisfactory standards

and procedures for conducting and

administering a certification system,

including periodic follow up activities

to assure that basic models of electric

motor continue to conform to the

efficiency levels for which they were

certified, and for granting a certificate of

conformity.

(2) It must be independent of 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

112-1996 Test Method B and CSA

S,taridard C3:90-93 Test Method (1), or

similar procedures and methodologies

for determining the energy efficiency of

electric motors. It must have satisfactory

criteria and procedures for the selection

and sampling of electric motors tested

for energy efficiency.

(c) Petition format. Each petition

requesting classification as a nationally

recognized certification program must

contain a narrative statement as to why

the program meets the criteria listed in

paragraph (b) of this section, must be

signed on behalf of the organization

operating the program by an authorized

representative, and must be

accompanied by documentation that

supports the narrative statement. The

following provides additional guidance

as to the specific criteria:

(1) Standards and procedures. A copy

of the standards and procedures for

operating a certification system and for

granting a certificate of conformity

should accompany the petition.

(2) Independent status. The

petitioning organization should identify

and describe any relationship, direct or

indirect, that it or the certification

program has with an electric motor

manufacturer, importer, distributor,

private labeler, vendor, trade association

or other such entity, as well as any other

relationship it believes might appear to

create a conflict of interest for the

certification program in operating a

certification system for 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 112-1996 Test Method B

and CSA Standard C390-93 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 in accordance with

§ 431.28, and will determine whether

the applicant meets the criteria in

paragraph (b) of this section for

classification as a nationally recognized

certification program.

§ 431.28 Procedures for recognition and

withdrawal of recognition of accreditation

bodies and certification programs.

(a) Filing of petition. Any petition

submitted to the Department pursuant

to § 431.26(a) or 43127(a) of this part,

shall be entitled "Petition for

Recognition" ("Petition") and must be

submitted, in triplicate to the Assistant

Secretary for Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, United States

Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington. DC 20585. In accordance

with the provisions set forth in 10 CFR

1004.11, any request for confidential

treatment of any information contained

in such a Petition or in supporting

documentation must be accompanied by

a copy of the Petition or supporting

documentation from which the

information claimed to be confidential

has been deleted.

(b) Public notice and solicitation of

comments. DOE shall publish in the

Federal Register the Petition from

which confidential information, as

determined by DOE, has been deleted in

accordance with 10 CFR 1004.11 and

shall solicit comments, data and

information on whether the Petition

should be granted. The Department

shall also make available for inspection

and copying the Petition's supporting

documentation from which confidential

information, as determined by DOE, has

been deleted in accordance with 10 CFR

1004.11. Any person submitting written

comments to DOE with respect to a

Petition shall also send a copy of such

comments to the petitioner.

(c) Responsive statement by the

petitioner. A petitioner may, within 10

working days of receipt of a copy of any

comments submitted in accordance with

paragraph (b) of this section, respond to

such comments in a written statement

submitted to the Assistant Secretary for

Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy. A petitioner may address more

than one set of comments in a single

responsive statement.

(d) Public announcement of interim

determination and solicitation of

comments. The Assistant Secretary for

Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy shall issue an interim

determination on the Petition as soon as

is practicable following receipt and

review of the Petition and other

applicable documents, including, but

not limited to, comments and responses

to comments. The petitioner shall be

notified in writing of the interim

determination. DOE shall also publish

in the Federal Register the interim

determination and shall solicit

comments, data and information with

respect to that interim determination.

Written comments and responsive

statements may be submitted as

provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of

this section.

(e) Public announcement of final

determination. The Assistant Secretary

for Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy shall as soon as practicable,

following receipt and review of

comments and responsive statements on

the interim determination, publish in

the Federal Register a notice of final

determination on the Petition.

(f) Additional information. The

Department may, at any time during the

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54156 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

recognition process, request additional

relevant information or conduct an

investigation concerning the Petition.

The Department's determination on a

Petition may be based solely on the

Petition and supporting documents, or

may also be based on such additional

information as the Department deems

appropriate.

(g) Withdrawal of recognition.

(1) Withdrawal by the Department. If

the Department believes that an

accreditation body or certification

program that has been recognized under

§ 431.26 or 431.27, respectively, is

failing to meet the criteria of paragraph

(b) of the section under which it is

recognized, the Department will so

advise such entity and request that it

take appropriate corrective action. The

Department will give the entity an

opportunity to respond. If after

receiving such response, or no response,

the Department believes satisfactory

correction has not been made, the

Department will withdraw its

recognition from that entity.

(2) Voluntary withdrawal. An

accreditation body or certification

program may withdraw itself from

recognition by the Department by

advising the Department in writing of

such withdrawal. It must also advise

those that use it (for an accreditation

body, the testing laboratories, and for a

certification organization, the

manufacturers) of such withdrawal.

(3) Notice of withdrawal of

recognition. The Department will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of any withdrawal of recognition that

occurs pursuant to this paragraph (g).

§ 431.29 Petitions for waiver, and

applications for interim waiver, of test

procedure.

(a) General criteria.

(1) Any interested person may submit

a petition to waive for a particular basic

model any requirements of § 431.23 of

this subpart, upon the grounds that

either the basic model contains one or

more design characteristics which either

prevent testing of the basic model

according to the prescribed test

procedures, or the prescribed test

procedures may evaluate the basic

model in a manner so unrepresentative

of its true energy consumption

characteristics as to provide materially

inaccurate comparative data.

(2) Any interested person who has

submitted a Petition for Waiver as

provided in this subpart may also file an

Application for Interim Waiver of the

applicable test procedure requirements.

(b) Submission, content, and

publication.

(1) A Petition for Waiver must be

submitted, in triplicate. to the Assistant

Secretary for Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy. United States

Department of Energy. Each Petition for

Waiver shall:

(i) Identify the particular basic

model(s) for which a waiver is

requested, the design characteristic(s)

constituting the grounds for the petition,

and the specific requirements sought to

be waived and shall discuss in detail the

need for the requested waiver:

(ii) Identify manufacturers of all other

basic models marketed in the United

States and known to the petitioner to

incorporate similar design

characteristic(s):

(iii) Include any alternate test

procedures known to the petitioner to

evaluate in a manner representative of

the energy consumption characteristics

of the basic model: and

(iv) Be signed by the petitioner or by

an authorized representative. In

accordance with the provisions set forth

in 10 CFR 1004.11. any request for

confidential treatment of any

information contained in a Petition for

Waiver or in supporting documentation

must be accompanied by a copy of the

petition. application or supporting

documentation from which the

information claimed to be confidential

has been deleted. DOE shall publish in

the Federal Register the petition and

supporting documents from which

confidential information, as determined

by DOE, has been deleted in accordance

with 10 CFR 1004.11 and shall solicit

comments, data and information with

respect to the determination of the

petition.

(2) An Application for Interim Waiver

must be submitted in triplicate, with the

required three copies of the Petition for

Waiver, to the Assistant Secretary for

Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.

Each Application for Interim Waiver

shall reference the Petition for Waiver

by identifying the particular basic

model(s) for which a waiver and

temporary exception are being sought.

Each Application for Interim Waiver

shall demonstrate likely success of the

Petition for Waiver and shall address

what economic hardship and/or

competitive disadvantage is likely to

result absent a favorable determination

on the Application for Interim Waiver.

Each Application for Interim Waiver

shall be signed by the applicant or by

an authorized representative.

(c) Notification to other

manufacturers.

(1) Each petitioner, after filing a

Petition for Waiver with DOE, and after

the Petition for Waiver has been

published in the Federal Register. must.

within five working days of such

publication, notify in writing all known

manufacturers of domestically marketed

units of the same product type (as listed

in section 340(1) of the Act) and must

include in the notice a statement that

DOE has published in the Federal

Register on a certain date the Petition

for Waiver and supporting documents

from which confidential information, if

any, as determined by DOE, has been

deleted in accordance with 10 CFR

1004.11. Each petitioner, in complying

with the requirements of this paragraph,

must file with DOE a statement

certifying the names and addresses of

each person to whom a notice of the

Petition for Waiver has been sent.

(2) Each applicant for Interim Waiver,

whether filing jointly with, or

subsequent to, a Petition for Waiver

with DOE, must concurrently notify in

writing all known manufacturers of

domestically marketed units of the same

product type (as listed in Section 340(1)

of the Act) and must include in the

notice a copy of the Petition for Waiver

and a copy of the Application for

Interim Waiver. In complying with this

section, each applicant must in the

written notification include a statement

that the Assistant Secretary for Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy will

receive and consider timely written

comments on the Application for

Interim Waiver. Each applicant, upon

filing an Application for Interim Waiver,

must in complying with the

requirements of this paragraph certify to

DOE that a copy of these documents

have been sent to all known

manufacturers of domestically marked

units of the same product type (as listed

in section 340(1) of the Act). Such

certification must include the names

and addresses of such persons. Each

applicant also must comply with the

provisions of paragraph (c)(1) of this

section with respect to the petition for

waiver.

(d) Comments,- responses to

comments.

(1) Any person submitting written

comments to DOE with respect to an

Application for Interim Waiver must

also send a copy of the comments to the

applicant.

(2) Any person submitting written

comments to DOE with the respect to a

Petition for Waiver must also send a

copy of such comments to the

petitioner. In accordance with

subparagraph (b) (1) of this section, a

petitioner may submit a rebuttal

statement to the Assistant Secretary for

Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy.

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 54157

(e) Provisions specific to interim

waivers.

(1) Disposition of application. If

administratively feasible, applicant will

be notified in writing of the disposition

of the Application for Interim Waiver

within 15 business days of receipt of the

application. Notice of DOE's

determination on the Application for

Interim Waiver must be published in the

Federal Register.

(2) Consequences of filing application.

The filing of an Application for Interim

Waiver shall not constitute grounds for

noncompliance with any requirements

of this subpart, until an Interim Waiver

has been granted.

(3) Criteria for granting. An Interim

Waiver from test procedure

requirements will be granted by the

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy if it is

determined that the applicant will

experience economic hardship if the

Application for Interim Waiver is

denied, if it appears likely that the

Petition for Waiver will be granted, and/

or the Assistant Secretary determines

that it would be desirable for public

policy reasons to grant immediate relief

pending a determination on the Petition

for Waiver.

(4) Duration. An interim waiver will

terminate 180 days after issuance or

upon the determination on the Petition

for Waiver, whichever occurs first. An

interim waiver may be extended by DOE

for 180 days. Notice of such extension

and/or any modification of the terms or

duration of the interim waiver shall be

published in the Federal Register, and

shall be based on relevant information

contained in the record and any

comments received subsequent to

issuance of the interim waiver.

(f) Provisions specific to waivers.-(1)

Rebuttal by petitioner. Following

publication of the Petition for Waiver in

the Federal Register , a petitioner may,

within 10 working days of receipt of a

copy of any comments submitted in

accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this

section, submit a rebuttal statement to

the Assistant Secretary for Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. A

petitioner may rebut more than one

response in a single rebuttal statement.

(2) Disposition of petition. The

petitioner will be notified in writing as

soon as practicable of the disposition of

each Petition for Waiver. The Assistant

Secretary for Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy will issue a decision

on the petition as soon as is practicable

following receipt and review of the

Petition for Waiver and other applicable

documents, including, but not limited

to, comments and rebuttal statements.

(3) Consequence of filing petition. The

filing of a Petition for Waiver will not

constitute grounds for noncompliance

with any requirements of this subpart.

until a waiver or interim waiver has

been granted.

(4) Granting of waivers: criteria.

conditions, and publication. Waivers

will be granted by the Assistant

Secretary for Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy. if it is determined

that the basic model for which the

waiver was requested contains a design

characteristic which either prevents

testing of the basic model according to

the prescribed test procedures, or the

prescribed test procedures may evaluate

the basic model in a manner so

unrepresentative of its true energy

consumption characteristics as to

provide materially inaccurate

comparative data. Waivers may be

granted subject to conditions, which

may include adherence to alternate test

procedures specified by the Assistant

Secretary for Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy. The Assistant

Secretary will promptly publish in the

Federal Register notice of each waiver

granted or denied, and any limiting

conditions of each waiver granted.

(g) Revision of regulation. Within one

year of the granting of any waiver, the

Department of Energy will publish in

the Federal Register a notice of

proposed rulemaking to amend its

regulations so as to eliminate any need

for the continuation of such waiver. As

soon thereafter as practicable, the

Department of Energy will publish in

the Federal Register a final rule. Such

waiver will terminate on the effective

date of such final rule.

(h) Exhaustion of remedies. In order

to exhaust administrative remedies, any

person aggrieved by an action under this

section must file an appeal with the

DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals as

provided in 10 CFR Part 1003, subpart

C.

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 section 431.2

are applicable to this appendix.

2. Test procedures.

Efficiency and losses shall be

determined in accordance with NEMA

MG1-1993 with Revisions I through 4,

paragraph 12.58.1, "Determination of

Motor Efficiency and Losses," and

either

(I) CSA International (or Canadian

Standards Association) Standard C390-

93 Test Method (1). Input-Output

Method with Indirect Measurement of

the Stray-Load Loss and Direct

Measurement of the Stator Winding

(12R), Rotor Winding (IPR), Core and

Windage-Friction Losses, or

(2) IEEE Standard 112-1996 Test

Method B, Input-Output with Loss

Segregation. with IEEE correction notice

of January 20. 1998 . except as follows:

(i) Page 8, subclause 5.1.1. Specified

temperature, the introductory clause

does not apply. Instead the following

applies:

The specified temperature used in

making resistance corrections should be

determined by one of the following

(Test Method B only allows the use of

preference a) or b).), which are listed in

order of preference.

(ii) Page 17, subclause 6.4.1.3, Noload test, the text does not apply.

Instead, the following applies:

See 5.3 including 5.3.3, the separation

of core loss from friction and windage

loss. Prior to making this test, the

machine shall be operated at no-load

until the input has stabilized.

(iii) Page 40, subclause 8.6.3,

Termination of test, the third sentence

does not apply. Instead, the following

applies:

For continuous rated machines, the

temperature test shall continue until

there is 1 °C or less change in

temperature rise over a 30-minute time

period.

(iv) Page 47, at the top of 10.2 Form

B, immediately after the line that reads

"Rated Load Heat Run Stator Winding

Resistance Between Terminals," the

following additional line applies:

Temperature for Resistance Correction

(Q = °C (See 6.4.3.2).

(v) Page 47, at the bottom of 10.2

Form B, after the first sentence to

footnote t,, the following additional

sentence applies:

The values for t, and t, shall be based

on the same method of temperature

measurement, selected from the four

methods in subclause 8.3.

(vi) Page 47, at the bottom of 10.2

Form B, below the footnotes and above

"Summary of Characteristics," the

following additional note applies:

Note: The temperature for resistance

correction (Q is equal to [(4) - (5) +

25°C].

(vii) Page 48, item (22), the torque

constants "k = 9.549 for torque, in N•m"

and "k = 7.043 for torque, in lbf•ft" do

not apply. Instead, the following

applies:

"kz = 9.549 for torque, in N•m" and

7.043 for torque, in lbf•ft."

(viii) Page 48, at the end of item (27),

the following additional reference

applies:

"See 6.4.3.2".

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54158 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

(ix) Page 48, item (29). "See 4.3.2.2,

Eq. 4," does not apply. Instead the

following applies:

Is equal to (10) • (k, + (4) - (5) +

25°C] / [k, + (7)], see 6.4.3.3".

3. Amendments to test procedures.

Any revision to IEEE Std 112-1996

Test Method B with correction notice of

January 20, 1998, to NEMA Standards

Publication MGI-1993 with Revisions 1

through 4, or to CSA Standard C390-93

Test Method (1), subsequent to

promulgation of this appendix A, shall

not ix, 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.

Subpart C-Energy Conservation

Standards

§ 431.41 Purpose and scope.

This subpart contains energy

conservation 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.).

§ 431.42 Energy conservation 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

Motor Horsepower/Standard Kilowatt Equivalent

Open Motors

6 4 2

1/.75 .................................................................................. 80 .0 82.5 ....................

1.5/1.1 .............................................................................. 84.0 84.0 82.5

2/1.5 ................................................................................. 85.5 84.0 84 . 0

3/2.2 ................................................................................. 86.5 86.5 84.0

5/3.7 .................................................................................. 87.5 87.5 85.5

7.5/5.5 .............................................................................. 88.5 88.5 87.5

10/7.5 ............................................................................... 90.2 89.5 88.5

15/11 .. .............................................................................. 90.2 91.0 89.5

20/15 ................................................................................ 91.0 91.0 90.2

25/18.5 .......................................................................... 91.7 91.7 91.0

30/22 .............................................................................. 92.4 92.4 91.0

40/30 ................................................................................ 93.0 93.0 91.7

50/37 ................................................................................ 93.0 93.0 92.4

60/45 ................................................................................ 93.6 93.6 93.0

75/55 ................................................................................. 93.6 94.1 i 93.0

100/75 .............................................................................. 94.1 94.1 93.0

125/90 .............................................................................. 94.1 94.5 93.6

150%110 ............................................................................ 94.5 95.0 93.6

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

(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

kiluwati sling that is listed in

paragraph (a). 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 subparagraph (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.

§ 431.43 Preemption of state regulations.

Any state regulation providing for any

energy conservation standard, or other

requirement with respect to the energy

efficiency or energy use, of an electric

motor that is not identical to a Federal

standard in effect under this subpart is

preempted by that standard, except as

provided for in sections 345(a) and

327(b) and (c) of the Act.

Subpart D-Petitions To Exempt State

Regulation From Preemption ; Petitions

To Withdraw Exemption of State

Regulation

§ 431.61 Purpose and scope.

(a) The regulations in this subpart

prescribe the procedures to be followed

in connection with petitions requesting

a rule that a State regulation prescribing

Enclosed Motors

6 4 2

80.0 82. 5 75.5

85.5 84.0 82.5

86.5 84.0 84.0

87.5 87.5 85.5

87.5 87.5 87.5

89.5 89.5 88.5

89.5 89.5 89.5

90.2 91 .0 90.2

90.2 91.0 90.2

91.7 92 . 4 91.0

91.7 92.4 91.0

93.0 93.0 91.7

93.0 93.0 ! 92.4

93.6 93. 6 93.0

93.6 94.1 93.0

94.1 94.5 93.6

94.1 94.5 94.5

95.0 95.0 94.5

95.0 95.0 95.0

an energy conservation standard or

other requirement respecting energy use

or energy efficiency of a type (or class)

of covered equipment not be preempted.

(b) The regulations in this subpart

also prescribe the procedures to be

followed in connection with petitions to

withdraw a rule exempting a State

regulation prescribing an energy

conservation standard or other

requirement respecting energy use or

energy efficiency of a type (or class) of

covered equipment.

§ 431.62 Prescriptions of a rule.

(a) Criteria for exemption from

preemption. Upon petition by a State

which has prescribed an energy

conservation standard or other

requirement for a type or class of

covered equipment for which a Federal

energy conservation standard is

applicable, the Secretary shall prescribe

a rule that such standard not be

preempted if he/she determines that the

State has established by a

preponderance of evidence that such

requirement is needed to meet unusual

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

and compelling State or local energy

interests. For the purposes of this

regulation , the term "unusual and

compelling State or local energy

interests " means interests which are

substantially different in nature or

magnitude from those prevailing in the

U.S. generally, and are such that when

evaluated within the context of the

State's energy plan and forecast, the

costs, benefits, burdens, and reliability

of energy savings resulting from the

State regulation make such regulation

preferable or necessary when measured

against the costs, benefits, burdens, and

reliability of alternative approaches to

energy savings or production, including

reliance on reasonably predictable

market-induced improvements in

efficiency of all equipment subject to

the State regulation. The Secretary may

not prescribe such a rule if he finds that

interested persons have established, by

a preponderance of the evidence, that

the State's regulation will significantly

burden manufacturing, marketing,

distribution, sale or servicing of the

covered equipment on a national basis.

In determining whether to make such a

finding. the Secretary shall evaluate all

relevant factors including: The extent to

which the State regulation will increase

manufacturing or distribution costs of

manufacturers, distributors, and others;

the extent to which the State regulation

will disadvantage smaller

manufacturers, distributors, or dealers

or lessen competition in the sale of the

covered equipment in the State; the

extent to which the State regulation

would cause a burden to manufacturers

to redesign and produce the covered

equipment type (or class), taking into

consideration the extent to which the

regulation would result in a reduction

in the current models, or in the

projected availability of models, that

could be shipped on the effective date

of the regulation to the State and within

the U.S., or in the current or projected

sales volume of the covered equipment

type (or class) in the State and the U.S.;

and the extent to which the State

regulation is likely to contribute

significantly to a proliferation of State

commercial and industrial equipment

efficiency requirements and the

cumulative impact such requirements

would have. The Secretary may not

prescribe such a rule if he/she finds that

such a rule will result in the

unavailability in the State of any

covered equipment (or class) of

performance characteristics (including

reliability), features, sizes, capacities,

and volumes that are substantially the

same as those generally available in the

State at the time of the Secretary's

finding. The failure of some classes (or

types) to meet this criterion shall not

affect the Secretary's determination of

whether to prescribe a rule for other

classes (or types).

(I) Requirements of petition for

exemption from preemption. A petition

from a State for a rule for exemption

from preemption shall include the

information listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i)

through (a)(l)(vi) of this section. A

petition for a rule and correspondence

relating to such petition shall be

available for public review except for

confidential or proprietary information

submitted in accordance with the

Department of Energy's Freedom of

Information Regulations set forth in 10

CFR Part 1004.

(i) The name, address, and telephone

number of the petitioner:

(ii) A copy of the State standard for

which a rule exempting such standard

is sought:

(iii) A copy of the State's energy plan

and forecast:

(iv) Specification of each type or class

of covered product for which a rule

exempting a standard is sought:

(v) Other information, if any, believed

to be pertinent by the petitioner; and

(vi) Such other information as the

Secretary may require.

(b) Criteria for exemption from

preemption when energy emergency

conditions exist within State. Upon

petition by a State which has prescribed

an energy conservation standard or

other requirement for a type or class of

covered equipment for which a Federal

energy conservation standard is

applicable, the Secretary may prescribe

a rule, effective upon publication in the

Federal Register , that such regulation

not be preempted if he determines that

in addition to meeting the requirements

of paragraph (a) of this section the State

has established that: an energy

emergency condition exists within the

State that imperils the health, safety,

and welfare of its residents because of

the inability of the State or utilities

within the State to provide adequate

quantities of gas or electric energy to its

residents at less than prohibitive costs:

and cannot be substantially alleviated

by the importation of energy or the use

of interconnection agreements; and the

State regulation is necessary to alleviate

substantially such condition.

(1) Requirements of petition for

exemption from preemption when

energy emergency conditions exist

within a State. A petition from a State

for a rule for exemption from

preemption when energy emergency

conditions exist within a State shall

include the information listed in

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(vi) of

54159

this section. A petition shall also

include the information prescribed in

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iv) of

this section. and shall be available for

public review except for confidential or

proprietary information submitted in

accordance with the Department of

Energy's Freedom of Information

Regulations set forth in 10 CFR Part

1004:

(i) A description of the energy

emergency condition which exists

within the State, including causes and

impacts.

(ii) A description of emergency

response actions taken by the State and

utilities within the State to alleviate the

emergency condition;

(iii) An analysis of why the

emergency condition cannot be

alleviated substantially by importation

of energy or the use of interconnection

agreements;

(iv) An analysis of how the State

standard can alleviate substantially such

emergency condition.

(c) Criteria for withdrawal of a rule

exempting a State standard. Any person

subject to a State standard which, by

rule, has been exempted from Federal

preemption and which prescribes an

energy conservation standard or other

requirement for a type or class of

covered equipment, when the Federal

energy conservation standard for such

product subsequently is amended, may

petition the Secretary requesting that

the exemption rule be withdrawn. The

Secretary shall consider such petition in

accordance with the requirements of

paragraph (a) of this section, except that

the burden shall be on the petitioner to

demonstrate that the exemption rule

received by the State should be

withdrawn as a result of the amendment

to the Federal standard. The Secretary

shall withdraw such rule if he

determines that the petitioner has

shown the rule should be withdrawn.

(1) Requirements of petition to

withdraw a rule exempting a State

standard. A petition for a rule to

withdraw a rule exempting a State

standard shall include the information

prescribed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)

through (c)(1)(vii) of this section, and

shall be available for public review,

except for confidential or proprietary

information submitted in accordance

with the Department of Energy's

Freedom of Information Regulations set

forth in 10 CFR Part 1004:

(i) The name, address and telephone

number of the petitioner:

(i.i) A statement of the interest of the

petitioner for which a rule withdrawing

an exemption is sought:

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54160 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 192/Tuesday, October 5, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

(iii) A copy of the State standard for

which a rule withdrawing an exemption

is sought:

(iv) Specification of each type or class

of covered equipment for which a rule

withdrawing an exemption is sought:

(v) A discussion of the factors

contained in paragraph (a) of this

section:

(vi) Such other information, if any,

believed to be pertinent by the

petitioner: and

(vii) Such other information as the

Secretary may require.

§ 431.63 Filing requirements.

(a) Service. All documents required to

be served under this subpart shall, if

mailed, be served by first class mail.

Service upon a person's duly authorized

representative shall constitute service

upon that person.

(b) Obligation to supply information.

A person or State submitting a petition

is under a continuing obligation to

provide any new or newly discovered

information relevant to that petition.

Such information includes, but is not

limited to, information regarding any

other petition or request for action

subsequently submitted by that person

or State.

(c) The same or related matters. A

person or State submitting a petition or

other request for action shall state

whether to the best knowledge of that

petitioner the same or related issue, act,

or transaction has been or presently is

being considered or investigated by any

State agency, department, or

instrumentality.

(d) Computation of time.

(1) Computing any period of time

prescribed by or allowed under this

subpart, the day of the action from

which the designated period of time

begins to run is not to be included. If the

last day of the period is Saturday, or

Sunday, or Federal legal holiday, the

period runs until the end of the next day

that is neither a Saturday, or Sunday or

Federal legal holiday.

(2) Saturdays, Sundays, and

intervening Federal legal holidays shall

be excluded from the computation of

time when the period of time allowed or

prescribed is 7 days or less.

(3) When a submission is required to

be made within a prescribed time, DOE

may grant an extension of time upon

good cause shown.

(4) Documents received after regular

business hours are deemed to have been

submitted on the next regular business

day. Regular business hours for the

DOE's National Office, Washington, DC,

are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

(5) DOE reserves the right to refuse to

accept, and not to consider, untimely

submissions.

(e) Filing of petitions.

(1) A petition for a rule shall be

submitted in triplicate to: The Assistant

Secretary for Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of

Energy, Section 327 Petitions,

Appliance Efficiency Standards,

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.

(2) A petition may be submitted on

behalf of more than one person. A joint

petition shall indicate each person

participating in the submission. A joint

petition shall provide the information

required by § 431.62 for each person on

whose behalf the petition is submitted.

(3) All petitions shall be signed by the

person(s) submitting the petition or by

a duly authorized representative. If

submitted by a duly authorized

representative, the petition shall certify

this authorization.

(4) A petition for a rule to withdraw

a rule exempting a State regulation, all

supporting documents, and all future

submissions shall be served on each

State agency, department, or

instrumentality whose regulation the

petitioner seeks to supersede. The

petition shall contain a certification of

this service which states the name and

mailing address of the served parties,

and the date of service.

(f) Acceptance for filing.

'(1) Within fifteen'(15) days of the

receipt of a petition, the Secretary will

either accept it for filing or reject it, and

the petitioner will be so notified in

writing. The Secretary will serve a copy

of this notification on each other party

served by the petitioner. Only such

petitions which conform to the

requirements of this subpart and which

contain sufficient information for the

purposes of a substantive decision will

be accepted for filing. Petitions which

do not so conform will be rejected and

an explanation provided to petitioner in

writing.

(2) For purposes of the Act and this

subpart, a petition is deemed to be filed

on the date it is accepted for filing.

(g) Docket. A petition accepted for

filing will be assigned an appropriate

docket designation. Petitioner shall use

the docket designation in all subsequent

submissions.

for public comment shall be 60 days

after the notice appears in the Federal

Register.

(b) in addition to the material

required under paragraph (a) of this

section, each notice shall contain a

summary of the State regulation at issue

and the petitioner's reasons for the rule

sought.

§ 431.65 Consolidation.

DOE may consolidate any or all

matters at issue in two or more

proceedings docketed where there exist

common parties, common questions of

fact and law, and where such

consolidation would expedite or

simplify consideration of the issues.

Consolidation shall not affect the right

of any party to raise issues that could

have been raised if consolidation had

not occurred.

i

§ 431.64 Notice of petition.

(a) Promptly after receipt of a petition

and its acceptance for filing, notice of

such petition shall be published in the

Federal Register. The notice shall set

forth the availability for public review

of all data and information available,

and shall solicit comments, data and

information with respect to the

determination on the petition. Except as

may otherwise be specified, the period

§ 431.66 Hearing.

The Secretary may hold a public

hearing, and publish notice in the

Federal Register of the date and

location of the hearing, when he

determines that such a hearing is

necessary and likely to result in a timely

and effective resolution of the issues. A

transcript shall be kept of any such

hearing.

§ 431.67 Disposition of petitions.

(a) After the submission of public

comments under Sec. 431.63(a), the

Secretary shall prescribe a final rule or

deny the petition within 6 months after

the date the petition is filed.

(b) The final rule issued by the

Secretary or a determination by the

Secretary to deny the petition shall

include a written statement setting forth

his findings and conclusions, and the

reasons and basis therefor. A copy of the

Secretary's decision shall be sent to the

petitioner and the affected State agency.

The Secretary shall publish in the

Federal Register a notice of the final

rule granting or denying the petition

and the reasons and basis therefor.

(c) If the Secretary finds that he

cannot issue a final rule within the 6-

month period pursuant to paragraph (a)

of this section, he shall publish a notice

in the Federal Register extending such

period to a date certain, but no longer

than one year after the date on which

the petition was filed. Such notice shall

include the reasons for the delay.

§ 431.68 Effective dates of final rules.

(a) A final rule exempting a State

standard from Federal preemption will

be effective:

(1) Upon publication in the Federal

Register if the Secretary determines that

such rule is needed to meet an "energy

emergency condition" within the State.

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
" Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday. October 5. 1999 /Rules and Regulations 54161

(2) Three years after such rule is

published in the Federal Register; or

(3) Five years after such rule is

published in the Federal Register if the

Secretary determines that such

additional time is necessary due to the

burdens of retooling, redesign or

distribution.

(b) A final rule withdrawing a rule

exempting a State standard will be

effective upon publication in the

Federal Register.

§ 431.69 Request for reconsideration.

(a) Any petitioner whose petition for

a rule has been denied may request

reconsideration within 30 days of

denial. The request shall contain a

statement of facts and reasons

supporting reconsideration and shall be

submitted in writing to the Secretary.

(b) The denial of a petition will be

reconsidered only where it is alleged

and demonstrated that the denial was

based on error in law or fact and that

evidence of the error is found in the

record of the proceedings.

(c) If the Secretary fails to take action

on the request for reconsideration

within 30 days. the request is deemed

denied, and the petitioner may seek

such judicial review as may be

appropriate and available.

(d) A petitioner has not exhausted

other administrative remedies until a

request for reconsideration has been

filed and acted upon or deemed denied.

§431.70 Finality of decision.

(a) A decision to prescribe a rule that

a State energy conservation standard or

other requirement not be preempted is

final on the date the rule is issued, i.e.,

signed by the Secretary. A decision to

prescribe such a rule has no effect on

other regulations of a covered product of

any other State.

(b) A decision to prescribe a rule

withdrawing a rule exempting a State

standard or other requirement is final on

the date the rule is issued, i.e., signed

by the Secretary. A decision to deny

such a petition is final on the day a

denial of a request for reconsideration is

issued. i.e., signed by the Secretary.

Subpart E-Labeling

§ 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.

This subpart applies only to electric

motors manufactured after [ONE YEAR

AFTER PUBLICATION OF THIS RULE

IN THE Federal Register].

§ 431.82 Labeling requirements.

(a) Electric motor nameplate.

(1) Required information. The

permanent nameplate of an electric

motor for which standards are

prescribed in § 431.42 must 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: and

(ii) A Compliance Certification

number ("CC number") supplied by

DOE to the manufacturer or private

labeler. pursuant to section 431.123(e),

and applicable to that motor. Such CC

number must be on the nameplate of a

motor beginning 90 days after either:

(A) The manufacturer or private

labeler 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 or private labeler has not

been advised by DOE that the

Compliance Certification fails to satisfy

§ 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

paragraph 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 encircled lower case

letters "ee", for example,

or with some comparable designation or

logo, if the motor meets the applicable

standard prescribed in § 431.42, as

determined pursuant to subpart B of this

part, and is covered by a Compliance

Certification that satisfies § 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, 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.

§ 431.83 Preemption of state regulations.

The provisions of this subpart E

supersede any State regulation to the

extent required by section 327 of the

Act. Pursuant to the Act, all State

regulations that require the disclosure

for any electric motor of information

with respect to energy consumption,

other than the information required to

be disclosed in accordance with this

part, are superseded.

Subpart F-[Reserved]

Subpart G-Certification and

Enforcement

§ 431.121 Purpose and scope.

The regulations in this subpart set

forth the procedures for manufacturers

to certify that electric motors comply

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.

§ 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

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54162 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

by §431.82(b)(1), 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

Certification must be based upon the private labeler distributes electric

basic model's energy efficiency as motors. and to which the request does

determined in accordance with the not apply.

applicable requirements of subpart B of (d) Signature and submission. A

this part. This means, in part, that manufacturer or private labeler must

either: submit the Compliance Certification

(1) the representations as to the basic either on its own behalf, signed by a

model must be based on use of a corporate officer of the company, or

certification organization, or through a third party (for example, a

(2) any testing of the basic model on trade association or other authorized

which the representations are based representative) acting on its behalf.

Secretary; must be conducted at an accredited Where a third party is used, the

(6) Failure of a manufacturer to permit laboratory. Compliance Certification must identify

a representative designated by the (b) Required contents. the official of the manufacturer or

Secretary to observe any testing required (1) General representations. Each private labeler who authorized the third

by the Act and this part, and to inspect Compliance Certification must certify party to make representations on the

the results of such testing; and that: company's behalf, and must be signed

(7) Distribution in commerce by a (i) The nominal full load efficiency for by a corporate official of the third party.

manufacturer or private labeler of any each basic model of electric motor The Compliance Certification must be

new covered equipment which is not in distributed is not less than the submitted to the Department by certified

compliance with an applicable energy minimum nominal full load efficiency mail, to Department of Energy, Assistant

efficiency standard prescribed under the required for that motor by section Secretary for Energy Efficiency and

Act and this part. § 431.42;

(b) In accordance with sections 333 (ii) All required determinations on Renewable Energy, Office of Building Research and Standards, Forrestal and 345 of the Act, any person who which the Compliance Certification is Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,

knowingly violates any provision of based were made in compliance with SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.

paragraph (a) of this section may be the applicable requirements prescribed

subject to assessment of a civil penalty in subpart B of this part; (e) New basic models. For electric

of no more than $110 for each violation. (iii) All information reported in the motors, a Compliance Certification must be Each violation of paragraphs (a)(1), (2), Compliance Certification is true, submitted for a new basic model only

and (7) of this section shall constitute a accurate. and complete; and if the manufacturer or private labeler

has not previously submitted to DOE a separate violation with respect to each (iv) The manufacturer or private Compliance Certification, that meets the

unit of covered equipment, and each labeler is aware of the penalties requirements of section 431.123, for a

day of noncompliance with paragraphs associated with violations of the Act and the re g thereunder; and of basic model that has the same rating as (a)(3) through (6) of this section shall g the new basic model, and that has a

constitute a separate violation. 18 U.S.C. 1001 which prohibits lower nominal full load efficient than

(c) For purposes of this section: knowingly making false statements to y

(1) the term "new covered the Federal Government. the new basic model.

equipment" means covered equipment (2) Specific data. (f) Response to Compliance

the title of which has not passed to a (i) For each rating of electric motor (as Certification: Compliance Certification

purchaser who buys such equipment for the term "rating" is defined in the Number (CC number).

purposes other than: definition of basic model) which a (1) DOE processing of Certification.

(i) reselling such equipment, or manufacturer or private labeler Promptly upon receipt of a Compliance

(ii) leasing such equipment for a distributes, the Compliance Certification Certification, the Department will

period in excess of one year; and must report the nominal full load determine whether the document

(2) The term "knowingly" means: efficiency, determined pursuant to contains all of the elements required by

(i) the having of actual knowledge, or §§ 431.23 and 431.24, of the least this section, and may, in its discretion,

(ii) the presumed having of efficient basic model within that rating. determine whether all or part of the

knowledge deemed to be possessed by (ii) The Compliance Certification information provided in the document

a reasonable person ;;,ho acts in the must identify the basic models on is accurate. The Department will then

circumstances. including knowledge which actual testing has been performed advise the submitting party in writing

obtainable upon the exercise of due to meet the requirements of section either that the Compliance Certification

care. 431.24. does not satisfy the requirements of this

§ 431.123 Compliance certification.

(a) General. Beginning 24 months

after [insert date 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register], a

manufacturer or private labeler shall not

distribute in commerce any basic model

of an electric motor which is 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.

The representations in the Compliance

(iii) The format for a Compliance section, in which case the document

Certification is set forth in appendix A will be returned, or that the Compliance

of this subpart. ' Certification satisfies this section. The

(c) Optional contents. In any Department will also advise the

Compliance Certification, a submitting party of the basis for its

manufacturer or private labeler may at determination.

its option request that DOE provide it (2) Issuance of CC number(s).

with a unique Compliance Certification (i) Initial Compliance Certification.

number ("CC number") for any brand When DOE advises that the initial

name, trademark or other label name Compliance Certification submitted by

under which the manufacturer or or on behalf of a manufacturer or private

private labeler distributes electric labeler is acceptable, either:

motors covered by the Certification. (A) DOE will provide a single unique

Such a Compliance Certification must CC number, "CC ," to the

also identify all other names, if any, manufacturer or private labeler, and

under which the manufacturer or such CC number shall be applicable to

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64. No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5. 1999/ Rules and Regulations 54163

all electric motors distributed by the

manufacturer or private labeler, or

(B) When required by paragraph (f)(2)

of this section, DOE will provide more

than one CC number to the

manufacturer or private labeler.

(ii) Subsequent Compliance

Certification. When DOE advises that

any other Compliance Certification is

acceptable, it will provide a unique CC

number for any brand name, trademark

or other name when required by

paragraph (0(3) of this section.

(iii) When DOE declines to provide a

CC number as requested by a

manufacturer or private labeler in

accordance with § 431.123(c). DOE will

advise the requester of the reasons for

such refusal.

(3) Issuance of two or more CC

numbers.

(i) DOE will provide a unique CC

number for each brand name, trademark

or other label name for which a

manufacturer or private labeler requests

such a number in accordance with

§431.123(c), except as follows. DOE

will not provide a CC number for any

brand name, trademark or other label

name:

(A) For which DOE has previously

provided a CC number, or

(B) That duplicates or overlaps with

other names under which the

manufacturer or private labeler sells

electric motors.

(ii) Once DOE has provided a CC

number for a particular name, that shall

be the only CC number applicable to all

electric motors distributed by the

manufacturer or private labeler under

that name.

(iii) If the Compliance Certification in

which a manufacturer or private labeler

requests a CC number is the initial

Compliance Certification submitted by

it or on its behalf, and it distributes

electric motors not covered by the CC

number(s) DOE provides in response to

the request(s), DUE will also provide a

unique CC number that shall be

applicable to all of these other motors.

§431.124 Maintenance of records.

(a) The manufacturer of any electric

motor subject to energy efficiency

standards prescribed under section 342

of the Act must establish, maintain and

retain records of the following: the

underlying test data for all testing

conducted under this part: the

development, substantiation,

application, and subsequent verification

of any AEDM used under this part: and

any written certification received from a

certification program, including a

certificate of conformity, relied on

under the provisions of this part. Such

records must be organized and indexed

in a fashion which makes them readily

accessible for review. The records must

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 must 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 must be

retained in a form allowing ready access

to the Department upon request.

§431.125 Imported equipment.

(a) Pursuant to sections 331 and 345

of the Act, any person importing any

covered equipment into the United

States shall comply with the provisions

of the Act and of this part, and is subject

to the remedies of this part.

(b) Any covered equipment offered for

importation in violation of the Act and

of this part shall be refused admission

into the customs territory of the United

States under rules issued by the

Secretary of the Treasury, except that

the Secretary of the Treasury may, by

such rules, authorize the importation of

such covered equipment upon such

terms and conditions (including the

furnishing of a bond) as may appear to

the Secretary of Treasury appropriate to

ensure that such covered equipment

will not violate the Act and this part, or

will be exported or abandoned to the

United States.

§431.126 Exported equipment.

Pursuant to sections 330 and 345 of

the Act, this part shall not apply to any

covered equipment if (a) such covered

equipment is manufactured, sold, or

held for sale for export from the United

States (or such product was imported

for export), unless such equipment is, in

fact, distributed in commerce for use in

the United States, and (b) such covered

equipment, when distributed in

commerce, or any container in which it

is enclosed when so distributed, bears a

stamp or label stating that such covered

equipment is intended for export.

§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

the efficiency rating on the nameplate or

in marketing materials for an electric

motor, 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, as applicable,

compliance with the applicable

efficiency standard, or the accuracy of

labeling information, or both. 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 section

431.24(a) (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 specified 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

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54164 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

of compliance or noncompliance if a Department shall authorize testing of an

sufficient number of tests have been additional unit on a case-by-case basis.

conducted to satisfy the requirements of (f) Testing at manufacturer's option.

appendix B of this subpart. (1) If a manufacturer's basic model is

(c) Sampling. The determination that

a manufacturer's basic model complies

with its labeled efficiency, or 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 appendix A to

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 noncompliance. -

(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 appendix A to

subpart B.

(2) No quality control, testing, or

assembly procedures shall be performed

on a test unit, or any parts and subassemblies 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

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

B 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.

(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.

§ 431.128 Cessation of distribution of a

basic model.

(a) In the event that a model is

determined non-compliant by the

Department in accordance with

§ 431.127 of this part or if a

manufacturer or private labeler

determines a model to be in

noncompliance, then the manufacturer

or private labeler shall:

(1) Immediately cease distribution in

commerce of the basic model.

(2) Give immediate written

notification of the determination of

noncompliance, to all persons to whom

the manufacturer has distributed units

of the basic model manufactured since

the date of the last determination of

compliance.

(3) Pursuant to a request made by the

Secretary, provide the Department

within 30 days of the request, records,

reports, and other documentation

pertaining to the acquisition, ordering,

storage, shipment, or sale of a basic

model determined to be in

noncompliance.

(4) The manufacturer may modify the

non-compliant basic model in such

manner as to make it comply with the

applicable performance standard. Such

modified basic model shall then be

treated as a new basic model and must

be certified in accordance with the

provisions of this subpart; except that in

addition to satisfying all requirements of

this subpart, the manufacturer shall also

maintain records that demonstrate that

modifications have been made to all

units of the new basic model prior to

distribution in commerce.

(b) If a basic model is not properly

certified in accordance with the

requirements of this subpart, the

Secretary may seek, among other

remedies, injunctive action to prohibit

distribution in commerce of such basic

model.

§ 431.129 Subpoena.

Pursuant to sections 329(a) and 345 of

the Act, for purposes of carrying out this

part, the Secretary or the Secretary's

designee, may sign and issue subpoenas

for the attendance and testimony of

witnesses and the production of

relevant books, records, papers, and

other documents, and administer the

oaths. Witnesses summoned under the

provisions of this section shall be paid

the same fees and mileage as are paid to

witnesses in the courts of the United

States. In case of contumacy by, or

refusal to obey a subpoena served upon

any persons subject to this part, the

Secretary may seek an order from the

District Court of the United States for

any District in which such person is

found or resides or transacts business

requiring such person to appear and

give testimony, or to appear and

produce documents. Failure to obey

such order is punishable by such court

as a contempt thereof.

§ 431.130 Remedies.

If the Department determines that a

basic model of a covered equipment

does not comply with an applicable

energy conservation standard:

(a) The Department will notify the

manufacturer, private labeler, or any

other person as required of this finding

and of the Secretary's intent to seek a

judicial order restraining further

distribution in commerce of such basic

model unless the manufacturer, private

labeler or any other person as required,

delivers to the Department within 15

calendar days a statement, satisfactory

to the Department, of the steps he will

take to ensure that the non-compliant

model will no longer be distributed in

commerce. The Department will

monitor the implementation of such

statement.

(b) If the manufacturer, private

labeler, or any other person as required,

fails to stop distribution of the noncompliant model, the Secretary may

seek to restrain such violation in

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5. 1999 /Rules and Regulations

accordance with sections 334 and 345 of

the Act.

(c) The Secretary shall determine

whether the facts of the case warrant the

assessment of civil penalties for

knowing violations in accordance with

sections 333 and 345 of the Act.

§ 431.131 Hearings and appeals.

(a) Pursuant to sections 333(d) and

345 of the Act, before issuing an order

assessing a civil penalty against any

person under this section, the Secretary

shall provide to such person notice of

the proposed penalty. Such notice shall

inform such person of that person's

opportunity to elect in writing within 30

days after the date of receipt of such

notice to have the procedures of

paragraph (c) of this section (in lieu of

those in paragraph (b) of this section)

apply with respect to such assessment.

(b)(l) Unless an election is made

within 30 calendar days after receipt of

notice under paragraph (a) of this

section to have paragraph (c) of this

section apply with respect to such

penalty, the Secretary shall assess the

penalty, by order, after a determination

of violation has been made on the

record after an opportunity for an

agency hearing pursuant to section 554

of title 5, United States Code, before an

administrative law judge appointed

under section 3195 of such title 5. Such

assessment order shall include the

administrative law judge's findings and

the basis for such assessment.

(2) Any person against whom a

penalty is assessed under this section

may, within 60 calendar days after the

date of the order of the Secretary

assessing such penalty, institute an

action in the United States Court of

Appeals for the appropriate judicial

circuit for judicial review of such order

in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5,

United States Code. The court shall

have jurisdiction to enter a judgment

affirming. modifying, or setting aside in

whole or in part, the order of the

Secretary. or the court may remand the

proceeding to the Secretary for such

further action as the court may direct.

(c) (1) In the case of any civil penalty

with respect to which the procedures of

this section have been elected, the

Secretary shall promptly assess such

penalty. by order, after the date of the

receipt of the notice under paragraph (a)

of this section of the proposed penalty.

(2) If the civil penalty has not been

paid within 60 calendar days after the

assessment has been made under

paragraph (c) (1) of this section, the

Secretary shall institute an action in the

appropriate District Court of the United

States for an order affirming the

assessment of the civil penalty. The

court shall have authority to review de

novo the law and the facts involved and

shall have jurisdiction to enter a

judgment enforcing. modifying, and

enforcing as so modified, or setting

aside in whole or in part. such

assessment.

(3) Any election to have this

paragraph apply may not be revoked

except with the consent of the Secretary.

(d) If any person fails to pay an

assessment of a civil penalty after it has

become a final and unappealable order

under paragraph (b) of this section. or

after the appropriate District Court has

entered final judgment in favor of the

Secretary under paragraph (c) of this

section, the Secretary shall institute an

action to recover the amount of such

penalty in any appropriate District

Court of the United States. In such

action, the validity and appropriateness

of such final assessment order or

judgment shall not be subject to review.

(e)(1) In accordance with the

provisions of sections 333(d)(5)(A) and

345 of the Act and notwithstanding the

provisions of title 28, United States

Code, or section 502(c) of the

Department of Energy Organization Act,

the Secretary shall be represented by the

General Counsel of the Department of

54165

Energy (or any attorney or attorneys

within the Department designated by

the Secretary) who shall supervise.

conduct, and argue any civil litigation to

which paragraph (c) of this section

applies including any related collection

action under paragraph (d) of this

section in a court of the United States

or in any other court, except the

Supreme Court of the United States.

However, the Secretary or the General

Counsel shall consult with the Attorney

General concerning such litigation and

the Attorney General shall provide, on

request, such assistance in the conduct

of such litigation as may be appropriate.

(2) In accordance with the provisions

of sections 333(d) (5) (B) and 345 of the

Act, and subject to the provisions of

section 502(c) of the Department of

Energy Organization Act, the Secretary

shall be represented by the Attorney

General, or the Solicitor General, as

appropriate, in actions under this

section, except to the extent provided in

paragraph (e) (1) of this section.

(3) In accordance with the provisions

of sections 333(d) (5) (C) and 345 of the

Act. section 402(d) of the Department of

Energy Organization Act shall not apply

with respect to the function of the

Secretary under this section.

§ 431.132 Confidentiality.

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR

1004.11. any person submitting

information or data which the person

believes to be confidential and exempt

from public disclosure should submit

one complete copy, and fifteen copies

from which the information believed to

be confidential has been deleted. In

accordance with the procedures

established at 10 CFR 1004.11, the

Department shall make its own

determination with regard to any claim

that information submitted be exempt

from public disclosure.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54166 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 192/Tuesday. October 5, 1999/Rules and Regulations

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART G OF PART 431- COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE

WITH ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS

(Office of Management and Budget Control Number: 1910-5104. Expires 02/28/201)

1. Name and Address of Company (the "company"):

2. Name(s) to be Marked on Electric Motors to Which this Compliance Certification Applies:

3. If manufacturer or private labeler wishes to receive a unique Compliance Certification number

for use with any particular brand name, trademark, or other label name, fill out the following two

items:

A. List each brand name, trademark, or other label name for which the company requests

a Compliance Certification number.

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5. 1999 /Rules and Regulations 54167

B. List other name(s), if any, under which the company sells electric motors (if not listed

in item 2 above):

Submit by Certified Mail to: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Office of Building Research 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.

* For this purpose, 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.

Person to Contact for Further Information.-

Name.-

Address:

Telephone Number:

Facsimile Number:

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54168 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192/Tuesday, October 5, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

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:

Third Party Organization Officially Acting as Representative:

Third Party Organization:

Responsible Person at that Organization:

Address:

Telephone Number:

Facsimile Number:

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 54169

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:

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54170 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5 , 1999 /Rules and Regulations

ATTACHMENT TO CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE

WITH ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS:

LISTING OF ELECTRIC MOTOR EFFICIENCIES

Date:

Name of Company:

tine of Electric Motor

Motor Number Open or Least Efficient Nominal

Horsepower/ of Poles Enclosed Motor Basic Model - Full Load

Kilowatts (Model Number(s)) Efficiency

1 or.75 6 Open

1 or .75 4 Open

1 or.75 6 Enclosed

1 or.75 4 Enclosed

I or.75 2 Enclosed

1.5 or 1.1 6 Open

1.5 or 1.1 4 Open

1.5 or 1 . 1 2 Open

1.5 or 1.1 6 Enclosed

1.5 or 1.1 4 Enclosed

1.5 or 1.1 2 Enclosed

etc. etc. etc.

Note: 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. 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 a single

manufacturer, and, with respect to electric motors, which (i) have the same rating, (ii) have electrical design

characteristics that are essentially identical, and (iii) do not have any differing physical 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.

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
Federal Register / V1. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 54171

Models Actually Tested and Not Previously Identified:

Rating of Electric Motor

Motor Nominal

Power Output Number Open or Basic Model(s) Full Load

(e.g. 1 hp or.75 kW) of Poles Enclosed Motor (Model Number(s)) Efficiency

etc. - etc.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 431-

Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing

Step 1. The first sample size (n1) must

be five or more units.

Step 2. Compute the mean (XI) of the

measured energy performance of

the n, units in the first sample as

follows:

I n] XI =-YXi

n I i_I

(1)

where X; is the measured full-load

efficiency of unit i.

Step 3. Compute the sample standard

deviation (S,) of the measured fu 3

load efficiency of the nI. units in the

first sample as follows:

n

IN -XI)

SI=1

nI -1

(2)

Step 4. Compute the standard error

(SE(X,)) of the mean full-load

efficiency of the first sample as

follows:

SE(RI)= S' (3)

^ni

Step 5. Compute the lower control limit

(LCLI) for the mean of the first

sample using RE as the desired

mean as follows:

LCLI =RE-tSE(XI) (4)

where:

RE is the applicable EPCA nominal

full-load efficiency when the test is

to determine compliance with the

applicable statutory standard, or is

etc. etc. etc.

the labeled nominal full-load

efficiency when the test is to

determine compliance with the

labeled efficiency value, and

t is the 2.5th percentile of a tdistribution fora sample size of n

which yields a 97.5 percent

confidence level for a one-tailed ttest.

Step 6. Compare the mean of the first

sample (XI) with the lower control

limit (LCLI) 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 non-

- compliance and testing is at an end.

(ii) If the mean is equal to or greater

than the lower control limit, no

final determination of compliance

or non-compliance can be made:

proceed to Step 7.

Step 7. Determine the recommended

sample size (n) as follows:

n=C

tSI (120- 0.2RE)12

RE(20-0.2RE)

(5)

where S,, RE and t have the values

used in Steps 3 and 5, respectively.

The factor

120-02RE

RE(20 - 0.2 RE)

is based on a 20 percent tolerance

in the total power loss at full-load

and fixed output power.

Given the value of n, determine one

of the following:

(i) If the value of n is less than or

equal to n, and if the mean energy

efficiency of the first sample (X,) is

equal to or greater than the lower

control limit (LCL,), the basic

model is in compliance and testing

is at an end.

(ii) If the value of n is greater than

nI, the basic model is in noncompliance. The size of a second

sample n2 is determined to be the

smallest integer equal to or greater

than the difference n - n,. If the

value of n2 so calculated is greater

than 20-n,, set n2 equal to 20-nI.

Step 8. Compute the combined mean

(X2) of the measured energy

performance of the n, and n2 units

of the combined first and second

samples as follows:

I nl+n2

X2 = Y Xi (6)

nt +n2 i=I

Step 9. Compute the standard error

(SE(X2)) of the mean full-load

efficiency of the n, and n2 units in

the combined first and second

samples as follows:

SE(X2) = SI (7)

nI +n'

(Note that S, is the value obtained

above in Step 3.)

Step 10. Set the lower control limit

(LCL2) to,

LCL2 =RE- tSE(X2) (8)

where t has the value obtained in

Step 5 , and compare the combined

sample mean (X2) to the lower

control limit (LCL2) to find one of

the following:

(i) If the mean of the combined

sample (X2) is less than the lower

control limit (LCL2), the basic

model is in non-compliance and

testing is at an end.

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02
54172 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 192 /Tuesday, October 5, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

(ii) If the mean of the combined be tested. with n3 chosen such that is in compliance and testing is at an

sample (X2) is equal to or greater n, + n2 + n3 does not exceed 20. end.

than the lower control limit (LCL2), Step B. Compute the mean full-load (b) If the new combined sample

the basic model is in compliance efficiency, standard error, and mean is less than the lower control

and testing is at an end. lower control limit of the new limit and the value of n, + n2 + n3

Manufacturer-Option Testing combined sample in accordance is less than 20, the manufacturer

with the procedures prescribed in may request that additional units be

If a determination of non-compliance Steps 8, 9, and 10, above. tested. The total of all units tested

is made in Steps 6, 7 or 10, above, the Step C. Compare the mean performance may not exceed 20. Steps A, B, and

manufacturer may request that of the new combined sample to the C are then repeated.

additional testing be conducted, in lower control limit (LCL2) to (c) Otherwise, the basic model is

accordance with the following determine one of the following: determined to be in nonprocedures . compliance. (a) If the new combined sample

Step A. The manufacturer requests that mean is equal to or greater than the ]FR Doc. 99-21119 Filed 10-4-99: 8:45 am]

an additional number, n3, of units lower control limit, the basic model BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 02