34758 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

1Appendix D of NISTIR 6092 contains the

sampling proposals submitted by the NEMA Motor

and Generator Section, April 18, 1997, in response

to the NOPR.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket No. EE–RM–96–400]

Energy Efficiency Program for Certain

Commercial and Industrial Equipment:

Test Procedures, Labeling, and

Certification Requirements for Electric

Motors

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Proposed rule; limited

reopening of the comment period.

SUMMARY: In a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 61 FR 60440 (November

27, 1996) (NOPR), concerning one

through 200 horsepower electric motors

that are covered under the Energy Policy

and Conservation Act, as amended

(EPCA), the Department of Energy (DOE

or the Department) proposed to adopt

test procedures (including those in

Institute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers, Inc. Standard 112–1991

[‘‘IEEE 112–1991’’]), sampling plans for

compliance and enforcement testing,

efficiency labeling requirements, and

standards and procedures under which

DOE would classify an accreditation

organization or a certification program

as ‘‘nationally recognized.’’ The

Department is now considering several

additional options in these areas, which

were either not set forth or not clearly

described in the NOPR. Specifically, the

Department is considering adoption of

(1) revised sampling plans for

compliance and enforcement, (2)

revisions to the IEEE test procedures, (3)

alternative requirements where a

motor’s efficiency is established under

EPCA through a certification program,

(4) verifying the validity of labeled

efficiency by use of the proposed

enforcement procedures, and (5)

withdrawal of recognition from an

accreditation organization or

certification program that deviates from

the standards for recognition. The

purpose of this notice is to reopen the

comment period to solicit comments on

these options.

DATES: Written comments in response to

this notice must be received by July 27,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Ten copies (no

telefacsimilies) of written comments

should be labeled ‘‘Electric Motor

Rulemaking’’ (Docket No. EE–RM–96–

400), and submitted to: U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of Codes and

Standards, EE–43, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW, Room 1J–018, Washington,

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–

2945.

Copies of the Institute of Electrical

and Electronics Engineers standards

may 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.

A copy of the document, ‘‘Analysis of

Proposals for Compliance and

Enforcement Testing Under the New

Part 431; Title 10, Code of Federal

Regulations,’’ NISTIR 6092, by K.L.

Stricklett and M. Vangel, January 1998,

may be obtained from the National

Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST).1 Information regarding

availability of the report, NISTIR 6092,

may be obtained from the NIST

Inquiries Office at 301–975–3058. A

copy of NISTIR 6092 is available

through the NIST World Wide Web site

http://www.eeel.nist.gov/811/div/

811lpubslps.html#nistir6092. NISTIR

6092 is also available from the National

Technical Information Service (NTIS),

and may be ordered through the NTIS

Sales Desk at 703–605–6000, or by

telefax at 703–321–8547, or by

electronic mail at

orders@ntis.fedworld.gov. A copy of the

document is also available at the Office

of Codes and Standards World Wide

Web site http://www.eren.doe.gov/

buildings/codeslstandards/rules/

emenfpol/index.htm.

Copies of the proposed rule, a

transcript of the January 15, 1997 public

hearing, the public comments received

(including the NEMA proposal), and

NISTIR 6092 may be read at the

Freedom of Information Reading Room,

U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal

Building, Room 1E–190, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585–0101, telephone

(202) 586–3142, between the hours of

9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE–

43, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585–0121,

telephone (202) 586–8654, telefax

(202) 586–4617, or:

jim.raba@ee.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.doe.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Energy Policy and Conservation

Act (EPCA or the Act), 42 U.S.C. 6311,

et seq., establishes energy efficiency

standards and test procedures for

certain commercial and industrial

electric motors. Section 342(b)(1) of

EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), requires

that ‘‘each [such] electric motor

manufactured (alone or as a component

of another piece of equipment) * * *

shall have a nominal full load efficiency

of not less than [the prescribed level].’’

The Act requires generally that the test

procedures be ‘‘reasonably designed to

produce test results which reflect energy

efficiency,’’ yet not be ‘‘unduly

burdensome’’ to conduct, EPCA section

345(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(2), and

prescribes specific test methods for

electric motors, EPCA section 343(a)(5),

42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5). The Act also

directs the Department to require,

subject to certain conditions, that a

motor’s energy efficiency be displayed

on its permanent nameplate and in

material used to market the motor.

EPCA section 344(d), 42 U.S.C. 6315(d).

Finally manufacturers must certify

‘‘through an independent testing or

certification program nationally

recognized in the United States,’’ that

each covered motor complies with the

applicable efficiency standard. EPCA

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

On November 27, 1996, the

Department published a proposed rule

on test procedures for the measurement

of energy efficiency, efficiency labeling,

and compliance and enforcement

procedures for these electric motors.

The proposed rule incorporated the

Institute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers (IEEE) Standard 112–1991

Test Method B as one method for

measuring energy efficiency, 61 FR

60446 (November 27, 1996). Other

proposed provisions included two

statistical sampling plans—one for

compliance and labeling and another for

enforcement, 61 FR 60446–49, 60459–60

(November 27, 1996), requirements that

a motor’s energy efficiency be stated on

its nameplate and in marketing

materials, 61 FR 60451–52 (November

27, 1996), and procedures as to

recognition of a testing or certification

program used to certify that an electric

motor complies with EPCA efficiency

standards, 61 FR 60457–58.

On January 15, 1997, a public hearing

was held on the proposed rule, and

thereafter the Department received

numerous written comments on the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34759

2 It should be noted that the Department is not

purporting to alter IEEE 112–1996. Rather, the

Department is proposing only to mandate certain

modifications to IEEE 112–1996 Test Method B

when it is used for purposes of measuring efficiency

under EPCA.

proposal. The hearing and written

comments, as well as the Department’s

further review of the proposed rule,

have given rise to the issues addressed

in today’s reopening notice. The

Department seeks comments at this time

only on those issues.

II. Discussion

A. Modifications to the IEEE 112–1996

Method 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 MG1–1987 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 MG1 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.

NEMA MG1–1987 was revised and

superseded by NEMA MG1–1993,

which was published in October 1993.

Revision 1 to NEMA MG1–1993, was

added on December 7, 1993. In the

NOPR, the Department stated that it

would adopt the test procedure

provisions of NEMA MG1–1993 with

Revision 1. IEEE 112–1991 was revised

and superseded by IEEE 112–1996,

which was published May 8, 1997. A

minor revision was made in IEEE 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-Method B: ‘‘Calculation form for

input-output test of induction machine

with segregation of losses and

smoothing of stray-load loss.’’ Under

EPCA, DOE must now adopt the test

procedures in IEEE 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,

and or unduly burdensome to conduct.

The Department compared IEEE 112–

1991 to IEEE 112–1996 to determine

whether there were differences in Test

Method B, which applies here, and, if

so, whether to adopt Test Method B in

IEEE 112–1996 into the final rule for

electric motors. As a result of its

analysis, the Department believes Test

Method B in IEEE 112–1996 improves

upon the version of that test method in

IEEE 112–1991, because IEEE 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 I2R

losses (IEEE 112, clause 5.1).

After publication of IEEE 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

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. Subsequently, the

Department confirmed the existence of

these types of problems with IEEE 112–

1996 through contacts with other testing

laboratories, a certification organization,

and manufacturers, each known to have

experience with IEEE 112, and

discussions with the Chairman of the

IEEE Induction Power Subcommittee.

Indeed, the Department is aware that

one testing laboratory applied the test

procedure to a single motor, tested the

motor four times, and arrived at a

different result each time based upon

various interpretations of the language

in the test procedure.

Even a half percentage point error in

the measured efficiency could throw a

motor into the next higher or lower level

of nominal efficiency, effectively

rendering it in compliance with the

applicable EPCA efficiency standard, or

out of compliance. Thus, for example,

an error in IEEE 112–1996 could cause

a manufacturer to incorrectly measure

the efficiency of a motor that is actually

in compliance, conclude that it is below

the required efficiency level, and

unnecessarily redesign all or part of its

product line. (IEEE corrected one such

error in its January 1998 notice of

correction.) Also, the provisions of IEEE

112–1996 that are subject to

interpretation leave room for a

manufacturer to intentionally bias the

measured efficiency of a motor that is

actually out of compliance, so that the

motor will be found to meet the

applicable level required under the

statute.

In sum, Test Method B in IEEE 112–

1996 has several advantages, discussed

above, as well as typographical errors,

provisions subject to interpretation, and

incorrect information. The Department’s

intention, therefore, is that the final rule

will prescribe IEEE 112–1996 Test

Method B, with the January 1998

correction, as the test procedure under

EPCA for determining the energy

efficiency of electric motors, but with

certain modifications.2 The following

sets forth those modifications, as well as

a few potential problems as to which the

Department has tentatively decided not

to make changes:

1. Typographical Errors

a. Page 17, subclause 6.4.1.3, ‘‘Noload test,’’ currently reads: ‘‘See 5.3

including 5.33, * * *’’ This is an

incorrect reference in the standard,

because there is no subclause 5.33. The

Department proposes to change the

reference to read: ‘‘See 5.3 including

5.3.3, * * *’’ to point to the proper

subclause dealing with the separation of

core loss from friction and windage loss.

b. Page 48, item (24), the formula for

shaft power in watts, currently reads: ‘‘Is

equal to [(23) • (11)]/k2’’, but the

constant k2 is not defined. In IEEE 112

section 10.2 Form B-Method B, the

constant ‘‘k’’ is defined in terms of

torque for the formula in item (22); and

the constant ‘‘k1’’ is defined in terms of

conductivity for the formula in item

(16). Upon examination of the test

procedure and through inquiries made

to the aforementioned organizations

experienced with IEEE 112, the

Department has determined that use of

‘‘k2’’ in item (24) is a typographical error

for the constant ‘‘k’’, since the torque

constant (‘‘k’’), from item (22), is

necessary to calculate shaft power in

item (24). The Department proposes to

correct the constant ‘‘k2’’ in item (24) to

the constant ‘‘k’’. The formula in item

(24) would then read: ‘‘Is equal to [(23)

• (11)]/k’’.

2. Provisions Subject to Interpretation

a. 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, although subclause 5.1.1 applies

generally to the testing of motors under

IEEE 112, part ‘‘c’’ of that subclause

does not apply to Test Method B. Part
34760 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

‘‘c’’ is a calculation procedure, for use

when the rated load temperature has not

been measured. The first test to be

performed under Method B, however,

per subclause 6.4.1.1, requires a

measurement of rated load temperature.

Hence, only options ‘‘a’’ or ‘‘b’’ in

subclause 5.1.1 are applicable to

Method B. Information provided to the

Department indicates, however, that

option ‘‘c’’ is being misapplied to Test

Method B.

Such misapplication of option ‘‘c’’

can distort efficiency values. The

Department understands that use of a

prescribed temperature value from

option ‘‘c’’ would result in a higher

value of efficiency in circumstances

where the measured full load (1.0

service factor) temperature is greater

than such prescribed temperature, and a

lower value of efficiency in

circumstances where the measured full

load (1.0 service factor) temperature for

a motor is less than the prescribed

temperature. The Department believes

that to achieve consistency under EPCA,

the best approach is to always use a

measured winding temperature for the

efficiency calculation, as is

contemplated by Test Method B.

The Department’s final rule could

incorporate into subclause 5.1.1,

‘‘Specified temperature,’’ the following

language: ‘‘(Method B only allows the

use of preference a) or b).)’’ The

Department seeks comment on whether

such a change is warranted in 5.1.1,

although it currently believes that the

proposed change is unnecessary,

because it would be redundant with the

provisions of Test Method B. It would

be warranted only by reading the

general information section of IEEE 112

in isolation from Test Method B. As

stated above the Department

understands that, under Test Method B,

the first test to be performed is a rated

load temperature test. This test

determines the values for the rated load

heat run stator winding resistance

between terminals, items (3) and (4), on

10.2 Form B, per subclause 6.4.1.1,

Rated load temperature test. The values

are then used to calculate stator I2R loss,

item (27) in 10.2 Form B. Per this

requirement, only options ‘‘a’’ or ‘‘b’’ in

the referenced section 5.1.1 are

applicable to Method B. Option ‘‘c’’ is

not a ‘‘measurement procedure’’ and

cannot be used with Method B; it is

applicable only to other IEEE 112 test

methods. Moreover, if a manufacturer or

testing laboratory uses option ‘‘c’’, it is

not following Test Method B and cannot

say the motor has been tested according

to Method B.

b. Page 47, the procedure to measure

temperature in item (4) Rated Load Heat

Run Stator Winding Temperature is not

defined. Item (4) is used in item (27),

Stator I22R Loss, in Watts, at (ts) °C, to

correct the stator loss corresponding to

item (16), Stator I2R Loss, in Watts, at

(tt) °C, which is based on the

temperature recorded for item (7).

Information in the footnote at the

bottom of page 47, 10.2 Form B,

indicates that the temperature for item

(7) can be either determined from a

temperature detector or derived from

measurement of the stator resistance

during the test. Because items (4) and

(7) are used to calculate stator loss at

different temperatures, it is preferred

that the method of measuring both items

be consistent. In addition, per subclause

4.2.3 Note 2 and subclause 4.3.2.2 Note

2, the values for ts and tt, which are used

for correction to a specified

temperature, are to be based on the same

method of measurement. Therefore, the

Department proposes to add a second

sentence to the footnote at the bottom of

page 47, 10.2 Form B, to read: ‘‘The

values for ts and tt shall be based on the

same method of temperature

measurement, selected from the four

methods in subclause 8.3.’’

c. Page 48, item (27) defines Stator I2R

Loss, in W, at (ts) °C, and item (29)

defines Corrected Slip, in r/min, on IEEE

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.

Subclause 4.3.2.2 equation (4) defines

‘‘k’’ in terms of conductivity for copper

or aluminum. The term ‘‘k’’ in 10.2

Form B, however, is defined in terms of

torque. Item (29) should be defined in

terms of conductivity using the term

‘‘k1’’, to be consistent with the

definition of ‘‘k1’’ in 10.2 Form B item

(16).

Also, calculating ‘‘St’’ and ‘‘tt’’ for

subclause 4.3.2.2 equation (4) would

cause unnecessary recalculations and

possible errors, because these values

were already derived elsewhere on

Form B. Equation (4) defines ‘‘St’’ as

‘‘the slip measured at stator winding

temperature, tt,’’ whereas the actual

value of slip speed would have already

been measured and entered at item (10)

on Form B. Similarly, in equation (4)

‘‘tt’’ is defined as ‘‘the observed stator

winding temperature during load test, in

°C,’’ whereas the actual value of stator

winding temperature would have

already been measured and entered at

item (7) on Form B.

Subclause 4.3.2.2 equation (4) also

defines ‘‘ts’’ as the specified temperature

for resistance correction, in °C.

However, Form B, does not define ‘‘ts’’.

While ‘‘ts’’ appears to be used in item

(27), Form B, the use of ‘‘ts’’ is

incorporated by providing the equation

for the adjustment of the resistance

corresponding to ‘‘ts’’, rather than by

defining ‘‘ts’’ itself. However, the

relationship representing ‘‘ts’’ in item

(27) on page 48 appears to differ from

the definition of ‘‘ts’’ given in 4.2.3. The

Department is concerned about the

various definitions given for ‘‘ts’’ in the

body of IEEE 112 and in 10.2, Form B

and the correction of the stator and rotor

losses. Examination of 10.2 Form B and

the supporting sections of IEEE–112

indicate the following:

1. The stator loss for item (16) is based

on correcting the cold resistance in item

(1) at the cold temperature in item (2)

to a resistance as if the complete

winding is at the test temperature in

item (7) for each test point. Generally,

this means that 6 different values of

resistance are used in calculating the

initial stator loss.

2. The rotor loss for item (18) is

calculated using the measured slip item

(10) which already directly includes the

effect of temperature so no equation

involving temperature is needed.

3. For item (27) it is indicated on the

test form that the corrected stator loss is

to be based on a temperature identified

as ‘‘ts’’. In IEEE 112–1991 no formula for

this correction of the resistance to

determine the loss was provided, so the

counterpart of 5.1.1, IEEE 112–1996,

was used in conjunction with the

counterpart of equation [1] in 4.2.3,

IEEE 112–1996. (The section references

from IEEE 112–1996 are used instead of

the actual section numbers in IEEE 112–

1991 to minimize confusion with the

rest of the discussion.) To do this the

reference resistances and temperatures

were again the cold readings as in

paragraph 1 above and the hot

temperature was the specified

temperature from 5.1.1. In IEEE–1996 a

formula was added to item (27) stating

that the reference resistance to be used

is to be the hot resistance measured after

the heat run and the reference

temperature to be used is the

temperature measured at the conclusion

of the heat run. Now the temperature to

be used for correcting the stator loss is

not the specified temperature given in

5.1.1 if the temperature in item (4) is

measured directly by a temperature

sensor, but instead is the reference

temperature from the heat run adjusted

for the difference between the heat run
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34761

3Oftentimes what appears as a large intercept is

the result of improperly performing the

dynamometer correction part of the test. By

Continued

ambient and an ambient of 25 °C [i.e.,

(4)¥(5) + 25]. This change is described

in 6.4.3.2. If the temperature in item (4)

is instead derived from the hot

resistance measured after the heat run as

per 8.3.3 then the relationship of

[(4)¥(5) + 25] is equal to the specified

temperature per 5.1.1. However, in

6.4.3.2 it is assumed that item (4) is

from a direct temperature measurement

and should not be a value derived from

the resistance of the heat run. In this

case the corrected resistance used in

determining the corrected stator loss for

each of the six test points is the same.

4. In item (31) on the test form it is

also indicated that the rotor loss is

corrected to the temperature ts. This is

accomplished by temperature correction

of the slip in item (29). For item (29) one

is referred to 4.3.2.2, Eq. 4. In 4.3.2.2 it

is indicated that ts is to be the specified

temperature from 5.1.1. However, in

6.4.3.3 it is stated that ts is to be equal

to the ‘‘hottest winding temperature

during the temperature test corrected to

an ambient of 25 °C.’’ This definition of

ts corresponds to the definition given in

6.4.3.2 for the correction of the stator

loss, which leads one to the formula for

item (27) and the relationship that the

value to be used for ts is to be that given

by [(4)¥(5) + 25] and not the specified

temperature as given by 5.1.1. For the

correction of the slip a different value of

correction may be necessary for each of

the six test points since the correction

is based on the temperature at the time

each test point is taken.

In conclusion, section 6.4.3.2 for the

correction of the stator loss and 6.4.3.3

for the correction of the rotor loss define

the correction to be to a temperature ts

which is not the specified temperature

ts given by 5.1.1. In fact, the specified

temperature per 5.1.1 does not appear to

be used in any of the calculations

performed for Method B.

To clarify the temperatures to be used

for correcting the stator and rotor loss

the Department proposes the following

modifications: (1) insert a new line at

the top of 10.2 Form B and below the

line that defines ‘‘rated load heat run

stator winding resistance,’’ which will

define ‘‘ts’’ as it is defined in 6.4.3.2 and

6.4.3.3: ‘‘Temperature for Resistance

Correction (ts) = ll °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 (ts)

is equal to [(4)¥(5) + 25 °C];’’ (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) • [k1 + (4)¥(5) + 25 °C] /

[k1 + (7)], see 6.4.3.3’’.

d. 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).’’ The

Department understands that the slope

A is that of the aforementioned curve

corresponding to a plot using item (26)

as the dependent variable on the y axis,

and the square of item (23) as the

independent variable on the x axis. The

Department also understands that

reference to subclause 6.4.2.7,

Smoothing of the stray-load loss,

provides tutorial information with

respect to the determination of the slope

A using linear regression analysis. The

Department understands that under

ideal test conditions the linear

regression line should intercept the y

axis at zero stray load loss for zero

torque squared, since the only losses

which should remain will be stator I2R,

friction, and core losses previously

accounted for by the no-load test.

The Department has been advised that

typically ideal test conditions do not

exist, and that either the y-intercept is

above zero, indicating that some

apparent measured loss should be

subtracted; or the y-intercept is below

zero, indicating that some undetected

loss should be added. The Department

has also been advised that it is possible,

at the same time, to have a positive

slope, a correlation equal to or greater

than 0.9, and a sizable intercept with

the stray load loss axis at zero load

conditions. The Department is

concerned that, when this is the case, a

large portion of losses could be

incorrectly subtracted off yielding an

artificially high efficiency or incorrectly

added on yielding an artificially low

efficiency.

It also appears, however, that the

purpose of the stray load loss correction

in 10.2 Form B item (32), is to detect

possible errors in measurement and

correct for them, without repeating the

test. Also, repeating a load test when the

intercept is large in order to obtain a test

for which the intercept is smaller, might

not result in a significant change in the

final determination of efficiency at 100

percent load. The Department

understands that the value of the

intercept must be viewed in the context

of the remainder of the test workup.

Thus, in 10.2 Form B, when the stray

load loss is corrected in item (32), then

the final torque, or shaft power in item

(34), is also corrected after using item

(23) in the formula AT2 where ‘‘T =

corrected torque = (23).’’ Instructions

are provided, in IEEE 112, at the bottom

of page 48 under Motoring, for

interpolation of the test results to

complete the Summary of

Characteristics on page 47, at the bottom

of 10.2 Form B, in order to determine

the efficiency at the actual 100 percent

rated load point.

Also, the nominal full load efficiency

identified on the nameplate of an

electric motor is selected from a

prescribed nominal efficiency in NEMA

Standards Publication MG1–1993,

section 12.58.2, Table 12–8, which is

not greater than the average efficiency of

a large population of motors of the same

design. Moreover, the nominal

efficiency of a covered electric motor

must equal or exceed the efficiency

values in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA.

Consequently, unless there are

significant differences in the final

determination of nominal efficiency for

a particular electric motor, it appears

that use of a prescribed nominal full

load efficiency value would tend to

‘‘wash out’’ small variations in

individual motor losses and errors in

test equipment calibration.

Therefore, at this time, the

Department intends to adopt IEEE 112–

1996, subclause 6.4.2.7, Smoothing of

the stray-load loss, without change.

However, the Department is still

considering the option of making the

following changes to add a restriction

on the allowable value of the intercept,

and will do so if the Department

determines, in the final rule, that the

evidence warrants such a change. The

restriction would replace the paragraph

after the definition of variables for

equation (21), in subclause 6.4.2.7, and

would be worded as follows (emphasis

added to indicate changes):

‘‘If the slope is negative, or if the

correlation factor, r, is less than 0.9,

delete the worst point and repeat the

regression. If this increases r to 0.9 or

larger, use the second regression; if this

does not increase r to 0.9 or larger, or

if the slope is still negative, the test is

unsatisfactory. Errors in the

instrumentation or test readings, or

both, are indicated. In addition, the

value of B must not exceed 10 percent

of the uncorrected total loss at rated

load; higher values indicate procedural

or power supply problems. If a test fails

to meet the above criteria, the source of

the error should be investigated and

corrected, and the test should be

repeated.’’

The Department requests comments

on this issue, and is interested in

receiving data that would show if any

significant differences 3 do occur
34762 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

definition the dynamometer correction adjusts all

data points by the same amount of torque which is

basically the same thing that occurs when the

intercept of the stray load loss curve is adjusted to

go through zero. Should there be a great

discrepancy between the values for the intercept

obtained for testing the same motor several times

using the same equipment, then this would suggest

a more fundamental problem of following the

procedure correctly than just errors in the

measurements.

4Part II–D below addresses the issue of whether

the proposed enforcement procedures apply to

alleged labeling violations.

5 ‘‘Public Hearing, Tr. pgs. 64–111,’’ 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.

between the final determined value of

efficiency at 100 percent rated load for

various values of the stray-load loss

intercept for repeated tests of the same

motor.

e. Page 17, subclause 6.4.1.3, ‘‘Noload test,’’ second 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 indicates that the

requirements for temperature and input

stabilization during the no-load test

appear to be undefined and could cause

confusion. To provide clarity for

locating the pertinent subclause for

temperature stabilization, the

Department proposes 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.’’ The

Department finds that an additional

modification for input stabilization is

not necessary, since that is covered by

previous reference to subclause 5.3 that,

in turn, refers to subclause 4.3.1.1,

Bearing loss stabilization.

3. Incorrect Information

Page 40, subclause 8.6.3, Termination

of test, currently reads: ‘‘For

continuously rated machines, readings

shall be taken at intervals of 1⁄2 h[our]

or less.’’ One reason for taking these

readings during the efficiency test of a

motor is to show when the motor’s

temperature rise has ended, and so that

the test can be terminated. As written,

however, subclause 8.6.3 allows

temperature readings to be taken at

intervals of, for example, five seconds.

If such short intervals were used, there

could be little or no rise in temperature

between any two consecutive readings,

even if the motor temperature was

actually still rising. Consequently, the

motor’s temperature could be

misconstrued as being stable. As a

result, the measured efficiency would

appear to be two to three percentage

points higher than it actually is, since

efficiency goes down as temperature

goes up. In view of the need to correctly

determine the leveling of temperature

rise for measuring efficiency, as the

Department believes is intended in

subclause 8.6.3, the Department

proposes to change the third sentence in

subclause 8.6.3. Subclause 8.6.3

currently reads: ‘‘For continuous rated

machines, the temperature test shall

continue until there is 1°C or less

change in temperature rise between two

successive readings.’’ The Department

proposes to change that subclause 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.’’

In sum, the Department believes that

use of IEEE 112–1996 Test Method B,

without corrections, could produce

results that provide an inaccurate

measurement of the energy efficiency of

the motor being tested, and that vary

from one test to the next of the same

motor or comparable motors. In

addition, manufacturers would be

burdened by having to resolve its

typographical errors and unclear

provisions, and deal with unnecessary

references to other parts of IEEE 112.

Therefore, the Department intends to

adopt, in the final rule for electric

motors, the test procedures in IEEE 112–

1996 Test Method B, and the correction

to the calculation at item (28) in section

10.2 Form B-Method B issued by IEEE

on January 20, 1998, but with the

aforementioned corrections and

modifications. The Department seeks

comments on the technical merits of,

and the need for, the aforementioned

corrections and modifications to the

IEEE 112. If the record should indicate

that any of these changes is

unwarranted, the Department will

decline to adopt such modification.

Thus, the Department might still adopt

IEEE 112–1996 Test Method B, and the

correction to the calculation at item (28)

in section 10.2 Form B-Method B,

without modification, or with only a

portion of the above modifications.

Finally, interested parties are also

invited to identify other problems they

believe exist in IEEE 112 Test Method

B and section 10.2 Form B. The

Department requests that such other

problems, and changes to correct them,

be clearly identified, and that evidence

be provided that substantiates the need

for these changes.

B. Sampling Plans for Compliance and

Enforcement

1. Background

As per the proposed rule at 10 CFR

431.24, the efficiency of each basic

model of electric motor would initially

be established either by testing

(‘‘compliance testing’’) or by application

of an Alternative Efficiency

Determination Method (AEDM), for

purposes of determining whether the

motor complies with the applicable

efficiency standard, and of labeling the

motor. 61 FR 60466–67 (November 27,

1996). As per the proposed rule at 10

CFR 431.127, the Department would

ascertain in any enforcement

proceeding, which could include testing

(‘‘enforcement testing’’), whether a

motor complies with the applicable

EPCA standard and with the labeled

value for efficiency.4 61 FR 60472 and

60474–75 (November 27, 1996). Each of

these sections incorporates a sampling

plan for testing a motor. The sampling

plans are intended to provide

statistically meaningful sampling

procedures for conducting tests, so as to

reduce the testing burden while giving

sufficient assurance (1) 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 (2) that an

electric motor found to be in

noncompliance will actually be in

noncompliance. The November 27, 1996

Federal Register notice, at section

XIII.C.3. and 8., Issues for Public

Comment, requested comments on the

proposed sampling plans for

compliance and enforcement testing.

During the January 15, 1997, public

hearing on the proposed rule for electric

motors, the National Electrical

Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and

motor manufacturers raised issues

concerning the Department’s proposed

sampling plans for electric motors. They

asserted that the sampling plan for

compliance testing would, for example:

(1) be inconsistent with current industry

practice under NEMA Standards

Publication MG1–1993, ‘‘Motors and

Generators,’’ (2) place a high burden on

manufacturers because the risk of a false

determination of noncompliance is not

less than 50 percent for motors that are

in compliance, and (3) require covered

equipment to be engineered to exceed

the nominal energy efficiency levels for

electric motors established by EPCA;

they also claimed the sampling plan for

enforcement testing was not in harmony

with the sampling plan for compliance

testing. (Public Hearing, Tr. pgs. 64–

111).5 Thereafter, NEMA submitted to

the Department a proposed sampling
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34763

6 ‘‘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. EE–

RM–96–400, No. 23) (the ‘‘NEMA proposal’’).

7For electric motors, basic model would mean all

units of an electric motor that are manufactured by

a single manufacturer, and which have the same

rating, have electrical characteristics that are

essentially identical, and do not have any differing

physical or functional characteristics which affect

energy consumption or efficiency. For purposes 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 section 431.42 prescribes nominal full load

efficiency standards. 61 FR 60465 (November 27,

1996).

8Thus, for enforcement testing DOE understands

the conditions for establishing compliance to be as

follows: (1) the average full load efficiency of the

sample of units tested must not be less than the

value of efficiency that equals the applicable

nominal efficiency prescribed by EPCA, reduced by

an amount equivalent to a 15 percent increase in

losses at full load, i.e., the value given by 100/

[1+1.15(100/NE¥1)], and (2) the full-load efficiency

of each motor in the sample must be greater than

the value of efficiency equal to the applicable

nominal efficiency prescribed by EPCA, reduced by

an amount equivalent to a 20 percent increase in

losses at full load, i.e., the value given by 100/

[1+1.20(100/NE¥1)].

plan for compliance testing and a

proposed plan for enforcement testing.6

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) compares the DOE’s

proposed rule and NEMA proposals

through model calculations of their

operating characteristics, i.e., the

estimated probability of demonstrating

compliance for a given true average of

efficiency.

Although the Department continues to

consider adoption of the sampling plans

in the NOPR, it is now also considering

adoption of the NEMA proposals, or

variants of these proposals, in place of

the sampling proposals in the NOPR. It

is also considering adoption of a

modified version of the NOPR sampling

plan for enforcement. The Department

seeks comment on these alternatives to

the NOPR’s sampling plans.

2. The Proposals Under Consideration

In the NOPR, the Department

proposes that when a manufacturer tests

a basic model of an electric motor 7 to

establish its efficiency, a sample of units

of the motor, comprised of production

units or representative of production

units, shall be selected at random and

tested. The proposed rule does not

specify a particular sample size, but

provides that the sample must be of

sufficient size so that any represented

value of energy efficiency is no greater

than the lower of (A) the mean of the

sample or (B) the lower 90 percent

confidence limit of the mean of the

entire population of that basic model,

divided by a coefficient applicable to

the represented value. The coefficient

applicable to a given represented value

is derived from NEMA MG1–1993,

Table 12–8.

In the NOPR, the Department

proposed to establish a sampling plan

for enforcement testing based on NEMA

MG1–12.58.2, Efficiency of Polyphase

Squirrel-cage Medium Motors with

Continuous Ratings, and NEMA MG1

Table 12–8, Efficiency Levels, which

establish a logical series of nominal

motor efficiencies and a minimum

associated with each nominal. The

minimum efficiency is based on 20

percent loss difference. Under this

proposed sampling plan, the motor

would be found in compliance provided

(1) the mean of the sample is not less

than a lower confidence limit and (2)

the sample is of sufficient size to

provide a statistical confidence that is

not less than 90 percent. The lower

confidence limit is found within the

sampling plan by calculation and is

based on the EPCA efficiency standard

that is applicable to that basic model,

the sample standard deviation for the

initial sample, and the t value

corresponding to the 10th percentile for

the initial sample. In all cases, the lower

confidence limit lies below the EPCA

standard efficiency. DOE’s proposed

sampling plan for enforcement testing

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 losses more than 20 percent

greater than the average losses for that

type of motor, i.e., a 20 percent loss

tolerance is permitted for a given unit

but the average must still be met. The

NOPR states the Department’s belief that

the 20 percent loss tolerance is

reasonable and meaningful. 61 FR

60459–60, 60474–75 (November 27,

1996).

The NEMA proposal, as stated above,

contains a sampling plan for compliance

testing as well as one for enforcement

testing. The plan for compliance testing

provides that two conditions must be

met to establish that a motor meets a

particular nominal efficiency level.

First, according to DOE’s understanding,

the average full load efficiency of the

sample of units tested must not be less

than the value of efficiency that equals

the applicable nominal efficiency

reduced by an amount equivalent to a 5

percent increase in losses at full load,

i.e., the value given by

100

1 1 05 100+ −1 





 . NE

Second, DOE understands, the full-load

efficiency of each motor in the sample

must be greater than the value of

efficiency equal to the applicable

nominal efficiency reduced by an

amount reduced by an amount

equivalent to a 15 percent increase in

losses at full load, i.e., the value given

by

100

1 115 100+ −1 





 . NE

NEMA’s plan for enforcement testing is

very similar, and provides that the same

conditions must be met to establish that

a motor complies with the applicable

EPCA standard, except that the

percentages are based on the total

variation in energy efficiency permitted

by NEMA MG–1.8 The NEMA plans

neither specify nor suggest sample sizes.

In support of these plans, the NEMA

proposal discusses a number of issues,

including: the analyses of testing

samples from a total and from a limited

population of motors, the implications

of overlapping nominal efficiency

distributions, and NEMA’s proposed

sampling schemes for compliance and

enforcement. The NEMA proposal

claims to balance the manufacturer’s

and consumer’s risks and to streamline

sampling schemes for compliance

testing and enforcement testing.

The NIST analysis examines each of

the sampling plans contained in the

NOPR and the NEMA proposal, and

certain variations of those sampling

plans. NISTIR 6092 assumes that a basic

model of an electric motor satisfies the

applicable energy efficiency

requirement in EPCA if the mean full

load efficiency of the entire population

of motors of that basic model equals or

exceeds the applicable nominal

efficiency. It compares the NOPR and

NEMA proposals through model

calculations of their operating

characteristics, i.e., by estimating the

probability of demonstrating

compliance for a model of electric motor

where the true average efficiency of that

model is known. NISTIR 6092 seeks to

clarify the issues raised from testimony

and comments given during the public

hearing, January 15, 1997. It provides

both a qualitative comparison of the

operating characteristics of the NOPR
34764 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

and NEMA proposals and a quantitative

estimate of the risk, or statistical

confidence, associated with testing

under such proposals.

Based on the NIST analysis the

Department is considering the following

with respect to the final rule for electric

motors:

(1) DOE could adopt the NEMA

proposal for compliance testing rather

than the method given in DOE’s

proposed rule. Alternatively, DOE could

adopt the NEMA proposal, but could

substitute a coefficient of 1.03 or 1.01

for the 1.05 coefficient in the formula

above. DOE could also adopt the NEMA

proposal, with or without a change in

the 1.05 coefficient, but with a

requirement that the number of sample

units to be tested be fixed, at five motors

for example.

The Department understands the

advantages in simplicity and reduced

burden on manufacturers presented by

the NEMA sampling proposal for

compliance testing, but believes there is

a higher risk, relative to the NOPR

criteria, of overly optimistic estimates of

efficiency. The Department believes that

the 1.05 coefficient proposed by NEMA

could be changed to 1.01, for example,

and this would substantially reduce the

risk under the NEMA proposal that a

motor failing to meet the energy

efficiency standard prescribed in EPCA

would nevertheless be found in

compliance. Also, the Department

understands that the performance of the

NEMA proposal for compliance testing

depends on the sample size. It appears

to DOE that a fixed sample size of 5

motors would not be unduly

burdensome and would provide the

statistical confidence needed for

determining whether an electric motor

complies with the applicable EPCA

standard, for labeling that motor, and for

using test results as a basis for

substantiating alternative methods used

to determine the efficiencies of other

motors.

(2) With regard to enforcement

testing, DOE could adopt NEMA’s

proposal, with or without modification

of the coefficient, or could retain the

NOPR Sampling Plan for Enforcement

Testing with the statistical confidence

level increased from 90 percent to 99

percent, or to some other value higher

than 90 percent.

NEMA asserts that the NOPR

sampling plan for enforcement is not

consistent with the NOPR sampling

plan for compliance, claiming the

possibility is too great that a motor

found in compliance under the

enforcement plan would have been

found in non-compliance under the

compliance plan. The NIST analysis

indicates, however, that the sampling

criteria proposed by NEMA for

enforcement testing make little

distinction between efficiencies that are

at and significantly below the EPCA

nominal values. Also, the NEMA

sampling plan for enforcement could

produce draconian results. Under the

NEMA criteria, the efficiency

performance of a single unit could cause

a basic model to fail the entire test,

without recourse.

As proposed, the NOPR Sampling

Plan for Enforcement Testing establishes

that testing be consistent with a

statistical confidence of not less than 90

percent. This statistical confidence

implies that the likelihood of falsely

concluding that a product is not in

compliance may be as high as 10

percent. According to the NIST analysis,

the NOPR Sampling Plan for

Enforcement Testing could be modified

to increase the confidence level from 90

to 99 percent. Although this

modification could require testing a

larger sample of motors, it would reduce

the risk that a manufacturer would be

falsely found in non-compliance. NIST

believes it is highly unlikely that a

product that is labeled in accordance

with the NEMA MG1 guidelines 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 a manufacturer’s interest is

protected. Moreover, the Department

understands that, in contrast to the

NEMA sampling plan for enforcement

testing, the t-test used in the NOPR is a

widely accepted basis for a testing

protocol and is not strongly influenced

by the exact form of the underlying

distribution of energy efficiency

measurement data.

The Department of Energy is

interested in receiving comments and

data concerning the accuracy and

workability of the NEMA Motor and

Generator Section proposals for

sampling electric motors for compliance

and enforcement, and would welcome

recommendations regarding

improvements to NEMA’s suggested

approaches, particularly in the

following respects:

(1) Compliance. The Department

seeks comments on variations to

NEMA’s proposed sampling plan for

compliance, such as requiring the

sample size to be fixed at five units and

setting the coefficient at 1.01 or 1.03.

Are further clarifications needed in the

plan? For example, if a sample of five

units of a basic model of electric motor

is selected and fails compliance after

being tested, under what circumstances,

if any, would additional samples of the

same basic model be selected and

retested?

(2) Enforcement. Would the absolute

pass/fail nature of the NEMA Motor and

Generator Section proposal create an

undue burden on motor manufacturers?

What is an appropriate level of

confidence for enforcement testing? If

the NEMA Motor and Generator Section

proposal for enforcement testing was to

be adopted, should the 1.15 and 1.2

coefficients for the mean and the

extreme criteria, respectively, be

modified? If so, what other values are

recommended?

C. Sampling Requirements Where a

Motor’s Efficiency Is Established

Through a Certification Organization

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

6316(c), directs the Department 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 and, as is further

discussed below, EPCA requires that,

subject to certain conditions, a motor’s

nameplate and marketing materials

include its efficiency. Accordingly, the

proposed rule, at sections 431.24,

431.25(a), 431.82, and 431.123(b), 61 FR

60466–67, 60470–71, requires

manufacturers to certify and label the

efficiency level of each basic model of

electric motor based on use of either (i)

a third party independent testing

laboratory accredited by a nationally

recognized accrediting body, such as the

National Voluntary Laboratory

Accreditation Program (NVLAP), (ii) the

manufacturer’s own testing laboratory, if

it is accredited by a nationally

recognized accrediting body, such as

NVLAP, or (iii) a nationally recognized

third party certification program.

Under section 431.24(a) of the

proposed rule, the energy efficiency of

each basic model of electric motor must

be determined by compliance testing or

by application of an alternative

efficiency determination method

(AEDM) which calculates the energy

efficiency of an electric motor. Use of an

AEDM is permitted, however, only if the

efficiency of at least five basic models,

selected in accordance with criteria

specified in section 431.24(b)(1)(i)–(ii),

is determined through compliance

testing. For each basic model selected

for testing, section 431.24(b)(1)(iii) in

the proposed rule provides, as discussed

above, a sampling procedure for

selecting units to be tested. Moreover, to

use a particular AEDM, it must (1) meet

certain general criteria specified in

section 431.24(b)(2), and (2) be applied

to at least five basic models that have
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34765

9 In the proposed rule, such criteria are in section

431.24(b)(1)(i)–(ii).

10 In the proposed rule, such sampling provisions

are in section 431.24(b)(1)(iii).

been selected and tested in accordance

with the criteria in proposed section

431.24(b)(1), with the total power loss

predicted for each of these models by

the AEDM being within plus or minus

ten percent of the mean total power loss

determined from the testing (section

431.24(b)(3)). Finally, section

431.24(b)(4) requires subsequent

periodic verification of an AEDM by (1)

testing by an accredited laboratory, (2)

a nationally recognized certification

organization or (3) an independently

state-registered professional engineer.

As currently written, the proposed

regulations impose these requirements

both when a manufacturer seeks to

establish a motor’s efficiency without

using a certification program (i.e., solely

through testing and AEDMs) and also

when efficiency is established through a

certification program.

In its comments following the NOPR,

Reliance Electric recommends that the

Department not impose DOE’s sampling

plan for compliance testing when a

manufacturer establishes compliance

through a third party certification

program. Reliance asserts that the

testing and sampling procedures of a

certification program, such as the

Canadian Standards Association (CSA)

in Canada, are reliable and fulfill the

Department’s intent that a sampling

plan give assurance that the nominal

full load efficiency reported is correct.

(Reliance, No. 11 at pg. 7.) NEMA also

recommends that the Department’s

sampling plan requirements not apply

when compliance is certified through a

recognized certification program. NEMA

asserts, however, that the certification

program’s specific criteria and plan for

testing should be reviewed and

approved by the Department as part of

the process of reviewing its petition to

become a ‘‘nationally recognized’’

certification program, as described in

section 431.27(b)(4) of the proposed

rule. (NEMA, No. 18 at pgs. 8 & 9.)

It appears to the Department that

these comments from Reliance Electric

and NEMA have substantial merit.

Therefore, although it continues to

consider the approach in the proposed

rule, the Department also proposes for

consideration that the final rule provide

as follows: when a manufacturer

establishes a motor’s efficiency under

EPCA through a certification

organization, the certification

organization would not be required to

(1) select basic models for testing in

accordance with the final rule’s criteria

for making such selections,9 or (2)

follow the sampling provisions that the

final rule requires for compliance

testing.10 The other requirements in

proposed section 431.24(b) for testing

and for use of an AEDM would still

have to be met. For example, the

certification organization would be

required to establish the efficiency of at

least five basic models through

compliance testing. By way of further

example, an AEDM could not be used

unless it had been applied to at least

five basic models that had been tested,

and the results of such application were

within the bounds prescribed in the

proposed rule. Furthermore, the

Department proposes that the final rule

provide that the criteria used by a

certification program to select basic

models for testing, as well as its

sampling plan for choosing the units to

be tested, will be reviewed and

approved by the Department as part of

the evaluation for national recognition

under section 431.27(b) of the proposed

rule. Finally, proposed section

431.24(b)(4)(i)(B) requires verification of

an AEDM subsequent to its use, stating

that one way to achieve such

verification is for a certification

organization to certify the efficiency of

a basic model to which the AEDM was

applied. To provide the independent

AEDM verification that this provision

contemplates, the Department proposes

that, when a manufacturer has used a

certification organization to establish a

motor’s efficiency rating, and the rating

is based on an AEDM, the AEDM cannot

be subsequently verified by having that

same certification organization certify

the efficiency of the motor.

The Department seeks comments on

whether it should adopt the foregoing

proposals, or whether it should adopt

the approach in the proposed rule, i.e.,

that certification organizations be

required to adhere to the provisions

specified in the rule for the selection

and sampling of basic models. In

particular, the Department seeks

comment on the following:

1. Sampling for compliance testing.

The Department seeks comments on

whether a certification organization

should be required to select basic

models for compliance testing in

accordance with criteria such as those

in proposed section 431.24(b)(1)(i)–(ii).

Once a basic model is selected, should

a certification organization select

specimens to be tested in accordance

with a prescribed sampling plan? The

Department of Energy is also interested

in receiving comments and data

concerning the workability of sampling

plans used by certification

organizations, and how such sampling

plans could be evaluated.

2. Substantiation and Verification of

an AEDM. To substantiate the accuracy

and reliability of an AEDM, five basic

models must be tested. When this is

done through a certification program,

should the certification program be

required to select and test the basic

models in accordance with criteria such

as those proposed in section

431.24(b)(1)? Should the same

certification organization, used to

initially substantiate an AEDM under

section 431.24(b)(3), be prohibited from

subsequently verifying an AEDM under

section 431.24(b)(4)(i)(B)?

D. Enforcement Testing Where Violation

of a Labeling Representation Is Alleged

Section 344(f) of EPCA provides for

the Secretary to prescribe rules for

electric motor labeling, including

requirements that the energy efficiency

be on the permanent nameplate and be

displayed prominently in catalogs and

other marketing materials. Section

431.82 of the proposed rule incorporates

and implements these provisions, by

requiring each electric motor’s nominal

full load efficiency to be marked clearly

on its permanent nameplate and to be

prominently displayed in marketing

materials for the motor. Section

431.127(a) in the proposed rule, which

sets forth enforcement procedures,

provides that the Department may

conduct enforcement testing, subject to

certain conditions, to ascertain the

accuracy of the efficiency rating

disclosed on the nameplate or in

marketing materials for an electric

motor, as well as to determine whether

the motor is in compliance with the

applicable energy efficiency standard.

Other provisions of the proposed rule,

however, as well as language in the

preamble, can be read as suggesting that

the enforcement provisions apply only

in determining compliance with the

applicable standard, and not to whether

a labeling representation is accurate.

Under proposed section 431.127(a)(1),

for example, enforcement testing is

pursued after a manufacturer has had an

opportunity to ‘‘verify compliance with

the applicable efficiency standard.’’ 61

FR 60472. Verification of a label’s

accuracy is not mentioned. Moreover,

the sampling procedures for

enforcement testing set forth steps to

assess compliance with the ‘‘applicable

statutory full load efficiency,’’ and refer

to whether a basic model being tested is

in ‘‘compliance’’ or ‘‘noncompliance.’’

61 FR 60474–75. But no language in

these sampling procedures indicates

that they are to be used to assess the

accuracy of a labeling representation as
34766 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

to efficiency. The preamble indicates

that the purpose of the enforcement

sampling plan is to ascertain whether

the mean efficiency of a basic model is

equal to or exceeds the statutory full

load efficiency. 61 FR 60459.

In response to the proposed rule, Mr.

W. Treffinger asserts that testing and

sampling should ensure that the

published and nameplate data represent

the actual efficiency of a motor in use.

(Treffinger, No. 4 at 5.) NEMA asserts

that certification programs for motors

currently verify the nameplate

efficiency. (NEMA, No. 18 at pg. 8.)

In proposing the enforcement

procedures in section 431.127, the

Department intended that they would

apply to allegations that the labeled

efficiency rating for a motor is

erroneous. Moreover, the Department

continues to believe that these

procedures, including the proposed

sampling plan at section 431.127(c),

should 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

intends to make clear in the final rule

that the provisions of section 431.127

apply to labeling representations.

However, because the NOPR was not

clear on this point, the Department

seeks comments whether the proposed

enforcement procedures should be used

to determine the validity of labeling

representations, or should only be used

only to determine if the motor meets the

applicable efficiency level prescribed by

EPCA. If the latter, on what basis would

a determination be made, during an

enforcement investigation, as to the

validity of labeling representations?

E. National Recognition

Section 345(c) of EPCA requires that

compliance be certified through a

testing or certification program that is

‘‘nationally recognized.’’ The proposed

rule provides that this requirement

would be met (1) by a testing facility

that has been accredited either by

NVLAP or by an accrediting body that

DOE classifies as nationally recognized

to accredit facilities to test motors for

efficiency, or (2) by a certification

program that DOE has classified as

nationally recognized. In the proposed

rule at section 431.26, Department of

Energy recognition of accreditation

bodies, and section 431.27, Department

of Energy recognition of nationally

recognized certification programs, the

Department proposes criteria and

procedures under which it would make

such classifications.

Neither section 431.26 nor 431.27

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. Therefore, the

Department proposes that the final rule

would provide that the Department will

notify such an accreditation body or a

certification organization if the

Department believes the entity is failing

to comply with the conditions of section

431.26 or 431.27, respectively, and at

the same time the Department will

request that appropriate corrective

action be taken. The rule would also

provide that the accreditation body or

certification organization would be

given an opportunity to respond, and if,

after receiving such response, the

Department believes satisfactory

correction has not been made, the

Department would withdraw its

recognition from that organization. If an

accreditation body or certification

organization wishes to withdraw itself

from recognition by the Department, it

could do so by advising the DOE in

writing. The Department seeks

comments on whether the Department

should adopt the foregoing approach for

corrective action, and for revocation of

an organization’s classification as an

accreditation body or nationally

recognized certification program under

sections 431.26 and 431.27.

III. Conclusion

The Department seeks comments only

on the aforementioned issues arising

from possible changes in the NOPR

concerning test procedures, sampling

for compliance and enforcement,

verification of labeled efficiency, and

recognition of accreditation bodies and

certification organizations.

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 9, 1998.

Dan W. Reicher,

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 98–15831 Filed 6–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P