Wednesday

November 27, 1996

Part VII

Department of

Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency ' and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 431,

Energy Efficiency Program for Certain

Commercial and Industrial Equipment:

Test Procedures , Labeling and

Certification Requirements for Electric

Motors; Proposed Rule

60439

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
60440 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 431

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

Energy Efficiency Program for Certain

Commercial and Industrial Equipment:

Test Procedures, Labeling, and

Certification Requirements for Electric

Motors

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Proposed Rule and Public

Hearing.

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and

Conservation Act, as amended, (the Act

or EPCA) establishes energy efficiency

standards and test procedures for

commercial and industrial electric

motors. EPCA also directs the

Department of Energy (DOE or

Department) to establish efficiency

labeling requirements and compliance

certification requirements for motors.

Today, DOE proposes regulations to

implement these requirements.

DATES: The Department will accept

written statements, comments, data, and

information regarding this notice no

later than February 17, 1997.

Oral views. data, and arguments may

be presented at the public hearing to be

held in Washington, D.C., on January

15-16, 1997. Requests to speak at the

hearing must be received by the

Department no later than 4 p.m.,

January 6, 1997. Ten (10) copies of

statements to be given at the public

hearing must be received by the

Department no later than 4 p.m.,

January 6, 1997. (See Section XIII-B

below for further details.)

ADDRESSES: Written comments, written

statements, and requests to speak at the

public hearing, should be labeled

"Electric Motor Rulemaking" (Docket

No. EE-RM-96-400), and submitted to:

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

Codes and Standards, EE-43, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW, Room lJ018, Washington, DC 20585-0121.

Telephone: (202) 586-7574.

The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. on

January 15, 1997, and will be held at the

U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal

Building, Room IE-245, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC.

Requests to speak may be hand

delivered between the hours of 8 a.m.

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday;

except Federal holidays. Such requests

should be labeled "Electric Motor

Rulemaking," Docket No. EE-RM-96-

400, both on the document and on the

envelope.

Copies of the transcript of the public

hearing and public comments received

may be read at the Freedom of

Information Reading Room, U.S.

Department of Energy, Forrestal

Building, Room IE-190, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585-0101, telephone

(202) 586-6020, between the hours of 9

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

Friday, except Federal holidays.

The Department proposes to

incorporate by reference, test

procedures from the Institute of

Electrical and Electronics Engineers/

American National Standards Institute

(IEEE/ANSI), the National Electrical

Manufacturers Association (NEMA), and

the Canadian Standards Association

(CSA). These test procedures are set

forth in the standards publications

listed below:

1. National Electrical• Manufacturers

Association Standards Publication

MG1-1993 with Revision 1, "Motors

and Generators," paragraph MG1-

12.58.1, "Determination of Motor

Efficiency and Losses."

2. Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers "Standard Test

Procedure for Polyphase Induction

Motors and Generators," IEEE 112-1991

(ANSI/IEEE 112-1992).

3. Canadian Standards Association

"Energy Efficiency Test Methods for

Three-Phase Induction Motors," C390-

93.

Copies of these standards publications

may be viewed at the Department of

Energy Freedom of Information Reading

Room at the address stated above.

Copies of the National Electrical

Manufacturers Association standards

may also be obtained from the National

Electrical Manufacturers Association,

1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1847,

Rosslyn, VA 22209. Copies of the

Institute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers standards may also be

obtained from the Institute of Electrical

and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445

Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway,

NJ 08855-1331, or the American

National Standards Institute (ANSI), 11

West 42nd Street, 13th Floor, New York,

NY 10036 as ANSI/IEEE 112-1992.

Copies of Canadian Standards

Association standards may also be

obtained from the Canadian Standards

Association, 178 Rexdale Boulevard,

Rexdale (Toronto), Ontario, Canada

M9W 1R3.

For more information concerning

public participation in this rulemaking

proceeding, see section XIII of this

notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE43, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, (202)

586-8654

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

Energy, Office of General Counsel,

Mail Station GC-72, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20585-0103, (202)

586-9507

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

1. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

II. General Discussion

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

A. Definitions

1. Electric Motor

2. Metric Equivalents

3. Basic Model

4. General Purpose Motor. Definite Purpose

Motor, and Special Purpose Motor

5. Enclosed Motor and Open Motor

6. Efficiency and Nominal Full Load

Efficiency

B. Test Procedures for.the Measurement of

Energy Efficiency

C. Units to be Tested

D. Energy Efficiency Standards

1. Standards for Metric Motors

2. Standards for Horsepowers not Listed in

Statute, and for Non-standard Kilowatt

Ratings

3. Electric Motors as Components of

Systems

E. Labeling

1. Statutory Provisions

2. Information on Motor Nameplate

3. Disclosure of Efficiency Information in

Marketing Materials

4. Other Matters

F. Certification

1. Statutory Provisions

2. Basis for Certification

a. Independent Testing Program

b. Laboratory Accreditation

c. Certification Program

d. National Recognition

e. Proposal

3. Form of Certification

a. Compliance Statement

b. New Models

G. Enforcement

IV. Review Under the National

0

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

V. Review Under Executive Order 12866,

"Regulatory Planning and Review"

VI. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act of 1980

VII. Review Under Executive Order 12612,

"Federalism"

VIII. Review Under Executive Order 12630,

"Governmental Actions and Interference

with Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights"

IX. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980

X. Review Under Executive Order 12988,

"Civil Justice Reform"

XI. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal

Energy Administration Act of 1974

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
Federal. Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 60441

XII. Review Under Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995

XIII. Public Comment

A. Written Comment Procedures

B. Public Hearing

1. Procedures for Submitting Requests to

Speak

2. Conduct of Hearing

C. Issues for Public Comment

I. Introduction

A. Authority

,Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy

and Conservation Act of 1975, Pub. L.

94-163, as amended, by the National

Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978

(NECPA), Pub. L. 95-619, the National

Appliance Energy Conservation Act of

1987 (NAECA). Pub. L. 100-12, the

National Appliance Energy

Conservation Amendments of 1988

(NAECA 1988), Pub. L. 100-357, and

the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct),

Pub. L. 102-486, established the Energy

Conservation Program for Consumer

Products other than Automobiles. Part 3

of Title IV of NECPA amended EPCA to

add "Energy Efficiency of Industrial

Equipment," which includes electric

motors. EPAct also amended EPCA with

respect to electric motors, providing

definitions in section 122(a), test

procedures in section 122(b), labeling

provisions in section 122(c), energy

efficiency standards in section 122(d),

and compliance certification "

requirements in section 122(e).

EPCA defines "electric motor" as any

motor which is "general purpose 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 section

340(13)(A), 42 U.S.C.6311(13)(A).

EPCA then prescribes efficiency

standards for electric motors that are 1

through 200 horsepower, and

"manufactured (alone or as a

component of another piece of

equipment)." except for "definite

purpose motors, special purpose motors,

and those motors exempted by the

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

U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). Furthermore, it

provides for exemption of certain types

or classes of electric motors. EPCA

section 342(b) (2), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2).

The Act also requires that testing

procedures for motor efficiency shall be

the test procedures specified in NEMA

Standards Publication MG1-1987, and

the Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard

112 Test Method B for motor efficiency,

as in effect on October 24, 1992. EPCA

section 343(a)(5)(A), 42 U.S.C.

6314 (a) (5) (A). If the test procedure

requirements of NEMA MG1-1987 and

IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B for

motor efficiency are amended, the Act

directs the Secretary to amend these

testing procedures to conform to such

amended test procedures in the NEMA

and IEEE standards, unless the Secretary

determines, by rule, that to do so would

not produce results that reflect energy

efficiency, energy use, and estimated

operating costs, and would be unduly

burdensome to conduct. EPCA section

343(a)(5) (B) and (C), 42 U.S.C.

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

Additionally, EPCA directs the

Secretary, after consultation with the

Federal Trade Commission (FTC), to

prescribe rules requiring motor labeling

to indicate the energy efficiency on the

permanent nameplate, to display the

motor energy efficiency prominently in

catalogs and other marketing materials,

and to include other markings to

facilitate enforcement of the energy

efficiency standards. EPCA section

344(f), 42 U.S.C. 6315(f) and 344(d), 42

U.S.C. 6315(d).

Finally, the Act directs the Secretary

to require motor manufacturers to

certify compliance with the applicable

energy efficiency standards through an

independent testing or certification

program nationally recognized in the

United States. EPCA section 345(c), 42

U.S.C. 6316(c).

B. Background

The Department held a public

meeting on June 2, 1995, to discuss

issues and gather information related to

the energy efficiency requirements for

electric motors covered under EPCA, as

amended. Comments were sought on the

following issues: which equipment is

covered by the statute; the nature and

scope of required testing; use of

independent testing and certification

programs to establish compliance with

applicable standards; the means of

certifying such compliance to DOE; and

possible labeling requirements.

Statements received after publication

of the Notice of that public meeting in

the Federal Register (60 FR 27051, May

22, 1995), and at the public meeting

itself, have helped to refine the issues

involved in this rulemaking, and have

provided information that has

contributed to DOE's proposed

resolution of these issues. Portions of

many of the statements are quoted and

summarized in section III., Discussion

of Proposed Rule. A parenthetical

reference at the end of a quotation or

passage in section III provides the

location index in the public record of

the portion of a statement that is being

quoted or discussed.

II. General Discussion

The Department's energy conservation

program for consumer products is

conducted pursuant to Part B of Title III

of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309. Under

EPCA, the consumer appliance

standards program essentially consists

of three parts: Testing; Federal energy

conservation standards; and labeling.

The appliance products covered by

these parts include refrigerators and

freezers, room air conditioners, central

air conditioners and heat pumps, water

heaters, furnaces, dishwashers, clothes

washers and dryers, direct heating

equipment, ranges and ovens, pool

heaters, and fluorescent lamp ballasts.

The program is codified in Title 10 of

the Code of Federal Regulations, part

430-Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products.

Since 10 CFR part 430 covers

consumer products as distinct from

commercial and industrial equipment,

the Department proposes to create a new

part 431 in the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR part 431), Energy

Conservation Program for Commercial

and Industrial Equipment, to cover

certain commercial and industrial

equipment covered under the Act.

These include commercial heating and

air-conditioning equipment, water

heaters, certain lighting products,

distribution transformers, and electric

motors. This new commercial and

industrial equipment program will

consist of the same elements as the

program covering consumer products:

Testing; Federal energy efficiency

standards; labeling; and certification

and enforcement.

The Department of Energy today

proposes to incorporate the energy

efficiency standards and test procedures

prescribed by EPCA for commercial and

industrial electric motors, provisions to

clarify and implement those

requirements, and energy efficiency

labeling and certification requirements

for such motors into the new part 431.

These include: Definitions in

accordance with section 340(13)(A) of

EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A); test

procedures prescribed by section

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

6314 (a) (5) (A); standards prescribed

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

. I Example: "(ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.a.2.) " refers to (1)

a statement that was submitted by the American

Council for an Energy Efficient Economy and is

recorded in the DOE Freedom of Information

Reading Room in the docket under "Motors

Workshop," June 2, 1995, as comment number

seven; and (2) a passage that appears in paragraph

3.a.2. of that statement.

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
60442 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

6313(b)( 1); labeling requirements in

accordance with section 344(d) of

EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6315(d); compliance

certification requirements in accordance

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

6316(c).

Among the matters DOE addresses in

this Notice are requirements for testing

by manufacturers (including provisions

as to confidence levels for results and

sample size), use of mathematical

methods to calculate energy efficiency

as an alternative to actual testing,

accreditation of testing laboratories,

recognition of certification programs,

testing during enforcement proceedings,

and information to be displayed on a

motor nameplate . The Department is

incorporating from 10 CFR part 430

procedures for waiver of test

procedures, procedures to exempt state

regulation from preemption, and

provisions for imported and exported

equipment.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

A. Definitions

1. Electric Motor

EPCA prescribes energy efficiency

standards for each "electric motor" with

a horsepower rating from I through 200

horsepower and certain other

characteristics. EPCA section 342(b), 42

U.S.C. 6313(b). "Electric motor" is

defined as any motor which is "a

general purpose T-frame , single-speed,

foot- mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage

induction motor of the National

Electrical Manufacturers Association

("NEMA") Design A and B , continuousrated , operating on 230/460 volts and

constant 60 Hertz line power , as defined

in NEMA Standards Publication MGiI987 " (NEMA MG1-1987). EPCA

section 340(13)(A), 42 U.S.C.

6311(13)(A). The Department is

concerned , however, that many of the

terms in the foregoing definition are not

sufficiently clear to identify which

motors should be covered by the

regulations.

NEMA suggests that DOE adopt a

definition of "electric motor" which

clarifies those terms as follows: (1)

"Continuous rated " refers to

"continuous duty operation ;" (2) "Footmounting" encompasses foot-mounting

"motors with flanges and motors with

explosion proof construction," but

flange-mounting motors without feet are

not included ; and (3) "Operating on

230/460 volts " applies to "motors that

are rated at 230 volts, 460 volts, or

multi-voltages that include 230 and/or

460 volts," and to motors that are

"arbitrarily rated at voltages other than

230 or 460 volts, but that may be

operated on 230 and/or 460 volts, or any

combination of the two." (NEMA, No. 9

at A.1.).

The Department agrees with and is

proposing to adopt these NEMA

proposals. (NEMA proposals to include

metric equivalent motors within the

definition of "electric motor" are

discussed below.) In addition, as to the

term "foot-mounting," the Department

proposes to make clear that motors with

detachable feet are included within the

definition of "electric motor." The

Department also proposes to add a

definition to clarify the term, "general

purpose" motor. The definition is

drawn, in part, from language suggested

by NEMA (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.3;

NEMA, No. 9 at 4.; and Public Meeting,

Tr. pgs. 36-41) and is discussed at

greater length in section III.A.4. below.

The definition of "general purpose"

motor would give effect to the statutory

definitions of both "electric motor" and

"definite purpose motor." The

Department understands that some

motors are essentially general purpose

motors with, for example, minor

modifications such as the addition of

temperature sensors or a heater, or

modifications in exterior features such

as motor housing. Such motors can still

be used for most general purpose

applications, and the modifications

have little or no effect on motor

performance. Nor do the modifications

affect energy efficiency. DOE does not

believe that the modifications justify

excluding these motors from meeting

statutory energy efficiency levels, or that

Congress intended to exclude them from

coverage.

2. Metric Equivalents

EPCA defines "electric motor" on the

basis of NEMA Standards Publication

MG1-1987, Motors and Generators.

EPCA section 340(13)(A), 42 U.S.C.

6311(13)(A). The definition provides,

for example, that the motor must be "a

general purpose T-frame, . . . squirrelcage . . . motor of the (NEMA) Design

A and B . . . as defined in . . . MG1-

1987." The Act prescribes nominal full

load energy efficiency standards for

electric motors that have certain

combinations of horsepower, number of

poles (speed in revolutions per minute),

and enclosure type, EPCA section

342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), all of

which are based on the construction and

rating system in NEMA MG1-1987

which utilizes English or customary

units of measurement. The specific

combinations in the statute are the

typical motors available in the United

States, and such motors constructed in

accordance with the standards in MG1

are often referred to as "NEMA motors."

By contrast, general purpose electric

motors manufactured outside the United

States and Canada are defined and

described with reference to

International Electrotechnical

Commission (IEC) Standard 34 series,

Rotating electrical machines, which

employs terminology and criteria

different from those used in the EPCA

definition for motors. The performance

attributes of these "IEC motors" are

rated pursuant to IEC Standard 34-1,

Rating and performance, which uses

metric units of measurement and a

different construction and rating system

than NEMA MG1-1987. It employs, for

example, units such as kilowatts instead

of horsepower. As with NEMA motors,

standard IEC motors exist, consisting of

specific combinations of kilowatts and

other IEC rating factors.

Although the statutory definition of

"electric motor" does not specifically

mention IEC motors, the-Department

believes that the Act covers IEC motors

that are identical or equivalent to

motors included in the statutory

definition.

The Department understands that IEC

motors generally can perform the

identical functions of NEMA motors.

Comparable motors of both types

provide virtually identical amounts of

rotational mechanical power, and

generally can operate or provide power

for the same pieces of machinery or

equipment. A given industrial central

air conditioner, for example, could

operate with either an IEC or NEMA

motor with little or no effect on

performance.

It is also DOE's understanding,

however, that small differences between

the two types of motors affect their

suitability for particular applications.

For example, IEC motors tend to be

slightly smaller than comparable NEMA

motors and the shaft dimensions of the

two types of motors are slightly

different. Thus, in some situations,

differing physical characteristics could

render it difficult or impossible to

install one type of motor in a piece of

machinery designed to be operated by

the other type. By way of further

example, IEC motors have higher inrush currents than comparable NEMA

motors, and thus will tend to start and

reach normal performance levels more

slowly than NEMA motors.

Consequently, IEC motors will not be

suitable for machinery requiring a high

torque start, but will be more suitable

where a gradual start is appropriate.

As mentioned above, IEC motors are

designed and rated according to criteria

in IEC Standard 34-1, whereas EPCA

defines electric motor in terms of design

and rating criteria set forth in NEMA

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 60443

MG1. It is DOE's understanding that the

differences in criteria concern primarily

nomenclature, units of measurement,

standard motor configurations, and

design details, but have little bearing on

motor function. For example. under

EPCA, an electric motor must be a

"squirrel cage" motor (i.e., have a

certain physical shape) and be

"continuous rated" (i.e., designed for

continuous operation). IEC Standard

34-1 does not use either of these terms,

but uses the term "cage" to refer to the

same shape as is referred to by the term

"squirrel cage," and uses the term "duty

type S-I" to refer to motors designed for

continuous operation.

Similarly, the different measures for

rating motor power-IEC Standard 34-

1 uses kilowatts and NEMA's

Publication MGI-1987 uses

horsepower-do not affect the quality or

quantity of a given motor's power. They

are simply different ways to express that

power. Under well established rules for

conversation, one horsepower equals

.746 kilowatts, and one kilowatt equals

1.34 horsepower. Thus, for example, a

standard 5 horsepower motor has an

output that can also be expressed as

3.73 kilowatts, and a standard 15

kilowatt motor has a horsepower of

20.1.

As commenters indicated, however,

the standard power ratings for IEC and

NEMA motors are not exactly equal,

although the differences are slight. A

standard 7.5 horsepower motor, for

example, would have an exact metric

equivalent of 5.59 kilowatts, but the

closest equivalent standard power for an

IEC motor is 5.5 kilowatts. (WE, No. 2

at 3a(1); Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.1). IEC

publishes a table of standard kilowatt

ratings and equivalent standard

horsepower ratings for general purpose

motors, in IEC 72-1, Dimensions and

output series for rotating electrical

machines, (6th ed. 1991-02), section

D.5.1, at page 119. (NEMA, No. 9 at

Exhibit 1) The table shows a very close

match between the two sets of standard

ratings. For example, the standard 5

horsepower and 15 kilowatt motors

mentioned above equal 3.73 kilowatts

and 20.1 horsepower, respectively, and

the IEC table shows that corresponding

standard IEC and NEMA motors are 3.7

kilowatts and 20 horsepower. This close

match between standard power ratings

tends to support the conclusion that

EPCA requirements cover IEC motors,

although the differences do raise an

issue, discussed below, as to how

EPCA's efficiency standards apply to

IEC motors.

Several commenters asserted that IEC

motors should be covered by EPCA's

efficiency standards. (ACEEE, No. 7 at

3.a.1; Brook Hansen, No. 5; Reliance, The Department also understands that

No. 8 at 3.a.1; NEMA, No. 9 at A.2.). The comparable IEC and NEMA motors

American Council for an Energy- typically are closely equivalent but not

Efficient Economy (ACEEE) states that identical, and that the characteristics of

"metric rated motors should be many IEC motors closely match EPCA's

considered covered by the standard, and definition of "electric motor" but

that the minimum efficiency of the class deviate from it in minor respects. It also

(open or closed and number of poles) for appears that, for most general purpose

the corresponding equivalent or next- applications, such IEC motors can be

highest power rating NEMA motors be used interchangeably with the NEMA

applied. Efficiency of metric motors motors. In addition, as discussed below,

must be determined by IEEE method the efficiency standards prescribed for

112(b) or CSA C390." (ACEEE, No. 7 at standard horsepower motors are readily

3.a.1). In explaining its view, Reliance applicable to both standard and nonElectric Company (Reliance) states as standard kilowatt motors. The

follows: 'An equivalent IEC motor Department believes that a broad

exists for each NEMA motor identified exclusion of IEC motors from energy

in the Act. IEC and NEMA motors can efficiency requirements would conflict

be used interchangeably in most general with the energy conservation goal of the

purpose applications. Placing efficiency Act, was not intended by Congress, and

requirements on NEMA horsepower would be irrational. Furthermore, the

rated motors but not on IEC equivalent Department agrees with the views of

motors may give preferential treatment commenters that placing energy

to the IEC motors which may be offered efficiency requirements on NEMA

at lower than the required efficiency motors but not on equivalent IEC motors

levels. It is therefore in the interest of could have the effect of giving

the intended goal of energy conservation preferential treatment to the IEC motors.

to include coverage of IEC or metric Thus, the Department construes the

motors in the proposed rules to EPCA definition of electric motor to

implement the EPAct requirements for include motors that have characteristics

motors." (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.1). equivalent to those set forth in that

One element of EPCA's definition of definition.

"electric motor" is that the motor be a Finally, statements at the public

NEMA "T-frame" motor, meaning that it meeting and in written comments

meets certain dimensional standards. In addressed whether IEC 100 millimeter

asserting that IEC motors are covered by frame size motors in particular are

the Act, NEMA indicates that certain covered by energy efficiency

IEC motors have dimensions requirements. As previously stated, the

comparable to T-frame motors, and statutory definition of "electric motor"

states that DOE's regulations should incorporates frame size by requiring a

make clear these IEC motors are motor to be "T-frame" as defined in

covered. EPCA also states that an NEMA MG1-1987. NEMA states that the

"electric motor" must be NEMA IEC 100 millimeter frame motor is

"Design A and B." NEMA asserts that equivalent to the discontinued NEMA

IEC Design N motors are comparable to 160 frame size (NEMA, No. 9 at A.2.),

the NEMA Design A and B motors. and examination of NEMA MG1-1987

(NEMA, No. 9 at A.1.). confirms that it does not include TThe Department interprets the Act as frame motors that are 160 series.

requiring that IEC motors satisfy the Therefore, since the IEC 100 frame

same energy efficiency requirements motor apparently is not equivalent to

that the statute applies to identical or any T-frame motor, it appears not to be

equivalent to NEMA motors. Thus, covered by the Act.

under the regulation proposed today, 3. Basic Model

the definition of "electric motor"

includes IEC motors that have physical It is common for a single motor

and performance characteristics which manufacturer to make numerous models

are either identical or equivalent to the of the electric motors covered by EPCA,

characteristics of NEMA motors that fit and under the Act each model is

within the,statutory definition. In the potentially subject to testing for energy

Department's view, there can be no efficiency. Often, however, several

question that EPCA's requirements models are essentially the same motor,

cover any motor whose physical and but with each model having some

performance characteristics fit within refinement that does not significantly

the statutory definition of "electric affect the energy efficiency or

motor." This is true regardless of the performance of the motor. One way to

measuring units used to describe the meet the EPCA mandate that test

motor's performance or characteristics, procedures "not be unduly burdensome

or of the criteria pursuant to which it to conduct," EPCA section 343(a)(2), 42

was designed. U.S.C. 6314(a)(2), is to determine which

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
60444 Federal Register / Vol. 61; No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

models have electrical and mechanical

characteristics, such as horsepower,

speed, and enclosure type, that are

essentially identical. Each such group of

models would be categorized into a

family and only representative samples

within each family would be tested. The

Department proposes to use the term

"basic model" to identify a family of

commercial or industrial motors,

following the approach it employs for

residential appliance products.

With regard to the residential

appliance program, the term "basic

model" is defined as follows: "Basic

model means all units of a given type

of covered product (or class thereof)

manufactured by one manufacturer

and-. . . [as to dishwashers, for

example] which have electrical

characteristics that are essentially

identical, and which do not have any

differing physical or functional

characteristics which affect energy

consumption." 10 CFR 430.2. "Basic

model" is a term used to describe

products or items of equipment whose

performance, design, mechanical, and

functional characteristics are essentially

the same. Components of similar design

may be substituted in a basic model

without requiring additional testing if

the represented measures of energy

consumption continue to satisfy

applicable provisions for sampling and

testing. In the case of electric motors, a

manufacturer may produce numerous

models that have different model

numbers but are essentially the same, all

based on variations in design features

that do not affect energy consumption.

In the notice of public meeting that

solicited comments on issues involved

in this rulemaking, the Department

stated that it was considering the

following definition of "basic model"

for electric motors:

all units . . . manufactured by one

manufacturer and . . . having the same

rating, electrical characteristics that are

essentially identical, and no differing

physical or functional characteristics which

affect energy consumption or efficiency.

60 FR at 27052. Underwriters

Laboratories Inc. (UL), ACEEE, and

NEMA all support such a definition.

(UL, No. 4 at "Basic Model"; ACEEE,

No. 7 at 3.a.2; NEMA, No. 9 at A.3.) The

Department proposes to adopt this

definition of "basic model."

NEMA suggests that the proposed rule

require each basic model to consist of

units that have one of the 113

combinations of horsepower (or

kilowatts), number of poles, and open or

closed construction for which section

342(b)(1) of SPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1),

specifies an efficiency standard. NEMA,

as well as Reliance, suggest that this

proposal be implemented by defining

the term "rating," which is part of the

basic model definition, as being one of

the 113 combinations in EPCA section

342(b)(1). (For this purpose, NEMA

proposes that motors with a horsepower

rating between two levels specified in

the Act be treated as having the higher

level, i.e. their horsepowers would be

"rounded up.") The Department agrees

with these suggestions by NEMA and

Reliance, and in the attached rule

proposes to adopt them, with one

exception. Rather than "rounding up"

all horsepowers that are at levels

between those specified in section

342(b)(1) of EPCA, DOE would use the

rounding method described in Part IIID-1 below.

The Department believes the

foregoing approach to defining "basic

model" is a sound means to reduce the

burden of testing. It would apply an

approach to electric motors that has

proven effective in the residential

appliance program, but with appropriate

modifications given the nature of these

motors.

4. General Purpose Motor, Definite

Purpose Motor, and Special Purpose

Motor. As already discussed, EPCA

prescribes efficiency standards for

certain "electric motors." EPCA section

342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), The

standards do not apply to "definite

purpose motors" or "special purpose

motors." These three terms are defined

as follows:

The term "electric motor" means any

motor which is a general purpose T-frame,

single-speed. foot-mounting, polyphase

squirrel-cage induction motor of the National

Electrical Manufacturers Association, Design

A and B, continuous rated, operating on 230/

460 volts and constant 60 Hertz line power

as defined in NEMA Standards Publication

MG1-1987. EPCA section 340(13)(A), 42

U.S.C. 6311(13) (A). (Emphasis added.)

The term "definite purpose motor" means

any motor designed in standard ratings with

standard operating characteristics or standard

mechanical construction for use under

service conditions other than usual or for use

on a particular type of application and which

cannot be used in most general purpose

applications. EPCA section 340(13)(B), 42

U.S.C. 6311(13) (B).

The term "special purpose motor" means

any motor, other than a general purpose

motor or definite purpose motor, which has

special operating characteristics or special

mechanical construction, or both, designed

for a particular application. EPCA section

340(13)(C), 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(C).

The definitions are not straightforward,

however, and raise questions as to

which motors the efficiency standards

apply to. The Department is"also

concerned about the possibility that a

manufacturer could make modifications

to an "electric motor" subject to

efficiency standards, particularly minor

modifications, and improperly claim

that the motor is an exempt definite or

special purpose motor. To address these

concerns, the Department proposes (1) a

definition of "general purpose motor,"

which is a term used as part of EPCA's

definition of "electric motor" but is not

itself defined in EPCA, and (2) to define

"special purpose motor" using language

that is different from the wording of the

EPCA definition of that term, but that

has the same meaning as the statutory

definition. The Department also

proposes to adopt verbatim the statutory

definition of "definite purpose motor."

Before discussing these proposals, the

Department notes that the terms EPCA

uses to refer to particular motors may

differ from terms commonly used in the

industry. The Department understands,

for example, that the term "stock

motor," rather than "general purpose

motor," is often used to refer to standard

motors typically sold through

distributors, and that "custom motor"

refers to a motor designed for use in

unusual conditions, or for particular

applications or types of applications. As

indicated below, depending upon its

precise characteristics, such a "custom

motor" could be either a definite,

special or even general purpose motor

as those terms are used in EPCA. To

avoid confusion, and because this notice

concerns rules to implement EPCA, the

discussion here uses the terms used in

the statute. The industry should keep in

mind , however, that the failure here to

use a common designation for a type of

motor, such as "stock motor," does not

mean that such type of motor is not

addressed by this notice.

Section 340(13) of EPCA clearly

defines electric, definite purpose and

special purpose. motors as being

mutually exclusive. In the definition of

"electric motor," relevant for present

purposes is that it must be "a general

purpose . . . motor." By contrast,

"definite purpose motor" is defined in

part as a motor that "cannot be used in

most general purpose applications," and

"special purpose motor" is defined in

part as "other than a general purpose

. . or definite purpose motor." The

Act does not clearly spell out, however,

the precise distinctions between these

different types of motors.

Section 340(13)(A) of EPCA provides

that the definition of "general purpose

motor" shall be drawn from NEMA

MG1-1987. That NEMA MG1-1987

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 60445

definition, in pertinent part, is as "definite purpose" (nor "special

follows: 2 purpose") under the regulations.

... designed in standard ratings with Consequently, they would not be

standard operating characteristics and covered by efficiency standards, or

mechanical construction for use under usual excluded from coverage. The

service conditions without restriction to a Department believes this would be an

particular application or type of application. unsound interpretation of EPCA.

NEMA suggests that the Department In the Department's view, a motor

adopt this language, with minor designed with standard features (i.e.

modifications, as the sole definition of with standard ratings, and standard

"general purpose." This definition operating characteristics or mechanical

appears to complement the NEMA construction) for use under unusual

MG1-1987 definition of "definite conditions or for a particular type of

purpose motor," which in essence is application, and that can still "be used

part of the EPCA definition of that term, in most general purpose applications,"

and which reads as follows: EPCA section 340(13)(B), 42 U.S.C.

. .. any motor designed in standard ratings 6311 (13) (B), is covered by the statute.

with standard operating characteristics or That type of motor is specifically

mechanical construction for use under excluded from the definition of

service conditions other than usual or for use "definite purpose motor." We are aware

on a particular type of application. of no reason why Congress would have

NEMA MG 1 created such an exclusion other than to - 1 . 09. These two d efi nitions

may sometimes be more burdensome

than to manufacture a non-complying

general purpose motor that has been

modified to be suitable for certain

definite purpose uses, but that remains

capable of satisfying most general

purpose applications. For example, a

non-complying general purpose motor

could be modified by adding a heater to

make it suitable for use in certain high

humidity conditions, or by adding

screening (to an open motor) to protect

against invasion by rodents in

applications such as agricultural

environments. It might be cheaper to

manufacture such motors than to

manufacture a comparable general

purpose motor that meets EPCA's

energy efficiency standards. In such a

situation, a manufacturer would have an

incentive to try to sell the modified,

non-complying motor in the general

do not overlap, and appear to include require that such motors meet etticiency purpose market. The statutory definition

virtually all motors with standard standards. The statute states that of "definite purpose motor" appears

designs. They appear to contemplate definite purpose motors need not meet designed to prevent that result.

h

that a general purpose motor modified

so as to be suitable for unusual

conditions or a particular type of

application would be classified as a

definite purpose motor.

But the EPCA definition of "definite

purpose motor" states in addition that

the motor "cannot be used in most

general applications." Thus, for

example, a general purpose motor

modified so as to be suitable for use on

a particular application, but that can

still be used in most general purpose

carving out from that classification a

t e standards. The sole reason for Based on the foregoing, the

Department proposes a two-part

definition of "general purpose motor."

The first part in essence provides that a

motor is "general purpose" if it meets

the criteria in NEMA MGI-1987, and

largely incorporates the language

suggested by NEMA. (NEMA, No. 9 at

A.4.). This includes NEMA's suggestion

that section 14.02 of NEMA MGI-1993

be cited as providing examples of

"usual service conditions," although not

its suggestion that the words "for

general purpose applications" be

included in the definition. The latter

language is not in the NEMA MG 1

definition of "general purpose," and

appears to be redundant here. The

second part of the Department's

proposed definition in effect provides

that, alternatively, a motor is also

"general purpose" if it meets the EPCA

criteria for a definite purpose motor

type of motor that would otherwise fall

within it, would be to require that the

motor meet the efficiency standards.

The Department's interpretation of

EPCA also will serve the energy

conservation goals of the statute and

makes sense as a practical matter . First,

there seem to be strong reasons in favor

of, and no reasons against, applying the

standards to any motor that is designed

in standard ratings, has standard

applications, is not a "definite purpose operating characteristics or mechanical

motor" under the statute. The same construction, and is capable of being

would be true of a motor designed with used in most general purpose

standard ratings and operating applications, even if it is designed for a

characteristics, but for use under particular use. The Department

unusual service conditions, and which understands that the features making

is also capable of most general purpose such a motor suitable for a particular

uses. Nor would such motors be within use have little or no effect on the

the NEMA MG 1-1987 definition of performance of the motor as such, or on

are its efficiency. Moreover, it appears that "general purpose motor, " since they

not designed "for use under usual o ften a particu l ar use motor of a given except that it can be used in most

service conditions without restriction to rating, and a motor of the same rating general purpose applications.

a particular application." The NEMA that meets the definition of "general As stated above, the Department is

MG1-1987 definition of "general purpose" under NEMA MGI-1987, proposing to adopt without change the

purpose motor," therefore, does not would be the same "basic model," and EPCA definition of "definite purpose

closely complement the statutory be equally capable of meeting efficiency motor." One element of that definition

definition of "definite purpose motor." standards. Thus, particular use motors is that a motor be designed for "service

If the Department were to adopt the that can be used in general purpose conditions other than usual." The

NEMA M

Department

definition of "general applications should be treated the same Department agrees with and accepts the

purpose motor," as suggested by NEMA, under EPCA as general purpose motors, comments that an exhaustive list of

certain motors of standard design would and energy savings achieved under the such conditions cannot be developed,

be neither "general purpose'" nor Act would be enhanced by applying its and should not be included in the

t d d t h 1 an a l

2 The definition is contained in section MG 1-

1.05 of NEMA MGI-1987. Other parts of the

definition are either incorporated directly into the

EPCA definition of "electric motor," incorporated

into other statutory provisions, or grouped with

such elements. The Department believes that those

portions of section MGI-1.05 are irrelevant for

purposes of defining "general purpose" in the DOE

regulations.

r s o suc partlcu ar use motors. regu ations. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.3;

Second , this interpretation of EPCA NEMA, No. 9 at A.4.). ACEEE

addresses a possible means of evading "recommends that 'definite purpose'

the statute , by reducing the risk that motors be defined as all motors that do

general purpose motors that comply not meet the specifications for 'usual

with EPCA's efficiency standards will service conditions ' as defined in NEMA

be replaced by definite purpose motors MG1-1993-14.02 ." (ACEEE, No. 7 at

that do not. To manufacture a general 3.a.3). The Department declines to

purpose motor that complies with EPCA accept that suggestion because it agrees

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
60446 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

with NEMA and Reliance that section

14.02 does not provide a conclusive list

of "usual service conditions."

NEMA recommends that "motors

designed for explosion-proof conditions,

which could be considered an unusual

service condition under NEMA MG1-

1993, be expressly defined as covered

products; The Act expressly authorizes

a two-year extension of the effective

date for efficiency standards for 'motors

which require listing or certification by

a nationally recognized safety testing

laboratory.' EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42

U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). This reference was

intended to apply to explosion-proof

motors which, despite their use in

unusual service conditions, are

otherwise general purpose motors."

(NEMA, No. 9 at A.4.). The Department

agrees with NEMA that explosion-proof

motors are covered by EPCA, and

believes that the proposed definition of

"general purpose motor" would include

such motors and therefore render them

subject to the efficiency requirements.

Nevertheless, to avoid possible

uncertainty, and to address NEMA's

concern, the Department proposes to

accept NEMA's suggestion that

explosion-proof motors be expressly

defined as covered products. The

proposed definition of "electric motor,"

therefore, includes such motors.

Finally, the Department believes there

is potential for uncertainty as to

whether particular motors meet EPCA's

definition of "special purpose motor,"

or instead are "general purpose" or

"definite purpose" motors. Although

the definition of "special purpose

motor" states in part that it is "other

than a general purpose motor or a

definite purpose motor," the remaining

criteria defining a special purpose motor

closely resemble certain of the criteria

defining a definite purpose motor.

Significant potential exists for

misclassifying a motor, because fine

distinctions must sometimes be made to

determine precisely which set of criteria

a motor meets. Such determinations can

be significant, because if a motor meets

the "definite purpose" criteria, it would

be covered by the standards if it can be

used for most general purpose

applications. The Department therefore

proposes a definition of "special

purpose motor" that clarifies the EPCA

definition but does not alter its

substance, i.e., the proposed definition

includes the same motors as the

statutory definition. As suggested by

NEMA, the Department does not

attempt to elaborate on the statutory

definition of "special purpose motor."

5. Enclosed Motor and Open Motor

The Department proposes to

incorporate the statutory definitions of

the terms "enclosed motor" and "open

motor."

6. Efficiency and Nominal Full Load

Efficiency

The Department proposes to

incorporate the statutory definition of

the term "efficiency" into a definition of

"average full load efficiency." Under the

Act and the proposed regulations, it is

the average full load efficiency of a

motor that must be measured through

test procedures. The proposed rule also

defines "nominal full load efficiency"

in terms that differ from the language

used in the statute to define that term,

and that clarify and implement, but do

not deviate from, the substance of the

statutory definition.

B. Test Procedures for the Measurement

of Energy Efficiency

EPCA requires that the regulatory test

procedures for electric motors shall be

the test procedures specified in NEMA

MG1-1987 and IEEE Standard 112 Test

Method B for motor efficiency, as in

effect on the date of the enactment of

EPAct. EPCA section 343 (a) (5) (A), 42

U.S.C. 6314(a) (5) (A). If the test

procedures in NEMA MG 1 and IEEE

Standard 112 are subsequently

amended, the Secretary is required to

revise the regulatory test procedures for

electric motors to conform to such

amendments, unless the Secretary

determines by rule, supported by clear

and convincing evidence, that to do so

would not meet the requirements for

test procedures described in sections

343(a) (2) and (3) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.

6314(a) (2) and (3).3 EPCA section

343(a)(5)(B), 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B).

NEMA MG1-1987 was revised and

superseded by NEMA MG1-1993,

which was issued on November 19,

1992, and published in October 1993.

Section 343(a) (2) of EPCA reads as follows:

"Test procedures prescribed in accordance with

this section shall be reasonably designed to produce

test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy

use, and estimated operating costs of a type of

industrial equipment (or class thereof) during a

representative average use cycle (as determined by

the Secretary), and shall not be unduly burdensome

to conduct."

Section 343(a)(3) of EPCA reads as follows: "If the

test procedure is a procedure for determining

estimated annual operating costs, such procedure

shall provide that such costs shall be calculated

from measurements of energy use in a

representative average-use cycle (as determined by

the Secretary), and from representative average unit

costs of the energy needed to operate such

equipment during such cycle. The Secretary shall

provide information to manufacturers of covered

equipment respecting representative average unit

costs of energy."

Revision 1 to NEMA MG1-1993, was

added on December 7, 1993. Whereas

NEMA MG1-1987 required "efficiency

and losses" to be determined in

accordance with IEEE Standard 112,

NEMA MG1-1993 with Revision 1 now

permits such determinations based on

application of either IEEE Standard 112

or Canadian Standards Association

(CSA) Standard C390. In addition,

whereas NEMA MG1-1987 was silent

on determination of motor efficiency for

polyphase motors greater than 125

horsepower covered by the statute,

NEMA MG1-1993 with Revision 1 now

permits testing such motors in

accordance with IEEE 112, with strayload loss determined by direct

measurement or indirect measurement.

Since enactment of section 343(a)(5)(B)

of EPCA, no other substantive

amendments have been made to the test

procedures in either NEMA MG1-1987

or IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B.

ACEEE, Reliance, and NEMA support

the adoption of NEMA MG1-1993 with

Revision 1. ACEEE explains that the

CSA Standard C390-93 test procedures

are a refinement of the IEEE 112 Test

Method B, offering advantages in clarity

which can lead to greater

reproducibility of test results. (ACEEE,

No. 7 at 3.b.1).

The Department will adopt the new

test procedure provisions of NEMA

MG1-1993 with Revision 1, to permit

use of CSA Standard C390-93 Test

Method (1) and testing covered motors

greater that 125 horsepower. The

Department does not intend to

determine that these amendments to

MG1-1987 fail to meet the requirements

of sections 343(a) (2) and (3) of EPCA.

C. Units to be Tested

EPCA requires that the test

procedures prescribed for motors by

DOE be "reasonably designed to

produce test results which reflect energy

efficiency," yet not be "unduly

burdensome" to conduct. EPCA

§ 343(a) (2), 42 U.S.C. 6314 (a) (2).

Efficiency testing of each unit of an

electric motor covered by EPCA could

take ten to twelve hours and cost up to

$2,000.00. As discussed above, the

classification of motors into "basic

models" is one step to prevent

expenditure of excessive time and

money on testing. The Department also

proposes to permit use of a statistically

meaningful sampling procedure for

selecting test specimens, so as to further

reduce the testing burden on

manufacturers while giving sufficient

assurance that the true mean energy

efficiency of a basic model meets or

exceeds the applicable energy efficiency

standard established in EPCA. But

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

notwithstanding adoption of these

measures, because a motor manufacturer

sometimes will produce a substantial

number of basic models, it could still

face a potentially substantial testing

burden. Therefore, the Department also

proposes to permit use of alternative

methods, other than actual testing, for

determining the efficiency of some basic

models.

ACEEE, Reliance, and NEMA assert

that it is impractical to require testing of

every motor manufactured, or even of

samples of each basic model. They find

it acceptable to randomly test

representative samples of some motor

designs, and to use alternative methods

for determining the efficiency of other

motors. The purpose of sample testing

would be to determine whether the

average full load efficiency of the basic

model meets or exceeds the EPCA

requirement, not to confirm the

efficiency level of each individual

motor. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.b.2 & 3.b.3;

Reliance, No. 8 at 3.b.2; and NEMA, No.

9 at B.2). Underwriters Laboratories (UL,

No. 4 at "Testing Sampling Plan"),

Reliance and NEMA describe various

methods of determining the number of

motors to be tested, including 100

percent of production, sampling by

attributes according to Military

Standard MIL-STD-105E, and sampling

a minimum of five units produced over

a specified time, such as two months.

The Department reviewed the

industry sampling recommendations

and other sampling systems that could

provide guidance as to how many and

which units should be tested to

determine compliance. Criteria used by

the Department in this process include:

(1) Minimizing manufacturer's testing

costs;

(2) Limiting the calendar time

required for testing;

(3) Assuring compatibility with the

sampling plan promulgated for the

Department's commercial labeling

program:

(4) Providing a high statistically valid

probability that basic models that are

tested meet applicable energy efficiency

standards; and

(5) Providing a high statistically valid

probability that a manufacturer

preliminarily found to be in

noncompliance will actually be in

noncompliance.

Based on a review of the industry

statements, three alternatives as to

(3) For each basic model, test one unit

at a time or batches, until a

determination can be made that the

basic model is in compliance or

noncompliance.

Explanations of all three sampling

procedures are contained in the "Final

Rulemaking Regarding the Sampling

Requirements of Consumer Product;

Test Procedures," 44 FR 22410-18

(April 13, 1979) and the "Energy

Conservation Program for Consumer

Products," 45 FR 43976-44087 (June 30,

1980).

The first sampling procedure would

test every unit of a covered motor and

is the only way to determine with 100

percent certainty that every motor

manufactured is in compliance with the

statute. Even assuming such approach is

authorized by the Act, the cost and time

constraints associated with this

alternative make it infeasible.

A second alternative is to test a

predetermined fixed number of

production units for each basic model.

In order to use this approach, sufficient

numbers of units must be tested to yield

results with high levels (e.g. 90 percent)

of statistical confidence. The

determination of the number of units to

be tested is based in part on expected

unit-to-unit variability. However,

reliable estimates of unit-to-unit

variability of motors are often

unavailable and significant differences

may exist among basic models and

manufacturers. Thus, the Department

concludes that a single sample size

giving sufficiently high assurance of

compliance cannot be established that

will apply to all motors and

manufacturers, and that will not impose

unreasonably high testing costs for some

manufacturers.

The third alternative considered was

testing until a determination can be,

made that a basic model is in

compliance or noncompliance. In this

alternative, the size of the total sample

is not determined in advance. Instead,

after each unit or group of units is

tested, a decision is made to (1) accept,

(2) reject, or (3) suspend judgment and

continue testing additional sample units

until a decision is ultimately reached.

This method often permits reaching a

decision on the basis of fewer tests than

fixed number sampling plans. The

Department notes that this third

alternative is the basis for most of the

statistical sampling procedures

established for consumer appliance

sample size were considered: products at 10 CFR 430.24, Units to be

(1) Test the total population (100%) of Tested. The Department proposes to

covered equipment; adapt such sampling procedures to

(2) For each basic model, test a electric motors. The Department

predetermined fixed number of believes that motor manufacturers

production units; and utilizing production techniques that

60447

assure low variance among units of a

particular basic model could test fewer

units to demonstrate compliance.

In the case of actual testing, the

proposed procedures require a sample

of units of a basic model to be randomly

selected and tested. A simple average of

the values would be calculated, which

would be the actual mean value of the

sample. For each basic model of electric

motor, a sample of sufficient size would

be selected at random and tested to

ensure that any represented value of

energy efficiency is no greater than the

lower of (A) the mean of the sample or

(B) the lower 90 percent confidence

limit of the mean of the entire

population of that basic model, divided

by a coefficient applicable to the

represented value. The coefficient

applicable to a given represented value

would be the ratio of the minimum

efficiency, as provided in NEMA MG1-

1993, Table 12-8, to the corresponding

nominal full load efficiency in Table

12-8 that (1) equals the represented

value, or (2) is the closest lower value

to the represented value. Thus, the

coefficient would be derived from the

20 percent loss difference on which

NEMA bases the minimum efficiency in

Table 12-8.

This approach is similar to the

methodology used in the Department's

consumer appliance program, which is

intended to provide an acceptable level

of assurance that test results will be

applicable to all units of a basic model,

without creating an undue testing

burden for manufacturers. Like the

consumer appliance program, the

sampling plan for electric motors

incorporates a confidence limit

approach, which would give assurance

at a specified level of confidence that

the mean efficiency of the total

population of units being manufactured

and sold is at or above the represented

value of energy efficiency (e.g., the

efficiency set forth in a certification of

compliance or on a label). The proposed

rule, however, takes a slightly different

approach than is used in the appliance

program, at 10 CFR 430.24, for

calculating an "adjusted lower 90

percent confidence limit." Under

§ 430.24, a single factor is specified for

each product, and the "adjusted

confidence limit" for each basic model

of that product is calculated by dividing

the lower confidence limit for all units

of that basic model by the specified

factor. Under the proposed rule, by

contrast, the divisor is a factor that

relates to the efficiency level of the

particular motor being analyzed. As

with the sampling plans for consumer

appliances, this factor and other

elements of the statistical sampling plan

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
60448 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

for electric motors are intended to benchmark for taking into acco}int

reasonably reflect variations in measurement uncertainty and product

materials, and in the manufacturing and variability. It is a constant fraction of the

testing processes. total percentage of energy losses. Thus,

NEMA has recommended that the because the percentage of energy losses

confidence limit constraint for decreases as efficiency increases, it

representations of motor efficiency be appears that the percentage of losses

the lower 90 percent confidence limit of allowable as a tolerance also decreases

the true mean divided by 0.95. (NEMA, with increasing efficiency. This would

No. 9 at B.2.). It appears that NEMA is mean, for example, that the

proposing the same methodology used measurement uncertainty and product

in the appliance program to account for variability for a motor with a nominal

measurement uncertainties and product full load efficiency of 95 percent may be

variability. The Department agrees with expected to differ substantially from

the apparent intent of the NEMA those for a motor with a nominal full

recommendation, as well as its goal that, load efficiency of 75.5 percent.

". . . the confidence limit [of the The Department believes that the use

represented energy efficiency] should be of a single factor for all motors covered

chosen so that it is consistent with under part 431, as proposed by NEMA,

MGI's tolerance factor for losses." does not adequately differentiate among

However, the Department believes that the levels of efficiency established by

the method NEMA puts forth does not the Act. The Department proposes,

best achieve these objectives. therefore, to establish coefficients, based

Electric motors differ substantially on the NEMA MGi minimum efficiency

from the products covered under part standards, for each nominal full load

430. For each of 113 ratings of electric efficiency established by the Act and to

motor, EPCA specifies a minimum include these in tabular form in new

nominal efficiency. By contrast., under part 431.

Part 430 minimum efficiencies are set In incorporating this method, it

forth at most for 16 different types of a should be noted that the proposed part

product (in the case of direct heating 431 would not set or enforce minimum

equipment), and for most covered energy efficiency standards. Since a unit

products efficiencies are specified for or units of a basic model could fall

two to five types of the product. 10 CFR below the NEMA minimum efficiency

§ 430.32. For central air conditioners, during efficiency testing and the basic

which NEMA cites as an example in model could still be found to meet with

support of its confidence limit the represented energy efficiency, no

methodology, energy conservation minimum efficiency is set or enforced.

standards are specified for only two Rather, the NEMA minimum

types of the product: the Seasonal efficiencies are used to provide a

Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) must be reasonable estimate of the measurement

equal to or greater than 10 for split uncertainties and product variabilities

systems and 9.7 for single package that are likely to be encountered during

systems. The Air-Conditioning and actual testing.

Refrigeration Institute (ARI), which in The proposed 90 percent confidence

some respects functions for that limit was recommended by NEMA, and

industry as NEMA does for the motors appears to the Department to be

industry, has prescribed performance appropriate for electric motors. As just

criteria that these classes of central air discussed, however, the divisor

conditioners must meet in order to use proposed by the Department differs

the ARI certification symbol and to be from that proposed by NEMA. The

listed in the ARI Directory of Certified Department specifically seeks comment

Unitary Air-Conditioner Equipment. on both of these proposals, including its

Specifically, the SEER determined by proposed table of divisor coefficients,

laboratory testing may not be less than and on whether alternatives will better

.95 of the SEER represented by the serve the objectives of providing both

manufacturer. Thus, in specifying a reasonable assurance that test results

divisor of .95 for central air will apply to all units of a basic model,

conditioners, part 430 conforms with and reasonable allowance for product

industry guidelines regarding variability and measurement

measurement uncertainties and product uncertainty.

variability for that product . In sum, the Department proposes that

For electric motors, NEMA uses a when an electric motor is subjected to

maximum 20 percent loss difference to actual testing to determine whether it

establish the minimum efficiencies that complies with EPCA's efficiency

are associated with the standard standards, a sample shall be selected

nominal efficiencies. See MG1-1993, and tested comprised of units which are

Table 12.8. This 20 percent loss production units, or representative of

tolerance is the motor industry's production units, of the basic model

being tested. The sample must be of

sufficient size, selected at random, and

tested in accordance with the DOE test

procedures adopted pursuant to section

343 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314. The test

sample results would have to be within

prescribed confidence limits.

The Department also proposes to

permit manufacturers of electric motors

to determine motor efficiency through

predictive mathematical calculations

developed from engineering analyses of

design data and substantiated by actual

test data. This would be similar to the

approach found at 10 CFR part 430,

§ 430.24(m)(2)(ii), which permits

manufacturers of central air

conditioners to use "alternative rating

methods." Statements from Reliance

and NEMA support the use of such

alternative efficiency determination

methods. They assert it would be

prohibitively expensive and time

consuming to test all the many basic

models that manufacturers produce. In

addition, the Department understands

that the manufacturers and independent

testing laboratories do not have .

sufficient resources to test so many

basic models. NEMA advocates use of

"alternative correlation methods"

(synonymous with the Department's

term "alternative efficiency

determination methods") that are based

on engineering or statistical analyses,

computer simulation, mathematical

modeling, or other analytical evaluation

of performance data. Furthermore,

NEMA proposes using actual testing to

substantiate such alternative methods.

According to NEMA, "A manufacturer

must substantiate an alternative

correlation method by actual testing of

at least five basic models, using DOEprescribed test procedures.

Substantiation would require testing

that demonstrates that predicted total

power losses of a basic model design are

within plus or minus ten (10) percent of

the mean actual total power losses for

the sample of each of the basic models

tested." NEMA further states that

manufacturers would be required to test

"two among the five basic models with

the highest unit-volume of production

and that at least two [of the five] models

have predicted total losses which differ

by at least 20 percent. Each of the five

basic models should be of a different

rating."

"In lieu of advance approval, each

manufacturer would be required to

notify DOE of its use of alternative

correlation methods in its compliance

certification. Each manufacturer would

stand ready to submit its alternative

correlation test results (and underlying

models and simulations) to DOE for

review." (NEMA, No. 9 at B.3.).

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 60449

Based on the information discussed

above, the Department agrees that it

would be very difficult, if not

impossible , for each manufacturer to do

actual testing, to determine energy

efficiency, for each basic model of motor

it manufactures. The Department

proposes to adopt procedures whereby a

manufacturer would certify compliance

for basic models through an alternative

efficiency determination method

(AEDM). The Department's proposal

largely incorporates the criteria and

procedures suggested by NEMA for use

of such alternative methods. For

example, a manufacturer would be

required to do actual testing of at least

five basic models.

The models selected for testing

should be selected at random, subject to

the following selection criteria: Two of

the basic models tested would be

and those motors exempted by the

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

U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). The Department

proposes to incorporate these standards

into 10 CFR part 431.

1. Standards for Metric Motors

Horsepower Kilowatts

1 .75

1.5 1.1

2 1.5

3 2.2

5 3.7

7.5 5.5

10 7.5

15 11

20 15

25 18.5

30 22

40 30

50 37

60 45

75 55

100 75

125 90

150 110

200 150

As discussed above, a table in IEC 72-

1 matches each standard kilowatt rating

to the equivalent standard horsepower

rating. Section 342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42

U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), specifies efficiency

standards for many of these standard

horsepower ratings. The matching

kilowatt and horsepower values in IEC

72-1 are not exact conversion values,

but in each instance are virtually equal.

The Department proposes in § 431.42, to

utilize the horsepower to standard

kilowatt equivalents prescribed in IEC

72-1 in order to determine the required

energy efficiency of a covered motor required to be among the five basic

models with the highest unit volumes of when such motor is rated in kilowatts.

production by the manufacturer. Within Wisconsin Electric Power Company

any limitation imposed by that criterion, asserts that "the kilowatt ratings '

the basic models tested should be of established by international standards

different horsepower without (cf IEC 34) are based on a different

duplication. The next priority would be numerical progression than the NEMA

to select basic-models of different frame horsepower ratings standard in the

sizes without duplication. And finally, United States. Thus, there is no true

to the extent possible, each basic model 'equivalence' between those NEMA

selected should have the lowest full horsepower ratings and corresponding

load efficiency among the basic models kilowatt values." (WE, No. 2 at 3a 1)).

with the same rating. The Department agrees that such IEC

A manufacturer could use only motors are manufactured according to a

AEDMs that it had substantiated. Prior standard series of kilowatt output

to using the AEDM, the manufacturer ratings that do not mathematically

would be required to apply it to at least 'synchronize exactly with the North

five motors on which the manufacturer American standard series of horsepower

had performed actual tests in output ratings. When the standard IEC

accordance with DOE test procedures. kilowatt ratings are directly converted

The AEDM would be "substantiated," into horsepower using the formula, 1

and could be used by the manufacturer, kilowatt = (1/0.746) horsepower, the

only if, for each of the tested basic standard IEC ratings fall between the

models to which it was applied, the

predicted total power losses upon

application of the AEDM are within

plus or minus ten percent of the total

power losses that were measured for

that basic model during the actual

testing. (""Total power loss" here refers

standard horsepower ratings specified

in EPCA section 342(b)( 1), although

they are very close to the standard

horsepower ratings.

ACEEE states that a metric rated

motor should be required to meet the

efficiency rating for its corresponding not to the arithmetic total of the losses

for all of the units tested ,

but rather to equivalent horsepower rating, or the

average total losses for the tested units .) next-highest efficiency rating. (ACEEE,

The Department believes that the No. 7 at 3 . a.1). The Department agrees

to the extent that a motor foregoing approach to permitting use of with ACEEE

AEDMs rated in kilowatts should meet the same

for motors would ensure nominal full load energy efficiency as compliance with EPCA, while avoiding . an equivalent motor rated in imposition of an undue burden on the horsepower. industry.

Reliance advocates use of "the

D. Energy Efficiency Standards primary series of standardized IEC kW

EPCA prescribes standards for electric ["kilowatt") equivalents to the hp

motors that are I through 200 ["horsepower"] ratings given in IEC

horsepower, and manufactured "alone Standard 72-1, Clause D.5.1 when

or as a component of another piece of referring to the values of horsepower

equipment," except for "definite specified in the Act. These equivalents

purpose motors, special purpose motors, are:

"While the above suggestion should

include the majority of motors rated in

kilowatt, it is possible for motors to be

rated in kilowatt values other than those

indicated based on a secondary series of

standardized kilowatt ratings given in

IEC Standard 72-1."

"The metric equivalent kilowatt

ratings could then be incorporated by a

definition that the table of efficiency

values also apply to the exact kilowatt

equivalent rating to each reference

horsepower rating by the relationship

that I horsepower is equal to .746

kilowatts. For reference this conversion

would give the following results:

Horsepower Kilowatts

1 .746

1.5 1.12

2 1.49

3 2.24

5 3.73

7.5 5.60

10 7.46

15 11.2

20 14.9

25 18.7

30 22.4

40 29.8

50 37.3

60 44.8

75 56.0

100 74.6

125 93.3

150 112

200 149

An advantage of using the first set of

kilowatt versus horsepower relationship

values based on recommended kilowatt

ratings in IEC Standard 72-1 would be

the convenience of easily identifying

standard kilowatt rated motors in the

resulting table to find the required

efficiency value rather than having to

locate every standard kilowatt rating

between two values of the exact kilowatt

equivalents." (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.1).

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
60450 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

"NEMA recommends that the IEC could be built and, for example, rated 35

standard kilowatt equivalents be used horsepower, or 90 horsepower, or 175

for specifying efficiency standards, horsepower, and so forth.

rather than an exact metric conversion The Department agrees with NEMA

from round-number English that efficiency standards apply to all

measurements to fractional metric electric motors that have ratings from 1

measurements. Metric-denominated through 200 horsepower (or standard

general purpose motors are generally kilowatt equivalents), including motors

manufactured with standard kilowatt with a rating between two of the

ratings, which should provide the basis horsepower ratings specified in section

for classification of motors and the 342(b)(1) of EPCA. The Department

specification of class-specific energy disagrees, however, that a motor with a

efficiency standards." (NEMA, No. 9 at rating between two of the horsepower

A.2.). ratings specified in section 342(b)(1) of

The Department agrees with NEMA EPCA, or between two of the ratings

and Reliance, and believes that kilowatt specified in a standard kilowatt

to horsepower equivalency could be equivalent table, should be treated as

addressed without confusion by having the horsepower (or kilowatt)

utilizing the series of standardized rating equal to the next highest rating

equivalents given in IEC Standard 72-1, specified in the statutory table (or

annex D.S., Preferred rated output standard kilowatt equivalent table) for

values. The Department proposes, at 10 purposes of determining the efficiency

CFR 431.42, that the efficiency standard standard applicable to such motor.

applicable to a standard horsepower Applying NEMA's position to a

rating as specified in section 342(b)(1) of hypothetical situation, a 32 horsepower

EPCA, 42 U.S.C. § 6313(b)(1), applies to

the corresponding standard kilowatt

equivalent rating.

2. Standards for Horsepowers Not Listed

in Statute , and for Non-standard

Kilowatt Ratings

EPCA specifies efficiency standards

only for electric motors with 19 specific

horsepower ratings, all of which fall

within the range of I through 200

horsepower. EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42

U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). NEMA asserts that

efficiency standards should apply to all

"electric motors " motors that have

ratings from 1 through 200 horsepower

(or standard kilowatt equivalents).

According to NEMA, a motor with a

rating between two of the horsepower

ratings specified in EPCA section

342(b)(1), or between two of the ratings

specified in standard kilowatt

equivalents, should be required to meet

the efficiency standard set forth for the

next highest horsepower (or kilowatt)

rating specified in the statutory table.

NEMA states that this would prevent

circumvention of statutory efficiency

requirements by designating a

horsepower rating that is fractionally

different from the standard ratings in

the statute . (NEMA, No. 9 at A.1.).

The Department understands that the

statute's table of motor horsepowers is

based on the preferred or standardized

horsepower ratings established at

NEMA Standards Publication MG1-

1993, paragraph 10.32.4, Polyphase

Medium Induction Motors. NEMA

recognizes that it is not practical to

build motors of all horsepower ratings

for all of the standard voltages (cite

NEMA MG1-1993, paragraph 10.30

NOTE). However, an "electric motor"

electric motor would be required to

meet the energy efficiency level

prescribed for a 40 horsepower motor.

To meet that energy efficiency level

could require significant changes in

design of the 32 horsepower motor,

including the addition of electrical steel

and copper, which in turn could result

in changes to the motor's physical

dimensions to such a degree that it

would no longer fit its normal

applications. Rounding up presents a

particular problem with respect to IEC

motors, because they are generally

smaller or more compact than the

NEMA "T" frame sizes. Rounding up

would make it very difficult for some

sizes of motors to meet the statutory

energy efficiency levels. Thus, the

practice of rounding up could have the

effect of banning or limiting the use of

certain motors, because motors that

meet the next higher energy efficiency

level may be physically larger and may

not fit into machines or packages which

have been designed for more compact

motors. The Department believes that

use of such a rounding up procedure

could result in an undue burden on

manufacturers.

Other interpolative methods could

include a sliding scale of energy

efficiencies that correspond to

intermediate horsepowers, or arbitrarily

rounding down to the next lower

horsepower. The Department believes

neither method is sound. The sliding

scale approach implies a degree of

accuracy in achieving and measuring

motor efficiency, and significant

differences in the required efficiency

levels between different horsepowers,

that do not exist. In addition, EPCA's

efficiency standards for motors, EPCA

section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1),

are nominal full load efficiencies taken

from a table of standardized values in

MGI-1987, and standardized values

would not be available to be the

efficiency standards for intermediate

horsepower motors. In addition, EPCA

section 342(b)(1) prescribes, for

example, identical efficiency levels for

certain 40 and 50 horsepower motors,

and levels that differ by only .6 for 30

and 40 horsepower motors. As to

rounding a horsepower down to the

next lower horsepower, that approach

could encourage production of less

efficient motors and thus conflict with

EPCA's purpose to save energy. It would

create an incentive to manufacture

motors with horsepowers just below the

horsepower levels at which efficiency

levels are specified in the Act, so that

the motors would then be required to

comply with the efficiency standard

prescribed for the lower level.

The Department proposes to utilize

simple mathematical rules of rounding

to determine the required energy

efficiency of a motor whose horsepower

(or equivalent kilowatt) rating is

between two of the ratings specified in

EPCA section 342(b)(1). Horsepower

values that fall at or above the midpoint

between two horsepower ratings

specified in EPCA section 342(b)(1)

should be rounded up to the next higher

specified horsepower rating to

determine the required energy

efficiency. Horsepower values that fall

below the midpoint between two

specified horsepower ratings should be

rounded down to the next lower

specified horsepower rating to

determine the required energy

efficiency. Motor kilowatt ratings that

fall between standard kilowatt

equivalents would be arithmetically

converted directly into horsepower

using the formula : i kilowatt = (1/0.746)

horsepower. (In making such arithmetic

conversions, no rounding would be

permitted.) Resultant horsepower values

would then be rounded using the rules

of rounding just described, to determine

the next higher or lower statutory

horsepower and corresponding energy

efficiency. The Department believes

such procedures are appropriate to the

design and application considerations of

energy efficient motors, and would tend

to cluster a family of motor horsepowers

(or kilowatt ratings) and corresponding

energy efficiencies around the family of

applications for which the motors are

designed without undue burden to the

manufacturer. Nevertheless, in light of

NEMA's advocacy of the "rounding up"

procedure, the Department specifically

seeks further comments on its rounding

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 60451

proposal and will consider alternative

approaches.

3. Electric Motors as Components of

Systems

The question of how this regulation

would affect motors that are

components of other equipment that is

also covered under the Act is raised by

the Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration

Institute (ARI). ARI believes that the

standards for electric motors at section

342(b) of EPCA should not apply to

motors used as components in

commercial air-conditioners, for

the possibility that manufacturers might

have to increase the frequency with

which they modify the air conditioning

equipment they manufacture to

accommodate new motors that have

been re-designed to comply with

efficiency standards for motors and to

comply with standards applicable to the

equipment itself. But this concern

cannot be addressed by the creation of

an unauthorized exemption from the

statutory standards for electric motors.

2. Information on Motor Nameplate

Nominal full load efficiency. The

Department understands that current,

typical industry practice is to mark on

each motor nameplate the motor's

nominal full load efficiency, which is a

value selected from the standardized

values in NEMA MG1-1993, Table 12-

8, column A. To determine the nominal

full load efficiency for a particular

motor, the manufacturer first determines

the average efficiency of the motors it

produces of that same design. It then

selects from Table 12-8, Column A, the

standardized value that is the closest

lower value to, or that equals, such

average efficiency figure. Each of the

required efficiency values in section

342(b)(1) of EPCA is identical to one of

these standardized values.

The Department proposes that each

motor nameplate include a standardized

value contained in Table 12-8. The

manufacturer would determine the

average efficiency for a basic model of

motor through actual testing or

application of an AEDM, as required

under DOE test procedure regulations,

would select the nominal efficiency for

each motor in the same manner

currently used by the industry, and

would place that value on the

nameplate.

This approach would satisfy the

statutory requirements that the label of

each electric motor disclose "the energy

efficiency" of such motor, "determined

in accordance with test procedures"

promulgated under EPCA. EPCA

sections 344 (b) and (d)(1), 42 U.S.C.

6315 (b) and (d)(1). Although the

efficiencies stated on the labels would

be standardized values, and often would

not match precisely the test procedure

results for the type of motor being

labeled, the intervals between

standardized values are small, and

differences among efficiency values

within a given interval are not

significant. The Department believes,

therefore, that such standardized values

would accurately represent both the

energy efficiency of a given motor, and

the differences in efficiency among

motors. The Act also requires the

Secretary to consider NEMA Standards

Publication MG1-1987 in prescribing

labeling rules for electric motors. EPCA

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

requirement would be met because the

Department proposes to use the

approach and the standardized values in

NEMA MG1-1993, which, as relevant

here, are identical to those in NEMA

MGI-1987.

Because the proposed labeling

requirement adopts current industry

practice, the Department concludes that

. ry example , because such air-conditioners

are already covered by efficiency (a) of EPCA, 42 Under section 344

standards at section 342(a) of EPCA. ARI U.S.C. 6315(a), if the Department has

interprets section 342(a) of EPCA to

mean that standards established for a

system should take precedence over

standards established for a component

of that system. Further, ARI expresses

concern that frequent changes in

standards could lead to premature

redesigns of equipment. (ARI, No. 3).

The Department understands that airconditioning equipment components,

such as the compressor, the condenser,

and the motor, must be designed and

built to function integrally with each

other in order to meet overall system

efficiency requirements. Nevertheless,

section 342(b)(1) of EPCA explicitly

imposes efficiency standards for "each

electric motor manufactured (alone or

as a component of another piece of

equipment)." (Emphasis added.) Thus,

every "electric motor" that is

manufactured must meet the standards

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

regardless of whether it is manufactured

"alone," and then inserted into another

piece of equipment, or manufactured

"as a component of another piece of

equipment." The Department finds no

language in the requirements for system

efficiency at section 342(a) that

explicitly or implicitly renders the

efficiency standards in section 342(b)(1)

inapplicable to motors used in air.

conditioning or other equipment

covered by section 342(a).

Section 342(b)(1) sharply contrasts in

E. Labeling

1 Statuto Provisions

adopted test procedures for a type of

"covered equipment," such as motors, it

must prescribe a labeling rule for that

equipment. Section 344(b) provides that

such rule must require disclosure of the

motor's energy efficiency, and may

require disclosure of estimated

operating cost and energy use,

determined in accordance with the test

procedures. Section 344(c) authorizes

inclusion in the rule of additional

requirements "likely to assist

purchasers in making purchasing

decisions." Statutory examples of such

additional requirements concern display

of the label., providing information as to

energy consumption, and disclosing in

printed matter efficiency information

required to be on labels.

Section 344(d) of 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 MG1-1987." Such rules

shall require that electric motors be

labeled to: "(1) Indicate the energy

efficiency of the motor on the

permanent nameplate attached to such

motor; (2) prominently display the

energy efficiency of the motor in

equipment catalogs and other material

used to market the equipment; and (3)

include such other markings as the

Secretary determines necessary, solely

this respect with section 346(b)(3) of to facilitate enforcement of the

EPCA. EPCA authorizes, but does not standards established for electric motors

require, efficiency standards for "small under section 342."

electric motors." Section 346(b)(3) states All of the foregoing provisions are

that such standards "shall not apply to subject to section 344(h) of EPCA, 42

any small electric motor which is a U.S.C. 6315(h), which states in essence

component of another product or piece that no labeling rule shall be

of equipment to which standards apply. promulgated for a type of covered

In summary, contrary to ARI's equipment unless: (1) Such labeling is

position, EPCA cannot be construed so technologically and economically

that the efficiency standards for electric feasible with respect to such class; (2)

motors do not apply to such motors significant energy savings will likely

when used in air conditioners also result from the labeling; and (3) the

covered by standards. The Department labeling is likely to assist consumers in

is sympathetic to ARI's concern about making purchasing decisions.

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
60452 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

such labeling would be technically

feasible and economically justified. The

Department also believes that such

labeling would be likely to assist

consumers in making purchasing

decisions by distinguishing motors of

greater and lesser efficiency, enabling

consumers to make comparisons among

competing manufacturers and to

confirm their selection upon delivery,

all of which can lead to significant

energy savings. As suggested by NEMA,

the information in the proposed

efficiency label would describe the

motor as manufactured.

Manufacturer number and "ee" logo.

NEMA and Reliance recommend that, to

identify motors that comply with EPCA,

the nameplate also be required to

include an encircled "ee," or other logo,

and an identification number supplied

by DOE upon receipt of the

manufacturer's compliance certification.

(NEMA, No. 9 at C,; Reliance, No. 8 at

3.c). ACEEE and UL support use of the

logo, but do not address requirement of

an identification number. (UL, No. 4 at

Labeling; ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.c). The

Department proposes to require that the

nameplate of every motor that has been

certified as complying with EPCA

include a manufacturer compliance

certification number, essentially as

recommended by NEMA and Reliance,

and to permit but not require

nameplates of complying motors to

include an "ee" logo.

With respect to the required

identification number, the Department

contemplates that it would issue an

identification number to each motor

manufacturer upon determining that the

manufacturer had certified, in a form

that satisfies the regulations, that its

motors comply with EPCA. The

manufacturer would then be required,

within 90 days or upon the effective

date of the labeling regulations,

whichever is later , to include the

number on its motor nameplates. The

proposal also makes provision for

including the number on motors

certified subsequent to a manufacturer's

initial certification.

The Department believes that such a

number is necessary to help enforce the

efficiency standards. Reliance asserts

that requiring the number on a motor

would discourage a manufacturer from

attaching an "ee" mark to a noncomplying motor. (Reliance, No. 8 at

3.c). DOE agrees. In addition,

requirement of the ID number would

discourage manufacture of noncomplying motors. For example, a

manufacturer or distributor would not

be allowed to ship covered motors into

or within the United States unless the

nameplate contains such an

identification number. (The from definite and special purpose

identification number would not be motors that need not and do not

required when a covered motor is comply, its voluntary use on nonexported from the United States.) covered motors could encourage their

Moreover, use of a fraudulent number compliance with efficiency standards,

on a non-complying motor could easily and both the motor industry and energy

be traced, since only DOE would issue efficiency advocates support use of the

the numbers and each manufacturer logo.

would have a unique number. The Department is also concerned

Based on the statements of support by that inclusion of the "ee" logo on

NEMA and Reliance, the Department motors that comply with EPCA's

concludes that such an identification nominal full load efficiency standards

number would be technologically might be misleading. Under NEMA

feasible and economically justified. MG1-1993, to be classified as "energy

Energy savings would likely occur as a efficient" a motor must meet both a

result of deterring the manufacture and nominal efficiency identical to the

shipment of covered motors that are not efficiency level required by EPCA, and

in compliance with the statute, and of the applicable minimum efficiency

facilitating identification of any non- prescribed by Table 12-10 of NEMA

complying motors sold in violation of MG1-1993. NEMA MG1-1987 had a

the statute. Moreover, as NEMA points similar requirement. Given the practice

out, covered motors are sold almost under NEMA MG1, if the Department

entirely to highly sophisticated were to require or permit the "ee" logo

purchasers. These purchasers would be on motors based solely on their meeting

aware that the identification number only the EPCA standards, purchasers

connotes that the motor has been might assume that such motors

certified as complying with EPCA's necessarily meet corresponding

efficiency standards. Thus, the number minimums for energy efficiency even

would aid consumers in making though EPCA does not require motors to

purchasing decisions, by calling meet such minimums.

attention to motors for which required One way to avoid such confusion

certification have been submitted. would be for the Department to require

The Department is concerned, that a motor labeled with the "ee" .logo,

however, about possible abuse of the or as "energy efficient," meet the

manufacturer's identification number. minimum efficiency associated with its

An unscrupulous manufacturer could ' nominal efficiency. Another possibility

certify one or a few motors as being in would be to follow ACEEE's

compliance, obtain a number from DOE, recommendation that, in addition to

and then use that number on the nominal efficiency, minimum efficiency

nameplate of motors for which it did not be required on the motor nameplate, in

properly certify compliance. In such an catalogs, and in other marketing

instance, the number would provide a materials (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.c). NEMA,

misleading indication of compliance. however, opposes any requirement that

Moreover, even absent a requirement nameplates or promotional materials

that each motor bear an ID number, an disclose a motor's minimum efficiency.

inquiry to the Department could easily (NEMA, No. 9 at C.)

determine whether a particular Clearly, to mark the minimum

manufacturer had certified a given efficiency on a motor nameplate, and in

motor. The Department seeks comment marketing materials, would provide a

on the validity of such concerns, and on more complete picture of the energy

whether they outweigh the value of efficiency characteristics of that motor.

requiring the number on the motor EPCA, however, prescribes standards for

nameplate. a motor's "nominal full load efficiency."

As to inclusion of the "ee" logo or EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C.

similar designation on the nameplate of 6313(b)(1). As explained above, the

a motor that complies with EPCA, there nominal efficiency is based on the

are considerations militating for and average efficiency for that type of motor.

against such a requirement. On the one The term "nominal full load efficiency"

hand, as stated above, the purchasers of neither implies nor subsumes a

covered motors are almost entirely minimum efficiency level; nor do

industrial and commercial consumers EPCA's standards explicitly state that a

who are sophisticated purchasers and motor must have a minimum efficiency.

highly aware of energy efficiency Thus, because motors can, in theory,

concerns. The benefit to them of an "ee" comply with EPCA without meeting

logo seems limited, since they will be minimum efficiency levels, the

aware that general purpose motors must Department does not believe it can

comply with EPCA's efficiency require such levels to be met or be

standards. On the other hand, the "ee" displayed on labels or in marketing

logo would distinguish such motors materials.

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 60453

Nevertheless, it is the Department's motor nameplate, and/or include such

understanding that, as a practical minimum efficiency in its compliance

matter, it would be very unlikely that a certification. The Department solicits

manufacturer could meet EPCA's comments on these approaches.

nominal efficiency standard for a motor Finally, presumably anticipating

if it produces some motors of that required use of the "ee" logo, Reliance

design with efficiencies below the recommends that the Department

corresponding minimum in Table 12-10 consider recognizing marks of energy

of NEMA MGI-1993. Moreover, DOE efficiency from other countries when

understands that the provisions of such marks are equivalent to the mark

NEMA MG1 will continue to exist and required by the Department. (Reliance,

be in force alongside EPCA, and the No. 8 at 3.c). As discussed below, the

Department has received no indication Department does not propose to require

that NEMA MGI will be modified to the use of any such mark. But in light

eliminate the requirement that each of the National Voluntary Laboratory

motor have a nominal efficiency as well Accreditation Program discussed below,

as an associated minimum. Thus, DOE the Department understands the

assumes that, independent of DOE principle advanced by Reliance of

requirements under EPCA, under NEMA mutual recognition between the U.S.

MGI-1993 a motor could not be labeled and other countries. The Department

as "energy efficient" or have an "ee" contemplates that its proposal

logo or other similar designation, unless permitting use of the "ee" logo or other

it meets both the applicable nominal "energy efficiency" designation would

efficiency specified in Table 12-10 of permit use of the energy efficiency mark

MGI-1993 (which would be the same as from another country. In other words,

the applicable EPCA standard), as well where a motor meets the requirements

as the associated minimum efficiency for use of the "ee" or other "energy

specified in Table 12-10. In effect, efficiency" designation, it can display a

therefore, motors complying with EPCA foreign energy efficiency mark.

standards can be expected to have an 3. Disclosure of Efficiency Information appropriate minimum efficiency. in Marketing Materials.

Based on these understandings, the

Department proposes that EPCA directs the Secretary to require

manufacturers be permitted to label that the energy efficiency of each

covered motors as "energy efficient," or electric motor be "prominently"

with the "ee" logo, or with some displayed "in equipment catalogs and

comparable designation or logo, when a other material used to market the

motor meets the applicable nominal full equipment." EPCA section 344(d)(2), 42

load efficiency standard in section U.S.C. 6315(d)(2)). To implement this

342(b)(1) of EPCA. The Department provision, the Department proposes to

assumes that this would, in effect, require that catalogs and other

authorize manufacturers to continue to marketing materials for a motor

follow the industry practice of prominently display the same nominal

classifying a motor as "energy efficient" full load efficiency rating that must

only when it meets both the applicable appear on the motor's label. Further

nominal and the applicable minimum authority for such a requirement is

efficiency level prescribed in Table 12- provided by section 344(c)(3) of EPCA,

10 of MG1-1993 with Revision 1. The which authorizes adoption of

Department sees considerable merit in requirements "likely to assist

such an approach, which might also purchasers in making purchasing

partially satisfy ACEEE's concern about decisions," including required

including minimum efficiency levels in disclosure in "printed matter which is

labels. Moreover, the fact that industry displayed or distributed at the point of

is following this approach indicates that sale" of the motor of efficiency

it is technologically and economically information required to be on the label

feasible. This proposal, if adopted, of the motor. The Department also

would not require a manufacturer to proposes (1) To require that catalogs and

include an "ee" or "energy efficient" other marketing materials for a

designation on its nameplates. A complying motor display the

manufacturer that made a complying manufacturer number required to be

motor would be free not to place an placed on the label of such motor, and

"ee" logo or similar designation on its (2) that the provisions concerning

motor nameplates. inclusion on a label of the "ee" logo, the

The Department continues to consider "energy efficiency" designation, or

the option, however, of requiring that a other similar logo or designation, also

manufacturer, in conjunction with using apply to printed materials.

a label with the "ee" logo or "energy NEMA asserts that Congress intended

efficient" designation, display the the labeling rules for electric motors to

minimum efficiency of the motor on the "facilitate enforcement of the efficiency

standards," not to educate consumers.

The language of the Act does not

support this claim. Section 344(d) of

EPCA, after directing the Secretary to

promulgate requirements for disclosure

of a motor's energy efficiency, directs

that "such other markings" shall be

required "as the Secretary determines

necessary, solely to facilitate

enforcement of the standards

established for electric motors." The

"facilitate enforcement" criterion

applies only to "such other markings".

required by the Secretary. It does not

apply either to section 344(d)'s specific

requirements concerning disclosure of a

motor's efficiency, or to its general

directive to "prescribe labeling rules

. . . applicable to electric motors."

Furthermore, section 344(c) lists

examples of labeling requirements that

are authorized for "covered equipment,"

including motors, clearly stating in

language that precedes such

requirements that they should be "likely

to assist purchasers in making

purchasing decisions." In summary, the

"facilitate enforcement" language

quoted by NEMA governs neither most

of the labeling provisions applicable to

motors specifically, nor any of the

labeling provisions in sections 344 (a)

(c) that are generally applicable both to

motors and to other covered equipment.

The Department believes that the

nominal full load efficiency and the

manufacturer's number "prominently

displayed" in catalogs and other

marketing material would likely assist

even knowledgeable purchasers by

clearly identifying an electric motor that

is in compliance with the EPCA.

Reliance Electric expresses concern that

inclusion of such markings in catalogs

could be unduly burdensome, given the

length of time it takes to update catalog

information to include new or modified

motors. The Department believes that

this concern is addressed by the

provisions of proposed § 431.122(a) (4),

which provide in effect that the labeling

provisions applicable to catalogs do not

apply to catalogs distributed before the

effective date of the labeling rule. In

addition, under the proposed

§431.82(b)(1), the requirement that

marketing material include information

concerning a particular motor would

apply only to the extent that the motor

is mentioned in such material. Thus, for

example,-catalogs would have to be

updated to include the nominal full

load efficiency and the manufacturer's

number applicable to a motor only

when the catalog is revised to include

that motor. This would be a technically

feasible and economically justifiable

means to satisfy the requirement in '

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
60454 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

section 344(d)(2) of EPCA to

"prominently display the energy

efficiency of the motor in equipment

catalogs and other materials to market

the equipment."

Both Reliance and NEMA assert that

energy efficiency markings should be

required on import documents to assist

Customs officials with identifying

motors that comply with EPCA.

(Reliance, No. 8 at 3.c and NEMA, No.

9 at Q. The Department understands

that Customs inspectors may not be able

to directly examine an imported motor

that is packaged for shipping, or one

that is a component in a larger piece of

equipment. Therefore, the Department

proposes that import documents for any

covered electric motor disclose the date

of the Compliance Certification and the

DOE number for that motor, whether the

motor is imported alone or as a

component of another piece of

equipment. The Department believes

such identification information is

consistent with requirements placed on

U.S. manufacturers and would facilitate

enforcement by Customs officials.

The Department does not propose to

require that Customs documents include

a motor's nominal full load efficiency.

The Department has doubts about

whether it will be practical for Customs

officials to check during the import

process on whether a motor complies

the applicable minimum efficiency

standard. The Department is still

considering, however, whether such a

requirement is warranted and requests

comment on this point.

4. Other Matters

EPCA authorizes required displays of

information about electric motor energy

efficiency which are likely to assist

purchasers in making purchasing

decisions, including instructions for

maintenance, use, or repair of the motor,

and information on energy use. EPCA

section 344(c), 42 U.S.C. 6315(c). Most

commenters agree that displays of such

information would often be impractical

and should be optional, not required.

(Nailen, No. 2 at 3c; UL, No. 4 at

Labeling; ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.c; Reliance,

No. 8 at 3.c; and NEMA, No. 9 at Q. The

Department has no information to the

contrary, and therefore does not propose

to require display of such information.

Baldor Electric Company ("Baldor")

raises a concern about the need for

performance warnings on motors that

will comply with EPCA's efficiency

standards, and about the potential waste

of energy when such a motor is

misapplied. Since these motors

typically run faster, and might have less

starting torque than less efficient

motors, Baldor recommends that a

warning label be required on each

covered motor to, alert users to verify

load requirements before installation,

and to prevent possible misapplication

and wasted energy. (Baldor, at 10).

The Department believes that Baldor's

concerns have some merit, but do not

warrant a labeling requirement. As to

starting torque, EPCA does not require

manufacturers to reduce starting torque

to meet the required levels of efficiency.

The Department understands that

manufacturers are already offering for

sale NEMA Design A and B motors that

meet EPCA efficiency standards and

that have the same starting torque

capabilities as existing, less efficient

NEMA Design A and B motors. In any

event, the Department believes that any

performance differences between

covered motors that will comply with

EPCA, and less efficient versions of

such motors, are minor and will affect

only a relatively small number of

specific applications. Those situations

would appear to be best addressed not

by general labeling requirements, but

rather by consultation between the

motor user and seller during the process

of selecting a motor, to assure that

particular application requirements are

satisfied by the performance capabilities

of the motor purchased. DOE c9ncludes

that the addition of a warning label

should be at the discretion of the

manufacturer.

EPCA authorizes the Secretary to test

the accuracy of information disclosed

pursuant to labeling requirements for

covered equipment. EPCA section344(i),

42 U.S.C. 6315(i). NEMA recommends

that DOE not exercise its authority to

test the accuracy of the efficiency

marked on a motor nameplate, so long

as such marking is based on a

substantiated alternative correlation

method, or, apparently, on actual

testing. NEMA suggests that any DOE

enforcement testing be limited to

auditing the substantiation of the

alternative correlation method. (NEMA,

No. 9 at C.).

The Department understands that the

efficiency marked on the nameplate of

a motor identifies the average efficiency

of a population of motors, and may not

be the exact efficiency of that particular

motor. Therefore, parallel with

provisions applicable in the appliance

efficiency program, the enforcement

provisions proposed here would require

examination of a manufacturer's prior

compliance determinations before

enforcement testing may proceed, and

any such testing would determine

compliance through tests of a sample of

units of the motor. Presumably, in some

instances, examination of the prior

compliance determinations would

obviate the need for further testing and

establish the validity of the energy

efficiency marked on a label. But the

Department's proposal permits further

testing, at its discretion, to determine

the accuracy of a manufacturer's

required information disclosures. The

Department sees no basis for agreeing to

relinquish or limit its authority under

section 344(i) of EPCA to perform such

further testing.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

regulates energy efficiency labeling for

appliances, and the approach the

Department proposes here is similar to

that adopted by the FTC in 16 CFR

305.15(b) and 305.16. These provisions

implement section 326(b)(3)(B) of EPCA,

42 U.S.C. 6296(b)(3)(B), which, in

language similar to section 344(i),

authorizes the FTC to test products to

determine the accuracy of label

information. As in the Department's

proposal here, the FTC procedures

require examination of a manufacturer's

prior compliance determinations before

enforcement testing may proceed. But

the FTC has not relinquished its

authority to conduct further testing that

it deems appropriate.

NEMA also suggests that

manufacturers be permitted to use the

encircled "ee" logo for motors that meet

EPCA efficiency standards, even if such

motors are manufactured before the

effective date of the standards, or, are

definite or special purpose motors.

(NEMA, No. 9 at C.). The Department

finds substantial merit in NEMA's

proposal. The Department believes it is

in the national interest to save energy

both through regulatory programs and

voluntary programs, and understands

that the statute does not prohibit

voluntary compliance. Therefore, the

Department proposes that, where an

electric motor is in compliance with the

energy efficiency testing and standards

requirements of the statute, even though

it is not covered equipment, a

manufacturer may voluntarily comply

with the proposed labeling provisions.

The manufacturer could comply with

one or more of these provisions. It

would have to meet the requirements of

any provision that it purports to comply

with, and it would be subject to

enforcement action if it fails to meet

such requirements. For example, if the

label of a special purpose motor I were to

include the nominal full load efficiency

of the motor, such efficiency rating

would have to be derived in accordance

with application of the DOE test

procedures prescribed in

§ 431.82(a)(1)(i) of the proposed labeling

rule.

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 % Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 60455

F. Certification program elicited considerable comment,

1. Statutory Provisions especially concerning the adequacy of

the number of independent testing

EPCA requires "manufacturers to facilities. Statements provided by

certify, through an independent testing Wisconsin Electric, Reliance, ACEEE,

or certification program nationally NEMA, Nielsen Engineering Inc., and

recognized in the United States, that UL indicate that only a few independent

such motor meets the applicable facilities in the United States and

[nominal full load efficiency standard]." Canada have the capability to test motor

EPCA section 345(c), 42 U.S.C. 6316(c). efficiency as required by EPCA.

The Department understands the According to Reliance, for example, the

statutory language to provide number of third party test facilities

manufacturers with two separate ways available in North America is so limited

to fulfill the certification requirement: that reliance on such facilities to

(1) Manufacturers may certify, through conduct an independent testing program

an independent testing program would present a major roadblock to

nationally recognized in the United compliance certification by the electric

States, that such motor meets the motor industry. (Reliance, No. 8 at

standards; or (2) manufacturers may 3.d.2). ACEEE adds that it is unlikely

certify, through an independent that the number of independent test

certification program nationally facilities could be rapidly increased,

recognized in the United States, that since there are very few experts familiar

such motor meets the standards. Section with the design of test facilities and the

345(c) does not specify what is meant by details of performing such tests. It

"independent testing," "certification would likely take ten years to construct

program," or "nationally recognized ." the facilities, install the equipment, and

Moreover , little insight into the meaning train staff for the testing capacity

of the latter two terms is provided by necessary to independently certify all

other provisions of EPCA or by motor models covered by EPCA.

operation of the consumer appliance (ACEEE letter to DOE, 11/20/95).

energy efficiency program. The term The Department understands there are

"independent testing" also is not used considerable variations in the primary

elsewhere in the Act. EPCA components of electric motors, which

requirements concerning test include the stator assembly; the rotor

procedures, however, make clear that assembly; the enclosure, which includes

"testing" refers to tests of products (in bearings, a lubrication system and other

this case motors) to determine whether mechanical or small electrical

they satisfy efficiency requirements. assemblies; and the shaft. Such

Such tests to certify compliance with

EPCA's efficiency standards have

commonly been performed in

manufacturers' own facilities, and no

other provision of EPCA or the DOE

regulations calls for "independent"

testing. By stating that a compliance

certification based on testing shall be

through an " independent testing"

program, section 345 (c) of EPCA

variations are part of the means by

which motors are classified. For

example, the enclosure may be open or

totally-enclosed; the motor may operate

from an alternating current power

supply at any one of several voltage

levels; or the motor may operate at any

one of several speeds. The number of

different motor configurations increases

rapidly due to the numerous

appears to require a different approach . combinations of other electrical and

Given the normal meaning of physical characteristics possible.'These

"independent," section 345(c) may call characteristics relate to method of

for testing to be conducted at a facility starting, enclosure type, horsepower

not under the control of or affiliated rating, speed, torque, voltage, and

with the manufacturer. temperature rise. The list of such

2. Basis for Certification

a. Independent Testing Program. The

Department conducted an informal

investigation and, in addition, solicited

statements during the aforementioned

public meeting held June 2, 1995, in

order to understand the nature of

"independent testing" and

"certification ". programs, and to learn

what programs exist that manufacturers

could use to certify compliance with the

energy efficiency requirements of the

statute. The question of who should

conduct the required testing for the

variations is significant. According to

one DOE study,4 for example,

considering only motors above 5

horsepower, there are approximately

5,300 different possible covered motors.

The potential number of motors

requiring testing, however, would be

reduced under the statutory definition

of "basic model." Even so, testimony

from the June 2, 1995, public meeting

and written statements from

manufacturers and NEMA speak of

"Classification and Evaluation of Electric Motors

and Pumps," DOE/TIC- 11339, 9/80, sec. III.

different basic`models still numbering

in the thousands that are being

manufactured and could potentially be

required to undergo testing for

efficiency. (Public Meeting, Tr. pgs. 33,

63, and 88:5 Reliance, No. 8 at 3.b.3;

and NEMA, No. 9 at B.3.).

The foregoing indicates that only a

small number of existing independent

laboratories are capable of testing

electric motors for energy efficiency,

and that a very substantial volume of

motors will require testing. Because of

the insufficient testing capacity, the

Department believes it will be

impossible for all or most manufacturers

to test their motors in test facilities other

than their own laboratories. Thus,

manufacturers would not be able to

comply with a narrow reading of the

"independent testing" aspect of the

statute.

The Department believes that the goal

and intent of this provision of the

statute, however , is to provide assurance

that test results are accurate, valid, and

capable of being replicated. Tests must

be performed, for example, with a

degree of independence so that the

results are not influenced by marketing

and production concerns. The issue of

how to assure that test results are

comparable to those conducted in an

independent testing laboratory is

fundamental to this program. This

question is addressed in many of the

statements received as a result of the

aforementioned informal investigation

and the June 2 , 1995, public meeting.

NEMA, for example, asserts that the

statutory provision for "independent

testing" must be interpreted in light of

the reality that there is insufficient

capacity in independent test

laboratories. NEMA believes the only

technically feasible and economically

justifiable means to comply is by using

manufacturers' own laboratories.

(NEMA, No. 9 at D.2.). In its November

20, 1995, letter to the Department,

ACEEE agrees with this position, adding

that "the only way to make the required

testing capacity available would be to

accredit the testing facilities of motor

manufacturers and allow them to certify

the efficiency of motors." (ACEEE letter

to DOE, 11/20/95).

Both Reliance and NEMA describe

two possible options for programs

which could fulfill the requirements of

"independent testing": Testing

performed at a third party independent

accredited facility which has some type

5 "Public Meeting, Tr. pgs. 33, 63 and 88 ." refers

to the page numbers of the transcript of the "Public

Meeting on Energy Efficiency Standards, Test

Procedures, Labeling and Certification Reporting for

Certain Commercial and Industrial Electric

Motors." held in Washington, DC, June 2, 1995.

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
60456 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

of national recognition ; or testing at an

accredited manufacturer's facility that is

considered independent under the

requirements for accreditation.

(Reliance, No. 8 at 3.d.2 and NEMA, No.

9 at D.2.). As mentioned above,

manufacturers' laboratories have been

widely used to test products for

compliance with efficiency

requirements imposed under section

325 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295. A

laboratory accreditation program could

also play a role for electric motors,

provided the laboratory is accredited to

test electric motors for energy efficiency

according to the procedures in IEEE

Standard 112 Test Method B and CSA

Standard C390 Test Method 1.

b. Laboratory Accreditation. In

researching how laboratory

accreditation programs could satisfy the

independent testing provision of the

statute, the Department has reviewed a

number of publications, directories, and

programs.6 Such documents frame the

qualities of a laboratory accreditation

program, which include: Assessment

criteria or procedures which determine,

for example, the laboratory's

independence within the

manufacturer 's organizational structure

so that test results are not influenced by

such factors as marketing and

production sides; on-site inspection of

the laboratories; qualification

requirements for laboratory staff;

requirements to ensure the identity and

integrity of test samples; periodic reaudit of facilities; laboratory

participation in a proficiency testing

program; and requirements for the

adequacy , maintenance, and calibration

of equipment.

The ACEEE states that the Department

should "facilitate the development of

independent, accredited motor testing

capability in the United States to allow

for independent verification of

manufacturer test results." According to

ACEEE, such accreditation increases

6 Laboratory Accreditation in the United States,

Maureen A. Breitenberg. May 1991. NISTIR 4576.

Director of State and Local Government

Laboratory Accreditation/Designation Programs,

Charles W. Hyer, Editor, July 1991, NIST Special

Publication 815.

Directory of Professional/Trade Organization

Laboratory Accreditation/Designation Programs,

Charles W. Hyer, Editor, March 1992, NIST Special

Publication 831.

Test laboratory accreditation criteria published in

15 CFR pan 285.

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation

Program Handbook 150. Procedures and General

Requirements.

ISO/IEC Guide 25, General requirements for the

competence of calibration and testing laboratories.

The Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) laboratory accreditation

program conducted in accordance with 29 CFR

1910.7.

confidence in the validity of

manufacturer test results , and provides

an alternate means of testing for

manufacturers who do not operate their

own accredited test laboratory. (ACEEE,

No. 7 at 3.d).

Statements received from ACEEE, the

National Institute of Standards and

Technology (KIST), Reliance, and

NEMA support laboratory accreditation

as a means to augment the number of

existing independent laboratories in

order to comply with the "independent

testing" aspect of the statute, and

recommend the NIST National

Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation

Program (NVLAP) as a source of

accrediting laboratories to test motors

for energy efficiency. (ACEEE, No. 7 at

3.d; NIST, No. 1; Reliance, No. 8 at

3.d.2; and NEMA, No. 9 at D.2.).

According to NIST, NVLAP is the

only general accreditation program in

the Federal system. It is a completely

independent third party accreditation

program that operates under the

Procedures and Requirements published

in 15 CFR part 285, and has mutual

recognition agreements with national

accreditation organizations in other

countries, including Canada. Both the

U.S. and Canada use one procedures

handbook (the NIST Handbook 150-10,

Efficiency of Electric Motors), and

NVLAP's proficiency testing program.

Under NIST Handbook 150-10,

§ 285.33 (h) (1), laboratories are

accredited to use both the IEEE 112 Test

Method B, the motor efficiency test

procedure prescribed by the Act, and

CSA Standard C390 Test Method 1,

which MG1-1993 incorporated as an

alternative test procedure. (As discussed

above, the Department proposes, in

accordance with EPCA, to allow use of

this alternative.) NIST adds that

industry representatives support

NVLAP and its mutual recognition

agreements with other countries. (NIST,

No. 1). ACEEE adds that it sees no

problem with accepting test results from

laboratories in Canada or other

countries if the laboratories receive

NVLAP accreditation or if accreditation

from their national body is accepted by

the NIST as meeting NVLAP standards.

(ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.d).

Reliance notes that at present, NVLAP

is the only accreditation program which

has established a complete manual on

the requirements for laboratory

accreditation for determining the

efficiency of electric motors. This

accreditation program was created by

NVLAP with the cooperation of motor

manufacturers. Reliance points out,

however, that since there are over 300

accrediting bodies in the United States,

it is possible that several could conduct

a program to accredit laboratories for

performing motor efficiency testing

described in IEEE 112 or CSA C390.

Reliance asserts that recognition of any

test facility which has been accredited

by a national accrediting body as an

"independent test facility" should be

considered, and that international

standards provide a precedent for this.

"To receive accreditation under

international standards for laboratory

accreditation a facility must meet

certain requirements for classification as

an independent facility, even if it is

within the manufacturing complex for

which it would be performing the

product testing. To quote from Clause

4.2 of ISO/IEC Guide 25, General

requirements for the competence of

calibration and testing laboratories, '(b)

the laboratory shall have arrangements

to ensure that its personnel are free from

any commercial , financial, and other

pressures which might adversely affect

the quality of their work and (c) be

organized in such a way that confidence

in its independence (emphasis added) of

judgment and integrity is maintained at

all times.' In short, accreditation to

standards of recognized accreditation

organizations is equivalent to a

recognition of independence. This could

provide the independence needed to

meet the requirements of an

independent testing or certification

program." (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.d.2).

The Department recognizes the

possibility that accreditation bodies

other than NVLAP could accredit motor

testing laboratories . For example, the

American Association for Laboratory

Accreditation (A2LA) is a nonprofit,

scientific, membership organization

dedicated to the formal recognition of

testing laboratories and related

organizations which have achieved a

demonstrated level of competence.

According to literature published by

A2LA, accreditation is available to all

laboratories regardless of whether they

are owned by private companies or

government bodies. One essential

requirement, of course, is that

laboratories be accredited competent to

perform testing in accordance with the

test procedures prescribed pursuant to

EPCA for electric motors. A2LA

accreditation can be obtained for all

types of tests, measurements and

observations that are reproducible,

properly documented, and generally

available to everyone. A2LA's general

accreditation criteria are those of ISO/

IEC Guide 25: 1990, General

requirements for the competence of

calibration and testing laboratories.

Guide 25 is followed by NVLAP and

other accrediting bodies.

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 60457

c. Certification Program: EPCA also

provides that a manufacturer can use a

"certification program nationally

recognized in the United States,"

instead of an independent testing

-program, to certify that its motors meet

EPCA efficiency standards. EPCA

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

Department understands the word

"certification " to mean a procedure by

which a third party gives written

assurance that a product, process or

service conforms to specified

requirements.

With regard to the nature , identity,

and capabilities of any nationally

recognized program or programs for the

certification of electric motors for

energy efficiency , Reliance describes

two existing certification programs in

North America , one conducted by CSA,

and the other by UL. Reliance states that

both are generally regarded by industry

as "nationally recognized ." Reliance

notes that these programs are in place

now and are independently verifying

motor efficiency. Reliance suggests that

these programs could directly fulfill the

requirements of EPCA without

modification . Both programs entail (1)

submittal by the manufacturer of the

declared nominal efficiency of the

motors to be certified at the time of

application into the program, (2)

examination of the manufacturer's

testing facility to determine that it is

competent in performing the test

procedure in the IEEE 112 or CSA C390

Standards, (3) random selection by the

certification agency of the ratings of

some motors to be tested in the presence

of an assessor from the certification

agency, (4) testing of the selected motors

in the manufacturer 's test facility, (5)

testing the same motors at an

independent laboratory for comparison

of the results of the two tests, and (6)

yearly follow-up audits which include

additional random sample testing to

determine that the test facility maintains

its ability to perform the test and that

the manufacturer has not changed the

motor design in any way that affects the

efficiency. (Reliance , No. 8 at 3.d.2).

Reliance adds that it is not necessary to

limit independent certification to CSA

or UL. What is necessary is that the

certification program be conducted by

an organization in which the consumer

will have full faith and confidence.

UL asserts that the Act's requirements

are met by its Energy Verification

Service, wherein a motor manufacturer's

production and testing operations are

evaluated and representative samples

are tested to applicable standards.

Following initial verification , follow-up

audits of products and on -going testing

by the manufacturer is required.

Essentially the steps set forth in the issues a written "recognition" letter.

above paragraph are followed. UL notes This is done in accordance with 29 CFR

that its Energy Verification Service is in 1910.7 appendix A. OSHA also provides

compliance with Federal law in Canada, for continuing surveillance over OSHAand is accredited by the Standards recognized NRTLs to assure

Council of Canada. As an alternative to conformance with the requirements of

DOE developing criteria for the its rule. The definition of NRTL

acceptance of testing laboratories and includes the following requirements:

certification bodies, UL recommends (1) Capability to examine specific

that established ISO/IEC international equipment for workplace safety;

criteria be utilized. (UL, No. 4 at (2) Provision of controls and services

Certification). necessary for assuring and

The UL statement then lists the demonstrating original conformity of

following ISO/IEC international criteria equipment to appropriate test standards;

applicable to testing laboratories and (3) Independence from manufacturers,

certification bodies: ISO/IEC Guide 25, suppliers and vendors of products, and

General requirements for the from other employers; and

competence of calibration and testing (4) Procedures for producing laboratories; ISO Guide 27, Guidelines creditable findings and reports and for

for corrective action to be taken by a handling complaints and disputes.

certification body in the event of either (Department of Labor, No. 11).

misapplication of its mark of conformity The Association of Independent

to a product, or products which bear the Scientific, Engineering and Testing mark of the certification body being Firms (formerly the American Council found to subject persons or property to of Independent Laboratories (ACIL)) risk; ISO/IEC Guide 28, General rules for appears to claim that section 345(c) of a model third-party certification system EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6316(c), does not allow for products; and ISO/IEC Guide 40, a manufacturer to certify compliance

General requirements for the acceptance with efficiency standards through of certification bodies.? UL recommends testing in its own laboratory, even if the

that DOE use the criteria in the laboratory is accredited. ACIL asserts

foregoing Guides as the basis for that section 345(c) must be interpreted

recognizing that a test laboratory or consistently with sections 342(b) and

certification organization is competent 346(b) (3) of the statute, which refer to

to perform required tests or operate a listing or certifying motors by a

certification program. The Department nationally recognized testing laboratory

understands that these are (NRTL). ACIL recommends that DOE

internationally recognized documents reference the OSHA program to accredit

utilized by testing laboratories, such laboratories, and "codify reliance

accreditation bodies, and certification on these NRTLs to certify electric

bodies in the U.S. motors." (ACIL, No. 6). Although ACIL d. National Recognition. Under EPCA, does not so state, the Department

a testing or certification program used to understands that these laboratories are

certify compliance must be "nationally independent, and not controlled by a

recognized." EPCA section 345(c), 42 manufacturer of the product being

U.S.C. 6316(c). tested.

The question of national recognition The Department cannot agree with

has been addressed at 29 CFR part 1910, ACIL's apparent view that, because

by the U.S. Department of Labor's manufacturers do not control the safety Occupational Safety and Health y

Administration (OSHA), which uses testing laboratories referred to in

third-party (or independent) testing sections 342(b) and 346(b)(3) of EPCA,

laboratories to ensure that certain the efficiency testing programs required

equipment and materials are safe for to be used under section 345(c) also

workplace use. The OSHA final rule at must be free of manufacturer control.

53 FR 12102-12125 (April 12, 1988) First, different considerations may

includes a requirement that testing apply to safety testing and to efficiency

laboratories listing or approving testing in determining the required

products or equipment required to be degree of independence of a testing

approved under Part 1910 be recognized facility. Second, EPCA's references to

as Nationally Recognized Testing safety testing laboratories are incidental

Laboratories (NRTL) by OSHA. Under to EPCA's efficiency requirements, and

that rule, OSHA evaluates applicant unrelated to the requirements of section

testing and control programs against the 345(c). Those references provide little

NRTL definitional requirements, and guidance in interpreting section 345(c).

Finally, as discussed above,

? ISO/IEC Guide 40 has been superseded by ISO/ implementation of section 345(c) would

IEC 65-1996, General requirements for bodies be impossible if it were construed as

operating product certification systems. prohibiting compliance certification

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
60458 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

based on testing in manufacturers' own

laboratories.

Substantial potential may exist for

NRTLs to make future contributions to

the EPCA program by performing energy

efficiency testing. But contrary to ACIL's

recommendation, the Department

cannot yet rely on these laboratories to

meet EPCA requirements, because it has

no indication that they currently are

qualified to do efficiency testing. And

certainly the Department cannot rely on

OSHA's NRTL recognition process. The

references to test laboratories in sections

342(b) and 346(b)(3) of EPCA, as well as

OSHA's accreditation of NRTLs, address

safety testing. The procedures and

equipment for efficiency testing are

different from the procedures and

equipment for testing whether a motor

will operate safely.

The Department believes that the

NRTL program does, however, provide

an approach for determining when a

program is "nationally recognized." As

further discussed below, the Department

proposes to adopt formal procedures

similar to those utilized by the OSHA

NRTL program for purposes of

establishing when a certification

program is "nationally recognized"

within the meaning of section 345(c).

e. Proposal. The Department proposes

that the statutory requirement for

certification through an "independent

testing program" be met by using a

laboratory, operated by either a third

party or a manufacturer, that has been

accredited to perform the DOE test

procedures. Given the paucity of test

facilities not controlled by '

manufacturers, the Department believes

that testing at manufacturers'

laboratories that have been accredited

would satisfy the intent of the

"independent testing" aspect of EPCA

section 345(c). Such accreditation

would provide many of the protections

as to accuracy, bias, and independence

of judgment that would be provided by

testing at non-manufacturer facilities.

Accreditation would also give

additional assurance that the laboratory

is fully capable of testing a motor's

energy efficiency, and would reduce

concerns with respect to variability and

repeatability of testing and test results.

Accreditation of non-manufacturer

laboratories is proposed to assure an

equal degree of reliability with

manufacturers' laboratories, and, as

discussed below, to satisfy the section

345(c) requirement that testing programs

be nationally recognized.

In accordance with section 345(c), the

Department's proposed regulation also

permits a manufacturer to certify

compliance through an independent

certification program. Such a program

would have to be essentially as

described above by UL and Reliance.

Manufacturers that elect to use a

certification program would not be

required to have their own laboratory

accredited.

Finally, section 345(c) requires that

compliance be certified through a

testing or certification program that is

"nationally recognized." The

Department proposes that this

requirement shall be met (1) by a testing

facility that has been accredited either

by NVLAP or by an accrediting body

that DOE classifies as nationally

recognized to accredit facilities to test

motors for efficiency, or (2) by a

certification program that DOE has

classified as nationally recognized. The

Department proposes criteria and

procedures under which it would make

such classifications. Included would be

the application of appropriate ISO/IEC

criteria. Accrediting bodies and

certification programs would seek such

classification by submitting a petition to

the Department, accompanied by

supporting documentation.

Under the Department's proposal,

NVLAP accreditation of motor testing

laboratories would be pursuant to

NVLAP's existing approach to granting

such accreditation, set forth in 15 CFR

part 285 and NIST Handbook 150-10.

The Department is reviewing, and

requests comment on, whether these

provisions are in any way inconsistent

with EPCA requirements or any portion

of the proposed part 431. The

Department also proposes that if NVLAP

alters its approach to accrediting motor

testing laboratories, subsequent to DOE.

adoption of a final rule in this

proceeding, such changes would

become applicable to accreditation

under part 431 only if approved by

DOE. The Department seeks comment

on whether such a provision is needed,

and will suffice, to assure that NVLAP

accreditation methods will continue to

be consistent with the DOE energy

efficiency program for motors.

In summary, the Department proposes

implementation of the requirement for

"manufacturers to certify, through an

independent testing or certification

program nationally recognized in the

United States, that such motor meets the

applicable [energy efficiency

standards]," by either (i) testing at a

third party independent laboratory

accredited by a nationally recognized

accrediting body, such as NVLAP, (ii)

testing at the manufacturer's own

laboratory if it is accredited by a

nationally recognized accrediting body,

such as NVLAP,8 or (iii) certification by

a nationally recognized third-party

certification program.

3. Form of Certification

a. Compliance Statement. EPCA states

that, " the Secretary shall require

manufacturers to certify " that each

electric motor meets applicable

efficiency standards. EPCA section

345(c), 42 U.S.C. 6316 (c). An example of

how such language can be applied is

found at 10 CFR 430. 62, Submission of

data , which requires manufacturers of

consumer appliance products to submit

a compliance statement , as well as a

certification report that provides

information for each basic model of a

product. It appears, however, that there

are many more basic models of electric

motors than of each consumer

appliance, and strictly applying the

§ 430.62 requirements to electric motors

could be unduly burdensome to

manufacturers and to the Department.

The Department is aware of at least one

manufacturer that claims to

manufacture thousands of basic models

of electric motors covered by the statute.

Statements from Reliance and NEMA

address the difficulty of requiring

compliance statements for all basic

models a manufacturer produces.

Reliance emphasizes that a

manufacturer is likely to make a very

large number of basic models. (Reliance,

No. 8 at 3.b . 3 and 3.d.1). Reliance also

asserts that the Act requires

manufacturers to certify that the

nominal efficiency of the basic model

meets or exceeds the level specified at

section 342 (b)(1) of EPCA for its rating,

not the actual value of nominal

efficiency for the motor . Reliance and

NEMA recommend that each

manufacturer submit a simplified

compliance statement to certify that all

its basic models of covered electric

motors have a nominal full load

efficiency equal to or in excess of the

statutory nominal full load efficiency

standards, as determined by actual

testing or application of a substantiated

alternative correlation method.

(Reliance, No . 8 at 3.d. 1 and NEMA, No.

9 at D.).

NEMA proposes as an alternative, that

each manufacturer submit a compliance

statement along with a certification

report that provides information on each

of the 113 ratings within which it

produces motors. The 113 ratings refers

8 The proposed regulations would permit testing

at a laboratory accredited by a foreign organization

recognized by NVLAP. Any test results produced by

such laboratory would, of course , establish

compliance with the Act and DOE's regulations

only if the underlying testing were performed in

accordance with the DOE test procedures.

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 60459

to the combinations of horsepowers,

number of poles, and types of enclosure

in the table of nominal full load

efficiencies at section 342(b) (1) of EPCA,

42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(I). According to

NEMA, the certification report would

include, for each rating of electric motor

which a manufacturer or private labeler

manufactures, the nominal full load

efficiency of the least efficient basic

model with that rating. (NEMA, No. 9 at

D.).

The Department believes that,

contrary to the assertion by Reliance, it

has the authority under the Act to

require motor manufacturers to certify

the nominal full load efficiency of a

motor. But because there are so many

basic models of electric motors, the

Department proposes to require a single

Compliance Certification that is quite

similar to NEMA's alternative

suggestion for certification. The

proposed approach is designed to

minimize the reporting burden on

manufacturers, while fulfilling the

purposes served by the statement of

compliance and certification report

required for appliances at 10 CFR

430.62. The proposed Compliance

Certification at 10 CFR 431.123 would

be a one-time statement which affirms

that each basic model of electric motor

meets the energy efficiency

requirements of the statute, based upon

actual testing or application of a

substantiated alternative efficiency

determination method. For each of the

113 ratings within which the

manufacturer produces electric motors,

it would identify the nominal full load

efficiency of the basic model that has

the lowest efficiency. At most,

efficiencies would be included for 113

ratings. The Compliance Certification

would also, in effect, certify that all

basic models produced within each

rating have a nominal full load

efficiency equal to or in excess of the

efficiency represented in the

Compliance Certification for that rating.

b. New Models. EPCA requires each

electric motor manufactured after the

60-month period beginning on the date

of the enactment of this subsection, or

in the case of an electric motor which

requires listing or certification by a

nationally recognized safety testing

laboratory, after the 84-month period

beginning on such date, to meet a

prescribed nominal full load efficiency

level. EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C.

6313(b)(1). A manufacturer is required

to comply with the statutory efficiency

standards both for each motor it

manufacturers as of the statutory

effective dates, and for each new basic

model it begins to manufacture

thereafter. -

In order to comply with the statutory

certification requirements, NEMA

proposes that a manufacturer be

required to submit a new certificate of

compliance for a new basic model only

if the new model's nominal full load

efficiency is less than the nominal full

load efficiency of other basic models,

within the same rating, that are already

being produced by the manufacturer

and that have been previously certified

to be in compliance with EPCA and

DOE regulations. NEMA reasons that,

"If a manufacturer's original

certification reports only compliance by

each class of 113 ratings, there is no

need to require detailed reporting on the

nominal efficiency of each new basic

model, provided that such new basic

model has a nominal full load efficiency

in excess of the statutory standard and

the efficiency certificated on the

compliance statement for the relevant

rating." (NEMA, No. 9 at D.3.).

Given the Department's proposal as to

the initial Compliance Certification,

NEMA.'s reasoning is persuasive.

Moreover, based on information

provided by manufacturers, there

appears to be a potential for the

introduction of numerous new basic

models having the same ratings as

motors already being manufactured. The

Department seeks to avoid imposing a

possible undue burden of excessive

reporting of complianceof such new

basic models. Therefore, it is proposed

that submission of a Compliance

Certification for a new basic model

would be required only if (1) the

manufacturer has not previously

submitted to DOE a Compliance

Statement for a motor having the same

rating as the new basic model, or (2) the

new model has the same rating as one

or more of the basic models that have

previously been produced and certified

by the same manufacturer, but has a

lower nominal full load efficiency than

any of those previously certified basic

models.

G. Enforcement

The Department proposes to establish

procedures for enforcement testing

which are appropriate for the equipment

being tested for energy efficiency, in this

case 1 through 200 horsepower

alternating current electric motors. The

proposed sampling plan for enforcement

testing at appendix C to subpart G of

this part is a departure from the

procedures established at appendix B to

subpart F of 10 CFR part 430-Sampling

Plan for Enforcement Testing. The

proposed sampling plan for enforcement

testing is based upon NEMA MG1-

12.58.2, Efficiency of Polyphase

Squirrel-cage Medium Motors with

Continuous Ratings, and NEMA MG 1

Table 12-8, Efficiency Levels, which

establish a logical series of nominal

motor efficiencies and the minimum

associated with each nominal based on

20 percent loss difference. NIST

formulated the proposed sampling plan

for enforcement testing.

The sampling plan for enforcement

testing of electric motors would aid the

Department in performing actual testing

pursuant to the test procedures

prescribed in 10 CFR 431.23, and in

achieving uniform application of

enforcement testing. The objectives of

the sampling plan for enforcement

testing are (1) to provide for each motor

an estimate of the true mean full load

efficiency, (2) to establish reasonable

measurement tolerances for motor

efficiencies, and (3) to ensure that the

result of the test is significant within

these tolerances.

The sampling plan for enforcement

testing assumes that the efficiencies of

the entire population of motors are

normally distributed about the true

mean and that the true mean full load

efficiency and standard deviation of the

motor efficiencies are not known.

Compliance (or non-compliance) can be

determined when the mean efficiency of

the basic model is not less than the

statutory full load efficiency (SFE), thus

only a lower bound for the mean

efficiency must be specified. The

proposed sampling plan for enforcement

testing seeks to estimate the true mean

efficiency of the basic model and to

ensure that this mean efficiency is not

less than the SFE, with high probability.

The Department believes that the best

estimate of the true mean efficiency that

may be obtained by tests conducted on

a random sample is the mean efficiency

of that sample (X). The reliability of this

estimate depends on two factors: (1) the

size of the sample, i.e., the number of

motors tested, and (2) the underlying

variability of the entire population. The

standard error in the mean (SE(X)), i.e.,

the standard deviation of the sample

divided by the square root of the sample

size, is one measure of the variability of

the sample mean. In general , the ratio of

the difference between k and the true

mean to SE(X) is distributed according

to a probability density function known

in statistics literature as the tdistribution. Percentiles of this

distribution are to determine confidence

intervals and, in this case, to establish

a lower bound. These percentiles are

readily available and are included in

many references on statistics.

The lower bound benchmark is

calculated by determining the figure

that would result if a population of

motors meets the statutory standard

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
60460 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

(i.e., the mean full load efficiency for

the population meets or exceeds the

statutory full load efficiency). If this is

the case, and if t is the 90th percentile

of the t-distribution appropriate for the

sample size, then at least 90 percent of

the time the average efficiency will be

greater than the lower control limit,

where:

LCL = SFE -tSE(X).

The Department understands that in

any statistical test there is a possibility

of obtaining a false result by chance. In

this case, by assumption , the basic

model is in compliance and the

sampling plan for enforcement testing

should, with high probability, correctly

demonstrate compliance or noncompliance . By design , the probability

that the mean efficiency of a random

sample drawn from this population

would fall below the lower control limit

and, hence, the risk of incorrectly

concluding non-compliance, is no

greater than 10 percent.

To apply this method, a random

sample is tested and the mean and

standard error in the mean are

calculated . Based on the size of the

sample and the confidence desired the

appropriate t value is selected and the

lower control limit calculated. For

example, for 90 percent confidence and

a sample of five units t equals 1.533.

Provided the mean efficiency obtained

from the random sample is not less than

the lower control limit, the Department

can determine with 90 percent

confidence that the true mean efficiency

of the entire population is not less than

the statutory level.

Following this procedure, there is

some probability that the estimate of the

standard deviation and, therefore, the

estimated standard error in the mean is

too large and that the lower control limit

may be set, by chance, to a value that

defeats the purpose of the sampling plan

for enforcement testing. To avoid this

circumstance , it is sufficient to establish

an upper limit for the standard error in

the mean. The tolerance in the standard

error should be chosen to be appropriate

for the size and type of motor.

The strategy proposed here is to

establish reasonable benchmarks for the

standard error in the mean. One

possible solution is to base these

tolerances on the existing NEMA

guidelines for identifying motor

efficiency levels at NEMA MG1-12.58.2

and NEMA Table 12-8. Such guidelines

were developed by consensus among

motor manufacturers and they are

followed, on a voluntary basis, by a

large segment of the motor

manufacturers. Under the NEMA

guidelines, no single unit can have

energy losses more than 20 percent

greater than the average losses for that

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

tolerance is permitted for a given unit

but the average must still be met.

The NEMA guidelines serve to

provide uniformity in motor efficiency

labeling and can be used for purposes of

quality control by manufacturers, and

may, therefore, provide a reasonable

basis for estimating efficiency tolerances

among motors of different size and type.

The Department believes that the 20

percent loss tolerance is reasonable and

meaningful.

The variability in the motor

efficiencies allowed, when X=SFE, may

be calculated by setting the true mean

efficiency equal to the statutory value.

The results of this procedure are

presented below in Table 1. The

Department assumes for these data that

the sample size is five, and uses a single

.sided t-test and a 90% confidence level,

i.e., t has been set to 1 . 533. Comparison

of the standard deviation allowed by the

sampling plan for enforcement testing

with the NEMA 20 percent loss

tolerance shows that the variability

allowed corresponds to the NEMA

guidelines.

To determine compliance (or noncompliance) for the purpose of

enforcement testing, (a) the sample

mean shall not be less than the LCL,, as

defined above, and (b) the product of

the t percentile and the standard error

in the mean may not exceed a 20

percent loss tolerance.

TABLE 1.-COMPARISON OF THE

NEMA 20 PERCENT Loss TOLERANCE AND THE STANDARD DEVIATIONS ALLOWED BY THE SAMPLING

PLAN FOR ENFORCEMENT TESTING

NEMA Statutory minimum

efficiency efficiency

NEMA

20% loss

tolerance

Enforcement

standard

deviation

75.5 72.0 3.5 5.1

80.0 77.0 3.0 4.4

82.5 80.0 2.5 3.6

84.0 81 . 5 2.5 3.6

85.5 82 .5 3.0 4.4

86.5 84 .0 2.5 2.5

87.5 85. 5 2.0 3.0

88.5 86. 5 . 2.0 3.0

89.5 87. 5 2.0 3.0

90.2 88.5 1.7 2.5

91.0 89. 5 1.5 2.2

91.7 90. 2 1.5 2.2

92.4 91 . 0 1.4 2.0

93.0 91.7 1.3 1.9

93.6 92.4 1.2 1.8

94.1 93. 0 1.1 1.6

94.5 93. 6 0.9 1.3

95.0 94. 1 0.9 .1.3

IV. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

Pursuant to section 7(c)(2) of the

Federal Energy Administration Act of

1974 (Pub. L. 93-275, 15 U.S.C. 766(a)),

a copy of this notice has been submitted

to the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency for

comments concerning the impact of this

proposed rulemaking on the quality of

the environment.

In this rule, the Department proposes

provisions to implement statutorily

mandated energy efficiency standards

and test procedures for electric motors.

Implementation of the proposed rule

would not result in environmental

impacts. The Department has therefore

determined that the proposed rule is

covered under the Categorical Exclusion

found at paragraph A.6 of appendix A

to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021, which

applies to the establishment of

procedural rulemakings. Accordingly,

neither an environmental assessment

nor an environmental impact statement

is required.

V. Review Under Executive Order

12866, "Regulatory Planning and

Review"

This regulatory action is not a

significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866, "Regulatory

Planning and Review," October 4, 1993.

Accordingly, this action was not subject

to review under the Executive Order by

the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs.

VI. Review Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act 1980

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of

1980, 5 U.S.C. 603, requires the

preparation of an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis for every rule which

by law must be proposed for public

comment, unless the agency certifies

that the rule, if promulgated, will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities. A

regulatory flexibility analysis examines

the impact of the rule on small entities

and considers alternative ways of

reducing negative impacts.

The Department used the small

business size standards published on

January 31, 1996 by the Small Business

Administration to determine whether

any small entities would be required to

comply with the proposed rule. 61 FR

3280 (to be codified at 13 CFR part 121).

The size standards are listed by

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

code and industry description. Electric

motor manufacturing is SIC 3621. To be

considered a small business, a

manufacturer of electric motors and its

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 60461

affiliates may employ a maximum of

1,000 employees.

The Department estimates there are

approximately 27 domestic firms and 14

foreign firms which manufacture

electric motors covered under EPCA.

Many of the domestic motor

manufacturers are affiliated with larger

U.S. or foreign firms. The sizes of motor

manufacturing companies in the U.S.

range from fewer than 100 employees to

several thousand employees. The

Department estimates that there are four

to six firms in the United States that

both manufacture electric motors

covered by EPCA, and have, together

with their affiliates, 1,000 or fewer

employees.

EPCA prescribes efficiency standards

for electric motors of specified

horsepowers, with some exceptions

permitted. 42 U.S.C. 6313(b) (1) and (2).

The statutory energy efficiency

standards are incorporated in the

proposed rule, although the standards

do not depend on rulemaking for their

implementation. The Act also requires

DOE to prescribe test procedures for

measuring motor efficiency, and it

further requires the use, initially, of the

test procedures in NEMA Standards

Publication MG1-1987 and IEEE

Standard 112 Test Method B, as in effect

on October 24, 1992. 42 U.S.C.

6314(a)(5)(A). If the test procedures for

motor efficiency are amended by those

standards bodies, DOE is required to

amend its test procedures accordingly

unless to do so would not meet certain

statutory criteria for test procedures. 42

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

requires DOE, by rule, to require motor

manufacturers to include the energy

efficiency of the motor on the

permanent nameplate; to display the

motor energy efficiency prominently in

any catalogs and other materials used to

market motors; and to include other

markings DOE determines are necessary

to facilitate enforcement of the energy

efficiency standards. 42 U.S.C. 6315 (a)

and (d). DOE also is directed by the Act

to require manufacturers of covered

motors to certify that the motor meets

the applicable energy efficiency

standard, through an independent

testing program or certification program

that is nationally recognized in the

United States. 42 U.S.C. 6316(c).

Since approximately 1992, many

manufacturers have been redesigning

electric motors and testing them for

compliance with the industry

developed energy efficiency

performance standards that are the basis

for the standards in the Act. Some

manufacturers, including some small

manufacturers, will. need to make

additional design changes and conduct

verification testing to bring all of their

basic models into compliance with

EPCA standards. DOE believes that the

cost of complying with the proposed

rule (excluding the cost of compliance

with the energy efficiency standards and

test procedures directly imposed by

EPCA) would not impose significant

economic costs on a significant number

of small manufacturers.

The test procedures mandated by

EPCA are test procedures already in

general use in the industry. Small

manufacturers contacted by the

Department stated that they currently

test electric motors in accordance with

IEEE Standard 112, Test Method B. The

proposed rule has been drafted to

minimize the burden of testing for

manufacturers, and the proposed rule

relies heavily on industry practice and

recommendations that have been

submitted by manufacturers. Because

there are so many basic models of

electric motors, the Department

proposes to require a compliance

certification that includes. listing, for

each rating of electric motor, of the

average efficiency'only of the basic

model that has the lowest efficiency.

Consequently, efficiencies would be

included for 113 ratings, at most. The

proposed statistical sampling

procedures are based on statistical

sampling procedures established for

consumer appliance products at 10 CFR

430.24, and recommendations

submitted by the National Electrical

Manufacturers Association (NEMA).

The sampling procedures are designed

to keep the testing burden on

manufacturers as low as possible, while

still providing confidence that the test

results of units tested can be applied to

units of the same basic model. The

proposed maintenance of records and

compliance reporting requirements are

based largely on the statements and

recommendations of NEMA.

DOE proposed labeling rules, required

by the Act, also follow current practice

and recommendations submitted by

manufacturers through NEMA. The

Department believes that the cost of

including the energy efficiency and a

Compliance Certification number on the

permanent nameplate of electric motors

covered under the Act would be

negligible. Nameplates already are

attached to motors, and standards

generally followed in the industry

require the energy efficiency to be

marked on the nameplate. The proposed

requirement to display the energy

efficiency of motors in marketing

materials only applies to materials the

manufacturer otherwise chooses to

distribute or publish. Thus, for example,

catalogs would have to be updated to

include the energy efficiency number

and the Compliance Certification

number applicable to a motor only

when the catalog is revised to include

that motor.

Some manufacturers may not be able

to certify compliance by October 24,

1997, the effective date as to most basic

models for the standards and test

procedures. The proposed rule eases the

burden of compliance for such

manufacturers of electric motors,

including small manufacturers, by

providing that the compliance

certification requirement would not

become effective until 24 months after

the effective date of the rule.

Furthermore, disclosure in a catalog of

energy efficiency information

concerning a particular motor would not

be required until either the republication of the catalog after the rule

becomes effective, or until the motor is

subsequently included in the catalog.

It should be pointed out that DOE has

limited discretion to apply different

requirements to small manufacturers.

EPCA mandates the use of uniform

standards and testing procedures for all

electric motors. EPCA also contains the

basic requirements for labeling and

certification. In this regard, it is

noteworthy that although EPCA

contains a "small manufacturer

exemption" for consumer appliance

product manufacturers (42 U.S.C.

6295(t)), no such exemption is included

for manufacturers of commercial and

industrial equipment.

The Department invites public

comment on its conclusion that the

incremental costs of complying with the

proposed rule (not including the cost of

requirements that are directly imposed

by EPCA, such as the energy efficiency

standards) would neither affect a

substantial number of small businesses,

nor impose a significant economic

impact on such businesses.

VII. Review Under Executive Order

12612, "Federalism"

Executive Order 12612, "Federalism,"

52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987),

requires that regulations, rules,

legislation, and any other policy actions

be reviewed for any substantial direct

effect on States, on the relationship

between the National Government and

States, or in the distribution of power

and responsibilities among various

levels of government. If there are

substantial effects, then the Executive

Order requires preparation of a

federalism assessment to be used in all

decisions involved in promulgating and

implementing a policy action.

The proposed rules published today

would not regulate the States. They

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
60462 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

primarily would affect the manner in

which DOE promulgates commercial

and industrial equipment energy

efficiency standards, test procedures,

labeling, and certification of compliance

by manufacturers, prescribed under the

Energy Conservation and Policy Act.

State regulation in this area is largely

preempted by the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act. The proposed rules

published today would not alter the

distribution of authority and

responsibility to regulate in this area.

Accordingly, DOE has determined that

preparation of a federalism assessment

is unnecessary.

VIII. Review Under Executive Order

12630, "Governmental Actions and

Interference With Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights"

It has been determined pursuant to

Executive Order 12630, "Governmental

Actions and Interference with

Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights," 52 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988),

that this regulation would not result in

any takings which might require

compensation under the Fifth

Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

IX. Review Under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980

As explained above, the proposed rule

includes certain labeling requirements,

requires manufacturers to maintain

records concerning their determinations

of the energy efficiency of electric

motors, and precludes distribution of

any electric motor not covered by a

certification of compliance submitted to

the Department. These proposed

information collection and

recordkeeping requirements have been

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget for review and approval

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

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

collections of information are necessary

for implementing and monitoring

compliance with the efficiency

standards, testing, labeling and

certification requirements for

commercial and industrial electric

motors mandated by EPCA..In

developing the proposed information

collection requirements, DOE

considered the views of stakeholders

that were received at a public meeting

held in May of 1995, in written

comments solicited in the notice of that

meeting, and in subsequent informal

contacts.

DOE estimates the number of covered

manufacturing firms to be 41 and the

number of hours required to comply

with the reporting and recordkeeping

requirements in the proposed rule to be

approximately 200 to 300 hours per year

per firm. The total annual reporting and

recordkeeping burden from compliance

with the proposed rule is expected to be

from 8,200 to 12,300 hours (41x200-300

hours per year). These estimates include

time for reviewing instructions,

searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data

needed, and completing the collection

of information.

In developing the burden estimates,

DOE considered that each manufacturer

is required to comply with the statutory

energy efficiency standards for each

motor it is manufacturing on the

effective date of the Act, and for each

model it begins to manufacture after that

date. The required certification would

be a one-time submission stating that

the manufacturer has determined, by

employing actual testing or an

alternative method, that the basic model

of electric motor meets the applicable

energy efficiency standard. The

certification also includes the energy

efficiency for the least efficient basic

model within each rating, and identifies

those basic models that have undergone

actual testing. Under the proposed rule,

a compliance certification for a new

basic model would be required only if

(1) the manufacturer has not previously

certified a motor having the same rating

as the new basic model, or (2) the

energy efficiency of the new model is

less than the efficiency of previouslycertified basic models of the same rating

produced by the same manufacturer.

Many manufacturers already submit this

type of information to voluntary

national electronic marketing programs,

such as the Washington State Energy

Office's "Motor Master" program, or

develop it for the design or marketing of

energy efficient motors. Those

manufacturers should be able to comply

with the certification required by the

proposed rule without much additional

burden.

Similarly, the remaining information

collection requirements in the proposed

rule would also impose little additional

burden. Most manufacturers already

voluntarily provide the energy

efficiency of an electric motor on a

motor's permanent nameplate and in

their catalogs and other marketing

materials, as would be required under

the proposed rule. Inclusion of the CC

number on motor nameplates was

advocated by motor manufacturers, and

this number could easily be included on

nameplates and in marketing materials.

A very limited amount of additional

information would be required on

import documents, at what the

Department believes would be

negligible cost. And, finally, the

Department understands that

manufacturers already maintain the

records the proposed rule would require

them to keep.

The collections of information

contained in this proposed, rule are

considered the least burdensome for

meeting the legal requirements and

achieving the program objectives of the

DOE compliance certification program

for electric motors. However, public

comments are requested concerning the

accuracy of the estimated paperwork

reporting burden. Send comments

regarding the recordkeeping and

reporting burden estimate, or any other

aspect of this collection of information,

to the Department in accordance with

the instructions in the DATES and

ADDRESSES sections of this notice, as

well as Section XIII, and to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, DC 20503, marked

"Attention: Desk Officer for DOE."

X. Review Under Executive Order

12988, "Civil Justice Reform"

With respect to the review of existing

regulations and the promulgation of

new regulations, section 3(a) of

Executive Order 12988, "Civil Justice

Reform," 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996),

imposes on executive agencies the

general duty to adhere to the following

requirement: (1) Eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity; (2) write

regulations to minimize litigation; and

(3) provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct rather than a general

standard and promote simplification

and burden reduction. With regard to

the review required by section 3(a),

section 3(b) of the Executive Order

specifically requires that Executive

agencies make every reasonable effort to

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly

specifies the preemptive effect, if any;

(2) clearly specifies any effect on

existing Federal law or regulation; (3)

provides a clear legal standard for

affected conduct while promoting

simplification and burden reduction; (4)

specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5)

adequately defines key terms; and (6)

addresses other important issues

affecting clarity and general

draftsmanship under any guidelines

issued by the Attorney General. Section

3(c) of the Executive Order requires

Executive agencies to review regulations

in light of applicable standards in

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to

determine whether they are met or it is

unreasonable to meet one or more of

them. DOE reviewed today's final

regulations under the standards of

section 3 of the Executive Order and

determined that, to the extent permitted

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 60463

by law, they meet the requirements of

those standards.

XI. Review Under Section 32 of the

Federal Energy Administration Act of

1974

Pursuant to section 301 of the

Department of Energy Organization Act

(Pub. L. 95-91), the Department of

Energy is required to comply with

section 32 of the Federal Energy

Administration Act of 1974, as amended

by the Federal Energy Administration

Authorization Act of 1977. 15 U.S.C.

788. Section 32 provides in essence that,

where a proposed rule contains or.

involves use of commercial standards,

the notice of proposed rulemaking must

inform the public of the use and

background of such standards.

The rule proposed in this notice

incorporates a number of commercial

standards which the Act requires to be

used. For example, the procedures

required for measuring the efficiency of

electric motors come from the NEMA

Publication "Motors and Generators,"

MG1-1993 Revision 1; the Institute of

Electrical and Electronics Engineers

"Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase

Induction Motors and Generators," IEEE

Standard 112-1991 Test Method B for

motor efficiency; and the Canadian

Standards Association Standard C390-

93 "Energy Efficiency Test Methods for

Three-Phase Induction Motors." By way

of further example, certain definitions

in the proposed rule are drawn from

NEMA Publication MGI. Because DOE

has no discretion to not include these

standards, section 32 of the FEAA has

no application to them.

As part of its definition of electric

motor, however, the proposed rule does

employ one commercial standard, the

International Electrotechnical

Commission Standard 34-1, that the Act

does not direct the Department to adopt.

The Department has evaluated this

Standard and is unable to conclude

whether it fully complies with the

requirements of section 32(b) of the

Federal Energy Administration Act, i.e.,

that it was developed in a manner

which fully provides for public

participation, comment, and review.

As required by section 32(c) of the

Act, the FEAA, Department will consult

with the Attorney General and the

Chairman of the Federal Trade

Commission concern ing the impact of

this standard on competition, prior to

prescribing a final rule.

XII. Review Under Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

("Unfunded Mandates Act") (signed

into law on March 22, 1995 ) requires be confidential and exempt by law from

that the Department prepare a budgetary public disclosure should submit one

impact statement before promulgating a complete copy of the document and ten

rule that includes a Federal mandate ( 10) copies, if possible, from which the

that may result in expenditure by state , information believed to be confidential

local, and tribal governments, in the has been deleted. The Department of

aggregate, or by the private sector , of Energy will make its own determination

$100 million or more in any one year . with regard to the confidential status of

The budgetary impact statement must the information and treat it according to

include: (i) Identification of the Federal its determination.

law under which the rule is Factors of interest to the Department

promulgated; (ii) a qualitative and when evaluating requests to treat as

quantitative assessment of anticipated confidential information that has been

costs and benefits of the Federal submitted include: ( 1) A description of

mandate and an analysis of the extent to the items; (2) an indication as to

which such costs to state, local, and whether and why such items are

tribal governments may be paid with customarily treated as confidential

Federal financial assistance ; (iii) if within the industry; (3) whether the

feasible, estimates of the future information is generally known by or

compliance costs and of any available from other sources; (4)

disproportionate budgetary effects the whether the information has previously

mandate has on particular regions, been made available to others without

communities-non-Federal units of obligation concerning its

government, or sectors of the economy ; confidentiality ; (5) an explanation of the

(iv) if feasible, estimates of the effect on competitive injury to the submitting

the national economy; and (v) a person which would result from public

description of the Department 's prior disclosure; (6) an indication as to when

consultation with elected such information might lose its

representatives of'state, local, and tribal confidential character due to the

governments and a summary and passage of time; and (7) why disclosure

evaluation of the comments and of the information would be contrary to

concerns presented. the public interest.

The Department has determined that B. Public Hearing the action proposed today does not

include a Federal mandate that may 1. Procedures for Submitting Requests to

result in estimated costs of $100 million Speak

or more to state, local or to tribal The time and place of the public

governments in the aggregate or to the hearing are indicated at the beginning of private sector . Therefore, the this notice. The Department invites any requirements of sections 203 and 204 of person who has an interest in today's

the Unfunded Mandates Act do not

a 1 to th' t ^s ac o

nonce, or who is a representative or a

pp y i

n. group or class of persons that has an

XIII. Public Comment interest in these proposed test

procedures, to make a request for an A. Written Comment Procedures opportunity to make an oral

Interested persons are invited to presentation. Such requests should be

participate in the rulemaking by directed to the address indicated at the

submitting data, comments; or beginning of this notice. Requests may

information with respect to the be hand delivered to such address

proposed test procedures set forth in between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

this notice to the address indicated at Monday through Friday, except Federal

the beginning of the notice. holidays. Requests should be labeled

Comments should be identified both "Test Procedures and Certification

on the envelope and on the documents Requirements for Electric Motors,

as "Test Procedures and Certification Docket No. EE-RM-96-400," both on

Requirements for Electric Motors, the document and on the envelope.

Docket No. EE-RM-96-400." Ten (10) The person making the request should

copies are requested to be submitted. In briefly describe the interest concerned

addition, the Department requests that and state why he or she, either

an electronic copy (31/2" diskette) of the individually or as a representative of a

comments on WordPerfect TM 6.1 be group or class of persons that have such

provided. All submittals received by the an interest, is an appropriate

date specified at the beginning of this spokesperson, and give a telephone

notice will be considered by the number where he or she may be

Department in developing the final rule. contacted.

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR Each person selected to be heard is

1004.11, any person submitting requested to submit advance copies of

information which he or she believes to his or her statement prior to the hearing,

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
60464 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

as indicated at the beginning of this

notice. Any person wishing to testify

who cannot meet this requirement, may

at the Department's discretion be

permitted to testify if that person has

made alternative arrangements with the

Office of Codes and Sfandards in

'advance. The letter making a request to

give an oral presentation shall ask that

such alternative arrangements be made.

2. Conduct of Hearing

A Department of Energy official will

be designated to preside at the hearing.

The hearing will not be a judicial or an

evidentiary-type hearing, but will be

conducted in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

553 and section 336 of the Act. The

Department of Energy reserves the right

to select the persons to be heard at the

hearing, to schedule the respective

presentations, and to establish the

procedures governing the conduct of the

hearing.

Each participant will be permitted to

make a prepared general statement,

limited to five (5) minutes, prior to the

discussion of specific topics. The

general statement should not address

these specific topics. Other participants

will be permitted to briefly comment on

any general statements. The hearing will

then be divided into segments, with

each segment consisting of one or more

topics covered by this notice, as follows:

(1) Test procedures; (2) coverage and

application of efficiency standards; (3)

labeling; (4) certification; (5)

enforcement; and (6) general statutory

requirements (the matters in sections

IV-XII above). Any issue concerning a

definition in the proposed rule should

be addressed during the discussion of

the topic(s) to which that issue pertains.

The Department will introduce each

topic with a brief summary of the

relevant provisions of the proposed rule,

and the significant issues involved.

Participants in the hearing will then be

permitted to make a prepared statement

limited to five (5) minutes on that topic.

At the end of all prepared statements on

a topic, each participant will be

permitted to briefly clarify his or her

statement and comment on statements

made by others. The Department is

particularly interested in having

participants address in their statements

the specific issues set forth below in

Section XIII-C, "Issues for Public

Comment," and participants should be

prepared to answer questions by the

Department concerning these issues.

Representatives of the Department may

also ask questions of participants

concerning other matters relevant to the

hearing. The total cumulative amount of

time allowed for each participant to

make prepared statements shall be 20

minutes.

The official conducting the hearing

will accept additional comments or

questions from those attending , as time

permits. Any further procedural rules,

or modification of the above procedures,

needed for the proper conduct of the

hearing will be announced by the

presiding official.

A transcript of the hearing will be

made, and the entire record of this

rulemaking , including the transcript,

will be retained by the Department of

Energy and made available for

inspection at the Department of Energy

Freedom of Information Reading Room,

Forrestal Building, Room lE-190, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585-0101, (202) 586-

6020, between the hours of 9 a.m. and

4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. Any person may

purchase a copy of the transcript from

the transcribing reporter.

C. Issues for Public Comment

The Department of Energy is

interested in receiving comments and

data concerning the accuracy and

workability of these proposals and

welcomes discussion on improvements

or alternatives to these approaches. In

particular, the Department is interested

in gathering comments on the following:

1. Does the definition of "basic

model" appropriately delineate motors

with similar or different characteristics,

and which should be grouped together

or distinguished for purposes of

measuring efficiency? What constitutes

a difference between "basic models?"

What are some examples of different

basic models? Within a given rating,

what is the likelihood of having

different basic models?

2. Which electric motors are covered

and which are not covered under the

Act's definitions of "electric motor,"

"definite purpose motor," and "special

purpose motor?" Comments are also

sought on the Department's

interpretation of these definitions, as

expressed in this notice, and on whether

the proposed definitions should be

modified in any way. Do the definitions

in the proposed regulation pose any

practical problems, and are there

particular motors that appear to be

excluded from coverage that should be

covered, and vice versa?

3. Is the proposed statistical sampling

plan for testing appropriate for electric

motors? Should a confidence limit

higher than 90 percent be adopted?

Should a different approach, or different

figures, be adopted in place of the

proposed divisor/coefficient?

4. In conjunction with using a label

with the "ee" logo or "energy efficient"

designation, should a manufacturer be

required to display the minimum

efficiency of the motor on the motor

nameplate , and/or include such

minimum efficiency in its compliance

certification? Should the "ee logo be

required for complying motors, and if

so, under what conditions?

5. Should the Department require that

a Compliance Certification number be

displayed on the nameplate of an

electric motor, and in marketing

materials for that motor? What are the

benefits of such requirement(s)?

6. In addition to the proposal that

import documents disclose the date of

the Compliance Certification and the CC

number for that motor, should import

documents include a motor 's nominal

full load efficiency or other

information? What will be the practical

effect of requiring information on

import documents?

7. What "independent testing" and

certification" programs exist or could

come into existence within the next

several years? Comments are also sought

on the proposed provisions concerning

recognition of accrediting bodies and

certification organizations by the

Department.

8. Does the sampling plan for

enforcement testing: (1) Permit the

Department to obtain an estimate of the

true mean full load efficiency of the

population of motors; (2) establish

reasonable measurement tolerances for

motor efficiencies; and (3) ensure that

the results obtained by actual testing are

significant within these tolerances?

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

Administrative practice and

procedure, Energy conservation,

Incorporation by reference.

Issued in Washington, DC. October 30,

1996.

Christine A. Ervin,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, Chapter II of Title 10, Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR), is proposed

to be amended by adding new part 431

to read as set forth below.

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 60465

PART 431-ENERGY EFFICIENCY

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL

EQUIPMENT: TEST PROCEDURES,

LABELING, AND CERTIFICATION

REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRIC

MOTORS

Subpart A-General Provisions

Sec.

431.1 Purpose and scope.

431.2 Definitions.

Subpart B-Test Procedures and Materials

Incorporated

431.21 'Purpose and scope.

431.22 Reference sources.

431.23 Test procedures for measurement of

energy efficiency.

431.24 Units to be tested.

431.25 Testing laboratories.

431.26 Department of Energy recognition of

accreditation bodies.

431.27 Department of Energy recognition of

nationally recognized certification

programs.

431.28 Petitions for waiver and applications

for interim waiver.

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 431-

Uniform Test Method For Measuring

Nominal Full Load Efficiency of Electric

Motors

Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431-

Nominal Full Load Efficiency and

Corresponding Coefficient K.

Subpart C-Energy Efficiency Standards

431.41 Purpose and scope.

431.42 Energy efficiency standards and

effective dates.

Subpart D-Petitions to Exempt State

Regulation from Preemption ; Petitions to

Withdraw Exemption of State Regulation

431.61 Purpose and scope.

Subpart E-Labeling

431.81 Purpose and scope.

431.82 Labeling requirements.

Subpart F-[Reserved]

Subpart G-Certification and Enforcement

431.121 Purpose and scope.

431.122 Prohibited acts.

431.123 Compliance Certification.

431.124 Maintenance of records.

431.125 Imported equipment.

431.126 Exported equipment.

431.127 Enforcement.

431.128 Cessation of distribution of a basic

model.

431.129 Subpoena.

431.130 Remedies.

431.131 Hearings and appeals.

431.132 Confidentiality.

Appendix A to Subpart G of Part 431-

Compliance Certification

Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 431-

Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing

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

Subpart A-General Provisions

§ 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 authoritative body that a laboratory

is competent to perform all of the

specific test procedures that are

required by or incorporated into this

part.

Accreditation body means an

organization or entity that conducts and

administers an accreditation system and

grants accreditation.

Accreditation system means a set of

requirements to be fulfilled by a testing

laboratory, as well as rules of procedure

and management, that are used to

accredit laboratories.

Accredited laboratory means a testing

laboratory to which accreditation has

been granted.

Act means the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act of 1975, as amended

(42 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.).

Alternative efficiency determination

method or AEDM means a method of

calculating the total power loss and

average full load efficiency of an electric

motor.

ANSI means American National

Standards Institute.

Average full load efficiency means the

average efficiency of a population of

electric motors of duplicate design,

where the efficiency of each motor in

the population is the ratio (expressed as

a percentage) of the motor's useful

power output to its total power input

when the motor is operated at its full

rated load.

Basic model means all units of a given

type of covered equipment (or class

thereof) manufactured by a single

manufacturer, and, with respect to

electric motors, which have the same

rating, have electrical characteristics

that are essentially identical, and do not

have any differing physical or

functional characteristics which affect

energy consumption or efficiency. For

purpose of this definition, "rating"

means one of the 113 combinations of

an electric motor's horsepower (or

standard kilowatt equivalent), number

of poles, and open or enclosed

construction, with respect to which

§ 431.42 prescribes nominal full load

efficiency standards.

Certificate of conformity means a

document that is issued by a

certification program, and that gives

written assurance that an electric motor

complies with the energy efficiency

standard applicable to that motor, as

specified in 10 CFR 431.42.

Certification program means a,

certification system that determines

conformity by electric motors with the

energy efficiency standards prescribed

by and pursuant to the Act.

Certification system means a system,

that has its own rules of procedure and

management, for giving written

assurance that a product, process, or

service conforms to a specific standard

or other specified requirements, and

that is operated by an entity

independent of both the party seeking

the written assurance and the party

providing the product, process or

service.

Covered equipment means industrial

equipment of a type specified in section

340 of the Act.

CSA means the Canadian Standards

Association.

Definite purpose motor means any

motor designed in standard ratings with

standard operating characteristics or

standard mechanical constructionrfor

use under service conditions other than

usual, or for use on a particular type of

application, and which cannot be used

in most general purpose applications.

Electric motor means a machine

which converts electrical power into

rotational mechanical power and which:

(1) Is a general purpose motor,

including but not limited to motors with

explosion-proof construction;

(2) Is a single speed, induction motor;

(3) Is rated for continuous duty

operation, or is rated duty type S-1

(IEC);

(4) Contains a squirrel-cage or cage

(JEC) rotor, and has foot-mounting,

including foot-mounting with flanges or

detachable feet;

(5) Is built in accordance with NEMA

T-frame dimensions, or IEC metric

equivalents (IEC);

(6) Has performance in accordance

with NEMA Design A or B

characteristics, or equivalent designs

such as IEC Design N (IEC); and

(7) Operates on polyphase alternating

current 60-Hertz sinusoidal power, and

is:

(i) Rated 230 volts or 460 volts, or

both, including any motor that is rated

at multi-voltages that include 230 volts

or 460 volts, or

(ii) Can be operated on 230 volts or

460 volts, or both.

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
60466 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No

(Terms in this definition followed by

the parenthetical "IEC" shall be

construed with reference to IEC

Standard 34-1. Other terms in this

definition, if not defined in this § 431.2,

shall be construed with reference to

NEMA Standards Publication MG1-

1987.)

Enclosed motor means an electric

motor so constructed as to prevent the

free exchange of air between the inside

and outside of the case but not

sufficiently enclosed to be termed

airtight.

EPCA means the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act of 1975, as amended

(42 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.).

General purpose motor means any

motor which is designed in standard

ratings with either:

(1) Standard operating characteristics

and mechanical construction for use

under usual service conditions, such as

those specified in NEMA Standards

Publication MG 1-1993, paragraph

14.02, "Usual Service Conditions," and

without restriction to a particular

application or type of application; or

(2) Standard operating characteristics

or standard mechanical construction for

use under unusual service conditions,

or for a particular type of application,

and which can be used in most general

purpose applications.

IEC means the International

Electrotechnical Commission.

IIEEE means the Institute of Electrical

and Electronics Engineers.

NEMA means the National Electrical

Manufacturers Association.

Nominal full load efficiency of an

electric motor means the nominal

efficiency in Column A of Table 12-8,

NEMA Standards Publication MG1-

1993, that is either the closest lower

value to, or that equals, the average full

load efficiency of electric motors of the

same design.

Open motor means an electric motor

having ventilating openings which

permit passage of external cooling air,

over and around the windings of the

machine.

Special purpose motor means any

motor that is designed for a particular

application, and that either

(1).Is designed in non-standard ratings

with special operating characteristics or

special mechanical construction, or

(2) Has special operating

characteristics and special mechanical

construction.

Total power loss means that portion of

the energy used by an electric motor not

converted to rotational mechanical

power, expressed in percent.

230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Subpart B-Test Procedures and

Materials Incorporated

§ 431.21 Purpose and scope.

This subpart contains test procedures

for electric motors, required to be

prescribed by DOE pursuant to section

343 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314, and

identifies materials incorporated by

reference in this Part. .

§ 431.22 Reference sources.

(a) Materials Incorporated by

Reference-(1) General. The following

standards which are not otherwise set

forth in this part 431 are incorporated

by reference. The material listed in

paragraph (a) (2) of this section has been

approved for incorporation by reference

by the Director of the Federal Register

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and

1 CFR part 51. Any subsequent

amendment to a standard by the

standard-setting organization will not

affect the DOE test procedures unless

and until amended by DOE. Material is

incorporated as it exists on the date of

the approval and a notice of any change

in the material will be published in the

Federal Register.

(2) List of standards incorporated by

reference.

(i) National Electrical Manufacturers

Association Standards Publication

MG1-1993 with Revision 1, Motors and

Generators, section 12.58.1,

("Determination of Motor Efficiency

Losses"), Table 12-8 ("Efficiency

Levels"), and section 14.02 ("Usual

Service Conditions").

(ii) Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers, Inc., Standard

112-1991, Test Procedure for Polyphase

Induction Motors and Generators.

(iii) Canadian Standards Association

Standard C390-93, Energy Efficiency

Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction

Motors.

(3) Inspection of standards. The

standards incorporated by reference are

available for inspection at:

(i) Office of the Federal Register

Information Center, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC;

(ii) U.S. Department of Energy, Office

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy, Hearings and Dockets, "Test

Procedures, Labeling, and Certification

Requirements for Electric Motors,"

Docket No. EE-RM-96-400, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC 20585.

(4) Availability of standards.

Standards incorporated by reference

may be obtained from the following

sources:

(i) Copies of IEEE Standard 112-1991

can be obtained from the Institute of

Electrical and Electronics Engineers,

Inc., 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331,

Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, 1-800-

678-IEEE; or the American National

Standards Institute, 11 West 42nd

Street, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10036,

(212) 642-4900 as ANSI/IEEE 112-1992;

(ii) Copies of NEMA Standards

Publication MG1-1993 can be obtained

from the National Electrical

Manufacturers Association, 1300 North

17th Street, Suite 1847, Rosslyn, VA

22209, (703) 841-3200;

(iii) Copies of CSA Standard C390-93

can be obtained from the Canadian

StandardsAssociation, 178 Rexdale

Boulevard, Rexdale (Toronto), Ontario,

Canada M9W 1R3, (416) 747-4044.

§431.23 Test procedures for the

measurement of energy efficiency.

The test procedures for measurement

of whether an electric motor complies

with the energy efficiency standards in

§ 431.42 shall be the test procedures

specified in appendix A to this subpart

B.

§ 431.24 Units to be tested.

When testing of an electric motor is

required in order for a manufacturer to

comply with an obligation imposed on

it by or pursuant to Part C of Title III

of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311-6316, this

section applies. This section does not

apply to enforcement testing conducted

pursuant to § 431.127.

(a) General requirements. The average

full load efficiency of each basic model

of electric motor shall be determined

either by testing under paragraph (b)(1)

of this section, or by application of an

alternative efficiency determination

method (AEDM) that meets the

requirements of paragraphs (b) (2) and

(3) of this section, provided, however,

that an AEDM may be used to determine

the average full load efficiency of one or

more of a manufacturer's basic models

only if the average full load efficiency

of at least five of its other basic models

is determined through testing.

(b) Specific requirements-(1)

Testing. (i) Basic models shall be

selected for testing in accordance with

the following criteria:

(A) Two of the basic models must be

among the five basic models with the

highest unit volumes of production by

the manufacturer in the prior year:

(B) The basic models should be of

different horsepowers without

duplication;

(C) The basic models should have

different frame sizes without

duplication; and

(D) Each basic model should be

expected to have the lowest nominal

full load efficiency among the basic

models with the same rating.

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 60467

(ii) In any instance where it is

impossible for a manufacturer to select

basic models for testing in accordance

with all of the criteria in paragraph

(b)(I)(i) of this section, the criteria shall

be given priority in the order in which

they are listed. Within the limits

imposed by the criteria, basic models

shall be selected randomly.

(iii) For each basic model selected for

testing.9 a sample of units shall be

selected at random and tested in

accordance with §§ 431.23 and 431.25,

and appendix A, of this subpart. The

sample shall be comprised of

production units of the basic model, or

units that are representative of such

production units, and shall be of

sufficient size to ensure that any

represented value of the nominal or

average full load efficiency of the basic

model is no greater than the lesser of:

(A) The average full load efficiency of

the sample, or

(B) The lower 90 percent confidence

limit of the average full load efficiency

of the entire population divided by the

coefficient "K" applicable to the

represented value. The coefficients are

-set forth in appendix B of this subpart.

(2) Alternative efficiency

determination method. An AEDM

applied to a basic model must be:

(i) Derived from a mathematical

model that accurately represents the

mechanical and electrical characteristics

of that basic model, and

(ii) Based on engineering or statistical

analysis, computer simulation or

modeling, or other analytic evaluation

of performance data.

(3) Substantiation of an alternative

efficiency determination method. Before

an AEDM is used, its accuracy and

reliability must be substantiated as

follows:

(i) The AEDM must be applied to at

least five basic models that have been

selected for testing and tested in

accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this

section, and

(ii) The predicted total power loss for

each such basic model, calculated by

applying the AEDM, must be within

plus or minus ten percent of the mean

total power loss determined from the

actual testing of that basic model.

(4) Subsequent verification of an

AEDM. (i) Each manufacturer shall

periodically select basic models

representative of those to which it has

applied an AEDM, and for each basic

model selected shall either: ,

9 Components of similar design may be

substituted without requiring additional testing if

the represented measures of energy consumption

continue to satisfy the applicable sampling

provision.

(A) Subject a sample of units to

testing in accordance with §§ 431.23

and 431.24(b)(1)(iii) 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

not an employee of the manufacturer,

review the manufacturer's,

representations and certify that the

results of the AEDM accurately

represent the total power loss and

nominal full load efficiency of the basic

model.

(ii) Each manufacturer that has used

an AEDM under this section shall have

available for inspection by the

Department of Energy records showing:

The method or methods used; the

mathematical model, the engineering or

statistical analysis, computer simulation

or modeling, and other analytic

evaluation of performance data on

which the AEDM is based; complete test

data, product information, and related

information that the manufacturer has

generated or acquired pursuant to

paragraphs (a) (3) and (a) (4) (i) of this

section; and the calculations used to

determine the average full load

efficiency and total power losses of each

basic model to which an AEDM was

applied.

(iii) If requested by the Department,

the manufacturer shall conduct

simulations to predict the performance

of particular basic models of electric

motors specified by the Department,

analyses of previous simulations

conducted by the manufacturer, sample

testing of basic models selected by the

Department, or a combination of the

foregoing.

§ 431.25 Testing laboratories.

(a) Unless a certificate of conformity

for a basic model of an electric motor is

obtained from a certification program

classified by DOE as nationally

recognized under § 431.27, all testing of

that basic model to meet the

requirements of § 431.24 shall be carried

out in an accredited laboratory for

which the accreditation body was:

(1) The National Voluntary Laboratory

Accreditation Program (NVLAP), or

(2) A foreign organization recognized

by NVLAP, or

(3) An organization classified by the

Department, pursuant to § 431.26, as an

accreditation body.

(b) NVLAP is under the auspices of

the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) which is part of the

U.S. Department of Commerce. NVLAP

accreditation is granted on the basis of

conformance with criteria published in

15 CFR part 285, The National

Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation

Program Procedures and General

Requirements. NIST Handbook 150-10,

August 1995, presents the technical

requirements of the National Voluntary

Laboratory Accreditation Program for

the Efficiency of Electric Motors field of

accreditation. This handbook

supplements NIST Handbook 150,

National Voluntary Laboratory

Accreditation Program Procedures and

General Requirements, which contains

part 285 of Title 15 of the U.S. Code of

Federal Regulations plus all general

NVLAP procedures, criteria, and

policies. Changes in NVLAP's criteria,

procedures, policies, standards or other

bases for granting accreditation,

occurring subsequent to the initial

effective date of 10 CFR part 431, shall

not apply to accreditation under this

part unless approved in writing by the

Department of Energy. Information

regarding NVLAP can be obtained from

NIST/NVLAP, Building 411, Room

A162, Gaithersburg, MD 20899,

telephone (301) 975-4016, or telefax

(301) 926-2884.

§431.26 Department of Energy recognition

of accreditation bodies.

(a) Petition. An organization

requesting classification by the

Department of Energy as an

accreditation body.must submit a

petition to the Department requesting

such classification, and must

demonstrate that it meets the criteria in

'paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Evaluation criteria. To be

classified as an accreditation body by

the Department, the organization must

meet the following criteria:

(1) It must have standards and

procedures for conducting and

administering an accreditation system

and for granting accreditation.

(2) It must be independent of electric

motor manufacturers, importers,

distributors, private labelers or vendors.

It cannot be affiliated with, have

financial ties with, be controlled by, or

be under common control with any such

entity.

(3) It must be qualified to perform the

accrediting function in a highly

competent manner.

(4) It must be expert in the content

and application of the test procedures

and methodologies in IEEE Standard

112 Test Method B and CSA Standard

C390 Test Method (1), or similar

procedures and methodologies for

determining the energy efficiency of

electric motors.

(c) Petition format. Each petition

requesting classification as an

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
60468 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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:

(I) Standards and procedures. A copy

of the organization's standards and

procedures for operating an

accreditation system and for granting

accreditation should accompany the

petition.

(2) Independent status. The

petitioning organization should identify

and describe any relationship, direct or

indirect, that it has with an electric

motor manufacturer, importer,

distributor, private labeler, vendor,

trade association or other such entity, as

well as any other relationship it believes

might appear to create a conflict of

interest for it in performing as an

accreditation body for electric motor

testing laboratories. It should explain

why it believes such relationship(s)

would not compromise its

independence as an accreditation body.

(3) Qualifications to do accrediting.

Experience in accrediting should be

discussed and substantiated by

supporting documents. Of particular

relevance would be documentary

evidence that establishes experience in

the application of guidelines contained

in the ISO/IEC Guide 58, Calibration

and testing laboratory accreditation

systems-General requirements for

operation and recognition, as well as

experience in overseeing compliance

with the guidelines contained in the

ISO/IEC Guide 25, General

Requirements for the Competence of

Calibration and Testing Laboratories.

(4) Expertise in electric motor test

procedures. The petition should set

forth the organization 's experience with

the test procedures and methodologies

in IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B

and CSA Standard C390 Test Method

(1), and with similar procedures and

methodologies. This part of the petition

should include description of prior

projects, qualifications of staff members,

and the like. Of particular relevance

would be documentary evidence that

establishes experience in applying the

guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC

Guide 25, General Requirements for the

Competence of Calibration and Testing

Laboratories, to energy efficiency testing

for electric motors.

(d) Disposition. The Department will

evaluate the petition, determine

whether the applicant meets the criteria

in paragraph (b) of this section to be

classified as an accrediting body, advise

the applicant of its determination, and

give public notice of any affirmative

determination. The Department's

determination may be based solely on

the applicant's petition and supporting

documents, or may also be based on

such additional information as it deems

appropriate. The Department may

request that the applicant provide

additional relevant information to

supplement its petition, or may conduct

an investigation.

§431.27 Department of Energy recognition

of nationally recognized certification

programs.

(a) Petition. For a certification

program to be classified by the

Department of Energy as being

nationally recognized in the United

States for the purposes of section 345 of

EPCA ("nationally recognized"), the

organization operating the program

must demonstrate the program's

eligibility for such classification, and

must submit a petition to the

Department requesting such

classification.

(b) Evaluation criteria. For a

certification program to be classified by

the Department as nationally

recognized, it must meet the following

criteria:

(1) It must have standards and

procedures for conducting and

administering a certification system and

for granting a certificate of conformity.

(2) It must be independent of electric

motor manufacturers, importers,

distributors, private labelers or vendors.

It cannot be affiliated with, have

financial ties with, be controlled by, or

be under common control with any such

entity.

(3) It must be qualified to operate a

certification system in a highly

competent manner.

(4) It must be expert in the content

and application of the test procedures

and methodologies in IEEE Standard

112 Test Method B and CSA Standard

C390 Test Method (1), or similar

procedures and methodologies for

determining the energy efficiency of

electric motors.

(c) Petition format. Each petition

requesting classification as a nationally

recognized certification program must

contain a narrative statement as to why

the program meets the criteria listed in

paragraph (b) of this section, must be

signed on behalf of the organization

operating the program by an authorized

representative, and must be

accompanied by documentation that

supports the narrative statement. The

following provides additional guidance

as to the specific criteria:

(1) Standards and procedures. A copy

of the standards and procedures for'

operating a certification system and for

granting a certificate of conformity

should accompany the petition.

(2) Independent status. The

petitioning organization should identify

and describe any relationship, direct or

indirect, that it or the certification

program has with an electric motor

manufacturer, importer, distributor,

private labeler, vendor, trade association

or other such entity, as well as any other

relationship it believes might appear to

create a conflict of interest for the

certification program in operating a

certification system for compliance by

electric motors with energy efficiency

standards. It should explain why it

believes such relationship would not

compromise its independence in

operating a certification program.

(3) Qualifications to operate a

certification system. Experience in

operating a certification system should

be discussed and substantiated by

supporting documents. Of particular

relevance would be documentary

evidence that establishes experience in

the application of guidelines contained

in the ISO/IEC Guide 65, General

requirements for bodies operating

product certification systems, ISO/IEC

Guide 27, Guidelines for corrective

action to be taken by a certification

body in the event of either

misapplication of its mark of conformity

to a product, or products which bear the

mark of the certification body being

found to subject persons or property to

risk, and ISO/IEC Guide 28, General

rules for a model third-party

certification system for products, as well

as experience in overseeing compliance

with the guidelines contained in the

ISO/IEC Guide 25, General

Requirements for the Competence of

Calibration and Testing Laboratories.

(4) Expertise in electric motor test

procedures. The petition should set

forth the program's experience with the

test procedures and methodologies in

IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B and

CSA Standard C390 Test Method (1),

and with similar procedures and

methodologies. This part of the petition

should include description of prior

projects, qualifications of staff members,

and the like. Of particular relevance

would be documentary evidence that

establishes experience in applying

guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC

Guide 25, General Requirements for the

Competence of Calibration and Testing

Laboratories, to energy efficiency testing

for electric motors.

(d) Disposition. The Department will

evaluate the petition, determine

whether the applicant meets the criteria

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 60469

in paragraph (b) of this section for

classification as a nationally recognized

certification program, advise the

applicant of its determination, and give

public notice of any affirmative

determination. The Department's

determination may be based solely on

the applicant's petition and supporting

documents, or may also be based on

such additional information as it deems

appropriate. The Department may

request that the applicant provide

additional relevant information to

supplement its petition, or may conduct

an investigation.

§431.28 Petitions for waiver and

applications for interim waiver.

The provisions of 10 CFR 430.27 shall

apply with respect to this part 431, to

the same extent and in the same manner

as they apply in part 430. In applying

§ 430.27 for purposes of this part, the

term "§ 430.22" shall be deemed to

mean "section 431.23," and the term

"§ 322(a) " shall be deemed to mean

"section 340(1)."

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 431-

Uniform Test Method for Measuring

Nominal Full Load Efficiency of

Electric Motors

1. Definitions

Definitions contained in § 431.2 are

applicable to this appendix.

2. Test procedures

Efficiency and losses shall be determined

in accordance with NEMA MG1-1993 with

Revision 1, section 12.58.1, Determination of

Motor Efficiency and Losses, and either IEEE

Standard 112 Test Method B, Input-Output

with Loss Segregation, or Canadian

Standards Association Standard C390 Test

Method (1). Input-Output Method with

Indirect Measurement of the Stray-Load Loss

and Direct Measurement of the Stator

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

Windage-Friction Losses.

3. Amendments to test procedures

Any revision to IEEE Standard 112-1991.

Test Method B, to § 12.58.1 of NEMA

Standards Publication MCI-1993 with

Revision 1, or to CSA Standard C390-93,

Test Method (1), subsequent to promulgation

of this appendix A, shall not be effective for

purposes of test procedures required under

part 431 and this appendix A, unless and

until part 431 and this appendix A are

amended.

Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431-

Nominal Full Load Efficiency and

Corresponding Coefficient K

The coefficient K is used for calculating

permitted represented values of energy

efficiency. From the table below, select the

coefficient K for the nominal full load

efficiency that is equal to, or is the closest

lower value to, the represented value.

Nominal full load Coefficient K efficiency

99.0 0.998

98.9 0.998

98.8 0.998

98.7 ' 0.998

98.6 0.998

98.5 0.997

98.4 0.996

98.2 0.996

98.0 0.996

97.8 0.996

97.6 0.995

97.4 0.994

97.1 0.994

96.8 0.994

96.5 0.993

96.2 0.992

95.8 0.992

95.4 0.991

95.0 0.990

Nominal full load Coefficient K efficiency

94.5 0.990

94.1 0.988

93.6 0.987

93.0 0.986

92.4 0.985

91.7 0.984

91.0 0.984

90.2 0.981

89.5 0.978

88.5 0.977

87.5 0.977

86.5 0.971

85.5 0.965

84.0 0.970

82.5 0.970

81.5 0.963

80.0 0.963

78.5 0.962

77.0 0.961

75.5 0.954

Subpart C-Energy Efficiency

Standards

§ 431.41 Purpose and scope.

This subpart contains energy

efficiency standards for certain types of

covered equipment pursuant to Part CCertain Industrial Equipment, Energy

Policy and Conservation Act, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 6211 et seq.).

§431.42 Energy efficiency standards and

effective dates.

(a) Each electric motor manufactured

(alone or as a component of another

piece of equipment) after October 24,

1997, or in the case of an electric motor

which requires listing or certification by

a nationally recognized safety testing

laboratory, after October 24, 1999, shall

have a nominal full load efficiency of

not less than the following:

Nominal full load efficiency

Open motors E closed motors

Number of poles 6 1 4 2 6 4 2

Motor Horsepower/Standard Kilowatt Equivalent

1/35 ................................................................................. 80.0 82. 5 I .................... 80.0 82.5 75.5

1,5/1.1 ............................................................................... 84.0 84.0 82.5 85.5 84.0 82.5

2/1.5 ....... .................................................. :....... ................ 85.5 84. 0 84.0 86.5 84,0 84.0

3/2.2 ........ :................................................. ............ ........... 86.5 86.5 84.0 87.5 87.5 85.5

5/3.7 ................................................................................. 87.5 87.5 1 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5

7.5/5.5 .............................................................................. 88.5 ' 88.5 87.5 89.5 89.5 88.5

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

15/11 ................................................................................ 90.2 91. 0 89.5 90.2 91.0 90.2

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

25/18. 5 ............................................................................. 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 92.4 91.0

30/22 ................................................................................ 92.41 92. 4 91.0 91.7 92.4 91.0

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

50/37 ................................................................................ 93.0 93. 0 92.4 93.0 93.0 92.4

60/45 ................................................................................ 93.6 93. 6 93.0 93.6 93.6 93.0

75/55 .................... ........................... ................................. 93.6 94. 1 93.0 93.6 94.1 93.0

100/75 .............................................................................. 94.1 94. 1 93.0 94.1 94.5 93.6

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

150/110 ............................................................................. 94.5 95.0 93.6 95.0 I 95.0 94.5

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
60470 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Nominal full load efficiency

Open motors

Number of poles

200/150 ............................................................................

(b) For purposes of determining the

required minimum nominal full load

efficiency of an electric motor that has

a horsepower or kilowatt rating between

two horsepowers or kilowattages listed

consecutively in paragraph (a) of this

section, each such motor shall be

deemed to have a horsepower or

kilowatt rating that is listed in

paragraph (a) of this section. The rating

that the motor is deemed to have shall

be determined as follows:

(1) A horsepower at or above the

midpoint between the two consecutive

horsepowers'shall be rounded up to the

higher of the two horsepowers;

(2) A horsepower below the midpoint

between the two consecutive

horsepowers shall be rounded down to

the lower of the two horsepowers, or

(3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly

converted from kilowatts to horsepower

using the formula, 1 kilowatt = (1/0.746)

horsepower, without calculating beyond

three significant decimal places, and the

resulting horsepower shall be rounded

in accordance with paragraph (b) (1) or

(b)(2) of this section, whichever applies.

(c) This section does not apply to

definite purpose motors, special

purpose motors, and those motors

exempted by the Secretary.

Subpart D-Petitions To Exempt State

Regulation From Preemption ; Petitions

To Withdraw Exemption of State

Regulation

§ 431.61 Purpose and scope.

The provisions of 10 CFR 430.40

through 430.49 shall apply with respect

to this part 431, to the same extent and

in the same manner as they apply in

part 430. In applying §§430.40 through

430.49 for purposes of this part, the

term "energy conservation standard"

shall be deemed to mean "energy

efficiency standard," and the term

"product" shall be deemed to mean

"equipment."

Subpart E-Labeling

§ 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

6 i 4

94.5 95.0 94.5

2

E

95.0

6

closed motors

4

95.0 95.0

2

342 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C 6313, and the

inclusion of such information in other

material used to market the equipment.

§ 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 shall be marked clearly with

the following information:

(i) The motor's nominal full load

efficiency (as of the date of

manufacture), derived from the motor's

average full load efficiency as

determined pursuant to subpart B of this

part;

(ii) The Compliance Certification

("CC") number supplied by DOE to the

manufacturer pursuant to § 431.123(e),

and applicable to that motor. A CC

number shall be applicable to a motor

90 days after either:

(A) The manufacturer has received the

number upon submitting a Compliance

Certification covering that motor, or

(B) The expiration of 21 days from

DOE's receipt of a Compliance

Certification covering that motor, if the

manufacturer has not been advised by

DOE that the Compliance Certification

fails to satisfy § 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

§ 12.58.2 of NEMA MG1-1993, as for

example "NEMA Nom. Eff.

The DOE number

shall be in the form

"CC

(3) Optional display. The permanent

nameplate of an electric motor, a

separate plate, or decalcomania, may be

marked with the words "energy

efficient," or with the encircled lower

case letters "ee", or with some

comparable designation or logo, if the

motor meets the applicable standard

prescribed in § 431.42, as determined

The same information that must appear

on an electric motor's permanent

nameplate pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)

of this section, shall be prominently

displayed:

(i) On each page of a catalog that lists

the motor, and

(ii) In other materials used to market

the motor;

(2) The "ee" logo, the words "energy

efficient," or other similar logo or

designations, may also be used in

catalogs and other materials to the same

extent they may be used on labels under

paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

(c) Import documents. Any electric

motor imported into the United States

shall be accompanied by shipping

papers that disclose clearly the date of

the Compliance Certification for that

motor, and the Compliance Certification

number applicable to that motor in

accordance with paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of

this section.

(d) Other motors. A manufacturer,

distributor, retailer, or private labeler

may voluntarily comply with or

implement any of the subparagraphs of

paragraph (a) or (b) of this section with

respect to any electric motor

manufactured prior to October 24, 1997,

any definite purpose motor, or any

special purpose motor. Any such motor

that is labeled with information

required or permitted for electric motors

under this section, shall be deemed to

be an "electric motor" for purposes of:

(1) The provision of this section that

requires or permits such labeling

information, and

(2) The requirements of this part

concerning standards, testing,

certification and enforcement that are

related to that provision. Any

certification of compliance submitted

for purposes of this paragraph shall be

submitted on a Compliance Certification

that covers only non-covered motors,

and that is clearly labeled as such on the

first page and on the first page of the

attachment.

Subpart F-[Reserved]

Subpart G-Certification and

Enforcement

pursuant to subpart B of this part, and

is covered by a Compliance Certification §431.121 Purpose and scope.

that satisfies § 431.123. The regulations in this subpart set

(b) Disclosure of efficiency forth the procedures for manufacturers

information in marketing materials. (1) to certify that electric motors comply

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 60471

with the applicable energy efficiency

standards set forth in subpart C of this

part, and set forth standards and

procedures for enforcement of this part

and the underlying provisions of the

Act.

§431.122 Prohibited acts.

(a) Each of the following is a

prohibited act pursuant to sections 332

and 345 of the Act:

(1) Distribution in commerce by a

manufacturer or private labeler of any

new covered equipment which is not

labeled in accordance with an

applicable labeling rule prescribed in

accordance with section-344 of the Act,

and in this part;

(2) Removal from any new covered

equipment or rendering illegible, by a

manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or

private labeler, of any label required

under this part to be provided with such

equipment;

(3) Failure to permit access to, or

copying of records required to be

supplied under the Act and this part, or

failure to make reports or provide other

information required to be supplied

under the Act and this part;

(4) Advertisement of covered

equipment, by a manufacturer,

distributor, retailer, or private labeler, in

a catalog from which the equipment

may be purchased, without including in

the catalog all information as required

by §431.82(b)(2), provided, however,

that this shall not apply to an

advertisement of covered equipment in

a catalog if distribution of the catalog

began before the effective date of the

labeling rule applicable to that

equipment;

(5) Failure of a manufacturer to

supply at his expense a reasonable

number of units of an electric motor to

a test laboratory designated by the

Secretary;

(6) Failure of a manufacturer to permit

a representative designated by the

Secretary to observe any testing required

by the Act and this part, and to inspect

the results of such testing; and

(7) Distribution in commerce by a

manufacturer or private labeler of any

new covered equipment which is not in

compliance with an applicable energy

efficiency standard prescribed under the

Act and this part.

(b) In accordance with sections 333

and 345 of the Act, any person who

knowingly violates any provision of

paragraph (a) of this section may be

subject to assessment of a civil penalty

of no more than $100 for each violation.

Each violation of paragraphs (a) (1), (2),

and (7) of this section shall constitute a

separate violation with respect to each

unit of covered equipment, and each

day of noncompliance with paragraphs

(a) (3) through (6) of this section shall

constitute a separate violation.

(c) For purposes of this section, the

term new covered equipment means

covered equipment the title of which

has not passed to a purchaser who buys

such equipment for purposes other than

(1) Reselling such equipment, or

(2) Leasing such equipment for a

period in excess of one year.

§ 431.123 Compliance Certification.

(a) General. Beginning 24 months after

[effective date of rule], a manufacturer

or private labeler shall not distribute in

commerce any basic model of an electric

motor subject to an energy efficiency

standard set forth in subpart C of this

part unless it has submitted to the

Department a Compliance Certification

certifying, in accordance with the

provisions of this section, that the basic

model meets the requirements of the

applicable standard. Such certification

must be based upon a determination

made in accordance with the applicable

requirements of subpart B of this part.

(b) Required contents. (1) General

representations. Each Compliance

Certification shall certify that:

(i) The nominal full load efficiency for

each basic model of electric motor

distributed is not less than the

minimum nominal full load efficiency

required for that motor by § 431.42;

(ii) All required determinations on

which the Compliance Certification is

based were made in compliance with

the applicable requirements prescribed

in subpart B of this part;

(iii) All information reported in the

Compliance Certification is true,

accurate, and complete; and

(iv) The manufacturer or private

labeler is aware of the penalties

associated with violations of the Act

and the regulations thereunder, and 18

U.S.C. 1001 which prohibits knowingly

making false statements to the Federal

Government.

(2) Specific data. (i) For each rating of

electric motor (as the term "rating" is

defined in the definition of basic model)

which a manufacturer or private labeler

distributes, the Compliance Certification

shall report the average full load

submit the Compliance Certification

either on its own behalf, signed by a

corporate officer of the company, or

through a third party (for example, a

trade association or other authorized

representative) acting on its behalf.

Where a third party is used, the

Compliance Certification shall identify

the official of the manufacturer or

private labeler who authorized the third

party to make representations on the

company's behalf, and shall be signed

by a corporate official of the third party.

The Compliance Certification shall be

submitted to the Department by certified

mail, to Department of Energy, Assistant

Secretary for Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Office of Codes and

Standards, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585-0121.

(d) New basic models. For electric

motors, a Compliance Certification shall

be submitted for a new basic model only

if the manufacturer or private labeler

has not previously submitted to DOE a

Compliance Certification, that meets the

requirements of § 431.123, for a basic

model that has the same rating as the

new basic model, and that has a lower

nominal full load efficiency than the

new basic model.

(e) Response to Certification;

Certification Number for Electric

Motors. Promptly upon receipt of a

Compliance Certification, the

Department shall determine whether the

document contains all of the elements

required by this section, and may, in its

discretion, determine whether all or part

of the information provided in the

document is accurate. The Department

shall then advise the submitting party in

writing either that the Compliance

Certification does not satisfy the

requirements of this section, in which

case the document shall be returned, or

that the Compliance Certification

satisfies this section, and the basis for

the determination. When advising that

the initial Compliance Certification

submitted by or on behalf of a

manufacturer or private labeler is

acceptable, DOE shall provide a unique

number, "CC ." to the

manufacturer or private labeler.

efficiency, determined pursuant to §431 .124 Maintenance of records.

§§ 431.23 and 431.24, of the least (a) The manufacturer of any electric

efficient basic model within that rating. motor subject to energy efficiency

(ii) The Compliance Certification shall standards prescribed under section 342

identify the basic models on which of the Act shall establish, maintain and

actual testing has been performed to retain records of the following: The

meet the requirements of § 431.24. underlying test data for all actual testing

(iii) The format for a Compliance conducted under this part; the

Certification is set forth in appendix A development, substantiation,

of this subpart. application, and subsequent verification

(c) Signature and submission. A of any AEDM used under this part; and

manufacturer or private labeler shall any certificate of conformity relied on

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
60472 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

under the provisions of this part. Such

records shall be organized and indexed

in a fashion which makes them readily

accessible for review. The records

should include the supporting test data

associated with tests performed on any

test units to satisfy the requirements of

this subpart (except tests performed by

the Department directly).

(b) All such records shall be retained

by the manufacturer for a period of two

years from the date that production of

the applicable basic model of electric

motor has ceased. Records shall be

retained in a form allowing ready access

to the Department upon request.

§ 431.125 Imported equipment.

The provisions of 10 CFR 430.64 shall

apply with respect to this part 431, to

the same extent and in the same manner

as they apply in part 430. In applying

§ 430.64 for purposes of this part, the

term "section 331" shall be deemed to

mean "sections 331 and 345," and the

term "product" shall be deemed to

mean "equipment." .

§ 431.126 Exported equipment.

The provisions of 10 CFR 430.65 shall

apply with respect to this part 431, to

the same extent and in the same manner

as they apply in part 430. In applying

§ 430.65 for purposes of this part, the

term "sections 330 and 345" shall be

substituted for the term "section 330,"

and the term "equipment" shall be

substituted for the term "product."

§ 431.127 Enforcement.

(a) Test notice. Upon receiving

information in writing, concerning the

energy performance of a particular

electric'motor sold by a particular

manufacturer or private labeler, which

indicates that the electric motor may not

be in compliance with the applicable

energy efficiency standard, or upon

undertaking to ascertain the accuracy of

information disclosed pursuant to

subpart E of this part, the Secretary may

conduct testing of that covered

equipment under this subpart by means

of a test notice addressed to the

manufacturer in accordance with the

following requirements:

(1) The test notice procedure will only

be followed after the Secretary or his/

her designated representative has

examined the underlying test data (or,

where appropriate, data as to use of an

alternative efficiency determination

method) provided by the manufacturer

and after the manufacturer has been

offered the opportunity to meet with the

Department to verify compliance with

the applicable efficiency standard. In

addition, where compliance of a basic,

model was certified based on an AEDM,

the Department shall have the discretion

to pursue the provisions of

§ 431.24 (b) (4) (iii) prior to invoking the

test notice procedure. A representative

designated by the Secretary shall be

permitted to observe any reverification

procedures undertaken pursuant to this

subpart, and to inspect the results of

such reverification.

(2) The test notice will be signed by

the Secretary or his/her designee. The

test notice will be mailed or delivered

by the Department to the plant manager

or other responsible official, as

designated by the manufacturer.

(3) The test notice will specify the

model or basic model to be selected for

testing, the method of selecting the test

sample, the date and time at which

testing shall be initiated, the date by

which testing is scheduled to be

completed and the facility at which

testing will be conducted. The test

notice may also provide for situations in

which the selected basic model is

unavailable for testing, and may include

alternative basic models.

(4) The Secretary may require in the

test notice that the manufacturer of an

electric motor shall ship at his expense

a reasonable number of units of a basic

model specified in such test notice to a

testing laboratory designated by the

Secretary. The number of units of a

basic model specified in a test notice

shall not exceed twenty (20).

(5) Within five working days of the

time the units are selected, the

manufacturer shall ship the specified

test units of a basic model to the testing

laboratory.

(b) Testing laboratory. Whenever the

Department conducts enforcement

testing at a designated laboratory in

accordance with a test notice under this

section, the resulting test data shall

constitute official test data for that basic

model. Such test data will be used by

the Department to make a determination

of compliance or noncompliance if a

sufficient number of tests have been

conducted to satisfy the requirements of

appendix C of this subpart.

(c) Sampling. The determination that

a manufacturer's basic model complies

with the applicable energy efficiency

standard shall be based on the testing

conducted in accordance with the

statistical sampling procedures set forth

in appendix B of this subpart and the

test procedures set forth in subpart B of

this part.

(d) Test unit selection. A Department

inspector shall select a batch, a batch

sample, and test units from the batch

sample in accordance with the

provisions of this paragraph and the

conditions specified in the test notice.

(1) The batch may be subdivided by

the Department utilizing criteria

specified in the test notice.

(2) A batch sample of up to 20 units

will then be randomly selected from one

or more subdivided groups within the

batch. The manufacturer shall keep on

hand all units in the batch sample until

such time as the basic model is

determined to be in compliance or 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

subpart B of this part.

(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

Department shall authorize testing of an

additional unit on a case-by-case basis.

(f) Testing at manufacturer's option.

(1) If a manufacturer's basic model is

determined to be in noncompliance

with the applicable energy performance

standard at the conclusion of

Department testing in accordance with

the sampling plan specified in appendix

C of this subpart, the manufacturer may

request that the Department conduct

additional testing of the basic model

according to procedures set forth in

appendix B of this subpart.

(2) All units tested under this

paragraph shall be selected and tested in

accordance with the provisions given in

paragraphs (a) through (e) of this

section.

(3) The manufacturer shall bear the

cost of all testing conducted under this

paragraph.

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 60473

(4) The manufacturer shall cease

distribution of the basic model tested

under the provisions of this paragraph

from the time the manufacturer elects to

exercise the option provided in this

paragraph until the basic model is

determined to be in compliance. The

Department may seek civil penalties for

all units distributed during such period.

(5) If the additional testing results in

a determination of compliance, a notice

of allowance to resume distribution

shall be issued by the Department.

§431.128 Cessation of distribution of a

basic model.

The provisions of 10 CFR 430.71 shall

apply with respect to this part 431, to

the same extent and in the same manner

they apply in part 430. In applying

§ 430.71 for purposes of this part, the

term "§ 430.70" shall be deemed to

mean "§ 431.127."

mean "efficiency," the term "section

334" shall be deemed to mean "sections

334 and 345" and the term "section

333" shall be deemed to mean "sections

333 and 345."

§ 431.132 Confidentiality.

The provisions of 10 CFR 430.75 shall

apply with respect to this part 431, to

the same extent and in the same manner

as it applies in part 430.

Appendix A to Subpart G of Part 431-

Compliance Certification

Certification of Compliance With Energy

Efficiency Standards for Electric Motors

Name and Address of Company (the

"company"):

Type(s) of Electric Motor(s):

Telephone Number:

Facsimile Number:

If any part of this Compliance Certification,

including the Attachment, was prepared by

a third party organization under the

provisions of section 431.123 of 10 CFR Part

431, the company official authorizing third

party representations:

Name:

Address:

Telephone Number:

Facsimile Number:

The third party organization officially

acting as representative:

Third Party Organization:

Name:

Address: § 431.129 Subpoena.

The provisions of 10 CFR 430.72 shall

apply with respect to this part 431, to

the same extent and in the same manner

as they apply in part 430. In.applying

§ 430.72 for purposes of this part, the

term "section 329(a)" shall be deemed

to mean "sections 329(a) and 345."

§431.130 Remedies.

The provisions of 10 CFR 430.73 shall

apply with respect to this part 431, to

the same extent and in the same manner

as they apply in part 430. In applying

§ 430.73 for purposes of this part, the

term "conservation" shall be deemed to

mean "efficiency," the term "section

334" shall be deemed to mean "sections

334 and 345" and the term "section

333" shall be deemed to mean "sections

333 and 345."

§431.131 Hearings and appeals.

The provisions of 10 CFR 430.74 shall

apply with respect to this part 431, to

the same extent and in the same manner

as they apply in part 430. In applying

§ 430.74 for purposes of this part, the

term "conservation" shall be deemed to

Submit by Certified Mail to: U.S.

Department of Energy , Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy , Office of

Codes and Standards, Forrestal Building,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington , DC 20585-012 1.

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.

Name of Person to Contact for Further

Information:

Name:

Address:

Rating of electric motor

Mot N b f

Open or Least efficient basic model

or um er o o

horsepower poles enclosed (m del number(s))

motor

1 .................... 6 Open

1 .... ................. 4 Open

1 ..................... 6 Enclosed

1 .................... 4 Enclosed

1 ..................... 2 Enclosed

1.5 .................. 6 Open

1.5 .................. 4 Open

Telephone Number:

Facsimile Number:

All required determinations on which this

Compliance Certification is based were made

in conformance with the applicable

requirements in 10 CFR Part 431, subpart B.

All information reported in this Compliance

Certification is true, accurate, and complete.

The company is aware of the penalties

associated with violations of the Act and the

regulations thereunder, and is also aware of

the provisions contained in 18 U.S.C 1001,

which prohibits knowingly making false

statements to the Federal Government.

Signature:

Date:

Name:

Title:

Firm or Organization:

Attachment to Certification of Compliance

With Energy Efficiency Standards for

Electric Motors Listing of Electric Motor

Efficiencies

Date:

Name of company

Average full load

efficiency

'The term "rating" means one of the 113 open or enclosed construction, with respect to

combinations of an electric motor's horsepower (or which section 431.42 of 10 CFR Part 431 prescribes

standard kilowatt equivalent), number of poles, and nominal full load efficiency standards.

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
60474 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Rating of electric motor

en or Least efficient basic model i O

Average full load

Motor Number of p

(model number(s)) efficiency

horsepower poles enclosed

motor

1.5 .................. 2 Open

1.5 ................. ^ 6 Enclosed

1.5 ................. ! 4 Enclosed

1.5 .................. 2 Enclosed

etc .................. etc etc

Rating of electric motor

Motor Number of Open or

kilowatts poles enclosed

motor

.75 .................. 6 Open

.75 .................. 4 Open

.75 ................. 1 6 Enclosed

. 75 .................. 4 Enclosed

.75 ................. 2 Enclosed

1.1 .................. 6 Open

1.1 ................. 4 Open

1.1 .................. 2 Open i

1.1 ................. 6 Enclosed i

1.1 ....... ........ 4 Enclosed

t.1 ...........:...... 2 Enclosed

etc .................. etc etc

Least efficient basic model

(model number(s))

Average full load

efficiency

Note: The manufacturer shall place an asterisk beside each reported nominal full load efficiency that is determined by actual testing rather

than by application of an alternative efficiency determination method. The manufacturer shall also list below additional basic models that were

subjected to actual testing.

Basic Model means all units of a given type of covered equipment (or class thereof) manufactured by one manufacturer, and, with respect to

electric motors, having (i) the same rating, (ii) electrical design characteristics that are essentially identical, and (iii) no differing mechanical or

functional characteristics that affect energy consumption or efficiency.

Rating means one of the 113 combinations of an electric motor's horsepower (or standard kilowatt equivalent), number of poles, and open or

enclosed construction, with respect to which section 431.42 of 10 CFR Part 431 prescribes nominal full load efficiency standards.

ADDITIONAL MODELS ACTUALLY TESTED

Motor power output

(e.g. i hp or .75 kW)

etc etc

Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 431-

Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing

Step I. The first sample size (n1) must be

five or more units.

Step 2. Compute the mean (X,) of the

measured energy performance of the n1 units

in the first sample as follows:

X1 =-^X;, (1)

nli=1

etc

Least efficient basic model

(model number(s))

efficiency of the n1 units in the first sample

as follows:

n, I

IN -X1)

S1 = ^l i=1 (2)

nl-1

Step 4 . Compute the standard error

(SE(XY)) of the mean full load efficiency of

the first sample as follows:

where X, is the measured full load efficiency _

of unit i. SE(X1) = S1 (3)

Step 3. Compute the sample standard nl

deviation (Si) of the measured full load

Rating of electric motor

Number of poles j Open or enclosed motor

etc

Average full load

efficiency

etc

Step 5. Compute the lower control limit

(LCL,) for the mean of the first sample using

the applicable statutory full load efficiency

(SFE) as the desired mean as follows:

LCLI = SFE -tSE(R, ). (4)

Here t is 10th percentile of a t-distribution for

a sample size of n1 and yields a 90 percent

confidence level for a one-tailed t-test.

Step 6. Compare the mean of the first

sample (X,) with the lower control limit

(LCL,) to determine one of the following:

(i) If the mean of the first sample is below

the lower control limit, then the basic model

is in noncompliance and testing is at an end.

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 60475

(ii) If the mean is equal to or greater than

the lower control limit, no final

determination of compliance or

noncompliance can be made ; proceed to Step

7.

Step 7. Determine the recommended

sample size (n) as follows:

n=

tS) (120-0.2SFE)

SFE(20 - 0.2SFE )

, (5)

where S, and t have the values used in Steps

4 and 5, respectively. The factor

(120 - 0.2SFE)

SFE(20 - 0.2SFE)

is based on a 20 percent tolerance in the total

power loss at full load.

Given the value of n, determine one of the

following:

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

to n, and if the mean energy efficiency of the

first sample Ni) 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 n,, 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 n, equal

to 20-n 1.

Step 8. Compute the combined mean (X,)

of the measured energy performance of the n,

and n2 units of the combined first and second

samples as follows:

I n,+n,

X2 = J:Xi (6)

n, +n2 i=1

Step 9. Compute the standard error

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

the n, and n, units in the combined first and

second samples as follows:

SE(X,) _ S' (7)

jni +n,

(Note that S, is the value obtained above in

Step 3.)

Step 10. Set the lower control limit (LCL2)

to,

LCL, = SFE -tSE(X2) (8)

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 noncompliance and testing

is at an end.

(ii) If the mean of the combined sample

(X2) is equal to or greater than the lower

control limit (LCL,), the basic model is in

compliance and testing is at an end.

MANUFACTURER-OPTION TESTING

If a determination of non-compliance is

made in Steps 6, 7 or 11, above. the

manufacturer may request that additional

testing be conducted, in accordance with the

following procedures.

Step A. The manufacturer requests that an

additional number, n3, of units be tested,

with n3 chosen such that n, + n, + n3 does

not exceed 20.

Step B. Compute the mean full load

efficiency, standard error, and lower control

limit of the new combined sample in

accordance with the procedures prescribed in

Steps 8, 9, and 10, above.

Step C. Compare the mean performance of

the new combined sample to the lower

control limit (LCL2) to determine one of the

following:

(a) If the new combined sample mean is

equal to or greater than the lower control

limit, the basic model is in compliance and

testing is at an end.

(b) If the new combined sample mean is

less than the lower control limit and the

value of n, + n2 + n3 is less than 20, the

manufacturer may request that additional

units be tested. The total of all units tested

may not exceed 20. Steps A, B, and C are

then repeated.

(c) Otherwise, the basic model is

determined to be in noncompliance.

[FR Doc. 96-29048 Filed 11-26-96: 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 0B