## 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

### 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, 1000Independence 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 andRenewable 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 1974Federal. 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 anymotor 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.

### 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 "ageneral 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 furtherexample, 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

### 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 readily3.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

### 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 therounding 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 MG1-1987Federal 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
created such an exclusion other than to NEMA MG 1 1 09 Th d fi i i

- . . ese two e n t ons 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 the

, y f i l n

ten a part cu ar use motor of a give except that it can be used in most not designed "for use under usual o 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

an a t d d t h 1 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

### 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 inaccordance 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

### 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

### 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 ofat 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.).

### 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 efficienc ratin fo it di y g r s correspon ng 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 rated in kilowatts should meet the same AEDMs 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).

### 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

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

### 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 fromattaching an "ee" mark to a noncomplying motor. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.c). DOE agrees. In addition, requirement of the ID number woulddiscourage 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 notrequired 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.

### 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 '

### 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.

### 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.

### 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 andintegrity 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.

### 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 providescompliance 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

### 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.

### 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 knownin 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

### 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, correctlydemonstrate 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

### 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 notbe 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

### 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 isless 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

### 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,

### 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.

### 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 section340 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.

### 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 motormeans 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.

### 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

### 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
rulesfor 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

### 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 ofcovered 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 isdetermined 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 performedon 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.

### 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

o or um er 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.

### 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.

### 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)

j ni +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