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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, (the Act

or EPCA) establishes energy efficiency standards and test procedures

for commercial and industrial electric motors. EPCA also directs the

Department of Energy (DOE or Department) to establish efficiency

labeling requirements and compliance certification requirements for

motors. Today, DOE proposes regulations to implement these

requirements.

DATES: The Department will accept written statements, comments, data,

and information regarding this notice no later than February 17, 1997.

Oral views, data, and arguments may be presented at the public

hearing to be held in Washington, D.C., on January 15-16, 1997.

Requests to speak at the hearing must be received by the Department no

later than 4 p.m., January 6, 1997. Ten (10) copies of statements to be

given at the public hearing must be received by the Department no later

than 4 p.m., January 6, 1997. (See Section XIII-B below for further

details.)

ADDRESSES: Written comments, written statements, and requests to speak

at the public hearing, should be labeled ``Electric Motor Rulemaking''

(Docket No. EE-RM-96-400), and submitted to: U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Codes and Standards, EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,

Room 1J-018, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7574.

The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. on January 15, 1997, and will

be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-

245, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC.

Requests to speak may be hand delivered between the hours of 8 a.m.

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Such

requests should be labeled ``Electric Motor Rulemaking,'' Docket No.

EE-RM-96-400, both on the document and on the envelope.

Copies of the transcript of the public hearing and public comments

received may be read at the Freedom of Information Reading Room, U.S.

Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-190, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0101, telephone (202)

586-6020, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

The Department proposes to incorporate by reference, test

procedures from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers/

American National Standards Institute (IEEE/ANSI), the National

Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), and the Canadian Standards

Association (CSA). These test procedures are set forth in the standards

publications listed below:

1. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Standards

Publication MG1-1993 with Revision 1, ``Motors and Generators,''

paragraph MG1-12.58.1, ``Determination of Motor Efficiency and

Losses.''

2. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ``Standard

Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators,'' IEEE

112-1991 (ANSI/IEEE 112-1992).

3. Canadian Standards Association ``Energy Efficiency Test Methods

for Three-Phase Induction Motors,'' C390-93.

Copies of these standards publications may be viewed at the

Department of Energy Freedom of Information Reading Room at the address

stated above. Copies of the National Electrical Manufacturers

Association standards may also be obtained from the National Electrical

Manufacturers Association, 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1847, Rosslyn,

VA 22209. Copies of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers standards may also be obtained from the Institute of

Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box

1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, or the American National Standards

Institute (ANSI), 11 West 42nd Street, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10036

as ANSI/IEEE 112-1992. Copies of Canadian Standards Association

standards may also be obtained from the Canadian Standards Association,

178 Rexdale Boulevard, Rexdale (Toronto), Ontario, Canada M9W 1R3.

For more information concerning public participation in this

rulemaking proceeding, see section XIII of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, (202) 586-8654

Edward Levy, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General

Counsel, Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,

D.C. 20585-0103, (202) 586-9507

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

II. General Discussion

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

A. Definitions

1. Electric Motor

2. Metric Equivalents

3. Basic Model

4. General Purpose Motor, Definite Purpose Motor, and Special

Purpose Motor

5. Enclosed Motor and Open Motor

6. Efficiency and Nominal Full Load Efficiency

B. Test Procedures for the Measurement of Energy Efficiency

C. Units to be Tested

D. Energy Efficiency Standards

1. Standards for Metric Motors

2. Standards for Horsepowers not Listed in Statute, and for Non-

standard Kilowatt Ratings

3. Electric Motors as Components of Systems

E. Labeling

1. Statutory Provisions

2. Information on Motor Nameplate

3. Disclosure of Efficiency Information in Marketing Materials

4. Other Matters

F. Certification

1. Statutory Provisions

2. Basis for Certification

a. Independent Testing Program

b. Laboratory Accreditation

c. Certification Program

d. National Recognition

e. Proposal

3. Form of Certification

a. Compliance Statement

b. New Models

G. Enforcement

IV. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

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

Review''

VI. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

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

VIII. Review Under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights''

IX. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

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

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

of 1974

[[Page 60441]]

XII. Review Under Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

XIII. Public Comment

A. Written Comment Procedures

B. Public Hearing

1. Procedures for Submitting Requests to Speak

2. Conduct of Hearing

C. Issues for Public Comment

I. Introduction

A. Authority

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of

1975, Pub. L. 94-163, as amended, by the National Energy Conservation

Policy Act of 1978 (NECPA), Pub. L. 95-619, the National Appliance

Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Pub. L. 100-12, the National

Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988), Pub. L.

100-357, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), Pub. L. 102-486,

established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products other

than Automobiles. Part 3 of Title IV of NECPA amended EPCA to add

``Energy Efficiency of Industrial Equipment,'' which includes electric

motors. EPAct also amended EPCA with respect to electric motors,

providing definitions in section 122(a), test procedures in section

122(b), labeling provisions in section 122(c), energy efficiency

standards in section 122(d), and compliance certification requirements

in section 122(e).

EPCA defines ``electric motor'' as any motor which is ``general

purpose T-frame, single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage

induction of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)

Designs A and B, continuous-rated, operating on 230/460 volts and

constant 60 Hertz line power, as defined in NEMA Standards Publication

MG1-1987.'' EPCA section 340(13)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A).

EPCA then prescribes efficiency standards for electric motors that

are 1 through 200 horsepower, and ``manufactured (alone or as a

component of another piece of equipment),'' except for ``definite

purpose motors, special purpose motors, and those motors exempted by

the Secretary.'' EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1).

Furthermore, it provides for exemption of certain types or classes of

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

The Act also requires that testing procedures for motor efficiency

shall be the test procedures specified in NEMA Standards Publication

MG1-1987, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

(IEEE) Standard 112 Test Method B for motor efficiency, as in effect on

October 24, 1992. EPCA section 343(a)(5)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A).

If the test procedure requirements of NEMA MG1-1987 and IEEE Standard

112 Test Method B for motor efficiency are amended, the Act directs the

Secretary to amend these testing procedures to conform to such amended

test procedures in the NEMA and IEEE standards, unless the Secretary

determines, by rule, that to do so would not produce results that

reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs,

and would be unduly burdensome to conduct. EPCA section 343(a)(5) (B)

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

Additionally, EPCA directs the Secretary, after consultation with

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), to prescribe rules requiring motor

labeling to indicate the energy efficiency on the permanent nameplate,

to display the motor energy efficiency prominently in catalogs and

other marketing materials, and to include other markings to facilitate

enforcement of the energy efficiency standards. EPCA section 344(f), 42

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

Finally, the Act directs the Secretary to require motor

manufacturers to certify compliance with the applicable energy

efficiency standards through an independent testing or certification

program nationally recognized in the United States. EPCA section

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

B. Background

The Department held a public meeting on June 2, 1995, to discuss

issues and gather information related to the energy efficiency

requirements for electric motors covered under EPCA, as amended.

Comments were sought on the following issues: which equipment is

covered by the statute; the nature and scope of required testing; use

of independent testing and certification programs to establish

compliance with applicable standards; the means of certifying such

compliance to DOE; and possible labeling requirements.

Statements received after publication of the Notice of that public

meeting in the Federal Register (60 FR 27051, May 22, 1995), and at the

public meeting itself, have helped to refine the issues involved in

this rulemaking, and have provided information that has contributed to

DOE's proposed resolution of these issues. Portions of many of the

statements are quoted and summarized in section III., Discussion of

Proposed Rule. A parenthetical reference at the end of a quotation or

passage in section III provides the location index in the public record

of the portion of a statement that is being quoted or discussed.1

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

\1\ Example: ``(ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.a.2.)'' refers to (1) a

statement that was submitted by the American Council for an Energy

Efficient Economy and is recorded in the DOE Freedom of Information

Reading Room in the docket under ``Motors Workshop,'' June 2, 1995,

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

3.a.2. of that statement.

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

II. General Discussion

The Department's energy conservation program for consumer products

is conducted pursuant to Part B of Title III of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6291-

6309. Under EPCA, the consumer appliance standards program essentially

consists of three parts: Testing; Federal energy conservation

standards; and labeling. The appliance products covered by these parts

include refrigerators and freezers, room air conditioners, central air

conditioners and heat pumps, water heaters, furnaces, dishwashers,

clothes washers and dryers, direct heating equipment, ranges and ovens,

pool heaters, and fluorescent lamp ballasts. The program is codified in

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 430--Energy

Conservation Program for Consumer Products.

Since 10 CFR part 430 covers consumer products as distinct from

commercial and industrial equipment, the Department proposes to create

a new part 431 in the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 431),

Energy Conservation Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment, to

cover certain commercial and industrial equipment covered under the

Act. These include commercial heating and air-conditioning equipment,

water heaters, certain lighting products, distribution transformers,

and electric motors. This new commercial and industrial equipment

program will consist of the same elements as the program covering

consumer products: Testing; Federal energy efficiency standards;

labeling; and certification and enforcement.

The Department of Energy today proposes to incorporate the energy

efficiency standards and test procedures prescribed by EPCA for

commercial and industrial electric motors, provisions to clarify and

implement those requirements, and energy efficiency labeling and

certification requirements for such motors into the new part 431. These

include: Definitions in accordance with section 340(13)(A) of EPCA, 42

U.S.C. 6311(13)(A); test procedures prescribed by section 343(a)(5)(A)

of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A); standards prescribed section

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

[[Page 60442]]

6313(b)(1); labeling requirements in accordance with section 344(d) of

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

accordance with section 345(c) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6316(c).

Among the matters DOE addresses in this Notice are requirements for

testing by manufacturers (including provisions as to confidence levels

for results and sample size), use of mathematical methods to calculate

energy efficiency as an alternative to actual testing, accreditation of

testing laboratories, recognition of certification programs, testing

during enforcement proceedings, and information to be displayed on a

motor nameplate. The Department is incorporating from 10 CFR part 430

procedures for waiver of test procedures, procedures to exempt state

regulation from preemption, and provisions for imported and exported

equipment.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

A. Definitions

1. Electric Motor

EPCA prescribes energy efficiency standards for each ``electric

motor'' with a horsepower rating from 1 through 200 horsepower and

certain other characteristics. EPCA section 342(b), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b).

``Electric motor'' is defined as any motor which is ``a general purpose

T-frame, single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction

motor of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (``NEMA'')

Design A and B, continuous-rated, operating on 230/460 volts and

constant 60 Hertz line power, as defined in NEMA Standards Publication

MG1-1987'' (NEMA MG1-1987). EPCA section 340(13)(A), 42 U.S.C.

6311(13)(A). The Department is concerned, however, that many of the

terms in the foregoing definition are not sufficiently clear to

identify which motors should be covered by the regulations.

NEMA suggests that DOE adopt a definition of ``electric motor''

which clarifies those terms as follows: (1) ``Continuous rated'' refers

to ``continuous duty operation;'' (2) ``Foot-mounting'' encompasses

foot-mounting ``motors with flanges and motors with explosion proof

construction,'' but flange-mounting motors without feet are not

included; and (3) ``Operating on 230/460 volts'' applies to ``motors

that are rated at 230 volts, 460 volts, or multi-voltages that include

230 and/or 460 volts,'' and to motors that are ``arbitrarily rated at

voltages other than 230 or 460 volts, but that may be operated on 230

and/or 460 volts, or any combination of the two.'' (NEMA, No. 9 at

A.1.).

The Department agrees with and is proposing to adopt these NEMA

proposals. (NEMA proposals to include metric equivalent motors within

the definition of ``electric motor'' are discussed below.) In addition,

as to the term ``foot-mounting,'' the Department proposes to make clear

that motors with detachable feet are included within the definition of

``electric motor.'' The Department also proposes to add a definition to

clarify the term, ``general purpose'' motor. The definition is drawn,

in part, from language suggested by NEMA (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.3;

NEMA, No. 9 at 4.; and Public Meeting, Tr. pgs. 36-41) and is discussed

at greater length in section III.A.4. below. The definition of

``general purpose'' motor would give effect to the statutory

definitions of both ``electric motor'' and ``definite purpose motor.''

The Department understands that some motors are essentially general

purpose motors with, for example, minor modifications such as the

addition of temperature sensors or a heater, or modifications in

exterior features such as motor housing. Such motors can still be used

for most general purpose applications, and the modifications have

little or no effect on motor performance. Nor do the modifications

affect energy efficiency. DOE does not believe that the modifications

justify excluding these motors from meeting statutory energy efficiency

levels, or that Congress intended to exclude them from coverage.

2. Metric Equivalents

EPCA defines ``electric motor'' on the basis of NEMA Standards

Publication MG1-1987, Motors and Generators. EPCA section 340(13)(A),

42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A). The definition provides, for example, that the

motor must be ``a general purpose T-frame, . . . squirrel-cage . . .

motor of the (NEMA) Design A and B . . . as defined in . . . MG1-

1987.'' The Act prescribes nominal full load energy efficiency

standards for electric motors that have certain combinations of

horsepower, number of poles (speed in revolutions per minute), and

enclosure type, EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), all of

which are based on the construction and rating system in NEMA MG1-1987

which utilizes English or customary units of measurement. The specific

combinations in the statute are the typical motors available in the

United States, and such motors constructed in accordance with the

standards in MG1 are often referred to as ``NEMA motors.''

By contrast, general purpose electric motors manufactured outside

the United States and Canada are defined and described with reference

to International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 34 series,

Rotating electrical machines, which employs terminology and criteria

different from those used in the EPCA definition for motors. The

performance attributes of these ``IEC motors'' are rated pursuant to

IEC Standard 34-1, Rating and performance, which uses metric units of

measurement and a different construction and rating system than NEMA

MG1-1987. It employs, for example, units such as kilowatts instead of

horsepower. As with NEMA motors, standard IEC motors exist, consisting

of specific combinations of kilowatts and other IEC rating factors.

Although the statutory definition of ``electric motor'' does not

specifically mention IEC motors, the Department believes that the Act

covers IEC motors that are identical or equivalent to motors included

in the statutory definition.

The Department understands that IEC motors generally can perform

the identical functions of NEMA motors. Comparable motors of both types

provide virtually identical amounts of rotational mechanical power, and

generally can operate or provide power for the same pieces of machinery

or equipment. A given industrial central air conditioner, for example,

could operate with either an IEC or NEMA motor with little or no effect

on performance.

It is also DOE's understanding, however, that small differences

between the two types of motors affect their suitability for particular

applications. For example, IEC motors tend to be slightly smaller than

comparable NEMA motors and the shaft dimensions of the two types of

motors are slightly different. Thus, in some situations, differing

physical characteristics could render it difficult or impossible to

install one type of motor in a piece of machinery designed to be

operated by the other type. By way of further example, IEC motors have

higher in-rush currents than comparable NEMA motors, and thus will tend

to start and reach normal performance levels more slowly than NEMA

motors. Consequently, IEC motors will not be suitable for machinery

requiring a high torque start, but will be more suitable where a

gradual start is appropriate.

As mentioned above, IEC motors are designed and rated according to

criteria in IEC Standard 34-1, whereas EPCA defines electric motor in

terms of design and rating criteria set forth in NEMA

[[Page 60443]]

MG1. It is DOE's understanding that the differences in criteria concern

primarily nomenclature, units of measurement, standard motor

configurations, and design details, but have little bearing on motor

function. For example, under EPCA, an electric motor must be a

``squirrel cage'' motor (i.e., have a certain physical shape) and be

``continuous rated'' (i.e., designed for continuous operation). IEC

Standard 34-1 does not use either of these terms, but uses the term

``cage'' to refer to the same shape as is referred to by the term

``squirrel cage,'' and uses the term ``duty type S-1'' to refer to

motors designed for continuous operation.

Similarly, the different measures for rating motor power--IEC

Standard 34-1 uses kilowatts and NEMA's Publication MG1-1987 uses

horsepower--do not affect the quality or quantity of a given motor's

power. They are simply different ways to express that power. Under well

established rules for conversation, one horsepower equals .746

kilowatts, and one kilowatt equals 1.34 horsepower. Thus, for example,

a standard 5 horsepower motor has an output that can also be expressed

as 3.73 kilowatts, and a standard 15 kilowatt motor has a horsepower of

20.1.

As commenters indicated, however, the standard power ratings for

IEC and NEMA motors are not exactly equal, although the differences are

slight. A standard 7.5 horsepower motor, for example, would have an

exact metric equivalent of 5.59 kilowatts, but the closest equivalent

standard power for an IEC motor is 5.5 kilowatts. (WE, No. 2 at 3a(1);

Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.1). IEC publishes a table of standard kilowatt

ratings and equivalent standard horsepower ratings for general purpose

motors, in IEC 72-1, Dimensions and output series for rotating

electrical machines, (6th ed. 1991-02), section D.5.1, at page 119.

(NEMA, No. 9 at Exhibit 1) The table shows a very close match between

the two sets of standard ratings. For example, the standard 5

horsepower and 15 kilowatt motors mentioned above equal 3.73 kilowatts

and 20.1 horsepower, respectively, and the IEC table shows that

corresponding standard IEC and NEMA motors are 3.7 kilowatts and 20

horsepower. This close match between standard power ratings tends to

support the conclusion that EPCA requirements cover IEC motors,

although the differences do raise an issue, discussed below, as to how

EPCA's efficiency standards apply to IEC motors.

Several commenters asserted that IEC motors should be covered by

EPCA's efficiency standards. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.a.1; Brook Hansen, No.

5; Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.1; NEMA, No. 9 at A.2.). The American Council

for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) states that ``metric rated

motors should be considered covered by the standard, and that the

minimum efficiency of the class (open or closed and number of poles)

for the corresponding equivalent or next-highest power rating NEMA

motors be applied. Efficiency of metric motors must be determined by

IEEE method 112(b) or CSA C390.'' (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.a.1). In

explaining its view, Reliance Electric Company (Reliance) states as

follows: ``An equivalent IEC motor exists for each NEMA motor

identified in the Act. IEC and NEMA motors can be used interchangeably

in most general purpose applications. Placing efficiency requirements

on NEMA horsepower rated motors but not on IEC equivalent motors may

give preferential treatment to the IEC motors which may be offered at

lower than the required efficiency levels. It is therefore in the

interest of the intended goal of energy conservation to include

coverage of IEC or metric motors in the proposed rules to implement the

EPAct requirements for motors.'' (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.1).

One element of EPCA's definition of ``electric motor'' is that the

motor be a NEMA ``T-frame'' motor, meaning that it meets certain

dimensional standards. In asserting that IEC motors are covered by the

Act, NEMA indicates that certain IEC motors have dimensions comparable

to T-frame motors, and states that DOE's regulations should make clear

these IEC motors are covered. EPCA also states that an ``electric

motor'' must be NEMA ``Design A and B.'' NEMA asserts that IEC Design N

motors are comparable to the NEMA Design A and B motors. (NEMA, No. 9

at A.1.).

The Department interprets the Act as requiring that IEC motors

satisfy the same energy efficiency requirements that the statute

applies to identical or equivalent to NEMA motors. Thus, under the

regulation proposed today, the definition of ``electric motor''

includes IEC motors that have physical and performance characteristics

which are either identical or equivalent to the characteristics of NEMA

motors that fit within the statutory definition. In the Department's

view, there can be no question that EPCA's requirements cover any motor

whose physical and performance characteristics fit within the statutory

definition of ``electric motor.'' This is true regardless of the

measuring units used to describe the motor's performance or

characteristics, or of the criteria pursuant to which it was designed.

The Department also understands that comparable IEC and NEMA motors

typically are closely equivalent but not identical, and that the

characteristics of many IEC motors closely match EPCA's definition of

``electric motor'' but deviate from it in minor respects. It also

appears that, for most general purpose applications, such IEC motors

can be used interchangeably with the NEMA motors. In addition, as

discussed below, the efficiency standards prescribed for standard

horsepower motors are readily applicable to both standard and non-

standard kilowatt motors. The Department believes that a broad

exclusion of IEC motors from energy efficiency requirements would

conflict with the energy conservation goal of the Act, was not intended

by Congress, and would be irrational. Furthermore, the Department

agrees with the views of commenters that placing energy efficiency

requirements on NEMA motors but not on equivalent IEC motors could have

the effect of giving preferential treatment to the IEC motors. Thus,

the Department construes the EPCA definition of electric motor to

include motors that have characteristics equivalent to those set forth

in that definition.

Finally, statements at the public meeting and in written comments

addressed whether IEC 100 millimeter frame size motors in particular

are covered by energy efficiency requirements. As previously stated,

the statutory definition of ``electric motor'' incorporates frame size

by requiring a motor to be ``T-frame'' as defined in NEMA MG1-1987.

NEMA states that the IEC 100 millimeter frame motor is equivalent to

the discontinued NEMA 160 frame size (NEMA, No. 9 at A.2.), and

examination of NEMA MG1-1987 confirms that it does not include T-frame

motors that are 160 series. Therefore, since the IEC 100 frame motor

apparently is not equivalent to any T-frame motor, it appears not to be

covered by the Act.

3. Basic Model

It is common for a single motor manufacturer to make numerous

models of the electric motors covered by EPCA, and under the Act each

model is potentially subject to testing for energy efficiency. Often,

however, several models are essentially the same motor, but with each

model having some refinement that does not significantly affect the

energy efficiency or performance of the motor. One way to meet the EPCA

mandate that test procedures ``not be unduly burdensome to conduct,''

EPCA section 343(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2), is to determine which

[[Page 60444]]

models have electrical and mechanical characteristics, such as

horsepower, speed, and enclosure type, that are essentially identical.

Each such group of models would be categorized into a family and only

representative samples within each family would be tested. The

Department proposes to use the term ``basic model'' to identify a

family of commercial or industrial motors, following the approach it

employs for residential appliance products.

With regard to the residential appliance program, the term ``basic

model'' is defined as follows: ``Basic model means all units of a given

type of covered product (or class thereof) manufactured by one

manufacturer and--. . . [as to dishwashers, for example] which have

electrical characteristics that are essentially identical, and which do

not have any differing physical or functional characteristics which

affect energy consumption.'' 10 CFR 430.2. ``Basic model'' is a term

used to describe products or items of equipment whose performance,

design, mechanical, and functional characteristics are essentially the

same. Components of similar design may be substituted in a basic model

without requiring additional testing if the represented measures of

energy consumption continue to satisfy applicable provisions for

sampling and testing. In the case of electric motors, a manufacturer

may produce numerous models that have different model numbers but are

essentially the same, all based on variations in design features that

do not affect energy consumption.

In the notice of public meeting that solicited comments on issues

involved in this rulemaking, the Department stated that it was

considering the following definition of ``basic model'' for electric

motors:

all units . . . manufactured by one manufacturer and . . . having

the same rating, electrical characteristics that are essentially

identical, and no differing physical or functional characteristics

which affect energy consumption or efficiency.

60 FR at 27052. Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), ACEEE, and NEMA

all support such a definition. (UL, No. 4 at ``Basic Model''; ACEEE,

No. 7 at 3.a.2; NEMA, No. 9 at A.3.) The Department proposes to adopt

this definition of ``basic model.''

NEMA suggests that the proposed rule require each basic model to

consist of units that have one of the 113 combinations of horsepower

(or kilowatts), number of poles, and open or closed construction for

which section 342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), specifies an

efficiency standard. NEMA, as well as Reliance, suggest that this

proposal be implemented by defining the term ``rating,'' which is part

of the basic model definition, as being one of the 113 combinations in

EPCA section 342(b)(1). (For this purpose, NEMA proposes that motors

with a horsepower rating between two levels specified in the Act be

treated as having the higher level, i.e. their horsepowers would be

``rounded up.'') The Department agrees with these suggestions by NEMA

and Reliance, and in the attached rule proposes to adopt them, with one

exception. Rather than ``rounding up'' all horsepowers that are at

levels between those specified in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA, DOE would

use the rounding method described in Part III-D-1 below.

The Department believes the foregoing approach to defining ``basic

model'' is a sound means to reduce the burden of testing. It would

apply an approach to electric motors that has proven effective in the

residential appliance program, but with appropriate modifications given

the nature of these motors.

4. General Purpose Motor, Definite Purpose Motor, and Special

Purpose Motor. As already discussed, EPCA prescribes efficiency

standards for certain ``electric motors.'' EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42

U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), The standards do not apply to ``definite purpose

motors'' or ``special purpose motors.'' These three terms are defined

as follows:

The term ``electric motor'' means any motor which is a general

purpose T-frame, single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-

cage induction motor of the National Electrical Manufacturers

Association, Design A and B, continuous rated, operating on 230/460

volts and constant 60 Hertz line power as defined in NEMA Standards

Publication MG1-1987. EPCA section 340(13)(A), 42 U.S.C.

6311(13)(A). (Emphasis added.)

The term ``definite purpose motor'' means any motor designed in

standard ratings with standard operating characteristics or standard

mechanical construction for use under service conditions other than

usual or for use on a particular type of application and which

cannot be used in most general purpose applications. EPCA section

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

The term ``special purpose motor'' means any motor, other than a

general purpose motor or definite purpose motor, which has special

operating characteristics or special mechanical construction, or

both, designed for a particular application. EPCA section

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

The definitions are not straightforward, however, and raise questions

as to which motors the efficiency standards apply to. The Department is

also concerned about the possibility that a manufacturer could make

modifications to an ``electric motor'' subject to efficiency standards,

particularly minor modifications, and improperly claim that the motor

is an exempt definite or special purpose motor. To address these

concerns, the Department proposes (1) a definition of ``general purpose

motor,'' which is a term used as part of EPCA's definition of

``electric motor'' but is not itself defined in EPCA, and (2) to define

``special purpose motor'' using language that is different from the

wording of the EPCA definition of that term, but that has the same

meaning as the statutory definition. The Department also proposes to

adopt verbatim the statutory definition of ``definite purpose motor.''

Before discussing these proposals, the Department notes that the

terms EPCA uses to refer to particular motors may differ from terms

commonly used in the industry. The Department understands, for example,

that the term ``stock motor,'' rather than ``general purpose motor,''

is often used to refer to standard motors typically sold through

distributors, and that ``custom motor'' refers to a motor designed for

use in unusual conditions, or for particular applications or types of

applications. As indicated below, depending upon its precise

characteristics, such a ``custom motor'' could be either a definite,

special or even general purpose motor as those terms are used in EPCA.

To avoid confusion, and because this notice concerns rules to implement

EPCA, the discussion here uses the terms used in the statute. The

industry should keep in mind, however, that the failure here to use a

common designation for a type of motor, such as ``stock motor,'' does

not mean that such type of motor is not addressed by this notice.

Section 340(13) of EPCA clearly defines electric, definite purpose

and special purpose motors as being mutually exclusive. In the

definition of ``electric motor,'' relevant for present purposes is that

it must be ``a general purpose . . . motor.'' By contrast, ``definite

purpose motor'' is defined in part as a motor that ``cannot be used in

most general purpose applications,'' and ``special purpose motor'' is

defined in part as ``other than a general purpose . . . or definite

purpose motor.'' The Act does not clearly spell out, however, the

precise distinctions between these different types of motors.

Section 340(13)(A) of EPCA provides that the definition of

``general purpose motor'' shall be drawn from NEMA MG1-1987. That NEMA

MG1-1987

[[Page 60445]]

definition, in pertinent part, is as follows: 2

\2\ The definition is contained in section MG 1-1.05 of NEMA

MG1-1987. Other parts of the definition are either incorporated

directly into the EPCA definition of ``electric motor,''

incorporated into other statutory provisions, or grouped with such

elements. The Department believes that those portions of section

MG1-1.05 are irrelevant for purposes of defining ``general purpose''

in the DOE regulations.

. . . designed in standard ratings with standard operating

characteristics and mechanical construction for use under usual

service conditions without restriction to a particular application

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

or type of application.

NEMA suggests that the Department adopt this language, with minor

modifications, as the sole definition of ``general purpose.'' This

definition appears to complement the NEMA MG1-1987 definition of

``definite purpose motor,'' which in essence is part of the EPCA

definition of that term, and which reads as follows:

. . . any motor designed in standard ratings with standard operating

characteristics or mechanical construction for use under service

conditions other than usual or for use on a particular type of

application.

NEMA MG1-1.09. These two definitions do not overlap, and appear to

include virtually all motors with standard designs. They appear to

contemplate that a general purpose motor modified so as to be suitable

for unusual conditions or a particular type of application would be

classified as a definite purpose motor.

But the EPCA definition of ``definite purpose motor'' states in

addition that the motor ``cannot be used in most general

applications.'' Thus, for example, a general purpose motor modified so

as to be suitable for use on a particular application, but that can

still be used in most general purpose applications, is not a ``definite

purpose motor'' under the statute. The same would be true of a motor

designed with standard ratings and operating characteristics, but for

use under unusual service conditions, and which is also capable of most

general purpose uses. Nor would such motors be within the NEMA MG1-1987

definition of ``general purpose motor,'' since they are not designed

``for use under usual service conditions without restriction to a

particular application.'' The NEMA MG1-1987 definition of ``general

purpose motor,'' therefore, does not closely complement the statutory

definition of ``definite purpose motor.'' If the Department were to

adopt the NEMA MG1-1987 definition of ``general purpose motor,'' as

suggested by NEMA, certain motors of standard design would be neither

``general purpose'' nor ``definite purpose'' (nor ``special purpose'')

under the regulations. Consequently, they would not be covered by

efficiency standards, or excluded from coverage. The Department

believes this would be an unsound interpretation of EPCA.

In the Department's view, a motor designed with standard features

(i.e. with standard ratings, and standard operating characteristics or

mechanical construction) for use under unusual conditions or for a

particular type of application, and that can still ``be used in most

general purpose applications,'' EPCA section 340(13)(B), 42 U.S.C.

6311(13)(B), is covered by the statute. That type of motor is

specifically excluded from the definition of ``definite purpose

motor.'' We are aware of no reason why Congress would have created such

an exclusion other than to require that such motors meet efficiency

standards. The statute states that definite purpose motors need not

meet the standards. The sole reason for carving out from that

classification a type of motor that would otherwise fall within it,

would be to require that the motor meet the efficiency standards.

The Department's interpretation of EPCA also will serve the energy

conservation goals of the statute and makes sense as a practical

matter. First, there seem to be strong reasons in favor of, and no

reasons against, applying the standards to any motor that is designed

in standard ratings, has standard operating characteristics or

mechanical construction, and is capable of being used in most general

purpose applications, even if it is designed for a particular use. The

Department understands that the features making such a motor suitable

for a particular use have little or no effect on the performance of the

motor as such, or on its efficiency. Moreover, it appears that often a

particular use motor of a given rating, and a motor of the same rating

that meets the definition of ``general purpose'' under NEMA MG1-1987,

would be the same ``basic model,'' and be equally capable of meeting

efficiency standards. Thus, particular use motors that can be used in

general purpose applications should be treated the same under EPCA as

general purpose motors, and energy savings achieved under the Act would

be enhanced by applying its standards to such particular use motors.

Second, this interpretation of EPCA addresses a possible means of

evading the statute, by reducing the risk that general purpose motors

that comply with EPCA's efficiency standards will be replaced by

definite purpose motors that do not. To manufacture a general purpose

motor that complies with EPCA may sometimes be more burdensome than to

manufacture a non-complying general purpose motor that has been

modified to be suitable for certain definite purpose uses, but that

remains capable of satisfying most general purpose applications. For

example, a non-complying general purpose motor could be modified by

adding a heater to make it suitable for use in certain high humidity

conditions, or by adding screening (to an open motor) to protect

against invasion by rodents in applications such as agricultural

environments. It might be cheaper to manufacture such motors than to

manufacture a comparable general purpose motor that meets EPCA's energy

efficiency standards. In such a situation, a manufacturer would have an

incentive to try to sell the modified, non-complying motor in the

general purpose market. The statutory definition of ``definite purpose

motor'' appears designed to prevent that result.

Based on the foregoing, the Department proposes a two-part

definition of ``general purpose motor.'' The first part in essence

provides that a motor is ``general purpose'' if it meets the criteria

in NEMA MG1-1987, and largely incorporates the language suggested by

NEMA. (NEMA, No. 9 at A.4.). This includes NEMA's suggestion that

section 14.02 of NEMA MG1-1993 be cited as providing examples of

``usual service conditions,'' although not its suggestion that the

words ``for general purpose applications'' be included in the

definition. The latter language is not in the NEMA MG1 definition of

``general purpose,'' and appears to be redundant here. The second part

of the Department's proposed definition in effect provides that,

alternatively, a motor is also ``general purpose'' if it meets the EPCA

criteria for a definite purpose motor except that it can be used in

most general purpose applications.

As stated above, the Department is proposing to adopt without

change the EPCA definition of ``definite purpose motor.'' One element

of that definition is that a motor be designed for ``service conditions

other than usual.'' The Department agrees with and accepts the comments

that an exhaustive list of such conditions cannot be developed, and

should not be included in the regulations. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.3;

NEMA, No. 9 at A.4.). ACEEE ``recommends that `definite purpose' motors

be defined as all motors that do not meet the specifications for `usual

service conditions' as defined in NEMA MG1-1993-14.02.'' (ACEEE, No. 7

at 3.a.3). The Department declines to accept that suggestion because it

agrees

[[Page 60446]]

with NEMA and Reliance that section 14.02 does not provide a conclusive

list of ``usual service conditions.''

NEMA recommends that ``motors designed for explosion-proof

conditions, which could be considered an unusual service condition

under NEMA MG1-1993, be expressly defined as covered products. The Act

expressly authorizes a two-year extension of the effective date for

efficiency standards for `motors which require listing or certification

by a nationally recognized safety testing laboratory.' EPCA section

342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). This reference was intended to apply

to explosion-proof motors which, despite their use in unusual service

conditions, are otherwise general purpose motors.'' (NEMA, No. 9 at

A.4.). The Department agrees with NEMA that explosion-proof motors are

covered by EPCA, and believes that the proposed definition of ``general

purpose motor'' would include such motors and therefore render them

subject to the efficiency requirements. Nevertheless, to avoid possible

uncertainty, and to address NEMA's concern, the Department proposes to

accept NEMA's suggestion that explosion-proof motors be expressly

defined as covered products. The proposed definition of ``electric

motor,'' therefore, includes such motors.

Finally, the Department believes there is potential for uncertainty

as to whether particular motors meet EPCA's definition of ``special

purpose motor,'' or instead are ``general purpose'' or ``definite

purpose'' motors. Although the definition of ``special purpose motor''

states in part that it is ``other than a general purpose motor or a

definite purpose motor,'' the remaining criteria defining a special

purpose motor closely resemble certain of the criteria defining a

definite purpose motor. Significant potential exists for misclassifying

a motor, because fine distinctions must sometimes be made to determine

precisely which set of criteria a motor meets. Such determinations can

be significant, because if a motor meets the ``definite purpose''

criteria, it would be covered by the standards if it can be used for

most general purpose applications. The Department therefore proposes a

definition of ``special purpose motor'' that clarifies the EPCA

definition but does not alter its substance, i.e., the proposed

definition includes the same motors as the statutory definition. As

suggested by NEMA, the Department does not attempt to elaborate on the

statutory definition of ``special purpose motor.''

5. Enclosed Motor and Open Motor

The Department proposes to incorporate the statutory definitions of

the terms ``enclosed motor'' and ``open motor.''

6. Efficiency and Nominal Full Load Efficiency

The Department proposes to incorporate the statutory definition of

the term ``efficiency'' into a definition of ``average full load

efficiency.'' Under the Act and the proposed regulations, it is the

average full load efficiency of a motor that must be measured through

test procedures. The proposed rule also defines ``nominal full load

efficiency'' in terms that differ from the language used in the statute

to define that term, and that clarify and implement, but do not deviate

from, the substance of the statutory definition.

B. Test Procedures for the Measurement of Energy Efficiency

EPCA requires that the regulatory test procedures for electric

motors shall be the test procedures specified in NEMA MG1-1987 and IEEE

Standard 112 Test Method B for motor efficiency, as in effect on the

date of the enactment of EPAct. EPCA section 343(a)(5)(A), 42 U.S.C.

6314(a)(5)(A). If the test procedures in NEMA MG1 and IEEE Standard 112

are subsequently amended, the Secretary is required to revise the

regulatory test procedures for electric motors to conform to such

amendments, unless the Secretary determines by rule, supported by clear

and convincing evidence, that to do so would not meet the requirements

for test procedures described in sections 343(a) (2) and (3) of EPCA,

42 U.S.C. 6314(a) (2) and (3).3 EPCA section 343(a)(5)(B), 42

U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B).

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

\3\ Section 343(a)(2) of EPCA reads as follows: ``Test

procedures prescribed in accordance with this section shall be

reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy

efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of a type of

industrial equipment (or class thereof) during a representative

average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary), and shall not be

unduly burdensome to conduct.''

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

procedure is a procedure for determining estimated annual operating

costs, such procedure shall provide that such costs shall be

calculated from measurements of energy use in a representative

average-use cycle (as determined by the Secretary), and from

representative average unit costs of the energy needed to operate

such equipment during such cycle. The Secretary shall provide

information to manufacturers of covered equipment respecting

representative average unit costs of energy.''

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

NEMA MG1-1987 was revised and superseded by NEMA MG1-1993, which

was issued on November 19, 1992, and published in October 1993.

Revision 1 to NEMA MG1-1993, was added on December 7, 1993. Whereas

NEMA MG1-1987 required ``efficiency and losses'' to be determined in

accordance with IEEE Standard 112, NEMA MG1-1993 with Revision 1 now

permits such determinations based on application of either IEEE

Standard 112 or Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard C390. In

addition, whereas NEMA MG1-1987 was silent on determination of motor

efficiency for polyphase motors greater than 125 horsepower covered by

the statute, NEMA MG1-1993 with Revision 1 now permits testing such

motors in accordance with IEEE 112, with stray-load loss determined by

direct measurement or indirect measurement. Since enactment of section

343(a)(5)(B) of EPCA, no other substantive amendments have been made to

the test procedures in either NEMA MG1-1987 or IEEE Standard 112 Test

Method B.

ACEEE, Reliance, and NEMA support the adoption of NEMA MG1-1993

with Revision 1. ACEEE explains that the CSA Standard C390-93 test

procedures are a refinement of the IEEE 112 Test Method B, offering

advantages in clarity which can lead to greater reproducibility of test

results. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.b.1).

The Department will adopt the new test procedure provisions of NEMA

MG1-1993 with Revision 1, to permit use of CSA Standard C390-93 Test

Method (1) and testing covered motors greater that 125 horsepower. The

Department does not intend to determine that these amendments to MG1-

1987 fail to meet the requirements of sections 343(a) (2) and (3) of

EPCA.

C. Units to be Tested

EPCA requires that the test procedures prescribed for motors by DOE

be ``reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy

efficiency,'' yet not be ``unduly burdensome'' to conduct. EPCA

Sec. 343(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2). Efficiency testing of each unit

of an electric motor covered by EPCA could take ten to twelve hours and

cost up to $2,000.00. As discussed above, the classification of motors

into ``basic models'' is one step to prevent expenditure of excessive

time and money on testing. The Department also proposes to permit use

of a statistically meaningful sampling procedure for selecting test

specimens, so as to further reduce the testing burden on manufacturers

while giving sufficient assurance that the true mean energy efficiency

of a basic model meets or exceeds the applicable energy efficiency

standard established in EPCA. But

[[Page 60447]]

notwithstanding adoption of these measures, because a motor

manufacturer sometimes will produce a substantial number of basic

models, it could still face a potentially substantial testing burden.

Therefore, the Department also proposes to permit use of alternative

methods, other than actual testing, for determining the efficiency of

some basic models.

ACEEE, Reliance, and NEMA assert that it is impractical to require

testing of every motor manufactured, or even of samples of each basic

model. They find it acceptable to randomly test representative samples

of some motor designs, and to use alternative methods for determining

the efficiency of other motors. The purpose of sample testing would be

to determine whether the average full load efficiency of the basic

model meets or exceeds the EPCA requirement, not to confirm the

efficiency level of each individual motor. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.b.2 &

3.b.3; Reliance, No. 8 at 3.b.2; and NEMA, No. 9 at B.2). Underwriters

Laboratories (UL, No. 4 at ``Testing Sampling Plan''), Reliance and

NEMA describe various methods of determining the number of motors to be

tested, including 100 percent of production, sampling by attributes

according to Military Standard MIL-STD-105E, and sampling a minimum of

five units produced over a specified time, such as two months.

The Department reviewed the industry sampling recommendations and

other sampling systems that could provide guidance as to how many and

which units should be tested to determine compliance. Criteria used by

the Department in this process include:

(1) Minimizing manufacturer's testing costs;

(2) Limiting the calendar time required for testing;

(3) Assuring compatibility with the sampling plan promulgated for

the Department's commercial labeling program;

(4) Providing a high statistically valid probability that basic

models that are tested meet applicable energy efficiency standards; and

(5) Providing a high statistically valid probability that a

manufacturer preliminarily found to be in noncompliance will actually

be in noncompliance.

Based on a review of the industry statements, three alternatives as

to sample size were considered:

(1) Test the total population (100%) of covered equipment;

(2) For each basic model, test a predetermined fixed number of

production units; and

(3) For each basic model, test one unit at a time or batches, until

a determination can be made that the basic model is in compliance or

noncompliance.

Explanations of all three sampling procedures are contained in the

``Final Rulemaking Regarding the Sampling Requirements of Consumer

Product; Test Procedures,'' 44 FR 22410-18 (April 13, 1979) and the

``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products,'' 45 FR 43976-

44087 (June 30, 1980).

The first sampling procedure would test every unit of a covered

motor and is the only way to determine with 100 percent certainty that

every motor manufactured is in compliance with the statute. Even

assuming such approach is authorized by the Act, the cost and time

constraints associated with this alternative make it infeasible.

A second alternative is to test a predetermined fixed number of

production units for each basic model. In order to use this approach,

sufficient numbers of units must be tested to yield results with high

levels (e.g. 90 percent) of statistical confidence. The determination

of the number of units to be tested is based in part on expected unit-

to-unit variability. However, reliable estimates of unit-to-unit

variability of motors are often unavailable and significant differences

may exist among basic models and manufacturers. Thus, the Department

concludes that a single sample size giving sufficiently high assurance

of compliance cannot be established that will apply to all motors and

manufacturers, and that will not impose unreasonably high testing costs

for some manufacturers.

The third alternative considered was testing until a determination

can be made that a basic model is in compliance or noncompliance. In

this alternative, the size of the total sample is not determined in

advance. Instead, after each unit or group of units is tested, a

decision is made to (1) accept, (2) reject, or (3) suspend judgment and

continue testing additional sample units until a decision is ultimately

reached. This method often permits reaching a decision on the basis of

fewer tests than fixed number sampling plans. The Department notes that

this third alternative is the basis for most of the statistical

sampling procedures established for consumer appliance products at 10

CFR 430.24, Units to be Tested. The Department proposes to adapt such

sampling procedures to electric motors. The Department believes that

motor manufacturers utilizing production techniques that assure low

variance among units of a particular basic model could test fewer units

to demonstrate compliance.

In the case of actual testing, the proposed procedures require a

sample of units of a basic model to be randomly selected and tested. A

simple average of the values would be calculated, which would be the

actual mean value of the sample. For each basic model of electric

motor, a sample of sufficient size would be selected at random and

tested to ensure that any represented value of energy efficiency is no

greater than the lower of (A) the mean of the sample or (B) the lower

90 percent confidence limit of the mean of the entire population of

that basic model, divided by a coefficient applicable to the

represented value. The coefficient applicable to a given represented

value would be the ratio of the minimum efficiency, as provided in NEMA

MG1-1993, Table 12-8, to the corresponding nominal full load efficiency

in Table 12-8 that (1) equals the represented value, or (2) is the

closest lower value to the represented value. Thus, the coefficient

would be derived from the 20 percent loss difference on which NEMA

bases the minimum efficiency in Table 12-8.

This approach is similar to the methodology used in the

Department's consumer appliance program, which is intended to provide

an acceptable level of assurance that test results will be applicable

to all units of a basic model, without creating an undue testing burden

for manufacturers. Like the consumer appliance program, the sampling

plan for electric motors incorporates a confidence limit approach,

which would give assurance at a specified level of confidence that the

mean efficiency of the total population of units being manufactured and

sold is at or above the represented value of energy efficiency (e.g.,

the efficiency set forth in a certification of compliance or on a

label). The proposed rule, however, takes a slightly different approach

than is used in the appliance program, at 10 CFR 430.24, for

calculating an ``adjusted lower 90 percent confidence limit.'' Under

Sec. 430.24, a single factor is specified for each product, and the

``adjusted confidence limit'' for each basic model of that product is

calculated by dividing the lower confidence limit for all units of that

basic model by the specified factor. Under the proposed rule, by

contrast, the divisor is a factor that relates to the efficiency level

of the particular motor being analyzed. As with the sampling plans for

consumer appliances, this factor and other elements of the statistical

sampling plan

[[Page 60448]]

for electric motors are intended to reasonably reflect variations in

materials, and in the manufacturing and testing processes.

NEMA has recommended that the confidence limit constraint for

representations of motor efficiency be the lower 90 percent confidence

limit of the true mean divided by 0.95. (NEMA, No. 9 at B.2.). It

appears that NEMA is proposing the same methodology used in the

appliance program to account for measurement uncertainties and product

variability. The Department agrees with the apparent intent of the NEMA

recommendation, as well as its goal that, ``. . . the confidence limit

[of the represented energy efficiency] should be chosen so that it is

consistent with MGl's tolerance factor for losses.'' However, the

Department believes that the method NEMA puts forth does not best

achieve these objectives.

Electric motors differ substantially from the products covered

under part 430. For each of 113 ratings of electric motor, EPCA

specifies a minimum nominal efficiency. By contrast, under Part 430

minimum efficiencies are set forth at most for 16 different types of a

product (in the case of direct heating equipment), and for most covered

products efficiencies are specified for two to five types of the

product. 10 CFR Sec. 430.32. For central air conditioners, which NEMA

cites as an example in support of its confidence limit methodology,

energy conservation standards are specified for only two types of the

product: the Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) must be equal to

or greater than 10 for split systems and 9.7 for single package

systems. The Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI), which

in some respects functions for that industry as NEMA does for the

motors industry, has prescribed performance criteria that these classes

of central air conditioners must meet in order to use the ARI

certification symbol and to be listed in the ARI Directory of Certified

Unitary Air-Conditioner Equipment. Specifically, the SEER determined by

laboratory testing may not be less than .95 of the SEER represented by

the manufacturer. Thus, in specifying a divisor of .95 for central air

conditioners, part 430 conforms with industry guidelines regarding

measurement uncertainties and product variability for that product.

For electric motors, NEMA uses a maximum 20 percent loss difference

to establish the minimum efficiencies that are associated with the

standard nominal efficiencies. See MG1-1993, Table 12.8. This 20

percent loss tolerance is the motor industry's benchmark for taking

into account measurement uncertainty and product variability. It is a

constant fraction of the total percentage of energy losses. Thus,

because the percentage of energy losses decreases as efficiency

increases, it appears that the percentage of losses allowable as a

tolerance also decreases with increasing efficiency. This would mean,

for example, that the measurement uncertainty and product variability

for a motor with a nominal full load efficiency of 95 percent may be

expected to differ substantially from those for a motor with a nominal

full load efficiency of 75.5 percent.

The Department believes that the use of a single factor for all

motors covered under part 431, as proposed by NEMA, does not adequately

differentiate among the levels of efficiency established by the Act.

The Department proposes, therefore, to establish coefficients, based on

the NEMA MG1 minimum efficiency standards, for each nominal full load

efficiency established by the Act and to include these in tabular form

in new part 431.

In incorporating this method, it should be noted that the proposed

part 431 would not set or enforce minimum energy efficiency standards.

Since a unit or units of a basic model could fall below the NEMA

minimum efficiency during efficiency testing and the basic model could

still be found to meet with the represented energy efficiency, no

minimum efficiency is set or enforced. Rather, the NEMA minimum

efficiencies are used to provide a reasonable estimate of the

measurement uncertainties and product variabilities that are likely to

be encountered during actual testing.

The proposed 90 percent confidence limit was recommended by NEMA,

and appears to the Department to be appropriate for electric motors. As

just discussed, however, the divisor proposed by the Department differs

from that proposed by NEMA. The Department specifically seeks comment

on both of these proposals, including its proposed table of divisor

coefficients, and on whether alternatives will better serve the

objectives of providing both reasonable assurance that test results

will apply to all units of a basic model, and reasonable allowance for

product variability and measurement uncertainty.

In sum, the Department proposes that when an electric motor is

subjected to actual testing to determine whether it complies with

EPCA's efficiency standards, a sample shall be selected and tested

comprised of units which are production units, or representative of

production units, of the basic model being tested. The sample must be

of sufficient size, selected at random, and tested in accordance with

the DOE test procedures adopted pursuant to section 343 of EPCA, 42

U.S.C. 6314. The test sample results would have to be within prescribed

confidence limits.

The Department also proposes to permit manufacturers of electric

motors to determine motor efficiency through predictive mathematical

calculations developed from engineering analyses of design data and

substantiated by actual test data. This would be similar to the

approach found at 10 CFR part 430, Sec. 430.24(m)(2)(ii), which permits

manufacturers of central air conditioners to use ``alternative rating

methods.'' Statements from Reliance and NEMA support the use of such

alternative efficiency determination methods. They assert it would be

prohibitively expensive and time consuming to test all the many basic

models that manufacturers produce. In addition, the Department

understands that the manufacturers and independent testing laboratories

do not have sufficient resources to test so many basic models. NEMA

advocates use of ``alternative correlation methods'' (synonymous with

the Department's term ``alternative efficiency determination methods'')

that are based on engineering or statistical analyses, computer

simulation, mathematical modeling, or other analytical evaluation of

performance data. Furthermore, NEMA proposes using actual testing to

substantiate such alternative methods.

According to NEMA, ``A manufacturer must substantiate an

alternative correlation method by actual testing of at least five basic

models, using DOE-prescribed test procedures. Substantiation would

require testing that demonstrates that predicted total power losses of

a basic model design are within plus or minus ten (10) percent of the

mean actual total power losses for the sample of each of the basic

models tested.'' NEMA further states that manufacturers would be

required to test ``two among the five basic models with the highest

unit-volume of production and that at least two [of the five] models

have predicted total losses which differ by at least 20 percent. Each

of the five basic models should be of a different rating.''

``In lieu of advance approval, each manufacturer would be required

to notify DOE of its use of alternative correlation methods in its

compliance certification. Each manufacturer would stand ready to submit

its alternative correlation test results (and underlying models and

simulations) to DOE for review.'' (NEMA, No. 9 at B.3.).

[[Page 60449]]

Based on the information discussed above, the Department agrees

that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for each

manufacturer to do actual testing, to determine energy efficiency, for

each basic model of motor it manufactures. The Department proposes to

adopt procedures whereby a manufacturer would certify compliance for

basic models through an alternative efficiency determination method

(AEDM). The Department's proposal largely incorporates the criteria and

procedures suggested by NEMA for use of such alternative methods. For

example, a manufacturer would be required to do actual testing of at

least five basic models.

The models selected for testing should be selected at random,

subject to the following selection criteria: Two of the basic models

tested would be required to be among the five basic models with the

highest unit volumes of production by the manufacturer. Within any

limitation imposed by that criterion, the basic models tested should be

of different horsepower without duplication. The next priority would be

to select basic models of different frame sizes without duplication.

And finally, to the extent possible, each basic model selected should

have the lowest full load efficiency among the basic models with the

same rating.

A manufacturer could use only AEDMs that it had substantiated.

Prior to using the AEDM, the manufacturer would be required to apply it

to at least five motors on which the manufacturer had performed actual

tests in accordance with DOE test procedures. The AEDM would be

``substantiated,'' and could be used by the manufacturer, only if, for

each of the tested basic models to which it was applied, the predicted

total power losses upon application of the AEDM are within plus or

minus ten percent of the total power losses that were measured for that

basic model during the actual testing. (``Total power loss'' here

refers not to the arithmetic total of the losses for all of the units

tested, but rather to average total losses for the tested units.)

The Department believes that the foregoing approach to permitting

use of AEDMs for motors would ensure compliance with EPCA, while

avoiding imposition of an undue burden on the industry.

D. Energy Efficiency Standards

EPCA prescribes standards for electric motors that are 1 through

200 horsepower, and manufactured ``alone or as a component of another

piece of equipment,'' except for ``definite purpose motors, special

purpose motors, and those motors exempted by the Secretary.'' EPCA

section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). The Department proposes to

incorporate these standards into 10 CFR part 431.

1. Standards for Metric Motors

As discussed above, a table in IEC 72-1 matches each standard

kilowatt rating to the equivalent standard horsepower rating. Section

342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), specifies efficiency standards

for many of these standard horsepower ratings. The matching kilowatt

and horsepower values in IEC 72-1 are not exact conversion values, but

in each instance are virtually equal. The Department proposes in

Sec. 431.42, to utilize the horsepower to standard kilowatt equivalents

prescribed in IEC 72-1 in order to determine the required energy

efficiency of a covered motor when such motor is rated in kilowatts.

Wisconsin Electric Power Company asserts that ``the kilowatt

ratings established by international standards (cf IEC 34) are based on

a different numerical progression than the NEMA horsepower ratings

standard in the United States. Thus, there is no true `equivalence'

between those NEMA horsepower ratings and corresponding kilowatt

values.'' (WE, No. 2 at 3a 1)).

The Department agrees that such IEC motors are manufactured

according to a standard series of kilowatt output ratings that do not

mathematically synchronize exactly with the North American standard

series of horsepower output ratings. When the standard IEC kilowatt

ratings are directly converted into horsepower using the formula, 1

kilowatt = (1/0.746) horsepower, the standard IEC ratings fall between

the standard horsepower ratings specified in EPCA section 342(b)(1),

although they are very close to the standard horsepower ratings.

ACEEE states that a metric rated motor should be required to meet

the efficiency rating for its corresponding equivalent horsepower

rating, or the next-highest efficiency rating. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.a.1).

The Department agrees with ACEEE to the extent that a motor rated in

kilowatts should meet the same nominal full load energy efficiency as

an equivalent motor rated in horsepower.

Reliance advocates use of ``the primary series of standardized IEC

kW [``kilowatt''] equivalents to the hp [``horsepower''] ratings given

in IEC Standard 72-1, Clause D.5.1 when referring to the values of

horsepower specified in the Act. These equivalents are:

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

Horsepower Kilowatts

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

1................................... .75

1.5................................. 1.1

2................................... 1.5

3................................... 2.2

5................................... 3.7

7.5................................. 5.5

10.................................. 7.5

15.................................. 11

20.................................. 15

25.................................. 18.5

30.................................. 22

40.................................. 30

50.................................. 37

60.................................. 45

75.................................. 55

100................................. 75

125................................. 90

150................................. 110

200................................. 150

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

``While the above suggestion should include the majority of motors

rated in kilowatt, it is possible for motors to be rated in kilowatt

values other than those indicated based on a secondary series of

standardized kilowatt ratings given in IEC Standard 72-1.''

``The metric equivalent kilowatt ratings could then be incorporated

by a definition that the table of efficiency values also apply to the

exact kilowatt equivalent rating to each reference horsepower rating by

the relationship that 1 horsepower is equal to .746 kilowatts. For

reference this conversion would give the following results:

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

Horsepower Kilowatts

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

1................................... .746

1.5................................. 1.12

2................................... 1.49

3................................... 2.24

5................................... 3.73

7.5................................. 5.60

10.................................. 7.46

15.................................. 11.2

20.................................. 14.9

25.................................. 18.7

30.................................. 22.4

40.................................. 29.8

50.................................. 37.3

60.................................. 44.8

75.................................. 56.0

100................................. 74.6

125................................. 93.3

150................................. 112

200................................. 149

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

An advantage of using the first set of kilowatt versus horsepower

relationship values based on recommended kilowatt ratings in IEC

Standard 72-1 would be the convenience of easily identifying standard

kilowatt rated motors in the resulting table to find the required

efficiency value rather than having to locate every standard kilowatt

rating between two values of the exact kilowatt equivalents.''

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

[[Page 60450]]

``NEMA recommends that the IEC standard kilowatt equivalents be

used for specifying efficiency standards, rather than an exact metric

conversion from round-number English measurements to fractional metric

measurements. Metric-denominated general purpose motors are generally

manufactured with standard kilowatt ratings, which should provide the

basis for classification of motors and the specification of class-

specific energy efficiency standards.'' (NEMA, No. 9 at A.2.).

The Department agrees with NEMA and Reliance, and believes that

kilowatt to horsepower equivalency could be addressed without confusion

by utilizing the series of standardized equivalents given in IEC

Standard 72-1, annex D.5., Preferred rated output values. The

Department proposes, at 10 CFR 431.42, that the efficiency standard

applicable to a standard horsepower rating as specified in section

342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6313(b)(1), applies to the

corresponding standard kilowatt equivalent rating.

2. Standards for Horsepowers Not Listed in Statute, and for Non-

standard Kilowatt Ratings

EPCA specifies efficiency standards only for electric motors with

19 specific horsepower ratings, all of which fall within the range of 1

through 200 horsepower. EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1).

NEMA asserts that efficiency standards should apply to all ``electric

motors'' motors that have ratings from 1 through 200 horsepower (or

standard kilowatt equivalents). According to NEMA, a motor with a

rating between two of the horsepower ratings specified in EPCA section

342(b)(1), or between two of the ratings specified in standard kilowatt

equivalents, should be required to meet the efficiency standard set

forth for the next highest horsepower (or kilowatt) rating specified in

the statutory table. NEMA states that this would prevent circumvention

of statutory efficiency requirements by designating a horsepower rating

that is fractionally different from the standard ratings in the

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

The Department understands that the statute's table of motor

horsepowers is based on the preferred or standardized horsepower

ratings established at NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, paragraph

10.32.4, Polyphase Medium Induction Motors. NEMA recognizes that it is

not practical to build motors of all horsepower ratings for all of the

standard voltages (cite NEMA MG1-1993, paragraph 10.30 NOTE). However,

an ``electric motor'' could be built and, for example, rated 35

horsepower, or 90 horsepower, or 175 horsepower, and so forth.

The Department agrees with NEMA that efficiency standards apply to

all electric motors that have ratings from 1 through 200 horsepower (or

standard kilowatt equivalents), including motors with a rating between

two of the horsepower ratings specified in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA.

The Department disagrees, however, that a motor with a rating between

two of the horsepower ratings specified in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA,

or between two of the ratings specified in a standard kilowatt

equivalent table, should be treated as having the horsepower (or

kilowatt) rating equal to the next highest rating specified in the

statutory table (or standard kilowatt equivalent table) for purposes of

determining the efficiency standard applicable to such motor.

Applying NEMA's position to a hypothetical situation, a 32

horsepower electric motor would be required to meet the energy

efficiency level prescribed for a 40 horsepower motor. To meet that

energy efficiency level could require significant changes in design of

the 32 horsepower motor, including the addition of electrical steel and

copper, which in turn could result in changes to the motor's physical

dimensions to such a degree that it would no longer fit its normal

applications. Rounding up presents a particular problem with respect to

IEC motors, because they are generally smaller or more compact than the

NEMA ``T'' frame sizes. Rounding up would make it very difficult for

some sizes of motors to meet the statutory energy efficiency levels.

Thus, the practice of rounding up could have the effect of banning or

limiting the use of certain motors, because motors that meet the next

higher energy efficiency level may be physically larger and may not fit

into machines or packages which have been designed for more compact

motors. The Department believes that use of such a rounding up

procedure could result in an undue burden on manufacturers.

Other interpolative methods could include a sliding scale of energy

efficiencies that correspond to intermediate horsepowers, or

arbitrarily rounding down to the next lower horsepower. The Department

believes neither method is sound. The sliding scale approach implies a

degree of accuracy in achieving and measuring motor efficiency, and

significant differences in the required efficiency levels between

different horsepowers, that do not exist. In addition, EPCA's

efficiency standards for motors, EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C.

6313(b)(1), are nominal full load efficiencies taken from a table of

standardized values in MG1-1987, and standardized values would not be

available to be the efficiency standards for intermediate horsepower

motors. In addition, EPCA section 342(b)(1) prescribes, for example,

identical efficiency levels for certain 40 and 50 horsepower motors,

and levels that differ by only .6 for 30 and 40 horsepower motors. As

to rounding a horsepower down to the next lower horsepower, that

approach could encourage production of less efficient motors and thus

conflict with EPCA's purpose to save energy. It would create an

incentive to manufacture motors with horsepowers just below the

horsepower levels at which efficiency levels are specified in the Act,

so that the motors would then be required to comply with the efficiency

standard prescribed for the lower level.

The Department proposes to utilize simple mathematical rules of

rounding to determine the required energy efficiency of a motor whose

horsepower (or equivalent kilowatt) rating is between two of the

ratings specified in EPCA section 342(b)(1). Horsepower values that

fall at or above the midpoint between two horsepower ratings specified

in EPCA section 342(b)(1) should be rounded up to the next higher

specified horsepower rating to determine the required energy

efficiency. Horsepower values that fall below the midpoint between two

specified horsepower ratings should be rounded down to the next lower

specified horsepower rating to determine the required energy

efficiency. Motor kilowatt ratings that fall between standard kilowatt

equivalents would be arithmetically converted directly into horsepower

using the formula: 1 kilowatt = (1/0.746) horsepower. (In making such

arithmetic conversions, no rounding would be permitted.) Resultant

horsepower values would then be rounded using the rules of rounding

just described, to determine the next higher or lower statutory

horsepower and corresponding energy efficiency. The Department believes

such procedures are appropriate to the design and application

considerations of energy efficient motors, and would tend to cluster a

family of motor horsepowers (or kilowatt ratings) and corresponding

energy efficiencies around the family of applications for which the

motors are designed without undue burden to the manufacturer.

Nevertheless, in light of NEMA's advocacy of the ``rounding up''

procedure, the Department specifically seeks further comments on its

rounding

[[Page 60451]]

proposal and will consider alternative approaches.

3. Electric Motors as Components of Systems

The question of how this regulation would affect motors that are

components of other equipment that is also covered under the Act is

raised by the Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute (ARI). ARI

believes that the standards for electric motors at section 342(b) of

EPCA should not apply to motors used as components in commercial air-

conditioners, for example, because such air-conditioners are already

covered by efficiency standards at section 342(a) of EPCA. ARI

interprets section 342(a) of EPCA to mean that standards established

for a system should take precedence over standards established for a

component of that system. Further, ARI expresses concern that frequent

changes in standards could lead to premature redesigns of equipment.

(ARI, No. 3).

The Department understands that air-conditioning equipment

components, such as the compressor, the condenser, and the motor, must

be designed and built to function integrally with each other in order

to meet overall system efficiency requirements. Nevertheless, section

342(b)(1) of EPCA explicitly imposes efficiency standards for ``each

electric motor manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece

of equipment).'' (Emphasis added.) Thus, every ``electric motor'' that

is manufactured must meet the standards imposed by section 342(b)(1) of

EPCA, regardless of whether it is manufactured ``alone,'' and then

inserted into another piece of equipment, or manufactured ``as a

component of another piece of equipment.'' The Department finds no

language in the requirements for system efficiency at section 342(a)

that explicitly or implicitly renders the efficiency standards in

section 342(b)(1) inapplicable to motors used in air conditioning or

other equipment covered by section 342(a).

Section 342(b)(1) sharply contrasts in this respect with section

346(b)(3) of EPCA. EPCA authorizes, but does not require, efficiency

standards for ``small electric motors.'' Section 346(b)(3) states that

such standards ``shall not apply to any small electric motor which is a

component of'' another product or piece of equipment to which standards

apply.

In summary, contrary to ARI's position, EPCA cannot be construed so

that the efficiency standards for electric motors do not apply to such

motors when used in air conditioners also covered by standards. The

Department is sympathetic to ARI's concern about the possibility that

manufacturers might have to increase the frequency with which they

modify the air conditioning equipment they manufacture to accommodate

new motors that have been re-designed to comply with efficiency

standards for motors and to comply with standards applicable to the

equipment itself. But this concern cannot be addressed by the creation

of an unauthorized exemption from the statutory standards for electric

motors.

E. Labeling

1. Statutory Provisions

Under section 344(a) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6315(a), if the Department

has adopted test procedures for a type of ``covered equipment,'' such

as motors, it must prescribe a labeling rule for that equipment.

Section 344(b) provides that such rule must require disclosure of the

motor's energy efficiency, and may require disclosure of estimated

operating cost and energy use, determined in accordance with the test

procedures. Section 344(c) authorizes inclusion in the rule of

additional requirements ``likely to assist purchasers in making

purchasing decisions.'' Statutory examples of such additional

requirements concern display of the label, providing information as to

energy consumption, and disclosing in printed matter efficiency

information required to be on labels.

Section 344(d) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6315(d), requires that within 12

months of establishing test procedures, ``the Secretary shall prescribe

labeling rules . . . applicable to electric motors taking into

consideration NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987.'' Such rules shall

require that electric motors be labeled to: ``(1) Indicate the energy

efficiency of the motor on the permanent nameplate attached to such

motor; (2) prominently display the energy efficiency of the motor in

equipment catalogs and other material used to market the equipment; and

(3) include such other markings as the Secretary determines necessary,

solely to facilitate enforcement of the standards established for

electric motors under section 342.''

All of the foregoing provisions are subject to section 344(h) of

EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6315(h), which states in essence that no labeling rule

shall be promulgated for a type of covered equipment unless: (1) Such

labeling is technologically and economically feasible with respect to

such class; (2) significant energy savings will likely result from the

labeling; and (3) the labeling is likely to assist consumers in making

purchasing decisions.

2. Information on Motor Nameplate

Nominal full load efficiency. The Department understands that

current, typical industry practice is to mark on each motor nameplate

the motor's nominal full load efficiency, which is a value selected

from the standardized values in NEMA MG1-1993, Table 12-8, column A. To

determine the nominal full load efficiency for a particular motor, the

manufacturer first determines the average efficiency of the motors it

produces of that same design. It then selects from Table 12-8, Column

A, the standardized value that is the closest lower value to, or that

equals, such average efficiency figure. Each of the required efficiency

values in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA is identical to one of these

standardized values.

The Department proposes that each motor nameplate include a

standardized value contained in Table 12-8. The manufacturer would

determine the average efficiency for a basic model of motor through

actual testing or application of an AEDM, as required under DOE test

procedure regulations, would select the nominal efficiency for each

motor in the same manner currently used by the industry, and would

place that value on the nameplate.

This approach would satisfy the statutory requirements that the

label of each electric motor disclose ``the energy efficiency'' of such

motor, ``determined in accordance with test procedures'' promulgated

under EPCA. EPCA sections 344 (b) and (d)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6315 (b) and

(d)(1). Although the efficiencies stated on the labels would be

standardized values, and often would not match precisely the test

procedure results for the type of motor being labeled, the intervals

between standardized values are small, and differences among efficiency

values within a given interval are not significant. The Department

believes, therefore, that such standardized values would accurately

represent both the energy efficiency of a given motor, and the

differences in efficiency among motors. The Act also requires the

Secretary to consider NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987 in

prescribing labeling rules for electric motors. EPCA section 344(d), 42

U.S.C. 6315(d). This requirement would be met because the Department

proposes to use the approach and the standardized values in NEMA MG1-

1993, which, as relevant here, are identical to those in NEMA MG1-1987.

Because the proposed labeling requirement adopts current industry

practice, the Department concludes that

[[Page 60452]]

such labeling would be technically feasible and economically justified.

The Department also believes that such labeling would be likely to

assist consumers in making purchasing decisions by distinguishing

motors of greater and lesser efficiency, enabling consumers to make

comparisons among competing manufacturers and to confirm their

selection upon delivery, all of which can lead to significant energy

savings. As suggested by NEMA, the information in the proposed

efficiency label would describe the motor as manufactured.

Manufacturer number and ``ee'' logo. NEMA and Reliance recommend

that, to identify motors that comply with EPCA, the nameplate also be

required to include an encircled ``ee,'' or other logo, and an

identification number supplied by DOE upon receipt of the

manufacturer's compliance certification. (NEMA, No. 9 at C.; Reliance,

No. 8 at 3.c). ACEEE and UL support use of the logo, but do not address

requirement of an identification number. (UL, No. 4 at Labeling; ACEEE,

No. 7 at 3.c). The Department proposes to require that the nameplate of

every motor that has been certified as complying with EPCA include a

manufacturer compliance certification number, essentially as

recommended by NEMA and Reliance, and to permit but not require

nameplates of complying motors to include an ``ee'' logo.

With respect to the required identification number, the Department

contemplates that it would issue an identification number to each motor

manufacturer upon determining that the manufacturer had certified, in a

form that satisfies the regulations, that its motors comply with EPCA.

The manufacturer would then be required, within 90 days or upon the

effective date of the labeling regulations, whichever is later, to

include the number on its motor nameplates. The proposal also makes

provision for including the number on motors certified subsequent to a

manufacturer's initial certification.

The Department believes that such a number is necessary to help

enforce the efficiency standards. Reliance asserts that requiring the

number on a motor would discourage a manufacturer from attaching an

``ee'' mark to a non-complying motor. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.c). DOE

agrees. In addition, requirement of the ID number would discourage

manufacture of non-complying motors. For example, a manufacturer or

distributor would not be allowed to ship covered motors into or within

the United States unless the nameplate contains such an identification

number. (The identification number would not be required when a covered

motor is exported from the United States.) Moreover, use of a

fraudulent number on a non-complying motor could easily be traced,

since only DOE would issue the numbers and each manufacturer would have

a unique number.

Based on the statements of support by NEMA and Reliance, the

Department concludes that such an identification number would be

technologically feasible and economically justified. Energy savings

would likely occur as a result of deterring the manufacture and

shipment of covered motors that are not in compliance with the statute,

and of facilitating identification of any non-complying motors sold in

violation of the statute. Moreover, as NEMA points out, covered motors

are sold almost entirely to highly sophisticated purchasers. These

purchasers would be aware that the identification number connotes that

the motor has been certified as complying with EPCA's efficiency

standards. Thus, the number would aid consumers in making purchasing

decisions, by calling attention to motors for which required

certification have been submitted.

The Department is concerned, however, about possible abuse of the

manufacturer's identification number. An unscrupulous manufacturer

could certify one or a few motors as being in compliance, obtain a

number from DOE, and then use that number on the nameplate of motors

for which it did not properly certify compliance. In such an instance,

the number would provide a misleading indication of compliance.

Moreover, even absent a requirement that each motor bear an ID number,

an inquiry to the Department could easily determine whether a

particular manufacturer had certified a given motor. The Department

seeks comment on the validity of such concerns, and on whether they

outweigh the value of requiring the number on the motor nameplate.

As to inclusion of the ``ee'' logo or similar designation on the

nameplate of a motor that complies with EPCA, there are considerations

militating for and against such a requirement. On the one hand, as

stated above, the purchasers of covered motors are almost entirely

industrial and commercial consumers who are sophisticated purchasers

and highly aware of energy efficiency concerns. The benefit to them of

an ``ee'' logo seems limited, since they will be aware that general

purpose motors must comply with EPCA's efficiency standards. On the

other hand, the ``ee'' logo would distinguish such motors from definite

and special purpose motors that need not and do not comply, its

voluntary use on non-covered motors could encourage their compliance

with efficiency standards, and both the motor industry and energy

efficiency advocates support use of the logo.

The Department is also concerned that inclusion of the ``ee'' logo

on motors that comply with EPCA's nominal full load efficiency

standards might be misleading. Under NEMA MG1-1993, to be classified as

``energy efficient'' a motor must meet both a nominal efficiency

identical to the efficiency level required by EPCA, and the applicable

minimum efficiency prescribed by Table 12-10 of NEMA MG1-1993. NEMA

MG1-1987 had a similar requirement. Given the practice under NEMA MG1,

if the Department were to require or permit the ``ee'' logo on motors

based solely on their meeting only the EPCA standards, purchasers might

assume that such motors necessarily meet corresponding minimums for

energy efficiency even though EPCA does not require motors to meet such

minimums.

One way to avoid such confusion would be for the Department to

require that a motor labeled with the ``ee'' logo, or as ``energy

efficient,'' meet the minimum efficiency associated with its nominal

efficiency. Another possibility would be to follow ACEEE's

recommendation that, in addition to nominal efficiency, minimum

efficiency be required on the motor nameplate, in catalogs, and in

other marketing materials (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.c). NEMA, however, opposes

any requirement that nameplates or promotional materials disclose a

motor's minimum efficiency. (NEMA, No. 9 at C.)

Clearly, to mark the minimum efficiency on a motor nameplate, and

in marketing materials, would provide a more complete picture of the

energy efficiency characteristics of that motor. EPCA, however,

prescribes standards for a motor's ``nominal full load efficiency.''

EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). As explained above, the

nominal efficiency is based on the average efficiency for that type of

motor. The term ``nominal full load efficiency'' neither implies nor

subsumes a minimum efficiency level; nor do EPCA's standards explicitly

state that a motor must have a minimum efficiency. Thus, because motors

can, in theory, comply with EPCA without meeting minimum efficiency

levels, the Department does not believe it can require such levels to

be met or be displayed on labels or in marketing materials.

[[Page 60453]]

Nevertheless, it is the Department's understanding that, as a

practical matter, it would be very unlikely that a manufacturer could

meet EPCA's nominal efficiency standard for a motor if it produces some

motors of that design with efficiencies below the corresponding minimum

in Table 12-10 of NEMA MG1-1993. Moreover, DOE understands that the

provisions of NEMA MG1 will continue to exist and be in force alongside

EPCA, and the Department has received no indication that NEMA MG1 will

be modified to eliminate the requirement that each motor have a nominal

efficiency as well as an associated minimum. Thus, DOE assumes that,

independent of DOE requirements under EPCA, under NEMA MG1-1993 a motor

could not be labeled as ``energy efficient'' or have an ``ee'' logo or

other similar designation, unless it meets both the applicable nominal

efficiency specified in Table 12-10 of MG1-1993 (which would be the

same as the applicable EPCA standard), as well as the associated

minimum efficiency specified in Table 12-10. In effect, therefore,

motors complying with EPCA standards can be expected to have an

appropriate minimum efficiency.

Based on these understandings, the Department proposes that

manufacturers be permitted to label covered motors as ``energy

efficient,'' or with the ``ee'' logo, or with some comparable

designation or logo, when a motor meets the applicable nominal full

load efficiency standard in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA. The Department

assumes that this would, in effect, authorize manufacturers to continue

to follow the industry practice of classifying a motor as ``energy

efficient'' only when it meets both the applicable nominal and the

applicable minimum efficiency level prescribed in Table 12-10 of MG1-

1993 with Revision 1. The Department sees considerable merit in such an

approach, which might also partially satisfy ACEEE's concern about

including minimum efficiency levels in labels. Moreover, the fact that

industry is following this approach indicates that it is

technologically and economically feasible. This proposal, if adopted,

would not require a manufacturer to include an ``ee'' or ``energy

efficient'' designation on its nameplates. A manufacturer that made a

complying motor would be free not to place an ``ee'' logo or similar

designation on its motor nameplates.

The Department continues to consider the option, however, of

requiring that a manufacturer, in conjunction with using a label with

the ``ee'' logo or ``energy efficient'' designation, display the

minimum efficiency of the motor on the motor nameplate, and/or include

such minimum efficiency in its compliance certification. The Department

solicits comments on these approaches.

Finally, presumably anticipating required use of the ``ee'' logo,

Reliance recommends that the Department consider recognizing marks of

energy efficiency from other countries when such marks are equivalent

to the mark required by the Department. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.c). As

discussed below, the Department does not propose to require the use of

any such mark. But in light of the National Voluntary Laboratory

Accreditation Program discussed below, the Department understands the

principle advanced by Reliance of mutual recognition between the U.S.

and other countries. The Department contemplates that its proposal

permitting use of the ``ee'' logo or other ``energy efficiency''

designation would permit use of the energy efficiency mark from another

country. In other words, where a motor meets the requirements for use

of the ``ee'' or other ``energy efficiency'' designation, it can

display a foreign energy efficiency mark.

3. Disclosure of Efficiency Information in Marketing Materials.

EPCA directs the Secretary to require that the energy efficiency of

each electric motor be ``prominently'' displayed ``in equipment

catalogs and other material used to market the equipment.'' EPCA

section 344(d)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6315(d)(2)). To implement this provision,

the Department proposes to require that catalogs and other marketing

materials for a motor prominently display the same nominal full load

efficiency rating that must appear on the motor's label. Further

authority for such a requirement is provided by section 344(c)(3) of

EPCA, which authorizes adoption of requirements ``likely to assist

purchasers in making purchasing decisions,'' including required

disclosure in ``printed matter which is displayed or distributed at the

point of sale'' of the motor of efficiency information required to be

on the label of the motor. The Department also proposes (1) To require

that catalogs and other marketing materials for a complying motor

display the manufacturer number required to be placed on the label of

such motor, and (2) that the provisions concerning inclusion on a label

of the ``ee'' logo, the ``energy efficiency'' designation, or other

similar logo or designation, also apply to printed materials.

NEMA asserts that Congress intended the labeling rules for electric

motors to ``facilitate enforcement of the efficiency standards,'' not

to educate consumers. The language of the Act does not support this

claim. Section 344(d) of EPCA, after directing the Secretary to

promulgate requirements for disclosure of a motor's energy efficiency,

directs that ``such other markings'' shall be required ``as the

Secretary determines necessary, solely to facilitate enforcement of the

standards established for electric motors.'' The ``facilitate

enforcement'' criterion applies only to ``such other markings''

required by the Secretary. It does not apply either to section 344(d)'s

specific requirements concerning disclosure of a motor's efficiency, or

to its general directive to ``prescribe labeling rules . . . applicable

to electric motors.'' Furthermore, section 344(c) lists examples of

labeling requirements that are authorized for ``covered equipment,''

including motors, clearly stating in language that precedes such

requirements that they should be ``likely to assist purchasers in

making purchasing decisions.'' In summary, the ``facilitate

enforcement'' language quoted by NEMA governs neither most of the

labeling provisions applicable to motors specifically, nor any of the

labeling provisions in sections 344 (a)-(c) that are generally

applicable both to motors and to other covered equipment.

The Department believes that the nominal full load efficiency and

the manufacturer's number ``prominently displayed'' in catalogs and

other marketing material would likely assist even knowledgeable

purchasers by clearly identifying an electric motor that is in

compliance with the EPCA. Reliance Electric expresses concern that

inclusion of such markings in catalogs could be unduly burdensome,

given the length of time it takes to update catalog information to

include new or modified motors. The Department believes that this

concern is addressed by the provisions of proposed Sec. 431.122(a)(4),

which provide in effect that the labeling provisions applicable to

catalogs do not apply to catalogs distributed before the effective date

of the labeling rule. In addition, under the proposed

Sec. 431.82(b)(1), the requirement that marketing material include

information concerning a particular motor would apply only to the

extent that the motor is mentioned in such material. Thus, for example,

catalogs would have to be updated to include the nominal full load

efficiency and the manufacturer's number applicable to a motor only

when the catalog is revised to include that motor. This would be a

technically feasible and economically justifiable means to satisfy the

requirement in

[[Page 60454]]

section 344(d)(2) of EPCA to ``prominently display the energy

efficiency of the motor in equipment catalogs and other materials to

market the equipment.''

Both Reliance and NEMA assert that energy efficiency markings

should be required on import documents to assist Customs officials with

identifying motors that comply with EPCA. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.c and

NEMA, No. 9 at C). The Department understands that Customs inspectors

may not be able to directly examine an imported motor that is packaged

for shipping, or one that is a component in a larger piece of

equipment. Therefore, the Department proposes that import documents for

any covered electric motor disclose the date of the Compliance

Certification and the DOE number for that motor, whether the motor is

imported alone or as a component of another piece of equipment. The

Department believes such identification information is consistent with

requirements placed on U.S. manufacturers and would facilitate

enforcement by Customs officials.

The Department does not propose to require that Customs documents

include a motor's nominal full load efficiency. The Department has

doubts about whether it will be practical for Customs officials to

check during the import process on whether a motor complies the

applicable minimum efficiency standard. The Department is still

considering, however, whether such a requirement is warranted and

requests comment on this point.

4. Other Matters

EPCA authorizes required displays of information about electric

motor energy efficiency which are likely to assist purchasers in making

purchasing decisions, including instructions for maintenance, use, or

repair of the motor, and information on energy use. EPCA section

344(c), 42 U.S.C. 6315(c). Most commenters agree that displays of such

information would often be impractical and should be optional, not

required. (Nailen, No. 2 at 3c; UL, No. 4 at Labeling; ACEEE, No. 7 at

3.c; Reliance, No. 8 at 3.c; and NEMA, No. 9 at C). The Department has

no information to the contrary, and therefore does not propose to

require display of such information.

Baldor Electric Company (``Baldor'') raises a concern about the

need for performance warnings on motors that will comply with EPCA's

efficiency standards, and about the potential waste of energy when such

a motor is misapplied. Since these motors typically run faster, and

might have less starting torque than less efficient motors, Baldor

recommends that a warning label be required on each covered motor to

alert users to verify load requirements before installation, and to

prevent possible misapplication and wasted energy. (Baldor, at 10).

The Department believes that Baldor's concerns have some merit, but

do not warrant a labeling requirement. As to starting torque, EPCA does

not require manufacturers to reduce starting torque to meet the

required levels of efficiency. The Department understands that

manufacturers are already offering for sale NEMA Design A and B motors

that meet EPCA efficiency standards and that have the same starting

torque capabilities as existing, less efficient NEMA Design A and B

motors. In any event, the Department believes that any performance

differences between covered motors that will comply with EPCA, and less

efficient versions of such motors, are minor and will affect only a

relatively small number of specific applications. Those situations

would appear to be best addressed not by general labeling requirements,

but rather by consultation between the motor user and seller during the

process of selecting a motor, to assure that particular application

requirements are satisfied by the performance capabilities of the motor

purchased. DOE concludes that the addition of a warning label should be

at the discretion of the manufacturer.

EPCA authorizes the Secretary to test the accuracy of information

disclosed pursuant to labeling requirements for covered equipment. EPCA

section344(i), 42 U.S.C. 6315(i). NEMA recommends that DOE not exercise

its authority to test the accuracy of the efficiency marked on a motor

nameplate, so long as such marking is based on a substantiated

alternative correlation method, or, apparently, on actual testing. NEMA

suggests that any DOE enforcement testing be limited to auditing the

substantiation of the alternative correlation method. (NEMA, No. 9 at

C.).

The Department understands that the efficiency marked on the

nameplate of a motor identifies the average efficiency of a population

of motors, and may not be the exact efficiency of that particular

motor. Therefore, parallel with provisions applicable in the appliance

efficiency program, the enforcement provisions proposed here would

require examination of a manufacturer's prior compliance determinations

before enforcement testing may proceed, and any such testing would

determine compliance through tests of a sample of units of the motor.

Presumably, in some instances, examination of the prior compliance

determinations would obviate the need for further testing and establish

the validity of the energy efficiency marked on a label. But the

Department's proposal permits further testing, at its discretion, to

determine the accuracy of a manufacturer's required information

disclosures. The Department sees no basis for agreeing to relinquish or

limit its authority under section 344(i) of EPCA to perform such

further testing.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulates energy efficiency

labeling for appliances, and the approach the Department proposes here

is similar to that adopted by the FTC in 16 CFR 305.15(b) and 305.16.

These provisions implement section 326(b)(3)(B) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.

6296(b)(3)(B), which, in language similar to section 344(i), authorizes

the FTC to test products to determine the accuracy of label

information. As in the Department's proposal here, the FTC procedures

require examination of a manufacturer's prior compliance determinations

before enforcement testing may proceed. But the FTC has not

relinquished its authority to conduct further testing that it deems

appropriate.

NEMA also suggests that manufacturers be permitted to use the

encircled ``ee'' logo for motors that meet EPCA efficiency standards,

even if such motors are manufactured before the effective date of the

standards, or are definite or special purpose motors. (NEMA, No. 9 at

C.). The Department finds substantial merit in NEMA's proposal. The

Department believes it is in the national interest to save energy both

through regulatory programs and voluntary programs, and understands

that the statute does not prohibit voluntary compliance. Therefore, the

Department proposes that, where an electric motor is in compliance with

the energy efficiency testing and standards requirements of the

statute, even though it is not covered equipment, a manufacturer may

voluntarily comply with the proposed labeling provisions. The

manufacturer could comply with one or more of these provisions. It

would have to meet the requirements of any provision that it purports

to comply with, and it would be subject to enforcement action if it

fails to meet such requirements. For example, if the label of a special

purpose motor were to include the nominal full load efficiency of the

motor, such efficiency rating would have to be derived in accordance

with application of the DOE test procedures prescribed in

Sec. 431.82(a)(1)(i) of the proposed labeling rule.

[[Page 60455]]

F. Certification

1. Statutory Provisions

EPCA requires ``manufacturers to certify, through an independent

testing or certification program nationally recognized in the United

States, that such motor meets the applicable [nominal full load

efficiency standard].'' EPCA section 345(c), 42 U.S.C. 6316(c). The

Department understands the statutory language to provide manufacturers

with two separate ways to fulfill the certification requirement: (1)

Manufacturers may certify, through an independent testing program

nationally recognized in the United States, that such motor meets the

standards; or (2) manufacturers may certify, through an independent

certification program nationally recognized in the United States, that

such motor meets the standards. Section 345(c) does not specify what is

meant by ``independent testing,'' ``certification program,'' or

``nationally recognized.'' Moreover, little insight into the meaning of

the latter two terms is provided by other provisions of EPCA or by

operation of the consumer appliance energy efficiency program. The term

``independent testing'' also is not used elsewhere in the Act. EPCA

requirements concerning test procedures, however, make clear that

``testing'' refers to tests of products (in this case motors) to

determine whether they satisfy efficiency requirements. Such tests to

certify compliance with EPCA's efficiency standards have commonly been

performed in manufacturers' own facilities, and no other provision of

EPCA or the DOE regulations calls for ``independent'' testing. By

stating that a compliance certification based on testing shall be

through an ``independent testing'' program, section 345(c) of EPCA

appears to require a different approach. Given the normal meaning of

``independent,'' section 345(c) may call for testing to be conducted at

a facility not under the control of or affiliated with the

manufacturer.

2. Basis for Certification

a. Independent Testing Program. The Department conducted an

informal investigation and, in addition, solicited statements during

the aforementioned public meeting held June 2, 1995, in order to

understand the nature of ``independent testing'' and ``certification''

programs, and to learn what programs exist that manufacturers could use

to certify compliance with the energy efficiency requirements of the

statute. The question of who should conduct the required testing for

the program elicited considerable comment, especially concerning the

adequacy of the number of independent testing facilities. Statements

provided by Wisconsin Electric, Reliance, ACEEE, NEMA, Nielsen

Engineering Inc., and UL indicate that only a few independent

facilities in the United States and Canada have the capability to test

motor efficiency as required by EPCA. According to Reliance, for

example, the number of third party test facilities available in North

America is so limited that reliance on such facilities to conduct an

independent testing program would present a major roadblock to

compliance certification by the electric motor industry. (Reliance, No.

8 at 3.d.2). ACEEE adds that it is unlikely that the number of

independent test facilities could be rapidly increased, since there are

very few experts familiar with the design of test facilities and the

details of performing such tests. It would likely take ten years to

construct the facilities, install the equipment, and train staff for

the testing capacity necessary to independently certify all motor

models covered by EPCA. (ACEEE letter to DOE, 11/20/95).

The Department understands there are considerable variations in the

primary components of electric motors, which include the stator

assembly; the rotor assembly; the enclosure, which includes bearings, a

lubrication system and other mechanical or small electrical assemblies;

and the shaft. Such variations are part of the means by which motors

are classified. For example, the enclosure may be open or totally-

enclosed; the motor may operate from an alternating current power

supply at any one of several voltage levels; or the motor may operate

at any one of several speeds. The number of different motor

configurations increases rapidly due to the numerous combinations of

other electrical and physical characteristics possible. These

characteristics relate to method of starting, enclosure type,

horsepower rating, speed, torque, voltage, and temperature rise. The

list of such variations is significant. According to one DOE

study,4 for example, considering only motors above 5 horsepower,

there are approximately 5,300 different possible covered motors. The

potential number of motors requiring testing, however, would be reduced

under the statutory definition of ``basic model.'' Even so, testimony

from the June 2, 1995, public meeting and written statements from

manufacturers and NEMA speak of different basic models still numbering

in the thousands that are being manufactured and could potentially be

required to undergo testing for efficiency. (Public Meeting, Tr. pgs.

33, 63, and 88; 5 Reliance, No. 8 at 3.b.3; and NEMA, No. 9 at

B.3.).

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

\4\ ``Classification and Evaluation of Electric Motors and

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

\5\ ``Public Meeting, Tr. pgs. 33, 63 and 88,'' refers to the

page numbers of the transcript of the ``Public Meeting on Energy

Efficiency Standards, Test Procedures, Labeling and Certification

Reporting for Certain Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors,''

held in Washington, DC, June 2, 1995.

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

The foregoing indicates that only a small number of existing

independent laboratories are capable of testing electric motors for

energy efficiency, and that a very substantial volume of motors will

require testing. Because of the insufficient testing capacity, the

Department believes it will be impossible for all or most manufacturers

to test their motors in test facilities other than their own

laboratories. Thus, manufacturers would not be able to comply with a

narrow reading of the ``independent testing'' aspect of the statute.

The Department believes that the goal and intent of this provision

of the statute, however, is to provide assurance that test results are

accurate, valid, and capable of being replicated. Tests must be

performed, for example, with a degree of independence so that the

results are not influenced by marketing and production concerns. The

issue of how to assure that test results are comparable to those

conducted in an independent testing laboratory is fundamental to this

program. This question is addressed in many of the statements received

as a result of the aforementioned informal investigation and the June

2, 1995, public meeting.

NEMA, for example, asserts that the statutory provision for

``independent testing'' must be interpreted in light of the reality

that there is insufficient capacity in independent test laboratories.

NEMA believes the only technically feasible and economically

justifiable means to comply is by using manufacturers' own

laboratories. (NEMA, No. 9 at D.2.). In its November 20, 1995, letter

to the Department, ACEEE agrees with this position, adding that ``the

only way to make the required testing capacity available would be to

accredit the testing facilities of motor manufacturers and allow them

to certify the efficiency of motors.'' (ACEEE letter to DOE, 11/20/95).

Both Reliance and NEMA describe two possible options for programs

which could fulfill the requirements of ``independent testing'':

Testing performed at a third party independent accredited facility

which has some type

[[Page 60456]]

of national recognition; or testing at an accredited manufacturer's

facility that is considered independent under the requirements for

accreditation. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.d.2 and NEMA, No. 9 at D.2.). As

mentioned above, manufacturers' laboratories have been widely used to

test products for compliance with efficiency requirements imposed under

section 325 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295. A laboratory accreditation program

could also play a role for electric motors, provided the laboratory is

accredited to test electric motors for energy efficiency according to

the procedures in IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B and CSA Standard C390

Test Method 1.

b. Laboratory Accreditation. In researching how laboratory

accreditation programs could satisfy the independent testing provision

of the statute, the Department has reviewed a number of publications,

directories, and programs.6 Such documents frame the qualities of

a laboratory accreditation program, which include: Assessment criteria

or procedures which determine, for example, the laboratory's

independence within the manufacturer's organizational structure so that

test results are not influenced by such factors as marketing and

production sides; on-site inspection of the laboratories; qualification

requirements for laboratory staff; requirements to ensure the identity

and integrity of test samples; periodic re-audit of facilities;

laboratory participation in a proficiency testing program; and

requirements for the adequacy, maintenance, and calibration of

equipment.

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

\6\ Laboratory Accreditation in the United States, Maureen A.

Breitenberg, May 1991, NISTIR 4576.

Director of State and Local Government Laboratory Accreditation/

Designation Programs, Charles W. Hyer, Editor, July 1991, NIST

Special Publication 815.

Directory of Professional/Trade Organization Laboratory

Accreditation/Designation Programs, Charles W. Hyer, Editor, March

1992, NIST Special Publication 831.

Test laboratory accreditation criteria published in 15 CFR part

285.

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program Handbook

150, Procedures and General Requirements.

ISO/IEC Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of

calibration and testing laboratories.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

laboratory accreditation program conducted in accordance with 29 CFR

1910.7.

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

The ACEEE states that the Department should ``facilitate the

development of independent, accredited motor testing capability in the

United States to allow for independent verification of manufacturer

test results.'' According to ACEEE, such accreditation increases

confidence in the validity of manufacturer test results, and provides

an alternate means of testing for manufacturers who do not operate

their own accredited test laboratory. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.d).

Statements received from ACEEE, the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST), Reliance, and NEMA support laboratory

accreditation as a means to augment the number of existing independent

laboratories in order to comply with the ``independent testing'' aspect

of the statute, and recommend the NIST National Voluntary Laboratory

Accreditation Program (NVLAP) as a source of accrediting laboratories

to test motors for energy efficiency. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.d; NIST, No.

1; Reliance, No. 8 at 3.d.2; and NEMA, No. 9 at D.2.).

According to NIST, NVLAP is the only general accreditation program

in the Federal system. It is a completely independent third party

accreditation program that operates under the Procedures and

Requirements published in 15 CFR part 285, and has mutual recognition

agreements with national accreditation organizations in other

countries, including Canada. Both the U.S. and Canada use one

procedures handbook (the NIST Handbook 150-10, Efficiency of Electric

Motors), and NVLAP's proficiency testing program. Under NIST Handbook

150-10, Sec. 285.33(h)(1), laboratories are accredited to use both the

IEEE 112 Test Method B, the motor efficiency test procedure prescribed

by the Act, and CSA Standard C390 Test Method 1, which MG1-1993

incorporated as an alternative test procedure. (As discussed above, the

Department proposes, in accordance with EPCA, to allow use of this

alternative.) NIST adds that industry representatives support NVLAP and

its mutual recognition agreements with other countries. (NIST, No. 1).

ACEEE adds that it sees no problem with accepting test results from

laboratories in Canada or other countries if the laboratories receive

NVLAP accreditation or if accreditation from their national body is

accepted by the NIST as meeting NVLAP standards. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.d).

Reliance notes that at present, NVLAP is the only accreditation

program which has established a complete manual on the requirements for

laboratory accreditation for determining the efficiency of electric

motors. This accreditation program was created by NVLAP with the

cooperation of motor manufacturers. Reliance points out, however, that

since there are over 300 accrediting bodies in the United States, it is

possible that several could conduct a program to accredit laboratories

for performing motor efficiency testing described in IEEE 112 or CSA

C390. Reliance asserts that recognition of any test facility which has

been accredited by a national accrediting body as an ``independent test

facility'' should be considered, and that international standards

provide a precedent for this. ``To receive accreditation under

international standards for laboratory accreditation a facility must

meet certain requirements for classification as an independent

facility, even if it is within the manufacturing complex for which it

would be performing the product testing. To quote from Clause 4.2 of

ISO/IEC Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of

calibration and testing laboratories, `(b) the laboratory shall have

arrangements to ensure that its personnel are free from any commercial,

financial, and other pressures which might adversely affect the quality

of their work and (c) be organized in such a way that confidence in its

independence (emphasis added) of judgment and integrity is maintained

at all times.' In short, accreditation to standards of recognized

accreditation organizations is equivalent to a recognition of

independence. This could provide the independence needed to meet the

requirements of an independent testing or certification program.''

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

The Department recognizes the possibility that accreditation bodies

other than NVLAP could accredit motor testing laboratories. For

example, the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA)

is a nonprofit, scientific, membership organization dedicated to the

formal recognition of testing laboratories and related organizations

which have achieved a demonstrated level of competence. According to

literature published by A2LA, accreditation is available to all

laboratories regardless of whether they are owned by private companies

or government bodies. One essential requirement, of course, is that

laboratories be accredited competent to perform testing in accordance

with the test procedures prescribed pursuant to EPCA for electric

motors. A2LA accreditation can be obtained for all types of tests,

measurements and observations that are reproducible, properly

documented, and generally available to everyone. A2LA's general

accreditation criteria are those of ISO/IEC Guide 25: 1990, General

requirements for the competence of calibration and testing

laboratories. Guide 25 is followed by NVLAP and other accrediting

bodies.

[[Page 60457]]

c. Certification Program. EPCA also provides that a manufacturer

can use a ``certification program nationally recognized in the United

States,'' instead of an independent testing program, to certify that

its motors meet EPCA efficiency standards. EPCA section 345(c), 42

U.S.C. 6316(c). The Department understands the word ``certification''

to mean a procedure by which a third party gives written assurance that

a product, process or service conforms to specified requirements.

With regard to the nature, identity, and capabilities of any

nationally recognized program or programs for the certification of

electric motors for energy efficiency, Reliance describes two existing

certification programs in North America, one conducted by CSA, and the

other by UL. Reliance states that both are generally regarded by

industry as ``nationally recognized.'' Reliance notes that these

programs are in place now and are independently verifying motor

efficiency. Reliance suggests that these programs could directly

fulfill the requirements of EPCA without modification. Both programs

entail (1) submittal by the manufacturer of the declared nominal

efficiency of the motors to be certified at the time of application

into the program, (2) examination of the manufacturer's testing

facility to determine that it is competent in performing the test

procedure in the IEEE 112 or CSA C390 Standards, (3) random selection

by the certification agency of the ratings of some motors to be tested

in the presence of an assessor from the certification agency, (4)

testing of the selected motors in the manufacturer's test facility, (5)

testing the same motors at an independent laboratory for comparison of

the results of the two tests, and (6) yearly follow-up audits which

include additional random sample testing to determine that the test

facility maintains its ability to perform the test and that the

manufacturer has not changed the motor design in any way that affects

the efficiency. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.d.2). Reliance adds that it is

not necessary to limit independent certification to CSA or UL. What is

necessary is that the certification program be conducted by an

organization in which the consumer will have full faith and confidence.

UL asserts that the Act's requirements are met by its Energy

Verification Service, wherein a motor manufacturer's production and

testing operations are evaluated and representative samples are tested

to applicable standards. Following initial verification, follow-up

audits of products and on-going testing by the manufacturer is

required. Essentially the steps set forth in the above paragraph are

followed. UL notes that its Energy Verification Service is in

compliance with Federal law in Canada, and is accredited by the

Standards Council of Canada. As an alternative to DOE developing

criteria for the acceptance of testing laboratories and certification

bodies, UL recommends that established ISO/IEC international criteria

be utilized. (UL, No. 4 at Certification).

The UL statement then lists the following ISO/IEC international

criteria applicable to testing laboratories and certification bodies:

ISO/IEC Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of

calibration and testing laboratories; ISO Guide 27, Guidelines for

corrective action to be taken by a certification body in the event of

either misapplication of its mark of conformity to a product, or

products which bear the mark of the certification body being found to

subject persons or property to risk; ISO/IEC Guide 28, General rules

for a model third-party certification system for products; and ISO/IEC

Guide 40, General requirements for the acceptance of certification

bodies.7 UL recommends that DOE use the criteria in the foregoing

Guides as the basis for recognizing that a test laboratory or

certification organization is competent to perform required tests or

operate a certification program. The Department understands that these

are internationally recognized documents utilized by testing

laboratories, accreditation bodies, and certification bodies in the

U.S.

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

\7\ ISO/IEC Guide 40 has been superseded by ISO/IEC 65-1996,

General requirements for bodies operating product certification

systems.

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

d. National Recognition. Under EPCA, a testing or certification

program used to certify compliance must be ``nationally recognized.''

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

The question of national recognition has been addressed at 29 CFR

part 1910, by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA), which uses third-party (or independent)

testing laboratories to ensure that certain equipment and materials are

safe for workplace use. The OSHA final rule at 53 FR 12102-12125 (April

12, 1988) includes a requirement that testing laboratories listing or

approving products or equipment required to be approved under Part 1910

be recognized as Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTL) by

OSHA. Under that rule, OSHA evaluates applicant testing and control

programs against the NRTL definitional requirements, and issues a

written ``recognition'' letter. This is done in accordance with 29 CFR

1910.7 appendix A. OSHA also provides for continuing surveillance over

OSHA-recognized NRTLs to assure conformance with the requirements of

its rule. The definition of NRTL includes the following requirements:

(1) Capability to examine specific equipment for workplace safety;

(2) Provision of controls and services necessary for assuring and

demonstrating original conformity of equipment to appropriate test

standards;

(3) Independence from manufacturers, suppliers and vendors of

products, and from other employers; and

(4) Procedures for producing creditable findings and reports and

for handling complaints and disputes. (Department of Labor, No. 11).

The Association of Independent Scientific, Engineering and Testing

Firms (formerly the American Council of Independent Laboratories

(ACIL)) appears to claim that section 345(c) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.

6316(c), does not allow a manufacturer to certify compliance with

efficiency standards through testing in its own laboratory, even if the

laboratory is accredited. ACIL asserts that section 345(c) must be

interpreted consistently with sections 342(b) and 346(b)(3) of the

statute, which refer to listing or certifying motors by a nationally

recognized testing laboratory (NRTL). ACIL recommends that DOE

reference the OSHA program to accredit such laboratories, and ``codify

reliance on these NRTLs to certify electric motors.'' (ACIL, No. 6).

Although ACIL does not so state, the Department understands that these

laboratories are independent, and not controlled by a manufacturer of

the product being tested.

The Department cannot agree with ACIL's apparent view that, because

manufacturers do not control the safety testing laboratories referred

to in sections 342(b) and 346(b)(3) of EPCA, the efficiency testing

programs required to be used under section 345(c) also must be free of

manufacturer control. First, different considerations may apply to

safety testing and to efficiency testing in determining the required

degree of independence of a testing facility. Second, EPCA's references

to safety testing laboratories are incidental to EPCA's efficiency

requirements, and unrelated to the requirements of section 345(c).

Those references provide little guidance in interpreting section

345(c). Finally, as discussed above, implementation of section 345(c)

would be impossible if it were construed as prohibiting compliance

certification

[[Page 60458]]

based on testing in manufacturers' own laboratories.

Substantial potential may exist for NRTLs to make future

contributions to the EPCA program by performing energy efficiency

testing. But contrary to ACIL's recommendation, the Department cannot

yet rely on these laboratories to meet EPCA requirements, because it

has no indication that they currently are qualified to do efficiency

testing. And certainly the Department cannot rely on OSHA's NRTL

recognition process. The references to test laboratories in sections

342(b) and 346(b)(3) of EPCA, as well as OSHA's accreditation of NRTLs,

address safety testing. The procedures and equipment for efficiency

testing are different from the procedures and equipment for testing

whether a motor will operate safely.

The Department believes that the NRTL program does, however,

provide an approach for determining when a program is ``nationally

recognized.'' As further discussed below, the Department proposes to

adopt formal procedures similar to those utilized by the OSHA NRTL

program for purposes of establishing when a certification program is

``nationally recognized'' within the meaning of section 345(c).

e. Proposal. The Department proposes that the statutory requirement

for certification through an ``independent testing program'' be met by

using a laboratory, operated by either a third party or a manufacturer,

that has been accredited to perform the DOE test procedures. Given the

paucity of test facilities not controlled by manufacturers, the

Department believes that testing at manufacturers' laboratories that

have been accredited would satisfy the intent of the ``independent

testing'' aspect of EPCA section 345(c). Such accreditation would

provide many of the protections as to accuracy, bias, and independence

of judgment that would be provided by testing at non-manufacturer

facilities. Accreditation would also give additional assurance that the

laboratory is fully capable of testing a motor's energy efficiency, and

would reduce concerns with respect to variability and repeatability of

testing and test results. Accreditation of non-manufacturer

laboratories is proposed to assure an equal degree of reliability with

manufacturers' laboratories, and, as discussed below, to satisfy the

section 345(c) requirement that testing programs be nationally

recognized.

In accordance with section 345(c), the Department's proposed

regulation also permits a manufacturer to certify compliance through an

independent certification program. Such a program would have to be

essentially as described above by UL and Reliance. Manufacturers that

elect to use a certification program would not be required to have

their own laboratory accredited.

Finally, section 345(c) requires that compliance be certified

through a testing or certification program that is ``nationally

recognized.'' The Department proposes that this requirement shall be

met (1) by a testing facility that has been accredited either by NVLAP

or by an accrediting body that DOE classifies as nationally recognized

to accredit facilities to test motors for efficiency, or (2) by a

certification program that DOE has classified as nationally recognized.

The Department proposes criteria and procedures under which it would

make such classifications. Included would be the application of

appropriate ISO/IEC criteria. Accrediting bodies and certification

programs would seek such classification by submitting a petition to the

Department, accompanied by supporting documentation.

Under the Department's proposal, NVLAP accreditation of motor

testing laboratories would be pursuant to NVLAP's existing approach to

granting such accreditation, set forth in 15 CFR part 285 and NIST

Handbook 150-10. The Department is reviewing, and requests comment on,

whether these provisions are in any way inconsistent with EPCA

requirements or any portion of the proposed part 431. The Department

also proposes that if NVLAP alters its approach to accrediting motor

testing laboratories, subsequent to DOE adoption of a final rule in

this proceeding, such changes would become applicable to accreditation

under part 431 only if approved by DOE. The Department seeks comment on

whether such a provision is needed, and will suffice, to assure that

NVLAP accreditation methods will continue to be consistent with the DOE

energy efficiency program for motors.

In summary, the Department proposes implementation of the

requirement for ``manufacturers to certify, through an independent

testing or certification program nationally recognized in the United

States, that such motor meets the applicable [energy efficiency

standards],'' by either (i) testing at a third party independent

laboratory accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting body, such

as NVLAP, (ii) testing at the manufacturer's own laboratory if it is

accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting body, such as

NVLAP,8 or (iii) certification by a nationally recognized third-

party certification program.

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

\8\ The proposed regulations would permit testing at a

laboratory accredited by a foreign organization recognized by NVLAP.

Any test results produced by such laboratory would, of course,

establish compliance with the Act and DOE's regulations only if the

underlying testing were performed in accordance with the DOE test

procedures.

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

3. Form of Certification

a. Compliance Statement. EPCA states that, ``the Secretary shall

require manufacturers to certify'' that each electric motor meets

applicable efficiency standards. EPCA section 345(c), 42 U.S.C.

6316(c). An example of how such language can be applied is found at 10

CFR 430.62, Submission of data, which requires manufacturers of

consumer appliance products to submit a compliance statement, as well

as a certification report that provides information for each basic

model of a product. It appears, however, that there are many more basic

models of electric motors than of each consumer appliance, and strictly

applying the Sec. 430.62 requirements to electric motors could be

unduly burdensome to manufacturers and to the Department. The

Department is aware of at least one manufacturer that claims to

manufacture thousands of basic models of electric motors covered by the

statute.

Statements from Reliance and NEMA address the difficulty of

requiring compliance statements for all basic models a manufacturer

produces. Reliance emphasizes that a manufacturer is likely to make a

very large number of basic models. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.b.3 and

3.d.1). Reliance also asserts that the Act requires manufacturers to

certify that the nominal efficiency of the basic model meets or exceeds

the level specified at section 342(b)(1) of EPCA for its rating, not

the actual value of nominal efficiency for the motor. Reliance and NEMA

recommend that each manufacturer submit a simplified compliance

statement to certify that all its basic models of covered electric

motors have a nominal full load efficiency equal to or in excess of the

statutory nominal full load efficiency standards, as determined by

actual testing or application of a substantiated alternative

correlation method. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.d.1 and NEMA, No. 9 at D.).

NEMA proposes as an alternative, that each manufacturer submit a

compliance statement along with a certification report that provides

information on each of the 113 ratings within which it produces motors.

The 113 ratings refers

[[Page 60459]]

to the combinations of horsepowers, number of poles, and types of

enclosure in the table of nominal full load efficiencies at section

342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). According to NEMA, the

certification report would include, for each rating of electric motor

which a manufacturer or private labeler manufactures, the nominal full

load efficiency of the least efficient basic model with that rating.

(NEMA, No. 9 at D.).

The Department believes that, contrary to the assertion by

Reliance, it has the authority under the Act to require motor

manufacturers to certify the nominal full load efficiency of a motor.

But because there are so many basic models of electric motors, the

Department proposes to require a single Compliance Certification that

is quite similar to NEMA's alternative suggestion for certification.

The proposed approach is designed to minimize the reporting burden on

manufacturers, while fulfilling the purposes served by the statement of

compliance and certification report required for appliances at 10 CFR

430.62. The proposed Compliance Certification at 10 CFR 431.123 would

be a one-time statement which affirms that each basic model of electric

motor meets the energy efficiency requirements of the statute, based

upon actual testing or application of a substantiated alternative

efficiency determination method. For each of the 113 ratings within

which the manufacturer produces electric motors, it would identify the

nominal full load efficiency of the basic model that has the lowest

efficiency. At most, efficiencies would be included for 113 ratings.

The Compliance Certification would also, in effect, certify that all

basic models produced within each rating have a nominal full load

efficiency equal to or in excess of the efficiency represented in the

Compliance Certification for that rating.

b. New Models. EPCA requires each electric motor manufactured after

the 60-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this

subsection, or in the case of an electric motor which requires listing

or certification by a nationally recognized safety testing laboratory,

after the 84-month period beginning on such date, to meet a prescribed

nominal full load efficiency level. EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C.

6313(b)(1). A manufacturer is required to comply with the statutory

efficiency standards both for each motor it manufacturers as of the

statutory effective dates, and for each new basic model it begins to

manufacture thereafter.

In order to comply with the statutory certification requirements,

NEMA proposes that a manufacturer be required to submit a new

certificate of compliance for a new basic model only if the new model's

nominal full load efficiency is less than the nominal full load

efficiency of other basic models, within the same rating, that are

already being produced by the manufacturer and that have been

previously certified to be in compliance with EPCA and DOE regulations.

NEMA reasons that, ``If a manufacturer's original certification reports

only compliance by each class of 113 ratings, there is no need to

require detailed reporting on the nominal efficiency of each new basic

model, provided that such new basic model has a nominal full load

efficiency in excess of the statutory standard and the efficiency

certificated on the compliance statement for the relevant rating.''

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

Given the Department's proposal as to the initial Compliance

Certification, NEMA's reasoning is persuasive. Moreover, based on

information provided by manufacturers, there appears to be a potential

for the introduction of numerous new basic models having the same

ratings as motors already being manufactured. The Department seeks to

avoid imposing a possible undue burden of excessive reporting of

compliance of such new basic models. Therefore, it is proposed that

submission of a Compliance Certification for a new basic model would be

required only if (1) the manufacturer has not previously submitted to

DOE a Compliance Statement for a motor having the same rating as the

new basic model, or (2) the new model has the same rating as one or

more of the basic models that have previously been produced and

certified by the same manufacturer, but has a lower nominal full load

efficiency than any of those previously certified basic models.

G. Enforcement

The Department proposes to establish procedures for enforcement

testing which are appropriate for the equipment being tested for energy

efficiency, in this case 1 through 200 horsepower alternating current

electric motors. The proposed sampling plan for enforcement testing at

appendix C to subpart G of this part is a departure from the procedures

established at appendix B to subpart F of 10 CFR part 430--Sampling

Plan for Enforcement Testing. The proposed sampling plan for

enforcement testing is based upon NEMA MG1-12.58.2, Efficiency of

Polyphase Squirrel-cage Medium Motors with Continuous Ratings, and NEMA

MG1 Table 12-8, Efficiency Levels, which establish a logical series of

nominal motor efficiencies and the minimum associated with each nominal

based on 20 percent loss difference. NIST formulated the proposed

sampling plan for enforcement testing.

The sampling plan for enforcement testing of electric motors would

aid the Department in performing actual testing pursuant to the test

procedures prescribed in 10 CFR 431.23, and in achieving uniform

application of enforcement testing. The objectives of the sampling plan

for enforcement testing are (1) to provide for each motor an estimate

of the true mean full load efficiency, (2) to establish reasonable

measurement tolerances for motor efficiencies, and (3) to ensure that

the result of the test is significant within these tolerances.

The sampling plan for enforcement testing assumes that the

efficiencies of the entire population of motors are normally

distributed about the true mean and that the true mean full load

efficiency and standard deviation of the motor efficiencies are not

known. Compliance (or non-compliance) can be determined when the mean

efficiency of the basic model is not less than the statutory full load

efficiency (SFE), thus only a lower bound for the mean efficiency must

be specified. The proposed sampling plan for enforcement testing seeks

to estimate the true mean efficiency of the basic model and to ensure

that this mean efficiency is not less than the SFE, with high

probability.

The Department believes that the best estimate of the true mean

efficiency that may be obtained by tests conducted on a random sample

is the mean efficiency of that sample (X). The reliability of this

estimate depends on two factors: (1) the size of the sample, i.e., the

number of motors tested, and (2) the underlying variability of the

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

standard deviation of the sample divided by the square root of the

sample size, is one measure of the variability of the sample mean. In

general, the ratio of the difference between X and the true mean to

SE(X) is distributed according to a probability density function known

in statistics literature as the t-distribution. Percentiles of this

distribution are to determine confidence intervals and, in this case,

to establish a lower bound. These percentiles are readily available and

are included in many references on statistics.

The lower bound benchmark is calculated by determining the figure

that would result if a population of motors meets the statutory

standard

[[Page 60460]]

(i.e., the mean full load efficiency for the population meets or

exceeds the statutory full load efficiency). If this is the case, and

if t is the 90th percentile of the t-distribution appropriate for the

sample size, then at least 90 percent of the time the average

efficiency will be greater than the lower control limit, where:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.000

The Department understands that in any statistical test there is a

possibility of obtaining a false result by chance. In this case, by

assumption, the basic model is in compliance and the sampling plan for

enforcement testing should, with high probability, correctly

demonstrate compliance or non-compliance. By design, the probability

that the mean efficiency of a random sample drawn from this population

would fall below the lower control limit and, hence, the risk of

incorrectly concluding non-compliance, is no greater than 10 percent.

To apply this method, a random sample is tested and the mean and

standard error in the mean are calculated. Based on the size of the

sample and the confidence desired the appropriate t value is selected

and the lower control limit calculated. For example, for 90 percent

confidence and a sample of five units t equals 1.533. Provided the mean

efficiency obtained from the random sample is not less than the lower

control limit, the Department can determine with 90 percent confidence

that the true mean efficiency of the entire population is not less than

the statutory level.

Following this procedure, there is some probability that the

estimate of the standard deviation and, therefore, the estimated

standard error in the mean is too large and that the lower control

limit may be set, by chance, to a value that defeats the purpose of the

sampling plan for enforcement testing. To avoid this circumstance, it

is sufficient to establish an upper limit for the standard error in the

mean. The tolerance in the standard error should be chosen to be

appropriate for the size and type of motor.

The strategy proposed here is to establish reasonable benchmarks

for the standard error in the mean. One possible solution is to base

these tolerances on the existing NEMA guidelines for identifying motor

efficiency levels at NEMA MG1-12.58.2 and NEMA Table 12-8. Such

guidelines were developed by consensus among motor manufacturers and

they are followed, on a voluntary basis, by a large segment of the

motor manufacturers. Under the NEMA guidelines, no single unit can have

energy losses more than 20 percent greater than the average losses for

that type of motor, i.e., a 20 percent loss tolerance is permitted for

a given unit but the average must still be met.

The NEMA guidelines serve to provide uniformity in motor efficiency

labeling and can be used for purposes of quality control by

manufacturers, and may, therefore, provide a reasonable basis for

estimating efficiency tolerances among motors of different size and

type. The Department believes that the 20 percent loss tolerance is

reasonable and meaningful.

The variability in the motor efficiencies allowed, when X=SFE, may

be calculated by setting the true mean efficiency equal to the

statutory value. The results of this procedure are presented below in

Table 1. The Department assumes for these data that the sample size is

five, and uses a single sided t-test and a 90% confidence level, i.e.,

t has been set to 1.533. Comparison of the standard deviation allowed

by the sampling plan for enforcement testing with the NEMA 20 percent

loss tolerance shows that the variability allowed corresponds to the

NEMA guidelines.

To determine compliance (or non-compliance) for the purpose of

enforcement testing, (a) the sample mean shall not be less than the

LCL, as defined above, and (b) the product of the t percentile and the

standard error in the mean may not exceed a 20 percent loss tolerance.

Table 1.--Comparison of the NEMA 20 Percent Loss Tolerance and the

Standard Deviations Allowed by the Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing

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

Enforcement

Statutory NEMA minimum NEMA 20% loss standard

efficiency efficiency tolerance deviation

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

75.5............. 72.0 3.5 5.1

80.0............. 77.0 3.0 4.4

82.5............. 80.0 2.5 3.6

84.0............. 81.5 2.5 3.6

85.5............. 82.5 3.0 4.4

86.5............. 84.0 2.5 2.5

87.5............. 85.5 2.0 3.0

88.5............. 86.5 2.0 3.0

89.5............. 87.5 2.0 3.0

90.2............. 88.5 1.7 2.5

91.0............. 89.5 1.5 2.2

91.7............. 90.2 1.5 2.2

92.4............. 91.0 1.4 2.0

93.0............. 91.7 1.3 1.9

93.6............. 92.4 1.2 1.8

94.1............. 93.0 1.1 1.6

94.5............. 93.6 0.9 1.3

95.0............. 94.1 0.9 1.3

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

IV. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

Pursuant to section 7(c)(2) of the Federal Energy Administration

Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275, 15 U.S.C. 766(a)), a copy of this notice

has been submitted to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency for comments concerning the impact of this proposed rulemaking

on the quality of the environment.

In this rule, the Department proposes provisions to implement

statutorily mandated energy efficiency standards and test procedures

for electric motors. Implementation of the proposed rule would not

result in environmental impacts. The Department has therefore

determined that the proposed rule is covered under the Categorical

Exclusion found at paragraph A.6 of appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR

part 1021, which applies to the establishment of procedural

rulemakings. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an

environmental impact statement is required.

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

Review''

This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' October 4,

1993. Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the

Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

VI. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 603, requires the

preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for every

rule which by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the

agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

A regulatory flexibility analysis examines the impact of the rule on

small entities and considers alternative ways of reducing negative

impacts.

The Department used the small business size standards published on

January 31, 1996 by the Small Business Administration to determine

whether any small entities would be required to comply with the

proposed rule. 61 FR 3280 (to be codified at 13 CFR part 121). The size

standards are listed by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code

and industry description. Electric motor manufacturing is SIC 3621. To

be considered a small business, a manufacturer of electric motors and

its

[[Page 60461]]

affiliates may employ a maximum of 1,000 employees.

The Department estimates there are approximately 27 domestic firms

and 14 foreign firms which manufacture electric motors covered under

EPCA. Many of the domestic motor manufacturers are affiliated with

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

companies in the U.S. range from fewer than 100 employees to several

thousand employees. The Department estimates that there are four to six

firms in the United States that both manu

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.