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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-29048

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** November 27, 1996
- **Citation:** 61 FR 60440

## Text

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 do

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-29048. Public record. Not legal advice.