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

SUMMARY: In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 61 FR 60440 (November 27,

1996) (NOPR), concerning one through 200 horsepower electric motors

that are covered under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as

amended (EPCA), the Department of Energy (DOE or the Department)

proposed to adopt test procedures (including those in Institute of

Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Standard 112-1991 [``IEEE

112-1991'']), sampling plans for compliance and enforcement testing,

efficiency labeling requirements, and standards and procedures under

which DOE would classify an accreditation organization or a

certification program as ``nationally recognized.'' The Department is

now considering several additional options in these areas, which were

either not set forth or not clearly described in the NOPR.

Specifically, the Department is considering adoption of (1) revised

sampling plans for compliance and enforcement, (2) revisions to the

IEEE test procedures, (3) alternative requirements where a motor's

efficiency is established under EPCA through a certification program,

(4) verifying the validity of labeled efficiency by use of the proposed

enforcement procedures, and (5) withdrawal of recognition from an

accreditation organization or certification program that deviates from

the standards for recognition. The purpose of this notice is to reopen

the comment period to solicit comments on these options.

DATES: Written comments in response to this notice must be received by

July 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Ten copies (no telefacsimilies) of written comments should

be labeled ``Electric Motor Rulemaking'' (Docket No. EE-RM-96-400), and

submitted to: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Codes and Standards,

EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 1J-018, Washington, DC 20585-

0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945.

Copies of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

standards may be obtained from the Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway,

NJ 08855-1331, 1-800-678-IEEE.

A copy of the document, ``Analysis of Proposals for Compliance and

Enforcement Testing Under the New Part 431; Title 10, Code of Federal

Regulations,'' NISTIR 6092, by K.L. Stricklett and M. Vangel, January

1998, may be obtained from the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST).1 Information regarding availability of

the report, NISTIR 6092, may be obtained from the NIST Inquiries Office

at 301-975-3058. A copy of NISTIR 6092 is available through the NIST

World Wide Web site http://www.eeel.nist.gov/811/div/

811__pubs__ps.html#nistir6092. NISTIR 6092 is also available from the

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), and may be ordered

through the NTIS Sales Desk at 703-605-6000, or by telefax at 703-321-

8547, or by electronic mail at [email protected]. A copy of the

document is also available at the Office of Codes and Standards World

Wide Web site http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes__standards/rules/

emenfpol/index.htm.

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

\1\ Appendix D of NISTIR 6092 contains the sampling proposals

submitted by the NEMA Motor and Generator Section, April 18, 1997,

in response to the NOPR.

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

Copies of the proposed rule, a transcript of the January 15, 1997

public hearing, the public comments received (including the NEMA

proposal), and NISTIR 6092 may be read at the Freedom of Information

Reading Room, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-

190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0101, telephone

(202) 586-3142, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

Washington, DC 20585-0121, telephone (202) 586-8654, telefax (202) 586-

4617, or: [email protected]

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

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

DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-9507, telefax (202) 586-4116, or:

[email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act), 42 U.S.C.

6311, et seq., establishes energy efficiency standards and test

procedures for certain commercial and industrial electric motors.

Section 342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), requires that ``each

[such] electric motor manufactured (alone or as a component of another

piece of equipment) * * * shall have a nominal full load efficiency of

not less than [the prescribed level].'' The Act requires generally that

the test procedures be ``reasonably designed to produce test results

which reflect energy efficiency,'' yet not be ``unduly burdensome'' to

conduct, EPCA section 345(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(2), and prescribes

specific test methods for electric motors, EPCA section 343(a)(5), 42

U.S.C. 6314(a)(5). The Act also directs the Department to require,

subject to certain conditions, that a motor's energy efficiency be

displayed on its permanent nameplate and in material used to market the

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

must certify ``through an independent testing or certification program

nationally recognized in the United States,'' that each covered motor

complies with the applicable efficiency standard. EPCA section 345(c),

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

On November 27, 1996, the Department published a proposed rule on

test procedures for the measurement of energy efficiency, efficiency

labeling, and compliance and enforcement procedures for these electric

motors. The proposed rule incorporated the Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 112-1991 Test Method B as one

method for measuring energy efficiency, 61 FR 60446 (November 27,

1996). Other proposed provisions included two statistical sampling

plans--one for compliance and labeling and another for enforcement, 61

FR 60446-49, 60459-60 (November 27, 1996), requirements that a motor's

energy efficiency be stated on its nameplate and in marketing

materials, 61 FR 60451-52 (November 27, 1996), and procedures as to

recognition of a testing or certification program used to certify that

an electric motor complies with EPCA efficiency standards, 61 FR 60457-

58.

On January 15, 1997, a public hearing was held on the proposed

rule, and thereafter the Department received numerous written comments

on the

[[Page 34759]]

proposal. The hearing and written comments, as well as the Department's

further review of the proposed rule, have given rise to the issues

addressed in today's reopening notice. The Department seeks comments at

this time only on those issues.

II. Discussion

A. Modifications to the IEEE 112-1996 Method B Test Procedures

Section 343(a)(5)(A) of EPCA requires that the test procedures to

determine the efficiency of electric motors under EPCA shall be the

test procedures specified in NEMA MG1-1987 and IEEE Standard 112 Test

Method B (IEEE 112) for motor efficiency, as in effect on the date of

the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. If the test procedures

in NEMA MG1 and IEEE 112 are subsequently amended, the Secretary of

Energy is required to revise the regulatory test procedures for

electric motors to conform to such amendments, ``unless the Secretary

determines by rule, * * * supported by clear and convincing evidence,

that to do so would not meet the requirements for test procedures

described in'' sections 343(a)(2) and (3) of EPCA.

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

was published in October 1993. Revision 1 to NEMA MG1-1993, was added

on December 7, 1993. In the NOPR, the Department stated that it would

adopt the test procedure provisions of NEMA MG1-1993 with Revision 1.

IEEE 112-1991 was revised and superseded by IEEE 112-1996, which was

published May 8, 1997. A minor revision was made in IEEE 112-1996 on

January 20, 1998, when IEEE issued a notice of correction for the

calculation at item (28) in section 10.2 Form B-Method B: ``Calculation

form for input-output test of induction machine with segregation of

losses and smoothing of stray-load loss.'' Under EPCA, DOE must now

adopt the test procedures in IEEE 112-1996 with the minor revision,

unless clear and convincing evidence supports a conclusion that such

test procedures are not reasonably designed to produce test results

which reflect energy efficiency, and or unduly burdensome to conduct.

The Department compared IEEE 112-1991 to IEEE 112-1996 to determine

whether there were differences in Test Method B, which applies here,

and, if so, whether to adopt Test Method B in IEEE 112-1996 into the

final rule for electric motors. As a result of its analysis, the

Department believes Test Method B in IEEE 112-1996 improves upon the

version of that test method in IEEE 112-1991, because IEEE 112-1996

includes: tightened tolerances on metering instrumentation (IEEE 112,

clause 4), a more comprehensive and consolidated verbal description of

the components of test method B (IEEE 112, clause 6.4), and specific

formulae provided for calculation of stator I2R losses (IEEE

112, clause 5.1).

After publication of IEEE 112-1996 in May 1997, however, the

Department became aware, through information submitted by a testing

laboratory that has gained experience using the test procedure, that

Test Method B in IEEE 112-1996 contains (1) typographical errors, (2)

statements of procedure that are open to interpretation, and (3)

incorrect information. For a given motor, these defects could cause

varying measurements of efficiency, or errors ranging from plus or

minus one half to one and one half percentage points in measured

efficiency. Subsequently, the Department confirmed the existence of

these types of problems with IEEE 112-1996 through contacts with other

testing laboratories, a certification organization, and manufacturers,

each known to have experience with IEEE 112, and discussions with the

Chairman of the IEEE Induction Power Subcommittee. Indeed, the

Department is aware that one testing laboratory applied the test

procedure to a single motor, tested the motor four times, and arrived

at a different result each time based upon various interpretations of

the language in the test procedure.

Even a half percentage point error in the measured efficiency could

throw a motor into the next higher or lower level of nominal

efficiency, effectively rendering it in compliance with the applicable

EPCA efficiency standard, or out of compliance. Thus, for example, an

error in IEEE 112-1996 could cause a manufacturer to incorrectly

measure the efficiency of a motor that is actually in compliance,

conclude that it is below the required efficiency level, and

unnecessarily redesign all or part of its product line. (IEEE corrected

one such error in its January 1998 notice of correction.) Also, the

provisions of IEEE 112-1996 that are subject to interpretation leave

room for a manufacturer to intentionally bias the measured efficiency

of a motor that is actually out of compliance, so that the motor will

be found to meet the applicable level required under the statute.

In sum, Test Method B in IEEE 112-1996 has several advantages,

discussed above, as well as typographical errors, provisions subject to

interpretation, and incorrect information. The Department's intention,

therefore, is that the final rule will prescribe IEEE 112-1996 Test

Method B, with the January 1998 correction, as the test procedure under

EPCA for determining the energy efficiency of electric motors, but with

certain modifications.2 The following sets forth those

modifications, as well as a few potential problems as to which the

Department has tentatively decided not to make changes:

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

\2\ It should be noted that the Department is not purporting to

alter IEEE 112-1996. Rather, the Department is proposing only to

mandate certain modifications to IEEE 112-1996 Test Method B when it

is used for purposes of measuring efficiency under EPCA.

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

1. Typographical Errors

a. Page 17, subclause 6.4.1.3, ``No-load test,'' currently reads:

``See 5.3 including 5.33, * * *'' This is an incorrect reference in the

standard, because there is no subclause 5.33. The Department proposes

to change the reference to read: ``See 5.3 including 5.3.3, * * *'' to

point to the proper subclause dealing with the separation of core loss

from friction and windage loss.

b. Page 48, item (24), the formula for shaft power in watts,

currently reads: ``Is equal to [(23) (11)]/k2'',

but the constant k2 is not defined. In IEEE 112 section 10.2

Form B-Method B, the constant ``k'' is defined in terms of torque for

the formula in item (22); and the constant ``k1'' is defined

in terms of conductivity for the formula in item (16). Upon examination

of the test procedure and through inquiries made to the aforementioned

organizations experienced with IEEE 112, the Department has determined

that use of ``k2'' in item (24) is a typographical error for

the constant ``k'', since the torque constant (``k''), from item (22),

is necessary to calculate shaft power in item (24). The Department

proposes to correct the constant ``k2'' in item (24) to the

constant ``k''. The formula in item (24) would then read: ``Is equal to

[(23) (11)]/k''.

2. Provisions Subject to Interpretation

a. Page 8, subclause 5.1.1, ``Specified temperature'' provides

three methods, listed in order of preference, to determine the

specified temperature used in making resistance corrections: (a)

measured temperature rise by resistance from a rated load temperature

test; (b) measured temperature rise on a duplicate machine; and (c) use

of a temperature correction table when rated load temperature has not

been measured. The Department understands that, although subclause

5.1.1 applies generally to the testing of motors under IEEE 112, part

``c'' of that subclause does not apply to Test Method B. Part

[[Page 34760]]

``c'' is a calculation procedure, for use when the rated load

temperature has not been measured. The first test to be performed under

Method B, however, per subclause 6.4.1.1, requires a measurement of

rated load temperature. Hence, only options ``a'' or ``b'' in subclause

5.1.1 are applicable to Method B. Information provided to the

Department indicates, however, that option ``c'' is being misapplied to

Test Method B.

Such misapplication of option ``c'' can distort efficiency values.

The Department understands that use of a prescribed temperature value

from option ``c'' would result in a higher value of efficiency in

circumstances where the measured full load (1.0 service factor)

temperature is greater than such prescribed temperature, and a lower

value of efficiency in circumstances where the measured full load (1.0

service factor) temperature for a motor is less than the prescribed

temperature. The Department believes that to achieve consistency under

EPCA, the best approach is to always use a measured winding temperature

for the efficiency calculation, as is contemplated by Test Method B.

The Department's final rule could incorporate into subclause 5.1.1,

``Specified temperature,'' the following language: ``(Method B only

allows the use of preference a) or b).)'' The Department seeks comment

on whether such a change is warranted in 5.1.1, although it currently

believes that the proposed change is unnecessary, because it would be

redundant with the provisions of Test Method B. It would be warranted

only by reading the general information section of IEEE 112 in

isolation from Test Method B. As stated above the Department

understands that, under Test Method B, the first test to be performed

is a rated load temperature test. This test determines the values for

the rated load heat run stator winding resistance between terminals,

items (3) and (4), on 10.2 Form B, per subclause 6.4.1.1, Rated load

temperature test. The values are then used to calculate stator

I2R loss, item (27) in 10.2 Form B. Per this requirement,

only options ``a'' or ``b'' in the referenced section 5.1.1 are

applicable to Method B. Option ``c'' is not a ``measurement procedure''

and cannot be used with Method B; it is applicable only to other IEEE

112 test methods. Moreover, if a manufacturer or testing laboratory

uses option ``c'', it is not following Test Method B and cannot say the

motor has been tested according to Method B.

b. Page 47, the procedure to measure temperature in item (4) Rated

Load Heat Run Stator Winding Temperature is not defined. Item (4) is

used in item (27), Stator I\2\2R Loss, in Watts, at (ts)

deg.C, to correct the stator loss corresponding to item (16), Stator

I\2\R Loss, in Watts, at (tt) deg.C, which is based on the

temperature recorded for item (7). Information in the footnote at the

bottom of page 47, 10.2 Form B, indicates that the temperature for item

(7) can be either determined from a temperature detector or derived

from measurement of the stator resistance during the test. Because

items (4) and (7) are used to calculate stator loss at different

temperatures, it is preferred that the method of measuring both items

be consistent. In addition, per subclause 4.2.3 Note 2 and subclause

4.3.2.2 Note 2, the values for ts and tt, which

are used for correction to a specified temperature, are to be based on

the same method of measurement. Therefore, the Department proposes to

add a second sentence to the footnote at the bottom of page 47, 10.2

Form B, to read: ``The values for ts and tt shall

be based on the same method of temperature measurement, selected from

the four methods in subclause 8.3.''

c. Page 48, item (27) defines Stator I\2\R Loss, in W, at

(ts) deg.C, and item (29) defines Corrected Slip, in r/min,

on IEEE 112-1996 10.2 Form B. Page 48, item (29) currently reads: ``See

4.3.2.2, Eq 4.'' The Department believes that such reference, without

explanation, to equation (4) in subclause 4.3.2.2, Slip correction for

temperature, can cause confusion and errors, since the terms in

equation (4) used to correct slip measurements to the specified stator

temperature, are defined differently from similar terms used in 10.2

Form B.

Subclause 4.3.2.2 equation (4) defines ``k'' in terms of

conductivity for copper or aluminum. The term ``k'' in 10.2 Form B,

however, is defined in terms of torque. Item (29) should be defined in

terms of conductivity using the term ``k1'', to be

consistent with the definition of ``k1'' in 10.2 Form B item

(16).

Also, calculating ``St'' and ``tt'' for

subclause 4.3.2.2 equation (4) would cause unnecessary recalculations

and possible errors, because these values were already derived

elsewhere on Form B. Equation (4) defines ``St'' as ``the

slip measured at stator winding temperature, tt,'' whereas

the actual value of slip speed would have already been measured and

entered at item (10) on Form B. Similarly, in equation (4)

``tt'' is defined as ``the observed stator winding

temperature during load test, in deg.C,'' whereas the actual value of

stator winding temperature would have already been measured and entered

at item (7) on Form B.

Subclause 4.3.2.2 equation (4) also defines ``ts'' as

the specified temperature for resistance correction, in deg.C.

However, Form B, does not define ``ts''. While

``ts'' appears to be used in item (27), Form B, the use of

``ts'' is incorporated by providing the equation for the

adjustment of the resistance corresponding to ``ts'', rather

than by defining ``ts'' itself. However, the relationship

representing ``ts'' in item (27) on page 48 appears to

differ from the definition of ``ts'' given in 4.2.3. The

Department is concerned about the various definitions given for

``ts'' in the body of IEEE 112 and in 10.2, Form B and the

correction of the stator and rotor losses. Examination of 10.2 Form B

and the supporting sections of IEEE-112 indicate the following:

1. The stator loss for item (16) is based on correcting the cold

resistance in item (1) at the cold temperature in item (2) to a

resistance as if the complete winding is at the test temperature in

item (7) for each test point. Generally, this means that 6 different

values of resistance are used in calculating the initial stator loss.

2. The rotor loss for item (18) is calculated using the measured

slip item (10) which already directly includes the effect of

temperature so no equation involving temperature is needed.

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

corrected stator loss is to be based on a temperature identified as

``ts''. In IEEE 112-1991 no formula for this correction of

the resistance to determine the loss was provided, so the counterpart

of 5.1.1, IEEE 112-1996, was used in conjunction with the counterpart

of equation [1] in 4.2.3, IEEE 112-1996. (The section references from

IEEE 112-1996 are used instead of the actual section numbers in IEEE

112-1991 to minimize confusion with the rest of the discussion.) To do

this the reference resistances and temperatures were again the cold

readings as in paragraph 1 above and the hot temperature was the

specified temperature from 5.1.1. In IEEE-1996 a formula was added to

item (27) stating that the reference resistance to be used is to be the

hot resistance measured after the heat run and the reference

temperature to be used is the temperature measured at the conclusion of

the heat run. Now the temperature to be used for correcting the stator

loss is not the specified temperature given in 5.1.1 if the temperature

in item (4) is measured directly by a temperature sensor, but instead

is the reference temperature from the heat run adjusted for the

difference between the heat run

[[Page 34761]]

ambient and an ambient of 25 deg.C [i.e., (4)-(5) + 25]. This change

is described in 6.4.3.2. If the temperature in item (4) is instead

derived from the hot resistance measured after the heat run as per

8.3.3 then the relationship of [(4)-(5) + 25] is equal to the specified

temperature per 5.1.1. However, in 6.4.3.2 it is assumed that item (4)

is from a direct temperature measurement and should not be a value

derived from the resistance of the heat run. In this case the corrected

resistance used in determining the corrected stator loss for each of

the six test points is the same.

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

rotor loss is corrected to the temperature ts. This is

accomplished by temperature correction of the slip in item (29). For

item (29) one is referred to 4.3.2.2, Eq. 4. In 4.3.2.2 it is indicated

that ts is to be the specified temperature from 5.1.1.

However, in 6.4.3.3 it is stated that ts is to be equal to

the ``hottest winding temperature during the temperature test corrected

to an ambient of 25 deg.C.'' This definition of ts

corresponds to the definition given in 6.4.3.2 for the correction of

the stator loss, which leads one to the formula for item (27) and the

relationship that the value to be used for ts is to be that

given by [(4)-(5) + 25] and not the specified temperature as given by

5.1.1. For the correction of the slip a different value of correction

may be necessary for each of the six test points since the correction

is based on the temperature at the time each test point is taken.

In conclusion, section 6.4.3.2 for the correction of the stator

loss and 6.4.3.3 for the correction of the rotor loss define the

correction to be to a temperature ts which is not the

specified temperature ts given by 5.1.1. In fact, the

specified temperature per 5.1.1 does not appear to be used in any of

the calculations performed for Method B.

To clarify the temperatures to be used for correcting the stator

and rotor loss the Department proposes the following modifications: (1)

insert a new line at the top of 10.2 Form B and below the line that

defines ``rated load heat run stator winding resistance,'' which will

define ``ts'' as it is defined in 6.4.3.2 and 6.4.3.3:

``Temperature for Resistance Correction (ts) = ____ deg.C

(See 6.4.3.2);'' (2) add a note at the bottom of 10.2 Form B to read:

``NOTE: The temperature for resistance correction (ts) is

equal to [(4)-(5) + 25 deg.C];'' (3) add the reference ``see 6.4.3.2''

to the end of item (27) on page 48; and (4) change item (29) on page 48

which presently states ``See 4.3.2.2, eq. 4'' to state ``Is equal to

(10) [k1 + (4)-(5) + 25 deg.C] / [k1 +

(7)], see 6.4.3.3''.

d. Page 48, item (32), the equation to correct stray-load loss

currently reads: ``Is equal to AT\2\ where A = slope of the curve of

(26) vs. (23) \2\ using a linear regression analysis, see 6.4.2.7,''

and ``T = corrected torque = (23).'' The Department understands that

the slope A is that of the aforementioned curve corresponding to a plot

using item (26) as the dependent variable on the y axis, and the square

of item (23) as the independent variable on the x axis. The Department

also understands that reference to subclause 6.4.2.7, Smoothing of the

stray-load loss, provides tutorial information with respect to the

determination of the slope A using linear regression analysis. The

Department understands that under ideal test conditions the linear

regression line should intercept the y axis at zero stray load loss for

zero torque squared, since the only losses which should remain will be

stator I\2\R, friction, and core losses previously accounted for by the

no-load test.

The Department has been advised that typically ideal test

conditions do not exist, and that either the y-intercept is above zero,

indicating that some apparent measured loss should be subtracted; or

the y-intercept is below zero, indicating that some undetected loss

should be added. The Department has also been advised that it is

possible, at the same time, to have a positive slope, a correlation

equal to or greater than 0.9, and a sizable intercept with the stray

load loss axis at zero load conditions. The Department is concerned

that, when this is the case, a large portion of losses could be

incorrectly subtracted off yielding an artificially high efficiency or

incorrectly added on yielding an artificially low efficiency.

It also appears, however, that the purpose of the stray load loss

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

measurement and correct for them, without repeating the test. Also,

repeating a load test when the intercept is large in order to obtain a

test for which the intercept is smaller, might not result in a

significant change in the final determination of efficiency at 100

percent load. The Department understands that the value of the

intercept must be viewed in the context of the remainder of the test

workup. Thus, in 10.2 Form B, when the stray load loss is corrected in

item (32), then the final torque, or shaft power in item (34), is also

corrected after using item (23) in the formula AT\2\ where ``T =

corrected torque = (23).'' Instructions are provided, in IEEE 112, at

the bottom of page 48 under Motoring, for interpolation of the test

results to complete the Summary of Characteristics on page 47, at the

bottom of 10.2 Form B, in order to determine the efficiency at the

actual 100 percent rated load point.

Also, the nominal full load efficiency identified on the nameplate

of an electric motor is selected from a prescribed nominal efficiency

in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, section 12.58.2, Table 12-8,

which is not greater than the average efficiency of a large population

of motors of the same design. Moreover, the nominal efficiency of a

covered electric motor must equal or exceed the efficiency values in

section 342(b)(1) of EPCA. Consequently, unless there are significant

differences in the final determination of nominal efficiency for a

particular electric motor, it appears that use of a prescribed nominal

full load efficiency value would tend to ``wash out'' small variations

in individual motor losses and errors in test equipment calibration.

Therefore, at this time, the Department intends to adopt IEEE 112-

1996, subclause 6.4.2.7, Smoothing of the stray-load loss, without

change. However, the Department is still considering the option of

making the following changes to add a restriction on the allowable

value of the intercept, and will do so if the Department determines, in

the final rule, that the evidence warrants such a change. The

restriction would replace the paragraph after the definition of

variables for equation (21), in subclause 6.4.2.7, and would be worded

as follows (emphasis added to indicate changes):

``If the slope is negative, or if the correlation factor, r, is

less than 0.9, delete the worst point and repeat the regression. If

this increases r to 0.9 or larger, use the second regression; if this

does not increase r to 0.9 or larger, or if the slope is still

negative, the test is unsatisfactory. Errors in the instrumentation or

test readings, or both, are indicated. In addition, the value of B must

not exceed 10 percent of the uncorrected total loss at rated load;

higher values indicate procedural or power supply problems. If a test

fails to meet the above criteria, the source of the error should be

investigated and corrected, and the test should be repeated.''

The Department requests comments on this issue, and is interested

in receiving data that would show if any significant differences

3 do occur

[[Page 34762]]

between the final determined value of efficiency at 100 percent rated

load for various values of the stray-load loss intercept for repeated

tests of the same motor.

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

\3\ Oftentimes what appears as a large intercept is the result

of improperly performing the dynamometer correction part of the

test. By definition the dynamometer correction adjusts all data

points by the same amount of torque which is basically the same

thing that occurs when the intercept of the stray load loss curve is

adjusted to go through zero. Should there be a great discrepancy

between the values for the intercept obtained for testing the same

motor several times using the same equipment, then this would

suggest a more fundamental problem of following the procedure

correctly than just errors in the measurements.

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

e. Page 17, subclause 6.4.1.3, ``No-load test,'' second sentence

currently reads: ``Prior to making this test, the machine shall be

operated at no-load until both the temperature and the input have

stabilized.'' Information provided to the Department indicates that the

requirements for temperature and input stabilization during the no-load

test appear to be undefined and could cause confusion. To provide

clarity for locating the pertinent subclause for temperature

stabilization, the Department proposes to modify the second sentence in

6.4.1.3 to read: ``Prior to making this test, the machine shall be

operated at no-load until both the temperature has stabilized (see

8.6.3) and the input has stabilized.'' The Department finds that an

additional modification for input stabilization is not necessary, since

that is covered by previous reference to subclause 5.3 that, in turn,

refers to subclause 4.3.1.1, Bearing loss stabilization.

3. Incorrect Information

Page 40, subclause 8.6.3, Termination of test, currently reads:

``For continuously rated machines, readings shall be taken at intervals

of \1/2\ h[our] or less.'' One reason for taking these readings during

the efficiency test of a motor is to show when the motor's temperature

rise has ended, and so that the test can be terminated. As written,

however, subclause 8.6.3 allows temperature readings to be taken at

intervals of, for example, five seconds. If such short intervals were

used, there could be little or no rise in temperature between any two

consecutive readings, even if the motor temperature was actually still

rising. Consequently, the motor's temperature could be misconstrued as

being stable. As a result, the measured efficiency would appear to be

two to three percentage points higher than it actually is, since

efficiency goes down as temperature goes up. In view of the need to

correctly determine the leveling of temperature rise for measuring

efficiency, as the Department believes is intended in subclause 8.6.3,

the Department proposes to change the third sentence in subclause

8.6.3. Subclause 8.6.3 currently reads: ``For continuous rated

machines, the temperature test shall continue until there is 1 deg.C or

less change in temperature rise between two successive readings.'' The

Department proposes to change that subclause to read: ``For continuous

rated machines, the temperature test shall continue until there is

1 deg.C or less change in temperature rise over a 30-minute time

period.''

In sum, the Department believes that use of IEEE 112-1996 Test

Method B, without corrections, could produce results that provide an

inaccurate measurement of the energy efficiency of the motor being

tested, and that vary from one test to the next of the same motor or

comparable motors. In addition, manufacturers would be burdened by

having to resolve its typographical errors and unclear provisions, and

deal with unnecessary references to other parts of IEEE 112. Therefore,

the Department intends to adopt, in the final rule for electric motors,

the test procedures in IEEE 112-1996 Test Method B, and the correction

to the calculation at item (28) in section 10.2 Form B-Method B issued

by IEEE on January 20, 1998, but with the aforementioned corrections

and modifications. The Department seeks comments on the technical

merits of, and the need for, the aforementioned corrections and

modifications to the IEEE 112. If the record should indicate that any

of these changes is unwarranted, the Department will decline to adopt

such modification. Thus, the Department might still adopt IEEE 112-1996

Test Method B, and the correction to the calculation at item (28) in

section 10.2 Form B-Method B, without modification, or with only a

portion of the above modifications.

Finally, interested parties are also invited to identify other

problems they believe exist in IEEE 112 Test Method B and section 10.2

Form B. The Department requests that such other problems, and changes

to correct them, be clearly identified, and that evidence be provided

that substantiates the need for these changes.

B. Sampling Plans for Compliance and Enforcement

1. Background

As per the proposed rule at 10 CFR 431.24, the efficiency of each

basic model of electric motor would initially be established either by

testing (``compliance testing'') or by application of an Alternative

Efficiency Determination Method (AEDM), for purposes of determining

whether the motor complies with the applicable efficiency standard, and

of labeling the motor. 61 FR 60466-67 (November 27, 1996). As per the

proposed rule at 10 CFR 431.127, the Department would ascertain in any

enforcement proceeding, which could include testing (``enforcement

testing''), whether a motor complies with the applicable EPCA standard

and with the labeled value for efficiency.4 61 FR 60472 and

60474-75 (November 27, 1996). Each of these sections incorporates a

sampling plan for testing a motor. The sampling plans are intended to

provide statistically meaningful sampling procedures for conducting

tests, so as to reduce the testing burden while giving sufficient

assurance (1) that the true mean energy efficiency of a basic model

(i.e., the average efficiency of all units manufactured) meets or

exceeds the applicable energy efficiency standard established in EPCA,

and (2) that an electric motor found to be in noncompliance will

actually be in noncompliance. The November 27, 1996 Federal Register

notice, at section XIII.C.3. and 8., Issues for Public Comment,

requested comments on the proposed sampling plans for compliance and

enforcement testing.

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

\4\ Part II-D below addresses the issue of whether the proposed

enforcement procedures apply to alleged labeling violations.

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

During the January 15, 1997, public hearing on the proposed rule

for electric motors, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association

(NEMA) and motor manufacturers raised issues concerning the

Department's proposed sampling plans for electric motors. They asserted

that the sampling plan for compliance testing would, for example: (1)

be inconsistent with current industry practice under NEMA Standards

Publication MG1-1993, ``Motors and Generators,'' (2) place a high

burden on manufacturers because the risk of a false determination of

noncompliance is not less than 50 percent for motors that are in

compliance, and (3) require covered equipment to be engineered to

exceed the nominal energy efficiency levels for electric motors

established by EPCA; they also claimed the sampling plan for

enforcement testing was not in harmony with the sampling plan for

compliance testing. (Public Hearing, Tr. pgs. 64-111).5

Thereafter, NEMA submitted to the Department a proposed sampling

[[Page 34763]]

plan for compliance testing and a proposed plan for enforcement

testing.6 NISTIR 6092 ``Analysis of Proposals for Compliance

and Enforcement Testing Under the New Part 431; Title 10, Code of

Federal Regulations,'' January 1998, (the NIST analysis) compares the

DOE's proposed rule and NEMA proposals through model calculations of

their operating characteristics, i.e., the estimated probability of

demonstrating compliance for a given true average of efficiency.

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

\5\ ``Public Hearing, Tr. pgs. 64-111,'' refers to the page

numbers of the transcript of the ``Public Hearing on Energy

Efficiency Standards, Test Procedures, Labeling, and Certification

Reporting for Certain Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors,''

held in Washington, DC, January 15, 1997.

\6\ ``Proposal for the Method of Determining Compliance and

Enforcement for Electric Motors Under the Efficiency Labeling

Program of DOE 10 CFR Part 431,'' NEMA Motor and Generator Section,

Friday, April 18, 1997 (Docket No. EE-RM-96-400, No. 23) (the ``NEMA

proposal'').

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

Although the Department continues to consider adoption of the

sampling plans in the NOPR, it is now also considering adoption of the

NEMA proposals, or variants of these proposals, in place of the

sampling proposals in the NOPR. It is also considering adoption of a

modified version of the NOPR sampling plan for enforcement. The

Department seeks comment on these alternatives to the NOPR's sampling

plans.

2. The Proposals Under Consideration

In the NOPR, the Department proposes that when a manufacturer tests

a basic model of an electric motor 7 to establish its

efficiency, a sample of units of the motor, comprised of production

units or representative of production units, shall be selected at

random and tested. The proposed rule does not specify a particular

sample size, but provides that the sample must be of sufficient size so

that any represented value of energy efficiency is no greater than the

lower of (A) the mean of the sample or (B) the lower 90 percent

confidence limit of the mean of the entire population of that basic

model, divided by a coefficient applicable to the represented value.

The coefficient applicable to a given represented value is derived from

NEMA MG1-1993, Table 12-8.

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

\7\ For electric motors, basic model would mean all units of an

electric motor that are manufactured by a single manufacturer, and

which have the same rating, have electrical characteristics that are

essentially identical, and do not have any differing physical or

functional characteristics which affect energy consumption or

efficiency. For purposes of this definition, ``rating'' means one of

the 113 combinations of an electric motor's horsepower (or standard

kilowatt equivalent), number of poles, and open or enclosed

construction, with respect to which section 431.42 prescribes

nominal full load efficiency standards. 61 FR 60465 (November 27,

1996).

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

In the NOPR, the Department proposed to establish a sampling plan

for enforcement testing based on NEMA MG1-12.58.2, Efficiency of

Polyphase Squirrel-cage Medium Motors with Continuous Ratings, and NEMA

MG1 Table 12-8, Efficiency Levels, which establish a logical series of

nominal motor efficiencies and a minimum associated with each nominal.

The minimum efficiency is based on 20 percent loss difference. Under

this proposed sampling plan, the motor would be found in compliance

provided (1) the mean of the sample is not less than a lower confidence

limit and (2) the sample is of sufficient size to provide a statistical

confidence that is not less than 90 percent. The lower confidence limit

is found within the sampling plan by calculation and is based on the

EPCA efficiency standard that is applicable to that basic model, the

sample standard deviation for the initial sample, and the t value

corresponding to the 10th percentile for the initial sample. In all

cases, the lower confidence limit lies below the EPCA standard

efficiency. DOE's proposed sampling plan for enforcement testing

assumes that the true mean full load efficiency and standard deviation

of the motor efficiencies are not known. The proposed sampling plan

establishes benchmarks for the standard error in the mean, based on the

existing NEMA guidelines for identifying motor efficiency levels at

NEMA MG1-12.58, and NEMA Table 12-8. Under the NEMA guidelines, no

single unit can have energy losses more than 20 percent greater than

the average losses for that type of motor, i.e., a 20 percent loss

tolerance is permitted for a given unit but the average must still be

met. The NOPR states the Department's belief that the 20 percent loss

tolerance is reasonable and meaningful. 61 FR 60459-60, 60474-75

(November 27, 1996).

The NEMA proposal, as stated above, contains a sampling plan for

compliance testing as well as one for enforcement testing. The plan for

compliance testing provides that two conditions must be met to

establish that a motor meets a particular nominal efficiency level.

First, according to DOE's understanding, the average full load

efficiency of the sample of units tested must not be less than the

value of efficiency that equals the applicable nominal efficiency

reduced by an amount equivalent to a 5 percent increase in losses at

full load, i.e., the value given by

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JN98.003

Second, DOE understands, the full-load efficiency of each motor in the

sample must be greater than the value of efficiency equal to the

applicable nominal efficiency reduced by an amount reduced by an amount

equivalent to a 15 percent increase in losses at full load, i.e., the

value given by

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JN98.004

NEMA's plan for enforcement testing is very similar, and provides that

the same conditions must be met to establish that a motor complies with

the applicable EPCA standard, except that the percentages are based on

the total variation in energy efficiency permitted by NEMA MG-

1.8 The NEMA plans neither specify nor suggest sample sizes.

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

\8\ Thus, for enforcement testing DOE understands the conditions

for establishing compliance to be as follows: (1) the average full

load efficiency of the sample of units tested must not be less than

the value of efficiency that equals the applicable nominal

efficiency prescribed by EPCA, reduced by an amount equivalent to a

15 percent increase in losses at full load, i.e., the value given by

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

motor in the sample must be greater than the value of efficiency

equal to the applicable nominal efficiency prescribed by EPCA,

reduced by an amount equivalent to a 20 percent increase in losses

at full load, i.e., the value given by 100/[1+1.20(100/NE-1)].

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

In support of these plans, the NEMA proposal discusses a number of

issues, including: the analyses of testing samples from a total and

from a limited population of motors, the implications of overlapping

nominal efficiency distributions, and NEMA's proposed sampling schemes

for compliance and enforcement. The NEMA proposal claims to balance the

manufacturer's and consumer's risks and to streamline sampling schemes

for compliance testing and enforcement testing.

The NIST analysis examines each of the sampling plans contained in

the NOPR and the NEMA proposal, and certain variations of those

sampling plans. NISTIR 6092 assumes that a basic model of an electric

motor satisfies the applicable energy efficiency requirement in EPCA if

the mean full load efficiency of the entire population of motors of

that basic model equals or exceeds the applicable nominal efficiency.

It compares the NOPR and NEMA proposals through model calculations of

their operating characteristics, i.e., by estimating the probability of

demonstrating compliance for a model of electric motor where the true

average efficiency of that model is known. NISTIR 6092 seeks to clarify

the issues raised from testimony and comments given during the public

hearing, January 15, 1997. It provides both a qualitative comparison of

the operating characteristics of the NOPR

[[Page 34764]]

and NEMA proposals and a quantitative estimate of the risk, or

statistical confidence, associated with testing under such proposals.

Based on the NIST analysis the Department is considering the

following with respect to the final rule for electric motors:

(1) DOE could adopt the NEMA proposal for compliance testing rather

than the method given in DOE's proposed rule. Alternatively, DOE could

adopt the NEMA proposal, but could substitute a coefficient of 1.03 or

1.01 for the 1.05 coefficient in the formula above. DOE could also

adopt the NEMA proposal, with or without a change in the 1.05

coefficient, but with a requirement that the number of sample units to

be tested be fixed, at five motors for example.

The Department understands the advantages in simplicity and reduced

burden on manufacturers presented by the NEMA sampling proposal for

compliance testing, but believes there is a higher risk, relative to

the NOPR criteria, of overly optimistic estimates of efficiency. The

Department believes that the 1.05 coefficient proposed by NEMA could be

changed to 1.01, for example, and this would substantially reduce the

risk under the NEMA proposal that a motor failing to meet the energy

efficiency standard prescribed in EPCA would nevertheless be found in

compliance. Also, the Department understands that the performance of

the NEMA proposal for compliance testing depends on the sample size. It

appears to DOE that a fixed sample size of 5 motors would not be unduly

burdensome and would provide the statistical confidence needed for

determining whether an electric motor complies with the applicable EPCA

standard, for labeling that motor, and for using test results as a

basis for substantiating alternative methods used to determine the

efficiencies of other motors.

(2) With regard to enforcement testing, DOE could adopt NEMA's

proposal, with or without modification of the coefficient, or could

retain the NOPR Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing with the

statistical confidence level increased from 90 percent to 99 percent,

or to some other value higher than 90 percent.

NEMA asserts that the NOPR sampling plan for enforcement is not

consistent with the NOPR sampling plan for compliance, claiming the

possibility is too great that a motor found in compliance under the

enforcement plan would have been found in non-compliance under the

compliance plan. The NIST analysis indicates, however, that the

sampling criteria proposed by NEMA for enforcement testing make little

distinction between efficiencies that are at and significantly below

the EPCA nominal values. Also, the NEMA sampling plan for enforcement

could produce draconian results. Under the NEMA criteria, the

efficiency performance of a single unit could cause a basic model to

fail the entire test, without recourse.

As proposed, the NOPR Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing

establishes that testing be consistent with a statistical confidence of

not less than 90 percent. This statistical confidence implies that the

likelihood of falsely concluding that a product is not in compliance

may be as high as 10 percent. According to the NIST analysis, the NOPR

Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing could be modified to increase the

confidence level from 90 to 99 percent. Although this modification

could require testing a larger sample of motors, it would reduce the

risk that a manufacturer would be falsely found in non-compliance. NIST

believes it is highly unlikely that a product that is labeled in

accordance with the NEMA MG1 guidelines would require testing beyond

the initial sample of five, and that any risk of additional testing is

more than offset by the increased value of the test in assuring that a

manufacturer's interest is protected. Moreover, the Department

understands that, in contrast to the NEMA sampling plan for enforcement

testing, the t-test used in the NOPR is a widely accepted basis for a

testing protocol and is not strongly influenced by the exact form of

the underlying distribution of energy efficiency measurement data.

The Department of Energy is interested in receiving comments and

data concerning the accuracy and workability of the NEMA Motor and

Generator Section proposals for sampling electric motors for compliance

and enforcement, and would welcome recommendations regarding

improvements to NEMA's suggested approaches, particularly in the

following respects:

(1) Compliance. The Department seeks comments on variations to

NEMA's proposed sampling plan for compliance, such as requiring the

sample size to be fixed at five units and setting the coefficient at

1.01 or 1.03. Are further clarifications needed in the plan? For

example, if a sample of five units of a basic model of electric motor

is selected and fails compliance after being tested, under what

circumstances, if any, would additional samples of the same basic model

be selected and retested?

(2) Enforcement. Would the absolute pass/fail nature of the NEMA

Motor and Generator Section proposal create an undue burden on motor

manufacturers? What is an appropriate level of confidence for

enforcement testing? If the NEMA Motor and Generator Section proposal

for enforcement testing was to be adopted, should the 1.15 and 1.2

coefficients for the mean and the extreme criteria, respectively, be

modified? If so, what other values are recommended?

C. Sampling Requirements Where a Motor's Efficiency Is Established

Through a Certification Organization

Section 345(c) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6316(c), directs the Department

to require motor manufacturers to certify compliance with the

applicable energy efficiency standards through an independent testing

or certification program nationally recognized in the United States

and, as is further discussed below, EPCA requires that, subject to

certain conditions, a motor's nameplate and marketing materials include

its efficiency. Accordingly, the proposed rule, at sections 431.24,

431.25(a), 431.82, and 431.123(b), 61 FR 60466-67, 60470-71, requires

manufacturers to certify and label the efficiency level of each basic

model of electric motor based on use of either (i) a third party

independent testing laboratory accredited by a nationally recognized

accrediting body, such as the National Voluntary Laboratory

Accreditation Program (NVLAP), (ii) the manufacturer's own testing

laboratory, if it is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting

body, such as NVLAP, or (iii) a nationally recognized third party

certification program.

Under section 431.24(a) of the proposed rule, the energy efficiency

of each basic model of electric motor must be determined by compliance

testing or by application of an alternative efficiency determination

method (AEDM) which calculates the energy efficiency of an electric

motor. Use of an AEDM is permitted, however, only if the efficiency of

at least five basic models, selected in accordance with criteria

specified in section 431.24(b)(1)(i)-(ii), is determined through

compliance testing. For each basic model selected for testing, section

431.24(b)(1)(iii) in the proposed rule provides, as discussed above, a

sampling procedure for selecting units to be tested. Moreover, to use a

particular AEDM, it must (1) meet certain general criteria specified in

section 431.24(b)(2), and (2) be applied to at least five basic models

that have

[[Page 34765]]

been selected and tested in accordance with the criteria in proposed

section 431.24(b)(1), with the total power loss predicted for each of

these models by the AEDM being within plus or minus ten percent of the

mean total power loss determined from the testing (section

431.24(b)(3)). Finally, section 431.24(b)(4) requires subsequent

periodic verification of an AEDM by (1) testing by an accredited

laboratory, (2) a nationally recognized certification organization or

(3) an independently state-registered professional engineer.

As currently written, the proposed regulations impose these

requirements both when a manufacturer seeks to establish a motor's

efficiency without using a certification program (i.e., solely through

testing and AEDMs) and also when efficiency is established through a

certification program.

In its comments following the NOPR, Reliance Electric recommends

that the Department not impose DOE's sampling plan for compliance

testing when a manufacturer establishes compliance through a third

party certification program. Reliance asserts that the testing and

sampling procedures of a certification program, such as the Canadian

Standards Association (CSA) in Canada, are reliable and fulfill the

Department's intent that a sampling plan give assurance that the

nominal full load efficiency reported is correct. (Reliance, No. 11 at

pg. 7.) NEMA also recommends that the Department's sampling plan

requirements not apply when compliance is certified through a

recognized certification program. NEMA asserts, however, that the

certification program's specific criteria and plan for testing should

be reviewed and approved by the Department as part of the process of

reviewing its petition to become a ``nationally recognized''

certification program, as described in section 431.27(b)(4) of the

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

It appears to the Department that these comments from Reliance

Electric and NEMA have substantial merit. Therefore, although it

continues to consider the approach in the proposed rule, the Department

also proposes for consideration that the final rule provide as follows:

when a manufacturer establishes a motor's efficiency under EPCA through

a certification organization, the certification organization would not

be required to (1) select basic models for testing in accordance with

the final rule's criteria for making such selections,9 or

(2) follow the sampling provisions that the final rule requires for

compliance testing.10 The other requirements in proposed

section 431.24(b) for testing and for use of an AEDM would still have

to be met. For example, the certification organization would be

required to establish the efficiency of at least five basic models

through compliance testing. By way of further example, an AEDM could

not be used unless it had been applied to at least five basic models

that had been tested, and the results of such application were within

the bounds prescribed in the proposed rule. Furthermore, the Department

proposes that the final rule provide that the criteria used by a

certification program to select basic models for testing, as well as

its sampling plan for choosing the units to be tested, will be reviewed

and approved by the Department as part of the evaluation for national

recognition under section 431.27(b) of the proposed rule. Finally,

proposed section 431.24(b)(4)(i)(B) requires verification of an AEDM

subsequent to its use, stating that one way to achieve such

verification is for a certification organization to certify the

efficiency of a basic model to which the AEDM was applied. To provide

the independent AEDM verification that this provision contemplates, the

Department proposes that, when a manufacturer has used a certification

organization to establish a motor's efficiency rating, and the rating

is based on an AEDM, the AEDM cannot be subsequently verified by having

that same certification organization certify the efficiency of the

motor.

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

\9\ In the proposed rule, such criteria are in section

431.24(b)(1)(i)-(ii).

\10\ In the proposed rule, such sampling provisions are in

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

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

The Department seeks comments on whether it should adopt the

foregoing proposals, or whether it should adopt the approach in the

proposed rule, i.e., that certification organizations be required to

adhere to the provisions specified in the rule for the selection and

sampling of basic models. In particular, the Department seeks comment

on the following:

1. Sampling for compliance testing. The Department seeks comments

on whether a certification organization should be required to select

basic models for compliance testing in accordance with criteria such as

those in proposed section 431.24(b)(1)(i)-(ii). Once a basic model is

selected, should a certification organization select specimens to be

tested in accordance with a prescribed sampling plan? The Department of

Energy is also interested in receiving comments and data concerning the

workability of sampling plans used by certification organizations, and

how such sampling plans could be evaluated.

2. Substantiation and Verification of an AEDM. To substantiate the

accuracy and reliability of an AEDM, five basic models must be tested.

When this is done through a certification program, should the

certification program be required to select and test the basic models

in accordance with criteria such as those proposed in section

431.24(b)(1)? Should the same certification organization, used to

initially substantiate an AEDM under section 431.24(b)(3), be

prohibited from subsequently verifying an AEDM under section

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

D. Enforcement Testing Where Violation of a Labeling Representation Is

Alleged

Section 344(f) of EPCA provides for the Secretary to prescribe

rules for electric motor labeling, including requirements that the

energy efficiency be on the permanent nameplate and be displayed

prominently in catalogs and other marketing materials. Section 431.82

of the proposed rule incorporates and implements these provisions, by

requiring each electric motor's nominal full load efficiency to be

marked clearly on its permanent nameplate and to be prominently

displayed in marketing materials for the motor. Section 431.127(a) in

the proposed rule, which sets forth enforcement procedures, provides

that the Department may conduct enforcement testing, subject to certain

conditions, to ascertain the accuracy of the efficiency rating

disclosed on the nameplate or in marketing materials for an electric

motor, as well as to determine whether the motor is in compliance with

the applicable energy efficiency standard.

Other provisions of the proposed rule, however, as well as language

in the preamble, can be read as suggesting that the enforcement

provisions apply only in determining compliance with the applicable

standard, and not to whether a labeling representation is accurate.

Under proposed section 431.127(a)(1), for example, enforcement testing

is pursued after a manufacturer has had an opportunity to ``verify

compliance with the applicable efficiency standard.'' 61 FR 60472.

Verification of a label's accuracy is not mentioned. Moreover, the

sampling procedures for enforcement testing set forth steps to assess

compliance with the ``applicable statutory full load efficiency,'' and

refer to whether a basic model being tested is in ``compliance'' or

``noncompliance.'' 61 FR 60474-75. But no language in these sampling

procedures indicates that they are to be used to assess the accuracy of

a labeling representation as

[[Page 34766]]

to efficiency. The preamble indicates that the purpose of the

enforcement sampling plan is to ascertain whether the mean efficiency

of a basic model is equal to or exceeds the statutory full load

efficiency. 61 FR 60459.

In response to the proposed rule, Mr. W. Treffinger asserts that

testing and sampling should ensure that the published and nameplate

data represent the actual efficiency of a motor in use. (Treffinger,

No. 4 at 5.) NEMA asserts that certification programs for motors

currently verify the nameplate efficiency. (NEMA, No. 18 at pg. 8.)

In proposing the enforcement procedures in section 431.127, the

Department intended that they would apply to allegations that the

labeled efficiency rating for a motor is erroneous. Moreover, the

Department continues to believe that these procedures, including the

proposed sampling plan at section 431.127(c), should be used to

determine the validity of labeling representations for an electric

motor, and not just whether the motor meets or exceeds the regulatory

standard for efficiency. The Department intends to make clear in the

final rule that the provisions of section 431.127 apply to labeling

representations. However, because the NOPR was not clear on this point,

the Department seeks comments whether the proposed enforcement

procedures should be used to determine the validity of labeling

representations, or should only be used only to determine if the motor

meets the applicable efficiency level prescribed by EPCA. If the

latter, on what basis would a determination be made, during an

enforcement investigation, as to the validity of labeling

representations?

E. National Recognition

Section 345(c) of EPCA requires that compliance be certified

through a testing or certification program that is ``nationally

recognized.'' The proposed rule provides that this requirement would be

met (1) by a testing facility that has been accredited either by NVLAP

or by an accrediting body that DOE classifies as nationally recognized

to accredit facilities to test motors for efficiency, or (2) by a

certification program that DOE has classified as nationally recognized.

In the proposed rule at section 431.26, Department of Energy

recognition of accreditation bodies, and section 431.27, Department of

Energy recognition of nationally recognized certification programs, the

Department proposes criteria and procedures under which it would make

such classifications.

Neither section 431.26 nor 431.27 addresses a situation where DOE

has classified an organization as an accreditation body, or as a

nationally recognized certification program, and the organization

subsequently ceases to comply with the conditions for such

classification. Therefore, the Department proposes that the final rule

would provide that the Department will notify such an accreditation

body or a certification organization if the Department believes the

entity is failing to comply with the conditions of section 431.26 or

431.27, respectively, and at the same time the Department will request

that appropriate corrective action be taken. The rule would also

provide that the accreditation body or certification organization would

be given an opportunity to respond, and if, after receiving such

response, the Department believes satisfactory correction has not been

made, the Department would withdraw its recognition from that

organization. If an accreditation body or certification organization

wishes to withdraw itself from recognition by the Department, it could

do so by advising the DOE in writing. The Department seeks comments on

whether the Department should adopt the foregoing approach for

corrective action, and for revocation of an organization's

classification as an accreditation body or nationally recognized

certification program under sections 431.26 and 431.27.

III. Conclusion

The Department seeks comments only on the aforementioned issues

arising from possible changes in the NOPR concerning test procedures,

sampling for compliance and enforcement, verification of labeled

efficiency, and recognition of accreditation bodies and certification

organizations.

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

Dan W. Reicher,

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

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

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P