# 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%3A99-21119

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** October 5, 1999
- **Citation:** 64 FR 54114

## Text

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
6291-6317 (the Act or EPCA) establishes energy efficiency standards and
test procedures for commercial and industrial electric motors. Today's
final rule establishes regulations to implement these requirements, and
to establish efficiency labeling and compliance certification
requirements for motors, as directed by EPCA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective November 4, 1999. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the
regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
November 4, 1999.

ADDRESSES: For the availability of material incorporated by reference,
see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-41, 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: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department)
is incorporating by reference, test procedures and definitional
information from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
Inc. (IEEE), the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA),
the CSA International (CSA),\1\ and the International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC). These test procedures and definitional information
are set forth in the standards publications listed below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) in this matter
contains many references to the ``Canadian Standards Association.''
Since publication of the NOPR, that organization has changed its
name to CSA International. In this Notice and today's final rule,
therefore, the latter name is used to refer to the organization,
although abbreviated references use the abbreviation ``CSA'' as in
the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Standards
Publication MG1-1993, Motors and Generators, and Revisions 1, 2, 3 and
4.
2. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators,
IEEE Std 112-1996, and the correction to the calculation at item (28)
in section 10.2 Form B-Test Method B issued by IEEE on January 20,
1998.
3. CSA International (or Canadian Standards Association) Standard
C390-93, Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction
Motors.
4. International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60034-1
(1996), Rotating electrical machines, Part 1: Rating and performance,
and Amendment 1 (1997).
5. International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60050-411
(1996), International Electrotechnical Vocabulary Chapter 411: Rotating
machinery.
6. International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60072-1
(1991), Dimensions and output series for rotating electrical machines--
Part 1: Frame numbers 56 to 400 and flange numbers 55 to 1080.
7. International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60034-12
(1980), Starting performance of single-speed three-phase cage induction
motors for voltages up to and including 660 V, and Amendment 1 (1992)
and Amendment 2 (1995).
Copies of these standards publications may be viewed 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 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Copies of the NEMA standards and the International Electrotechnical
Commission standards can be obtained from Global Engineering Documents,
15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, Colorado 80112-5776. Copies of the
IEEE standards can be obtained from the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway,
NJ 08855-1331. Copies of the CSA standards can be obtained from CSA
International, 178 Rexdale Boulevard, Etobicoke (Toronto), Ontario,
Canada M9W 1R3.

I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
C. Summary of Rule
II. Discussion
A. Definitions
1. Electric Motor
2. Basic Model
3. General Purpose
4. Special Purpose Motor
5. Accreditation
6. Average Full Load Efficiency
7. Nominal Full Load Efficiency
B. Test Procedures
1. NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, with Revisions 1 through
4
2. Modifications to the IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B
a. Typographical Errors
b. Provisions Subject to Interpretation
c. Incorrect Information
d. Summary
C. Determination of a Motor's Efficiency: Use of Accredited
Laboratories and Certification Programs, Selection of Basic Models
for Testing, Alternative Means to Measure Efficiency, and Sampling
Plans for Testing
1. Summary of DOE's Proposals
2. Issues Involving Both Use of Accredited Laboratories and Use
of Certification Organizations
3. Issues Concerning Use of Certification Organizations
4. Compliance Testing When a Manufacturer Does Not Use a
Certification Program (Independence and Performance of an Accredited
Laboratory, Selection of Basic Models for Testing, Sampling Plan)
and Enforcement Testing Sampling Plan
a. Accredited Laboratories
b. Selection of Basic Models for Testing
c. Sampling Plans for Compliance and Enforcement Testing
(1) Sampling Plan for Compliance Testing
(2) Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing
D. Energy Efficiency Standards
1. Non-standardized Horsepower Ratings
2. Motor Horsepower and Standard Kilowatt Equivalent
3. World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements and the Trans
Atlantic Business Dialogue (TABD)
4. Electric Motors as Components of Systems
E. Labeling
1. Statutory Provisions
2. Provisions of Regulation
a. Use of the Words ``Energy Efficient''
b. Use of Standardized Nominal Full Load Efficiency Values
c. Minimum Efficiency
d. Display of Nominal Efficiency, Compliance Certification
Number, ``ee'' Logo, and Date of Compliance
e. Labeling of Motors Not Covered by EPCA
f. Enforcement Testing Where Violation of a Labeling
Representation is Alleged

[[Page 54115]]

g. Imported Motors
h. Weights of Conductors and Magnetic Materials
F. Certification of Compliance
1. Reference to Certification Programs
2. Nominal Versus Average Full Load Efficiency
3. Other Information to Be Reported
4. Compliance Certification Number
G. Other Matters
1. Standards Incorporated by Reference
2. Enforcement: Determining What Constitutes a ``Separate
Violation''
3. Technical Corrections
a. References to International Standards
b. Use of Term ``Energy Conservation Standard''
c. Preemption of State Regulations
d. Provisions Incorporated from Part 430
e. Amount of Penalty
f. Prohibited Acts--Section 431.122
g. Language Changes in Sections 431.23 and 431.124(a)
III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
B. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Review Under Executive Order 12612, ``Federalism''
E. Review Under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights''
F. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
H. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act
I. Review Under Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
J. Review Under Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act

I. Introduction

A. Authority

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975, Public Law 94-163, as amended, by the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act of 1978 (NECPA), Public Law 95-619, the
National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Public Law
100-12, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988
(NAECA 1988), Public Law 100-357, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(EPAct), Public Law 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).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ These requirements are codified in Part C of Title III of
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sec. 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
Sec. 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1).
The Act also requires that testing procedures for electric motor
efficiency shall be the test procedures specified in NEMA Standards
Publication MG1-1987, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc., (IEEE) Standard 112 Test Method B for motor
efficiency, as in effect on October 24, 1992. EPCA Sec. 343(a)(5)(A),
42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A). If those specified test procedures are
amended, the Secretary must amend the testing procedures under EPCA to
conform to such amended test procedures in the NEMA and IEEE standards,
unless the Secretary determines, by rule, that the amended test
procedures are not reasonably designed to produce results that reflect
energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs, and would
be unduly burdensome to conduct. EPCA Sec. 343(a)(5) (B) and (C), 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(5) (B) and (C).
Additionally, EPCA directs the Secretary, subject to certain
conditions and after consultation with the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), to prescribe efficiency labeling rules for electric motors. EPCA
Sec. 344(d), (f), and (h) 42 U.S.C. 6315(d), (f) and (h).
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 Sec. 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. The meeting
covered the following questions: How should key terms be defined? Which
equipment is covered by the statute? What is the nature and scope of
required testing? How can independent testing and certification
programs be used to establish compliance with applicable standards?
What are the means of certifying such compliance to DOE? What are
possible labeling requirements? What other issues need resolution?
Statements received after publication of the Notice of that public
meeting (60 FR 27051, May 22, 1995), and at the meeting itself, helped
to refine the issues involved in this rulemaking, and provided
information that contributed to DOE's proposed resolution of these
issues.
On November 27, 1996, DOE published in the Federal Register a
proposed rule (NOPR), to create a new part 431 in the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR Part 431), entitled the Energy Conservation Program
for Commercial and Industrial Equipment. 61 FR 60440 (November 27,
1996). This NOPR set forth energy efficiency requirements for electric
motors. As with the program for consumer products, the proposed rule
encompassed the following: test procedures; Federal energy conservation
standards; labeling; and certification and enforcement. The testing and
standards requirements prescribed by EPCA were incorporated in the
proposed rule. Labeling requirements in accordance with EPCA's criteria
for electric motor labels, and certification, enforcement and state law
pre-emption provisions, largely patterned after those applicable to
consumer products, were proposed. In addition, to implement EPCA's
testing and certification requirements, the NOPR proposed requirements
concerning the selection of electric motors for testing and the
entities that could be used to establish that a motor complies with the
applicable standard. Finally, the NOPR proposed provisions to clarify
which motors are covered by EPCA, including clarification of the
statutory definition of ``electric motor.''
Despite these clarifications, manufacturers expressed uncertainty
as to which electric motors, with which modifications, are covered
under EPCA. They also questioned their ability to comply with the
statute by the effective date of October 24, 1997 with respect to
certain motors. To address these issues, the Department, on November 5,
1997, published Policies on Coverage and Enforcement of Energy
Efficiency

[[Page 54116]]

Requirements for Electric Motors; Final Rule, 62 FR 59978 (November 5,
1997) (Policy Statement). This Policy Statement, based on
recommendations from motor manufacturers and energy efficiency
advocates, provided guidance as to which modifications of electric
motors are ``general purpose,'' ``definite purpose,'' and ``special
purpose'' under EPCA. The Policy Statement also stated circumstances
under which the Department would refrain from taking enforcement action
with respect to certain limited categories of motors that would not
meet the energy efficiency standards by the October 25, 1997 effective
date.
Comments presented at the public hearing on January 15, 1997, and
additional written comments submitted following the public hearing have
helped the Department to refine and resolve the issues involved in this
rulemaking. Portions of many of the statements are quoted and
summarized in section II, Discussion of Comments. A parenthetical
reference at the end of a quotation or passage in section II provides
the location index in the public record of the portion of a statement
that is being quoted or discussed.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ For example: ``(UL, No. 9 at pg. 1)'' refers to (1) a
statement that was submitted by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. and
is recorded in the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room in the
docket under ``Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and
Industrial Equipment: Test Procedures, Labeling, and Certification
Requirements for Electric Motors,'' Docket Number EE-RM-96-400, as
comment number nine; and (2) a passage that appears on page 1 of
that statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The hearing and written comments, as well as the Department's
further review of the proposed rule, gave rise to several issues that
were subsequently addressed in a notice reopening the comment period
for the proposed rule, which was published in the Federal Register at
63 FR 34758 (June 25, 1998) (``reopening notice''). The issues
concerned (1) modifications to the IEEE Std 112-1996 Method B test
procedures, (2) adoption of sampling plans for compliance and
enforcement proposed by the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association in lieu of the sampling plans in the proposed rule, (3)
sampling plans where a motor's efficiency is established through a
certification organization rather than through testing in an accredited
laboratory, (4) enforcement testing where violation of a labeling
representation is alleged, and (5) procedures for the withdrawal of
recognition from an organization DOE has classified as an accreditation
body, or as a nationally recognized certification program. Comments
received as a result of the reopening notice have further helped the
Department to refine and resolve the issues in this rulemaking.

C. Summary of Rule

Today's final rule incorporates the energy efficiency test
procedures and standards established by EPCA for certain commercial and
industrial electric motors. EPCA sections 343(a)(5), 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(5), and 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). It also establishes
efficiency labeling requirements and compliance certification
requirements for motors, as directed by EPCA. EPCA sections 344, 42
U.S.C. 6315, and 345(c), 42 U.S.C. 6316(c). Among its provisions,
today's final rule (1) defines terms used in the rule, including
definitions that clarify which motors, including metric, are covered
under EPCA; \4\ (2) incorporates by reference the IEEE Standard 112
Test Method B (with minor modifications), CSA Standard C390 Test Method
(1), and portions of other industry standards; (3) sets forth methods
for establishing compliance, such as a sampling plan for selecting
motors for testing, calculation in some instances of a motor's
efficiency, use of an accredited laboratory for testing, and use of a
certification program; (4) establishes criteria for recognizing
laboratory accreditation organizations and certification programs; and
(5) requires the energy efficiency value of an electric motor, and a
Department of Energy Compliance Certification number, to be both marked
on the nameplate and disclosed in marketing materials, and allows use
of an ``ee'' logo or other similar logo. The rule also addresses waiver
of the test procedures, pre-emption of state regulations, and
enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Section 340(13) of EPCA defines ``electric motor'' and
``nominal full load efficiency'' by reference to NEMA Standards
Publication MG1-1987. However, a more recent version of MG1, MG1-
1993, is more readily available. Therefore, references to MG1 in the
definitions in today's rule are to MG1-1993 rather than MG1-1987,
whenever reference to the current version results in the rule having
the same substance and coverage as it would have with a reference to
MG1-1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

The Department received approximately 31 sets of written comments
on the proposed rule, from motor manufacturers, original equipment
manufacturers, energy efficiency advocates, trade associations, other
government agencies, and individuals. The Department received data and
recommendations related to the accuracy and workability of many
provisions in the proposed rule.

A. Definitions

1. Electric Motor
Section 340(13)(A) of EPCA defines the term ``electric motor'' 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, 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.''
In the NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify this definition. Hence the
proposed rule included an expanded definition of ``electric motor'' as
well as a definition of ``general purpose motor,'' a term that is an
important element of EPCA's definition of electric motor but that is
not defined in EPCA. 61 FR 60442-46, 60465-66 (November 27, 1996).
Although some comments, discussed below, raised issues concerning
specific elements of the proposed definition of ``electric motor,''
none objected to DOE's overall approach or to the definition of
``general purpose motor.''
The Department understands, however, that there exist a wide
variety of motors that are modifications to the generic general purpose
motor, and that motor manufacturers are concerned as to precisely which
of these motors, having various features and characteristics, are
covered under the statute. There seems to be a consensus that, due to
the large number and the constant changes of motor designs, it would be
impractical and unwise for the DOE regulations to try to exhaustively
delineate the specific types of motors that are covered.
In its opening statement at the January 15, 1997, public hearing
(Public Hearing Tr. pg. 42),5 NEMA suggested instead the use
of guidelines, along with a matrix setting forth various motor designs,
as an aid in construing the statute and regulations. (NEMA, No.
18).6 The Department agrees with this approach, and believes
the guidelines and the matrix provided in the Policy Statement, in
conjunction with definitions in the proposed rule, make clear whether a
motor is covered under EPCA and today's regulations. Therefore, today's
rule adopts, with minor technical changes, the ``electric motor'' and
related definitions of the proposed rule, and incorporates the

[[Page 54117]]

Policy Statement as appendix A to subpart A of 10 CFR Part 431 of the
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ ``Public Hearing, Tr. pg. 42,'' refers to the page number 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\ See footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following addresses the comments concerning specific elements
of the proposed definition of ``electric motor:''
NEMA Electrical Designs A, B, and C. Sections 342 through 345 of
EPCA require only certain motors to meet applicable energy efficiency
requirements. In accordance with EPCA's definition of ``electric
motor,'' quoted above, section 431.2 of the proposed rule, 61 FR 60465
(November 27, 1996), and of today's final rule, state that an electric
motor ``(6) Has performance in accordance with NEMA Design A or B
characteristics, or equivalent designs such as IEC Design N * * * ''
Toshiba advocates that Design C motors be covered by EPCA.
(Toshiba, No. 14, p. 2.). Standard efficiency stock motors are
generally Design A or B, and Mr. W. Treffinger asserts that several
manufacturers offer such motors as Design C. He raises the question as
to whether a manufacturer could re-nameplate these motors as ``Design C
definite purpose/conveyor duty'' in order to continue selling current
designs that do not meet EPCA efficiency standards. (Treffinger, No. 4
at 3.).
The purpose of this rulemaking is to implement EPCA's efficiency
requirements for electric motors. Since EPCA imposes such requirements
only for Designs A and B, as categorized in NEMA MG1, for the
Department to cover Design C motors in today's rule would go beyond the
requirements of EPCA and the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, the
Department cannot accept Toshiba's apparent suggestion that it extend
EPCA efficiency requirements directly to Design C motors. In addition,
it is questionable whether the Department has the discretion to take
such action, absent an amendment to EPCA. See EPCA sections 340-341, 42
U.S.C. 6311-6312. On the other hand, a motor that exhibits the
performance characteristics of NEMA Designs A or B, and that is mis-
labeled NEMA Design C, is obviously covered by EPCA.
Additional Motor Designs and Characteristics. Toshiba International
Corporation and Mr. W. Treffinger assert that EPCA should cover as
large a population of motors as possible to maximize energy savings.
Both would extend EPCA coverage to include footless or round body
motors which are face-mounting or flange-mounting, motors operating on
200 volts or 575 volts, definite-purpose motors such as close-coupled
pump motors, and motors with 8 or more poles. Toshiba and Mr.
Treffinger argue that such motors have essentially the same electrical
characteristics as covered electric motors, and the addition of such
motors would maximize energy savings. (Toshiba, No. 14, and Treffinger,
No. 4 at 1.).
The Department is sympathetic to the potential energy savings that
could be achieved if the aforementioned types of motors were covered by
EPCA. In the Department's view, however, as with Design C motors, EPCA
does not impose efficiency requirements for the types of motors
described by Toshiba and Mr. Treffinger, and hence they are outside the
scope of this rulemaking. The Department, nevertheless, encourages
motor manufacturers to voluntarily improve the efficiency of any motor
designs, if the improvements are technically feasible, economical, and
energy-saving.
Voltage rating. Section 340(13)(A) of EPCA defines ``electric
motor,'' in part, as ``operating on 230/460 volts and 60 Hertz line
power.'' The DOE proposed rule (61 FR 60465, November 27, 1996)
clarifies this part of the EPCA definition as meaning a motor that
``operates on polyphase alternating current 60-Hertz sinusoidal power,
and is: (i) Rated 230 volts or 460 volts, or both, including any motor
that is rated at multi-voltages that include 230 volts or 460 volts, or
(ii) Can be operated on 230 volts or 460 volts, or both.''
The joint comments of the Washington State University Cooperative
Extension Energy Program and the Washington State Department of
Community, Trade and Economic Development (WSU/WSD) state that motors
designed for standard service voltages of 240 and 480 volts are rated
at 230 and /or 460 volts, from zero to eight percent lower than those
standard service voltages, to allow for presumed distribution system
voltage drop. They assert that a tolerance be placed on the 230/460
volt stipulation to allow for deviations that occur in this rating
among motor models intended for the same service voltage, and give
examples of motors on the market which are rated at 220 and 440, and
others rated at 480 volts. WSU/WSD recommend at least a 10 percent
tolerance be applied to the 230 volts and 460 volts prescribed by EPCA,
and that item (7)(ii) in the ``electric motor'' definition in section
431.2 of the final rule explicitly state: ``Can be operated on 230
volts or 460 volts without exceeding the 10% over/under voltage
tolerance stipulated in NEMA MG1 1993 R1, section 12.44.'' (WSU/WSD,
No. 5, at II.A.).
The Department agrees with WSU/WSD's apparent assumption that
motors with voltages within the 10 percent tolerance meet EPCA's
definition of ``electric motor,'' and with WSU/WSD's statement that
such motors meet the ``electric motor'' definition in the proposed
rule. (WSU/WSD, No. 5 at II.A.).
In its Policy Statement, issued subsequent to the filing of WSU/
WSD's comments, the Department stated that the criteria in NEMA MG1-
1993, paragraph 12.44, ``Variations from Rated Voltage and Rated
Frequency,'' which includes the 10 percent voltage tolerance criterion,
should be used to determine whether a motor not rated at 230 or 460
volts or 60 Hertz would nevertheless be within EPCA's definition of
``electric motor.'' The Department also indicated in the Policy
Statement, and continues to believe, that such criteria apply in
determining whether a motor meets the ``electric motor'' definition in
the proposed rule. The Department is aware of no opposition to these
positions, including its view that the 10 percent tolerance is to be
used to determine which motors are covered by EPCA efficiency
requirements. Moreover, DOE sees no reason to include this tolerance in
the regulatory definition of electric motor, but not the other
variations addressed in NEMA MG1-1993 paragraph 12.44. To include all
of these variations, however, would increase substantially the
complexity of the definition. For these reasons, DOE believes that it
is unnecessary to add to the final rule language proposed by WSU/WSD on
this point.
2. Basic Model
The proposed rule defines ``basic model'' to mean ``all units of a
given type of covered equipment (or class thereof) manufactured by a
single manufacturer, and, with respect to electric motors, which have
the same rating, have electrical characteristics that are essentially
identical, and do not have any differing physical or functional
characteristics which affect energy consumption or efficiency.'' As
used in this definition, ``rating'' is ``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).
WSU/WSD support the idea of defining ``basic model'', but assert
that the limits on what electric motors can be consolidated into a
particular basic model need to be more specific. WSU/WSD suggest that
electric motors

[[Page 54118]]

consolidated into a basic model have the following criteria: (1)
identical enclosure designation; (2) identical and interchangeable
stator cores; (3) electrically identical windings, i.e. circular mils
and ampere-turns per slot, winding pattern, and resistance in milliohms
per rated volt; and (4) identical and interchangeable rotor core and
cage. WSU/WSD also recommended that no untested model of motor be
adopted into a basic model consolidation if it has mechanical features
that tend to increase friction or windage above tested models. Such
features could include larger bearings, sealed versus shielded
bearings, a larger or higher capacity cooling fan, or shaft grounding
brushes. (WSU/WSD, No. 5 at II.E.)
The Department believes that many enclosure designations are based
on physical or functional characteristics which have nothing to do with
the energy consumption or efficiency performance of a motor. For
example, the same electrical design may be put into enclosures
identified as open, dripproof, splash-proof, semi-guarded, guarded, or
dripproof guarded, yet the enclosures may differ only in the location
and size of the ventilation holes in the frame. Because all of these
enclosures would have different designations using standardized
industry terminology, to define ``basic model'' in terms such as
``identical enclosure designations'' or ``electrically identical
windings,'' as recommended by WSU/WSD, would appear to increase the
number of basic models immensely without apparent benefit. In another
example, the same electrical design is often used in general purpose
enclosed motors and explosion-proof motors, differing only in the
construction and fit of the joints and frame openings (shaft and
conduit box leads) to meet hazardous location requirements. In this
case, the two separate motors would necessarily have different
enclosure designations. Both would be considered enclosed motors that
could be included within the same basic model as that term is defined
as in section 431.2 of the proposed rule, 61 FR 60465 (November 27,
1996), although under the WSU/WSD approach they would be different
basic models. The Department concludes that the WSU/WSD criteria for
characterizing ``basic model,'' would lead to additional testing and
reporting that are unnecessary to achieve compliance with EPCA
efficiency requirements, and would be unduly burdensome to
manufacturers. Therefore, the Department is adopting, in today's final
rule, the definition of ``basic model'' at 61 FR 60465 (November 27,
1996) in the proposed rule.
3. General Purpose
The descriptor ``general purpose,'' is one element both of the
definition of ``electric motor'' and ``definite purpose motor'' at
sections 340(13)(A) and (B) of EPCA, respectively. EPCA characterizes,
in part, a ``definite purpose motor'' as any motor ``for use under
service conditions other than usual'' and ``which cannot be used in
most general purpose applications.'' EPCA defines neither ``general
purpose'' nor ``service conditions other that usual.''
Section 431.2 in the proposed rule defines the term ``general
purpose motor'' as ``any motor which is designed in standard ratings
with either: (1) Standard operating characteristics and mechanical
construction for use under usual service conditions, such as those
specified in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, paragraph 14.02,
'Usual Service Conditions,' and without restriction to a particular
application or type of application; or (2) Standard operating
characteristics or standard mechanical construction for use under
unusual service conditions, or for a particular type of application,
and which can be used in most general purpose applications.'' 61 FR
60466 (November 27, 1996).
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) expresses difficulty
interpreting what is meant by ``other than usual'' service conditions.
UL asserts that (1) the potential for misclassifying a motor is
prominent, (2) it would be difficult to conclusively list ``unusual
service conditions,'' and (3) it would be beneficial to have criteria
for ``other than usual'' service conditions. (UL, No. 9, at pg. 1.).
The Department agrees that it would be beneficial to have criteria
to judge ``other than usual'' service conditions, and that would be a
formidable task to develop criteria that would account for the many
environmental, power supply, and equipment operating characteristics
which individually or in combination would constitute a service
condition that is ``other than usual.'' NEMA Standards Publication MG1-
1993 paragraph 14.03, ``Unusual Service Conditions'' lists examples,
however, of operating conditions which require the manufacturer's
consultation, to determine the suitability of a particular general
purpose motor being considered for an application. The Department
believes that no single item exemplified in paragraph 14.03, by itself,
necessarily establishes the existence of unusual service conditions,
and that paragraph 14.03 does not contain an exhaustive list of such
conditions. Nevertheless, to provide guidance as to the meaning of this
term, in the definitions of both ``general purpose motor'' and
``definite purpose motor'' the final rule cites paragraph 14.03 as
providing examples of unusual service conditions. This is done in the
same way that the proposed and final rules amplify the term ``usual
service conditions'' by stating ``such as those specified'' in
paragraph 14.02 of MG1-1993, ``Usual Service Conditions.''
4. Special Purpose Motor
Section 340(13)(C) of EPCA defines ``special purpose motor'' as
``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.'' Section 431.2, ``Definitions,'' in the proposed rule,
clarifies the term ``special purpose motor'' to mean ``any motor that
is designed for a particular application, and that either (1) is
designed in non-standard ratings with special operating characteristics
or special mechanical construction, or (2) has special operating
characteristics and special mechanical construction.''
NEMA objects to the qualifying language, ``non-standard ratings,''
in the proposed rule, asserting that it is common for special purpose
motors to have standard ratings, not non-standard ratings. NEMA further
asserts that it is unclear what the Department means by ``non-standard
rating.'' It states that the term ``rating'' in section 431.2 of the
proposed rule, is used as a qualifier in the definition of ``basic
model,'' to refer to one of the 113 combinations of horsepower, poles,
and open or enclosed construction, and as such appears to be in
conflict with section 431.42(b) in the proposed rule, which applies the
requirements in EPCA to non-standard ratings through an interpolation
methodology. As to Part 2 of the proposed definition of ``special
purpose motor,'' NEMA alleges a conflict with the language of the EPCA
definition. NEMA claims that if the Department deleted the text ``in
non-standard ratings'' from the NOPR's proposed definition of special
purpose motor, the resulting definition would be consistent with the
EPCA definition. (NEMA, No. 18 at page 4.).
The Department's proposed definition of ``special purpose motor''
was intended to clarify the distinction between that type of motor and
motors that would be ``definite purpose'' motors but for the fact that
they can be used in most general purpose

[[Page 54119]]

applications, and are therefore covered by EPCA requirements. Upon
further review, the Department has decided that EPCA's definitions
sufficiently distinguish between these types of motors, and agrees with
NEMA that the substance of DOE's proposed definition departs from the
statutory definition. Therefore, the definition of ``special purpose
motor'' in the final rule is identical to the statutory definition of
that term. The Department disagrees, however, with NEMA's assertion
that the meaning given to the term ``rating'' in the definition of
``basic model'' apparently conflicts with other parts of the rule and
creates uncertainty. The proposed rule's ``basic model'' definition
states that such meaning of ``rating'' is ``for purpose [sic] of this
definition.'' Thus such meaning does not apply throughout the rule.
5. Accreditation
Section 431.2 of the proposed rule defines ``accreditation'' as
``recognition by an authoritative body that a laboratory is competent
to perform all of the specific test procedures that are required by or
incorporated into this part.'' 61 FR 60465 (November 27, 1996).
NEMA asserts that it is not clear as to which ``test procedures''
are being referred to in the definition. NEMA states that the electric
motor industry uses the term ``test procedures'' to apply to the IEEE
Standard 112-1996 or CSA Standard C390-93 methods of conducting tests
to measure motor efficiency. These methods have formed the basis of
proposed accreditation programs to date. (NEMA, No. 18 at page 4.).
The Department agrees that the proposed definition needs to be
clarified, and that accreditation to perform test procedures for
electric motors is with reference to IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B
and CSA Standard C390 Test Method (1). The Department also notes,
however, accreditation would generally have to be based on the version
of the test method currently incorporated into the DOE regulations. For
these reasons, in today's final rule, the term ``accreditation'' is
defined at section 431.2 of 10 CFR Part 431, as recognizing competence
to perform the IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B and CSA Standard C390-93
Test Method (1) for electric motors.
6. Average Full Load Efficiency
Section 431.2 of the proposed rule defines ``average full load
efficiency'' to mean ``the average efficiency of a population of
electric motors of duplicate design, where the efficiency of each motor
in the population is the ratio (expressed as a percentage) of the
motor's useful power output to its total power input when the motor is
operated at its full rated load.''
NEMA recommends that the clarifying text, ``rated voltage, and
rated frequency,'' be added after the words ``full rated load,'' in the
definition of ``average full load efficiency.'' (NEMA, No. 18 at page
4.). Washington State asserts that it would be more precise to define
``average full load efficiency'' as the ``arithmetic mean efficiency,''
since ``average'' could convey various measures of central tendencies,
such as median or mode. (WSU/WSD, No. 5 at II.N.).
The Department believes that the clarifying text, ``rated voltage,
and rated frequency,'' proposed by NEMA, is consistent with the EPCA
definition of ``electric motor,'' which refers to ``Design A and B''
and ``operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60 Hertz line power as
defined in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987.'' Moreover, the
clarifying text provides a benchmark for measuring the average full
load efficiency of a population of electric motors of duplicate design
by screening out voltage and frequency variations which could be
deleterious to efficiency under running conditions. Therefore, the
Department is adding the words ``rated voltage, and rated frequency''
in today's final rule. The Department also understands the need for
clarity in the definition of ``average efficiency'' per WSU/WSD's
comment, and is adding the term ``arithmetic mean efficiency'' in the
definition of ``average full load efficiency.''
7. Nominal Full Load Efficiency
The term ``nominal full load efficiency'' in section 341(13)(H) of
EPCA means ``the average efficiency of a population of motors of
duplicate design as determined in accordance with NEMA Standards
Publication MG1-1987.'' Section 431.2 in the proposed rule defines the
term ``nominal full load efficiency'' as it applies to an electric
motor, to mean ``the nominal efficiency in Column A of Table 12-8, NEMA
Standards Publication MG1-1993, that is either the closest lower value
to, or that equals, the average full load efficiency of electric motors
of the same design.''
NEMA encourages the Department to use a definition of ``nominal
full load efficiency'' as it is in NEMA MG1-1993, to avoid the
confusion of more than one definition of ``nominal full load
efficiency.'' NEMA acknowledges that the MG1 definition does not
require the manufacturer to select a single value for nominal
efficiency from Table 12-8 in NEMA MG1, but that the manufacturer could
select any value that does not exceed the average full load efficiency
of the population of motors. NEMA contends that the EPCA definition
takes the same approach. (NEMA, No. 18 at p. 5.)
Based on testimony at the Public Hearing on January 15, 1997 (TR
pgs. 57-60), the Department understands that the fixed values in Table
12-6B in NEMA MG1-1987 (Table 12-8 in MG1-1993) are an adopted set of
incremental values that manufacturers have chosen to use as labeling
values. The Department is aware that the NEMA MG1 Table 12-6B was
created to prevent mismarking or confusion that could occur if one
manufacturer, for example, labeled a motor 93.53 percent efficient and
another manufacturer marked a motor 93.57 percent efficient. Variations
in materials, manufacturing processes, and tests can result in motor-
to-motor variations for a given motor design, so that the full load
efficiency for motors of a single design is not a unique efficiency but
rather a band of efficiency. The NEMA MG1 Table 12-6B established a
logical series of ``nominal'' motor efficiencies, from which the motor
nameplate efficiency marking is selected, to avoid the inference of
unrealistic accuracy that might be assumed from a potentially infinite
number of labeled efficiency values. Thus, paragraph 12.58.2 of NEMA
MG1-1993 provides that the full load efficiency of a motor shall be
identified by a nominal efficiency value selected from Table 12-8
(previously Table 12-6B in NEMA MG1-1987), ``which shall be not greater
than the average efficiency of a large population'' of such motors.
Such nominal value could, in theory, be any value listed in Table 12-8
that is not greater than the average efficiency of the large
population.
The Department's proposed definition resulted from a belief that
manufacturers should be required to use for each motor the nominal full
load value that corresponds most closely to the efficiency test or
calculation results for that motor. NEMA has stated, however, that
other analysis might influence a manufacturer to select a lower value
for a particular motor, and that a manufacturer would be unlikely to
select a value lower than the greatest value that could be supported.
Notwithstanding its view that its proposed definition of ``nominal
full load efficiency'' is supported by the definition of that term in
EPCA, the Department also believes the Act can be construed as
supporting use of the

[[Page 54120]]

approach in MG1-1993. In light of NEMA's comments, the Department is
adopting, in today's final rule, a definition of ``nominal full load
efficiency'' that conforms to the use of that term in paragraph 12.58.2
of MG1-1993.

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.
In general, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) supports the energy
efficiency test procedures prescribed in the proposed rule because they
are consistent with the IEEE and the American National Standards
Institute procedures. (EEI, No. 15)
1. NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, with Revisions 1 through 4
In the NOPR, the Department stated its intention to adopt the test
procedures for the measurement of energy efficiency in NEMA MG1-1993
with Revision 1. 61 FR 60446, 60466, 60469 (November 27, 1996).
Revision 2, 3 and 4 have also been added to MG1-1993. Revisions 2 and 3
make editorial clarifications to the determination of efficiency and
losses under MG1-12.58.1. Whereas in MG1 Revision 1, motors from 1 to
125 horsepower were tested by dynamometer according to IEEE Standard
112 Test Method B or CSA Standard C390 Test Method (1), MG1 Revision 4
extends testing by dynamometer up to 400 horsepower under MG1-12.58.1,
thereby including the 1 through 200 range of horsepower ratings under
EPCA.
The Department does not intend to determine that the test procedure
amendments in Revisions 2-4 of MG1-1993 fail to meet the requirements
of sections 343(a)(2) and (3) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3),
except to the extent that such a determination is warranted, as
discussed below, with respect to certain provisions of IEEE Std 112-
1996 Test Method B (which MG1 references). The Department is adopting,
in today's final rule, the test procedure requirements to measure
energy efficiency and losses in NEMA MG1 with Revisions 1 through 4,
but with certain modifications to IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B.
2. Modifications to the IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B
IEEE Std 112-1991 Test Method B was incorporated into the proposed
rule, but was revised and superseded by IEEE Std 112-1996, which was
published May 8, 1997. A minor revision was made in IEEE Std 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-Test Method B:
``Calculation form for input-output test of induction machine with
segregation of losses and smoothing of stray-load loss.'' Under section
343(a)(5)(B) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B), DOE must now adopt the
test procedures in IEEE Std 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, or are unduly burdensome to conduct.
The Department compared IEEE Std 112-1991 to IEEE Std 112-1996 to
determine whether there were differences in the two versions of Test
Method B, and, if so, whether to adopt Test Method B in IEEE Std 112-
1996 into the final rule for electric motors. As a result of its
analysis, the Department believes Test Method B in IEEE Std 112-1996
improves upon the version of that test method in IEEE Std 112-1991,
because IEEE Std 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 Std 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 Std 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, thereby throwing an electric motor into the next higher or
lower level of nominal efficiency, and effectively rendering it either
in or out of compliance with the applicable EPCA efficiency standard.
Subsequently, the Department confirmed the existence of these types of
problems with IEEE Std 112-1996 through contacts with other testing
laboratories, a certification organization, and manufacturers, each
known to have experience with IEEE Standard 112-1996, and through
discussions with the Chairman of the IEEE Induction Power Subcommittee.
(IEEE has since corrected one such error, in its January 1998 notice of
correction.) In sum, although Test Method B in IEEE Std 112-1996 has
several advantages, mentioned above, it also has typographical errors,
provisions subject to interpretation, and incorrect information.
The Department announced its intention, in the Federal Register, at
63 FR 34758 (June 25, 1998), that the final rule would prescribe IEEE
Std 112-1996 Test Method B, with the January 1998 correction, as a test
procedure under EPCA for determining the energy efficiency of electric
motors, but with certain modifications set forth at 63 FR 34759-62
(June 25, 1998). The Department reopened the comment period on the
proposed rule for motors, in part to solicit comments on these
modifications. The Department noted, 63 FR 34759 (June 25, 1998), that
it was not altering the IEEE test procedure, but was ``proposing only
to mandate certain modifications to IEEE 112-1996 Test Method B when it
is used for purposes of measuring efficiency under EPCA.''
The Department received six sets of comments on these proposed
modifications to IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B. There is general
acknowledgment that IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B needs modification
or correction, but some commenters opposed changes by the Department
for purposes of EPCA. In general, Advanced Energy Corporation and
Zentralverband Elektrotechnik-und Elektronikindustrie e.V. (ZVEI)
support the Department's corrections and modifications to IEEE Std 112-
1996. (AEC, No. 35 and ZVEI, No. 37 pgs. 2-3.). GE Motors, NEMA and
ACEEE, however, assert that corrections and modifications to IEEE
Standard 112-1996 Test Method B should be accomplished instead through
the voluntary standards making process (GE, No. 39, and NEMA/ACEEE, No.
38). NEMA and ACEEE oppose the Department's making any modifications or
corrections to the IEEE Standard 112-1996 Test Method B on grounds that
such changes could (1) unnecessarily lengthen the time for completion
of the final rule for motors; (2) differ from

[[Page 54121]]

changes which might be made by IEEE; (3) delay manufacturers from
certifying compliance and disrupt laboratory accreditation programs;
and (4) create confusion in the industry because there would be two
versions of IEEE Standard 112, one for electric motors covered by EPCA
and one for motors not covered by EPCA. NEMA and ACEEE also assert that
the many typographical errors and provisions subject to interpretation
have been dealt with by motor manufacturers and are not a problem. NEMA
and ACEEE recommend that the Department adopt IEEE Std 112-1996, with
the January 20, 1998 revision, and without the corrections and
modifications proposed in the reopening notice (NEMA/ACEEE, No. 38). GE
Motors agrees with the Department that typographical errors in IEEE
Standard 112 should be corrected, but asserts that instead of changing
the IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B for use under EPCA, the Department
should communicate its understanding of the needed corrections and
modifications to the National Institute of Standards and Technology/
National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NIST/NVLAP) for
application in its proficiency testing program for electric motors.
(GE, Nos. 39, 46). IEEE submitted the Department's June 25, 1998,
reopening notice to the IEEE Induction Machinery Subcommittee for its
review and recommendations, and stated that it would ``take any action
deemed necessary to update or amend'' IEEE Std 112-1996. But IEEE did
not indicate when it would address the points in the reopening notice.
(IEEE, No. 34).
The Department understands that IEEE typically updates its
standards approximately every five years, and that the next revision of
IEEE Std 112-1996 is scheduled for the year 2001, although it might be
published in the year 2000. (Martiny/Knab, No. 41; IEEE, No. 46). In
the Department's view, this would be too great a delay in correcting
IEEE Standard 112 for use under EPCA. The Department also understands
industry concern that, subsequent to any changes the Department would
make, IEEE might make different changes to IEEE Standard 112.
Nevertheless, if and when such changes are forthcoming from IEEE, the
Department will essentially be required, under section 343(a)(5)(B) of
EPCA, to incorporate such changes in to the DOE test procedures under
EPCA, unless the Secretary properly determines otherwise. In regard to
laboratory accreditation programs, any changes to IEEE Standard 112
Test Method B for purposes of EPCA would be applied, for consistency,
in the NIST/NVLAP accreditation program. NIST/NVLAP has advised DOE,
however, that the changes in today's final rule would not affect
existing or future NIST/NVLAP accreditations of laboratories to test
motors for energy efficiency. (NIST/NVLAP, No. 45). As to the assertion
that the typographical errors and procedures subject to interpretation
are not problematic, use of IEEE Standard 112 has been voluntary until
recently. But under today's rule, it will be mandatory, and will be the
basis for determining whether manufacturers are complying with EPCA and
can sell their products. When a test procedure is used in this type of
mandatory environment, there is greater need than in a voluntary
environment for it to be precise and uniformly applied.
Upon consideration of the comments received and further review of
the issues, the Department continues to believe, for the reasons stated
in the reopening notice and this notice, that IEEE Std 112-1996 Test
Method B should be adopted as the EPCA test procedure for electric
motors, but with certain modifications and corrections. The Department
emphasizes, however, that such modifications and corrections in today's
rule do not fundamentally or extensively alter IEEE Std 112-1996 Test
Method B. Rather, these changes are essentially technical corrections
and interpretations of Test Method B, which fine tune and clarify it,
will enable it to work better, and realize the intent of the test
procedure. The Department disagrees with the claims that these changes
will delay compliance certification or create a second version of IEEE
Standard 112 that will cause confusion. Instead, the test procedure in
today's rule in essence conforms to IEEE Std 112-1996. Furthermore, as
demonstrated by the discussion in this notice and in the reopening
notice, absent the changes contained in this rule, IEEE Std 112-1996
Test Method B would not be reasonably designed to produce results that
reflect energy efficiency and would be unduly burdensome to conduct.
Consequently, changes in Test Method B, as described in the following
passages, are incorporated into today's rule.
a. Typographical Errors
Page 17, subclause 6.4.1.3, No-load test, currently reads: ``See
5.3 including 5.33, * * *.'' In today's final rule, this reference is
changed to read: ``See 5.3 including 5.3.3, * * *.''
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. At section II.A.1.b. of the
reopening notice, the Department proposed 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''. 63
FR 34759 (June 25, 1998). Also, page 48, item (29) currently reads:
``See 4.3.2.2 Eq. 4.'' The Department stated, at section II.A. 2.c.,
that such reference to equation (4) in subclause 4.3.2.2, Slip
correction for temperature, without explanation, could 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. 63 FR 34760 (June
25, 1998).
NEMA and ACEEE assert that it is preferable to change the constant
``k'' in item (22) to ``k2'' since this would follow in
sequence the previous appearance of the constant ``k1'' in
item (16). Such a change would also eliminate some of the confusion the
Department notes in section II.A.2.c. of the reopening notice,
concerning the different definitions given for ``k'' in subclause
4.3.2.2 and ``k'' in item (22) on page 48, since ``k'' would no longer
be included in item (22). (NEMA/ACEEE No. 38 at pg. 2).
The Department understands that there is not a consistent
definition of terms throughout IEEE Std 112-1996. For example, the term
``k'' is used in sections 4.3.1, 7.2.2, 7.3.2.1, 7.3.2.2, 7.3.2.3, 10.1
and 10.2 of IEEE Std 112-1996 to convert power in watts to torque, and
in sections 4.2.3, 4.3.2.2 and 8.3.3 as the temperature intercept for
computing the resistance. The term ``k'' without subscripts in IEEE
Standard 112 is used often to mean different things, and therefore it
has been the practice to define its meaning within each section where
it is used. (NIST/NVLAP, No. 45). The Department believes that the NEMA
and ACEEE change has merit and would eliminate some of the confusion
described in sections II.A.1.b. and II.A.2.c. of the reopening notice,
both with page 48, item (24) in the formula for shaft power in watts,
and subclause 4.3.2.2 equation (4). 63 FR 34759. Therefore, in lieu of
the change proposed by the Department in its reopening notice for page
48, item (24), the Department will change the torque constant at page
48, item (22) of IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B, from ``k'' to
``k2'', in today's final rule. The term ``k2'' at
item (22) would then read: ``k2 = 9.549 for torque, in
Nm'' and ``k2 = 7.043 for torque, in
lbfft.'' Both the formula at page 48, item (24), and the
constant ``k'' for conductivity at page 7, subclause 4.3.2.2 equation
(4), are adopted without change from the IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method
B.

[[Page 54122]]

b. Provisions Subject to Interpretation
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 only options ``a'' or ``b''
in subclause 5.1.1 are applicable to Test Method B. Information
provided to the Department indicated, however, that option ``c'' is
being misapplied to Test Method B. Therefore, at section II.A.2.a. of
the reopening notice, the Department sought comment on whether its test
procedure rule should incorporate into subclause 5.1.1 the following
language: ``(Method B only allows the use of preference a) or b).)'' 63
FR 34759-60 (June 25, 1998).
AEC supports the Department's suggested modification of section
5.1.1. AEC agrees that a complete and thorough reading of IEEE Standard
112-1996 would make it clear that preference ``c'' is not compatible
with Test Method B, as the Department argues at section II.A.2.a. of
its reopening notice, 63 FR 34760 (June 25, 1998). However, AEC asserts
that IEEE Standard 112-1996 is frequently used as a reference document
where only a few clauses are reviewed at a given time, and that the
proposed modification would preclude the inadvertent application of
``c'' to Test Method B. (AEC, No. 35 at pg. 2). Also, Underwriters
Laboratories, Lincoln Electric, and NIST/NVLAP agree with the proposed
revision to make clear at subclause 5.1.1 that only options ``a'' or
``b'' are applicable to Test Method B. (UL, No. 43, Lincoln, No. 44,
and NIST/NVLAP, No. 45).
The Department concludes, based on the aforementioned comments,
that the proposed change is warranted and would eliminate the
possibility of misinterpreting subclause 5.1.1, which could lead to
distortion of efficiency values by misapplication of option ``c.''
Consequently, in today's final rule, the Department incorporates into
the first sentence of subclause 5.1.1 the following language: ``(Test
Method B only allows the use of preference a) or b).)''
Page 47, the procedure to measure temperature in item (4) Rated
Load Heat Run Stator Winding Temperature is not defined. Information in
the footnote at the bottom of page 47, 10.2 Form B, indicates that the
temperature for item (7), which is used as a basis for the temperatures
in items (4), (27), and (16), can be either determined from a
temperature detector or derived from measurement of the stator
resistance during the test. The Department proposed, at section
II.A.2.b. of its reopening notice, 63 FR 34760 (June 25, 1998), that
the method of measuring both items (4) and (7) be consistent. There
were no comments to the contrary. NIST/NVLAP concurs that the
modification to the footnote is appropriate and will not affect its
accreditation of laboratories. (NIST/NVLAP, No. 45). Therefore, the
Department will, in today's final rule, incorporate 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.''
Page 48, item (27) defines Stator I 2R Loss, in W, at
(ts) deg.C, and item (29) defines Corrected Slip, in r/min,
on IEEE Std 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. As set forth at section II.A.2.c. of the reopening
notice, based on its examination of 10.2 Form B and supporting sections
of IEEE Standard 112, the Department proposed the following
modifications to clarify the temperatures to be used for correcting the
stator and rotor loss: (1) at the top of 10.2 Form B and below the line
that defines ``rated load heat run stator winding resistance,'' insert
a new line that 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''. 63 FR 37460-1 (June
25, 1998).
There were no objections to the proposed clarifications of
temperatures to be used for correcting stator and rotor loss. The
Department concludes that the proposed modifications will reduce
confusion and errors in the IEEE Test Method B, and therefore
incorporates the aforementioned modifications into today's final rule.
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).'' In the reopening
notice, the Department states both its concerns about this equation as
well as considerations supporting use of the equation as written. The
Department stated that it intends to adopt IEEE Std 112-1996, subclause
6.4.2.7, Smoothing of the stray-load loss, without change, but is still
considering the option of making the change to add a restriction on the
allowable value of the intercept. Also, the Department invited the
submission of data that would show if any significant differences do
occur between the final determined value of efficiency at 100 percent
rated load, for various values of the stray-load loss intercept in
repeated tests of the same motor. 63 FR 34761-62 (June 25, 1998).
AEC supports the modification to subclause 6.4.2.7 to add a
restriction on the allowable value of the y intercept, and advises the
Department that it finds such a check to be useful in verifying the
validity of test data. (AEC, No. 35 at pg. 2).
ZVEI cites problems with the influence of a systematic measurement
error on determined stray load losses, and rejects modification to the
equation to correct stray load loss on the basis that it would only
offset stochastic measurement errors. (ZVEI, No. 37 pgs. 2-3.).
The Department has been advised that it would be premature to
require the absolute value of B to be less than 10 percent of the total
loss. (NIST/NVLAP, No. 45). During the NIST/NVLAP accreditation process
this limit on the absolute value of B was not a requirement. However,
the data from some demonstration tests made during the on-site
inspections of the laboratories requesting accreditation were all well
within the 10 percent limit discussed in the reopening notice. The
Department believes that future investigation of this subject is
warranted. Presently, however, there is insufficient data available to
support a specific limit for the value of B. Therefore, the Department
will incorporate, into today's final rule, IEEE Std 112-1996, subclause
6.4.2.7, Smoothing of the stray-load loss, without change.
Nevertheless, the Department continues to be interested in receiving
data on this subject for

[[Page 54123]]

future consideration of a restriction on the allowable value of the
intercept.
Page 17, subclause 6.4.1.3, ``No-load test,'' in the 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 indicated
that the requirements for temperature and input stabilization during
the no-load test appear to be undefined and could cause confusion. To
clarify the pertinent subclause for temperature stabilization, the
Department proposed, at section II.A.2.e. of the reopening notice, 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.''
63 FR 34762 (June 25, 1998).
AEC disagrees with the Department's proposal to modify subclause
6.4.1.3 by specifying temperature stabilization per subclause 8.6.3.
AEC asserts that subclause 8.6.3 is a temperature stabilization
definition for determining the end of a rated-load heat-run, is much
too stringent a requirement for the no-load test, and would add
approximately two hours of testing time to each motor test. Also,
according to AEC, the proposed modification would create confusion with
the execution of no-load stabilization, as defined in sections 5.3 and
4.3.1.1 of IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B. AEC suggests that subclause
6.4.1.3 be modified to omit the reference to temperature stabilization,
i.e., remove the words ``both the temperature and the input have,'' and
replace them with ``the input has.'' AEC explains that subclause
6.4.1.3 already references subclause 5.3, Core loss and stabilization,
which defines ``power stabilization.'' AEC asserts that its
modification will retain the ``power stabilization'' component, produce
consistent, repeatable test results, and make subclause 6.4.1.3
consistent with subclauses 5.3 and 4.3.1.1, as well as with the no-load
test as defined in IEEE Std 112-1991 Test Method B.
Further, AEC asserts that there is no need for temperature
stabilization as part of a no-load test, based upon indications that
the reference to ``temperature stabilization at no-load'' in subclause
6.4.1.3 was not one of the IEEE Induction Power Subcommittee's proposed
changes in drafting IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B. (AEC, No. 35 and
Martiny, No. 42). The Department has been advised through NIST/NVLAP
that laboratories testing motors according to IEEE Standard 112-1996
Test Method B typically interpret subclause 6.4.1.3 to require only
that the input watt reading not vary over 3 percent, and to disregard
any requirement for temperature stabilization. (NIST/NVLAP, No. 45).
Since the no-load test is made after the load test and dynamometer
correction test, the motor is usually substantially below rated
temperature and the temperature changes are small with time.
Consequently, the Department withdraws its proposed modification, at
section II.A.2.e. of the reopening notice, to include ``temperature
stabilization'' in subclause 6.4.1.3 of the IEEE Standard 112 Test
Method B. Instead, the Department is persuaded by AEC's comments to
modify the second sentence in 6.4.1.3 and will incorporate the
following into today's final rule: ``Prior to making this test, the
machine shall be operated at no-load until the input has stabilized.''
(AEC, No. 35). The Department believes the modification provided by AEC
will eliminate the confusion with subclause 6.4.1.3, which is
identified at section II.A.2.e. of the reopening notice, and will not
be unduly burdensome on manufacturers.
c. Incorrect Information
Page 40, subclause 8.6.3, Termination of test, the first and third
sentences currently read: ``For continuously rated machines, readings
shall be taken at intervals of \1/2\ h[our] or less. * * * 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.'' As written, however, this language allows
temperature readings to be taken at intervals as brief as five seconds,
for example. If such short intervals are used, there could be little or
no rise in temperature between any two consecutive readings, even if
the motor temperature is actually still rising. Consequently, the
motor's temperature could be misconstrued as being stable. The
Department proposed, at section II.A.3. in the reopening notice, to
change the third sentence in subclause 8.6.3 (the second clause quoted
above) 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.''
NIST/NVLAP concurs with the proposed change to subclause 8.6.3,
because it is consistent with the manner in which accredited
laboratories are interpreting the temperature measurement procedure.
(NIST/NVLAP, No. 45). No comments were received to contradict this
proposed change and for the reasons stated in the reopening notice, the
Department adopts this proposed change in today's final rule.
d. Summary
In sum, the Department is convinced that there is sufficient
evidence to warrant use of IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B, with the
aforementioned corrections, and no substantial evidence to the
contrary. Such corrections would provide an accurate measurement of the
energy efficiency of the motor being tested, and a measurement that is
repeatable from one test to the next of the same motor or comparable
motors. In addition, the Department believes that, with these
corrections, manufacturers would not be burdened by having to resolve
problems related to typographical errors, unclear provisions, and
unnecessary references to other parts of IEEE Standard 112. Therefore,
the Department incorporates, into today's final rule for motors, the
test procedures in IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B, the correction to
the calculation at item (28) in section 10.2 Form B-Test Method B
issued by IEEE on January 20, 1998, and the aforementioned corrections
and modifications.

C. Determination of a Motor's Efficiency: Use of Accredited
Laboratories and Certification Programs, Selection of Basic Models for
Testing, Alternative Means To Measure Efficiency, and Sampling Plans
for Testing

1. Summary of DOE's Proposals
Section 343(a)(2) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2), requires that the
test procedures prescribed for electric motors by DOE be ``reasonably
designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency,'' yet
not be ``unduly burdensome'' to conduct. As per the proposed rule at 10
CFR 431.24, Units to be tested, a manufacturer would initially
determine the efficiency of at least five basic models by testing, and
of its remaining models either by testing or by use of an Alternative
Efficiency Determination Method (AEDM). 61 FR 60466-67 (November 27,
1996). (Such testing to initially determine efficiency is referred to
as ``compliance testing.'') Section 431.24 provides (1) criteria for
deciding which basic models should undergo compliance testing, (2) a
sampling plan for determining, for each such basic model, how many and
which units must be tested, (3) criteria for the acceptability of an
AEDM, including a requirement that the AEDM be substantiated by
applying it to five basic models that have been tested for efficiency,
and (4) requirements for

[[Page 54124]]

subsequent verification of an AEDM. Under section 431.25 of the
proposed rule, the efficiency of a basic model must be either certified
by a third-party certification organization, or based on testing
(compliance testing and, where an AEDM is used, testing to substantiate
the AEDM) that has been conducted in an accredited laboratory.
As per the proposed 10 CFR 431.127, Enforcement, the Department
would ascertain in an enforcement proceeding, which could include
testing (``enforcement testing''), whether a motor complies with the
applicable energy efficiency standard and with the labeled value of
efficiency. 61 FR 60472, 60474-75 (November 27, 1996). Proposed section
431.27 includes a sampling procedure for enforcement testing.
In the reopening notice, the Department proposed for consideration
that the final rule prescribe neither criteria for selecting the basic
models for compliance testing, nor a sampling plan for such testing,
when a motor's efficiency is certified by a certification program. The
Department also stated that it was considering adoption of revised
sampling plans for compliance and enforcement testing, and of
provisions for withdrawal of DOE recognition from an accreditation
organization or certification program that deviates from the standards
for recognition.
Many provisions of the proposed rule were the subject of little or
no comment or dispute, including (1) the requirement that a
manufacturer determine through testing the efficiency of five or more
basic models (proposed section 431.24(a)), (2) allowing the use of
AEDMs for other basic models (proposed section 431.24(a)), (3) the
criteria for an AEDM (proposed section 431.24(a)(2)), (4) the basic
approach in Section 431.24(a)(3) for establishing the accuracy and
reliability of an AEDM, and (5) the provisions for subsequent
verification of an AEDM (proposed section 431.24(b)(4)). The following
addresses matters on which significant comments were received.
2. Issues Involving Both Use of Accredited Laboratories and Use of
Certification Organizations
EPCA directs the Department to ``require manufacturers to certify
through an independent testing or certification program nationally
recognized in the United States, that [any electric motor subject to
EPCA efficiency standards] meets the applicable standard.'' EPCA
section 345(c), 42 U.S.C. 6316(c). Consistent with the approach in
DOE's program concerning the energy efficiency of residential
appliances, section 431.123 of the proposed rule provides that a
manufacturer must certify to DOE the compliance and the efficiency
levels of the electric motors it manufactures. 61 FR 60471 (November
27, 1996). The proposed rule meets the statutory mandate that
certification be ``through'' an independent testing or certification
program by requiring a manufacturer to base its certification on use of
such a program, i.e., a manufacturer must use an independent testing
program or a certification program to establish a motor's efficiency
level and compliance, which it then certifies to DOE. See 61 FR 60458
(November 27, 1996).
To satisfy the intent of the ``independent testing'' provision of
Section 345(c) of EPCA, and given the relative paucity of independent
testing laboratories, the Department proposed that a manufacturer be
permitted to establish compliance based on testing carried out in a
laboratory accredited by a nationally recognized program such as the
National Institute of Standards and Technology/National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program (NIST/NVLAP). The laboratory could be
the manufacturer's own laboratory. As required under section 345(c),
the Department also permits a manufacturer to certify compliance based
on its participation in a certification program. 61 FR 60455-56, 60458,
60467 (November 27, 1996).
The majority of comments were supportive of these proposals. For
example, the Association of Independent Scientific, Engineering and
Testing Firms (``ACIL'', formerly the American Council of Independent
Laboratories) supports the adoption of the proposed rule regarding test
procedures and certification for energy efficiency of electric motors,
and in particular, the Department's proposal to allow electric motor
manufacturers three approaches for establishing compliance: testing in
the manufacturer's accredited laboratory; testing in an accredited
independent testing laboratory; or use of a third-party certification
program (ACIL, No. 7 and Public Hearing Tr. Pgs. 123-124 7).
However, some commenters expressed concern about these options for
compliance certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ ``Public Hearing, Tr. Pgs. 123-124,'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zentralverband Elektrotechnik- und Elektronikindustrie e.V. (ZVEI)
asserts that the manufacturer's declaration should be the preferred
method compared with third-party certification, and should also be
accepted without requiring testing in an accredited laboratory. (ZVEI,
No. 37, pg. 2-3). As to third party certification, on the one hand the
proposed rule requires the manufacturer to certify compliance to DOE, a
requirement that is retained in today's final rule. Thus, ZVEI appears
to have the erroneous view that DOE treats third party certification as
an alternative to a declaration by the manufacturer. As indicated
above, the third party certification contemplated under today's rule is
a basis for the manufacturer's declaration. On the other hand, section
345(c) of EPCA clearly directs the Department to require manufacturers
to certify compliance through either a testing program or a
certification program. A preference for one over the other might be
barred by the statute, and, in any event, DOE believes such a
preference is unwarranted at this time given the potential benefits
from using a certification program. See 61 FR 60457 (November 27,
1996). Concerning accreditation, as noted above use of an accredited
laboratory serves to satisfy the EPCA provision calling for
``independent'' testing, and a manufacturer's declaration in and of
itself would not in DOE's view satisfy the intent of this provision. To
the extent ZVEI is concerned that foreign manufacturers would be
unfairly burdened by having to test in laboratories accredited in the
United States, DOE notes that today's final rule permits testing at a
laboratory accredited by an accreditation body having a mutual
recognition arrangement with NIST/NVLAP.
Sterling Electric, Inc. supports the need for more than one choice
when selecting an accrediting body or certification organization to
fulfill the requirement for compliance with EPCA efficiency standards.
(Sterling, No. 13). The ACIL is concerned that the NOPR refers to only
two private organizations that could certify electric motors to the
Department's efficiency standards, and asks that the final proposal not
refer to any one certification body or accreditation body. (ACIL, No.
7.). These organizations were identified by a manufacturer, 61 FR 60457
(November 27, 1996), which added that it is not necessary to limit
independent certification--that is, certification of energy-efficient
electric motors by a nationally recognized program--to two particular
certification organizations.
The apparent concern that the Department might limit a manufacturer
to only certain choices when selecting an agency to accredit its
testing

[[Page 54125]]

laboratory or to certify the efficiency of its motors is unfounded.
Sections 431.26, Department of Energy recognition of accreditation
bodies, and 431.27, Department of Energy recognition of nationally
recognized certification programs, of the proposed rule essentially
provide that any accreditation body or certification organization can
request classification by the Department as being nationally recognized
in the United States for the purposes of section 345 of EPCA. Section
431.25(a) of the proposed rule permits a certificate of conformity for
a basic model of an electric motor to be obtained from any
certification program classified by DOE as nationally recognized under
section 431.27, and permits testing in any laboratory accredited by
NIST/NVLAP, by a foreign organization recognized by NIST/NVLAP, or by
an organization classified by the Department, pursuant to section
431.26, as an accreditation body. Thus, a manufacturer would be able to
establish compliance with EPCA standards through its own choice of any
testing laboratory or certification program that meets these standards.
In this regard, the Department will make no change to today's final
rule.
Comments from Reliance Electric Company encourage the Department to
include a separate and clearly identified paragraph in the final rule
which states the ``methods'' that can be used for determining
compliance with EPCA. Reliance suggests the following: (i) actual
testing of a basic model of electric motor, (ii) use of an alternative
efficiency determination method (AEDM), and (iii) use of a third party
certification agency (Reliance, No. 11 at pgs. 6 and 7). Reliance, in
recommending ``methods,'' including actual testing, use of an AEDM, and
a third party certification agency, also asserts that accreditation
``in and of itself, is not an actual means for determining
compliance.'' (Reliance, No. 11, p. 7).
The Department believes Reliance is addressing two related issues:
(1) accreditation should not be considered an optional ``method'; and
(2) the Department should explicitly recognize certification programs
as an option. As to Reliance's proposed methods, the Department
questions whether a certification program is a method for determining
compliance, comparable to testing and use of an AEDM, because a
certification program often determines the efficiency of an electric
motor using one or both of these approaches, as well as other methods.
However, the Department agrees that accreditation is not a method for
determining whether electric motors are in compliance. Rather it is a
means for assuring that a laboratory can perform the test procedures,
and that a manufacturer's efficiency representations, to the extent
they are based on the laboratory's test measurements, are accurate and
reliable. In this regard, use of an accredited laboratory serves a
function very similar to use of a certification organization. In
section 431.25(a) of the proposed rule, the Department's objective is
to provide options for determining compliance to manufacturers faced
with a small number of existing third party laboratories. These options
will continue to be offered to manufacturers in today's final rule.
The Department agrees with Reliance that the use of a certification
program as a means for determining compliance could be more explicitly
stated. The Department is therefore re-organizing and revising Section
431.24 of today's final rule, and adopting additional language in
Section 431.123(a), to make clear that a manufacturer can use such a
program to establish the efficiency of its motors and as a basis for
certifying to DOE that the motors comply with EPCA requirements.
NIST asserts that the proposed rule would create two different
compliance procedures, accreditation and certification, with unequal
criteria for determining compliance with energy efficiency
requirements. (NIST, No.10 at section 2.). Statistical sampling
procedures and test data, NIST contends, should be uniform and based on
proficiency testing under a round-robin type program, to assure a
common basis for determining whether a motor is in compliance.
According to NIST, test facility competence would be based on the
requirement of laboratory accreditation by NVLAP to assure confidence
in test data, and the validity, reliability, reproducibility, and
accuracy of test measurements. The Department understands that NIST
advocates that all efficiency testing of motors under EPCA be performed
in laboratories accredited by NVLAP, including testing that is under
the auspices of a certification program.
The Department notes that accreditation is being required under
today's rule to satisfy the intent of the ``independent testing''
provision of section 345(e) of EPCA, and that section 345(e) allows use
of an ``independent certification program'' as an alternative means of
establishing compliance. In addition, the Department understands that a
certification program is a continuous assessment to assure that new
products and subsequent production conform to specified requirements.
Under a certification program, such as the ones conducted by
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) or CSA International (CSA), a motor
manufacturer's production and testing operations would be evaluated and
representative samples of electric motors would be tested to applicable
standards. Following an initial verification, follow-up audits of
motors and on-going testing by the manufacturer would be required. Such
programs are in compliance with Federal law in Canada, and are
accredited by the Standards Council of Canada, with whom NVLAP holds an
agreement of mutual recognition.
The issue is one of confidence, that is, confidence that a
manufacturer's production units are being produced in conformance with
EPCA requirements. The Department believes that use of an independent
certification program without testing in an accredited facility will
provide adequate assurance of compliance with EPCA's energy efficiency
requirements. Consequently, the Department is adopting the options for
determining compliance that were set forth in the proposed rule.
As mentioned above, Section 345(c) of EPCA requires that compliance
be certified through a testing or certification program that is
``nationally recognized.'' The proposed rule, at sections 431.26 and
431.27, provides criteria and general procedures for DOE recognition of
accreditation bodies and certification programs, to meet this
requirement. These sections have been incorporated into the final rule
virtually unchanged. In addition, section 431.28 of the final rule also
adds specific procedures, including an opportunity for public
participation, that the Department will follow in considering petitions
for recognition under sections 431.26 and 431.27.
Neither of these sections, however, 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.8 Therefore, in the reopening notice, 63 FR
34766 (June 25,

[[Page 54126]]

1998), the Department proposed to add provisions to (1) notify an
accreditation body or a certification organization of failure to comply
with the conditions of section 431.26 or 431.27, respectively, (2)
request appropriate corrective action, (3) provide an opportunity to
respond, and (4) withdraw recognition. Also, the Department proposed to
permit an accreditation body or certification organization to withdraw
itself from recognition by the Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ One of the conditions stated in the proposed rule is that
the organization must have ``standards and procedures'' for carrying
out accreditation or a certification program. 61 FR 60467, 60468
(November 27, 1996). The proposed rule contemplates, at sections
431.26(d) and 431.27(d) for example, that this condition would be
met only if the Department found acceptable the organization's
standards and procedures for carrying out its program. The final
rule reinforces and clarifies this point by adding the word
``satisfactory'' before ``standards and procedures'' in sections
431.26(b)(1) and 431.27(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEMA and ACEEE support the Department's procedure for notification
and corrective action. Further, NEMA and ACEEE recommend that the rule
also require DOE to notify manufacturers that use an accreditation body
or certification program that recognition will be withdrawn, and to
allow time for the manufacturer to change its procedures for
determining compliance. (NEMA/ACEEE, No. 38 at pages 6 and 7.) In
section 431.28 of today's final rule, the Department includes
provisions for withdrawing recognition from an accreditation body or
certification organization, and for publishing in the Federal Register
notice of such action. However, because the Department would often be
unaware of which manufacturers are using a particular accreditation
body or certification organization, the final rule contains no
provision for the Department to directly notify them of its action.
The final rule also does not incorporate language to specifically
``allow time'' for a manufacturer to change its compliance procedures
when recognition has been withdrawn from an accreditation body or
certification organization it is using. To the extent NEMA and ACEEE
are suggesting that, during a period after such withdrawal of
recognition, the rule should permit a manufacturer temporarily to
distribute an electric motor without certifying its compliance with the
applicable standard, or to certify the motor without using an
accredited laboratory or a recognized certification program, DOE
believes a sufficient showing has not been made to justify such an
approach. In addition, the proposed and final rules do not per se
require a manufacturer to continuously maintain an accredited
laboratory. And although they contemplate continuous participation in a
certification program when such a program is used, no provision
precludes a temporary lapse in such participation caused by a
withdrawal of recognition. Hence, the Department believes that the
final rule will allow a manufacturer a reasonable amount of time to
replace an accrediting body or certification program that has lost its
recognition. Finally, the Department's energy conservation program has
not had experience with this type recognition requirement, and the
Department is uncertain as to the effects of possible withdrawals of
recognition. For these reasons, the Department will address
consequences to manufacturers of withdrawals of recognition on a case
by case basis, as necessary, rather than by including specific language
on this issue in today's final rule. DOE will consider amending the
rule to include such language only if experience indicates a need to do
so.
3. Issues Concerning Use of Certification Organizations
As discussed above, proposed section 431.24 prescribes for
compliance testing (including testing to substantiate an AEDM) criteria
for selecting basic models for testing, and a sampling plan for picking
the particular units to be tested. These requirements apply both when a
manufacturer establishes a motor's efficiency without using a
certification program (i.e., required testing is performed in an
accredited laboratory), and when a manufacturer uses a certification
program. 61 FR 60466-67 (November 27, 1996).
In their comments on the NOPR, both NEMA and Reliance Electric
asserted that DOE should not impose its sampling plan for compliance
testing when a manufacturer uses a certification program to establish
compliance. They stated that such a program's own testing and sampling
procedures will give adequate assurance of the accuracy of any reported
efficiency level, and NEMA recommended that the Department review and
approve a certification program's testing procedures before according
the program ``nationally recognized'' status for purposes of EPCA.
(Reliance, No. 11 at pg. 7; NEMA, No. 18 at pgs. 8-9). Recognizing that
these contentions had merit, in the reopening notice the Department
proposed that, when a manufacturer establishes a motor's efficiency
under EPCA through a certification program, the final rule would not
require use of the rule's criteria for identifying basic models for
compliance testing, or its sampling provisions for selecting units for
such testing. 63 FR 34765 (June 25, 1998). In addition, DOE proposed
that review and approval of a certification program's criteria for
selecting basic models for testing, and its sampling plan, would be
included in the Department's evaluation of whether to grant a program
``nationally recognized'' status for purposes of EPCA. The NEMA
comments support these DOE proposals (NEMA, No. 38 at C., pages 4 and
5), and they are incorporated into today's rule.
NEMA also asserts that ``DOE should accept existing certifications
that are in good standing'' when the final rule is published. (NEMA,
No. 38 at C., page 5.). Initially, the Department notes that a third
party certification would not normally be provided to it. Rather, under
section 431.123 of today's final rule, each manufacturer must submit
its own Compliance Certification(s) to DOE, although such Certification
may be based on an efficiency certification provided by a certification
program. Consistent with NEMA's suggestion, however, under both the
proposed and final versions of section 431.123, the Compliance
Certification may contain motor efficiency information developed before
the effective date of the rule. Thus, a Compliance Certification could
be based on a third-party efficiency certification that (1) was issued
by a DOE-recognized certification program prior to the effective date
of the rule, (2) was based on use of the criteria and procedures
incorporated into the rule, and (3) remains in effect at the time of
the Compliance Certification. This assumes, of course, that information
in the third-party certification supports the representations in the
Compliance Certification. Moreover, the certification organization used
by the manufacturer must receive recognition from DOE under section
431.27 after the effective date of the rule, even though it met the
criteria for such recognition before the effective date of the rule. In
sum, the Department does not intend to conclude that a Compliance
Certification violates 431.123 solely because the applicable
determinations underlying the Certification, such as those described in
section 431.123(b)(1)(ii), were made before the effective date of the
rule.
Proposed section 431.25(a), Testing laboratories, provides in
essence that all testing of a basic model to meet the requirements of
section 431.24, Units to be tested, shall be carried out in an
accredited laboratory, unless a certificate of conformity for that
basic model is obtained from a certification program classified by DOE
as nationally recognized. 61 FR 60467, 60468-69 (November 27, 1996).
This applies, for example, to testing required by proposed section
431.24(b)(3) to substantiate an AEDM. Under these provisions,
therefore, when a manufacturer uses a certification program to
establish the efficiency of a basic model, testing of the basic model,
including testing used to substantiate an AEDM, would not need to be
performed in an accredited laboratory. Reliance

[[Page 54127]]

Electric asserts that the proposed rule is unclear on this point.
(Reliance, No.11 at pgs 5 and 6; see ACEEE/NEMA, No. 38 at pg. 5). The
Department has revised proposed sections 431.24 and 431.25 in the final
rule to further clarify that testing of a basic model to substantiate
an AEDM need not be in an accredited laboratory when a certification
program certifies the basic model's efficiency.
Reliance Electric also agrees with the proposal that five basic
models be tested as part of the initial substantiation of an AEDM, but
that the methods for initial substantiation of an AEDM under section
431.24(b)(3) should otherwise be the same as the methods permitted
under section 431.24(b)(4)(i)(A)-(C) for subsequent verification of an
AEDM. (Reliance, No.11 at pgs. 5 and 6). Two of the methods permitted
for such subsequent verification are testing in an accredited
laboratory and use of a certification organization. As indicated above
and as the final rule makes clear, both can be used to initially
substantiate an AEDM. The third method for subsequent verification of
an AEDM, however, is the use of a professional engineer, and the
Department does not agree it is appropriate for initial substantiation
of an AEDM.
First, the Department believes that initial substantiation of an
AEDM should be inherently stringent because an AEDM could underlie
compliance determinations for many motors. The Department believes that
such stringency will exist when the initial substantiation of an AEDM
is based on testing in an accredited laboratory that meets the
requirements of section 431.25, or on use of a certification program
classified by DOE as nationally recognized under section 431.27.
However, having a professional engineer review the results of the
manufacturer's testing, and initially certify the accuracy of the AEDM,
would not be as inherently rigorous, or provide the same likelihood of
uniform results. Both the proposed and final rules allow the use of a
professional engineer for verification of an AEDM because that would be
only a check on the initial determination of the AEDM's validity, and
would be applied to a limited number of basic models. In addition, the
provisions in DOE's rule for initial substantiation of an AEDM
implement the statutory requirement for a manufacturer to certify,
through an independent testing or certification program nationally
recognized in the United States, that an electric motor meets the
applicable efficiency standard. It appears to the Department that use
of a professional engineer for initial substantiation of an AEDM would
fail to meet this statutory requirement. A professional engineer
neither carries national recognition nor is the equivalent of a
certification program, and proposed section 431.24(b)(4)(i)(C) does not
require the professional engineer to perform testing.
Finally, the Department proposed in the reopening notice to require
that, when a motor's efficiency rating is derived from use of an AEDM,
the AEDM could not be subsequently verified by the certification
organization that had initially certified the motor's efficiency
rating. 63 FR 34765 (June 25, 1998). NEMA and ACEEE jointly assert that
DOE should permit the use of the same certification organization for
both substantiation and verification of an AEDM. To require one
certification organization to be used for substantiation and a
different one for verification of an AEDM would cause manufacturers to
participate in multiple certification programs to accomplish the same
thing. (NEMA/ACEEE, No. 38 at page 5). The Department understands, from
the NEMA/ACEEE comments, that the proposal contemplated in the
reopening notice would be burdensome for manufacturers. Therefore, the
Department will not adopt this proposal in the final rule.
4. Compliance Testing When a Manufacturer Does Not Use a Certification
Program (Independence and Performance of an Accredited Laboratory,
Selection of Basic Models for Testing, Sampling Plan) and Enforcement
Testing Sampling Plan
a. Accredited Laboratories
As discussed above, the Department proposed that a manufacturer
could meet the statutory provision for certification through an
``independent testing program'' by using a laboratory, operated by
either a third party or the manufacturer, that has been accredited to
perform the DOE test procedures. Commenting on the meaning of
``independence,'' ACIL opines that the proposed rule implies that once
a laboratory is accredited, its independence is assured. ACIL asserts
that while accreditation assures a laboratory's technical competence,
and that testing will be conducted free from certain marketing
pressures, it does not mean that the laboratory is autonomous. (ACIL,
No. 7., and Public Hearing, Tr. pgs. 124-131.).
Independence is a criterion, used for example under NVLAP
accreditation procedures, to verify that a laboratory is able to
``maintain an independent decisional relationship between itself and
its clients, affiliates, or other organizations so that the
laboratory's capacity to render calibration or test reports objectively
and without bias is not adversely affected.'' 9 The
Department believes this means that an accredited laboratory will be
independent in the sense that it will perform tests without influence
``by marketing and production concerns,'' and ``with assurance that
test results are accurate, valid, and capable of being replicated.'' 61
FR 60455 (November 27, 1996). The Department agrees with ACIL that
accreditation assures technical competency, and does not confer on a
laboratory independence in the sense of autonomy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ NIST Handbook 150, National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program Procedures and General Requirements March
1994, section 285.32(a)(10), pg. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WSU/WSD expressed concern about a manufacturer's own (accredited)
laboratory sufficing as an ``independent'' laboratory. WSU/WSD posited
that if subsequent testing by outside laboratories finds efficiencies
being overstated, then the manufacturer's laboratory should be subject
to disaccreditation. (WSU/WSD, No. 5, p.6).
Section 431.26 of the proposed rule provides criteria and
procedures by which the Department of Energy would recognize an
accreditation body. To meet the conditions of proposed section 431.26,
the accreditation body would have to assume the responsibility (1) to
periodically audit and review a testing laboratory to verify continued
compliance with the conditions of its accreditation, and (2) to make
provision for withdrawal of accreditation where a testing laboratory
fails to comply with the conditions of its accreditation, including
failure to provide accurate test results. Similarly, section 285.24,
``Denying, suspending, and revoking accreditation,'' implicitly makes
such provision in the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150, ``Procedures and General
Requirements.'' Furthermore, under section 285.22(b)(7) of ``Assessing
and evaluating a laboratory'' in NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10,
``Efficiency of Electric Motors,'' where problems are indicated by
proficiency testing and the test laboratory fails to resolve the
problems in a timely manner, NIST/NVLAP may revoke or suspend its
accreditation of that laboratory. In the final rule, the Department has
added language to section 431.26 to explicitly provide that, to be
recognized by DOE, an accreditation body must periodically audit
laboratories it accredits, and withdraw accreditation from those that
do not adhere to the conditions of their

[[Page 54128]]

accreditation. Moreover, where a manufacturer has certified its
electric motors to be in compliance with EPCA energy efficiency
standards based on testing in an accredited laboratory, including its
own laboratory, and subsequently its motors are determined not in
compliance under section 431.127, ``Enforcement,'' that manufacturer
would be required, for example, to immediately cease distribution in
commerce of that basic model motor, under section 431.128 of the rule.
b. Selection of Basic Models for Testing
Proposed section 431.24(b)(1)(i)-(ii) provides criteria that a
manufacturer must use to decide which basic models to test. Subsection
431.24(b)(1)(i)(A) states that two of the basic models selected for
testing must be among the five basic models with the highest unit
volumes of production by the manufacturer in the prior year. Washington
State opines that the unit volume should be horsepower weighted,
otherwise there would be a bias toward the more numerous small motors.
Also, Washington State asserts that the Department of Energy should
retain the right of selecting basic models, whether to verify
compliance through actual testing or application of an alternative
efficiency determination method. (WSU/WSD, No. 5 at pg. 6, items II.P.
and Q.).
The Department expects that the basic models with the highest unit
volumes of production would be those in the lower horsepower ratings.
If the Department were to require all basic models selected for testing
to be from those with the highest unit volumes of production, then
Washington State's concern might be significant. However, only two of
the basic models selected must be from those with the highest unit
volumes of production. Other criteria for selection are that the basic
models be of different horsepowers and different frame series. Thus,
for example, under today's final rule, the two basic models with the
highest volume of production must, if possible, span two different
frame series. (See discussion below on use of frame series rather than
frame size.) Therefore, the Department declines to adopt the WSU/WSD
suggestion to weight by horsepower the basic models for testing under
section 431.24(b)(1)(i)(A) of today's final rule. Furthermore, because
it would not be feasible for the Department to select models for
compliance testing, it does not intend to retain the right to make such
selection as suggested by WSU/WSD. Nevertheless, under the final rule
the Department of Energy can select models for testing to verify an
AEDM under section 431.24(b)(5)(iii), and can direct enforcement
testing of any basic model if warranted under section 431.127 of
today's final rule.
Also, Reliance Electric opines that the requirement in proposed
section 431.24(b)(1)(i)(A), that basic models selected based on
production during the ``prior year,'' might be inappropriate for the
initial years in which 10 CFR Part 431 for electric motors becomes
effective. For example, according to Reliance Electric, selection by a
manufacturer in 1998 of the basic models produced in the highest unit
volumes by that manufacturer in 1997 might include basic models which
have efficiencies below EPCA levels. Consequently, the basis of
substantiation of the AEDM would be dependent on basic models with
efficiency levels that can no longer be manufactured for sale in the
United States. (Reliance, No. 11 at pg. 1).
Had this rule gone into effect prior to the latter part of 1998,
Reliance's point would have been well taken. EPCA's efficiency
standards, however, became applicable to electric motors on October 24,
1997, and by the time this rule becomes effective the standards will
have been in effect for most motors for at least a year. Moreover,
because today's rule does not require manufacturers to certify
compliance until 24 months after its effective date, the Department
presumes that most testing covered by this part of the rule (i.e.,
testing in accredited laboratories) will occur during calendar year
1999 or later. Therefore, it is unlikely that models selected for
testing under this criterion would have efficiency levels below EPCA
levels. Nevertheless, some manufacturers might have begun testing prior
to the end of 1998, and the Department in its Policy Statement
acknowledges the possibility that some motors could continue to be
manufactured in non-compliance with EPCA standards after October 1998.
Therefore, today's rule allows manufacturers that began testing in 1998
to select units for testing under this criterion based on 12 months of
production that begins on November 1 or December 1 of 1997, and
provides that no motor manufactured in noncompliance with EPCA
standards, pursuant to the Policy Statement or otherwise, shall be
considered under this criterion.
The Department has also reviewed section 431.24(b)(1)(i)(C) and has
determined that motors selected for testing should be from different
frame number series, rather than frame sizes, when possible. (Frame
series designations are set forth in NEMA MG1 Table 11-1, Medium
Machine Frame Numbering.) Motors such as a 143T and 145T, for example,
are different frame sizes but are in the same frame series and are
quite similar in size, whereas 143T and 182T, for example, are in
different frame number series and are very different in size. Under the
proposed rule, a manufacturer could test motors that are all similar in
size, by selecting motors in one or possibly two frame series. This
would defeat the Department's goal of having a manufacturer establish
compliance by testing a range of motor sizes. Also, because there are
only nine frame number series covered by EPCA, requiring tested basic
models to be from different number series, when possible, could cover
over half of the sizes of motors made by any manufacturer. The
Department understands that this would include a greater percentage of
the product line for manufacturers not producing motors over the full
range of ratings covered by EPCA. The Department also believes that
selecting basic models based on different frame number series would
show an AEDM to be accurate over a wider range of motors to which it is
applied, thereby covering a greater expanse of basic models produced
and without adding burden to the manufacturer. Therefore, the
Department modifies proposed section 431.24(b)(1)(i)(C) to read ``frame
number series'' in today's final rule.
c. Sampling Plans for Compliance and Enforcement Testing
Sampling plans for compliance and enforcement testing are at
proposed sections 431.24 and 431.27(c), respectively. They are intended
to provide statistically meaningful sampling procedures for conducting
tests, so as to reduce the testing burden while giving sufficient
assurance (1) in the case of the compliance plan, 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 the basic model's labeled efficiency
level, and (2) in the case of the enforcement plan, that an electric
motor found to be in noncompliance will actually be in noncompliance.
The November 27, 1996 Federal Register notice (61 FR 60440), at section
XIII.C.3. and 8., Issues for Public Comment, requested comments on
these proposed sampling plans.
In response, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA) and motor manufacturers raised issues concerning the proposed
sampling plans, and NEMA submitted to the

[[Page 54129]]

Department alternative approaches, one for compliance testing and
another for enforcement testing. 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)
compared the DOE's proposed rule and the NEMA proposals through model
calculations of their operating characteristics, i.e., the estimated
probability of demonstrating compliance for a given true average of
efficiency.
In the reopening notice, the Department stated that, although it
continued to consider adoption of the NOPR's sampling plans, it was
also considering adopting instead NEMA's proposed sampling plans, or
variations of those sampling plans. 63 FR 34762-64 (June 25, 1998).
Comments and data were requested concerning the accuracy and
workability of NEMA's proposals.
(1) Sampling Plan for Compliance Testing
Section II.B.2. of the reopening notice, 63 FR 34764 (June 25,
1998), requests comments on whether DOE should adopt the NEMA proposal
for compliance testing, or alternatively, adopt the NEMA proposal but
substitute a coefficient of 1.03 or 1.01 for the 1.05 coefficient in
the NEMA formula. Also, the reopening notice states that DOE could
adopt the NEMA proposal, with or without change in the 1.05
coefficient, but with a requirement that the number of units to be
tested be fixed, at five motors for example.
The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and
NEMA jointly advocate adoption of the ``NEMA proposal,'' 10
as it is referred to in the reopening notice, 63 FR 34763 (June 25,
1998), for compliance testing as well as enforcement testing. As to the
sampling plan for compliance at proposed section 431.24(b)(1)(iii), 61
FR 60467 (November 27, 1996), ACEEE and NEMA contend that, given the
actual variations in the performance of electric motors and the
accuracy of any test procedure to measure efficiency, ``requiring the
average efficiency of any sample to be not less than the represented
efficiency places an unreasonable burden on manufacturers and would
require that all electric motors be designed to substantially exceed
the represented value [of efficiency] to assure that any sample would
pass the compliance test.'' The same concerns would be raised, they
contend, by reducing the 1.05 coefficient in the NEMA proposal for
compliance, to a number such as 1.03 or 1.01. (ACEEE/NEMA, No. 38 at
pg.3). Also, ACEEE and NEMA recommend that the Department not specify a
fixed sample size, but rather specify a minimum sample size of five
units for the compliance sampling plan. Further, a sample size of fewer
than five units should be permitted when the basic model is of a rare
design for which fewer than five units would be produced over a
reasonable period of time. ACEEE and NEMA assert that the absolute pass
or fail nature of their joint sampling plan proposal would also not
cause undue burden on motor manufacturers. (ACEEE/NEMA, No. 38 at pgs.
3 and 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ ``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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sterling Electric, Inc., asserts that it is a small manufacturer
with ``limited resources,'' and advocates a ``simple statistical
procedure'' to verify that its motors comply with EPCA efficiency
standards. (Sterling, No. 13).
Based on the NIST analysis, and on further review of the sampling
criteria for compliance testing in the proposed rule and in the NEMA
proposal, the Department believes that the NEMA proposal and the
comments by ACEEE, NEMA and Sterling Electric have substantial merit.
To begin with, the Department has determined that the NEMA proposal for
compliance testing provides statistically meaningful sampling
procedures for conducting tests for electric motors, so as to reduce
the testing burden while giving sufficient assurance that the true mean
energy efficiency of a basic model (i.e., the average efficiency of all
units manufactured) meets the motor's represented energy efficiency
level.
Furthermore, the NEMA proposal is closely aligned with existing
industry approaches for rating and labeling the efficiency of electric
motors. Under NEMA Standard MG1, a manufacturer determines the nominal
efficiency of each design of electric motor, and each individual motor
of such design must be labeled with that value and have a corresponding
minimum efficiency. Manufacturers design a motor to perform at or above
its labeled nominal efficiency and, generally, the nominal efficiency
will closely reflect the actual average efficiency of motors of that
design. Consistent with this approach, under the NEMA proposal there is
a high probability that, if the entire population of a basic model of
motor averages a given efficiency, tests of a sample of such motors
will indicate that the basic model performs at that level. Under DOE's
proposed compliance sampling plan, however, such a high probability
would not exist. The NEMA compliance sampling proposal also provides
that a basic model cannot be determined to meet a given nominal
efficiency level if the measured efficiency of any of the test
specimens is below a level analogous to the minimum efficiency
specified for a motor in MG1. Thus, the NEMA proposal has the advantage
of incorporating methods that manufacturers are familiar and
comfortable with.
In addition, the efficiency requirements mandated by EPCA for
electric motors consist largely of industry standards contained in NEMA
MG1. Section 343(a)(5)(A) of EPCA prescribes the test procedure
contained in MG1, the mandatory efficiency standards in section
342(b)(1) are taken from MG1, and the definitions of ``electric motor''
and ``nominal full load efficiency,'' in sections 340(13)(A) and (H),
respectively, must be construed with reference to MG1. Thus, the
Congress apparently intended that efficiency requirements for motors
would adhere to industry standards where possible, see also EPCA
section 343(a)(5)(B), providing further support for DOE's adoption of
the NEMA sampling proposal for compliance testing.
The Department is also persuaded by the contention of NEMA and
ACEEE that the compliance sampling provisions in the proposed rule
could unreasonably burden motor manufacturers. These provisions could
in effect require that electric motors be designed to exceed
represented efficiency values, and values prescribed by section
342(b)(1) of EPCA, which DOE believes would be unwarranted. To begin
with, the amount of such required ``overdesign'' could be substantial.
For example, NIST states in its analysis that, if two units of a basic
model are tested, for the model to have a 90 percent probability of
being found in compliance with a given nominal efficiency, the average
efficiency of the entire population would have to be above the next
higher nominal value. Testing large numbers of units would be one way,
under the DOE proposal, to increase the likelihood that the sample
tests would indicate a given efficiency level, and to reduce the need
for ``overdesign.'' This would not be an option, however, for the many
basic models of electric motor that are produced in small quantities.
Finally, DOE's understanding is that, given the nature of the
``electric motors'' covered by E

[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%3A99-21119. Public record. Not legal advice.