[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 27, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60440-60475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-29048]
[[Page 60439]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VII
Department of Energy
_______________________________________________________________________
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
_______________________________________________________________________
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Test Procedures, Labeling and Certification Requirements for
Electric Motors; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 60440]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EE-RM-96-400]
Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Test Procedures, Labeling, and Certification Requirements
for Electric Motors
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Proposed Rule and Public Hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, (the Act
or EPCA) establishes energy efficiency standards and test procedures
for commercial and industrial electric motors. EPCA also directs the
Department of Energy (DOE or Department) to establish efficiency
labeling requirements and compliance certification requirements for
motors. Today, DOE proposes regulations to implement these
requirements.
DATES: The Department will accept written statements, comments, data,
and information regarding this notice no later than February 17, 1997.
Oral views, data, and arguments may be presented at the public
hearing to be held in Washington, D.C., on January 15-16, 1997.
Requests to speak at the hearing must be received by the Department no
later than 4 p.m., January 6, 1997. Ten (10) copies of statements to be
given at the public hearing must be received by the Department no later
than 4 p.m., January 6, 1997. (See Section XIII-B below for further
details.)
ADDRESSES: Written comments, written statements, and requests to speak
at the public hearing, should be labeled ``Electric Motor Rulemaking''
(Docket No. EE-RM-96-400), and submitted to: U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Codes and Standards, EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,
Room 1J-018, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7574.
The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. on January 15, 1997, and will
be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-
245, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC.
Requests to speak may be hand delivered between the hours of 8 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Such
requests should be labeled ``Electric Motor Rulemaking,'' Docket No.
EE-RM-96-400, both on the document and on the envelope.
Copies of the transcript of the public hearing and public comments
received may be read at the Freedom of Information Reading Room, U.S.
Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-190, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0101, telephone (202)
586-6020, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Department proposes to incorporate by reference, test
procedures from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers/
American National Standards Institute (IEEE/ANSI), the National
Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), and the Canadian Standards
Association (CSA). These test procedures are set forth in the standards
publications listed below:
1. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Standards
Publication MG1-1993 with Revision 1, ``Motors and Generators,''
paragraph MG1-12.58.1, ``Determination of Motor Efficiency and
Losses.''
2. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ``Standard
Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators,'' IEEE
112-1991 (ANSI/IEEE 112-1992).
3. Canadian Standards Association ``Energy Efficiency Test Methods
for Three-Phase Induction Motors,'' C390-93.
Copies of these standards publications may be viewed at the
Department of Energy Freedom of Information Reading Room at the address
stated above. Copies of the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association standards may also be obtained from the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association, 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1847, Rosslyn,
VA 22209. Copies of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers standards may also be obtained from the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box
1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, or the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), 11 West 42nd Street, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10036
as ANSI/IEEE 112-1992. Copies of Canadian Standards Association
standards may also be obtained from the Canadian Standards Association,
178 Rexdale Boulevard, Rexdale (Toronto), Ontario, Canada M9W 1R3.
For more information concerning public participation in this
rulemaking proceeding, see section XIII of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, (202) 586-8654
Edward Levy, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General
Counsel, Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
D.C. 20585-0103, (202) 586-9507
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
II. General Discussion
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Definitions
1. Electric Motor
2. Metric Equivalents
3. Basic Model
4. General Purpose Motor, Definite Purpose Motor, and Special
Purpose Motor
5. Enclosed Motor and Open Motor
6. Efficiency and Nominal Full Load Efficiency
B. Test Procedures for the Measurement of Energy Efficiency
C. Units to be Tested
D. Energy Efficiency Standards
1. Standards for Metric Motors
2. Standards for Horsepowers not Listed in Statute, and for Non-
standard Kilowatt Ratings
3. Electric Motors as Components of Systems
E. Labeling
1. Statutory Provisions
2. Information on Motor Nameplate
3. Disclosure of Efficiency Information in Marketing Materials
4. Other Matters
F. Certification
1. Statutory Provisions
2. Basis for Certification
a. Independent Testing Program
b. Laboratory Accreditation
c. Certification Program
d. National Recognition
e. Proposal
3. Form of Certification
a. Compliance Statement
b. New Models
G. Enforcement
IV. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
V. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''
VI. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
VII. Review Under Executive Order 12612, ``Federalism''
VIII. Review Under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights''
IX. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
X. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
XI. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act
of 1974
[[Page 60441]]
XII. Review Under Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
XIII. Public Comment
A. Written Comment Procedures
B. Public Hearing
1. Procedures for Submitting Requests to Speak
2. Conduct of Hearing
C. Issues for Public Comment
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975, Pub. L. 94-163, as amended, by the National Energy Conservation
Policy Act of 1978 (NECPA), Pub. L. 95-619, the National Appliance
Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Pub. L. 100-12, the National
Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988), Pub. L.
100-357, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), Pub. L. 102-486,
established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products other
than Automobiles. Part 3 of Title IV of NECPA amended EPCA to add
``Energy Efficiency of Industrial Equipment,'' which includes electric
motors. EPAct also amended EPCA with respect to electric motors,
providing definitions in section 122(a), test procedures in section
122(b), labeling provisions in section 122(c), energy efficiency
standards in section 122(d), and compliance certification requirements
in section 122(e).
EPCA defines ``electric motor'' as any motor which is ``general
purpose T-frame, single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage
induction of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
Designs A and B, continuous-rated, operating on 230/460 volts and
constant 60 Hertz line power, as defined in NEMA Standards Publication
MG1-1987.'' EPCA section 340(13)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A).
EPCA then prescribes efficiency standards for electric motors that
are 1 through 200 horsepower, and ``manufactured (alone or as a
component of another piece of equipment),'' except for ``definite
purpose motors, special purpose motors, and those motors exempted by
the Secretary.'' EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1).
Furthermore, it provides for exemption of certain types or classes of
electric motors. EPCA section 342(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2).
The Act also requires that testing procedures for motor efficiency
shall be the test procedures specified in NEMA Standards Publication
MG1-1987, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE) Standard 112 Test Method B for motor efficiency, as in effect on
October 24, 1992. EPCA section 343(a)(5)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A).
If the test procedure requirements of NEMA MG1-1987 and IEEE Standard
112 Test Method B for motor efficiency are amended, the Act directs the
Secretary to amend these testing procedures to conform to such amended
test procedures in the NEMA and IEEE standards, unless the Secretary
determines, by rule, that to do so would not produce results that
reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs,
and would be unduly burdensome to conduct. EPCA section 343(a)(5) (B)
and (C), 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5) (B) and (C).
Additionally, EPCA directs the Secretary, after consultation with
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), to prescribe rules requiring motor
labeling to indicate the energy efficiency on the permanent nameplate,
to display the motor energy efficiency prominently in catalogs and
other marketing materials, and to include other markings to facilitate
enforcement of the energy efficiency standards. EPCA section 344(f), 42
U.S.C. 6315(f) and 344(d), 42 U.S.C. 6315(d).
Finally, the Act directs the Secretary to require motor
manufacturers to certify compliance with the applicable energy
efficiency standards through an independent testing or certification
program nationally recognized in the United States. EPCA section
345(c), 42 U.S.C. 6316(c).
B. Background
The Department held a public meeting on June 2, 1995, to discuss
issues and gather information related to the energy efficiency
requirements for electric motors covered under EPCA, as amended.
Comments were sought on the following issues: which equipment is
covered by the statute; the nature and scope of required testing; use
of independent testing and certification programs to establish
compliance with applicable standards; the means of certifying such
compliance to DOE; and possible labeling requirements.
Statements received after publication of the Notice of that public
meeting in the Federal Register (60 FR 27051, May 22, 1995), and at the
public meeting itself, have helped to refine the issues involved in
this rulemaking, and have provided information that has contributed to
DOE's proposed resolution of these issues. Portions of many of the
statements are quoted and summarized in section III., Discussion of
Proposed Rule. A parenthetical reference at the end of a quotation or
passage in section III provides the location index in the public record
of the portion of a statement that is being quoted or discussed.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Example: ``(ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.a.2.)'' refers to (1) a
statement that was submitted by the American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy and is recorded in the DOE Freedom of Information
Reading Room in the docket under ``Motors Workshop,'' June 2, 1995,
as comment number seven; and (2) a passage that appears in paragraph
3.a.2. of that statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. General Discussion
The Department's energy conservation program for consumer products
is conducted pursuant to Part B of Title III of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6291-
6309. Under EPCA, the consumer appliance standards program essentially
consists of three parts: Testing; Federal energy conservation
standards; and labeling. The appliance products covered by these parts
include refrigerators and freezers, room air conditioners, central air
conditioners and heat pumps, water heaters, furnaces, dishwashers,
clothes washers and dryers, direct heating equipment, ranges and ovens,
pool heaters, and fluorescent lamp ballasts. The program is codified in
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 430--Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products.
Since 10 CFR part 430 covers consumer products as distinct from
commercial and industrial equipment, the Department proposes to create
a new part 431 in the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 431),
Energy Conservation Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment, to
cover certain commercial and industrial equipment covered under the
Act. These include commercial heating and air-conditioning equipment,
water heaters, certain lighting products, distribution transformers,
and electric motors. This new commercial and industrial equipment
program will consist of the same elements as the program covering
consumer products: Testing; Federal energy efficiency standards;
labeling; and certification and enforcement.
The Department of Energy today proposes to incorporate the energy
efficiency standards and test procedures prescribed by EPCA for
commercial and industrial electric motors, provisions to clarify and
implement those requirements, and energy efficiency labeling and
certification requirements for such motors into the new part 431. These
include: Definitions in accordance with section 340(13)(A) of EPCA, 42
U.S.C. 6311(13)(A); test procedures prescribed by section 343(a)(5)(A)
of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A); standards prescribed section
342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.
[[Page 60442]]
6313(b)(1); labeling requirements in accordance with section 344(d) of
EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6315(d); compliance certification requirements in
accordance with section 345(c) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6316(c).
Among the matters DOE addresses in this Notice are requirements for
testing by manufacturers (including provisions as to confidence levels
for results and sample size), use of mathematical methods to calculate
energy efficiency as an alternative to actual testing, accreditation of
testing laboratories, recognition of certification programs, testing
during enforcement proceedings, and information to be displayed on a
motor nameplate. The Department is incorporating from 10 CFR part 430
procedures for waiver of test procedures, procedures to exempt state
regulation from preemption, and provisions for imported and exported
equipment.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Definitions
1. Electric Motor
EPCA prescribes energy efficiency standards for each ``electric
motor'' with a horsepower rating from 1 through 200 horsepower and
certain other characteristics. EPCA section 342(b), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b).
``Electric motor'' is defined as any motor which is ``a general purpose
T-frame, single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction
motor of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (``NEMA'')
Design A and B, continuous-rated, operating on 230/460 volts and
constant 60 Hertz line power, as defined in NEMA Standards Publication
MG1-1987'' (NEMA MG1-1987). EPCA section 340(13)(A), 42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(A). The Department is concerned, however, that many of the
terms in the foregoing definition are not sufficiently clear to
identify which motors should be covered by the regulations.
NEMA suggests that DOE adopt a definition of ``electric motor''
which clarifies those terms as follows: (1) ``Continuous rated'' refers
to ``continuous duty operation;'' (2) ``Foot-mounting'' encompasses
foot-mounting ``motors with flanges and motors with explosion proof
construction,'' but flange-mounting motors without feet are not
included; and (3) ``Operating on 230/460 volts'' applies to ``motors
that are rated at 230 volts, 460 volts, or multi-voltages that include
230 and/or 460 volts,'' and to motors that are ``arbitrarily rated at
voltages other than 230 or 460 volts, but that may be operated on 230
and/or 460 volts, or any combination of the two.'' (NEMA, No. 9 at
A.1.).
The Department agrees with and is proposing to adopt these NEMA
proposals. (NEMA proposals to include metric equivalent motors within
the definition of ``electric motor'' are discussed below.) In addition,
as to the term ``foot-mounting,'' the Department proposes to make clear
that motors with detachable feet are included within the definition of
``electric motor.'' The Department also proposes to add a definition to
clarify the term, ``general purpose'' motor. The definition is drawn,
in part, from language suggested by NEMA (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.3;
NEMA, No. 9 at 4.; and Public Meeting, Tr. pgs. 36-41) and is discussed
at greater length in section III.A.4. below. The definition of
``general purpose'' motor would give effect to the statutory
definitions of both ``electric motor'' and ``definite purpose motor.''
The Department understands that some motors are essentially general
purpose motors with, for example, minor modifications such as the
addition of temperature sensors or a heater, or modifications in
exterior features such as motor housing. Such motors can still be used
for most general purpose applications, and the modifications have
little or no effect on motor performance. Nor do the modifications
affect energy efficiency. DOE does not believe that the modifications
justify excluding these motors from meeting statutory energy efficiency
levels, or that Congress intended to exclude them from coverage.
2. Metric Equivalents
EPCA defines ``electric motor'' on the basis of NEMA Standards
Publication MG1-1987, Motors and Generators. EPCA section 340(13)(A),
42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A). The definition provides, for example, that the
motor must be ``a general purpose T-frame, . . . squirrel-cage . . .
motor of the (NEMA) Design A and B . . . as defined in . . . MG1-
1987.'' The Act prescribes nominal full load energy efficiency
standards for electric motors that have certain combinations of
horsepower, number of poles (speed in revolutions per minute), and
enclosure type, EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), all of
which are based on the construction and rating system in NEMA MG1-1987
which utilizes English or customary units of measurement. The specific
combinations in the statute are the typical motors available in the
United States, and such motors constructed in accordance with the
standards in MG1 are often referred to as ``NEMA motors.''
By contrast, general purpose electric motors manufactured outside
the United States and Canada are defined and described with reference
to International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 34 series,
Rotating electrical machines, which employs terminology and criteria
different from those used in the EPCA definition for motors. The
performance attributes of these ``IEC motors'' are rated pursuant to
IEC Standard 34-1, Rating and performance, which uses metric units of
measurement and a different construction and rating system than NEMA
MG1-1987. It employs, for example, units such as kilowatts instead of
horsepower. As with NEMA motors, standard IEC motors exist, consisting
of specific combinations of kilowatts and other IEC rating factors.
Although the statutory definition of ``electric motor'' does not
specifically mention IEC motors, the Department believes that the Act
covers IEC motors that are identical or equivalent to motors included
in the statutory definition.
The Department understands that IEC motors generally can perform
the identical functions of NEMA motors. Comparable motors of both types
provide virtually identical amounts of rotational mechanical power, and
generally can operate or provide power for the same pieces of machinery
or equipment. A given industrial central air conditioner, for example,
could operate with either an IEC or NEMA motor with little or no effect
on performance.
It is also DOE's understanding, however, that small differences
between the two types of motors affect their suitability for particular
applications. For example, IEC motors tend to be slightly smaller than
comparable NEMA motors and the shaft dimensions of the two types of
motors are slightly different. Thus, in some situations, differing
physical characteristics could render it difficult or impossible to
install one type of motor in a piece of machinery designed to be
operated by the other type. By way of further example, IEC motors have
higher in-rush currents than comparable NEMA motors, and thus will tend
to start and reach normal performance levels more slowly than NEMA
motors. Consequently, IEC motors will not be suitable for machinery
requiring a high torque start, but will be more suitable where a
gradual start is appropriate.
As mentioned above, IEC motors are designed and rated according to
criteria in IEC Standard 34-1, whereas EPCA defines electric motor in
terms of design and rating criteria set forth in NEMA
[[Page 60443]]
MG1. It is DOE's understanding that the differences in criteria concern
primarily nomenclature, units of measurement, standard motor
configurations, and design details, but have little bearing on motor
function. For example, under EPCA, an electric motor must be a
``squirrel cage'' motor (i.e., have a certain physical shape) and be
``continuous rated'' (i.e., designed for continuous operation). IEC
Standard 34-1 does not use either of these terms, but uses the term
``cage'' to refer to the same shape as is referred to by the term
``squirrel cage,'' and uses the term ``duty type S-1'' to refer to
motors designed for continuous operation.
Similarly, the different measures for rating motor power--IEC
Standard 34-1 uses kilowatts and NEMA's Publication MG1-1987 uses
horsepower--do not affect the quality or quantity of a given motor's
power. They are simply different ways to express that power. Under well
established rules for conversation, one horsepower equals .746
kilowatts, and one kilowatt equals 1.34 horsepower. Thus, for example,
a standard 5 horsepower motor has an output that can also be expressed
as 3.73 kilowatts, and a standard 15 kilowatt motor has a horsepower of
20.1.
As commenters indicated, however, the standard power ratings for
IEC and NEMA motors are not exactly equal, although the differences are
slight. A standard 7.5 horsepower motor, for example, would have an
exact metric equivalent of 5.59 kilowatts, but the closest equivalent
standard power for an IEC motor is 5.5 kilowatts. (WE, No. 2 at 3a(1);
Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.1). IEC publishes a table of standard kilowatt
ratings and equivalent standard horsepower ratings for general purpose
motors, in IEC 72-1, Dimensions and output series for rotating
electrical machines, (6th ed. 1991-02), section D.5.1, at page 119.
(NEMA, No. 9 at Exhibit 1) The table shows a very close match between
the two sets of standard ratings. For example, the standard 5
horsepower and 15 kilowatt motors mentioned above equal 3.73 kilowatts
and 20.1 horsepower, respectively, and the IEC table shows that
corresponding standard IEC and NEMA motors are 3.7 kilowatts and 20
horsepower. This close match between standard power ratings tends to
support the conclusion that EPCA requirements cover IEC motors,
although the differences do raise an issue, discussed below, as to how
EPCA's efficiency standards apply to IEC motors.
Several commenters asserted that IEC motors should be covered by
EPCA's efficiency standards. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.a.1; Brook Hansen, No.
5; Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.1; NEMA, No. 9 at A.2.). The American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) states that ``metric rated
motors should be considered covered by the standard, and that the
minimum efficiency of the class (open or closed and number of poles)
for the corresponding equivalent or next-highest power rating NEMA
motors be applied. Efficiency of metric motors must be determined by
IEEE method 112(b) or CSA C390.'' (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.a.1). In
explaining its view, Reliance Electric Company (Reliance) states as
follows: ``An equivalent IEC motor exists for each NEMA motor
identified in the Act. IEC and NEMA motors can be used interchangeably
in most general purpose applications. Placing efficiency requirements
on NEMA horsepower rated motors but not on IEC equivalent motors may
give preferential treatment to the IEC motors which may be offered at
lower than the required efficiency levels. It is therefore in the
interest of the intended goal of energy conservation to include
coverage of IEC or metric motors in the proposed rules to implement the
EPAct requirements for motors.'' (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.1).
One element of EPCA's definition of ``electric motor'' is that the
motor be a NEMA ``T-frame'' motor, meaning that it meets certain
dimensional standards. In asserting that IEC motors are covered by the
Act, NEMA indicates that certain IEC motors have dimensions comparable
to T-frame motors, and states that DOE's regulations should make clear
these IEC motors are covered. EPCA also states that an ``electric
motor'' must be NEMA ``Design A and B.'' NEMA asserts that IEC Design N
motors are comparable to the NEMA Design A and B motors. (NEMA, No. 9
at A.1.).
The Department interprets the Act as requiring that IEC motors
satisfy the same energy efficiency requirements that the statute
applies to identical or equivalent to NEMA motors. Thus, under the
regulation proposed today, the definition of ``electric motor''
includes IEC motors that have physical and performance characteristics
which are either identical or equivalent to the characteristics of NEMA
motors that fit within the statutory definition. In the Department's
view, there can be no question that EPCA's requirements cover any motor
whose physical and performance characteristics fit within the statutory
definition of ``electric motor.'' This is true regardless of the
measuring units used to describe the motor's performance or
characteristics, or of the criteria pursuant to which it was designed.
The Department also understands that comparable IEC and NEMA motors
typically are closely equivalent but not identical, and that the
characteristics of many IEC motors closely match EPCA's definition of
``electric motor'' but deviate from it in minor respects. It also
appears that, for most general purpose applications, such IEC motors
can be used interchangeably with the NEMA motors. In addition, as
discussed below, the efficiency standards prescribed for standard
horsepower motors are readily applicable to both standard and non-
standard kilowatt motors. The Department believes that a broad
exclusion of IEC motors from energy efficiency requirements would
conflict with the energy conservation goal of the Act, was not intended
by Congress, and would be irrational. Furthermore, the Department
agrees with the views of commenters that placing energy efficiency
requirements on NEMA motors but not on equivalent IEC motors could have
the effect of giving preferential treatment to the IEC motors. Thus,
the Department construes the EPCA definition of electric motor to
include motors that have characteristics equivalent to those set forth
in that definition.
Finally, statements at the public meeting and in written comments
addressed whether IEC 100 millimeter frame size motors in particular
are covered by energy efficiency requirements. As previously stated,
the statutory definition of ``electric motor'' incorporates frame size
by requiring a motor to be ``T-frame'' as defined in NEMA MG1-1987.
NEMA states that the IEC 100 millimeter frame motor is equivalent to
the discontinued NEMA 160 frame size (NEMA, No. 9 at A.2.), and
examination of NEMA MG1-1987 confirms that it does not include T-frame
motors that are 160 series. Therefore, since the IEC 100 frame motor
apparently is not equivalent to any T-frame motor, it appears not to be
covered by the Act.
3. Basic Model
It is common for a single motor manufacturer to make numerous
models of the electric motors covered by EPCA, and under the Act each
model is potentially subject to testing for energy efficiency. Often,
however, several models are essentially the same motor, but with each
model having some refinement that does not significantly affect the
energy efficiency or performance of the motor. One way to meet the EPCA
mandate that test procedures ``not be unduly burdensome to conduct,''
EPCA section 343(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2), is to determine which
[[Page 60444]]
models have electrical and mechanical characteristics, such as
horsepower, speed, and enclosure type, that are essentially identical.
Each such group of models would be categorized into a family and only
representative samples within each family would be tested. The
Department proposes to use the term ``basic model'' to identify a
family of commercial or industrial motors, following the approach it
employs for residential appliance products.
With regard to the residential appliance program, the term ``basic
model'' is defined as follows: ``Basic model means all units of a given
type of covered product (or class thereof) manufactured by one
manufacturer and--. . . [as to dishwashers, for example] which have
electrical characteristics that are essentially identical, and which do
not have any differing physical or functional characteristics which
affect energy consumption.'' 10 CFR 430.2. ``Basic model'' is a term
used to describe products or items of equipment whose performance,
design, mechanical, and functional characteristics are essentially the
same. Components of similar design may be substituted in a basic model
without requiring additional testing if the represented measures of
energy consumption continue to satisfy applicable provisions for
sampling and testing. In the case of electric motors, a manufacturer
may produce numerous models that have different model numbers but are
essentially the same, all based on variations in design features that
do not affect energy consumption.
In the notice of public meeting that solicited comments on issues
involved in this rulemaking, the Department stated that it was
considering the following definition of ``basic model'' for electric
motors:
all units . . . manufactured by one manufacturer and . . . having
the same rating, electrical characteristics that are essentially
identical, and no differing physical or functional characteristics
which affect energy consumption or efficiency.
60 FR at 27052. Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), ACEEE, and NEMA
all support such a definition. (UL, No. 4 at ``Basic Model''; ACEEE,
No. 7 at 3.a.2; NEMA, No. 9 at A.3.) The Department proposes to adopt
this definition of ``basic model.''
NEMA suggests that the proposed rule require each basic model to
consist of units that have one of the 113 combinations of horsepower
(or kilowatts), number of poles, and open or closed construction for
which section 342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), specifies an
efficiency standard. NEMA, as well as Reliance, suggest that this
proposal be implemented by defining the term ``rating,'' which is part
of the basic model definition, as being one of the 113 combinations in
EPCA section 342(b)(1). (For this purpose, NEMA proposes that motors
with a horsepower rating between two levels specified in the Act be
treated as having the higher level, i.e. their horsepowers would be
``rounded up.'') The Department agrees with these suggestions by NEMA
and Reliance, and in the attached rule proposes to adopt them, with one
exception. Rather than ``rounding up'' all horsepowers that are at
levels between those specified in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA, DOE would
use the rounding method described in Part III-D-1 below.
The Department believes the foregoing approach to defining ``basic
model'' is a sound means to reduce the burden of testing. It would
apply an approach to electric motors that has proven effective in the
residential appliance program, but with appropriate modifications given
the nature of these motors.
4. General Purpose Motor, Definite Purpose Motor, and Special
Purpose Motor. As already discussed, EPCA prescribes efficiency
standards for certain ``electric motors.'' EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42
U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), The standards do not apply to ``definite purpose
motors'' or ``special purpose motors.'' These three terms are defined
as follows:
The term ``electric motor'' means any motor which is a general
purpose T-frame, single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-
cage induction motor of the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association, Design A and B, continuous rated, operating on 230/460
volts and constant 60 Hertz line power as defined in NEMA Standards
Publication MG1-1987. EPCA section 340(13)(A), 42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(A). (Emphasis added.)
The term ``definite purpose motor'' means any motor designed in
standard ratings with standard operating characteristics or standard
mechanical construction for use under service conditions other than
usual or for use on a particular type of application and which
cannot be used in most general purpose applications. EPCA section
340(13)(B), 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(B).
The term ``special purpose motor'' means any motor, other than a
general purpose motor or definite purpose motor, which has special
operating characteristics or special mechanical construction, or
both, designed for a particular application. EPCA section
340(13)(C), 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(C).
The definitions are not straightforward, however, and raise questions
as to which motors the efficiency standards apply to. The Department is
also concerned about the possibility that a manufacturer could make
modifications to an ``electric motor'' subject to efficiency standards,
particularly minor modifications, and improperly claim that the motor
is an exempt definite or special purpose motor. To address these
concerns, the Department proposes (1) a definition of ``general purpose
motor,'' which is a term used as part of EPCA's definition of
``electric motor'' but is not itself defined in EPCA, and (2) to define
``special purpose motor'' using language that is different from the
wording of the EPCA definition of that term, but that has the same
meaning as the statutory definition. The Department also proposes to
adopt verbatim the statutory definition of ``definite purpose motor.''
Before discussing these proposals, the Department notes that the
terms EPCA uses to refer to particular motors may differ from terms
commonly used in the industry. The Department understands, for example,
that the term ``stock motor,'' rather than ``general purpose motor,''
is often used to refer to standard motors typically sold through
distributors, and that ``custom motor'' refers to a motor designed for
use in unusual conditions, or for particular applications or types of
applications. As indicated below, depending upon its precise
characteristics, such a ``custom motor'' could be either a definite,
special or even general purpose motor as those terms are used in EPCA.
To avoid confusion, and because this notice concerns rules to implement
EPCA, the discussion here uses the terms used in the statute. The
industry should keep in mind, however, that the failure here to use a
common designation for a type of motor, such as ``stock motor,'' does
not mean that such type of motor is not addressed by this notice.
Section 340(13) of EPCA clearly defines electric, definite purpose
and special purpose motors as being mutually exclusive. In the
definition of ``electric motor,'' relevant for present purposes is that
it must be ``a general purpose . . . motor.'' By contrast, ``definite
purpose motor'' is defined in part as a motor that ``cannot be used in
most general purpose applications,'' and ``special purpose motor'' is
defined in part as ``other than a general purpose . . . or definite
purpose motor.'' The Act does not clearly spell out, however, the
precise distinctions between these different types of motors.
Section 340(13)(A) of EPCA provides that the definition of
``general purpose motor'' shall be drawn from NEMA MG1-1987. That NEMA
MG1-1987
[[Page 60445]]
definition, in pertinent part, is as follows: 2
\2\ The definition is contained in section MG 1-1.05 of NEMA
MG1-1987. Other parts of the definition are either incorporated
directly into the EPCA definition of ``electric motor,''
incorporated into other statutory provisions, or grouped with such
elements. The Department believes that those portions of section
MG1-1.05 are irrelevant for purposes of defining ``general purpose''
in the DOE regulations.
. . . designed in standard ratings with standard operating
characteristics and mechanical construction for use under usual
service conditions without restriction to a particular application
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
or type of application.
NEMA suggests that the Department adopt this language, with minor
modifications, as the sole definition of ``general purpose.'' This
definition appears to complement the NEMA MG1-1987 definition of
``definite purpose motor,'' which in essence is part of the EPCA
definition of that term, and which reads as follows:
. . . any motor designed in standard ratings with standard operating
characteristics or mechanical construction for use under service
conditions other than usual or for use on a particular type of
application.
NEMA MG1-1.09. These two definitions do not overlap, and appear to
include virtually all motors with standard designs. They appear to
contemplate that a general purpose motor modified so as to be suitable
for unusual conditions or a particular type of application would be
classified as a definite purpose motor.
But the EPCA definition of ``definite purpose motor'' states in
addition that the motor ``cannot be used in most general
applications.'' Thus, for example, a general purpose motor modified so
as to be suitable for use on a particular application, but that can
still be used in most general purpose applications, is not a ``definite
purpose motor'' under the statute. The same would be true of a motor
designed with standard ratings and operating characteristics, but for
use under unusual service conditions, and which is also capable of most
general purpose uses. Nor would such motors be within the NEMA MG1-1987
definition of ``general purpose motor,'' since they are not designed
``for use under usual service conditions without restriction to a
particular application.'' The NEMA MG1-1987 definition of ``general
purpose motor,'' therefore, does not closely complement the statutory
definition of ``definite purpose motor.'' If the Department were to
adopt the NEMA MG1-1987 definition of ``general purpose motor,'' as
suggested by NEMA, certain motors of standard design would be neither
``general purpose'' nor ``definite purpose'' (nor ``special purpose'')
under the regulations. Consequently, they would not be covered by
efficiency standards, or excluded from coverage. The Department
believes this would be an unsound interpretation of EPCA.
In the Department's view, a motor designed with standard features
(i.e. with standard ratings, and standard operating characteristics or
mechanical construction) for use under unusual conditions or for a
particular type of application, and that can still ``be used in most
general purpose applications,'' EPCA section 340(13)(B), 42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(B), is covered by the statute. That type of motor is
specifically excluded from the definition of ``definite purpose
motor.'' We are aware of no reason why Congress would have created such
an exclusion other than to require that such motors meet efficiency
standards. The statute states that definite purpose motors need not
meet the standards. The sole reason for carving out from that
classification a type of motor that would otherwise fall within it,
would be to require that the motor meet the efficiency standards.
The Department's interpretation of EPCA also will serve the energy
conservation goals of the statute and makes sense as a practical
matter. First, there seem to be strong reasons in favor of, and no
reasons against, applying the standards to any motor that is designed
in standard ratings, has standard operating characteristics or
mechanical construction, and is capable of being used in most general
purpose applications, even if it is designed for a particular use. The
Department understands that the features making such a motor suitable
for a particular use have little or no effect on the performance of the
motor as such, or on its efficiency. Moreover, it appears that often a
particular use motor of a given rating, and a motor of the same rating
that meets the definition of ``general purpose'' under NEMA MG1-1987,
would be the same ``basic model,'' and be equally capable of meeting
efficiency standards. Thus, particular use motors that can be used in
general purpose applications should be treated the same under EPCA as
general purpose motors, and energy savings achieved under the Act would
be enhanced by applying its standards to such particular use motors.
Second, this interpretation of EPCA addresses a possible means of
evading the statute, by reducing the risk that general purpose motors
that comply with EPCA's efficiency standards will be replaced by
definite purpose motors that do not. To manufacture a general purpose
motor that complies with EPCA may sometimes be more burdensome than to
manufacture a non-complying general purpose motor that has been
modified to be suitable for certain definite purpose uses, but that
remains capable of satisfying most general purpose applications. For
example, a non-complying general purpose motor could be modified by
adding a heater to make it suitable for use in certain high humidity
conditions, or by adding screening (to an open motor) to protect
against invasion by rodents in applications such as agricultural
environments. It might be cheaper to manufacture such motors than to
manufacture a comparable general purpose motor that meets EPCA's energy
efficiency standards. In such a situation, a manufacturer would have an
incentive to try to sell the modified, non-complying motor in the
general purpose market. The statutory definition of ``definite purpose
motor'' appears designed to prevent that result.
Based on the foregoing, the Department proposes a two-part
definition of ``general purpose motor.'' The first part in essence
provides that a motor is ``general purpose'' if it meets the criteria
in NEMA MG1-1987, and largely incorporates the language suggested by
NEMA. (NEMA, No. 9 at A.4.). This includes NEMA's suggestion that
section 14.02 of NEMA MG1-1993 be cited as providing examples of
``usual service conditions,'' although not its suggestion that the
words ``for general purpose applications'' be included in the
definition. The latter language is not in the NEMA MG1 definition of
``general purpose,'' and appears to be redundant here. The second part
of the Department's proposed definition in effect provides that,
alternatively, a motor is also ``general purpose'' if it meets the EPCA
criteria for a definite purpose motor except that it can be used in
most general purpose applications.
As stated above, the Department is proposing to adopt without
change the EPCA definition of ``definite purpose motor.'' One element
of that definition is that a motor be designed for ``service conditions
other than usual.'' The Department agrees with and accepts the comments
that an exhaustive list of such conditions cannot be developed, and
should not be included in the regulations. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.3;
NEMA, No. 9 at A.4.). ACEEE ``recommends that `definite purpose' motors
be defined as all motors that do not meet the specifications for `usual
service conditions' as defined in NEMA MG1-1993-14.02.'' (ACEEE, No. 7
at 3.a.3). The Department declines to accept that suggestion because it
agrees
[[Page 60446]]
with NEMA and Reliance that section 14.02 does not provide a conclusive
list of ``usual service conditions.''
NEMA recommends that ``motors designed for explosion-proof
conditions, which could be considered an unusual service condition
under NEMA MG1-1993, be expressly defined as covered products. The Act
expressly authorizes a two-year extension of the effective date for
efficiency standards for `motors which require listing or certification
by a nationally recognized safety testing laboratory.' EPCA section
342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). This reference was intended to apply
to explosion-proof motors which, despite their use in unusual service
conditions, are otherwise general purpose motors.'' (NEMA, No. 9 at
A.4.). The Department agrees with NEMA that explosion-proof motors are
covered by EPCA, and believes that the proposed definition of ``general
purpose motor'' would include such motors and therefore render them
subject to the efficiency requirements. Nevertheless, to avoid possible
uncertainty, and to address NEMA's concern, the Department proposes to
accept NEMA's suggestion that explosion-proof motors be expressly
defined as covered products. The proposed definition of ``electric
motor,'' therefore, includes such motors.
Finally, the Department believes there is potential for uncertainty
as to whether particular motors meet EPCA's definition of ``special
purpose motor,'' or instead are ``general purpose'' or ``definite
purpose'' motors. Although the definition of ``special purpose motor''
states in part that it is ``other than a general purpose motor or a
definite purpose motor,'' the remaining criteria defining a special
purpose motor closely resemble certain of the criteria defining a
definite purpose motor. Significant potential exists for misclassifying
a motor, because fine distinctions must sometimes be made to determine
precisely which set of criteria a motor meets. Such determinations can
be significant, because if a motor meets the ``definite purpose''
criteria, it would be covered by the standards if it can be used for
most general purpose applications. The Department therefore proposes a
definition of ``special purpose motor'' that clarifies the EPCA
definition but does not alter its substance, i.e., the proposed
definition includes the same motors as the statutory definition. As
suggested by NEMA, the Department does not attempt to elaborate on the
statutory definition of ``special purpose motor.''
5. Enclosed Motor and Open Motor
The Department proposes to incorporate the statutory definitions of
the terms ``enclosed motor'' and ``open motor.''
6. Efficiency and Nominal Full Load Efficiency
The Department proposes to incorporate the statutory definition of
the term ``efficiency'' into a definition of ``average full load
efficiency.'' Under the Act and the proposed regulations, it is the
average full load efficiency of a motor that must be measured through
test procedures. The proposed rule also defines ``nominal full load
efficiency'' in terms that differ from the language used in the statute
to define that term, and that clarify and implement, but do not deviate
from, the substance of the statutory definition.
B. Test Procedures for the Measurement of Energy Efficiency
EPCA requires that the regulatory test procedures for electric
motors shall be the test procedures specified in NEMA MG1-1987 and IEEE
Standard 112 Test Method B for motor efficiency, as in effect on the
date of the enactment of EPAct. EPCA section 343(a)(5)(A), 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(5)(A). If the test procedures in NEMA MG1 and IEEE Standard 112
are subsequently amended, the Secretary is required to revise the
regulatory test procedures for electric motors to conform to such
amendments, unless the Secretary determines by rule, supported by clear
and convincing evidence, that to do so would not meet the requirements
for test procedures described in sections 343(a) (2) and (3) of EPCA,
42 U.S.C. 6314(a) (2) and (3).3 EPCA section 343(a)(5)(B), 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Section 343(a)(2) of EPCA reads as follows: ``Test
procedures prescribed in accordance with this section shall be
reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of a type of
industrial equipment (or class thereof) during a representative
average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary), and shall not be
unduly burdensome to conduct.''
Section 343(a)(3) of EPCA reads as follows: ``If the test
procedure is a procedure for determining estimated annual operating
costs, such procedure shall provide that such costs shall be
calculated from measurements of energy use in a representative
average-use cycle (as determined by the Secretary), and from
representative average unit costs of the energy needed to operate
such equipment during such cycle. The Secretary shall provide
information to manufacturers of covered equipment respecting
representative average unit costs of energy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA MG1-1987 was revised and superseded by NEMA MG1-1993, which
was issued on November 19, 1992, and published in October 1993.
Revision 1 to NEMA MG1-1993, was added on December 7, 1993. Whereas
NEMA MG1-1987 required ``efficiency and losses'' to be determined in
accordance with IEEE Standard 112, NEMA MG1-1993 with Revision 1 now
permits such determinations based on application of either IEEE
Standard 112 or Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard C390. In
addition, whereas NEMA MG1-1987 was silent on determination of motor
efficiency for polyphase motors greater than 125 horsepower covered by
the statute, NEMA MG1-1993 with Revision 1 now permits testing such
motors in accordance with IEEE 112, with stray-load loss determined by
direct measurement or indirect measurement. Since enactment of section
343(a)(5)(B) of EPCA, no other substantive amendments have been made to
the test procedures in either NEMA MG1-1987 or IEEE Standard 112 Test
Method B.
ACEEE, Reliance, and NEMA support the adoption of NEMA MG1-1993
with Revision 1. ACEEE explains that the CSA Standard C390-93 test
procedures are a refinement of the IEEE 112 Test Method B, offering
advantages in clarity which can lead to greater reproducibility of test
results. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.b.1).
The Department will adopt the new test procedure provisions of NEMA
MG1-1993 with Revision 1, to permit use of CSA Standard C390-93 Test
Method (1) and testing covered motors greater that 125 horsepower. The
Department does not intend to determine that these amendments to MG1-
1987 fail to meet the requirements of sections 343(a) (2) and (3) of
EPCA.
C. Units to be Tested
EPCA requires that the test procedures prescribed for motors by DOE
be ``reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy
efficiency,'' yet not be ``unduly burdensome'' to conduct. EPCA
Sec. 343(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2). Efficiency testing of each unit
of an electric motor covered by EPCA could take ten to twelve hours and
cost up to $2,000.00. As discussed above, the classification of motors
into ``basic models'' is one step to prevent expenditure of excessive
time and money on testing. The Department also proposes to permit use
of a statistically meaningful sampling procedure for selecting test
specimens, so as to further reduce the testing burden on manufacturers
while giving sufficient assurance that the true mean energy efficiency
of a basic model meets or exceeds the applicable energy efficiency
standard established in EPCA. But
[[Page 60447]]
notwithstanding adoption of these measures, because a motor
manufacturer sometimes will produce a substantial number of basic
models, it could still face a potentially substantial testing burden.
Therefore, the Department also proposes to permit use of alternative
methods, other than actual testing, for determining the efficiency of
some basic models.
ACEEE, Reliance, and NEMA assert that it is impractical to require
testing of every motor manufactured, or even of samples of each basic
model. They find it acceptable to randomly test representative samples
of some motor designs, and to use alternative methods for determining
the efficiency of other motors. The purpose of sample testing would be
to determine whether the average full load efficiency of the basic
model meets or exceeds the EPCA requirement, not to confirm the
efficiency level of each individual motor. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.b.2 &
3.b.3; Reliance, No. 8 at 3.b.2; and NEMA, No. 9 at B.2). Underwriters
Laboratories (UL, No. 4 at ``Testing Sampling Plan''), Reliance and
NEMA describe various methods of determining the number of motors to be
tested, including 100 percent of production, sampling by attributes
according to Military Standard MIL-STD-105E, and sampling a minimum of
five units produced over a specified time, such as two months.
The Department reviewed the industry sampling recommendations and
other sampling systems that could provide guidance as to how many and
which units should be tested to determine compliance. Criteria used by
the Department in this process include:
(1) Minimizing manufacturer's testing costs;
(2) Limiting the calendar time required for testing;
(3) Assuring compatibility with the sampling plan promulgated for
the Department's commercial labeling program;
(4) Providing a high statistically valid probability that basic
models that are tested meet applicable energy efficiency standards; and
(5) Providing a high statistically valid probability that a
manufacturer preliminarily found to be in noncompliance will actually
be in noncompliance.
Based on a review of the industry statements, three alternatives as
to sample size were considered:
(1) Test the total population (100%) of covered equipment;
(2) For each basic model, test a predetermined fixed number of
production units; and
(3) For each basic model, test one unit at a time or batches, until
a determination can be made that the basic model is in compliance or
noncompliance.
Explanations of all three sampling procedures are contained in the
``Final Rulemaking Regarding the Sampling Requirements of Consumer
Product; Test Procedures,'' 44 FR 22410-18 (April 13, 1979) and the
``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products,'' 45 FR 43976-
44087 (June 30, 1980).
The first sampling procedure would test every unit of a covered
motor and is the only way to determine with 100 percent certainty that
every motor manufactured is in compliance with the statute. Even
assuming such approach is authorized by the Act, the cost and time
constraints associated with this alternative make it infeasible.
A second alternative is to test a predetermined fixed number of
production units for each basic model. In order to use this approach,
sufficient numbers of units must be tested to yield results with high
levels (e.g. 90 percent) of statistical confidence. The determination
of the number of units to be tested is based in part on expected unit-
to-unit variability. However, reliable estimates of unit-to-unit
variability of motors are often unavailable and significant differences
may exist among basic models and manufacturers. Thus, the Department
concludes that a single sample size giving sufficiently high assurance
of compliance cannot be established that will apply to all motors and
manufacturers, and that will not impose unreasonably high testing costs
for some manufacturers.
The third alternative considered was testing until a determination
can be made that a basic model is in compliance or noncompliance. In
this alternative, the size of the total sample is not determined in
advance. Instead, after each unit or group of units is tested, a
decision is made to (1) accept, (2) reject, or (3) suspend judgment and
continue testing additional sample units until a decision is ultimately
reached. This method often permits reaching a decision on the basis of
fewer tests than fixed number sampling plans. The Department notes that
this third alternative is the basis for most of the statistical
sampling procedures established for consumer appliance products at 10
CFR 430.24, Units to be Tested. The Department proposes to adapt such
sampling procedures to electric motors. The Department believes that
motor manufacturers utilizing production techniques that assure low
variance among units of a particular basic model could test fewer units
to demonstrate compliance.
In the case of actual testing, the proposed procedures require a
sample of units of a basic model to be randomly selected and tested. A
simple average of the values would be calculated, which would be the
actual mean value of the sample. For each basic model of electric
motor, a sample of sufficient size would be selected at random and
tested to ensure that any represented value of energy efficiency is no
greater than the lower of (A) the mean of the sample or (B) the lower
90 percent confidence limit of the mean of the entire population of
that basic model, divided by a coefficient applicable to the
represented value. The coefficient applicable to a given represented
value would be the ratio of the minimum efficiency, as provided in NEMA
MG1-1993, Table 12-8, to the corresponding nominal full load efficiency
in Table 12-8 that (1) equals the represented value, or (2) is the
closest lower value to the represented value. Thus, the coefficient
would be derived from the 20 percent loss difference on which NEMA
bases the minimum efficiency in Table 12-8.
This approach is similar to the methodology used in the
Department's consumer appliance program, which is intended to provide
an acceptable level of assurance that test results will be applicable
to all units of a basic model, without creating an undue testing burden
for manufacturers. Like the consumer appliance program, the sampling
plan for electric motors incorporates a confidence limit approach,
which would give assurance at a specified level of confidence that the
mean efficiency of the total population of units being manufactured and
sold is at or above the represented value of energy efficiency (e.g.,
the efficiency set forth in a certification of compliance or on a
label). The proposed rule, however, takes a slightly different approach
than is used in the appliance program, at 10 CFR 430.24, for
calculating an ``adjusted lower 90 percent confidence limit.'' Under
Sec. 430.24, a single factor is specified for each product, and the
``adjusted confidence limit'' for each basic model of that product is
calculated by dividing the lower confidence limit for all units of that
basic model by the specified factor. Under the proposed rule, by
contrast, the divisor is a factor that relates to the efficiency level
of the particular motor being analyzed. As with the sampling plans for
consumer appliances, this factor and other elements of the statistical
sampling plan
[[Page 60448]]
for electric motors are intended to reasonably reflect variations in
materials, and in the manufacturing and testing processes.
NEMA has recommended that the confidence limit constraint for
representations of motor efficiency be the lower 90 percent confidence
limit of the true mean divided by 0.95. (NEMA, No. 9 at B.2.). It
appears that NEMA is proposing the same methodology used in the
appliance program to account for measurement uncertainties and product
variability. The Department agrees with the apparent intent of the NEMA
recommendation, as well as its goal that, ``. . . the confidence limit
[of the represented energy efficiency] should be chosen so that it is
consistent with MGl's tolerance factor for losses.'' However, the
Department believes that the method NEMA puts forth does not best
achieve these objectives.
Electric motors differ substantially from the products covered
under part 430. For each of 113 ratings of electric motor, EPCA
specifies a minimum nominal efficiency. By contrast, under Part 430
minimum efficiencies are set forth at most for 16 different types of a
product (in the case of direct heating equipment), and for most covered
products efficiencies are specified for two to five types of the
product. 10 CFR Sec. 430.32. For central air conditioners, which NEMA
cites as an example in support of its confidence limit methodology,
energy conservation standards are specified for only two types of the
product: the Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) must be equal to
or greater than 10 for split systems and 9.7 for single package
systems. The Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI), which
in some respects functions for that industry as NEMA does for the
motors industry, has prescribed performance criteria that these classes
of central air conditioners must meet in order to use the ARI
certification symbol and to be listed in the ARI Directory of Certified
Unitary Air-Conditioner Equipment. Specifically, the SEER determined by
laboratory testing may not be less than .95 of the SEER represented by
the manufacturer. Thus, in specifying a divisor of .95 for central air
conditioners, part 430 conforms with industry guidelines regarding
measurement uncertainties and product variability for that product.
For electric motors, NEMA uses a maximum 20 percent loss difference
to establish the minimum efficiencies that are associated with the
standard nominal efficiencies. See MG1-1993, Table 12.8. This 20
percent loss tolerance is the motor industry's benchmark for taking
into account measurement uncertainty and product variability. It is a
constant fraction of the total percentage of energy losses. Thus,
because the percentage of energy losses decreases as efficiency
increases, it appears that the percentage of losses allowable as a
tolerance also decreases with increasing efficiency. This would mean,
for example, that the measurement uncertainty and product variability
for a motor with a nominal full load efficiency of 95 percent may be
expected to differ substantially from those for a motor with a nominal
full load efficiency of 75.5 percent.
The Department believes that the use of a single factor for all
motors covered under part 431, as proposed by NEMA, does not adequately
differentiate among the levels of efficiency established by the Act.
The Department proposes, therefore, to establish coefficients, based on
the NEMA MG1 minimum efficiency standards, for each nominal full load
efficiency established by the Act and to include these in tabular form
in new part 431.
In incorporating this method, it should be noted that the proposed
part 431 would not set or enforce minimum energy efficiency standards.
Since a unit or units of a basic model could fall below the NEMA
minimum efficiency during efficiency testing and the basic model could
still be found to meet with the represented energy efficiency, no
minimum efficiency is set or enforced. Rather, the NEMA minimum
efficiencies are used to provide a reasonable estimate of the
measurement uncertainties and product variabilities that are likely to
be encountered during actual testing.
The proposed 90 percent confidence limit was recommended by NEMA,
and appears to the Department to be appropriate for electric motors. As
just discussed, however, the divisor proposed by the Department differs
from that proposed by NEMA. The Department specifically seeks comment
on both of these proposals, including its proposed table of divisor
coefficients, and on whether alternatives will better serve the
objectives of providing both reasonable assurance that test results
will apply to all units of a basic model, and reasonable allowance for
product variability and measurement uncertainty.
In sum, the Department proposes that when an electric motor is
subjected to actual testing to determine whether it complies with
EPCA's efficiency standards, a sample shall be selected and tested
comprised of units which are production units, or representative of
production units, of the basic model being tested. The sample must be
of sufficient size, selected at random, and tested in accordance with
the DOE test procedures adopted pursuant to section 343 of EPCA, 42
U.S.C. 6314. The test sample results would have to be within prescribed
confidence limits.
The Department also proposes to permit manufacturers of electric
motors to determine motor efficiency through predictive mathematical
calculations developed from engineering analyses of design data and
substantiated by actual test data. This would be similar to the
approach found at 10 CFR part 430, Sec. 430.24(m)(2)(ii), which permits
manufacturers of central air conditioners to use ``alternative rating
methods.'' Statements from Reliance and NEMA support the use of such
alternative efficiency determination methods. They assert it would be
prohibitively expensive and time consuming to test all the many basic
models that manufacturers produce. In addition, the Department
understands that the manufacturers and independent testing laboratories
do not have sufficient resources to test so many basic models. NEMA
advocates use of ``alternative correlation methods'' (synonymous with
the Department's term ``alternative efficiency determination methods'')
that are based on engineering or statistical analyses, computer
simulation, mathematical modeling, or other analytical evaluation of
performance data. Furthermore, NEMA proposes using actual testing to
substantiate such alternative methods.
According to NEMA, ``A manufacturer must substantiate an
alternative correlation method by actual testing of at least five basic
models, using DOE-prescribed test procedures. Substantiation would
require testing that demonstrates that predicted total power losses of
a basic model design are within plus or minus ten (10) percent of the
mean actual total power losses for the sample of each of the basic
models tested.'' NEMA further states that manufacturers would be
required to test ``two among the five basic models with the highest
unit-volume of production and that at least two [of the five] models
have predicted total losses which differ by at least 20 percent. Each
of the five basic models should be of a different rating.''
``In lieu of advance approval, each manufacturer would be required
to notify DOE of its use of alternative correlation methods in its
compliance certification. Each manufacturer would stand ready to submit
its alternative correlation test results (and underlying models and
simulations) to DOE for review.'' (NEMA, No. 9 at B.3.).
[[Page 60449]]
Based on the information discussed above, the Department agrees
that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for each
manufacturer to do actual testing, to determine energy efficiency, for
each basic model of motor it manufactures. The Department proposes to
adopt procedures whereby a manufacturer would certify compliance for
basic models through an alternative efficiency determination method
(AEDM). The Department's proposal largely incorporates the criteria and
procedures suggested by NEMA for use of such alternative methods. For
example, a manufacturer would be required to do actual testing of at
least five basic models.
The models selected for testing should be selected at random,
subject to the following selection criteria: Two of the basic models
tested would be required to be among the five basic models with the
highest unit volumes of production by the manufacturer. Within any
limitation imposed by that criterion, the basic models tested should be
of different horsepower without duplication. The next priority would be
to select basic models of different frame sizes without duplication.
And finally, to the extent possible, each basic model selected should
have the lowest full load efficiency among the basic models with the
same rating.
A manufacturer could use only AEDMs that it had substantiated.
Prior to using the AEDM, the manufacturer would be required to apply it
to at least five motors on which the manufacturer had performed actual
tests in accordance with DOE test procedures. The AEDM would be
``substantiated,'' and could be used by the manufacturer, only if, for
each of the tested basic models to which it was applied, the predicted
total power losses upon application of the AEDM are within plus or
minus ten percent of the total power losses that were measured for that
basic model during the actual testing. (``Total power loss'' here
refers not to the arithmetic total of the losses for all of the units
tested, but rather to average total losses for the tested units.)
The Department believes that the foregoing approach to permitting
use of AEDMs for motors would ensure compliance with EPCA, while
avoiding imposition of an undue burden on the industry.
D. Energy Efficiency Standards
EPCA prescribes standards for electric motors that are 1 through
200 horsepower, and manufactured ``alone or as a component of another
piece of equipment,'' except for ``definite purpose motors, special
purpose motors, and those motors exempted by the Secretary.'' EPCA
section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). The Department proposes to
incorporate these standards into 10 CFR part 431.
1. Standards for Metric Motors
As discussed above, a table in IEC 72-1 matches each standard
kilowatt rating to the equivalent standard horsepower rating. Section
342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), specifies efficiency standards
for many of these standard horsepower ratings. The matching kilowatt
and horsepower values in IEC 72-1 are not exact conversion values, but
in each instance are virtually equal. The Department proposes in
Sec. 431.42, to utilize the horsepower to standard kilowatt equivalents
prescribed in IEC 72-1 in order to determine the required energy
efficiency of a covered motor when such motor is rated in kilowatts.
Wisconsin Electric Power Company asserts that ``the kilowatt
ratings established by international standards (cf IEC 34) are based on
a different numerical progression than the NEMA horsepower ratings
standard in the United States. Thus, there is no true `equivalence'
between those NEMA horsepower ratings and corresponding kilowatt
values.'' (WE, No. 2 at 3a 1)).
The Department agrees that such IEC motors are manufactured
according to a standard series of kilowatt output ratings that do not
mathematically synchronize exactly with the North American standard
series of horsepower output ratings. When the standard IEC kilowatt
ratings are directly converted into horsepower using the formula, 1
kilowatt = (1/0.746) horsepower, the standard IEC ratings fall between
the standard horsepower ratings specified in EPCA section 342(b)(1),
although they are very close to the standard horsepower ratings.
ACEEE states that a metric rated motor should be required to meet
the efficiency rating for its corresponding equivalent horsepower
rating, or the next-highest efficiency rating. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.a.1).
The Department agrees with ACEEE to the extent that a motor rated in
kilowatts should meet the same nominal full load energy efficiency as
an equivalent motor rated in horsepower.
Reliance advocates use of ``the primary series of standardized IEC
kW [``kilowatt''] equivalents to the hp [``horsepower''] ratings given
in IEC Standard 72-1, Clause D.5.1 when referring to the values of
horsepower specified in the Act. These equivalents are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horsepower Kilowatts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... .75
1.5................................. 1.1
2................................... 1.5
3................................... 2.2
5................................... 3.7
7.5................................. 5.5
10.................................. 7.5
15.................................. 11
20.................................. 15
25.................................. 18.5
30.................................. 22
40.................................. 30
50.................................. 37
60.................................. 45
75.................................. 55
100................................. 75
125................................. 90
150................................. 110
200................................. 150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``While the above suggestion should include the majority of motors
rated in kilowatt, it is possible for motors to be rated in kilowatt
values other than those indicated based on a secondary series of
standardized kilowatt ratings given in IEC Standard 72-1.''
``The metric equivalent kilowatt ratings could then be incorporated
by a definition that the table of efficiency values also apply to the
exact kilowatt equivalent rating to each reference horsepower rating by
the relationship that 1 horsepower is equal to .746 kilowatts. For
reference this conversion would give the following results:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horsepower Kilowatts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... .746
1.5................................. 1.12
2................................... 1.49
3................................... 2.24
5................................... 3.73
7.5................................. 5.60
10.................................. 7.46
15.................................. 11.2
20.................................. 14.9
25.................................. 18.7
30.................................. 22.4
40.................................. 29.8
50.................................. 37.3
60.................................. 44.8
75.................................. 56.0
100................................. 74.6
125................................. 93.3
150................................. 112
200................................. 149
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An advantage of using the first set of kilowatt versus horsepower
relationship values based on recommended kilowatt ratings in IEC
Standard 72-1 would be the convenience of easily identifying standard
kilowatt rated motors in the resulting table to find the required
efficiency value rather than having to locate every standard kilowatt
rating between two values of the exact kilowatt equivalents.''
(Reliance, No. 8 at 3.a.1).
[[Page 60450]]
``NEMA recommends that the IEC standard kilowatt equivalents be
used for specifying efficiency standards, rather than an exact metric
conversion from round-number English measurements to fractional metric
measurements. Metric-denominated general purpose motors are generally
manufactured with standard kilowatt ratings, which should provide the
basis for classification of motors and the specification of class-
specific energy efficiency standards.'' (NEMA, No. 9 at A.2.).
The Department agrees with NEMA and Reliance, and believes that
kilowatt to horsepower equivalency could be addressed without confusion
by utilizing the series of standardized equivalents given in IEC
Standard 72-1, annex D.5., Preferred rated output values. The
Department proposes, at 10 CFR 431.42, that the efficiency standard
applicable to a standard horsepower rating as specified in section
342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6313(b)(1), applies to the
corresponding standard kilowatt equivalent rating.
2. Standards for Horsepowers Not Listed in Statute, and for Non-
standard Kilowatt Ratings
EPCA specifies efficiency standards only for electric motors with
19 specific horsepower ratings, all of which fall within the range of 1
through 200 horsepower. EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1).
NEMA asserts that efficiency standards should apply to all ``electric
motors'' motors that have ratings from 1 through 200 horsepower (or
standard kilowatt equivalents). According to NEMA, a motor with a
rating between two of the horsepower ratings specified in EPCA section
342(b)(1), or between two of the ratings specified in standard kilowatt
equivalents, should be required to meet the efficiency standard set
forth for the next highest horsepower (or kilowatt) rating specified in
the statutory table. NEMA states that this would prevent circumvention
of statutory efficiency requirements by designating a horsepower rating
that is fractionally different from the standard ratings in the
statute. (NEMA, No. 9 at A.1.).
The Department understands that the statute's table of motor
horsepowers is based on the preferred or standardized horsepower
ratings established at NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, paragraph
10.32.4, Polyphase Medium Induction Motors. NEMA recognizes that it is
not practical to build motors of all horsepower ratings for all of the
standard voltages (cite NEMA MG1-1993, paragraph 10.30 NOTE). However,
an ``electric motor'' could be built and, for example, rated 35
horsepower, or 90 horsepower, or 175 horsepower, and so forth.
The Department agrees with NEMA that efficiency standards apply to
all electric motors that have ratings from 1 through 200 horsepower (or
standard kilowatt equivalents), including motors with a rating between
two of the horsepower ratings specified in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA.
The Department disagrees, however, that a motor with a rating between
two of the horsepower ratings specified in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA,
or between two of the ratings specified in a standard kilowatt
equivalent table, should be treated as having the horsepower (or
kilowatt) rating equal to the next highest rating specified in the
statutory table (or standard kilowatt equivalent table) for purposes of
determining the efficiency standard applicable to such motor.
Applying NEMA's position to a hypothetical situation, a 32
horsepower electric motor would be required to meet the energy
efficiency level prescribed for a 40 horsepower motor. To meet that
energy efficiency level could require significant changes in design of
the 32 horsepower motor, including the addition of electrical steel and
copper, which in turn could result in changes to the motor's physical
dimensions to such a degree that it would no longer fit its normal
applications. Rounding up presents a particular problem with respect to
IEC motors, because they are generally smaller or more compact than the
NEMA ``T'' frame sizes. Rounding up would make it very difficult for
some sizes of motors to meet the statutory energy efficiency levels.
Thus, the practice of rounding up could have the effect of banning or
limiting the use of certain motors, because motors that meet the next
higher energy efficiency level may be physically larger and may not fit
into machines or packages which have been designed for more compact
motors. The Department believes that use of such a rounding up
procedure could result in an undue burden on manufacturers.
Other interpolative methods could include a sliding scale of energy
efficiencies that correspond to intermediate horsepowers, or
arbitrarily rounding down to the next lower horsepower. The Department
believes neither method is sound. The sliding scale approach implies a
degree of accuracy in achieving and measuring motor efficiency, and
significant differences in the required efficiency levels between
different horsepowers, that do not exist. In addition, EPCA's
efficiency standards for motors, EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C.
6313(b)(1), are nominal full load efficiencies taken from a table of
standardized values in MG1-1987, and standardized values would not be
available to be the efficiency standards for intermediate horsepower
motors. In addition, EPCA section 342(b)(1) prescribes, for example,
identical efficiency levels for certain 40 and 50 horsepower motors,
and levels that differ by only .6 for 30 and 40 horsepower motors. As
to rounding a horsepower down to the next lower horsepower, that
approach could encourage production of less efficient motors and thus
conflict with EPCA's purpose to save energy. It would create an
incentive to manufacture motors with horsepowers just below the
horsepower levels at which efficiency levels are specified in the Act,
so that the motors would then be required to comply with the efficiency
standard prescribed for the lower level.
The Department proposes to utilize simple mathematical rules of
rounding to determine the required energy efficiency of a motor whose
horsepower (or equivalent kilowatt) rating is between two of the
ratings specified in EPCA section 342(b)(1). Horsepower values that
fall at or above the midpoint between two horsepower ratings specified
in EPCA section 342(b)(1) should be rounded up to the next higher
specified horsepower rating to determine the required energy
efficiency. Horsepower values that fall below the midpoint between two
specified horsepower ratings should be rounded down to the next lower
specified horsepower rating to determine the required energy
efficiency. Motor kilowatt ratings that fall between standard kilowatt
equivalents would be arithmetically converted directly into horsepower
using the formula: 1 kilowatt = (1/0.746) horsepower. (In making such
arithmetic conversions, no rounding would be permitted.) Resultant
horsepower values would then be rounded using the rules of rounding
just described, to determine the next higher or lower statutory
horsepower and corresponding energy efficiency. The Department believes
such procedures are appropriate to the design and application
considerations of energy efficient motors, and would tend to cluster a
family of motor horsepowers (or kilowatt ratings) and corresponding
energy efficiencies around the family of applications for which the
motors are designed without undue burden to the manufacturer.
Nevertheless, in light of NEMA's advocacy of the ``rounding up''
procedure, the Department specifically seeks further comments on its
rounding
[[Page 60451]]
proposal and will consider alternative approaches.
3. Electric Motors as Components of Systems
The question of how this regulation would affect motors that are
components of other equipment that is also covered under the Act is
raised by the Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute (ARI). ARI
believes that the standards for electric motors at section 342(b) of
EPCA should not apply to motors used as components in commercial air-
conditioners, for example, because such air-conditioners are already
covered by efficiency standards at section 342(a) of EPCA. ARI
interprets section 342(a) of EPCA to mean that standards established
for a system should take precedence over standards established for a
component of that system. Further, ARI expresses concern that frequent
changes in standards could lead to premature redesigns of equipment.
(ARI, No. 3).
The Department understands that air-conditioning equipment
components, such as the compressor, the condenser, and the motor, must
be designed and built to function integrally with each other in order
to meet overall system efficiency requirements. Nevertheless, section
342(b)(1) of EPCA explicitly imposes efficiency standards for ``each
electric motor manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece
of equipment).'' (Emphasis added.) Thus, every ``electric motor'' that
is manufactured must meet the standards imposed by section 342(b)(1) of
EPCA, regardless of whether it is manufactured ``alone,'' and then
inserted into another piece of equipment, or manufactured ``as a
component of another piece of equipment.'' The Department finds no
language in the requirements for system efficiency at section 342(a)
that explicitly or implicitly renders the efficiency standards in
section 342(b)(1) inapplicable to motors used in air conditioning or
other equipment covered by section 342(a).
Section 342(b)(1) sharply contrasts in this respect with section
346(b)(3) of EPCA. EPCA authorizes, but does not require, efficiency
standards for ``small electric motors.'' Section 346(b)(3) states that
such standards ``shall not apply to any small electric motor which is a
component of'' another product or piece of equipment to which standards
apply.
In summary, contrary to ARI's position, EPCA cannot be construed so
that the efficiency standards for electric motors do not apply to such
motors when used in air conditioners also covered by standards. The
Department is sympathetic to ARI's concern about the possibility that
manufacturers might have to increase the frequency with which they
modify the air conditioning equipment they manufacture to accommodate
new motors that have been re-designed to comply with efficiency
standards for motors and to comply with standards applicable to the
equipment itself. But this concern cannot be addressed by the creation
of an unauthorized exemption from the statutory standards for electric
motors.
E. Labeling
1. Statutory Provisions
Under section 344(a) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6315(a), if the Department
has adopted test procedures for a type of ``covered equipment,'' such
as motors, it must prescribe a labeling rule for that equipment.
Section 344(b) provides that such rule must require disclosure of the
motor's energy efficiency, and may require disclosure of estimated
operating cost and energy use, determined in accordance with the test
procedures. Section 344(c) authorizes inclusion in the rule of
additional requirements ``likely to assist purchasers in making
purchasing decisions.'' Statutory examples of such additional
requirements concern display of the label, providing information as to
energy consumption, and disclosing in printed matter efficiency
information required to be on labels.
Section 344(d) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6315(d), requires that within 12
months of establishing test procedures, ``the Secretary shall prescribe
labeling rules . . . applicable to electric motors taking into
consideration NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987.'' Such rules shall
require that electric motors be labeled to: ``(1) Indicate the energy
efficiency of the motor on the permanent nameplate attached to such
motor; (2) prominently display the energy efficiency of the motor in
equipment catalogs and other material used to market the equipment; and
(3) include such other markings as the Secretary determines necessary,
solely to facilitate enforcement of the standards established for
electric motors under section 342.''
All of the foregoing provisions are subject to section 344(h) of
EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6315(h), which states in essence that no labeling rule
shall be promulgated for a type of covered equipment unless: (1) Such
labeling is technologically and economically feasible with respect to
such class; (2) significant energy savings will likely result from the
labeling; and (3) the labeling is likely to assist consumers in making
purchasing decisions.
2. Information on Motor Nameplate
Nominal full load efficiency. The Department understands that
current, typical industry practice is to mark on each motor nameplate
the motor's nominal full load efficiency, which is a value selected
from the standardized values in NEMA MG1-1993, Table 12-8, column A. To
determine the nominal full load efficiency for a particular motor, the
manufacturer first determines the average efficiency of the motors it
produces of that same design. It then selects from Table 12-8, Column
A, the standardized value that is the closest lower value to, or that
equals, such average efficiency figure. Each of the required efficiency
values in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA is identical to one of these
standardized values.
The Department proposes that each motor nameplate include a
standardized value contained in Table 12-8. The manufacturer would
determine the average efficiency for a basic model of motor through
actual testing or application of an AEDM, as required under DOE test
procedure regulations, would select the nominal efficiency for each
motor in the same manner currently used by the industry, and would
place that value on the nameplate.
This approach would satisfy the statutory requirements that the
label of each electric motor disclose ``the energy efficiency'' of such
motor, ``determined in accordance with test procedures'' promulgated
under EPCA. EPCA sections 344 (b) and (d)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6315 (b) and
(d)(1). Although the efficiencies stated on the labels would be
standardized values, and often would not match precisely the test
procedure results for the type of motor being labeled, the intervals
between standardized values are small, and differences among efficiency
values within a given interval are not significant. The Department
believes, therefore, that such standardized values would accurately
represent both the energy efficiency of a given motor, and the
differences in efficiency among motors. The Act also requires the
Secretary to consider NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987 in
prescribing labeling rules for electric motors. EPCA section 344(d), 42
U.S.C. 6315(d). This requirement would be met because the Department
proposes to use the approach and the standardized values in NEMA MG1-
1993, which, as relevant here, are identical to those in NEMA MG1-1987.
Because the proposed labeling requirement adopts current industry
practice, the Department concludes that
[[Page 60452]]
such labeling would be technically feasible and economically justified.
The Department also believes that such labeling would be likely to
assist consumers in making purchasing decisions by distinguishing
motors of greater and lesser efficiency, enabling consumers to make
comparisons among competing manufacturers and to confirm their
selection upon delivery, all of which can lead to significant energy
savings. As suggested by NEMA, the information in the proposed
efficiency label would describe the motor as manufactured.
Manufacturer number and ``ee'' logo. NEMA and Reliance recommend
that, to identify motors that comply with EPCA, the nameplate also be
required to include an encircled ``ee,'' or other logo, and an
identification number supplied by DOE upon receipt of the
manufacturer's compliance certification. (NEMA, No. 9 at C.; Reliance,
No. 8 at 3.c). ACEEE and UL support use of the logo, but do not address
requirement of an identification number. (UL, No. 4 at Labeling; ACEEE,
No. 7 at 3.c). The Department proposes to require that the nameplate of
every motor that has been certified as complying with EPCA include a
manufacturer compliance certification number, essentially as
recommended by NEMA and Reliance, and to permit but not require
nameplates of complying motors to include an ``ee'' logo.
With respect to the required identification number, the Department
contemplates that it would issue an identification number to each motor
manufacturer upon determining that the manufacturer had certified, in a
form that satisfies the regulations, that its motors comply with EPCA.
The manufacturer would then be required, within 90 days or upon the
effective date of the labeling regulations, whichever is later, to
include the number on its motor nameplates. The proposal also makes
provision for including the number on motors certified subsequent to a
manufacturer's initial certification.
The Department believes that such a number is necessary to help
enforce the efficiency standards. Reliance asserts that requiring the
number on a motor would discourage a manufacturer from attaching an
``ee'' mark to a non-complying motor. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.c). DOE
agrees. In addition, requirement of the ID number would discourage
manufacture of non-complying motors. For example, a manufacturer or
distributor would not be allowed to ship covered motors into or within
the United States unless the nameplate contains such an identification
number. (The identification number would not be required when a covered
motor is exported from the United States.) Moreover, use of a
fraudulent number on a non-complying motor could easily be traced,
since only DOE would issue the numbers and each manufacturer would have
a unique number.
Based on the statements of support by NEMA and Reliance, the
Department concludes that such an identification number would be
technologically feasible and economically justified. Energy savings
would likely occur as a result of deterring the manufacture and
shipment of covered motors that are not in compliance with the statute,
and of facilitating identification of any non-complying motors sold in
violation of the statute. Moreover, as NEMA points out, covered motors
are sold almost entirely to highly sophisticated purchasers. These
purchasers would be aware that the identification number connotes that
the motor has been certified as complying with EPCA's efficiency
standards. Thus, the number would aid consumers in making purchasing
decisions, by calling attention to motors for which required
certification have been submitted.
The Department is concerned, however, about possible abuse of the
manufacturer's identification number. An unscrupulous manufacturer
could certify one or a few motors as being in compliance, obtain a
number from DOE, and then use that number on the nameplate of motors
for which it did not properly certify compliance. In such an instance,
the number would provide a misleading indication of compliance.
Moreover, even absent a requirement that each motor bear an ID number,
an inquiry to the Department could easily determine whether a
particular manufacturer had certified a given motor. The Department
seeks comment on the validity of such concerns, and on whether they
outweigh the value of requiring the number on the motor nameplate.
As to inclusion of the ``ee'' logo or similar designation on the
nameplate of a motor that complies with EPCA, there are considerations
militating for and against such a requirement. On the one hand, as
stated above, the purchasers of covered motors are almost entirely
industrial and commercial consumers who are sophisticated purchasers
and highly aware of energy efficiency concerns. The benefit to them of
an ``ee'' logo seems limited, since they will be aware that general
purpose motors must comply with EPCA's efficiency standards. On the
other hand, the ``ee'' logo would distinguish such motors from definite
and special purpose motors that need not and do not comply, its
voluntary use on non-covered motors could encourage their compliance
with efficiency standards, and both the motor industry and energy
efficiency advocates support use of the logo.
The Department is also concerned that inclusion of the ``ee'' logo
on motors that comply with EPCA's nominal full load efficiency
standards might be misleading. Under NEMA MG1-1993, to be classified as
``energy efficient'' a motor must meet both a nominal efficiency
identical to the efficiency level required by EPCA, and the applicable
minimum efficiency prescribed by Table 12-10 of NEMA MG1-1993. NEMA
MG1-1987 had a similar requirement. Given the practice under NEMA MG1,
if the Department were to require or permit the ``ee'' logo on motors
based solely on their meeting only the EPCA standards, purchasers might
assume that such motors necessarily meet corresponding minimums for
energy efficiency even though EPCA does not require motors to meet such
minimums.
One way to avoid such confusion would be for the Department to
require that a motor labeled with the ``ee'' logo, or as ``energy
efficient,'' meet the minimum efficiency associated with its nominal
efficiency. Another possibility would be to follow ACEEE's
recommendation that, in addition to nominal efficiency, minimum
efficiency be required on the motor nameplate, in catalogs, and in
other marketing materials (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.c). NEMA, however, opposes
any requirement that nameplates or promotional materials disclose a
motor's minimum efficiency. (NEMA, No. 9 at C.)
Clearly, to mark the minimum efficiency on a motor nameplate, and
in marketing materials, would provide a more complete picture of the
energy efficiency characteristics of that motor. EPCA, however,
prescribes standards for a motor's ``nominal full load efficiency.''
EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). As explained above, the
nominal efficiency is based on the average efficiency for that type of
motor. The term ``nominal full load efficiency'' neither implies nor
subsumes a minimum efficiency level; nor do EPCA's standards explicitly
state that a motor must have a minimum efficiency. Thus, because motors
can, in theory, comply with EPCA without meeting minimum efficiency
levels, the Department does not believe it can require such levels to
be met or be displayed on labels or in marketing materials.
[[Page 60453]]
Nevertheless, it is the Department's understanding that, as a
practical matter, it would be very unlikely that a manufacturer could
meet EPCA's nominal efficiency standard for a motor if it produces some
motors of that design with efficiencies below the corresponding minimum
in Table 12-10 of NEMA MG1-1993. Moreover, DOE understands that the
provisions of NEMA MG1 will continue to exist and be in force alongside
EPCA, and the Department has received no indication that NEMA MG1 will
be modified to eliminate the requirement that each motor have a nominal
efficiency as well as an associated minimum. Thus, DOE assumes that,
independent of DOE requirements under EPCA, under NEMA MG1-1993 a motor
could not be labeled as ``energy efficient'' or have an ``ee'' logo or
other similar designation, unless it meets both the applicable nominal
efficiency specified in Table 12-10 of MG1-1993 (which would be the
same as the applicable EPCA standard), as well as the associated
minimum efficiency specified in Table 12-10. In effect, therefore,
motors complying with EPCA standards can be expected to have an
appropriate minimum efficiency.
Based on these understandings, the Department proposes that
manufacturers be permitted to label covered motors as ``energy
efficient,'' or with the ``ee'' logo, or with some comparable
designation or logo, when a motor meets the applicable nominal full
load efficiency standard in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA. The Department
assumes that this would, in effect, authorize manufacturers to continue
to follow the industry practice of classifying a motor as ``energy
efficient'' only when it meets both the applicable nominal and the
applicable minimum efficiency level prescribed in Table 12-10 of MG1-
1993 with Revision 1. The Department sees considerable merit in such an
approach, which might also partially satisfy ACEEE's concern about
including minimum efficiency levels in labels. Moreover, the fact that
industry is following this approach indicates that it is
technologically and economically feasible. This proposal, if adopted,
would not require a manufacturer to include an ``ee'' or ``energy
efficient'' designation on its nameplates. A manufacturer that made a
complying motor would be free not to place an ``ee'' logo or similar
designation on its motor nameplates.
The Department continues to consider the option, however, of
requiring that a manufacturer, in conjunction with using a label with
the ``ee'' logo or ``energy efficient'' designation, display the
minimum efficiency of the motor on the motor nameplate, and/or include
such minimum efficiency in its compliance certification. The Department
solicits comments on these approaches.
Finally, presumably anticipating required use of the ``ee'' logo,
Reliance recommends that the Department consider recognizing marks of
energy efficiency from other countries when such marks are equivalent
to the mark required by the Department. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.c). As
discussed below, the Department does not propose to require the use of
any such mark. But in light of the National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program discussed below, the Department understands the
principle advanced by Reliance of mutual recognition between the U.S.
and other countries. The Department contemplates that its proposal
permitting use of the ``ee'' logo or other ``energy efficiency''
designation would permit use of the energy efficiency mark from another
country. In other words, where a motor meets the requirements for use
of the ``ee'' or other ``energy efficiency'' designation, it can
display a foreign energy efficiency mark.
3. Disclosure of Efficiency Information in Marketing Materials.
EPCA directs the Secretary to require that the energy efficiency of
each electric motor be ``prominently'' displayed ``in equipment
catalogs and other material used to market the equipment.'' EPCA
section 344(d)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6315(d)(2)). To implement this provision,
the Department proposes to require that catalogs and other marketing
materials for a motor prominently display the same nominal full load
efficiency rating that must appear on the motor's label. Further
authority for such a requirement is provided by section 344(c)(3) of
EPCA, which authorizes adoption of requirements ``likely to assist
purchasers in making purchasing decisions,'' including required
disclosure in ``printed matter which is displayed or distributed at the
point of sale'' of the motor of efficiency information required to be
on the label of the motor. The Department also proposes (1) To require
that catalogs and other marketing materials for a complying motor
display the manufacturer number required to be placed on the label of
such motor, and (2) that the provisions concerning inclusion on a label
of the ``ee'' logo, the ``energy efficiency'' designation, or other
similar logo or designation, also apply to printed materials.
NEMA asserts that Congress intended the labeling rules for electric
motors to ``facilitate enforcement of the efficiency standards,'' not
to educate consumers. The language of the Act does not support this
claim. Section 344(d) of EPCA, after directing the Secretary to
promulgate requirements for disclosure of a motor's energy efficiency,
directs that ``such other markings'' shall be required ``as the
Secretary determines necessary, solely to facilitate enforcement of the
standards established for electric motors.'' The ``facilitate
enforcement'' criterion applies only to ``such other markings''
required by the Secretary. It does not apply either to section 344(d)'s
specific requirements concerning disclosure of a motor's efficiency, or
to its general directive to ``prescribe labeling rules . . . applicable
to electric motors.'' Furthermore, section 344(c) lists examples of
labeling requirements that are authorized for ``covered equipment,''
including motors, clearly stating in language that precedes such
requirements that they should be ``likely to assist purchasers in
making purchasing decisions.'' In summary, the ``facilitate
enforcement'' language quoted by NEMA governs neither most of the
labeling provisions applicable to motors specifically, nor any of the
labeling provisions in sections 344 (a)-(c) that are generally
applicable both to motors and to other covered equipment.
The Department believes that the nominal full load efficiency and
the manufacturer's number ``prominently displayed'' in catalogs and
other marketing material would likely assist even knowledgeable
purchasers by clearly identifying an electric motor that is in
compliance with the EPCA. Reliance Electric expresses concern that
inclusion of such markings in catalogs could be unduly burdensome,
given the length of time it takes to update catalog information to
include new or modified motors. The Department believes that this
concern is addressed by the provisions of proposed Sec. 431.122(a)(4),
which provide in effect that the labeling provisions applicable to
catalogs do not apply to catalogs distributed before the effective date
of the labeling rule. In addition, under the proposed
Sec. 431.82(b)(1), the requirement that marketing material include
information concerning a particular motor would apply only to the
extent that the motor is mentioned in such material. Thus, for example,
catalogs would have to be updated to include the nominal full load
efficiency and the manufacturer's number applicable to a motor only
when the catalog is revised to include that motor. This would be a
technically feasible and economically justifiable means to satisfy the
requirement in
[[Page 60454]]
section 344(d)(2) of EPCA to ``prominently display the energy
efficiency of the motor in equipment catalogs and other materials to
market the equipment.''
Both Reliance and NEMA assert that energy efficiency markings
should be required on import documents to assist Customs officials with
identifying motors that comply with EPCA. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.c and
NEMA, No. 9 at C). The Department understands that Customs inspectors
may not be able to directly examine an imported motor that is packaged
for shipping, or one that is a component in a larger piece of
equipment. Therefore, the Department proposes that import documents for
any covered electric motor disclose the date of the Compliance
Certification and the DOE number for that motor, whether the motor is
imported alone or as a component of another piece of equipment. The
Department believes such identification information is consistent with
requirements placed on U.S. manufacturers and would facilitate
enforcement by Customs officials.
The Department does not propose to require that Customs documents
include a motor's nominal full load efficiency. The Department has
doubts about whether it will be practical for Customs officials to
check during the import process on whether a motor complies the
applicable minimum efficiency standard. The Department is still
considering, however, whether such a requirement is warranted and
requests comment on this point.
4. Other Matters
EPCA authorizes required displays of information about electric
motor energy efficiency which are likely to assist purchasers in making
purchasing decisions, including instructions for maintenance, use, or
repair of the motor, and information on energy use. EPCA section
344(c), 42 U.S.C. 6315(c). Most commenters agree that displays of such
information would often be impractical and should be optional, not
required. (Nailen, No. 2 at 3c; UL, No. 4 at Labeling; ACEEE, No. 7 at
3.c; Reliance, No. 8 at 3.c; and NEMA, No. 9 at C). The Department has
no information to the contrary, and therefore does not propose to
require display of such information.
Baldor Electric Company (``Baldor'') raises a concern about the
need for performance warnings on motors that will comply with EPCA's
efficiency standards, and about the potential waste of energy when such
a motor is misapplied. Since these motors typically run faster, and
might have less starting torque than less efficient motors, Baldor
recommends that a warning label be required on each covered motor to
alert users to verify load requirements before installation, and to
prevent possible misapplication and wasted energy. (Baldor, at 10).
The Department believes that Baldor's concerns have some merit, but
do not warrant a labeling requirement. As to starting torque, EPCA does
not require manufacturers to reduce starting torque to meet the
required levels of efficiency. The Department understands that
manufacturers are already offering for sale NEMA Design A and B motors
that meet EPCA efficiency standards and that have the same starting
torque capabilities as existing, less efficient NEMA Design A and B
motors. In any event, the Department believes that any performance
differences between covered motors that will comply with EPCA, and less
efficient versions of such motors, are minor and will affect only a
relatively small number of specific applications. Those situations
would appear to be best addressed not by general labeling requirements,
but rather by consultation between the motor user and seller during the
process of selecting a motor, to assure that particular application
requirements are satisfied by the performance capabilities of the motor
purchased. DOE concludes that the addition of a warning label should be
at the discretion of the manufacturer.
EPCA authorizes the Secretary to test the accuracy of information
disclosed pursuant to labeling requirements for covered equipment. EPCA
section344(i), 42 U.S.C. 6315(i). NEMA recommends that DOE not exercise
its authority to test the accuracy of the efficiency marked on a motor
nameplate, so long as such marking is based on a substantiated
alternative correlation method, or, apparently, on actual testing. NEMA
suggests that any DOE enforcement testing be limited to auditing the
substantiation of the alternative correlation method. (NEMA, No. 9 at
C.).
The Department understands that the efficiency marked on the
nameplate of a motor identifies the average efficiency of a population
of motors, and may not be the exact efficiency of that particular
motor. Therefore, parallel with provisions applicable in the appliance
efficiency program, the enforcement provisions proposed here would
require examination of a manufacturer's prior compliance determinations
before enforcement testing may proceed, and any such testing would
determine compliance through tests of a sample of units of the motor.
Presumably, in some instances, examination of the prior compliance
determinations would obviate the need for further testing and establish
the validity of the energy efficiency marked on a label. But the
Department's proposal permits further testing, at its discretion, to
determine the accuracy of a manufacturer's required information
disclosures. The Department sees no basis for agreeing to relinquish or
limit its authority under section 344(i) of EPCA to perform such
further testing.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulates energy efficiency
labeling for appliances, and the approach the Department proposes here
is similar to that adopted by the FTC in 16 CFR 305.15(b) and 305.16.
These provisions implement section 326(b)(3)(B) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.
6296(b)(3)(B), which, in language similar to section 344(i), authorizes
the FTC to test products to determine the accuracy of label
information. As in the Department's proposal here, the FTC procedures
require examination of a manufacturer's prior compliance determinations
before enforcement testing may proceed. But the FTC has not
relinquished its authority to conduct further testing that it deems
appropriate.
NEMA also suggests that manufacturers be permitted to use the
encircled ``ee'' logo for motors that meet EPCA efficiency standards,
even if such motors are manufactured before the effective date of the
standards, or are definite or special purpose motors. (NEMA, No. 9 at
C.). The Department finds substantial merit in NEMA's proposal. The
Department believes it is in the national interest to save energy both
through regulatory programs and voluntary programs, and understands
that the statute does not prohibit voluntary compliance. Therefore, the
Department proposes that, where an electric motor is in compliance with
the energy efficiency testing and standards requirements of the
statute, even though it is not covered equipment, a manufacturer may
voluntarily comply with the proposed labeling provisions. The
manufacturer could comply with one or more of these provisions. It
would have to meet the requirements of any provision that it purports
to comply with, and it would be subject to enforcement action if it
fails to meet such requirements. For example, if the label of a special
purpose motor were to include the nominal full load efficiency of the
motor, such efficiency rating would have to be derived in accordance
with application of the DOE test procedures prescribed in
Sec. 431.82(a)(1)(i) of the proposed labeling rule.
[[Page 60455]]
F. Certification
1. Statutory Provisions
EPCA requires ``manufacturers to certify, through an independent
testing or certification program nationally recognized in the United
States, that such motor meets the applicable [nominal full load
efficiency standard].'' EPCA section 345(c), 42 U.S.C. 6316(c). The
Department understands the statutory language to provide manufacturers
with two separate ways to fulfill the certification requirement: (1)
Manufacturers may certify, through an independent testing program
nationally recognized in the United States, that such motor meets the
standards; or (2) manufacturers may certify, through an independent
certification program nationally recognized in the United States, that
such motor meets the standards. Section 345(c) does not specify what is
meant by ``independent testing,'' ``certification program,'' or
``nationally recognized.'' Moreover, little insight into the meaning of
the latter two terms is provided by other provisions of EPCA or by
operation of the consumer appliance energy efficiency program. The term
``independent testing'' also is not used elsewhere in the Act. EPCA
requirements concerning test procedures, however, make clear that
``testing'' refers to tests of products (in this case motors) to
determine whether they satisfy efficiency requirements. Such tests to
certify compliance with EPCA's efficiency standards have commonly been
performed in manufacturers' own facilities, and no other provision of
EPCA or the DOE regulations calls for ``independent'' testing. By
stating that a compliance certification based on testing shall be
through an ``independent testing'' program, section 345(c) of EPCA
appears to require a different approach. Given the normal meaning of
``independent,'' section 345(c) may call for testing to be conducted at
a facility not under the control of or affiliated with the
manufacturer.
2. Basis for Certification
a. Independent Testing Program. The Department conducted an
informal investigation and, in addition, solicited statements during
the aforementioned public meeting held June 2, 1995, in order to
understand the nature of ``independent testing'' and ``certification''
programs, and to learn what programs exist that manufacturers could use
to certify compliance with the energy efficiency requirements of the
statute. The question of who should conduct the required testing for
the program elicited considerable comment, especially concerning the
adequacy of the number of independent testing facilities. Statements
provided by Wisconsin Electric, Reliance, ACEEE, NEMA, Nielsen
Engineering Inc., and UL indicate that only a few independent
facilities in the United States and Canada have the capability to test
motor efficiency as required by EPCA. According to Reliance, for
example, the number of third party test facilities available in North
America is so limited that reliance on such facilities to conduct an
independent testing program would present a major roadblock to
compliance certification by the electric motor industry. (Reliance, No.
8 at 3.d.2). ACEEE adds that it is unlikely that the number of
independent test facilities could be rapidly increased, since there are
very few experts familiar with the design of test facilities and the
details of performing such tests. It would likely take ten years to
construct the facilities, install the equipment, and train staff for
the testing capacity necessary to independently certify all motor
models covered by EPCA. (ACEEE letter to DOE, 11/20/95).
The Department understands there are considerable variations in the
primary components of electric motors, which include the stator
assembly; the rotor assembly; the enclosure, which includes bearings, a
lubrication system and other mechanical or small electrical assemblies;
and the shaft. Such variations are part of the means by which motors
are classified. For example, the enclosure may be open or totally-
enclosed; the motor may operate from an alternating current power
supply at any one of several voltage levels; or the motor may operate
at any one of several speeds. The number of different motor
configurations increases rapidly due to the numerous combinations of
other electrical and physical characteristics possible. These
characteristics relate to method of starting, enclosure type,
horsepower rating, speed, torque, voltage, and temperature rise. The
list of such variations is significant. According to one DOE
study,4 for example, considering only motors above 5 horsepower,
there are approximately 5,300 different possible covered motors. The
potential number of motors requiring testing, however, would be reduced
under the statutory definition of ``basic model.'' Even so, testimony
from the June 2, 1995, public meeting and written statements from
manufacturers and NEMA speak of different basic models still numbering
in the thousands that are being manufactured and could potentially be
required to undergo testing for efficiency. (Public Meeting, Tr. pgs.
33, 63, and 88; 5 Reliance, No. 8 at 3.b.3; and NEMA, No. 9 at
B.3.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Classification and Evaluation of Electric Motors and
Pumps,'' DOE/TIC-11339, 9/80, sec. III.
\5\ ``Public Meeting, Tr. pgs. 33, 63 and 88,'' refers to the
page numbers of the transcript of the ``Public Meeting on Energy
Efficiency Standards, Test Procedures, Labeling and Certification
Reporting for Certain Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors,''
held in Washington, DC, June 2, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The foregoing indicates that only a small number of existing
independent laboratories are capable of testing electric motors for
energy efficiency, and that a very substantial volume of motors will
require testing. Because of the insufficient testing capacity, the
Department believes it will be impossible for all or most manufacturers
to test their motors in test facilities other than their own
laboratories. Thus, manufacturers would not be able to comply with a
narrow reading of the ``independent testing'' aspect of the statute.
The Department believes that the goal and intent of this provision
of the statute, however, is to provide assurance that test results are
accurate, valid, and capable of being replicated. Tests must be
performed, for example, with a degree of independence so that the
results are not influenced by marketing and production concerns. The
issue of how to assure that test results are comparable to those
conducted in an independent testing laboratory is fundamental to this
program. This question is addressed in many of the statements received
as a result of the aforementioned informal investigation and the June
2, 1995, public meeting.
NEMA, for example, asserts that the statutory provision for
``independent testing'' must be interpreted in light of the reality
that there is insufficient capacity in independent test laboratories.
NEMA believes the only technically feasible and economically
justifiable means to comply is by using manufacturers' own
laboratories. (NEMA, No. 9 at D.2.). In its November 20, 1995, letter
to the Department, ACEEE agrees with this position, adding that ``the
only way to make the required testing capacity available would be to
accredit the testing facilities of motor manufacturers and allow them
to certify the efficiency of motors.'' (ACEEE letter to DOE, 11/20/95).
Both Reliance and NEMA describe two possible options for programs
which could fulfill the requirements of ``independent testing'':
Testing performed at a third party independent accredited facility
which has some type
[[Page 60456]]
of national recognition; or testing at an accredited manufacturer's
facility that is considered independent under the requirements for
accreditation. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.d.2 and NEMA, No. 9 at D.2.). As
mentioned above, manufacturers' laboratories have been widely used to
test products for compliance with efficiency requirements imposed under
section 325 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295. A laboratory accreditation program
could also play a role for electric motors, provided the laboratory is
accredited to test electric motors for energy efficiency according to
the procedures in IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B and CSA Standard C390
Test Method 1.
b. Laboratory Accreditation. In researching how laboratory
accreditation programs could satisfy the independent testing provision
of the statute, the Department has reviewed a number of publications,
directories, and programs.6 Such documents frame the qualities of
a laboratory accreditation program, which include: Assessment criteria
or procedures which determine, for example, the laboratory's
independence within the manufacturer's organizational structure so that
test results are not influenced by such factors as marketing and
production sides; on-site inspection of the laboratories; qualification
requirements for laboratory staff; requirements to ensure the identity
and integrity of test samples; periodic re-audit of facilities;
laboratory participation in a proficiency testing program; and
requirements for the adequacy, maintenance, and calibration of
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Laboratory Accreditation in the United States, Maureen A.
Breitenberg, May 1991, NISTIR 4576.
Director of State and Local Government Laboratory Accreditation/
Designation Programs, Charles W. Hyer, Editor, July 1991, NIST
Special Publication 815.
Directory of Professional/Trade Organization Laboratory
Accreditation/Designation Programs, Charles W. Hyer, Editor, March
1992, NIST Special Publication 831.
Test laboratory accreditation criteria published in 15 CFR part
285.
National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program Handbook
150, Procedures and General Requirements.
ISO/IEC Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of
calibration and testing laboratories.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
laboratory accreditation program conducted in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ACEEE states that the Department should ``facilitate the
development of independent, accredited motor testing capability in the
United States to allow for independent verification of manufacturer
test results.'' According to ACEEE, such accreditation increases
confidence in the validity of manufacturer test results, and provides
an alternate means of testing for manufacturers who do not operate
their own accredited test laboratory. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.d).
Statements received from ACEEE, the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), Reliance, and NEMA support laboratory
accreditation as a means to augment the number of existing independent
laboratories in order to comply with the ``independent testing'' aspect
of the statute, and recommend the NIST National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NVLAP) as a source of accrediting laboratories
to test motors for energy efficiency. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.d; NIST, No.
1; Reliance, No. 8 at 3.d.2; and NEMA, No. 9 at D.2.).
According to NIST, NVLAP is the only general accreditation program
in the Federal system. It is a completely independent third party
accreditation program that operates under the Procedures and
Requirements published in 15 CFR part 285, and has mutual recognition
agreements with national accreditation organizations in other
countries, including Canada. Both the U.S. and Canada use one
procedures handbook (the NIST Handbook 150-10, Efficiency of Electric
Motors), and NVLAP's proficiency testing program. Under NIST Handbook
150-10, Sec. 285.33(h)(1), laboratories are accredited to use both the
IEEE 112 Test Method B, the motor efficiency test procedure prescribed
by the Act, and CSA Standard C390 Test Method 1, which MG1-1993
incorporated as an alternative test procedure. (As discussed above, the
Department proposes, in accordance with EPCA, to allow use of this
alternative.) NIST adds that industry representatives support NVLAP and
its mutual recognition agreements with other countries. (NIST, No. 1).
ACEEE adds that it sees no problem with accepting test results from
laboratories in Canada or other countries if the laboratories receive
NVLAP accreditation or if accreditation from their national body is
accepted by the NIST as meeting NVLAP standards. (ACEEE, No. 7 at 3.d).
Reliance notes that at present, NVLAP is the only accreditation
program which has established a complete manual on the requirements for
laboratory accreditation for determining the efficiency of electric
motors. This accreditation program was created by NVLAP with the
cooperation of motor manufacturers. Reliance points out, however, that
since there are over 300 accrediting bodies in the United States, it is
possible that several could conduct a program to accredit laboratories
for performing motor efficiency testing described in IEEE 112 or CSA
C390. Reliance asserts that recognition of any test facility which has
been accredited by a national accrediting body as an ``independent test
facility'' should be considered, and that international standards
provide a precedent for this. ``To receive accreditation under
international standards for laboratory accreditation a facility must
meet certain requirements for classification as an independent
facility, even if it is within the manufacturing complex for which it
would be performing the product testing. To quote from Clause 4.2 of
ISO/IEC Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of
calibration and testing laboratories, `(b) the laboratory shall have
arrangements to ensure that its personnel are free from any commercial,
financial, and other pressures which might adversely affect the quality
of their work and (c) be organized in such a way that confidence in its
independence (emphasis added) of judgment and integrity is maintained
at all times.' In short, accreditation to standards of recognized
accreditation organizations is equivalent to a recognition of
independence. This could provide the independence needed to meet the
requirements of an independent testing or certification program.''
(Reliance, No. 8 at 3.d.2).
The Department recognizes the possibility that accreditation bodies
other than NVLAP could accredit motor testing laboratories. For
example, the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA)
is a nonprofit, scientific, membership organization dedicated to the
formal recognition of testing laboratories and related organizations
which have achieved a demonstrated level of competence. According to
literature published by A2LA, accreditation is available to all
laboratories regardless of whether they are owned by private companies
or government bodies. One essential requirement, of course, is that
laboratories be accredited competent to perform testing in accordance
with the test procedures prescribed pursuant to EPCA for electric
motors. A2LA accreditation can be obtained for all types of tests,
measurements and observations that are reproducible, properly
documented, and generally available to everyone. A2LA's general
accreditation criteria are those of ISO/IEC Guide 25: 1990, General
requirements for the competence of calibration and testing
laboratories. Guide 25 is followed by NVLAP and other accrediting
bodies.
[[Page 60457]]
c. Certification Program. EPCA also provides that a manufacturer
can use a ``certification program nationally recognized in the United
States,'' instead of an independent testing program, to certify that
its motors meet EPCA efficiency standards. EPCA section 345(c), 42
U.S.C. 6316(c). The Department understands the word ``certification''
to mean a procedure by which a third party gives written assurance that
a product, process or service conforms to specified requirements.
With regard to the nature, identity, and capabilities of any
nationally recognized program or programs for the certification of
electric motors for energy efficiency, Reliance describes two existing
certification programs in North America, one conducted by CSA, and the
other by UL. Reliance states that both are generally regarded by
industry as ``nationally recognized.'' Reliance notes that these
programs are in place now and are independently verifying motor
efficiency. Reliance suggests that these programs could directly
fulfill the requirements of EPCA without modification. Both programs
entail (1) submittal by the manufacturer of the declared nominal
efficiency of the motors to be certified at the time of application
into the program, (2) examination of the manufacturer's testing
facility to determine that it is competent in performing the test
procedure in the IEEE 112 or CSA C390 Standards, (3) random selection
by the certification agency of the ratings of some motors to be tested
in the presence of an assessor from the certification agency, (4)
testing of the selected motors in the manufacturer's test facility, (5)
testing the same motors at an independent laboratory for comparison of
the results of the two tests, and (6) yearly follow-up audits which
include additional random sample testing to determine that the test
facility maintains its ability to perform the test and that the
manufacturer has not changed the motor design in any way that affects
the efficiency. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.d.2). Reliance adds that it is
not necessary to limit independent certification to CSA or UL. What is
necessary is that the certification program be conducted by an
organization in which the consumer will have full faith and confidence.
UL asserts that the Act's requirements are met by its Energy
Verification Service, wherein a motor manufacturer's production and
testing operations are evaluated and representative samples are tested
to applicable standards. Following initial verification, follow-up
audits of products and on-going testing by the manufacturer is
required. Essentially the steps set forth in the above paragraph are
followed. UL notes that its Energy Verification Service is in
compliance with Federal law in Canada, and is accredited by the
Standards Council of Canada. As an alternative to DOE developing
criteria for the acceptance of testing laboratories and certification
bodies, UL recommends that established ISO/IEC international criteria
be utilized. (UL, No. 4 at Certification).
The UL statement then lists the following ISO/IEC international
criteria applicable to testing laboratories and certification bodies:
ISO/IEC Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of
calibration and testing laboratories; ISO Guide 27, Guidelines for
corrective action to be taken by a certification body in the event of
either misapplication of its mark of conformity to a product, or
products which bear the mark of the certification body being found to
subject persons or property to risk; ISO/IEC Guide 28, General rules
for a model third-party certification system for products; and ISO/IEC
Guide 40, General requirements for the acceptance of certification
bodies.7 UL recommends that DOE use the criteria in the foregoing
Guides as the basis for recognizing that a test laboratory or
certification organization is competent to perform required tests or
operate a certification program. The Department understands that these
are internationally recognized documents utilized by testing
laboratories, accreditation bodies, and certification bodies in the
U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ISO/IEC Guide 40 has been superseded by ISO/IEC 65-1996,
General requirements for bodies operating product certification
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. National Recognition. Under EPCA, a testing or certification
program used to certify compliance must be ``nationally recognized.''
EPCA section 345(c), 42 U.S.C. 6316(c).
The question of national recognition has been addressed at 29 CFR
part 1910, by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA), which uses third-party (or independent)
testing laboratories to ensure that certain equipment and materials are
safe for workplace use. The OSHA final rule at 53 FR 12102-12125 (April
12, 1988) includes a requirement that testing laboratories listing or
approving products or equipment required to be approved under Part 1910
be recognized as Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTL) by
OSHA. Under that rule, OSHA evaluates applicant testing and control
programs against the NRTL definitional requirements, and issues a
written ``recognition'' letter. This is done in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.7 appendix A. OSHA also provides for continuing surveillance over
OSHA-recognized NRTLs to assure conformance with the requirements of
its rule. The definition of NRTL includes the following requirements:
(1) Capability to examine specific equipment for workplace safety;
(2) Provision of controls and services necessary for assuring and
demonstrating original conformity of equipment to appropriate test
standards;
(3) Independence from manufacturers, suppliers and vendors of
products, and from other employers; and
(4) Procedures for producing creditable findings and reports and
for handling complaints and disputes. (Department of Labor, No. 11).
The Association of Independent Scientific, Engineering and Testing
Firms (formerly the American Council of Independent Laboratories
(ACIL)) appears to claim that section 345(c) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.
6316(c), does not allow a manufacturer to certify compliance with
efficiency standards through testing in its own laboratory, even if the
laboratory is accredited. ACIL asserts that section 345(c) must be
interpreted consistently with sections 342(b) and 346(b)(3) of the
statute, which refer to listing or certifying motors by a nationally
recognized testing laboratory (NRTL). ACIL recommends that DOE
reference the OSHA program to accredit such laboratories, and ``codify
reliance on these NRTLs to certify electric motors.'' (ACIL, No. 6).
Although ACIL does not so state, the Department understands that these
laboratories are independent, and not controlled by a manufacturer of
the product being tested.
The Department cannot agree with ACIL's apparent view that, because
manufacturers do not control the safety testing laboratories referred
to in sections 342(b) and 346(b)(3) of EPCA, the efficiency testing
programs required to be used under section 345(c) also must be free of
manufacturer control. First, different considerations may apply to
safety testing and to efficiency testing in determining the required
degree of independence of a testing facility. Second, EPCA's references
to safety testing laboratories are incidental to EPCA's efficiency
requirements, and unrelated to the requirements of section 345(c).
Those references provide little guidance in interpreting section
345(c). Finally, as discussed above, implementation of section 345(c)
would be impossible if it were construed as prohibiting compliance
certification
[[Page 60458]]
based on testing in manufacturers' own laboratories.
Substantial potential may exist for NRTLs to make future
contributions to the EPCA program by performing energy efficiency
testing. But contrary to ACIL's recommendation, the Department cannot
yet rely on these laboratories to meet EPCA requirements, because it
has no indication that they currently are qualified to do efficiency
testing. And certainly the Department cannot rely on OSHA's NRTL
recognition process. The references to test laboratories in sections
342(b) and 346(b)(3) of EPCA, as well as OSHA's accreditation of NRTLs,
address safety testing. The procedures and equipment for efficiency
testing are different from the procedures and equipment for testing
whether a motor will operate safely.
The Department believes that the NRTL program does, however,
provide an approach for determining when a program is ``nationally
recognized.'' As further discussed below, the Department proposes to
adopt formal procedures similar to those utilized by the OSHA NRTL
program for purposes of establishing when a certification program is
``nationally recognized'' within the meaning of section 345(c).
e. Proposal. The Department proposes that the statutory requirement
for certification through an ``independent testing program'' be met by
using a laboratory, operated by either a third party or a manufacturer,
that has been accredited to perform the DOE test procedures. Given the
paucity of test facilities not controlled by manufacturers, the
Department believes that testing at manufacturers' laboratories that
have been accredited would satisfy the intent of the ``independent
testing'' aspect of EPCA section 345(c). Such accreditation would
provide many of the protections as to accuracy, bias, and independence
of judgment that would be provided by testing at non-manufacturer
facilities. Accreditation would also give additional assurance that the
laboratory is fully capable of testing a motor's energy efficiency, and
would reduce concerns with respect to variability and repeatability of
testing and test results. Accreditation of non-manufacturer
laboratories is proposed to assure an equal degree of reliability with
manufacturers' laboratories, and, as discussed below, to satisfy the
section 345(c) requirement that testing programs be nationally
recognized.
In accordance with section 345(c), the Department's proposed
regulation also permits a manufacturer to certify compliance through an
independent certification program. Such a program would have to be
essentially as described above by UL and Reliance. Manufacturers that
elect to use a certification program would not be required to have
their own laboratory accredited.
Finally, section 345(c) requires that compliance be certified
through a testing or certification program that is ``nationally
recognized.'' The Department proposes that this requirement shall be
met (1) by a testing facility that has been accredited either by NVLAP
or by an accrediting body that DOE classifies as nationally recognized
to accredit facilities to test motors for efficiency, or (2) by a
certification program that DOE has classified as nationally recognized.
The Department proposes criteria and procedures under which it would
make such classifications. Included would be the application of
appropriate ISO/IEC criteria. Accrediting bodies and certification
programs would seek such classification by submitting a petition to the
Department, accompanied by supporting documentation.
Under the Department's proposal, NVLAP accreditation of motor
testing laboratories would be pursuant to NVLAP's existing approach to
granting such accreditation, set forth in 15 CFR part 285 and NIST
Handbook 150-10. The Department is reviewing, and requests comment on,
whether these provisions are in any way inconsistent with EPCA
requirements or any portion of the proposed part 431. The Department
also proposes that if NVLAP alters its approach to accrediting motor
testing laboratories, subsequent to DOE adoption of a final rule in
this proceeding, such changes would become applicable to accreditation
under part 431 only if approved by DOE. The Department seeks comment on
whether such a provision is needed, and will suffice, to assure that
NVLAP accreditation methods will continue to be consistent with the DOE
energy efficiency program for motors.
In summary, the Department proposes implementation of the
requirement for ``manufacturers to certify, through an independent
testing or certification program nationally recognized in the United
States, that such motor meets the applicable [energy efficiency
standards],'' by either (i) testing at a third party independent
laboratory accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting body, such
as NVLAP, (ii) testing at the manufacturer's own laboratory if it is
accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting body, such as
NVLAP,8 or (iii) certification by a nationally recognized third-
party certification program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The proposed regulations would permit testing at a
laboratory accredited by a foreign organization recognized by NVLAP.
Any test results produced by such laboratory would, of course,
establish compliance with the Act and DOE's regulations only if the
underlying testing were performed in accordance with the DOE test
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Form of Certification
a. Compliance Statement. EPCA states that, ``the Secretary shall
require manufacturers to certify'' that each electric motor meets
applicable efficiency standards. EPCA section 345(c), 42 U.S.C.
6316(c). An example of how such language can be applied is found at 10
CFR 430.62, Submission of data, which requires manufacturers of
consumer appliance products to submit a compliance statement, as well
as a certification report that provides information for each basic
model of a product. It appears, however, that there are many more basic
models of electric motors than of each consumer appliance, and strictly
applying the Sec. 430.62 requirements to electric motors could be
unduly burdensome to manufacturers and to the Department. The
Department is aware of at least one manufacturer that claims to
manufacture thousands of basic models of electric motors covered by the
statute.
Statements from Reliance and NEMA address the difficulty of
requiring compliance statements for all basic models a manufacturer
produces. Reliance emphasizes that a manufacturer is likely to make a
very large number of basic models. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.b.3 and
3.d.1). Reliance also asserts that the Act requires manufacturers to
certify that the nominal efficiency of the basic model meets or exceeds
the level specified at section 342(b)(1) of EPCA for its rating, not
the actual value of nominal efficiency for the motor. Reliance and NEMA
recommend that each manufacturer submit a simplified compliance
statement to certify that all its basic models of covered electric
motors have a nominal full load efficiency equal to or in excess of the
statutory nominal full load efficiency standards, as determined by
actual testing or application of a substantiated alternative
correlation method. (Reliance, No. 8 at 3.d.1 and NEMA, No. 9 at D.).
NEMA proposes as an alternative, that each manufacturer submit a
compliance statement along with a certification report that provides
information on each of the 113 ratings within which it produces motors.
The 113 ratings refers
[[Page 60459]]
to the combinations of horsepowers, number of poles, and types of
enclosure in the table of nominal full load efficiencies at section
342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). According to NEMA, the
certification report would include, for each rating of electric motor
which a manufacturer or private labeler manufactures, the nominal full
load efficiency of the least efficient basic model with that rating.
(NEMA, No. 9 at D.).
The Department believes that, contrary to the assertion by
Reliance, it has the authority under the Act to require motor
manufacturers to certify the nominal full load efficiency of a motor.
But because there are so many basic models of electric motors, the
Department proposes to require a single Compliance Certification that
is quite similar to NEMA's alternative suggestion for certification.
The proposed approach is designed to minimize the reporting burden on
manufacturers, while fulfilling the purposes served by the statement of
compliance and certification report required for appliances at 10 CFR
430.62. The proposed Compliance Certification at 10 CFR 431.123 would
be a one-time statement which affirms that each basic model of electric
motor meets the energy efficiency requirements of the statute, based
upon actual testing or application of a substantiated alternative
efficiency determination method. For each of the 113 ratings within
which the manufacturer produces electric motors, it would identify the
nominal full load efficiency of the basic model that has the lowest
efficiency. At most, efficiencies would be included for 113 ratings.
The Compliance Certification would also, in effect, certify that all
basic models produced within each rating have a nominal full load
efficiency equal to or in excess of the efficiency represented in the
Compliance Certification for that rating.
b. New Models. EPCA requires each electric motor manufactured after
the 60-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
subsection, or in the case of an electric motor which requires listing
or certification by a nationally recognized safety testing laboratory,
after the 84-month period beginning on such date, to meet a prescribed
nominal full load efficiency level. EPCA section 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C.
6313(b)(1). A manufacturer is required to comply with the statutory
efficiency standards both for each motor it manufacturers as of the
statutory effective dates, and for each new basic model it begins to
manufacture thereafter.
In order to comply with the statutory certification requirements,
NEMA proposes that a manufacturer be required to submit a new
certificate of compliance for a new basic model only if the new model's
nominal full load efficiency is less than the nominal full load
efficiency of other basic models, within the same rating, that are
already being produced by the manufacturer and that have been
previously certified to be in compliance with EPCA and DOE regulations.
NEMA reasons that, ``If a manufacturer's original certification reports
only compliance by each class of 113 ratings, there is no need to
require detailed reporting on the nominal efficiency of each new basic
model, provided that such new basic model has a nominal full load
efficiency in excess of the statutory standard and the efficiency
certificated on the compliance statement for the relevant rating.''
(NEMA, No. 9 at D.3.).
Given the Department's proposal as to the initial Compliance
Certification, NEMA's reasoning is persuasive. Moreover, based on
information provided by manufacturers, there appears to be a potential
for the introduction of numerous new basic models having the same
ratings as motors already being manufactured. The Department seeks to
avoid imposing a possible undue burden of excessive reporting of
compliance of such new basic models. Therefore, it is proposed that
submission of a Compliance Certification for a new basic model would be
required only if (1) the manufacturer has not previously submitted to
DOE a Compliance Statement for a motor having the same rating as the
new basic model, or (2) the new model has the same rating as one or
more of the basic models that have previously been produced and
certified by the same manufacturer, but has a lower nominal full load
efficiency than any of those previously certified basic models.
G. Enforcement
The Department proposes to establish procedures for enforcement
testing which are appropriate for the equipment being tested for energy
efficiency, in this case 1 through 200 horsepower alternating current
electric motors. The proposed sampling plan for enforcement testing at
appendix C to subpart G of this part is a departure from the procedures
established at appendix B to subpart F of 10 CFR part 430--Sampling
Plan for Enforcement Testing. The proposed sampling plan for
enforcement testing is based upon NEMA MG1-12.58.2, Efficiency of
Polyphase Squirrel-cage Medium Motors with Continuous Ratings, and NEMA
MG1 Table 12-8, Efficiency Levels, which establish a logical series of
nominal motor efficiencies and the minimum associated with each nominal
based on 20 percent loss difference. NIST formulated the proposed
sampling plan for enforcement testing.
The sampling plan for enforcement testing of electric motors would
aid the Department in performing actual testing pursuant to the test
procedures prescribed in 10 CFR 431.23, and in achieving uniform
application of enforcement testing. The objectives of the sampling plan
for enforcement testing are (1) to provide for each motor an estimate
of the true mean full load efficiency, (2) to establish reasonable
measurement tolerances for motor efficiencies, and (3) to ensure that
the result of the test is significant within these tolerances.
The sampling plan for enforcement testing assumes that the
efficiencies of the entire population of motors are normally
distributed about the true mean and that the true mean full load
efficiency and standard deviation of the motor efficiencies are not
known. Compliance (or non-compliance) can be determined when the mean
efficiency of the basic model is not less than the statutory full load
efficiency (SFE), thus only a lower bound for the mean efficiency must
be specified. The proposed sampling plan for enforcement testing seeks
to estimate the true mean efficiency of the basic model and to ensure
that this mean efficiency is not less than the SFE, with high
probability.
The Department believes that the best estimate of the true mean
efficiency that may be obtained by tests conducted on a random sample
is the mean efficiency of that sample (X). The reliability of this
estimate depends on two factors: (1) the size of the sample, i.e., the
number of motors tested, and (2) the underlying variability of the
entire population. The standard error in the mean (SE(X)), i.e., the
standard deviation of the sample divided by the square root of the
sample size, is one measure of the variability of the sample mean. In
general, the ratio of the difference between X and the true mean to
SE(X) is distributed according to a probability density function known
in statistics literature as the t-distribution. Percentiles of this
distribution are to determine confidence intervals and, in this case,
to establish a lower bound. These percentiles are readily available and
are included in many references on statistics.
The lower bound benchmark is calculated by determining the figure
that would result if a population of motors meets the statutory
standard
[[Page 60460]]
(i.e., the mean full load efficiency for the population meets or
exceeds the statutory full load efficiency). If this is the case, and
if t is the 90th percentile of the t-distribution appropriate for the
sample size, then at least 90 percent of the time the average
efficiency will be greater than the lower control limit, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.000
The Department understands that in any statistical test there is a
possibility of obtaining a false result by chance. In this case, by
assumption, the basic model is in compliance and the sampling plan for
enforcement testing should, with high probability, correctly
demonstrate compliance or non-compliance. By design, the probability
that the mean efficiency of a random sample drawn from this population
would fall below the lower control limit and, hence, the risk of
incorrectly concluding non-compliance, is no greater than 10 percent.
To apply this method, a random sample is tested and the mean and
standard error in the mean are calculated. Based on the size of the
sample and the confidence desired the appropriate t value is selected
and the lower control limit calculated. For example, for 90 percent
confidence and a sample of five units t equals 1.533. Provided the mean
efficiency obtained from the random sample is not less than the lower
control limit, the Department can determine with 90 percent confidence
that the true mean efficiency of the entire population is not less than
the statutory level.
Following this procedure, there is some probability that the
estimate of the standard deviation and, therefore, the estimated
standard error in the mean is too large and that the lower control
limit may be set, by chance, to a value that defeats the purpose of the
sampling plan for enforcement testing. To avoid this circumstance, it
is sufficient to establish an upper limit for the standard error in the
mean. The tolerance in the standard error should be chosen to be
appropriate for the size and type of motor.
The strategy proposed here is to establish reasonable benchmarks
for the standard error in the mean. One possible solution is to base
these tolerances on the existing NEMA guidelines for identifying motor
efficiency levels at NEMA MG1-12.58.2 and NEMA Table 12-8. Such
guidelines were developed by consensus among motor manufacturers and
they are followed, on a voluntary basis, by a large segment of the
motor manufacturers. Under the NEMA guidelines, no single unit can have
energy losses more than 20 percent greater than the average losses for
that type of motor, i.e., a 20 percent loss tolerance is permitted for
a given unit but the average must still be met.
The NEMA guidelines serve to provide uniformity in motor efficiency
labeling and can be used for purposes of quality control by
manufacturers, and may, therefore, provide a reasonable basis for
estimating efficiency tolerances among motors of different size and
type. The Department believes that the 20 percent loss tolerance is
reasonable and meaningful.
The variability in the motor efficiencies allowed, when X=SFE, may
be calculated by setting the true mean efficiency equal to the
statutory value. The results of this procedure are presented below in
Table 1. The Department assumes for these data that the sample size is
five, and uses a single sided t-test and a 90% confidence level, i.e.,
t has been set to 1.533. Comparison of the standard deviation allowed
by the sampling plan for enforcement testing with the NEMA 20 percent
loss tolerance shows that the variability allowed corresponds to the
NEMA guidelines.
To determine compliance (or non-compliance) for the purpose of
enforcement testing, (a) the sample mean shall not be less than the
LCL, as defined above, and (b) the product of the t percentile and the
standard error in the mean may not exceed a 20 percent loss tolerance.
Table 1.--Comparison of the NEMA 20 Percent Loss Tolerance and the
Standard Deviations Allowed by the Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement
Statutory NEMA minimum NEMA 20% loss standard
efficiency efficiency tolerance deviation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
75.5............. 72.0 3.5 5.1
80.0............. 77.0 3.0 4.4
82.5............. 80.0 2.5 3.6
84.0............. 81.5 2.5 3.6
85.5............. 82.5 3.0 4.4
86.5............. 84.0 2.5 2.5
87.5............. 85.5 2.0 3.0
88.5............. 86.5 2.0 3.0
89.5............. 87.5 2.0 3.0
90.2............. 88.5 1.7 2.5
91.0............. 89.5 1.5 2.2
91.7............. 90.2 1.5 2.2
92.4............. 91.0 1.4 2.0
93.0............. 91.7 1.3 1.9
93.6............. 92.4 1.2 1.8
94.1............. 93.0 1.1 1.6
94.5............. 93.6 0.9 1.3
95.0............. 94.1 0.9 1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to section 7(c)(2) of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275, 15 U.S.C. 766(a)), a copy of this notice
has been submitted to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency for comments concerning the impact of this proposed rulemaking
on the quality of the environment.
In this rule, the Department proposes provisions to implement
statutorily mandated energy efficiency standards and test procedures
for electric motors. Implementation of the proposed rule would not
result in environmental impacts. The Department has therefore
determined that the proposed rule is covered under the Categorical
Exclusion found at paragraph A.6 of appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR
part 1021, which applies to the establishment of procedural
rulemakings. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is required.
V. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''
This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' October 4,
1993. Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the
Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
VI. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 603, requires the
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for every
rule which by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
A regulatory flexibility analysis examines the impact of the rule on
small entities and considers alternative ways of reducing negative
impacts.
The Department used the small business size standards published on
January 31, 1996 by the Small Business Administration to determine
whether any small entities would be required to comply with the
proposed rule. 61 FR 3280 (to be codified at 13 CFR part 121). The size
standards are listed by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code
and industry description. Electric motor manufacturing is SIC 3621. To
be considered a small business, a manufacturer of electric motors and
its
[[Page 60461]]
affiliates may employ a maximum of 1,000 employees.
The Department estimates there are approximately 27 domestic firms
and 14 foreign firms which manufacture electric motors covered under
EPCA. Many of the domestic motor manufacturers are affiliated with
larger U.S. or foreign firms. The sizes of motor manufacturing
companies in the U.S. range from fewer than 100 employees to several
thousand employees. The Department estimates that there are four to six
firms in the United States that both manufacture electric motors
covered by EPCA, and have, together with their affiliates, 1,000 or
fewer employees.
EPCA prescribes efficiency standards for electric motors of
specified horsepowers, with some exceptions permitted. 42 U.S.C.
6313(b) (1) and (2). The statutory energy efficiency standards are
incorporated in the proposed rule, although the standards do not depend
on rulemaking for their implementation. The Act also requires DOE to
prescribe test procedures for measuring motor efficiency, and it
further requires the use, initially, of the test procedures in NEMA
Standards Publication MG1-1987 and IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B, as
in effect on October 24, 1992. 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A). If the test
procedures for motor efficiency are amended by those standards bodies,
DOE is required to amend its test procedures accordingly unless to do
so would not meet certain statutory criteria for test procedures. 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B). The Act also requires DOE, by rule, to require
motor manufacturers to include the energy efficiency of the motor on
the permanent nameplate; to display the motor energy efficiency
prominently in any catalogs and other materials used to market motors;
and to include other markings DOE determines are necessary to
facilitate enforcement of the energy efficiency standards. 42 U.S.C.
6315 (a) and (d). DOE also is directed by the Act to require
manufacturers of covered motors to certify that the motor meets the
applicable energy efficiency standard, through an independent testing
program or certification program that is nationally recognized in the
United States. 42 U.S.C. 6316(c).
Since approximately 1992, many manufacturers have been redesigning
electric motors and testing them for compliance with the industry-
developed energy efficiency performance standards that are the basis
for the standards in the Act. Some manufacturers, including some small
manufacturers, will need to make additional design changes and conduct
verification testing to bring all of their basic models into compliance
with EPCA standards. DOE believes that the cost of complying with the
proposed rule (excluding the cost of compliance with the energy
efficiency standards and test procedures directly imposed by EPCA)
would not impose significant economic costs on a significant number of
small manufacturers.
The test procedures mandated by EPCA are test procedures already in
general use in the industry. Small manufacturers contacted by the
Department stated that they currently test electric motors in
accordance with IEEE Standard 112, Test Method B. The proposed rule has
been drafted to minimize the burden of testing for manufacturers, and
the proposed rule relies heavily on industry practice and
recommendations that have been submitted by manufacturers. Because
there are so many basic models of electric motors, the Department
proposes to require a compliance certification that includes listing,
for each rating of electric motor, of the average efficiency only of
the basic model that has the lowest efficiency. Consequently,
efficiencies would be included for 113 ratings, at most. The proposed
statistical sampling procedures are based on statistical sampling
procedures established for consumer appliance products at 10 CFR
430.24, and recommendations submitted by the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA). The sampling procedures are designed
to keep the testing burden on manufacturers as low as possible, while
still providing confidence that the test results of units tested can be
applied to units of the same basic model. The proposed maintenance of
records and compliance reporting requirements are based largely on the
statements and recommendations of NEMA.
DOE proposed labeling rules, required by the Act, also follow
current practice and recommendations submitted by manufacturers through
NEMA. The Department believes that the cost of including the energy
efficiency and a Compliance Certification number on the permanent
nameplate of electric motors covered under the Act would be negligible.
Nameplates already are attached to motors, and standards generally
followed in the industry require the energy efficiency to be marked on
the nameplate. The proposed requirement to display the energy
efficiency of motors in marketing materials only applies to materials
the manufacturer otherwise chooses to distribute or publish. Thus, for
example, catalogs would have to be updated to include the energy
efficiency number and the Compliance Certification number applicable to
a motor only when the catalog is revised to include that motor.
Some manufacturers may not be able to certify compliance by October
24, 1997, the effective date as to most basic models for the standards
and test procedures. The proposed rule eases the burden of compliance
for such manufacturers of electric motors, including small
manufacturers, by providing that the compliance certification
requirement would not become effective until 24 months after the
effective date of the rule. Furthermore, disclosure in a catalog of
energy efficiency information concerning a particular motor would not
be required until either the re-publication of the catalog after the
rule becomes effective, or until the motor is subsequently included in
the catalog.
It should be pointed out that DOE has limited discretion to apply
different requirements to small manufacturers. EPCA mandates the use of
uniform standards and testing procedures for all electric motors. EPCA
also contains the basic requirements for labeling and certification. In
this regard, it is noteworthy that although EPCA contains a ``small
manufacturer exemption'' for consumer appliance product manufacturers
(42 U.S.C. 6295(t)), no such exemption is included for manufacturers of
commercial and industrial equipment.
The Department invites public comment on its conclusion that the
incremental costs of complying with the proposed rule (not including
the cost of requirements that are directly imposed by EPCA, such as the
energy efficiency standards) would neither affect a substantial number
of small businesses, nor impose a significant economic impact on such
businesses.
VII. Review Under Executive Order 12612, ``Federalism''
Executive Order 12612, ``Federalism,'' 52 FR 41685 (October 30,
1987), requires that regulations, rules, legislation, and any other
policy actions be reviewed for any substantial direct effect on States,
on the relationship between the National Government and States, or in
the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of
government. If there are substantial effects, then the Executive Order
requires preparation of a federalism assessment to be used in all
decisions involved in promulgating and implementing a policy action.
The proposed rules published today would not regulate the States.
They
[[Page 60462]]
primarily would affect the manner in which DOE promulgates commercial
and industrial equipment energy efficiency standards, test procedures,
labeling, and certification of compliance by manufacturers, prescribed
under the Energy Conservation and Policy Act. State regulation in this
area is largely preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
The proposed rules published today would not alter the distribution of
authority and responsibility to regulate in this area. Accordingly, DOE
has determined that preparation of a federalism assessment is
unnecessary.
VIII. Review Under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and
Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights''
It has been determined pursuant to Executive Order 12630,
``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights,'' 52 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation
would not result in any takings which might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
IX. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
As explained above, the proposed rule includes certain labeling
requirements, requires manufacturers to maintain records concerning
their determinations of the energy efficiency of electric motors, and
precludes distribution of any electric motor not covered by a
certification of compliance submitted to the Department. These proposed
information collection and recordkeeping requirements have been
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The
proposed collections of information are necessary for implementing and
monitoring compliance with the efficiency standards, testing, labeling
and certification requirements for commercial and industrial electric
motors mandated by EPCA. In developing the proposed information
collection requirements, DOE considered the views of stakeholders that
were received at a public meeting held in May of 1995, in written
comments solicited in the notice of that meeting, and in subsequent
informal contacts.
DOE estimates the number of covered manufacturing firms to be 41
and the number of hours required to comply with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements in the proposed rule to be approximately 200
to 300 hours per year per firm. The total annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden from compliance with the proposed rule is expected
to be from 8,200 to 12,300 hours (41 x 200-300 hours per year). These
estimates include time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing
the collection of information.
In developing the burden estimates, DOE considered that each
manufacturer is required to comply with the statutory energy efficiency
standards for each motor it is manufacturing on the effective date of
the Act, and for each model it begins to manufacture after that date.
The required certification would be a one-time submission stating that
the manufacturer has determined, by employing actual testing or an
alternative method, that the basic model of electric motor meets the
applicable energy efficiency standard. The certification also includes
the energy efficiency for the least efficient basic model within each
rating, and identifies those basic models that have undergone actual
testing. Under the proposed rule, a compliance certification for a new
basic model would be required only if (1) the manufacturer has not
previously certified a motor having the same rating as the new basic
model, or (2) the energy efficiency of the new model is less than the
efficiency of previously-certified basic models of the same rating
produced by the same manufacturer. Many manufacturers already submit
this type of information to voluntary national electronic marketing
programs, such as the Washington State Energy Office's ``Motor Master''
program, or develop it for the design or marketing of energy efficient
motors. Those manufacturers should be able to comply with the
certification required by the proposed rule without much additional
burden.
Similarly, the remaining information collection requirements in the
proposed rule would also impose little additional burden. Most
manufacturers already voluntarily provide the energy efficiency of an
electric motor on a motor's permanent nameplate and in their catalogs
and other marketing materials, as would be required under the proposed
rule. Inclusion of the CC number on motor nameplates was advocated by
motor manufacturers, and this number could easily be included on
nameplates and in marketing materials. A very limited amount of
additional information would be required on import documents, at what
the Department believes would be negligible cost. And, finally, the
Department understands that manufacturers already maintain the records
the proposed rule would require them to keep.
The collections of information contained in this proposed rule are
considered the least burdensome for meeting the legal requirements and
achieving the program objectives of the DOE compliance certification
program for electric motors. However, public comments are requested
concerning the accuracy of the estimated paperwork reporting burden.
Send comments regarding the recordkeeping and reporting burden
estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information, to the
Department in accordance with the instructions in the Dates and
Addresses sections of this notice, as well as Section XIII, and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for
DOE.''
X. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on
executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following
requirement: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and
promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review
required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of the Executive Order
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of the Executive Order requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it
is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE reviewed today's final
regulations under the standards of section 3 of the Executive Order and
determined that, to the extent permitted
[[Page 60463]]
by law, they meet the requirements of those standards.
XI. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Pursuant to section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization
Act (Pub. L. 95-91), the Department of Energy is required to comply
with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as
amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977.
15 U.S.C. 788. Section 32 provides in essence that, where a proposed
rule contains or involves use of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of
such standards.
The rule proposed in this notice incorporates a number of
commercial standards which the Act requires to be used. For example,
the procedures required for measuring the efficiency of electric motors
come from the NEMA Publication ``Motors and Generators,'' MG1-1993
Revision 1; the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
``Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and
Generators,'' IEEE Standard 112-1991 Test Method B for motor
efficiency; and the Canadian Standards Association Standard C390-93
``Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction Motors.'' By
way of further example, certain definitions in the proposed rule are
drawn from NEMA Publication MG1. Because DOE has no discretion to not
include these standards, section 32 of the FEAA has no application to
them.
As part of its definition of electric motor, however, the proposed
rule does employ one commercial standard, the International
Electrotechnical Commission Standard 34-1, that the Act does not direct
the Department to adopt. The Department has evaluated this Standard and
is unable to conclude whether it fully complies with the requirements
of section 32(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act, i.e., that
it was developed in a manner which fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review.
As required by section 32(c) of the Act, the FEAA, Department will
consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade
Commission concerning the impact of this standard on competition, prior
to prescribing a final rule.
XII. Review Under Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the
Department prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a
rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. The budgetary
impact statement must include: (i) Identification of the Federal law
under which the rule is promulgated; (ii) a qualitative and
quantitative assessment of anticipated costs and benefits of the
Federal mandate and an analysis of the extent to which such costs to
state, local, and tribal governments may be paid with Federal financial
assistance; (iii) if feasible, estimates of the future compliance costs
and of any disproportionate budgetary effects the mandate has on
particular regions, communities, non-Federal units of government, or
sectors of the economy; (iv) if feasible, estimates of the effect on
the national economy; and (v) a description of the Department's prior
consultation with elected representatives of state, local, and tribal
governments and a summary and evaluation of the comments and concerns
presented.
The Department has determined that the action proposed today does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to state, local or to tribal governments in the
aggregate or to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of
sections 203 and 204 of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this
action.
XIII. Public Comment
A. Written Comment Procedures
Interested persons are invited to participate in the rulemaking by
submitting data, comments, or information with respect to the proposed
test procedures set forth in this notice to the address indicated at
the beginning of the notice.
Comments should be identified both on the envelope and on the
documents as ``Test Procedures and Certification Requirements for
Electric Motors, Docket No. EE-RM-96-400.'' Ten (10) copies are
requested to be submitted. In addition, the Department requests that an
electronic copy (3\1/2\'' diskette) of the comments on WordPerfect
TM 6.1 be provided. All submittals received by the date specified
at the beginning of this notice will be considered by the Department in
developing the final rule.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting
information which he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by
law from public disclosure should submit one complete copy of the
document and ten (10) copies, if possible, from which the information
believed to be confidential has been deleted. The Department of Energy
will make its own determination with regard to the confidential status
of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to the Department when evaluating requests to
treat as confidential information that has been submitted include: (1)
A description of the items; (2) an indication as to whether and why
such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry;
(3) whether the information is generally known by or available from
other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made
available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality;
(5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person
which would result from public disclosure; (6) an indication as to when
such information might lose its confidential character due to the
passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be
contrary to the public interest.
B. Public Hearing
1. Procedures for Submitting Requests to Speak
The time and place of the public hearing are indicated at the
beginning of this notice. The Department invites any person who has an
interest in today's notice, or who is a representative of a group or
class of persons that has an interest in these proposed test
procedures, to make a request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation. Such requests should be directed to the address indicated
at the beginning of this notice. Requests may be hand delivered to such
address between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Requests should be labeled ``Test Procedures
and Certification Requirements for Electric Motors, Docket No. EE-RM-
96-400,'' both on the document and on the envelope.
The person making the request should briefly describe the interest
concerned and state why he or she, either individually or as a
representative of a group or class of persons that have such an
interest, is an appropriate spokesperson, and give a telephone number
where he or she may be contacted.
Each person selected to be heard is requested to submit advance
copies of his or her statement prior to the hearing,
[[Page 60464]]
as indicated at the beginning of this notice. Any person wishing to
testify who cannot meet this requirement, may at the Department's
discretion be permitted to testify if that person has made alternative
arrangements with the Office of Codes and Standards in advance. The
letter making a request to give an oral presentation shall ask that
such alternative arrangements be made.
2. Conduct of Hearing
A Department of Energy official will be designated to preside at
the hearing. The hearing will not be a judicial or an evidentiary-type
hearing, but will be conducted in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553 and
section 336 of the Act. The Department of Energy reserves the right to
select the persons to be heard at the hearing, to schedule the
respective presentations, and to establish the procedures governing the
conduct of the hearing.
Each participant will be permitted to make a prepared general
statement, limited to five (5) minutes, prior to the discussion of
specific topics. The general statement should not address these
specific topics. Other participants will be permitted to briefly
comment on any general statements. The hearing will then be divided
into segments, with each segment consisting of one or more topics
covered by this notice, as follows: (1) Test procedures; (2) coverage
and application of efficiency standards; (3) labeling; (4)
certification; (5) enforcement; and (6) general statutory requirements
(the matters in sections IV-XII above). Any issue concerning a
definition in the proposed rule should be addressed during the
discussion of the topic(s) to which that issue pertains.
The Department will introduce each topic with a brief summary of
the relevant provisions of the proposed rule, and the significant
issues involved. Participants in the hearing will then be permitted to
make a prepared statement limited to five (5) minutes on that topic. At
the end of all prepared statements on a topic, each participant will be
permitted to briefly clarify his or her statement and comment on
statements made by others. The Department is particularly interested in
having participants address in their statements the specific issues set
forth below in Section XIII-C, ``Issues for Public Comment,'' and
participants should be prepared to answer questions by the Department
concerning these issues. Representatives of the Department may also ask
questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to the
hearing. The total cumulative amount of time allowed for each
participant to make prepared statements shall be 20 minutes.
The official conducting the hearing will accept additional comments
or questions from those attending, as time permits. Any further
procedural rules, or modification of the above procedures, needed for
the proper conduct of the hearing will be announced by the presiding
official.
A transcript of the hearing will be made, and the entire record of
this rulemaking, including the transcript, will be retained by the
Department of Energy and made available for inspection at the
Department of Energy Freedom of Information Reading Room, Forrestal
Building, Room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC
20585-0101, (202) 586-6020, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Any person may purchase
a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.
C. Issues for Public Comment
The Department of Energy is interested in receiving comments and
data concerning the accuracy and workability of these proposals and
welcomes discussion on improvements or alternatives to these
approaches. In particular, the Department is interested in gathering
comments on the following:
1. Does the definition of ``basic model'' appropriately delineate
motors with similar or different characteristics, and which should be
grouped together or distinguished for purposes of measuring efficiency?
What constitutes a difference between ``basic models?'' What are some
examples of different basic models? Within a given rating, what is the
likelihood of having different basic models?
2. Which electric motors are covered and which are not covered
under the Act's definitions of ``electric motor,'' ``definite purpose
motor,'' and ``special purpose motor?'' Comments are also sought on the
Department's interpretation of these definitions, as expressed in this
notice, and on whether the proposed definitions should be modified in
any way. Do the definitions in the proposed regulation pose any
practical problems, and are there particular motors that appear to be
excluded from coverage that should be covered, and vice versa?
3. Is the proposed statistical sampling plan for testing
appropriate for electric motors? Should a confidence limit higher than
90 percent be adopted? Should a different approach, or different
figures, be adopted in place of the proposed divisor/coefficient?
4. In conjunction with using a label with the ``ee'' logo or
``energy efficient'' designation, should a manufacturer be required to
display the minimum efficiency of the motor on the motor nameplate,
and/or include such minimum efficiency in its compliance certification?
Should the ``ee'' logo be required for complying motors, and if so,
under what conditions?
5. Should the Department require that a Compliance Certification
number be displayed on the nameplate of an electric motor, and in
marketing materials for that motor? What are the benefits of such
requirement(s)?
6. In addition to the proposal that import documents disclose the
date of the Compliance Certification and the CC number for that motor,
should import documents include a motor's nominal full load efficiency
or other information? What will be the practical effect of requiring
information on import documents?
7. What ``independent testing'' and ``certification'' programs
exist or could come into existence within the next several years?
Comments are also sought on the proposed provisions concerning
recognition of accrediting bodies and certification organizations by
the Department.
8. Does the sampling plan for enforcement testing: (1) Permit the
Department to obtain an estimate of the true mean full load efficiency
of the population of motors; (2) establish reasonable measurement
tolerances for motor efficiencies; and (3) ensure that the results
obtained by actual testing are significant within these tolerances?
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation,
Incorporation by reference.
Issued in Washington, DC, October 30, 1996.
Christine A. Ervin,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Chapter II of Title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), is proposed to be amended by adding
new part 431 to read as set forth below.
[[Page 60465]]
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT: TEST PROCEDURES, LABELING, AND CERTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec.
431.1 Purpose and scope.
431.2 Definitions.
Subpart B--Test Procedures and Materials Incorporated
431.21 Purpose and scope.
431.22 Reference sources.
431.23 Test procedures for measurement of energy efficiency.
431.24 Units to be tested.
431.25 Testing laboratories.
431.26 Department of Energy recognition of accreditation bodies.
431.27 Department of Energy recognition of nationally recognized
certification programs.
431.28 Petitions for waiver and applications for interim waiver.
Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 431--Uniform Test Method For Measuring
Nominal Full Load Efficiency of Electric Motors
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431--Nominal Full Load Efficiency and
Corresponding Coefficient K.
Subpart C--Energy Efficiency Standards
431.41 Purpose and scope.
431.42 Energy efficiency standards and effective dates.
Subpart D--Petitions to Exempt State Regulation from Preemption;
Petitions to Withdraw Exemption of State Regulation
431.61 Purpose and scope.
Subpart E--Labeling
431.81 Purpose and scope.
431.82 Labeling requirements.
Subpart F--[Reserved]
Subpart G--Certification and Enforcement
431.121 Purpose and scope.
431.122 Prohibited acts.
431.123 Compliance Certification.
431.124 Maintenance of records.
431.125 Imported equipment.
431.126 Exported equipment.
431.127 Enforcement.
431.128 Cessation of distribution of a basic model.
431.129 Subpoena.
431.130 Remedies.
431.131 Hearings and appeals.
431.132 Confidentiality.
Appendix A to Subpart G of Part 431--Compliance Certification
Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 431--Sampling Plan for Enforcement
Testing
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6311-6316.
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec. 431.1 Purpose and scope.
This part establishes the regulations for the implementation of
Part C of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C 6311-6316, which establishes an energy conservation
program for certain industrial equipment.
Sec. 431.2 Definitions.
For purposes of this part, words shall be defined as provided for
in section 340 of the Act and as follows--
Accreditation means recognition by an authoritative body that a
laboratory is competent to perform all of the specific test procedures
that are required by or incorporated into this part.
Accreditation body means an organization or entity that conducts
and administers an accreditation system and grants accreditation.
Accreditation system means a set of requirements to be fulfilled by
a testing laboratory, as well as rules of procedure and management,
that are used to accredit laboratories.
Accredited laboratory means a testing laboratory to which
accreditation has been granted.
Act means the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.).
Alternative efficiency determination method or AEDM means a method
of calculating the total power loss and average full load efficiency of
an electric motor.
ANSI means American National Standards Institute.
Average full load efficiency means the average efficiency of a
population of electric motors of duplicate design, where the efficiency
of each motor in the population is the ratio (expressed as a
percentage) of the motor's useful power output to its total power input
when the motor is operated at its full rated load.
Basic model means all units of a given type of covered equipment
(or class thereof) manufactured by a single manufacturer, and, with
respect to electric motors, which have the same rating, have electrical
characteristics that are essentially identical, and do not have any
differing physical or functional characteristics which affect energy
consumption or efficiency. For purpose of this definition, ``rating''
means one of the 113 combinations of an electric motor's horsepower (or
standard kilowatt equivalent), number of poles, and open or enclosed
construction, with respect to which Sec. 431.42 prescribes nominal full
load efficiency standards.
Certificate of conformity means a document that is issued by a
certification program, and that gives written assurance that an
electric motor complies with the energy efficiency standard applicable
to that motor, as specified in 10 CFR 431.42.
Certification program means a certification system that determines
conformity by electric motors with the energy efficiency standards
prescribed by and pursuant to the Act.
Certification system means a system, that has its own rules of
procedure and management, for giving written assurance that a product,
process, or service conforms to a specific standard or other specified
requirements, and that is operated by an entity independent of both the
party seeking the written assurance and the party providing the
product, process or service.
Covered equipment means industrial equipment of a type specified in
section 340 of the Act.
CSA means the Canadian Standards Association.
Definite purpose motor means any motor designed in standard ratings
with standard operating characteristics or standard mechanical
construction for use under service conditions other than usual, or for
use on a particular type of application, and which cannot be used in
most general purpose applications.
Electric motor means a machine which converts electrical power into
rotational mechanical power and which:
(1) Is a general purpose motor, including but not limited to motors
with explosion-proof construction;
(2) Is a single speed, induction motor;
(3) Is rated for continuous duty operation, or is rated duty type
S-1 (IEC);
(4) Contains a squirrel-cage or cage (IEC) rotor, and has foot-
mounting, including foot-mounting with flanges or detachable feet;
(5) Is built in accordance with NEMA T-frame dimensions, or IEC
metric equivalents (IEC);
(6) Has performance in accordance with NEMA Design A or B
characteristics, or equivalent designs such as IEC Design N (IEC); and
(7) Operates on polyphase alternating current 60-Hertz sinusoidal
power, and is:
(i) Rated 230 volts or 460 volts, or both, including any motor
that is rated at multi-voltages that include 230 volts or 460 volts, or
(ii) Can be operated on 230 volts or 460 volts, or both.
[[Page 60466]]
(Terms in this definition followed by the parenthetical ``IEC'' shall
be construed with reference to IEC Standard 34-1. Other terms in this
definition, if not defined in this Sec. 431.2, shall be construed with
reference to NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987.)
Enclosed motor means an electric motor so constructed as to prevent
the free exchange of air between the inside and outside of the case but
not sufficiently enclosed to be termed airtight.
EPCA means the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.).
General purpose motor means any motor which is designed in standard
ratings with either:
(1) Standard operating characteristics and mechanical construction
for use under usual service conditions, such as those specified in NEMA
Standards Publication 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.
IEC means the International Electrotechnical Commission.
IIEEE means the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
NEMA means the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
Nominal full load efficiency of an electric motor means the nominal
efficiency in Column A of Table 12-8, NEMA Standards Publication MG1-
1993, that is either the closest lower value to, or that equals, the
average full load efficiency of electric motors of the same design.
Open motor means an electric motor having ventilating openings
which permit passage of external cooling air over and around the
windings of the machine.
Special purpose motor means any motor that is designed for a
particular application, and that either:
(1) Is designed in non-standard ratings with special operating
characteristics or special mechanical construction, or
(2) Has special operating characteristics and special mechanical
construction.
Total power loss means that portion of the energy used by an
electric motor not converted to rotational mechanical power, expressed
in percent.
Subpart B--Test Procedures and Materials Incorporated
Sec. 431.21 Purpose and scope.
This subpart contains test procedures for electric motors, required
to be prescribed by DOE pursuant to section 343 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.
6314, and identifies materials incorporated by reference in this Part.
Sec. 431.22 Reference sources.
(a) Materials Incorporated by Reference--(1) General. The following
standards which are not otherwise set forth in this part 431 are
incorporated by reference. The material listed in paragraph (a)(2) of
this section has been approved for incorporation by reference by the
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. Any subsequent amendment to a standard by the standard-
setting organization will not affect the DOE test procedures unless and
until amended by DOE. Material is incorporated as it exists on the date
of the approval and a notice of any change in the material will be
published in the Federal Register.
(2) List of standards incorporated by reference.
(i) National Electrical Manufacturers Association Standards
Publication MG1-1993 with Revision 1, Motors and Generators, section
12.58.1, (``Determination of Motor Efficiency Losses''), Table 12-8
(``Efficiency Levels''), and section 14.02 (``Usual Service
Conditions'').
(ii) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
Standard 112-1991, Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and
Generators.
(iii) Canadian Standards Association Standard C390-93, Energy
Efficiency Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction Motors.
(3) Inspection of standards. The standards incorporated by
reference are available for inspection at:
(i) Office of the Federal Register Information Center, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC;
(ii) U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Hearings and Dockets, ``Test Procedures, Labeling,
and Certification Requirements for Electric Motors,'' Docket No. EE-RM-
96-400, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,
DC 20585.
(4) Availability of standards. Standards incorporated by reference
may be obtained from the following sources:
(i) Copies of IEEE Standard 112-1991 can be obtained from the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445 Hoes Lane,
P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, 1-800-678-IEEE; or the
American National Standards Institute, 11 West 42nd Street, 13th Floor,
New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900 as ANSI/IEEE 112-1992;
(ii) Copies of NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993 can be obtained
from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 North 17th
Street, Suite 1847, Rosslyn, VA 22209, (703) 841-3200;
(iii) Copies of CSA Standard C390-93 can be obtained from the
Canadian Standards Association, 178 Rexdale Boulevard, Rexdale
(Toronto), Ontario, Canada M9W 1R3, (416) 747-4044.
Sec. 431.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy efficiency.
The test procedures for measurement of whether an electric motor
complies with the energy efficiency standards in Sec. 431.42 shall be
the test procedures specified in appendix A to this subpart B.
Sec. 431.24 Units to be tested.
When testing of an electric motor is required in order for a
manufacturer to comply with an obligation imposed on it by or pursuant
to Part C of Title III of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311-6316, this section
applies. This section does not apply to enforcement testing conducted
pursuant to Sec. 431.127.
(a) General requirements. The average full load efficiency of each
basic model of electric motor shall be determined either by testing
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, or by application of an
alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) that meets the
requirements of paragraphs (b) (2) and (3) of this section, provided,
however, that an AEDM may be used to determine the average full load
efficiency of one or more of a manufacturer's basic models only if the
average full load efficiency of at least five of its other basic models
is determined through testing.
(b) Specific requirements--(1) Testing. (i) Basic models shall be
selected for testing in accordance with the following criteria:
(A) Two of the basic models must be among the five basic models
with the highest unit volumes of production by the manufacturer in the
prior year;
(B) The basic models should be of different horsepowers without
duplication;
(C) The basic models should have different frame sizes without
duplication; and
(D) Each basic model should be expected to have the lowest nominal
full load efficiency among the basic models with the same rating.
[[Page 60467]]
(ii) In any instance where it is impossible for a manufacturer to
select basic models for testing in accordance with all of the criteria
in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the criteria shall be given
priority in the order in which they are listed. Within the limits
imposed by the criteria, basic models shall be selected randomly.
(iii) For each basic model selected for testing,9 a sample of
units shall be selected at random and tested in accordance with
Secs. 431.23 and 431.25, and appendix A, of this subpart. The sample
shall be comprised of production units of the basic model, or units
that are representative of such production units, and shall be of
sufficient size to ensure that any represented value of the nominal or
average full load efficiency of the basic model is no greater than the
lesser of:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Components of similar design may be substituted without
requiring additional testing if the represented measures of energy
consumption continue to satisfy the applicable sampling provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The average full load efficiency of the sample, or
(B) The lower 90 percent confidence limit of the average full load
efficiency of the entire population divided by the coefficient ``K''
applicable to the represented value. The coefficients are set forth in
appendix B of this subpart.
(2) Alternative efficiency determination method. An AEDM applied to
a basic model must be:
(i) Derived from a mathematical model that accurately represents
the mechanical and electrical characteristics of that basic model, and
(ii) Based on engineering or statistical analysis, computer
simulation or modeling, or other analytic evaluation of performance
data.
(3) Substantiation of an alternative efficiency determination
method. Before an AEDM is used, its accuracy and reliability must be
substantiated as follows:
(i) The AEDM must be applied to at least five basic models that
have been selected for testing and tested in accordance with paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, and
(ii) The predicted total power loss for each such basic model,
calculated by applying the AEDM, must be within plus or minus ten
percent of the mean total power loss determined from the actual testing
of that basic model.
(4) Subsequent verification of an AEDM. (i) Each manufacturer shall
periodically select basic models representative of those to which it
has applied an AEDM, and for each basic model selected shall either:
(A) Subject a sample of units to testing in accordance with
Secs. 431.23 and 431.24(b)(1)(iii) by an accredited laboratory that
meets the requirements of Sec. 431.25,
(B) Have a certification body recognized under Sec. 431.27 certify
its nominal full load efficiency, or
(C) Have an independent state-registered professional engineer, who
is not an employee of the manufacturer, review the manufacturer's
representations and certify that the results of the AEDM accurately
represent the total power loss and nominal full load efficiency of the
basic model.
(ii) Each manufacturer that has used an AEDM under this section
shall have available for inspection by the Department of Energy records
showing: The method or methods used; the mathematical model, the
engineering or statistical analysis, computer simulation or modeling,
and other analytic evaluation of performance data on which the AEDM is
based; complete test data, product information, and related information
that the manufacturer has generated or acquired pursuant to paragraphs
(a)(3) and (a)(4)(i) of this section; and the calculations used to
determine the average full load efficiency and total power losses of
each basic model to which an AEDM was applied.
(iii) If requested by the Department, the manufacturer shall
conduct simulations to predict the performance of particular basic
models of electric motors specified by the Department, analyses of
previous simulations conducted by the manufacturer, sample testing of
basic models selected by the Department, or a combination of the
foregoing.
Sec. 431.25 Testing laboratories.
(a) Unless a certificate of conformity for a basic model of an
electric motor is obtained from a certification program classified by
DOE as nationally recognized under Sec. 431.27, all testing of that
basic model to meet the requirements of Sec. 431.24 shall be carried
out in an accredited laboratory for which the accreditation body was:
(1) The National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program
(NVLAP), or
(2) A foreign organization recognized by NVLAP, or
(3) An organization classified by the Department, pursuant to
Sec. 431.26, as an accreditation body.
(b) NVLAP is under the auspices of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) which is part of the U.S. Department of
Commerce. NVLAP accreditation is granted on the basis of conformance
with criteria published in 15 CFR part 285, The National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program Procedures and General Requirements.
NIST Handbook 150-10, August 1995, presents the technical requirements
of the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program for the
Efficiency of Electric Motors field of accreditation. This handbook
supplements NIST Handbook 150, National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program Procedures and General Requirements, which
contains part 285 of Title 15 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations
plus all general NVLAP procedures, criteria, and policies. Changes in
NVLAP's criteria, procedures, policies, standards or other bases for
granting accreditation, occurring subsequent to the initial effective
date of 10 CFR part 431, shall not apply to accreditation under this
part unless approved in writing by the Department of Energy.
Information regarding NVLAP can be obtained from NIST/NVLAP, Building
411, Room A162, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, telephone (301) 975-4016, or
telefax (301) 926-2884.
Sec. 431.26 Department of Energy recognition of accreditation bodies.
(a) Petition. An organization requesting classification by the
Department of Energy as an accreditation body must submit a petition to
the Department requesting such classification, and must demonstrate
that it meets the criteria in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Evaluation criteria. To be classified as an accreditation body
by the Department, the organization must meet the following criteria:
(1) It must have standards and procedures for conducting and
administering an accreditation system and for granting accreditation.
(2) It must be independent of electric motor manufacturers,
importers, distributors, private labelers or vendors. It cannot be
affiliated with, have financial ties with, be controlled by, or be
under common control with any such entity.
(3) It must be qualified to perform the accrediting function in a
highly competent manner.
(4) It must be expert in the content and application of the test
procedures and methodologies in IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B and CSA
Standard C390 Test Method (1), or similar procedures and methodologies
for determining the energy efficiency of electric motors.
(c) Petition format. Each petition requesting classification as an
[[Page 60468]]
accreditation body must contain a narrative statement as to why the
organization meets the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this
section, must be signed on behalf of the organization by an authorized
representative, and must be accompanied by documentation that supports
the narrative statement. The following provides additional guidance:
(1) Standards and procedures. A copy of the organization's
standards and procedures for operating an accreditation system and for
granting accreditation should accompany the petition.
(2) Independent status. The petitioning organization should
identify and describe any relationship, direct or indirect, that it has
with an electric motor manufacturer, importer, distributor, private
labeler, vendor, trade association or other such entity, as well as any
other relationship it believes might appear to create a conflict of
interest for it in performing as an accreditation body for electric
motor testing laboratories. It should explain why it believes such
relationship(s) would not compromise its independence as an
accreditation body.
(3) Qualifications to do accrediting. Experience in accrediting
should be discussed and substantiated by supporting documents. Of
particular relevance would be documentary evidence that establishes
experience in the application of guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC
Guide 58, Calibration and testing laboratory accreditation systems--
General requirements for operation and recognition, as well as
experience in overseeing compliance with the guidelines contained in
the ISO/IEC Guide 25, General Requirements for the Competence of
Calibration and Testing Laboratories.
(4) Expertise in electric motor test procedures. The petition
should set forth the organization's experience with the test procedures
and methodologies in IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B and CSA Standard
C390 Test Method (1), and with similar procedures and methodologies.
This part of the petition should include description of prior projects,
qualifications of staff members, and the like. Of particular relevance
would be documentary evidence that establishes experience in applying
the guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25, General Requirements
for the Competence of Calibration and Testing Laboratories, to energy
efficiency testing for electric motors.
(d) Disposition. The Department will evaluate the petition,
determine whether the applicant meets the criteria in paragraph (b) of
this section to be classified as an accrediting body, advise the
applicant of its determination, and give public notice of any
affirmative determination. The Department's determination may be based
solely on the applicant's petition and supporting documents, or may
also be based on such additional information as it deems appropriate.
The Department may request that the applicant provide additional
relevant information to supplement its petition, or may conduct an
investigation.
Sec. 431.27 Department of Energy recognition of nationally recognized
certification programs.
(a) Petition. For a certification program to be classified by the
Department of Energy as being nationally recognized in the United
States for the purposes of section 345 of EPCA (``nationally
recognized''), the organization operating the program must demonstrate
the program's eligibility for such classification, and must submit a
petition to the Department requesting such classification.
(b) Evaluation criteria. For a certification program to be
classified by the Department as nationally recognized, it must meet the
following criteria:
(1) It must have standards and procedures for conducting and
administering a certification system and for granting a certificate of
conformity.
(2) It must be independent of electric motor manufacturers,
importers, distributors, private labelers or vendors. It cannot be
affiliated with, have financial ties with, be controlled by, or be
under common control with any such entity.
(3) It must be qualified to operate a certification system in a
highly competent manner.
(4) It must be expert in the content and application of the test
procedures and methodologies in IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B and CSA
Standard C390 Test Method (1), or similar procedures and methodologies
for determining the energy efficiency of electric motors.
(c) Petition format. Each petition requesting classification as a
nationally recognized certification program must contain a narrative
statement as to why the program meets the criteria listed in paragraph
(b) of this section, must be signed on behalf of the organization
operating the program by an authorized representative, and must be
accompanied by documentation that supports the narrative statement. The
following provides additional guidance as to the specific criteria:
(1) Standards and procedures. A copy of the standards and
procedures for operating a certification system and for granting a
certificate of conformity should accompany the petition.
(2) Independent status. The petitioning organization should
identify and describe any relationship, direct or indirect, that it or
the certification program has with an electric motor manufacturer,
importer, distributor, private labeler, vendor, trade association or
other such entity, as well as any other relationship it believes might
appear to create a conflict of interest for the certification program
in operating a certification system for compliance by electric motors
with energy efficiency standards. It should explain why it believes
such relationship would not compromise its independence in operating a
certification program.
(3) Qualifications to operate a certification system. Experience in
operating a certification system should be discussed and substantiated
by supporting documents. Of particular relevance would be documentary
evidence that establishes experience in the application of guidelines
contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 65, General requirements for bodies
operating product certification systems, ISO/IEC Guide 27, Guidelines
for corrective action to be taken by a certification body in the event
of either misapplication of its mark of conformity to a product, or
products which bear the mark of the certification body being found to
subject persons or property to risk, and ISO/IEC Guide 28, General
rules for a model third-party certification system for products, as
well as experience in overseeing compliance with the guidelines
contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25, General Requirements for the
Competence of Calibration and Testing Laboratories.
(4) Expertise in electric motor test procedures. The petition
should set forth the program's experience with the test procedures and
methodologies in IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B and CSA Standard C390
Test Method (1), and with similar procedures and methodologies. This
part of the petition should include description of prior projects,
qualifications of staff members, and the like. Of particular relevance
would be documentary evidence that establishes experience in applying
guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25, General Requirements for
the Competence of Calibration and Testing Laboratories, to energy
efficiency testing for electric motors.
(d) Disposition. The Department will evaluate the petition,
determine whether the applicant meets the criteria
[[Page 60469]]
in paragraph (b) of this section for classification as a nationally
recognized certification program, advise the applicant of its
determination, and give public notice of any affirmative determination.
The Department's determination may be based solely on the applicant's
petition and supporting documents, or may also be based on such
additional information as it deems appropriate. The Department may
request that the applicant provide additional relevant information to
supplement its petition, or may conduct an investigation.
Sec. 431.28 Petitions for waiver and applications for interim waiver.
The provisions of 10 CFR 430.27 shall apply with respect to this
part 431, to the same extent and in the same manner as they apply in
part 430. In applying Sec. 430.27 for purposes of this part, the term
``Sec. 430.22'' shall be deemed to mean ``section 431.23,'' and the
term ``Sec. 322(a)'' shall be deemed to mean ``section 340(1).''
Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
Nominal Full Load Efficiency of Electric Motors
1. Definitions
Definitions contained in Sec. 431.2 are applicable to this
appendix.
2. Test procedures
Efficiency and losses shall be determined in accordance with
NEMA MG1-1993 with Revision 1, section 12.58.1, Determination of
Motor Efficiency and Losses, and either IEEE Standard 112 Test
Method B, Input-Output with Loss Segregation, or Canadian Standards
Association Standard C390 Test Method (1), Input-Output Method with
Indirect Measurement of the Stray-Load Loss and Direct Measurement
of the Stator Winding (I2R), Rotor Winding (I2R), Core and
Windage-Friction Losses.
3. Amendments to test procedures
Any revision to IEEE Standard 112-1991, Test Method B, to
Sec. 12.58.1 of NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993 with Revision 1,
or to CSA Standard C390-93, Test Method (1), subsequent to
promulgation of this appendix A, shall not be effective for purposes
of test procedures required under part 431 and this appendix A,
unless and until part 431 and this appendix A are amended.
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 431--Nominal Full Load Efficiency and
Corresponding Coefficient K
The coefficient K is used for calculating permitted represented
values of energy efficiency. From the table below, select the
coefficient K for the nominal full load efficiency that is equal to,
or is the closest lower value to, the represented value.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full load efficiency Coefficient K
------------------------------------------------------------------------
99.0............................... 0.998
98.9............................... 0.998
98.8............................... 0.998
98.7............................... 0.998
98.6............................... 0.998
98.5............................... 0.997
98.4............................... 0.996
98.2............................... 0.996
98.0............................... 0.996
97.8............................... 0.996
97.6............................... 0.995
97.4............................... 0.994
97.1............................... 0.994
96.8............................... 0.994
96.5............................... 0.993
96.2............................... 0.992
95.8............................... 0.992
95.4............................... 0.991
95.0............................... 0.990
94.5............................... 0.990
94.1............................... 0.988
93.6............................... 0.987
93.0............................... 0.986
92.4............................... 0.985
91.7............................... 0.984
91.0............................... 0.984
90.2............................... 0.981
89.5............................... 0.978
88.5............................... 0.977
87.5............................... 0.977
86.5............................... 0.971
85.5............................... 0.965
84.0............................... 0.970
82.5............................... 0.970
81.5............................... 0.963
80.0............................... 0.963
78.5............................... 0.962
77.0............................... 0.961
75.5............................... 0.954
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart C--Energy Efficiency Standards
Sec. 431.41 Purpose and scope.
This subpart contains energy efficiency standards for certain types
of covered equipment pursuant to Part C--Certain Industrial Equipment,
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6211 et
seq.).
Sec. 431.42 Energy efficiency standards and effective dates.
(a) Each electric motor manufactured (alone or as a component of
another piece of equipment) after October 24, 1997, or in the case of
an electric motor which requires listing or certification by a
nationally recognized safety testing laboratory, after October 24,
1999, shall have a nominal full load efficiency of not less than the
following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full load efficiency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of poles Open motors Enclosed motors
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 4 2 6 4 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Horsepower/Standard Kilowatt
Equivalent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75............................. 80.0 82.5 ........... 80.0 82.5 75.5
1.5/1.1........................... 84.0 84.0 82.5 85.5 84.0 82.5
2/1.5............................. 85.5 84.0 84.0 86.5 84.0 84.0
3/2.2............................. 86.5 86.5 84.0 87.5 87.5 85.5
5/3.7............................. 87.5 87.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5
7.5/5.5........................... 88.5 88.5 87.5 89.5 89.5 88.5
10/7.5............................ 90.2 89.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5
15/11............................. 90.2 91.0 89.5 90.2 91.0 90.2
20/15............................. 91.0 91.0 90.2 90.2 91.0 90.2
25/18.5........................... 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 92.4 91.0
30/22............................. 92.4 92.4 91.0 91.7 92.4 91.0
40/30............................. 93.0 93.0 91.7 93.0 93.0 91.7
50/37............................. 93.0 93.0 92.4 93.0 93.0 92.4
60/45............................. 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.6 93.6 93.0
75/55............................. 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 94.1 93.0
100/75............................ 94.1 94.1 93.0 94.1 94.5 93.6
125/90............................ 94.1 94.5 93.6 94.1 94.5 94.5
150/110........................... 94.5 95.0 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5
[[Page 60470]]
200/150........................... 94.5 95.0 94.5 95.0 95.0 95.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) For purposes of determining the required minimum nominal full
load efficiency of an electric motor that has a horsepower or kilowatt
rating between two horsepowers or kilowattages listed consecutively in
paragraph (a) of this section, each such motor shall be deemed to have
a horsepower or kilowatt rating that is listed in paragraph (a) of this
section. The rating that the motor is deemed to have shall be
determined as follows:
(1) A horsepower at or above the midpoint between the two
consecutive horsepowers shall be rounded up to the higher of the two
horsepowers;
(2) A horsepower below the midpoint between the two consecutive
horsepowers shall be rounded down to the lower of the two horsepowers,
or
(3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly converted from kilowatts to
horsepower using the formula, 1 kilowatt = (1/0.746) horsepower,
without calculating beyond three significant decimal places, and the
resulting horsepower shall be rounded in accordance with paragraph
(b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, whichever applies.
(c) This section does not apply to definite purpose motors, special
purpose motors, and those motors exempted by the Secretary.
Subpart D--Petitions To Exempt State Regulation From Preemption;
Petitions To Withdraw Exemption of State Regulation
Sec. 431.61 Purpose and scope.
The provisions of 10 CFR 430.40 through 430.49 shall apply with
respect to this part 431, to the same extent and in the same manner as
they apply in part 430. In applying Secs. 430.40 through 430.49 for
purposes of this part, the term ``energy conservation standard'' shall
be deemed to mean ``energy efficiency standard,'' and the term
``product'' shall be deemed to mean ``equipment.''
Subpart E--Labeling
Sec. 431.81 Purpose and scope.
This subpart establishes labeling rules for electric motors
pursuant to section 344 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6315. It addresses labeling
and marking the equipment with information indicating its energy
efficiency and compliance with applicable standards under section 342
of EPCA, 42 U.S.C 6313, and the inclusion of such information in other
material used to market the equipment.
Sec. 431.82 Labeling requirements.
(a) Electric motor nameplate--(1) Required information. The
permanent nameplate of an electric motor for which standards are
prescribed in Sec. 431.42 shall be marked clearly with the following
information:
(i) The motor's nominal full load efficiency (as of the date of
manufacture), derived from the motor's average full load efficiency as
determined pursuant to subpart B of this part;
(ii) The Compliance Certification (``CC'') number supplied by DOE
to the manufacturer pursuant to Sec. 431.123(e), and applicable to that
motor. A CC number shall be applicable to a motor 90 days after either:
(A) The manufacturer has received the number upon submitting a
Compliance Certification covering that motor, or
(B) The expiration of 21 days from DOE's receipt of a Compliance
Certification covering that motor, if the manufacturer has not been
advised by DOE that the Compliance Certification fails to satisfy
Sec. 431.123.
(2) Display of required information. All orientation, spacing, type
sizes, type faces, and line widths to display this required information
shall be the same as or similar to the display of the other performance
data on the motor's permanent nameplate. The nominal full load
efficiency shall be identified either by the term ``Nominal
Efficiency'' or ``Nom. Eff.'' or by the terms specified in Sec. 12.58.2
of NEMA MG1-1993, as for example ``NEMA Nom. Eff. ________________.''
The DOE number shall be in the form ``CC________________.''
(3) Optional display. The permanent nameplate of an electric motor,
a separate plate, or decalcomania, may be marked with the words
``energy efficient,'' or with the encircled lower case letters ``ee'',
or with some comparable designation or logo, if the motor meets the
applicable standard prescribed in Sec. 431.42, as determined pursuant
to subpart B of this part, and is covered by a Compliance Certification
that satisfies Sec. 431.123.
(b) Disclosure of efficiency information in marketing materials.
(1) The same information that must appear on an electric motor's
permanent nameplate pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, shall
be prominently displayed:
(i) On each page of a catalog that lists the motor, and
(ii) In other materials used to market the motor.
(2) The ``ee'' logo, the words ``energy efficient,'' or other
similar logo or designations, may also be used in catalogs and other
materials to the same extent they may be used on labels under paragraph
(a)(3) of this section.
(c) Import documents. Any electric motor imported into the United
States shall be accompanied by shipping papers that disclose clearly
the date of the Compliance Certification for that motor, and the
Compliance Certification number applicable to that motor in accordance
with paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
(d) Other motors. A manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private
labeler may voluntarily comply with or implement any of the
subparagraphs of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section with respect to
any electric motor manufactured prior to October 24, 1997, any definite
purpose motor, or any special purpose motor. Any such motor that is
labeled with information required or permitted for electric motors
under this section, shall be deemed to be an ``electric motor'' for
purposes of:
(1) The provision of this section that requires or permits such
labeling information, and
(2) The requirements of this part concerning standards, testing,
certification and enforcement that are related to that provision. Any
certification of compliance submitted for purposes of this paragraph
shall be submitted on a Compliance Certification that covers only non-
covered motors, and that is clearly labeled as such on the first page
and on the first page of the attachment.
Subpart F--[Reserved]
Subpart G--Certification and Enforcement
Sec. 431.121 Purpose and scope.
The regulations in this subpart set forth the procedures for
manufacturers to certify that electric motors comply
[[Page 60471]]
with the applicable energy efficiency standards set forth in subpart C
of this part, and set forth standards and procedures for enforcement of
this part and the underlying provisions of the Act.
Sec. 431.122 Prohibited acts.
(a) Each of the following is a prohibited act pursuant to sections
332 and 345 of the Act:
(1) Distribution in commerce by a manufacturer or private labeler
of any new covered equipment which is not labeled in accordance with an
applicable labeling rule prescribed in accordance with section 344 of
the Act, and in this part;
(2) Removal from any new covered equipment or rendering illegible,
by a manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler, of any
label required under this part to be provided with such equipment;
(3) Failure to permit access to, or copying of records required to
be supplied under the Act and this part, or failure to make reports or
provide other information required to be supplied under the Act and
this part;
(4) Advertisement of covered equipment, by a manufacturer,
distributor, retailer, or private labeler, in a catalog from which the
equipment may be purchased, without including in the catalog all
information as required by Sec. 431.82(b)(2), provided, however, that
this shall not apply to an advertisement of covered equipment in a
catalog if distribution of the catalog began before the effective date
of the labeling rule applicable to that equipment;
(5) Failure of a manufacturer to supply at his expense a reasonable
number of units of an electric motor to a test laboratory designated by
the Secretary;
(6) Failure of a manufacturer to permit a representative designated
by the Secretary to observe any testing required by the Act and this
part, and to inspect the results of such testing; and
(7) Distribution in commerce by a manufacturer or private labeler
of any new covered equipment which is not in compliance with an
applicable energy efficiency standard prescribed under the Act and this
part.
(b) In accordance with sections 333 and 345 of the Act, any person
who knowingly violates any provision of paragraph (a) of this section
may be subject to assessment of a civil penalty of no more than $100
for each violation. Each violation of paragraphs (a) (1), (2), and (7)
of this section shall constitute a separate violation with respect to
each unit of covered equipment, and each day of noncompliance with
paragraphs (a) (3) through (6) of this section shall constitute a
separate violation.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term new covered equipment
means covered equipment the title of which has not passed to a
purchaser who buys such equipment for purposes other than
(1) Reselling such equipment, or
(2) Leasing such equipment for a period in excess of one year.
Sec. 431.123 Compliance Certification.
(a) General. Beginning 24 months after [effective date of rule], a
manufacturer or private labeler shall not distribute in commerce any
basic model of an electric motor subject to an energy efficiency
standard set forth in subpart C of this part unless it has submitted to
the Department a Compliance Certification certifying, in accordance
with the provisions of this section, that the basic model meets the
requirements of the applicable standard. Such certification must be
based upon a determination made in accordance with the applicable
requirements of subpart B of this part.
(b) Required contents. (1) General representations. Each Compliance
Certification shall certify that:
(i) The nominal full load efficiency for each basic model of
electric motor distributed is not less than the minimum nominal full
load efficiency required for that motor by Sec. 431.42;
(ii) All required determinations on which the Compliance
Certification is based were made in compliance with the applicable
requirements prescribed in subpart B of this part;
(iii) All information reported in the Compliance Certification is
true, accurate, and complete; and
(iv) The manufacturer or private labeler is aware of the penalties
associated with violations of the Act and the regulations thereunder,
and 18 U.S.C. 1001 which prohibits knowingly making false statements to
the Federal Government.
(2) Specific data. (i) For each rating of electric motor (as the
term ``rating'' is defined in the definition of basic model) which a
manufacturer or private labeler distributes, the Compliance
Certification shall report the average full load efficiency, determined
pursuant to Secs. 431.23 and 431.24, of the least efficient basic model
within that rating.
(ii) The Compliance Certification shall identify the basic models
on which actual testing has been performed to meet the requirements of
Sec. 431.24.
(iii) The format for a Compliance Certification is set forth in
appendix A of this subpart.
(c) Signature and submission. A manufacturer or private labeler
shall submit the Compliance Certification either on its own behalf,
signed by a corporate officer of the company, or through a third party
(for example, a trade association or other authorized representative)
acting on its behalf. Where a third party is used, the Compliance
Certification shall identify the official of the manufacturer or
private labeler who authorized the third party to make representations
on the company's behalf, and shall be signed by a corporate official of
the third party. The Compliance Certification shall be submitted to the
Department by certified mail, to Department of Energy, Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Codes
and Standards, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC 20585-0121.
(d) New basic models. For electric motors, a Compliance
Certification shall be submitted for a new basic model only if the
manufacturer or private labeler has not previously submitted to DOE a
Compliance Certification, that meets the requirements of Sec. 431.123,
for a basic model that has the same rating as the new basic model, and
that has a lower nominal full load efficiency than the new basic model.
(e) Response to Certification; Certification Number for Electric
Motors. Promptly upon receipt of a Compliance Certification, the
Department shall determine whether the document contains all of the
elements required by this section, and may, in its discretion,
determine whether all or part of the information provided in the
document is accurate. The Department shall then advise the submitting
party in writing either that the Compliance Certification does not
satisfy the requirements of this section, in which case the document
shall be returned, or that the Compliance Certification satisfies this
section, and the basis for the determination. When advising that the
initial Compliance Certification submitted by or on behalf of a
manufacturer or private labeler is acceptable, DOE shall provide a
unique number, ``CC ________________,'' to the manufacturer or private
labeler.
Sec. 431.124 Maintenance of records.
(a) The manufacturer of any electric motor subject to energy
efficiency standards prescribed under section 342 of the Act shall
establish, maintain and retain records of the following: The underlying
test data for all actual testing conducted under this part; the
development, substantiation, application, and subsequent verification
of any AEDM used under this part; and any certificate of conformity
relied on
[[Page 60472]]
under the provisions of this part. Such records shall be organized and
indexed in a fashion which makes them readily accessible for review.
The records should include the supporting test data associated with
tests performed on any test units to satisfy the requirements of this
subpart (except tests performed by the Department directly).
(b) All such records shall be retained by the manufacturer for a
period of two years from the date that production of the applicable
basic model of electric motor has ceased. Records shall be retained in
a form allowing ready access to the Department upon request.
Sec. 431.125 Imported equipment.
The provisions of 10 CFR 430.64 shall apply with respect to this
part 431, to the same extent and in the same manner as they apply in
part 430. In applying Sec. 430.64 for purposes of this part, the term
``section 331'' shall be deemed to mean ``sections 331 and 345,'' and
the term ``product'' shall be deemed to mean ``equipment.''
Sec. 431.126 Exported equipment.
The provisions of 10 CFR 430.65 shall apply with respect to this
part 431, to the same extent and in the same manner as they apply in
part 430. In applying Sec. 430.65 for purposes of this part, the term
``sections 330 and 345'' shall be substituted for the term ``section
330,'' and the term ``equipment'' shall be substituted for the term
``product.''
Sec. 431.127 Enforcement.
(a) Test notice. Upon receiving information in writing, concerning
the energy performance of a particular electric motor sold by a
particular manufacturer or private labeler, which indicates that the
electric motor may not be in compliance with the applicable energy
efficiency standard, or upon undertaking to ascertain the accuracy of
information disclosed pursuant to subpart E of this part, the Secretary
may conduct testing of that covered equipment under this subpart by
means of a test notice addressed to the manufacturer in accordance with
the following requirements:
(1) The test notice procedure will only be followed after the
Secretary or his/her designated representative has examined the
underlying test data (or, where appropriate, data as to use of an
alternative efficiency determination method) provided by the
manufacturer and after the manufacturer has been offered the
opportunity to meet with the Department to verify compliance with the
applicable efficiency standard. In addition, where compliance of a
basic model was certified based on an AEDM, the Department shall have
the discretion to pursue the provisions of Sec. 431.24(b)(4)(iii) prior
to invoking the test notice procedure. A representative designated by
the Secretary shall be permitted to observe any reverification
procedures undertaken pursuant to this subpart, and to inspect the
results of such reverification.
(2) The test notice will be signed by the Secretary or his/her
designee. The test notice will be mailed or delivered by the Department
to the plant manager or other responsible official, as designated by
the manufacturer.
(3) The test notice will specify the model or basic model to be
selected for testing, the method of selecting the test sample, the date
and time at which testing shall be initiated, the date by which testing
is scheduled to be completed and the facility at which testing will be
conducted. The test notice may also provide for situations in which the
selected basic model is unavailable for testing, and may include
alternative basic models.
(4) The Secretary may require in the test notice that the
manufacturer of an electric motor shall ship at his expense a
reasonable number of units of a basic model specified in such test
notice to a testing laboratory designated by the Secretary. The number
of units of a basic model specified in a test notice shall not exceed
twenty (20).
(5) Within five working days of the time the units are selected,
the manufacturer shall ship the specified test units of a basic model
to the testing laboratory.
(b) Testing laboratory. Whenever the Department conducts
enforcement testing at a designated laboratory in accordance with a
test notice under this section, the resulting test data shall
constitute official test data for that basic model. Such test data will
be used by the Department to make a determination of compliance or
noncompliance if a sufficient number of tests have been conducted to
satisfy the requirements of appendix C of this subpart.
(c) Sampling. The determination that a manufacturer's basic model
complies with the applicable energy efficiency standard shall be based
on the testing conducted in accordance with the statistical sampling
procedures set forth in appendix B of this subpart and the test
procedures set forth in subpart B of this part.
(d) Test unit selection. A Department inspector shall select a
batch, a batch sample, and test units from the batch sample in
accordance with the provisions of this paragraph and the conditions
specified in the test notice.
(1) The batch may be subdivided by the Department utilizing
criteria specified in the test notice.
(2) A batch sample of up to 20 units will then be randomly selected
from one or more subdivided groups within the batch. The manufacturer
shall keep on hand all units in the batch sample until such time as the
basic model is determined to be in compliance or non-compliance.
(3) Individual test units comprising the test sample shall be
randomly selected from the batch sample.
(4) All random selection shall be achieved by sequentially
numbering all of the units in a batch sample and then using a table of
random numbers to select the units to be tested.
(e) Test unit preparation. (1) Prior to and during the testing, a
test unit selected in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section
shall not be prepared, modified, or adjusted in any manner unless such
preparation, modification, or adjustment is allowed by the applicable
Department of Energy test procedure. One test shall be conducted for
each test unit in accordance with the applicable test procedures
prescribed in subpart B of this part.
(2) No quality control, testing, or assembly procedures shall be
performed on a test unit, or any parts and sub-assemblies thereof, that
is not performed during the production and assembly of all other units
included in the basic model.
(3) A test unit shall be considered defective if such unit is
inoperative or is found to be in noncompliance due to failure of the
unit to operate according to the manufacturer's design and operating
instructions. Defective units, including those damaged due to shipping
or handling, shall be reported immediately to the Department. The
Department shall authorize testing of an additional unit on a case-by-
case basis.
(f) Testing at manufacturer's option. (1) If a manufacturer's basic
model is determined to be in noncompliance with the applicable energy
performance standard at the conclusion of Department testing in
accordance with the sampling plan specified in appendix C of this
subpart, the manufacturer may request that the Department conduct
additional testing of the basic model according to procedures set forth
in appendix B of this subpart.
(2) All units tested under this paragraph shall be selected and
tested in accordance with the provisions given in paragraphs (a)
through (e) of this section.
(3) The manufacturer shall bear the cost of all testing conducted
under this paragraph.
[[Page 60473]]
(4) The manufacturer shall cease distribution of the basic model
tested under the provisions of this paragraph from the time the
manufacturer elects to exercise the option provided in this paragraph
until the basic model is determined to be in compliance. The Department
may seek civil penalties for all units distributed during such period.
(5) If the additional testing results in a determination of
compliance, a notice of allowance to resume distribution shall be
issued by the Department.
Sec. 431.128 Cessation of distribution of a basic model.
The provisions of 10 CFR 430.71 shall apply with respect to this
part 431, to the same extent and in the same manner they apply in part
430. In applying Sec. 430.71 for purposes of this part, the term
``Sec. 430.70'' shall be deemed to mean ``Sec. 431.127.''
Sec. 431.129 Subpoena.
The provisions of 10 CFR 430.72 shall apply with respect to this
part 431, to the same extent and in the same manner as they apply in
part 430. In applying Sec. 430.72 for purposes of this part, the term
``section 329(a)'' shall be deemed to mean ``sections 329(a) and 345.''
Sec. 431.130 Remedies.
The provisions of 10 CFR 430.73 shall apply with respect to this
part 431, to the same extent and in the same manner as they apply in
part 430. In applying Sec. 430.73 for purposes of this part, the term
``conservation'' shall be deemed to mean ``efficiency,'' the term
``section 334'' shall be deemed to mean ``sections 334 and 345'' and
the term ``section 333'' shall be deemed to mean ``sections 333 and
345.''
Sec. 431.131 Hearings and appeals.
The provisions of 10 CFR 430.74 shall apply with respect to this
part 431, to the same extent and in the same manner as they apply in
part 430. In applying Sec. 430.74 for purposes of this part, the term
``conservation'' shall be deemed to mean ``efficiency,'' the term
``section 334'' shall be deemed to mean ``sections 334 and 345'' and
the term ``section 333'' shall be deemed to mean ``sections 333 and
345.''
Sec. 431.132 Confidentiality.
The provisions of 10 CFR 430.75 shall apply with respect to this
part 431, to the same extent and in the same manner as it applies in
part 430.
Appendix A to Subpart G of Part 431--Compliance Certification
Certification of Compliance With Energy Efficiency Standards for
Electric Motors
Name and Address of Company (the ``company''):
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Type(s) of Electric Motor(s):
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Submit by Certified Mail to: U.S. Department of Energy, Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Codes and
Standards, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121.
This Compliance Certification reports on and certifies
compliance with requirements contained in 10 CFR Part 431 (Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial
Equipment) and Part C of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(Public Law 94-163), and amendments thereto. It is signed by a
responsible official of the above named company. Attached and
incorporated as part of this Compliance Certification is a Listing
of Electric Motor Efficiencies. For each rating of electric motor *
for which the Listing specifies the nominal full load efficiency of
a basic model, the company distributes no less efficient basic model
with that rating and all basic models with that rating comply with
the applicable energy efficiency standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The term ``rating'' means one of the 113 combinations of an
electric motor's horsepower (or standard kilowatt equivalent),
number of poles, and open or enclosed construction, with respect to
which section 431.42 of 10 CFR Part 431 prescribes nominal full load
efficiency standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Person to Contact for Further Information:
Name:------------------------------------------------------------------
Address:---------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Telephone Number:------------------------------------------------------
Facsimile Number:------------------------------------------------------
If any part of this Compliance Certification, including the
Attachment, was prepared by a third party organization under the
provisions of section 431.123 of 10 CFR Part 431, the company
official authorizing third party representations:
Name:------------------------------------------------------------------
Address:---------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Telephone Number:------------------------------------------------------
Facsimile Number:------------------------------------------------------
The third party organization officially acting as
representative:
Third Party Organization:----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name:------------------------------------------------------------------
Address:---------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Telephone Number:------------------------------------------------------
Facsimile Number:------------------------------------------------------
All required determinations on which this Compliance
Certification is based were made in conformance with the applicable
requirements in 10 CFR Part 431, subpart B. All information reported
in this Compliance Certification is true, accurate, and complete.
The company is aware of the penalties associated with violations of
the Act and the regulations thereunder, and is also aware of the
provisions contained in 18 U.S.C 1001, which prohibits knowingly
making false statements to the Federal Government.
Signature:-------------------------------------------------------------
Date:------------------------------------------------------------------
Name:------------------------------------------------------------------
Title:-----------------------------------------------------------------
Firm or Organization:--------------------------------------------------
Attachment to Certification of Compliance With Energy Efficiency
Standards for Electric Motors Listing of Electric Motor Efficiencies
Date:------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of company--------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rating of electric motor
-------------------------------------------------------
Open or Least efficient basic model Average full load
Motor horsepower Number of enclosed (model number(s)) efficiency
poles motor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................... 6 Open ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
1........................... 4 Open ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
1........................... 6 Enclosed ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
1........................... 4 Enclosed ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
1........................... 2 Enclosed ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
1.5......................... 6 Open ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
1.5......................... 4 Open ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
[[Page 60474]]
1.5......................... 2 Open ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
1.5......................... 6 Enclosed ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
1.5......................... 4 Enclosed ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
1.5......................... 2 Enclosed ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
etc......................... etc etc ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rating of electric motor
-------------------------------------------------------
Open or Least efficient basic model Average full load
Motor kilowatts Number of enclosed (model number(s)) efficiency
poles motor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.75......................... 6 Open ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
.75......................... 4 Open ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
.75......................... 6 Enclosed ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
.75......................... 4 Enclosed ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
.75......................... 2 Enclosed ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
1.1......................... 6 Open ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
1.1......................... 4 Open ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
1.1......................... 2 Open ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
1.1......................... 6 Enclosed ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
1.1......................... 4 Enclosed ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
1.1......................... 2 Enclosed ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
etc......................... etc etc ___________________________ ___________________________
_________________. _________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The manufacturer shall place an asterisk beside each reported nominal full load efficiency that is
determined by actual testing rather than by application of an alternative efficiency determination method. The
manufacturer shall also list below additional basic models that were subjected to actual testing.
Basic Model means all units of a given type of covered equipment (or class thereof) manufactured by one
manufacturer, and, with respect to electric motors, having (i) the same rating, (ii) electrical design
characteristics that are essentially identical, and (iii) no differing mechanical or functional
characteristics that affect energy consumption or efficiency.
Rating means one of the 113 combinations of an electric motor's horsepower (or standard kilowatt equivalent),
number of poles, and open or enclosed construction, with respect to which section 431.42 of 10 CFR Part 431
prescribes nominal full load efficiency standards.
Additional Models Actually Tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rating of electric motor
------------------------------------------ Least efficient
Motor power basic model Average
output (e.g. Number of Open or (model full load
1 hp or .75 poles enclosed number(s)) efficiency
kW) motor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________
_______..... ___________
_____ _____________
_______ ________________
_______ ___________
_____
_____________
_______..... ___________
_____ _____________
_______ ________________
_______ ___________
_____
_____________
_______..... ___________
_____ _____________
_______ ________________
_______ ___________
_____
_____________
_______..... ___________
_____ _____________
_______ ________________
_______ ___________
_____
_____________
_______..... ___________
_____ _____________
_______ ________________
_______ ___________
_____
_____________
_______..... ___________
_____ _____________
_______ ________________
_______ ___________
_____
_____________
_______..... ___________
_____ _____________
_______ ________________
_______ ___________
_____
etc.......... etc etc etc etc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 431--Sampling Plan for Enforcement
Testing
Step 1. The first sample size (n1) must be five or more
units.
Step 2. Compute the mean (X1) of the measured energy
performance of the n1 units in the first sample as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.001
where Xi is the measured full load efficiency of unit i.
Step 3. Compute the sample standard deviation (S1) of the
measured full load efficiency of the n1 units in the first
sample as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.002
Step 4. Compute the standard error (SE(X1)) of the mean
full load efficiency of the first sample as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.003
Step 5. Compute the lower control limit (LCL1) for the mean
of the first sample using the applicable statutory full load
efficiency (SFE) as the desired mean as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.004
Here t is 10th percentile of a t-distribution for a sample size of
n1 and yields a 90 percent confidence level for a one-tailed t-
test.
Step 6. Compare the mean of the first sample (X1) with the
lower control limit (LCL1) to determine one of the following:
(i) If the mean of the first sample is below the lower control
limit, then the basic model is in noncompliance and testing is at an
end.
[[Page 60475]]
(ii) If the mean is equal to or greater than the lower control
limit, no final determination of compliance or noncompliance can be
made; proceed to Step 7.
Step 7. Determine the recommended sample size (n) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.005
where S1 and t have the values used in Steps 4 and 5,
respectively. The factor
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.006
is based on a 20 percent tolerance in the total power loss at full
load.
Given the value of n, determine one of the following:
(i) If the value of n is less than or equal to n1 and if
the mean energy efficiency of the first sample (X1) is equal to
or greater than the lower control limit (LCL1), the basic model
is in compliance and testing is at an end.
(ii) If the value of n is greater than n1, the basic model
is in noncompliance. The size of a second sample n2 is
determined to be the smallest integer equal to or greater than the
difference n-n1. If the value of n2 so calculated is
greater than 20-n1, set n2 equal to 20-n1.
Step 8. Compute the combined mean (X2) of the measured
energy performance of the n1 and n2 units of the combined
first and second samples as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.007
Step 9. Compute the standard error (SE(X2)) of the mean
full load efficiency of the n1 and n2 units in the
combined first and second samples as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.008
(Note that S1 is the value obtained above in Step 3.)
Step 10. Set the lower control limit (LCL2) to,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO96.009
and compare the combined sample mean (X2) to the lower control
limit (LCL2) to find one of the following:
(i) If the mean of the combined sample (X2) is less than
the lower control limit (LCL2), the basic model is in
noncompliance and testing is at an end.
(ii) If the mean of the combined sample (X2) is equal to or
greater than the lower control limit (LCL2), the basic model is
in compliance and testing is at an end.
MANUFACTURER-OPTION TESTING
If a determination of non-compliance is made in Steps 6, 7 or
11, above, the manufacturer may request that additional testing be
conducted, in accordance with the following procedures.
Step A. The manufacturer requests that an additional number,
n3, of units be tested, with n3 chosen such that n1 +
n2 + n3 does not exceed 20.
Step B. Compute the mean full load efficiency, standard error,
and lower control limit of the new combined sample in accordance
with the procedures prescribed in Steps 8, 9, and 10, above.
Step C. Compare the mean performance of the new combined sample
to the lower control limit (LCL2) to determine one of the
following:
(a) If the new combined sample mean is equal to or greater than
the lower control limit, the basic model is in compliance and
testing is at an end.
(b) If the new combined sample mean is less than the lower
control limit and the value of n1 + n2 + n3 is less
than 20, the manufacturer may request that additional units be
tested. The total of all units tested may not exceed 20. Steps A, B,
and C are then repeated.
(c) Otherwise, the basic model is determined to be in
noncompliance.
[FR Doc. 96-29048 Filed 11-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
