[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34758-34766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15831]
[[Page 34757]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
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. 63, No. 122 / Thursday, June 25, 1998 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 34758]]
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; limited reopening of the comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 61 FR 60440 (November 27,
1996) (NOPR), concerning one through 200 horsepower electric motors
that are covered under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended (EPCA), the Department of Energy (DOE or the Department)
proposed to adopt test procedures (including those in Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Standard 112-1991 [``IEEE
112-1991'']), sampling plans for compliance and enforcement testing,
efficiency labeling requirements, and standards and procedures under
which DOE would classify an accreditation organization or a
certification program as ``nationally recognized.'' The Department is
now considering several additional options in these areas, which were
either not set forth or not clearly described in the NOPR.
Specifically, the Department is considering adoption of (1) revised
sampling plans for compliance and enforcement, (2) revisions to the
IEEE test procedures, (3) alternative requirements where a motor's
efficiency is established under EPCA through a certification program,
(4) verifying the validity of labeled efficiency by use of the proposed
enforcement procedures, and (5) withdrawal of recognition from an
accreditation organization or certification program that deviates from
the standards for recognition. The purpose of this notice is to reopen
the comment period to solicit comments on these options.
DATES: Written comments in response to this notice must be received by
July 27, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Ten copies (no telefacsimilies) of written comments should
be labeled ``Electric Motor Rulemaking'' (Docket No. EE-RM-96-400), and
submitted to: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Codes and Standards,
EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 1J-018, Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945.
Copies of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
standards may be obtained from the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway,
NJ 08855-1331, 1-800-678-IEEE.
A copy of the document, ``Analysis of Proposals for Compliance and
Enforcement Testing Under the New Part 431; Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations,'' NISTIR 6092, by K.L. Stricklett and M. Vangel, January
1998, may be obtained from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST).1 Information regarding availability of
the report, NISTIR 6092, may be obtained from the NIST Inquiries Office
at 301-975-3058. A copy of NISTIR 6092 is available through the NIST
World Wide Web site http://www.eeel.nist.gov/811/div/
811__pubs__ps.html#nistir6092. NISTIR 6092 is also available from the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), and may be ordered
through the NTIS Sales Desk at 703-605-6000, or by telefax at 703-321-
8547, or by electronic mail at [email protected]. A copy of the
document is also available at the Office of Codes and Standards World
Wide Web site http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes__standards/rules/
emenfpol/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Appendix D of NISTIR 6092 contains the sampling proposals
submitted by the NEMA Motor and Generator Section, April 18, 1997,
in response to the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copies of the proposed rule, a transcript of the January 15, 1997
public hearing, the public comments received (including the NEMA
proposal), and NISTIR 6092 may be read at the Freedom of Information
Reading Room, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-
190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0101, telephone
(202) 586-3142, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC 20585-0121, telephone (202) 586-8654, telefax (202) 586-
4617, or: [email protected]
Edward Levy, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General
Counsel, Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,
DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-9507, telefax (202) 586-4116, or:
[email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act), 42 U.S.C.
6311, et seq., establishes energy efficiency standards and test
procedures for certain commercial and industrial electric motors.
Section 342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), requires that ``each
[such] electric motor manufactured (alone or as a component of another
piece of equipment) * * * shall have a nominal full load efficiency of
not less than [the prescribed level].'' The Act requires generally that
the test procedures be ``reasonably designed to produce test results
which reflect energy efficiency,'' yet not be ``unduly burdensome'' to
conduct, EPCA section 345(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(2), and prescribes
specific test methods for electric motors, EPCA section 343(a)(5), 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(5). The Act also directs the Department to require,
subject to certain conditions, that a motor's energy efficiency be
displayed on its permanent nameplate and in material used to market the
motor. EPCA section 344(d), 42 U.S.C. 6315(d). Finally manufacturers
must certify ``through an independent testing or certification program
nationally recognized in the United States,'' that each covered motor
complies with the applicable efficiency standard. EPCA section 345(c),
42 U.S.C. 6316(c).
On November 27, 1996, the Department published a proposed rule on
test procedures for the measurement of energy efficiency, efficiency
labeling, and compliance and enforcement procedures for these electric
motors. The proposed rule incorporated the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 112-1991 Test Method B as one
method for measuring energy efficiency, 61 FR 60446 (November 27,
1996). Other proposed provisions included two statistical sampling
plans--one for compliance and labeling and another for enforcement, 61
FR 60446-49, 60459-60 (November 27, 1996), requirements that a motor's
energy efficiency be stated on its nameplate and in marketing
materials, 61 FR 60451-52 (November 27, 1996), and procedures as to
recognition of a testing or certification program used to certify that
an electric motor complies with EPCA efficiency standards, 61 FR 60457-
58.
On January 15, 1997, a public hearing was held on the proposed
rule, and thereafter the Department received numerous written comments
on the
[[Page 34759]]
proposal. The hearing and written comments, as well as the Department's
further review of the proposed rule, have given rise to the issues
addressed in today's reopening notice. The Department seeks comments at
this time only on those issues.
II. Discussion
A. Modifications to the IEEE 112-1996 Method B Test Procedures
Section 343(a)(5)(A) of EPCA requires that the test procedures to
determine the efficiency of electric motors under EPCA shall be the
test procedures specified in NEMA MG1-1987 and IEEE Standard 112 Test
Method B (IEEE 112) for motor efficiency, as in effect on the date of
the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. If the test procedures
in NEMA MG1 and IEEE 112 are subsequently amended, the Secretary of
Energy is required to revise the regulatory test procedures for
electric motors to conform to such amendments, ``unless the Secretary
determines by rule, * * * supported by clear and convincing evidence,
that to do so would not meet the requirements for test procedures
described in'' sections 343(a)(2) and (3) of EPCA.
NEMA MG1-1987 was revised and superseded by NEMA MG1-1993, which
was published in October 1993. Revision 1 to NEMA MG1-1993, was added
on December 7, 1993. In the NOPR, the Department stated that it would
adopt the test procedure provisions of NEMA MG1-1993 with Revision 1.
IEEE 112-1991 was revised and superseded by IEEE 112-1996, which was
published May 8, 1997. A minor revision was made in IEEE 112-1996 on
January 20, 1998, when IEEE issued a notice of correction for the
calculation at item (28) in section 10.2 Form B-Method B: ``Calculation
form for input-output test of induction machine with segregation of
losses and smoothing of stray-load loss.'' Under EPCA, DOE must now
adopt the test procedures in IEEE 112-1996 with the minor revision,
unless clear and convincing evidence supports a conclusion that such
test procedures are not reasonably designed to produce test results
which reflect energy efficiency, and or unduly burdensome to conduct.
The Department compared IEEE 112-1991 to IEEE 112-1996 to determine
whether there were differences in Test Method B, which applies here,
and, if so, whether to adopt Test Method B in IEEE 112-1996 into the
final rule for electric motors. As a result of its analysis, the
Department believes Test Method B in IEEE 112-1996 improves upon the
version of that test method in IEEE 112-1991, because IEEE 112-1996
includes: tightened tolerances on metering instrumentation (IEEE 112,
clause 4), a more comprehensive and consolidated verbal description of
the components of test method B (IEEE 112, clause 6.4), and specific
formulae provided for calculation of stator I2R losses (IEEE
112, clause 5.1).
After publication of IEEE 112-1996 in May 1997, however, the
Department became aware, through information submitted by a testing
laboratory that has gained experience using the test procedure, that
Test Method B in IEEE 112-1996 contains (1) typographical errors, (2)
statements of procedure that are open to interpretation, and (3)
incorrect information. For a given motor, these defects could cause
varying measurements of efficiency, or errors ranging from plus or
minus one half to one and one half percentage points in measured
efficiency. Subsequently, the Department confirmed the existence of
these types of problems with IEEE 112-1996 through contacts with other
testing laboratories, a certification organization, and manufacturers,
each known to have experience with IEEE 112, and discussions with the
Chairman of the IEEE Induction Power Subcommittee. Indeed, the
Department is aware that one testing laboratory applied the test
procedure to a single motor, tested the motor four times, and arrived
at a different result each time based upon various interpretations of
the language in the test procedure.
Even a half percentage point error in the measured efficiency could
throw a motor into the next higher or lower level of nominal
efficiency, effectively rendering it in compliance with the applicable
EPCA efficiency standard, or out of compliance. Thus, for example, an
error in IEEE 112-1996 could cause a manufacturer to incorrectly
measure the efficiency of a motor that is actually in compliance,
conclude that it is below the required efficiency level, and
unnecessarily redesign all or part of its product line. (IEEE corrected
one such error in its January 1998 notice of correction.) Also, the
provisions of IEEE 112-1996 that are subject to interpretation leave
room for a manufacturer to intentionally bias the measured efficiency
of a motor that is actually out of compliance, so that the motor will
be found to meet the applicable level required under the statute.
In sum, Test Method B in IEEE 112-1996 has several advantages,
discussed above, as well as typographical errors, provisions subject to
interpretation, and incorrect information. The Department's intention,
therefore, is that the final rule will prescribe IEEE 112-1996 Test
Method B, with the January 1998 correction, as the test procedure under
EPCA for determining the energy efficiency of electric motors, but with
certain modifications.2 The following sets forth those
modifications, as well as a few potential problems as to which the
Department has tentatively decided not to make changes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ It should be noted that the Department is not purporting to
alter IEEE 112-1996. Rather, the Department is proposing only to
mandate certain modifications to IEEE 112-1996 Test Method B when it
is used for purposes of measuring efficiency under EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Typographical Errors
a. Page 17, subclause 6.4.1.3, ``No-load test,'' currently reads:
``See 5.3 including 5.33, * * *'' This is an incorrect reference in the
standard, because there is no subclause 5.33. The Department proposes
to change the reference to read: ``See 5.3 including 5.3.3, * * *'' to
point to the proper subclause dealing with the separation of core loss
from friction and windage loss.
b. Page 48, item (24), the formula for shaft power in watts,
currently reads: ``Is equal to [(23) (11)]/k2'',
but the constant k2 is not defined. In IEEE 112 section 10.2
Form B-Method B, the constant ``k'' is defined in terms of torque for
the formula in item (22); and the constant ``k1'' is defined
in terms of conductivity for the formula in item (16). Upon examination
of the test procedure and through inquiries made to the aforementioned
organizations experienced with IEEE 112, the Department has determined
that use of ``k2'' in item (24) is a typographical error for
the constant ``k'', since the torque constant (``k''), from item (22),
is necessary to calculate shaft power in item (24). The Department
proposes to correct the constant ``k2'' in item (24) to the
constant ``k''. The formula in item (24) would then read: ``Is equal to
[(23) (11)]/k''.
2. Provisions Subject to Interpretation
a. Page 8, subclause 5.1.1, ``Specified temperature'' provides
three methods, listed in order of preference, to determine the
specified temperature used in making resistance corrections: (a)
measured temperature rise by resistance from a rated load temperature
test; (b) measured temperature rise on a duplicate machine; and (c) use
of a temperature correction table when rated load temperature has not
been measured. The Department understands that, although subclause
5.1.1 applies generally to the testing of motors under IEEE 112, part
``c'' of that subclause does not apply to Test Method B. Part
[[Page 34760]]
``c'' is a calculation procedure, for use when the rated load
temperature has not been measured. The first test to be performed under
Method B, however, per subclause 6.4.1.1, requires a measurement of
rated load temperature. Hence, only options ``a'' or ``b'' in subclause
5.1.1 are applicable to Method B. Information provided to the
Department indicates, however, that option ``c'' is being misapplied to
Test Method B.
Such misapplication of option ``c'' can distort efficiency values.
The Department understands that use of a prescribed temperature value
from option ``c'' would result in a higher value of efficiency in
circumstances where the measured full load (1.0 service factor)
temperature is greater than such prescribed temperature, and a lower
value of efficiency in circumstances where the measured full load (1.0
service factor) temperature for a motor is less than the prescribed
temperature. The Department believes that to achieve consistency under
EPCA, the best approach is to always use a measured winding temperature
for the efficiency calculation, as is contemplated by Test Method B.
The Department's final rule could incorporate into subclause 5.1.1,
``Specified temperature,'' the following language: ``(Method B only
allows the use of preference a) or b).)'' The Department seeks comment
on whether such a change is warranted in 5.1.1, although it currently
believes that the proposed change is unnecessary, because it would be
redundant with the provisions of Test Method B. It would be warranted
only by reading the general information section of IEEE 112 in
isolation from Test Method B. As stated above the Department
understands that, under Test Method B, the first test to be performed
is a rated load temperature test. This test determines the values for
the rated load heat run stator winding resistance between terminals,
items (3) and (4), on 10.2 Form B, per subclause 6.4.1.1, Rated load
temperature test. The values are then used to calculate stator
I2R loss, item (27) in 10.2 Form B. Per this requirement,
only options ``a'' or ``b'' in the referenced section 5.1.1 are
applicable to Method B. Option ``c'' is not a ``measurement procedure''
and cannot be used with Method B; it is applicable only to other IEEE
112 test methods. Moreover, if a manufacturer or testing laboratory
uses option ``c'', it is not following Test Method B and cannot say the
motor has been tested according to Method B.
b. Page 47, the procedure to measure temperature in item (4) Rated
Load Heat Run Stator Winding Temperature is not defined. Item (4) is
used in item (27), Stator I\2\2R Loss, in Watts, at (ts)
deg.C, to correct the stator loss corresponding to item (16), Stator
I\2\R Loss, in Watts, at (tt) deg.C, which is based on the
temperature recorded for item (7). Information in the footnote at the
bottom of page 47, 10.2 Form B, indicates that the temperature for item
(7) can be either determined from a temperature detector or derived
from measurement of the stator resistance during the test. Because
items (4) and (7) are used to calculate stator loss at different
temperatures, it is preferred that the method of measuring both items
be consistent. In addition, per subclause 4.2.3 Note 2 and subclause
4.3.2.2 Note 2, the values for ts and tt, which
are used for correction to a specified temperature, are to be based on
the same method of measurement. Therefore, the Department proposes to
add a second sentence to the footnote at the bottom of page 47, 10.2
Form B, to read: ``The values for ts and tt shall
be based on the same method of temperature measurement, selected from
the four methods in subclause 8.3.''
c. Page 48, item (27) defines Stator I\2\R Loss, in W, at
(ts) deg.C, and item (29) defines Corrected Slip, in r/min,
on IEEE 112-1996 10.2 Form B. Page 48, item (29) currently reads: ``See
4.3.2.2, Eq 4.'' The Department believes that such reference, without
explanation, to equation (4) in subclause 4.3.2.2, Slip correction for
temperature, can cause confusion and errors, since the terms in
equation (4) used to correct slip measurements to the specified stator
temperature, are defined differently from similar terms used in 10.2
Form B.
Subclause 4.3.2.2 equation (4) defines ``k'' in terms of
conductivity for copper or aluminum. The term ``k'' in 10.2 Form B,
however, is defined in terms of torque. Item (29) should be defined in
terms of conductivity using the term ``k1'', to be
consistent with the definition of ``k1'' in 10.2 Form B item
(16).
Also, calculating ``St'' and ``tt'' for
subclause 4.3.2.2 equation (4) would cause unnecessary recalculations
and possible errors, because these values were already derived
elsewhere on Form B. Equation (4) defines ``St'' as ``the
slip measured at stator winding temperature, tt,'' whereas
the actual value of slip speed would have already been measured and
entered at item (10) on Form B. Similarly, in equation (4)
``tt'' is defined as ``the observed stator winding
temperature during load test, in deg.C,'' whereas the actual value of
stator winding temperature would have already been measured and entered
at item (7) on Form B.
Subclause 4.3.2.2 equation (4) also defines ``ts'' as
the specified temperature for resistance correction, in deg.C.
However, Form B, does not define ``ts''. While
``ts'' appears to be used in item (27), Form B, the use of
``ts'' is incorporated by providing the equation for the
adjustment of the resistance corresponding to ``ts'', rather
than by defining ``ts'' itself. However, the relationship
representing ``ts'' in item (27) on page 48 appears to
differ from the definition of ``ts'' given in 4.2.3. The
Department is concerned about the various definitions given for
``ts'' in the body of IEEE 112 and in 10.2, Form B and the
correction of the stator and rotor losses. Examination of 10.2 Form B
and the supporting sections of IEEE-112 indicate the following:
1. The stator loss for item (16) is based on correcting the cold
resistance in item (1) at the cold temperature in item (2) to a
resistance as if the complete winding is at the test temperature in
item (7) for each test point. Generally, this means that 6 different
values of resistance are used in calculating the initial stator loss.
2. The rotor loss for item (18) is calculated using the measured
slip item (10) which already directly includes the effect of
temperature so no equation involving temperature is needed.
3. For item (27) it is indicated on the test form that the
corrected stator loss is to be based on a temperature identified as
``ts''. In IEEE 112-1991 no formula for this correction of
the resistance to determine the loss was provided, so the counterpart
of 5.1.1, IEEE 112-1996, was used in conjunction with the counterpart
of equation [1] in 4.2.3, IEEE 112-1996. (The section references from
IEEE 112-1996 are used instead of the actual section numbers in IEEE
112-1991 to minimize confusion with the rest of the discussion.) To do
this the reference resistances and temperatures were again the cold
readings as in paragraph 1 above and the hot temperature was the
specified temperature from 5.1.1. In IEEE-1996 a formula was added to
item (27) stating that the reference resistance to be used is to be the
hot resistance measured after the heat run and the reference
temperature to be used is the temperature measured at the conclusion of
the heat run. Now the temperature to be used for correcting the stator
loss is not the specified temperature given in 5.1.1 if the temperature
in item (4) is measured directly by a temperature sensor, but instead
is the reference temperature from the heat run adjusted for the
difference between the heat run
[[Page 34761]]
ambient and an ambient of 25 deg.C [i.e., (4)-(5) + 25]. This change
is described in 6.4.3.2. If the temperature in item (4) is instead
derived from the hot resistance measured after the heat run as per
8.3.3 then the relationship of [(4)-(5) + 25] is equal to the specified
temperature per 5.1.1. However, in 6.4.3.2 it is assumed that item (4)
is from a direct temperature measurement and should not be a value
derived from the resistance of the heat run. In this case the corrected
resistance used in determining the corrected stator loss for each of
the six test points is the same.
4. In item (31) on the test form it is also indicated that the
rotor loss is corrected to the temperature ts. This is
accomplished by temperature correction of the slip in item (29). For
item (29) one is referred to 4.3.2.2, Eq. 4. In 4.3.2.2 it is indicated
that ts is to be the specified temperature from 5.1.1.
However, in 6.4.3.3 it is stated that ts is to be equal to
the ``hottest winding temperature during the temperature test corrected
to an ambient of 25 deg.C.'' This definition of ts
corresponds to the definition given in 6.4.3.2 for the correction of
the stator loss, which leads one to the formula for item (27) and the
relationship that the value to be used for ts is to be that
given by [(4)-(5) + 25] and not the specified temperature as given by
5.1.1. For the correction of the slip a different value of correction
may be necessary for each of the six test points since the correction
is based on the temperature at the time each test point is taken.
In conclusion, section 6.4.3.2 for the correction of the stator
loss and 6.4.3.3 for the correction of the rotor loss define the
correction to be to a temperature ts which is not the
specified temperature ts given by 5.1.1. In fact, the
specified temperature per 5.1.1 does not appear to be used in any of
the calculations performed for Method B.
To clarify the temperatures to be used for correcting the stator
and rotor loss the Department proposes the following modifications: (1)
insert a new line at the top of 10.2 Form B and below the line that
defines ``rated load heat run stator winding resistance,'' which will
define ``ts'' as it is defined in 6.4.3.2 and 6.4.3.3:
``Temperature for Resistance Correction (ts) = ____ deg.C
(See 6.4.3.2);'' (2) add a note at the bottom of 10.2 Form B to read:
``NOTE: The temperature for resistance correction (ts) is
equal to [(4)-(5) + 25 deg.C];'' (3) add the reference ``see 6.4.3.2''
to the end of item (27) on page 48; and (4) change item (29) on page 48
which presently states ``See 4.3.2.2, eq. 4'' to state ``Is equal to
(10) [k1 + (4)-(5) + 25 deg.C] / [k1 +
(7)], see 6.4.3.3''.
d. Page 48, item (32), the equation to correct stray-load loss
currently reads: ``Is equal to AT\2\ where A = slope of the curve of
(26) vs. (23) \2\ using a linear regression analysis, see 6.4.2.7,''
and ``T = corrected torque = (23).'' The Department understands that
the slope A is that of the aforementioned curve corresponding to a plot
using item (26) as the dependent variable on the y axis, and the square
of item (23) as the independent variable on the x axis. The Department
also understands that reference to subclause 6.4.2.7, Smoothing of the
stray-load loss, provides tutorial information with respect to the
determination of the slope A using linear regression analysis. The
Department understands that under ideal test conditions the linear
regression line should intercept the y axis at zero stray load loss for
zero torque squared, since the only losses which should remain will be
stator I\2\R, friction, and core losses previously accounted for by the
no-load test.
The Department has been advised that typically ideal test
conditions do not exist, and that either the y-intercept is above zero,
indicating that some apparent measured loss should be subtracted; or
the y-intercept is below zero, indicating that some undetected loss
should be added. The Department has also been advised that it is
possible, at the same time, to have a positive slope, a correlation
equal to or greater than 0.9, and a sizable intercept with the stray
load loss axis at zero load conditions. The Department is concerned
that, when this is the case, a large portion of losses could be
incorrectly subtracted off yielding an artificially high efficiency or
incorrectly added on yielding an artificially low efficiency.
It also appears, however, that the purpose of the stray load loss
correction in 10.2 Form B item (32), is to detect possible errors in
measurement and correct for them, without repeating the test. Also,
repeating a load test when the intercept is large in order to obtain a
test for which the intercept is smaller, might not result in a
significant change in the final determination of efficiency at 100
percent load. The Department understands that the value of the
intercept must be viewed in the context of the remainder of the test
workup. Thus, in 10.2 Form B, when the stray load loss is corrected in
item (32), then the final torque, or shaft power in item (34), is also
corrected after using item (23) in the formula AT\2\ where ``T =
corrected torque = (23).'' Instructions are provided, in IEEE 112, at
the bottom of page 48 under Motoring, for interpolation of the test
results to complete the Summary of Characteristics on page 47, at the
bottom of 10.2 Form B, in order to determine the efficiency at the
actual 100 percent rated load point.
Also, the nominal full load efficiency identified on the nameplate
of an electric motor is selected from a prescribed nominal efficiency
in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, section 12.58.2, Table 12-8,
which is not greater than the average efficiency of a large population
of motors of the same design. Moreover, the nominal efficiency of a
covered electric motor must equal or exceed the efficiency values in
section 342(b)(1) of EPCA. Consequently, unless there are significant
differences in the final determination of nominal efficiency for a
particular electric motor, it appears that use of a prescribed nominal
full load efficiency value would tend to ``wash out'' small variations
in individual motor losses and errors in test equipment calibration.
Therefore, at this time, the Department intends to adopt IEEE 112-
1996, subclause 6.4.2.7, Smoothing of the stray-load loss, without
change. However, the Department is still considering the option of
making the following changes to add a restriction on the allowable
value of the intercept, and will do so if the Department determines, in
the final rule, that the evidence warrants such a change. The
restriction would replace the paragraph after the definition of
variables for equation (21), in subclause 6.4.2.7, and would be worded
as follows (emphasis added to indicate changes):
``If the slope is negative, or if the correlation factor, r, is
less than 0.9, delete the worst point and repeat the regression. If
this increases r to 0.9 or larger, use the second regression; if this
does not increase r to 0.9 or larger, or if the slope is still
negative, the test is unsatisfactory. Errors in the instrumentation or
test readings, or both, are indicated. In addition, the value of B must
not exceed 10 percent of the uncorrected total loss at rated load;
higher values indicate procedural or power supply problems. If a test
fails to meet the above criteria, the source of the error should be
investigated and corrected, and the test should be repeated.''
The Department requests comments on this issue, and is interested
in receiving data that would show if any significant differences
3 do occur
[[Page 34762]]
between the final determined value of efficiency at 100 percent rated
load for various values of the stray-load loss intercept for repeated
tests of the same motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Oftentimes what appears as a large intercept is the result
of improperly performing the dynamometer correction part of the
test. By definition the dynamometer correction adjusts all data
points by the same amount of torque which is basically the same
thing that occurs when the intercept of the stray load loss curve is
adjusted to go through zero. Should there be a great discrepancy
between the values for the intercept obtained for testing the same
motor several times using the same equipment, then this would
suggest a more fundamental problem of following the procedure
correctly than just errors in the measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Page 17, subclause 6.4.1.3, ``No-load test,'' second sentence
currently reads: ``Prior to making this test, the machine shall be
operated at no-load until both the temperature and the input have
stabilized.'' Information provided to the Department indicates that the
requirements for temperature and input stabilization during the no-load
test appear to be undefined and could cause confusion. To provide
clarity for locating the pertinent subclause for temperature
stabilization, the Department proposes to modify the second sentence in
6.4.1.3 to read: ``Prior to making this test, the machine shall be
operated at no-load until both the temperature has stabilized (see
8.6.3) and the input has stabilized.'' The Department finds that an
additional modification for input stabilization is not necessary, since
that is covered by previous reference to subclause 5.3 that, in turn,
refers to subclause 4.3.1.1, Bearing loss stabilization.
3. Incorrect Information
Page 40, subclause 8.6.3, Termination of test, currently reads:
``For continuously rated machines, readings shall be taken at intervals
of \1/2\ h[our] or less.'' One reason for taking these readings during
the efficiency test of a motor is to show when the motor's temperature
rise has ended, and so that the test can be terminated. As written,
however, subclause 8.6.3 allows temperature readings to be taken at
intervals of, for example, five seconds. If such short intervals were
used, there could be little or no rise in temperature between any two
consecutive readings, even if the motor temperature was actually still
rising. Consequently, the motor's temperature could be misconstrued as
being stable. As a result, the measured efficiency would appear to be
two to three percentage points higher than it actually is, since
efficiency goes down as temperature goes up. In view of the need to
correctly determine the leveling of temperature rise for measuring
efficiency, as the Department believes is intended in subclause 8.6.3,
the Department proposes to change the third sentence in subclause
8.6.3. Subclause 8.6.3 currently reads: ``For continuous rated
machines, the temperature test shall continue until there is 1 deg.C or
less change in temperature rise between two successive readings.'' The
Department proposes to change that subclause to read: ``For continuous
rated machines, the temperature test shall continue until there is
1 deg.C or less change in temperature rise over a 30-minute time
period.''
In sum, the Department believes that use of IEEE 112-1996 Test
Method B, without corrections, could produce results that provide an
inaccurate measurement of the energy efficiency of the motor being
tested, and that vary from one test to the next of the same motor or
comparable motors. In addition, manufacturers would be burdened by
having to resolve its typographical errors and unclear provisions, and
deal with unnecessary references to other parts of IEEE 112. Therefore,
the Department intends to adopt, in the final rule for electric motors,
the test procedures in IEEE 112-1996 Test Method B, and the correction
to the calculation at item (28) in section 10.2 Form B-Method B issued
by IEEE on January 20, 1998, but with the aforementioned corrections
and modifications. The Department seeks comments on the technical
merits of, and the need for, the aforementioned corrections and
modifications to the IEEE 112. If the record should indicate that any
of these changes is unwarranted, the Department will decline to adopt
such modification. Thus, the Department might still adopt IEEE 112-1996
Test Method B, and the correction to the calculation at item (28) in
section 10.2 Form B-Method B, without modification, or with only a
portion of the above modifications.
Finally, interested parties are also invited to identify other
problems they believe exist in IEEE 112 Test Method B and section 10.2
Form B. The Department requests that such other problems, and changes
to correct them, be clearly identified, and that evidence be provided
that substantiates the need for these changes.
B. Sampling Plans for Compliance and Enforcement
1. Background
As per the proposed rule at 10 CFR 431.24, the efficiency of each
basic model of electric motor would initially be established either by
testing (``compliance testing'') or by application of an Alternative
Efficiency Determination Method (AEDM), for purposes of determining
whether the motor complies with the applicable efficiency standard, and
of labeling the motor. 61 FR 60466-67 (November 27, 1996). As per the
proposed rule at 10 CFR 431.127, the Department would ascertain in any
enforcement proceeding, which could include testing (``enforcement
testing''), whether a motor complies with the applicable EPCA standard
and with the labeled value for efficiency.4 61 FR 60472 and
60474-75 (November 27, 1996). Each of these sections incorporates a
sampling plan for testing a motor. The sampling plans are intended to
provide statistically meaningful sampling procedures for conducting
tests, so as to reduce the testing burden while giving sufficient
assurance (1) that the true mean energy efficiency of a basic model
(i.e., the average efficiency of all units manufactured) meets or
exceeds the applicable energy efficiency standard established in EPCA,
and (2) that an electric motor found to be in noncompliance will
actually be in noncompliance. The November 27, 1996 Federal Register
notice, at section XIII.C.3. and 8., Issues for Public Comment,
requested comments on the proposed sampling plans for compliance and
enforcement testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Part II-D below addresses the issue of whether the proposed
enforcement procedures apply to alleged labeling violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the January 15, 1997, public hearing on the proposed rule
for electric motors, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA) and motor manufacturers raised issues concerning the
Department's proposed sampling plans for electric motors. They asserted
that the sampling plan for compliance testing would, for example: (1)
be inconsistent with current industry practice under NEMA Standards
Publication MG1-1993, ``Motors and Generators,'' (2) place a high
burden on manufacturers because the risk of a false determination of
noncompliance is not less than 50 percent for motors that are in
compliance, and (3) require covered equipment to be engineered to
exceed the nominal energy efficiency levels for electric motors
established by EPCA; they also claimed the sampling plan for
enforcement testing was not in harmony with the sampling plan for
compliance testing. (Public Hearing, Tr. pgs. 64-111).5
Thereafter, NEMA submitted to the Department a proposed sampling
[[Page 34763]]
plan for compliance testing and a proposed plan for enforcement
testing.6 NISTIR 6092 ``Analysis of Proposals for Compliance
and Enforcement Testing Under the New Part 431; Title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations,'' January 1998, (the NIST analysis) compares the
DOE's proposed rule and NEMA proposals through model calculations of
their operating characteristics, i.e., the estimated probability of
demonstrating compliance for a given true average of efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Public Hearing, Tr. pgs. 64-111,'' refers to the page
numbers of the transcript of the ``Public Hearing on Energy
Efficiency Standards, Test Procedures, Labeling, and Certification
Reporting for Certain Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors,''
held in Washington, DC, January 15, 1997.
\6\ ``Proposal for the Method of Determining Compliance and
Enforcement for Electric Motors Under the Efficiency Labeling
Program of DOE 10 CFR Part 431,'' NEMA Motor and Generator Section,
Friday, April 18, 1997 (Docket No. EE-RM-96-400, No. 23) (the ``NEMA
proposal'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Department continues to consider adoption of the
sampling plans in the NOPR, it is now also considering adoption of the
NEMA proposals, or variants of these proposals, in place of the
sampling proposals in the NOPR. It is also considering adoption of a
modified version of the NOPR sampling plan for enforcement. The
Department seeks comment on these alternatives to the NOPR's sampling
plans.
2. The Proposals Under Consideration
In the NOPR, the Department proposes that when a manufacturer tests
a basic model of an electric motor 7 to establish its
efficiency, a sample of units of the motor, comprised of production
units or representative of production units, shall be selected at
random and tested. The proposed rule does not specify a particular
sample size, but provides that the sample must be of sufficient size so
that any represented value of energy efficiency is no greater than the
lower of (A) the mean of the sample or (B) the lower 90 percent
confidence limit of the mean of the entire population of that basic
model, divided by a coefficient applicable to the represented value.
The coefficient applicable to a given represented value is derived from
NEMA MG1-1993, Table 12-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For electric motors, basic model would mean all units of an
electric motor that are manufactured by a single manufacturer, and
which have the same rating, have electrical characteristics that are
essentially identical, and do not have any differing physical or
functional characteristics which affect energy consumption or
efficiency. For purposes of this definition, ``rating'' means one of
the 113 combinations of an electric motor's horsepower (or standard
kilowatt equivalent), number of poles, and open or enclosed
construction, with respect to which section 431.42 prescribes
nominal full load efficiency standards. 61 FR 60465 (November 27,
1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NOPR, the Department proposed to establish a sampling plan
for enforcement testing based on NEMA MG1-12.58.2, Efficiency of
Polyphase Squirrel-cage Medium Motors with Continuous Ratings, and NEMA
MG1 Table 12-8, Efficiency Levels, which establish a logical series of
nominal motor efficiencies and a minimum associated with each nominal.
The minimum efficiency is based on 20 percent loss difference. Under
this proposed sampling plan, the motor would be found in compliance
provided (1) the mean of the sample is not less than a lower confidence
limit and (2) the sample is of sufficient size to provide a statistical
confidence that is not less than 90 percent. The lower confidence limit
is found within the sampling plan by calculation and is based on the
EPCA efficiency standard that is applicable to that basic model, the
sample standard deviation for the initial sample, and the t value
corresponding to the 10th percentile for the initial sample. In all
cases, the lower confidence limit lies below the EPCA standard
efficiency. DOE's proposed sampling plan for enforcement testing
assumes that the true mean full load efficiency and standard deviation
of the motor efficiencies are not known. The proposed sampling plan
establishes benchmarks for the standard error in the mean, based on the
existing NEMA guidelines for identifying motor efficiency levels at
NEMA MG1-12.58, and NEMA Table 12-8. Under the NEMA guidelines, no
single unit can have energy losses more than 20 percent greater than
the average losses for that type of motor, i.e., a 20 percent loss
tolerance is permitted for a given unit but the average must still be
met. The NOPR states the Department's belief that the 20 percent loss
tolerance is reasonable and meaningful. 61 FR 60459-60, 60474-75
(November 27, 1996).
The NEMA proposal, as stated above, contains a sampling plan for
compliance testing as well as one for enforcement testing. The plan for
compliance testing provides that two conditions must be met to
establish that a motor meets a particular nominal efficiency level.
First, according to DOE's understanding, the average full load
efficiency of the sample of units tested must not be less than the
value of efficiency that equals the applicable nominal efficiency
reduced by an amount equivalent to a 5 percent increase in losses at
full load, i.e., the value given by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JN98.003
Second, DOE understands, the full-load efficiency of each motor in the
sample must be greater than the value of efficiency equal to the
applicable nominal efficiency reduced by an amount reduced by an amount
equivalent to a 15 percent increase in losses at full load, i.e., the
value given by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JN98.004
NEMA's plan for enforcement testing is very similar, and provides that
the same conditions must be met to establish that a motor complies with
the applicable EPCA standard, except that the percentages are based on
the total variation in energy efficiency permitted by NEMA MG-
1.8 The NEMA plans neither specify nor suggest sample sizes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Thus, for enforcement testing DOE understands the conditions
for establishing compliance to be as follows: (1) the average full
load efficiency of the sample of units tested must not be less than
the value of efficiency that equals the applicable nominal
efficiency prescribed by EPCA, reduced by an amount equivalent to a
15 percent increase in losses at full load, i.e., the value given by
100/[1+1.15(100/NE-1)], and (2) the full-load efficiency of each
motor in the sample must be greater than the value of efficiency
equal to the applicable nominal efficiency prescribed by EPCA,
reduced by an amount equivalent to a 20 percent increase in losses
at full load, i.e., the value given by 100/[1+1.20(100/NE-1)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of these plans, the NEMA proposal discusses a number of
issues, including: the analyses of testing samples from a total and
from a limited population of motors, the implications of overlapping
nominal efficiency distributions, and NEMA's proposed sampling schemes
for compliance and enforcement. The NEMA proposal claims to balance the
manufacturer's and consumer's risks and to streamline sampling schemes
for compliance testing and enforcement testing.
The NIST analysis examines each of the sampling plans contained in
the NOPR and the NEMA proposal, and certain variations of those
sampling plans. NISTIR 6092 assumes that a basic model of an electric
motor satisfies the applicable energy efficiency requirement in EPCA if
the mean full load efficiency of the entire population of motors of
that basic model equals or exceeds the applicable nominal efficiency.
It compares the NOPR and NEMA proposals through model calculations of
their operating characteristics, i.e., by estimating the probability of
demonstrating compliance for a model of electric motor where the true
average efficiency of that model is known. NISTIR 6092 seeks to clarify
the issues raised from testimony and comments given during the public
hearing, January 15, 1997. It provides both a qualitative comparison of
the operating characteristics of the NOPR
[[Page 34764]]
and NEMA proposals and a quantitative estimate of the risk, or
statistical confidence, associated with testing under such proposals.
Based on the NIST analysis the Department is considering the
following with respect to the final rule for electric motors:
(1) DOE could adopt the NEMA proposal for compliance testing rather
than the method given in DOE's proposed rule. Alternatively, DOE could
adopt the NEMA proposal, but could substitute a coefficient of 1.03 or
1.01 for the 1.05 coefficient in the formula above. DOE could also
adopt the NEMA proposal, with or without a change in the 1.05
coefficient, but with a requirement that the number of sample units to
be tested be fixed, at five motors for example.
The Department understands the advantages in simplicity and reduced
burden on manufacturers presented by the NEMA sampling proposal for
compliance testing, but believes there is a higher risk, relative to
the NOPR criteria, of overly optimistic estimates of efficiency. The
Department believes that the 1.05 coefficient proposed by NEMA could be
changed to 1.01, for example, and this would substantially reduce the
risk under the NEMA proposal that a motor failing to meet the energy
efficiency standard prescribed in EPCA would nevertheless be found in
compliance. Also, the Department understands that the performance of
the NEMA proposal for compliance testing depends on the sample size. It
appears to DOE that a fixed sample size of 5 motors would not be unduly
burdensome and would provide the statistical confidence needed for
determining whether an electric motor complies with the applicable EPCA
standard, for labeling that motor, and for using test results as a
basis for substantiating alternative methods used to determine the
efficiencies of other motors.
(2) With regard to enforcement testing, DOE could adopt NEMA's
proposal, with or without modification of the coefficient, or could
retain the NOPR Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing with the
statistical confidence level increased from 90 percent to 99 percent,
or to some other value higher than 90 percent.
NEMA asserts that the NOPR sampling plan for enforcement is not
consistent with the NOPR sampling plan for compliance, claiming the
possibility is too great that a motor found in compliance under the
enforcement plan would have been found in non-compliance under the
compliance plan. The NIST analysis indicates, however, that the
sampling criteria proposed by NEMA for enforcement testing make little
distinction between efficiencies that are at and significantly below
the EPCA nominal values. Also, the NEMA sampling plan for enforcement
could produce draconian results. Under the NEMA criteria, the
efficiency performance of a single unit could cause a basic model to
fail the entire test, without recourse.
As proposed, the NOPR Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing
establishes that testing be consistent with a statistical confidence of
not less than 90 percent. This statistical confidence implies that the
likelihood of falsely concluding that a product is not in compliance
may be as high as 10 percent. According to the NIST analysis, the NOPR
Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing could be modified to increase the
confidence level from 90 to 99 percent. Although this modification
could require testing a larger sample of motors, it would reduce the
risk that a manufacturer would be falsely found in non-compliance. NIST
believes it is highly unlikely that a product that is labeled in
accordance with the NEMA MG1 guidelines would require testing beyond
the initial sample of five, and that any risk of additional testing is
more than offset by the increased value of the test in assuring that a
manufacturer's interest is protected. Moreover, the Department
understands that, in contrast to the NEMA sampling plan for enforcement
testing, the t-test used in the NOPR is a widely accepted basis for a
testing protocol and is not strongly influenced by the exact form of
the underlying distribution of energy efficiency measurement data.
The Department of Energy is interested in receiving comments and
data concerning the accuracy and workability of the NEMA Motor and
Generator Section proposals for sampling electric motors for compliance
and enforcement, and would welcome recommendations regarding
improvements to NEMA's suggested approaches, particularly in the
following respects:
(1) Compliance. The Department seeks comments on variations to
NEMA's proposed sampling plan for compliance, such as requiring the
sample size to be fixed at five units and setting the coefficient at
1.01 or 1.03. Are further clarifications needed in the plan? For
example, if a sample of five units of a basic model of electric motor
is selected and fails compliance after being tested, under what
circumstances, if any, would additional samples of the same basic model
be selected and retested?
(2) Enforcement. Would the absolute pass/fail nature of the NEMA
Motor and Generator Section proposal create an undue burden on motor
manufacturers? What is an appropriate level of confidence for
enforcement testing? If the NEMA Motor and Generator Section proposal
for enforcement testing was to be adopted, should the 1.15 and 1.2
coefficients for the mean and the extreme criteria, respectively, be
modified? If so, what other values are recommended?
C. Sampling Requirements Where a Motor's Efficiency Is Established
Through a Certification Organization
Section 345(c) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6316(c), directs the Department
to require motor manufacturers to certify compliance with the
applicable energy efficiency standards through an independent testing
or certification program nationally recognized in the United States
and, as is further discussed below, EPCA requires that, subject to
certain conditions, a motor's nameplate and marketing materials include
its efficiency. Accordingly, the proposed rule, at sections 431.24,
431.25(a), 431.82, and 431.123(b), 61 FR 60466-67, 60470-71, requires
manufacturers to certify and label the efficiency level of each basic
model of electric motor based on use of either (i) a third party
independent testing laboratory accredited by a nationally recognized
accrediting body, such as the National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NVLAP), (ii) the manufacturer's own testing
laboratory, if it is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting
body, such as NVLAP, or (iii) a nationally recognized third party
certification program.
Under section 431.24(a) of the proposed rule, the energy efficiency
of each basic model of electric motor must be determined by compliance
testing or by application of an alternative efficiency determination
method (AEDM) which calculates the energy efficiency of an electric
motor. Use of an AEDM is permitted, however, only if the efficiency of
at least five basic models, selected in accordance with criteria
specified in section 431.24(b)(1)(i)-(ii), is determined through
compliance testing. For each basic model selected for testing, section
431.24(b)(1)(iii) in the proposed rule provides, as discussed above, a
sampling procedure for selecting units to be tested. Moreover, to use a
particular AEDM, it must (1) meet certain general criteria specified in
section 431.24(b)(2), and (2) be applied to at least five basic models
that have
[[Page 34765]]
been selected and tested in accordance with the criteria in proposed
section 431.24(b)(1), with the total power loss predicted for each of
these models by the AEDM being within plus or minus ten percent of the
mean total power loss determined from the testing (section
431.24(b)(3)). Finally, section 431.24(b)(4) requires subsequent
periodic verification of an AEDM by (1) testing by an accredited
laboratory, (2) a nationally recognized certification organization or
(3) an independently state-registered professional engineer.
As currently written, the proposed regulations impose these
requirements both when a manufacturer seeks to establish a motor's
efficiency without using a certification program (i.e., solely through
testing and AEDMs) and also when efficiency is established through a
certification program.
In its comments following the NOPR, Reliance Electric recommends
that the Department not impose DOE's sampling plan for compliance
testing when a manufacturer establishes compliance through a third
party certification program. Reliance asserts that the testing and
sampling procedures of a certification program, such as the Canadian
Standards Association (CSA) in Canada, are reliable and fulfill the
Department's intent that a sampling plan give assurance that the
nominal full load efficiency reported is correct. (Reliance, No. 11 at
pg. 7.) NEMA also recommends that the Department's sampling plan
requirements not apply when compliance is certified through a
recognized certification program. NEMA asserts, however, that the
certification program's specific criteria and plan for testing should
be reviewed and approved by the Department as part of the process of
reviewing its petition to become a ``nationally recognized''
certification program, as described in section 431.27(b)(4) of the
proposed rule. (NEMA, No. 18 at pgs. 8 & 9.)
It appears to the Department that these comments from Reliance
Electric and NEMA have substantial merit. Therefore, although it
continues to consider the approach in the proposed rule, the Department
also proposes for consideration that the final rule provide as follows:
when a manufacturer establishes a motor's efficiency under EPCA through
a certification organization, the certification organization would not
be required to (1) select basic models for testing in accordance with
the final rule's criteria for making such selections,9 or
(2) follow the sampling provisions that the final rule requires for
compliance testing.10 The other requirements in proposed
section 431.24(b) for testing and for use of an AEDM would still have
to be met. For example, the certification organization would be
required to establish the efficiency of at least five basic models
through compliance testing. By way of further example, an AEDM could
not be used unless it had been applied to at least five basic models
that had been tested, and the results of such application were within
the bounds prescribed in the proposed rule. Furthermore, the Department
proposes that the final rule provide that the criteria used by a
certification program to select basic models for testing, as well as
its sampling plan for choosing the units to be tested, will be reviewed
and approved by the Department as part of the evaluation for national
recognition under section 431.27(b) of the proposed rule. Finally,
proposed section 431.24(b)(4)(i)(B) requires verification of an AEDM
subsequent to its use, stating that one way to achieve such
verification is for a certification organization to certify the
efficiency of a basic model to which the AEDM was applied. To provide
the independent AEDM verification that this provision contemplates, the
Department proposes that, when a manufacturer has used a certification
organization to establish a motor's efficiency rating, and the rating
is based on an AEDM, the AEDM cannot be subsequently verified by having
that same certification organization certify the efficiency of the
motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In the proposed rule, such criteria are in section
431.24(b)(1)(i)-(ii).
\10\ In the proposed rule, such sampling provisions are in
section 431.24(b)(1)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department seeks comments on whether it should adopt the
foregoing proposals, or whether it should adopt the approach in the
proposed rule, i.e., that certification organizations be required to
adhere to the provisions specified in the rule for the selection and
sampling of basic models. In particular, the Department seeks comment
on the following:
1. Sampling for compliance testing. The Department seeks comments
on whether a certification organization should be required to select
basic models for compliance testing in accordance with criteria such as
those in proposed section 431.24(b)(1)(i)-(ii). Once a basic model is
selected, should a certification organization select specimens to be
tested in accordance with a prescribed sampling plan? The Department of
Energy is also interested in receiving comments and data concerning the
workability of sampling plans used by certification organizations, and
how such sampling plans could be evaluated.
2. Substantiation and Verification of an AEDM. To substantiate the
accuracy and reliability of an AEDM, five basic models must be tested.
When this is done through a certification program, should the
certification program be required to select and test the basic models
in accordance with criteria such as those proposed in section
431.24(b)(1)? Should the same certification organization, used to
initially substantiate an AEDM under section 431.24(b)(3), be
prohibited from subsequently verifying an AEDM under section
431.24(b)(4)(i)(B)?
D. Enforcement Testing Where Violation of a Labeling Representation Is
Alleged
Section 344(f) of EPCA provides for the Secretary to prescribe
rules for electric motor labeling, including requirements that the
energy efficiency be on the permanent nameplate and be displayed
prominently in catalogs and other marketing materials. Section 431.82
of the proposed rule incorporates and implements these provisions, by
requiring each electric motor's nominal full load efficiency to be
marked clearly on its permanent nameplate and to be prominently
displayed in marketing materials for the motor. Section 431.127(a) in
the proposed rule, which sets forth enforcement procedures, provides
that the Department may conduct enforcement testing, subject to certain
conditions, to ascertain the accuracy of the efficiency rating
disclosed on the nameplate or in marketing materials for an electric
motor, as well as to determine whether the motor is in compliance with
the applicable energy efficiency standard.
Other provisions of the proposed rule, however, as well as language
in the preamble, can be read as suggesting that the enforcement
provisions apply only in determining compliance with the applicable
standard, and not to whether a labeling representation is accurate.
Under proposed section 431.127(a)(1), for example, enforcement testing
is pursued after a manufacturer has had an opportunity to ``verify
compliance with the applicable efficiency standard.'' 61 FR 60472.
Verification of a label's accuracy is not mentioned. Moreover, the
sampling procedures for enforcement testing set forth steps to assess
compliance with the ``applicable statutory full load efficiency,'' and
refer to whether a basic model being tested is in ``compliance'' or
``noncompliance.'' 61 FR 60474-75. But no language in these sampling
procedures indicates that they are to be used to assess the accuracy of
a labeling representation as
[[Page 34766]]
to efficiency. The preamble indicates that the purpose of the
enforcement sampling plan is to ascertain whether the mean efficiency
of a basic model is equal to or exceeds the statutory full load
efficiency. 61 FR 60459.
In response to the proposed rule, Mr. W. Treffinger asserts that
testing and sampling should ensure that the published and nameplate
data represent the actual efficiency of a motor in use. (Treffinger,
No. 4 at 5.) NEMA asserts that certification programs for motors
currently verify the nameplate efficiency. (NEMA, No. 18 at pg. 8.)
In proposing the enforcement procedures in section 431.127, the
Department intended that they would apply to allegations that the
labeled efficiency rating for a motor is erroneous. Moreover, the
Department continues to believe that these procedures, including the
proposed sampling plan at section 431.127(c), should be used to
determine the validity of labeling representations for an electric
motor, and not just whether the motor meets or exceeds the regulatory
standard for efficiency. The Department intends to make clear in the
final rule that the provisions of section 431.127 apply to labeling
representations. However, because the NOPR was not clear on this point,
the Department seeks comments whether the proposed enforcement
procedures should be used to determine the validity of labeling
representations, or should only be used only to determine if the motor
meets the applicable efficiency level prescribed by EPCA. If the
latter, on what basis would a determination be made, during an
enforcement investigation, as to the validity of labeling
representations?
E. National Recognition
Section 345(c) of EPCA requires that compliance be certified
through a testing or certification program that is ``nationally
recognized.'' The proposed rule provides that this requirement would be
met (1) by a testing facility that has been accredited either by NVLAP
or by an accrediting body that DOE classifies as nationally recognized
to accredit facilities to test motors for efficiency, or (2) by a
certification program that DOE has classified as nationally recognized.
In the proposed rule at section 431.26, Department of Energy
recognition of accreditation bodies, and section 431.27, Department of
Energy recognition of nationally recognized certification programs, the
Department proposes criteria and procedures under which it would make
such classifications.
Neither section 431.26 nor 431.27 addresses a situation where DOE
has classified an organization as an accreditation body, or as a
nationally recognized certification program, and the organization
subsequently ceases to comply with the conditions for such
classification. Therefore, the Department proposes that the final rule
would provide that the Department will notify such an accreditation
body or a certification organization if the Department believes the
entity is failing to comply with the conditions of section 431.26 or
431.27, respectively, and at the same time the Department will request
that appropriate corrective action be taken. The rule would also
provide that the accreditation body or certification organization would
be given an opportunity to respond, and if, after receiving such
response, the Department believes satisfactory correction has not been
made, the Department would withdraw its recognition from that
organization. If an accreditation body or certification organization
wishes to withdraw itself from recognition by the Department, it could
do so by advising the DOE in writing. The Department seeks comments on
whether the Department should adopt the foregoing approach for
corrective action, and for revocation of an organization's
classification as an accreditation body or nationally recognized
certification program under sections 431.26 and 431.27.
III. Conclusion
The Department seeks comments only on the aforementioned issues
arising from possible changes in the NOPR concerning test procedures,
sampling for compliance and enforcement, verification of labeled
efficiency, and recognition of accreditation bodies and certification
organizations.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 9, 1998.
Dan W. Reicher,
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 98-15831 Filed 6-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P