[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54114-54172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21119]
[[Page 54113]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
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; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 1999 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 54114]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EE-RM-96-400]
RIN 1904-AA82
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
6291-6317 (the Act or EPCA) establishes energy efficiency standards and
test procedures for commercial and industrial electric motors. Today's
final rule establishes regulations to implement these requirements, and
to establish efficiency labeling and compliance certification
requirements for motors, as directed by EPCA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective November 4, 1999. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the
regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
November 4, 1999.
ADDRESSES: For the availability of material incorporated by reference,
see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-41, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC 20585-0121, telephone (202) 586-8654, telefax (202) 586-
4617, or: [email protected]
Edward Levy, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General
Counsel, Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,
DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-9507, telefax (202) 586-4116, or:
[email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department)
is incorporating by reference, test procedures and definitional
information from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
Inc. (IEEE), the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA),
the CSA International (CSA),\1\ and the International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC). These test procedures and definitional information
are set forth in the standards publications listed below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) in this matter
contains many references to the ``Canadian Standards Association.''
Since publication of the NOPR, that organization has changed its
name to CSA International. In this Notice and today's final rule,
therefore, the latter name is used to refer to the organization,
although abbreviated references use the abbreviation ``CSA'' as in
the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Standards
Publication MG1-1993, Motors and Generators, and Revisions 1, 2, 3 and
4.
2. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators,
IEEE Std 112-1996, and the correction to the calculation at item (28)
in section 10.2 Form B-Test Method B issued by IEEE on January 20,
1998.
3. CSA International (or Canadian Standards Association) Standard
C390-93, Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction
Motors.
4. International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60034-1
(1996), Rotating electrical machines, Part 1: Rating and performance,
and Amendment 1 (1997).
5. International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60050-411
(1996), International Electrotechnical Vocabulary Chapter 411: Rotating
machinery.
6. International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60072-1
(1991), Dimensions and output series for rotating electrical machines--
Part 1: Frame numbers 56 to 400 and flange numbers 55 to 1080.
7. International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60034-12
(1980), Starting performance of single-speed three-phase cage induction
motors for voltages up to and including 660 V, and Amendment 1 (1992)
and Amendment 2 (1995).
Copies of these standards publications may be viewed at the Freedom
of Information Reading Room, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal
Building, Room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC
20585-0101, telephone (202) 586-3142, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Copies of the NEMA standards and the International Electrotechnical
Commission standards can be obtained from Global Engineering Documents,
15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, Colorado 80112-5776. Copies of the
IEEE standards can be obtained from the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway,
NJ 08855-1331. Copies of the CSA standards can be obtained from CSA
International, 178 Rexdale Boulevard, Etobicoke (Toronto), Ontario,
Canada M9W 1R3.
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
C. Summary of Rule
II. Discussion
A. Definitions
1. Electric Motor
2. Basic Model
3. General Purpose
4. Special Purpose Motor
5. Accreditation
6. Average Full Load Efficiency
7. Nominal Full Load Efficiency
B. Test Procedures
1. NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, with Revisions 1 through
4
2. Modifications to the IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B
a. Typographical Errors
b. Provisions Subject to Interpretation
c. Incorrect Information
d. Summary
C. Determination of a Motor's Efficiency: Use of Accredited
Laboratories and Certification Programs, Selection of Basic Models
for Testing, Alternative Means to Measure Efficiency, and Sampling
Plans for Testing
1. Summary of DOE's Proposals
2. Issues Involving Both Use of Accredited Laboratories and Use
of Certification Organizations
3. Issues Concerning Use of Certification Organizations
4. Compliance Testing When a Manufacturer Does Not Use a
Certification Program (Independence and Performance of an Accredited
Laboratory, Selection of Basic Models for Testing, Sampling Plan)
and Enforcement Testing Sampling Plan
a. Accredited Laboratories
b. Selection of Basic Models for Testing
c. Sampling Plans for Compliance and Enforcement Testing
(1) Sampling Plan for Compliance Testing
(2) Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing
D. Energy Efficiency Standards
1. Non-standardized Horsepower Ratings
2. Motor Horsepower and Standard Kilowatt Equivalent
3. World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements and the Trans
Atlantic Business Dialogue (TABD)
4. Electric Motors as Components of Systems
E. Labeling
1. Statutory Provisions
2. Provisions of Regulation
a. Use of the Words ``Energy Efficient''
b. Use of Standardized Nominal Full Load Efficiency Values
c. Minimum Efficiency
d. Display of Nominal Efficiency, Compliance Certification
Number, ``ee'' Logo, and Date of Compliance
e. Labeling of Motors Not Covered by EPCA
f. Enforcement Testing Where Violation of a Labeling
Representation is Alleged
[[Page 54115]]
g. Imported Motors
h. Weights of Conductors and Magnetic Materials
F. Certification of Compliance
1. Reference to Certification Programs
2. Nominal Versus Average Full Load Efficiency
3. Other Information to Be Reported
4. Compliance Certification Number
G. Other Matters
1. Standards Incorporated by Reference
2. Enforcement: Determining What Constitutes a ``Separate
Violation''
3. Technical Corrections
a. References to International Standards
b. Use of Term ``Energy Conservation Standard''
c. Preemption of State Regulations
d. Provisions Incorporated from Part 430
e. Amount of Penalty
f. Prohibited Acts--Section 431.122
g. Language Changes in Sections 431.23 and 431.124(a)
III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
B. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Review Under Executive Order 12612, ``Federalism''
E. Review Under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights''
F. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
H. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act
I. Review Under Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
J. Review Under Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975, Public Law 94-163, as amended, by the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act of 1978 (NECPA), Public Law 95-619, the
National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Public Law
100-12, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988
(NAECA 1988), Public Law 100-357, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(EPAct), Public Law 102-486, established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products other than Automobiles. Part 3 of Title
IV of NECPA amended EPCA to add ``Energy Efficiency of Industrial
Equipment,'' which includes electric motors. EPAct also amended EPCA
with respect to electric motors, providing definitions in section
122(a), test procedures in section 122(b), labeling provisions in
section 122(c), energy efficiency standards in section 122(d), and
compliance certification requirements in section 122(e).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These requirements are codified in Part C of Title III of
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA defines ``electric motor'' as any motor which is ``general
purpose T-frame, single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage
induction of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
Designs A and B, continuous-rated, operating on 230/460 volts and
constant 60 Hertz line power, as defined in NEMA Standards Publication
MG1-1987.'' EPCA Sec. 340(13)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A). EPCA then
prescribes efficiency standards for electric motors that are 1 through
200 horsepower, and ``manufactured (alone or as a component of another
piece of equipment),'' except for ``definite purpose motors, special
purpose motors, and those motors exempted by the Secretary.'' EPCA
Sec. 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1).
The Act also requires that testing procedures for electric motor
efficiency shall be the test procedures specified in NEMA Standards
Publication MG1-1987, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc., (IEEE) Standard 112 Test Method B for motor
efficiency, as in effect on October 24, 1992. EPCA Sec. 343(a)(5)(A),
42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A). If those specified test procedures are
amended, the Secretary must amend the testing procedures under EPCA to
conform to such amended test procedures in the NEMA and IEEE standards,
unless the Secretary determines, by rule, that the amended test
procedures are not reasonably designed to produce results that reflect
energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs, and would
be unduly burdensome to conduct. EPCA Sec. 343(a)(5) (B) and (C), 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(5) (B) and (C).
Additionally, EPCA directs the Secretary, subject to certain
conditions and after consultation with the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), to prescribe efficiency labeling rules for electric motors. EPCA
Sec. 344(d), (f), and (h) 42 U.S.C. 6315(d), (f) and (h).
Finally, the Act directs the Secretary to require motor
manufacturers to certify compliance with the applicable energy
efficiency standards through an independent testing or certification
program nationally recognized in the United States. EPCA Sec. 345(c),
42 U.S.C. 6316(c).
B. Background
The Department held a public meeting on June 2, 1995, to discuss
issues and gather information related to the energy efficiency
requirements for electric motors covered under EPCA. The meeting
covered the following questions: How should key terms be defined? Which
equipment is covered by the statute? What is the nature and scope of
required testing? How can independent testing and certification
programs be used to establish compliance with applicable standards?
What are the means of certifying such compliance to DOE? What are
possible labeling requirements? What other issues need resolution?
Statements received after publication of the Notice of that public
meeting (60 FR 27051, May 22, 1995), and at the meeting itself, helped
to refine the issues involved in this rulemaking, and provided
information that contributed to DOE's proposed resolution of these
issues.
On November 27, 1996, DOE published in the Federal Register a
proposed rule (NOPR), to create a new part 431 in the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR Part 431), entitled the Energy Conservation Program
for Commercial and Industrial Equipment. 61 FR 60440 (November 27,
1996). This NOPR set forth energy efficiency requirements for electric
motors. As with the program for consumer products, the proposed rule
encompassed the following: test procedures; Federal energy conservation
standards; labeling; and certification and enforcement. The testing and
standards requirements prescribed by EPCA were incorporated in the
proposed rule. Labeling requirements in accordance with EPCA's criteria
for electric motor labels, and certification, enforcement and state law
pre-emption provisions, largely patterned after those applicable to
consumer products, were proposed. In addition, to implement EPCA's
testing and certification requirements, the NOPR proposed requirements
concerning the selection of electric motors for testing and the
entities that could be used to establish that a motor complies with the
applicable standard. Finally, the NOPR proposed provisions to clarify
which motors are covered by EPCA, including clarification of the
statutory definition of ``electric motor.''
Despite these clarifications, manufacturers expressed uncertainty
as to which electric motors, with which modifications, are covered
under EPCA. They also questioned their ability to comply with the
statute by the effective date of October 24, 1997 with respect to
certain motors. To address these issues, the Department, on November 5,
1997, published Policies on Coverage and Enforcement of Energy
Efficiency
[[Page 54116]]
Requirements for Electric Motors; Final Rule, 62 FR 59978 (November 5,
1997) (Policy Statement). This Policy Statement, based on
recommendations from motor manufacturers and energy efficiency
advocates, provided guidance as to which modifications of electric
motors are ``general purpose,'' ``definite purpose,'' and ``special
purpose'' under EPCA. The Policy Statement also stated circumstances
under which the Department would refrain from taking enforcement action
with respect to certain limited categories of motors that would not
meet the energy efficiency standards by the October 25, 1997 effective
date.
Comments presented at the public hearing on January 15, 1997, and
additional written comments submitted following the public hearing have
helped the Department to refine and resolve the issues involved in this
rulemaking. Portions of many of the statements are quoted and
summarized in section II, Discussion of Comments. A parenthetical
reference at the end of a quotation or passage in section II provides
the location index in the public record of the portion of a statement
that is being quoted or discussed.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For example: ``(UL, No. 9 at pg. 1)'' refers to (1) a
statement that was submitted by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. and
is recorded in the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room in the
docket under ``Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and
Industrial Equipment: Test Procedures, Labeling, and Certification
Requirements for Electric Motors,'' Docket Number EE-RM-96-400, as
comment number nine; and (2) a passage that appears on page 1 of
that statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing and written comments, as well as the Department's
further review of the proposed rule, gave rise to several issues that
were subsequently addressed in a notice reopening the comment period
for the proposed rule, which was published in the Federal Register at
63 FR 34758 (June 25, 1998) (``reopening notice''). The issues
concerned (1) modifications to the IEEE Std 112-1996 Method B test
procedures, (2) adoption of sampling plans for compliance and
enforcement proposed by the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association in lieu of the sampling plans in the proposed rule, (3)
sampling plans where a motor's efficiency is established through a
certification organization rather than through testing in an accredited
laboratory, (4) enforcement testing where violation of a labeling
representation is alleged, and (5) procedures for the withdrawal of
recognition from an organization DOE has classified as an accreditation
body, or as a nationally recognized certification program. Comments
received as a result of the reopening notice have further helped the
Department to refine and resolve the issues in this rulemaking.
C. Summary of Rule
Today's final rule incorporates the energy efficiency test
procedures and standards established by EPCA for certain commercial and
industrial electric motors. EPCA sections 343(a)(5), 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(5), and 342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). It also establishes
efficiency labeling requirements and compliance certification
requirements for motors, as directed by EPCA. EPCA sections 344, 42
U.S.C. 6315, and 345(c), 42 U.S.C. 6316(c). Among its provisions,
today's final rule (1) defines terms used in the rule, including
definitions that clarify which motors, including metric, are covered
under EPCA; \4\ (2) incorporates by reference the IEEE Standard 112
Test Method B (with minor modifications), CSA Standard C390 Test Method
(1), and portions of other industry standards; (3) sets forth methods
for establishing compliance, such as a sampling plan for selecting
motors for testing, calculation in some instances of a motor's
efficiency, use of an accredited laboratory for testing, and use of a
certification program; (4) establishes criteria for recognizing
laboratory accreditation organizations and certification programs; and
(5) requires the energy efficiency value of an electric motor, and a
Department of Energy Compliance Certification number, to be both marked
on the nameplate and disclosed in marketing materials, and allows use
of an ``ee'' logo or other similar logo. The rule also addresses waiver
of the test procedures, pre-emption of state regulations, and
enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Section 340(13) of EPCA defines ``electric motor'' and
``nominal full load efficiency'' by reference to NEMA Standards
Publication MG1-1987. However, a more recent version of MG1, MG1-
1993, is more readily available. Therefore, references to MG1 in the
definitions in today's rule are to MG1-1993 rather than MG1-1987,
whenever reference to the current version results in the rule having
the same substance and coverage as it would have with a reference to
MG1-1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion
The Department received approximately 31 sets of written comments
on the proposed rule, from motor manufacturers, original equipment
manufacturers, energy efficiency advocates, trade associations, other
government agencies, and individuals. The Department received data and
recommendations related to the accuracy and workability of many
provisions in the proposed rule.
A. Definitions
1. Electric Motor
Section 340(13)(A) of EPCA defines the term ``electric motor'' as
``any motor which is a general purpose T-frame, single-speed, foot-
mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction motor of the National
Electrical Manufacturers Association, Design A and B, continuous rated,
operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60 Hertz line power as defined
in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987.''
In the NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify this definition. Hence the
proposed rule included an expanded definition of ``electric motor'' as
well as a definition of ``general purpose motor,'' a term that is an
important element of EPCA's definition of electric motor but that is
not defined in EPCA. 61 FR 60442-46, 60465-66 (November 27, 1996).
Although some comments, discussed below, raised issues concerning
specific elements of the proposed definition of ``electric motor,''
none objected to DOE's overall approach or to the definition of
``general purpose motor.''
The Department understands, however, that there exist a wide
variety of motors that are modifications to the generic general purpose
motor, and that motor manufacturers are concerned as to precisely which
of these motors, having various features and characteristics, are
covered under the statute. There seems to be a consensus that, due to
the large number and the constant changes of motor designs, it would be
impractical and unwise for the DOE regulations to try to exhaustively
delineate the specific types of motors that are covered.
In its opening statement at the January 15, 1997, public hearing
(Public Hearing Tr. pg. 42),5 NEMA suggested instead the use
of guidelines, along with a matrix setting forth various motor designs,
as an aid in construing the statute and regulations. (NEMA, No.
18).6 The Department agrees with this approach, and believes
the guidelines and the matrix provided in the Policy Statement, in
conjunction with definitions in the proposed rule, make clear whether a
motor is covered under EPCA and today's regulations. Therefore, today's
rule adopts, with minor technical changes, the ``electric motor'' and
related definitions of the proposed rule, and incorporates the
[[Page 54117]]
Policy Statement as appendix A to subpart A of 10 CFR Part 431 of the
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Public Hearing, Tr. pg. 42,'' refers to the page number of
the transcript of the ``Public Hearing on Energy Efficiency
Standards, Test Procedures, Labeling, and Certification Reporting
for Certain Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors,'' held in
Washington, DC, January 15, 1997.
\6\ See footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following addresses the comments concerning specific elements
of the proposed definition of ``electric motor:''
NEMA Electrical Designs A, B, and C. Sections 342 through 345 of
EPCA require only certain motors to meet applicable energy efficiency
requirements. In accordance with EPCA's definition of ``electric
motor,'' quoted above, section 431.2 of the proposed rule, 61 FR 60465
(November 27, 1996), and of today's final rule, state that an electric
motor ``(6) Has performance in accordance with NEMA Design A or B
characteristics, or equivalent designs such as IEC Design N * * * ''
Toshiba advocates that Design C motors be covered by EPCA.
(Toshiba, No. 14, p. 2.). Standard efficiency stock motors are
generally Design A or B, and Mr. W. Treffinger asserts that several
manufacturers offer such motors as Design C. He raises the question as
to whether a manufacturer could re-nameplate these motors as ``Design C
definite purpose/conveyor duty'' in order to continue selling current
designs that do not meet EPCA efficiency standards. (Treffinger, No. 4
at 3.).
The purpose of this rulemaking is to implement EPCA's efficiency
requirements for electric motors. Since EPCA imposes such requirements
only for Designs A and B, as categorized in NEMA MG1, for the
Department to cover Design C motors in today's rule would go beyond the
requirements of EPCA and the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, the
Department cannot accept Toshiba's apparent suggestion that it extend
EPCA efficiency requirements directly to Design C motors. In addition,
it is questionable whether the Department has the discretion to take
such action, absent an amendment to EPCA. See EPCA sections 340-341, 42
U.S.C. 6311-6312. On the other hand, a motor that exhibits the
performance characteristics of NEMA Designs A or B, and that is mis-
labeled NEMA Design C, is obviously covered by EPCA.
Additional Motor Designs and Characteristics. Toshiba International
Corporation and Mr. W. Treffinger assert that EPCA should cover as
large a population of motors as possible to maximize energy savings.
Both would extend EPCA coverage to include footless or round body
motors which are face-mounting or flange-mounting, motors operating on
200 volts or 575 volts, definite-purpose motors such as close-coupled
pump motors, and motors with 8 or more poles. Toshiba and Mr.
Treffinger argue that such motors have essentially the same electrical
characteristics as covered electric motors, and the addition of such
motors would maximize energy savings. (Toshiba, No. 14, and Treffinger,
No. 4 at 1.).
The Department is sympathetic to the potential energy savings that
could be achieved if the aforementioned types of motors were covered by
EPCA. In the Department's view, however, as with Design C motors, EPCA
does not impose efficiency requirements for the types of motors
described by Toshiba and Mr. Treffinger, and hence they are outside the
scope of this rulemaking. The Department, nevertheless, encourages
motor manufacturers to voluntarily improve the efficiency of any motor
designs, if the improvements are technically feasible, economical, and
energy-saving.
Voltage rating. Section 340(13)(A) of EPCA defines ``electric
motor,'' in part, as ``operating on 230/460 volts and 60 Hertz line
power.'' The DOE proposed rule (61 FR 60465, November 27, 1996)
clarifies this part of the EPCA definition as meaning a motor that
``operates on polyphase alternating current 60-Hertz sinusoidal power,
and is: (i) Rated 230 volts or 460 volts, or both, including any motor
that is rated at multi-voltages that include 230 volts or 460 volts, or
(ii) Can be operated on 230 volts or 460 volts, or both.''
The joint comments of the Washington State University Cooperative
Extension Energy Program and the Washington State Department of
Community, Trade and Economic Development (WSU/WSD) state that motors
designed for standard service voltages of 240 and 480 volts are rated
at 230 and /or 460 volts, from zero to eight percent lower than those
standard service voltages, to allow for presumed distribution system
voltage drop. They assert that a tolerance be placed on the 230/460
volt stipulation to allow for deviations that occur in this rating
among motor models intended for the same service voltage, and give
examples of motors on the market which are rated at 220 and 440, and
others rated at 480 volts. WSU/WSD recommend at least a 10 percent
tolerance be applied to the 230 volts and 460 volts prescribed by EPCA,
and that item (7)(ii) in the ``electric motor'' definition in section
431.2 of the final rule explicitly state: ``Can be operated on 230
volts or 460 volts without exceeding the 10% over/under voltage
tolerance stipulated in NEMA MG1 1993 R1, section 12.44.'' (WSU/WSD,
No. 5, at II.A.).
The Department agrees with WSU/WSD's apparent assumption that
motors with voltages within the 10 percent tolerance meet EPCA's
definition of ``electric motor,'' and with WSU/WSD's statement that
such motors meet the ``electric motor'' definition in the proposed
rule. (WSU/WSD, No. 5 at II.A.).
In its Policy Statement, issued subsequent to the filing of WSU/
WSD's comments, the Department stated that the criteria in NEMA MG1-
1993, paragraph 12.44, ``Variations from Rated Voltage and Rated
Frequency,'' which includes the 10 percent voltage tolerance criterion,
should be used to determine whether a motor not rated at 230 or 460
volts or 60 Hertz would nevertheless be within EPCA's definition of
``electric motor.'' The Department also indicated in the Policy
Statement, and continues to believe, that such criteria apply in
determining whether a motor meets the ``electric motor'' definition in
the proposed rule. The Department is aware of no opposition to these
positions, including its view that the 10 percent tolerance is to be
used to determine which motors are covered by EPCA efficiency
requirements. Moreover, DOE sees no reason to include this tolerance in
the regulatory definition of electric motor, but not the other
variations addressed in NEMA MG1-1993 paragraph 12.44. To include all
of these variations, however, would increase substantially the
complexity of the definition. For these reasons, DOE believes that it
is unnecessary to add to the final rule language proposed by WSU/WSD on
this point.
2. Basic Model
The proposed rule defines ``basic model'' to mean ``all units of a
given type of covered equipment (or class thereof) manufactured by a
single manufacturer, and, with respect to electric motors, which have
the same rating, have electrical characteristics that are essentially
identical, and do not have any differing physical or functional
characteristics which affect energy consumption or efficiency.'' As
used in this definition, ``rating'' is ``one of the 113 combinations of
an electric motor's horsepower (or standard kilowatt equivalent),
number of poles, and open or enclosed construction, with respect to
which section 431.42 prescribes nominal full load efficiency
standards.'' 61 FR 60465 (November 27, 1996).
WSU/WSD support the idea of defining ``basic model'', but assert
that the limits on what electric motors can be consolidated into a
particular basic model need to be more specific. WSU/WSD suggest that
electric motors
[[Page 54118]]
consolidated into a basic model have the following criteria: (1)
identical enclosure designation; (2) identical and interchangeable
stator cores; (3) electrically identical windings, i.e. circular mils
and ampere-turns per slot, winding pattern, and resistance in milliohms
per rated volt; and (4) identical and interchangeable rotor core and
cage. WSU/WSD also recommended that no untested model of motor be
adopted into a basic model consolidation if it has mechanical features
that tend to increase friction or windage above tested models. Such
features could include larger bearings, sealed versus shielded
bearings, a larger or higher capacity cooling fan, or shaft grounding
brushes. (WSU/WSD, No. 5 at II.E.)
The Department believes that many enclosure designations are based
on physical or functional characteristics which have nothing to do with
the energy consumption or efficiency performance of a motor. For
example, the same electrical design may be put into enclosures
identified as open, dripproof, splash-proof, semi-guarded, guarded, or
dripproof guarded, yet the enclosures may differ only in the location
and size of the ventilation holes in the frame. Because all of these
enclosures would have different designations using standardized
industry terminology, to define ``basic model'' in terms such as
``identical enclosure designations'' or ``electrically identical
windings,'' as recommended by WSU/WSD, would appear to increase the
number of basic models immensely without apparent benefit. In another
example, the same electrical design is often used in general purpose
enclosed motors and explosion-proof motors, differing only in the
construction and fit of the joints and frame openings (shaft and
conduit box leads) to meet hazardous location requirements. In this
case, the two separate motors would necessarily have different
enclosure designations. Both would be considered enclosed motors that
could be included within the same basic model as that term is defined
as in section 431.2 of the proposed rule, 61 FR 60465 (November 27,
1996), although under the WSU/WSD approach they would be different
basic models. The Department concludes that the WSU/WSD criteria for
characterizing ``basic model,'' would lead to additional testing and
reporting that are unnecessary to achieve compliance with EPCA
efficiency requirements, and would be unduly burdensome to
manufacturers. Therefore, the Department is adopting, in today's final
rule, the definition of ``basic model'' at 61 FR 60465 (November 27,
1996) in the proposed rule.
3. General Purpose
The descriptor ``general purpose,'' is one element both of the
definition of ``electric motor'' and ``definite purpose motor'' at
sections 340(13)(A) and (B) of EPCA, respectively. EPCA characterizes,
in part, a ``definite purpose motor'' as any motor ``for use under
service conditions other than usual'' and ``which cannot be used in
most general purpose applications.'' EPCA defines neither ``general
purpose'' nor ``service conditions other that usual.''
Section 431.2 in the proposed rule defines the term ``general
purpose motor'' as ``any motor which is designed in standard ratings
with either: (1) Standard operating characteristics and mechanical
construction for use under usual service conditions, such as those
specified in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, paragraph 14.02,
'Usual Service Conditions,' and without restriction to a particular
application or type of application; or (2) Standard operating
characteristics or standard mechanical construction for use under
unusual service conditions, or for a particular type of application,
and which can be used in most general purpose applications.'' 61 FR
60466 (November 27, 1996).
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) expresses difficulty
interpreting what is meant by ``other than usual'' service conditions.
UL asserts that (1) the potential for misclassifying a motor is
prominent, (2) it would be difficult to conclusively list ``unusual
service conditions,'' and (3) it would be beneficial to have criteria
for ``other than usual'' service conditions. (UL, No. 9, at pg. 1.).
The Department agrees that it would be beneficial to have criteria
to judge ``other than usual'' service conditions, and that would be a
formidable task to develop criteria that would account for the many
environmental, power supply, and equipment operating characteristics
which individually or in combination would constitute a service
condition that is ``other than usual.'' NEMA Standards Publication MG1-
1993 paragraph 14.03, ``Unusual Service Conditions'' lists examples,
however, of operating conditions which require the manufacturer's
consultation, to determine the suitability of a particular general
purpose motor being considered for an application. The Department
believes that no single item exemplified in paragraph 14.03, by itself,
necessarily establishes the existence of unusual service conditions,
and that paragraph 14.03 does not contain an exhaustive list of such
conditions. Nevertheless, to provide guidance as to the meaning of this
term, in the definitions of both ``general purpose motor'' and
``definite purpose motor'' the final rule cites paragraph 14.03 as
providing examples of unusual service conditions. This is done in the
same way that the proposed and final rules amplify the term ``usual
service conditions'' by stating ``such as those specified'' in
paragraph 14.02 of MG1-1993, ``Usual Service Conditions.''
4. Special Purpose Motor
Section 340(13)(C) of EPCA defines ``special purpose motor'' as
``any motor, other than a general purpose motor or definite purpose
motor, which has special operating characteristics or special
mechanical construction, or both, designed for a particular
application.'' Section 431.2, ``Definitions,'' in the proposed rule,
clarifies the term ``special purpose motor'' to mean ``any motor that
is designed for a particular application, and that either (1) is
designed in non-standard ratings with special operating characteristics
or special mechanical construction, or (2) has special operating
characteristics and special mechanical construction.''
NEMA objects to the qualifying language, ``non-standard ratings,''
in the proposed rule, asserting that it is common for special purpose
motors to have standard ratings, not non-standard ratings. NEMA further
asserts that it is unclear what the Department means by ``non-standard
rating.'' It states that the term ``rating'' in section 431.2 of the
proposed rule, is used as a qualifier in the definition of ``basic
model,'' to refer to one of the 113 combinations of horsepower, poles,
and open or enclosed construction, and as such appears to be in
conflict with section 431.42(b) in the proposed rule, which applies the
requirements in EPCA to non-standard ratings through an interpolation
methodology. As to Part 2 of the proposed definition of ``special
purpose motor,'' NEMA alleges a conflict with the language of the EPCA
definition. NEMA claims that if the Department deleted the text ``in
non-standard ratings'' from the NOPR's proposed definition of special
purpose motor, the resulting definition would be consistent with the
EPCA definition. (NEMA, No. 18 at page 4.).
The Department's proposed definition of ``special purpose motor''
was intended to clarify the distinction between that type of motor and
motors that would be ``definite purpose'' motors but for the fact that
they can be used in most general purpose
[[Page 54119]]
applications, and are therefore covered by EPCA requirements. Upon
further review, the Department has decided that EPCA's definitions
sufficiently distinguish between these types of motors, and agrees with
NEMA that the substance of DOE's proposed definition departs from the
statutory definition. Therefore, the definition of ``special purpose
motor'' in the final rule is identical to the statutory definition of
that term. The Department disagrees, however, with NEMA's assertion
that the meaning given to the term ``rating'' in the definition of
``basic model'' apparently conflicts with other parts of the rule and
creates uncertainty. The proposed rule's ``basic model'' definition
states that such meaning of ``rating'' is ``for purpose [sic] of this
definition.'' Thus such meaning does not apply throughout the rule.
5. Accreditation
Section 431.2 of the proposed rule defines ``accreditation'' as
``recognition by an authoritative body that a laboratory is competent
to perform all of the specific test procedures that are required by or
incorporated into this part.'' 61 FR 60465 (November 27, 1996).
NEMA asserts that it is not clear as to which ``test procedures''
are being referred to in the definition. NEMA states that the electric
motor industry uses the term ``test procedures'' to apply to the IEEE
Standard 112-1996 or CSA Standard C390-93 methods of conducting tests
to measure motor efficiency. These methods have formed the basis of
proposed accreditation programs to date. (NEMA, No. 18 at page 4.).
The Department agrees that the proposed definition needs to be
clarified, and that accreditation to perform test procedures for
electric motors is with reference to IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B
and CSA Standard C390 Test Method (1). The Department also notes,
however, accreditation would generally have to be based on the version
of the test method currently incorporated into the DOE regulations. For
these reasons, in today's final rule, the term ``accreditation'' is
defined at section 431.2 of 10 CFR Part 431, as recognizing competence
to perform the IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B and CSA Standard C390-93
Test Method (1) for electric motors.
6. Average Full Load Efficiency
Section 431.2 of the proposed rule defines ``average full load
efficiency'' to mean ``the average efficiency of a population of
electric motors of duplicate design, where the efficiency of each motor
in the population is the ratio (expressed as a percentage) of the
motor's useful power output to its total power input when the motor is
operated at its full rated load.''
NEMA recommends that the clarifying text, ``rated voltage, and
rated frequency,'' be added after the words ``full rated load,'' in the
definition of ``average full load efficiency.'' (NEMA, No. 18 at page
4.). Washington State asserts that it would be more precise to define
``average full load efficiency'' as the ``arithmetic mean efficiency,''
since ``average'' could convey various measures of central tendencies,
such as median or mode. (WSU/WSD, No. 5 at II.N.).
The Department believes that the clarifying text, ``rated voltage,
and rated frequency,'' proposed by NEMA, is consistent with the EPCA
definition of ``electric motor,'' which refers to ``Design A and B''
and ``operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60 Hertz line power as
defined in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987.'' Moreover, the
clarifying text provides a benchmark for measuring the average full
load efficiency of a population of electric motors of duplicate design
by screening out voltage and frequency variations which could be
deleterious to efficiency under running conditions. Therefore, the
Department is adding the words ``rated voltage, and rated frequency''
in today's final rule. The Department also understands the need for
clarity in the definition of ``average efficiency'' per WSU/WSD's
comment, and is adding the term ``arithmetic mean efficiency'' in the
definition of ``average full load efficiency.''
7. Nominal Full Load Efficiency
The term ``nominal full load efficiency'' in section 341(13)(H) of
EPCA means ``the average efficiency of a population of motors of
duplicate design as determined in accordance with NEMA Standards
Publication MG1-1987.'' Section 431.2 in the proposed rule defines the
term ``nominal full load efficiency'' as it applies to an electric
motor, to mean ``the nominal efficiency in Column A of Table 12-8, NEMA
Standards Publication MG1-1993, that is either the closest lower value
to, or that equals, the average full load efficiency of electric motors
of the same design.''
NEMA encourages the Department to use a definition of ``nominal
full load efficiency'' as it is in NEMA MG1-1993, to avoid the
confusion of more than one definition of ``nominal full load
efficiency.'' NEMA acknowledges that the MG1 definition does not
require the manufacturer to select a single value for nominal
efficiency from Table 12-8 in NEMA MG1, but that the manufacturer could
select any value that does not exceed the average full load efficiency
of the population of motors. NEMA contends that the EPCA definition
takes the same approach. (NEMA, No. 18 at p. 5.)
Based on testimony at the Public Hearing on January 15, 1997 (TR
pgs. 57-60), the Department understands that the fixed values in Table
12-6B in NEMA MG1-1987 (Table 12-8 in MG1-1993) are an adopted set of
incremental values that manufacturers have chosen to use as labeling
values. The Department is aware that the NEMA MG1 Table 12-6B was
created to prevent mismarking or confusion that could occur if one
manufacturer, for example, labeled a motor 93.53 percent efficient and
another manufacturer marked a motor 93.57 percent efficient. Variations
in materials, manufacturing processes, and tests can result in motor-
to-motor variations for a given motor design, so that the full load
efficiency for motors of a single design is not a unique efficiency but
rather a band of efficiency. The NEMA MG1 Table 12-6B established a
logical series of ``nominal'' motor efficiencies, from which the motor
nameplate efficiency marking is selected, to avoid the inference of
unrealistic accuracy that might be assumed from a potentially infinite
number of labeled efficiency values. Thus, paragraph 12.58.2 of NEMA
MG1-1993 provides that the full load efficiency of a motor shall be
identified by a nominal efficiency value selected from Table 12-8
(previously Table 12-6B in NEMA MG1-1987), ``which shall be not greater
than the average efficiency of a large population'' of such motors.
Such nominal value could, in theory, be any value listed in Table 12-8
that is not greater than the average efficiency of the large
population.
The Department's proposed definition resulted from a belief that
manufacturers should be required to use for each motor the nominal full
load value that corresponds most closely to the efficiency test or
calculation results for that motor. NEMA has stated, however, that
other analysis might influence a manufacturer to select a lower value
for a particular motor, and that a manufacturer would be unlikely to
select a value lower than the greatest value that could be supported.
Notwithstanding its view that its proposed definition of ``nominal
full load efficiency'' is supported by the definition of that term in
EPCA, the Department also believes the Act can be construed as
supporting use of the
[[Page 54120]]
approach in MG1-1993. In light of NEMA's comments, the Department is
adopting, in today's final rule, a definition of ``nominal full load
efficiency'' that conforms to the use of that term in paragraph 12.58.2
of MG1-1993.
B. Test Procedures
Section 343(a)(5)(A) of EPCA requires that the test procedures to
determine the efficiency of electric motors under EPCA shall be the
test procedures specified in NEMA MG1-1987 and IEEE Standard 112 Test
Method B (IEEE 112) for motor efficiency, as in effect on the date of
the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. If the test procedures
in NEMA MG1 and IEEE 112 are subsequently amended, the Secretary of
Energy is required to revise the regulatory test procedures for
electric motors to conform to such amendments, ``unless the Secretary
determines by rule, * * * supported by clear and convincing evidence,
that to do so would not meet the requirements for test procedures
described in'' sections 343(a) (2) and (3) of EPCA.
In general, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) supports the energy
efficiency test procedures prescribed in the proposed rule because they
are consistent with the IEEE and the American National Standards
Institute procedures. (EEI, No. 15)
1. NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, with Revisions 1 through 4
In the NOPR, the Department stated its intention to adopt the test
procedures for the measurement of energy efficiency in NEMA MG1-1993
with Revision 1. 61 FR 60446, 60466, 60469 (November 27, 1996).
Revision 2, 3 and 4 have also been added to MG1-1993. Revisions 2 and 3
make editorial clarifications to the determination of efficiency and
losses under MG1-12.58.1. Whereas in MG1 Revision 1, motors from 1 to
125 horsepower were tested by dynamometer according to IEEE Standard
112 Test Method B or CSA Standard C390 Test Method (1), MG1 Revision 4
extends testing by dynamometer up to 400 horsepower under MG1-12.58.1,
thereby including the 1 through 200 range of horsepower ratings under
EPCA.
The Department does not intend to determine that the test procedure
amendments in Revisions 2-4 of MG1-1993 fail to meet the requirements
of sections 343(a)(2) and (3) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3),
except to the extent that such a determination is warranted, as
discussed below, with respect to certain provisions of IEEE Std 112-
1996 Test Method B (which MG1 references). The Department is adopting,
in today's final rule, the test procedure requirements to measure
energy efficiency and losses in NEMA MG1 with Revisions 1 through 4,
but with certain modifications to IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B.
2. Modifications to the IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B
IEEE Std 112-1991 Test Method B was incorporated into the proposed
rule, but was revised and superseded by IEEE Std 112-1996, which was
published May 8, 1997. A minor revision was made in IEEE Std 112-1996
on January 20, 1998, when IEEE issued a notice of correction for the
calculation at item (28) in section 10.2 Form B-Test Method B:
``Calculation form for input-output test of induction machine with
segregation of losses and smoothing of stray-load loss.'' Under section
343(a)(5)(B) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B), DOE must now adopt the
test procedures in IEEE Std 112-1996 with the minor revision, unless
clear and convincing evidence supports a conclusion that such test
procedures are not reasonably designed to produce test results which
reflect energy efficiency, or are unduly burdensome to conduct.
The Department compared IEEE Std 112-1991 to IEEE Std 112-1996 to
determine whether there were differences in the two versions of Test
Method B, and, if so, whether to adopt Test Method B in IEEE Std 112-
1996 into the final rule for electric motors. As a result of its
analysis, the Department believes Test Method B in IEEE Std 112-1996
improves upon the version of that test method in IEEE Std 112-1991,
because IEEE Std 112-1996 includes: tightened tolerances on metering
instrumentation (IEEE 112, clause 4); a more comprehensive and
consolidated verbal description of the components of Test Method B
(IEEE 112, clause 6.4); and specific formulae provided for calculation
of stator I2R losses (IEEE 112, clause 5.1).
After publication of IEEE Std 112-1996 in May 1997, however, the
Department became aware, through information submitted by a testing
laboratory that has gained experience using the test procedure, that
Test Method B in IEEE Std 112-1996 contains 1) typographical errors, 2)
statements of procedure that are open to interpretation, and 3)
incorrect information. For a given motor, these defects could cause
varying measurements of efficiency, or errors ranging from plus or
minus one-half to one and one-half percentage points in measured
efficiency, thereby throwing an electric motor into the next higher or
lower level of nominal efficiency, and effectively rendering it either
in or out of compliance with the applicable EPCA efficiency standard.
Subsequently, the Department confirmed the existence of these types of
problems with IEEE Std 112-1996 through contacts with other testing
laboratories, a certification organization, and manufacturers, each
known to have experience with IEEE Standard 112-1996, and through
discussions with the Chairman of the IEEE Induction Power Subcommittee.
(IEEE has since corrected one such error, in its January 1998 notice of
correction.) In sum, although Test Method B in IEEE Std 112-1996 has
several advantages, mentioned above, it also has typographical errors,
provisions subject to interpretation, and incorrect information.
The Department announced its intention, in the Federal Register, at
63 FR 34758 (June 25, 1998), that the final rule would prescribe IEEE
Std 112-1996 Test Method B, with the January 1998 correction, as a test
procedure under EPCA for determining the energy efficiency of electric
motors, but with certain modifications set forth at 63 FR 34759-62
(June 25, 1998). The Department reopened the comment period on the
proposed rule for motors, in part to solicit comments on these
modifications. The Department noted, 63 FR 34759 (June 25, 1998), that
it was not altering the IEEE test procedure, but was ``proposing only
to mandate certain modifications to IEEE 112-1996 Test Method B when it
is used for purposes of measuring efficiency under EPCA.''
The Department received six sets of comments on these proposed
modifications to IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B. There is general
acknowledgment that IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B needs modification
or correction, but some commenters opposed changes by the Department
for purposes of EPCA. In general, Advanced Energy Corporation and
Zentralverband Elektrotechnik-und Elektronikindustrie e.V. (ZVEI)
support the Department's corrections and modifications to IEEE Std 112-
1996. (AEC, No. 35 and ZVEI, No. 37 pgs. 2-3.). GE Motors, NEMA and
ACEEE, however, assert that corrections and modifications to IEEE
Standard 112-1996 Test Method B should be accomplished instead through
the voluntary standards making process (GE, No. 39, and NEMA/ACEEE, No.
38). NEMA and ACEEE oppose the Department's making any modifications or
corrections to the IEEE Standard 112-1996 Test Method B on grounds that
such changes could (1) unnecessarily lengthen the time for completion
of the final rule for motors; (2) differ from
[[Page 54121]]
changes which might be made by IEEE; (3) delay manufacturers from
certifying compliance and disrupt laboratory accreditation programs;
and (4) create confusion in the industry because there would be two
versions of IEEE Standard 112, one for electric motors covered by EPCA
and one for motors not covered by EPCA. NEMA and ACEEE also assert that
the many typographical errors and provisions subject to interpretation
have been dealt with by motor manufacturers and are not a problem. NEMA
and ACEEE recommend that the Department adopt IEEE Std 112-1996, with
the January 20, 1998 revision, and without the corrections and
modifications proposed in the reopening notice (NEMA/ACEEE, No. 38). GE
Motors agrees with the Department that typographical errors in IEEE
Standard 112 should be corrected, but asserts that instead of changing
the IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B for use under EPCA, the Department
should communicate its understanding of the needed corrections and
modifications to the National Institute of Standards and Technology/
National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NIST/NVLAP) for
application in its proficiency testing program for electric motors.
(GE, Nos. 39, 46). IEEE submitted the Department's June 25, 1998,
reopening notice to the IEEE Induction Machinery Subcommittee for its
review and recommendations, and stated that it would ``take any action
deemed necessary to update or amend'' IEEE Std 112-1996. But IEEE did
not indicate when it would address the points in the reopening notice.
(IEEE, No. 34).
The Department understands that IEEE typically updates its
standards approximately every five years, and that the next revision of
IEEE Std 112-1996 is scheduled for the year 2001, although it might be
published in the year 2000. (Martiny/Knab, No. 41; IEEE, No. 46). In
the Department's view, this would be too great a delay in correcting
IEEE Standard 112 for use under EPCA. The Department also understands
industry concern that, subsequent to any changes the Department would
make, IEEE might make different changes to IEEE Standard 112.
Nevertheless, if and when such changes are forthcoming from IEEE, the
Department will essentially be required, under section 343(a)(5)(B) of
EPCA, to incorporate such changes in to the DOE test procedures under
EPCA, unless the Secretary properly determines otherwise. In regard to
laboratory accreditation programs, any changes to IEEE Standard 112
Test Method B for purposes of EPCA would be applied, for consistency,
in the NIST/NVLAP accreditation program. NIST/NVLAP has advised DOE,
however, that the changes in today's final rule would not affect
existing or future NIST/NVLAP accreditations of laboratories to test
motors for energy efficiency. (NIST/NVLAP, No. 45). As to the assertion
that the typographical errors and procedures subject to interpretation
are not problematic, use of IEEE Standard 112 has been voluntary until
recently. But under today's rule, it will be mandatory, and will be the
basis for determining whether manufacturers are complying with EPCA and
can sell their products. When a test procedure is used in this type of
mandatory environment, there is greater need than in a voluntary
environment for it to be precise and uniformly applied.
Upon consideration of the comments received and further review of
the issues, the Department continues to believe, for the reasons stated
in the reopening notice and this notice, that IEEE Std 112-1996 Test
Method B should be adopted as the EPCA test procedure for electric
motors, but with certain modifications and corrections. The Department
emphasizes, however, that such modifications and corrections in today's
rule do not fundamentally or extensively alter IEEE Std 112-1996 Test
Method B. Rather, these changes are essentially technical corrections
and interpretations of Test Method B, which fine tune and clarify it,
will enable it to work better, and realize the intent of the test
procedure. The Department disagrees with the claims that these changes
will delay compliance certification or create a second version of IEEE
Standard 112 that will cause confusion. Instead, the test procedure in
today's rule in essence conforms to IEEE Std 112-1996. Furthermore, as
demonstrated by the discussion in this notice and in the reopening
notice, absent the changes contained in this rule, IEEE Std 112-1996
Test Method B would not be reasonably designed to produce results that
reflect energy efficiency and would be unduly burdensome to conduct.
Consequently, changes in Test Method B, as described in the following
passages, are incorporated into today's rule.
a. Typographical Errors
Page 17, subclause 6.4.1.3, No-load test, currently reads: ``See
5.3 including 5.33, * * *.'' In today's final rule, this reference is
changed to read: ``See 5.3 including 5.3.3, * * *.''
Page 48, item (24), the formula for shaft power in watts, currently
reads: ``Is equal to [(23) (11)]/k2'', but the
constant k2 is not defined. At section II.A.1.b. of the
reopening notice, the Department proposed to correct the constant
``k2'' in item (24) to the constant ``k''. The formula in
item (24) would then read: ``Is equal to [(23) (11)]/k''. 63
FR 34759 (June 25, 1998). Also, page 48, item (29) currently reads:
``See 4.3.2.2 Eq. 4.'' The Department stated, at section II.A. 2.c.,
that such reference to equation (4) in subclause 4.3.2.2, Slip
correction for temperature, without explanation, could cause confusion
and errors, since the terms in equation (4) used to correct slip
measurements to the specified stator temperature, are defined
differently from similar terms used in 10.2 Form B. 63 FR 34760 (June
25, 1998).
NEMA and ACEEE assert that it is preferable to change the constant
``k'' in item (22) to ``k2'' since this would follow in
sequence the previous appearance of the constant ``k1'' in
item (16). Such a change would also eliminate some of the confusion the
Department notes in section II.A.2.c. of the reopening notice,
concerning the different definitions given for ``k'' in subclause
4.3.2.2 and ``k'' in item (22) on page 48, since ``k'' would no longer
be included in item (22). (NEMA/ACEEE No. 38 at pg. 2).
The Department understands that there is not a consistent
definition of terms throughout IEEE Std 112-1996. For example, the term
``k'' is used in sections 4.3.1, 7.2.2, 7.3.2.1, 7.3.2.2, 7.3.2.3, 10.1
and 10.2 of IEEE Std 112-1996 to convert power in watts to torque, and
in sections 4.2.3, 4.3.2.2 and 8.3.3 as the temperature intercept for
computing the resistance. The term ``k'' without subscripts in IEEE
Standard 112 is used often to mean different things, and therefore it
has been the practice to define its meaning within each section where
it is used. (NIST/NVLAP, No. 45). The Department believes that the NEMA
and ACEEE change has merit and would eliminate some of the confusion
described in sections II.A.1.b. and II.A.2.c. of the reopening notice,
both with page 48, item (24) in the formula for shaft power in watts,
and subclause 4.3.2.2 equation (4). 63 FR 34759. Therefore, in lieu of
the change proposed by the Department in its reopening notice for page
48, item (24), the Department will change the torque constant at page
48, item (22) of IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B, from ``k'' to
``k2'', in today's final rule. The term ``k2'' at
item (22) would then read: ``k2 = 9.549 for torque, in
Nm'' and ``k2 = 7.043 for torque, in
lbfft.'' Both the formula at page 48, item (24), and the
constant ``k'' for conductivity at page 7, subclause 4.3.2.2 equation
(4), are adopted without change from the IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method
B.
[[Page 54122]]
b. Provisions Subject to Interpretation
Page 8, subclause 5.1.1, ``Specified temperature'' provides three
methods, listed in order of preference, to determine the ``specified
temperature'' used in making resistance corrections: (a) measured
temperature rise by resistance from a rated load temperature test; (b)
measured temperature rise on a duplicate machine; and (c) use of a
temperature correction table when rated load temperature has not been
measured. The Department understands that only options ``a'' or ``b''
in subclause 5.1.1 are applicable to Test Method B. Information
provided to the Department indicated, however, that option ``c'' is
being misapplied to Test Method B. Therefore, at section II.A.2.a. of
the reopening notice, the Department sought comment on whether its test
procedure rule should incorporate into subclause 5.1.1 the following
language: ``(Method B only allows the use of preference a) or b).)'' 63
FR 34759-60 (June 25, 1998).
AEC supports the Department's suggested modification of section
5.1.1. AEC agrees that a complete and thorough reading of IEEE Standard
112-1996 would make it clear that preference ``c'' is not compatible
with Test Method B, as the Department argues at section II.A.2.a. of
its reopening notice, 63 FR 34760 (June 25, 1998). However, AEC asserts
that IEEE Standard 112-1996 is frequently used as a reference document
where only a few clauses are reviewed at a given time, and that the
proposed modification would preclude the inadvertent application of
``c'' to Test Method B. (AEC, No. 35 at pg. 2). Also, Underwriters
Laboratories, Lincoln Electric, and NIST/NVLAP agree with the proposed
revision to make clear at subclause 5.1.1 that only options ``a'' or
``b'' are applicable to Test Method B. (UL, No. 43, Lincoln, No. 44,
and NIST/NVLAP, No. 45).
The Department concludes, based on the aforementioned comments,
that the proposed change is warranted and would eliminate the
possibility of misinterpreting subclause 5.1.1, which could lead to
distortion of efficiency values by misapplication of option ``c.''
Consequently, in today's final rule, the Department incorporates into
the first sentence of subclause 5.1.1 the following language: ``(Test
Method B only allows the use of preference a) or b).)''
Page 47, the procedure to measure temperature in item (4) Rated
Load Heat Run Stator Winding Temperature is not defined. Information in
the footnote at the bottom of page 47, 10.2 Form B, indicates that the
temperature for item (7), which is used as a basis for the temperatures
in items (4), (27), and (16), can be either determined from a
temperature detector or derived from measurement of the stator
resistance during the test. The Department proposed, at section
II.A.2.b. of its reopening notice, 63 FR 34760 (June 25, 1998), that
the method of measuring both items (4) and (7) be consistent. There
were no comments to the contrary. NIST/NVLAP concurs that the
modification to the footnote is appropriate and will not affect its
accreditation of laboratories. (NIST/NVLAP, No. 45). Therefore, the
Department will, in today's final rule, incorporate a second sentence
to the footnote at the bottom of page 47, 10.2 Form B, to read: ``The
values for ts and tt shall be based on the same
method of temperature measurement, selected from the four methods in
subclause 8.3.''
Page 48, item (27) defines Stator I 2R Loss, in W, at
(ts) deg.C, and item (29) defines Corrected Slip, in r/min,
on IEEE Std 112-1996 10.2 Form B. Page 48, item (29) currently reads:
``See 4.3.2.2, Eq 4.'' The Department believes that such reference,
without explanation, to equation (4) in subclause 4.3.2.2, Slip
correction for temperature, can cause confusion and errors, since the
terms in equation (4) used to correct slip measurements to the
specified stator temperature are defined differently from similar terms
used in 10.2 Form B. As set forth at section II.A.2.c. of the reopening
notice, based on its examination of 10.2 Form B and supporting sections
of IEEE Standard 112, the Department proposed the following
modifications to clarify the temperatures to be used for correcting the
stator and rotor loss: (1) at the top of 10.2 Form B and below the line
that defines ``rated load heat run stator winding resistance,'' insert
a new line that will define ``ts'' as it is defined in
6.4.3.2 and 6.4.3.3: ``Temperature for Resistance Correction
(ts) = ____ deg.C (See 6.4.3.2);'' (2) add a note at the
bottom of 10.2 Form B to read: ``NOTE: The temperature for resistance
correction (ts) is equal to [(4)-(5) + 25 deg.C];'' (3) add
the reference ``see 6.4.3.2'' to the end of item (27) on page 48; and
(4) change item (29) on page 48, which presently states ``See 4.3.2.2,
eq. 4,'' to state: ``Is equal to (10) [k1 + (4)-(5)
+ 25 deg.C] / [k1 + (7)], see 6.4.3.3''. 63 FR 37460-1 (June
25, 1998).
There were no objections to the proposed clarifications of
temperatures to be used for correcting stator and rotor loss. The
Department concludes that the proposed modifications will reduce
confusion and errors in the IEEE Test Method B, and therefore
incorporates the aforementioned modifications into today's final rule.
Page 48, item (32), the equation to correct stray-load loss
currently reads: ``Is equal to AT\2\ where A = slope of the curve of
(26) vs. (23) 2 using a linear regression analysis, see
6.4.2.7,'' and ``T = corrected torque = (23).'' In the reopening
notice, the Department states both its concerns about this equation as
well as considerations supporting use of the equation as written. The
Department stated that it intends to adopt IEEE Std 112-1996, subclause
6.4.2.7, Smoothing of the stray-load loss, without change, but is still
considering the option of making the change to add a restriction on the
allowable value of the intercept. Also, the Department invited the
submission of data that would show if any significant differences do
occur between the final determined value of efficiency at 100 percent
rated load, for various values of the stray-load loss intercept in
repeated tests of the same motor. 63 FR 34761-62 (June 25, 1998).
AEC supports the modification to subclause 6.4.2.7 to add a
restriction on the allowable value of the y intercept, and advises the
Department that it finds such a check to be useful in verifying the
validity of test data. (AEC, No. 35 at pg. 2).
ZVEI cites problems with the influence of a systematic measurement
error on determined stray load losses, and rejects modification to the
equation to correct stray load loss on the basis that it would only
offset stochastic measurement errors. (ZVEI, No. 37 pgs. 2-3.).
The Department has been advised that it would be premature to
require the absolute value of B to be less than 10 percent of the total
loss. (NIST/NVLAP, No. 45). During the NIST/NVLAP accreditation process
this limit on the absolute value of B was not a requirement. However,
the data from some demonstration tests made during the on-site
inspections of the laboratories requesting accreditation were all well
within the 10 percent limit discussed in the reopening notice. The
Department believes that future investigation of this subject is
warranted. Presently, however, there is insufficient data available to
support a specific limit for the value of B. Therefore, the Department
will incorporate, into today's final rule, IEEE Std 112-1996, subclause
6.4.2.7, Smoothing of the stray-load loss, without change.
Nevertheless, the Department continues to be interested in receiving
data on this subject for
[[Page 54123]]
future consideration of a restriction on the allowable value of the
intercept.
Page 17, subclause 6.4.1.3, ``No-load test,'' in the second
sentence, currently reads: ``Prior to making this test, the machine
shall be operated at no-load until both the temperature and the input
have stabilized.'' Information provided to the Department indicated
that the requirements for temperature and input stabilization during
the no-load test appear to be undefined and could cause confusion. To
clarify the pertinent subclause for temperature stabilization, the
Department proposed, at section II.A.2.e. of the reopening notice, to
modify the second sentence in 6.4.1.3 to read: ``Prior to making this
test, the machine shall be operated at no-load until both the
temperature has stabilized (see 8.6.3) and the input has stabilized.''
63 FR 34762 (June 25, 1998).
AEC disagrees with the Department's proposal to modify subclause
6.4.1.3 by specifying temperature stabilization per subclause 8.6.3.
AEC asserts that subclause 8.6.3 is a temperature stabilization
definition for determining the end of a rated-load heat-run, is much
too stringent a requirement for the no-load test, and would add
approximately two hours of testing time to each motor test. Also,
according to AEC, the proposed modification would create confusion with
the execution of no-load stabilization, as defined in sections 5.3 and
4.3.1.1 of IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B. AEC suggests that subclause
6.4.1.3 be modified to omit the reference to temperature stabilization,
i.e., remove the words ``both the temperature and the input have,'' and
replace them with ``the input has.'' AEC explains that subclause
6.4.1.3 already references subclause 5.3, Core loss and stabilization,
which defines ``power stabilization.'' AEC asserts that its
modification will retain the ``power stabilization'' component, produce
consistent, repeatable test results, and make subclause 6.4.1.3
consistent with subclauses 5.3 and 4.3.1.1, as well as with the no-load
test as defined in IEEE Std 112-1991 Test Method B.
Further, AEC asserts that there is no need for temperature
stabilization as part of a no-load test, based upon indications that
the reference to ``temperature stabilization at no-load'' in subclause
6.4.1.3 was not one of the IEEE Induction Power Subcommittee's proposed
changes in drafting IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B. (AEC, No. 35 and
Martiny, No. 42). The Department has been advised through NIST/NVLAP
that laboratories testing motors according to IEEE Standard 112-1996
Test Method B typically interpret subclause 6.4.1.3 to require only
that the input watt reading not vary over 3 percent, and to disregard
any requirement for temperature stabilization. (NIST/NVLAP, No. 45).
Since the no-load test is made after the load test and dynamometer
correction test, the motor is usually substantially below rated
temperature and the temperature changes are small with time.
Consequently, the Department withdraws its proposed modification, at
section II.A.2.e. of the reopening notice, to include ``temperature
stabilization'' in subclause 6.4.1.3 of the IEEE Standard 112 Test
Method B. Instead, the Department is persuaded by AEC's comments to
modify the second sentence in 6.4.1.3 and will incorporate the
following into today's final rule: ``Prior to making this test, the
machine shall be operated at no-load until the input has stabilized.''
(AEC, No. 35). The Department believes the modification provided by AEC
will eliminate the confusion with subclause 6.4.1.3, which is
identified at section II.A.2.e. of the reopening notice, and will not
be unduly burdensome on manufacturers.
c. Incorrect Information
Page 40, subclause 8.6.3, Termination of test, the first and third
sentences currently read: ``For continuously rated machines, readings
shall be taken at intervals of \1/2\ h[our] or less. * * * For
continuous rated machines, the temperature test shall continue until
there is 1 deg.C or less change in temperature rise between two
successive readings.'' As written, however, this language allows
temperature readings to be taken at intervals as brief as five seconds,
for example. If such short intervals are used, there could be little or
no rise in temperature between any two consecutive readings, even if
the motor temperature is actually still rising. Consequently, the
motor's temperature could be misconstrued as being stable. The
Department proposed, at section II.A.3. in the reopening notice, to
change the third sentence in subclause 8.6.3 (the second clause quoted
above) to read: ``For continuous rated machines, the temperature test
shall continue until there is 1 deg.C or less change in temperature
rise over a 30-minute time period.''
NIST/NVLAP concurs with the proposed change to subclause 8.6.3,
because it is consistent with the manner in which accredited
laboratories are interpreting the temperature measurement procedure.
(NIST/NVLAP, No. 45). No comments were received to contradict this
proposed change and for the reasons stated in the reopening notice, the
Department adopts this proposed change in today's final rule.
d. Summary
In sum, the Department is convinced that there is sufficient
evidence to warrant use of IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B, with the
aforementioned corrections, and no substantial evidence to the
contrary. Such corrections would provide an accurate measurement of the
energy efficiency of the motor being tested, and a measurement that is
repeatable from one test to the next of the same motor or comparable
motors. In addition, the Department believes that, with these
corrections, manufacturers would not be burdened by having to resolve
problems related to typographical errors, unclear provisions, and
unnecessary references to other parts of IEEE Standard 112. Therefore,
the Department incorporates, into today's final rule for motors, the
test procedures in IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B, the correction to
the calculation at item (28) in section 10.2 Form B-Test Method B
issued by IEEE on January 20, 1998, and the aforementioned corrections
and modifications.
C. Determination of a Motor's Efficiency: Use of Accredited
Laboratories and Certification Programs, Selection of Basic Models for
Testing, Alternative Means To Measure Efficiency, and Sampling Plans
for Testing
1. Summary of DOE's Proposals
Section 343(a)(2) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2), requires that the
test procedures prescribed for electric motors by DOE be ``reasonably
designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency,'' yet
not be ``unduly burdensome'' to conduct. As per the proposed rule at 10
CFR 431.24, Units to be tested, a manufacturer would initially
determine the efficiency of at least five basic models by testing, and
of its remaining models either by testing or by use of an Alternative
Efficiency Determination Method (AEDM). 61 FR 60466-67 (November 27,
1996). (Such testing to initially determine efficiency is referred to
as ``compliance testing.'') Section 431.24 provides (1) criteria for
deciding which basic models should undergo compliance testing, (2) a
sampling plan for determining, for each such basic model, how many and
which units must be tested, (3) criteria for the acceptability of an
AEDM, including a requirement that the AEDM be substantiated by
applying it to five basic models that have been tested for efficiency,
and (4) requirements for
[[Page 54124]]
subsequent verification of an AEDM. Under section 431.25 of the
proposed rule, the efficiency of a basic model must be either certified
by a third-party certification organization, or based on testing
(compliance testing and, where an AEDM is used, testing to substantiate
the AEDM) that has been conducted in an accredited laboratory.
As per the proposed 10 CFR 431.127, Enforcement, the Department
would ascertain in an enforcement proceeding, which could include
testing (``enforcement testing''), whether a motor complies with the
applicable energy efficiency standard and with the labeled value of
efficiency. 61 FR 60472, 60474-75 (November 27, 1996). Proposed section
431.27 includes a sampling procedure for enforcement testing.
In the reopening notice, the Department proposed for consideration
that the final rule prescribe neither criteria for selecting the basic
models for compliance testing, nor a sampling plan for such testing,
when a motor's efficiency is certified by a certification program. The
Department also stated that it was considering adoption of revised
sampling plans for compliance and enforcement testing, and of
provisions for withdrawal of DOE recognition from an accreditation
organization or certification program that deviates from the standards
for recognition.
Many provisions of the proposed rule were the subject of little or
no comment or dispute, including (1) the requirement that a
manufacturer determine through testing the efficiency of five or more
basic models (proposed section 431.24(a)), (2) allowing the use of
AEDMs for other basic models (proposed section 431.24(a)), (3) the
criteria for an AEDM (proposed section 431.24(a)(2)), (4) the basic
approach in Section 431.24(a)(3) for establishing the accuracy and
reliability of an AEDM, and (5) the provisions for subsequent
verification of an AEDM (proposed section 431.24(b)(4)). The following
addresses matters on which significant comments were received.
2. Issues Involving Both Use of Accredited Laboratories and Use of
Certification Organizations
EPCA directs the Department to ``require manufacturers to certify
through an independent testing or certification program nationally
recognized in the United States, that [any electric motor subject to
EPCA efficiency standards] meets the applicable standard.'' EPCA
section 345(c), 42 U.S.C. 6316(c). Consistent with the approach in
DOE's program concerning the energy efficiency of residential
appliances, section 431.123 of the proposed rule provides that a
manufacturer must certify to DOE the compliance and the efficiency
levels of the electric motors it manufactures. 61 FR 60471 (November
27, 1996). The proposed rule meets the statutory mandate that
certification be ``through'' an independent testing or certification
program by requiring a manufacturer to base its certification on use of
such a program, i.e., a manufacturer must use an independent testing
program or a certification program to establish a motor's efficiency
level and compliance, which it then certifies to DOE. See 61 FR 60458
(November 27, 1996).
To satisfy the intent of the ``independent testing'' provision of
Section 345(c) of EPCA, and given the relative paucity of independent
testing laboratories, the Department proposed that a manufacturer be
permitted to establish compliance based on testing carried out in a
laboratory accredited by a nationally recognized program such as the
National Institute of Standards and Technology/National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program (NIST/NVLAP). The laboratory could be
the manufacturer's own laboratory. As required under section 345(c),
the Department also permits a manufacturer to certify compliance based
on its participation in a certification program. 61 FR 60455-56, 60458,
60467 (November 27, 1996).
The majority of comments were supportive of these proposals. For
example, the Association of Independent Scientific, Engineering and
Testing Firms (``ACIL'', formerly the American Council of Independent
Laboratories) supports the adoption of the proposed rule regarding test
procedures and certification for energy efficiency of electric motors,
and in particular, the Department's proposal to allow electric motor
manufacturers three approaches for establishing compliance: testing in
the manufacturer's accredited laboratory; testing in an accredited
independent testing laboratory; or use of a third-party certification
program (ACIL, No. 7 and Public Hearing Tr. Pgs. 123-124 7).
However, some commenters expressed concern about these options for
compliance certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Public Hearing, Tr. Pgs. 123-124,'' refers to the page
numbers of the transcript of the ``Public Hearing on Energy
Efficiency Standards, Test Procedures, Labeling, and Certification
Reporting for Certain Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors,''
held in Washington, DC, January 15, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zentralverband Elektrotechnik- und Elektronikindustrie e.V. (ZVEI)
asserts that the manufacturer's declaration should be the preferred
method compared with third-party certification, and should also be
accepted without requiring testing in an accredited laboratory. (ZVEI,
No. 37, pg. 2-3). As to third party certification, on the one hand the
proposed rule requires the manufacturer to certify compliance to DOE, a
requirement that is retained in today's final rule. Thus, ZVEI appears
to have the erroneous view that DOE treats third party certification as
an alternative to a declaration by the manufacturer. As indicated
above, the third party certification contemplated under today's rule is
a basis for the manufacturer's declaration. On the other hand, section
345(c) of EPCA clearly directs the Department to require manufacturers
to certify compliance through either a testing program or a
certification program. A preference for one over the other might be
barred by the statute, and, in any event, DOE believes such a
preference is unwarranted at this time given the potential benefits
from using a certification program. See 61 FR 60457 (November 27,
1996). Concerning accreditation, as noted above use of an accredited
laboratory serves to satisfy the EPCA provision calling for
``independent'' testing, and a manufacturer's declaration in and of
itself would not in DOE's view satisfy the intent of this provision. To
the extent ZVEI is concerned that foreign manufacturers would be
unfairly burdened by having to test in laboratories accredited in the
United States, DOE notes that today's final rule permits testing at a
laboratory accredited by an accreditation body having a mutual
recognition arrangement with NIST/NVLAP.
Sterling Electric, Inc. supports the need for more than one choice
when selecting an accrediting body or certification organization to
fulfill the requirement for compliance with EPCA efficiency standards.
(Sterling, No. 13). The ACIL is concerned that the NOPR refers to only
two private organizations that could certify electric motors to the
Department's efficiency standards, and asks that the final proposal not
refer to any one certification body or accreditation body. (ACIL, No.
7.). These organizations were identified by a manufacturer, 61 FR 60457
(November 27, 1996), which added that it is not necessary to limit
independent certification--that is, certification of energy-efficient
electric motors by a nationally recognized program--to two particular
certification organizations.
The apparent concern that the Department might limit a manufacturer
to only certain choices when selecting an agency to accredit its
testing
[[Page 54125]]
laboratory or to certify the efficiency of its motors is unfounded.
Sections 431.26, Department of Energy recognition of accreditation
bodies, and 431.27, Department of Energy recognition of nationally
recognized certification programs, of the proposed rule essentially
provide that any accreditation body or certification organization can
request classification by the Department as being nationally recognized
in the United States for the purposes of section 345 of EPCA. Section
431.25(a) of the proposed rule permits a certificate of conformity for
a basic model of an electric motor to be obtained from any
certification program classified by DOE as nationally recognized under
section 431.27, and permits testing in any laboratory accredited by
NIST/NVLAP, by a foreign organization recognized by NIST/NVLAP, or by
an organization classified by the Department, pursuant to section
431.26, as an accreditation body. Thus, a manufacturer would be able to
establish compliance with EPCA standards through its own choice of any
testing laboratory or certification program that meets these standards.
In this regard, the Department will make no change to today's final
rule.
Comments from Reliance Electric Company encourage the Department to
include a separate and clearly identified paragraph in the final rule
which states the ``methods'' that can be used for determining
compliance with EPCA. Reliance suggests the following: (i) actual
testing of a basic model of electric motor, (ii) use of an alternative
efficiency determination method (AEDM), and (iii) use of a third party
certification agency (Reliance, No. 11 at pgs. 6 and 7). Reliance, in
recommending ``methods,'' including actual testing, use of an AEDM, and
a third party certification agency, also asserts that accreditation
``in and of itself, is not an actual means for determining
compliance.'' (Reliance, No. 11, p. 7).
The Department believes Reliance is addressing two related issues:
(1) accreditation should not be considered an optional ``method'; and
(2) the Department should explicitly recognize certification programs
as an option. As to Reliance's proposed methods, the Department
questions whether a certification program is a method for determining
compliance, comparable to testing and use of an AEDM, because a
certification program often determines the efficiency of an electric
motor using one or both of these approaches, as well as other methods.
However, the Department agrees that accreditation is not a method for
determining whether electric motors are in compliance. Rather it is a
means for assuring that a laboratory can perform the test procedures,
and that a manufacturer's efficiency representations, to the extent
they are based on the laboratory's test measurements, are accurate and
reliable. In this regard, use of an accredited laboratory serves a
function very similar to use of a certification organization. In
section 431.25(a) of the proposed rule, the Department's objective is
to provide options for determining compliance to manufacturers faced
with a small number of existing third party laboratories. These options
will continue to be offered to manufacturers in today's final rule.
The Department agrees with Reliance that the use of a certification
program as a means for determining compliance could be more explicitly
stated. The Department is therefore re-organizing and revising Section
431.24 of today's final rule, and adopting additional language in
Section 431.123(a), to make clear that a manufacturer can use such a
program to establish the efficiency of its motors and as a basis for
certifying to DOE that the motors comply with EPCA requirements.
NIST asserts that the proposed rule would create two different
compliance procedures, accreditation and certification, with unequal
criteria for determining compliance with energy efficiency
requirements. (NIST, No.10 at section 2.). Statistical sampling
procedures and test data, NIST contends, should be uniform and based on
proficiency testing under a round-robin type program, to assure a
common basis for determining whether a motor is in compliance.
According to NIST, test facility competence would be based on the
requirement of laboratory accreditation by NVLAP to assure confidence
in test data, and the validity, reliability, reproducibility, and
accuracy of test measurements. The Department understands that NIST
advocates that all efficiency testing of motors under EPCA be performed
in laboratories accredited by NVLAP, including testing that is under
the auspices of a certification program.
The Department notes that accreditation is being required under
today's rule to satisfy the intent of the ``independent testing''
provision of section 345(e) of EPCA, and that section 345(e) allows use
of an ``independent certification program'' as an alternative means of
establishing compliance. In addition, the Department understands that a
certification program is a continuous assessment to assure that new
products and subsequent production conform to specified requirements.
Under a certification program, such as the ones conducted by
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) or CSA International (CSA), a motor
manufacturer's production and testing operations would be evaluated and
representative samples of electric motors would be tested to applicable
standards. Following an initial verification, follow-up audits of
motors and on-going testing by the manufacturer would be required. Such
programs are in compliance with Federal law in Canada, and are
accredited by the Standards Council of Canada, with whom NVLAP holds an
agreement of mutual recognition.
The issue is one of confidence, that is, confidence that a
manufacturer's production units are being produced in conformance with
EPCA requirements. The Department believes that use of an independent
certification program without testing in an accredited facility will
provide adequate assurance of compliance with EPCA's energy efficiency
requirements. Consequently, the Department is adopting the options for
determining compliance that were set forth in the proposed rule.
As mentioned above, Section 345(c) of EPCA requires that compliance
be certified through a testing or certification program that is
``nationally recognized.'' The proposed rule, at sections 431.26 and
431.27, provides criteria and general procedures for DOE recognition of
accreditation bodies and certification programs, to meet this
requirement. These sections have been incorporated into the final rule
virtually unchanged. In addition, section 431.28 of the final rule also
adds specific procedures, including an opportunity for public
participation, that the Department will follow in considering petitions
for recognition under sections 431.26 and 431.27.
Neither of these sections, however, addresses a situation where DOE
has classified an organization as an accreditation body, or as a
nationally recognized certification program, and the organization
subsequently ceases to comply with the conditions for such
classification.8 Therefore, in the reopening notice, 63 FR
34766 (June 25,
[[Page 54126]]
1998), the Department proposed to add provisions to (1) notify an
accreditation body or a certification organization of failure to comply
with the conditions of section 431.26 or 431.27, respectively, (2)
request appropriate corrective action, (3) provide an opportunity to
respond, and (4) withdraw recognition. Also, the Department proposed to
permit an accreditation body or certification organization to withdraw
itself from recognition by the Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ One of the conditions stated in the proposed rule is that
the organization must have ``standards and procedures'' for carrying
out accreditation or a certification program. 61 FR 60467, 60468
(November 27, 1996). The proposed rule contemplates, at sections
431.26(d) and 431.27(d) for example, that this condition would be
met only if the Department found acceptable the organization's
standards and procedures for carrying out its program. The final
rule reinforces and clarifies this point by adding the word
``satisfactory'' before ``standards and procedures'' in sections
431.26(b)(1) and 431.27(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA and ACEEE support the Department's procedure for notification
and corrective action. Further, NEMA and ACEEE recommend that the rule
also require DOE to notify manufacturers that use an accreditation body
or certification program that recognition will be withdrawn, and to
allow time for the manufacturer to change its procedures for
determining compliance. (NEMA/ACEEE, No. 38 at pages 6 and 7.) In
section 431.28 of today's final rule, the Department includes
provisions for withdrawing recognition from an accreditation body or
certification organization, and for publishing in the Federal Register
notice of such action. However, because the Department would often be
unaware of which manufacturers are using a particular accreditation
body or certification organization, the final rule contains no
provision for the Department to directly notify them of its action.
The final rule also does not incorporate language to specifically
``allow time'' for a manufacturer to change its compliance procedures
when recognition has been withdrawn from an accreditation body or
certification organization it is using. To the extent NEMA and ACEEE
are suggesting that, during a period after such withdrawal of
recognition, the rule should permit a manufacturer temporarily to
distribute an electric motor without certifying its compliance with the
applicable standard, or to certify the motor without using an
accredited laboratory or a recognized certification program, DOE
believes a sufficient showing has not been made to justify such an
approach. In addition, the proposed and final rules do not per se
require a manufacturer to continuously maintain an accredited
laboratory. And although they contemplate continuous participation in a
certification program when such a program is used, no provision
precludes a temporary lapse in such participation caused by a
withdrawal of recognition. Hence, the Department believes that the
final rule will allow a manufacturer a reasonable amount of time to
replace an accrediting body or certification program that has lost its
recognition. Finally, the Department's energy conservation program has
not had experience with this type recognition requirement, and the
Department is uncertain as to the effects of possible withdrawals of
recognition. For these reasons, the Department will address
consequences to manufacturers of withdrawals of recognition on a case
by case basis, as necessary, rather than by including specific language
on this issue in today's final rule. DOE will consider amending the
rule to include such language only if experience indicates a need to do
so.
3. Issues Concerning Use of Certification Organizations
As discussed above, proposed section 431.24 prescribes for
compliance testing (including testing to substantiate an AEDM) criteria
for selecting basic models for testing, and a sampling plan for picking
the particular units to be tested. These requirements apply both when a
manufacturer establishes a motor's efficiency without using a
certification program (i.e., required testing is performed in an
accredited laboratory), and when a manufacturer uses a certification
program. 61 FR 60466-67 (November 27, 1996).
In their comments on the NOPR, both NEMA and Reliance Electric
asserted that DOE should not impose its sampling plan for compliance
testing when a manufacturer uses a certification program to establish
compliance. They stated that such a program's own testing and sampling
procedures will give adequate assurance of the accuracy of any reported
efficiency level, and NEMA recommended that the Department review and
approve a certification program's testing procedures before according
the program ``nationally recognized'' status for purposes of EPCA.
(Reliance, No. 11 at pg. 7; NEMA, No. 18 at pgs. 8-9). Recognizing that
these contentions had merit, in the reopening notice the Department
proposed that, when a manufacturer establishes a motor's efficiency
under EPCA through a certification program, the final rule would not
require use of the rule's criteria for identifying basic models for
compliance testing, or its sampling provisions for selecting units for
such testing. 63 FR 34765 (June 25, 1998). In addition, DOE proposed
that review and approval of a certification program's criteria for
selecting basic models for testing, and its sampling plan, would be
included in the Department's evaluation of whether to grant a program
``nationally recognized'' status for purposes of EPCA. The NEMA
comments support these DOE proposals (NEMA, No. 38 at C., pages 4 and
5), and they are incorporated into today's rule.
NEMA also asserts that ``DOE should accept existing certifications
that are in good standing'' when the final rule is published. (NEMA,
No. 38 at C., page 5.). Initially, the Department notes that a third
party certification would not normally be provided to it. Rather, under
section 431.123 of today's final rule, each manufacturer must submit
its own Compliance Certification(s) to DOE, although such Certification
may be based on an efficiency certification provided by a certification
program. Consistent with NEMA's suggestion, however, under both the
proposed and final versions of section 431.123, the Compliance
Certification may contain motor efficiency information developed before
the effective date of the rule. Thus, a Compliance Certification could
be based on a third-party efficiency certification that (1) was issued
by a DOE-recognized certification program prior to the effective date
of the rule, (2) was based on use of the criteria and procedures
incorporated into the rule, and (3) remains in effect at the time of
the Compliance Certification. This assumes, of course, that information
in the third-party certification supports the representations in the
Compliance Certification. Moreover, the certification organization used
by the manufacturer must receive recognition from DOE under section
431.27 after the effective date of the rule, even though it met the
criteria for such recognition before the effective date of the rule. In
sum, the Department does not intend to conclude that a Compliance
Certification violates 431.123 solely because the applicable
determinations underlying the Certification, such as those described in
section 431.123(b)(1)(ii), were made before the effective date of the
rule.
Proposed section 431.25(a), Testing laboratories, provides in
essence that all testing of a basic model to meet the requirements of
section 431.24, Units to be tested, shall be carried out in an
accredited laboratory, unless a certificate of conformity for that
basic model is obtained from a certification program classified by DOE
as nationally recognized. 61 FR 60467, 60468-69 (November 27, 1996).
This applies, for example, to testing required by proposed section
431.24(b)(3) to substantiate an AEDM. Under these provisions,
therefore, when a manufacturer uses a certification program to
establish the efficiency of a basic model, testing of the basic model,
including testing used to substantiate an AEDM, would not need to be
performed in an accredited laboratory. Reliance
[[Page 54127]]
Electric asserts that the proposed rule is unclear on this point.
(Reliance, No.11 at pgs 5 and 6; see ACEEE/NEMA, No. 38 at pg. 5). The
Department has revised proposed sections 431.24 and 431.25 in the final
rule to further clarify that testing of a basic model to substantiate
an AEDM need not be in an accredited laboratory when a certification
program certifies the basic model's efficiency.
Reliance Electric also agrees with the proposal that five basic
models be tested as part of the initial substantiation of an AEDM, but
that the methods for initial substantiation of an AEDM under section
431.24(b)(3) should otherwise be the same as the methods permitted
under section 431.24(b)(4)(i)(A)-(C) for subsequent verification of an
AEDM. (Reliance, No.11 at pgs. 5 and 6). Two of the methods permitted
for such subsequent verification are testing in an accredited
laboratory and use of a certification organization. As indicated above
and as the final rule makes clear, both can be used to initially
substantiate an AEDM. The third method for subsequent verification of
an AEDM, however, is the use of a professional engineer, and the
Department does not agree it is appropriate for initial substantiation
of an AEDM.
First, the Department believes that initial substantiation of an
AEDM should be inherently stringent because an AEDM could underlie
compliance determinations for many motors. The Department believes that
such stringency will exist when the initial substantiation of an AEDM
is based on testing in an accredited laboratory that meets the
requirements of section 431.25, or on use of a certification program
classified by DOE as nationally recognized under section 431.27.
However, having a professional engineer review the results of the
manufacturer's testing, and initially certify the accuracy of the AEDM,
would not be as inherently rigorous, or provide the same likelihood of
uniform results. Both the proposed and final rules allow the use of a
professional engineer for verification of an AEDM because that would be
only a check on the initial determination of the AEDM's validity, and
would be applied to a limited number of basic models. In addition, the
provisions in DOE's rule for initial substantiation of an AEDM
implement the statutory requirement for a manufacturer to certify,
through an independent testing or certification program nationally
recognized in the United States, that an electric motor meets the
applicable efficiency standard. It appears to the Department that use
of a professional engineer for initial substantiation of an AEDM would
fail to meet this statutory requirement. A professional engineer
neither carries national recognition nor is the equivalent of a
certification program, and proposed section 431.24(b)(4)(i)(C) does not
require the professional engineer to perform testing.
Finally, the Department proposed in the reopening notice to require
that, when a motor's efficiency rating is derived from use of an AEDM,
the AEDM could not be subsequently verified by the certification
organization that had initially certified the motor's efficiency
rating. 63 FR 34765 (June 25, 1998). NEMA and ACEEE jointly assert that
DOE should permit the use of the same certification organization for
both substantiation and verification of an AEDM. To require one
certification organization to be used for substantiation and a
different one for verification of an AEDM would cause manufacturers to
participate in multiple certification programs to accomplish the same
thing. (NEMA/ACEEE, No. 38 at page 5). The Department understands, from
the NEMA/ACEEE comments, that the proposal contemplated in the
reopening notice would be burdensome for manufacturers. Therefore, the
Department will not adopt this proposal in the final rule.
4. Compliance Testing When a Manufacturer Does Not Use a Certification
Program (Independence and Performance of an Accredited Laboratory,
Selection of Basic Models for Testing, Sampling Plan) and Enforcement
Testing Sampling Plan
a. Accredited Laboratories
As discussed above, the Department proposed that a manufacturer
could meet the statutory provision for certification through an
``independent testing program'' by using a laboratory, operated by
either a third party or the manufacturer, that has been accredited to
perform the DOE test procedures. Commenting on the meaning of
``independence,'' ACIL opines that the proposed rule implies that once
a laboratory is accredited, its independence is assured. ACIL asserts
that while accreditation assures a laboratory's technical competence,
and that testing will be conducted free from certain marketing
pressures, it does not mean that the laboratory is autonomous. (ACIL,
No. 7., and Public Hearing, Tr. pgs. 124-131.).
Independence is a criterion, used for example under NVLAP
accreditation procedures, to verify that a laboratory is able to
``maintain an independent decisional relationship between itself and
its clients, affiliates, or other organizations so that the
laboratory's capacity to render calibration or test reports objectively
and without bias is not adversely affected.'' 9 The
Department believes this means that an accredited laboratory will be
independent in the sense that it will perform tests without influence
``by marketing and production concerns,'' and ``with assurance that
test results are accurate, valid, and capable of being replicated.'' 61
FR 60455 (November 27, 1996). The Department agrees with ACIL that
accreditation assures technical competency, and does not confer on a
laboratory independence in the sense of autonomy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NIST Handbook 150, National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program Procedures and General Requirements March
1994, section 285.32(a)(10), pg. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WSU/WSD expressed concern about a manufacturer's own (accredited)
laboratory sufficing as an ``independent'' laboratory. WSU/WSD posited
that if subsequent testing by outside laboratories finds efficiencies
being overstated, then the manufacturer's laboratory should be subject
to disaccreditation. (WSU/WSD, No. 5, p.6).
Section 431.26 of the proposed rule provides criteria and
procedures by which the Department of Energy would recognize an
accreditation body. To meet the conditions of proposed section 431.26,
the accreditation body would have to assume the responsibility (1) to
periodically audit and review a testing laboratory to verify continued
compliance with the conditions of its accreditation, and (2) to make
provision for withdrawal of accreditation where a testing laboratory
fails to comply with the conditions of its accreditation, including
failure to provide accurate test results. Similarly, section 285.24,
``Denying, suspending, and revoking accreditation,'' implicitly makes
such provision in the NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150, ``Procedures and General
Requirements.'' Furthermore, under section 285.22(b)(7) of ``Assessing
and evaluating a laboratory'' in NIST/NVLAP Handbook 150-10,
``Efficiency of Electric Motors,'' where problems are indicated by
proficiency testing and the test laboratory fails to resolve the
problems in a timely manner, NIST/NVLAP may revoke or suspend its
accreditation of that laboratory. In the final rule, the Department has
added language to section 431.26 to explicitly provide that, to be
recognized by DOE, an accreditation body must periodically audit
laboratories it accredits, and withdraw accreditation from those that
do not adhere to the conditions of their
[[Page 54128]]
accreditation. Moreover, where a manufacturer has certified its
electric motors to be in compliance with EPCA energy efficiency
standards based on testing in an accredited laboratory, including its
own laboratory, and subsequently its motors are determined not in
compliance under section 431.127, ``Enforcement,'' that manufacturer
would be required, for example, to immediately cease distribution in
commerce of that basic model motor, under section 431.128 of the rule.
b. Selection of Basic Models for Testing
Proposed section 431.24(b)(1)(i)-(ii) provides criteria that a
manufacturer must use to decide which basic models to test. Subsection
431.24(b)(1)(i)(A) states that two of the basic models selected for
testing must be among the five basic models with the highest unit
volumes of production by the manufacturer in the prior year. Washington
State opines that the unit volume should be horsepower weighted,
otherwise there would be a bias toward the more numerous small motors.
Also, Washington State asserts that the Department of Energy should
retain the right of selecting basic models, whether to verify
compliance through actual testing or application of an alternative
efficiency determination method. (WSU/WSD, No. 5 at pg. 6, items II.P.
and Q.).
The Department expects that the basic models with the highest unit
volumes of production would be those in the lower horsepower ratings.
If the Department were to require all basic models selected for testing
to be from those with the highest unit volumes of production, then
Washington State's concern might be significant. However, only two of
the basic models selected must be from those with the highest unit
volumes of production. Other criteria for selection are that the basic
models be of different horsepowers and different frame series. Thus,
for example, under today's final rule, the two basic models with the
highest volume of production must, if possible, span two different
frame series. (See discussion below on use of frame series rather than
frame size.) Therefore, the Department declines to adopt the WSU/WSD
suggestion to weight by horsepower the basic models for testing under
section 431.24(b)(1)(i)(A) of today's final rule. Furthermore, because
it would not be feasible for the Department to select models for
compliance testing, it does not intend to retain the right to make such
selection as suggested by WSU/WSD. Nevertheless, under the final rule
the Department of Energy can select models for testing to verify an
AEDM under section 431.24(b)(5)(iii), and can direct enforcement
testing of any basic model if warranted under section 431.127 of
today's final rule.
Also, Reliance Electric opines that the requirement in proposed
section 431.24(b)(1)(i)(A), that basic models selected based on
production during the ``prior year,'' might be inappropriate for the
initial years in which 10 CFR Part 431 for electric motors becomes
effective. For example, according to Reliance Electric, selection by a
manufacturer in 1998 of the basic models produced in the highest unit
volumes by that manufacturer in 1997 might include basic models which
have efficiencies below EPCA levels. Consequently, the basis of
substantiation of the AEDM would be dependent on basic models with
efficiency levels that can no longer be manufactured for sale in the
United States. (Reliance, No. 11 at pg. 1).
Had this rule gone into effect prior to the latter part of 1998,
Reliance's point would have been well taken. EPCA's efficiency
standards, however, became applicable to electric motors on October 24,
1997, and by the time this rule becomes effective the standards will
have been in effect for most motors for at least a year. Moreover,
because today's rule does not require manufacturers to certify
compliance until 24 months after its effective date, the Department
presumes that most testing covered by this part of the rule (i.e.,
testing in accredited laboratories) will occur during calendar year
1999 or later. Therefore, it is unlikely that models selected for
testing under this criterion would have efficiency levels below EPCA
levels. Nevertheless, some manufacturers might have begun testing prior
to the end of 1998, and the Department in its Policy Statement
acknowledges the possibility that some motors could continue to be
manufactured in non-compliance with EPCA standards after October 1998.
Therefore, today's rule allows manufacturers that began testing in 1998
to select units for testing under this criterion based on 12 months of
production that begins on November 1 or December 1 of 1997, and
provides that no motor manufactured in noncompliance with EPCA
standards, pursuant to the Policy Statement or otherwise, shall be
considered under this criterion.
The Department has also reviewed section 431.24(b)(1)(i)(C) and has
determined that motors selected for testing should be from different
frame number series, rather than frame sizes, when possible. (Frame
series designations are set forth in NEMA MG1 Table 11-1, Medium
Machine Frame Numbering.) Motors such as a 143T and 145T, for example,
are different frame sizes but are in the same frame series and are
quite similar in size, whereas 143T and 182T, for example, are in
different frame number series and are very different in size. Under the
proposed rule, a manufacturer could test motors that are all similar in
size, by selecting motors in one or possibly two frame series. This
would defeat the Department's goal of having a manufacturer establish
compliance by testing a range of motor sizes. Also, because there are
only nine frame number series covered by EPCA, requiring tested basic
models to be from different number series, when possible, could cover
over half of the sizes of motors made by any manufacturer. The
Department understands that this would include a greater percentage of
the product line for manufacturers not producing motors over the full
range of ratings covered by EPCA. The Department also believes that
selecting basic models based on different frame number series would
show an AEDM to be accurate over a wider range of motors to which it is
applied, thereby covering a greater expanse of basic models produced
and without adding burden to the manufacturer. Therefore, the
Department modifies proposed section 431.24(b)(1)(i)(C) to read ``frame
number series'' in today's final rule.
c. Sampling Plans for Compliance and Enforcement Testing
Sampling plans for compliance and enforcement testing are at
proposed sections 431.24 and 431.27(c), respectively. They are intended
to provide statistically meaningful sampling procedures for conducting
tests, so as to reduce the testing burden while giving sufficient
assurance (1) in the case of the compliance plan, that the true mean
energy efficiency of a basic model (i.e., the average efficiency of all
units manufactured) meets or exceeds the applicable energy efficiency
standard established in EPCA and the basic model's labeled efficiency
level, and (2) in the case of the enforcement plan, that an electric
motor found to be in noncompliance will actually be in noncompliance.
The November 27, 1996 Federal Register notice (61 FR 60440), at section
XIII.C.3. and 8., Issues for Public Comment, requested comments on
these proposed sampling plans.
In response, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA) and motor manufacturers raised issues concerning the proposed
sampling plans, and NEMA submitted to the
[[Page 54129]]
Department alternative approaches, one for compliance testing and
another for enforcement testing. NISTIR 6092 ``Analysis of Proposals
for Compliance and Enforcement Testing Under the New Part 431; Title
10, Code of Federal Regulations,'' January 1998, (the NIST analysis)
compared the DOE's proposed rule and the NEMA proposals through model
calculations of their operating characteristics, i.e., the estimated
probability of demonstrating compliance for a given true average of
efficiency.
In the reopening notice, the Department stated that, although it
continued to consider adoption of the NOPR's sampling plans, it was
also considering adopting instead NEMA's proposed sampling plans, or
variations of those sampling plans. 63 FR 34762-64 (June 25, 1998).
Comments and data were requested concerning the accuracy and
workability of NEMA's proposals.
(1) Sampling Plan for Compliance Testing
Section II.B.2. of the reopening notice, 63 FR 34764 (June 25,
1998), requests comments on whether DOE should adopt the NEMA proposal
for compliance testing, or alternatively, adopt the NEMA proposal but
substitute a coefficient of 1.03 or 1.01 for the 1.05 coefficient in
the NEMA formula. Also, the reopening notice states that DOE could
adopt the NEMA proposal, with or without change in the 1.05
coefficient, but with a requirement that the number of units to be
tested be fixed, at five motors for example.
The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and
NEMA jointly advocate adoption of the ``NEMA proposal,'' 10
as it is referred to in the reopening notice, 63 FR 34763 (June 25,
1998), for compliance testing as well as enforcement testing. As to the
sampling plan for compliance at proposed section 431.24(b)(1)(iii), 61
FR 60467 (November 27, 1996), ACEEE and NEMA contend that, given the
actual variations in the performance of electric motors and the
accuracy of any test procedure to measure efficiency, ``requiring the
average efficiency of any sample to be not less than the represented
efficiency places an unreasonable burden on manufacturers and would
require that all electric motors be designed to substantially exceed
the represented value [of efficiency] to assure that any sample would
pass the compliance test.'' The same concerns would be raised, they
contend, by reducing the 1.05 coefficient in the NEMA proposal for
compliance, to a number such as 1.03 or 1.01. (ACEEE/NEMA, No. 38 at
pg.3). Also, ACEEE and NEMA recommend that the Department not specify a
fixed sample size, but rather specify a minimum sample size of five
units for the compliance sampling plan. Further, a sample size of fewer
than five units should be permitted when the basic model is of a rare
design for which fewer than five units would be produced over a
reasonable period of time. ACEEE and NEMA assert that the absolute pass
or fail nature of their joint sampling plan proposal would also not
cause undue burden on motor manufacturers. (ACEEE/NEMA, No. 38 at pgs.
3 and 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Proposal for the Method of Determining Compliance and
Enforcement for Electric Motors Under the Efficiency Labeling
Program of DOE 10 CFR Part 431,'' NEMA Motor and Generator Section,
Friday, April 18, 1997 (Docket No. EE-RM-96-400, No. 23) (the ``NEMA
proposal'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Electric, Inc., asserts that it is a small manufacturer
with ``limited resources,'' and advocates a ``simple statistical
procedure'' to verify that its motors comply with EPCA efficiency
standards. (Sterling, No. 13).
Based on the NIST analysis, and on further review of the sampling
criteria for compliance testing in the proposed rule and in the NEMA
proposal, the Department believes that the NEMA proposal and the
comments by ACEEE, NEMA and Sterling Electric have substantial merit.
To begin with, the Department has determined that the NEMA proposal for
compliance testing provides statistically meaningful sampling
procedures for conducting tests for electric motors, so as to reduce
the testing burden while giving sufficient assurance that the true mean
energy efficiency of a basic model (i.e., the average efficiency of all
units manufactured) meets the motor's represented energy efficiency
level.
Furthermore, the NEMA proposal is closely aligned with existing
industry approaches for rating and labeling the efficiency of electric
motors. Under NEMA Standard MG1, a manufacturer determines the nominal
efficiency of each design of electric motor, and each individual motor
of such design must be labeled with that value and have a corresponding
minimum efficiency. Manufacturers design a motor to perform at or above
its labeled nominal efficiency and, generally, the nominal efficiency
will closely reflect the actual average efficiency of motors of that
design. Consistent with this approach, under the NEMA proposal there is
a high probability that, if the entire population of a basic model of
motor averages a given efficiency, tests of a sample of such motors
will indicate that the basic model performs at that level. Under DOE's
proposed compliance sampling plan, however, such a high probability
would not exist. The NEMA compliance sampling proposal also provides
that a basic model cannot be determined to meet a given nominal
efficiency level if the measured efficiency of any of the test
specimens is below a level analogous to the minimum efficiency
specified for a motor in MG1. Thus, the NEMA proposal has the advantage
of incorporating methods that manufacturers are familiar and
comfortable with.
In addition, the efficiency requirements mandated by EPCA for
electric motors consist largely of industry standards contained in NEMA
MG1. Section 343(a)(5)(A) of EPCA prescribes the test procedure
contained in MG1, the mandatory efficiency standards in section
342(b)(1) are taken from MG1, and the definitions of ``electric motor''
and ``nominal full load efficiency,'' in sections 340(13)(A) and (H),
respectively, must be construed with reference to MG1. Thus, the
Congress apparently intended that efficiency requirements for motors
would adhere to industry standards where possible, see also EPCA
section 343(a)(5)(B), providing further support for DOE's adoption of
the NEMA sampling proposal for compliance testing.
The Department is also persuaded by the contention of NEMA and
ACEEE that the compliance sampling provisions in the proposed rule
could unreasonably burden motor manufacturers. These provisions could
in effect require that electric motors be designed to exceed
represented efficiency values, and values prescribed by section
342(b)(1) of EPCA, which DOE believes would be unwarranted. To begin
with, the amount of such required ``overdesign'' could be substantial.
For example, NIST states in its analysis that, if two units of a basic
model are tested, for the model to have a 90 percent probability of
being found in compliance with a given nominal efficiency, the average
efficiency of the entire population would have to be above the next
higher nominal value. Testing large numbers of units would be one way,
under the DOE proposal, to increase the likelihood that the sample
tests would indicate a given efficiency level, and to reduce the need
for ``overdesign.'' This would not be an option, however, for the many
basic models of electric motor that are produced in small quantities.
Finally, DOE's understanding is that, given the nature of the
``electric motors'' covered by EPCA, the burdens created by any
[[Page 54130]]
need to ``overdesign'' their efficiency might well be far greater than
for all or most other products regulated under EPCA. (For example,
increasing the quantity and quality of materials in such a motor are
virtually the only ways to improve its efficiency, and any changes to
improve efficiency are highly likely to necessitate other changes in
the product.)
For all of these reasons, in today's final rule the Department
adopts the NEMA sampling proposal for compliance testing of electric
motors, with a required minimum sample size of five units. A minimum
sample size of five units shall be required for basic models for which
more than five units would be produced over a reasonable time
(approximately 180 days). Where fewer than five units of a basic model
are produced over a reasonable time, then each unit shall be tested for
compliance. This latter provision is designed to address a situation
where a basic model is of a rare design, such as a design that is not
mass produced or is built to order, and for which manufacturing and
delivery schedules are uncertain.
(2) Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing
DOE's proposed sampling plan for enforcement testing at section
431.127(c), Sampling, and appendix B of subpart G, 61 FR 60472, 60474-5
(November 27, 1996), 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. Section III.G. of the preamble to the proposed rule
states the Department's belief that the 20 percent loss tolerance is
reasonable and meaningful. 61 FR 60459-60, 60474-75 (November 27,
1996). NEMA's sampling plan for enforcement testing is very similar to
its plan for compliance testing, and provides that the same conditions
must be met to establish that a motor complies with the applicable EPCA
standard, except that the coefficient is based on the total variation
in energy efficiency permitted by NEMA MG 1 paragraph 12.59,
``Efficiency Levels of Energy Efficient Polyphase Squirrel-cage
Induction Motors.''
Section II.B.2. of the reopening notice describes the NEMA sampling
plan for enforcement, 63 FR 34763 (June 25, 1998), and states that DOE
could adopt the NEMA plan with or without modification of the
coefficient, 63 FR 34764 (June 25, 1998). Alternatively, the reopening
notice states, DOE could retain the sampling plan for enforcement in
the proposed rule with the statistical confidence level increased from
90 percent to 99 percent, or some other value higher than 90 percent.
Also, as further discussed below in Section E.2, DOE stated its
intention in the reopening notice that the enforcement procedures in
the final rule, including the enforcement sampling plan, would apply to
allegations both of labeling violations as well as non-compliance with
the applicable standard for efficiency. 63 FR 34765-66 (June 25, 1998).
As with sampling for compliance testing, ACEEE and NEMA jointly
advocate adoption of the April 18, 1997, ``NEMA proposal'' as it
pertains to enforcement sampling. (ACEEE/NEMA, No. 38 at pg. 4). ACEEE
and NEMA assert that the only difference between their joint proposals
for compliance and enforcement are the coefficients that represent the
variation in total losses for the sample or population. They opine that
the values for enforcement are greater in order to account for the
added variation that results when efficiency is determined through
testing at different test facilities. They also state that their
enforcement sampling plan would apply to both the accuracy of the
nameplate efficiency, as well as compliance with the applicable EPCA
efficiency value. (ACEEE/NEMA, No. 38 at pgs. 5-6).
Based on the NIST analysis of the operating characteristics of the
enforcement sampling plan proposed by NEMA, at NISTIR 6092 (January
1998), pages 4 through 7, the Department finds that the industry plan
for enforcement sampling makes little distinction between energy
efficiency performance at and significantly below an efficiency
standard prescribed by EPCA. According to the NIST analysis of the NEMA
proposal for enforcement testing, the NEMA plan may not adequately
differentiate between significant levels of performance. For example,
there appears to be no appreciable change in the outcome of testing
between a test of a basic model for which the true mean efficiency is
equal to a given nominal value and a test of a basic model for which
the true efficiency is equal to the next lower NEMA nominal value.
Also, the Department is not convinced that the added variation allowed
under the NEMA proposal for enforcement would necessarily account for
testing variations at different test facilities.
The proposed sampling plan for enforcement is designed to be
different from the sampling plan for compliance. It is based on the t-
statistic, which is used at appendix B to subpart F of 10 CFR Part
430--Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing, and is tailored for
enforcement testing of electric motors, based upon NEMA MG1-1993
paragraphs 12.58 and 12.59. According to NIST, the t-test is not
strongly influenced by the exact form of the underlying distribution,
it is a widely accepted basis for a testing protocol, and the
likelihood of a correct determination increases with sample size. The
Department finds that the likelihood of a correct determination
increasing with sample size is consistent with the ACEEE/NEMA
recommendation that a minimum of five units be tested, although ACEEE/
NEMA opine that there should be no upper limit placed on the sample
size. As a practical matter, the Department has determined that the
upper limit of the sample size should be fixed at 20 units, as it is in
appendix B to subpart F of 10 CFR Part 430. Based on NISTIR 6092, pages
6-7, the Department agrees with NIST that it is highly unlikely that a
motor that is labeled in accordance with the NEMA MG1 energy efficiency
standards 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 the manufacturer's
interests are protected. Moreover, if enforcement testing is carried on
up to 20 units, there would be likely indications of other fundamental
problems in the manufacture and/or testing of such basic model which
could be ascertained and corrected through other means, such as
examination of the underlying data according to the aforementioned
``test notice'' procedure described at 10 CFR 431.127(a)(1).
The Department agrees with NIST, NISTIR 6092 at page 6, that the
performance of the Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing with the
statistical confidence of 90 percent could imply that the likelihood of
a false conclusion that a product is not in compliance could be as high
as 10 percent, and that this level of assurance may not adequately
protect the manufacturer's interests. The Department has considered
various levels of statistical confidence, other than 90 percent, and
has determined that the Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing in
today's final rule will be based on 97.5 percent
[[Page 54131]]
statistical confidence, as has been established at appendix B to
subpart F of 10 CFR Part 430.
In sum, with this modification, the Department concludes that the
Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing, as set forth at proposed
appendix B to subpart G of Part 431, will apply to a test of whether an
electric motor's nominal full load efficiency complies with section
342(b)(1) of EPCA as well as to a test of the accuracy of the labeled
efficiency of a motor.
D. Energy Efficiency Standards
Section 342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), prescribes energy
efficiency standards for electric motors that are 1 through 200
horsepower. Section 431.42 of the proposed rule incorporates these
efficiency standards, and for each horsepower rating to which a group
of standards applies, states the equivalent kilowatt rating which those
standards also apply. The NOPR proposes the following criteria for
determining the standard that applies to an electric motor that has a
horsepower or kilowatt rating between two horsepowers or kilowattages
listed consecutively in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA and section 431.42(a)
of the proposed rule: (1) a horsepower at or above the midpoint between
the two consecutive horsepowers would be rounded up to the higher of
the two horsepowers; (2) a horsepower below the midpoint between two
consecutive horsepowers would be rounded down to the lower of the two
horsepowers; or (3) a kilowatt rating would be directly converted from
kilowatts to horsepower and the resulting horsepower rounded as stated
above. 61 FR 60470 (November 27, 1996).
1. Non-standardized Horsepower Ratings
Washington State University Cooperative Extension Energy Program
and the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development (WSU/WSD) address DOE's concern, in the preamble to the
proposed rule at section III.D.2, ``Standards for Horsepowers Not
Listed in Statute, and for Non-standard Kilowatt Ratings,'' 61 FR 60450
(November 27, 1996), about efficiency levels that would be applicable
to electric motors manufactured to non-standard horsepower ratings.
WSU/WSD assert that the output rating of an electric motor is not the
maximum horsepower the motor will produce but is a nominal output power
at which nameplate and catalog performance parameters are tabulated.
Most motors, they explain, can operate near nameplate efficiency at
loads down to 50 percent and can sustain operation in ideal conditions
at power demand 15 percent higher than their rating. They appear to
recommend that a motor with a rated horsepower that exceeds a power
rating specified in EPCA, by greater than one percent, should be
required to meet the efficiency rating prescribed for the next higher
horsepower specified in EPCA. In other words, WSU/WSD apparently
advocate the one percent point for rounding up. (WSU/WSD, No. 5 at page
5, item D.).
The issue here is whether to round up or down from the mid-point
between two horsepowers, as DOE proposed at section 431.42(b) in the
rule, or from the 1 percent point, as WSD suggests. The WSU/WSD
approach to rounding up is similar to the NEMA position described at
page 60450 in the preamble to the proposed rule, where a motor with
rating between two of the horsepower ratings specified by EPCA would be
required to meet the efficiency standard for the next highest
horsepower. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department
continues to believe that such rounding up to the next energy
efficiency level could make it very difficult for some sizes of motors
to meet the statutory energy efficiency levels and could have the
effect of banning or limiting their use. 61 FR 60450 (November 27,
1996). This would be true for an electric motor used as a component of
a compressor, for example, where the compressor is designed around the
size of the motor to allow for air flow and cooling requirements. Such
space requirements and restrictions could prevent the use of a larger
motor, such as an electric motor that must be physically larger to meet
the next higher energy efficiency level. (Kaeser Compressors, No. 48).
Also, the Department believes that rounding up or down from the mid-
point is not sufficient incentive for a manufacturer to produce new
intermediate horsepower ratings, such as the 12 horsepower rating
contemplated by WSU/WSD. If that were to occur, however, the Department
could consider amending the rule to adopt alternative rounding
approaches.
2. Motor Horsepower and Standard Kilowatt Equivalent
The joint comments of WSU/WSD recommend that an electric motor
rated in kilowatts be allowed to meet the energy efficiency of the
nearest lower horsepower equivalent if the motor's kilowatt rating is
within one percent of that lower horsepower equivalent, and not be
required to meet the efficiency rating of the next higher horsepower
(WSU/WSD, No. 5 at II.D.).
The Department believes that WSU/WSD may have misconstrued section
431.42 in the proposed rule. They incorrectly state that ``the
Department proposes that IEC motors with ratings falling between two
standard horsepower ratings should be required to meet the more
stringent rating of the higher horsepower.'' (WSU/WSD, No. 5 at II.D.).
First, as to an electric motor with a standard kilowatt rating, the
Department proposed in section 431.42(a) that the required efficiency
level be that prescribed for motors with the equivalent horsepower
rating specified in IEC Standard 60072-1. 61 FR 60449-50, 60469
(November 27, 1996). As demonstrated by examination of these specified
equivalencies and the exact conversions of standard kilowatt ratings to
horsepowers--no standard kilowatt rating exactly equals a standard
horsepower rating--an IEC motor with a standard kW rating must
sometimes meet the efficiency standard for the next higher horsepower
and sometimes for the next lower. Id. In all cases the standard it must
meet is prescribed for a horsepower that is very close to an exact
conversion from its kilowatt rating. Id. Second, as to motors with non-
standard kilowatt ratings, section 431.42(b)(3) of the proposed rule
provides that the kilowatt rating would be arithmetically converted to
its equivalent horsepower rating, and then, based on whether the motor
falls above or below the midpoint between consecutive horsepower
ratings, would be required to meet the corresponding higher or lower
energy efficiency level, respectively. The Department believes that
such rounding from the midpoint between two non-standard kilowattages
further addresses WSU/WSD's concern about requiring IEC motors to meet
the next higher levels of efficiency. Therefore, the Department will
make no change in this regard in today's final rule.
3. World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements and the Trans Atlantic
Business Dialogue (TABD)
Zentralverband Elektrotechnik-und Elektronikindustrie e.V. (ZVEI)
advocates that the Department's standards regulations for electric
motors be set up according to the principles of the WTO and the TABD,
using international standards as much as possible. (ZVEI, No. 37 pg.
2).
The energy efficiency test procedures and standards for electric
motors are established by sections 343(a)(5)(A) and 342(b)(1),
respectively, of EPCA. To the extent possible under EPCA, the
[[Page 54132]]
proposed rule takes international requirements into account. Section
431.42, Energy efficiency standards and effective dates, of the
proposed rule, for example, prescribes the EPCA energy efficiency
levels in terms of both horsepower and equivalent kilowatt ratings
based on IEC Standard 60072-1. Similarly, the definition of ``electric
motor'' in section 431.2 of the proposed rule uses various descriptive
terms in the definition which are followed by the parenthetical ``IEC''
as referenced to the IEC Standards 60034-1, 60034-12, 60050-411 and
60072-1. Also, sections 431.26 and 431.27, which pertain to Department
of Energy recognition of accrediting bodies and certification programs,
cite ISO/IEC Guides 25, General requirements for the competence of
calibration and testing laboratories, 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, 28, General rules for a model third-party
certification system for products, 58, Calibration and testing
laboratory accreditation systems--General requirements for operation
and recognition, and 65, General requirements for bodies operating
product certification systems. There is no change to such provisions in
today's final rule.
4. Electric Motors as Components of Systems
Section 342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), imposes efficiency
standards for ``each electric motor manufactured (alone or as a
component of another piece of equipment).'' Consistent with the above
provision of EPCA, the proposed rule covers every ``electric motor''
that is manufactured, 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.''
York International (York) asserts that that standards imposed by
section 342(b)(1) of EPCA do not apply to motors used as components in
certain commercial heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning equipment
covered by the energy efficiency standards at section 342(a) of EPCA.
(York, No. 6)
Section III.D.3., ``Electric Motors as Components of Systems,'' 61
FR 60451 (November 27, 1996), of the preamble to the proposed rule,
addresses concerns from the Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute
similar to those of York. The Department finds no provision in the
requirements for system efficiency at section 342(a) of EPCA 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). Consequently, there is no change
in today's final rule.
E. Labeling
1. Statutory Provisions
Section 344(a) of EPCA provides that, 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,'' such as
requirements for 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 customers in making
purchases.
2. Provisions of Regulation
Section 431.82(a) of the proposed rule sets forth efficiency
labeling requirements for the permanent nameplate of an electric motor.
Proposed section 431.82(a)(1) and (2), requires the nameplate to
display the motor's nominal full load efficiency and the Compliance
Certification number, and states how such information is to be
displayed. Proposed section 431.82(a)(3) allows the words ``energy
efficient,'' or the encircled lower case letters ``ee,'' 11
or some comparable designation or logo, to be displayed at the
manufacturer's option on a motor that meets the applicable efficiency
standard and compliance certification requirements. Section 431.82(b)
sets forth the requirements for disclosure of information in marketing
materials. Section 431.82(c) proposes that certain information be
disclosed on import documents. Section 431.82(d) deals with voluntary
compliance with the aforementioned labeling requirements for motors
that would otherwise not be covered under EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Sec. 431.82(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Use of the Words ``Energy Efficient''
Washington State asserts that ``energy efficient'' is the official
NEMA term for motors that meet the requirements of paragraph MG1-12.59
and Table 12-10 in NEMA Standards Publication MG1, ``Motors and
Generators.'' While that table currently is identical to section
342(b)(1) of EPCA, it encompasses more motors than the electric motors
covered under EPCA. Consequently, use of the term ``energy efficient''
should be avoided. (WSU/WSD, No. 5 at II.J.). NEMA recommends that the
words ``energy efficient'' not be used, even as an option, since the
nominal full load efficiency values, and their associated minimum
efficiency values, in MG1-1993 are subject to change and, subsequently,
could become inconsistent with the EPCA efficiency levels for electric
motors. (NEMA, No. 18 at 9.).
EPCA requires an electric motor to meet a specified level of
nominal efficiency, and does not require an electric motor to be
labeled with a minimum efficiency value. Under the NEMA convention, a
motor that is labeled as ``energy efficient'' must meet both a
specified nominal efficiency and a minimum efficiency associated with
that nominal efficiency. In view of the comments from both Washington
State and NEMA, the Department understands that confusion could arise
from allowing the term ``energy
[[Page 54133]]
efficient'' being used to connote compliance with EPCA. Consequently,
the Department withdraws its proposed use of the term ``energy
efficient'' in section 431.82(a)(3) and (b)(2) of today's final rule.
b. Use of Standardized Nominal Full Load Efficiency Values
As explained in section II.A.7. above, NEMA MG1 establishes a
logical series of standard nominal motor efficiencies, from which the
motor nameplate efficiency marking is selected, to avoid the inference
of unrealistic accuracy in manufacturing and testing that might be
assumed from a potentially infinite number of labeled efficiency
values. One commenter queried whether only the statutory nominal full
load efficiency values would be allowed on the electric motor
nameplate, or some intermediate level of actual efficiency, as
determined by testing that particular motor. (Treffinger, No. 4 at 4.).
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 that such standardized values accurately represent both the
energy efficiency of a given motor, and the differences in efficiency
among motors. Consequently, the Department is adopting in today's final
rule the proposed requirement that motors be labeled with nominal full
load efficiency values which are identical to the standardized values
contained in NEMA MG1-1993, Table 12-8.
c. Minimum Efficiency
In the preamble to the proposed rule, at section III.E.2.,
Information on Motor Nameplate, the Department considered the
requirement to display both the nominal and applicable minimum
efficiency on the nameplate of an electric motor. For the reasons
given, the Department stated its belief that it could not require the
minimum efficiency to be displayed on labels or in marketing material.
See 61 FR 60452 and 53 (November 27, 1996).
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., the joint comments of WSU/WSD, and
NEMA recommend against labeling electric motors with a minimum
efficiency value. WSU/WSD assert that the term ``minimum efficiency''
is confusing and has ``little basis in reality.'' They assert that,
even though there is popular belief that the minimum efficiency is a
``guaranteed'' minimum, their review of actual motor efficiency from
motor testing laboratories shows that many individual motors fall both
below the statutory nominal efficiency and the voluntary minimum
efficiency associated with a particular nominal efficiency. Washington
State believes that rigorous verification of compliance with the
nominal efficiency will reduce occurrences of electric motor efficiency
falling below the minimum. (UL, No. 9 at page 2; WSU/WSD, No. 5 at
II.G; and NEMA, Public Hearing, Tr., pg. 180).
Having given this issue further consideration, the Department now
believes it may have the authority under section 344(c)(2) of EPCA to
require display of minimum efficiency levels on labels or in marketing
materials. Nevertheless, in light of the comments, the Department will
not adopt such a requirement in today's final rule.
d. Display of Nominal Efficiency, Compliance Certification Number,
``ee'' Logo, and Date of Compliance
Section 431.82(a)(1) of the proposed rule requires that the
permanent nameplate of an electric motor be marked with the motor's
nominal full load efficiency and the Compliance Certification number
supplied by DOE. Also, proposed section 431.82(a)(3) provides for
optional display of the encircled lower case letters ``ee,'' or
comparable logo, if the motor both meets the applicable standard and is
covered by a Compliance Certification.
Several commenters support the use of the Compliance Certification
number and the ``ee'' logo. (Treffinger, No. 4 at paragraph 6; WSU/WSD,
No. 5 at II.J; UL, No. 9, at page 2; ACEEE, Public Hearing, Tr. Pg.
204; and NEMA, No. 18 at pages 9 and 10; and NEMA, Public Hearing, Tr.,
pg. 180). UL opines that use of the ``ee'' mark would be a simple means
to identify a motor that is in compliance, but cautions that DOE would
have difficulty controlling its fraudulent use. (UL, No. 9, at page 2).
The Department also received comments concerning the location of
the Compliance Certification number, and the additional requirement of
a date or other information on the nameplate. ACEEE supports display of
a CC number, date of compliance, and ``ee'' logo on the nameplate of
each complying motor, but asserts that information beyond that would
not contribute to enforcement. (ACEEE, Public Hearing, Tr. pg. 204.).
In testimony, NEMA asserted that the motor nameplate should contain the
nominal efficiency and Compliance Certification number, and that
display of a standardized DOE logo be optional. (NEMA, Public Hearing,
Tr. pg. 180). In its written comments, however, NEMA asserts that the
location of the Compliance Certification number should be optional to
the manufacturer. (NEMA, No. 18 at page 11).
Section 431.82(a)(1)(ii) and (2) of the proposed rule requires the
Compliance Certification number to be marked on the permanent nameplate
of an electric motor. The Department believes that marking the
Compliance Certification number on the permanent nameplate of a covered
motor is necessary to help enforce the efficiency standards established
for electric motors under section 342 of EPCA, since the permanent
nameplate provides the most durable, common location from which to
glean standardized information concerning the identity of the
manufacturer of that motor, construction data, operational data, energy
efficiency data, and other data. Also, the Department understands that
most electric motors are often purchased, sight unseen, through
catalogs and other marketing materials, and the permanent nameplate is
often not a factor in motor selection. The information marked on the
permanent nameplate would provide some assurance to a purchaser that it
had received a motor that has been certified as complying with EPCA,
and provide traceability that would assist agencies that enforce the
energy efficiency standards for electric motors under EPCA.
The Department believes that the proposed rule provides for the
markings necessary to facilitate enforcement, in accordance with
section 344(d)(3) of EPCA, and sees little value in requiring the date
of compliance on the nameplate of each complying motor, as ACEEE
recommends. This view is supported by NEMA's assertion that disclosing
the date of compliance on shipping documents would serve no useful
purpose. (NEMA, No. 18 at page 10).
For the above reasons, the Department will not require the date of
compliance to be marked on the nameplate of a complying electric motor,
and the provisions proposed at section 431.82(a) for marking an
electric motor with the nominal full load efficiency, the Compliance
Certification number, and the encircled letters ``ee'' will remain
largely unchanged in today's final rule. (Discussion below at section
II.F.4. further addresses use of the Compliance Certification number on
motor labels.)
e. Labeling of Motors Not Covered by EPCA
Section 431.82(d), ``Other motors,'' of the proposed rule permits a
``non-
[[Page 54134]]
covered'' motor, including a motor manufactured prior to the effective
date of EPCA for electric motors, to be labeled with the information
required or permitted for electric motors, and provides that the ``non-
covered'' motor will then become subject to the requirements of 10 CFR
Part 431 concerning standards, testing, certification and enforcement.
Mr. W. Treffinger supports retroactive use of the encircled ``ee''
marking for units currently in stock.12 (Treffinger, No. 4
at paragraph 6.). Both NEMA and ACEEE support use of 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, Public
Meeting, June 2, 1995, Tr. pgs. 195-6; NEMA, No. 9 at pg. 13 and
appendix C, pgs. 11-12; NEMA, No. 9 at C.; NEMA, No. 38 at pg. 15; and
ACEEE, Public Meeting, June 2, 1995, Tr. pg. 201.) Washington State
asserts that any ``non-covered'' motor model, having an enclosure and
speed equivalent to a covered motor, which bears the ``ee'' mark should
be subject to the same testing requirements as covered motors. (WSU/
WSD, No. 5 at II.J.). NEMA expresses concern, however, that under
proposed section 431.82(d), any motor for which nominal efficiency is
marked on the nameplate would be classified as an ``electric motor,''
and that many types of non-covered motors are marked with the
applicable nominal efficiency value. NEMA asserts that classifying a
non-covered motor as an ``electric motor,'' however, should be at the
option of the manufacturer, and should only occur when the manufacturer
uses the Compliance Certification number and ``ee'' logo. (NEMA, No. 18
at pg. 10, and No. 38 at pg. 15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Department infers that ``units currently in stock''
refers to motors manufactured prior to the effective date of EPCA,
and that would be covered equipment if they had been manufactured
after such effective date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In section III.E.4., ``Other Matters,'' in the preamble to the
proposed rule, 61 FR 60454 (November 27, 1996), the Department states
that there is merit in the proposal to permit manufacturers to use the
encircled ``ee'' logo for motors that meet EPCA efficiency standards,
even if such motors are manufactured before the effective date, or are
definite or special purpose motors. However, after further review, the
Department has decided to exclude proposed section 431.82(d) from the
final rule. First, monitoring whether ``non-covered'' motors meet
requirements imposed by and under EPCA could impose considerable
burdens on DOE. The Department would have to process any Compliance
Certifications submitted for such motors, and address any complaints of
mislabeling and of non-compliance with efficiency standards and test
procedures. This could detract from the Department's activities as to
motors and other products that are clearly covered by EPCA. The
Department does not believe that such use of its resources, even if
legally permitted, is justified at this time. Second, the Department
believes it would be problematic, under the statutory provisions for
enforcement at sections 332, 333, and 345 of EPCA as to whether DOE
could take enforcement action and impose sanctions as to a motor that
is not covered under EPCA. Consequently, today's final rule will not
include the provisions proposed at section 431.82(d) for motors that
are not covered under EPCA, thereby rendering moot the aforementioned
comments.
Notwithstanding today's final rule, the Department understands that
the Federal Trade Commission would have jurisdiction, under section
5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1), for
example, to address efficiency mislabeling of motors not covered by
EPCA. The Department also understands that motors not covered under the
statutory definition of ``electric motor'' are typically tested for
energy efficiency, in the same manner as covered electric motors, under
IEEE Standard 112-1996 Test Method B or CSA Standard C390-93 Test
Method (1), and such motors that are not covered could be generically
represented as ``energy efficient'' according to the voluntary labeling
provisions in NEMA MG1-1993, apart from the provisions of EPCA.
f. Enforcement Testing Where Violation of a Labeling Representation is
Alleged
The proposed rule could be interpreted as providing that the
enforcement procedures, set forth in section 431.27 of the proposed
rule, would be used only to address allegations of non-compliance with
the applicable regulatory standard for efficiency. In the reopening
notice, at Section II.D., Enforcement Testing Where Violation of a
Labeling Representation Is Alleged, 63 FR 34765-66 (June 25, 1998), DOE
stated its intention to make clear in the final rule that the
enforcement procedures would also apply in determining whether the
labeled efficiency rating for a motor is erroneous, and the reopening
notice sought comments on this issue.
The ACEEE and NEMA support use of the enforcement procedures for
determining both the accuracy of the nameplate efficiency, as well as
compliance with the applicable EPCA efficiency value. (NEMA/ACEEE, No.
38 at D.) There were no comments to the contrary. The final rule
provides that these procedures, including the proposed sampling plan at
section 431.127(c), will 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
has made necessary modifications in the language of section
431.127(a)(1) and appendix B to subpart G, and has modified section
431.127(c), Sampling, to read, ``The determination that a
manufacturer's basic model complies with the applicable energy
efficiency standard, or with its labeled efficiency, must be based on
testing conducted in accordance with the statistical sampling
procedures set forth in appendix B of this subpart and the test
procedures set forth in Appendix A to subpart B of this part.''
g. Imported Motors
Section 431.82(c) of the proposed rule would require any electric
motor imported into the United States to be accompanied by shipping
papers that disclose clearly the date of the Compliance Certification
for that motor, and the applicable Compliance Certification number.
NEMA asserts that shipping documents should show the Compliance
Certification number(s) for the electric motor(s) covered under EPCA,
for example, ``EPACT CC No. XXX IMPORTED FOR SALE IN USA.'' NEMA
objects to disclosing the date of the Compliance Certification and
energy efficiency of the motor or motors on import documents. NEMA also
asserts that shipping documents should list motors that are not covered
by EPCA with the reason they are not covered, for example, ``DEF.
PURPOSE MOTOR EXEMPT FROM EPACT IMPORTED FOR SALE IN USA.'' (NEMA, No.
18 at pages 9 and 10, and exhibits B, C, and D).
Proposed section 431.82(c), was intended to aid the U.S. Customs
Service in preventing entry into the United States of motors that do
not comply with EPCA. In discussions with the Department, however, the
Customs Service has raised questions as to whether the provisions of
proposed section 431.82(c) would help them. Consequently, the
Department had decided to delay final action on this section until it
has had further consultations with Customs. The Department intends to
include in those
[[Page 54135]]
discussions the subject of requirements for imported motors not covered
by EPCA. Therefore, today's final rule includes no provisions
concerning import documents.
h. Weights of Conductors and Magnetic Materials
One commenter proposed that the motor nameplate list the weight of
the copper or aluminum conductors used in the motor, and the weight of
the magnetic iron used in the construction of the motor. (Angelo
Ruggiero, No. 17.).
The Department understands that a relationship exists between the
efficiency of an electric motor and the quantity and quality of active
materials, such as copper and magnetic steel, used in the motor. In the
Department's view, marking the measured weight of copper, aluminum, or
magnetic steel content for a particular basic model electric motor
might provide some indication of motor efficiency, but it would be of
limited value because it is only one of several variables affecting
efficiency that could also be marked on the nameplate of a motor. On
the other hand, marking of all of these values on the nameplate would
be very burdensome and might not be technically feasible. Therefore,
the Department does not believe that it should require such markings
under section 344 of EPCA and the final rule contains no such
requirement.
F. Certification of Compliance
EPCA directs the Department to require manufacturers to certify
that each motor meets the applicable EPCA efficiency standard. EPCA
section 345(c). 42 U.S.C. 6316(c). Section 431.123 of the proposed rule
establishes the requirements for manufacturers to certify compliance,
including a reference to Appendix A of subpart G, which sets forth the
format for a Compliance Certification. 61 FR 60371, 60473-60474
(November 27, 1996).
The first sentence of proposed Section 431.123(a) states that no
electric motor ``subject to an energy efficiency standard set forth in
subpart C of this part'' may be distributed unless it is covered by a
Compliance Certification. Thus, because proposed section 431.42 in
subpart C provides that only electric motors manufactured after October
24, 1997 (or October 24, 1999 for certain motors) are subject to
standards, the proposed rule as written would require a Compliance
Certification to be submitted only for an electric motor manufactured
after whichever of the two dates applies to that motor. 61 FR 60469-70
(November 27, 1996). For the same reason, proposed section 431.123(a)
would not bar the distribution of a non-complying motor manufactured
before the applicable date. Consequently, the Department has not added
to proposed section 431.123(a) the language ``manufactured after
October 24, 1997'' to qualify the term ``electric motor,'' as suggested
by NEMA (NEMA, No. 18, p. 12), because to do so would create a
redundancy.
The following addresses issues concerning the content and format of
the Compliance Certification, and concerning issuance and use of
Compliance Certification numbers.
1. Reference to Certification Programs
The Compliance Certification form in Appendix A of subpart G in the
proposed rule includes tables for reporting the efficiencies of
electric motors. A ``Note'' to the tables, 61 FR 60474 (November 27,
1996), directs manufacturers to ``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.'' Reliance Electric encourages the Department to
modify the Compliance Certification in appendix A of subpart G to also
include identification of motors for which a certification organization
was used. (Reliance, No. 11, pp. 6-7; Reliance No. 47).
Whether a manufacturer uses its own accredited laboratory, a third
party accredited laboratory or a certification program, the
manufacturer bears ultimate responsibility for certifying compliance
under 431.123 of the rule. The Department believes that there is no
need to specify that a certification program is contributing to the
determination, since the manufacturer is listed on the Compliance
Certification. Consequently, in today's final rule the Department will
not require the Compliance Certification to identify motors for which a
certification organization was used.
2. Nominal Versus Average Full Load Efficiency
Each efficiency standard prescribed by EPCA for an electric motor
is a specified minimum ``nominal full load efficiency.'' EPCA section
342(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). The preamble to the proposed rule, in
section III.E.2., ``Information on Motor Nameplate,'' discusses nominal
full load efficiency as the efficiency that industry currently marks on
the motor nameplate, and that the Department will require be on the
nameplate. ``Nominal full load efficiency'' is defined in the rule at
section 431.2 as being derived from the ``average full load
efficiency'' of a population of motors of the same design. Pursuant to
sections 431.2 and 431.24 of the proposed and final rules, ``average
full load efficiency'' refers to the average of the individual
efficiencies of such a population of motors, determined through testing
or use of an AEDM. Section 431.123(b)(2)(i) of the proposed rule
requires that the Compliance Certification report the average full load
efficiency of an electric motor, as is designated on the sample
Compliance Certification in appendix A to subpart G of part 431.
Reliance Electric encourages the Department to modify this
requirement, so that the efficiency value to be reported is the
declared ``nominal full load efficiency'' and not the ``average full
load efficiency.'' Reliance states this would be consistent with both
the instructions in the Note on the Compliance Certification, and the
efficiency which is marked on the motor, rather ``than a value of
efficiency not found in any publication, database, or on the motor
itself.'' (Reliance, No. 11 at pg. 7)
The Department recognizes that ``nominal full load efficiency'' is
used in EPCA, and has been in use by industry, to represent the energy
efficiency of a motor. Moreover, as indicated in Section II.A.7. above,
the definition of ``nominal full load efficiency'' in today's final
rule is based on the Department's acceptance of the view that the
measured average full load efficiency of a motor could sometimes
overstate the motor's efficiency, and could contain fractional values
that would suggest an unrealistic degree of precision in determining
efficiency. The Department also believes at this point that its receipt
of average full load efficiency figures in Compliance Certifications
would not significantly aid in achieving compliance with EPCA. For all
of these reasons, today's final rule requires nominal full load
efficiency to be reported under section 431.123(b)(2)(i), and on the
sample Compliance Certification in appendix A to subpart G of the final
rule.
3. Other Information To Be Reported
As indicated above, the proposed Appendix A to Subpart G provides
for reporting the efficiencies of electric motors. Specifically,
pursuant to proposed section 431.123(b)(2)(i), Appendix A's
``Attachment to Compliance Certification'' (``Attachment'') contains
two tables (one for motors rated in horsepower and the other for motors
rated in kilowatts) for reporting the efficiency of the least efficient
basic model within each category for which EPCA prescribes a
[[Page 54136]]
minimum efficiency. The purpose of these tables is to enable a
manufacturer or private labeler support its certification of
compliance, by reporting motor efficiencies which show that the least
efficient basic model in each category is at or above the EPCA standard
for that category.
As also described above, the Note to the Attachment directs that an
asterisk identify each reported efficiency that is determined through
testing rather than use of an AEDM. The Note also directs listing of
other basic models that have been tested, and the Attachment contains a
table for providing such a list. 61 FR 60474. These provisions were
intended to implement section 431.123(b)(2)(ii), which requires that
the Compliance Certification identify all basic models that have been
tested pursuant to section 431.24. (Such testing occurs either (1) to
determine a basic model's efficiency for purposes of certifying its
compliance to DOE and of labeling or (2) to substantiate an AEDM.)
Identification of these basic models would indicate whether five or
more basic models were tested, as is generally required by section
431.24. The Attachment is not intended to require a manufacturer to
report to DOE efficiency tests it performs for other purposes, such as
quality control.
Reliance suggests certain changes in the tables of the Attachment.
(Reliance No. 47) First, it recommends that the two tables for
reporting motor efficiencies be combined into one, with the title of
the first column to be ``Motor horsepower/kilowatts.'' The Department
believes that combining the two tables would simplify the format of the
attachment, reduce in some instances the amount of information that
would have to be reported, and still provide the necessary information
for certifying compliance. Consequently, the Attachment in the final
rule combines these two tables as recommended by Reliance. Second, in
the table for listing other basic models that have been tested, the
heading of the fourth column refers to the ``least efficient basic
model.'' Reliance points out that this seems to call for reporting on
the same basic models that would be included in the aforementioned
table for reporting efficiencies, and would not provide for
identification of more efficient basic models that had been tested to
substantiate an AEDM. On this point as well, the Department agrees with
Reliance's comments. The Department erroneously included the term
``least efficient'' in this table, and its retention would prevent the
table from serving its intended purpose of assuring that the Compliance
Certification identifies all testing undertaken to comply with the DOE
regulation. Accordingly, the term is deleted from the heading of the
fourth column. Finally, in today's final rule the Department has
changed the title of this table to ``Models Actually Tested and Not
Previously Identified'', as suggested by Reliance. Reliance points out
that the title in the proposed rule, ``Additional Motors Actually
Tested'', erroneously assumes that the table for reporting motor
efficiencies will identify at least one basic model that has been
tested.
4. Compliance Certification Number
Section 431.123(e), Response to Certification; Certification Number
for Electric Motor, in the proposed rule, requires DOE to provide an
identification number to each manufacturer or private labeler to
signify compliance with section 431.123, Compliance Certification.
Section 431.82(a)(1)(ii), Electric motor nameplate, in turn, requires
the manufacturer to display the Compliance Certification number (``CC
number'') on the permanent nameplate of the electric motor. (As
written, the proposed rule does not allow for a ``private labeler's''
Compliance Certification number to be marked on the nameplate.) The
Department believes that such a number is necessary to help enforce the
efficiency standards, under section 344(d) of EPCA, because it would
provide traceability directly to the manufacturer or private labeler,
and would discourage distribution of non-complying motors.
NEMA and ACEEE recommend that one number be assigned to each
manufacturer, unless the manufacturer requests additional numbers.
(NEMA, No. 18 at page 11; and NEMA/ACEEE, No. 38 at pages 16 and 17).
Also, NEMA recommends that each manufacturer marketing an electric
motor under its own name receive its own CC number, and that a private
labeler should have the option to receive its own number, or arrange to
use a manufacturer's number. (Public Hearing, Tr., pg. 180).
Leeson Electric asserts that a CC number on the nameplate should
identify the party responsible for the energy efficiency of that motor.
Leeson conjectures, for example, that it could design and test a motor
for efficiency, and through contractual arrangements have another
manufacturer produce that motor complete with a Leeson nameplate and
traceable to Leeson. Alternatively and with proper arrangements, Leeson
conjectures that it could manufacture a motor using someone else's
design and number. In either case, the CC number should identify a
party responsible for the motor's efficiency. (Leeson, Public Hearing,
Tr., pgs. 191-92). GE Motors recommends that the name on the nameplate
be consistent with the Compliance Certification number. (GE, Public
Hearing, Tr. pg. 192-93).
The Department understands that a motor manufacturer could
manufacture a motor for sale (1) under its own name, (2) by another
motor manufacturer, (3) by a private labeler, or (4) by any combination
of these three means. For reasons of contractual obligation or product
differentiation, a motor manufacturer might not want to indicate on a
motor nameplate or in marketing materials that, for example, its Motor
A and competitor's Motor A are both made by the competitor. Similarly,
a company owning a private label might not want to disclose the
identity of the motor manufacturer on its motor nameplate or in
marketing materials for economic or marketing reasons, such as using a
variety of manufacturers to supply the same type motor, or maintaining
the focus of recognition on its private label to the exclusion of
identifying the source of the motor. On the other hand, because of
contractual or other considerations, a private labeler or a
manufacturer selling a motor made by another manufacturer, might wish
to include on the motor's nameplate the CC number of the firm that
manufactured the motor.
The Department is persuaded that the final rule should allow a
private labeler, or a manufacturer distributing a motor it did not
manufacture, to mark a motor with its own CC number or the number of
the motor's manufacturer. Use of the CC number is intended to
discourage distribution of non-complying motors, to provide a marking
to identify a motor that has been certified to be in compliance with 10
CFR Part 431 and to identify the source of the Compliance
Certification, not necessarily to identify the manufacturer to the
consumer.
The proposed rule would already permit (1) a private labeler to
mark a motor's nameplate with the manufacturer's CC number, and (2) a
manufacturer distributing a motor it had not manufactured to use either
its own CC number or the number of the manufacturer. The final rule
provides likewise. In light of the foregoing discussion, however,
proposed section 431.82(a)(1)(ii) is revised in the final rule to
permit a private labeler to use its own CC number. DOE does not believe
that any purpose would be served by requiring the CC number on a motor
to be the number provided to the party named on the motor nameplate, as
apparently recommended by GE Motors.
[[Page 54137]]
As to the issuance of more than one CC number to a manufacturer (or
private labeler), in the Department's view this would be warranted only
in limited circumstances. Although the commenters that made this
proposal gave no reasons for it, it appears that a manufacturer or
private labeler that distributes motors under different brand names,
trademarks or labels, might wish to obtain more than one number to
preserve the separate identities of these motors. The Department
believes that, in such a situation, a manufacturer or private labeler
should be permitted to obtain a CC number that would apply to motors it
distributes under a name that does not overlap with other names under
which it sells motors. Issuance of more than one CC number under other
circumstances, however, would be unnecessarily burdensome to the
Department, and could conflict with the use of the CC number as a means
of discouraging distribution of non-complying motors and readily
identifying the source of the Compliance Certification. Thus, for
example, if Company XYZ, a motor manufacturer or private labeler, sells
electric motors under the ``XYZ'' brand name or label, and also under
the ``ABC'' brand name or label, it should be permitted to obtain one
CC number for each of these labels or brand names. But it should not be
permitted, for example, to obtain one CC number for motors sold under
the ``XYZ Premium'' or ``XYZ'' label, and another for motors sold under
the ``XYZ Standard'' or ``XYZ/ABC'' label. Accordingly, section
431.123(c) and provisions in section 431.123(f) have been added to the
final rule to allow a manufacturer or private labeler to request and
obtain a separate CC number for any unique name under which it
distributes electric motors.
Underwriters Laboratories contends that a database of information
related to the Compliance Certification number will be needed for use
by enforcement agencies, such as the U.S. Customs Service. Otherwise,
motors could be labeled as being in compliance even though they have
not been certified under section 431.123 and appendix A to subpart G.
(UL, No. 9 at page 2.). The Department is likewise concerned about
keeping records of Compliance Certification that would facilitate
enforcement. As with compliance statements and certification reports
filed with the Department of Energy under 10 CFR 430.62, Submission of
data, for residential appliances, the Department intends to maintain
such files for electric motors. These will be available to the U.S.
Customs Service and any other enforcement agencies.
G. Other Matters
1. Standards Incorporated by Reference
Section 340(13)(A) of EPCA, which defines the term ``electric
motor,'' states that the terms in that definition shall be used ``as
defined in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987.'' Under section
340(13)(H) of EPCA, ``nominal full load efficiency'' is an average
efficiency ``as determined in accordance with'' NEMA MG1-1987. Section
343(a)(5) of the Act requires that testing procedures for motor
efficiency shall be the test procedures specified in NEMA Standards
Publication MG1-1987, unless those are amended.
First, consistent with the EPCA directive that the definition of
``electric motor'' be based on NEMA MG1, section 431.2 of the proposed
rule states, for the most part, that the terms used to define
``electric motor'' shall be construed with reference to provisions in
the NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987. 61 FR 60466 (November 27,
1996). In addition, section 431.2 of the proposed rule defines the term
``general purpose''--one element in the EPCA definition of ``electric
motor''--by reference to the service conditions specified in NEMA MG1
paragraph 14.02, ``Usual Service Conditions.''
Second, consistent with section 340(13)(H) of EPCA, the proposed
rule defines ``nominal full load efficiency'' with reference to Table
12-8 of NEMA MG1-1993.
Third, consistent with the EPCA directive that the test procedures
be those specified in NEMA MG1, section 431.22(a)(2)(i) of the proposed
rule, Reference sources, incorporates by reference NEMA MG1 with
Revision 1, paragraph 12.58.1, ``Determination of Motor Efficiency
Losses'', and Table 12-8, ``Efficiency Levels.'' 61 FR 60466 (November
27, 1996).
Among the comments received concerning the proposed rule were
requests from NEMA and ACEEE that the Department make reference to the
complete NEMA MG1, including updates through Revision 4 (June 1997),
since they provide the details necessary to understand other
requirements of the definition of electric motor, such as Design A and
B characteristics. (NEMA, No. 18 at pg. 5; and NEMA/ACEEE, No. 38 at
pg. 14.)
The Department believes it is inappropriate and impractical to
incorporate into the final rule the entirety of NEMA MG1. Many parts of
MG1 concern motors that are not covered by EPCA. Other parts of MG1,
although relevant to motors that are covered, are irrelevant to issues
of motor efficiency, or do not concern any of the matters, discussed
above, on which EPCA directs that MG1 be followed. Rather they concern
subjects such as aspects of the construction and performance of motors
that do not bear upon the definition of ``electric motor,'' the test
procedures for measuring efficiency, or determination of nominal
efficiency. Thus, to incorporate all of MG1 into the final rule would
result in the rule's containing a considerable amount of material that
is irrelevant to compliance with EPCA. Moreover, MG1 is a sizable
volume. If it were incorporated into the final rule, a substantial
amount of material would become part of the rule, and the Department
would have to have complete copies of this material available for
inspection both at the Federal Register and the Department. For all of
these reasons, the final rule does not incorporate by reference the
entirety of MG1.
The final rule, however, particularly in the definition of
``electric motor,'' refers to MG1 more extensively and with greater
specificity than does the proposed rule. Moreover, the final rule
incorporates by reference all of the MG1 provisions referred to in the
rule. As indicated above, the proposed rule states only that terms in
the ``electric motor'' definition that are not defined in the rule or
with reference to IEC standards, ``shall be construed with reference to
* * * MG1-1987.'' 61 FR 60466 (November 27, 1996). The final rule
specifically identifies each such term that is defined in MG1, cites
the provision or provisions of MG1 containing the definition, and
states that the term must be construed with reference to the cited
provision or provisions.
All of these references are to provisions of MG1-1993 with
Revisions
1-4. Several of the referenced provisions (e.g., paragraphs 1.16.1,
4.01 and 12.40.1) contain differences in numbering, language, or
format, but not substance, from the corresponding provisions of MG1-
1987. Referencing these MG1-1993 paragraphs in the final rule raises no
issue as to the rule's conformity with EPCA's requirement that terms in
the definition of electric motor be used ``as defined in MG1-1987.''
The final rule's references to paragraphs 11.31, 11.34 and 11.36 of
MG1-1993, however, to construe the term ``NEMA T-frame dimensions,''
specifically exclude the dimension values in those paragraphs for
motors with frame sizes 447 and 449. These values were not included in
MG1-1987
[[Page 54138]]
and these motors were not considered to be NEMA T-frame motors under
MG1-1987.
In an additional departure from MG1-1987, paragraph 11.31 of MG1-
1993 does not contain values for the ``Bmax'' dimension--the maximum
sizes for the ``B'' dimension. Consequently, MG1-1993 appears to define
``T-frame'' more broadly than it was defined in MG-1987, and to
increase the number of motors that meet the T-frame classification. The
Department understands, however, that even while operating under MG1-
1987, the industry widely ignored the Bmax dimension, considered motors
with B dimensions in excess of Bmax to be T-frame, and did not view
Bmax as critical in defining what constituted a T-frame motor. Thus,
MG1-1987 as applied excluded the Bmax dimension, and when the
``electric motor'' definition was added to EPCA, in 1992, ``T-frame, *
* * motor * * * as defined in MG1-1987'' meant a motor with T-frame
dimensions without regard to Bmax. For these reasons, the final rule
references and incorporates paragraph 11.31 of MG1-1993 without
altering its exclusion of the Bmax dimension.
Finally, the final rule retains the proposed rule's references to
MG1-1993 in the definitions of ``general purpose'' and ``nominal full
load efficiency'', and adds references to MG1-1993's description of
``unusual service conditions'' in the definitions of ``definition
purpose motor'' and ``general purpose.'' With respect to the test
procedure, the final rule also retains the proposed rule's references
to MG1-1993 but adds references to Revisions 1-4.
2. Enforcement: Determining What Constitutes a ``Separate Violation''
Sections 332, 333(a) and 345(a) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6302, 6303(a)
and 6316(a) set forth actions that violate EPCA requirements for
electric motors, and the penalties associated with each violation.
Section 431.122, Prohibited acts, in the proposed rule incorporates and
implements these provisions. It provides in paragraph (b) that, for
each motor a manufacturer distributes that does not comply with
applicable efficiency standard, a separate violation occurs. NEMA
questions whether the Department intends ``that the total penalty for
distribution of a non-compliant motor be limited to $100,'' and
recommends that distribution of a motor that does not comply with the
applicable efficiency standard be a separate violation for each day of
noncompliance. (NEMA, No. 18 at pgs. 10-11; emphasis added.)
The Department believes that NEMA has misconstrued the proposed
rule. Proposed section 431.122(b) provides, and DOE intends, that
distribution of ``each unit'' of an electric motor that fails to comply
with the applicable EPCA efficiency standard would be a separate
violation. Thus, for example, if a manufacturer were to distribute
1,000 motors that do not meet the applicable standard, that would
constitute 1,000 violations, and the total penalty would be $100,000
($100 times 1,000).
In this and other respects, proposed section 431.122 closely
adheres to the EPCA provisions that delineate violations of efficiency
requirements, and penalties for such violations. In particular,
sections 332(a), 333(a), and 345(a) of EPCA provide that a separate
violation occurs, (1) for ``each violation'' of the prohibition against
distributing any new covered equipment that does not conform to an
applicable EPCA standard, and (2) for ``each day'' a manufacturer fails
to provide required information, or comply with certain requirements of
section 326 of EPCA. Those sections do not provide that each day of
noncompliance with an applicable standard is a violation, as NEMA
recommends. It is questionable, therefore, whether the Department could
adopt such a provision in today's regulations. Nor is such a provision
in 10 CFR section 430.61, which implements these same sections of EPCA
for consumer products. The Department sees no basis at this time for
taking a different approach in Part 431.
Accordingly, today's rule does not incorporate NEMA's suggestion
that each day of noncompliance with an applicable standard would be a
separate violation.
3. Technical Corrections
Today's final rule makes a number of changes to the proposed rule
that do not alter the substance or intended effect of the rule. These
changes, for example, expand or correct references, conform language in
the rule to statutory language, or clarify the language of the rule.
They are as follows:
a. References to International Standards
The definition of ``electric motor'' at section 431.2 of the
proposed rule states that four terms in the definition shall be
construed with reference to IEC Standard 34-1. 61 FR 60465-66 (November
27, 1996). The Department has determined that three of these terms--
``cage,'' ``IEC metric equivalents [to T-frame dimensions]'' and
``Design N''--must instead be construed with reference to certain
provisions in three IEC standards other than Standard 34-1. (The fourth
term is construed with reference to certain provisions of Standard 34-
1.) The final rule revises the definition of ``electric motor'' to
reference the current versions of these provisions. In addition,
because they must be used to construe the terms used in the definition,
section 431.22 of the final rule incorporates these provisions by
reference. The Department has also added a definitions of ``ISO''--
``International Organization for Standardization''--to section 431.2 of
the final rule, because of the many references to ISO in the rule.
b. Use of Term ``Energy Conservation Standard''
Part C of EPCA, which governs this final rule, uses the term
``energy conservation standard'' to refer to a level of energy
efficiency required under Part C. See EPCA section 340, 42 U.S.C. 6311.
In the final rule, therefore, that term is used in place of the term
``energy efficiency standard'', as for example in sections 431.41 and
431.42.
c. Preemption of State Regulations
Section 431.43 of today's final rule concerns preemption of state
energy efficiency requirements for electric motors. It contains, with
minor technical modifications, the language of 10 CFR section 430.33,
which concerns preemption of state efficiency requirements for products
covered by Part 430. Similarly, section 431.83 of today's final rule
concerns preemption of state efficiency labeling requirements for
electric motors. It contains, with minor technical modifications, the
language of 16 CFR section 305.17, a Federal Trade Commission
regulation that concerns preemption of state labeling requirements for
products covered by Part 430. Neither section 431.33 nor section 431.83
was in the proposed rule, but each merely incorporates pre-emption
requirements specified by sections 327 and 345 of EPCA and neither
changes the substance, force or effect of the provisions of the
proposed rule.
d. Provisions Incorporated from Part 430
Sections 431.28, 431.61, 431.125, 431.126, 431.128, 431.129,
431.130, 431.131, and 431.132 of the proposed rule incorporate sections
of 10 CFR Part 430. These proposed sections do not repeat the language
of the Part 430 provisions, but merely specify the changes that must be
made in that language when it is used in Part 431. NEMA requests that
the language of these sections be printed in full in Part 431, so that
Part 431 will be self-contained, and its users will not have to
[[Page 54139]]
consult Part 430 to find pertinent requirements. (NEMA, No. 18 at pg.
13). Today's final rule accepts NEMA's suggestion, and contains the
language of each of these sections in full. This results in no
substantive change from the proposed rule.
e. Amount of Penalty
Section 345(a) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), applies the civil
monetary penalty provisions of Section 333(a) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.
6303(a), to electric motors. Section 333(a) provides for a maximum
civil penalty of $100 for each violation of an EPCA requirement. As
proposed, section 431.122(b) incorporated the provisions of section
333(a), including the $100 penalty. Subsequent to issuance of the
proposed rule, the Department adjusted civil monetary penalties under
its jurisdiction, as required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Debt
Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134). 62 FR 46181
(September 2, 1997). The Department increased to $110 the penalty
amount specified by section 333(a). This increase was reflected in an
amendment to 10 CFR section 430.61. 62 FR 46181, 46183 (September 2,
1997). Accordingly, DOE has adjusted the penalty amount in section
431.122(b) of the final rule to incorporate the $110 penalty, to
reflect the increase in all civil penalties set by EPCA.
f. Prohibited Acts--Section 431.122
Proposed section 431.122(a)(4) provides that it would be a
prohibited act under EPCA to advertise in a catalog from which an
electric motor can be purchased without including in the catalog the
information ``required by section 431.82(b)(2).'' This section
reference is erroneous. It is section 431.82(b)(1), rather than Section
431.82(b)(2), that requires inclusion of certain information in
catalogs. Therefore, in the final rule, the section cited in section
431.122(a)(4) is corrected to 431.82(b)(1).
The final rule also adds to paragraph (c) of section 431.122 the
definition of ``knowingly'' that is contained in section 333(b) of
EPCA.
g. Language Changes in Sections 431.23 and 431.124(a)
As proposed, section 431.23 could give the impression that the test
procedures prescribed in the regulation are mandatory only for
determining whether a motor satisfies the applicable energy
conservation standard. However, as demonstrated by EPCA provisions such
as sections 343(d)(1) and 344(b), 42 U.S.C. 6214((d)(1) and 6215(b),
and as recognized in other provisions of the final rule such as
sections 431.24 and 431.82(a), the test procedures in the final rule
must be used to measure an electric motor's efficiency for all purposes
under EPCA. Section 431.23 of the final rule has been revised to make
this clear.
Language has been added to section 431.124, Maintenance of records,
to make clear that a manufacturer must keep records of any written
certification it receives from a certification organization and relies
upon under the Part 431. The manufacturer's record-keeping obligation
is not be limited to certifications that attest to a motor's compliance
with the applicable standard, as suggested by the proposed rule. A
manufacturer also must keep, for example, certifications in which a
certification organization attests to the numerical efficiency ratings
of particular motors. This is consistent with the understanding of the
Department and the industry that certification organizations do not
merely certify a motor's compliance with a standard, but also certify
its level of performance. 61 FR 60457 (November 27, 1996), section
II.C.1-3 above, Reliance No. 11 at p. 7, NEMA No. 38 at p. 5.
III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
This rule was reviewed for environmental impacts and the Department
concluded that neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental
impact statement is required. 61 FR at 60460. There were no comments on
this issue. Therefore, the Department will take no further action in
today's final rule with respect to the National Environmental Policy
Act.
B. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''
This regulatory action was reviewed pursuant to Executive Order
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' October 4, 1993. The
Department concluded that this action was not subject to review under
the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. There were no comments concerning Executive Order 12866.
Therefore, the Department will take no further action in today's final
rule with respect to Executive Order 12866.
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule was reviewed pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., which 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
included an analysis of small entity impact in the NOPR, 61 FR 60460-61
(November 27, 1996). In summary, DOE estimates there are approximately
27 domestic firms and 14 foreign firms that manufacture electric motors
covered under EPCA. Of these firms, DOE estimates there are four to six
electric motor manufacturers that are small businesses under the size
standards published by the Small Business Administration. The NOPR
analysis examined the anticipated economic impact of the proposed rule
on small manufacturers, taking into account current industry practices
and steps taken in the design of the rule to keep the testing burden on
manufacturers as low as possible. DOE concluded that the cost of
complying with the 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.
Only Sterling Electric, Inc. submitted comments concerning the
possible effect of the proposed rule, and in particular its provisions
pertinent to sampling plans and compliance certification, on small
business. (Sterling, No. 13). Sterling Electric requested that the
Department ``keep the small manufacturer in mind'' as the final rule is
written and recommended (1) ``more than one choice selecting an agency
to either certify and/or accredit labs,'' and (2) ``a simple
statistical procedure'' to verify that its electric motors are in
compliance with EPCA efficiency levels.
The Sterling comments are addressed at sections II.C.2. ``Issues
involving both use of accredited laboratories and use of certification
organizations,'' and II.C.4.c.(1), ``Sampling Plan for Compliance
Testing,'' in the preamble to today's final rule. In sum, today's final
rule at section 431.25(a) allows a manufacturer to certify compliance
through its election of either an
[[Page 54140]]
independent testing or a certification program, and adopts the NEMA
sampling plan for determining compliance, which the Department believes
is a sample statistical procedure that is consistent with industry
practice. Furthermore, and as pointed out in the Department's
regulatory flexibility analysis, 61 FR 60461 (November 27, 1996), the
compliance certification requirement would not become effective until
24 months after the effective date of the final rule. As per its
analysis in the NOPR, and in view of the Department's response to the
aforementioned comments from Sterling Electric, the Department
certifies that today's final rule will not impose significant economic
costs on a substantial number of small manufacturers.
D. Review Under Executive Order 12612, ``Federalism''
This rule was reviewed pursuant to Executive Order 12612,
``Federalism,'' 52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987), which 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.
The Department set forth its analysis in the NOPR, 61 FR 60461-62
(November 27, 1996), and concluded that the proposed rule would not
alter the distribution of authority, nor would it regulate the States.
There were no comments concerning Executive Order 12612. Therefore, the
Department will take no further action in today's final rule with
respect to Executive Order 12612.
E. Review Under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and
Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights''
The Department determined, 61 FR 60462 (November 27, 1996),
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.
There were no comments concerning Executive Order 12630. Therefore,
the Department will take no further action in today's final rule with
respect to Executive Order 12630.
F. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule was reviewed pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The proposed rule requires collections of
information necessary for implementing and monitoring compliance with
the efficiency standards, testing, labeling and certification
requirements for electric motors, as mandated by EPCA. The Department
set forth its analysis, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, in the NOPR,
61 FR 60462 (November 27, 1996).
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the proposed rule,
such as disclosing energy efficiency on the nameplate of a motor and in
marketing materials, maintaining records that substantiate the
efficiency of an electric motor for two years, and a one-time
Compliance Certification that affirms that each basic model meets the
applicable EPCA efficiency standard, were based on current industry
practice and the views of stakeholders received at a public meeting
held in May 1995, in written comments solicited in the notice of that
meeting, and in subsequent informal contacts. Comments relevant to the
information and recordkeeping requirements that were considered under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, such as comments on labeling, disclosure
of efficiency information in marketing materials, compliance
certification and recordkeeping, were submitted by NEMA, Reliance
Electric, Underwriters Laboratories, and the American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy, and were addressed in the NOPR, 61 FR 60451-
54; 60458-59 (November 27, 1996). (NEMA, No. 9 at C., D. and D.3.;
Reliance, No. 8 at 3.b.3, 3.c. and 3.d.1; UL, No. 4 at Labeling; ACEEE,
No. 7 at 3.c). Subsequent comments concerning the information and
recordkeeping requirements at proposed sections 431.24(b)(4)(ii),
431.82, 431.123 and appendix A to subpart G, and 431.124 in the
proposed rule, were addressed above (Treffinger, No. 4; WSU/WSD, No. 5;
UL, No. 9; Ruggiero, No. 17; and NEMA, No. 18). Commenters were, in
general, supportive of the proposed rule.
The information collection and recordkeeping requirements in this
final rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB control number 1910-
5104. OMB assigns a control number for each collection of information
it approves. DOE may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB number.
G. 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 (4)
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 rule under the standards of section 3 of the Executive
Order and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, they meet
the requirements of those standards.
H. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act
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
(FEAA), as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization
Act of 1977. 15 U.S.C. 788.
The final rule incorporates a number of commercial standards that
are essentially required by the Act. For example, the procedures
required for measuring the efficiency of electric motors come from the
NEMA publication, ``Motors and Generators,'' MG1-1993 Revisions 1
through 4; the
[[Page 54141]]
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., ``Standard
Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators,'' IEEE
Std 112-1996 Test Method B for motor efficiency; and CSA International
Standard C390-93, ``Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Three-Phase
Induction Motors,'' Test Method (1). By way of further example, certain
definitions in the final rule are drawn from NEMA Publication MG1.
Because the Department has little discretion to omit these standards
from its regulation, section 32 of the FEAA has no application to them.
As part of its definition of electric motor, however, the final
rule does employ the commercial International Electrotechnical
Commission Standards 60034-1, 60034-12, 60050(411) and 60072-1, which
the Act does not direct the Department to adopt. In addition, as
proposed in the NOPR, 61 FR 60449-50, 60469-70 (November 27, 1996), the
Department has incorporated into the final rule the standard kilowatt
equivalents specified in IEC Standard 72-1 for the horsepower ratings
that EPCA prescribes standards for.
As required by section 32(c) of the FEAA, the Department has
consulted with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal
Trade Commission concerning the impact of these standards on
competition, and neither has recommended against incorporation or use
of these standards.
I. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This regulatory action was reviewed pursuant to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), and the Department concluded that
the requirements of sections 203 and 204 of the UMRA did not apply to
today's final rule. 61 FR 60463 (November 27, 1996). There were no
comments concerning the UMRA. Therefore, the Department will take no
further action in today's final rule with respect to the UMRA.
J. Review Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
Consistent with Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, DOE will submit to
Congress a report regarding the issuance of today's final rule before
the effective date set forth in the outset of this notice. The report
will state that it has been determined that this rule is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation,
Incorporation by reference.
Issued in Washington, DC, July 26, 1999.
Dan W. Reicher,
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Chapter II of Title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), is amended by adding new Part 431 to
read as set forth below.
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec.
431.1 Purpose and scope.
431.2 Definitions.
Appendix A to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 431, Policy Statement for
Electric Motors Covered Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
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 Determination of efficiency.
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 Procedures for recognition and withdrawal of recognition of
accreditation bodies and certification programs.
431.29 Petitions for waiver, and applications for interim waiver,
of test procedure.
Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for
Measuring Nominal Full Load Efficiency of Electric Motors
Subpart C--Energy Conservation Standards
431.41 Purpose and scope.
431.42 Energy conservation standards and effective dates.
431.43 Preemption of state regulations.
Subpart D--Petitions to Exempt State Regulation from Preemption;
Petitions to Withdraw Exemption of State Regulation
431.61 Purpose and scope.
431.62 Prescriptions of a rule.
431.63 Filing requirements.
431.64 Notice of petition.
431.65 Consolidation.
431.66 Hearing.
431.67 Disposition of petitions.
431.68 Effective dates of final rules.
431.69 Request for reconsideration.
431.70 Finality of decision.
Subpart E--Labeling
431.81 Purpose and scope.
431.82 Labeling requirements.
431.83 Preemption of state regulations.
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 accreditation body that a
laboratory is competent to test the efficiency of electric motors
according to the scope and procedures given in Test Method B of IEEE
Standard 112-1996, Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and
Generators, and Test Method (1) of CSA Standard C390-93, Energy
Efficient Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction Motors.
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. 6291 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.
[[Page 54142]]
Average full load efficiency means the arithmetic mean of the full
load efficiencies of a population of electric motors of duplicate
design, where the full load 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, rated voltage, and rated frequency.
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 the 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 CSA International.
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, such as
those specified in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, Motors and
Generators, paragraph 14.03, ``Unusual Service Conditions,'' or for use
on a particular type of application, and which cannot be used in most
general purpose applications.
DOE or the Department means the Department of Energy.
Electric motor is defined as follows:
(1) ``Electric motor'' means a machine which converts electrical
power into rotational mechanical power and which:
(i) is a general purpose motor, including but not limited to motors
with explosion-proof construction;
(ii) is a single speed, induction motor (MG1);
(iii) is rated for continuous duty (MG1) operation, or is rated
duty type S1 (IEC);
(iv) contains a squirrel-cage (MG1) or cage (IEC) rotor, and has
foot-mounting, including foot-mounting with flanges or detachable feet;
(v) is built in accordance with NEMA T-frame dimensions (MG1), or
IEC metric equivalents (IEC);
(vi) has performance in accordance with NEMA Design A (MG1) or B
(MG1) characteristics, or equivalent designs such as IEC Design N
(IEC); and
(vii) operates on polyphase alternating current 60-Hertz sinusoidal
power, and:
(A) is 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
(B) can be operated on 230 volts or 460 volts, or both.
(2) Terms in this definition followed by the parenthetical ``MG1''
must be construed with reference to provisions in NEMA Standards
Publication MG1-1993, Motors and Generators, with Revisions 1, 2, 3 and
4, as follows:
(i) Section I, General Standards Applying to All Machines, Part 1,
Referenced Standards and Definitions, paragraphs 1.16.1, 1.16.1.1,
1.17.1.1, 1.17.1.2, and 1.40.1 pertain to the terms ``induction
motor,'' ``squirrel-cage,'' ``NEMA Design A,'' ``NEMA Design B,'' and
``continuous duty'' respectively;
(ii) Section I, General Standards Applying to All Machines, Part 4,
Dimensions, Tolerances, and Mounting, paragraph 4.01 and Figures 4-1,
4-2, 4-3, and 4-4 pertain to ``NEMA T-frame dimensions;''
(iii) Section II, Small (Fractional) and Medium (Integral)
Machines, Part 11, Dimensions--AC and DC Small and Medium Machines,
paragraphs 11.01.2, 11.31 (except the lines for frames 447T, 447TS,
449T and 449TS), 11.32, 11.34 (except the line for frames 447TC and
449TC, and the line for frames 447TSC and 449TSC), 11.35, and 11.36
(except the line for frames 447TD and 449TD, and the line for frames
447TSD and 449TSD), and Table 11-1, pertain to ``NEMA T-frame
dimensions;'' and
(iv) Section II, Small (Fractional) and Medium (Integral) Machines,
Part 12, Tests and Performance--AC and DC Motors, paragraphs 12.35.1,
12.35.5, 12.38.1, 12.39.1, and 12.40.1, and Table 12-2, pertain both to
``NEMA Design A'' and ``NEMA Design B.''
(3) Terms in this definition followed by the parenthetical ``IEC''
must be construed with reference to provisions in IEC Standards as
follows:
(i) IEC Standard 60034-1 (1996), Rotating electrical machines, Part
1: Rating and performance, with Amendment 1 (1997), Section 3: Duty,
clause 3.2.1 and figure 1 pertain to ``duty type S1'';
(ii) IEC Standard 60050-411 (1996), International Electrotechnical
Vocabulary Chapter 411: Rotating machines, sections 411-33-07 and 411-
37-26, pertain to ``cage'';
(iii) IEC Standard 60072-1 (1991), Dimensions and output series for
rotating electrical machines--Part 1: Frame numbers 56 to 400 and
flange numbers 55 to 1080, clauses 2, 3, 4.1, 6.1, 7, and 10, and
Tables 1, 2 and 4, pertain to ``IEC metric equivalents'' to ``T-frame''
dimensions; and
(iv) IEC Standard 60034-12 (1980), Rotating electrical machines,
Part 12: Starting performance of single-speed three-phase cage
induction motors for voltages up to and including 660 V, with Amendment
1 (1992) and Amendment 2 (1995), clauses 1, 2, 3.1, 4, 5, and 6, and
Tables I, II, and III, pertain to ``IEC Design N.''
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. 6291 et seq.).
General purpose motor means any motor which is designed in standard
ratings with either:
(1) Standard operating characteristics and standard 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, such as those
specified in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, paragraph 14.03,
``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.
IEEE means the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
Inc.
[[Page 54143]]
ISO means International Organization for Standardization.
Manufacture means to manufacture, produce, assemble, or import.
NEMA means the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
Nominal full load efficiency of an electric motor means a
representative value of efficiency selected from Column A of Table 12-
8, NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, that is not greater than the
average full load efficiency of a population of 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.
Secretary means the Secretary of the Department of Energy.
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.
Total power loss means that portion of the energy used by an
electric motor not converted to rotational mechanical power, expressed
in percent.
Appendix A to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 431, Policy Statement for
Electric Motors Covered Under the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act
This is a reprint of a policy statement which was published on
November 5, 1997 at 62 FR 59978.
Policy Statement for Electric Motors Covered Under the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act
I. Introduction
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. 6311, et
seq., establishes energy efficiency standards and test procedures for
certain commercial and industrial electric motors 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.\1\ EPCA also directs the Department of Energy
(DOE or Department) to implement the statutory test procedures
prescribed for motors, and to require efficiency labeling of motors and
certification that covered motors comply with the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term ``manufacture'' means ``to manufacture, produce,
assemble or import.'' EPCA section 321(10). Thus, the standards
apply to motors produced, assembled, imported or manufactured after
these statutory deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 340(13)(A) of EPCA defines the term ``electric motor''
based essentially on the construction and rating system in the National
Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Standards Publication MG1.
Sections 340(13)(B) and (C) of EPCA define the terms ``definite purpose
motor'' and ``special purpose motor,'' respectively, for which the
statute prescribes no efficiency standards.
In its proposed rule to implement the EPCA provisions that apply to
motors (61 FR 60440, November 27, 1996), DOE has proposed to clarify
the statutory definition of ``electric motor,'' to mean a machine which
converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power and which:
(1) is a general purpose motor, including motors with explosion-proof
construction; \2\ (2) is a single speed, induction motor; (3) is rated
for continuous duty operation, or is rated duty type S-1 (IEC) \3\; (4)
contains a squirrel-cage or cage (IEC) rotor; (5) has foot-mounting,
including foot-mounting with flanges or detachable feet; (6) is built
in accordance with NEMA T-frame dimensions, or IEC metric equivalents
(IEC); (7) has performance in accordance with NEMA Design A or B
characteristics, or equivalent designs such as IEC Design N (IEC); and
(8) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Section 342(b)(1) of EPCA recognizes that EPCA's efficiency
standards cover ``motors which require listing or certification by a
nationally recognized safety testing laboratory.'' This applies, for
example, to explosion-proof motors which are otherwise general
purpose motors.
\3\ Terms followed by the parenthetical ``IEC'' are referred to
in the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 34-
1. Such terms are included in DOE's proposed definition of
``electric motor'' because DOE believes EPCA's efficiency
requirements apply to metric system motors that conform to IEC
Standard 34, and that are identical or equivalent to motors
constructed in accordance with NEMA MG1 and covered by the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding the clarification provided in the proposed rule,
there still appears to be uncertainty as to which motors EPCA covers.
It is widely understood that the statute covers ``general purpose''
motors that are manufactured for a variety of applications, and that
meet EPCA's definition of ``electric motor.'' Many modifications,
however, can be made to such generic motors. Motor manufacturers have
expressed concern as to precisely which motors with such modifications
are covered under the statute, and as to whether manufacturers will be
able to comply with the statute by October 25, 1997 with respect to all
of these covered motors. Consequently, motor manufacturers have
requested that the Department provide additional guidance as to which
types of motors are ``electric motors,'' ``definite purpose motors,''
and ``special purpose motors'' under EPCA. The policy statement that
follows is based upon input from motor manufacturers and energy
efficiency advocates, and provides such guidance.
II. Guidelines for Determining Whether a Motor Is Covered by EPCA
A. General
EPCA specifies minimum nominal full-load energy efficiency
standards for 1 to 200 horsepower electric motors, and, to measure
compliance with those standards, prescribes use of the test procedures
in NEMA Standard MG1 and Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc., (IEEE) Standard 112. In DOE's view, as stated in
Assistant Secretary Ervin's letter of May 9, 1996, to NEMA's Malcolm
O'Hagan, until DOE's regulations become effective, manufacturers can
establish compliance with these EPCA requirements through use of
competent and reliable procedures or methods that give reasonable
assurance of such compliance. So long as these criteria are met,
manufacturers may conduct required testing in their own laboratories or
in independent laboratories, and may employ alternative correlation
methods (in lieu of actual testing) for some motors. Manufacturers may
also establish their compliance with EPCA standards and test procedures
through use of third party certification or verification programs such
as those recognized by Natural Resources Canada. Labeling and
certification requirements will become effective only after DOE has
promulgated a final rule prescribing such requirements.
Motors with features or characteristics that do not meet the
statutory definition of ``electric motor'' are not covered, and
therefore are not required to meet EPCA requirements. Examples include
motors without feet and without provisions for feet, and variable speed
motors operated on a variable frequency power supply. Similarly,
multispeed motors and variable speed motors, such as inverter duty
motors, are not covered equipment, based on their intrinsic design for
use at variable speeds. However, NEMA Design A or B motors that are
single speed, meet all other criteria under the definitions in EPCA for
covered
[[Page 54144]]
equipment, and can be used with an inverter in variable speed
applications as an additional feature, are covered equipment under
EPCA. In other words, being suitable for use on an inverter by itself
does not exempt a motor from EPCA requirements.
Section 340(13)(F) of EPCA, defines a ``small electric motor'' as
``a NEMA general purpose alternating current single-speed induction
motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with NEMA
Standards Publication MG 1-1987.'' Section 346 of EPCA requires DOE to
prescribe testing requirements and efficiency standards only for those
small electric motors for which the Secretary determines that standards
are warranted. The Department has not yet made such a determination.
B. Electrical Features
As noted above, the Department's proposed definition of ``electric
motor'' provides in part that it is a motor that ``operates on
polyphase alternating current 60-Hertz sinusoidal power, and * * * can
be operated on 230 volts or 460 volts, or both.'' In DOE's view, ``can
be operated'' implicitly means that the motor can be operated
successfully. According to NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993,
paragraph 12.44, ``Variations from Rated Voltage and Rated Frequency,''
alternating-current motors must operate successfully under running
conditions at rated load with a variation in the voltage or the
frequency up to the following: plus or minus 10 percent of rated
voltage, with rated frequency for induction motors; 4 plus
or minus 5 percent of rated frequency, with rated voltage; and a
combined variation in voltage and frequency of 10 percent (sum of
absolute values) of the rated values, provided the frequency variation
does not exceed plus or minus 5 percent of rated frequency. DOE
believes that, for purposes of determining whether a motor meets EPCA's
definition of ``electric motor,'' these criteria should be used to
determine when a motor that is not rated at 230 or 460 volts or 60
Hertz can be operated at such voltage and frequency.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For example, a motor that is rated at 220 volts should
operate successfully on 230 volts, since 220 + .10(220) = 242 volts.
A 208 volt motor, however, would not be expected to operate
successfully on 230 volts, since 208 + .10(208) = 228.8 volts.
\5\ The Department understands that a motor that can operate at
such voltage and frequency, based on variations defined for
successful operation, will not necessarily perform in accordance
with the industry standards established for operation at the motor's
rated voltage and frequency. In addition, under the test procedures
prescribed by EPCA, motors are to be tested at their rated values.
Therefore, in DOE's view a motor that is not rated for 230 or 460
volts, or 60 Hertz, but that can be successfully operated at these
levels, must meet the energy efficiency requirements at its rated
voltage(s) and frequency. DOE also notes that when a motor is rated
to include a wider voltage range that includes 230/460 volts, the
motor should meet the energy efficiency requirements at 230 volts or
460 volts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA Standards Publication MG1 categorizes electrical modifications
to motors according to performance characteristics that include locked
rotor torque, breakdown torque, pull-up torque, locked rotor current,
and slip at rated load, and assigns design letters, such as Design A,
B, C, D, or E, to identify various combinations of such electrical
performance characteristics. Under section 340(13)(A) of EPCA, electric
motors subject to EPCA efficiency requirements include only motors that
fall within NEMA ``Design A and B * * * as defined in [NEMA] Standards
Publication MG1-1987.'' As to locked rotor torque, for example, MG1
specifies a minimum performance value for a Design A or B motor of a
given speed and horsepower, and somewhat higher minimum values for
Design C and D motors of the same speed and horsepower. The Department
understands that, under MG1, the industry classifies a motor as Design
A or B if it has a locked rotor torque at or above the minimum for A
and B but below the minimum for Design C, so long as it otherwise meets
the criteria for Design A or B. Therefore, in the Department's view,
such a motor is covered by EPCA's requirements for electric motors. By
contrast a motor that meets or exceeds the minimum locked rotor torque
for Design C or D is not covered by EPCA. In sum, if a motor has
electrical modifications that meet Design A or B performance
requirements it is covered by EPCA, and if its characteristics meet
Design C, D or E it is not covered.
C. Size
Motors designed for use on a particular type of application which
are in a frame size that is one or more frame series larger than the
frame size assigned to that rating by sections 1.2 and 1.3 of NEMA
Standards Publication MG 13-1984 (R1990), ``Frame Assignments for
Alternating Current Integral-Horsepower Induction Motors,'' are not, in
the Department's view, usable in most general purpose applications.
This is due to the physical size increase associated with a frame
series change. A frame series is defined as the first two digits of the
frame size designation. For example, 324T and 326T are both in the same
frame series, while 364T is in the next larger frame series. Hence, in
the Department's view, a motor that is of a larger frame series than
normally assigned to that standard rating of motor is not covered by
EPCA. A physically larger motor within the same frame series would be
covered, however, because it would be usable in most general purpose
applications.
Motors built in a T-frame series or a T-frame size smaller than
that assigned by MG 13-1984 (R1990) are also considered usable in most
general purpose applications. This is because simple modifications can
generally be made to fit a smaller motor in place of a motor with a
larger frame size assigned in conformity with NEMA MG 13. Therefore,
DOE believes that such smaller motors are covered by EPCA.
D. Motors with Seals
Some electric motors have seals to prevent ingress of water, dust,
oil, and other foreign materials into the motor. DOE understands that,
typically, a manufacturer will add seals to a motor that it
manufactures, so that it will sell two motors that are identical except
that one has seals and the other does not. In such a situation, if the
motor without seals is ``general purpose'' and covered by EPCA's
efficiency requirements, then the motor with seals will also be covered
because it can still be used in most general purpose applications. DOE
understands, however, that manufacturers previously believed motors
with seals were not covered under EPCA, in part because IEEE Standard
112, ``Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators,''
prescribed by EPCA, does not address how to test a motor with seals
installed.
The efficiency rating of such a motor, if determined with seals
installed and when the motor is new, apparently would significantly
understate the efficiency of the motor as operated. New seals are
stiff, and provide friction that is absent after their initial break-in
period. DOE understands that, after this initial period, the efficiency
ratings determined for the same motor with and without seals would be
virtually identical. To construe EPCA, therefore, as requiring such
separate efficiency determinations would impose an unnecessary burden
on manufacturers.
In light of the foregoing, the Department believes that EPCA
generally permits the efficiency of a motor with seals to be determined
without the seals installed. Furthermore, notwithstanding the prior
belief that such motors are not covered by EPCA, use of this approach
to determining efficiency will enable manufacturers to meet EPCA's
standards
[[Page 54145]]
with respect to covered motors with seals by the date the standards go
into effect on October 25, 1997.
III. Discussion of How DOE Would Apply EPCA Definitions, Using the
Foregoing Guidelines
Using the foregoing guidelines, the attached matrix provides DOE's
view as to which motors with common features are covered by EPCA.
Because manufacturers produce many basic models that have many
modifications of generic general purpose motors, the Department does
not represent that the matrix is all-inclusive. Rather it is a set of
examples demonstrating how DOE would apply EPCA definitions, as
construed by the above guidelines, to various motor types. By extension
of these examples, most motors currently in production, or to be
designed in the future, could probably be classified. The matrix
classifies motors into five categories, which are discussed in the
following passages.
Category I--For ``electric motors'' (manufactured alone or as a
component of another piece of equipment) in Category I, DOE will
enforce EPCA efficiency standards and test procedures beginning on
October 25, 1997
The Department understands that some motors essentially are
relatively simple modifications of generic general purpose motors.
Modifications could consist, for example, of minor changes such as the
addition of temperature sensors or a heater, the addition of a shaft
extension and a brake disk from a kit, or changes in exterior features
such as the 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.
Category II--For certain motors that are ``definite purpose'' according
to present industry practice, but that can be used in most general
purpose applications, DOE will generally enforce EPCA efficiency
standards and test procedures beginning no later than October 25, 1999
General Statement
EPCA does not prescribe standards and test procedures for
``definite purpose motors.'' Section 340(13)(B) of EPCA defines the
term ``definite purpose motor'' as ``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.'' [Emphasis added.] Except,
significantly, for exclusion of the italicized language, the industry
definition of ``definite purpose motor,'' set forth in NEMA MG1, is
identical to the foregoing.
Category II consists of electric motors with horsepower ratings
that fall between the horsepower ratings in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA,
thermally protected motors, and motors with roller bearings. As with
motors in Category I, these motors are essentially modifications of
generic general purpose motors. Generally, however, the modifications
contained in these motors are more extensive and complex than the
modifications in Category I motors. These Category II motors have been
considered ``definite purpose'' in common industry parlance, but are
covered equipment under EPCA because they can be used in most general
purpose applications.
According to statements provided during the January 15, 1997,
Public Hearing, Tr. pgs. 238-239, Category II motors were, until
recently, viewed by most manufacturers as definite purpose motors,
consistent with the industry definition that did not contain the clause
``which cannot be used in most general purpose applications.'' Hence,
DOE understands that many manufacturers assumed these motors were not
subject to EPCA's efficiency standards. During the period prior and
subsequent to the hearing, discussions among manufacturers resulted in
a new understanding that such motors are general purpose under EPCA,
since they can be used in most general purpose applications. Thus, the
industry only recently recognized that such motors are covered under
EPCA. Although the statutory definition adopted in 1992 contained the
above-quoted definition of ``definite purpose,'' the delay in issuing
regulations which embody this definition may have contributed to
industry's delay in recognizing that these motors are covered.
The Department understands that redesign and testing these motors
in order to meet the efficiency standards in the statute may require a
substantial amount of time. Given the recent recognition that they are
covered, it is not realistic to expect these motors will be able to
comply by October 25, 1997. A substantial period beyond that will be
required. Moreover, the Department believes different manufacturers
will need to take different approaches to achieving compliance with
respect to these motors, and that, for a particular type of motor, some
manufacturers will be able to comply sooner than others. Thus, the
Department intends to refrain from taking enforcement action for two
years, until October 25, 1999, with respect to motors with horsepower
ratings that fall between the horsepower ratings in section 342(b)(1)
of EPCA, thermally protected motors, and motors with roller bearings.
Manufacturers are encouraged, however, to manufacture these motors in
compliance with EPCA at the earliest possible date.
The following sets forth in greater detail, for each of these types
of motors, the basis for the Department's policy to refrain from
enforcement for two years. Also set forth is additional explanation of
the Department's understanding as to why manufacturers previously
believed intermediate horsepower motors were not covered by EPCA.
Intermediate Horsepower Ratings
Section 342(b)(1) of EPCA specifies efficiency standards for
electric motors with 19 specific horsepower ratings, ranging from one
through 200 horsepower. Each is a preferred or standardized horsepower
rating as reflected in the table in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-
1993, paragraph 10.32.4, Polyphase Medium Induction Motors. However, an
``electric motor,'' as defined by EPCA, can be built at other
horsepower ratings, such as 6 horsepower, 65 horsepower, or 175
horsepower. Such motors, rated at horsepower levels between any two
adjacent horsepower ratings identified in section 342(b)(1) of EPCA
will be referred to as ``intermediate horsepower motors.'' In the
Department's view, efficiency standards apply to every motor that has a
rating from one through 200 horsepower (or kilowatt equivalents), and
that otherwise meets the criteria for an ``electric motor'' under EPCA,
including an electric motor with an intermediate horsepower (or kW)
rating.
To date, these motors have typically been designed in conjunction
with and supplied to a specific customer to fulfill certain performance
and design requirements of a particular application, as for example to
run a certain type of equipment. See the discussion in Section IV below
on ``original equipment'' and ``original equipment manufacturers.'' In
large part for these reasons, manufacturers believed intermediate
horsepower motors to be ``definite purpose motors'' that were not
covered by EPCA. Despite their specific uses, however, these motors are
electric motors under EPCA when they are capable of being used in most
general purpose applications.
Features of a motor that are directly related to its horsepower
rating include
[[Page 54146]]
its physical size, and the ratings of its controller and protective
devices. These aspects of a 175 horsepower motor, for example, which is
an intermediate horsepower motor, must be appropriate to that
horsepower, and would generally differ from the same aspects of 150 and
200 horsepower motors, the two standard horsepower ratings closest to
175. To re-design an existing intermediate horsepower electric motor so
that it complies with EPCA could involve all of these elements of a
motor's design. For example, the addition of material necessary to
achieve EPCA's prescribed level of efficiency could cause the size of
the motor to increase. The addition of magnetic material would invite
higher inrush current that could cause an incorrectly sized motor
controller to malfunction, or the circuit breaker with a standard
rating to trip unnecessarily, or both. The Department believes motor
manufacturers will require a substantial amount of time to redesign and
retest each intermediate horsepower electric motor they manufacture.
To the extent such intermediate horsepower electric motors become
unavailable because motor manufacturers have recognized only recently
that they are covered by EPCA, equipment in which they are incorporated
would temporarily become unavailable also. Moreover, re-design of such
a motor to comply with EPCA could cause changes in the motor that
require re-design of the equipment in which the motor is used. For
example, if an intermediate horsepower electric motor becomes larger,
it might no longer fit in the equipment for which it was designed. In
such instances, the equipment would have to be re-designed. Because
these motors were previously thought not to be covered, equipment
manufacturers may not have had sufficient lead time to make the
necessary changes to the equipment without interrupting its production.
With respect to intermediate horsepower motors, the Department
intends to refrain from enforcing EPCA for a period of 24 months only
as to such motor designs that were being manufactured prior to the date
this Policy Statement was issued. The Department is concerned that
small adjustments could be made to the horsepower rating of an existing
electric motor, in an effort to delay compliance with EPCA, if it
delayed enforcement as to all intermediate horsepower motors produced
during the 24 month period. For example, a 50 horsepower motor that has
a service factor of 1.15 could be renameplated as a 57\1/2\ horsepower
motor that has a 1.0 service factor. By making this delay in
enforcement applicable only to pre-existing designs of intermediate
horsepower motors, the Department believes it has made adequate
provision for the manufacture of bona fide intermediate horsepower
motor designs that cannot be changed to be in compliance with EPCA by
October 25, 1997.
Thermally Protected Motors
The Department understands that in order to redesign a thermally
protected motor to improve its efficiency so that it complies with
EPCA, various changes in the windings must be made which will require
the thermal protector to be re-selected. Such devices sense the inrush
and running current of the motor, as well as the operating temperature.
Any changes to a motor that affect these characteristics will prevent
the protector from operating correctly. When a new protector is
selected, the motor must be tested to verify proper operation of the
device in the motor. The motor manufacturer would test the locked rotor
and overload conditions, which could take several days, and the results
may dictate that a second selection is needed with additional testing.
When the manufacturer has finished testing, typically the manufacturer
will have a third party conduct additional testing. This testing may
include cycling the motor in a locked-rotor condition to verify that
the protector functions properly. This testing may take days or even
weeks to perform for a particular model of motor.
Since it was only recently recognized by industry that these motors
are covered by EPCA, in the Department's view the total testing program
makes it impossible for manufacturers to comply with the EPCA
efficiency levels in thermally protected motors by October 25, 1997,
especially since each different motor winding must be tested and motor
winding/thermal protector combinations number in the thousands.
Motors With Roller Bearings
Motors with roller bearings fit within the definition of electric
motor under the statute. However, because the IEEE Standard 112 Test
Method B does not provide measures to test motors with roller bearings
installed, manufacturers mistakenly believed such motors were not
covered. Under IEEE Standard 112, a motor with roller bearings could
only be tested for efficiency with the roller bearings removed and
standard ball bearings installed as temporary substitutes. Then on the
basis of the energy efficiency information gained from that test, the
manufacturer may need to redesign the motor in order to comply with the
statute. In this situation, the Department understands that testing,
redesigning, and retesting lines of motors with roller bearings, to
establish compliance, would be difficult and time consuming.
Categories III, IV and V--Motors not within EPCA's definition of
``electric motor,'' and not covered by EPCA
Close-coupled Pump Motors
NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, with revisions one through
three, Part 18, ``Definite-Purpose Machines,'' defines ``a face-
mounting close-coupled pump motor'' as ``a medium alternating-current
squirrel-cage induction open or totally enclosed motor, with or without
feet, having a shaft suitable for mounting an impeller and sealing
device.'' Paragraphs MG1-18.601-18.614 specify its performance, face
and shaft mounting dimensions, and frame assignments that replace the
suffix letters T and TS with the suffix letters JM and JP.
The Department understands that such motors are designed in
standard ratings with standard operating characteristics for use in
certain close-coupled pumps and pumping applications, but cannot be
used in non-pumping applications, such as, for example, conveyors.
Consequently, the Department believes close-coupled pump motors are
definite-purpose motors not covered by EPCA. However, a motor that
meets EPCA's definition of ``electric motor,'' and which can be coupled
to a pump, for example by means of a C-face or D-flange endshield, as
depicted in NEMA Standards Publication MG1, Part 4, ``Dimensions,
Tolerances, and Mounting,'' is covered.
Totally-enclosed Non-ventilated (TENV) and Totally-enclosed Air-over
(TEAO) Motors
A motor designated in NEMA MG1-1993, paragraph MG1-1.26.1, as
``totally-enclosed non-ventilated (IP54, IC410)'' 6 is ``not
equipped for cooling by means external to the enclosing parts.'' This
means that the motor, when properly applied, does not require the use
of any additional means of cooling
[[Page 54147]]
installed external to the motor enclosure. The TENV motor is cooled by
natural conduction and natural convection of the motor heat into the
surrounding environment. As stated in NEMA MG1-1993, Suggested Standard
for Future Design, paragraph MG1-1.26.1a, a TENV motor ``is only
equipped for cooling by free convection.'' The general requirement for
the installation of the TENV motor is that it not be placed in a
restricted space that would inhibit this natural dissipation of the
motor heat. Most general purpose applications use motors which include
a means for forcing air flow through or around the motor and usually
through the enclosed space and, therefore, can be used in spaces that
are more restrictive than those required for TENV motors. Placing a
TENV motor in such common restricted areas is likely to cause the motor
to overheat. The TENV motor may also be larger than the motors used in
most general purpose applications, and would take up more of the
available space, thus reducing the size of the open area surrounding
the motor. Installation of a TENV motor might require, therefore, an
additional means of ventilation to continually exchange the ambient
around the motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ IP refers to the IEC Standard 34-5: Classification of
degrees of protection provided by enclosures for rotating machines.
IC refers to the IEC Standard 34-6: Methods of cooling rotating
machinery. The IP and IC codes are referenced in the NEMA
designations for TENV and TEAO motors in MG1-1993 Part 1,
``Classification According to Environmental Protection and Methods
of Cooling,'' as a Suggested Standard for Future Design, since the
TENV and TEAO motors conform to IEC Standards. Details of protection
(IP) and methods of cooling (IC) are defined in MG1 Part 5 and Part
6, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A motor designated in NEMA MG1-1993 as ``totally-enclosed air-over
(IP54, IC417)'' is intended to be cooled by ventilation means external
to (i.e., separate and independent from) the motor, such as a fan. The
motor must be provided with the additional ventilation to prevent it
from overheating.
Consequently, neither the TENV motor nor the TEAO motor would be
suitable for most general purpose applications, and, DOE believes they
are definite-purpose motors not covered by EPCA.
Integral Gearmotors
An ``integral gearmotor'' is an assembly of a motor and a specific
gear drive or assembly of gears, such as a gear reducer, as a unified
package. The motor portion of an integral gearmotor is not necessarily
a complete motor, since the end bracket or mounting flange of the motor
portion is also part of the gear assembly and cannot be operated when
separated from the complete gear assembly. Typically, an integral
gearmotor is not manufactured to standard T-frame dimensions specified
in NEMA MG1. Moreover, neither the motor portion, nor the entire
integral gearmotor, are capable of being used in most general purpose
applications without significant modifications. An integral gearmotor
is also designed for a specific purpose and can have unique performance
characteristics, physical dimensions, and casing, flange and shafting
configurations. Consequently, integral gearmotors are outside the scope
of the EPCA definition of ``electric motor'' and are not covered under
EPCA.
However, an ``electric motor,'' as defined by EPCA, which is
connected to a stand alone mechanical gear drive or an assembly of
gears, such as a gear reducer connected by direct coupling, belts,
bolts, a kit, or other means, is covered equipment under EPCA.
IV. Electric Motors That Are Components in Certain Equipment
The primary function of an electric motor is to convert electrical
energy to mechanical energy which then directly drives machinery such
as pumps, fans, or compressors. Thus, an electric motor is always
connected to a driven machine or apparatus. Typically the motor is
incorporated into a finished product such as an air conditioner, a
refrigerator, a machine tool, food processing equipment, or other
commercial or industrial machinery. These products are commonly known
as ``original equipment'' or ``end-use equipment,'' and are
manufactured by firms known as ``original equipment manufacturers''
(OEMs).
Many types of motors used in original equipment are covered under
EPCA. As noted above, EPCA prescribes efficiency standards to be met by
all covered electric motors manufactured after October 24, 1997, except
that covered motors which require listing or certification by a
nationally recognized safety testing laboratory need not meet the
standards until after October 24, 1999. Thus, for motors that must
comply after October 24, 1997, once inventories of motors manufactured
before the deadline have been exhausted, only complying motors would be
available for purchase and use by OEMs in manufacturing original
equipment. Any non-complying motors previously included in such
equipment would no longer be available.
The physical, and sometimes operational, characteristics of motors
that meet EPCA efficiency standards normally differ from the
characteristics of comparable existing motors that do not meet those
standards. In part because of such differences, the Department is aware
of two types of situations where strict application of the October 24,
1997 deadline could temporarily prevent the manufacture of, and remove
from the marketplace, currently available original equipment.
One such situation is where an original equipment manufacturer uses
an electric motor as a component in end-use equipment that requires
listing or certification by a nationally recognized safety testing
laboratory, even though the motor itself does not require listing or
certification. In some of these instances, the file for listing or
certification specifies the particular motor to be used. No
substitution could be made for the motor without review and approval of
the new motor and the entire system by the safety testing laboratory.
Consequently, a specified motor that does not meet EPCA standards could
not be replaced by a complying motor without such review and approval.
This re-listing or re-certification process is subject to
substantial variation from one piece of original equipment to the next.
For some equipment, it could be a simple paperwork transaction between
the safety listing or certification organization and the OEM, taking
approximately four to eight weeks to complete. But the process could
raise more complex system issues involving redesign of the motor or
piece of equipment, or both, and actual testing to assure that safety
and performance criteria are met, and could take several months to
complete. The completion time could also vary depending on the response
time of the particular safety approval agency. Moreover, in the period
immediately after October 24, the Department believes wholesale changes
could occur in equipment lines when OEMs must begin using motors that
comply with EPCA. These changes are likely to be concentrated in the
period immediately after EPCA goes into effect on October 24, and if
many OEMs seek to re-list or re-certify equipment at the same time,
substantial delays in the review and approval process at the safety
approval agencies could occur. For these reasons, the Department is
concerned that certain end-user equipment that requires safety listing
or certification could become unavailable in the marketplace, because
an electric motor specifically identified in a listing or certification
is covered by EPCA and will become unavailable, and the steps have not
been completed to obtain safety approval of the equipment when
manufactured with a complying motor.
Second, a situation could exist where an electric motor covered by
EPCA is constructed in a T-frame series or T-frame size that is smaller
(but still standard) than that assigned by NEMA Standards Publication
MG 13-1984 (R1990), sections 1.2 and 1.3, in order to fit into a
restricted mounting space that is within certain end-use equipment.
(Motors in IEC metric frame sizes and kilowatt ratings could also be
[[Page 54148]]
involved in this type of situation.) In such cases, the manufacturer of
the end-use equipment might need to redesign the equipment containing
the mounting space to accommodate a larger motor that complies with
EPCA. These circumstances as well could result in certain currently
available equipment becoming temporarily unavailable in the market,
since the smaller size motor would become unavailable before the
original equipment had been re-designed to accommodate the larger,
complying motor.
The Department understands that many motor manufacturers and OEMs
became aware only recently that the electric motors addressed in the
preceding paragraphs were covered by EPCA. This is largely for the same
reasons, discussed above, that EPCA coverage of Category II motors was
only recently recognized. In addition, the Department understands that
some motor manufacturers and original equipment manufacturers confused
motors that themselves require safety listing or certification, which
need not comply until October 25, 1999, with motors that, while not
subject to such requirements, are included in original equipment that
requires safety listing or certification. Consequently, motor
manufacturers and original equipment manufacturers took insufficient
action to assure that appropriate complying motors would be available
for the original equipment involved, and that the equipment could
accommodate such motors. OEMs involved in such situations may often be
unable to switch to motors that meet EPCA standards in the period
immediately following October 24. To mitigate any hardship to
purchasers of the original equipment, the Department intends to refrain
from enforcing EPCA in certain limited circumstances, under the
conditions described below.
Where a particular electric motor is specified in an approved
safety listing or certification for a piece of original equipment, and
the motor does not meet the applicable efficiency standard in EPCA, the
Department's policy will be as follows: For the period of time
necessary for the OEM to obtain a revised safety listing or
certification for that piece of equipment, with a motor specified that
complies with EPCA, but in no event beyond October 24, 1999, the
Department would refrain from taking enforcement action under EPCA with
respect to manufacture of the motor for installation in such original
equipment. This policy would apply only where the motor has been
manufactured and specified in the approved safety listing or
certification prior to October 25, 1997.
Where a particular electric motor is used in a piece of original
equipment and manufactured in a smaller than assigned frame size or
series, and the motor does not meet the applicable efficiency standard
in EPCA, the Department's policy will be as follows: For the period of
time necessary for the OEM to re-design the piece of equipment to
accommodate a motor that complies with EPCA, but in no event beyond
October 24, 1999, the Department would refrain from enforcing the
standard with respect to manufacture of the motor for installation in
such original equipment. This policy would apply only to a model of
motor that has been manufactured and included in the original equipment
prior to October 25, 1997.
To allow the Department to monitor application of the policy set
forth in the prior two paragraphs, the Department needs to be informed
as to the motors being manufactured under the policy. Therefore, each
motor manufacturer and OEM should jointly notify the Department as to
each motor they will be manufacturing and using, respectively, after
October 24, 1997, in the belief that it is covered by the policy. The
notification should set forth: (1) the name of the motor manufacturer,
and a description of the motor by type, model number, and date of
design or production; (2) the name of the original equipment
manufacturer, and a description of the application where the motor is
to be used; (3) the safety listing or safety certification organization
and the existing listing or certification file or document number for
which re-listing or re-certification will be requested, if applicable;
(4) the reason and amount of time required for continued production of
the motor, with a statement that a substitute electric motor that
complies with EPCA could not be obtained by an earlier date; and (5)
the name, address, and telephone number of the person to contact for
further information. The joint request should be signed by a
responsible official of each requesting company, and sent to: U.S.
Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Office of Building Research and Standards, EE-41,
Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 1J-018,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. The Department does not intend to apply this
policy to any motor for which it does not receive such a notification.
Moreover, the Department may use the notification, and make further
inquiries, to be sure motors listed in the notification meet the
criteria for application of the policy.
This part of the Policy Statement will not apply to a motor in
Category II, discussed above in section III. Because up to 24 months is
contemplated for compliance by Category II motors, the Department
believes any issues that might warrant a delay of enforcement for such
motors can be addressed during that time period.
V. Further Information
The Department intends to incorporate this Policy Statement into an
appendix to its final rule to implement the EPCA provisions that apply
to motors. Any comments or suggestions with respect to this Policy
Statement, as well as requests for further information, should be
addressed to the Director, Office of Building Research and Standards,
EE-41, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC 20585-0121.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 54149]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.000
[[Page 54150]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.001
[[Page 54151]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.002
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
[[Page 54152]]
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) The following provisions of National Electrical Manufacturers
Association Standards Publication MG1-1993, Motors and Generators, with
Revisions 1, 2, 3 and 4:
(A) Section I, General Standards Applying to All Machines, Part 1,
Referenced Standards and Definitions, paragraphs 1.16.1, 1.16.1.1,
1.17.1.1, 1.17.1.2, and 1.40.1;
(B) Section I, General Standards Applying to All Machines, Part 4,
Dimensions, Tolerances, and Mounting, paragraph 4.01 and Figures 4-1,
4-2, 4-3, and 4-4;
(C) Section II, Small (Fractional) and Medium (Integral) Machines,
Part 11, Dimensions-AC and DC Small and Medium Machines, paragraphs
11.01.2, 11.31 (except the lines for frames 447T, 447TS, 449T and
449TS), 11.32, 11.34 (except the line for frames 447TC and 449TC, and
the line for frames 447TSC and 449TSC), 11.35, and 11.36 (except the
line for frames 447TD and 449TD, and the line for frames 447TSD and
449TSD), and Table 11-1;
(D) Section II, Small (Fractional) and Medium (Integral) Machines,
Part 12, Tests and Performance-AC and DC Motors, paragraphs 12.35.1,
12.35.5, 12.38.1, 12.39.1, and 12.40.1, 12.58.1, and Tables 12-2 and
12-8; and
(E) Section II, Small (Fractional) and Medium (Integral) Machines,
Part 14, Application Data-AC and DC Small and Medium Machines,
paragraphs 14.02 and 14.03.
(ii) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
Standard 112-1996, Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and
Generators, Test Method B, and the correction to the calculation at
item (28) in section 10.2 Form B-Test Method B issued by IEEE on
January 20, 1998. (Note: Paragraph 2 of Appendix A to Subpart B of Part
431 sets forth modifications to this Standard when it is used for
purposes of Part 431 and EPCA.)
(iii) CSA International Standard C390-93, Energy Efficiency Test
Methods for Three-Phase Induction Motors, Test Method (1).
(iv) International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60034-1
(1996), Rotating electrical machines, Part 1: Rating and performance,
with Amendment 1 (1997), Section 3: Duty, clause 3.2.1 and figure 1.
(v) International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60050-411
(1996), International Electrotechnical Vocabulary Chapter 411: Rotating
machines, sections 411-33-07 and 411-37-26.
(vi) International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60072-1
(1991), Dimensions and output series for rotating electrical machines--
Part 1: Frame numbers 56 to 400 and flange numbers 55 to 1080, clauses
2, 3, 4.1, 6.1, 7, and 10, and Tables 1, 2 and 4.
(vii) International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60034-12
(1980), Rotating electrical machines, Part 12: Starting performance of
single-speed three-phase cage induction motors for voltages up to and
including 660 V, with Amendment 1 (1992) and Amendment 2 (1995),
clauses 1, 2, 3.1, 4, 5, and 6, and Tables I, II, and III.
(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.
(4) Availability of standards. Standards incorporated by reference
may be obtained from the following sources:
(i) Copies of IEEE Standard 112-1996 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;
(ii) Copies of NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993 with Revisions
1, 2, 3, and 4, and copies of International Electrotechnical Commission
standards can be obtained from Global Engineering Documents, 15
Inverness Way East, Englewood, Colorado 80112-5776, 1-800-854-7179
(within the U.S.) or (303) 397-7956 (international).
(iii) Copies of CSA International Standard C390-93 can be obtained
from CSA International, 178 Rexdale Boulevard, Etobicoke (Toronto),
Ontario, Canada M9W 1R3, (416) 747-4044;
(b) Reference Standards.--(1) General. The standards listed in this
paragraph are referred to in the DOE procedures for testing
laboratories, and recognition of accreditation bodies and certification
programs but are not incorporated by reference. These sources are given
here for information and guidance.
(2) List of References.
(i) National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program Handbooks
150, ``Procedures and General Requirements,'' March 1994, and 150-10,
``Efficiency of Electric Motors,'' August 1995. National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
(ii) ISO/IEC Guide 25, ``General requirements for the competence of
calibration and testing laboratories.''
(iii) 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.''
(iv) ISO/IEC Guide 28, ``General rules for a model third-party
certification system for products.''
(v) ISO/IEC Guide 58, ``Calibration and testing laboratory
accreditation systems--General requirements for operation and
recognition.''
(vi) ISO/IEC Guide 65, ``General requirements for bodies operating
product certification systems.''
Sec. 431.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy efficiency.
For purposes of 10 CFR Part 431 and EPCA, the test procedures for
measuring the energy efficiency of an electric motor shall be the test
procedures specified in appendix A to this subpart B.
Sec. 431.24 Determination of efficiency.
When a party determines the energy efficiency of an electric motor
in order
[[Page 54153]]
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) Provisions applicable to all electric motors.
(1) General Requirements. The average full load efficiency of each
basic model of electric motor must be determined either by testing in
accordance with Sec. 431.23 of this subpart, or by application of an
alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) that meets the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(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.
(2) Alternative efficiency determination method. An AEDM applied to
a basic model must be:
(i) Derived from a mathematical model that 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 tested in accordance with Sec. 431.23 of this subpart, 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 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)(2) 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 qualified to perform an evaluation of electric motor efficiency in a
highly competent manner and 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
Secs. 431.24(a)(3) and (a)(4)(i); and the calculations used to
determine the average full load efficiency and total power losses of
each basic model to which the 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.
(5) Use of a certification program or accredited laboratory.
(i) A manufacturer may have a certification program, that DOE has
classified as nationally recognized under Sec. 431.27, certify the
nominal full load efficiency of a basic model of electric motor, and
issue a certificate of conformity for the motor.
(ii) For each basic model for which a certification program is not
used as described in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section, any testing
of the motor pursuant to Sec. 431.24(a)(1) through (3) to determine its
energy efficiency must be carried out in accordance with
Sec. 431.24(b), in an accredited laboratory that meets the requirements
of Sec. 431.25. (This includes testing of the basic model, pursuant to
Sec. 431.24(a)(3)(i), to substantiate an AEDM.)
(b) Additional testing requirements applicable when a certification
program is not used.
(1) Selection of basic models for testing.
(i) Basic models must 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, or during the prior 12 calendar month period beginning in
1997, 1 whichever is later;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In identifying these five basic models, any electric motor
that does not comply with Sec. 431.42, shall be excluded from
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) The basic models should be of different horsepowers without
duplication;
(C) The basic models should be of different frame number series
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
(``rating'' as used here has the same meaning as it has in the
definition of ``basic model'').
(ii) In any instance where it is impossible for a manufacturer to
select basic models for testing in accordance with all of these
criteria, 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.
(2) Selection of units for testing. For each basic model selected
for testing,2 a sample of units shall be selected at random
and tested. The sample shall be comprised of production units of the
basic model, or units that are representative of such production units.
The sample size shall be not fewer than five units, except that when
fewer than five units of a basic model would be produced over a
reasonable period of time (approximately 180 days), then each unit
shall be tested. In a test of compliance with a represented average or
nominal efficiency:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) The average full-load efficiency of the sample X which is
defined by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.003
where Xi is the measured full-load efficiency of unit i and
n is the number of units tested, shall satisfy the condition:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.004
where RE is the represented nominal full-load efficiency, and
(ii) The lowest full-load efficiency in the sample Xmin,
which is defined by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.005
shall satisfy the condition
[[Page 54154]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.006
(3) Substantiation of an alternative efficiency determination
method. The basic models tested under Sec. 431.24(a)(3)(i) must be
selected for testing in accordance with paragraph (b)(1), and units of
each such basic model must be tested in accordance with paragraph
(b)(2) by an accredited laboratory that meets the requirements of
Sec. 431.25.
Sec. 431.25 Testing laboratories.
(a) Testing pursuant to Sec. 431.24(a)(5)(ii) must be conducted in
an accredited laboratory for which the accreditation body was:
(1) The National Institute of Standards and Technology/National
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NIST/NVLAP), or
(2) A laboratory accreditation body having a mutual recognition
arrangement with NIST/NVLAP, or
(3) An organization classified by the Department, pursuant to
section 431.26, as an accreditation body.
(b) NIST/NVLAP is under the auspices of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) which is part of the U.S. Department of
Commerce. NIST/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 15 CFR Part 285 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations plus
all general NIST/NVLAP procedures, criteria, and policies. Changes in
NIST/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.
Copies of NIST Handbooks 150 and 150-10 and information regarding NIST/
NVLAP and its Efficiency of Electric Motors Program (EEM) can be
obtained from NIST/NVLAP, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2140,
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140, telephone (301) 975-4016, or telefax (301)
926-2884.
Sec. 431.26 Department of Energy recognition of accreditation bodies.
(a) Petition. To be classified by the Department of Energy as an
accreditation body, an organization must submit a petition to the
Department requesting such classification, in accordance with paragraph
(c) of this section and Sec. 431.28 of this part. The petition must
demonstrate that the organization 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 satisfactory standards and procedures for
conducting and administering an accreditation system and for granting
accreditation. This must include provisions for periodic audits to
verify that the laboratories receiving its accreditation continue to
conform to the criteria by which they were initially accredited, and
for withdrawal of accreditation where such conformance does not occur,
including failure to provide accurate test results.
(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 112-1996 Test Method B
and CSA Standard C390-93 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
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 112-1996 Test Method B and CSA
Standard C390-93 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 in
accordance with section 431.28, and will determine whether the
applicant meets the criteria in paragraph (b) of this section to be
classified as an accrediting body.
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 submit a
petition to the Department requesting such classification, in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section and section 431.28 of
this part. The petition must demonstrate that the program meets the
criteria in paragraph (b) of this section.
[[Page 54155]]
(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 satisfactory standards and procedures for
conducting and administering a certification system, including periodic
follow up activities to assure that basic models of electric motor
continue to conform to the efficiency levels for which they were
certified, 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 112-1996 Test Method B
and CSA Standard C390-93 Test Method (1), or similar procedures and
methodologies for determining the energy efficiency of electric motors.
It must have satisfactory criteria and procedures for the selection and
sampling of electric motors tested for energy efficiency.
(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 112-1996 Test Method B and CSA Standard
C390-93 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 in
accordance with Sec. 431.28, and will determine whether the applicant
meets the criteria in paragraph (b) of this section for classification
as a nationally recognized certification program.
Sec. 431.28 Procedures for recognition and withdrawal of recognition
of accreditation bodies and certification programs.
(a) Filing of petition. Any petition submitted to the Department
pursuant to Sec. 431.26(a) or 431.27(a) of this part, shall be entitled
``Petition for Recognition'' (``Petition'') and must be submitted, in
triplicate to the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, United States Department of Energy, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585. In accordance with the provisions set
forth in 10 CFR 1004.11, any request for confidential treatment of any
information contained in such a Petition or in supporting documentation
must be accompanied by a copy of the Petition or supporting
documentation from which the information claimed to be confidential has
been deleted.
(b) Public notice and solicitation of comments. DOE shall publish
in the Federal Register the Petition from which confidential
information, as determined by DOE, has been deleted in accordance with
10 CFR 1004.11 and shall solicit comments, data and information on
whether the Petition should be granted. The Department shall also make
available for inspection and copying the Petition's supporting
documentation from which confidential information, as determined by
DOE, has been deleted in accordance with 10 CFR 1004.11. Any person
submitting written comments to DOE with respect to a Petition shall
also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner.
(c) Responsive statement by the petitioner. A petitioner may,
within 10 working days of receipt of a copy of any comments submitted
in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, respond to such
comments in a written statement submitted to the Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. A petitioner may address
more than one set of comments in a single responsive statement.
(d) Public announcement of interim determination and solicitation
of comments. The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy shall issue an interim determination on the Petition
as soon as is practicable following receipt and review of the Petition
and other applicable documents, including, but not limited to, comments
and responses to comments. The petitioner shall be notified in writing
of the interim determination. DOE shall also publish in the Federal
Register the interim determination and shall solicit comments, data and
information with respect to that interim determination. Written
comments and responsive statements may be submitted as provided in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(e) Public announcement of final determination. The Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy shall as soon as
practicable, following receipt and review of comments and responsive
statements on the interim determination, publish in the Federal
Register a notice of final determination on the Petition.
(f) Additional information. The Department may, at any time during
the
[[Page 54156]]
recognition process, request additional relevant information or conduct
an investigation concerning the Petition. The Department's
determination on a Petition may be based solely on the Petition and
supporting documents, or may also be based on such additional
information as the Department deems appropriate.
(g) Withdrawal of recognition.
(1) Withdrawal by the Department. If the Department believes that
an accreditation body or certification program that has been recognized
under Sec. 431.26 or 431.27, respectively, is failing to meet the
criteria of paragraph (b) of the section under which it is recognized,
the Department will so advise such entity and request that it take
appropriate corrective action. The Department will give the entity an
opportunity to respond. If after receiving such response, or no
response, the Department believes satisfactory correction has not been
made, the Department will withdraw its recognition from that entity.
(2) Voluntary withdrawal. An accreditation body or certification
program may withdraw itself from recognition by the Department by
advising the Department in writing of such withdrawal. It must also
advise those that use it (for an accreditation body, the testing
laboratories, and for a certification organization, the manufacturers)
of such withdrawal.
(3) Notice of withdrawal of recognition. The Department will
publish in the Federal Register a notice of any withdrawal of
recognition that occurs pursuant to this paragraph (g).
Sec. 431.29 Petitions for waiver, and applications for interim waiver,
of test procedure.
(a) General criteria.
(1) Any interested person may submit a petition to waive for a
particular basic model any requirements of Sec. 431.23 of this subpart,
upon the grounds that either the basic model contains one or more
design characteristics which either prevent testing of the basic model
according to the prescribed test procedures, or the prescribed test
procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative
of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially
inaccurate comparative data.
(2) Any interested person who has submitted a Petition for Waiver
as provided in this subpart may also file an Application for Interim
Waiver of the applicable test procedure requirements.
(b) Submission, content, and publication.
(1) A Petition for Waiver must be submitted, in triplicate, to the
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, United
States Department of Energy. Each Petition for Waiver shall:
(i) Identify the particular basic model(s) for which a waiver is
requested, the design characteristic(s) constituting the grounds for
the petition, and the specific requirements sought to be waived and
shall discuss in detail the need for the requested waiver;
(ii) Identify manufacturers of all other basic models marketed in
the United States and known to the petitioner to incorporate similar
design characteristic(s);
(iii) Include any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner
to evaluate in a manner representative of the energy consumption
characteristics of the basic model; and
(iv) Be signed by the petitioner or by an authorized
representative. In accordance with the provisions set forth in 10 CFR
1004.11, any request for confidential treatment of any information
contained in a Petition for Waiver or in supporting documentation must
be accompanied by a copy of the petition, application or supporting
documentation from which the information claimed to be confidential has
been deleted. DOE shall publish in the Federal Register the petition
and supporting documents from which confidential information, as
determined by DOE, has been deleted in accordance with 10 CFR 1004.11
and shall solicit comments, data and information with respect to the
determination of the petition.
(2) An Application for Interim Waiver must be submitted in
triplicate, with the required three copies of the Petition for Waiver,
to the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
U.S. Department of Energy. Each Application for Interim Waiver shall
reference the Petition for Waiver by identifying the particular basic
model(s) for which a waiver and temporary exception are being sought.
Each Application for Interim Waiver shall demonstrate likely success of
the Petition for Waiver and shall address what economic hardship and/or
competitive disadvantage is likely to result absent a favorable
determination on the Application for Interim Waiver. Each Application
for Interim Waiver shall be signed by the applicant or by an authorized
representative.
(c) Notification to other manufacturers.
(1) Each petitioner, after filing a Petition for Waiver with DOE,
and after the Petition for Waiver has been published in the Federal
Register, must, within five working days of such publication, notify in
writing all known manufacturers of domestically marketed units of the
same product type (as listed in section 340(1) of the Act) and must
include in the notice a statement that DOE has published in the Federal
Register on a certain date the Petition for Waiver and supporting
documents from which confidential information, if any, as determined by
DOE, has been deleted in accordance with 10 CFR 1004.11. Each
petitioner, in complying with the requirements of this paragraph, must
file with DOE a statement certifying the names and addresses of each
person to whom a notice of the Petition for Waiver has been sent.
(2) Each applicant for Interim Waiver, whether filing jointly with,
or subsequent to, a Petition for Waiver with DOE, must concurrently
notify in writing all known manufacturers of domestically marketed
units of the same product type (as listed in Section 340(1) of the Act)
and must include in the notice a copy of the Petition for Waiver and a
copy of the Application for Interim Waiver. In complying with this
section, each applicant must in the written notification include a
statement that the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy will receive and consider timely written comments on
the Application for Interim Waiver. Each applicant, upon filing an
Application for Interim Waiver, must in complying with the requirements
of this paragraph certify to DOE that a copy of these documents have
been sent to all known manufacturers of domestically marked units of
the same product type (as listed in section 340(1) of the Act). Such
certification must include the names and addresses of such persons.
Each applicant also must comply with the provisions of paragraph (c)(1)
of this section with respect to the petition for waiver.
(d) Comments; responses to comments.
(1) Any person submitting written comments to DOE with respect to
an Application for Interim Waiver must also send a copy of the comments
to the applicant.
(2) Any person submitting written comments to DOE with the respect
to a Petition for Waiver must also send a copy of such comments to the
petitioner. In accordance with subparagraph (b)(1) of this section, a
petitioner may submit a rebuttal statement to the Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[[Page 54157]]
(e) Provisions specific to interim waivers.
(1) Disposition of application. If administratively feasible,
applicant will be notified in writing of the disposition of the
Application for Interim Waiver within 15 business days of receipt of
the application. Notice of DOE's determination on the Application for
Interim Waiver must be published in the Federal Register.
(2) Consequences of filing application. The filing of an
Application for Interim Waiver shall not constitute grounds for
noncompliance with any requirements of this subpart, until an Interim
Waiver has been granted.
(3) Criteria for granting. An Interim Waiver from test procedure
requirements will be granted by the Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy if it is determined that the applicant
will experience economic hardship if the Application for Interim Waiver
is denied, if it appears likely that the Petition for Waiver will be
granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary determines that it would be
desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a
determination on the Petition for Waiver.
(4) Duration. An interim waiver will terminate 180 days after
issuance or upon the determination on the Petition for Waiver,
whichever occurs first. An interim waiver may be extended by DOE for
180 days. Notice of such extension and/or any modification of the terms
or duration of the interim waiver shall be published in the Federal
Register, and shall be based on relevant information contained in the
record and any comments received subsequent to issuance of the interim
waiver.
(f) Provisions specific to waivers.--(1) Rebuttal by petitioner.
Following publication of the Petition for Waiver in the Federal
Register, a petitioner may, within 10 working days of receipt of a copy
of any comments submitted in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, submit a rebuttal statement to the Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. A petitioner may rebut more
than one response in a single rebuttal statement.
(2) Disposition of petition. The petitioner will be notified in
writing as soon as practicable of the disposition of each Petition for
Waiver. The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy will issue a decision on the petition as soon as is practicable
following receipt and review of the Petition for Waiver and other
applicable documents, including, but not limited to, comments and
rebuttal statements.
(3) Consequence of filing petition. The filing of a Petition for
Waiver will not constitute grounds for noncompliance with any
requirements of this subpart, until a waiver or interim waiver has been
granted.
(4) Granting of waivers: criteria, conditions, and publication.
Waivers will be granted by the Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, if it is determined that the basic
model for which the waiver was requested contains a design
characteristic which either prevents testing of the basic model
according to the prescribed test procedures, or the prescribed test
procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative
of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially
inaccurate comparative data. Waivers may be granted subject to
conditions, which may include adherence to alternate test procedures
specified by the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. The Assistant Secretary will promptly publish in the
Federal Register notice of each waiver granted or denied, and any
limiting conditions of each waiver granted.
(g) Revision of regulation. Within one year of the granting of any
waiver, the Department of Energy will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations so as to
eliminate any need for the continuation of such waiver. As soon
thereafter as practicable, the Department of Energy will publish in the
Federal Register a final rule. Such waiver will terminate on the
effective date of such final rule.
(h) Exhaustion of remedies. In order to exhaust administrative
remedies, any person aggrieved by an action under this section must
file an appeal with the DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals as
provided in 10 CFR Part 1003, subpart C.
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 section 431.2 are applicable to this
appendix.
2. Test procedures.
Efficiency and losses shall be determined in accordance with NEMA
MG1-1993 with Revisions 1 through 4, paragraph 12.58.1, ``Determination
of Motor Efficiency and Losses,'' and either
(1) CSA International (or Canadian Standards Association) Standard
C390-93 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, or
(2) IEEE Standard 112-1996 Test Method B, Input-Output with Loss
Segregation, with IEEE correction notice of January 20, 1998, except as
follows:
(i) Page 8, subclause 5.1.1, Specified temperature, the
introductory clause does not apply. Instead the following applies:
The specified temperature used in making resistance corrections
should be determined by one of the following (Test Method B only allows
the use of preference a) or b).), which are listed in order of
preference.
(ii) Page 17, subclause 6.4.1.3, No-load test, the text does not
apply. Instead, the following applies:
See 5.3 including 5.3.3, the separation of core loss from friction
and windage loss. Prior to making this test, the machine shall be
operated at no-load until the input has stabilized.
(iii) Page 40, subclause 8.6.3, Termination of test, the third
sentence does not apply. Instead, the following applies:
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.
(iv) Page 47, at the top of 10.2 Form B, immediately after the line
that reads ``Rated Load Heat Run Stator Winding Resistance Between
Terminals,'' the following additional line applies:
Temperature for Resistance Correction (ts) =______
deg.C (See 6.4.3.2).
(v) Page 47, at the bottom of 10.2 Form B, after the first sentence
to footnote tt, the following additional sentence applies:
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.
(vi) Page 47, at the bottom of 10.2 Form B, below the footnotes and
above ``Summary of Characteristics,'' the following additional note
applies:
Note: The temperature for resistance correction (ts) is
equal to [(4)-(5) + 25 deg.C].
(vii) Page 48, item (22), the torque constants ``k = 9.549 for
torque, in Nm'' and ``k = 7.043 for torque, in lbfft''
do not apply. Instead, the following applies:
``k2 = 9.549 for torque, in Nm'' and
``k2 = 7.043 for torque, in lbfft.''
(viii) Page 48, at the end of item (27), the following additional
reference applies:
``See 6.4.3.2''.
[[Page 54158]]
(ix) Page 48, item (29), ``See 4.3.2.2, Eq. 4,'' does not apply.
Instead the following applies:
Is equal to (10) [k1 + (4) - (5) + 25 deg.C] /
[k1 + (7)], see 6.4.3.3''.
3. Amendments to test procedures.
Any revision to IEEE Std 112-1996 Test Method B with correction
notice of January 20, 1998, to NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993 with
Revisions 1 through 4, 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.
Subpart C--Energy Conservation Standards
Sec. 431.41 Purpose and scope.
This subpart contains energy conservation 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 conservation 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
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). 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 subparagraph
(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.
Sec. 431.43 Preemption of state regulations.
Any state regulation providing for any energy conservation
standard, or other requirement with respect to the energy efficiency or
energy use, of an electric motor that is not identical to a Federal
standard in effect under this subpart is preempted by that standard,
except as provided for in sections 345(a) and 327(b) and (c) of the
Act.
Subpart D--Petitions To Exempt State Regulation From Preemption;
Petitions To Withdraw Exemption of State Regulation
Sec. 431.61 Purpose and scope.
(a) The regulations in this subpart prescribe the procedures to be
followed in connection with petitions requesting a rule that a State
regulation prescribing an energy conservation standard or other
requirement respecting energy use or energy efficiency of a type (or
class) of covered equipment not be preempted.
(b) The regulations in this subpart also prescribe the procedures
to be followed in connection with petitions to withdraw a rule
exempting a State regulation prescribing an energy conservation
standard or other requirement respecting energy use or energy
efficiency of a type (or class) of covered equipment.
Sec. 431.62 Prescriptions of a rule.
(a) Criteria for exemption from preemption. Upon petition by a
State which has prescribed an energy conservation standard or other
requirement for a type or class of covered equipment for which a
Federal energy conservation standard is applicable, the Secretary shall
prescribe a rule that such standard not be preempted if he/she
determines that the State has established by a preponderance of
evidence that such requirement is needed to meet unusual
[[Page 54159]]
and compelling State or local energy interests. For the purposes of
this regulation, the term ``unusual and compelling State or local
energy interests'' means interests which are substantially different in
nature or magnitude from those prevailing in the U.S. generally, and
are such that when evaluated within the context of the State's energy
plan and forecast, the costs, benefits, burdens, and reliability of
energy savings resulting from the State regulation make such regulation
preferable or necessary when measured against the costs, benefits,
burdens, and reliability of alternative approaches to energy savings or
production, including reliance on reasonably predictable market-induced
improvements in efficiency of all equipment subject to the State
regulation. The Secretary may not prescribe such a rule if he finds
that interested persons have established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the State's regulation will significantly burden
manufacturing, marketing, distribution, sale or servicing of the
covered equipment on a national basis. In determining whether to make
such a finding, the Secretary shall evaluate all relevant factors
including: The extent to which the State regulation will increase
manufacturing or distribution costs of manufacturers, distributors, and
others; the extent to which the State regulation will disadvantage
smaller manufacturers, distributors, or dealers or lessen competition
in the sale of the covered equipment in the State; the extent to which
the State regulation would cause a burden to manufacturers to redesign
and produce the covered equipment type (or class), taking into
consideration the extent to which the regulation would result in a
reduction in the current models, or in the projected availability of
models, that could be shipped on the effective date of the regulation
to the State and within the U.S., or in the current or projected sales
volume of the covered equipment type (or class) in the State and the
U.S.; and the extent to which the State regulation is likely to
contribute significantly to a proliferation of State commercial and
industrial equipment efficiency requirements and the cumulative impact
such requirements would have. The Secretary may not prescribe such a
rule if he/she finds that such a rule will result in the unavailability
in the State of any covered equipment (or class) of performance
characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities,
and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally
available in the State at the time of the Secretary's finding. The
failure of some classes (or types) to meet this criterion shall not
affect the Secretary's determination of whether to prescribe a rule for
other classes (or types).
(1) Requirements of petition for exemption from preemption. A
petition from a State for a rule for exemption from preemption shall
include the information listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through
(a)(1)(vi) of this section. A petition for a rule and correspondence
relating to such petition shall be available for public review except
for confidential or proprietary information submitted in accordance
with the Department of Energy's Freedom of Information Regulations set
forth in 10 CFR Part 1004.
(i) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner;
(ii) A copy of the State standard for which a rule exempting such
standard is sought;
(iii) A copy of the State's energy plan and forecast;
(iv) Specification of each type or class of covered product for
which a rule exempting a standard is sought;
(v) Other information, if any, believed to be pertinent by the
petitioner; and
(vi) Such other information as the Secretary may require.
(b) Criteria for exemption from preemption when energy emergency
conditions exist within State. Upon petition by a State which has
prescribed an energy conservation standard or other requirement for a
type or class of covered equipment for which a Federal energy
conservation standard is applicable, the Secretary may prescribe a
rule, effective upon publication in the Federal Register, that such
regulation not be preempted if he determines that in addition to
meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section the State has
established that: an energy emergency condition exists within the State
that imperils the health, safety, and welfare of its residents because
of the inability of the State or utilities within the State to provide
adequate quantities of gas or electric energy to its residents at less
than prohibitive costs; and cannot be substantially alleviated by the
importation of energy or the use of interconnection agreements; and the
State regulation is necessary to alleviate substantially such
condition.
(1) Requirements of petition for exemption from preemption when
energy emergency conditions exist within a State. A petition from a
State for a rule for exemption from preemption when energy emergency
conditions exist within a State shall include the information listed in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(vi) of this section. A petition
shall also include the information prescribed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)
through (b)(1)(iv) of this section, and shall be available for public
review except for confidential or proprietary information submitted in
accordance with the Department of Energy's Freedom of Information
Regulations set forth in 10 CFR Part 1004:
(i) A description of the energy emergency condition which exists
within the State, including causes and impacts.
(ii) A description of emergency response actions taken by the State
and utilities within the State to alleviate the emergency condition;
(iii) An analysis of why the emergency condition cannot be
alleviated substantially by importation of energy or the use of
interconnection agreements;
(iv) An analysis of how the State standard can alleviate
substantially such emergency condition.
(c) Criteria for withdrawal of a rule exempting a State standard.
Any person subject to a State standard which, by rule, has been
exempted from Federal preemption and which prescribes an energy
conservation standard or other requirement for a type or class of
covered equipment, when the Federal energy conservation standard for
such product subsequently is amended, may petition the Secretary
requesting that the exemption rule be withdrawn. The Secretary shall
consider such petition in accordance with the requirements of paragraph
(a) of this section, except that the burden shall be on the petitioner
to demonstrate that the exemption rule received by the State should be
withdrawn as a result of the amendment to the Federal standard. The
Secretary shall withdraw such rule if he determines that the petitioner
has shown the rule should be withdrawn.
(1) Requirements of petition to withdraw a rule exempting a State
standard. A petition for a rule to withdraw a rule exempting a State
standard shall include the information prescribed in paragraphs
(c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(vii) of this section, and shall be available
for public review, except for confidential or proprietary information
submitted in accordance with the Department of Energy's Freedom of
Information Regulations set forth in 10 CFR Part 1004:
(i) The name, address and telephone number of the petitioner;
(ii) A statement of the interest of the petitioner for which a rule
withdrawing an exemption is sought;
[[Page 54160]]
(iii) A copy of the State standard for which a rule withdrawing an
exemption is sought;
(iv) Specification of each type or class of covered equipment for
which a rule withdrawing an exemption is sought;
(v) A discussion of the factors contained in paragraph (a) of this
section;
(vi) Such other information, if any, believed to be pertinent by
the petitioner; and
(vii) Such other information as the Secretary may require.
Sec. 431.63 Filing requirements.
(a) Service. All documents required to be served under this subpart
shall, if mailed, be served by first class mail. Service upon a
person's duly authorized representative shall constitute service upon
that person.
(b) Obligation to supply information. A person or State submitting
a petition is under a continuing obligation to provide any new or newly
discovered information relevant to that petition. Such information
includes, but is not limited to, information regarding any other
petition or request for action subsequently submitted by that person or
State.
(c) The same or related matters. A person or State submitting a
petition or other request for action shall state whether to the best
knowledge of that petitioner the same or related issue, act, or
transaction has been or presently is being considered or investigated
by any State agency, department, or instrumentality.
(d) Computation of time.
(1) Computing any period of time prescribed by or allowed under
this subpart, the day of the action from which the designated period of
time begins to run is not to be included. If the last day of the period
is Saturday, or Sunday, or Federal legal holiday, the period runs until
the end of the next day that is neither a Saturday, or Sunday or
Federal legal holiday.
(2) Saturdays, Sundays, and intervening Federal legal holidays
shall be excluded from the computation of time when the period of time
allowed or prescribed is 7 days or less.
(3) When a submission is required to be made within a prescribed
time, DOE may grant an extension of time upon good cause shown.
(4) Documents received after regular business hours are deemed to
have been submitted on the next regular business day. Regular business
hours for the DOE's National Office, Washington, DC, are 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m.
(5) DOE reserves the right to refuse to accept, and not to
consider, untimely submissions.
(e) Filing of petitions.
(1) A petition for a rule shall be submitted in triplicate to: The
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S.
Department of Energy, Section 327 Petitions, Appliance Efficiency
Standards, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585.
(2) A petition may be submitted on behalf of more than one person.
A joint petition shall indicate each person participating in the
submission. A joint petition shall provide the information required by
Sec. 431.62 for each person on whose behalf the petition is submitted.
(3) All petitions shall be signed by the person(s) submitting the
petition or by a duly authorized representative. If submitted by a duly
authorized representative, the petition shall certify this
authorization.
(4) A petition for a rule to withdraw a rule exempting a State
regulation, all supporting documents, and all future submissions shall
be served on each State agency, department, or instrumentality whose
regulation the petitioner seeks to supersede. The petition shall
contain a certification of this service which states the name and
mailing address of the served parties, and the date of service.
(f) Acceptance for filing.
(1) Within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of a petition, the
Secretary will either accept it for filing or reject it, and the
petitioner will be so notified in writing. The Secretary will serve a
copy of this notification on each other party served by the petitioner.
Only such petitions which conform to the requirements of this subpart
and which contain sufficient information for the purposes of a
substantive decision will be accepted for filing. Petitions which do
not so conform will be rejected and an explanation provided to
petitioner in writing.
(2) For purposes of the Act and this subpart, a petition is deemed
to be filed on the date it is accepted for filing.
(g) Docket. A petition accepted for filing will be assigned an
appropriate docket designation. Petitioner shall use the docket
designation in all subsequent submissions.
Sec. 431.64 Notice of petition.
(a) Promptly after receipt of a petition and its acceptance for
filing, notice of such petition shall be published in the Federal
Register. The notice shall set forth the availability for public review
of all data and information available, and shall solicit comments, data
and information with respect to the determination on the petition.
Except as may otherwise be specified, the period for public comment
shall be 60 days after the notice appears in the Federal Register.
(b) In addition to the material required under paragraph (a) of
this section, each notice shall contain a summary of the State
regulation at issue and the petitioner's reasons for the rule sought.
Sec. 431.65 Consolidation.
DOE may consolidate any or all matters at issue in two or more
proceedings docketed where there exist common parties, common questions
of fact and law, and where such consolidation would expedite or
simplify consideration of the issues. Consolidation shall not affect
the right of any party to raise issues that could have been raised if
consolidation had not occurred.
Sec. 431.66 Hearing.
The Secretary may hold a public hearing, and publish notice in the
Federal Register of the date and location of the hearing, when he
determines that such a hearing is necessary and likely to result in a
timely and effective resolution of the issues. A transcript shall be
kept of any such hearing.
Sec. 431.67 Disposition of petitions.
(a) After the submission of public comments under Sec. 431.63(a),
the Secretary shall prescribe a final rule or deny the petition within
6 months after the date the petition is filed.
(b) The final rule issued by the Secretary or a determination by
the Secretary to deny the petition shall include a written statement
setting forth his findings and conclusions, and the reasons and basis
therefor. A copy of the Secretary's decision shall be sent to the
petitioner and the affected State agency. The Secretary shall publish
in the Federal Register a notice of the final rule granting or denying
the petition and the reasons and basis therefor.
(c) If the Secretary finds that he cannot issue a final rule within
the 6-month period pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, he shall
publish a notice in the Federal Register extending such period to a
date certain, but no longer than one year after the date on which the
petition was filed. Such notice shall include the reasons for the
delay.
Sec. 431.68 Effective dates of final rules.
(a) A final rule exempting a State standard from Federal preemption
will be effective:
(1) Upon publication in the Federal Register if the Secretary
determines that such rule is needed to meet an ``energy emergency
condition'' within the State.
[[Page 54161]]
(2) Three years after such rule is published in the Federal
Register; or
(3) Five years after such rule is published in the Federal Register
if the Secretary determines that such additional time is necessary due
to the burdens of retooling, redesign or distribution.
(b) A final rule withdrawing a rule exempting a State standard will
be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
Sec. 431.69 Request for reconsideration.
(a) Any petitioner whose petition for a rule has been denied may
request reconsideration within 30 days of denial. The request shall
contain a statement of facts and reasons supporting reconsideration and
shall be submitted in writing to the Secretary.
(b) The denial of a petition will be reconsidered only where it is
alleged and demonstrated that the denial was based on error in law or
fact and that evidence of the error is found in the record of the
proceedings.
(c) If the Secretary fails to take action on the request for
reconsideration within 30 days, the request is deemed denied, and the
petitioner may seek such judicial review as may be appropriate and
available.
(d) A petitioner has not exhausted other administrative remedies
until a request for reconsideration has been filed and acted upon or
deemed denied.
Sec. 431.70 Finality of decision.
(a) A decision to prescribe a rule that a State energy conservation
standard or other requirement not be preempted is final on the date the
rule is issued, i.e., signed by the Secretary. A decision to prescribe
such a rule has no effect on other regulations of a covered product of
any other State.
(b) A decision to prescribe a rule withdrawing a rule exempting a
State standard or other requirement is final on the date the rule is
issued, i.e., signed by the Secretary. A decision to deny such a
petition is final on the day a denial of a request for reconsideration
is issued, i.e., signed by the Secretary.
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. This subpart applies only to
electric motors manufactured after [ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THIS
RULE IN THE Federal Register].
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 must 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; and
(ii) A Compliance Certification number (``CC number'') supplied by
DOE to the manufacturer or private labeler, pursuant to section
431.123(e), and applicable to that motor. Such CC number must be on the
nameplate of a motor beginning 90 days after either:
(A) The manufacturer or private labeler 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 or private
labeler 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 paragraph
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 encircled
lower case letters ``ee'', for example,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.007
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, 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.
Sec. 431.83 Preemption of state regulations.
The provisions of this subpart E supersede any State regulation to
the extent required by section 327 of the Act. Pursuant to the Act, all
State regulations that require the disclosure for any electric motor of
information with respect to energy consumption, other than the
information required to be disclosed in accordance with this part, are
superseded.
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 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
[[Page 54162]]
by Sec. 431.82(b)(1), 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 $110
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:
(1) 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:
(i) reselling such equipment, or
(ii) leasing such equipment for a period in excess of one year; and
(2) The term ``knowingly'' means:
(i) the having of actual knowledge, or
(ii) the presumed having of knowledge deemed to be possessed by a
reasonable person who acts in the circumstances, including knowledge
obtainable upon the exercise of due care.
Sec. 431.123 Compliance certification.
(a) General. Beginning 24 months after [insert date 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register], a manufacturer or private labeler
shall not distribute in commerce any basic model of an electric motor
which is 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. The representations in the Compliance Certification must be
based upon the basic model's energy efficiency as determined in
accordance with the applicable requirements of subpart B of this part.
This means, in part, that either:
(1) the representations as to the basic model must be based on use
of a certification organization, or
(2) any testing of the basic model on which the representations are
based must be conducted at an accredited laboratory.
(b) Required contents.
(1) General representations. Each Compliance Certification must
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 section 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 of 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 must report
the nominal 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 must identify the basic models on
which actual testing has been performed to meet the requirements of
section 431.24.
(iii) The format for a Compliance Certification is set forth in
appendix A of this subpart.
(c) Optional contents. In any Compliance Certification, a
manufacturer or private labeler may at its option request that DOE
provide it with a unique Compliance Certification number (``CC
number'') for any brand name, trademark or other label name under which
the manufacturer or private labeler distributes electric motors covered
by the Certification. Such a Compliance Certification must also
identify all other names, if any, under which the manufacturer or
private labeler distributes electric motors, and to which the request
does not apply.
(d) Signature and submission. A manufacturer or private labeler
must 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 must identify the official of the manufacturer or private
labeler who authorized the third party to make representations on the
company's behalf, and must be signed by a corporate official of the
third party. The Compliance Certification must be submitted to the
Department by certified mail, to Department of Energy, Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of
Building Research and Standards, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
(e) New basic models. For electric motors, a Compliance
Certification must 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 section
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.
(f) Response to Compliance Certification; Compliance Certification
Number (CC number).
(1) DOE processing of Certification. Promptly upon receipt of a
Compliance Certification, the Department will 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 will
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 will be returned, or that the Compliance
Certification satisfies this section. The Department will also advise
the submitting party of the basis for its determination.
(2) Issuance of CC number(s).
(i) Initial Compliance Certification. When DOE advises that the
initial Compliance Certification submitted by or on behalf of a
manufacturer or private labeler is acceptable, either:
(A) DOE will provide a single unique CC number, ``CC________,'' to
the manufacturer or private labeler, and such CC number shall be
applicable to
[[Page 54163]]
all electric motors distributed by the manufacturer or private labeler,
or
(B) When required by paragraph (f)(2) of this section, DOE will
provide more than one CC number to the manufacturer or private labeler.
(ii) Subsequent Compliance Certification. When DOE advises that any
other Compliance Certification is acceptable, it will provide a unique
CC number for any brand name, trademark or other name when required by
paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
(iii) When DOE declines to provide a CC number as requested by a
manufacturer or private labeler in accordance with Sec. 431.123(c), DOE
will advise the requester of the reasons for such refusal.
(3) Issuance of two or more CC numbers.
(i) DOE will provide a unique CC number for each brand name,
trademark or other label name for which a manufacturer or private
labeler requests such a number in accordance with Sec. 431.123(c),
except as follows. DOE will not provide a CC number for any brand name,
trademark or other label name:
(A) For which DOE has previously provided a CC number, or
(B) That duplicates or overlaps with other names under which the
manufacturer or private labeler sells electric motors.
(ii) Once DOE has provided a CC number for a particular name, that
shall be the only CC number applicable to all electric motors
distributed by the manufacturer or private labeler under that name.
(iii) If the Compliance Certification in which a manufacturer or
private labeler requests a CC number is the initial Compliance
Certification submitted by it or on its behalf, and it distributes
electric motors not covered by the CC number(s) DOE provides in
response to the request(s), DOE will also provide a unique CC number
that shall be applicable to all of these other motors.
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 must
establish, maintain and retain records of the following: the underlying
test data for all testing conducted under this part; the development,
substantiation, application, and subsequent verification of any AEDM
used under this part; and any written certification received from a
certification program, including a certificate of conformity, relied on
under the provisions of this part. Such records must be organized and
indexed in a fashion which makes them readily accessible for review.
The records must 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 must 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 must be retained in a
form allowing ready access to the Department upon request.
Sec. 431.125 Imported equipment.
(a) Pursuant to sections 331 and 345 of the Act, any person
importing any covered equipment into the United States shall comply
with the provisions of the Act and of this part, and is subject to the
remedies of this part.
(b) Any covered equipment offered for importation in violation of
the Act and of this part shall be refused admission into the customs
territory of the United States under rules issued by the Secretary of
the Treasury, except that the Secretary of the Treasury may, by such
rules, authorize the importation of such covered equipment upon such
terms and conditions (including the furnishing of a bond) as may appear
to the Secretary of Treasury appropriate to ensure that such covered
equipment will not violate the Act and this part, or will be exported
or abandoned to the United States.
Sec. 431.126 Exported equipment.
Pursuant to sections 330 and 345 of the Act, this part shall not
apply to any covered equipment if (a) such covered equipment is
manufactured, sold, or held for sale for export from the United States
(or such product was imported for export), unless such equipment is, in
fact, distributed in commerce for use in the United States, and (b)
such covered equipment, when distributed in commerce, or any container
in which it is enclosed when so distributed, bears a stamp or label
stating that such covered equipment is intended for export.
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
the efficiency rating on the nameplate or in marketing materials for an
electric motor, 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, as applicable,
compliance with the applicable efficiency standard, or the accuracy of
labeling information, or both. 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 section 431.24(a)(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
specified 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
[[Page 54164]]
of compliance or noncompliance if a sufficient number of tests have
been conducted to satisfy the requirements of appendix B of this
subpart.
(c) Sampling. The determination that a manufacturer's basic model
complies with its labeled efficiency, or 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
appendix A to 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
appendix A to subpart B.
(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 B 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.
(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.
(a) In the event that a model is determined non-compliant by the
Department in accordance with Sec. 431.127 of this part or if a
manufacturer or private labeler determines a model to be in
noncompliance, then the manufacturer or private labeler shall:
(1) Immediately cease distribution in commerce of the basic model.
(2) Give immediate written notification of the determination of
noncompliance, to all persons to whom the manufacturer has distributed
units of the basic model manufactured since the date of the last
determination of compliance.
(3) Pursuant to a request made by the Secretary, provide the
Department within 30 days of the request, records, reports, and other
documentation pertaining to the acquisition, ordering, storage,
shipment, or sale of a basic model determined to be in noncompliance.
(4) The manufacturer may modify the non-compliant basic model in
such manner as to make it comply with the applicable performance
standard. Such modified basic model shall then be treated as a new
basic model and must be certified in accordance with the provisions of
this subpart; except that in addition to satisfying all requirements of
this subpart, the manufacturer shall also maintain records that
demonstrate that modifications have been made to all units of the new
basic model prior to distribution in commerce.
(b) If a basic model is not properly certified in accordance with
the requirements of this subpart, the Secretary may seek, among other
remedies, injunctive action to prohibit distribution in commerce of
such basic model.
Sec. 431.129 Subpoena.
Pursuant to sections 329(a) and 345 of the Act, for purposes of
carrying out this part, the Secretary or the Secretary's designee, may
sign and issue subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses
and the production of relevant books, records, papers, and other
documents, and administer the oaths. Witnesses summoned under the
provisions of this section shall be paid the same fees and mileage as
are paid to witnesses in the courts of the United States. In case of
contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpoena served upon any persons
subject to this part, the Secretary may seek an order from the District
Court of the United States for any District in which such person is
found or resides or transacts business requiring such person to appear
and give testimony, or to appear and produce documents. Failure to obey
such order is punishable by such court as a contempt thereof.
Sec. 431.130 Remedies.
If the Department determines that a basic model of a covered
equipment does not comply with an applicable energy conservation
standard:
(a) The Department will notify the manufacturer, private labeler,
or any other person as required of this finding and of the Secretary's
intent to seek a judicial order restraining further distribution in
commerce of such basic model unless the manufacturer, private labeler
or any other person as required, delivers to the Department within 15
calendar days a statement, satisfactory to the Department, of the steps
he will take to ensure that the non-compliant model will no longer be
distributed in commerce. The Department will monitor the implementation
of such statement.
(b) If the manufacturer, private labeler, or any other person as
required, fails to stop distribution of the non-compliant model, the
Secretary may seek to restrain such violation in
[[Page 54165]]
accordance with sections 334 and 345 of the Act.
(c) The Secretary shall determine whether the facts of the case
warrant the assessment of civil penalties for knowing violations in
accordance with sections 333 and 345 of the Act.
Sec. 431.131 Hearings and appeals.
(a) Pursuant to sections 333(d) and 345 of the Act, before issuing
an order assessing a civil penalty against any person under this
section, the Secretary shall provide to such person notice of the
proposed penalty. Such notice shall inform such person of that person's
opportunity to elect in writing within 30 days after the date of
receipt of such notice to have the procedures of paragraph (c) of this
section (in lieu of those in paragraph (b) of this section) apply with
respect to such assessment.
(b)(1) Unless an election is made within 30 calendar days after
receipt of notice under paragraph (a) of this section to have paragraph
(c) of this section apply with respect to such penalty, the Secretary
shall assess the penalty, by order, after a determination of violation
has been made on the record after an opportunity for an agency hearing
pursuant to section 554 of title 5, United States Code, before an
administrative law judge appointed under section 3195 of such title 5.
Such assessment order shall include the administrative law judge's
findings and the basis for such assessment.
(2) Any person against whom a penalty is assessed under this
section may, within 60 calendar days after the date of the order of the
Secretary assessing such penalty, institute an action in the United
States Court of Appeals for the appropriate judicial circuit for
judicial review of such order in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5,
United States Code. The court shall have jurisdiction to enter a
judgment affirming, modifying, or setting aside in whole or in part,
the order of the Secretary, or the court may remand the proceeding to
the Secretary for such further action as the court may direct.
(c)(1) In the case of any civil penalty with respect to which the
procedures of this section have been elected, the Secretary shall
promptly assess such penalty, by order, after the date of the receipt
of the notice under paragraph (a) of this section of the proposed
penalty.
(2) If the civil penalty has not been paid within 60 calendar days
after the assessment has been made under paragraph (c)(1) of this
section, the Secretary shall institute an action in the appropriate
District Court of the United States for an order affirming the
assessment of the civil penalty. The court shall have authority to
review de novo the law and the facts involved and shall have
jurisdiction to enter a judgment enforcing, modifying, and enforcing as
so modified, or setting aside in whole or in part, such assessment.
(3) Any election to have this paragraph apply may not be revoked
except with the consent of the Secretary.
(d) If any person fails to pay an assessment of a civil penalty
after it has become a final and unappealable order under paragraph (b)
of this section, or after the appropriate District Court has entered
final judgment in favor of the Secretary under paragraph (c) of this
section, the Secretary shall institute an action to recover the amount
of such penalty in any appropriate District Court of the United States.
In such action, the validity and appropriateness of such final
assessment order or judgment shall not be subject to review.
(e)(1) In accordance with the provisions of sections 333(d)(5)(A)
and 345 of the Act and notwithstanding the provisions of title 28,
United States Code, or section 502(c) of the Department of Energy
Organization Act, the Secretary shall be represented by the General
Counsel of the Department of Energy (or any attorney or attorneys
within the Department designated by the Secretary) who shall supervise,
conduct, and argue any civil litigation to which paragraph (c) of this
section applies including any related collection action under paragraph
(d) of this section in a court of the United States or in any other
court, except the Supreme Court of the United States. However, the
Secretary or the General Counsel shall consult with the Attorney
General concerning such litigation and the Attorney General shall
provide, on request, such assistance in the conduct of such litigation
as may be appropriate.
(2) In accordance with the provisions of sections 333(d)(5)(B) and
345 of the Act, and subject to the provisions of section 502(c) of the
Department of Energy Organization Act, the Secretary shall be
represented by the Attorney General, or the Solicitor General, as
appropriate, in actions under this section, except to the extent
provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(3) In accordance with the provisions of sections 333(d)(5)(C) and
345 of the Act, section 402(d) of the Department of Energy Organization
Act shall not apply with respect to the function of the Secretary under
this section.
Sec. 431.132 Confidentiality.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting
information or data which the person believes to be confidential and
exempt from public disclosure should submit one complete copy, and
fifteen copies from which the information believed to be confidential
has been deleted. In accordance with the procedures established at 10
CFR 1004.11, the Department shall make its own determination with
regard to any claim that information submitted be exempt from public
disclosure.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 54166]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.022
[[Page 54167]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.008
[[Page 54168]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.009
[[Page 54169]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.010
[[Page 54170]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.011
[[Page 54171]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.012
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
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] TR05OC99.013
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] TR05OC99.014
Step 4. Compute the standard error (SE(X1)) of the mean
full-load efficiency of the first sample as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.015
Step 5. Compute the lower control limit (LCL1) for the mean
of the first sample using RE as the desired mean as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.016
where:
RE is the applicable EPCA nominal full-load efficiency when the
test is to determine compliance with the applicable statutory standard,
or is the labeled nominal full-load efficiency when the test is to
determine compliance with the labeled efficiency value, and
t is the 2.5th percentile of a t-distribution for a sample size of
n1, which yields a 97.5 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 non-compliance and testing is at an
end.
(ii) If the mean is equal to or greater than the lower control
limit, no final determination of compliance or non-compliance can be
made; proceed to Step 7.
Step 7. Determine the recommended sample size (n) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.017
where S1, RE and t have the values used in Steps 3 and
5, respectively. The factor
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.018
is based on a 20 percent tolerance in the total power loss at full-
load and fixed output power.
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 non-compliance. 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] TR05OC99.019
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] TR05OC99.020
(Note that S1 is the value obtained above in Step 3.)
Step 10. Set the lower control limit (LCL2) to,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC99.021
where t has the value obtained in Step 5, 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 non-
compliance and testing is at an end.
[[Page 54172]]
(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 10,
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 non-
compliance.
[FR Doc. 99-21119 Filed 10-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P