[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34758-34766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15831]



[[Page 34757]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Energy





_______________________________________________________________________



Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy



_______________________________________________________________________



10 CFR Part 431



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 / Thursday, June 25, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 34758]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket No. EE-RM-96-400]


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

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Proposed rule; limited reopening of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 61 FR 60440 (November 27, 
1996) (NOPR), concerning one through 200 horsepower electric motors 
that are covered under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as 
amended (EPCA), the Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) 
proposed to adopt test procedures (including those in Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Standard 112-1991 [``IEEE 
112-1991'']), sampling plans for compliance and enforcement testing, 
efficiency labeling requirements, and standards and procedures under 
which DOE would classify an accreditation organization or a 
certification program as ``nationally recognized.'' The Department is 
now considering several additional options in these areas, which were 
either not set forth or not clearly described in the NOPR. 
Specifically, the Department is considering adoption of (1) revised 
sampling plans for compliance and enforcement, (2) revisions to the 
IEEE test procedures, (3) alternative requirements where a motor's 
efficiency is established under EPCA through a certification program, 
(4) verifying the validity of labeled efficiency by use of the proposed 
enforcement procedures, and (5) withdrawal of recognition from an 
accreditation organization or certification program that deviates from 
the standards for recognition. The purpose of this notice is to reopen 
the comment period to solicit comments on these options.

DATES: Written comments in response to this notice must be received by 
July 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Ten copies (no telefacsimilies) of written comments should 
be labeled ``Electric Motor Rulemaking'' (Docket No. EE-RM-96-400), and 
submitted to: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Codes and Standards, 
EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 1J-018, Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945.
    Copies of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 
standards may be obtained from the Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers, Inc., 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, 
NJ 08855-1331, 1-800-678-IEEE.
    A copy of the document, ``Analysis of Proposals for Compliance and 
Enforcement Testing Under the New Part 431; Title 10, Code of Federal 
Regulations,'' NISTIR 6092, by K.L. Stricklett and M. Vangel, January 
1998, may be obtained from the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST).1 Information regarding availability of 
the report, NISTIR 6092, may be obtained from the NIST Inquiries Office 
at 301-975-3058. A copy of NISTIR 6092 is available through the NIST 
World Wide Web site http://www.eeel.nist.gov/811/div/
811__pubs__ps.html#nistir6092. NISTIR 6092 is also available from the 
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), and may be ordered 
through the NTIS Sales Desk at 703-605-6000, or by telefax at 703-321-
8547, or by electronic mail at [email protected]. A copy of the 
document is also available at the Office of Codes and Standards World 
Wide Web site http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes__standards/rules/
emenfpol/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Appendix D of NISTIR 6092 contains the sampling proposals 
submitted by the NEMA Motor and Generator Section, April 18, 1997, 
in response to the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Copies of the proposed rule, a transcript of the January 15, 1997 
public hearing, the public comments received (including the NEMA 
proposal), and NISTIR 6092 may be read at the Freedom of Information 
Reading Room, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-
190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0101, telephone 
(202) 586-3142, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, 
Washington, DC 20585-0121, telephone (202) 586-8654, telefax (202) 586-
4617, or: [email protected]
Edward Levy, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General 
Counsel, Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 
DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-9507, telefax (202) 586-4116, or: 
[email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act), 42 U.S.C. 
6311, et seq., establishes energy efficiency standards and test 
procedures for certain commercial and industrial electric motors. 
Section 342(b)(1) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), requires that ``each 
[such] electric motor manufactured (alone or as a component of another 
piece of equipment) * * * shall have a nominal full load efficiency of 
not less than [the prescribed level].'' The Act requires generally that 
the test procedures be ``reasonably designed to produce test results 
which reflect energy efficiency,'' yet not be ``unduly burdensome'' to 
conduct, EPCA section 345(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(2), and prescribes 
specific test methods for electric motors, EPCA section 343(a)(5), 42 
U.S.C. 6314(a)(5). The Act also directs the Department to require, 
subject to certain conditions, that a motor's energy efficiency be 
displayed on its permanent nameplate and in material used to market the 
motor. EPCA section 344(d), 42 U.S.C. 6315(d). Finally manufacturers 
must certify ``through an independent testing or certification program 
nationally recognized in the United States,'' that each covered motor 
complies with the applicable efficiency standard. EPCA section 345(c), 
42 U.S.C. 6316(c).
    On November 27, 1996, the Department published a proposed rule on 
test procedures for the measurement of energy efficiency, efficiency 
labeling, and compliance and enforcement procedures for these electric 
motors. The proposed rule incorporated the Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 112-1991 Test Method B as one 
method for measuring energy efficiency, 61 FR 60446 (November 27, 
1996). Other proposed provisions included two statistical sampling 
plans--one for compliance and labeling and another for enforcement, 61 
FR 60446-49, 60459-60 (November 27, 1996), requirements that a motor's 
energy efficiency be stated on its nameplate and in marketing 
materials, 61 FR 60451-52 (November 27, 1996), and procedures as to 
recognition of a testing or certification program used to certify that 
an electric motor complies with EPCA efficiency standards, 61 FR 60457-
58.
    On January 15, 1997, a public hearing was held on the proposed 
rule, and thereafter the Department received numerous written comments 
on the

[[Page 34759]]

proposal. The hearing and written comments, as well as the Department's 
further review of the proposed rule, have given rise to the issues 
addressed in today's reopening notice. The Department seeks comments at 
this time only on those issues.

II. Discussion

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

    Section 343(a)(5)(A) of EPCA requires that the test procedures to 
determine the efficiency of electric motors under EPCA shall be the 
test procedures specified in NEMA MG1-1987 and IEEE Standard 112 Test 
Method B (IEEE 112) for motor efficiency, as in effect on the date of 
the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. If the test procedures 
in NEMA MG1 and IEEE 112 are subsequently amended, the Secretary of 
Energy is required to revise the regulatory test procedures for 
electric motors to conform to such amendments, ``unless the Secretary 
determines by rule, * * * supported by clear and convincing evidence, 
that to do so would not meet the requirements for test procedures 
described in'' sections 343(a)(2) and (3) of EPCA.
    NEMA MG1-1987 was revised and superseded by NEMA MG1-1993, which 
was published in October 1993. Revision 1 to NEMA MG1-1993, was added 
on December 7, 1993. In the NOPR, the Department stated that it would 
adopt the test procedure provisions of NEMA MG1-1993 with Revision 1. 
IEEE 112-1991 was revised and superseded by IEEE 112-1996, which was 
published May 8, 1997. A minor revision was made in IEEE 112-1996 on 
January 20, 1998, when IEEE issued a notice of correction for the 
calculation at item (28) in section 10.2 Form B-Method B: ``Calculation 
form for input-output test of induction machine with segregation of 
losses and smoothing of stray-load loss.'' Under EPCA, DOE must now 
adopt the test procedures in IEEE 112-1996 with the minor revision, 
unless clear and convincing evidence supports a conclusion that such 
test procedures are not reasonably designed to produce test results 
which reflect energy efficiency, and or unduly burdensome to conduct.
    The Department compared IEEE 112-1991 to IEEE 112-1996 to determine 
whether there were differences in Test Method B, which applies here, 
and, if so, whether to adopt Test Method B in IEEE 112-1996 into the 
final rule for electric motors. As a result of its analysis, the 
Department believes Test Method B in IEEE 112-1996 improves upon the 
version of that test method in IEEE 112-1991, because IEEE 112-1996 
includes: tightened tolerances on metering instrumentation (IEEE 112, 
clause 4), a more comprehensive and consolidated verbal description of 
the components of test method B (IEEE 112, clause 6.4), and specific 
formulae provided for calculation of stator I2R losses (IEEE 
112, clause 5.1).
    After publication of IEEE 112-1996 in May 1997, however, the 
Department became aware, through information submitted by a testing 
laboratory that has gained experience using the test procedure, that 
Test Method B in IEEE 112-1996 contains (1) typographical errors, (2) 
statements of procedure that are open to interpretation, and (3) 
incorrect information. For a given motor, these defects could cause 
varying measurements of efficiency, or errors ranging from plus or 
minus one half to one and one half percentage points in measured 
efficiency. Subsequently, the Department confirmed the existence of 
these types of problems with IEEE 112-1996 through contacts with other 
testing laboratories, a certification organization, and manufacturers, 
each known to have experience with IEEE 112, and discussions with the 
Chairman of the IEEE Induction Power Subcommittee. Indeed, the 
Department is aware that one testing laboratory applied the test 
procedure to a single motor, tested the motor four times, and arrived 
at a different result each time based upon various interpretations of 
the language in the test procedure.
    Even a half percentage point error in the measured efficiency could 
throw a motor into the next higher or lower level of nominal 
efficiency, effectively rendering it in compliance with the applicable 
EPCA efficiency standard, or out of compliance. Thus, for example, an 
error in IEEE 112-1996 could cause a manufacturer to incorrectly 
measure the efficiency of a motor that is actually in compliance, 
conclude that it is below the required efficiency level, and 
unnecessarily redesign all or part of its product line. (IEEE corrected 
one such error in its January 1998 notice of correction.) Also, the 
provisions of IEEE 112-1996 that are subject to interpretation leave 
room for a manufacturer to intentionally bias the measured efficiency 
of a motor that is actually out of compliance, so that the motor will 
be found to meet the applicable level required under the statute.
    In sum, Test Method B in IEEE 112-1996 has several advantages, 
discussed above, as well as typographical errors, provisions subject to 
interpretation, and incorrect information. The Department's intention, 
therefore, is that the final rule will prescribe IEEE 112-1996 Test 
Method B, with the January 1998 correction, as the test procedure under 
EPCA for determining the energy efficiency of electric motors, but with 
certain modifications.2 The following sets forth those 
modifications, as well as a few potential problems as to which the 
Department has tentatively decided not to make changes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ It should be noted that the Department is not purporting to 
alter IEEE 112-1996. Rather, the Department is proposing only to 
mandate certain modifications to IEEE 112-1996 Test Method B when it 
is used for purposes of measuring efficiency under EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Typographical Errors
    a. Page 17, subclause 6.4.1.3, ``No-load test,'' currently reads: 
``See 5.3 including 5.33, * * *'' This is an incorrect reference in the 
standard, because there is no subclause 5.33. The Department proposes 
to change the reference to read: ``See 5.3 including 5.3.3, * * *'' to 
point to the proper subclause dealing with the separation of core loss 
from friction and windage loss.
    b. Page 48, item (24), the formula for shaft power in watts, 
currently reads: ``Is equal to [(23)  (11)]/k2'', 
but the constant k2 is not defined. In IEEE 112 section 10.2 
Form B-Method B, the constant ``k'' is defined in terms of torque for 
the formula in item (22); and the constant ``k1'' is defined 
in terms of conductivity for the formula in item (16). Upon examination 
of the test procedure and through inquiries made to the aforementioned 
organizations experienced with IEEE 112, the Department has determined 
that use of ``k2'' in item (24) is a typographical error for 
the constant ``k'', since the torque constant (``k''), from item (22), 
is necessary to calculate shaft power in item (24). The Department 
proposes to correct the constant ``k2'' in item (24) to the 
constant ``k''. The formula in item (24) would then read: ``Is equal to 
[(23)  (11)]/k''.
2. Provisions Subject to Interpretation
    a. Page 8, subclause 5.1.1, ``Specified temperature'' provides 
three methods, listed in order of preference, to determine the 
specified temperature used in making resistance corrections: (a) 
measured temperature rise by resistance from a rated load temperature 
test; (b) measured temperature rise on a duplicate machine; and (c) use 
of a temperature correction table when rated load temperature has not 
been measured. The Department understands that, although subclause 
5.1.1 applies generally to the testing of motors under IEEE 112, part 
``c'' of that subclause does not apply to Test Method B. Part

[[Page 34760]]

``c'' is a calculation procedure, for use when the rated load 
temperature has not been measured. The first test to be performed under 
Method B, however, per subclause 6.4.1.1, requires a measurement of 
rated load temperature. Hence, only options ``a'' or ``b'' in subclause 
5.1.1 are applicable to Method B. Information provided to the 
Department indicates, however, that option ``c'' is being misapplied to 
Test Method B.
    Such misapplication of option ``c'' can distort efficiency values. 
The Department understands that use of a prescribed temperature value 
from option ``c'' would result in a higher value of efficiency in 
circumstances where the measured full load (1.0 service factor) 
temperature is greater than such prescribed temperature, and a lower 
value of efficiency in circumstances where the measured full load (1.0 
service factor) temperature for a motor is less than the prescribed 
temperature. The Department believes that to achieve consistency under 
EPCA, the best approach is to always use a measured winding temperature 
for the efficiency calculation, as is contemplated by Test Method B.
    The Department's final rule could incorporate into subclause 5.1.1, 
``Specified temperature,'' the following language: ``(Method B only 
allows the use of preference a) or b).)'' The Department seeks comment 
on whether such a change is warranted in 5.1.1, although it currently 
believes that the proposed change is unnecessary, because it would be 
redundant with the provisions of Test Method B. It would be warranted 
only by reading the general information section of IEEE 112 in 
isolation from Test Method B. As stated above the Department 
understands that, under Test Method B, the first test to be performed 
is a rated load temperature test. This test determines the values for 
the rated load heat run stator winding resistance between terminals, 
items (3) and (4), on 10.2 Form B, per subclause 6.4.1.1, Rated load 
temperature test. The values are then used to calculate stator 
I2R loss, item (27) in 10.2 Form B. Per this requirement, 
only options ``a'' or ``b'' in the referenced section 5.1.1 are 
applicable to Method B. Option ``c'' is not a ``measurement procedure'' 
and cannot be used with Method B; it is applicable only to other IEEE 
112 test methods. Moreover, if a manufacturer or testing laboratory 
uses option ``c'', it is not following Test Method B and cannot say the 
motor has been tested according to Method B.
    b. Page 47, the procedure to measure temperature in item (4) Rated 
Load Heat Run Stator Winding Temperature is not defined. Item (4) is 
used in item (27), Stator I\2\2R Loss, in Watts, at (ts)  
deg.C, to correct the stator loss corresponding to item (16), Stator 
I\2\R Loss, in Watts, at (tt)  deg.C, which is based on the 
temperature recorded for item (7). Information in the footnote at the 
bottom of page 47, 10.2 Form B, indicates that the temperature for item 
(7) can be either determined from a temperature detector or derived 
from measurement of the stator resistance during the test. Because 
items (4) and (7) are used to calculate stator loss at different 
temperatures, it is preferred that the method of measuring both items 
be consistent. In addition, per subclause 4.2.3 Note 2 and subclause 
4.3.2.2 Note 2, the values for ts and tt, which 
are used for correction to a specified temperature, are to be based on 
the same method of measurement. Therefore, the Department proposes to 
add a second sentence to the footnote at the bottom of page 47, 10.2 
Form B, to read: ``The values for ts and tt shall 
be based on the same method of temperature measurement, selected from 
the four methods in subclause 8.3.''
    c. Page 48, item (27) defines Stator I\2\R Loss, in W, at 
(ts)  deg.C, and item (29) defines Corrected Slip, in r/min, 
on IEEE 112-1996 10.2 Form B. Page 48, item (29) currently reads: ``See 
4.3.2.2, Eq 4.'' The Department believes that such reference, without 
explanation, to equation (4) in subclause 4.3.2.2, Slip correction for 
temperature, can cause confusion and errors, since the terms in 
equation (4) used to correct slip measurements to the specified stator 
temperature, are defined differently from similar terms used in 10.2 
Form B.
    Subclause 4.3.2.2 equation (4) defines ``k'' in terms of 
conductivity for copper or aluminum. The term ``k'' in 10.2 Form B, 
however, is defined in terms of torque. Item (29) should be defined in 
terms of conductivity using the term ``k1'', to be 
consistent with the definition of ``k1'' in 10.2 Form B item 
(16).
    Also, calculating ``St'' and ``tt'' for 
subclause 4.3.2.2 equation (4) would cause unnecessary recalculations 
and possible errors, because these values were already derived 
elsewhere on Form B. Equation (4) defines ``St'' as ``the 
slip measured at stator winding temperature, tt,'' whereas 
the actual value of slip speed would have already been measured and 
entered at item (10) on Form B. Similarly, in equation (4) 
``tt'' is defined as ``the observed stator winding 
temperature during load test, in  deg.C,'' whereas the actual value of 
stator winding temperature would have already been measured and entered 
at item (7) on Form B.
    Subclause 4.3.2.2 equation (4) also defines ``ts'' as 
the specified temperature for resistance correction, in  deg.C. 
However, Form B, does not define ``ts''. While 
``ts'' appears to be used in item (27), Form B, the use of 
``ts'' is incorporated by providing the equation for the 
adjustment of the resistance corresponding to ``ts'', rather 
than by defining ``ts'' itself. However, the relationship 
representing ``ts'' in item (27) on page 48 appears to 
differ from the definition of ``ts'' given in 4.2.3. The 
Department is concerned about the various definitions given for 
``ts'' in the body of IEEE 112 and in 10.2, Form B and the 
correction of the stator and rotor losses. Examination of 10.2 Form B 
and the supporting sections of IEEE-112 indicate the following:
    1. The stator loss for item (16) is based on correcting the cold 
resistance in item (1) at the cold temperature in item (2) to a 
resistance as if the complete winding is at the test temperature in 
item (7) for each test point. Generally, this means that 6 different 
values of resistance are used in calculating the initial stator loss.
    2. The rotor loss for item (18) is calculated using the measured 
slip item (10) which already directly includes the effect of 
temperature so no equation involving temperature is needed.
    3. For item (27) it is indicated on the test form that the 
corrected stator loss is to be based on a temperature identified as 
``ts''. In IEEE 112-1991 no formula for this correction of 
the resistance to determine the loss was provided, so the counterpart 
of 5.1.1, IEEE 112-1996, was used in conjunction with the counterpart 
of equation [1] in 4.2.3, IEEE 112-1996. (The section references from 
IEEE 112-1996 are used instead of the actual section numbers in IEEE 
112-1991 to minimize confusion with the rest of the discussion.) To do 
this the reference resistances and temperatures were again the cold 
readings as in paragraph 1 above and the hot temperature was the 
specified temperature from 5.1.1. In IEEE-1996 a formula was added to 
item (27) stating that the reference resistance to be used is to be the 
hot resistance measured after the heat run and the reference 
temperature to be used is the temperature measured at the conclusion of 
the heat run. Now the temperature to be used for correcting the stator 
loss is not the specified temperature given in 5.1.1 if the temperature 
in item (4) is measured directly by a temperature sensor, but instead 
is the reference temperature from the heat run adjusted for the 
difference between the heat run

[[Page 34761]]

ambient and an ambient of 25  deg.C [i.e., (4)-(5) + 25]. This change 
is described in 6.4.3.2. If the temperature in item (4) is instead 
derived from the hot resistance measured after the heat run as per 
8.3.3 then the relationship of [(4)-(5) + 25] is equal to the specified 
temperature per 5.1.1. However, in 6.4.3.2 it is assumed that item (4) 
is from a direct temperature measurement and should not be a value 
derived from the resistance of the heat run. In this case the corrected 
resistance used in determining the corrected stator loss for each of 
the six test points is the same.
    4. In item (31) on the test form it is also indicated that the 
rotor loss is corrected to the temperature ts. This is 
accomplished by temperature correction of the slip in item (29). For 
item (29) one is referred to 4.3.2.2, Eq. 4. In 4.3.2.2 it is indicated 
that ts is to be the specified temperature from 5.1.1. 
However, in 6.4.3.3 it is stated that ts is to be equal to 
the ``hottest winding temperature during the temperature test corrected 
to an ambient of 25  deg.C.'' This definition of ts 
corresponds to the definition given in 6.4.3.2 for the correction of 
the stator loss, which leads one to the formula for item (27) and the 
relationship that the value to be used for ts is to be that 
given by [(4)-(5) + 25] and not the specified temperature as given by 
5.1.1. For the correction of the slip a different value of correction 
may be necessary for each of the six test points since the correction 
is based on the temperature at the time each test point is taken.
    In conclusion, section 6.4.3.2 for the correction of the stator 
loss and 6.4.3.3 for the correction of the rotor loss define the 
correction to be to a temperature ts which is not the 
specified temperature ts given by 5.1.1. In fact, the 
specified temperature per 5.1.1 does not appear to be used in any of 
the calculations performed for Method B.
    To clarify the temperatures to be used for correcting the stator 
and rotor loss the Department proposes the following modifications: (1) 
insert a new line at the top of 10.2 Form B and below the line that 
defines ``rated load heat run stator winding resistance,'' which will 
define ``ts'' as it is defined in 6.4.3.2 and 6.4.3.3: 
``Temperature for Resistance Correction (ts) = ____  deg.C 
(See 6.4.3.2);'' (2) add a note at the bottom of 10.2 Form B to read: 
``NOTE: The temperature for resistance correction (ts) is 
equal to [(4)-(5) + 25  deg.C];'' (3) add the reference ``see 6.4.3.2'' 
to the end of item (27) on page 48; and (4) change item (29) on page 48 
which presently states ``See 4.3.2.2, eq. 4'' to state ``Is equal to 
(10)  [k1 + (4)-(5) + 25  deg.C] / [k1 + 
(7)], see 6.4.3.3''.
    d. Page 48, item (32), the equation to correct stray-load loss 
currently reads: ``Is equal to AT\2\ where A = slope of the curve of 
(26) vs. (23) \2\ using a linear regression analysis, see 6.4.2.7,'' 
and ``T = corrected torque = (23).'' The Department understands that 
the slope A is that of the aforementioned curve corresponding to a plot 
using item (26) as the dependent variable on the y axis, and the square 
of item (23) as the independent variable on the x axis. The Department 
also understands that reference to subclause 6.4.2.7, Smoothing of the 
stray-load loss, provides tutorial information with respect to the 
determination of the slope A using linear regression analysis. The 
Department understands that under ideal test conditions the linear 
regression line should intercept the y axis at zero stray load loss for 
zero torque squared, since the only losses which should remain will be 
stator I\2\R, friction, and core losses previously accounted for by the 
no-load test.
    The Department has been advised that typically ideal test 
conditions do not exist, and that either the y-intercept is above zero, 
indicating that some apparent measured loss should be subtracted; or 
the y-intercept is below zero, indicating that some undetected loss 
should be added. The Department has also been advised that it is 
possible, at the same time, to have a positive slope, a correlation 
equal to or greater than 0.9, and a sizable intercept with the stray 
load loss axis at zero load conditions. The Department is concerned 
that, when this is the case, a large portion of losses could be 
incorrectly subtracted off yielding an artificially high efficiency or 
incorrectly added on yielding an artificially low efficiency.
    It also appears, however, that the purpose of the stray load loss 
correction in 10.2 Form B item (32), is to detect possible errors in 
measurement and correct for them, without repeating the test. Also, 
repeating a load test when the intercept is large in order to obtain a 
test for which the intercept is smaller, might not result in a 
significant change in the final determination of efficiency at 100 
percent load. The Department understands that the value of the 
intercept must be viewed in the context of the remainder of the test 
workup. Thus, in 10.2 Form B, when the stray load loss is corrected in 
item (32), then the final torque, or shaft power in item (34), is also 
corrected after using item (23) in the formula AT\2\ where ``T = 
corrected torque = (23).'' Instructions are provided, in IEEE 112, at 
the bottom of page 48 under Motoring, for interpolation of the test 
results to complete the Summary of Characteristics on page 47, at the 
bottom of 10.2 Form B, in order to determine the efficiency at the 
actual 100 percent rated load point.
    Also, the nominal full load efficiency identified on the nameplate 
of an electric motor is selected from a prescribed nominal efficiency 
in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, section 12.58.2, Table 12-8, 
which is not greater than the average efficiency of a large population 
of motors of the same design. Moreover, the nominal efficiency of a 
covered electric motor must equal or exceed the efficiency values in 
section 342(b)(1) of EPCA. Consequently, unless there are significant 
differences in the final determination of nominal efficiency for a 
particular electric motor, it appears that use of a prescribed nominal 
full load efficiency value would tend to ``wash out'' small variations 
in individual motor losses and errors in test equipment calibration.
    Therefore, at this time, the Department intends to adopt IEEE 112-
1996, subclause 6.4.2.7, Smoothing of the stray-load loss, without 
change. However, the Department is still considering the option of 
making the following changes to add a restriction on the allowable 
value of the intercept, and will do so if the Department determines, in 
the final rule, that the evidence warrants such a change. The 
restriction would replace the paragraph after the definition of 
variables for equation (21), in subclause 6.4.2.7, and would be worded 
as follows (emphasis added to indicate changes):
    ``If the slope is negative, or if the correlation factor, r, is 
less than 0.9, delete the worst point and repeat the regression. If 
this increases r to 0.9 or larger, use the second regression; if this 
does not increase r to 0.9 or larger, or if the slope is still 
negative, the test is unsatisfactory. Errors in the instrumentation or 
test readings, or both, are indicated. In addition, the value of B must 
not exceed 10 percent of the uncorrected total loss at rated load; 
higher values indicate procedural or power supply problems. If a test 
fails to meet the above criteria, the source of the error should be 
investigated and corrected, and the test should be repeated.''
    The Department requests comments on this issue, and is interested 
in receiving data that would show if any significant differences 
3 do occur

[[Page 34762]]

between the final determined value of efficiency at 100 percent rated 
load for various values of the stray-load loss intercept for repeated 
tests of the same motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Oftentimes what appears as a large intercept is the result 
of improperly performing the dynamometer correction part of the 
test. By definition the dynamometer correction adjusts all data 
points by the same amount of torque which is basically the same 
thing that occurs when the intercept of the stray load loss curve is 
adjusted to go through zero. Should there be a great discrepancy 
between the values for the intercept obtained for testing the same 
motor several times using the same equipment, then this would 
suggest a more fundamental problem of following the procedure 
correctly than just errors in the measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    e. Page 17, subclause 6.4.1.3, ``No-load test,'' second sentence 
currently reads: ``Prior to making this test, the machine shall be 
operated at no-load until both the temperature and the input have 
stabilized.'' Information provided to the Department indicates that the 
requirements for temperature and input stabilization during the no-load 
test appear to be undefined and could cause confusion. To provide 
clarity for locating the pertinent subclause for temperature 
stabilization, the Department proposes to modify the second sentence in 
6.4.1.3 to read: ``Prior to making this test, the machine shall be 
operated at no-load until both the temperature has stabilized (see 
8.6.3) and the input has stabilized.'' The Department finds that an 
additional modification for input stabilization is not necessary, since 
that is covered by previous reference to subclause 5.3 that, in turn, 
refers to subclause 4.3.1.1, Bearing loss stabilization. 
3. Incorrect Information
    Page 40, subclause 8.6.3, Termination of test, currently reads: 
``For continuously rated machines, readings shall be taken at intervals 
of \1/2\ h[our] or less.'' One reason for taking these readings during 
the efficiency test of a motor is to show when the motor's temperature 
rise has ended, and so that the test can be terminated. As written, 
however, subclause 8.6.3 allows temperature readings to be taken at 
intervals of, for example, five seconds. If such short intervals were 
used, there could be little or no rise in temperature between any two 
consecutive readings, even if the motor temperature was actually still 
rising. Consequently, the motor's temperature could be misconstrued as 
being stable. As a result, the measured efficiency would appear to be 
two to three percentage points higher than it actually is, since 
efficiency goes down as temperature goes up. In view of the need to 
correctly determine the leveling of temperature rise for measuring 
efficiency, as the Department believes is intended in subclause 8.6.3, 
the Department proposes to change the third sentence in subclause 
8.6.3. Subclause 8.6.3 currently reads: ``For continuous rated 
machines, the temperature test shall continue until there is 1 deg.C or 
less change in temperature rise between two successive readings.'' The 
Department proposes to change that subclause to read: ``For continuous 
rated machines, the temperature test shall continue until there is 
1 deg.C or less change in temperature rise over a 30-minute time 
period.''
    In sum, the Department believes that use of IEEE 112-1996 Test 
Method B, without corrections, could produce results that provide an 
inaccurate measurement of the energy efficiency of the motor being 
tested, and that vary from one test to the next of the same motor or 
comparable motors. In addition, manufacturers would be burdened by 
having to resolve its typographical errors and unclear provisions, and 
deal with unnecessary references to other parts of IEEE 112. Therefore, 
the Department intends to adopt, in the final rule for electric motors, 
the test procedures in IEEE 112-1996 Test Method B, and the correction 
to the calculation at item (28) in section 10.2 Form B-Method B issued 
by IEEE on January 20, 1998, but with the aforementioned corrections 
and modifications. The Department seeks comments on the technical 
merits of, and the need for, the aforementioned corrections and 
modifications to the IEEE 112. If the record should indicate that any 
of these changes is unwarranted, the Department will decline to adopt 
such modification. Thus, the Department might still adopt IEEE 112-1996 
Test Method B, and the correction to the calculation at item (28) in 
section 10.2 Form B-Method B, without modification, or with only a 
portion of the above modifications.
    Finally, interested parties are also invited to identify other 
problems they believe exist in IEEE 112 Test Method B and section 10.2 
Form B. The Department requests that such other problems, and changes 
to correct them, be clearly identified, and that evidence be provided 
that substantiates the need for these changes.

B. Sampling Plans for Compliance and Enforcement

1. Background
    As per the proposed rule at 10 CFR 431.24, the efficiency of each 
basic model of electric motor would initially be established either by 
testing (``compliance testing'') or by application of an Alternative 
Efficiency Determination Method (AEDM), for purposes of determining 
whether the motor complies with the applicable efficiency standard, and 
of labeling the motor. 61 FR 60466-67 (November 27, 1996). As per the 
proposed rule at 10 CFR 431.127, the Department would ascertain in any 
enforcement proceeding, which could include testing (``enforcement 
testing''), whether a motor complies with the applicable EPCA standard 
and with the labeled value for efficiency.4 61 FR 60472 and 
60474-75 (November 27, 1996). Each of these sections incorporates a 
sampling plan for testing a motor. The sampling plans are intended to 
provide statistically meaningful sampling procedures for conducting 
tests, so as to reduce the testing burden while giving sufficient 
assurance (1) that the true mean energy efficiency of a basic model 
(i.e., the average efficiency of all units manufactured) meets or 
exceeds the applicable energy efficiency standard established in EPCA, 
and (2) that an electric motor found to be in noncompliance will 
actually be in noncompliance. The November 27, 1996 Federal Register 
notice, at section XIII.C.3. and 8., Issues for Public Comment, 
requested comments on the proposed sampling plans for compliance and 
enforcement testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Part II-D below addresses the issue of whether the proposed 
enforcement procedures apply to alleged labeling violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the January 15, 1997, public hearing on the proposed rule 
for electric motors, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association 
(NEMA) and motor manufacturers raised issues concerning the 
Department's proposed sampling plans for electric motors. They asserted 
that the sampling plan for compliance testing would, for example: (1) 
be inconsistent with current industry practice under NEMA Standards 
Publication MG1-1993, ``Motors and Generators,'' (2) place a high 
burden on manufacturers because the risk of a false determination of 
noncompliance is not less than 50 percent for motors that are in 
compliance, and (3) require covered equipment to be engineered to 
exceed the nominal energy efficiency levels for electric motors 
established by EPCA; they also claimed the sampling plan for 
enforcement testing was not in harmony with the sampling plan for 
compliance testing. (Public Hearing, Tr. pgs. 64-111).5 
Thereafter, NEMA submitted to the Department a proposed sampling

[[Page 34763]]

plan for compliance testing and a proposed plan for enforcement 
testing.6 NISTIR 6092 ``Analysis of Proposals for Compliance 
and Enforcement Testing Under the New Part 431; Title 10, Code of 
Federal Regulations,'' January 1998, (the NIST analysis) compares the 
DOE's proposed rule and NEMA proposals through model calculations of 
their operating characteristics, i.e., the estimated probability of 
demonstrating compliance for a given true average of efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Public Hearing, Tr. pgs. 64-111,'' refers to the page 
numbers of the transcript of the ``Public Hearing on Energy 
Efficiency Standards, Test Procedures, Labeling, and Certification 
Reporting for Certain Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors,'' 
held in Washington, DC, January 15, 1997.
    \6\ ``Proposal for the Method of Determining Compliance and 
Enforcement for Electric Motors Under the Efficiency Labeling 
Program of DOE 10 CFR Part 431,'' NEMA Motor and Generator Section, 
Friday, April 18, 1997 (Docket No. EE-RM-96-400, No. 23) (the ``NEMA 
proposal'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Department continues to consider adoption of the 
sampling plans in the NOPR, it is now also considering adoption of the 
NEMA proposals, or variants of these proposals, in place of the 
sampling proposals in the NOPR. It is also considering adoption of a 
modified version of the NOPR sampling plan for enforcement. The 
Department seeks comment on these alternatives to the NOPR's sampling 
plans.
2. The Proposals Under Consideration
    In the NOPR, the Department proposes that when a manufacturer tests 
a basic model of an electric motor 7 to establish its 
efficiency, a sample of units of the motor, comprised of production 
units or representative of production units, shall be selected at 
random and tested. The proposed rule does not specify a particular 
sample size, but provides that the sample must be of sufficient size so 
that any represented value of energy efficiency is no greater than the 
lower of (A) the mean of the sample or (B) the lower 90 percent 
confidence limit of the mean of the entire population of that basic 
model, divided by a coefficient applicable to the represented value. 
The coefficient applicable to a given represented value is derived from 
NEMA MG1-1993, Table 12-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For electric motors, basic model would mean all units of an 
electric motor that are manufactured by a single manufacturer, and 
which have the same rating, have electrical characteristics that are 
essentially identical, and do not have any differing physical or 
functional characteristics which affect energy consumption or 
efficiency. For purposes of this definition, ``rating'' means one of 
the 113 combinations of an electric motor's horsepower (or standard 
kilowatt equivalent), number of poles, and open or enclosed 
construction, with respect to which section 431.42 prescribes 
nominal full load efficiency standards. 61 FR 60465 (November 27, 
1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NOPR, the Department proposed to establish a sampling plan 
for enforcement testing based on NEMA MG1-12.58.2, Efficiency of 
Polyphase Squirrel-cage Medium Motors with Continuous Ratings, and NEMA 
MG1 Table 12-8, Efficiency Levels, which establish a logical series of 
nominal motor efficiencies and a minimum associated with each nominal. 
The minimum efficiency is based on 20 percent loss difference. Under 
this proposed sampling plan, the motor would be found in compliance 
provided (1) the mean of the sample is not less than a lower confidence 
limit and (2) the sample is of sufficient size to provide a statistical 
confidence that is not less than 90 percent. The lower confidence limit 
is found within the sampling plan by calculation and is based on the 
EPCA efficiency standard that is applicable to that basic model, the 
sample standard deviation for the initial sample, and the t value 
corresponding to the 10th percentile for the initial sample. In all 
cases, the lower confidence limit lies below the EPCA standard 
efficiency. DOE's proposed sampling plan for enforcement testing 
assumes that the true mean full load efficiency and standard deviation 
of the motor efficiencies are not known. The proposed sampling plan 
establishes benchmarks for the standard error in the mean, based on the 
existing NEMA guidelines for identifying motor efficiency levels at 
NEMA MG1-12.58, and NEMA Table 12-8. Under the NEMA guidelines, no 
single unit can have energy losses more than 20 percent greater than 
the average losses for that type of motor, i.e., a 20 percent loss 
tolerance is permitted for a given unit but the average must still be 
met. The NOPR states the Department's belief that the 20 percent loss 
tolerance is reasonable and meaningful. 61 FR 60459-60, 60474-75 
(November 27, 1996).
    The NEMA proposal, as stated above, contains a sampling plan for 
compliance testing as well as one for enforcement testing. The plan for 
compliance testing provides that two conditions must be met to 
establish that a motor meets a particular nominal efficiency level. 
First, according to DOE's understanding, the average full load 
efficiency of the sample of units tested must not be less than the 
value of efficiency that equals the applicable nominal efficiency 
reduced by an amount equivalent to a 5 percent increase in losses at 
full load, i.e., the value given by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JN98.003

Second, DOE understands, the full-load efficiency of each motor in the 
sample must be greater than the value of efficiency equal to the 
applicable nominal efficiency reduced by an amount reduced by an amount 
equivalent to a 15 percent increase in losses at full load, i.e., the 
value given by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JN98.004

NEMA's plan for enforcement testing is very similar, and provides that 
the same conditions must be met to establish that a motor complies with 
the applicable EPCA standard, except that the percentages are based on 
the total variation in energy efficiency permitted by NEMA MG-
1.8 The NEMA plans neither specify nor suggest sample sizes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Thus, for enforcement testing DOE understands the conditions 
for establishing compliance to be as follows: (1) the average full 
load efficiency of the sample of units tested must not be less than 
the value of efficiency that equals the applicable nominal 
efficiency prescribed by EPCA, reduced by an amount equivalent to a 
15 percent increase in losses at full load, i.e., the value given by 
100/[1+1.15(100/NE-1)], and (2) the full-load efficiency of each 
motor in the sample must be greater than the value of efficiency 
equal to the applicable nominal efficiency prescribed by EPCA, 
reduced by an amount equivalent to a 20 percent increase in losses 
at full load, i.e., the value given by 100/[1+1.20(100/NE-1)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of these plans, the NEMA proposal discusses a number of 
issues, including: the analyses of testing samples from a total and 
from a limited population of motors, the implications of overlapping 
nominal efficiency distributions, and NEMA's proposed sampling schemes 
for compliance and enforcement. The NEMA proposal claims to balance the 
manufacturer's and consumer's risks and to streamline sampling schemes 
for compliance testing and enforcement testing.
    The NIST analysis examines each of the sampling plans contained in 
the NOPR and the NEMA proposal, and certain variations of those 
sampling plans. NISTIR 6092 assumes that a basic model of an electric 
motor satisfies the applicable energy efficiency requirement in EPCA if 
the mean full load efficiency of the entire population of motors of 
that basic model equals or exceeds the applicable nominal efficiency. 
It compares the NOPR and NEMA proposals through model calculations of 
their operating characteristics, i.e., by estimating the probability of 
demonstrating compliance for a model of electric motor where the true 
average efficiency of that model is known. NISTIR 6092 seeks to clarify 
the issues raised from testimony and comments given during the public 
hearing, January 15, 1997. It provides both a qualitative comparison of 
the operating characteristics of the NOPR

[[Page 34764]]

and NEMA proposals and a quantitative estimate of the risk, or 
statistical confidence, associated with testing under such proposals.
    Based on the NIST analysis the Department is considering the 
following with respect to the final rule for electric motors:
    (1) DOE could adopt the NEMA proposal for compliance testing rather 
than the method given in DOE's proposed rule. Alternatively, DOE could 
adopt the NEMA proposal, but could substitute a coefficient of 1.03 or 
1.01 for the 1.05 coefficient in the formula above. DOE could also 
adopt the NEMA proposal, with or without a change in the 1.05 
coefficient, but with a requirement that the number of sample units to 
be tested be fixed, at five motors for example.
    The Department understands the advantages in simplicity and reduced 
burden on manufacturers presented by the NEMA sampling proposal for 
compliance testing, but believes there is a higher risk, relative to 
the NOPR criteria, of overly optimistic estimates of efficiency. The 
Department believes that the 1.05 coefficient proposed by NEMA could be 
changed to 1.01, for example, and this would substantially reduce the 
risk under the NEMA proposal that a motor failing to meet the energy 
efficiency standard prescribed in EPCA would nevertheless be found in 
compliance. Also, the Department understands that the performance of 
the NEMA proposal for compliance testing depends on the sample size. It 
appears to DOE that a fixed sample size of 5 motors would not be unduly 
burdensome and would provide the statistical confidence needed for 
determining whether an electric motor complies with the applicable EPCA 
standard, for labeling that motor, and for using test results as a 
basis for substantiating alternative methods used to determine the 
efficiencies of other motors.
    (2) With regard to enforcement testing, DOE could adopt NEMA's 
proposal, with or without modification of the coefficient, or could 
retain the NOPR Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing with the 
statistical confidence level increased from 90 percent to 99 percent, 
or to some other value higher than 90 percent.
    NEMA asserts that the NOPR sampling plan for enforcement is not 
consistent with the NOPR sampling plan for compliance, claiming the 
possibility is too great that a motor found in compliance under the 
enforcement plan would have been found in non-compliance under the 
compliance plan. The NIST analysis indicates, however, that the 
sampling criteria proposed by NEMA for enforcement testing make little 
distinction between efficiencies that are at and significantly below 
the EPCA nominal values. Also, the NEMA sampling plan for enforcement 
could produce draconian results. Under the NEMA criteria, the 
efficiency performance of a single unit could cause a basic model to 
fail the entire test, without recourse.
    As proposed, the NOPR Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing 
establishes that testing be consistent with a statistical confidence of 
not less than 90 percent. This statistical confidence implies that the 
likelihood of falsely concluding that a product is not in compliance 
may be as high as 10 percent. According to the NIST analysis, the NOPR 
Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing could be modified to increase the 
confidence level from 90 to 99 percent. Although this modification 
could require testing a larger sample of motors, it would reduce the 
risk that a manufacturer would be falsely found in non-compliance. NIST 
believes it is highly unlikely that a product that is labeled in 
accordance with the NEMA MG1 guidelines would require testing beyond 
the initial sample of five, and that any risk of additional testing is 
more than offset by the increased value of the test in assuring that a 
manufacturer's interest is protected. Moreover, the Department 
understands that, in contrast to the NEMA sampling plan for enforcement 
testing, the t-test used in the NOPR is a widely accepted basis for a 
testing protocol and is not strongly influenced by the exact form of 
the underlying distribution of energy efficiency measurement data.
    The Department of Energy is interested in receiving comments and 
data concerning the accuracy and workability of the NEMA Motor and 
Generator Section proposals for sampling electric motors for compliance 
and enforcement, and would welcome recommendations regarding 
improvements to NEMA's suggested approaches, particularly in the 
following respects:
    (1) Compliance. The Department seeks comments on variations to 
NEMA's proposed sampling plan for compliance, such as requiring the 
sample size to be fixed at five units and setting the coefficient at 
1.01 or 1.03. Are further clarifications needed in the plan? For 
example, if a sample of five units of a basic model of electric motor 
is selected and fails compliance after being tested, under what 
circumstances, if any, would additional samples of the same basic model 
be selected and retested?
    (2) Enforcement. Would the absolute pass/fail nature of the NEMA 
Motor and Generator Section proposal create an undue burden on motor 
manufacturers? What is an appropriate level of confidence for 
enforcement testing? If the NEMA Motor and Generator Section proposal 
for enforcement testing was to be adopted, should the 1.15 and 1.2 
coefficients for the mean and the extreme criteria, respectively, be 
modified? If so, what other values are recommended?

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

    Section 345(c) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6316(c), directs the Department 
to require motor manufacturers to certify compliance with the 
applicable energy efficiency standards through an independent testing 
or certification program nationally recognized in the United States 
and, as is further discussed below, EPCA requires that, subject to 
certain conditions, a motor's nameplate and marketing materials include 
its efficiency. Accordingly, the proposed rule, at sections 431.24, 
431.25(a), 431.82, and 431.123(b), 61 FR 60466-67, 60470-71, requires 
manufacturers to certify and label the efficiency level of each basic 
model of electric motor based on use of either (i) a third party 
independent testing laboratory accredited by a nationally recognized 
accrediting body, such as the National Voluntary Laboratory 
Accreditation Program (NVLAP), (ii) the manufacturer's own testing 
laboratory, if it is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting 
body, such as NVLAP, or (iii) a nationally recognized third party 
certification program.
    Under section 431.24(a) of the proposed rule, the energy efficiency 
of each basic model of electric motor must be determined by compliance 
testing or by application of an alternative efficiency determination 
method (AEDM) which calculates the energy efficiency of an electric 
motor. Use of an AEDM is permitted, however, only if the efficiency of 
at least five basic models, selected in accordance with criteria 
specified in section 431.24(b)(1)(i)-(ii), is determined through 
compliance testing. For each basic model selected for testing, section 
431.24(b)(1)(iii) in the proposed rule provides, as discussed above, a 
sampling procedure for selecting units to be tested. Moreover, to use a 
particular AEDM, it must (1) meet certain general criteria specified in 
section 431.24(b)(2), and (2) be applied to at least five basic models 
that have

[[Page 34765]]

been selected and tested in accordance with the criteria in proposed 
section 431.24(b)(1), with the total power loss predicted for each of 
these models by the AEDM being within plus or minus ten percent of the 
mean total power loss determined from the testing (section 
431.24(b)(3)). Finally, section 431.24(b)(4) requires subsequent 
periodic verification of an AEDM by (1) testing by an accredited 
laboratory, (2) a nationally recognized certification organization or 
(3) an independently state-registered professional engineer.
    As currently written, the proposed regulations impose these 
requirements both when a manufacturer seeks to establish a motor's 
efficiency without using a certification program (i.e., solely through 
testing and AEDMs) and also when efficiency is established through a 
certification program.
    In its comments following the NOPR, Reliance Electric recommends 
that the Department not impose DOE's sampling plan for compliance 
testing when a manufacturer establishes compliance through a third 
party certification program. Reliance asserts that the testing and 
sampling procedures of a certification program, such as the Canadian 
Standards Association (CSA) in Canada, are reliable and fulfill the 
Department's intent that a sampling plan give assurance that the 
nominal full load efficiency reported is correct. (Reliance, No. 11 at 
pg. 7.) NEMA also recommends that the Department's sampling plan 
requirements not apply when compliance is certified through a 
recognized certification program. NEMA asserts, however, that the 
certification program's specific criteria and plan for testing should 
be reviewed and approved by the Department as part of the process of 
reviewing its petition to become a ``nationally recognized'' 
certification program, as described in section 431.27(b)(4) of the 
proposed rule. (NEMA, No. 18 at pgs. 8 & 9.)
    It appears to the Department that these comments from Reliance 
Electric and NEMA have substantial merit. Therefore, although it 
continues to consider the approach in the proposed rule, the Department 
also proposes for consideration that the final rule provide as follows: 
when a manufacturer establishes a motor's efficiency under EPCA through 
a certification organization, the certification organization would not 
be required to (1) select basic models for testing in accordance with 
the final rule's criteria for making such selections,9 or 
(2) follow the sampling provisions that the final rule requires for 
compliance testing.10 The other requirements in proposed 
section 431.24(b) for testing and for use of an AEDM would still have 
to be met. For example, the certification organization would be 
required to establish the efficiency of at least five basic models 
through compliance testing. By way of further example, an AEDM could 
not be used unless it had been applied to at least five basic models 
that had been tested, and the results of such application were within 
the bounds prescribed in the proposed rule. Furthermore, the Department 
proposes that the final rule provide that the criteria used by a 
certification program to select basic models for testing, as well as 
its sampling plan for choosing the units to be tested, will be reviewed 
and approved by the Department as part of the evaluation for national 
recognition under section 431.27(b) of the proposed rule. Finally, 
proposed section 431.24(b)(4)(i)(B) requires verification of an AEDM 
subsequent to its use, stating that one way to achieve such 
verification is for a certification organization to certify the 
efficiency of a basic model to which the AEDM was applied. To provide 
the independent AEDM verification that this provision contemplates, the 
Department proposes that, when a manufacturer has used a certification 
organization to establish a motor's efficiency rating, and the rating 
is based on an AEDM, the AEDM cannot be subsequently verified by having 
that same certification organization certify the efficiency of the 
motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In the proposed rule, such criteria are in section 
431.24(b)(1)(i)-(ii).
    \10\ In the proposed rule, such sampling provisions are in 
section 431.24(b)(1)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department seeks comments on whether it should adopt the 
foregoing proposals, or whether it should adopt the approach in the 
proposed rule, i.e., that certification organizations be required to 
adhere to the provisions specified in the rule for the selection and 
sampling of basic models. In particular, the Department seeks comment 
on the following:
    1. Sampling for compliance testing. The Department seeks comments 
on whether a certification organization should be required to select 
basic models for compliance testing in accordance with criteria such as 
those in proposed section 431.24(b)(1)(i)-(ii). Once a basic model is 
selected, should a certification organization select specimens to be 
tested in accordance with a prescribed sampling plan? The Department of 
Energy is also interested in receiving comments and data concerning the 
workability of sampling plans used by certification organizations, and 
how such sampling plans could be evaluated.
    2. Substantiation and Verification of an AEDM. To substantiate the 
accuracy and reliability of an AEDM, five basic models must be tested. 
When this is done through a certification program, should the 
certification program be required to select and test the basic models 
in accordance with criteria such as those proposed in section 
431.24(b)(1)? Should the same certification organization, used to 
initially substantiate an AEDM under section 431.24(b)(3), be 
prohibited from subsequently verifying an AEDM under section 
431.24(b)(4)(i)(B)?

D. Enforcement Testing Where Violation of a Labeling Representation Is 
Alleged

    Section 344(f) of EPCA provides for the Secretary to prescribe 
rules for electric motor labeling, including requirements that the 
energy efficiency be on the permanent nameplate and be displayed 
prominently in catalogs and other marketing materials. Section 431.82 
of the proposed rule incorporates and implements these provisions, by 
requiring each electric motor's nominal full load efficiency to be 
marked clearly on its permanent nameplate and to be prominently 
displayed in marketing materials for the motor. Section 431.127(a) in 
the proposed rule, which sets forth enforcement procedures, provides 
that the Department may conduct enforcement testing, subject to certain 
conditions, to ascertain the accuracy of the efficiency rating 
disclosed on the nameplate or in marketing materials for an electric 
motor, as well as to determine whether the motor is in compliance with 
the applicable energy efficiency standard.
    Other provisions of the proposed rule, however, as well as language 
in the preamble, can be read as suggesting that the enforcement 
provisions apply only in determining compliance with the applicable 
standard, and not to whether a labeling representation is accurate. 
Under proposed section 431.127(a)(1), for example, enforcement testing 
is pursued after a manufacturer has had an opportunity to ``verify 
compliance with the applicable efficiency standard.'' 61 FR 60472. 
Verification of a label's accuracy is not mentioned. Moreover, the 
sampling procedures for enforcement testing set forth steps to assess 
compliance with the ``applicable statutory full load efficiency,'' and 
refer to whether a basic model being tested is in ``compliance'' or 
``noncompliance.'' 61 FR 60474-75. But no language in these sampling 
procedures indicates that they are to be used to assess the accuracy of 
a labeling representation as

[[Page 34766]]

to efficiency. The preamble indicates that the purpose of the 
enforcement sampling plan is to ascertain whether the mean efficiency 
of a basic model is equal to or exceeds the statutory full load 
efficiency. 61 FR 60459.
    In response to the proposed rule, Mr. W. Treffinger asserts that 
testing and sampling should ensure that the published and nameplate 
data represent the actual efficiency of a motor in use. (Treffinger, 
No. 4 at 5.) NEMA asserts that certification programs for motors 
currently verify the nameplate efficiency. (NEMA, No. 18 at pg. 8.)
    In proposing the enforcement procedures in section 431.127, the 
Department intended that they would apply to allegations that the 
labeled efficiency rating for a motor is erroneous. Moreover, the 
Department continues to believe that these procedures, including the 
proposed sampling plan at section 431.127(c), should be used to 
determine the validity of labeling representations for an electric 
motor, and not just whether the motor meets or exceeds the regulatory 
standard for efficiency. The Department intends to make clear in the 
final rule that the provisions of section 431.127 apply to labeling 
representations. However, because the NOPR was not clear on this point, 
the Department seeks comments whether the proposed enforcement 
procedures should be used to determine the validity of labeling 
representations, or should only be used only to determine if the motor 
meets the applicable efficiency level prescribed by EPCA. If the 
latter, on what basis would a determination be made, during an 
enforcement investigation, as to the validity of labeling 
representations?

E. National Recognition

    Section 345(c) of EPCA requires that compliance be certified 
through a testing or certification program that is ``nationally 
recognized.'' The proposed rule provides that this requirement would be 
met (1) by a testing facility that has been accredited either by NVLAP 
or by an accrediting body that DOE classifies as nationally recognized 
to accredit facilities to test motors for efficiency, or (2) by a 
certification program that DOE has classified as nationally recognized. 
In the proposed rule at section 431.26, Department of Energy 
recognition of accreditation bodies, and section 431.27, Department of 
Energy recognition of nationally recognized certification programs, the 
Department proposes criteria and procedures under which it would make 
such classifications.
    Neither section 431.26 nor 431.27 addresses a situation where DOE 
has classified an organization as an accreditation body, or as a 
nationally recognized certification program, and the organization 
subsequently ceases to comply with the conditions for such 
classification. Therefore, the Department proposes that the final rule 
would provide that the Department will notify such an accreditation 
body or a certification organization if the Department believes the 
entity is failing to comply with the conditions of section 431.26 or 
431.27, respectively, and at the same time the Department will request 
that appropriate corrective action be taken. The rule would also 
provide that the accreditation body or certification organization would 
be given an opportunity to respond, and if, after receiving such 
response, the Department believes satisfactory correction has not been 
made, the Department would withdraw its recognition from that 
organization. If an accreditation body or certification organization 
wishes to withdraw itself from recognition by the Department, it could 
do so by advising the DOE in writing. The Department seeks comments on 
whether the Department should adopt the foregoing approach for 
corrective action, and for revocation of an organization's 
classification as an accreditation body or nationally recognized 
certification program under sections 431.26 and 431.27.

III. Conclusion

    The Department seeks comments only on the aforementioned issues 
arising from possible changes in the NOPR concerning test procedures, 
sampling for compliance and enforcement, verification of labeled 
efficiency, and recognition of accreditation bodies and certification 
organizations.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 9, 1998.
Dan W. Reicher,
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 98-15831 Filed 6-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P