[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