79490 Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 249 /Friday, December 27, 2002 /Notices

defects the Department addressed as

described above, and the fact no

comments were submitted concerning

the Department's interim determination,

the Department concludes that the CSA

International Motor Efficiency

Verification Service Program

satisfactorily meets the criteria in 10

CFR 431.27.

Therefore, the Department's final

determination is to classify the CSA

International Motor Efficiency

Verification Service Program as

nationally recognized in the United

States for the purposes of section 345(c)

of EPCA. This final determination is

effective upon the publication of this

notice in the Federal Register,

notwithstanding the Department's final

determination, in the event that the CSA

International Motor Efficiency

Verification Service Program fails to

continue to meet the criteria in 10 CFR

431.27 for a nationally recognized

certification program, the Department

can withdraw recognition after

following the procedural requirements

in 10 CFR 431.28(g).

Issued in Washington, DC, on December

19, 2002.

David K. Garman,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 02-32533 Filed 12-26-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

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

Energy Efficiency Program for Certain

Commercial and Industrial Equipment:

Final Determination Concerning the

Petition for Recognition of

Underwriters Laboratories Inc. as a

Nationally Recognized Certification

Program for Electric Motor Efficiency

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy; Department of

Energy.

ACTION : Final determination.

SUMMARY : Today's notice announces the

Department of Energy's final

determination classifying the

Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Energy

Verification Service Program for Electric

Motors as a nationally recognized

certification program in the United

States for the purposes of section 345(c)

of the Energy Policy and Conservation

Act.

DATES : This final determination is

effective December 27, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-2J,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585-0121.

Telephone (202) 586-8654, Telefax

(202) 586-4617, or:

jim.raba@ee.doe.gov.

Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of General Counsel,

Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-

0103, Telephone (202) 586-7432,

Telefax (202) 586-4116, or:

francine.pinto@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

II. Discussion

A. General

B. Application of Evaluation Criteria

1. Standards and Procedures for

Conducting and Administering a

Certification System

2. Independence

3. Operation of a Certification System in a

Highly Competent Manner

a. General Operating Requirements (ISO/

IEC Guide 65)

b. Guidelines for Corrective Action in the

Event of Misapplication of a Mark of

Conformity (ISO/IEC Guide 27)

c. General Rules for a Model Third-Party

Certification System for Products (ISO/

IEC Guide 28)

d. General Requirements for the

Competence of Testing Laboratories

(ISO/IEC Guide 25)

4. Expertise in IEEE 112-1996 Test Method

B and CSA C390-93 Test Method (1)

5. Sampling Criteria and Procedures for

Selecting an Electric Motor for Energy

Efficiency Testing

C. Other Matters

III. Final Determination

1. Introduction

On July 5, 2002, the Department of

Energy (DOE or Department) published

in the Federal Register an interim

determination to classify Underwriters

Laboratories Inc.'s Energy Verification

Service Program for Electric Motors (UL

EVS Program or Program) as a nationally

recognized certification program for

electric motor efficiency and solicited

comments, data and information with

respect to that interim determination. 67

FR 45028. The Department did not

receive any comments concerning its

interim determination.

A. Authority

Part C of Title III of the Energy Policy

and Conservation Act (EPCA) contains

energy conservation requirements for

electric motors, including requirements

for test procedures, energy efficiency

standards, and compliance certification

(42 U.S.C. 6311-6316). Section 345(c) of

EPCA directs the Secretary of Energy to

require motor manufacturers "to certify,

through an independent testing or

certification program nationally

recognized in the United States, that

[each electric motor subject to EPCA

efficiency standards] meets the

applicable standard." 42 U.S.C. 6316(c).

Regulations to implement this EPCA

directive, with respect to certification

programs, are codified in 10 CFR Part

431 at sections 431.123, Compliance

Certification, 431.27, Department of

Energy recognition of nationally

recognized certification programs, and

431.28, Procedures for recognition and

withdrawal of recognition of

accreditation bodies and certification

programs.

For a certification program to be

classified by the Department as being

nationally recognized, the program

must: (1) Have satisfactory standards

and procedures for conducting and

administering a certification system,

and for granting a certificate of

conformity; (2) be independent; (3) be

qualified to operate in a highly

competent manner; and (4) be expert in

the test procedures and methodologies

in Institute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers (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; and (5) have satisfactory

criteria and procedures for selecting and

sampling electric motors for energy

efficiency testing. 10 CFR 431.27(b).

B. Background

Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.27, UL

submitted a petition, "Classification in

Accordance with 10 CFR 431.27," (UL

Petition or the Petition), which was

published in the Federal Register on

October 3, 2001. 66 FR 50355. The

Petition consisted of a letter from UL to

the Department, narrative statements on

five subject areas, and supporting

documentation. At the same time, DOE

solicited comments, data, and

information as to whether UL's Petition

should be granted. The Department

received two comments. The

Department also conducted an

independent investigation concerning

the UL Petition pursuant to 10 CFR

431.28(f).

The supporting documents that

accompanied the Petition, as well as the

material UL subsequently submitted to

the Department in support of UL's

Petition, continue to be available in the

Freedom of Information Reading Room,

U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal

Building, Room 1E-190, 1000

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 33
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 249 /Friday, December 27, 2002 /Notices

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.

Additional information about the UL

EVS Program and its Petition to be a

nationally recognized certification

program for electric motor efficiency

can be obtained on the World Wide Web

at http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/

codes standards/rules/index.htm, or

from Ms. Jodine E. Smyth, Senior

Coordinator, Global Accreditation

Services, Underwriters Laboratories

Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL

60062, or Telephone: (847) 272-8800,

ext. 42418; or Telefax (847) 509-6321,

or electronic mail at

lodine.E.Smyth @us. ul.com.

The Department initially received

comments on the UL Petition from

Advanced Energy, dated October 12,

2001, and Emerson Motor Company,

dated October 15, 2001. Advanced

Energy is an independent motor testing

facility and Emerson is a manufacturer

of electric motors. In general, these

commenters stated that UL was not

qualified to test and certify electric

motors for energy efficiency for the

purposes of section 345(c) of EPCA.

After reviewing UL's Petition as well

as other applicable documents,

including the public comments and

facts found through its investigation, the

Department issued its interim

determination, which was published in

the Federal Register on July 5, 2002,

and notified UL in writing of that

interim determination pursuant to 10

CFR 431.28(d). See 67 FR 45028. After

review of any comments and

information submitted in response to

the interim determination the

Department is required to publish in the

Federal Register an announcement of its

final determination on the Petition. See

10 CFR 431.28(e). This notice sets forth

DOE's final determination.

II. Discussion

A. General

For the Department to classify a

certification program as "nationally

recognized," the program must meet the

following criteria:

Sections 431.27(b)(1) and (c)(1) of 10

CFR Part 431 set forth criteria and

guidelines for the standards and

procedures for conducting and

administering a certification system and

for granting a certificate of conformity.

As such, a certification program 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

motors continue to conform to the

efficiency levels for which they were

certified and for granting a certificate of

conformity. International Standards

Organization/International

Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC)

Guide 65 (discussed in 10 CFR

431.27(c)(3) and also below) sets forth

the general requirements intended to

ensure a certification program is

operated in a consistent and reliable

manner. These requirements address: (1)

Impartiality; (2) sufficient personnel

having the necessary education,

training, technical knowledge and

experience; (3) relevant procedures for

sampling, testing and inspecting the

product, and the means necessary to

evaluate conformance by a manufacturer

with those standards; (4) surveillance

and periodic audits to ensure continued

conformance with the applicable

standards; (5) subcontracting work, such

as testing, with proper arrangements to

ensure competence, impartiality, and

compliance with the applicable

standards; (6) procedures to control

records, documents and data, including

review and approval by appropriately

authorized personnel; and (7) control

over use and display of certificates and

marks of conformity.

Sections 431.27(b)(2) and (c)(2) of 10

CFR Part 431 set forth criteria and

guidelines for independence. A

certification program 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. Further, it

should disclose any relationship it

believes might appear to create a

conflict of interest. ISO/IEC Guide 65

sets forth requirements for a

certification program to be impartial and

requires that a program have a

documented structure that safeguards

impartiality. For example, each decision

on certification is made by a person(s)

different from those who carried out the

evaluation or actual testing of the motor.

A certification program's policies and

procedures must distinguish between

product certification and other

activities, its certification process must

be free from any commercial, financial

and other pressures that might influence

decisions, and it must have a committee

structure where members are chosen to

provide a balance of affected interests.

Sections 431.27(b)(3) and (c)(3) of 10

CFR Part 431 set forth criteria and

guidelines requiring that a certification

organization must be qualified to

operate a certification system in a highly

competent manner. Of particular

79491

relevance is documentary evidence that

establishes experience in the

application of guidelines contained in

ISO/IEC Guide 65: 1996, General

requirements for bodies operating

product certification systems, ISO/IEC

Guide 27: 1983, Guidelines for

corrective action to be taken by a

certification body in the event of either

misapplication of its mark of conformity

to a product, or products which bear the

mark of the certification body being

found to subject persons or property to

risk, ISO/IEC Guide 28: 1982, 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: 1990, General

requirements for the competence of

calibration and testing laboratories.

Sections 431.27(b)(4) and (c)(4) of 10

CFR Part 431 set forth criteria and

guidelines requiring that a certification

program 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). Of

particular relevance would be

documentary evidence that establishes

experience in the application of

guidelines contained in the ISO/IEC

Guide 25.

ISO/IEC Guide 25 addresses general

requirements for establishing quality

systems in laboratories and for

recognizing their competence to carry

out specified tests. In part, these

requirements address standards and

procedures for ensuring that: (1)

Organization and management that are

free from commercial, financial, and

other pressures which might adversely

affect quality of work; (2) there is

independence of judgment and

integrity; (3) supervision is provided by

persons familiar with the applicable test

procedures; (4) a quality system, and a

manual which contains procedures for

control and maintenance of documents,

and procedures for periodic audit and

review are all in place; (5) there are

sufficient personnel having the

necessary education, training, technical

knowledge and experience for their

assigned functions, and training of its

personnel is kept up-to-date; (6) all

items of equipment and reference

materials for the correct performance of

tests are available and used, and the

equipment is properly maintained and

calibrated; (7) test equipment is

calibrated and verified prior to

operation, and there is traceability to

national standards of measurement; (8)

documented instructions for the use and

operation of equipment, manuals, and

applicable test procedures are in place;

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 33
79492 Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 249 /Friday, December 27, 2002 /Notices

(9) testing records with sufficient

information to permit repetition of a test

are retained; and (10) where a laboratory

is subcontracted to conduct testing, that

laboratory complies with the

requirements contained in ISO/IEC

Guide 25 and is competent to perform

the applicable testing activities. An

example of a "sub-contracted"

laboratory would be a manufacturer's

laboratory that tests motors for energy

efficiency under the UL EVS Program.

Also, where 10 CFR 431.27(b)(4)

requires a certification program to have

satisfactory criteria and procedures for

the sampling and selection of electric

motors, likewise, ISO/IEC Guide 25

requires the use of documented

sampling procedures and appropriate

techniques to select samples.

B. Application of Evaluation Criteria

1. Standards and Procedures for

Conducting and Administering a

Certification System

Sections 431.27(b)(1) and (c)(1) of 10

CFR 431, and ISO/IEC Guide 65, set

forth criteria and guidelines for the

standards and procedures to be used in

administering a certification system and

granting a certificate of conformity.

In Attachment 1 to the UL Petition,

entitled "431.27(c)(1) Standards and

Operating Procedures," it is stated that

"Underwriters Laboratories Inc. product

safety certification program is an ISO

Guide 65 compliant program" and that

"UL's Energy Verification utilizes the

same operation manuals as UL's product

safety certification services with minor

variations that are detailed in the UL

Energy Verification Manual."

Advanced Energy's comments, dated

October 12, 2001, and Emerson Motor

Company's comments, dated October

15, 2001, generally asserted that the UL

EVS Program is not an ISO/IEC Guide

65 compliant program.

The Department's investigation found

that the UL procedures for operating a

certification system, provided as

attachments to the Petition, were very

general in nature and could be

satisfactorily applied to any UL

certification program. This raised the

issue as to whether the specific

standards and procedures by which the

UL EVS Program operates are adequate,

properly documented, well established

and maintained according to the

aforementioned ISO/IEC Guide 65

criteria. The Department's letter to UL,

dated June 12, 2001, requested copies of

the specific documents that have been

approved by appropriately authorized

UL personnel, and are used as the

standard operating procedures for the

UL EVS Program as it pertains to

electric motors.

UL's letter to the Department, dated

July 2, 2001, asserted that procedures

which demonstrate compliance with

sections 4.3, 4.8, 5 and 13 of ISO/IEC

Guide 65 are contained in UL's

Conformity Assessment Manual, the

Energy Verification Service Manual

(EVS Manual), and the Client Interactive

Programs Manual. Copies were

submitted to the Department during its

investigative process. UL's letter, dated

July 31, 2001, conveyed a copy of its

Motor Efficiency Guide, 2001, which

outlines the criteria UL uses to evaluate

motor efficiency in the United States.

The UL Conformity Assessment

Manual and Client Interactive Programs

Manual establish general operating

procedures that form a basis for UL

certification programs, including the

certification program for electric motors.

The Department finds that ISO/IEC

Guide 65 and the UL Conformity

Assessment and Client Interactive

Programs Manuals are consistent with

each other in that they address, for

example: (1) Steps necessary to evaluate

conformance with relevant product

standards, such as energy efficiency

standards for electric motors; (2)

competence of persons carrying out

testing; (3) documented procedures for

granting, maintaining and withdrawing

certification; (4) control of

documentation; and (5) surveillance to

assure continued conformity with

standards, such as energy efficiency

standards for motors. The Department

understands that these manuals are used

in conjunction with the UL EVS Manual

and Motor Efficiency Guide. The

Conformity Assessment Manual and

Client Interactive Programs Manual are

further addressed in section II.3.c. of

today's Federal Register Notice.

The EVS Manual outlines the

standard criteria and operating

procedures by which UL evaluates and

verifies the energy efficiency of various

types of products. In the case of electric

motors, the EVS Manual refers to the

energy efficiency test procedures found

in 10 CFR 431.27. Its contents include

efficiency verification procedures,

documentation, sample selection,

product testing, test facility evaluation,

product construction evaluation, and

manufacturers ongoing and follow-up

testing. The Motor Efficiency Guide

outlines the criteria that UL utilizes to

evaluate motor efficiency in accordance

with the energy efficiency regulations in

the United States and Canada. It is used

in combination with the EVS Manual for

conducting evaluations in accordance

with UL's EVS Program. It contains a

tutorial on motor efficiency, information

on correlation of stray load loss and the

basis of acceptability for motor

efficiency, sample selection, assessment

of a testing facility, test record data

sheets, and guides the UL representative

that conducts a facility assessment and

witness testing. For example, the section

entitled "Assessment of Client Facility,"

lists areas of a manufacturer's testing

facility that UL would investigate under

its certification program. These include

investigation of a manufacturer's quality

program system as to whether (1) an ISO

9001 or ISO 9002 quality assurance

program is in place, (2) proficiency of

personnel is witnessed, (3) the motor

testing laboratory environment is

properly maintained, (4) testing

equipment is properly maintained and

calibrated, and (5) testing of the energy

efficiency of electric motors is

conducted in accordance with 10 CFR

431.23.

Also, UL submitted the revised Motor

Efficiency Guide ULS-02194-ZWAA,

"Test Record Data Sheet" pages 1

through 14, and a page ULS-02194-

ZWAA "Appendix D," page 0001,

"Manufacturer's Test Equipment." The

Department understands that this

revised guide supersedes the abovereferenced earlier version and is used in

combination with the Energy

Verification Services Manual for

conducting evaluations in accordance

with UL's EVS Program. Further, UL

provided the Department a copy of UL's

specific standard operating procedures

which are utilized as part of the UL EVS

Program. These included data sheets

that describe the test methodology,

follow-up inspections to verify electric

motor efficiency, and an exemplary

"Certificate of Compliance."

The Department has examined UL's

Petition and all other documents

described above, and affirms its

conclusion that these documents

provide evidence of satisfactory

standards and procedures for UL to

conduct its EVS Program to satisfy the

requirements set forth in 10 CFR

431.27(b)(1) and (c)(1), and the

guidelines contained in ISO/IEC Guide

65.

2. Independence

Sections 431.27(b)(2) and (c)(2) of 10

CFR part 431, and ISO/IEC Guide 65, set

forth criteria and guidelines for

impartiality.

In Attachment 2 to the UL Petition,

entitled "Independence," UL asserted

that it is independent and impartial of

any individual electric motor supplier

or purchaser and is free from any other

conflict of interest. A notarized

Statement of Independence signed by an

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 33
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 249 /Friday, December 27, 2002 /Notices

officer of the corporation was submitted

in support of its assertion.

The Department's June 12, 2001, letter

to UL requested additional documents

concerning the policies or procedures

that distinguish (a) a direct or indirect

relationship with a motor manufacturer,

importer, or private labeler that is in a

situation where UL both provides safety

certification services and an EVS for

such entity's motors, and (b) where a

manufacturer's representative serves, for

example, on UL Standards Technical

Panel UL 1004, Electric Motors. Such

relationships needed more explanation

as to why each would not create or

appear to create a conflict of interest,

compromise UL's independence, or bias

information presented to UL for the

purposes of compliance with 10 CFR

part 431.

UL's letter to the Department, dated

July 2, 2001, asserted that UL is

"independent and impartial of any

individual supplier or purchaser and is

free from any other conflict of interest,"

and that "UL has no stockholders, i.e.,

no direct or indirect relationship with

manufacturers, importers or private

labelers." UL explained that it is

incorporated as a not-for-profit

organization in the State of Delaware,

and its policy regarding conflict of

interest is both addressed as a condition

for employment and in its code of

ethics. Also, chapter 2 of the UL "Client

Interactive Programs Manual" sets forth

procedures whereby each decision on

certification is made by a person or

persons different from those who

carried out a motor efficiency

evaluation. Furthermore, UL explained

that its standards development process

for safety matters is organizationally

separated from its certification

operations. Thus, a manufacturer's

representative who participates in a UL

Technical Panel as part of the standards

development process only provides

technical input to standards and has no

influence over certification functions,

such as the EVS Program for Electric

Motors.

The Department has examined the

above documents and affirms its

conclusion that they provide sufficient

evidence that the UL EVS Program

meets the requirements for

independence which are set forth in 10

CFR 431.27(b)(2) and(c)(2), and the

guidelines for objectively and

impartiality of technical persons and

committees which are set forth in ISO/

IEC Guide 65. Furthermore, the UL EVS

Program meets the ISO/IEC Guide 25

requirements for organization and

management to ensure confidence that

its independence of judgment and

integrity are maintained at all times.

3. Operation of a Certification System in

a Highly Competent Manner

Sections 431.27(b)(3) and (c)(3) of 10

CFR 431 require that the petitioner

demonstrate that its certification

program operates in a highly competent

manner by establishing its experience in

the application of certain ISO/IEC

Guides, including ISO/IEC Guides 65,

27 and 28, as well as experience in

overseeing compliance with the

guidelines in ISO/IEC Guide 25.

In Attachment 3 to the UL Petition,

"Testing Experience and Expertise," UL

asserted that it has been conducting

product safety evaluations for 105 years,

and that in 1999 alone it conducted

more than 94,300 product evaluations.

As to further experience in operating a

certification system and application of

guidelines contained in ISO/IEC Guide

65, UL stated in Attachment 3,

"Summary of UL's Accreditations," that

it is involved in more than 80

accreditation programs that are involved

with the evaluation and testing of

products for public safety. It stated that

its competence as a product certification

organization has been, for the most part,

established under the criteria in ISO/IEC

Guides 25 and 65. Copies of UL's

accreditation documents from the

American National Standards Institute

(ANSI) and the Standards Council of

Canada (SCC), and recognition as a

Nationally Recognized Testing

Laboratory from the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration were

attached to the UL Petition.

a. General Operating Requirements

(ISO/IEC Guide 65)

Both Advanced Energy and Emerson

Motor Company stated that "UL has a

solid reputation in testing services and

quality assurance for safety programs,"

and is capable of administering safety

programs because they are ISO/IEC

Guide 65 compliant, as demonstrated by

the ANSI accreditation. However, both

Advanced Energy and Emerson Motor

Company found "no evidence of this

being true with respect to UL's Energy

Verification Program." Advanced

Energy's letter, dated October 12, 2001,

asserted that UL's EVS Program has the

potential to confuse customers in the

marketplace and unduly burden motor

manufacturers, because UL would visit

each motor manufacturer's facilities

twice per year, require testing of an

unspecified number of sample motors,

and require inspection of the motor

manufacturing processes. Advanced

Energy and Emerson Motor Company

stated that the UL EVS Program is not

sufficient for the purposes of EPCA on

motor efficiency, and that it conflicts

79493

with the intent of EPCA and 10 CFR Part

431.

In response to the above comments

from Advanced Energy and Emerson

Motor Company, UL's letter to the

Department, dated October 22, 2001,

asserted that Advanced Energy's view of

the UL certification program is based

upon limited exposure to UL's technical

expertise and other portions of the EVS

Program related to electric motors. Also,

UL stated that it believes that Emerson

Motor Company's concerns are

addressed under 10 CFR Part 431

concerning the use of a certification

program.

The Department examined the above

UL accreditations and found that the

majority of them concerned product

safety certification and there was no

explicit reference to the certification of

energy efficiency for electric motors.

The Department's June 12, 2001, letter

to UL requested evidence as to whether

the UL EVS Program for electric motors

is, or will become, accredited by another

organization, such as ANSI. Also, the

Department's letter requested evidence

of the technical qualifications and

experience held by UL personnel

directly involved with the UL EVS

Program, such as technical evaluations

and decisions concerning critical motor

construction features, performance, and

testing for energy efficiency using IEEE

112-1996 Test Method B and CSA

C390-93 Test Method (1).

Thereafter, the Department received a

letter, dated June 26, 2001, from ANSI

which affirmed that the UL EVS

Program is covered under the scope of

the ANSI accreditation for Electrical and

Electronic Products, Processes, Systems,

and Services in accordance with ISO/

IEC Guide 65. Also in response to the

Department's June 12 letter, UL's letter,

dated July 2, 2001, asserted that UL has

documented procedures to ensure that

qualified personnel review the

evaluation of motors for compliance

with energy efficiency requirements,

and written instructions that set forth

the duties and responsibilities of such

personnel. UL staff undergoes continual

on-the-job training and is evaluated

through a documented performance

appraisal process. UL has supervisory

and review staff with the necessary

education, training, skill, abilities and

experience for evaluating motors for

compliance with energy efficiency

requirements, and its management

structure provides for the supervision of

reviewers and other personnel involved

in the product certification process.

UL's July 2nd letter conveyed resumes

of certain staff involved in the EVS

Program.

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 33
79494 Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 249 /Friday, December 27, 2002 /Notices

As to any undue burden on a

manufacturer caused by UL's biannual

inspections of a motor facility, the

Department understands that UL's

surveillance program consists of two

random unannounced audits of the

manufacturer's facilities, and such

audits can be conducted separately or in

conjunction with its motor safety

investigations, thereby lessening the

compliance burden on a manufacturer.

Therefore, the Department believes that

the UL EVS Program does not present

any undue burden on a manufacturer.

As to the above-referenced comments

from Advanced Energy and Emerson

Motor Company concerning the UL EVS

Program not meeting the requirements

for a "certification program" in section

345(c) of EPCA and in 10 CFR

431.123(a)(1), the Department finds no

facts or convincing arguments that

support the assertions of Advanced

Energy or Emerson Motor Company that

the UL EVS Program is "not sufficient"

or "conflicts with the intent" of EPCA,

or "would place additional burden on

manufacturers." Such issues involving

the merits and use of an accredited

laboratory or a certification program

were argued at length under sections

II.C.2. and 3. of the Preamble to the

Final Rule for Electric Motors, 64 FR

54124-26 (October 5, 1999) and need

not be repeated here. The Department

continues to believe that use of a

certification program, such as the UL

EVS Program, where it meets the

requirements set forth in 10 CFR

431.27(a) will provide adequate

assurance of compliance with EPCA's

energy efficiency requirements. Because

the assertions of Advanced Energy and

Emerson Motor Company are merely

arguments against the wisdom of the

final rule and of the Departments

regulations themselves, and are not

directed at the UL Petition, they are

rejected.

b. Guidelines for Corrective Action in

the Event of Misapplication of a Mark of

Conformity (ISO/IEC Guide 27)

ISO/IEC Guide 27 identifies

procedures which a certification

program should consider in response to

a reported misuse of its registered mark

of conformity. According to paragraph

1.1 (a) of ISO/IEC Guide 27, "misuse"

may take a variety of forms, such as a

mark of conformity appearing on a noncertified product. The Department

construes this to mean the unauthorized

use by a manufacturer or private labeler

of the UL Verification Mark for Energy

Efficiency (Mark or UL Mark) on an

electric motor, such as the use of a

counterfeit UL Mark. Under ISO/IEC

Guide 27, the certification program

would then be required to have strong

corrective procedures in place. Such

corrective measures would depend

upon the nature of the misuse and the

desire by the certification program to

protect the integrity of its mark.

The Department has examined the UL

Conformity Assessment Manual and

finds that it contains procedures for

reporting the misuse of any UL Mark

used to identify certified products, such

as any unauthorized or counterfeit use

of a UL Registered mark. The

Department affirms its conclusion that

the UL Conformity Assessment Manual

satisfactorily follows the guidelines for

corrective action to be taken by a

certification organization in the event of

misapplication of a mark of conformity

to an electric motor set forth in 10 CFR

431.27(c)(3) and ISO/IEC Guide 27.

c. General Rules for a Model ThirdParty Certification System for Products

(ISO/IEC Guide 28)

ISO/IEC Guide 28 addresses

minimum guidelines for a third-party

certification system in determining

conformity with product standards

through sample selection, initial testing

and assessment of a factory quality

management system, follow-up

surveillance, subsequent testing of

samples from the factory, and the use of

a mark of conformity.

Consistent with the above ISO/IEC

Guide 28 guidelines, Attachment 1 to

the UL Petition, entitled "431.27(c)(1)

Standards and Operating Procedures,"

described the UL certification of motors

under its EVS Program as being based

upon: (1) Satisfactory evaluation and

testing to the requirements of the

applicable standard, which in this case

is under 10 CFR 431.23; (2) continued

surveillance at the manufacturing

location; (3) initial motor evaluation

that consists of an examination of motor

efficiency test data, test facilities, and

motor design and construction; (4)

selection of samples and witness testing

by a UL representative; (5) where an

electric motor is found to be in

compliance, authorization to apply a

mark of conformity; and (6) procedures

for withdrawal or cancellation of a mark

of conformity if an electric motor is

found in non-conformance. Also, UL

submitted its Energy Verification

Service Manual as evidence that its EVS

Program for electric motors follows the

guidelines contained in ISO/IEC Guide

28.

In view of ISO/IEC Guide 28, the

Department examined the UL EVS

Manual that outlines the criteria by

which UL performs third-party energy

efficiency certifications for various

products, including electric motors. In

sum, the UL EVS Manual contains the

general operating procedures and

business document formats applicable

to UL's EVS Program, that when utilized

in conjunction with the procedures and

technical document formats in the UL

Conformity Assessment Manual and

Motor Efficiency Guide, correspond to

the "model" procedures and example

forms contained in ISO/IEC Guide 28.

The Department finds that, in general,

both ISO/IEC Guide 28, and the UL EVS

and Conformity Assessment Manuals

address: (1) The basic conditions and

rules for a manufacturer to obtain and

retain a certificate of conformity or mark

of conformity; (2) initial inspection of a

motor factory and a manufacturer's

quality management system; (3) sample

selection; (4) initial testing; (5) product

evaluation; (6) surveillance; (7)

identification of conformity in the form

of a certificate of conformity or mark of

conformity; (8) withdrawal of a

certificate or mark of conformity by the

certification program; and (9) guidelines

on corrective action for misuse of a

certificate or mark of conformity. The

Department affirms its conclusion that

the UL EVS Program satisfies the

general guidelines for a model thirdparty certification system under 10 CFR

431.27(c)(3) and the guidelines set forth

in ISO/IEC Guide 28.

Also, ISO/IEC Guide 28 requires a

certification program operating at a

national level, such as under section

345(c) of EPCA which requires

manufacturers to certify compliance

through a "nationally recognized"

certification program, to have a suitable

organizational structure and utilize

personnel, equipment, and operating

procedures that comply with the criteria

for a testing laboratory in ISO/IEC Guide

25. Consistent with these guidelines, the

UL Conformity Assessment Manual and

Client Interactive Programs Manual

provide general policies, practices and

procedures that govern UL's conformity

assessment services. These include

submitting a product for investigation,

conduct of the investigation, witnessed

test data procedures, compliance

management, issuance of the UL Mark,

and follow-up services. The Department

finds that the "Client Test Data

Program," contained in the Client

Interactive Programs Manual,

particularly addresses the UL EVS

Program, whereby tests for energy

efficiency are conducted at client

facilities and are subject to review and

audit by UL. Furthermore, the "Client

Test Data Program" establishes policies

and procedures consistent with ISO/IEC

Guide 25 which address operating a

laboratory quality system, testing

equipment, qualification of personnel,

test standards and procedures for

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 33
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 249 /Friday, December 27, 2002 /Notices

testing, training, assessment of a test

facility, program administration,

documentation, and issuing a certificate

of qualification. The Department

understands that both the Conformity

Assessment and Client Interactive

Programs Manuals are used in

conjunction with UL's product-specific

operations manuals, such as the UL

Energy Verification Service Manual, that

applies specific procedures to the

acceptance of energy efficiency test data

for electric motors.

The Department has examined the

contents of these manuals and affirms

its conclusion that they satisfy the

guidelines for conducting a model thirdparty certification program at the

national level as applicable under 10

CFR 431.27(c)(3) and ISO/IEC Guide 28.

d. General Requirements for the

Competence of Testing Laboratories

(ISO/IEC Guide 25)

Third-party certification programs

must have experience overseeing

compliance with the guidelines

contained in ISO/IEC Guide 25. ISO/IEC

Guide 25 sets out the general

requirements by which a laboratory

must operate if it is to be recognized as

competent to carry out specific tests.

According to Attachment 3 to the UL

Petition, "Summary of UL's

Accreditations," the majority of UL's

accreditations cover UL as a testing

laboratory and product safety

certification organization. Although

each accreditor to a certain extent

establishes its own criteria, for the most

part, two sets of criteria are utilized for

evaluating the competence of a testing

laboratory and product certification

organization: ISO/IEC Guide 25, General

Requirements for the Competence of

Calibration and Testing Laboratories

and ISO/IEC Guide 65 General

Requirements for Bodies Operating

Product Certification Systems. UL's

written policies and associated

operating procedures were designed

using the criteria of these two guides.

UL's letter to the Department, dated

January 24, 2002, asserted that UL has

"significant experience understanding,

adapting, documenting and applying the

requirements of Guide 25 to

manufacturers' laboratories as

evidenced by the [Client Test Data

Program] CTDP documentation and

overseeing compliance of manufacturers

with UL's CTDP." According to the

January 24 letter, UL has determined

that Guide 25 as written "can not solely

be the basis on which it accepts

responsibility for the test data generated

from a manufacturer's laboratories," and

as a result, UL's Client Test Data

Program requirements are "an

adaptation of Guide 25, with necessary

changes made, so that UL has an

adequate basis for taking responsibility

for the test data from a manufacturer's

laboratory." For example, even though

not required by ISO/IEC Guide 25, UL

requires repeat testing and requires that

the data from that repeat testing

correlate with the original test data

generated by the manufacturer. In

addition, UL conducts audits of

manufacturers' laboratories under the

Client Test Data Program, whereas ISO/

IEC Guide 25 only requires a laboratory

to audit itself. UL believes such

additional oversight requirements are

necessary in order for it to accept

responsibility for the test data. Further,

UL asserted that it does not rely solely

on a manufacturer's self-monitoring of

laboratory competence through the

laboratory's quality system; rather, UL

itself "directly monitors those aspects of

laboratory operations that contribute to

the accuracy of the test data produced."

Thus, UL adds a second level of

assurance through audit testing and

subsequent data correlation. UL's

January 24 letter concluded with the

assertion that it has "demonstrated

experience overseeing a laboratory not

just to Guide 25 requirements, but to

even more stringent requirements

related to transfer of responsibility for

test data."

The Department compared ISO/IEC

Guide 25 with UL's CTDP as it would

apply to a manufacturer's motor

efficiency testing laboratory under a

certification program and found them to

be consistent with each other. Under

UL's CTDP, a motor manufacturer's

laboratory must, in sum, have a quality

program that is subject to assessment

and reassessment, have physical

resources, equipment, qualified

personnel and procedures that conform

to national and international

accreditation criteria, and have test data

that is reviewed and subject to a regular

audit. The Department found, for

example:

• Where ISO/IEC Guide 25 sets forth

requirements for organization and

management of a testing laboratory to

ensure proper supervision and integrity

of data, similarly, the UL CTDP requires

a testing laboratory to have procedures

and policies in place to assure accuracy

and correctness of the performance of

the tests, test data developed, and

results reported, as well as qualified

staff to oversee testing and ensure

proper documentation.

• Where ISO/IEC Guide 25 requires a

manufacturer's testing laboratory to

have a quality system with documented

policies and procedures, such as for the

organization and operation of a testing

79495

laboratory, traceability of

measurements, calibration of

equipment, test procedures used,

procedures for corrective actions and

audits, similarly, the UL CTDP requires

a manufacturer's testing laboratory to

have procedures and policies that assure

accuracy and correctness of the

performance of a test, test data

developed, and results reported, and

oversight of sampling, testing, data

recording and periodic audits.

• Where ISO/IEC Guide 25 requires a

manufacturer's testing laboratory to

have sufficient personnel having the

necessary education, training, technical

knowledge and experience, the UL

CTDP requires similar qualifications of

testing laboratory personnel.

• Where ISO/IEC Guide 25 requires

the proper environment and equipment

for performance of testing, and that such

equipment is properly maintained and

calibrated, similarly the UL CTDP

requires the proper environment for

testing, and requires that equipment is

fully operational, calibrated and

traceable to nationally recognized

standards of measurement.

• Where ISO/IEC Guide 25 requires

the testing laboratory to maintain a

record system of original observations,

calculations, and derived data sufficient

to permit repetition of a test, similarly,

the UL CTDP requires data recording

and test reports, and other

documentation of initial assessments

and reassessments and verification.

Also, the UL CTDP requires that

reference standards and test procedures

used by the testing laboratory are

current.

• Both ISO/IEC Guide 25 and the UL

CTDP require test reports or test

certificates that contain similar

information.

In view of these comparisons, the

Department affirms its belief, set forth in

the interim determination, that UL's

EVS Program satisfies the requirement

of 10 CFR 431.27(c)(3) for documentary

evidence that establishes experience in

operating a certification system and

overseeing compliance with the

guidelines for competence contained in

ISO/IEC Guide 25 to test electric motors

for energy efficiency.

Also, 10 CFR 431.27 does not require

a certification program to actually

operate its own motor testing laboratory,

nor is a laboratory operated or observed

by a certification program required to be

accredited. Nevertheless, the

Department believes that the quality

program to which a motor efficiency

testing laboratory adheres under a

certification program that is "nationally

recognized" for the purposes of EPCA

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 33
79496 Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 249 /Friday, December 27, 2002 /Notices

should be inherently stringent because

its efficiency measurements are the

basis for compliance determinations for

many motors. Therefore, the Department

believes that a testing facility operated

or observed by a certification program

should follow the guidelines in ISO/IEC

Guide 25. The Department understands

that, in general, the evaluation of a

motor testing laboratory under ISO/IEC

Guide 25 includes an on-site

assessment, proficiency testing, an audit

of a laboratory's policies and

operational procedures, review of staff

qualifications, checks of proper

maintenance and calibration of test

equipment, and records review.

Likewise, evaluation of a motor testing

laboratory under the UL EVS includes

evaluation of the manufacturer's testing

facility, control and maintenance and

calibration of test equipment, factory

audits for continued compliance,

document control, periodic audits of the

operational and technical consistency of

the program, control of nonconformances, staff training, and

witness testing.

The Department believes that the goal

of a third-party certification program is

to provide assurance that test results are

accurate, valid, and capable of being

replicated. Tests must be performed

with a degree of oversight so that the

results are not influenced by marketing

and production concerns. The

Department affirms its belief that the UL

EVS Program essentially follows the

ISO/IEC 25 Guidelines.

4. Expertise in IEEE Standard 112-1996

Test Method B and CSA Standard C390-

93 Test Method (1)

Section 431.27(b)(4) of 10 CFR Part

431 set forth evaluation criteria and

guidelines whereby personnel

conducting a certification program

should be expert and experienced in the

content and application of 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. The

program must have satisfactory criteria

and procedures for the selection and

sampling of electric motors tested for

energy efficiency, and provide

documents that establish experience in

applying the guidelines for confidence

in testing laboratories contained in ISO/

IEC Guide 25. Such guidelines address

quality audits and reviews, personnel,

equipment, test methods, sampling, and

records.

In Attachment 4 to the UL Petition

entitled, "431.27(c)(4) Expertise in

Motor Test Procedures," it is stated that

"UL has been providing Energy

Verification certification services since

1995," and that "UL has evaluated

motors in sizes ranging from 1 hp to 200

hp using the standards IEEE 112 Test

Method B or CSA C390." According to

the Petition, UL publishes a Directory of

Electric, Gas Fired, and Oil-Fired

Equipment Verified for Energy

Efficiency 1999, which includes electric

motors, and asserts that each member of

its engineering staff has at least a fouryear Bachelor of Science degree in

engineering. Also, UL submitted to the

Department a copy of its Conformity

Assessment Manual, EVS Manual,

Client Interactive Programs Manual, and

Motor Efficiency Guide as evidence of

its expertise in electric motor test

procedures.

The Department's letter to UL, dated

June 12, 2001, requested evidence as to

the nature and extent of training that

current staff actually involved with the

EVS Program regularly undergoes to

maintain proficiency with the

evaluation of motor designs and

construction, and the practice of energy

efficiency testing.

UL's letter, dated July 2, 2001,

asserted that UL has documented

procedures to ensure that qualified

personnel review the evaluation of

motors for compliance with energy

efficiency requirements. These include

the written instructions for the duties

and responsibilities of personnel with

respect to the evaluation of motor

efficiency investigations, as well as

qualification requirements to assure that

its personnel are qualified in the

scientific disciplines related to energy

efficiency. Further, UL asserted that its

staff undergoes continual, on-the-job

training and each person is evaluated

through a documented performance

appraisal process. UL has supervisors as

review staff with the necessary

education, training, skill, abilities and

experience for evaluating motors for

compliance with energy efficiency

requirements. Also, UL has developed

its own Motor Efficiency Guide as a

reference for staff involved in

conducting motor efficiency

evaluations. UL's management structure

provides for the supervision of

reviewers and other personnel involved

in the product certification process.

UL's letter, dated September 20, 2001,

contained the names of UL technical

staff involved with the EVS Program,

indicates their experience with CSA

C390-93 and IEEE 112-1996, and

contained a resume for each.

Furthermore, UL's letter dated

September 20, 2001, asserted that the

test procedures in "CSA C390-93

method B" [sic] are similar to those

procedures already in place under other

CSA International Standards as well as

UL Standards, and that the data and

information recorded to verify energy

efficiency is some of the same data and

information required under the testing it

conducts on a routine basis and which

follows UL Standard 1004, "Electric

Motors," UL Standard 2111,

"Overheating Protection for Motors,"

UL 547, "Thermally Protected Motors,"

and CSA C22.2 No. 77, "Overheating

Protection for Motors," and CSA C22.2

No. 100, "Motors and Generators." UL

asserted that the data and information

recorded for energy verification testing

is some of the same data and

information required under the abovereferenced test procedures, which it

uses in an automated spreadsheet

program entitled "Motor Efficiency

Testing Program V3.0," UL copyrighted

1994 and 1997, to calculate motor

efficiency. The September 20 letter from

UL compared the IEEE 112 and CSA

C390 test procedures with similar

procedures in the above "UL" and

"CSA" standards for performance and

safety.

Advanced Energy's letter, dated

October 12, 2001, expressed concern

with "the level of `expert' knowledge

regarding motor testing." Advanced

Energy asserted that UL is thorough in

the documentation of procedures and

calibrations of laboratory equipment,

but weak in motor efficiency testing, test

data analysis, and in its prescriptive

audit process that does not involve

motor testing, review of motor test data,

or proficiency testing by a laboratory.

Emerson Motor Company's letter,

dated October 15, 2001, expressed

concern that UL uses a motor

manufacturer's testing facilities that

have been "reviewed" by a UL staff

member, but there is no evidence of the

staff member's credentials, knowledge,

level of training and certification with

regard to motor efficiency testing

laboratories.

In response to the above comments

from Advanced Energy and Emerson

Motor Company, UL's letter, dated

October 22, 2001, asserted that

Advanced Energy's view of the UL

certification program is based upon

limited exposure to UL's technical

expertise when both UL and Advanced

Energy were exploring a business

relationship in the 1990s. According to

UL, a laboratory assessment is one part

of its Client Test Data Program under

which external testing, such as by

Advanced Energy, would be accepted by

UL. However, other portions of the UL's

EVS Program, including staff with

specific technical capability related to

motor testing, were not completed at

that time, nor had Advanced Energy

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 33
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 249 /Friday, December 27, 2002 /Notices

been exposed to the "full expertise"

within the UL Program.

UL's letter to the Department, dated

February 21, 2002, asserted that UL's

experience in standards development,

testing, and safety evaluation of motors

according to the requirements of UL and

other U.S. and International standards

and the corresponding data acquisition

necessary to accomplish these

endeavors, is "equivalent to and

demonstrative of the indicated UL staff

having the necessary proficiency and

expertise to conduct energy efficiency

evaluations." In sum, the experience

with CSA C390-93 and IEEE Standard

112 of the five UL staff persons engaged

in the UL EVS Program ranges from one

to four years, which is in addition to

their four to 13 years experience with

test procedures for motor safety.

In the Department's view, any

technically qualified person could

satisfy the criteria for expertise in the

content, application, and methodologies

of the test procedures pursuant to 10

CFR 431.27(b)(4) if that person: (1) Is

proficient in the test methodology of

IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B and

CSA C390-93 Test Method (1); (2) is

familiar with the electrical, mechanical

and environmental capabilities of a

testing laboratory system, (3)

understands how to prepare and mount

a motor for testing, which includes the

connection and operation of the test

equipment, (4) is competent in

calibrating test equipment; and (5) is

competent with data collection and

analysis. UL's experience in standards

development, testing and evaluation of

motors to both U.S. and international

safety and similar energy efficiency

procedures and methodologies provide

sufficient evidence of UL staff having

the necessary proficiency and expertise

to conduct energy efficiency evaluations

under ISO/IEC Guide 25. Thus, the

Department affirms its belief that the

qualifications of the UL Staff named in

the above September 20 letter, regular

additional training, and monitoring by

UL management, satisfy the general

requirements for the training, technical

knowledge, and experience of testing

laboratory personnel under 10 CFR

431.27(b)(4) and (c)(4).

5. Sampling Criteria and Procedures for

Selecting an Electric Motor for Energy

Efficiency Testing

Section 431.27(b)(4) of 10 CFR 431

requires a certification organization to

have satisfactory criteria and procedures

for the selection and sampling of

electric motors tested for energy

efficiency. Based on the National

Institute of Standards and Technology

report, NISTIR 6092, "Analysis of

Proposals for Compliance and

Enforcement Testing Under the New

Part 431: Title 10, Code of Federal

Regulations," January 1998, which

analyzed various criteria and sampling

plans proposed for establishing

compliance with the nominal full-load

efficiency levels prescribed by EPCA, 42

U.S.C. 6313(b)(1), the Department

determined that "the NEMA proposal

for compliance testing provides

statistically meaningful sampling

procedures." Moreover, the NIST

analysis was extensive in order to

determine whether a particular

sampling plan would be valid for the

purpose of establishing compliance with

EPCA motor efficiency levels. Also,

section 10.5 of ISO/IEC Guide 25: 1990

requires the use of documented

procedures and appropriate statistical

techniques to select samples.

In Attachment 1 of its Petition, UL

described its sample selection process

as one where representative samples

from the manufacturer's production are

selected for use in testing and witnessed

by UL engineering staff. According to

the Petition, representative samples are

those that, when reviewed as a group,

can adequately represent a line of

similar models that use the same major

energy consuming components. UL

asserted that the objective in selecting

representative samples is to obtain

sufficient confidence that the series of

motors verified meet the applicable

energy efficiency standard while at the

same time minimize the number of tests

the manufacturer is required to perform.

Samples are selected to represent an

entire range of motors. Furthermore, as

part of a manufacturer's ongoing

production testing, UL audits the

number of samples tested and the

frequency of testing and test results

which are documented by the

manufacturer. The manufacturer is

required to document the test results,

which UL audits as part of each followup visit.

Notwithstanding UL's above

assertions, the Department found no

evidence that the samples used for a

motor manufacturer's test data was

selected randomly, that a UL

representative participated in the

sample selection process or witnessed

any of the initial testing, or that it was

clear that "two samples" were sufficient

to statistically validate the energy

efficiency of an entire line of electric

motors.

Subsequently, UL submitted to the

Department, under cover letter dated

July 31, 2001, a copy of its Motor

Efficiency Guide (Guide), to outline the

criteria by which UL evaluates motor

efficiency in accordance with energy

79497

efficiency regulations. The Department

examined the Guide and found that

appendix D contained a section entitled

"Sample Selection," Form Page 8 on

ULS-02194-ZWAA-Appendix-0001,

which set forth procedures whereby

samples consisting of production units

are "randomly selected by UL Staff" and

appeared to satisfy one of the

Department's concerns. However, in the

"Definitions" section of the Guide, the

Department found that the definition of

"nominal full load efficiency" was not

consistent with the definition of

"nominal full load efficiency" in 10

CFR 431.2, nor did the Guide contain a

definition of the term "Sample." Also,

the "Basis of Acceptability," on Form

Page 11 of appendix D in the Guide,

which provided procedure to calculate

a tolerance for "permitted values of

energy efficiency" using a "Coefficient

K" and required that the "actual motor

efficiency value will be not less than the

associated minimum value," was

inconsistent with 10 CFR 431.24,

"Determination of efficiency," and 10

CFR 431.42, "Energy conservation

standards." Thereafter, UL submitted to

the Department, under cover letters

dated January 11 and January 28, 2002,

a copy of the revised pages in the Guide

that were in question. These included a

definition for the term "sample,"

revised sample selection criteria,

identification of UL's initial factory

production visit to select the random

samples, and corrections to the

"Statistical Test Method" formulas and

the "Basis of Acceptability" in order to

be consistent with the applicable

provisions in 10 CFR 431.

The Department affirms its conclusion

that the above documents, as corrected

by UL, are consistent with 10 CFR

431.24 and 431.42, and satisfy the

criteria and procedures for the selection

and sampling of electric motors to be

tested for energy efficiency under 10

CFR 431.27(b)(4).

C. Other Matters

In a separate matter related to 10 CFR

431.82, "Labeling requirements," and

section 14, "Use of licenses, certificates

and marks of conformity," in the ISO/

IEC Guide 65, Emerson Motor

Company's comments, dated October

15, 2001, objected to any requirement to

display a compliance certification

labeling mark, such as the UL Mark, on

an electric motor either in place of or in

addition to the required Compliance

Certification number supplied by the

Department of Energy as provided for in

10 CFR 431.82(a)(1)(ii). Emerson Motor

Company asserted that such additional

marks would add significant financial

burdens on motor manufacturers and

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 33
79498 Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 249 /Friday, December 27, 2002 /Notices

confuse the motor purchaser. Further,

Emerson Motor Company asserted that

the Department of Energy Compliance

Certification number is the only mark

allowed.

Advanced Energy's comments, dated

October 12, 2001, objected to the

proposed UL requirement that a

manufacturer display the UL Mark.

Advanced Energy asserted that there

would be an added financial burden to

a manufacturer because of being forced

to display the UL Mark, with possible

confusion to a motor purchaser

attempting to distinguish between one

motor with a Compliance Certification

number alone and another motor with

both a Compliance Certification number

and the UL mark.

Section 431.82(a)(1) of 10 CFR 431

requires a manufacturer or private

labeler to mark the permanent

nameplate of an electric motor clearly

with the motor's nominal full load

efficiency and a Compliance

Certification number supplied by the

Department. However, 10 CFR

431.82(a)(3) permits the optional

display of the encircled lowercase

letters "ee" or some comparable

designation or logo on either the

permanent nameplate of an electric

motor, a separate plate, or

decalcomania. The UL Mark falls into

the "optional display" category and

would be comparable to the encircled

lowercase letters "ee." Therefore,

display of the UL Mark would be

permitted in addition to the labeling

requirements set forth under section

431.82(a)(1). But, such optional display

is not a replacement mark for the

motor's nominal full load efficiency and

the Compliance Certification number

supplied by the Department. The

optional logo or designation, (such as

the UL Mark) may also be used in

catalogs and other marketing materials

according to 10 CFR 431.82(b)(2). The

Department affirms its belief, set forth in

the interim determination, that display

of the UL Mark is a matter between UL

and the manufacturer or private labeler.

III. Final Determination

On July 5, 2002, DOE published in the

Federal Register an interim

determination to classify Underwriters

Laboratories Inc.'s Energy Verification

Service Program for Electric Motors as a

nationally recognized certification

program for electric motor efficiency. At

that time, the Department solicited

comments, data and information with

respect to that interim determination. 67

FR 45028. The Department did not

receive any comments concerning its

interim determination.

In view of the UL Petition and

supporting documents, the public

comments received, the Department's

independent investigation, UL's

corrections to its Program described

above, and the fact no comments were

submitted concerning the Department's

interim determination, the Department

concludes that the UL EVS Program for

Electric Motors satisfactorily meets the

criteria in 10 CFR 431.27.

Therefore, the Department's final

determination is to classify the UL EVS

Program for Electric Motors as

nationally recognized in the United

States for the purposes of section 345(c)

of EPCA. This final determination is

effective upon the publication of this

notice in the Federal Register.

Notwithstanding the Department's final

determination, in the event that the UL

EVS Program for Electric Motors fails to

continue to meet the criteria in 10 CFR

431.27 for a nationally recognized

certification program, the Department

can withdraw recognition after

following the procedural requirements

in 10 CFR 431.28(g).

Issued in Washington, DC, on December

19, 2002.

David K. Garman,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 02-32534 Filed 12-26-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

EE-RM-96-400-UL COMMENT 33