Friday,

July 5, 2002

Part V

Department of

Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 431

Energy Efficiency Program for Certain

Commercial and Industrial Equipment:

Interim Determinations Concerning

Petitions for Recognition as a Nationally

Recognized Certification Program for

Electric Motor Efficiency; Interim Final

Rules

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
45018 Federal Register /Vol. 67, No, 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 431

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

Energy Efficiency Program for Certain

Commercial and Industrial Equipment:

Interim Determination Concerning the

CSA International Petition for

Recognition as a Nationally

Recognized Certification Program for

Electric Motor Efficiency

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Public notice of an interim

determination and solicitation of

comments.

SUMMARY : Today's action announces the

Department of Energy's interim

determination classifying the CSA

International Motor Efficiency

Verification Service Program as a

nationally recognized certification

program in the United States for the

purposes of section 345(c) of the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act. The

Department solicits comments, data and

information with respect to its interim

determination prior to issuing a final

determination.

DATE : Written comments, data and

information, and a signed original with

an electronic copy, must be received at

the Department of Energy by August 5,

2002.

ADDRESSES : Comments, data and

information should be labeled "Interim

Determination Concerning the CSA

International Petition for Recognition as

a Nationally Recognized Certification

Program for Electric Motor Efficiency,"

and submitted to: Ms. Brenda EdwardsJones, Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, EE-41, U.S.

Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585-0121.

Telephone: (202) 586-2945; Telefax:

(202) 586-4617. Also, a copy of such

comments should be submitted to Mr.

Otto Krepps, Manager, Accreditations,

CSA International, 178 Rexdale

Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

M9W 1R3. Telephone: (416) 747-2798;

Telefax (416) 747-4173.

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 Electronic Mail:

jim.robo@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 Electronic

Mail: 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)

(1) Operating Procedures

(2) Testing Laboratory

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

III. Conclusion

A. Interim Determination

B. Future Proceedings

1. Introduction

A copy of the "Petition for

Recognition of CSA International as a

Nationally Recognized Certification

Program for Motor Efficiency" (CSA

International Petition or the Petition)

was published in the Federal Register

on April 26, 2000. 65 FR 24429. The

Petition consisted of a letter from CSA

International to the Department,

narrative statements on five subject

areas, and supporting documentation.

At the same time, the Department of

Energy (Department) solicited

comments, data and information as to

whether CSA International's Petition

should be granted. The Department also

conducted an independent investigation

concerning the CSA International

Petition pursuant to 10 CFR 431.28(f).

The supporting documents that

accompanied the Petition, as well as the

material CSA International subsequently

submitted to the Department in support

of the Petition, are available in 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.

Additional information about CSA

International's Motor Efficiency

Verification Service Program (MEVS

Program or 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.cso-international.org/

welcome.html, or from Mr. Otto Krepps,

Manager, Accreditations, CSA

International, 178 Rexdale Boulevard,

Toronto, Ontario, Canada M9W 1R3;

Telephone: (416) 747-2798; Telefax:

(416) 747-4173; or Electronic Mail at

otto.krepps@cso-internationa].org.

The final rule for "Test Procedures,

Labeling, and Certification

Requirements for Electric Motors" was

published in the Federal Register on

October 5, 1999. 64 FR 54141. It is

codified in 10 CFR Part 431 in subparts

A, B, E and G. It,can also be obtained

from the Office of Building Research

and Standards, Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE41, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585-0121;

Telephone: 202-586-9127; or on the

World Wide Web at http://

www.eren,doe.gov/buildings/codes^_

standards/rules/motors/ind ex.htm.

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. Sections 431.27 and 431.28 of

10 CFR Part 431 set forth the criteria

and procedures for national recognition

of an energy efficiency certification

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations 45019

program for electric motors by the

Department of Energy,

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; (4) be expert in the

test procedure and methodology 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; and

(5) have satisfactory criteria and

procedures for selecting and sampling

electric motors for energy efficiency

testing. 10 CFR 431.2 7(b).

B. Background

Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.28, the

Department is required to publish the

CSA International Petition in the

Federal Register in order to solicit

comments, data and information on

whether the Petition should be granted.

CSA International may then respond in

writing to any comments received. After

review of the Petition, other applicable

documents, including public comments

and facts found through investigation,

the Department is required to issue an

interim determination and notify CSA

International in writing of that interim

determination. Also, the Department is

required to publish its interim

determination in the Federal Register

and solicit comments, data and

information with respect to the interim

determination. After review of the

comments and information that is

submitted, the Department is required to

publish in the Federal Register an

announcement of its final detemination

on the Petition. See 10 CFR 431.28(a)

through (f).

The Department received comments

on the CSA International Petition from

the following four manufacturers and

one trade association with respect to the

CSA International Petition: Sterling

Electric, Inc. (Sterling), Baldor Electric

Company (Baldor), Siemens Energy &

Automation, Inc. (Siemens), GE

Industrial Systems (GE), and the

National Electrical Manufacturers

Association (NEMA), dated May 16,

May 22, May 23, May 24, and May 26,

2000, respectively. In general, Sterling,

Baldor, and Siemens believe CSA

International to be qualified to test and

certify electric motors for energy

efficiency, and favor national

recognition in the United States of the

CSA International Program. GE and

NEMA did not appear to state a position private labelers or vendors. It cannot be

on national recognition, but instead affiliated with, have financial ties with,

commented on the appropriateness of be controlled by, or be under common

CSA International's sampling plan. GE control with any such entity. Further, it

recommended CSA International use a should disclose any relationship it

process equivalent to the National believes might appear to create a

Institute of Standards and Technology/ conflict of interest. ISO/IEC Guide 65

National Voluntary Laboratory sets forth requirements for a

Accreditation Program for determining certification program to be impartial,

the competency of a testing facility. and have a documented structure that

NEMA asserted that the CSA safeguards that impartiality. For

International process of selecting motors example, each decision on certification

for energy efficiency testing appeared to is made by a person(s) different from

be burdensome to manufacturers. those who carried out an evaluation or

The Department also conducted an actual testing of the motor. Its policies

independent investigation of the CSA and procedures must distinguish

International Program pursuant to 10 between product certification and other

CFR 431.28(f). activities; its certification process must

II. Discussion

A. General

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. 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,

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

relevance is documentary evidence that

establishes experience in the

application of guidelines contained in

International Standards Organization/

International Electrotechnical

Commission (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

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
45020 Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations

out specified tests. In part, these

requirements address: (1) Organization

and management that are free from

commercial, financial, and other

pressures which might adversely affect

quality of work; (2) independence of

judgment and integrity; (3) supervision

by persons familiar with the applicable

test procedures; (4) a quality system,

and manual which contains procedures

for control and maintenance of

documents, and procedures for periodic

audit and review; (5) sufficient

personnel, having the necessary

education, training, technical

knowledge and experience for their

assigned functions, and that training of

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

items of equipment and reference

materials for the correct performance of

tests, and that equipment is properly

maintained and calibrated; (7) test

equipment that 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; (9) retention of testing

records with sufficient information to

permit repetition of a test; and (10)

where a laboratory is sub-contracted 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 "subcontracted" laboratory would be a

manufacturer's laboratory that tests

motors for energy efficiency under the

CSA International MEVS 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 part 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.

The CSA International Petition

asserts, in general, that its certification

quality assurance program system is

-based on national and international

accreditation requirements and specific

customer requirements in order to

ensure technical excellence, consistency

of interpretation, application of

standards, programs and procedures,

integrity of its "Energy Efficiency

Marking," and continuous

improvement. CSA International asserts

that it has implemented the

requirements specified in the ISO/IEC

Guide 65. Further, CSA International

asserts that it has implemented the

requirements specified in SCC/CAN P3 and SCC/CAN P-4, which the

Department understands are the

Standards Council of Canada

equivalents of ISO/IEC Guides 65 and

25, respectively. In order to substantiate

these assertions, CSA International has

provided to the Department certain

Divisional Quality Documents (DQDs)

which contain the operating procedures

and guidelines used by CSA

International's staff in support of its

MEVS Program.

In view of the above, the Department

understands that the CSA International

Program carries out the ISO/IEC Guides

65 and 25 requirements through its

Quality Assurance System and DQD No.

050, "Certification Division Quality

Assurance Manual," DQD No. 200,

"Certification Program," DQD No. 306,

"Guidelines for Handling Complaints

and Disputes," DQD No. 306.1,

"Customer Complaints," DQD No. 318,

Guidelines for Handling Product

Incidents Investigations," DQD No. 320,

"Factory Inspections," DQD No. 326,

"Handling of Non-conformances," and

DQD No, 327, "Corrective & Preventive

Action," which provide necessary

operating procedures and guidelines.

The Department's investigation found

that the CSA International procedures

for operating a certification system were

very general in nature and could be

satisfactorily applied to any certification

program conducted by CSA

International. This raised the issue as to

whether the specific standards and

procedures by which the CSA

International Program operates in order

to certify the energy efficiency of

electric motors were adequate, properly

documented, well established and

maintained, understood, and in fact

carried out by staff.

For example, according to section

4.8.2 of ISO/IEC Guide 65, the

certification body shall establish

procedures to control all documents and

data that relate to its certification

functions, and these documents shall be

reviewed and approved by authorized

personnel prior to being issued

following initial development or

subsequent amendment. The

Department found that procedural

documents used in the electric motor

efficiency evaluation process, including

witness testing by CSA International

staff at non-CSA International facilities,

and the sampling procedure to be used,

were not marked with identification

numbers and information such as date

of issue, sources or authorities by which

the documents were issued and

approved, revision numbers, or a

particular page from a set of pages.

Consequently, the Department requested

that CSA International submit

documents relevant to the motor

efficiency evaluation procedure that had

been processed and approved by the

CSA International Engineering Quality

Assurance group. CSA International

complied and submitted, under a letter

dated June 14, 2001, the following

DQDs:

Certification Division Quality/

Management System Manual, DQD

No. 050, dated October 4, 2000.

Guidelines for the Selection of Test and

Measurement Equipment and

Validation of Borderline Test

Measurements, DQD No. 308, dated

March 12, 2001.

Selection of Test and Measurement

Equipment/Significant ParametersCSA Energy Efficiency Verification

Program for Three-Phase Induction

Motors, DQD No. 308.01, dated March

12, 2001.

Witness Testing, DQD No. 316, dated

January 22, 2001.

Electric Motor Efficiency Evaluation,

DQD No. 384, dated January 23, 2001.

Application Process-CSA Energy

Efficiency Verification Program for

Three Phase Induction Motors, DQD

No. 385, dated January 24, 2001.

Review of Work and Designation of

Signatories, DQD No. 431, dated

October 17, 2000.

The Department has examined the

above documents and concluded that

they provide evidence that the

standards and procedures CSA

International uses to conduct a motor

efficiency verification program satisfy

the requirements set forth in 10 CFR

431.27(b)(1). Nevertheless, the

Department's December 20, 2001,

electronic message to CSA International

requested that CSA International clarify

or make corrections to certain

procedures and documents used in its

MEVS Program. In sum, the Department

requested that CSA International

confirm or correct the following: (1)

Confirm that DQD No. 308.01 refers to

IEEE Standard 112-1996 Test Method B

with the modifications described under

appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR part

431, paragraph 2 subparagraph (2); and

(2) correct DQD No. 385 to refer to

C390-93 Test Method (1). Also, the

Department requested that CSA

International submit the following

documents for examination: DQD No.

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations 45021

305-Quality/Management System guidelines for the training of technical

Audit Program; DQD No. 313- staff, which is an ongoing activity that

Guidelines on Retesting; DQD No. 332- is monitored, evaluated and

Document Control Procedure; DQD No. documented in the individual's training

424-Technical Training; DQD No. record. DQD No. 425, Periodic

425-Periodic Technical and Process Technical and Process Review, sets forth

Review; and DQD No. 513-Factory guidelines to ensure that technical,

Audit Report. administrative and quality records are

CSA International's letter, dated maintained and periodically reviewed

March 1, 2002, addressed the above by management. DQD No. 513 is a

matters and submitted a revised copy of facility audit report form with

DQD No. 308.01, dated February 15, provisions for sampling and compliance

2002, to confirm the reference to IEEE with standards. In addition, CSA

Standard 112-1996 Test Method (1) as International submitted DQD No.

set forth under appendix A to subpart B 510.02, List of Fully Qualified Project

of 10 CFR part 431, and a revised copy Holders for the Motor Energy

of DQD 385 that refers to C390-93 Test Verification Program, dated February

Method (1). CSA International's March 28, 2002, and DQD No. 050, revised

1 letter asserts that its MEVS Program November 30, 2001, CSA International

operates pursuant to DQD No. 385, Quality Management System Manual,

wherein fully qualified staff would visit that supersedes DQD No. 332. CSA

each testing facility to witness the tests International's March 1, 2002, letter

being performed, write a detailed report, confirms that all compliance and follow

and have the manufacturer sign an up testing is witnessed by technically

agreement to manufacture the product qualified staff.

[motor] in accordance with the The Department has examined the

description in the report. Also, CSA Petition and all other documents

International confirms that there will be described above, and concludes that the

a minimum of one audit visit per year standards and procedures CSA

by certification staff. International uses to conduct its MEVS

CSA International also submitted, Program satisfy the requirements set

with its March 1, 2002, letter, DQD Nos, forth 10 CFR 431(b)(1) and (c)(1), and

305, 313, 320, 385, 424, 425 and 513. the guidelines contained in ISO/IEC

Furthermore, CSA International stated Guide 65.

that DQD No. 332, Document Control

2. Independence Procedure, had been withdrawn from its

Quality System and the Department Sections 431.27(b)(2) and (c)(2) of 10

should refer to DQD 050 section 1.5, CFR Part 431, and ISO/IEC Guide 65, set

"Documentation System," section 6.0, forth criteria and guidelines for

"Document Control," and section 12.0, impartiality.

"Maintenance of Records." In view of Under Section 2 of its Petition,

the criteria and guidelines set forth in entitled "CSA International," CSA

10 CFR 431.27(b)(1) and (c)(1), and ISO/ International provides an overview of its

IEC Guide 65, the Department examined history and a copy of its incorporation

the above-referenced DQDs. In sum, document, by-laws, annual report and

DQD No. 305 sets forth procedures and an organization chart. CSA International

guidelines for staffing, organizing, and asserts that it is an independent

conducting audits of the CSA organization, has no affiliation with

International quality system, including manufacturers or suppliers of products

technical audits of testing facilities in submitted for certification, and provides

accordance with ISO/IEC Guide 25. a copy of its "Statement of

DQD No, 313 sets forth procedures and Independence" to substantiate these

guidelines for witness retesting to claims. However, the Department

ensure continued compliance with, for understands that the CSA International

example, motor efficiency standards. Standards Division administers the

DQD No. 320, Factory Inspections, sets development of voluntary consensus

forth guidelines for scheduling and standards for safety matters that involve

conducting factory audits. DQD No. 385, participation from electric motor

Electric Motor Efficiency Evaluation, manufacturers, while the Certification

sets forth the process for evaluating the Division and Quality Management

energy efficiency of three-phase Institute provide conformity assessment

induction motors and applies both to programs that carry out laboratory

the regulations in Canada and the testing certification and inspection of

United States, including the scope, electric motors.

sampling methods, test procedures, The Department's May 14, 2001, letter

alternative efficiency determination requested that CSA International submit

methods, and efficiency levels in 10 to the Department any documents that

CFR part 431. DQD No. 424, Technical set forth the policies and procedures

Training, sets forth the policy and that provide assurance of CSA

International's independence from any

relationship with a manufacturer,

importer, or supplier which might

create a conflict of interest with its

MEVS Program. Also, the Department

requested that CSA International

provide an explanation as to why a

direct or indirect relationship with a

motor manufacturer, importer, or

private labeler through (a) the combined

energy efficiency and product safety

certification processes, (b) status as a

"Certification Member," (c) membership

on a CSA International technical or

standards development committee, or

(d) shared certification whereby a

manufacturer could perform

unwitnessed motor testing and submit a

certification report to GSA International,

would not compromise CSA

International's independence or bias

information presented to CSA

International for the purposes of

compliance with 10 CFR 431.27(b)(2).

CSA International submitted, under a

letter dated June 14, 2001, the following

documents of policy and procedures as

further evidence of its independence

from manufacturers, importers,

distributors, private labelers or vendors:

Corporate Policy Manual, dated

December 1, 1996.

Certification Division Policies and

Practices Manual, dated February 1999.

Standards ofBusiness Conduct, dated

May 1993.

Annual Report 2000.

Statement of Independence, signed by

the Vice President, Corporate Secretary

of CSA International and a

Commissioner of Oaths and Notary

Public, Province of Ontario, Canada,

dated June 4, 1998.

The Department has examined the

above documents and concludes that

they provide sufficient evidence that the

CSA International MEVS Program meets

the requirements for independence

which are set forth in 10 CFR

431.27(b)(2), and (c)(2). Its MEVS

Program meets the guidelines for the

objectivity and impartiality of technical

persons and committees which are set

forth in ISO/IEC Guide 65, including

freedom from commercial pressures that

might influence the results of the

certification process, an organizational

structure that provides a balance of

affected interests, and procedures that

assure each decision on certification is

made by a person(s) different from those

who carried out an efficiency evaluation

or actual testing of a motor.

Furthermore, CSA International's MEVS

Program meets the ISO/IEC Guide 25

requirements for organization and

management to ensure confidence that

its independence of judgement and

integrity are maintained at all times.

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
45022 Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations

3. Operation of a Certification System in

a Highly Competent Manner

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

CFR Part 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.

Section 3 of the CSA International

Petition, "Certification Division Quality

Assurance Manual," states that "CSA

International has implemented the

requirements specified in ISO/EEC

Guide 65, General requirements for

bodies operating product certification

systems." Furthermore, CSA

International asserts that its Quality

Assurance system is based, in part, on

ISO/IEC Guide 25. Also, CSA

International asserts that it has both

implemented the requirements specified

in SCC/CAN P-3 and SCC/CAN P-4,

which the Department understands are

the Standards Council of Canada

equivalents of ISO/IEC Guides 65 and

25 respectively.

a. General Operating Requirements

(ISO/IEC Guide 65)

The Department's letter to CSA

International, dated May 14, 2001,

requested evidence that, at a minimum,

the initial determination as to whether

an electric motor is in compliance with

10 CFR 431.42(a) is in fact witnessed by

CSA International staff and procedures

are in place for regular quality audits of

all inspections and testing.

CSA International submitted, by letter

dated June 14, 2001, the following

documents of policy and procedures as

further evidence of its competency and

expertise in operating a certification

system: Certification Division Policies

and Practices Manual, dated February

1999; Certification and Testing Services

Brochure; DQD No. 050-Certification

Division Divisional Quality/

Management System Manual, October 4,

2000; Application for CSA Certification

Services Agreement Form; and.DQD No.

301-Guidelines for Certification

Division Representation on Standards

Committees, dated March 31, 2001.

Also, CSA International submitted a

copy of DQD No. 385, Application

Process-CSA Energy Efficiency

Verification Program for Three Phase

Induction Motors, Attachment 1,

-paragraph 6, "Qualification of a

Manufacturers Testing Facilities," and

paragraph 12, "Follow-up Visits,"

which set forth guidelines for initial and

subsequent evaluation of a

manufacturer's testing facility. The

Department understands that CSA

International uses these guidelines in

conjunction with DQD No. 316, Witness

Testing, whereby qualified CSA

International technical staff evaluate a

manufacturer's motor testing laboratory

and witness the testing of a motor for

energy efficiency.

Also, the Certification Division of

CSA International, in its June 14 letter,

asserts that procedures are in place for

regular quality inspections. Further,

CSA International submitted DQD 385,

Attachment No. 1, "Guide to the CSA

Energy Efficiency Verification Service,"

that states in paragraph 12.1 "a

minimum of one visit to each

manufacturing plant will be carried out

each year."

The Department believes that the

above documents provide evidence that

procedures are in place for initial

compliance testing that is witnessed by

CSA International staff, and procedures

are in place for regular quality

inspections of manufacturers' facilities.

Nevertheless, the Department's

electronic message to CSA International,

dated December 20, 2001, requested that

CSA International confirm that all

compliance and follow-up testing of

motors for energy efficiency is

witnessed by a technically qualified

GSA International representative.

CSA International's letter, dated

March 1, 2002, confirms that "all

compliance and follow-up testing is

witnessed by technically qualified

staff." Further, CSA International

submitted as evidence revised DQD No.

385, Electric Motor Efficiency

Evaluation, dated February 28, 2002,

and DQD No. 510.02, List of Fully

Qualified Project Holders for the Motor

Energy Efficiency Verification Program,

dated February 28, 2002, to substantiate

its assertion of witness testing. The

Department has examined the above

documents and concludes that the

standards and procedures CSA

International uses to conduct its MEVS

Program satisfy the requirements for

training, expertise, and experience in

operating a certification system which

are set forth in 10 CFR 431.27(b)(3) and

(c)(3), and ISO/lEC Guide 65.

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 CSA International Motor

Efficiency Verification Marking

(Marking) on an electric motor, such as

the use of a counterfeit Marking. 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

CSA International Certification Division

Policies and Practices Manual and finds

that it contains rules for authorized use

of the CSA International Marking, and

procedures that address unauthorized

representation of certification of a

product or process, and the measures

that CSA International would take to

protect the integrity of its Marking.

Also, the Department has examined

sections 15.0, "Control on Nonconformances," and 16.0, "Corrective

and Preventive Action," contained in

the CSA International Quality

Management System Manual, DQD 050,

revised November 30, 2001. These

sections establish policies and

procedures to control CSA International

services, within the CSA International

"Quality Management System," which

do not conform to the specified

requirements, prevent their unintended

use, establish a system for taking

appropriate actions to resolve actual or

potential non-conformances, and apply

suitable corrective and preventive

actions. The Department concludes that

the CSA International Program

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/lEC Guide 27.

c. General Rules for a Model Third-Party

Certification System for Products (ISO/

IEC Guide 28)

ISO/lEC 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. Furthermore, 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

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations 45023

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 the above ISO/IEC

Guide 28 guidelines, Section 4 to the

CSA International Petition, "CSA

International's Motor Efficiency

Verification Program," describes the

CSA International MEVS as depending

upon: (1) Satisfactory evaluation,

sampling and testing to determine that

the requirements of the applicable

standard, for example CSA Standard

C390-93, are met on a continuing basis;

(2) identification of the critical features

that affect motor efficiency; (3) initial

motor qualification testing and followup retesting to ensure continued

compliance; (4) continued access to a

manufacturer's facilities and records,

product retesting and challenge testing;

(5) annual follow-up inspections; (6)

proper authorization to apply the CSA

International Motor Efficiency

Verification Service Marking; and (7)

corrective action when a motor fails to

comply.

In view of the above ISO/IEC 28

criteria, the Department examined the

CSA International Certification Division

Policies and Practices Manual, dated

February 1999, Quality Management

System Manual, DQD No. 050, dated

November 30, 2001, Management

System Audit Program, DQD No. 305,

dated October 31, 2001, Guidelines on

Retesting, DQD No. 313, dated

November 19, 1999, Selection of Test

and Measurement Equipment/

Significant Parameters-CSA Energy

Efficiency Verification Program for

Three-Phase Induction Motors, DQD No.

308.1, dated February 15, 2002, Factory

Inspections, DQD No. 320, dated

January 27, 1999, Electric Motor

Efficiency Evaluation, DQD No. 385,

dated February 28, 2002, Periodic

Technical and Process Review, DQD No.

425, dated October 3, 2000, and Facility

Audit Report, DQD No. 513, Revision A.

The Department finds that, in general,

both ISO/IEC Guide 28, and the abovereferenced CSA International

documents 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 concludes

that the CSA International Program

satisfies the general guidelines for a

model third-party certification system in

10 CFR 431.27(c)(3), and the guidelines

set forth in ISO/IEC Guide 28.

The above-referenced DQD No. 050,

Quality Management System Manual,

DQD No. 385, Electric Motor Efficiency

Evaluation, and DQD No. 308.01,

Selection of Test and Measurement

Equipment/Significant ParametersCSA Energy Efficiency Verification

Program for Three-Phase Induction

Motors, provide general policies,

practices and procedures that govern the

conformity assessment services, and, in

particular, those that relate to the

electric motor efficiency certification

program. The CSA International Quality

Management System Manual addresses,

for example, "Quality System,"

"Standards of Conduct,"

"Organization," "Periodic Technical

and Process Review," "Audit Program,"

"Staff Training," "Inspection,

Measuring and Test Equipment,"

"Maintenance of Records," and

"Certification and Testing Programs and

Services." The Electric Motor Efficiency

Evaluation addresses, for example,

"Operational Rules/Procedure,"

"Evaluation," "Qualification of

Manufacturers Test Facilities, Test

Audit," "Marking Authorization,"

"Follow-up Visits," "Product

Retesting," "Electric Motor Efficiency

Evaluation Procedure," "MEEVSampling Procedure for U.S.," and

"Plan and Procedure Relative to

Alternative Efficiency Determination

Methods (AEDMs)," Selection of Test

and Measurement Equipment/

Significant Parameters-CSA Energy

Efficiency Verification Program for

Three-Phase Induction Motors

addresses, for example, the

requirements of IEEE Standard 112-

1996, Test Method B, with the

modifications described under appendix

A to subpart B of 10 CFR Part 431, the

National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) Handbook 150-10

entitled, Efficiency of Electric Motors,

and CSA C390-93 when selecting test

and measurement equipment.

The Department has examined the

contents of these manuals and

concludes 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)

(1) Operating Procedures

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 Section 3 of the CSA

International Petition, "Certification

Division Quality Assurance Manual,"

CSA International's "Quality

Assurance" system is based on national

and international accreditation

requirements, one of which is ISO/IEC

Guide 25. In view of ISO/lEC Guide 25,

the Department examined the

procedures and guidelines contained in

CSA International's Quality

Management System Manual, DQD No.

050, and the above DQD Nos. 385,

308.01 and 316 as they apply to the

evaluation of an electric motor testing

facility.

The Department finds that DQD No.

050 establishes the general policies,

standards of conduct, procedures,

guidelines and organization

requirements for CSA International's

quality program. These are based on

national and international accreditation

requirements such as ANSI Z34.1,

American National Standard for

Certification-Third Party Certification

Program, EN 45004, General Criteria for

the Operation of Various Types of

Bodies Performing Inspection, ISO/IEC

17025, General Requirements for the

Competence of Testing and Calibration

Laboratories, ISO/IEC Guide 65, General

Requirements for Bodies Operating

Product Certification Systems, and NIST

Handbook 150, National Voluntary

Laboratory Accreditation Program

(NVLAP)-Procedures and General

Requirements. Furthermore, the

Department finds that the Standards

Council of Canada' lists CSA

International as an accredited

certification body in the area of its

Energy Efficiency Verification Service

and specifically identifies CSA C390,

"Energy Efficiency Test Methods for

Three-Phase Induction Motors," which

adds credence to the evidence that CSA

International operates its certification

program in a highly competent manner,

including overseeing compliance with

the guidelines contained in ISO/IEC

Guide 25 to test electric motors for

energy efficiency.

The Department finds that DQD No.

385 establishes the guidelines for CSA

International's operation of its motor

I The Standards Council is a federal Crown

corporation which has the mandate to coordinate

and oversee the efforts of the National Standards

System in Canada.

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
45024 Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations

energy efficiency evaluation process in

the United States pursuant to 10 CFR

Part 431, including the test procedures,

alternative efficiency determination

methods, and sampling procedures in

10 CFR 431.23 and 431.24. Under DQD

No. 385, a manufacturer's motor testing

facility is required to have adequate

controls in place to ensure

manufacturing consistency and

consistent product performance with

respect to energy usage. Also, the testing

facility is examined for the type and

accuracy of test equipment, calibration,

test procedures and measurement

techniques, a system for documenting

test results, and staff training. The

Department finds that under DQD No.

385, the CSA International sampling

procedure adheres to the sampling

procedure in 10 CFR 431.24(b). Also,

DQD No. 385 requires periodic audit of

the test facility and calibration system.

A minimum of one visit per year to a

manufacturing plant is carried out by

GSA International staff to monitor

product control measures and testing

facilities, and to conduct retesting.

Furthermore, DQD No. 385 sets forth

procedures that address Alternative

Efficiency Determination Methods

(AEDMs) in order to reduce testing

burden and accommodate the large

number of motors a manufacturer would

produce. The CSA International

procedures essentially follow the

procedures for the substantiation of an

AEDM as provided in 10 CFR

431.24(a)(3). The Department

understands that CSA International uses

these guidelines in conjunction with

DQD No. 316, whereby qualified CSA

International technical staff evaluate a

manufacturer's motor testing laboratory

and witness the testing of an electric

motor for energy efficiency.

The Department finds that DQD No.

308.01 establishes guidelines that follow

the requirements of IEEE Standard 112-

1996 Test Method B, CSA Standard

C390-93, and NIST Handbook 150-10,

Efficiency of Electric Motors, when

selecting test and measurement

equipment that would be utilized for

testing electric motors under the CSA

Motor Efficiency Verification Service

Program. These are the same procedures

identified in 10 CFR 431.23.

The Department finds that DQD No.

316, Witness Testing, provides

guidelines for evaluating and

monitoring the capability of a testing

facility, such as a manufacturer's motor

efficiency testing facility for performing

-tests that are witnessed by CSA

International technical staff. Under DQD

No. 316, a motor manufacturer's testing

facility is evaluated according to (1) the

scope of the standard and test method

that it utilizes, for example CSA

Standard C390, (2) the technical

capability of testing facility staff,

ongoing training of that staff and

maintenance of personnel records, (3)

suitability of the testing environment,

(4) suitability and accuracy of the test

equipment that is to be used, (5) the

system for calibrations and control of

test methods, and (6) traceability of

calibration to national standards. Also,

DQD No. 316 requires examination of

the manufacturer's quality system,

proper supervision and control of

testing, documentation control, and

retention of records.

In addition to examining the

underlying documentation that

establishes the policies and procedures

of the CSA International quality system

and operating procedures for evaluating

electric motors, the Department directly

compared the requirements in ISO/IEC

Guide 25 with GSA International's

MEVS Program as it would apply to a

manufacturer's motor testing laboratory

under a certification program and found

them to be consistent with each other.

The Department found, for example:

• 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 CSA International

Program requires examination of the

manufacturer's quality system, proper

supervision and control of testing,

documentation control, and retention of

records.

• 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

laboratory, traceability of

measurements, calibration of

equipment, test procedures used,

procedures for corrective actions and

audits. Similarly, the CSA International

Program requires use of the test

procedures and calibration of

equipment set forth in 10 CFR 431.23

and the requirements of IEEE Standard

112-1996, Test Method B, with the

modifications described in appendix A

to subpart B of 10 CFR Part 431, and

CSA Standard C390-93. In addition, the

CSA International Program requires use

of the quality system set forth in NIST

Handbook 150-10 when selecting test

and measurement equipment, meeting

significant calibration parameters for

electric motor efficiency evaluation, and

having traceability of calibrated

equipment to national standards. Also,

the CSA International Program requires

periodic audits of the test facility and

calibration system, whereby a minimum

of one visit per year to a manufacturing

plant is carried out by CSA International

staff to monitor product control

measures and testing facilities, to

conduct retesting, and to take any

corrective actions.

• ISO/IEC Guide 25 requires a

manufacturer's testing laboratory to

have sufficient personnel having the

necessary education, training, technical

knowledge and experience. Similarly,

the CSA International Program evaluates

the technical capability of the testing

facility staff, staff training, and

maintenance of personnel records.

• 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 CSA

International Program requires the

proper environment for testing, control

of test methods, and suitable equipment

that is accurate and properly calibrated

and traceable to nationally recognized

standards of measurement.

• ISO/IEC Guide 25 requires the

testing laboratory to maintain a record

system of original observations,

calculations, reference to sampling

procedures, and derived data sufficient

to permit repetition of a test. Similarly,

the CSA International Program requires

that the test procedures be under

documentation control, and that test

records be current and properly

maintained. Also, the CSA International

sampling procedure is consistent with

the sampling procedure set forth in 10

CFR 431.24(b).

• Both ISO/IEC Guide 25 and the CSA

International Program require test

reports that contain similar information.

In view of these comparisons, the

Department believes that CSA

International's MEVS 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.

(2) Testing Laboratory

Under Section 1, "Designated Testing

Facility," of the CSA International

Petition, it is stated that "as part of CSA

International's Motor Energy Efficiency

Verification Program we are using our

Toronto test facility," and that "the

facilities of Toronto are used for testing

the full range of motors up to 50

horsepower." Also, under Section 3,

"Certification Division Quality

Assurance Manual," of the CSA

International Petition, CSA International

asserts that its Quality Assurance

system is based, in part, on ISO/IEC

Guide 25 and SCC/CAN P-4 that is the

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations 45025

Standards Council of Canada equivalent

of ISO/IEC Guide 25.

GE Industrial systems' comments,

dated May 24, 2000, recommend that a

test facility, such as the ones used by

GSA International which test motors for

energy efficiency, should be established

and maintained by a process equivalent

to the National Institute of Standards

and Technology/National Voluntary

Laboratory Accreditation Program

(NIST/NVLAP) as set forth in the NIST

Handbook 150-10, "Efficiency of

Electric Motors." Also, GE Industrial

Systems recommends that any

organization that certifies the energy

efficiency of electric motors participate

in the NIST/NVLAP proficiency testing

program in order to understand,

document, and make known any

variations among participating testing

facilities.

The Department's investigation found

that the GSA International testing

facility in Toronto was not fully

operational at the time of the CSA

International Petition, and that the CSA

International Program relies heavily on

the manufacturer to provide most of the

test data, including data for initial

qualification based on sampling and

testing motors for energy efficiency, that

are not witnessed by CSA International

staff. Nor was there clear evidence of

what quality control exists for

monitoring the validity of motor

efficiency testing by a manufacturer.

Also, it appeared that the CSA

International Program lacked sufficient

staff to perform all the annual follow-up

inspections, bi-annual retesting, crosstesting every three years, unannounced

retesting, and challenge testing which it

claimed would occur. The Department's

May 14, 2001, letter requested that CSA

International submit information

concerning its Toronto motor testing

facility, its oversight of testing

performed at a motor manufacturer's

facility, and procedures for regular

quality audits of all inspections and

testing for motor efficiency.

The Certification Division of CSA

International, in its June 14, 2001 letter,

asserts that the Toronto test facility is

fully operational, initial compliance

testing is witnessed by CSA

International staff, and that procedures

are in place for regular quality

inspections of a manufacturer's motor

testing laboratory. In view of the June 14

letter, the Department understands that

CSA International uses the Laboratoire

des technologies electrochimiques et

des electrotechnologies d'Hydro-Quebec

(LTEE) for testing motors over 50

horsepower, and acknowledges that the

CSA International test laboratory in

Toronto is capable of testing motors up

to 50 horsepower. Also, the Department

understands that LTEE, although not

officially listed in the NIST/NVLAP

2001 Directory, participates in the NIST/

NVLAP Proficiency Testing Program.

Section 431.27 of 10 CFR Part 431

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 a testing

facility operated or observed by a

certification program should follow the

guidelines in ISO/IEC Guide 25 and in

principle be reasonably close to

conforming to the technical

requirements of an accredited

laboratory. The Department understands

that, in general, the evaluation of a

motor testing laboratory under an

accreditation program includes an onsite assessment, proficiency testing,

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, the evaluation under the CSA

International Program 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 believes that

the CSA International Program, while

not identical to a laboratory

accreditation program, nevertheless

satisfactorily follows the ISO/IEC 25

Guidelines.

4. Expertise in IEEE Standard 112-1996

Test Method B and CSA Standard C390-

93 Test Method (1)

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

Section 3, "Certification Division

Quality Assurance Manual," of the CSA

International Petition, states that its

Quality Assurance system is based on

national and international requirements

that include ISO/IEC Guide 25. The

Department understands that section 6,

"Personnel," of ISO/IEC Guide 25 sets

forth general requirements for the

training, technical knowledge, and

experience of testing laboratory

personnel. In sum, it states that the

testing laboratory shall have sufficient

personnel, having the necessary

education, training, technical

knowledge and experience for their

assigned functions; training of

personnel is kept up-to-date; and

records on relevant qualifications,

training, skills, and experience of the

technical personnel shall be maintained.

The Department's investigation found

that the technical qualifications of the

CSA International staff involved in the

MEVS Program were very limited with

regard to electric motor construction,

performance, and efficiency testing.

Also, it appeared to the Department that

GSA International has only one person

that actually participates in the

qualification of a motor manufacturer's

test facility, witnesses testing, and both

directs and evaluates compliance

testing, cross testing, and retesting.

Consequently, the Department requested

that CSA International address its

intention to assign additional expert

staff to its MEVS Program, and submit

evidence as to the nature and extent of

training the current staff receives in

order to maintain proficiency in the

evaluation of motor design and

construction, and the practice of

efficiency testing.

CSA International, in its June 14, 2001

letter, asserts that it has identified

additional staff for participation in the

operation of its MEVS Program,

additional training would be provided,

and that it would ensure its staff

resources are appropriate to the amount

of work required by its Motor Efficiency

Verification Program. On August 20,

2001, the Department received an

electronic message from CSA

International which identified

additional staff, their credentials, and

the associated training each would

receive as part of its MEVS Program in

order to fulfill the requirements set forth

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
45026 Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations

in 10 CFR 431.27(b)(4) and 431.27(c)(4).

In sum, the Department understands

that this training addresses electric

motor construction, performance, and

efficiency testing, and will become part

of a regular training program. Also, the

Department understands that certain

technical staff will work under the

direction of a CSA International senior

engineer or qualified project leader.

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. CSA International'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 CSA International staff

having the necessary proficiency and

expertise to conduct energy efficiency

evaluations under ISO/IEC Guide 25.

Thus, the Department believes that the

credentials of the CSA International

staff, regular additional training, and

monitoring by CSA International

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 Part

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.

Under section 4 of the Petition,

entitled "CSA International's Motor

Efficiency Verification Program," GSA

International describes its process for

the selection and sampling of electric

motors to be tested for energy efficiency.

CSA International asserts that the

objective of its sampling process is to

minimize manufacturers' tests, costs

and time to market, while providing

sufficient confidence that the series of

motors verified meet the applicable

energy efficiency standard. Further,

CSA International conducts

unannounced follow-up inspections,

random motor retesting, and challenge

testing to ascertain continued

compliance with energy efficiency

standards by a manufacturer. The

Department understands that under the

CSA International sampling program, a

minimum of 5 basic models are required

to be tested to verify the energy

efficiency ratings of a series of motors.

The basic models are selected so as to

represent the complete range of motors

within the series, which could require

more than 5 basic models. Thereafter, 1

to 5 units of each basic model are tested.

The average efficiency of the sample lot

must equal or exceed the required

nominal full load efficiency.

Furthermore, CSA International's goal

for verifying continued compliance is to

retest high volume motors at least once

every 2 years. Other motors of different

frame series are retested as needed to

ensure continued compliance. Also, the

Department understands that under the

CSA International retesting program, the

initial sample lot is one motor, and if

after retesting the result equals or

exceeds the minimum result from the

qualification tests, then no further

International statistical approach to

sampling of motors for testing as the

selection and testing of 5 basic models

with a sample size of 1 to 5. GE

Industrial Systems asserts that a

minimum sample selection to

substantiate an Alternative Efficiency

Determination Method 2 should be 5

randomly selected units of 5 basic

models, in order to provide a look at the

population and statistical variation in

the basic model. Further, GE Industrial

Systems asserts that frequent sampling

over time is more appropriate to an

assessment of design and manufacturing

variables, and therefore an ongoing

sampling program would be

appropriate.

NEMA's comment, dated May 26,

2000, asserts that CSA International's

sampling process appears to be more

burdensome than required by the

Department of Energy. NEMA did not

elaborate on its comment.

In view of GE Industrial Systems' and

NEMA's comments, the Department's

investigation found confusing

statements from CSA International

concerning its intentions to substantiate

a manufacturer's AEDMs, either (1) by

analyzing and comparing a

manufacturer's energy efficiency

modeling methods to actual test

measurements, or (2) through

comparisons between a motor

manufacturer's energy efficiency

calculations on a software program and

a CSA International software program. It

is not clear to the Department that the

CSA International Program would

substantiate an AEDM in a manner that

is consistent with 10 CFR 431.24(a)(3)

and (4), whereby a manufacturer could

test 5 units each of 5 basic models and

use the test results to substantiate an

AEDM. Furthermore, it is not clear that

the CSA International sampling plan

would be valid if the initial sample lot

is one motor, nor is it clear that testing

all the basic models that a manufacturer

produces would not be unduly

burdensome. The Department's May 14,

2001, letter requested that CSA

International submit documents and

other materials to substantiate that its

motor sampling procedures are

samples would be required. If the result

is less than the minimum result from

the qualifying tests, then motor samples

would be selected pursuant to the

qualifying test procedure.

GE Industrial Systems' comments,

dated May 24, 2000, assert that there

should be some understanding of the

level of confidence CSA International

believes appropriate for the efficiency

data that is determined from testing, and

the basis for that confidence level. GE

Industrial Systems describes the GSA

2Alternative Efficiency Determination Method

(AEDM) means a method of calculating the total

power loss and average full load efficiency of an

electric motor. See 10 CPR 431.2. Section

431.24(a)(1) of 10 CFR Part 431 provides that the

energy efficiency of a motor must be determined

either by testing in accordance with the Department

of Energy test procedure or application of an

AEDM. Section 431.24(a)(3) of 10 CFR Part 431

requires that, in sum, the accuracy and reliability

of an AEDM must be substantiated through testing

at least 5 basic models; and that the calculated total

power loss for each basic model must be within

plus or minus 10 percent of the mean total power

loss determined from testing.

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations 45027

statistically valid and result in a

confidence level such that the true mean

energy efficiency of a basic model meets

or exceeds the motor's represented

energy efficiency level. Further, the

Department's letter requested that CSA

International submit its plan and

procedures to evaluate a manufacturer's

AEDMs.

CSA International, in its June 14, 2001

letter, describes its plan and procedures

to evaluate a manufacturer's AEDMs,

whereby CSA International verifies that

the manufacturer's software energy

efficiency calculations are in agreement

with its independent calculated values

using the methods described in CSA

Standard C390. The Department

understands that CSA International uses

the test data measurements, and then (a)

performs its own calculations to

determine the efficiency of the tested

motor and (b) matches it with the

manufacturer's calculated efficiency. If

the two values are in agreement for all

the motors tested, then GSA

International would accept the

manufacturer's efficiency calculation

procedure as intended by 10 CFR

431.24(b)(3). In its June 14 letter, CSA

International asserts that its sampling

procedures for electric motor efficiency

evaluations are statistically valid, use

random selection, and result in

confidence levels such that the true

mean energy efficiency of a basic model

meets or exceeds the motor's

represented energy efficiency level.

Furthermore, CSA International's

DQD 384, Electric Motor Efficiency

Evaluation, paragraph 6.2 and

Attachment No. 2, MEEV-Sampling

Procedure, dated January 23, 2001, set

forth the CSA International sampling

procedure whereby, in sum, CSA

International staff selects a minimum of

5 basic models that represent a complete

range of motors, and tests 1 to 5 units

of those basic models to determine

whether the average efficiency of the

sample lot equals or exceeds the

required efficiency rating. Also, the

Department understands that CSA

International is establishing a database

to substantiate that the sampling plan is

valid, uses random selection, and

provides the required confidence limits.

In view of the above-referenced

sampling plan, the Department

calculates that a manufacturer could be

required to test only 5 motors (5 basic

models x 1 unit = 5 motors) to

substantiate compliance for up to 113

basic models. The Department believed

this approach was not statistically valid

for the purposes of 10 CFR 431.24 and

431,27(b)(4).

On August 28, 2001, the Department

received an electronic message from

CSA International which set forth its

"Plan and Procedure Relative to

Alternative Efficiency Determination

Methods (AEDMs)" (Plan and

Procedure). In sum, CSA International

asserts that it will require a motor

manufacturer to submit predicted

energy efficiency values that represent a

group of motors. CSA International

would then select a minimum of 5 basic

models from that group, and 5 samples

of each basic model, for testing to

determine the correlation between the

predicted efficiency and the tested

efficiency. CSA International asserts

that the individual and average

efficiency of the motors tested shall be

in accordance with 10 CFR

431.24(b)(2)(i) and (ii). Also, CSA

International asserts that it will conduct

periodic follow-up audits and testing

witnessed by CSA International staff.

The Department finds that the above

Plan and Procedure is consistent with

10 CFR 431.24(a)(1)-(4)(i). However, in

item 3 of the Plan and Procedure, CSA

International states that "tests may be

performed at the manufacturer's

previously evaluated testing facility

with some testing witnessed by [CSA

International] CSAI staff." This

appeared to contradict the

aforementioned CSA International

policies and procedures in DQDs 385

and 316, and assertions by CSA

International in its Certification and

Testing Services booklet, that both

initial compliance and periodic followup tests are witnessed by qualified CSA

International technical staff. The

Department requested that CSA

International confirm that the "witness

testing" policies and procedures apply

to initial and subsequent verification of

a manufacturer's AEDMs.

On August 30, 2001, the Department

received an electronic message from

CSA International containing a revised

sampling plan and procedure DQD 384,

"Attachment 2, MEEV-Sampling

Procedure for U.S., Part 431-DOE

Energy Efficiency Program for Motors,"

dated August 29, 2001, for motor

compliance testing, substantiation of an

AEDM, and retesting. The Department

examined the above DQD 384

Attachment 2 and, in general, found it

to be consistent with 10 CFR

431.24(a)(1)-(4)(i) and 431.24(b)(1).

However, where the CSA International

sampling procedures follow 10 CFR

431.24, the Department recommended

that DQD 384 Attachment 2 clearly state

that (1) the average full load efficiency

of each basic model of electric motor

must be determined either by testing or

by the application of an Alternative

Efficiency Determination Method, (2)

the section entitled "Samples Required

for Motor Model Qualification Testing"

should be modified to read "Samples of

Units Required for Motor Model

Qualification Testing," (3) the section

entitled "Selection of Basic Model

Types to Represent a Group of Motors"

should be modified to read "Selection of

Basic Models for Testing," and (4) the

specific example provided under

"Example Scope of Certification"

should be corrected to accurately depict

the sampling guidelines that precede it

in DQD 384 Attachment 2.

Also, DQD 384 Attachment 2, entitled

"Samples Required for Scheduled Motor

Retesting," states: "The initial retest

sample lot shall consist of one motor. If

the measured full load efficiency from

retest meets or exceeds the lowest full

load efficiency determined from the

qualification testing, then no further

samples are required for testing." It is

not clear to the Department whether the

"lowest full load efficiency determined

from the qualification testing" refers to

the results of actual tests or some other

criterion. Consequently, the Department

requested that the procedures to be used

during retesting be clarified.

Moreover, the Department believes

that the sampling procedures set forth in

10 CFR 431.24(b)(2)(i) and (ii) provide

reasonable assurance that the average

full load efficiency of the basic model

being retested meets or exceeds the

mandated efficiency level and,

accordingly, may be applied during retestings. The Department recommended

that CSA International adopt these

sampling procedures for retesting. Thus,

when testing a sample size of one motor

during retesting, the efficiency of that

unit must not be less than the full load

efficiency described in section

431,24(b)(2)(ii); and, when samples of

two or more motors are tested during

retesting, the average efficiency of the

lot must not be less than the full load

efficiency described in section

431.24(b)(2)(i) and, the lowest efficiency

of any unit in the lot must not be less

than the full load efficiency described in

section 431.24(b)(2)(ii).

CSA International's letter, dated

March 1, 2002, addresses the above

recommendations. As such, the

Department understands that DQD No.

384 and DQD No. 385 have been

combined into one document, and have

been revised to clarify the sampling and

compliance requirements. Also, CSA

International revised the above DQD No.

384, Attachment 2, MEEV-Sampling

Procedure which is now DQD No. 385,

Attachment 2 in order to incorporate the

Department's above recommendations

both for initial qualification testing and

retesting. The Department has examined

the above documents and concludes

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
45028 Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations

that the standards and procedures CSA

International uses to conduct sampling

under its MEVS Program are consistent

with 10 CFR 431.24 and 431.42, and

satisfy the criteria for the selection and

sampling of electric motors to be tested

for energy efficiency under 10 CFR

431,27(b)(4).

III. Conclusion

A. Interim Determination

In view of CSA International's

Petition and supporting documents, the

public comments received, the

Department's independent

investigation, and CSA International's

actions to correct the defects the

Department addressed as described

above, 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 interim

determination is, as of today's Federal

Register notice, 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. In the event that a final

determination recognizes the CSA

International Motor Efficiency

Verification Service Program as a

nationally recognized certification

program pursuant to the criteria in 10

CFR 431.27, and the Program thereafter

fails to meet the criteria for recognition,

the Department can withdraw its

recognition after following the

procedural requirements in 10 CFR

431.28(g).

B. Future Proceedings

Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.28(d), the

Department will notify CSA

International in writing of this interim

determination. Today's Federal Register

notice solicits comments, data and

information concerning the

Department's interim determination to

classify the CSA International Motor

Efficiency Verification Service Program

as nationally recognized in the United

States. After review of information

submitted concerning the interim

determination, the Department will

publish in the Federal Register an

announcement of its final

determination. See 10 CFR 431.28(e).

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 28,

2002.

Douglas L. Faulkner,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 02-16819 Filed 7-3-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 431

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

Energy Efficiency Program for Certain

Commercial and Industrial Equipment:

Interim 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: Public notice of an interim

determination and solicitation of

comments.

SUMMARY : Today's action announces the

Department of Energy's interim

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. The Department solicits comments,

data and information with respect to its

interim determination prior to issuing a

final determination.

DATES : Written comments, data and

information, as a signed original with an

electronic copy, must be received at the

Department of Energy by August 5,

2002.

ADDRESSES : Comments, data and

information should be labeled "Interim

Determination Concerning the

Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Petition

for Recognition as a Nationally

Recognized Certification Program for

Electric Motor Efficiency," and

submitted to: Ms. Brenda EdwardsJones, Office of Building Research and

Standards, EE-41, U.S. Department of

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121.

Telephone: (202) 586-2945; Telefax:

(202) 586-4617. Also, a copy of such

comments should be submitted to Ms.

Jodine E. Smyth, Senior Coordinator,

Global Accreditation Services,

Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333

Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062.

Telephone: (847) 272-8800, ext. 42418;

or Telefax (847) 509-6321.

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:

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:

I. 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. Conclusion

A. Interim Determination

B. Future Proceedings

1. Introduction

A copy of Underwriters Laboratories

Inc.'s Petition, "Classification in

Accordance with 10 CFR 431.27," (UL

Petition or the Petition) was published

in the Federal Register, on October 3,

2001. 66 FR 50355. The Petition

consisted of a letter from Underwriters

Laboratories Inc. (UL) to the

Department, narrative statements on five

subject areas, and supporting

documentation. At the same time, the

Department of Energy (Department)

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, are available in the Freedom of

Information Reading Room, U.S.

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations

Department of Energy, Forrestal

Building, Room 1E-190, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585-0101,

Telephone (202) 586-3142, between the

hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. Additional information about

UL's Energy Verification Service (UL

EVS Program or 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_stan 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

Jodine.E. Sm yth@us. ul. com.

The final rule for "Test Procedures,

Labeling, and Certification

Requirements for Electric Motors," was

published in the Federal Register on

October 5, 1999. 64 FR 54141. It is

codified in 10 CFR Part 431 in Subparts

A, B, E and G. It can also be obtained

from the Office of Building Research

and Standards, Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE41, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585-0121, or

Telephone 202-586-9127, or on the

World Wide Web at http://

www.eren. d oe.gov/buildings/

co d es_stan d and s/rules/motors/

index.htm.

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. Sections 431.27 and 431.28

set forth the criteria and procedures for

national recognition of an energy

efficiency certification program for

electric motors by the Department of

Energy.

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 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 431.28, the

Department is required to publish the

UL Petition in the Federal Register in

order to solicit comments, data and

information on whether the Petition

should be granted. UL may then

respond in writing to any comments

received. After review of the Petition,

other applicable documents, including

public comments and facts found

through investigation, the Department is

required to issue an interim

determination and notify UL in writing

of that interim determination. Also, the

Department is required to publish its

interim determination in the Federal

Register and solicit comments, data and

information with respect to the interim

determination. After review of

comments and information that is

submitted, the Department is required to

publish in the Federal Register an

announcement of its final determination

on the Petition. See 10 CFR 431.28(a)-

(f).

The Department 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, neither of

these companies believes Underwriters

Laboratories Inc. to be qualified to test

and certify electric motors for energy

efficiency for the purposes of section

345(c) of EPCA.

45029

II. Discussion

A. General

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. 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

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. Its policies and

procedures must distinguish between

product certification and other

activities, its certification process must

be free from any commercial, financial

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
45030 Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations

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

relevance is documentary evidence that

establishes experience in the

application of guidelines contained in

International Standards Organization/

International Electrotechnical

Commission (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: (1) Organization

and management that are free from

commercial, financial, and other

pressures which might adversely affect

quality of work; (2) independence of

judgment and integrity; (3) supervision

by persons familiar with the applicable

test procedures; (4) a quality system,

and manual which contains procedures

for control and maintenance of

documents, and procedures for periodic

audit and review; (5) sufficient

personnel, having the necessary

-education, training, technical

knowledge and experience for their

assigned functions, and that training of

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

items of equipment and reference

materials for the correct performance of

tests, and that the equipment is properly

maintained and calibrated; (7) test

equipment that 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; (9) retention of testing

records with sufficient information to

permit repetition of a test; 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 "subcontracted" 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 assert 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, asserts 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

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations 45031

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 concludes 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 asserts

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

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 need 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, asserts 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 explains 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 explains

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 concludes 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 judgement 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

asserts 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 states 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 states 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 state 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 "find no evidence of this

being true with respect to UL's Energy

Verification Program." Advanced

Energy's letter, dated October 12, 2001,

asserts 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,

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
45032 Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations

and require inspection of the motor

manufacturing processes. Advanced

Energy and Emerson Motor Company

state that the UL EVS Program is not

sufficient for the purposes of EPCA on

motor efficiency, and that it conflicts

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,

asserts 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 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 affirms 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, asserts 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.

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 certification 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

section 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 concludes 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 Third-Party

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,"

describes 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.

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations 45033

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 concludes that the UL EVS

Program satisfies the general guidelines

for a model third-party 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

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

concludes 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, asserts 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/EEC 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 asserts 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 concludes 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

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
45034 Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations

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

laboratory, traceability of

measurements, calibration of

equipment, test procedures used,

procedures for corrective actions and

audits, likewise, 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, 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 believes 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

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: 1990. The Department

understands that, in general, the

evaluation of a motor testing laboratory

under ISO/IEC Guide 25 includes an onsite 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 believes 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 431.2 7(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 fouryear Bachelor of Science degree in

engineering. Also, UL submitted to the

Department a copy of its Conformity

Assessment Manual, EVSs 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, asserts

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 asserts

that its staff undergoes continual, onthe-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,

contains the names of UL technical staff

involved with the EVS Program,

indicates their experience with CSA

C390-93 and IEEE 112-1996, and

contains a resume for each.

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations

Furthermore, UL's letter dated other portions of the UL's EVS Program,

September 20, 2001, asserts that the test including staff with specific technical

procedures in "CSA C390-93 method capability related to motor testing, were

B" [sic] are similar to those procedures not completed at that time, nor had

already in place under other CSA Advanced Energy been exposed to the

International Standards as well as UL "full expertise" within the UL Program.

Standards, and that the data and UL's letter to the Department, dated

information recorded to verify energy February 21, 2002, asserts that its

efficiency is some of the same data and experience in standards development,

information required under the testing it testing, and safety evaluation of motors

conducts on a routine basis and which according to the requirements of UL and

follows UL Standard 1004, "Electric other U.S. and International standards

Motors," UL Standard 2111, and the corresponding data acquisition

"Overheating Protection for Motors," necessary to accomplish these

UL 547, "Thermally Protected Motors," endeavors, is "equivalent to and

and CSA C22.2 No. 77, "Overheating demonstrative of the indicated UL staff

Protection for Motors," and CSA C22.2 having the necessary proficiency and

No. 100, "Motors and Generators." UL expertise to conduct energy efficiency

asserts that the data and information evaluations." In sum, the experience

recorded for energy verification testing with CSA C390-93 and IEEE Standard

is some of the same data and 112 of the five UL staff persons engaged

information required under the above- in the UL EVS Program ranges from one

referenced test procedures, which it to four years, which is in addition to

uses in an automated spreadsheet their four to 13 years experience with

program entitled "Motor Efficiency test procedures for motor safety.

Testing Program V3.0," UL copyrighted In the Department's view, any

1994 and 1997, to calculate motor technically qualified person could

efficiency. The September 20 letter from satisfy the criteria for expertise in the

UL compares the IEEE 112 and CSA content, application, and methodologies

C390 test procedures with similar of the test procedures pursuant to 10

procedures in the above "UL" and CFR 431.27(b)(4) if that person: (1) Is

"CSA" standards for performance and proficient in the test methodology of

safety. IEEE Standard 112 Test Method B and

Advanced Energy's letter, dated CSA C390-93 Test Method (1); (2) is

October 12, 2001, expresses concern familiar with the electrical, mechanical

with "the level of `expert' knowledge and environmental capabilities of a

regarding motor testing." Advanced testing laboratory system, (3)

Energy asserts that UL is thorough in the understands how to prepare and mount

documentation of procedures and a motor for testing, which includes the

calibrations of laboratory equipment, connection and operation of the test

but weak in motor efficiency testing, test equipment, (4) is competent in

data analysis, and in its prescriptive calibrating test equipment; and (5) is

audit process that does not involve competent with data collection and

motor testing, review of motor test data, analysis. UL's experience in standards

or proficiency testing by a laboratory. development, testing and evaluation of

Emerson Motor Company's letter, motors to both U.S. and International

dated October 15, 2001, expresses safety and similar energy efficiency

concern that UL uses a motor procedures and methodologies provide

manufacturer's testing facilities that sufficient evidence of UL staff having

have been "reviewed" by a UL staff the necessary proficiency and expertise

member, but there is no evidence of the to conduct energy efficiency evaluations

staff member's credentials, knowledge, under ISO/IEC Guide 25. Thus, the

level of training and certification with Department believes that the

regard to motor efficiency testing qualifications of the UL Staff named in

laboratories. the above September 20 letter, regular

In response to the above comments additional training, and monitoring by

from Advanced Energy and Emerson UL management, satisfy the general

Motor Company, UL's letter, dated requirements for the training, technical

October 22, 2001, asserts that Advanced knowledge, and experience of testing

Energy's view of the UL certification laboratory personnel under 10 CFR

program is based upon limited exposure 431.27(b)(4) and (c)(4).

to UL's technical expertise when both

UL and Advanced Energy were 5. Sampling Criteria and Procedures for

exploring a business relationship in the Selecting an Electric Motor for Energy

1990s. According to UL, a laboratory Efficiency Testing

assessment is one part of its Client Test Section 431.27(b)(4) of 10 CFR 431

Data Program under which external requires a certification organization to

testing, such as by Advanced Energy, have satisfactory criteria and procedures

would be accepted by UL. However, for the selection and sampling of

45035

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

describes 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

asserts 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

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63
45036 Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 129 /Friday, July 5, 2002 /Rules and Regulations

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

efficiency regulations. The Department

examined the Guide and found that

appendix D contained a section entitled

"Sample Selection," Form Page 8 on

ULS-02194-Z WAA-App endix-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

"nominalfull 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 concludes 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, object 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 asserts that such additional

marks would add significant financial

burdens on motor manufacturers and

confuse the motor purchaser. Further,

Emerson Motor Company asserts that

the Department of Energy Compliance

Certification number is the only mark

allowed.

Advanced Energy's comments, dated

October 12, 2001, object to the proposed

UL requirement that a manufacturer

display the UL Mark. Advanced Energy

asserts 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 believes that display of the

UL Mark is a matter between UL and the

manufacturer or private labeler.

III. Conclusion

A. Interim Determination

In view of the UL Petition and

supporting documents, the public

comments received, the Department's

independent investigation, and UL's

corrections to its Program described

above, the Department concludes that

the UL EVS Program for Electric Motors

satisfactorily meets the criteria in 10

CFR 431.27.

Therefore, the Department's interim

determination is, as of today's Federal

Register notice, 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. In the event that a final

determination recognizes the UL EVS

Program for Electric Motors as a

nationally recognized certification

program pursuant to the criteria in 10

CFR 431.27, and the Program thereafter

fails to meet the criteria for recognition,

the Department can withdraw its

recognition after following the

regulatory procedural requirements in

10 CFR 431.28(g).

B. Future Proceedings

Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.28(d), the

Department will notify UL in writing of

this interim determination. Today's

Federal Register notice solicits

comments, data and information

concerning the Department's interim

determination to classify the UL EVS

Program for Electric Motors as

nationally recognized in the United

States. After review of information

submitted concerning the interim

determination, the Department will

publish in the Federal Register an

announcement of its final

determination. See 10 CFR 431.28(e).

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 28,

2002.

Douglas L. Faulkner,

Principal DeputyAssistant Secretary, Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 02-16820 Filed 7-3-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

EE-RM-96-400-CSA COMMENT 63