[Federal Register: December 27, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 79490-79498]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27de02-198]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
[Docket No. EE-RM-96-400]
Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Final Determination Concerning the Petition for Recognition
of Underwriters Laboratories Inc. as a Nationally Recognized
Certification Program for Electric Motor Efficiency
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's notice announces the Department of Energy's final
determination classifying the Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Energy
Verification Service Program for Electric Motors as a nationally
recognized certification program in the United States for the purposes
of section 345(c) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
DATES: This final determination is effective December 27, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone
(202) 586-8654, Telefax (202) 586-4617, or: jim.raba@ee.doe.gov.
Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General
Counsel, Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0103, Telephone (202) 586-7432, Telefax (202) 586-4116, or:
francine.pinto@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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. Final Determination
I. Introduction
On July 5, 2002, the Department of Energy (DOE or Department)
published in the Federal Register an interim determination to classify
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.'s Energy Verification Service Program
for Electric Motors (UL EVS Program or Program) as a nationally
recognized certification program for electric motor efficiency and
solicited comments, data and information with respect to that interim
determination. 67 FR 45028. The Department did not receive any comments
concerning its interim determination.
A. Authority
Part C of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA) contains energy conservation requirements for electric motors,
including requirements for test procedures, energy efficiency
standards, and compliance certification (42 U.S.C. 6311-6316). Section
345(c) of EPCA directs the Secretary of Energy to require motor
manufacturers ``to certify, through an independent testing or
certification program nationally recognized in the United States, that
[each electric motor subject to EPCA efficiency standards] meets the
applicable standard.'' 42 U.S.C. 6316(c). Regulations to implement this
EPCA directive, with respect to certification programs, are codified in
10 CFR Part 431 at sections 431.123, Compliance Certification, 431.27,
Department of Energy recognition of nationally recognized certification
programs, and 431.28, Procedures for recognition and withdrawal of
recognition of accreditation bodies and certification programs.
For a certification program to be classified by the Department as
being nationally recognized, the program must: (1) Have satisfactory
standards and procedures for conducting and administering a
certification system, and for granting a certificate of conformity; (2)
be independent; (3) be qualified to operate in a highly competent
manner; and (4) be expert in the test procedures and methodologies in
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 112-
1996 Test Method B and CSA Standard C390-93 Test Method (1), or similar
procedures and methodologies for determining the energy efficiency of
electric motors; and (5) have satisfactory criteria and procedures for
selecting and sampling electric motors for energy efficiency testing.
10 CFR 431.27(b).
B. Background
Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.27, UL submitted a petition,
``Classification in Accordance with 10 CFR 431.27,'' (UL Petition or
the Petition), which was published in the Federal Register on October
3, 2001. 66 FR 50355. The Petition consisted of a letter from UL to the
Department, narrative statements on five subject areas, and supporting
documentation. At the same time, DOE solicited comments, data, and
information as to whether UL's Petition should be granted. The
Department received two comments. The Department also conducted an
independent investigation concerning the UL Petition pursuant to 10 CFR
431.28(f).
The supporting documents that accompanied the Petition, as well as
the material UL subsequently submitted to the Department in support of
UL's Petition, continue to be available in the Freedom of Information
Reading Room, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-
190, 1000
[[Page 79491]]
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0101, Telephone (202)
586-3142, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. Additional information about the UL
EVS Program and its Petition to be a nationally recognized
certification program for electric motor efficiency can be obtained on
the World Wide Web at http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/rules/index.htm
, or from Ms. Jodine E. Smyth, Senior
Coordinator, Global Accreditation Services, Underwriters Laboratories
Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, or Telephone: (847)
272-8800, ext. 42418; or Telefax (847) 509-6321, or electronic mail at
Jodine.E.Smyth@us.ul.com.
The Department initially received comments on the UL Petition from
Advanced Energy, dated October 12, 2001, and Emerson Motor Company,
dated October 15, 2001. Advanced Energy is an independent motor testing
facility and Emerson is a manufacturer of electric motors. In general,
these commenters stated that UL was not qualified to test and certify
electric motors for energy efficiency for the purposes of section
345(c) of EPCA.
After reviewing UL's Petition as well as other applicable
documents, including the public comments and facts found through its
investigation, the Department issued its interim determination, which
was published in the Federal Register on July 5, 2002, and notified UL
in writing of that interim determination pursuant to 10 CFR 431.28(d).
See 67 FR 45028. After review of any comments and information submitted
in response to the interim determination the Department is required to
publish in the Federal Register an announcement of its final
determination on the Petition. See 10 CFR 431.28(e). This notice sets
forth DOE's final determination.
II. Discussion
A. General
For the Department to classify a certification program as
``nationally recognized,'' the program must meet the following
criteria:
Sections 431.27(b)(1) and (c)(1) of 10 CFR Part 431 set forth
criteria and guidelines for the standards and procedures for conducting
and administering a certification system and for granting a certificate
of conformity. As such, a certification program must have satisfactory
standards and procedures for conducting and administering a
certification system, including periodic follow up activities to assure
that basic models of electric motors continue to conform to the
efficiency levels for which they were certified and for granting a
certificate of conformity. International Standards Organization/
International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) Guide 65 (discussed
in 10 CFR 431.27(c)(3) and also below) sets forth the general
requirements intended to ensure a certification program is operated in
a consistent and reliable manner. These requirements address: (1)
Impartiality; (2) sufficient personnel having the necessary education,
training, technical knowledge and experience; (3) relevant procedures
for sampling, testing and inspecting the product, and the means
necessary to evaluate conformance by a manufacturer with those
standards; (4) surveillance and periodic audits to ensure continued
conformance with the applicable standards; (5) subcontracting work,
such as testing, with proper arrangements to ensure competence,
impartiality, and compliance with the applicable standards; (6)
procedures to control records, documents and data, including review and
approval by appropriately authorized personnel; and (7) control over
use and display of certificates and marks of conformity.
Sections 431.27(b)(2) and (c)(2) of 10 CFR Part 431 set forth
criteria and guidelines for independence. A certification program must
be independent of electric motor manufacturers, importers,
distributors, private labelers or vendors. It cannot be affiliated
with, have financial ties with, be controlled by, or be under common
control with any such entity. Further, it should disclose any
relationship it believes might appear to create a conflict of interest.
ISO/IEC Guide 65 sets forth requirements for a certification program to
be impartial and requires that a program have a documented structure
that safeguards impartiality. For example, each decision on
certification is made by a person(s) different from those who carried
out the evaluation or actual testing of the motor. A certification
program's policies and procedures must distinguish between product
certification and other activities, its certification process must be
free from any commercial, financial and other pressures that might
influence decisions, and it must have a committee structure where
members are chosen to provide a balance of affected interests.
Sections 431.27(b)(3) and (c)(3) of 10 CFR Part 431 set forth
criteria and guidelines requiring that a certification organization
must be qualified to operate a certification system in a highly
competent manner. Of particular relevance is documentary evidence that
establishes experience in the application of guidelines contained in
ISO/IEC Guide 65: 1996, General requirements for bodies operating
product certification systems, ISO/IEC Guide 27: 1983, Guidelines for
corrective action to be taken by a certification body in the event of
either misapplication of its mark of conformity to a product, or
products which bear the mark of the certification body being found to
subject persons or property to risk, ISO/IEC Guide 28: 1982, General
rules for a model third-party certification system for products, as
well as experience in overseeing compliance with the guidelines
contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25: 1990, General requirements for the
competence of calibration and testing laboratories.
Sections 431.27(b)(4) and (c)(4) of 10 CFR Part 431 set forth
criteria and guidelines requiring that a certification program must be
expert in the content and application of the test procedures and
methodologies in IEEE Standard 112-1996 Test Method B and CSA Standard
C390-93 Test Method (1). Of particular relevance would be documentary
evidence that establishes experience in the application of guidelines
contained in the ISO/IEC Guide 25.
ISO/IEC Guide 25 addresses general requirements for establishing
quality systems in laboratories and for recognizing their competence to
carry out specified tests. In part, these requirements address
standards and procedures for ensuring that: (1) Organization and
management that are free from commercial, financial, and other
pressures which might adversely affect quality of work; (2) there is
independence of judgment and integrity; (3) supervision is provided by
persons familiar with the applicable test procedures; (4) a quality
system, and a manual which contains procedures for control and
maintenance of documents, and procedures for periodic audit and review
are all in place; (5) there are sufficient personnel having the
necessary education, training, technical knowledge and experience for
their assigned functions, and training of its personnel is kept up-to-
date; (6) all items of equipment and reference materials for the
correct performance of tests are available and used, and the equipment
is properly maintained and calibrated; (7) test equipment is calibrated
and verified prior to operation, and there is traceability to national
standards of measurement; (8) documented instructions for the use and
operation of equipment, manuals, and applicable test procedures are in
place;
[[Page 79492]]
(9) testing records with sufficient information to permit repetition of
a test are retained; and (10) where a laboratory is subcontracted to
conduct testing, that laboratory complies with the requirements
contained in ISO/IEC Guide 25 and is competent to perform the
applicable testing activities. An example of a ``sub-contracted''
laboratory would be a manufacturer's laboratory that tests motors for
energy efficiency under the UL EVS Program.
Also, where 10 CFR 431.27(b)(4) requires a certification program to
have satisfactory criteria and procedures for the sampling and
selection of electric motors, likewise, ISO/IEC Guide 25 requires the
use of documented sampling procedures and appropriate techniques to
select samples.
B. Application of Evaluation Criteria
1. Standards and Procedures for Conducting and Administering a
Certification System
Sections 431.27(b)(1) and (c)(1) of 10 CFR 431, and ISO/IEC Guide
65, set forth criteria and guidelines for the standards and procedures
to be used in administering a certification system and granting a
certificate of conformity.
In Attachment 1 to the UL Petition, entitled ``431.27(c)(1)
Standards and Operating Procedures,'' it is stated that ``Underwriters
Laboratories Inc. product safety certification program is an ISO Guide
65 compliant program'' and that ``UL's Energy Verification utilizes the
same operation manuals as UL's product safety certification services
with minor variations that are detailed in the UL Energy Verification
Manual.''
Advanced Energy's comments, dated October 12, 2001, and Emerson
Motor Company's comments, dated October 15, 2001, generally asserted
that the UL EVS Program is not an ISO/IEC Guide 65 compliant program.
The Department's investigation found that the UL procedures for
operating a certification system, provided as attachments to the
Petition, were very general in nature and could be satisfactorily
applied to any UL certification program. This raised the issue as to
whether the specific standards and procedures by which the UL EVS
Program operates are adequate, properly documented, well established
and maintained according to the aforementioned ISO/IEC Guide 65
criteria. The Department's letter to UL, dated June 12, 2001, requested
copies of the specific documents that have been approved by
appropriately authorized UL personnel, and are used as the standard
operating procedures for the UL EVS Program as it pertains to electric
motors.
UL's letter to the Department, dated July 2, 2001, asserted that
procedures which demonstrate compliance with sections 4.3, 4.8, 5 and
13 of ISO/IEC Guide 65 are contained in UL's Conformity Assessment
Manual, the Energy Verification Service Manual (EVS Manual), and the
Client Interactive Programs Manual. Copies were submitted to the
Department during its investigative process. UL's letter, dated July
31, 2001, conveyed a copy of its Motor Efficiency Guide, 2001, which
outlines the criteria UL uses to evaluate motor efficiency in the
United States.
The UL Conformity Assessment Manual and Client Interactive Programs
Manual establish general operating procedures that form a basis for UL
certification programs, including the certification program for
electric motors. The Department finds that ISO/IEC Guide 65 and the UL
Conformity Assessment and Client Interactive Programs Manuals are
consistent with each other in that they address, for example: (1) Steps
necessary to evaluate conformance with relevant product standards, such
as energy efficiency standards for electric motors; (2) competence of
persons carrying out testing; (3) documented procedures for granting,
maintaining and withdrawing certification; (4) control of
documentation; and (5) surveillance to assure continued conformity with
standards, such as energy efficiency standards for motors. The
Department understands that these manuals are used in conjunction with
the UL EVS Manual and Motor Efficiency Guide. The Conformity Assessment
Manual and Client Interactive Programs Manual are further addressed in
section II.3.c. of today's Federal Register Notice.
The EVS Manual outlines the standard criteria and operating
procedures by which UL evaluates and verifies the energy efficiency of
various types of products. In the case of electric motors, the EVS
Manual refers to the energy efficiency test procedures found in 10 CFR
431.27. Its contents include efficiency verification procedures,
documentation, sample selection, product testing, test facility
evaluation, product construction evaluation, and manufacturers ongoing
and follow-up testing. The Motor Efficiency Guide outlines the criteria
that UL utilizes to evaluate motor efficiency in accordance with the
energy efficiency regulations in the United States and Canada. It is
used in combination with the EVS Manual for conducting evaluations in
accordance with UL's EVS Program. It contains a tutorial on motor
efficiency, information on correlation of stray load loss and the basis
of acceptability for motor efficiency, sample selection, assessment of
a testing facility, test record data sheets, and guides the UL
representative that conducts a facility assessment and witness testing.
For example, the section entitled ``Assessment of Client Facility,''
lists areas of a manufacturer's testing facility that UL would
investigate under its certification program. These include
investigation of a manufacturer's quality program system as to whether
(1) an ISO 9001 or ISO 9002 quality assurance program is in place, (2)
proficiency of personnel is witnessed, (3) the motor testing laboratory
environment is properly maintained, (4) testing equipment is properly
maintained and calibrated, and (5) testing of the energy efficiency of
electric motors is conducted in accordance with 10 CFR 431.23.
Also, UL submitted the revised Motor Efficiency Guide ULS-02194-
ZWAA, ``Test Record Data Sheet'' pages 1 through 14, and a page ULS-
02194-ZWAA ``Appendix D,'' page 0001, ``Manufacturer's Test
Equipment.'' The Department understands that this revised guide
supersedes the above-referenced earlier version and is used in
combination with the Energy Verification Services Manual for conducting
evaluations in accordance with UL's EVS Program. Further, UL provided
the Department a copy of UL's specific standard operating procedures
which are utilized as part of the UL EVS Program. These included data
sheets that describe the test methodology, follow-up inspections to
verify electric motor efficiency, and an exemplary ``Certificate of
Compliance.''
The Department has examined UL's Petition and all other documents
described above, and affirms its conclusion that these documents
provide evidence of satisfactory standards and procedures for UL to
conduct its EVS Program to satisfy the requirements set forth in 10 CFR
431.27(b)(1) and (c)(1), and the guidelines contained in ISO/IEC Guide
65.
2. Independence
Sections 431.27(b)(2) and (c)(2) of 10 CFR part 431, and ISO/IEC
Guide 65, set forth criteria and guidelines for impartiality.
In Attachment 2 to the UL Petition, entitled ``Independence,'' UL
asserted that it is independent and impartial of any individual
electric motor supplier or purchaser and is free from any other
conflict of interest. A notarized Statement of Independence signed by
an
[[Page 79493]]
officer of the corporation was submitted in support of its assertion.
The Department's June 12, 2001, letter to UL requested additional
documents concerning the policies or procedures that distinguish (a) a
direct or indirect relationship with a motor manufacturer, importer, or
private labeler that is in a situation where UL both provides safety
certification services and an EVS for such entity's motors, and (b)
where a manufacturer's representative serves, for example, on UL
Standards Technical Panel UL 1004, Electric Motors. Such relationships
needed more explanation as to why each would not create or appear to
create a conflict of interest, compromise UL's independence, or bias
information presented to UL for the purposes of compliance with 10 CFR
part 431.
UL's letter to the Department, dated July 2, 2001, asserted that UL
is ``independent and impartial of any individual supplier or purchaser
and is free from any other conflict of interest,'' and that ``UL has no
stockholders, i.e., no direct or indirect relationship with
manufacturers, importers or private labelers.'' UL explained that it is
incorporated as a not-for-profit organization in the State of Delaware,
and its policy regarding conflict of interest is both addressed as a
condition for employment and in its code of ethics. Also, chapter 2 of
the UL ``Client Interactive Programs Manual'' sets forth procedures
whereby each decision on certification is made by a person or persons
different from those who carried out a motor efficiency evaluation.
Furthermore, UL explained that its standards development process for
safety matters is organizationally separated from its certification
operations. Thus, a manufacturer's representative who participates in a
UL Technical Panel as part of the standards development process only
provides technical input to standards and has no influence over
certification functions, such as the EVS Program for Electric Motors.
The Department has examined the above documents and affirms its
conclusion that they provide sufficient evidence that the UL EVS
Program meets the requirements for independence which are set forth in
10 CFR 431.27(b)(2) and(c)(2), and the guidelines for objectively and
impartiality of technical persons and committees which are set forth in
ISO/IEC Guide 65. Furthermore, the UL EVS Program meets the ISO/IEC
Guide 25 requirements for organization and management to ensure
confidence that its independence of judgment and integrity are
maintained at all times.
3. Operation of a Certification System in a Highly Competent Manner
Sections 431.27(b)(3) and (c)(3) of 10 CFR 431 require that the
petitioner demonstrate that its certification program operates in a
highly competent manner by establishing its experience in the
application of certain ISO/IEC Guides, including ISO/IEC Guides 65, 27
and 28, as well as experience in overseeing compliance with the
guidelines in ISO/IEC Guide 25.
In Attachment 3 to the UL Petition, ``Testing Experience and
Expertise,'' UL asserted that it has been conducting product safety
evaluations for 105 years, and that in 1999 alone it conducted more
than 94,300 product evaluations. As to further experience in operating
a certification system and application of guidelines contained in ISO/
IEC Guide 65, UL stated in Attachment 3, ``Summary of UL's
Accreditations,'' that it is involved in more than 80 accreditation
programs that are involved with the evaluation and testing of products
for public safety. It stated that its competence as a product
certification organization has been, for the most part, established
under the criteria in ISO/IEC Guides 25 and 65. Copies of UL's
accreditation documents from the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) and the Standards Council of Canada (SCC), and recognition as a
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory from the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration were attached to the UL Petition.
a. General Operating Requirements (ISO/IEC Guide 65)
Both Advanced Energy and Emerson Motor Company stated that ``UL has
a solid reputation in testing services and quality assurance for safety
programs,'' and is capable of administering safety programs because
they are ISO/IEC Guide 65 compliant, as demonstrated by the ANSI
accreditation. However, both Advanced Energy and Emerson Motor Company
found ``no evidence of this being true with respect to UL's Energy
Verification Program.'' Advanced Energy's letter, dated October 12,
2001, asserted that UL's EVS Program has the potential to confuse
customers in the marketplace and unduly burden motor manufacturers,
because UL would visit each motor manufacturer's facilities twice per
year, require testing of an unspecified number of sample motors, and
require inspection of the motor manufacturing processes. Advanced
Energy and Emerson Motor Company stated that the UL EVS Program is not
sufficient for the purposes of EPCA on motor efficiency, and that it
conflicts with the intent of EPCA and 10 CFR Part 431.
In response to the above comments from Advanced Energy and Emerson
Motor Company, UL's letter to the Department, dated October 22, 2001,
asserted that Advanced Energy's view of the UL certification program is
based upon limited exposure to UL's technical expertise and other
portions of the EVS Program related to electric motors. Also, UL stated
that it believes that Emerson Motor Company's concerns are addressed
under 10 CFR Part 431 concerning the use of a certification program.
The Department examined the above UL accreditations and found that
the majority of them concerned product safety certification and there
was no explicit reference to the certification of energy efficiency for
electric motors. The Department's June 12, 2001, letter to UL requested
evidence as to whether the UL EVS Program for electric motors is, or
will become, accredited by another organization, such as ANSI. Also,
the Department's letter requested evidence of the technical
qualifications and experience held by UL personnel directly involved
with the UL EVS Program, such as technical evaluations and decisions
concerning critical motor construction features, performance, and
testing for energy efficiency using IEEE 112-1996 Test Method B and CSA
C390-93 Test Method (1).
Thereafter, the Department received a letter, dated June 26, 2001,
from ANSI which affirmed that the UL EVS Program is covered under the
scope of the ANSI accreditation for Electrical and Electronic Products,
Processes, Systems, and Services in accordance with ISO/IEC Guide 65.
Also in response to the Department's June 12 letter, UL's letter, dated
July 2, 2001, asserted that UL has documented procedures to ensure that
qualified personnel review the evaluation of motors for compliance with
energy efficiency requirements, and written instructions that set forth
the duties and responsibilities of such personnel. UL staff undergoes
continual on-the-job training and is evaluated through a documented
performance appraisal process. UL has supervisory and review staff with
the necessary education, training, skill, abilities and experience for
evaluating motors for compliance with energy efficiency requirements,
and its management structure provides for the supervision of reviewers
and other personnel involved in the product certification process. UL's
July 2nd letter conveyed resumes of certain staff involved in the EVS
Program.
[[Page 79494]]
As to any undue burden on a manufacturer caused by UL's biannual
inspections of a motor facility, the Department understands that UL's
surveillance program consists of two random unannounced audits of the
manufacturer's facilities, and such audits can be conducted separately
or in conjunction with its motor safety investigations, thereby
lessening the compliance burden on a manufacturer. Therefore, the
Department believes that the UL EVS Program does not present any undue
burden on a manufacturer.
As to the above-referenced comments from Advanced Energy and
Emerson Motor Company concerning the UL EVS Program not meeting the
requirements for a ``certification program'' in section 345(c) of EPCA
and in 10 CFR 431.123(a)(1), the Department finds no facts or
convincing arguments that support the assertions of Advanced Energy or
Emerson Motor Company that the UL EVS Program is ``not sufficient'' or
``conflicts with the intent'' of EPCA, or ``would place additional
burden on manufacturers.'' Such issues involving the merits and use of
an accredited laboratory or a certification program were argued at
length under sections II.C.2. and 3. of the Preamble to the Final Rule
for Electric Motors, 64 FR 54124-26 (October 5, 1999) and need not be
repeated here. The Department continues to believe that use of a
certification program, such as the UL EVS Program, where it meets the
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 431.27(a) will provide adequate
assurance of compliance with EPCA's energy efficiency requirements.
Because the assertions of Advanced Energy and Emerson Motor Company are
merely arguments against the wisdom of the final rule and of the
Departments regulations themselves, and are not directed at the UL
Petition, they are rejected.
b. Guidelines for Corrective Action in the Event of Misapplication
of a Mark of Conformity (ISO/IEC Guide 27)
ISO/IEC Guide 27 identifies procedures which a certification
program should consider in response to a reported misuse of its
registered mark of conformity. According to paragraph 1.1 (a) of ISO/
IEC Guide 27, ``misuse'' may take a variety of forms, such as a mark of
conformity appearing on a non-certified product. The Department
construes this to mean the unauthorized use by a manufacturer or
private labeler of the UL Verification Mark for Energy Efficiency (Mark
or UL Mark) on an electric motor, such as the use of a counterfeit UL
Mark. Under ISO/IEC Guide 27, the certification program would then be
required to have strong corrective procedures in place. Such corrective
measures would depend upon the nature of the misuse and the desire by
the certification program to protect the integrity of its mark.
The Department has examined the UL Conformity Assessment Manual and
finds that it contains procedures for reporting the misuse of any UL
Mark used to identify certified products, such as any unauthorized or
counterfeit use of a UL Registered mark. The Department affirms its
conclusion that the UL Conformity Assessment Manual satisfactorily
follows the guidelines for corrective action to be taken by a
certification organization in the event of misapplication of a mark of
conformity to an electric motor set forth in 10 CFR 431.27(c)(3) and
ISO/IEC Guide 27.
c. General Rules for a Model 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,'' described the UL certification of motors under its EVS
Program as being based upon: (1) Satisfactory evaluation and testing to
the requirements of the applicable standard, which in this case is
under 10 CFR 431.23; (2) continued surveillance at the manufacturing
location; (3) initial motor evaluation that consists of an examination
of motor efficiency test data, test facilities, and motor design and
construction; (4) selection of samples and witness testing by a UL
representative; (5) where an electric motor is found to be in
compliance, authorization to apply a mark of conformity; and (6)
procedures for withdrawal or cancellation of a mark of conformity if an
electric motor is found in non-conformance. Also, UL submitted its
Energy Verification Service Manual as evidence that its EVS Program for
electric motors follows the guidelines contained in ISO/IEC Guide 28.
In view of ISO/IEC Guide 28, the Department examined the UL EVS
Manual that outlines the criteria by which UL performs third-party
energy efficiency certifications for various products, including
electric motors. In sum, the UL EVS Manual contains the general
operating procedures and business document formats applicable to UL's
EVS Program, that when utilized in conjunction with the procedures and
technical document formats in the UL Conformity Assessment Manual and
Motor Efficiency Guide, correspond to the ``model'' procedures and
example forms contained in ISO/IEC Guide 28. The Department finds that,
in general, both ISO/IEC Guide 28, and the UL EVS and Conformity
Assessment Manuals address: (1) The basic conditions and rules for a
manufacturer to obtain and retain a certificate of conformity or mark
of conformity; (2) initial inspection of a motor factory and a
manufacturer's quality management system; (3) sample selection; (4)
initial testing; (5) product evaluation; (6) surveillance; (7)
identification of conformity in the form of a certificate of conformity
or mark of conformity; (8) withdrawal of a certificate or mark of
conformity by the certification program; and (9) guidelines on
corrective action for misuse of a certificate or mark of conformity.
The Department affirms its conclusion that the UL EVS Program satisfies
the general guidelines for a model 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
[[Page 79495]]
testing, training, assessment of a test facility, program
administration, documentation, and issuing a certificate of
qualification. The Department understands that both the Conformity
Assessment and Client Interactive Programs Manuals are used in
conjunction with UL's product-specific operations manuals, such as the
UL Energy Verification Service Manual, that applies specific procedures
to the acceptance of energy efficiency test data for electric motors.
The Department has examined the contents of these manuals and
affirms its conclusion that they satisfy the guidelines for conducting
a model third-party certification program at the national level as
applicable under 10 CFR 431.27(c)(3) and ISO/IEC Guide 28.
d. General Requirements for the Competence of Testing Laboratories
(ISO/IEC Guide 25)
Third-party certification programs must have experience overseeing
compliance with the guidelines contained in ISO/IEC Guide 25. ISO/IEC
Guide 25 sets out the general requirements by which a laboratory must
operate if it is to be recognized as competent to carry out specific
tests.
According to Attachment 3 to the UL Petition, ``Summary of UL's
Accreditations,'' the majority of UL's accreditations cover UL as a
testing laboratory and product safety certification organization.
Although each accreditor to a certain extent establishes its own
criteria, for the most part, two sets of criteria are utilized for
evaluating the competence of a testing laboratory and product
certification organization: ISO/IEC Guide 25, General Requirements for
the Competence of Calibration and Testing Laboratories and ISO/IEC
Guide 65 General Requirements for Bodies Operating Product
Certification Systems. UL's written policies and associated operating
procedures were designed using the criteria of these two guides.
UL's letter to the Department, dated January 24, 2002, asserted
that UL has ``significant experience understanding, adapting,
documenting and applying the requirements of Guide 25 to manufacturers'
laboratories as evidenced by the [Client Test Data Program] CTDP
documentation and overseeing compliance of manufacturers with UL's
CTDP.'' According to the January 24 letter, UL has determined that
Guide 25 as written ``can not solely be the basis on which it accepts
responsibility for the test data generated from a manufacturer's
laboratories,'' and as a result, UL's Client Test Data Program
requirements are ``an adaptation of Guide 25, with necessary changes
made, so that UL has an adequate basis for taking responsibility for
the test data from a manufacturer's laboratory.'' For example, even
though not required by ISO/IEC Guide 25, UL requires repeat testing and
requires that the data from that repeat testing correlate with the
original test data generated by the manufacturer. In addition, UL
conducts audits of manufacturers' laboratories under the Client Test
Data Program, whereas ISO/IEC Guide 25 only requires a laboratory to
audit itself. UL believes such additional oversight requirements are
necessary in order for it to accept responsibility for the test data.
Further, UL asserted that it does not rely solely on a manufacturer's
self-monitoring of laboratory competence through the laboratory's
quality system; rather, UL itself ``directly monitors those aspects of
laboratory operations that contribute to the accuracy of the test data
produced.'' Thus, UL adds a second level of assurance through audit
testing and subsequent data correlation. UL's January 24 letter
concluded with the assertion that it has ``demonstrated experience
overseeing a laboratory not just to Guide 25 requirements, but to even
more stringent requirements related to transfer of responsibility for
test data.''
The Department compared ISO/IEC Guide 25 with UL's CTDP as it would
apply to a manufacturer's motor efficiency testing laboratory under a
certification program and found them to be consistent with each other.
Under UL's CTDP, a motor manufacturer's laboratory must, in sum, have a
quality program that is subject to assessment and reassessment, have
physical resources, equipment, qualified personnel and procedures that
conform to national and international accreditation criteria, and have
test data that is reviewed and subject to a regular audit. The
Department found, for example:
[sbull] Where ISO/IEC Guide 25 sets forth requirements for
organization and management of a testing laboratory to ensure proper
supervision and integrity of data, similarly, the UL CTDP requires a
testing laboratory to have procedures and policies in place to assure
accuracy and correctness of the performance of the tests, test data
developed, and results reported, as well as qualified staff to oversee
testing and ensure proper documentation.
[sbull] 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,
similarly, the UL CTDP requires a manufacturer's testing laboratory to
have procedures and policies that assure accuracy and correctness of
the performance of a test, test data developed, and results reported,
and oversight of sampling, testing, data recording and periodic audits.
[sbull] 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.
[sbull] Where ISO/IEC Guide 25 requires the proper environment and
equipment for performance of testing, and that such equipment is
properly maintained and calibrated, similarly the UL CTDP requires the
proper environment for testing, and requires that equipment is fully
operational, calibrated and traceable to nationally recognized
standards of measurement.
[sbull] 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.
[sbull] Both ISO/IEC Guide 25 and the UL CTDP require test reports
or test certificates that contain similar information.
In view of these comparisons, the Department affirms its belief, set
forth in the interim determination, that UL's EVS Program satisfies the
requirement of 10 CFR 431.27(c)(3) for documentary evidence that
establishes experience in operating a certification system and
overseeing compliance with the guidelines for competence contained in
ISO/IEC Guide 25 to test electric motors for energy efficiency.
Also, 10 CFR 431.27 does not require a certification program to
actually operate its own motor testing laboratory, nor is a laboratory
operated or observed by a certification program required to be
accredited. Nevertheless, the Department believes that the quality
program to which a motor efficiency testing laboratory adheres under a
certification program that is ``nationally recognized'' for the
purposes of EPCA
[[Page 79496]]
should be inherently stringent because its efficiency measurements are
the basis for compliance determinations for many motors. Therefore, the
Department believes that a testing facility operated or observed by a
certification program should follow the guidelines in ISO/IEC Guide 25.
The Department understands that, in general, the evaluation of a motor
testing laboratory under ISO/IEC Guide 25 includes an on-site
assessment, proficiency testing, an audit of a laboratory's policies
and operational procedures, review of staff qualifications, checks of
proper maintenance and calibration of test equipment, and records
review. Likewise, evaluation of a motor testing laboratory under the UL
EVS includes evaluation of the manufacturer's testing facility, control
and maintenance and calibration of test equipment, factory audits for
continued compliance, document control, periodic audits of the
operational and technical consistency of the program, control of non-
conformances, staff training, and witness testing.
The Department believes that the goal of a third-party
certification program is to provide assurance that test results are
accurate, valid, and capable of being replicated. Tests must be
performed with a degree of oversight so that the results are not
influenced by marketing and production concerns. The Department affirms
its belief that the UL EVS Program essentially follows the ISO/IEC 25
Guidelines.
4. Expertise in IEEE Standard 112-1996 Test Method B and CSA Standard
C390-93 Test Method (1)
Section 431.27(b)(4) of 10 CFR Part 431 set forth evaluation
criteria and guidelines whereby personnel conducting a certification
program should be expert and experienced in the content and application
of IEEE Standard 112-1996 Test Method B and CSA Standard C390-93 Test
Method (1), or similar procedures and methodologies for determining the
energy efficiency of electric motors. The program must have
satisfactory criteria and procedures for the selection and sampling of
electric motors tested for energy efficiency, and provide documents
that establish experience in applying the guidelines for confidence in
testing laboratories contained in ISO/IEC Guide 25. Such guidelines
address quality audits and reviews, personnel, equipment, test methods,
sampling, and records.
In Attachment 4 to the UL Petition entitled, ``431.27(c)(4)
Expertise in Motor Test Procedures,'' it is stated that ``UL has been
providing Energy Verification certification services since 1995,'' and
that ``UL has evaluated motors in sizes ranging from 1 hp to 200 hp
using the standards IEEE 112 Test Method B or CSA C390.'' According to
the Petition, UL publishes a Directory of Electric, Gas Fired, and Oil-
Fired Equipment Verified for Energy Efficiency 1999, which includes
electric motors, and asserts that each member of its engineering staff
has at least a four-year Bachelor of Science degree in engineering.
Also, UL submitted to the Department a copy of its Conformity
Assessment Manual, EVS Manual, Client Interactive Programs Manual, and
Motor Efficiency Guide as evidence of its expertise in electric motor
test procedures.
The Department's letter to UL, dated June 12, 2001, requested
evidence as to the nature and extent of training that current staff
actually involved with the EVS Program regularly undergoes to maintain
proficiency with the evaluation of motor designs and construction, and
the practice of energy efficiency testing.
UL's letter, dated July 2, 2001, asserted that UL has documented
procedures to ensure that qualified personnel review the evaluation of
motors for compliance with energy efficiency requirements. These
include the written instructions for the duties and responsibilities of
personnel with respect to the evaluation of motor efficiency
investigations, as well as qualification requirements to assure that
its personnel are qualified in the scientific disciplines related to
energy efficiency. Further, UL asserted that its staff undergoes
continual, on-the-job training and each person is evaluated through a
documented performance appraisal process. UL has supervisors as review
staff with the necessary education, training, skill, abilities and
experience for evaluating motors for compliance with energy efficiency
requirements. Also, UL has developed its own Motor Efficiency Guide as
a reference for staff involved in conducting motor efficiency
evaluations. UL's management structure provides for the supervision of
reviewers and other personnel involved in the product certification
process. UL's letter, dated September 20, 2001, contained the names of
UL technical staff involved with the EVS Program, indicates their
experience with CSA C390-93 and IEEE 112-1996, and contained a resume
for each.
Furthermore, UL's letter dated September 20, 2001, asserted that
the test procedures in ``CSA C390-93 method B'' [sic] are similar to
those procedures already in place under other CSA International
Standards as well as UL Standards, and that the data and information
recorded to verify energy efficiency is some of the same data and
information required under the testing it conducts on a routine basis
and which follows UL Standard 1004, ``Electric Motors,'' UL Standard
2111, ``Overheating Protection for Motors,'' UL 547, ``Thermally
Protected Motors,'' and CSA C22.2 No. 77, ``Overheating Protection for
Motors,'' and CSA C22.2 No. 100, ``Motors and Generators.'' UL asserted
that the data and information recorded for energy verification testing
is some of the same data and information required under the above-
referenced test procedures, which it uses in an automated spreadsheet
program entitled ``Motor Efficiency Testing Program V3.0,'' UL
copyrighted 1994 and 1997, to calculate motor efficiency. The September
20 letter from UL compared the IEEE 112 and CSA C390 test procedures
with similar procedures in the above ``UL'' and ``CSA'' standards for
performance and safety.
Advanced Energy's letter, dated October 12, 2001, expressed concern
with ``the level of `expert' knowledge regarding motor testing.''
Advanced Energy asserted that UL is thorough in the documentation of
procedures and calibrations of laboratory equipment, but weak in motor
efficiency testing, test data analysis, and in its prescriptive audit
process that does not involve motor testing, review of motor test data,
or proficiency testing by a laboratory.
Emerson Motor Company's letter, dated October 15, 2001, expressed
concern that UL uses a motor manufacturer's testing facilities that
have been ``reviewed'' by a UL staff member, but there is no evidence
of the staff member's credentials, knowledge, level of training and
certification with regard to motor efficiency testing laboratories.
In response to the above comments from Advanced Energy and Emerson
Motor Company, UL's letter, dated October 22, 2001, asserted that
Advanced Energy's view of the UL certification program is based upon
limited exposure to UL's technical expertise when both UL and Advanced
Energy were exploring a business relationship in the 1990s. According
to UL, a laboratory assessment is one part of its Client Test Data
Program under which external testing, such as by Advanced Energy, would
be accepted by UL. However, other portions of the UL's EVS Program,
including staff with specific technical capability related to motor
testing, were not completed at that time, nor had Advanced Energy
[[Page 79497]]
been exposed to the ``full expertise'' within the UL Program.
UL's letter to the Department, dated February 21, 2002, asserted
that UL's experience in standards development, testing, and safety
evaluation of motors according to the requirements of UL and other U.S.
and International standards and the corresponding data acquisition
necessary to accomplish these endeavors, is ``equivalent to and
demonstrative of the indicated UL staff having the necessary
proficiency and expertise to conduct energy efficiency evaluations.''
In sum, the experience with CSA C390-93 and IEEE Standard 112 of the
five UL staff persons engaged in the UL EVS Program ranges from one to
four years, which is in addition to their four to 13 years experience
with test procedures for motor safety.
In the Department's view, any technically qualified person could
satisfy the criteria for expertise in the content, application, and
methodologies of the test procedures pursuant to 10 CFR 431.27(b)(4) if
that person: (1) Is proficient in the test methodology of IEEE Standard
112 Test Method B and CSA C390-93 Test Method (1); (2) is familiar with
the electrical, mechanical and environmental capabilities of a testing
laboratory system, (3) understands how to prepare and mount a motor for
testing, which includes the connection and operation of the test
equipment, (4) is competent in calibrating test equipment; and (5) is
competent with data collection and analysis. UL's experience in
standards development, testing and evaluation of motors to both U.S.
and international safety and similar energy efficiency procedures and
methodologies provide sufficient evidence of UL staff having the
necessary proficiency and expertise to conduct energy efficiency
evaluations under ISO/IEC Guide 25. Thus, the Department affirms its
belief that the qualifications of the UL Staff named in the above
September 20 letter, regular additional training, and monitoring by UL
management, satisfy the general requirements for the training,
technical knowledge, and experience of testing laboratory personnel
under 10 CFR 431.27(b)(4) and (c)(4).
5. Sampling Criteria and Procedures for Selecting an Electric Motor for
Energy Efficiency Testing
Section 431.27(b)(4) of 10 CFR 431 requires a certification
organization to have satisfactory criteria and procedures for the
selection and sampling of electric motors tested for energy efficiency.
Based on the National Institute of Standards and Technology report,
NISTIR 6092, ``Analysis of Proposals for Compliance and Enforcement
Testing Under the New Part 431: Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations,'' January 1998, which analyzed various criteria and
sampling plans proposed for establishing compliance with the nominal
full-load efficiency levels prescribed by EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1),
the Department determined that ``the NEMA proposal for compliance
testing provides statistically meaningful sampling procedures.''
Moreover, the NIST analysis was extensive in order to determine whether
a particular sampling plan would be valid for the purpose of
establishing compliance with EPCA motor efficiency levels. Also,
section 10.5 of ISO/IEC Guide 25: 1990 requires the use of documented
procedures and appropriate statistical techniques to select samples.
In Attachment 1 of its Petition, UL described its sample selection
process as one where representative samples from the manufacturer's
production are selected for use in testing and witnessed by UL
engineering staff. According to the Petition, representative samples
are those that, when reviewed as a group, can adequately represent a
line of similar models that use the same major energy consuming
components. UL asserted that the objective in selecting representative
samples is to obtain sufficient confidence that the series of motors
verified meet the applicable energy efficiency standard while at the
same time minimize the number of tests the manufacturer is required to
perform. Samples are selected to represent an entire range of motors.
Furthermore, as part of a manufacturer's ongoing production testing, UL
audits the number of samples tested and the frequency of testing and
test results which are documented by the manufacturer. The manufacturer
is required to document the test results, which UL audits as part of
each follow-up visit.
Notwithstanding UL's above assertions, the Department found no
evidence that the samples used for a motor manufacturer's test data was
selected randomly, that a UL representative participated in the sample
selection process or witnessed any of the initial testing, or that it
was clear that ``two samples'' were sufficient to statistically
validate the energy efficiency of an entire line of electric motors.
Subsequently, UL submitted to the Department, under cover letter
dated July 31, 2001, a copy of its Motor Efficiency Guide (Guide), to
outline the criteria by which UL evaluates motor efficiency in
accordance with energy efficiency regulations. The Department examined
the Guide and found that appendix D contained a section entitled
``Sample Selection,'' Form Page 8 on ULS-02194-ZWAA-Appendix-0001,
which set forth procedures whereby samples consisting of production
units are ``randomly selected by UL Staff'' and appeared to satisfy one
of the Department's concerns. However, in the ``Definitions'' section
of the Guide, the Department found that the definition of ``nominal
full load efficiency'' was not consistent with the definition of
``nominal full load efficiency'' in 10 CFR 431.2, nor did the Guide
contain a definition of the term ``Sample.'' Also, the ``Basis of
Acceptability,'' on Form Page 11 of appendix D in the Guide, which
provided procedure to calculate a tolerance for ``permitted values of
energy efficiency'' using a ``Coefficient K'' and required that the
``actual motor efficiency value will be not less than the associated
minimum value,'' was inconsistent with 10 CFR 431.24, ``Determination
of efficiency,'' and 10 CFR 431.42, ``Energy conservation standards.''
Thereafter, UL submitted to the Department, under cover letters dated
January 11 and January 28, 2002, a copy of the revised pages in the
Guide that were in question. These included a definition for the term
``sample,'' revised sample selection criteria, identification of UL's
initial factory production visit to select the random samples, and
corrections to the ``Statistical Test Method'' formulas and the ``Basis
of Acceptability'' in order to be consistent with the applicable
provisions in 10 CFR 431.
The Department affirms its conclusion that the above documents, as
corrected by UL, are consistent with 10 CFR 431.24 and 431.42, and
satisfy the criteria and procedures for the selection and sampling of
electric motors to be tested for energy efficiency under 10 CFR
431.27(b)(4).
C. Other Matters
In a separate matter related to 10 CFR 431.82, ``Labeling
requirements,'' and section 14, ``Use of licenses, certificates and
marks of conformity,'' in the ISO/IEC Guide 65, Emerson Motor Company's
comments, dated October 15, 2001, objected to any requirement to
display a compliance certification labeling mark, such as the UL Mark,
on an electric motor either in place of or in addition to the required
Compliance Certification number supplied by the Department of Energy as
provided for in 10 CFR 431.82(a)(1)(ii). Emerson Motor Company asserted
that such additional marks would add significant financial burdens on
motor manufacturers and
[[Page 79498]]
confuse the motor purchaser. Further, Emerson Motor Company asserted
that the Department of Energy Compliance Certification number is the
only mark allowed.
Advanced Energy's comments, dated October 12, 2001, objected to the
proposed UL requirement that a manufacturer display the UL Mark.
Advanced Energy asserted that there would be an added financial burden
to a manufacturer because of being forced to display the UL Mark, with
possible confusion to a motor purchaser attempting to distinguish
between one motor with a Compliance Certification number alone and
another motor with both a Compliance Certification number and the UL
mark.
Section 431.82(a)(1) of 10 CFR 431 requires a manufacturer or
private labeler to mark the permanent nameplate of an electric motor
clearly with the motor's nominal full load efficiency and a Compliance
Certification number supplied by the Department. However, 10 CFR
431.82(a)(3) permits the optional display of the encircled lowercase
letters ``ee'' or some comparable designation or logo on either the
permanent nameplate of an electric motor, a separate plate, or
decalcomania. The UL Mark falls into the ``optional display'' category
and would be comparable to the encircled lowercase letters ``ee.''
Therefore, display of the UL Mark would be permitted in addition to the
labeling requirements set forth under section 431.82(a)(1). But, such
optional display is not a replacement mark for the motor's nominal full
load efficiency and the Compliance Certification number supplied by the
Department. The optional logo or designation, (such as the UL Mark) may
also be used in catalogs and other marketing materials according to 10
CFR 431.82(b)(2). The Department affirms its belief, set forth in the
interim determination, that display of the UL Mark is a matter between
UL and the manufacturer or private labeler.
III. Final Determination
On July 5, 2002, DOE published in the Federal Register an interim
determination to classify Underwriters Laboratories Inc.'s Energy
Verification Service Program for Electric Motors as a nationally
recognized certification program for electric motor efficiency. At that
time, the Department solicited comments, data and information with
respect to that interim determination. 67 FR 45028. The Department did
not receive any comments concerning its interim determination.
In view of the UL Petition and supporting documents, the public
comments received, the Department's independent investigation, UL's
corrections to its Program described above, and the fact no comments
were submitted concerning the Department's interim determination, the
Department concludes that the UL EVS Program for Electric Motors
satisfactorily meets the criteria in 10 CFR 431.27.
Therefore, the Department's final determination is to classify the
UL EVS Program for Electric Motors as nationally recognized in the
United States for the purposes of section 345(c) of EPCA. This final
determination is effective upon the publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. Notwithstanding the Department's final determination,
in the event that the UL EVS Program for Electric Motors fails to
continue to meet the criteria in 10 CFR 431.27 for a nationally
recognized certification program, the Department can withdraw
recognition after following the procedural requirements in 10 CFR
431.28(g).
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 19, 2002.
David K. Garman,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 02-32534 Filed 12-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P