[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 249 (Friday, December 27, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79480-79490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-32533]



[[Page 79479]]

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

Part VIII





Department of Energy





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



Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy



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



Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial 
Equipment: Final Determinations Concerning the Petitions for 
Recognition of CSA International and Underwriters Laboratories Inc. as 
Nationally Recognized Certification Programs for Electric Motor 
Efficiency; Notices

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

[[Page 79480]]


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

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 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: Final determination.

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

SUMMARY: Today's notice announces the Department of Energy's final 
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.

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 Electronic Mail: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].

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)
    (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. 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 
CSA International's Motor Efficiency Verification Service Program (MEVS 
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 45018. 
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; (4) be expert in the test procedure and methodology 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, CSA International submitted a ``Petition 
for Recognition of CSA International as a Nationally Recognized 
Certification Program for Motor Efficiency'' (CSA International 
Petition or the Petition) which 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 DOE 
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, continue to be 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 MEVS 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.csa-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 international.org">otto.krepps@csa-international.org.
    The Department initially 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 believed CSA International to be 
qualified to test and certify electric motors for energy efficiency, 
and favored national recognition in the United States of the CSA 
International

[[Page 79481]]

Program. GE and NEMA did not appear to state a position on national 
recognition, but instead commented on the appropriateness of CSA 
International's sampling plan. GE recommended CSA International use a 
process equivalent to the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology/National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program for 
determining the competency of a testing facility. NEMA asserted that 
the CSA International process of selecting motors for energy efficiency 
testing appeared to be burdensome to manufacturers.
    After reviewing CSA'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 CSA 
International in writing of that interim determination pursuant to 10 
CFR 431.28(d). See 67 FR 45018. 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 an 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 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; (9) testing records with sufficient information to permit 
repetition of a test are retained; 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 ``sub-contracted'' 
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

[[Page 79482]]

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 asserted, 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 asserted that it has implemented the 
requirements specified in the ISO/IEC Guide 65. Further, CSA 
International asserted that it has 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. In order to substantiate these 
assertions, CSA International 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 Parameters--CSA 
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. 305--Quality/
Management System Audit Program; DQD No. 313--Guidelines on Retesting; 
DQD No. 332--Document Control Procedure; DQD No. 424--Technical 
Training; DQD No. 425--Periodic Technical and Process Review; and DQD 
No. 513--Factory Audit Report.
    CSA International's letter, dated March 1, 2002, addressed the 
above matters and submitted a revised copy of DQD No. 308.01, dated 
February 15, 2002, to confirm the reference to IEEE Standard 112-1996 
Test Method (1) as set forth under appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR 
Part 431, and a revised copy of DQD 385 that refers to C390-93 Test 
Method (1). CSA International's March 1 letter asserted that its MEVS 
Program operates pursuant to DQD No. 385, wherein fully qualified staff 
would visit each testing facility to witness the tests being performed, 
write a detailed report, and have the manufacturer sign an agreement to 
manufacture the product [motor] in accordance with the description in 
the report. Also, CSA International confirmed that there will be a 
minimum of one audit visit per year by certification staff.
    CSA International also submitted, with its March 1, 2002, letter, 
DQD Nos. 305, 313, 320, 385, 424, 425 and 513. Furthermore, CSA 
International stated that DQD No. 332, Document Control Procedure, had 
been withdrawn from its Quality System and the Department should refer 
to DQD 050 section 1.5, ``Documentation System,'' section 6.0, 
``Document Control,'' and section 12.0, ``Maintenance of Records.'' In 
view of the criteria and guidelines set forth in 10 CFR 431.27(b)(1) 
and (c)(1), and ISO/IEC Guide 65, the Department examined the above-
referenced DQDs. In sum,

[[Page 79483]]

DQD No. 305 sets forth procedures and guidelines for staffing, 
organizing, and conducting audits of the CSA International quality 
system, including technical audits of testing facilities in accordance 
with ISO/IEC Guide 25. DQD No. 313 sets forth procedures and guidelines 
for witness retesting to ensure continued compliance with, for example, 
motor efficiency standards. DQD No. 320, Factory Inspections, sets 
forth guidelines for scheduling and conducting factory audits. DQD No. 
385, Electric Motor Efficiency Evaluation, sets forth the process for 
evaluating the energy efficiency of three-phase induction motors and 
applies both to the regulations in Canada and the United States, 
including the scope, sampling methods, test procedures, alternative 
efficiency determination methods, and efficiency levels in 10 CFR Part 
431. DQD No. 424, Technical Training, sets forth the policy and 
guidelines for the training of technical staff, which is an ongoing 
activity that is monitored, evaluated and documented in the 
individual's training record. DQD No. 425, Periodic Technical and 
Process Review, sets forth guidelines to ensure that technical, 
administrative and quality records are maintained and periodically 
reviewed by management. DQD No. 513 is a facility audit report form 
with provisions for sampling and compliance with standards. In 
addition, CSA International submitted DQD No. 510.02, List of Fully 
Qualified Project Holders for the Motor Energy Verification Program, 
dated February 28, 2002, and DQD No. 050, revised November 30, 2001, 
CSA International Quality Management System Manual, that supersedes DQD 
No. 332. CSA International's March 1, 2002, letter confirms that all 
compliance and follow up testing is witnessed by technically qualified 
staff.
    The Department has examined the Petition and all other documents 
described above, and affirms its conclusion that the standards and 
procedures CSA International uses to conduct its MEVS Program satisfy 
the requirements set forth 10 CFR 431(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.
    Under Section 2 of its Petition, entitled ``CSA International,'' 
CSA International provided an overview of its history and a copy of its 
incorporation document, by-laws, annual report and an organization 
chart. CSA International asserted that it is an independent 
organization, has no affiliation with manufacturers or suppliers of 
products submitted for certification, and provides a copy of its 
``Statement of Independence'' to substantiate these claims. However, 
the Department understands that the CSA International Standards 
Division administers the development of voluntary consensus standards 
for safety matters that involve participation from electric motor 
manufacturers, while the Certification Division and Quality Management 
Institute provide conformity assessment programs that carry out 
laboratory testing certification and inspection of electric motors.
    The Department's May 14, 2001, letter requested that CSA 
International submit to the Department any documents that set forth the 
policies and procedures 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 CSA 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 of Business 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 affirms its 
conclusion 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 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 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,'' stated that ``CSA International 
has implemented the requirements specified in ISO/IEC Guide 65, General 
requirements for bodies operating product certification systems.'' 
Furthermore, CSA International asserted that its Quality Assurance 
system is based, in part, on ISO/IEC Guide 25. Also, CSA International 
asserted 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.

[[Page 79484]]

    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, asserted 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 CSA International representative.
    CSA International's letter, dated March 1, 2002, confirmed 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 affirms its 
conclusion 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/IEC 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 non-certified 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 the nameplate of an electric motor or in 
advertising and promotional materials, including the display of a 
registered CSA Certification Mark on a counterfeit motor. 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 Non-conformances,'' 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 affirms its 
conclusion 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/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. 
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 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,'' described 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 follow-up re-testing 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

[[Page 79485]]

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 above-referenced 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 affirms its 
conclusion 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 Parameters--CSA 
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,'' ``MEEV--Sampling 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 
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)
    (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/IEC 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 \1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that DQD No. 385 establishes the guidelines 
for CSA International's operation of its motor 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 CSA 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

[[Page 79486]]

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 CSA 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:

    [sbull] 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.
    [sbull] 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.
    [sbull] 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.
    [sbull] 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.
    [sbull] 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).
    [sbull] Both ISO/IEC Guide 25 and the CSA International Program 
require test reports that contain similar information.

In view of these comparisons, the Department affirms its belief, set 
forth in the interim determination, 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 asserted 
that its Quality Assurance system is based, in part, on ISO/IEC Guide 
25 and SCC/CAN P-4 that is the Standards Council of Canada equivalent 
of ISO/IEC Guide 25.
    GE Industrial Systems' comments, dated May 24, 2000, recommended 
that a test facility, such as the ones used by CSA 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 recommended 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 CSA 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.

[[Page 79487]]

Also, it appeared that the CSA International Program lacked sufficient 
staff to perform all the annual follow-up inspections, bi-annual 
retesting, cross-testing 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, asserted 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 on-site 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 
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 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, stated 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 CSA 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, asserted that it 
had 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 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

[[Page 79488]]

evaluations under ISO/IEC Guide 25. Thus, the Department affirms its 
belief 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 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,'' CSA International described 
its process for the selection and sampling of electric motors to be 
tested for energy efficiency. CSA International asserted 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 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, asserted 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 described the CSA 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 
asserted 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 asserted 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Alternative Efficiency Determination Method (AEDM) means a 
method of calculating the total power loss and average is full load 
efficiency of an electric motor. See 10 CFR 43.1.2. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA's comment, dated May 26, 2000, asserted 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 was 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 was not clear that the 
CSA International sampling plan would be valid if the initial sample 
lot is one motor, nor was 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 statistically valid, not unduly burdensome, and 
would provide sufficient confidence that the true mean energy 
efficiency of a particular basic model meets or exceeds the energy 
efficiency level that is displayed on the nameplate of a single unit. 
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, described its plan 
and procedures to evaluate a manufacturer's AEDMs, whereby CSA 
International would verify 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 would use the test data 
measurements, and then (a) perform its own calculations to determine 
the efficiency of the tested motor and (b) match it with the 
manufacturer's calculated efficiency. If the two values are in 
agreement for all the motors tested, then CSA 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 
asserted that its sampling procedures for electric motor efficiency 
evaluations are statistically valid, use random selection, and result 
in

[[Page 79489]]

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 understood that CSA 
International was 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 calculated that a manufacturer could be required 
to test only 5 motors (5 basic models multiplied by 1 unit equal 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 asserted 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 
asserted 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 asserted 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 stated 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 follow-up tests would be 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 was not clear to the Department whether the ``lowest full 
load efficiency determined from the qualification testing'' referred 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 re-testings. 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, addressed 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 affirms its conclusion 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. Final Determination

    On July 5, 2002, DOE published in the Federal Register an interim 
determination to classify CSA International's MEVS Program 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 45018. 
The Department did not receive any comments concerning its interim 
determination.
    In view of CSA International's Petition and supporting documents, 
the public comments received concerning the Petition, the Department's 
independent investigation, CSA International's actions to correct the

[[Page 79490]]

defects the Department addressed as described above, and the fact no 
comments were submitted concerning the Department's interim 
determination, the Department concludes that the CSA International 
Motor Efficiency Verification Service Program satisfactorily meets the 
criteria in 10 CFR 431.27.
    Therefore, the Department's final determination is to classify the 
CSA International Motor Efficiency Verification Service Program as 
nationally recognized in the United States for the purposes of section 
345(c) of EPCA. This final determination is effective upon the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register, notwithstanding the 
Department's final determination, in the event that the CSA 
International Motor Efficiency Verification Service Program fails to 
continue to meet the criteria in 10 CFR 431.27 for a nationally 
recognized certification program, the Department can withdraw 
recognition after following the procedural requirements in 10 CFR 
431.28(g).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 19, 2002.
David K. Garman,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 02-32533 Filed 12-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P