[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 249 (Friday, December 27, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79490-79498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-32534]


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

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: [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: 
[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)
    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 
[email protected].
    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