[Federal Register: December 27, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 79479-79490]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27de02-197]
[[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
[[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: jim.raba@ee.doe.gov.
Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General
Counsel, Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0103; Telephone: (202) 586-7432; Telefax: (202) 586-4116; or
Electronic Mail: francine.pinto@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Discussion
A. General
B. Application of Evaluation Criteria
1. Standards and Procedures for Conducting and Administering a
Certification System
2. Independence
3. Operation of a Certification System in a Highly Competent
Manner
a. General Operating Requirements (ISO/IEC Guide 65)
b. Guidelines for Corrective Action in the Event of
Misapplication of a Mark of Conformity (ISO/IEC Guide 27)
c. General Rules for a Model Third-Party Certification System
for Products (ISO/IEC Guide 28)
d. General Requirements for the Competence of Testing
Laboratories (ISO/IEC Guide 25)
(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 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