arc

ARC U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING

ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS,

TEST PROCEDURES, LABELING

AND CERTIFICATION REPORTING

FOR

CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC MOTORS

Washington, D. C. 20585

Friday, June 2, 1995

The meeting convened at 9:30 a.m., in Room

1E245, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence

Avenue, S. W., Washington, D. C. 20585, MR. JAMES

RABA, Chairman, presiding.

1

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc

PRESENT:

JAMES RABA, Energy Conservation Program

Specialist, Appliance Standards Division,

U. S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, S. W.,

Washington, D. C. 20585, Chairman

EDWARD LEVY, Attorney, U. S. Department of

Energy, Washington, D. C.

CYRUS NASSER, U. S. Department of Energy,

Washington, D. C.

ANTHONY BALDUCCI, U. S. Department of

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-431,

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence

Avenue, S. W., Washington, D. C.

CARL ADAMS, U. S. Department of Energy,

Washington, D. C.

EUGENE MARGOLIS, U. S. Department of

Energy, Office of General Counsel, Mail

Station GC-72, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington,

D.C.

TED ATKINS, Executive Vice President,

Baldor,.5711 South 7th Street, Fort

Smith, Arkansas 72901

AL VARNER, Senior Engineer, Motors and

Drives Division, Siemens Energy &

Automation, Inc., 14000 Dineen Drive,

Little Rock, Arkansas 72206

R. NEAL ELLIOTT, Ph.D., P.E., Research .

Associate, ACE3, American Council for an

Energy-Efficient Economy, 1001

Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D. C. 20036

JOSEPH H. KLINE, Manager, R & D, U.,S.

Electric Motor, 8100 W. Florissant,

St. Louis, Missouri 63132

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

2

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc

ROB B. BOTELER, Director of Marketing,

USEM, St. Louis, Missouri

DR. LAWRENCE S. GALOWIN, NVLAP [National

Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation

Program], NIST, Building 411,

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

VALERIE WHELAN, Natural Resources Canada,

580 rue Booth, 18 stage,

Ottawa, Ontario K1A DE4

DANIEL T. OATES, Marketing Manager, Brook

Hansen, Inc., 3186 Kennicott Avenue,

Arlington Heights, Illinois 6000.4

DAVID C. HAATAJA, Manager, Governmental

Affairs, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.,

818 18th Street, N.W., Suite 400,

Washington, D. C. 20006-3513

DREW JOHNSTON, Vice President, Engineer,

13131 W. Little York Road,

Houston, Texas 77041

KYLE PITSOR, Manager, Government Affairs,

NEMA, 2101 L Street, N. W.,

Washington, D. C. 20037

JOSEPH HOWARD, Manager, Product and

Planning, General Electric Company,

GEMIS, Inc., 2000 Taylor Street,

Ft. Wayne, Indiana 46801-2205

CHARLES A. STRAUB, Manager, Application

Engineering, Motors, Marathon Electric,

100 E. Randolph Street,

Wausau, Wisconsin 544.01

JOHN STEHNEY, Market Manager, Energy

Engineered Motors and Controls, MagneTek,

1145 Corporate Lake Drive,

St. Louis, Missouri 63132-1716

MARK PERLIS, Counsel, NEMA, 2101 L Street,

N. W., Washington, D. C. 200347

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

3

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc

ED CROUSE, Chief Engineer, Motor Division,

The Lincoln Electric Company

22800 St. Clair Avenue

Cleveland, Ohio 44117-2525 USA

DALE RAWLINGS, Consultant, The Lincoln

Electric Company, 5008 76th East,

Bradenton, Florida 34203 USA

WALTER DUNSMORE, Past President, EASA,

1331 Baur Boulevard,

St. Louis, Missouri 63132

ROGER H. DAUGHERTY, Consulting Engineer,

Reliance Electric Company,

24800 Tungsten Road,

Cleveland, Ohio 44117

GLENN G. GRIGER, Product Manager, Medium

A-C Motors, Reliance Electric

24701 Euclid Avenue

Cleveland, Ohio 44117

RON B. CLARKE, Vice President-Marketing,

Leeson Electric Motors, P. O. Box 241,

Grafton, Wisconsin 53024-0241 USA

LENORE J. BERMAN, Engineering Group

Leader, Engineering Services,

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.,

333 Pfingsten Road,

Northbrook, Illinois 60062-2096

LAWRENCE R. WETHJE, P.E., Director of

Public Policy and Technical Services,

Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration

Institute,

4301 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 425

Arlington, Virginia 22203

DAVID VAN DER MERWE, President,

Saftronics, Inc., Solid State Motor

Controls, 5580 Enterprise Parkway

Fort Myers, Florida 33905

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

4

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc

JOSEPH M. MATTINGLY, Director of

Government Affairs and General Counsel,

Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association,

Inc., 1901 North Moore Street

Arlington, Virginia 22209

LAKE COULSON, Legislative Associate, NEMA,

2101 L Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20037

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

S

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc

C O N T E N T S

6

PAGE

Welcoming remarks and introductions 7

Review of the agenda and invitation for opening

statements 13

Discussion of issues 13

A. Definitions

Metric Equivalents

Basic Model

Definite Purpose Motor

B. Testing

13

30

34

NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993 with

Revision 1, IEEE Standard 12123 Test

Method B, Canadian Standards Association

Standard C390 41

Testing Sampling Plan 47

Alternative Method of Efficiency

Determination 82

C. Certification

Compliance 108

Independent Testing and Certification 108

D. Labeling 191

E. Identification of Other Issues 208

Adjournment 221

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. RABA: Good morning. I'm Jim Raba,

Energy Conservation Program Specialist in the

Office of Codes and Standards. On behalf of the

Department of Energy, .I thank you for taking time

to participate in this public meeting concerning

the Department's energy efficiency program for

electric motors.

We will begin with introductions around

the room. Please state your name and the company

or organization you represent.

If you have not already done so, please

fill out the information requested on the sign-in

sheet.

The purpose of today's meeting is to

discuss issues and gather information related to

energy efficiency standards, to est procedures,

labeling, and compliance certification for 1

through 200 horsepower electric motors covered

under the Section 122 of the Energy Policy Act of

1992.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires

7

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc

these electric motors to meet certain standards of

efficiency by October 24, 1997, when tested in

accordance with the procedures prescribed pursuant

to the statute.

In order to help motor manufacturers meet

the statutory compliance date of October 24, 1997,

the Department of Energy plans to pursue an

aggressive rulemaking schedule. Schedule goals are

as follows: Spring 1995, Public Meeting; summer

1995, Publish Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

followed by time to submit written comments; autumn

1995, Public Hearing; spring 1996, Publish Final

Rule.

Statements and information submitted here

today and in addition, those submitted before close

of business June 30 will assist the Department in

developing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for

Electric Motors. All statements submitted on the

issues to be discussed will be considered before

the Department publishes a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking.

As the presiding official, I will set the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 9

guidelines for conducting the meeting and provide

other pertinent information. In order t'o obtain as

much relevant information as reasonable and to

enable interested persons to express their views,

the meeting will be conducted informally.

The focus of this meeting is oft

definitions, testing and statistical sampling of

motors for testing, labeling, and compliance

certification related to the energy efficiency of

electric motors. There shall be no discussion of

proprietary information, costs or prices, market

shares, or other commercial matters regulated by

antitrust law.

We will discuss the agenda items first.

If time permits, participants may raise other

topics concerning standards, testing, and

certification of electric motor efficiency.

The meeting format will be as follows:

First, I will summarize the agenda item to be

discussed and then invite any statements on that

item. Following that will be an opportunity for

informal discussion. Participants from the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 200&2

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 10

Department of Energy and the National Institute of

Standards and Technology may also wish to speak or

ask follow-up questions. Where someone is in

agreement, I would appreciate an indication of that

agreement, but in the interest of time, comments

need not be repeated. I will try to summarize main

points at the end of each discussion. This session

will be expedited and we will be assured of

obtaining each participant's views if everyone who

wants to speak waits to be recognized. Please

remember to state your name first. We will have a

court reporter make a verbatim record of this

meeting.-

Please keep side conversations to a

minimum to avoid interrupting a presenter. If a

lengthy private discussion is needed, please move

outside the room.

It may be necessary to cut off discussion

on some topics to maintain the schedule. We will

try to allow some time at the end of the meeting to

complete discussion of these topics.

I encourage all persons present to

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 11

participate as much as possible so the Department

may get a full spectrum of opinions on these

issues.

Please let me mention a few housekeeping

items.

In keeping with the regulations of these

building facilities, there is no smoking allowed in

this room.

We will take a one-hour lunch break at a

convenient time near twelve noon.

This meeting is scheduled to end by 4:30

p.m., or sooner if all items have been completely

discussed. Items that have not been completely

discussed by 4:30 p.m. may be addressed in the

written statements. Follow up or additional

written statements may be submitted not later than

June 30, 1995.

In approximately two weeks, the written

transcript of this meeting will be available for

inspection at the Department of Energy's Freedom of

Information Reading Room located in Room 1E-190.

Anyone wishing to purchase a copy of the transcript

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 12

may make arrangements with the court reporter.

All written statements will be available

for public inspection in the Department of Energy

Freedom of Information Reading Room, telephone

number 202-586-6020. Written statements should be

addressed to the Department of Energy as noted in

the Federal Register notice for today's meeting.

Ten copies of each statement are requested. In

addition, the Department will appreciate an

electronic copy of each statement submitted. The

Department is currently using WordPerfect 5.1.

Comments submitted by telefax will not be accepted.

Any person submitting information that he

or she believes to be confidential and exempt by

law from public disclosure should submit one

complete copy and eight copies from which

information claimed to be confidential has been

deleted . In accordance with the procedures

established at 10 CFR 1004 .11, the Department of

Energy. shall make its own determination as to

whether the information shall be exempt from public

disclosure.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET., N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000-2

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 13

We appreciate the time and effort you have

taken in preparing for this meeting and are pleased

to receive your comments and opinions . Again, the

purpose of this meeting is to discuss issues and

gather information related to energy efficiency

standards , definitions, test procedures and

sampling for testing , labeling , and compliance

certification for 1 through 200 horsepower electric

motors covered under the Section 122 of the Energy

Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486.

We will begin discussion with agenda item

number III.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. RABA: IV ,, Discussion of issues. The

Department is interested in receiving information

and statements to help resolve the issues that are

described in the Federal Register Notice of Public

Meeting published Monday, May 22, 1995.

MR. BOTELER : I'm Rob Boteler.

We would recommend , NEMA would recommend

that we use the IEC Chart 72-1, which gives an

equivalent KW to horsepower relationship, and I

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 14

don't know the answer on the frame, but I would say

that the way the Act is written, it doesn't really

pertain to brand; it's strictly a horsepower versus

speed regardless of the brand that's involved.

MR. RABA: Well, then you are going to

have to eliminate more than the 100 frame if you do

it that way, because there are the ratings that are

not compatible.

I was trying to get a situation where you

could eliminate as few as possible motors that

conserve in addition electricity.

MR. BOTELER: Okay. I don't know, of

course, and I can't really tell.

MR. RABA: Dale.

MR. RAWLINGS: Dale Rawlings, Lincoln

Electric.

I was not aware that the IEC had KW/frame

assignments similar to NEMA.

MR. RABA: Well, they do. They have

various assignments, but really it doesn't make any

difference whether the motor's nameplate or

horsepower KW.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 15

MR. RAWLINGS: .Oh, I understand that. But

is there a standard?

MR. RABA: Sure.

MR. RAWLINGS: Horsepower or KW?

MR. RABA: Yes, sir.

MR. RAWLINGS: Or frame size?

MR. RABA: Yes, sir.

They basically follow the same parameters

as NEMA or any place else in the world establishes

frame size or horsepower.

I don't have the information with me, but

they do.

DR. GALOWIN: This week I did have a call

from a representative in the United States of an

English company and then a ,call from the company,

and they raised exactly this issue.

A PARTICIPANT: That was me, Larry.

[Laughter]

DR. GALOWIN: I got a call from England at

the same time.

THE PARTICIPANT: Oh. Okay.

DR. GALOWIN: A call from some chap in,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 16

England. Because I think, if I remember correctly,

an 80 frame motor was also in the same problem

areas.

THE PARTICIPANT: No, he framed it, it is

comparable to 56 frame motors, which really isn't

involved with this, just basically a key frame

motor.

DR. GALOWIN: Well, maybe the question was

dealing with common -

THE PARTICIPANT: I don't think so the way

I recall.

DR. GALOWIN: Well, I told the chap in

England to please write to you in DOE.

MR. RABA: Thank you.

Mark.

MR. PERLIS: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to

elaborate, if I might, on the threshold question of

whether IEC equivalent motors -- are these things

working?

MR. RABA: You have to turn it on.

MR. PERLIS: I think it is on anyway.

A PARTICIPANT: We can hear it.

I

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 17

MR. PERLIS: All right.

The first issue is whether or not IEC

equivalent motors are covered under the Energy

Policy Act, wholly apart from the metric equivalent

statute in the accompanying executive order.

I think our position is that here we

should interpret the Energy Policy Act definition

of electric motor to include IEC or metric

equivalent, and we propose that equivalents be

addressed both on the kilowatt ratings that are

equivalent to the forced power ratings in the

statute and that equivalents be done not by a

strict mathematical equation, that is whatever the

conversion chapter is between kilowatt and

horsepower, but rather by the generic usage or

standard usage, that is equivalent to the standard

usages that are listed in the statute. But we

also want to further suggest that although the

statute is written terms of discrete horsepower,

that the statute ought to apply to any motors that

fall in between the identified horsepower ratings

or their IEC equivalents.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 18

The manufacturer or importer should not be

allowed to simply say that they manufactured a 51

horsepower motor instead of a 50 horsepower motor.

There is sufficient protection against an

unnecessary expansion of the statute by the

requirement that the statute only applies to

general purpose motors. But so long as a general

purpose motor has a horsepower range within those

in the statute, it ought to be covered, and

similarly for its IEC equivalent; we believe that

the key frame dimensions, that the central IEC

metric equivalents to the newer key frame, which is

a requirement in the statute, may be applied. The

statute defines electric motor in terms of NEMA

design A or B; we believe that that can be fairly

read to also include these IEC equivalent designs.

And we will provide in our written comments to you

a cable comparable to the cable in the statute for

the equivalent kilowatt figures, and suggest at

that time that the rating, that the efficiency

requirement that would apply to a given motor be

scrapped, which is for the rating, for the kilowatt

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc

or horsepower rating that a motor has or the next

highest kilowatt or horsepower rating. So that if

you fall in between two of the horsepower ratings

in the statute or in the kilowatt ratings inside

the statute, that you would apply the efficiency

rating for the next highest standard.

MR. MARGOLIS: Mark, in your written

comments -

Eugene Margolis- would you please give us the

basis for your conclusionary statements that the

IEC should also apply and that within the range,

let's say 51 or 52, that the standard should apply

to those?

MR. PERLIS: Well, we will be happy to

address that, Gene, and furthermore, I should say,

since you've just participated, that we are very

happy to see you back at work and hope you are

recuperating well.

We will address it, although I will

confess up front that there is nothing in the

legislative history that's going to shed any light

on this in particular, but we will point out that

19

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 20

since these are self-rated motors, that the intent

was never to permit a entity to evade the law by

simply rating a product in between to the length

this will be particularly the case of when you use

kilowatt equivalent. We will address all of those

issues, and I will also try to address the metric

equivalent statute, which could be an independent

basis, or at least a bolstering of your decision to

cover IEC equivalents.

MR. RABA: Thank you.

Indeed, again, I appreciate, even though

it doesn't appear so, I'll try to record some of

the discussion, both written and electronically,

until the time we can get the accurate

presentations. So it does indeed help to identify

yourself each time.

I would like to read a statement that came

in -- in fact I have copies here -- in the interest

of making sure everybody has a chance to consider

these comments. This comes from Dick Nailen of

Wisconsin Electric, his comments on the agenda item

about electric equivalents. His comment is known.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002.

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 21

"The kilowatt ratings established by

between those NEMA horsepower ratings and

corresponding kilowatt values. A

numerical relationship can, of course, be

established. For example, the kilowatt

`equivalent' of 7-1/2 horsepower is 5.59

kilowatts. But this is a mere

mathematical fiction. No one in the U. S.

or overseas offers a standards 15.59

kilowatt' motor.

"The domestic motor industry cannot be

made to abandon its universally understood

horsepower rating system through this

means, which will only add needless

confusion.

"As for `other electrical and mechanical

equivalents,' none exist in the EPAct

international standards -- cf IEC 34 -

are based on a different numerical

progression than the NEMA horsepower

ratings standard in the United States.

Thus, there is no true `equivalence'

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 22

language concerning motors."

Any comment? Is there any discussion

about his comment? I think we had some already.

Indeed, is there more discussion, more information

to present on metric equivalencies?

Rob Boteler.

MR. BOTELER: Well, it almost -- it sounds

like what Dick is saying, you would return to the

relevance if you were going to no longer use

horsepower ratings, we would now nameplate

everything as KW. Of course, that is not what we'd

like at all. But he brings up a good point, that

if for some reason IEC equivalents nameplating was

not covered by the Energy Act, if we believe, or if

we hold that whoever wanted to nameplate product

using kilowatts, you then brought this up.

MR. RABA: Thank you, Rob.

Ted Atkins.

MR. ATKINS: I think what he is referring

to, makes it very clear in terms of if you start

out like with 10 horsepower motors'and we show the

kilowatt equivalent, and from that to 15

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 23

horsepower, any metric equivalent in kilowatts

would fall into the same efficiency category of the

next level up, maybe 15 horse, 11 -- 15 horsepower

would fall in that category, which would be very

equal, and you would keep a simple balance. So you

would have a range of kilowatts in that chart. It

would stair step it by horsepower, chief kilowatt

range covered. I think it would be quite clear.

MR. RABA: Thank you very much.

Any others?

Valerie.

MS. WHELAN: Valerie Whelan, National

Resources Canada.

This issue was discussed in Canada at a

meeting of the Canadian Standards Association

Technical Subcommittee for the Motors, Motor

Standards of the SAT presiding motor study, and at

that meeting there wasn't a outfit set up to look

at this issue. But one of the suggestions was to

use the standard kilowatt reading that would be

from INC. Like their kilowatt progression, but

determine the equivalence on the first power. So

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 24

that you would have the cable with the standard

first power, and then another column that would

have the standard kilowatt that would be related to

one of those levels, related to -- I don't know

whether it is called an equivalent level. So that

it would -- I apologize, I am not a real technical

expert off on all'of the meetings, but that was the

suggestion at that meeting.

DR. GALOWIN: That table would exist from

IT wrapover to say table 70.

MR. RABA: 70?

DR. GALOWIN: 70. We will provide that

with our comments.

MR. RABA: We are going to get a copy of

this page 10, that is the one-page handout, so you

can take it back with you to see what it says in

advance. But we would be happy to receive other

comments, such as those, and we appreciate that.

Carl. Carl Adams.

MR. ADAMS: I guess what I am hearing here

is wondering whether we can handle this by a

definition that a 1 horsepower motor means motors

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET,, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 25

that range from 1 to whatever horsepower and

whatever to whatever KW's.

DR. GALOWIN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear

you.

MR. ADAMS: I'm wondering if this-can be

handled by us having definitions of 1 horsepower

means motors that range from 1 to some odd number

of horsepower, or from X to Y kilowatts. And if we

defined each 1 horsepower, 1-1/2, 2, 3, and so,

forth, and do it via a definition process.

DR. GALOWIN: Well, I'm a little confused,

because in some of this area, we-are talking about

1 to 2 motor horsepower chief range motors, and in

other areas we are talking about horsepower, okay?

So, I mean, are we going to be talking about IEC

frames or IEC horsepower/KW's or just IEC

horsepower?

MR. ADAMS: I guess I was trying to

address the efficiency table.

DR. GALOWIN: Right. I mean, that's later

on down the road. What I am saying, we have to

establish some type of a reference point. Are we

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.,

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc

Because if we stuck in the.frame sizes, if

we miss a frame or if we put a frame in there

that's not right, it would get too cumbersome for

us. It's just easier for us to go from a fourth

power cable.

By definition, we have say 1 to 1.5 is

really 1. power and have KW equivalents, because

which you're going to do by horsepower or KW.

that it's that kind of thing.

26

going to talk about IEC frame motors equivalent to

NEMA T frames from say 90 frame through 355? And

forget about the horsepower rating? Or what?

MR. BALDUCCI: This is Anthony Balducci.

We're not going to -- the way the law is

written in this section, we just address it from

horsepower rating. We don't necessarily care which

frame you use under that horsepower. You might

have two different frame sizes, the same

horsepower. The way the table is written, it's by

horsepower only, not by frame size. So we are not

going to get involved with what an equivalent IEC

frame is compared to an IE equivalent NEMA frame,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 27

sometimes there's no direct link between KW and the

fourth power.

A PARTICIPANT: Chart.

DR. GALOWIN: I think one of the issues

that Dan had, if I understand the powers, on the

lower frame size, the law doesn't cover 56 frames;

there is a smaller IEC frame size somewhat

equivalent to a 56 frame that's a fractional size,

that's why we should not go with that.

MR. BALDUCCI: Exactly. Because we're

talking 143-P through 449-P.

DR. GALOWIN: Right. So then we would

want to start with 1 horsepower the way the law

reads, we would want to know what that equivalent

is to a 56 frame, which obviously we don't have

that. But we'd consider it the same as a 56 frame.

A PARTICIPANT: Well, it would actually be

an 80 frame, but what I am saying is the way it is

written out, P frame, so what would be a 143-P

frame -

DR. GALOWIN : Right.

A PARTICIPANT: -- of course you could put

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 28

a larger, larger than 1 horsepower 56 frame, so

does that qualify or not?

A PARTICIPANT: No. The way the law is

written, the 56 frame is not -

A PARTICIPANT: Exactly.

A PARTICIPANT: So when we need to write

up our proposal, we need to take a look at that.

There's an equivalent to a 56 frame, I guess it's

an 80 frame, so metric starts at what, 100 frame?

A PARTICIPANT: Well, again, talking about

equivalents, as I said earlier, there is no easy

equivalent frame size, either 100 frame.

It used to be 40 years ago, 30 years ago--

MR. RABA: '66.

A PARTICIPANT: Whatever it is, I don't

remember. Even recalling that, I don't remember.

But there is none informed. So would that qualify

or not? My suggestion is that we exempt that

particular frame size, because there is no NEMA

equivalent.

MR. PERLIS: I think we need to address

this technical issue in our comments, and we will

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 29

call and, yes, we think that it can be handled

through definitions or comparable table to that

which appears in the statute, and we will try to

propose such definitions to you.

I think to have a detailed technical

discussion right now -- even the engineers who are

here are prepared to discuss some of the nuances

here. I think the basic principles have been

thoroughly expressed already this morning. Perhaps

we ought to move on to the more time-consuming

issues.

MR. RABA: Okay. Thank you very much.

Indeed, certainly a very important issue. We've

welcomed your written comments on the law. We see

the two sides of this matter, actually four sides,

do it or not to do it under the statute, and then

of course how would that be arranged, by horsepower

KW equivalencies or franchises? How they cross

over. And we would like to again thank you for

your comments.

You're going to discuss on this, proceed

on with the agenda, and the next item.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 30

MR. BALDUCCI: Anthony Balducci.

I have one quick comment. It's a little

bit off the topic of this meeting, but I was in

IEC, International Energy Agency -- IEA,

.International Energy Agency meeting this past week.

One of the things that did come off, and it's just

kind of information for the manufacturers here,

Australia and also the EC are going to start doing

studies on IEC orders.

We did discuss somewhat how we saw the

meeting after the meeting on Wednesday. We talked

about what fourth power, and they said they are

going to try and look into how that switches over,

because they realize there are a lot of

manufacturers in the U. S. that make fourth power,

so at this time for point of information for the

manufacturers, so if you have questions from those,

you will know where it comes from.

MR. RABA: Jim Raba.

U.S. can have a proposal on the table at

that time, you might take a real situation, just as

an aside comment, indeed, noted comments on

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 31

metrical fourth belonging to basic model, and we're

looking to know your views as to whatever points

you have got. The definition of the "basic model"

as described in the Federal Register is needed.

Basic model means all units of a given

type of covered product or class thereof,

manufactured by one manufacturer -- and there's an

example given about dishwashers -- which have

electrical characteristics that are essentially

identical, and which do not have any differing

physical or functional characteristics that affect

energy consumption.

Indeed, looking to know your comments as

to how to handle this, realizing this will affect

the testing programs later on, and try to maybe, by

establishing a base for the model, you can

alleviate some of the testing burdens. It might be

perceived in rule making by maybe testing one basic

model and using that as a ruler for other

essentially identical motors. But I would like to

have your comments on the critical ratio, more

particularly about that, as to how it should be

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 32

handled, what it should say, and what the

implications are.

So -- Ed, point of discussion?

MR. LEVY: May I interject briefly for

procedural.

For those whose views of name tags are

not, angle them slightly this way. Please speak so

the reporter can see them.

That's all. Thank you very much.

MR. RABA: Mark.

MR. PERLIS: Jim -- Mark Perlis for NEMA.

NEMA has previously submitted comments to

the Department of Energy and endorses the

definition of "basic model" that is proposed with

one additional clarification, and that is we think

it will be helpful, the definition of basic model

for motors, that it be also defined as having the

unique rating. And we think that you should define

the term "rating" as one of the combination of

poles, open and closed, and horsepower ratings that

are in the statute. The statute provides a degree

of a matrix, if you will, of 113 ratings, each of

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 33

which has a unique energy efficiency requirement to

associate with it. We believe that it would be

helpful within the definition of basic model that

it be clear that a basic model is defined within a

given rating, so that if the motor -- if for any

reason the motor was essential identical and had no

differing mechanical or functional characteristics

that affect energy consumption but operated open

and closed, or two or four poles or whatever, it

wouldn't be a single basic model, but two basic

models. And we are suggesting this because I think

at later stages of our discussion this morning, we

are going to see that the custom manufacturers, an

individual manufacturer may produce tens of

thousands of basic models so defined in their

proposal, that other provisions may work better if

keyed off of some unit of the product other than

the basic model, such as the weight of the product.

We may need some various focuses within

the regulations to aggregate basic models, and the

pre-call basic models of a single rating the same

way. I think that will become clear later in the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 34

discussion this morning.

MR. RABA: Indeed -- Jim Raba -- Mark,

would you include that in your written comments

from NEMA?

MR. PERLIS: NEMA will not only include

comments , we will provide you with a whole set of

regulations in draft form with all the definitions

for you.

MR. RABA: Thank you.

Any other comments about basic model?

We have the statement from Dick Nailen.

If there is no further discussion on basic

models, we will go on to the next item.

"Definite purpose motor." The Department

seeks your advice interpreting "service conditions

other than usual," which is.one element of the

statutory definition of "definite purpose motor."

Indeed, recalling that the definitions of

"definite purpose motor" in the statute are rather

vague, that general purpose statement any more is

not definite purpose, and the definite purpose

needs a definition also.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 35

I think the point here is that we think we

need to look at what a definite purpose motor is

and interpreting that, what these service

conditions are other than usual; the general

purpose motor is usual or is another kind of motor

usual?

One comment here from Dick Nailen, of '

Wisconsin Electric:

"Definite purpose motors. The only

logical definition for `service conditions

other than usual' is the NEMA definition

of `unusual service conditions' -- and why

use three words, "other than usual," when

the single word "unusual" is quite

adequate?

"That definition appears in NEMA Standard

MG1-14.03. It does not include anything

about `power system,not grounded' -- which

is not at all `unusual'-- or `frequent

short circuits' -- which is meaningless in

motor applications. `Frequent starting'

lacks definition, because the severity, as

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 36

well as the frequency, of motor starts

must be considered in applying a motor.

Information on that is published in NEMA

MG1O. '

"Do not" -- underline "not" -- "attempt to

set up `unusual service conditions'

differing from NEMA MGl. To do so would

throw into confusion the warranty policies

of NEMA member companies."

Those are Dick's comments and I quoted

from them.

Any other comments about defining more

clearly the use of "service conditions other than

usual"? How we should go about that.

Mark.

MR. PERLIS: Mark Perlis again.

NEMA's recommendation to the Department on

this issue is that the statute, it was intended to

apply to "general purpose motors," and that

definite purpose and special purpose motors were

other than general purpose motors. And in

particular, for definite purpose motors, the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET,, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
0

arc 37

distinction was that the general purpose motor is

one that is designed for use under usual service

conditions, and that the definite purpose is to

design for unusual service conditions, and that

they are flip sides of the same coin.

But put in other words, the motor's either

in one or the other. And so for definitional

purposes, NEMA prefers that the Department define

"general purpose" by reference to usual service

conditions, and make reference, as the statute

does, to MGi; in this case we would recommend the

updated version 1993, paragraph 14.02, which .

provides criteria for determination of the usual

service conditions.

The definition of the term "general

purpose motor" would then be an electric motor

which is designed in standard ratings with standard

operating characteristics for use under usual

service conditions as specified in MG1-1993,

paragraph 14.02, for general purpose applications.

And then for "definite purpose motor," one can

simply define it as a motor that is not used for

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000-2

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 38

the usual service condition, rather than the

approach that has been suggested in the deal we

noticed, which was to specify all the unusual

service conditions . And while there are a number

of those specified in various paragraphs at G1-

1993, we believe that there would be difficulties,

and some of those are addressed in the written

comment you just read , in trying to come up with a

comprehensive list. And we think it would be

fruitless to try to define " comprehensively" the

"unusual service conditions ," and far more fruitful

and more in line with the way manufacturers

understand whether they have a general or definite

purpose motor to try to define the usual service

conditions.

MR. RABA: So what you are saying is --

Jim Raba

-- defining " usual service conditions ," let them go

on forever with "unusual service conditions," just

give a general plan.

MR. PERLIS : And then just grapple with

that definition of "general purpose ," MG1 for usual

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 39

service.

MR. BOTELER: I guess I would comment that

the one period when the Act was written, we did

have motors that included third party would have an

additional two years to be covered, and that a

definition -- with general purpose motors with some

extra features to work in this location.

MR. RABA: Good point. Thank you, Rob.

MR. LEVY: Ed Levy from DOLE.

Mark., we have to carefully consider what

you said. One thing that strikes me, though, in

looking at the statute, again to confirm this, is

the way it is constructed, it is in terms of all

motors being covered except certain categories. So

we would have to consider whether or not what you

are suggesting is consistent with that approach.

MR. PERLIS: Right.

Mark Perlis again.

I agree, and you are reading the statute

quite accurately, our suggestion is that general

purpose -- or for this issue of the defining

characteristic of a definite purpose motor, which

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 40

is used in unusual service conditions as opposed to

usual service conditions, that one or the other

would describe every motor; and, therefore, by

defining one with specificity and the other as

being anything other than those-, we believe that

picks up all motors and provides the full inclusion

that the statute intends for general purpose motors

to be included, and that the definite purpose is

one that doesn't meet the definition of a general

purpose motor.

Now, the statute doesn't define the word,

it doesn't define "general purpose motors," and

that's the definition that we are proposing that

you adopt. So you start with the over-arching

definition of what is covered under the statute and

then say that the exceptions are those which don't

meet the requirements for those that are covered.

And this is consistent with the MGl publication,

which was the organizing document on which this

whole statutory -- all these technical terms of art

that are now in the statute all derive from. And

so we think that there is ample authority for the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 41

Department to take notice of paragraph 14 of .02 in

the NEMA publication.

In fact, most of the unusual service

conditions that Jim listed were culled from other

paragraphs, although not the entirely comprehensive

list.

MR. RABA: Thank you, Mark.

Jim Raba.

I just want to recognize our court

reporter, and thank her for coming down on such

short notice. It certainly relieves the pressure

at our end of the room for doing 2, 3, or 4, or 5

things at once. So we appreciate your patience and

clarity of your'speech. We all talk about these

things.

Indeed, shall we go on then to the next

agenda item, "Testing": In considering whether to

amend the motor efficiency test procedures

specified in NEMA Standards Publication MG11-1987

in order to require the motor efficiency test

procedures specified in NEMA Standards Publication

MG1-1993, with Revision 1, the Department solicits

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 42

information on the affect of the additional

reference to Canadian Standards Association

Standard C390. So indeed we are considering the

equivalencies of the NEMA test procedures, the

Act's test procedures, and CSA test procedures. We

would like your comments on those to be sure that

at least they are.consistent with what problems or

positive things that would contribute to, say,

rulemaking.

So indeed, after you have reviewed the

Federal Register explanation, your comments,

please.

MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler.

I think our comment would be that C390, we

see that section is transferred to the I-triple-E

standard, test standard. I guess I comment NEMA

doesn't have the test standard. It's the Itriple-E test standard that we endorse. We all use

the C390 Canadian. We don't see any issues with

that . We see it as a benefit to NAFTA, eventually

having one set of rules instead of two. And we

would propose accepting that.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 43

MR. KLINE: Joe Kline, U. S. Motors.

We also recognize, as manufacturers, that

C390, in I-triple E-112, the methods that are being

proposed are essentially identical, so we see no

difference in using either one.

We have proposed C390 because it had more

clarity in definition as far as the procedure to be

followed.

MR. RABA: Good point. Thank you, Joe.

Larry.

DR. GALOWIN: Larry Galowin.

I think I am stretching my concern here in

commenting on this, but we in the accreditation

arena have an awful problem as well as regulatory

agency. As standards get updated and revised, by.

whatever supplements or cycle times, the retention

in legislative mandates or regulations, rules that

you promulgate, if you cite a particular one and

then a regular one comes out -- and we have had

many experiences on this -- that we have to then

carry accreditation for laboratories testing two

different standards, because some of the customers,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 44

for mandated purposes, will refer to the older one,

and for newcomers to.the field, they want to have

test methods from the new standard. So probably a

stretch out in the comment that you have here, but

there will be progressive changes in the standards

over the years, and I don't know what flexibility

you people at the regulatory side have in

considering the changes on the normal change cycle

or shorter-term cycle.

MR. RABA: Jim Raba.

Larry, is that a concern where, for

example, the regulation comes out and states test

procedures in accordance with, say, I-triple-E-112-

1992, and C390 date, that as the tests become

revised in the future, there would be some

confusion? Indeed, I think as the technology

proceeds and test procedures may be improved or

there are other considerations for revision, we

would have to look at that periodically and update

rule making on that through a procedure such as

this to accommodate that. Indeed, we would have to

still, under the statute, stick with the test

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507.C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 45

procedure that would be called out at the time.

DR. GALOWIN : That is precisely the reason

I cited, you would have to go through the whole

repeat of this operation.

MR. RABA: Right.

DR. GALOWIN : I know from my experience

with the Federal Trade Commission, they do a three-

-year review during the process right now of

thermal insulation 316 standards of ASTN, and

currently under their -- what shall I say, probably

Code of Federal Regulations , I am making a guess

here, regulations , they are permitted to make

certain authorizations without holding hearings,

workshops, sort of recognizing standards have been

improved , advanced and should be replaced.

They do have a problem , labeling

requirement for thermal insulation , goes back to

1976 under Code of Regulation Standards, ASTN has

replaced it by a different standard . Manufacturers

still have to label to the old rule even though

there ' s the improved testing method.

Right now I don't know from comments with

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET,.N.E.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 46

FCC -- they are working on this, but they have

built in somehow in the regulatory system the

ability to avoid these'types of formal workshops

and just a statement in the Federal Register by the

regulatory authority to make the switch. So I put

that forward as a consideration when you make the

rule, can you just do some updating?,

MR. RABA: I recall discussions with

counsel -- Jim Raba -- that, indeed, if the

standards are revised, that the statute -- correct

me -- if the standards are reviewed, the Department

can then look at those and say, "Okay, we agree

with that," put out a rulemaking to agree with

that. If we disagree with that, we would then come

back into some session like this and discuss any

differences. So there is a more easy mechanism in

place to do that.

MS. WHELAN: Valerie Whelan from Canada.

I would say this, ours would be similar;

if a particular test procedure would be revised, it

would be a relatively simple process to change that

in the regulation.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 47

MR. RABA: Thank you, Valerie.

MR. RABA: Good. I think we are in accord

on that. Thank you.

Any other comments?

Jim Raba.

Any other comments or questions about the

testing equivalents here of the I-triple-E and

C390?

MS. WHELAN: I should say we would still

have to go through the process, but it would not -

I would not anticipate that it would take the same

amount of time as developing a new regulation or

citing an entirely new test.

I would like to move on to the agenda,

then, and the testing sampling plan.

Indeed, looking at some of our thoughts

here in the Federal Register, we note that it would

probably be not possible to test every motor, so we

need to determine a way to reasonably sample motors

to be effective in, say, enforcement, but say fair

and not burdensome to manufacturers who use this in

these motors, and comply with statutes.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 48

We are looking for some comments, if you

will, or advice , and what type of sampling plan to

use.

This could be done -- and I'm looking at

the Federal Register -- by testing a sufficient

number of motors of a particular model, selected at

random, so that an estimated 95 percent statistical

competence level would be made, both of the motors

of this model offered for sale than the mean

efficiency equal to or greater than the normal

efficiency given in NEMA Standard Publications

1993, revision 1 for this rating; and also at least

99 percent of these motors of the same particular

model and efficiencies equal to or greater than the

minimum efficiencies associated with normal

efficiency in this motor, NEMA's Standard

Publication 1993, revision 1.

So that is some of our thinking on that.

I would like your comments and some of your advice

how to proceed on the sampling plan.

Mark.

MR. PERLIS: Yes.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET,, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 49

Mark Perlis.

Jim, I think as we launch into a

discussion of these issues, there are several

somewhat discrete issues that we would like to

identify at the outset.

You started off by saying that you

recognize that it is not possible to test all

motors, and we do like to clarify that what is

meant here is that no products that are covered

under EPAct is there a requirement that every unit

be tested, but for those products that are subject

to the EPAct regulations -- and I am talking here.

now about the consumer's products rather than

industrial products -- every basic model is

required to be tested.

Since the basic model is a set of a large

population of production units, a sample of the

basic models has to be tested. And the general

rule under your other regulations is that the

sample has to be of a sufficient size such that the

confidence limit is satisfied.

Now, there are a few products -- and I

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 50

can't recall how many, but it is a relatively few

in number -- in which the Department has actually

specified a minimum sample size, or the number of

units of a given basic model that are to be tested.

That's one issue.

A separate issue is that it is not

feasible in the case of electric motors for every

basic model to be verified through testing that the

basic model meets the minimum efficiency

requirements of the statute. We postulate that,

think it is self-evid:ent, and we are gratified that

you seem, to be recognizing that in the notice that

you published in the Federal Register.

So the issue is it is not practical for

manufacturers to be required to do sample testing

for tens of thousands of basic models. There needs

to be some alternative verification system. And

what we propose and what you have sought comments

on today is an alternative method of efficiency

determination where what we at NEMA have called

variously an alternative correlation method.

Under the regulations for consumer

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 51

products for central air conditioners, the

Department has prescribed by regulation an

alternative to actual testing for each basic model

and they have done that through an alternative

method of efficiency determination. That was

designed specifically for that type of product and

the issues that it presented.

You are proposing to the Department an

alternative correlation method that is designed to

meet the issues presented by testing for electric

motors.

So with that as an introduction, I would

like to suggest that as for the testing, if testing

-- the extent testing is required and testing

clearly would be required if a manufacturer, for

whatever reason, does not use the alternative

correlation method you end up permitting the use

of, so that for verification of compliance

purposes, testing is required, we propose the

minimum sample size be five provided that the

manufacturer or manufacturers use at least five

units. So minimum sample size will be five, or the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 52

number of units that are produced in that basic

model. And there are some basic models that are

general purpose for some manufacturers in which the

production lot inventory at the time this

regulation goes into effect may be less than five.

Generally we are proposing a minimum

sample size of five. Of course, it is not a

requirement that only five be tested. The

manufacturer would still be free to use a sample of

sufficient size to satisfy the confidence interval

requirements that are also common to all of your

regulations for all of your products.

As to the confidence limit number itself,.

we propose the issue of 90 percent rather than 95

percent.

And our second comment on your proposal is

that the suggestion in the Federal Register notice

is that the manufacturer would have to meet 95

percent confidence limit on two points; one, that

the efficiency is above the statutory requirement,

and second, 99 percent of the motors be above the

minimum that is established in NEMA MG1 that is

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 53

associated with the statutory minimum requirement.)

Those are two very different minimums.

Sometimes we have all confused them in discussion

perhaps. But one minimum is the minimum efficiency

requirement in the study, which is an average for

the whole class of basic models.

In NEMA MGi, there is a requirement every

production unit be above the minimum that is

associated with any given efficiency level. And

there is a scale of tolerable losses there.

Now, you never required for other products

that there be such a test, but because of this one,

the industry is comfortable with, has lived with as

part of the NEMA MGi, I suppose NEMA doesn't have

any objection to its inclusion in the regulations.

However, I guess we have some question as to

whether it should be satisfied by the 93 percent

confidence interval. And this is purely

statistics, from a technical statistician's

standpoint, but when we work with the professional

statistician to try to understand how to deal with

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 54

confidence limits in the way NEMA members have done

their testing int he past, we have thought the

confidence limit applied to relationship between

variation and mean, not necessarily confidence

limit, whether any outlying unit or what percentage

of the outlying units would be below the NEMA

minimum, not the statutory minimum which is the

mean of the sample size, but the statutory minimum

-00-0 the NEMA minimum that is associated with

that. And so we have some questions as to

whether it is practical to apply the same

confidence interval to both requirements. And you

might just want to say that the confidence interval

applies in the same way it does to all the other

products to NEMA, and that you simply have to meet

the requirement, that you satisfy the MG1

requirement, and don't specify it is with any

confidence interval.

None is specified in MG1, manufacturers

who have lived with this for a long time, and to

the extent you can incorporate this somewhat novel

concept into the regulations for the first time, it

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 55

suggests you consider whether it should be done

independently of the confidence interval.

It is a rather lengthy answer to a fairly

important issue in the practical implementation of

the program.

MR. RABA: Did you get all of that?

THE REPORTER: I believe so.

MR. RABA: Good.

Jim Raba.

It is a tough issue and we are certainly

open to NEMA's views, other views on that. Indeed,

there is precedent, other types of products motors

are recognizably unique in this area and we try to

be consistent, also very practical in thinking

about this.

Now, I understand you to say that your

thinking is also that as far as a confidence level,

90 percent versus 95 percent, and not to use the 99

percent for the minimum -- is that correct -- for

that matter?

MR. PERLIS: Let me clarify, it is not

NEMA's practice, as the voluntary code, if you

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 56

will, under MGl is that 100 percent of the motors

will be above the minimum that is associated with

the given nominal efficiency rating. So the

statute provides minimum nominal efficiency rating.

With everyone of those statutes, there is a NEMA

associated minimum. That NEMA associated minimum,

which allows for much greater energy losses, up to

20 percent greater losses, is in practice meant to

cover 100 percent of the units. And it has-been

applied without any confidence interval test. it

has been applied without, if you will, the degree

of statistical theory or statistical rigor, if you

will, that you are proposing to be put into the

statute.

It is not that we disagree with the 99

percent number, which -- what we are disagreeing

with is you have to assure yourself in your

compliance statement that you meet the 99 percent

test within a 95 percent confidence interval

through testing. That is, I think the 95 percent

confidence interval in testing only applies to

whether or not your mean and your sample size is

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 57

above the statutory nominal efficiency requirement.

And that's in the middle of your sample, not

whether any 1 percent of your outlying is below the

NEMA minimum. And I don't think you need to

require -- we certainly do not want to have to do

two separate tests, one to verify whether we have

any outlying units, and second, how close our

sample on the mean, mean of the sample and

efficiency is to the statutory requirement. And so

we are suggesting confidence interval perhaps

shouldn't apply to the 99 percent, 99 percent of

the units and above the NEMA, as opposed to the

statutory minimum.

MR. RABA: Excuse me, Ed.

Jim Raba.

Let's see. There is I think concern on

our part that indeed if there is maybe random

testing by a third party, say Department of Energy

would like to go and say, "May I take a sample of

your motors to see if they do in fact comply."

Maybe one of those motors doesn't meet, slips

through, you know. That is not going to say you

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 58

can't produce motors.

I think the 99 percent confidence level

applies out there, extremes at both tails, one tail

of the curve, would be a more practical way of

saying we recognize there may be one or two boggies

out there that, okay, we will test a few more to

get the sample back together again.

I don't know that it is even reasonable to

say 100 percent ever. You know, as a practical

person, there is no such thing as a perfect world.

And, indeed, maybe the target for NEMA is to go to

100 percent of all motors agree, which is fine, but

is it possible that maybe though the production

testing tries to catch every one that might slip

through?

MR. PERLIS: Jim, again let me emphasize,

for no other product under EPAct is there any

requirement that there be a test done that measures

the percentage of products that might be outside a

lower bound, that is well below the statutory

requirement. And that's what the NEMA standard,

MGi standard here is about. It is about the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 59

products that are going to be well below the

statutory efficiency requirement.

All that is required for the other

products is the first run of your test and,

frankly, that would be sufficient as a requirement,

and it would parallel exactly what you have for

other products that we do the sample testing and

come within a 90 percent confidence interval. And

that's not unprecedented, by the way, in your other

products; confidence intervals, range 97 and a-half

percent I believe, sometimes not at the mean but

1.05 is the mean.

And so you have flexibility in,your

precedence, and that is sufficient. And you do

your sample testing and you determine whether or

not when you looked at your sample and come up with

a mean, whether you need the confidence interval

that your sample is at or above the statutory

requirement.

NEMA requirement is completely separate

from that. And we just hope that that is

understood. And while we are willing to live with

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 60

this additional requirement because it is one we

have lived with in the past, in fact in our first

submissions to you quite sometime ago, one or two

years ago, we suggested that be the sole standard,

just deal with NEMA minimums. And that we test to

meet the NEMA minimums the way we always have.

But we have adjusted our thinking. We are

willing to accept a sample testing that is no

different from that we apply to all other products

as long as the interval is 90 percent, not 95

percent.

And that we are also suggesting that you,

for whatever reason you wish, do incorporate the

MGi approach as well, that you do so as a technical

-- you consult a statistician.

My suspicion is that there is a problem in

applying the confidence interval to that type of

NEMA test, NEMA standard if you will. If NEMA

standard is one that looks to the outliers, the

individual units, as opposed to measuring mean of

the sample size, which is what the confidence level

is designed to do.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002.

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 61

MR. ADAMS: Carl Adams.

Going back to your statement that two

years ago, you proposed using NEMA test as the sole

criterion, now you are-proposing you use a sampling

plan somewhat similar to other products, I guess it

would be for us to consider -- what I am getting

here is you would not be opposed to or slighted by

there would be no reference to the one sample plan

requirement similar to other products; you are

saying it would be at the 90 percent instead of 95

percent?

MR. PERLIS: Correct.

MR. ADAMS: Presumably you would give us

some reasons for that. But there would be a one

sampling plan and not have any reference to the

NEMA test, that would be acceptable?

MR. PERLIS: I think so.

We would certainly give further

consideration before we file our written comments

as to whether we have independent reasons to both

justify and desire this supplemental requirement

that has been suggested for consideration in the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 62

Federal Register. And the reason why we have come

around to this is that we just feel the precedent

is all in one direction, the Department of Energy

regulation to do it through this confidence, a

proposal -- while that has not been the historical

approach, NEMA standards on which the statutory

tables are based, we can live with it with the

appropriate confidence interval.

We think introducing the other might

introduce a lot of confusion. Especially with the

prospect that you might have enforcement action

taken, we prefer it be done in the standard way we

are comfortable with, that fits all your

preexisting regulation.

To have to introduce this new concept that

doesn't apply to any other product we think is

unbalanced potentially causing more confusion than

clarification for the manufacturer.

Now, having said all of that, we are also

suggesting this in the context of the regime for

which most manufacturers would certify compliance

through means other than actual testing, that we

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000-2

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 63

are proposing that -- that's why I started off at

the beginning with my remarks, trying to separate

these discrete issues -- that it is not feasible

for us to certify compliance by doing sample

testing on thousands and tens of thousands of basic

models.

It is very expensive to test hundreds of

basic models, very expensive, under the test

requirements. The man hours that are required are

rather extensive; the cost is rather large as

compared to testing certain other products that are

subject to the energy efficiency program. So we

are suggesting that manufacturers be allowed to use

the alternative correlation method for all of their

basic models.

MR. LEVY: Mark -- Ed Levy -- before we go

into that, there is one point I am a little bit

confused about in your statement.

Are you saying that DOE should not

incorporate into its test procedures the test for

whether any given date or measurement, whether any

given basic model meets the minimum standard in

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000-2

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 64

MGi? Are you saying that should not be a part of

the test procedures, or are you saying that it

could be a part of the test procedures, but the

confidence level concept shouldn't apply to that?

I am confused.

MR. PERLIS: I am saying at least the

latter, that the confidence interval should not

apply to it. But I am also suggesting you don't

need it altogether.

And the way to think about it is that a

basic model again is not an individual unit. A

basic model is a group of production units.

If that is the indivisible unit, the

product, that is identified in the Department of

Energy regulation for whole products, the NEMA

minimum is applied not at the level of basic model,

but at the level of each production unit. And,

therefore it is not really appropriate as a

standard to be incorporated into test procedure

regulations.

If you are going to do it, perhaps maybe

after we have further discussions, our members will

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 65

decide they would like it just because at the test

procedural laboratory, people who are actually to

be responsible for doing the testing are so

comfortable since they have had to comply with the

law for many years and will continue to comply with

it under the voluntary standards of the industry,

that if you do that, then we probably are going to

suggest you not attach a confidence level to it.

I think -- I am not sure it is

inappropriate., but I 'think some very experienced

statisticians need to examine it, whether it

implies two separate tests or one test.

MR. LEVY: But the minimum standard is

part of the MG1 procedure?

MR. PERLIS: Right. It is part of the MGi

procedure and will continue to be. It need not be

a requirement of the Energy Policy Act energy

efficiency program.

MR. MARGOLIS: Eugene Margolis.

What is the basis for using a 90 percent

confidence for motors?

I believe that in the appliance program,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 66

only,central air conditioners is at the low, 90

percent. All the other products are either 95 or

above.

MR. PERLIS: Right.

Like central,air conditioners, you are

subsequently going to hear from us, our products

are different form many of those that are subject

to the Energy Policy Act efficiency program. Just

as central air conditioners have both a low

confidence interval and reliance on alternative

correlation methods in lieu of testing, we are

proposing the same thing.

When we retained a professional

statistician last year, two years ago -- two years

ago -- when we retained a professional statistician

two years ago, his analysis was trying to relate

the NEMA test, which is relating to the individual

production units, meaning the 20 percent losses,

all of them will meet the 20 percent losses.

We thought that most closely correlated to

a confidence interval approach with the 90 percent

confidence interval at the size of samples that we

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 67

are talking about, which is five, a minimum of five

units, that the confidence interval correlates, or.

mathematically is related to the sample size. And

as you reach the sample size, you affect your

confidence intervals. As you decrease your sample

size, your confidence becomes less certain.

Since we are starting with a sample size

of five, we felt that it would apply to 90 percent

confidence interval, we would be 99 percent or 100

percent sure that we are going to meet both the

NEMA minimum and the testing requirements that you

specify for all other products.

MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you.

MR. RABA: Any other comments or

questions?

This has been an interesting and very

provocative discussion.

Jim Raba.

Indeed -- I'm sorry. Ted.

MR. ATKINS: Ted Atkins.

I think we should mention this is a

component product. It's not a total system like

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 200a2

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 68

all the other products we have.

MR. RABA: Right.

MR. ATKINS: I think you need to keep that

in mind.

MR. RABA: We will do that. Thank you.

MR. LEVY: What do you think the

implications are in terms of what people have been

talking about?

MR. ATKINS: Well, the implication is we

don't have a lot of other pieces that go, into a

system that uses the total of the energy that goes

into the product. And so being a component, it is

kind of a separate item that is different from

everything else, like an air conditioning system or

some other product. It is an end product that is

put into use as it was designed and delivers its

end product.

Our product is a component that drives

whatever else it goes into as a piece of equipment.

I think because it is a component, it is a

unique item. You don't have -- let's say the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 69

materials alone can create variances that require

what we have in our 20 percent losses differential,

you don't have the control of all the other pieces

that go into it that normally wouldn't affect

efficiency on a complete system.

That's like saying a car engine has to

have a certain efficiency, but you don't pay

attention to the total automobile's efficiency.

You look at the automobile as a total efficient

system, rather than efficiency of the motor as a

single component.

MR. LEVY: So what you are saying is in

larger systems, with larger systems, there are

various points at which efficiency can be picked

up.

,MR. ATKINS: The motor efficiency is only

one part of the total system that we have been

talking about, and I think the industry has become

aware of the efficiency reflected in the total

thing the motor is driving.

But just temperatures, one batch of

material to the other, wire size, the tolerances

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000-2

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 70

from the mill, to us as motor manufacturers are all

variables that nobody has any control over. You go

from 17 gauge to 18 gauge. There can be variances

enough to affect the efficiency of any given motor,

and the reason why this 20 percent loss variances

in there is all these little pieces add up into

just the specific efficiency of a given motor.

Where you don't have that once the motor

has become a motor in the total system of what it's

driving, you don't have those variances that have

as much affect on the total system.

I am just trying to put a little bit of

thought into the perspective on that.

MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler.

Detrimental effect on the efficiency also.

MR. ATKINS: May I make one more comment?

We have got to make sure we keep in our

minds that we are dealing with what Mark was

talking about is nominal efficiency. The average

mean efficiency is what the product was rated for.

That 20 percent loss in variation, you are going to

have some that are over, some that are under. If

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 71

you tested 100 motors, your average -- or if you

tested five, the average should come out to what we

rate the efficiency of the product on the average,

so that's a nominal mean average. So we keep

talking about the bottom end of it, and that is

just the point where we don't make any below that,

but our mean average is going to be the total of

all the products, that one basic model that we rate

at efficiency. And we feel that five as a test

sampling will give us a reasonable mean average to

rate the full cross section of that basic model.

MR. RABA: Thank you, Ted.

Jim Raba.

One question -- let me recognize Larry

Galowin first.

DR. GALOWIN: Larry Galowin.

He made an important point about quality,

at least depending on where we go for the

accreditation, the Accredit Test Labs will be

concerned as well as the measurements performed by

the lab. But I think this discussion is -- Mark,

please correct me -- this discussion is now talking

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 72

more about production units rather than any

discrete units that go in for a particular test.

We are looking at the overall situation. And when

you formulate your requirement, whether it be 90

percent, 95 percent , or 99 percent of the numbers

that you are playing with, and I think you want to

go back and read and define confidence level,

because I think it is being a little bit misused I

am not a statistician. I think you should go back

to that. But you should define the regulation,

your allowance tolerance like power -- otherwise I

suspect you will never be able to look at a set of

data from the regulatory side and make a firm

decision. It opens the window to any kind of

challenge anybody wants to make.

MR. PERLIS: Mark Perlis.

We've identified an issue which NEMA's

facing for another product that is regulated under

the Energy Policy Act. Historically the Department

of Energy regulations just limited their sample to

confidence level. There has been no identification

of measurement of uncertainties, tolerances in the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 73

measurement or testing process. And that I think

is sort of a generic problem.

I can't speak for the older products that

have been subject for many years to the Energy

Policy Act, to the Energy Efficiency Program, but

we are finding it does raise somewhat unique

issues, in case of lamps, because you have mass

produced consumer products.

In the case of motors, it is a component

product in the variable power source. There may be

other input factors as it were, and which tolerance

is such we need to make adjustments to the

confidence intervals.

Having said all of that, and we are not

necessarily advocating you take that up today or

even necessarily in the first set of regulations

you produce, I just want to reiterate our 90

percent confidence interval that we are proposing

is, at least as we understand what confidence level

means to a statistician, therefore in your

regulations, is acceptable to the industry, because

the sample size that we are advocating in

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 74

compliance with NEMA minimum would be associated

with the 90 percent confidence level. And that is

what we are suggesting. That is where our number

came up.

MR. RABA: Thank you, Mark.

Jim Raba.

Is there'any concern or any comments or

statements, thoughts about the equivalencies of the

NEMA nominal efficiency ratings, and testing and

sampling, as under discussion thus far with the IEC

of metric, as well, is there anything there we need

to talk about? Is there a band of efficiencies?

Is it equivalent?

MR. BOTELER: When we come back with that

chart, we will give you that crossover, what makes

sense as far as horsepower equivalent to IEC KW.

MR. RABA: That will address, then, the

sampling and the method of calculating

efficiencies.

MR. PERLIS: No, the sampling will be

identical.

MR. RABA: That is what I am saying.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET,, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 75

Fine.

MR. PERLIS: Everything will be identical.

What we need to have is the target statutory

minimum, that's a given horsepower, given kilowatt

measure denominated a motor has to have, that is

the table we will provide.

When you go to verify compliance with this

table, we will use the same sampling plan and same

confidence interval required, whether IEC or

English measure.

MR. ELLIOTT: You are all talking about

using UL irrespective of the motor.

MR. HAATAJA: How are you going to

determine equivalent to NEMA as far as efficiency?

Covers horsepower with efficiencies that need to be

achieved. It was our thought process equivalencies

to those horsepowers would meet that table,

equivalent KW's to that horsepower would meet that

same table. Motors having KW's that fell between

two horsepower levels would be forced to go to the

next highest efficiency level. That was going to

be the proposal, proposed requirement.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 76

MR. PERLIS: So the rounding is not in the

middle of the range, but from the bottom up, the

rounding all in favor of

MR. HAATAJA: Of greater efficiency.

MR. BOTELER: So kilowatt would fall in

between.

MR. HAATAJA : We have an exception.

I understand what you are saying. We take

exception to that.

MR. BOTELER : Not a direct equivalent.

MR. KLINE: That is correct.

DR. GALOWIN : There is nothing to

consider, to prevent you from interpreting, if that

be the design, another approach. The suggestion is^

simply to go to the next higher level, which does

force the lower horsepower or kilowatt to jump up

to that higher value, somewhat arbitrarily though.

MR. PERLIS : I think NEMA would probably

have in principal no objection to the

interpolation , being able to interpolate. We

produce the rounding up because we thought it would

be simpler and greater efficiency, but surely the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 77

manufacturers could list interpolation that

reasonably says testing." That would be

appropriate if you can draft that. In fact, maybe

we will in fact draft an alternative consideration

for you, so either the rounding up or

interpolation.

MR. ADAMS: Carl Adams.

Interpolating is certainly more

complicated and it also can be done by definitions.

It is then changing the standards which are already

there, or cutting an interpretation on the

standards.

It might be more precise, but it seems

just to me on the surface the other way is the

simpler way to do it for all parties concerned.

And if there is not objections with the fact that a

4.5 horsepower motor would have to meet the

efficiency of a 5 horsepower motor, for simplicity,

if there is no objection to doing that.

MR. BOTELER: What do you call it?

MR. ADAMS: 7 horsepower.

MR. BOTELER: Say it tests out at that

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 78

value, specified at 5.8, do you call it a 5-plus

horsepower for which it was originally designed and

cause that to be the efficiency?

You have now measured it, it is 5.8; do

you jump it to the 10 horsepower?

MR. KLINE: What is the NEMA?

MR. BOTELER: I guess that's my question,

what governs?

MR. KLINE: What's on the nameplate

governs.

MR. BOTELER: Okay.

MR. ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott, AC-triple-E.

We would go with NEMA's original proposal

with the table bumping up to the next rating

horsepower. I think it would be very complex, very

difficult to enforce, and I think, as NEMA has

graciously done here, moves us in the direction of

greater efficiency.

MR. BALDUCCI: If you look at a table of

numbers, you go -- for instance, between 100 and

200 horsepower, you go from 94.1 positive to 94.5,

you are at 100 horsepower, and you are talking 4

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 79

meet the 88.5, if he then changes his horsepower on

the label to 7.5, I would think that he might be

numbers, the efficiencies are so close.

But if he would then -- since he has

tenths of a point efficiency. You are going to

interpolate it is going to come out a tenth of a

point or half a point. For all the effort of the

interpolation, it is not really worth going

through, as we can go by definition.

MR. BOTELER: Why, we can't measure that

accurately.

MR. BALDUCCI: Not at all, Rob. I know

you can measure down.

MR. MARGOLIS: Eugene Margolis.

What I question is whether you go up to

the next highest mode of horsepower or interpolate

between the two.

The question that was raised about the

nameplate, I mean if somebody has a 5.8 horsepower

and whereas 5 is 87.5 and 7.5 is 88.5, the 5.8, if

you say he has to meet the 88.5, would be -- I mean

I don't think that becomes a problem, because the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 80

doing a disservice to the people who buy that

motor, because it is not really a 7.5 horsepower

motor, it is still 5.8. And the people -- since he

is going up in efficiency, if he can go up in the

nameplate horsepower too, that's what bothers me.

MR. ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott, AC-triple-E.

I think we are getting off the topic here.

It is a 5 horsepower motor. If I as a consumer buy

a 5 horsepower motor, it may be 5.9 horsepower, it

may be 5.01 horsepower, I am still buying a 5

horsepower motor for that purpose. So I am

comparing the two like to like. That is my

concern. And the nominal -

MR. VARNER: Percentage of efficiency.

MR. MARGOLIS: Eugene Margolis.

The manufacturer, instead of saying it is

a S. horsepower motor, since he has to meet the

efficiency of the 7.5, what stops him from saying

it is a 7.5 horsepower motor and putting that on

instead of the 5?

MR. KLINE: You'll find horsepower ratings

are determined, not just by efficiency or anything

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 81

like by size; it is determined by qualification of

that motor running at that horsepower, that it will

thermally meet the temperature limits defined by

the insulation within that motor as well as other

performance parameters, which are defined by EPAct

by design, a designing characteristic. That is

what defines the rating of that machine.

You cannot just arbitrarily put a

horsepower rating that is not defined by the

limitations of the other characteristics.

MR.MARGOLIS: Thank you.

MR. CROUSE: Ed Crouse, Lincoln Electric.

The testing for efficiency will not

determine what the rating is. It is done at the

rating on the nameplate in determining what the

normal performance is.

In the case of 5.8, if you round that up,

say it is 5.7 horsepower, if it has the

capabilities thermally and torquewise, meet torque

requirements as well as other things, if the

manufacturer can do that and still meet the

efficiency, he has option to do that.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

.WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 82

The testing is done to verify the

nameplate, not to kick it up in another rating.

MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you.

MR. RABA: I want to go on with the agenda

then. Indeed -- I'm not sure where we are -- was

it testing sampling plan, or alternative method of

efficiency determination?

MR. PERLIS: I think we are on the latter.

MR. RABA: I think we are.

MR. PERLIS: It's useful to have

discussion before lunch.

MR. RABA: Yes, for sure. And I'd like to

move on to the next item before lunch too if we

can.

Is there some discussion to bring up about

the alternative method of efficiency determination?

Indeed, we are looking for considering the use of

predicted mathematical calculations and statistical

methodologies developing scientific efficiency

analyses, substantiated by actual test data, in

order to calculate efficiencies, for example total

power losses, in motors. Indeed, that would open

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 83

discussion of this item. I would like to get your

views and comments of using an alternative method

of deficiency determination.

Yes.

MR. PERLIS: Mark Perlis.

NEMA believes that the alternative, or

what we call an alternative correlation's

absolutely critical, in fact would be the essential

core component, core component of the DOE test

procedure regulation.

If I could make several comments about the

alternative method of deficiency determination, we

envision a method scientifically engineering; these

are correlation methods that manufacturers all use

today. They are based on extensive experience,

empirically based, engineering based, and often

computer implemented, computer driven, whatever,

however you would say it.

Initially we will be proposing regulatory

language that the alternative correlation method

have a scientific engineering empirical basis.

That is number one.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET,, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C.. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 84

Number two, each manufacturer has its own

alternative correlation method. In fact, they may

be to some extent proprietary. This is unlike

perhaps the situation that exists for other

products which may have had association or industry

standard correlation methods. NEMA does not have,

does not specify an alternative correlation method.

Each individual manufacturer develops its own. So

the DOE test provisions have to incorporate or

accept the fact that each manufacturer is going to

be using the manufacturer's specific alternative

correlation method.

Point number three, for central air

conditioners, we are allowed to use an alternative

correlation method, which requires staff approval

for the method. As you know, we have previously

submitted to the Department a proposal that was

based on the central air conditioning experience

that would have involved individual applications by

each manufacturer for advance approval of its

alternative correlation method.

Today NEMA would like to propose that the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000-2

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 85

Department not require each manufacturer to submit

for advance approval its alternative correlation

method.

Point number four.

MR. MARGOLIS: Excuse me.

Eugene Margolis.

On that point, how -- are we accepting en

blanc the manufacturer's determination that it

meets the standards?

MR. PERLIS: No.

MR. MARGOLIS: How do we look at their

alternative method?

MR. PERLIS: That's an excellent question

again.

Obviously there needs to be some means of

verification of the alternative correlation method.

One means of verification would be to obtain

advance approval to an application, approval of the

process, as you have for central air conditioningI think that works for central air

conditioning because it is industry based. It

won't necessarily work for motors nearly as well.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 86

We propose that the verification be

demonstrated through actual testing. So before I

said that individual manufacturers would anticipate

not using actual testing to verify compliance for

each basic model of the statute, what we intend to

propose is that we use actual testing to verify the

accuracy of the alternative correlation method.

The alternative correlation method would simply be

applied to the motors. We would certify compliance

with the statutory efficiency requirement based on

the use, manufacturer's own use of the alternative

correlation method.

In terms of verifying the accuracy of the

alternative correlation method, once again we would

propose that five basic models be tested, each

basic model would be tested subject to the five

sampling requirements, 90 percent confidence level.

More to the point, we are going to propose

there be a criteria put into the regulation that

when the testing is done, the alternative

correlation method, what we are testing here is the

actual test result compared to the predicted result

,MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET,,N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 87

using the alternative correlation method.

So what we need to have is a tolerance, if

you will, an accuracy standard for comparing the

actual test results following the test procedures

that we previously discussed here this morning, and

the predicted efficiency results, and applying an

alternative correlation method of the manufacturer.

And we would propose to you an accuracy or

tolerance factor based on the difference in losses,

the variability in losses under what was actually

tested and what is predicted, using an alternative

correlation method, using the full range of

testing, to verify its alternative correlation

method.

Now, we are proposing, therefore, that

testing be used to identify the alternative

correlation method. Each manufacturer would

undertake this testing before the effective date of

the regulations, or rather before the effective

date of the efficiency standard. Therefore, we

hope that the regulations will be out in sufficient

time to permit this testing process to take place,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 88

and that a certification or compliance statement

would be filed by each manufacturer that it has

done the testing in accordance with the test

procedures that it has met the accuracy requirement

for use of the alternative correlation method; that

in applying the alternative correlation method,

each and every basic model that it produces, they

all meet or exceed the minimum efficiency

requirements in the statute.

MR. MARGOLIS: Eugene Margolis.

But you are only testing five basic

models.

MR. PERLIS: We are doing testing on five

basic models -- and when we-say testing the basic

model, we are talking about sample testing of five

basic models -- that is correct.

MR. MARGOLIS: Yes. But the

manufacturers, as you said, might have hundreds or

thousands of basic models.

MR. PERLIS: Or tens of thousands, that is

correct. And so what we are doing is we are

testing not to verify the nameplate ratings or the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc

efficiency ratings, or even the compliance of all

the basic models; what we are testing is the

accuracy of the alternative correlation method.

MR. MARGOLIS: But you are only testing

five out of thousands -

MR. PERLIS: Correct.

MR. MARGOLIS: -- or tens of thousands.

MR. PERLIS: We are testing five. We

would require that the five not be of the same

rating, that is -- what I mentioned at the

beginning when I said use in your regulations use

the NEMA approach, if you define term of rating,

one of the 1,300, in horsepower, that we will take

of those five basic models, they won't all be 2

horsepower, two-fold motors. They will be

variable. And one could propose rules as to how

variable they have to be. In fact, in our proposal

'submitted to the DOE, we gave a criteria on how

those would be different.

MR. MARGOLIS: That is what I was -- if

you take a small section, it might be biased,

whereas if you go out to other horsepower motors,

89

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 90

it might not have a correlation.

MR. PERLIS: We will try to come up with a

proposal that the basic models to be tested will be

representative of the range of models which the

alternative correlation method is going to be

applied.

MR. MARGOLIS: One final question. Why

can't DOE seek from the manufacturers their

methodology for this? It is being protected under

the Freedom of Information Act as confidential

information, so that if it is proprietary to them,

that other manufacturers would not have it.

You are asking us to accept this method

and not giving us an opportunity to see the

methodology, for us to even test it out to see if

we agree with you.

We are accepting, in my opinion, in

darkness this proposal. We could test it out

ourselves, not on each manufacturer but on some

that we think where it might apply.

I don't see why -- I would like to hear

from the manufacturers -- why they would not want

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 91

to submit to us their formulas.

MR. PERLIS: I think several manufacturer

reps are here.

MR. MARGOLIS: Yes, they have already put

up their hands.

MR. PERLIS: Let them go ahead other than

me.

MR. CROUSE: Ed Crouse.

In some of our discussions, certainly some

of the issues pertaining to that, there are

possibilities manufacturers use more than one

method, depending on the size and range of motors.

And certainly a large concern as to whether it is

even feasible for 20 or 30 different manufacturers

to submit their own methods, to have somebody-go

through and review that and understand. Because

each company is going to be somewhat different.

There is no single standardized method for doing

it. Each company has evolved its own single or

plural methods for coming up with this calculation

of performance. So it would be a very, very large

project to get them to do that.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 92

In the case of the conversations with the

air conditioners, it is much more straight forward;

it is one method. I think in the motor business,

there are many, many methods. Each manufacturer

has a fairly highly customized version of the

calculation.

MR.KLINE: Joe Kline.

To amplify that a little bit, each

manufacturer designs its own product. They don't

all make their product the same way. We make our

own castings, do our own nominations.

In order for a predictability program to

be utilized properly, it has to include those

processes and components that are used in design in

the utilization of that predictability program.

So you would find large variability

between manufacturers in some cases in their

predictability program due to those kinds of

differences and design concepts.

MR. MARGOLIS: Eugene Margolis.

We are not comparing one manufacturer to

another manufacturer.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 93

MR. KLINE: No, you are not.

MR. MARGOLIS: The only issue that I heard

was that it is so complicated --

MR. KLINE: It is.

MR. MARGOLIS: - - that DOE might not have

the time to sit down with each manufacturer or

study each manufacturer's submission to fully

understand it. But I think that that should be

something that DOE should determine whether or not

it has the staff and the time to make that -- and

if DOE does make that, then I agree with you. But

DOE says it can.

MR. PERLIS: Gene, that is exactly right.

The Department of Energy has sufficient resources

and expertise to evaluate, given the time you all

make available to us between the date the law

becomes effective and the date these regulations

are finalized, to review all of the alternative

correlation methods on a scientific engineering

basis as well as evaluate all the test results.

Fine. We will be happy to submit it to

you if that is what you wish to require.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 94

I guess our experience in looking at the

program has been the Department of Energy has not

been so involved in the past, and we did not want

to propose a system that would rise or fall on the

strength and availability of DOE resources that we

recognize are stretched very thin. And we

therefore are making this proposal in the way we

are because we would like to persuade the

Department that it is a legitimate proposal, and it

was meant to ensure voluntary self-compliance with

the statute.

There is always a possibility of

enforcement action. You can alternatively write

into the regulations audit requirements that give

you the right and ability to go to the

manufacturers and be involved in the testing or to,

down the road , require reverification of the

correlation method, or an actual audit of the

correlation method.

MR. VARNER: On a random process.

MR. PERLIS : Right.

There are all sorts of possibilities of

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 95

having the Department involved.

We discussed internally among ourselves

whether the Department would want to identify the

five basic models to be tested, to make you

involved in the process.

I think at the end of the day, my sense is

that all the energy efficiency program works on

voluntary compliance, just the way Internal Revenue

Code does, and the Federal Trade Commission, for

Department of Energy has the resources to engage in

extensive enforcement proceedings or auditing. And

the motors simply have to work the same way. We

show a program that is scientifically based,

verified by testing with criteria prescribed in the

regulation, and that that, together with the fact

there can always be enforcement actions down the

road, ought to be sufficient.

Of course, if the Department wishes to

consider other involvement, we might get a chance

to respond to it and work out a system that makes

sense to both you with the resources and us in

terms of initial compliance and subsequent

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc

enforcement.

And this is a novel approach that has not

been tried before for other products.

We recognize we are breaking new ground.

We would like to give you the sort of proposal we

think is the least intrusive as possible.

If you decide that you want more

involvement, fine; we would like to discuss it

further with you and we are prepared to do that.

MR. MARGOLIS: Eugene Margolis.

At the beginning of this discussion, the

last point, you had said that you could put in

there "audit" or some other type of going back to

the manufacturer to get further details.

I think something of that stature would

greatly benefit the Department and the

manufacturers.

Your original proposal did not include

that.

MR. PERLIS: That is correct.

MR. MARGOLIS: And therefore that is what

concerns me.

96

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 97

MR. PERLIS: Let me say - -

MR. MARGOLIS: Now, you have said to us

that you are going to be submitting a number of

points on regulatory language. Would you be able

to submit in this additional regulatory language,

which says that the Department can go to various

manufacturers to either audit or to find out how

they arrived at that?

MR. PERLIS: We will certainly consider,

before filing our written comments, such

procedures.

MR. MARGOLIS: I think this would help the

Department in acquiescing to the wishes of the

manufacturers.

MR. PERLIS: I think that if all of the

representatives of the Department have individual

reaction to the proposal that we made and want to

offer suggestions we can consider in formulating

our concrete proposal, we would love to hear from

you between -- you know, over the next couple of

weeks, and we will try to respond to you.

Let me also say about the auditing, there

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 98

is an additional check and balance on the system,

if you will, we will discuss a little bit later in

the workshop when we are looking toward a situation

in which there will be some transparency between

certification in Canada and compliance in the

United States.

Under the Canadian system, there is a

different approach to a verification process that

provides a type of check of the type you might be

sort of looking for here, and you might get

sufficient assurances of the verification of the

accuracy of the alternative correlation method, and

testing of the individual manufacturers on that.

Secondly, there is a whole question of

outlab to actually do the testing. That should

also provide some comfort to the Department.

Now, we don't know whether that

requirement is going to be maintained in the final

regulation.

There are a number of ways in addition to

whether or not the Department has auditor

preinvolvement with the alternative correlation

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 99

method that you would be satisfied. For example,

go and do NEMA testing, double sampling testing of

consumer products, do that. That would be a check

on the use of the alternative correlation. There

are a number of ways to do this.

Before you propose the regulations, you

perhaps will give us ideas how you might want to

implement just as you have come here today with the

workshop. This is the one issue which has not been

developed in the Federal Register notice, because

we haven't seen -- it is not fair to say, not fully

developed in the Federal Register notice.

We would like to have a dialogue with you,

want to make you comfortable. It is the only way

the program can work in industry with this product.

MR. MARGOLIS: That's why I was thinking

since you are taking a first crack in writing

regulatory language.

MR. PERLIS: We will come up with a

proposal, but I don't know that it is one that

would satisfy.

MR. MARGOLIS: No, but --

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 100

MR. PERLIS : It will be a talking basis.

MR. MARGOLIS: -- then, at least we will

be on a talking basis. Since we have your promise,

then if we have any problems with it, I don't see

any problem with us getting back to you.

MR. PERLIS: That's fine.

MR. MARGOLIS: Us getting back to you

before we publish the proposal and show you the

proposal, that might present a problem.

MR. PERLIS: Why don't we proceed.

MR. ADAMS: Carl Adams.

As I understand what you are proposing,.

Mark, a company could get by with a minimum of

testing 25 motors, five basic models with five

units per model.

MR. PERLIS: That is correct.

MR. ADAMS: I guess --

MR. PERLIS: I wouldn't say "get by." I

would say we will certify under perjury statement

we are complying with the law, based on the

strength of testing five products and the w hole

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 101

history of support for the development internally

to each manufacturer of the alternative correlation

method. The method will be verified based on the

testing of 25 motors, but in fact it rests on much

more extensive and long-standing testing that

predates the policy. That needs to be appreciated.

MR. ADAMS: I understand and appreciate

that.

MR. PERLIS: You sound skeptical.

MR. ADAMS: Well, I think we would need

some assistance in how we would establish what the

five or more categories to be tested would involve.

And I think perhaps it would need to be linked

somewhat.

Ed was mentioning there may be several

alternate methods. I guess I'm thinking of the

case what if a company has 15 different methods, it

seems that we would only be hitting five of those

fifteen methods to verify the methods.

I don't know how separate and distinct the

different methods are.

MR. PERLIS: I think we mentioned,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 102

although our group will have to reexamine'-this when

we prepare our written submission, I think what we

had in mind was verifying through testing five

basic models, each alternative correlation.

MR. ADAMS: Each method, aha. There would

be'some verification as to how many methods each

manufacturer had? I mean, manufacturer A has two

different methods and there would be -

MR. PERLIS: Now, if you want us to give

you a number of alternative correlation methods in

our compliance statement, I suppose we could. I

don't know that the scheme we are outlining would

serve that purpose.

Either you require us -- I am just

thinking outloud, we have to put fine touches on

this. Either we would submit the methods in whole,

with all the supporting data, and your existing

regulations require all of that for the one product

that has alternative correlation method, of course

you have it all there.

It seems to me you go to the model of

environmental compliance program with some check,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 103

whether audit check, testing of.five basic models,

or some combination you will develop, think about,

but we want to respond to your concerns. We would

like to hear what your concerns are.

I hear one of them is you want us to make

sure we are testing each method, have

identification for the methods, at least of the

number of methods used. And it would really help

us if we used some time here this morning to get

just initial reactions from you as to where you see

the limitations on the proposal so we can define it

for you.

MR. BALDUCCI: Anthony Balducci.

You mentioned the fact of an audit. Would

that audit include manufacturers say in six months

or a year after, with two or three different

ratings, on basic models with the manufacturer?

Obviously we are not going to come and say

the manufacturer tests 30 different basic models,

but if it is something where it comes in with

tests, and we are not that comfortable with the

results, how would manufacturers react to that?

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 104

Just give us a little more leeway. If we

don't want the submission for the full whole

method, don't have resources to evaluate, but

basically give open door to the manufacturers, we

say in a given timeframe, however it might come

out.

MR. PERLIS: This is my personal response.

I am not now speaking for NEMA. We have not

caucused on this specific question you raised,

which is a good one.

My initial, response is, Anthony, that if

you were to want to engage in such audit testing,

the audit testing, you need to make clear whether

your audit testing is to verify the accuracy of the

correlation, or compliance with the statute.

If it is to consider accuracy, you might

wish to consider whether you might want to adopt a

two-tier result, one tier of testing sampling

individual manufacturers who do self-compliance,

then there is a second, in the regulation that

deals with the Compliance Act.

You are proposing a second approach here,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 105

the testing we are going to do on our own to verify

the accuracy of the test.

If we do the second set of testing, what

are the consequences of failing? Does it mean we

do it again? Does it mean we can no longer use

your correlation method? Does it mean you have a

year to recertify your product under the new

correlation method?

Perhaps what you want to do is do your

random testing; if the manufacturer flunks, then go

through the process of our submitting the

correlation method, your evaluating it, and our

presenting our test results to you, which you keep

perhaps, and then making the judgment, enforcement

judgment as to what the course would be at that

point, requiring modification in the correlation

methods, new-rounds of testing or what have you.

And I think we need to think through all of those

consequences.

But I think the approach focus would be

not on compliance with the statute, but on the

utilization of the correlation method and that if

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(a02) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 106

you do your random testings, have questions about

the correlation,. you have sort of a second track.

Here is what the Department is going to do

with the question, raised. I have, as you have, the

second track, double sampling model or compliance

testing. And, you know, I could conceive of such a

model working. But a lot of details are going to

have to be worked out.

I am not saying you shouldn't take it if

you are willing to, but I believe, we would like to

believe that the program should start basically as

a voluntary compliance program. When I say

"voluntary compliance," it might be Internal

Revenue Service, where the majority of people file

their papers and are never audited for an entire

lifetime like that. And when it comes down to it,

that is the way the program is administered today.

There has been no indication of widespread

violations of the energy standard, efficiency

standard, 15-20 products currently subject. There

is no reason to. believe it is going to happen.

Because we have to put it on our ratings. We have

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 107

customers and the customers'want accuracy and they

demand it. They can make energy efficiency

calculations themselves, find out whether they are

working to standards. So-there are lots of checks.

But if you want to develop a detailed regulatory

proposal, we will be happy to work with you.

MR. BALDUCCI: Thank you.

MR. KLINE: Jim Kline.

Mark had mentioned in passing the other

programs they are having in Canada, that maybe

something else you may want to consider in this

aspect also. Because their compliance requirement

is by third party. And we basically are going to

be doing that and basically our predictability

program put a rating on the nameplate is going to

be checked by a third party in the Canadian

environment. So there may be some way to wrap

these two things together as far as verification,

because your verification of nominal efficiency

that is on the nameplate is in truth verification

of the performance calculation predictability.

MR. RABA: Valerie.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 108

MS. WHELAN: Valerie Whelan, Natural

Resources Canada.

I have had some discussion of the use of

the alternative correlation methods with the

Canadians Association certification organizations,

and their indication to me i.s that they would look

at such -- within their program, their energy

performance verification programs. If that was

requested of them, they would look at and evaluate

those type of correlations.

DR. GALOWIN: Larry Galowin.

Have they described process, procedure?

How were they carried out? Because my conversation

with you people in Canada and counsel led to some

issues, whether there be a certification program or

accreditation program, ultimately DOE's decision on

how to use it; or is that all laboratories, whether

they are used by certifying bodies or not, will

want to test the test information, will have to be

accredited by lab or certifying body, has to carry

out analysis to show that the lab is accredited.

So we prescribe a very hard set of requirements in

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 109

uniformity with America, in the area of testing

procedures.

Now, if you are going to look at

analytical procedures, region to consider items

like CSA to verify predictive alternative method,

one has to raise the question how would that-get

done, what are the qualifications of the

individual, and who evaluates such investigation.

I am raising a lot of issues here, but I

think part of y our same set of issues, whether you

want to turn to Oakridge team or LBL on this, or

universities of electrical engineers, may be able

to look at this.

The other thing, I just use the term, I

think we have to be very clear here, Mark, in

opposition, that the verificational term of the

program -- which I think you have a good idea, I

highly endorse it -- it has to be very clearly

distinguished from a design method program versus

prediction of performance. So I think in your

written newspaper, your discussion in terms of your

industry team, you should put forward precisely

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

. 507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 110

what is going to be done.

One other point I wanted to make. I think

this all has to be linked with the earlier

conversation that took place on speaking of

confidence levels outliers, because you now have to

allow bands within the test verification against

the, I assume, computer prediction program, because

if you have to test motors on spot check and it is

lined way out, you may be faced, of 'course, in

tolerance with the other requirements. So you have

to look at the alternative methodology concerning

what you,would do and allow in verifying it.

MR. RABA: Thank you, Larry.

I am going to have to cut this short. We

are getting close to some things to consider.

MR. VARNER: I think we are losing

correctable here for certifying the conditions of

the product. And the method we do it and the way

we calculate it is answerable only in the results

of did it test out to what it is rated at and does

it make any difference whether we do it on a Oiji

Board or sliding rule or computer if we accurately

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET,,N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 111

don't want to limit discussion, or your thoughts or

comments either.

Thank you very much for your comments,

Mark, and others around the table.

item prior to lunch. So if you'll bear with me -

stretch a little bit, that will be fine. But,

indeed, we would like to go into the individual

testing certification discussion at this time.

Hopefully you will not take excessive time. I

in testing prove that method works? And our

responsibility should be what we put on the

nameplate is accurate and why go through all the

evaluation of the programs when our responsibility

is we certify and can stand scrutiny in tests to

that certification.

MR. RABA: Thank you very much.

Indeed, I have got to ask your indulgence,

ladies and gentlemen, to hopefully continue

discussion.

I realize the time looks like it's noon;

however, we are into something also which should be

covered, I was requested earlier to cover the next

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 112

We are going'to change the tape.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. RABA: Jim Raba.

Again, I would like to continue discussion

on certification and compliance and ask your views

on certification requirements, and tie that also

with independent testing certification.

We are seeking information as to the

identity, nature and capabilities of any nationally

recognized programs testing of motors. The testing

certification of motors or for certification of

entities,that perform such activities.

We are also seeking information as to

whether foreign commercial laboratories or

government laboratories, or trade associations

operate such programs, and should foreign testing

programs be considered "nationally recognized in

the United States," and, if so, under what

circumstances?

And then following that, the Department

seeks to input the criteria by which an

organization should be considered competent, one,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 113

to conduct the specific tests or calibrations for

motors according to the required test procedures,

and two , to operate a certification program.

And finally , we seek views as to whether

manufacturers are permitted to self-test or selfcertify the energy efficiency of their own motors

and, if so, under what circumstances.

The floor is open.

DR. GALOWIN : I have submitted a letter.

I hope everybody has a copy . I won't read it

through,but I do want to make a point.

We have at NVLAP established an

accreditation program by NEMA and we are probably -

MR. RABA: Excuse me. My apologies.

Indeed, Larry, we will pick you up first.

I have new information that would allow us

to break at noon. It is time for lunch.

DR. GALOWIN: Great.

MR. RABA: Actually this gives you the

floor twice. I'm looking out for'you.

So in look of all we just said, keep in

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 114

mind we will take a one-hour break for lunch. Be

back at one o'clock, 1300 hours.

[Whereupon, at 12:00 noon, the meeting was

recessed, to reconvene at 1:00 p.m. the same day.]

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 115

AFTERNOON SESSION'

[1:02 p.m.]

MR. RABA: Ladies and gentlemen, let's get

started, please. It's two minutes after one by my

watch.

Thank you very much. We will pick up now

on the certification and compliance, independent

testing and certification discussion topics on the

agenda this afternoon, and proceed on.

Does anyone have any opening statements or

comments, or would just like discussion on that?

Neal.

MR. ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott, with AC-tripleE.

My comment I think will go back to some of

the discussions.

From AC-triple-E's standpoint, we really

are not too concerned about alternative methods of

efficiency determination. What we are really

concerned about is how does the motor test? And I

think this is going to be one of the key issues.

I hope we get into discussions of the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 116

certification of laboratories. I am certain ACtriple-E is very much concerned that we have good

certification of test procedures, good

certification of those conducting the test

procedures.

There is also I think a need for

independent verifiable groups to do testing;

Underwriters Laboratories, there are a number of

laboratories in Canada that currently already have

capability.

One of our concerns is the lack of

capability to do independent testing in the United

States,a nd I think that is something that this

activity is going to need to address.

MR. RABA: Thank you very much, Neal.

Other discussion, comments, or statements?

DR. GALOWIN: Larry Galowin.

Could I put a question? Why the heavy

emphasis on independent testing laboratories if a

lab has been found by a third party objective

organization, such as NVLAP, to be competent to

perform the test method and has correct procedure

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 117

that we inquire under.

I so guide 58 separate independent

organizations, so that there is no improper

influence on test results by the testing

laboratory.

MR. ELLIOTT: If I may respond -- Neal

Elliott, AC-triple-E.

From our standpoint, it is an issue of

markets rather than facts. My experience has been

the motor manufacturers do a very good job of

testing.

Unfortunately I think dealing with a lot

of people out there in the marketplace from a

consumer standpoint, there is a need for somebody.

to be able to go out there and have that motor

tested by an individual third party, which I think

benefits the motor manufacturers, because it

actually reemphasizes the fact that they are doing

a credible job.

If there is not a mechanism to do

independent testing from an independent third

party, disinterested third party, there is always a

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 118

potential to question the credibility of that

testing done by that manufacturer.

DR. GALO,WIN: May I just add a comment?

Larry Galowin.

I understand where you are coming from. I

have no fundamental deep problem.

I do have a problem, though, with the fact

of interim qualification, and that is any testing

laboratory be accredited.

From our prospective at NVLAP -- and I am

sure I speak for 200 accreditation bodies -- we

generally don't care whether there is an

accreditation program beyond that that uses the

data, but the certification program -- in this case

DOE's interest in the regulation rulemaking -- is

to make sure that the test data comes from a

reliable source, and that source in our mind has to

be an accredited laboratory; be it Canadian, U. S.,

or anywheres in the world, it meets the

requirements to perform the test.

MR. LEVY: Let me ask a question, Larry.

You use the term 'certification program." How do

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 119

you define that?

DR. GALOWIN: Let me'ask if Valerie can

help me.

We at NVLAP are an accredited body, test

method on the standard and do very in-depth -- more

I could give on that.

A certification program goes beyond that.

Somehow or other, it uses some sort of methodology.

It could be a laboratory, could be a visit to a

laboratory, could walk in and walk out, just kind

of check as in the plumbing industry in the United

States, and say we certify the product.

Now, what prohibits them from doing it,

certifying it? It is the liability issue. That is

the only constraint. Of course, in some other

regulated areas, there are civil penalties, jail

and so on.

But we distinguish, at least in NVLAP we

have avery narrow focus only on accredited

laboratories.

If someone wants to use our laboratories

as test data for the basis of certification, which

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 120

could be a mark that is written, something, that.is

up to them.

Does that try to clarify the distinction?

MR. LEVY: I am not sure you really

answered my question. Let's see what other people

have to say.

MR. RABA: Valerie.

MS. WHELAN : Valerie Whelan, Natural

Resources Canada.

I think Larry has been pretty clear; they

focus on accredited laboratories. The certification

organizations that run certification programs in

general to my knowledge ore CSA, Canadian Standard

Association, and I will bring it into energy

performance, they call their program Energy

Efficiency Verification Service.

You have an equivalent type service, but

those programs go further than just accrediting the

test -- well, they have a number of components.

They initially monitor who applies to that program,

their requirement, setting data for all the product

that would be verified under that. There is an

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 121

initial stage, they take a look at the data, decide

what if how much testing, the sort of occasion it

would require.

Once that process is through,they would

put the products that they manufacture, the

verified would be put in -- I don't know whether to

call it put into their program or listing. They

would be authorized to -- the manufacturer would be

authorized to use that a certifications

organization verification mark on the product•and

not -- the verification mark of the certification

organization is a requirement by current efficiency

regulations. But the programs go further in that

there is an ongoing monitoring in the initial

qualification, there generally is a site visit.

And as part of that site visit, the certification

organization may or would look at the test

facility. They would in a sense do similar type

activity that NVLAP would do in a testing facility.

The organization would carry out a similar type

evaluation of the test facility.

Then as sort of -- I jump forward and back

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET,, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 122

a little bit, that is part of the initial. Then

there is an ongoing on an annual basis that the

certification organization will go in and I guess

verify, they look at the product as well as the

test facility, they would verify the product was

being manufactured still the same way as when they

were initially put into -- initially became part of

the program.

So it's a more -- what we are calling the

energy performance verification program in our

regulations, it is more inclusive than just a test

laboratory accreditation.

DR. GALOWIN: I think that is a very

important point to keep in mind.

In a certification program, you are

looking at the ability to perform generated data

and use data to establish the truthfulness, if I

can use that word, for data for the performance.

In its accreditation, you don't

necessarily tie yourself to that. You look at the

standards and test method by which product is

evaluated and come to the conclusion whether or not

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. •20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 123

the laboratory is competent to perform the test,

test data report that the manufacturer or

regulating body might use.

Now, there is a special uniqueness in the

United States NVLAP. We require proficiency

testing done one or two cycles per year, and they

may or may not use a product.

For example, in the case of electrical

products, you may use electrical motors, special

design, lousy design, purchased off the shelf,

donated, whatever the artifact is intended to test.

But we don't have to use a product. We can submit

an artifact that simply is the capability of the

lab to make an electrical measurement, or taut

measurement. So we selectively in our progress

through the years look through the total depth of

what the laboratory is supposed to do.

The other additional thing, of course, is

traceability, national standards and calibration.

That is a very important component of our procedure

for evaluating a laboratory.

MR. RABA: Thank you, Larry.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 124

David.

MR. HAATAJA: Let me say, because of the

Canadian requirement, the whole concept behind it

was to provide an additional level of competence or

the regulator that the product from a very --

product conforms with requirements of the

regulation. That-is how it works. Our program

relies heavily on a manufacturer's ability to

produce test results.

Also takes a look at that and because --

speaking to Ed, your comments , what's the

difference, the certification -- it is a product,

because of Valerie Whelan's point of view, does the

product conform? What certification means.

To the extent we use test data, certainly

we are looking at a manufacturers test laboratory.

What we do is provide a bridge of confidence from

the manufacturer to the regulator that the product

does in fact perform to regulation. That is what

it is all about. So the service is up there.

Accreditation is a method by which, as NVLAP or

other accreditors in the private sector use, to

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 125

look at the capability of someone to provide

results. Capability to produce test results is not

a certification. That is the big difference. it

doesn't tell you, you know, how to certify a

product.

I would be happy to give you references.

It is just not the same.

It may be a component of that overall

certification product, but as Valerie has

mentioned, in our program results follow up

surveillance, contractual obligation between the

manufacturer and the third party, so.

MR. RABA: Thank you, Dave.

Any other discussion?

I think we have to look at the three

approaches here, three aspects of this, that you

are looking to fulfill the statute; that the

requirements are such that the manufacturer would

certify by means of a compliance statement

certification report -- sorry, wrong point -- that

independent testing certification, that there is

requirement for the manufacturers to certify

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 126

through an independent testing certification

program, nationally recognized in the Untied

States, that such motor meets the applicable

efficiency standard.

There are three aspects. We are starting

to hear these taken altogether. Certification

aspects, who is going to do the certifying, who

will sign their name or company/organization name

to say the motor does comply what is independent

testing or certification. And then what is the

idea behind a nationally recognized program. And

indeed, these may all be tied together.as we are

starting to hear on the table now.

As we consider those, the,first aspect

perhaps is to go back just prior to that to the

compliance area where the EPAct requires

compliance. We are looking at the compliance

programs that are already in place, and their

procedures for certification now, certification

would be requiring each manufacturer or someone to

attest, to certify by means of a compliance

statement and certification report each basic model

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 127

meets the requirements of that standard.

So, indeed, looking at that one component,

at least of these three aspects of this issue, to

understand perhaps who will be doing the

certifying, will it be the manufacturer, will it be

the other person, organization certifying the

product?

And then perhaps go back into the idea of

whoever is verifying that, independent,

manufacturer, procedural matters, so we can look at

that more carefully, peer scrutiny.

Again, entertainment on the idea of

compliance, we are thinking about the manufacturers

in submitting a compliance statement to the

Department. How do people feel about that?

MR. BOTELER: When we were involved with

the legislation back in 1992, when it was being

written, it was the intent of the manufacturers

that we would be the certifying body or certifying

-- we would certify our own product in our own

laboratories through a third party accreditation of

those laboratories.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 128

We hadn't at that time identified who that

third party accrediting body would be. It was our

intent in the discussions that we have had that

compliance would come from the manufacturer and it

would then, I guess, list 113 ratings and 113 basic

models, and the list of nominal efficiency that we

had attained minimal levels, method levels of

energy.

MR. RABA: To this date, do you still see

that fulfilling of the compliance?

MR. BOTELER: Yes.

MR. RABA: In light of the discussion,

too?

MR. BOTELER: Yes.

MR. RABA: Larry.

DR. GALOWIN: Again, just to reflect on

the history of our earlier introduction, this

community of interest, NEMA requested we set up an

accreditation program because we'd satisfy their

earlier request, lighting program. The lighting

program did contain specific language about

accreditation, where with electric motors it did not

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 129

Please correct me if I am wrong.

MR. BOTELER: I will.

DR. GALOWIN: It seems that Rob or some

others, some surveys of potential for satisfying at

least the intent of the legislation was to discuss

with Canadians, with us, and I don't know what

other organization, and that they ultimately made a.

decision that from their perspective, from NEMA and

the instant representatives, that the back-up selfcertification would be, A, in their interest, and

B, in the interest of DOE, to fulfill the intent

and purpose of EPAct.

It is not an unusual role within DOE. DOE

accredited NFRC using taxpayer money when there

were 200 accrediting bodies. It is not unusual for

other departments of the Federal Government to use

NVLAP. HUD uses us in the use of material, its

certifiers can go out to manufacturers and

laboratories to walk in and deal with the

certification size. They don't have to deal any

more with whether there is any lab, because

laboratories must be accredited by NVLAP. They

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 130

have no legislative mandate. They have a rule

legislating decision.

Nuclear assigned asymmetry badges. We ran

an accreditation program for asymmetry badges worn

by workers for radiation, an arbitrary voluntary

decision by the agency, the intended purpose for

which NVLAP was created.

.Came out with Federal Register. All tests

for computers have to be performed in NVLAP

accredited laboratories.

The point is from the rule-making body,

DOE, you are totally free to make in their rule any

decision they choose, even though EPAct does not

call out for an accreditation program. And I think

the purposes of the industry, purposes of the trade

association, purposes of the regulators in my

opinion would be well fulfilled.

The other thing that we have entered into

was the proposition to Standards Council of Canada

through our mutuality, we make NVLAP one program,

one handle.

MR. LEVY: Before you get into that,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 131

Larry, that's on the agenda, but I want to get back

to the question that -- Ed Levy, sorry -- was

addressing.

I take it from your comment that -- and I

didn't hear any disagreement with it from anybody

else -- that the basic approach to compliance

statement and certification that is taken with the

compliance product is a basic approach you would be

comfortable with; is that a fair statement?

MR. BOTELER: Well, compliance -

MR. LEVY: Well, I don't need a yes or no,

chapter and verse, but -

MR. BOTELER: I think'I would also comment

on that, as far as a lab outside of the

manufacturers, be that university lab, be that UL

or some other organization other than the

manufacturers, if that laboratory would go through

the same accreditation process with NVLAP, I would

see benefit of having that for small manufacturers

that maybe don't have laboratory capability, or

maybe a foreign manufacturer that doesn't have an

accreditating body for its laboratory in h is

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
132

country, but he wants the ability to have his

imports and have his product tested, correlation,

substantiated coming from a third-party laboratory

that had gone through a NVLAP accreditation

process.

MR. RABA: Jim Raba. I want to clarify

some more for myself.

The question we are seeking here, the

Department seeks information as to capabilities of

any nationally recognized programs through testing

of motors. In that one clause alone, I think we

need to find out who the qualifications and

capabilities, who they are, what laboratories are

nationally recognized programs, there are many of

them out there. Indeed, we would like to give all

due consideration for the testing of the motors

that again goes to independent'-- at this point of

the discussion, later int he manufacturer, things

like that. But indeed, I want to know the identity

nature and capability of what would constitute a

nationally recognized program for testing motors.

Neal.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 133

MR. ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott, AC-triple-E.

I would call to your attention the

comments by Dick Nailen, he lists what he sees as

independent test laboratories, and based on my

experience, other than motor manufacturer

facilities, that is a pretty inclusive list.

MR. RABA:• Dave.

MR. HAATAJA: You were seeking information

to identify the capability of testing, and you

stopped your sentence there.

MR. RABA: Oh.

MR. HAATAJA: I think that there is quite

a difference between identifying who can be testing

and who can be testing and certifying. As you have

already seen, there is a difference between the

two.

I am curious, did you imply just to be

abl"e to conduct testing, or are you interested in

nationally recognized programs?

MR. RABA: Jim Raba.

I should qualify further, I was afraid we

were trying to take on too much in one discussion,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 134

but rather break it into usable parts.

Your point is very well taken. Indeed,

maybe we should go back and take all three

together, testing, testing and certification, and

other -- or just for certification of those tests.

I think the first part would be testing. It might

be good to see what capabilities there are to the

test, and then testing and certifying, and then

activities that would certify or accredit others to

perform other activities, too.

Carl.

MR. ADAMS: Carl Adams.

I guess part of our difficulty here is

EPAct products, it seems each product is written in

the statute a little differently; whereas, in

residential products, we are more used to dealing

with there's one program and all the products.

MR. RABA: It is-more consistent.

Sort of the interpretation that we have

been getting from general counsel and looking at

the statute is that of the EPAct products. The

only one we were really looking at, the statute

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 135

requiring accredited laboratories, was in lighting,

Rob. 'Your intent when you were getting involved

with the legislation, essentially that would be the

same thing. In lighting, it talks about an account

shall prescribe test procedures carried out by

accredited test laboratories. I mean, that is

pretty clear. We have taken the approach that the

NVLAP accreditation of laboratories would fulfill

that. Yet when we go to the motors it manufactures

to certify through independent testing are

certification program nationally recognized, "we

have been sort of looking at that as being

different from accrediting the laboratories,

talking about the certification program for

independent testing program. Although I guess,

again going back to your statement, Rob, it sounds

like what you were interested in was having testing

done probably by the manufacturer in their

accredited laboratory and those results reported

through some certification program that perhaps

NEMA would administer, such as maybe a

certification program for water heaters or

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 136

furnaces?

MR. ATKINS: Ted Atkins.

I would like to respond to that and Rob

and I were very active in that. It was supposed to

come out just like the lighting where we had

accredited lamps that the more manufacturers would

in their accredited laboratories be able to certify

that the ratings that we put on motors were indeed

accurate. And that would be done by a responsible

individual within our corporations, but tested at

an accredited laboratory.

MR. BOTELER: We did this two years ago.

We didn't know nearly as much as we. know now. In

fact, we are doing things today where we use some

of these terms. We now are very careful, we use

the term accredited to talk about our laboratory,

certified to talk about our product. And two and

a-half years ago we had no idea what the difference

between those terms was.

We were on one mindset and we were back

and forth with faxes and phone calls in the

eleventh hour recommending language which sometimes

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 137

came out exactly as we recommended it and sometimes

it didn't.

I think that is part of what you have got

there is maybe what we had in mind and what came

out on a piece of paper isn't exactly the way it

sounds today.

MR. ADAMS: Carl Adams again.

You understand we have to deal with the

words here --

MR. BOTELER: Yes.

MR. ADAMS: -- and try to mold whatever

the program is to say that we are in compliance

with what's written here, because that is what we

get held to.

MR. BOTELER: Right.

MR. ADAMS: So I guess we are groping to

need some advice as to how we can structure this

program and still legally meet what is written here

as far as independent testing or certification

program, and as to whether or not accredited

laboratories by nationally recognized accreditation

program meets that requirement or not.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 138

MR. LEVY: Or how it fits.

MR. ADAMS: Semantically it seems like a

stretch.

MR. LEVY: How it fits into that.

MR. PITSOR: Kyle Pitsor, NEMA.

Would they have a testing program that

verifies manufacturer certification of the

efficiency rules?

NEMA does not conduct any such

verification program, testing program, for motors

or for any other electrical bodies.

MR. ADAMS: And you would not propose to

do so?

MR. PITSOR: We have no discussion setting

up NEMA programs to verify programs.

MR. BOTELER: Further to that, we haven't

said we were going to do that. It was never the

intent to do that, but in the conversations, we

have been asked that question by people and that's

not something NEMA is capable of doing.

MR. KLINE: I would like to ask that same

question of Valerie in Canada, who are the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 139

nationally recognized laboratory test departments?'

And how are they recognized? And who recognizes

them?

MS. WHELAN: Valerie Whelan.

I am going to have to choose my words

carefully. Eventually they get very confusing.

In Canada, the standards Council of Canada

has the mandate to accredit testing laboratories,

but they also accredit certification organizations.

It is a different accreditation for those two

levels. So Larry Galowin has mentioned the

agreements between Standard Council of Canada and

NIST, in terms of mutual recognition of each

other's accreditation, that is at the testing

laboratory level, because there is no equivalent on

the NIST side.

If we are talking about the accredited

testing laboratories, nationally recognized testing

laboratories in. Canada, the facility will be

accredited by it.

MR. KLINE: Fisk?

MS. WHELAN: To my knowledge, that is the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 140

only one that has actual accrediting.

There is the other laboratory which is

Ortech. Ortech comes in because Ortech is the

reference laboratory Canadian Standard Organization

uses for their older energy efficiency verification

service.

Now, Ortech does not have accreditation

from the Standard Council of Canada, however, and

we really -- I know this is confusing -- Ortech is

not accredited from the Standard Council of Canada.

However, the Canadian Standards Association is

accredited by the Standard Council of Canada, not

only as a -- their testing laboratories have that

accreditation, but the Canadian Standards

Organization accredited as an accrediting

organization in Canada.

Now, as part of the criteria for the

certification organizations, it specifies that any

test facility that would be used by the

certification organization would have to meet the

accredited test, the accredited test laboratory

requirements of SEC.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
141

Now, I don't know if I have confused

everyone here. Therefore -- I guess I could say

one thing, although the Ortech Laboratory motor

testing laboratory doesn't have specific --

Canadian Standard Association will have evaluated

their laboratory and for their purposes, would

consider that laboratory would meet those

accreditation requirements.

MR. RABA: So essentially --

MR. KLINE: Joe Kline.

So you have an accreditation.

MR. BALDUCCI: We went through this in

February, the way they, SEC, said CSA that we

accredit you to certify electric motors that meet

the performance energy criteria.

But in that CSA said we need a laboratory tested as

well in case we want to pull a motor from a

laboratory,we need to test it.

SEC wrapped that all together and said we

are giving you the authority. If you can say that

you want to use that laboratory, it is still on

your certification name and everything, that that

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 142

laboratory is the one you are using.

So CSA is still held liable for the

certification, and SEC didn't get involved with

Ortech.

Now, with the other laboratory and its

LTEE, they went out separate and accredited LTEE.

So it is kind of a little bit of a different scope,

of SEC scope, because they didn't want to pick up

liability with Ortech.

Could it have gone to but they chose to

use Ortech, just the way it came out.

MR. RABA: Dave.

MR. HAATAJA: We are accredited by Canada

as an organization with regard to energy

performance verification testing; it is stated the

accreditation organization is the requirement that

although our verification service seems to be

acceptable to the regulators in the country, that's

simply how it works.

So what we have to do as part of our

program, which we take a look at the -- get the

wording correctly -- we look at the manufacturer's

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C . 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 143

production and testing operation and how we

evaluate representative samples with regard to

certification requirements, so the statements made

by the certification organization must look at

testing capabilities of a manufacturer for

compliance with the 'Canadian requirements as

accurate, you still have to look at laboratories,

too.

In Canada, what they said, in other words,

to have the necessary level of confidence that a

motor is in compliance with their energy

performance requirements, they thought that a third

party certification was the way to go. That was

their decision.

We simply came in and said we have a

service that could utilize manufacturers in

conjunction with the independent nature of the

party that provides additional level of competence.

So the question that leaves on the table

is what does DOE want? We talked about

manufacturers doing the testing having accredited

laboratories. Whether or not you need third party -

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 144

certification or rely, the two aren't exclusive.

The two can co - exist.

The only thing I would mention is that

accreditation does not buy the confidence of

someone who knows how to run a certification

operation. They are not the same. They are just

not the same thing. There is a whole different set

of requirements to know whether someone knows how

to certify something ; those would be apples and

oranges.

That is my only comment.

MR. RABA: Thank you.

Speak up, Lenora.

MS. BERMAN : The program we set up for a

certification program., I know it has been

mentioned in the handout by Richard Nailen with

regard to our facility in Northbrook, yes, we do

have capability internally. We did set that up not

as a means to meet the regulations,but as service

to manufacturers , to motivate , to do preliminary

testing.

Also our program is covering not just

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 145

motors, but 25 other products. We have had

manufacturers ask us to do preliminary testing, air

conditioning manufacturers or water heaters.

As far as a compliance with like 112,

CSA390, it is there and Richard Nailen had spoken

negatively on that. I am not sure where he had

gotten that opinion. As far as I know, he hasn't

been in our facility.

MR. RABA: Larry -- I am sorry.

Kyle, go ahead.

MR. PITSOR: EPAct conferees indicated to

the Secretary to try to work together with the

Canadian and Mexican Governments, to try to seek

privatization with respect to the programs,

indicated harmonization will simplify enforcement,

reduce impediments to the trade.

MR. LEVY: What are you reading from?

MR. PITSOR: EPAct.

I know the Department members were meeting

with folks in Canada to try to work for

harmonization efforts.

I wonder if there is any views the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 146

Department can comment on relative to their ability

to endorse or recognize the foreign government

program as meeting compliance requirements in EPAct

relative to the independent testing certification

activities?

MR. MARGOLIS: Do you mean that all of the

motor manufacturers would then have to go to a

foreign country to have all of the testing done?

MR. PITSOR: No, I am not meaning that.

MR. MARGOLIS: Then can you go over what

you mean? Because that is what I thought you said.

MR. PITSOR:, For instance, with respect to

manufacturers being able to comply with motor

requirements in Canada, they are already in the

process of being required to meet EPAct levels and

will be certified as having done so through the

Canadian mechanism.

I am wondering whether the Canadian

mechanism is a mechanism that U. S. Government's

Department of Energy rulemaking can reference as

one means to satisfy these requirements.

MR. MARGOLIS: To satisfy the Canadian

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 147

requirements, doesn't that mean the motor

manufacturers have to be tested by that testing

organization in Canada?

MS. WHELAN: I will speak a little bit to

that.

Our requirement in our regulation doesn't

-- we don't specifically reference a particular

certification or organization, or specify a

particular Canadian organization. Our regulation

requires -- well, there are actually two

requirements in terms of the verification. One is

the energy performance of the product that has been

verified by a certification organization that is

accredited by the Standard Council of Canada. Now,

that doesn't have to be a Canadian organization.

ULI is accredited by Standard Council of Canada,

Association in Canada. But it is not limited to

Canadian organizations. And the second requirement

is that that certification organization must

administer an energy performance verification

program because just accreditation as certification

organization doesn't mean that they actually run a

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 148

program. So those two requirements go together.

It has to be an accredited certification

organization that runs a program.

MR. MARGOLIS : The second point , does that

mean that that organization will do the testing to

determine what the energy efficiency of the motor

is? If not , who would do it?

MS. WHELAN : Okay, I will let Dave

comment.

MR. HAATAJA: The simple and"direct answer

to your question is no , it does not require the

certification organization to do all the testing.

I read into your statement, in-house, they

have recognized Underwriting Laboratories program,

which relied on the manufacturer ' s testing

capability inside the manufacturer's facility as

part of our performance certification program.

MR. MARGOLIS : So you would allow in-house

testing if that manufacturer has been okayed, has

been accredited?

DR. GALOWIN : No. UL, they signed a

contract to perform this. ULI through its

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 149

procedures and members go into that manufacturer's

facility for several purposes. One of the purposes

is to find out is it -- I will use the term loosely

-- accredited type capability of the lab. There

are certain other things they do to the product

because they are eventually going to certify

production line.

In that laboratory, they now feel

comfortable with personnel traceability to National

Standards, et cetera. They will then oversee the

tests presumably with specialists of.that

laboratory. On the basis of the test measurements,

they will then verify that performance of the motor

meets Canadian requirements.

MR. LEVY: Ed Levy.

With whom does ULI have a contract?

You said ULI has a contract. With whom?

DR. GALOWIN: Any company that wants to

have it.

MR. MARGOLIS: Eugene Margolis.

What do you mean by overseeing the test?

MR. HAATAJA: The program of utilizing

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 150

manufacturers' laboratories is by no means new. I

have every confidence manufacturers in this room

are -- name we use.for it -- which means that we

understand manufacturers have laboratories have

expertise, have the ability to conduct tests,

capability to conduct tests. And with UL

conducting its due diligence, we can utilize that

test data in a certification program, that -- in

broad terms, that is what it means.

The fact that IG's also doing energy

performance verification program really is nothing

new. It is the same situation. You have to have

confidence in the manufacturer's capability to

produce that test.

MR. MARGOLIS: But the manufacturer is

doing the testing. You are overseeing it and you

are certifying that everything was done properly.

It is still that overseeing to me is very

ambiguous. It could be that you pick the products,

the random sampling of products, you are there when

they do the measurements, you are watching what

measurements are being taken to see if the times

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 151

that it should be done are done, that the numbers

are recorded properly; or "you could be overseeing"

could also mean you are there and they pick -- the

random manufacturer picks the sample; therefore,

question whether it is a random sample or not, what

kind of product it is. Is it a product that was

specifically made to be tested and not coming off

an assembly line? I mean, you could be

rubberstamping, too.

I don't know what -- the word "overseeing"

is a very ambiguous term in my opinion.

MR. HAATAJA: I don't want to prolong the

conversation in front of this group, but I

understand how that term can be ambiguous.

I have every confidence that we could

explain how that is an active involved process and

not a passive one. I would be happy to discuss it

in front of this whole group. I don't have

materials with me, but we certainly have moved

somewhat away from the topic at hand, how do you

actually go about this business of oversight.

I will refer to the leader here, how you

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 152

performing that certification of the product line.

Is that not true?

MR. HAATAJA: I wouldn't characterize it

in that fashion. IT is the product coming off the

line that is bearing the mark that says "We have

taken a look at the energy performance on it and

have verified it is in conformance with the

requirements." It is not a program that says

something about -- Ii mean, it is not designed to

say that we have certified the manufacturer's

production line. It is an issue of an actual

product.

want to handle that.

MR. RABA: Thank you, Dave.

MR. ATKINS: Ted Atkins.

Would you consider you were certifying

when you do the testing and verification you are

doing? I would think what you are doing is sayin

well, we are certifying these manufacturers'

product lines, we tested, we verified that their

accuracies are being held. And so you are

MR. ATKINS: That is what I was saying.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 153

So it is certifying an actual product?

MR. HAATAJA: Yes, sir.

Additional components of the certification

program, which is a follow-up mechanism, which

means there is a continuous audit of continued

performance which is part and parcel --it is not

the case of all certification programs.

MR. MARGOLIS: When you say "certifying a

product," are you certifying that the one motor

that you are testing has an energy efficiency of X

amount, or are you certifying that the entire line

has an energy efficiency of X amount?

MR. HAATAJA: I don't have the paper work

before me. Perhaps someone can help me out.

When you start talking about a

certification program, as soon as you talk about

what is representative of what, the mark on the

product means the product h as been found to be in

conformance with requirement.

Now, as in any certification program, it

is still an audit-based system, audit inasmuch as

it is not 100 percent.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 154

The manufacturer that enters into service

with UL has contractual obligations continuing to

make the product as we originally tested it. We

have to get into the legalities of what the

certification is, who bears liability, and as

someone fast walking down corridors,.I am not

prepared to talk on those issues. I would have to

bring my counsel in here if we get into that

discussion.

MR. MARGOLIS: But this morning, Mark

Perlis said that the sample, that he wanted the

sample to be of five units, and being of five

units, he went down to 90 percent confidence, based

on five units.

When you do your testing, you are only

testing one unit. Do you test -- if you are doing

for energy efficiency, would you be testing five

units? Or would you just take that one unit that

came down that you picked out to be tested and say

that unit and only that unit is what you are

referring to as an energy efficiency of X, or

exceeds the minimum efficiency standard?

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 155

MR. HAATAJA: The answer lies in how the

regulation comes out.

The only thing third-party certification

would provide is confidence the product is in

conformance with regulation.

If your regulation talks about each and

every model regardless of basic model -- I am

saying the point is we will follow the regulation -

MR. MARGOLIS: Okay.

MR. HAATAJA: -- in Canada, what will

satisfy your regulation with our service.

Otherwise, you know -

MR. LEVY:. Ed Levy.

In other words, in a nutshell, what you

are saying is what you will certify is that the

regulation has been complied with, that is what you

are doing?

MR. HAATAJA: That is the requirement,

yes.

MR. BALDUCCI: Anthony Balducci.

That gets back to a point that gets back

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 156

to what we were talking about earlier,, the

manufacturers testing motors, who is testing,

certifying the motor is what it is. And it gets

back to the point Mark was talking about, earlier

regarding this alternative method.

We are going through an accredited lab,

not accredited labs, certifying labs, certified

product. Where we get into -- we are saying that

we are not going to do testing , only the result.

The main testing we are going to be doing is to

prove out this alternative method.

If we do a -- this is very hypothetical,

thinking about this as we were going through this -

- if the manufacturers do a testing to prove out

their alternative method through a third party test

lab that we see an example mentioned in Dick

Nailen's document , then IEL -- say Rob sends his

five , or ten, or fifteen motors to IEL to test them

out, and-they come out and they test out within the

limits as set forth in the alternative. method.

Now, this is the question I pose to manufacturers

and NEMA: What would you suggest is involved,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002.

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 157

accreditation involved in testing? Because he has

proven to me he can build the motors as he

predicted in his correlation or in his alternative

method.

So what means does he have or the

manufacturer have to test more motors, because they

have proven they can predict what they can build in

their facility.

This is something -- it is a completely

different can of worms I have opened up here. You

understand the majority -- this is taken from what

Mark said earlier -- the majority of the motors

that are to be manufactured and sold is going to be

from this prediction or alternative method. Just

something like I said, something I came up with

while sitting here.

I may be delirious with jet lag, but that

is where it is coming from.

MR. ATKINS: Ted Atkins.

I want to go back to what I said earlier;

I don't think the issue is how we put the

efficiency rating -- how we determine the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002.

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 158

efficiency. rating we put on the product, what we

put on as being accurate.

MR. BALDUCCI: That's my point exactly.

MR. ATKINS: And the issue shouldn't be

how we accomplish that, an alternative method or

not. Really that is not your concern. Your

concern is, is the product as efficient as we rated

for?

MR. BALDUCCI: Well, my concern -- Anthony

Balducci -- as well as everybody here, we have to

go by EPAct. I mean, EPAct says nationally

recognized -- let me see that.

MR. MARGOLIS: That is testing as to

accuracy, has nothing-to do with the method of

accomplishing what is on the nameplate.

MR. BALDUCCI: Regarding the certification

of the nameplates, though, you need to understand

where it is coming from if you have a third party

certifying.

MR. MARGOLIS: It says "recognized in the

United States as an independent testing

certification laboratory." Those are the words.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 159

DR. GALOWIN: It has nothing to do with

method.

Any laboratory, whatever its intended purpose,

whether it's to verify the prediction method,

certify, or anything else, must have certain

capability. That capability, as far as this

position is, in I think United States and most

countries of the world, have to be traceable to

National Standards.

Now, I don't know, Dave could probably

tell us how he may or may not accomplish that.

We require it. It is one of the things

that the assessors go in to determine what they

have done.

Sample, Joseph's injunction, make an

electrical measurement. Basic principles, anybody

making an electrical measurement in the United

States has to have traceability on the regulating

side back to the National Standards held by and

controlled by NIST. It is a reference, national

reference, tracing lab; weights and measures if it

is length, time, fundamental.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 160

If you go to a laboratory and you are

going to make sure that the data that you are

getting, whether it be for certification,

verification, your own use or some else's use, you

need an accredited lab. It should be a NVLAP

accredited laboratory with only unique proficiency

testing that tells you whether or not that

laboratory compared to its peers, and in some cases

compared to a reference lab, can perform the

measurement.

We look for outliers. We don't want to

don't want to do that; we want to get them to find

the problem, correct it, and get into that..

So whatever your intended purpose

ultimately, you know you people in the field, we

alerted. They may use their accreditation.

kick them out, we want them to cluster data with

the same modus, the same set of conditions as

prescribed by the standard, come out with some

reasonable acceptable test methods that are set up

generally by ASEM for outliers.

When we have outliers, the labs are

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 161

have this unfortunate responsibility, say "how did

you rule." I think you should have a program that

the industry came together on, worked very hard on,

reinvested resources for a year and a-half, even

paid for DOE rep to go to Canada to start this

process on the accreditation side, we made a heavy

investment.

If I fail to get you people to be

convinced, I don't think we will ever cooperate

with DOE again and we will write this up in

council.

You cannot run a cost-effective program

unless you have enough laboratories. There are not

enough laboratories. And NIST is going to have to

subsidize it and DOE subsidize if you want a decent

program.

MR. MARGOLIS: I understand your

statements, and that's fine. I am not taking it as

a threat. I'm not taking it as that.

I am going by the statute, which says

"Independent testing certification." The

accreditation is supplemental to that. No one is

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 162

saying at DOE that the laboratories should not be

accredited.

DR. GALOWIN: That is my point.

MR. MARGOLIS: I mean in the compliance

program, we went and allowed in-house testing. I

mean, that could be right now completely wrong,

because we don't know that one manufacturer's test

conditions are the same as another manufacturer's,

and so they.can come out with different numbers and

still say they are right. But I agree with you

that the accreditation of the laboratory'is really

fundamental to any testing. And I don't think

anyone in DOE doesn't agree with you.

But that still does not -- if we accredit

say all the manufacturers, say NIST accredits to

NVLAP to all the manufacturers, that still does not

lead to an independent testing certification

program.

The accreditation is supplemental and it

should be done, but still we have to have -

Congress put it in there, I mean, "to an

independent testing certification program

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002.

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 163

nationally recognized in the United States," it

doesn't say nationally recognized in Germany or in

Japan.

Now, if Mark, as you said you negotiated

with -- you know, it was the intent to mean

something else, that's okay. But unless there is

legislative history to show -- these words are

unambiguous.

MR. PERLIS: I don't think I have ever

seen any statute that is completely unambiguous,

certainly not in the Energy Policy Act Energy

Efficiency Program. But be that as it may, you are

putting proper focus on the words here.

I think the word "certification" need not

be viewed solely as meaning certification in the

sense in which Canada uses certification, or

certification program doesn't necessarily mean the

program by which the manufacturer trials, perjury

statement.

MR. MARGOLIS: Right.

MR. PERLIS: "Certify" I think means that

you have a perjury statement by somebody that the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 164

products do in fact meet the requirements, so if

you don't have the perjury requirement, at least

some requirement there that you meet the energy

efficiency standards.

So you have a dysjunction here. You have

independent testing, or you have a certification

program nationally recognized.

Independent testing everybody has always

assumed meant testing by other than the

manufacturer's own lab. So the alternative has to

be an alternative to nonmanufacturer testing.

Manufacturers could either go to somebody

excludes, as alternative to independent testing was

intended to provide some method by which the

manufacturers could do their own testing.

MR. MARGOLIS: But you are reading that.

You are not taking -- you say independent testing

on one side and certification on another?

else to test, that is what the statute requires -

you don't even have to be accredited or certified

by anybody. Exist as an independent entity. So

the certification program language I think fairly

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

,(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 165

MR. PERLIS: No. Certification'-

testing and independent certification.

MR. PERLIS: Right. And what -

MR. MARGOLIS: I am saying independent

MR. MARGOLIS: You are leaving out the

word "independent" under -

MR. PERLIS: "Independent" only modifies

"testing." It doesn't modify "certification."

"Certify" is the verb. "Certify" either

means that it was tested, but it doesn't mean the

manufacturer goes to an independent laboratory, the

manufacturer's own lab signs the perjury statement

you now require for any or all other products.

The statute provides an alternative

certified through a certification program

nationally recognized in the United States.

MR. MARGOLIS: I disagree with you,

because of the "or." I think it is independent

testing or independent certification.

MR. PERLIS: I don't mind if you attach

the word "independent" to the word "certification

program" if you wish to apply that as well. I

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 166

don't read it that way, but even assuming that that

is the way -- assume that the statute says

"independent testing" or "independent

certification," I would suggest the "independent

certification program" would still be intended to

provide a mechanism under which the manufacturer

could do its own testing. It would have to go

through some independent certification program to

get there.

MR. MARGOLIS: But there isn't any.

MR. PERLIS: There isn't any only if you

have used-certification" in a very narrow way.

But there is no reason why, if you went to the

English dictionary "certification" and

"accreditation" couldn't be synonyms. And a court

looking at this might very well reason that, oh,

well, if there are laboratory accreditation

programs, or even if there are programs that UL

runs in their own internal working by contract, but

it is nationally recognized, that that would meet

it.

MR. MARGOLIS: Right, I agree with that.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 167

MR. PERLIS: "Nationally recognized

program" could be UL, but it has to have some

meaning, and the meaning has to be ultimately to

allow the manufacturer to use its own lab.

If we are all agreed that that is what the

statute means, then I think the rest of the

discussion you can figure out a way to get to

whatever result you want here.

I am not sure what the result is that you

wind up with. I am not privy to a lot of the offstage discussion about NVLAP's role vis-a-vis the

Energy Policy Act, Energy Efficiency Program. But

it seems as, long as you permit manufacturers to do

their own testing, so long as they meet either A,

B, or C, you now call "independent certification

program," fine. You can call it NVLAP

certification or what you will.

I would even suggest you could call the

Canadian or any North American experience

independent program recognized in the United

States, because all U. S. manufacturers that have

to go meet Canadian requirements, I dare say they

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 168

make up at least 50 percent of the market there.

MR. MARGOLIS: Now let's talk about UL for

a moment.

When you say "certification," "independent

certification," and they can go to UL, does that

mean that all of the manufacturers will enter into

contracts with UL?

MR. PERLIS: I think -- again, I am

speaking for myself, NEMA hasn't yet really taken a

position on this precise point -- I don't think the

manufacturers are looking to narrow the choices and

narrow the flexibility. Today, because of the

Canadian experience and just because of the way the

system has developed, there are a number of

established organizations that have monitored a

manufacturer's own lab. UL experience, which we

heard, and there is the NVLAP experience we have

heard.

It just seems to me it might be prudent to

try to read the statute as permitting

manufacturer's to follow either course, that has

been nationally recognized. By "nationally

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 169

recognized," recognized by DOE. "Recognized" means

you can put it in the regulation.

Assuming it means prevalent practice in

the country at the time the statute is passed, you

have two prevalent practices, ways the lab got

approved for purposes of testing. That is what

this is all about. One was called NVLAP

accreditation, the other was called certification

program that happens to be run either independently

or under the auspices of this Canadian regime.

Probably has independent basis. So that is what I

am saying.

Let's try not to -- maybe we can avoid

some interfacing battle or disagreement -- not

"battle," just "disagreement" -- over who had what

authority under a statute. Instead, try to read

the statute to permit manufacturers to continue to

use their own labs for their own testing, so long

as those labs went through a program, went through

a course of action that prior to this statute had

been recognized as an approving of the laboratory.

That could be either NVLAP certification or UL type

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 170

process, or perhaps there are other processes out

there as well.

MR. LEVY: Ed Levy, DOE.

I have a question about something. I

understood some of the participants earlier to

state that there is a difference between an

accreditation and a certification program. Do you

disagree with that?

MR. PERLIS: In their own terminology, in

their own organizations, under NVLAP charter so to

speak, when you read its manuals, "accreditation"

means something different than what in Canada under

the Canadian system is meant by "certification."

And as we have just heard from the Canadian

regulator, "certification" and "accreditation" mean

different things in the Canadian system.

What I am suggesting is that for the

purpose of reading this statute, we are not bound

by what Canada does and how Canada treats

accreditation versus certification.

Instead, this clause should be read as a

mechanism under which manufacturers can use their

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 171

own laboratories to do testing. And you can't just

do it because you have your own laboratory. You

have to have that lab approved; i.e., approved

meaning "certification program." That can be by

various means.

NVLAP certification could be one, and any

program that meets Canada could be two. Maybe any

nationally recognized -- you would recognize

national laboratories that run certification

programs. If you wrote the regulation that way, it

probably covers everything UL does and no judge

would say UL doesn't perform such certification

program.

Yet these manufacturers do not run

certification; they don't run a national program.

MR. MARGOLIS: Let's get away from

certification. That may be harder. It says

"through an independent testing program."

Now, when you talk about an independent

testing program, I took that to mean something like

ETL or an independent laboratory who would do a

testing for a manufacturer. However, I am throwing

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 172

out what about NVLAP that accredits laboratories.

Now, is there some way that that accreditation of

laboratories do mode of testing, because they just

don't accredit a laboratory; it is a laboratory to

do a specific item, or specific thing. So

therefore that could be the independent testing is

the NVLAP accreditation saying that that is.-- that

is the program, that's the independent testing

program; NVLAP has okayed these manufacturers to do

testing.

MR. PERLIS : That sounds like a very

creative reading. I think it is probably not what

the drafters -- not what the manufacturers involved

in the drafting had in mind, but it might be a

reasonable reading of -- you are getting to the

same result I am suggesting.

MR. MARGOLIS: Right.

MR. PERLIS: That is that the

manufacturers wanted to be able to use their own

laboratories.

MR. MARGOLIS: Right. That is always --

what about do all the manufacturers agree? I mean,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 173

want to be NVLAP certified?

MR. PERLIS: What the manufacturers also

were concerned with, both then and remain concerned

with, is they didn't want the situation, a statute

may argue it doesn't permit a situation where a

manufacturer can purely certify based on its own

use of the laboratory's own say so, that the

laboratory is accurate. Arguably you can do that

with some of the other --

MR. MARGOLIS: I am saying with the,

manufacturers.

MR. PERLIS: What the manufacturers are

concerned with is foreign imports that on some

importers' say so are certified as being in

compliance with the law because they were tested in

ah laboratory some way.

MR. MARGOLIS: Not being approved by

NVLAP. So that testing --

MR. PERLIS: That is one of the reasons

why the manufacturers have been accepting of a

NVLAP role here, NVLAP has a positive role to play

in that context. Any third party recognized --

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
' arc II 174

MR. MARGOLIS: But my concern is to the -

I don't want to have, say there are 50

manufacturers and only 30 belong to NEMA and the 30

that belong to NEMA want to be certified by NVLAP,

the other 20 don't. And then they might be forced,

under our provisions, our regulations then be

forced to join NEMA.

MR. PERLIS: NEMA has no --

DR. GALOWIN: No.

MR. MARGOLIS: No, I am just saying that

hypothetically, that's why I wanted known how many

more than that -- do they all want to belong, want

to be accredited by NVLAP?

MR. RABA: Rhetorical question.

Neal.

MR. ELLIOTT: What is a rhetorical

question?

I want to know the number.

MR. RABA: Can we ask? It is a commercial

matter.

MR. MARGOLIS: Yes, we can. If there are

manufacturers, many manufacturers that don't want

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
175

to belong to

MR. RABA: I understand that.

MR. MARGOLIS : -- therefore we would be

creating a problem.

MR. RABA: But I think we agree if we

create a problem , we want to avoid that right up

front and don't want to limit a manufacturer's

opportunity to find other ways to fulfill the

statute.

MR. MARGOLIS : What other ways are there

to fulfill?

DR. GALOWIN: The other is -- not of NEMA,

that has nothing to do with NVLAP, or foreign

manufacturers . They have a means to accredit their

-- not to accredit, to certify their product.

MR. MARGOLIS: Right. That is what I

asked before about when he said the item, and I was

wondering is it one item then he said whatever the

regulations said ? So if you have to do a five unit

sample, then you could be considered a nationally

recognized program for, say, either testing

certification. And then we could take the NVLAP

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 176

program and say that that is for testing.

DR. GALOWIN: For accrediting of

laboratories.

MR. MARGOLIS: Accrediting of laboratories

to do the mode of testing.

DR. GALOWIN: Right.

MR. MARGOLIS: Not just accrediting.

DR. GALOWIN: Let us not forget'it was

only one laboratory. If there were 25 motors from

each manufacture, I don't know how many dynamiters

that lab has, but there are a couple of years of

testing.

MR. MARGOLIS: That's why we want to do

in-house testing.

MR. LEVY: Thank you.

MR. ELLIOTT: I think we have to accept

reality here. I will speak here from the

standpoint I was director of the IEL when we set up

the motor test lab, which now, with UL, is the only

two independent test labs in the United States.

Optimistically that facility can test 150 motors a

year, assuming nothing breaks, I mean.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002.

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 177

I think we have a reality problem we are

going to face if you read the statute in a very

restrictive manner. There is no nationally

recognized certification program that exists right

now. There is no capability for independent

testing in the United States right now. Those are

physical realities.

MR. MARGOLIS: You mean independent like

ATF?

MR. ELLIOTT: IEL test lab -- and I don't

know whether UL is willing to do this, but that to

my knowledge is the only high production testing

laboratory, and they aren't interested in doing

this, I can tell you.

We are faced with a real problem here.

The only capability to do independent tests or to

do testing in the United States in large volumes is

to use manufacturers' test facilities. They

currently -- there is no current agreed-upon

accreditation program that is required out there.

We have a program, NVLAP, that does accreditation,

and everybody seems to agree the NVLAP, program is a

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 178

good program.

MR. MARGOLIS: All I am saying is I am

doing what you want by reading "independent

testing" to mean NVLAP.

MR. ELLIOTT: That's fine.

MR. MARGOLIS: I want to find out if all

the manufacturers of motors are in agreement to use

that accreditation, because it costs money for the

manufacturers and maybe there are some

manufacturers of five, they don't want to spend

that money. Therefore -- or for some other reason.

MR. ELLIOTT: Still I think you are going

to be forced to look at reality that either they

are going to have to have their facility be

accredited in order to comply with EPAct, or they

are going to have to turn to some external

organization to test their product.

MR. BALDUCCI: Which is also accredited.

MR. ELLIOTT: Which is also accredited,

which is going to cost them money, so there is a

cost of accreditation here, I mean a cost of

compliance.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 179

MR. MARGOLIS: Are there manufacturers who

don't want to be accredited by NVLAP?

It seems that what you are doing is you

are saying, well, we don't want to give you that

information. Maybe there are some. Because you

are not willing to tell us.

MR. BOTELER: We are willing to tell you -

- Rob Boteler.

We are willing to tell you that in the

NEMA Task Force, the consensus is we are

comfortable with the NVLAP program.

We can't speak for a foreign laboratory or

a laboratory not a member.

MR. ELLIOTT: How about number of members?

In my consensus, what percent of the marketplace is

represented by those sitting around this table, 90

percent?

MR. CROUSE: You look at the wording you

are reading of independent testing or independent

accreditation, there are a couple of ways. of going

through this. Independent testing by UL or others

outright doing the testing, that would apply to

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

5.07 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 180

independent accreditations through a NVLAP program

where they verify manufacturers' labs or

independent accreditation laboratories, UL, are

doing for the Canadian program to review, do some

independent testing to make them comfortable.

There are a couple of ways of going

through that. Certainly it is not to say that is

the only way of accomplishing the independent

accreditation. There could be other programs that

could be put together.

I don't think there are right now; NVLAP

has done a lot of work putting together a manual

pertinent to this. No matter h ow you look at

this, independent testing or the version of

independent accreditation, it is going to cost a

manufacturer a fair sum of money no matter what you

do. There definitely is not a free ride in any of

this.

DR. GALOWIN:. May I add to that, there

already is, if DOE recognizes the mutual

recognition agreement between Canada's Council,

they've recognized there should be considered a

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002.

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 181

third party electrical lab. They are accredited,

and have mutual recognition, recognize each other's

status.

MR. RABA: Lenora.

We can't hear you up here. Start over,

please.

MS. BERMAN: The question came up whether

all manufacturers do want NVLAP accreditation.

What I heard, they do want to go one step beyond

the NVLAP lab comes in initially makes sure the

processes are there up front, they want the board

of competence at their products compliance with

regulations in U. S. and Canada, so IST as being

one of the other, the manufacturers are seen as

almost a marketing means too, that I have another

outside facility outside of self-declaration, and

it is more of a marketing thing too.

MR. RABA: Thank you.

Carl.

MR. ADAMS: Carl Adams.

I believe all of our other products, it

allows for testing to be done by the manufacturers

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 182

in their laboratories, so I think it is fair to

say. DOE does not have a problem manufacturer

testing of products, and we have certification by

the manufacturers that their products so tested

either by themselves or outside the test

laboratories, complied with the standards. And I

think we are just getting bogged down with living

with the language that is in here, and it seems to

me what we are going to have to do is come up with

a way of defining independent testing or

independent certification program. It doesn't seem

to me that those two things would preclude

manufacturer testing, but we have to come up with

a definition or wording such that that testing, in

conjunction with something, either implies or

agrees with an independent testing or independent

certification program. And so we just need I think

some creative language or wording to say that if

you have this particular kind of a program, that

that constitutes independent testing or an

independent certification program. And there are

probably many ways to do that, any number of which

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc (1 183

would allow manufacturer testing of this product,

just as manufacturers test the other products.

So whatever assistance you can give us in

coming up with how we structure such a program that

everyone would agree is either independent testing

or an independent certification program, that is in

conjunction with manufacturer testing. It would

then meet the muster of the statute USA, testing by

the manufacturers is acceptable. We believe that

is what is done with everything else and there is

no reason why it wouldn't be acceptable in this

case. We just have to come up with the rest of it

that would allow us to say it is independent

testing or it is independent certification..

MR. LEVY: Ed Levy of DOE.

I have a question for you, Neal. I

understood you to say there is no certification

capability in the United States. Did you mean

there is only limited capability?

MR. ELLIOTT: There is none nationally

recognized in the United States.

Well, you have two different things.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET,. N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 184

There is not broad, wide-scale accreditation o

testing laboratories. Right now I think there are

probably three laboratories in the United States

independent of motor manufacture that could be

accredited today.

MR. LEVY: Okay.

MR. ELLIOTT: Which means you are probably

talking a maximum total testing manufacturer of

three or four motors a year. That's optimistic.

MR. LEVY: Okay. So that's what your

point was?

MR. ELLIOTT: That was my first point.

The second point is there is no nationally

recognized certification program in the United

States. Nobody is certifying other than the

manufacturers, saying "We comply with NEMA

standards."

MR. PERLIS: Are there any programs in

existence that would have that capability?

MR. ELLIOTT: In the United States?

MR. PERLIS: Yes.

MR. ELLIOTT: For loader?

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 185

MR. PERLIS: Yes.

MR.ELLIOTT: No.

MR. PERLIS: Okay.

MR. ELLIOTT: Now, perhaps it would be the

UL program, which is the Canadian program.

MR. LEVY: Why do you call it a Canadian

program?

MR. ELLIOTT: It is being run for Canada,

for Canadians.

MR. LEVY: To satisfy requirements?

MR. ELLIOTT: Right.

MR. HAATAJA: It is not a Canadian; it is

a UL program vehicle to demonstrate performance

with the requirement, the regulation. The fact it

happens to be used on Canadian soil right now as

opposed to the United States really is not

important.

MR. LEVY: So what you are saying is it is

used to establish compliance with Canadian

regulations and requirements, and in your judgment

could be used to establish compliance with U. S.

regulations and requirements?

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 186

MR. HAATAJA: Yes.

I want to make one editorial comment, and

that is it is a method by which the regulation, the

manufacturer is working quite side by side with UL

vis-a-vis their test laboratories.

MR. RABA: Go ahead, Joe.

MR. KLINE: Joe Kline.

My only concern is when you start talking

about capability of using other independent

laboratories and basically.other certifiers outside

the country, whatever, is that we are all not -- we

may not be playing on the same level field, okay?

And that level field is a very precise procedural

document that requires detailed step-by-step

procedures, and instrumentation requirements that

may not be common throughout this whole practice.

Okay.

So there may be some considerable

disadvantages in utilizing NVLAP as your

accreditor, and while allowing other certifiers,

using other certifiers in the testing process that

may not be using all the rigors that are defined by

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507-C STREET,. N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 187

NVLAP.

MR. RABA: Thank you.

MR. VARNER: Jim, I think from Triple-E's

standpoint, we would insist upon a single

accreditation for all testing that is done, that

the testing would have to be done through a single

standard of accreditation.

MR. RABA: Thank you.

MR. CROUSE: Question relative to that,

how mundane effect commonality or mutual definition

between the U. S.. and Canadian program? Would a

single accreditation prohibit a manufacturer from

getting an. accreditation that is available here and

in Canada?

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. MARGOLIS: We have aired a lot of

issues, but we still have some other big issues on

the table.

MR. LEVY: Ted, I think you were the last

one talking.

MR. RABA: Ed has something, then Ted,

then I think we will wind this up. We have more to

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 188

talk about and would like to proceed on.

Go ahead.

MR. CROUSE: My question, you are saying

it should be single accreditation?

MR. ELLIOTT: Standard of accreditation.

MR. CROUSE: So that would not necessarily

preclude the Canada and U. S. doing that?

DR. GALOWIN: That question came up at our

last working group meeting and we advocated from

our perspective, because of mutuality, that the

Canadian activity relative to the accredited status

of the laboratory generating the test data should

be also acceptable by DOE here in the United States

for the conformance to EPAct. One of the reasons,

obviously manufacturers are already meeting

Canadian requirements.

The component within that whole structure

that is missing is one item I alluded to before,

the certifying body -- let me use CSA as my example

right now -- has the liberty to take under its

prerogative any laboratory, although there may be

some constraint now to generate its test data. UL

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 189

for a verification program wants to use a

manufacturer's laboratory. We have discussed this,

and, I understand, modified the forward in the

handbook to assure that we have one uniform playing

field.

Laboratories are either going to be

accredited, now our recommendation, to accept data

from Canadian laboratories that is accredited by

SEC or NVLAP, or by certifying body such as CSA,

provided they have done an evaluation that shows

that the laboratory conforms to IC 25 as one

requirement, and secondly, that the laboratory has

to participate in NVLAP efficiency testing program.

Because on the North American Continent -- we are

already extrapolating to Mexico -- there will be

one mode of efficiency program, run by NVLAP, and

it is giving us all kinds of hell. But we are

groping how we can have a service program, possibly

servicing efficiency testing in some other

laboratory. That is our problem. We will work it

out. with SEC. So we are trying to keep a uniform

playing field across the North American Continent

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 190

which, because we are accredited overseas, we will

apply to laboratories overseas.

MR. RABA: Thank you, Larry.

Ted.

MR. ATKINS: I see in this thing that

really the DOE and all of our group and everybody

have agreed on the basic principles pretty much.

It seems to me like we are in a word-smithing type

of thing. We have a couple of capable people and

counsel, between yours and ours, and why can't our

counsels get together and put a set of words

together that would be satisfactory so we don't

have to spend any more hours on this subject..

DR. GALOWIN: I second the motion.

MR. RABA: Thank you very much.

We will be looking at all these statements

very carefully.

There's certainly been a lively input

throughout and we would like to see additional

written statements come in before June 30th. We

have to look at the language here to get that

right.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 191

I would like to move on, then, and thank

you very much.

Labeling. The Department seeks advice on

what label or labels, or marking or markings, would

assist the purchasers, and on the content, design,

size, location, and attachment of such label/labels

or marking/markings.

I would like to open the floor to a

discussion f labeling at this time, and there are

also some thoughts as to what may be included in

the labels information to assist purchasers, to

encourage purchasers to choose energy efficient

products.

MR. PERLIS: As an general observation,

NEMA would note that motors are industrial

products, not consumer products. We know federal

labeling products heretofore have been directed at

educating consumers to think efficiency when they

go to purchase a particular product.

There is little reason to believe that

purchasers of motors do' not already think

efficiency. But if they did, the labeling should

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 192

be directed at the issue of educating them about

what the appropriate efficiency level is of a

particular product.

The second perhaps more important thing is

that the motor is more often than not a component

of something else, and it is not generally a selfstanding unit in quite the way air conditioning or

light bulbs, dishwashers and all the other products

that are heretofore subject to labeling rules.

That all goes to suggest one needn't conceive of

the DOE labeling rules nearly as expansively as the

Federal Trade Commission, that develop under the

statute under the administrative rulers to serve a

very different purpose, what we conceive to be very

limited purpose of labeling here.

With that, having said that, I think what

we would propose is that the labeling requirement

be that the nominal efficiency of a motor be

identified on,the nameplate and on any -- well,

just basically on the nameplate. That the Double-E

efficiency marking available be required on the

nameplate and on Customs papers, but not on other

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 193

packaging, point of sale or documentation.

Now, it will in all likelihood be the case

of, our recommendation is DOE not prescribe

labeling requirement, disclosure requirement, in a

catalogue. Just the efficiency rating on the

nameplates,Double-E, which certifies that the basic

model exceeds the statutory requirement, would be

on the shipping -- on the Custom's documents,

imported products,a nd on the nameplate itself.

We would furthermore request that there be

an identifying number assigned to each manufacturer

or importer that files a compliance, and that that

number would be very -- could be disclosed again on

the Custom's import paper as well as on the

nameplate, and could provide the simplest and

easiest way of enforcing this whole program against

unscrupulous entities that seek to circumvent the

law through fully self-certification, through a

self-certification system.

And those are the labeling recommendations

that we would like to make. As a result, we would

counsel against adoption of the various proposed or

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 194

considered disclosure statements that were in the

Federal Register relating to hours of use, cost of

use, date of manufacture,. price with respect to

repairs, et cetera. I think all of those items we

need not be required to disclose under the

regulation.

In closing, I would note that in order to

prescribe any labeling rules at all, it seems to me

that the Department of Energy first. has to make a

determination that the labeling rules meet the

criteria of the statute that is technologically

feasible, that the labeling rule itself actually --

as opposed to meeting the standard. That type of

determination you are all aware of has to be met on

various other respects under the energy efficiency

program with respect to amending standards or

prescribing standards, for products the statute

doesn't contain standards, and those products DOE

always envisioned making a. determination,

prescribing whatever they do. It seems to me you

are inclined.to skip that stage here and I guess I

would suggest that to the extent labeling rules

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 195

become more specific than those which NEMA is

recommending, we would view those labeling

requirements as being unauthorized, absent a

separate proceeding in which DOE made statutory

findings that those labeling requirements actually

meet the criteria and produce the savings.

[Discussi'on off the record.]

MR. RABA: We are back up; please

continue.

MR. PERLIS: Let me just wrap up by, first

of all, citing you all to 6316-H, U. S. Code, which

prescribes the criteria, the Secretary has to make

a finding or determination, and all other contracts

in which such determinations are made, proceed to

separate proceeding. And the other point I want to

make, I neglected to mention before the break for

the transcription, there are two other subsidiary

issues we have identified with respect to labeling.

We would like to see the regulations clarified.

First is whether or not the efficiency mark,

Double-E efficiency mark, can be used prior to the

effective date of the regulation; and second is

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET,.N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 196

whether or not it can be used by definite purpose

motors that,meet the energy efficiency

requirements, and the only reason that they are not

subject to the rules of definite purpose motors.

On both of those NEMA would like to see

some flexibility with respect to being able to use

the Double-E mark, in fact affirmatively for

marketing purposes, and believe such process that

we are espousing here having alternative

correlation being verified should be sufficient to

justify the use of the DOE label in the context of

both purpose motor and in the context of preeffective date manufactured products. And those

are the NEMA recommendations with respect to

labeling.

MR. LEVY: I have just a brief question.

With regard to the determinations that you referred

to in -- I guess it is 344-H, you said that they

had been made in separate proceedings previously.

Is that in your opinion required or are you just

stating that has been the agency practice?

MR. PERLIS: That has been the agency's

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 197

practice as I understand it, and not that the

determinations under 344-H have been made.

MR. LEVY: Those types of determinations,

is that what you are saying?

MR. PERLIS: I could point to you a number

of places elsewhere under the statute where the

determinations are required to be made and the

language is the same: The Secretary shall

determine that, and what the practice of the

Department, as I understand it, has been, I won't

certify it has been done universally but generally

it has been terms are viewed as a predicate or

threshold finding before you get to the

regulations, prescribing regulations, whether

standard, test procedure or in this case labeling.

So we have every reason to believe the

reason why it was put in the statute this way, it

ought to be interpreted the same way we interpret

the statute.

MR. ADAMS: In regard to, for instance,

test procedures, I guess I don't know of any

instances where DOE has made a determination that

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 198

test procedures were needed with the test as far as

the test procedures that are in the CFR now goes.

There are in EPAct some requirements for some

commercial equipment, HIB lamps, small motors and

so forth, for DOE to make a determination if there

would be energy savings and so forth, before

deciding whether to proceed with test procedures.

But in the cases where it said the Secretary shall

prescribe test procedures, we have just prescribed

test procedures without any determination.

MR. PERLIS: Right. But -

MR. ADAMS: I think you are taking the

approach where it says the Secretary shall

prescribe labeling. You are referring us back to

something that you think implies that we would have

to make a determination beforehand, before we would

do that.

MR. PERLIS: Absolutely. It says "shall

not promulgate labeling rules unless he has

determined -- you have to make three

determinations, submit energy savings, assist

consumers to make purchasing decisions, and be

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 199

economically feasible. Those three requirements I

don't think apply to any test procedure authority.

They are standards; we have to do test procedures

before the standards become effective. But where

you have discretionary authority with respect to

standards, it occurs sin two places I am familiar

with, the HID you referred to, but also the

amending standards.

You go through and do determination, you

have quantitative determination made, and it is

usually a predicate to describing the prescribed

rule.

You do it through outside consultant, you

hire to do this sort of analysis.

I am not saying -- we certainly do not

want you to hold up the test procedure rules

pending such elaborate study. It is not our

intention to hamstring, to suggest DOE should be

hamstrung dealing with labeling rules. I am

suggesting if DOE decides to get with labeling

rules under lines considered in the Federal

Register, we would consider that as not having been

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 200

authorized unless you do perform this threshold

determination. And, frankly, I think it would be

difficult to justify, for example, that a

disclosure about how many hours it would be

operated, what the cost would be to operate a motor

over any given period of time would result in

significant energy savings, it would actually

assist consumers in making their purchases it is

economically feasible.

I would suggest that all those things,

that the more specific the labeling rules are, the

kind you might see on other products might not be

able to meet these standards for motors, because

motors are a component of other products and

basically a completely different universe of

purchasers than all other products previously

regulated under this program. That is another

reason why you should be careful and cautious in

prescribing a lot of labeling use.

None of us has experience in this area.

It is not something to run into.. Keep it simple.

MR. LEVY: Neal.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 201

MR. ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott, AC-Triple-E.

Actually I want to say I think AC-TripleE finds itself in concurrence with Mark's mark --

with Mark's comments with regard to labeling with

one notable exception; and that is, we would like

the Department to require the inclusion of

efficiency in catalogue information.

I think it would meet the requirement

which Mark has laid out for truth, costeffectiveness. I think the case in point with the

motor master software that was developed with

funding from DOE by the Washington State Energy

Office has proven that the availability of

nameplate data in a consolidated form to the

customer has proven to be a valuable item for the

customer. It is certainly cost effective from -- it

is not a significant cost penalty for the

manufacturer, nor technological burden for them.

With the rest of them, I concur with his

comments about not wanting some of the other

labeling. I agree with him from the standpoint I do

not think it would be particularly valuable to the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
I

arc 202

end user.

MR. RABA: Anthony.

MR. BALDUCCI: Anthony Balducci.

Going along,with you, in section 122, it

calls out, I believe, what the labeling's supposed

to require, and number 2, "prominently display the

energy efficiency of the motor in equipment

catalogues and other material used to market the

equipment."

Number 1 says, "Indicate the energy

efficiency of the motor on the permanent nameplate

attached to such motor."

And the third one says "Include such other

markings as the Secretary determines necessary,

solely to facilitate enforcement-of the standards."

So I think what you are saying, Mark, if

we go in accordance with this, it is not really too

much.

We understand what you are saying; lots of

times the motors are not seen by the consumer.

MR. ATKINS: Most of the time.

MR. BOTELER: We have no problem.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 203

We would enforce the data, trying to tell

the use of what the energy, doesn't work. DOE

addresses that very well with motor master, motor

master pluses. Take another step, we support the

motor masters.

MR. ADAMS: One other thing that has been

brought to our attention, a concern that has been

raised, has to do with the reasonable -- some of

the wording, it has to do with remanufacturing of

motors; that a complying motor labeled with the

appropriate efficiency and whatever it is, we end

up with, is then remanufactured and has some

unknown efficiency at that point in time.

Are there any sort of labeling

requirements or some sort of requirements that

would alert the consumer that this motor -- the

efficiency and so forth that is on that motor may

no longer be valid.

What I am saying, that is something that

has been raised to us about the motors have a long

life, remanufacture and so forth, and what is the

efficiency after the remanufacture? Is it on the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 204

label or something else? H ow would we deal with

that, or should we try to deal with that?

MR. LEVY: Neal, do you want to speak up?

MR. ELLIOTT: I feel that is an area that

goes beyond the intent of the Policy Act. There

are significant technical questions -- and the

gentleman from USEM I am sure would be glad to

comment on this -- as to whether there is an impact

on efficiency if it is correctly remanufactured,

how should it be correctly remanufactured? There

is a lot of debate.on that right now. Some of the

preliminary test data indicates that a

remanufactured energy efficient motor loses less

efficiency during the rewinding process than does

the standard efficiency motor. Nobody really

knows. There is not good test data out there. I

think the complexity of the whole repair, motor

repair area goes beyond something that we could

deal with in any kind of labeling mechanism.

I think there is probably need for some

work in this area, but I think this would not be

the appropriate forum to address that need.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 205

MR. DUNSMORE : I totally agree. We EASA

ourselves are trying to police the repair of

motors. The last data taken, the test sent out a

few years ago was before really a lot of our

members even knew what an energy efficient motor

was. And the way they repaired it was not really a

proper procedure. And even with improper

procedure, we did not lose a lot of efficiency.

And I hear numbers of half percent, 2 percent. We

are really not sure. But we are policing ourselves

in this and we are trying to work with the

manufacturers, and that's why I am here today, to

keep our membership abreast of what is going on.

There is also a Remanufacturing Industry

Council going on. DOE is involved. And this.is a

remanufacturing of a lot of other equipment out

there, to try to get into a recycling business as

we were talking about before. But EASA is working

very diligently with the Canadians to try to repair

motors just as efficiently as we can. And the test

that we have through our engineering department is

if any, it is very little loss. But I agree, I

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 206

don't think that belongs with this.

MR. RABA: All right, Ted.

MR. ATKINS: We had a joint meeting with

EASA and I was with the general counsel of DOE, and

it was very specifically pointed out that the bill

only requires the motors manufactured after that

date and has nothing to do past that.

Mr. Margolis was present at that meeting,

was very definite saying, "We are not going to have

anything to do with motors after the date of

manufacture." And then he turned around and

stated, "I suggest you put somewhere in your

warranty and service literature that the motor

would be warranted only for its efficiency at the

time of manufacture," and we have absolutely no

control once it gets out of our hands as to what

the efficiency can end up, depending on what people

do to the motor including disassembly and putting

it back together and maybe getting things tighter

than they were. There are things that could affect

the efficiency. So I would think that the labeling

part of it, according to what Mr. Margolis had

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET,.N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 207

suggested, something in our paper work stating that

at that point in time, when we manufacture the

motor only will it be as it is rated. I mean, just

a disclaimer we can only take responsibility for

the rating and assure the buyer that it did indeed

meet energy built requirements at the time of

manufacture.

If we put the bug on it, license bug,

whatever you want to call it.

Mark?

MR. PERLIS: Thanks.

Ted is expressing a view many of the

manufacturers share, but we yesterday, in a meeting

before this workshop, concluded that the

regulation's need not prescribe disclaimers on a

label; there is not sufficient room for it.

Regulations themselves contain a provision

that makes clear how everybody reads the statute,

which is the efficiency requirement provided by the

manufacturer. There is no warranty the efficiency

will be maintained other than the implicit warranty

through the fact of testing when it does take place

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 208

is done over a period of time. There is no

warranty efficiency maintained thereafter.

Certainly no warranty on disclosure, what the

efficiency after repairs or modified in anyway.

And no disclaimer about the system, part of the

system of which the motor becomes a part of.

I think that can all be clarified in the

regulations, prescribe disclosure.

MR. RABA: Do you h ave any other

questions, comments or statements?

Rob.

MR. BOTELER: What did you say?

MR. RABA: Do we have any other comments

or questions or identification of other issues you

would like to talk about today?

State your name, please.

MR. WETHJE: My name is Larry Wethje. I

represent the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration

Institute.

If I read the regulations correctly here,

assuming that air conditioners also have energy,

efficiency standards covered by EPAct, if they use

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 209

general purpose motors, they are going to be forced

to use motors that meet the minimum efficiency code

required in EPAct as well?

MR. RABA: I believe -- and you have to

check me on this -- that the motors manufactured

more as a component, the whole system, the whole

system is required to meet EPAct, and is covered

under some other part of NACA, National Appliance.

MR. WETHJE: I am talking about air

conditioners.

MR. BALDUCCI: The way it is written in

effect, if it is in compliance, or something int he

product is covered under EPAct, components of that

product will not be covered. So you are saying

with air conditioning units that are covered under

EPAct, the entire system has to meet certain

efficiency; the motors within that system do not.

For instance, take the washing machine,

that washing machine is covered under NACA. The

motor in the washing machine itself does not have

to meet minimum efficiency.

MR. WETHJE: Even a general purpose motor?

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 210

MR. BALDUCCI: Yes, even a general purpose

motor, because of the fact the entire system -

MR. LEVY: I question that, Anthony. I am

looking at the statute here. There is some

language here; we may want to consider this

further.

MR. BALDUCCI: All right,.

MR. LEVY: But "each electrical motor

manufacturer (alone or as a component of another

piece of equipment)."

MR. BALDUCCI: Yes.

MR. LEVY: And then it goes on to say it

has to meet the standards, so would you explain

what we're talking about there also?

MR. BALDUCCI: There is a disclaimer that

covers products.

MR. RABA: The definite purpose motor is

easy to deal with. The general purpose, you are

correct in saying "the motor by itself or as a

component of the product" as the statute reads.

MR. ATKINS: As required to make --

MR. WETHJE: I am hearing different

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 211

answers.

MR. RABA: Larry, we can't give you a

final answer right now. Indeed, there may be some

need to reexamine the statute again and maybe

discuss further this issue. But, indeed, it is a

very valid one and we will take a look at it in

view of all the discussion today.

MR. WETHJE: If I could please make .a

point -

MR. RABA: Please.

MR. WETHJE: -- I agree with Anthony, if

the total system has a minimum efficiency

requirement, I don't understand why DOE should be

concerned with how that system got to that

efficiency standard, whether they use a high

efficiency motor or whether they used increased

heat exchanger surface area to achieve what the

system has to meet, that system is not going to use

any more energy either way. And since that system

has a minimum efficiency requirement, that is all

DOE should be concerned about, and let the

manufacturer of the system choose the most

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 212

economical means to get to that end.

Why force him to use a high efficiency

motor when he might be able.to achieve the same

goal DOE has prescribed him to achieve if he can do

it in a less expensive manner?

MR. LEVY: Ed Levy, DOE.

Are you talking about motors that would be

manufactured by the air-conditioning manufacturer

itself, or general purpose motors that they would

purchase from someone else, or both?

MR. WETHJE: I am not aware of any airconditioning manufacturers that make their own

motors.

MR. LEVY: They purchase them?

MR. WETHJE: Right.

It doesn't appear to me -- I don't have a

rational explanation when I go to my members and

they ask me why their overall system meets

10.OER's, then have a redundant component minimum,

efficiency requirement under the motor as well,

when in fact I might be able to achieve that 10.OER

in a more economic fashion by using high efficiency

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 213

MR. RABA: There might be a clarification

Jim Raba -- to this also. We will have to

components in that system?

examine this a little further.

Indeed, there are products systems that

cover other parts of EPAct, air conditioning for

example, EPAct air conditioners, so that would then

say the system must meet it.

Maybe the statute saying the motors

manufactured alone or as a component of another

piece of equipment may refer to maybe machinery

presses or rotating fans or something else of a

different nature not covered under EPAct standards.

MR. WETHJE: Right. Exactly.

MR. RABA: So that may be the break point

or clarification to look at, and maybe put in some

language a more precise definition of the

components, scope of the components themselves and

what systems they are in. The systems defined

under EPAct as being efficient, fine. Maybe not

covered. Anthony's position, and yours, too, may

be the ones that are components of the part not

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 214

under EPAct would be the other general purpose

motors.

I think the intent certainly is to

conserve energy.

MR. WETHJE: Right.

MR. RABA: And we have to achieve it

consistently within the statute, so both may be

compatible.

MR. WETHJE: So is this something that

will be addressed in your proposal?

MR. RABA: Yes.

MR. BOTELER: Rod Boteler.

Within EPAct, there is a waiver clause, it

wasn't technically feasible or economically

justifiable.

MR. WETHJE: No, it is not the motor

referred to, because these are general purpose

motors.

MR. BOTELER: That's what I am saying, you

could get a waiver and use "general purpose motor

that does not meet the level of efficiency."

MR. LEVY: Ed Levy again.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 215

The question you are raising seems like a

significant one and an interesting one, but I am

not sure that we can give you any definite answersright here or now, or should.

MR. RABA: I withdraw my "yes" and just

say on counsel's advice, we will examine the

question more fully.

MR. WETHJE: Do I need to submit anything

to expedite the answer to that?

October '97 is not a long time for airconditioning manufacturers to -- I mean, they need

to begin redesigning equipment now, or in the very

near future, to incorporate these high efficiency

motors that often require significant redesign of

their product to incorporate heavier materials and

so on.

Would it help me to submit a formal

request for an answer to this, or is this something

you will respond to just by the nature of the fact

I have raised it here today?

Would you help me, give me some direction

to get the most expeditious answer?

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 216

MR. RABA: Indeed, all comments will be

considered today and we certainly invite you to

submit written comments or statements by the close

of the comment period, statement period, June 30th.

It would be very helpful to us.

MR. WETHJE: Okay.

MR. RABA: Thank you.

MR. LEVY: What was the exact citation you

were both reading from before?

MR. PERLIS: I thought he was reading

MR. LEVY: I apologize, I was just reading

from the basic provision, standards provision

342.B, Energy Policy Conservation Act.

MR. PERLIS: Fine. Thank you.

MR. ATKINS: One more statement.

I am concerned and most of us have

thousands and thousands of different models of

motors that we are supplying to our customers, and

we are running out of time. And if there is a

certain amount of time allocated for each of these

thousands, we could run into many thousands of

engineering hours on both our individual parts and

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 217

customers' parts. And if we don't have some

definite answers that we can take to market and say

"These are what the rules are, folks, and now we

know specifically what you are going to have to do

and here it is," when we get down to October of

'97, we are going to have an almost insurmountable

problem in implementing, getting everybody changed

over.

MR. RABA: I believe we recognize that,

too. Indeed, the Department, all participating

here today are evidence we need to expedite the

process. We also have to give due process as well.

And your concern is shared by all today. We will

do the best we can.

MR. PERLIS: I think substantively we are

wrapping up now. We have had some preliminary

discussions within our membership about whether it

is going to be feasible for us to have reviewed by

all of our membership concrete proposals that, as I

have said earlier, we intend to submit to you

formal regulatory language, as well as written

comments. And the time available between now and

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 218

the thirtieth strikes us as a little short, given

a

how many people you have here, members and

difficulty gathering together for meetings.

Before we arrived here, before I heard

your ambitious schedule for implementation, we were

thinking of asking for an additional month for

comment period. We do not mean to hold you up. As

Ted said, we are very anxious to see proposed

regulations and to move to final test procedure

rules. On the other hand, I am a bit concerned it

is going to be difficult for us to prepare the

regulations and the comments and get suitable

review by every manufacturer within the three and

a-half or four weeks you have given us.

If it is possible to consider giving us

some additional two weeks or so, I think that would

be very much appreciated by our membership.

MR. ADAMS: Carl Adams.

This is not a rulemaking process we are in

now. This is merely a public workshop. I think we

can agree amongst ourselves as to what the date of

the comment period for the workshop would be. And

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 219

if the consensus of the group would be an extra two

weeks'would provide more meaningful comments, I

don't feel we are under any legal obligation as far

as the date; we chose it. We can choose to have it

two weeks later if two weeks is -- that would be

what, the middle of July? It was the end of June;

MR. PERLIS: We will try to get them in

earlier. That would help us a lot..

MR. BOTELER: Neal was wrong; July 16 is a

Sunday. July 14th.

MR.ADAMS: July 14 it is.

MR. RABA: Are there any other issues or

items to be identified or addressed today?

MR. PERLIS: Speaking on behalf of NEMA, I

want to formally commend all of you for holding

this workshop. Once again, as counsel to an

organization of manufacturers, we find these

middle of July we would have comments about -

MR. PERLIS: July 15 is probably a

Saturday or Sunday.

MR. ELLIOTT: July 16 is Thursday.

MR. BOTELER: July 16th is Thursday?

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 220

invaluable. And,I think in the course of six hours

or so, we have managed to address more than a dozen

substantive issues. And I think you have heard a

fair cross-section of opinion on a lot of them. It

also enables us to go back and offer you very

pointed, very specific comments that address the

concerns you have expressed, as well as

participants here. And since I see Michael sitting

in the background here, I want to commend the way

you run this and we really hope that this will

become standard practice for all the Energy Act

procedures you conduct hereafter.

MR. RABA: I thank you, speaking for

myself and hopefully for the Department, too, for

your participation, your time, and certainly your

valuable input, information, data that you've

provided, how you have articulated these points,

and perhaps we can come together on some areas and

help us to clarify and help us to go forward.

Indeed, I applaud all of you for your

participation, patience and valuable information

you have provided. Thank you.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET,, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E
arc 221

Dan.

MR. OATES: How do we get a copy of the

transcript?

MR. RABA: When will the transcript be

available?

THE REPORTER: I presume ten days.

MR. RABA: Those who would like copies,

those who would like to be provided a transcript

may speak to the reporter and she can give you

further details as to how to obtain the transcript.

Indeed, additional copy will be in the Freedom of

Information Room, which is what, 1E019, just down

here, you'll see the elevators, pass those, to the

left. So in either case, you may obtain copies in

about ten days.

MR. OATES: Get the initial copy from the

young lady behind you?

MR. LEVY: Yes.

MR. RABA: If there are no further

statements, thank you all and get home safely.

[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the meeting

adjourned.]

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002-

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-95-400 COMMENT 0E