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

### 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 2arc 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 3arc 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 4arc 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 Sarc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc

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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-66660

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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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 NEMAdoesn'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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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 theprocess, 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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 whethermanufacturers 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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 andthe 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666132 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666141 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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 youwind 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

### 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

### 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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' 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) 546-6666175 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc (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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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 componentof 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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 ofboth 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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 requirementwhich 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) 546-6666I 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 

## 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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) 546-6666arc 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) 546-6666arc 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

### 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