MEMORANDUM

RE: Ex Parte Communication In Connection with DocketNo.EERE-2010-BT-STD-Q027 Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Public Meeting and Availability ofthe Framework Documentfor Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors, 75 Fed.Reg. 59657 (September 28,2010). To: expartecommunications@hg.doe.gov From: Clark R. Silcox, General Counsel National Electrical ManufacturersAssociation Date: May21, 2012

cc: Bill Hoyt, Alex Boesenberg, Rob Boeteler, John Malinowski, Andrew DeLaski, Neil Elliott, Dan Delaney, Michael Bruin, Tim Schumann

This memorandum memorializes anothercommunication involving afollow-up to the MotorCoalition's previous communications in connection with this proceeding and documented in a memorandum dated April 18, 2012. In response to our priorcorrespondence, Navigant Consulting made technical inquiries about certain aspects ofthe MotorCoalition's proposal to expand the coverage ofelectric motors regulated underthe Energy Policy and Conservation Act; for example how certain configurations of electric motorswould be tested. On May 16, 2012, ateleconference was held to follow-up on Navigant's technical inquiries. In attendance on the call were, DOE: Jim Raba, DOE Appliance Standards; John Cymbalsky, DOE Appliance Standards; Ami Grace-Tardi, DOE General Counsel's office; Michael Kido, DOE General Counsel's office; Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory: Sanaee Iyama; Navigant Consulting: William Kohse, Hisham Araji, Matthew Nardotti; MotorCoalition: Rob Boteler, Nidec Motors;John Malinowski, Baldor Electric; Dan Trombley, ACEEE; Andrew deLaski, ASAP; Alex Boesenberg, NEMA; Clark Silcox, NEMA (part-time); William Hoyt, NEMA. While the purpose ofthe conference call was notto discuss the scope ofthe MotorCoalition's proposal, parts ofthe discussion went beyond technical discussions abouttesting and touched on what motors were covered or not covered bythe MotorCoalition's proposal, and we submitthis ex-parte memorandumto describe those coverage discussions. The Motor Coalition was asked: "What does '56Tframe enclosed and ODP not covered' mean? Where in NEMA Standards Publication MG1, 'Motors and Generators' is the 56Tframe motorcovered? What are the performance characteristics ofsuch a56T frame motor, for example, horsepower?" RESPONSE: Itwas clarified that 56T frame could be 56 frame and could be the size and performance ofa 140Tframe motor. Itwas noted thatthe MotorCoalition is proposing coverage of56

### frame motors not covered in the Small Motor Rule. Discussion included whattables theywould be included in in NEMA MGl.The MotorCoalition would consult with NEMA's Motorand Generator Section Technical Committee to provide a list ofthose tables. It was noted thattables in NEMA MG-1 had previously been expanded (Table 12-12, 8 pole motors was used as an example) in recent MG1 revisions. The MotorCoalition was asked with respect to Encapsulation, could they clarify what was meant by submersible and immersible, and which were proposed for exclusion from coverage by the Motor Coalition? RESPONSE: Immersible is to be covered; submersible is notto be covered (excluded from standards). The MotorCoalition would ask the NEMA Motorand Generator Section Technical Committee to provide definitions on both types that will clarify and differentiate between the two. The MotorCoalition was asked with respect to Frequency: "Where it reads, 'Frequency -V 

### 60 Hz is covered for US,' is that to say 

### 60 Hz only and not 

### 50 Hz orvariable frequency motors?" RESPONSE: 

### 50Hz is not covered (US grid is 

### 60Hz only). A 

### SO/60Hz convertible (dual frequency) is covered product. The NEMA Motorand GeneratorSection is to provide clarifying language on dual frequency.