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 Document for 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 Manufacturers Association 

Date: May 21, 2012 

cc: Bill Hoyt, Alex Boesenberg, Rob Boeteler, John Malinowski, Andrew DeLaski, Neil Elliott, Dan 

Delaney, Michael Bruin, Tim Schumann 

This memorandum memorializes another communication involving a follow-up to the Motor Coalition's 

previous communications in connection with this proceeding and documented in a memorandum dated 

April 18, 2012. In response to our prior correspondence, Navigant Consulting made technical inquiries 

about certain aspects of the Motor Coalition's proposal to expand the coverage of electric motors 

regulated under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act; for example how certain configurations of 

electric motors would be tested. On May 16, 2012, a teleconference 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; Motor Coalition: 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 of the conference call was not to discuss the scope of the Motor Coalition's proposal, 

parts ofthe discussion went beyond technical discussions about testing and touched on what motors 

were covered or not covered by the Motor Coalition's proposal, and we submit this ex-parte 

memorandum to describe those coverage discussions. 

The Motor Coalition was asked: "What does '56T frame enclosed and ODP not covered' mean? Where 

in NEMA Standards Publication MG1, 'Motors and Generators' is the 56T frame motor covered? What 

are the performance characteristics of such a 56T frame motor, for example, horsepower?" 

RESPONSE: It was clarified that 56T frame could be 56 frame and could be the size and 

performance of a 140T frame motor. It was noted that the Motor Coalition is proposing coverage of 56 
frame motors not covered in the Small Motor Rule. Discussion included what tables they would be 

included in in NEMA MGl. The Motor Coalition would consult with NEMA's Motor and Generator 

Section Technical Committee to provide a list of those tables. It was noted that tables in NEMA MG-1 

had previously been expanded (Table 12-12, 8 pole motors was used as an example) in recent MG1 

revisions. 

The Motor Coalition 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 not to be covered (excluded from 

standards). The Motor Coalition would ask the NEMA Motor and Generator Section Technical 

Committee to provide definitions on both types that will clarify and differentiate between the two. 

The Motor Coalition 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 or variable frequency motors?" 

RESPONSE: 50Hz is not covered (US grid is 60Hz only). A SO/60Hz convertible (dual frequency) is 

covered product. The NEMA Motor and Generator Section is to provide clarifying language on dual 

frequency.