Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Small Electric Motors, 61410-61500 [E9-27914]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 24, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61410-61500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-27914]



[[Page 61409]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Energy





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



10 CFR Part 431



Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Small 
Electric Motors; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 24, 2009 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 61410]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket Number EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007]
RIN 1904-AB70


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Small Electric Motors

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act authorizes the U.S. 
Department of Energy (DOE) to establish energy conservation standards 
for various consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment. 
Such equipment includes those small electric motors for which DOE 
determines that energy conservation standards would be technologically 
feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant 
energy savings. In this notice, DOE proposes energy conservation 
standards for certain small electric motors and is announcing a public 
meeting.

DATES: Public meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting on Thursday, 
December 17, 2009, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., in Washington, DC. DOE must 
receive requests to speak at the public meeting before 4 p.m., 
Thursday, December 3, 2009. DOE must receive a signed original and an 
electronic copy of statements to be given at the public meeting before 
4 p.m., Thursday, December 10, 2009.
    Comments: DOE will also accept written comments, data, and 
information regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before 
and after the public meeting, but received no later than January 25, 
2010. See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' of this NOPR for 
details.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585. Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE 
Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures, 
requiring a 30-day advance notice. If you are a foreign national and 
wish to participate in the workshop, please inform DOE of this fact as 
soon as possible by contacting Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 so 
that the necessary procedures can be completed.
    Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy 
Conservation Standards for Small Electric Motors, and provide the 
docket number EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 and/or regulatory information 
number (RIN) number 1904-AB70. Comments may be submitted using any of 
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: small_electric_motors_std.rulemaking@hq.doe.gov. Include the docket number and/or RIN in the 
subject line of the message.
     Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please submit one signed 
original paper copy.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 
Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Please 
submit one signed original paper copy.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section VII of this document 
(Public Participation).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource Room 
of the Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 
600, Washington, DC, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards 
at the above telephone number for additional information regarding 
visiting the Resource Room. Please note: DOE's Freedom of Information 
Reading Room is no longer housing rulemaking materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-8654, e-mail: Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov.
    Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General 
Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 
(202) 586-9507, e-mail: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.
    For information on how to submit or review public comments and on 
how to participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. E-mail: 
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
    A. Consumer Overview
    B. Authority
    C. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Small Electric Motors
III. General Discussion
    A. Test Procedures
    B. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    C. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    D. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    b. Life-Cycle Costs
    c. Energy Savings
    d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    f. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    g. Other Factors
    2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Definition of Small Electric Motor
    a. Motor Categories
    b. Motor Enclosures
    c. Service Factors
    d. Insulation Class Systems
    e. Metric Equivalents
    f. Frame Sizes
    g. Horsepower Ratings
    2. Product Classes
    B. Screening Analysis
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Approach
    2. Product Classes Analyzed
    3. Cost Model
    4. Baseline Models
    5. Design Options and Limitations
    a. Manufacturability
    b. Motor Size
    c. Service Factor
    d. Skew and Stay-Load Loss
    e. Air Gap
    f. Power Factor
    g. Speed
    h. Thermal Performance
    i. Slot Fill
    j. Current and Torque Characteristics
    6. Scaling Methodology
    7. Nominal Efficiency
    8. Cost-Efficiency Results
    D. Markups To Determine Equipment Price
    1. Distribution Channels
    2. Estimation of Markups
    3. Summary of Markups
    E. Energy Use Characterization
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    1. Baseline and Standard Level Efficiencies

[[Page 61411]]

    2. Installed Equipment Cost
    3. Motor Applications
    4. Annual Operating Hours and Energy Use
    5. Space Constraints
    6. Power Factor
    7. Energy Prices
    8. Energy Price Trend
    9. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    10. Equipment Lifetime
    11. Discount Rate
    12. Standard Effective Date
    G. National Impact Analysis--National Energy Savings and Net 
Present Value Analysis
    1. Shipments
    H. Consumer Sub-Group Analysis
    I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Overview
    2. Phase 1, Industry Profile
    3. Phase 2, Industry Cash-Flow Analysis
    4. Phase 3, Sub-Group Impact Analysis
    5. Government Regulatory Impact Model Analysis
    6. Manufacturer Interviews
    7. Government Regulatory Impact Model Key Inputs and Scenarios
    a. Base-Case Shipments Forecast
    b. Standards-Case Shipments Forecast
    c. Manufacturing Production Costs
    d. Manufacturing Markup Scenarios
    e. Equipment and Capital Conversion Costs
    J. Employment Impact Analysis
    K. Utility Impact Analysis
    L. Environmental Analysis
    1. Power Sector Emissions
    2. Valuation of CO2 Emissions
    3. Valuation of Other Emissions
V. Analytical Results
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
    1. Economic Impacts on Customers
    a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    b. Life-Cycle Cost Sensitivity Calculations
    c. Customer Sub-Group Analysis
    d. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
    b. Impacts on Direct Employment
    c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    d. Impacts on Manufacturer Subgroups
    e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    3. National Impact Analysis
    a. Significance of Energy Savings
    b. Net Present Value
    c. Impacts on Employment
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    7. Other Factors
    C. Proposed Standard
    1. Polyphase Small Electric Motors
    2. Capacitor-Start Small Electric Motors
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act of 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act of 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
    A. Attendance at Public Meeting
    B. Procedure for Submitting Requests To Speak
    C. Conduct of Public Meeting
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    Pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291 
et seq.), as amended, (EPCA or the Act), the Department of Energy (DOE) 
is proposing new energy conservation standards for capacitor-start and 
polyphase small electric motors. These standards would achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified for this equipment, and would 
result in significant conservation of energy. The proposed standards 
are shown in Table I.1, Table I.2, and Table I.3, and would apply to 
all equipment manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on 
and after 5 years following the publication of the final rule.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 61412]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24NO09.000

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed standards would save a 
significant amount of energy--an estimated 2.46 quads of cumulative 
energy over 30 years (2015-2045). Of this, 2.13 quads of savings result 
from standards on capacitor-start (single-phase) motors and 0.33 quads 
of savings result from standards on polyphase motors.\1\ The energy 
savings results for single-phase motors represent the combined effect 
of standards on the capacitor-start, induction-run (CSIR) \2\ and 
capacitor-start, capacitor-run (CSCR) \3\ motors markets, because 
general purpose CSIR and CSCR motors generally meet similar performance 
criteria and can often be used in the same applications.\4\ The amount 
of projected energy savings is equivalent to the total energy 7.8 
million U.S. citizens use in 1 year. The economic impacts on owners 
(hereafter ``customers'') of equipment containing single-phase small 
electric motors--i.e., the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings--are 
positive. Polyphase small electric motor customers experience, on 
average, small LCC increases as a result of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A polyphase motor is an electric motor that uses three-phase 
electricity and the phase changes of the electrical supply to induce 
a rotational magnetic field, thereby supplying torque to the rotor.
    \2\ A capacitor-start induction-run motor is a single-phase 
motor with a main winding arranged for direct connection to a source 
of power and an auxiliary winding connected in series with a 
capacitor. The motor has a capacitor phase, which is in the circuit 
only during the starting period.
    \3\ A capacitor-start capacitor-run motor is a single-phase 
motor which has different values of effective capacitance for the 
starting and running conditions.
    \4\ Polyphase, CSIR, and CSCR motors can be found in a range of 
applications including, but not limited to the following: Pumps, 
blowers, fans, compressors, conveyors and general industrial 
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cumulative national net present value (NPV) of total customer 
costs and savings from the proposed standards from 2015 to 2065 in 
2008$ ranges from

[[Page 61413]]

$1.53 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $14.15 billion (at a 3-
percent discount rate). This is the estimated total value of future 
operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs, 
discounted to 2009. If DOE were to adopt the proposed standards, it 
expects a -12.86 percent to 10.69 percent change in manufacturer 
industry net present value (INPV) for single-phase motors and -13.8 
percent to 16.9 percent change in manufacturer INPV for polyphase 
motors, which is approximately -$44.67 to $40.70 million total. As a 
result, the NPV for customers (at the 7-percent discount rate) of $1.53 
billion would thus exceed industry losses by about 33 times. 
Additionally, based on DOE's interviews with the major manufacturers of 
small electric motors, DOE does not expect any plant closings or loss 
of employment. The major small electric motor manufacturers include: 
A.O. Smith Electrical Products Company, Baldor Electric Company, 
Emerson Motor Technologies, Regal-Beloit Corporation, and WEG. Except 
for WEG, all of these manufacturers are U.S.-based. WEG is based in 
Brazil.
    The proposed standards would have significant environmental 
benefits. All of the energy saved would be in the form of electricity. 
DOE expects the energy savings to eliminate the need for approximately 
2.49 gigawatts (GW) of generating capacity by 2030. The reduction in 
electricity generation would result in cumulative (undiscounted) 
greenhouse gas emission reductions of 124.8 million tons (Mt) of carbon 
dioxide (CO2) from 2015 to 2045. During this period, the 
standard would result in power plant emission reductions of 89.6 
kilotons (kt) of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 0.561 tons of 
mercury (Hg). These reductions have a value of up to $2,737 million for 
CO2, $67.7 million for NOX, and $5.31 million for 
Hg, at a discount rate of 7-percent.
    The benefits and costs of today's proposed rule can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized (2008$) values from 2015-2045. 
Estimates of annualized values are shown in Table I.4. The annualized 
monetary values are the sum of the annualized national economic value 
of operating savings benefits (energy, maintenance and repair), 
expressed in 2008$, plus the monetary value of the benefits of 
CO2 emission reductions, otherwise known as the Social Cost 
of Carbon (SCC), expressed as $20 per metric ton of CO2, in 
2008$. The $20 value is a central interim value from a recent 
interagency process. The monetary benefits of cumulative emissions 
reductions are reported in 2008$ so that they can be compared with the 
other costs and benefits in the same dollar units. The derivation of 
this value is discussed in section V.B.6. Although comparing the value 
of operating savings to the value of CO2 reductions provides 
a valuable perspective, please note the following: (1) The national 
operating savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings found in 
market transactions while the CO2 value of reductions is 
based on a central value from a range of estimates of imputed marginal 
SCC from $5 to $56 per metric ton (2008$), which are meant to reflect 
the global benefits of CO2 reductions; and (2) the 
assessments of operating savings and CO2 savings are 
performed with different computer models, leading to different time 
frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured 
for the lifetime of small electric motors shipped in the 31-year period 
2015-2045. The value of CO2, on the other hand, is meant to 
reflect the present value of all future climate related impacts, even 
those beyond 2065.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for the annualized cost analysis, 
the combined cost of the standards proposed in today's proposed rule 
for small electric motors is $515.4 million per year in increased 
equipment and installation costs, while the annualized benefits are 
$923.1 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs and $97.8 
million in CO2 reductions, for a net benefit of $505.5 
million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate, the cost of the 
standards proposed in today's proposed rule is $514.0 million per year 
in increased equipment and installation costs, while the benefits of 
today's standards are $1,071.5 million per year in reduced operating 
costs and $131.8 million in CO2 reductions, for a net 
benefit of $689.3 million per year.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 61414]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24NO09.001

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

[[Page 61415]]

    DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified and would result in significant 
conservation of energy. Based on the analyses culminating in this 
proposal, DOE found the benefits (energy savings, consumer LCC savings, 
national NPV increase, and emission reductions) outweigh the burdens 
(loss of INPV and LCC increases for some small electric motor users). 
For a discussion of the energy savings and NPV results, see TSD chapter 
10. For LCC results, see TSD chapter 8. For emissions reductions, see 
TSD chapter 15. For INPV, see TSD chapter 12.
    DOE considered higher efficiency levels as trial standard levels, 
and is still considering them in this rulemaking; however, DOE has 
tentatively concluded that the burdens of the higher efficiency levels 
would outweigh the benefits. Based on consideration of public comments 
DOE receives in response to this notice and related information, DOE 
may adopt either higher or lower efficiency levels than those presented 
in this proposal or some level(s) in between.

II. Introduction

A. Consumer Overview

    Currently, no mandatory Federal energy conservation standards apply 
to small electric motors. DOE is proposing standards for the small 
motors shown in Table I.1, Table I.2, and Table I.3. The proposed 
standards would apply to equipment manufactured for sale in the United 
States, beginning 5 years after the final rule is published in the 
Federal Register. The final rule is expected to be published by 
February 28, 2010; therefore, the effective date would be February 28, 
2015.
    The proposed standards represent an overall reduction of 
approximately 40 percent in motor energy losses. The capacitor-start 
induction-run (CSIR) standards represent a 45-percent reduction in 
losses for a 0.5 hp CSIR motor, relative to the current market average. 
The capacitor-start capacitor-run (CSCR) standards represent a 37-
percent reduction in losses for a 0.75 hp CSCR motor. The polyphase 
standards represent a 45-percent reduction in losses for a 1 hp 
polyphase motor.
    DOE's analyses indicate that commercial and industrial customers 
would benefit from the proposed standards. Although DOE expects the 
installed cost of the higher-efficiency small motors to be greater 
(ranging from 9 percent for a 0.75 hp CSCR motor to 26 percent for a 1 
hp polyphase motor than the average price of this equipment today, the 
energy efficiency gains will result in lower energy costs. A 0.5 hp 
CSIR customer will save an average of $25 per year on energy costs 
compared with an annual cost of losses of a baseline CSIR motor of $48 
per year, while a 1 hp polyphase customer will save an average of $10 
per year compared to an operational cost of motor losses of $34 per 
year for a baseline motor. A 0.75 hp CSCR customer will save $36 per 
year on their energy bill compared with a baseline CSCR motor that 
costs $57 per year in losses to operate on average. DOE estimates that 
the median payback period (PBP) for equipment meeting the proposed 
standards will be approximately 5 to 14 years. When these savings are 
summed over the lifetime of the higher efficiency equipment (and 
discounted to the present), a 0.5 hp CSIR consumer will save $49, on 
average, compared to a baseline 0.5 hp CSIR motor. A 0.75 hp CSCR 
consumer will save $28, on average, compared to a baseline CSCR motor, 
and $121, on average, compared to a baseline 0.75 hp CSIR motor. A 
consumer who purchases a 1 hp polyphase motor will experience an 
average net increase of $38 relative to the $1,274 life-cycle cost of a 
baseline polyphase small electric motor.
    DOE estimates that even though there will be a net national savings 
from the standard, a majority of motor customers may not receive net 
life-cycle cost benefits. This is because many small electric motors 
are installed in applications where the motor is running only a few 
hours per day. On the other hand, because a substantial minority of 
motors is running at nearly all hours of the day and are replaced more 
often than motors that run infrequently, these motors obtain relatively 
large savings from the standard and yield positive net benefits from 
the standard.

B. Authority

    Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to 
improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) 
provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products 
Other Than Automobiles. Part A-1 of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) 
establishes a similar program for certain types of commercial and 
industrial equipment, which includes small electric motors.\5\ DOE 
publishes today's notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) pursuant to Part 
A-1, which provides definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, 
energy conservation standards, and the authority to require information 
and reports from manufacturers. The test procedures DOE recently 
adopted for small electric motors, 74 FR 32059 (July 7, 2009), appear 
at Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sections 431.343 and 
431.344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These two parts were titled Parts B and C, but were 
redesignated as Parts A and A-1 by the United States Code for 
editorial reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Act defines ``small electric motors'' as follows:

    The term ``small electric motor'' means a NEMA [National 
Electrical Manufacturers Association] general purpose alternating 
current single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame 
number series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-
1987.

(42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(F))
    Moreover, pursuant to section 346(b)(3) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6317(b)(3)), no standard prescribed for small electric motors shall 
apply to any such motor that is a component of a covered product under 
section 322(a) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)) or of covered equipment 
under section 340 (42 U.S.C. 6311).
    EPCA provides several criteria that govern adoption of new 
standards for small electric motors. After reviewing any comments 
received regarding today's notice, DOE will evaluate the information 
before it and decide whether today's proposed standards meet those 
criteria and are economically justified by determining whether the 
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. DOE will make this 
determination by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, using 
the following seven factors set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i):
    1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the equipment subject to the standard;
    2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the 
covered equipment that are likely to result from the imposition of the 
standard;
    3. The total projected energy savings likely to result directly 
from the imposition of the standard;
    4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
equipment likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
    5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the attorney general, that is likely to result from the 
imposition of the standard;

[[Page 61416]]

    6. The need for national energy conservation; and
    7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)
    Additionally, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6317(c), DOE will consider the 
criteria outlined in 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)--whether the standards will 
result in a significant conservation of energy, are technologically 
feasible, and are cost effective as described in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II) (see criterion 2 listed above). These criteria are 
largely folded into the seven criteria that DOE routinely analyzes as 
part of its standards rulemaking analyses. Accordingly, DOE will 
continue to conduct its more comprehensive analyses under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o) as part of this rulemaking.
    DOE also notes that today's notice concerns types of ``covered 
equipment'' as defined in EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)), rather than 
``covered products'' as defined in EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291(2)). Under 42 
U.S.C. 6316(a), the criteria for prescribing new standards for consumer 
products (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)) apply when promulgating standards for 
certain specified commercial and industrial equipment, including small 
electric motors. EPCA substitutes the term ``equipment'' for 
``product'' when the latter term appears in consumer product-related 
provisions that EPCA also applies to commercial and industrial 
equipment. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(3).)
    In developing energy conservation standards for small electric 
motors, DOE is also applying certain other provisions of 42 U.S.C. 
6295. First, DOE will not prescribe a standard if interested parties 
have established by a preponderance of evidence that the standard is 
likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of any 
covered equipment type (or class) with performance characteristics, 
features, sizes, capacities, and volume that are substantially the same 
as those generally available in the United States. (See 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4))
    Second, DOE is applying 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), which 
establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically 
justified if the Secretary finds that ``the additional cost to the 
consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation 
standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy * 
* * savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a 
result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test 
procedure. * * *'' in place for that standard.
    Third, in setting standards for a type or class of covered product 
that has two or more subcategories, DOE will specify a different 
standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class 
of equipment ``for any group of covered products which have the same 
function or intended use, if * * * products within such group-(A) 
consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered 
products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other 
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or 
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower 
standard'' than applies or will apply to the other products. (See 42 
U.S.C. 6295(q)(1).) In determining whether a performance-related 
feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE 
considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature 
and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Any rule prescribing such a 
standard will include an explanation of the basis on which DOE 
established such higher or lower level. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for equipment covered by 42 
U.S.C. 6317 generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning 
energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 
6297(a)-(c) and 6316(a)) DOE can, however, grant waivers of preemption 
for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the 
procedures and other provisions of section 327(d) of the Act. (42 
U.S.C. 6297(d) and 6316(a))

C. Background

1. Current Standards
    As indicated above, there are no national energy conservation 
standards prescribed for small electric motors.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Small Electric Motors
    Pursuant to the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Pub. 
L. 102-486), DOE began to gather and analyze information to determine 
whether standards for small electric motors would meet its criteria. 
DOE began its determination analysis, by examining what motors were 
covered and concluded that the EPCA definition of ``small electric 
motor'' covers only those motors that meet the definition's frame-size 
requirements and are either three-phase, non-servo motors (polyphase 
motors) or single-phase, capacitor-start motors, including both CSIR 
and CSCR motors. 71 FR 38799, 38800-01 (July 10, 2006). DOE reached 
this conclusion because only these motor categories can meet the 
performance requirements set forth for general-purpose alternating-
current motors by NEMA MG1-1987.
    DOE then analyzed the likely range of energy savings and economic 
benefits that would result from energy conservation standards for these 
small motors, and prepared a report describing its analysis and 
provided its projected estimated energy savings from potential 
standards. In June 2006, DOE made the report, ``Determination Analysis 
Technical Support Document: Analysis of Energy Conservation Standards 
for Small Electric Motors,'' available for public comment at https://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/small_electric_motors.html.
    Pursuant to section 346(b)(3) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)), the 
analysis did not include motors that are a component of a covered 
product or equipment. Also, the report made no recommendation as to 
what determination DOE should make. DOE received comments concerning 
this analysis from NEMA, the Small Motors and Motion Association (SMMA, 
now the Motors and Motion Association), and the American Council for an 
Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
    Thereafter, DOE analyzed whether significant energy savings would 
result from energy conservation standards for the small electric motors 
considered in its previous analysis, and incorporated the results of 
this additional analysis into a technical support document (TSD). Based 
on these results, DOE issued the following determination on June 27, 
2006:

    Based on its analysis of the information now available, the 
Department [of Energy] has determined that energy conservation 
standards for certain small electric motors appear to be 
technologically feasible and economically justified, and are likely 
to result in significant energy savings. Consequently, DOE will 
initiate the development of energy efficiency test procedures and 
standards for certain small electric motors. 71 FR 38807.

    DOE initiated this rulemaking to develop standards and another 
rulemaking to develop test procedures for small motors. DOE began this 
rulemaking by publishing ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking 
Framework Document for Small Electric Motors'' on https://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/small_motors_framework_073007.pdf.
    DOE also published a notice announcing the availability of the 
framework document and a public meeting on the document, and requesting 
public comments on the

[[Page 61417]]

matters raised in the document. 72 FR 44990 (August 10, 2007).
    On September 13, 2007, DOE held the public meeting at which it 
presented the contents of the framework document, described the 
analyses it planned to conduct during the rulemaking, sought comments 
from interested parties on these subjects, and sought to inform 
interested parties about, and facilitate their involvement in, the 
rulemaking. Interested parties that participated in the public meeting 
discussed eight major issues: the scope of covered small electric 
motors, definitions, test procedures, horsepower, and kilowatt 
equivalency, DOE's engineering analysis, life-cycle costs, efficiency 
levels, and energy savings. At the meeting and during the framework 
document comment period, DOE received many comments helping it identify 
and resolve issues involved in this rulemaking.
    DOE gathered additional information and performed preliminary 
analyses to inform the development of energy conservation standards. 
This process culminated in DOE's announcement of an informal public 
meeting to discuss and receive comments on the following matters: the 
product classes DOE planned to analyze; the analytical framework, 
models, and tools that DOE was using to evaluate standards; the results 
of the preliminary analyses DOE performed; and potential standard 
levels that DOE might consider. 73 FR 79723 (December 30, 2008). DOE 
also invited written comments on these subjects and announced the 
availability on its Web site of a preliminary TSD. Id. A PDF of the 
preliminary TSD is available at https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/small_electric_motors_nopr_tsd.html.
    Finally, DOE stated its interest in receiving comments on other 
issues that participants believe would affect energy conservation 
standards for small electric motors or that DOE should address in this 
NOPR. Id. at 79725.
    The preliminary TSD provided an overview of the activities DOE 
undertook and discussed the comments DOE received in developing 
standards for small electric motors. It also described the analytical 
framework that DOE used and each analysis DOE performed up to that 
point. These analyses included:
     A market and technology assessment that addressed the 
scope of this rulemaking, identified the potential classes of this 
equipment, characterized the small electric motor market, and reviewed 
techniques and approaches for improving the efficiency of small 
electric motors;
     A screening analysis that reviewed technology options to 
improve small electric motor efficiency and weighed them against DOE's 
four prescribed screening criteria;
     An engineering analysis that estimated the manufacturer 
selling prices (MSPs) associated with more energy efficient small 
electric motors;
     An energy use and end-use load characterization that 
estimated the annual energy use of small electric motors;
     A markup methodology that converted average MSPs to 
consumer-installed prices;
     An LCC analysis that calculated, at the consumer level, 
the discounted savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 
average life of the small electric motor, compared to any increase in 
installed costs likely to result directly from the imposition of the 
standard;
     A PBP analysis that estimated the amount of time it takes 
consumers to recover the higher purchase expense of more energy 
efficient equipment through lower operating costs;
     A shipments analysis that estimated shipments of small 
electric motors over the time period examined in the analysis, which 
was used in performing the national impact analysis;
     A national impact analysis that assessed the aggregate 
impacts at the national level of potential energy conservation 
standards for small motors, as measured by the net present value of 
total consumer economic impacts and national energy savings; and
     A preliminary manufacturer impact analysis that took the 
initial steps in evaluating the effects on manufacturers of new 
efficiency standards.
    The nature and function of the analyses in this rulemaking, 
including the engineering analysis, energy-use characterization, 
markups to determine installed prices, LCC and PBP analyses, and 
national impact analysis, are summarized in the December 2008 notice. 
Id. at 79725.
    The public meeting announced in the December 2008 notice took place 
on January 30, 2009. At this meeting, DOE presented the methodologies 
and results of the analyses set forth in the preliminary TSD. The 
comments received since publication of the December 2008 notice have 
helped DOE resolve the issues in this rulemaking. The submitted 
comments include a joint comment from Adjuvant Consulting, on behalf of 
the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and Northwest Power and 
Conservation Council (NPCC); a comment from Earthjustice; a second 
joint comment from Energy Solutions, Pacific Gas and Electric Company 
(PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), Southern California Gas 
Company, and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDGE), a comment from NEMA); 
and a comment from Edison Electric Institute (EEI). This NOPR quotes 
and summarizes many of these comments and responds to the issues they 
raised. A parenthetical reference at the end of a quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.

III. General Discussion

A. Test Procedures

    Final test procedures were published on July 7, 2009 (74 FR 32059). 
The test procedures incorporated by reference Institute of Electrical 
and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) Standard 112-2004 (Test Method A 
and Test Method B), IEEE Standard 114-2001, and Canadian Standards 
Association (CAN/CSA) Standard C747-94.
    In addition to incorporating by reference the above industry 
standard test procedures, the small electric motors test procedure 
final rule also codified the statutory definition for the term ``small 
electric motor;'' clarified the definition of the term ``basic model'' 
and the relationship of the term to certain product classes and 
compliance certification reporting requirements; and codified the 
ability of manufacturers to use an alternative efficiency determination 
method (AEDM) to reduce testing burden, while maintaining accuracy and 
ensuring compliance with potential future energy conservation 
standards. The test procedure notice also discussed matters of 
laboratory accreditation, compliance certification, and enforcement of 
energy conservation standards for small electric motors.
    At the public meeting presenting the preliminary analyses for the 
energy conservation standards rulemaking, WEG and Emerson voiced their 
concern about enforcement of energy efficiency standards for small 
electric motors. WEG stated that they believe that enforcement will 
become especially problematic for those small electric motors that come 
into the country embedded in a piece of equipment and are therefore 
difficult to view the nameplate and to test. (WEG, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 8.5 at pp. 325-26) Additionally, Emerson requested that 
DOE provide further information on how it plans on enforcing standards 
on small electric motors. (Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8.5 
at p. 297) DOE notes certification and enforcement provisions for small 
electric motors have not yet been developed. DOE plans

[[Page 61418]]

on proposing such provisions in a separate test procedure supplementary 
NOPR, at which time DOE will welcome comment on how small electric 
motor efficiency standards can be effectively enforced.

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In each standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis, 
which it bases on information it has gathered on all current technology 
options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the 
product or equipment that is the subject of the rulemaking. In 
consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested 
parties, DOE develops a list of design options for consideration. 
Consistent with its Process Rule, DOE then determines which of these 
means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. 
``Technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in 
working prototypes will be considered technologically feasible.'' 10 
CFR 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i).
    DOE evaluates each of the acceptable design options in light of the 
following criteria: (1) Technological feasibility; (2) practicability 
to manufacture, install, or service; (3) adverse impacts on product 
utility or availability; and (4) adverse impacts on health or safety. 
Chapter 4 of the TSD contains a description of the screening analysis. 
Also, section IV.B includes a discussion of the design options DOE 
considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the 
trial standard levels (TSLs) in this rulemaking.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    In the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum 
technologically (max-tech) feasible efficiency levels for small 
electric motors using the most efficient design parameters that lead to 
the highest equipment efficiencies. (See TSD chapter 5.) Table III.1 
lists the max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24NO09.002

    DOE developed maximum technology efficiencies by creating motor 
designs for each product class analyzed that use all of DOE's viable 
design options. The efficiency levels shown in Table III.1 correspond 
to designs that use a maximum increase in stack length, a copper rotor 
design, an exotic low-loss steel type, a maximum slot fill percentage, 
a change in run-capacitor rating (CSCR motors only), and an optimized 
end ring design. All of the design options used to create these max-
tech motors remain in the analysis and are options that DOE considers 
technologically feasible.

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    DOE used its national energy savings (NES) spreadsheet to estimate 
energy savings from new standards for the small electric motors that 
are the subject of this rulemaking. (The NES analysis is described in 
section IV.G and in chapter 10 of the TSD.) DOE forecasted energy 
savings beginning in 2015, the year that new standards would go into 
effect, and ending in 2045 for each TSL. DOE quantified the energy 
savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy 
consumption between the standards case and the base case. The base case 
represents the forecast of energy consumption in the absence of new 
energy conservation standards. DOE's base case assumes no change in the 
efficiency distribution of motors between 2008 and the end of the 
analysis period in 2045.
    The NES spreadsheet model calculates the energy savings in site 
energy expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Site energy is the energy 
directly consumed by small electric motors at the locations where they 
are used. DOE reports national energy savings in terms of the source 
energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to 
generate and transmit the site energy. To convert site energy to source 
energy, DOE derived conversion factors, which change with time, from 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act scenario of the Energy 
Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (AEO 
2009), which is the latest forecast available.
2. Significance of Savings
    Standards for small electric motors must result in ``significant'' 
energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)) While the term ``significant'' is 
not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources 
Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (DC Cir. 1985), 
indicated that Congress intended ``significant'' energy savings to be 
savings that were not ``genuinely trivial.'' The energy savings for all 
of the TSLs considered in this rulemaking are nontrivial, and therefore 
DOE considers them significant.

D. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    As noted earlier, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in 
determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically 
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)) The following sections discuss how 
DOE has addressed each of those seven factors as part of its analysis. 
DOE invites comments on each of these elements.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    In determining the impacts on manufacturers of a new or amended 
standard, DOE first determines the quantitative impacts using an annual 
cash-flow approach. This includes both a short-term assessment--based 
on the cost and capital requirements during the period between the 
announcement of a regulation and when the regulation comes into 
effect--and a long-term assessment. The impacts analyzed include INPV 
(which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows), 
cash flows by year, changes in revenue and income, and other measures, 
as appropriate. Second, DOE

[[Page 61419]]

analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, 
paying particular attention to impacts on small manufacturers. Third, 
DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer 
employment, manufacturing capacity, plant closures, and loss of capital 
investment. Finally, DOE takes into account the cumulative impact of 
different DOE regulations on manufacturers.
    For small electric motor customers, measures of economic impact 
include the changes in LCC and the PBP for each TSL. The LCC, which is 
also separately specified as one of the seven factors to be considered 
in determining the economic justification for a new or amended 
standard, (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) is discussed in the 
following section.
b. Life-Cycle Costs
    The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including 
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy and 
maintenance expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. 
DOE determines these costs by considering (1) total installed price to 
the purchaser (including manufacturer selling price, distribution 
channel markups, sales taxes, and installation cost), (2) the operating 
expenses of the equipment (energy cost and maintenance and repair 
cost), (3) equipment lifetime, and (4) a discount rate that reflects 
the real cost of capital and puts the LCC in present value terms.
    For each representative small electric motor product class, DOE 
calculated both LCC and LCC savings for various efficiency levels. The 
LCC analysis estimated the LCC for representative units used in various 
representative applications, and accounted for a mixture of space-
constrained applications (20 percent) and non-space-constrained 
applications (80 percent) in the commercial, agricultural, industrial, 
and residential sectors.
    To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such 
as equipment lifetime, annual hours of operation, and discount rate, 
DOE used a distribution of values with probabilities attached to each 
value. DOE sampled a nationally representative set of input values from 
the distributions to produce a range of LCC estimates. A distinct 
advantage of this approach is that DOE can identify the percentage of 
consumers achieving LCC savings or attaining certain payback values due 
to an energy conservation standard. Thus, DOE presents the LCC savings 
as a distribution, with a mean value and a range. DOE assumed in its 
analysis that the consumer purchases the product in 2015.
c. Energy Savings
    While significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, DOE considers 
the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly 
from the standard in determining the economic justification of that 
standard. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) DOE used the NES 
spreadsheet results in its consideration of total projected savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    In establishing classes of equipment, and in evaluating design 
options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE sought to 
develop standards for small electric motors that would not lessen the 
utility or performance of this equipment. None of the TSLs DOE 
considered would reduce the utility or performance of the small 
electric motors under consideration in the rulemaking. (See 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV).) The efficiency levels DOE considered maintain 
motor performance and power factor (i.e., approximately 75 percent for 
polyphase motors and greater than 60 percent for capacitor start 
motors) so that consumer utility is not adversely affected. DOE 
considered end-user size constraints by developing designs with size 
increase restrictions (limited to a 20-percent increase in stack 
length), as well as designs with less stringent constraints (100-
percent increase in stack length). Those designs adhering to the 20-
percent increase in stack length maintain all aspects of consumer 
utility and were created for all efficiency levels, but they may become 
very expensive at higher efficiency levels when compared with DOE's 
other designs.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    DOE considers any lessening of competition likely to result from 
standards. Accordingly, DOE has requested that the Attorney General 
transmit to the Secretary, not later than 60 days after the publication 
of this proposed rule, a written determination of the impact, if any, 
of any lessening of competition likely to result from today's proposed 
standards, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such 
impact. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii).) Along with 
this request, DOE has transmitted a copy of today's proposed rule to 
the Attorney General. DOE will address the Attorney General's 
determination in the final rule.
f. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    The non-monetary benefits of the proposed standards are likely to 
be reflected in reductions in the overall demand for electricity, which 
will result in reduced costs for maintaining reliability of the 
Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to 
estimate how standards may affect the Nation's power generation 
capacity. This analysis captures the effects of efficiency improvements 
on electricity consumption by the covered equipment, including the 
reduction in electricity generation capacity by fuel type.
    The proposed standards will also result in improvements to the 
environment. In quantifying these improvements, DOE has defined a range 
of primary energy conversion factors and associated emission reductions 
based on the estimated level of power generation displaced by energy 
conservation standards. DOE reports the environmental effects from each 
TSL in the environmental assessment in chapter 15 of the TSD. (See 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)).
g. Other Factors
    The Act allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a 
standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that 
the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) 
Under this provision, DOE considered three factors: (1) Harmonization 
of the proposed standards with standards for similar products, (2) the 
need of some consumers to continue to have access to CSIR motors, and 
(3) the impacts of reactive power \6\ on electricity supply costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In an alternating current power system, the reactive power 
is the root mean square (RMS) voltage multiplied by the RMS current, 
multiplied by the sine of the phase difference between the voltage 
and the current. Reactive power occurs when the inductance or 
capacitance of the load shifts the phase of the voltage relative to 
the phase of the current. While reactive power does not consume 
energy, it can increase losses and costs for the electricity 
distribution system. Motors tend to create reactive power because 
the windings in the motor coils have high inductance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Medium-sized polyphase general-purpose motors in three-digit frame 
series with output power of 1 horsepower and above are currently 
regulated under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992). DOE 
proposes a standard for polyphase small motors with output power of 1 
horsepower and above that is closely aligned with the

[[Page 61420]]

EPACT 1992 standard for medium motors.
    Some of the highest TSLs for single-phase motors would lead to very 
high prices for CSIR motors while maintaining lower prices for CSCR 
motors, or vice versa. This shift in relative price may cause the 
effective disappearance of the more expensive category of motors from 
the market. In many applications, CSCR motors can replace CSIR motors. 
However, in some instances, the space required for a second capacitor 
is not available so that a CSCR motor may not be used to replace a CSIR 
motor in some specific applications. Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4), the 
Secretary may not prescribe a standard that is ``likely to result in 
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or 
class).'' In today's notice, DOE proposes standards that it believes 
will maintain a supply of both categories of motors in the single-phase 
motor market.
    DOE also notes that induction motors produce reactive power that 
can result in increased electricity supply costs because reactive power 
creates extra electrical currents that can require increased electrical 
distribution capacity. Many individual customers are not charged 
directly for this cost, but DOE did consider the economic benefits of 
potential reactive power reductions when evaluating the national 
benefits of the proposed standards.
2. Rebuttable Presumption
    Section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) of EPCA states that there is a rebuttable 
presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically 
justified if the additional cost to the consumer that meets the 
standard level is less than three times the value of the first-year 
energy (and as applicable, water) savings resulting from the standard, 
as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) DOE's LCC and payback 
period (PBP) analyses generate values that calculate the PBP for 
customers of potential energy conservation standards, which includes, 
but is not limited to, the 3-year PBP contemplated under the rebuttable 
presumption test discussed above. However, DOE routinely conducts a 
full economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts, 
including those to the customer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment, 
as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1). 
The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE to evaluate 
definitively the economic justification for a potential standard level 
(thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary 
determination of economic justification).
    For comparison with the more detailed analysis results, DOE 
provides the results of a rebuttable presumption payback calculation in 
section V.B.1.d.

IV. Methodology and Discussion

    DOE used three spreadsheet tools to estimate the impact of today's 
proposed standards. The first spreadsheet calculates the LCCs and 
payback periods of potential new energy conservation standards. The 
second, the National Impact Analysis (NIA) spreadsheet, provides 
shipment forecasts and then calculates national energy savings and net 
present value impacts of potential new energy conservation standards. 
DOE assessed manufacturer impacts largely through use of the third 
spreadsheet, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM).
    Additionally, DOE estimated the impacts of energy efficiency 
standards for small electric motors on utilities and the environment. 
DOE used a version of EIA's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for 
the utility and environmental analyses. The NEMS model simulates the 
energy sector of the U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to prepare its Annual 
Energy Outlook, a widely known energy forecast for the United States. 
The version of NEMS used for appliance standards analysis is called 
NEMS-BT, and is based on the AEO 2009 version with minor modifications. 
The NEMS offers a sophisticated picture of the effect of standards 
because it accounts for the interactions between the various energy 
supply and demand sectors and the economy as a whole.
    The EIA approves the use of the name ``NEMS'' to describe only an 
AEO version of the model without any modification to code or data. 
Because the present analysis entails some minor code modifications and 
runs the model under various policy scenarios that deviate from AEO 
assumptions, the name ``NEMS-BT'' refers to the model used here. 
(``BT'' stands for DOE's Building Technologies Program.) For more 
information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy Modeling System: An 
Overview, DOE/EIA-0581 (98) (Feb. 1998), available at https://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/058198.pdf.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

    When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE 
develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for 
the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the 
industry structure, and market characteristics. This activity includes 
both quantitative and qualitative assessments based primarily on 
publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market 
and technology assessment for this rulemaking include product classes, 
manufacturers, quantities, and types of equipment sold and offered for 
sale; retail market trends; and regulatory and non-regulatory programs. 
See chapter 3 of the TSD for further discussion of the market and 
technology assessment.
1. Definition of Small Electric Motor
    Except for small electric motors that are components of other 
products covered by EPCA (see 42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)), DOE analyzed all 
CSIR and CSCR single-phase motors and polyphase motors, including, for 
example, both open and enclosed motors. DOE determined that standards 
appear to be warranted for all of them. 71 FR 38807-08. However, DOE 
has tentatively concluded that EPCA does not cover certain small motors 
for which the determination concluded standards were warranted--the 
most significant group being enclosed motors.
a. Motor Categories
    EPCA's definition of ``small electric motor'' is tied to the 
terminology and performance requirements in NEMA Standards Publication 
MG1-1987 (MG1-1987). These requirements were established for (1) 
general-purpose alternating-current motors, (2) single-speed induction 
motors, and (3) the NEMA system for designating (two-digit) frames. 
Single-speed induction motors, as delineated and described in MG1-1987, 
fall into five categories: split-phase, shaded-pole, capacitor-start 
(both CSIR and CSCR), permanent-split capacitor (PSC), and polyphase. 
Therefore, only motors in these categories meet the single-speed 
induction motor element of EPCA's definition of ``small electric 
motor.''
    In paragraph MG1-1.05, MG1-1987 defines ``general-purpose 
alternating-current motor'' as follows:
    A general-purpose alternating-current motor is an induction motor, 
rated 200 horsepower and less, which incorporates all of the following: 
(1) Open construction, (2) rated continuous duty, (3) service factor in 
accordance with MG1-12.47, and (4) Class A insulation system with a 
temperature rise as specified in MG1-12.42 for small motors or Class B 
insulation system with a temperature rise as specified in MG1-12.43 for 
medium motors. It is

[[Page 61421]]

designed in standard ratings with standard operating characteristics 
and mechanical construction for use under usual service conditions 
without restriction to a particular application or type of application.
    During the public meeting held on January 30, 2009, Emerson Motor 
Technologies commented that split-phase motors, shaded-pole motors, and 
PSC motors do not meet the torque requirements for NEMA general-purpose 
motors. Therefore, Emerson indicated that these motors should be 
excluded from the scope of coverage for this rulemaking. (Emerson, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8.5 at p. 38) \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A notation in the form ``Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 8.5 at p. 38'' refers to (1) a statement that was submitted by 
Emerson Motor Technologies and is recorded in the docket ``Energy 
Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: 
Public Meeting and Availability of the Framework Document for Small 
Electric Motors,'' Docket Number EERE-2008-BT-STD-0007, as comment 
number 8.5; and (2) a passage that appears on page 38 of the 
transcript, ``Small Electric Motors Energy Conservation Standards 
Preliminary Analyses Public Meeting,'' dated January 30, 2009. 
Likewise, a notation in the form ``NEMA, No. 13 at p. 5'' refers to 
(1) a statement by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association 
and is recorded in the docket as comment number 13; and (2) a 
passage that appears on page 5 of that document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has examined this issue and, consistent with its position in 
the preliminary analyses, agrees that split-phase, shaded-pole, or PSC 
motors do not qualify as general-purpose alternating-current motors. 
Because split-phase motors are usually designed for specific purposes 
and applications, they are not designed ``for use under usual service 
conditions without restriction to a particular application or type of 
application.'' Additionally, split-phase, shaded-pole, and PSC motors 
all fail to meet MG1-1987's torque and current requirements for 
general-purpose motors, and hence are not ``designed in standard 
ratings with standard operating characteristics.'' The requirements 
that NEMA MG1-1987 defines for single-phase motors are locked-rotor 
torque at MG1-12.32.2, locked-rotor current at MG1-12.43, and breakdown 
torque at MG1-12.32. For small polyphase motors, NEMA MG1-1987 only 
defines breakdown torque in MG1-12.37. Because of these restrictions, 
none of the above motor categories are small electric motors as EPCA 
defines that term. DOE's determination that standards are warranted for 
small electric motors excluded the above motor categories, and none are 
covered by today's proposed standards.
    As for CSIR, CSCR, and polyphase motors, these motor categories do 
meet the performance requirements set forth by the MG1-1987 definition 
of ``general-purpose alternating-current motor'' and are therefore 
covered by the EPCA definition of a small electric motor.
    During the public meeting, PG&E, Earthjustice, and ACEEE expressed 
concern that small electric motors not covered by the scope of coverage 
of this rulemaking would be preempted from coverage as a result of 
energy conservation for standards for the covered small electric 
motors. (PG&E, Earthjustice, ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8.5 
at pp. 320-323) In their comment, E