Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Small Electric Motors, 10874-10948 [2010-4358]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 9, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10874-10948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4358]



[[Page 10873]]

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

Part II





Department of Energy





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



10 CFR Part 431



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

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 2010 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 10874]]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is adopting energy 
conservation standards for small electric motors. DOE has determined 
that these standards will result in significant conservation of energy, 
and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of this rule is April 8, 
2010. The standards established in today's final rule will be 
applicable starting March 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents, the 
technical support document, transcripts of the public meetings in this 
proceeding, or comments received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy, 
Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, 
SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (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. (Note: DOE's Freedom 
of Information Reading Room no longer houses rulemaking materials.) You 
may also obtain copies of certain previous rulemaking documents in this 
proceeding (i.e., framework document, notice of public meeting and 
availability of preliminary technical support document, notice of 
proposed rulemaking, draft analyses, public meeting materials, and 
related test procedure documents from the Office of Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy's Web site at https://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/small_electric_motors.html).

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) 586-8145, e-mail: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits
    A. Energy Conservation Standards Levels
    B. Benefits and Burdens to Customers of Small Electric Motors
    C. Impact on Manufacturers
    D. National Benefits
    E. Conclusion
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Energy Conservation 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
    D. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    a. Economic Impact on Motor Customers and Manufacturers
    b. Life-Cycle Costs
    c. Energy Savings
    d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment
    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 of Comments on Methodology
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Definition of Small Electric Motor
    a. Motor Categories
    b. Horsepower Ratings
    c. Performance Requirements
    d. Motor Enclosures
    e. Frame Sizes
    f. Insulation Class Systems
    g. Service Factors
    h. Metric Equivalents and Non-Standard Horsepower and Kilowatt 
Ratings
    i. Summary
    2. Product Classes
    B. Screening Analysis
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Product Classes Analyzed
    2. Baseline Models
    a. Baseline Efficiencies
    b. Baseline Temperature Rise
    c. Baseline Motor Performance
    3. Higher Efficiency Motor Designs
    a. Electrical Steel
    b. Thermal Analysis
    c. Performance Requirements
    d. Stray Load Loss
    e. Stack Length and Core Diameter
    4. Cost Model
    5. Efficiency Scaling
    6. Cost-Efficiency Results
    D. Markups to Determine Equipment Price
    E. Energy Use Characterization
    1. Applications
    2. Annual Hours of Operation and Motor Loading
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    1. Installation Cost
    2. Energy Prices
    3. Energy Price Trend
    4. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    5. Equipment Lifetime
    6. Discount Rates
    7. Space-Constrained Applications and the After-Market
    8. Standard Compliance Date
    G. National Impact Analysis--National Energy Savings and Net 
Present Value Analysis
    1. General
    2. Shipments
    3. Space Constraints
    4. Base-Case and Standards-Case Efficiency Distributions
    5. Annual Energy Consumption per Unit
    H. Customer Sub-Group Analysis
    I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Capital Conversion and Equipment Conversion Costs
    2. Manufacturer Selling Prices
    3. Markup Scenarios
    4. Premium Electrical Steels
    J. Employment Impact Analysis
    K. Utility Impact Analysis
    L. Environmental Assessment
    M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
    1. Social Cost of Carbon
    a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses
    c. Approach and Key Assumptions
    2. Monetary Values of Non-Carbon Emissions
V. Discussion of Other Comments
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    B. Enforcement
    C. Nominal Full-Load Efficiency
VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    B. Significance of Energy Savings
    C. Economic Justification
    1. Economic Impact on Motor Customers
    a. Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Period
    b. Life-Cycle Cost Sensitivity Calculations
    c. Customer Subgroup Analysis
    d. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers
    a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
    b. Impacts on Employment
    c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    3. National Net Present Value and Net National Employment
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    7. Other Factors
    D. Conclusion
VII. 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

[[Page 10875]]

    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
    M. Congressional Notification
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits

 A. Energy Conservation Standards Levels

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291 
et seq.; EPCA or the Act), directs the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
to adopt energy conservation standards for those small electric motors 
for which standards would be technologically feasible and economically 
justified, and would result in significant energy savings (42 U.S.C. 
6317(b)(1)-(2)). The standards in today's final rule satisfy these 
requirements and will achieve the maximum improvements in energy 
efficiency that are technologically feasible and economically 
justified. Table I.1 and Table I.2 show these standard levels, which 
will apply to all small electric motors manufactured for sale in the 
United States, or imported into the United States, starting five years 
after publication of this final rule.

                          Table I.1--Standard Levels for Polyphase Small Electric Motor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Motor output power                          Six poles        Four poles         Two poles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25 Hp/0.18 kW...........................................              67.5              69.5              65.6
0.33 Hp/0.25 kW...........................................              71.4              73.4              69.5
0.5 Hp/0.37 kW............................................              75.3              78.2              73.4
0.75 Hp/0.55 kW...........................................              81.7              81.1              76.8
1 Hp/0.75 kW..............................................              82.5              83.5              77.0
1.5 Hp/1.1 kW.............................................              83.8              86.5              84.0
2 Hp/1.5 kW...............................................               N/A              86.5              85.5
3 Hp/2.2 kW...............................................               N/A              86.9             85.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Standard levels are expressed in terms of average full-load efficiency.
** These efficiencies correspond to a modified Trial Standard Level 4b for polyphase motors. For horsepower/pole
  configurations with efficiency standards higher than the for general purpose electric motors (subtype I), DOE
  reduced the standard level to align with regulations in 10 CFR 431.25. See section VI for further discussion.


  Table I.2--Standard Levels for Capacitor-Start Induction-Run and Capacitor-Start Capacitor-Run Small Electric
                                                     Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Motor output power                          Six poles        Four poles         Two poles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25 Hp/0.18 kW...........................................              62.2              68.5              66.6
0.33 Hp/0.25 kW...........................................              66.6              72.4              70.5
0.5 Hp/0.37 kW............................................              76.2              76.2              72.4
0.75 Hp/0.55 kW...........................................              80.2              81.8              76.2
1 Hp/0.75 kW..............................................              81.1              82.6              80.4
1.5 Hp/1.1 kW.............................................               N/A              83.8              81.5
2 Hp/1.5 kW...............................................               N/A              84.5              82.9
3 Hp/2.2 kW...............................................               N/A               N/A             84.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Standard levels are expressed in terms of full-load efficiency.
** These efficiencies correspond to a modified Trial Standard Level 7 for capacitor-start motors. DOE reduced
  efficiency standards for capacitor-start induction run motors such that they harmonize with adopted capacitor-
  start capacitor-run motor efficiency standards. See section VI for further discussion.

 B. Benefits and Burdens to Customers of Small Electric Motors

    Table I.3 presents the implications of today's standards for 
consumers of small electric motors. The economic impacts of the 
standards on consumers as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) 
savings are positive, even though the standards may increase some 
initial costs. For example, a typical polyphase motor has an average 
installed price of $517 and average lifetime operating costs 
(discounted) of $751. To meet the amended standards, DOE estimates that 
the average installed price of such equipment will increase by $72, 
which will be more than offset by savings of $100 in average lifetime 
operating costs (discounted).

                          Table I.3--Implications of Standards for Commercial Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Average
                                      Energy          Average        installed     Average life-  Median payback
         Equipment class           conservation      installed    price increase    cycle cost     period years
                                    standard %       price* $            %           savings $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyphase, 1-horsepower, 4-pole.            83.5             589              72              28             7.8
Capacitor-start induction-run,              76.2             996             502            -369            12.4
 \1/2\-horsepower, 4-pole.......
Capacitor-start capacitor-run,              81.8             599              51              24            5.9
 \3/4\-horsepower, 4-pole.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For a baseline model.


[[Page 10876]]

 C. Impact on Manufacturers

    Using a real corporate discount rate of 9.7 percent, which DOE 
calculated by examining the financial statements of motor 
manufacturers, DOE estimates the industry net present value (INPV) of 
the small electric motor manufacturing industry to be $70 million for 
polyphase small electric motors and $279 million for capacitor-start, 
or single-phase motors (both figures in 2009$). DOE expects the impact 
of the standards on the INPV of manufacturers of small electric motors 
to range from a increase of 4.8 percent to a loss of 7.8 percent (an 
increase of $3.4 million to a loss of $5.4 million) for polyphase 
motors and an increase of 6.6 percent to a loss of 12.2 percent (an 
increase of $32.2 million to a loss of $42.2 million) for single-phase 
motors. Based on DOE's interviews with the major manufacturers of small 
electric motors, DOE expects minimal plant closings or loss of 
employment as a result of the standards.

 D. National Benefits

    The standards will provide significant benefits to the Nation. DOE 
estimates the standards will save approximately 2.2 quads (quadrillion 
(10\15\) British thermal units (BTU)) of energy over 30 years (2015-
2045). This is equivalent to about 2.2% of total annual U.S. energy 
consumption.
    By 2045, DOE expects the energy savings from the standards to 
eliminate the need for approximately eight new 250-megawatt (MW) power 
plants. These energy savings will result in cumulative greenhouse gas 
emission reductions of approximately 112 million tons (Mt) of carbon 
dioxide (CO2), or an amount equal to that produced by 
approximately 25 million new cars in a year. Additionally, the 
standards will help alleviate air pollution by resulting in 
approximately 81 thousand tons (kt) of nitrogen oxides (NOX) 
emission reductions and approximately 0.49 ton of cumulative mercury 
(Hg) emission reductions from 2015 through 2045. The estimated net 
present monetary value of these emissions reductions is between $385 
and $6,081 million for CO2, (expressed in 2009$). The 
estimated net present monetary values of these emissions reductions are 
between $13.2 and $63.4 million for NOX (expressed in 2009$) 
and $0.12 and $5.14 million for Hg (expressed in 2009$) at a 7-percent 
discount rate (discounted to 2010). At a 3 percent discount rate, the 
estimated net present values of these emissions reductions are between 
$17.1 and $175.5 million (2009$) for NOX and $0.22 and $9.66 
million (2009$) for Hg.
    The national NPV of the standards is $5.3 billion using a seven-
percent discount rate and $12.5 billion using a three-percent discount 
rate, cumulative from 2015 to 2045 in 2009$. This is the estimated 
total value of future savings minus the estimated increased equipment 
costs, discounted to the year 2009.
    The benefits and costs of today's rule can also be expressed in 
terms of annualized (2009$) values from 2015-2045. Estimates of 
annualized values are shown in Table I.4. The annualized monetary 
values are the sum of the annualized national economic value of 
operating savings benefits (energy, maintenance and repair), expressed 
in 2009$, plus the monetary value of the benefits of CO2 
emission reductions, otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon 
(SCC), calculated using the average value derived using a 3% discount 
rate (equivalent to $21.40 per metric ton of CO2 emitted in 
2010, in 2007$). This value is a central value from a recent 
interagency process. The monetary benefits of cumulative emissions 
reductions are reported in 2009$ 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 IV.M. 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 value of CO2 reductions is 
based on a global value. Also, note that the central value is only one 
of four SCC developed by the interagency workgroup. Other marginal SCC 
values for 2010 are $4.70, $35.10, and $64.90 per metric ton (2007$ for 
emissions in 2010), which reflect different discount rates and, for the 
highest value, the possibility of higher-than-expected impacts further 
out in the tails of the SCC distribution. (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, reflects the 
present value of all future climate related impacts due to emitting a 
ton of carbon dioxide in that year, out to 2300.
    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 $263.9 million per year in increased 
equipment and installation costs, while the annualized benefits are 
$855.1 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $115.6 
million in CO2 reductions, $3.89 million in reduced 
NOX emissions, and $0.30 million in reduced Hg emissions, 
for a net benefit of $711.0 million per year. Using a 3-percent 
discount rate, the cost of the standards proposed in today's rule is 
$263.7 million per year in increased equipment and installation costs, 
while the benefits of today's standards are $989.5 million per year in 
reduced operating costs, $115.6 million in CO2 reductions, 
$5.58 million in reduced NOX emissions, and $0.29 million in 
reduced Hg emissions, for a net benefit of $847.3 million per year.

                                           Table I.4--Annualized Benefits and Costs for Small Electric Motors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Units
            Category             Primary estimate (AEO    Low estimate (low     High estimate (high  ---------------------------------------------------
                                    reference case)       energy price case)     energy price case)    Year dollars       Disc. rate      Period covered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Annualized Monetized      855.1................  831.8................  870.3................            2009  7%................              31
 (millions$/year).               989.5................  964.8................  1000.5...............            2009  3%................              31
Annualized Quantified..........  2.29 CO2 (Mt)........  2.29 CO2 (Mt)........  2.29 CO2 (Mt)........              NA  7%................              31
                                 1.55 NOX (kt)........  1.55 NOX (kt)........  1.55 NOX (kt)........              NA  7%................              31
                                 0.017 Hg (t).........  0.017 Hg (t).........  0.017 Hg (t).........              NA  7%................              31
                                 3.13 CO2 (Mt)........  3.13 CO2 (Mt)........  3.13 CO2 (Mt)........              NA  3%................              31
                                 2.22 NOX (kt)........  2.22 NOX (kt)........  2.22 NOX (kt)........              NA  3%................              31
                                 0.017 Hg (t).........  0.017 Hg (t).........  0.017 Hg (t).........              NA  3%................              31

[[Page 10877]]

 
CO2 Monetized Value (at $4.7/    31.5.................  31.5.................  31.5.................            2009  5%................              31
 Metric Ton, millions$/year)*.
CO2 Monetized Value (at $21.4/   115.6................  115.6................  115.6................            2009  3%................              31
 Metric Ton, millions$/year)*.
CO2 Monetized Value (at $35.1/   179.2................  179.2................  179.2................            2009  2.5%..............              31
 Metric Ton, millions$/year)*.
CO2 Monetized Value (at $64.9/   352.5................  352.5................  352.5................            2009  3%................              31
 Metric Ton, millions$/year)*.
NOX Monetized Value (at $2,437/  3.89.................  3.89.................  3.89.................            2009  7%................              31
 Metric Ton, millions$/year).    5.58.................  5.58.................  5.58.................            2009  3%................              31
Hg Monetized Value (at $17       0.3..................  0.3..................  0.3..................            2009  7%................              31
 million/Metric Ton, millions$/  0.29.................  0.29.................  0.29.................            2009  3%................              31
 year).
Total Monetary Benefits          890.8-1211.8.........  867.5-1188.5.........  906.0-1227.0.........            2009  7% Range..........              31
 (millions$/year)**.             974.9................  951.6................  990.1................            2009  7%................              31
                                 1111.0...............  1086.3...............  1121.9...............            2009  3%................              31
                                 1026.9-1347.9........  1002.2-1323.2........  1037.8-1358.8........            2009  3% Range..........              31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized (millions$/ 263.9................  263.9................  263.9................            2009  7%................              31
 year).
                                 263.7................  263.7................  263.7................            2009  3%................              31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Net Benefits/Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized, including  626.9-947.9..........  603.6-924.6..........  642.1-963.1..........            2009  7% Range..........              31
 CO2 Benefits (million$/year)**. 711.0................  687.7................  726.2................            2009  7%................              31
                                 847.3................  822.6................  858.3................            2009  3%................              31
                                 763.2-1084.3.........  738.5-1059.6.........  774.2-1095.2.........            2009  3% Range..........             31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These values represent global values (in 2007$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.7, $21.4, and
  $35.1 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $64.9 per ton
  represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. See section IV.M for details.
** Total Monetary Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases utilize the central estimate of social cost of CO2 emissions calculated at a 3% discount rate
  (averaged across three IAMs), which is equal to $21.4/ton in 2010 (in 2007$). The rows labeled as ``7% Range'' and ``3% Range'' calculate consumer,
  Hg, and NOX cases with the labeled discount rate but add these values to the full range of CO2 values with the $4.7/ton value at the low end, and the
  $64.9/ton value at the high end.

E. Conclusion

    DOE has concluded that the benefits (energy savings, consumer LCC 
savings, national NPV increases, and emissions reductions) to the 
Nation of today's standards for small electric motors outweigh their 
costs (loss of manufacturer INPV and consumer LCC increases for some 
users of small electric motors). DOE has also concluded that these 
standards are technologically feasible and economically justified, and 
will result in significant energy savings. Small electric motors that 
are commercially available or working prototypes use or have used the 
technologies needed to meet the new standard levels.

II. Introduction

A. 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 Industrial Equipment,'' 
which includes small electric motors, the subject of this 
rulemaking.\1\ DOE publishes today's final rule pursuant to Part A-1 of 
Title III, which provides for test procedures, labeling, and energy 
conservation standards for small electric motors and certain other 
equipment, and authorizes DOE 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 431.443, 431.444, and 431.445.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    [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)(G)) EPCA requires DOE to prescribe energy 
conservation standards for those small electric motors for which DOE: 
(1) Has determined that standards would be technologically feasible and 
economically justified and would result in significant energy savings, 
and (2) has prescribed test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)) However, 
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).
    Additionally, EPCA requires DOE, in establishing standards for 
small electric motors, to consider whether the standards themselves 
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). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) These criteria, along with 
requirements that any standards be economically justified, are largely 
incorporated into

[[Page 10878]]

42 U.S.C. 6295(o), which sets forth the criteria for prescribing 
standards for ``covered products,'' i.e., consumer products as defined 
in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1) and (2)) Under 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), portions 
of 42 U.S.C. 6295, including subsection (o), also apply when DOE 
promulgates standards for certain specified commercial and industrial 
equipment--``covered equipment'' as defined in EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6311(1))--including small electric motors. (EPCA states that the term 
``equipment'' shall be substituted for ``product'' in applying the 
consumer product-related provisions of EPCA to commercial and 
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(3))
    Therefore, as indicated above, DOE analyzed whether today's 
standards for small electric motors will achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Additionally, DOE 
examined whether each of today's standards for this equipment is 
economically justified, after receiving comments on the proposed 
standards, by determining whether the benefits of the standard exceed 
its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the 
following seven factors that are 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 amount of 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;
    6. The need for national energy conservation; and
    7. Other factors the Secretary [of Energy] considers relevant.
    In developing today's energy conservation standards, DOE also has 
applied certain other provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295 as it is required to 
do. First, DOE would not prescribe a standard for small electric motors 
if interested persons established by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the 
United States of any type (or class) of this product with performance 
characteristics, features, sizes, capacities, and volume that are 
substantially the same as those generally available in the United 
States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
    Second, DOE has applied 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.''
    Third, in setting standards for a type or class of equipment that 
has two or more subcategories, DOE specifies 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. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature 
justifies such 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 must include an explanation of the basis on which DOE 
establishes such higher or lower level. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for equipment covered under 
EPCA generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy 
conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c) 
and 42 U.S.C. 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 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))

B. Background

1. Current Energy Conservation Standards
    As indicated above, at present there are no national energy 
conservation standards for small electric motors.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Small Electric Motors
    To determine the small electric motors for which energy 
conservation standards would be technologically feasible and 
economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings, 
DOE first concluded that the EPCA definition of ``small electric 
motor'' covers only those motors that meet the definition's frame-size 
requirements, and that are either three-phase, non-servo motors 
(referred to below as polyphase motors) or single-phase, capacitor-
start motors, including both capacitor-start, induction run (CSIR) and 
capacitor-start, capacitor-run (CSCR) motors. 71 FR 38799, 38800-01 
(July 10, 2006). In June 2006, DOE issued a report in which it analyzed 
and estimated the likely range of energy savings and economic benefits 
that would result from standards for these motors.\2\ The report did 
not address motors that are a component of a covered product or 
equipment, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6317. After receiving comments on 
the report, DOE performed further analysis to determine whether 
standards are warranted for small electric motors and then issued the 
following determination on June 27, 2006:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/small_motors_tsd.pdf.

    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, the 
Department [of Energy] will initiate the development of energy 
efficiency test procedures and standards for certain small electric 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
motors. 71 FR 38807.

    Thereafter, in 2007, DOE initiated this rulemaking by issuing and 
seeking public comment on the ``Energy Conservation Standards 
Rulemaking Framework Document for Small Electric Motors,'' which 
described the approaches DOE anticipated using to develop energy 
conservation standards for small electric motors and the issues to be 
resolved in the rulemaking. See 72 FR 44990 (August 10, 2007). This 
document is also available on the aforementioned DOE Web site. On 
September 13, 2007, DOE held a public

[[Page 10879]]

meeting to present the contents of the framework document, describe the 
analyses DOE planned to conduct during the rulemaking, obtain public 
comment on these subjects, and facilitate the public's involvement in 
the rulemaking. Manufacturers, trade associations, electric utilities, 
environmental advocates, regulators, and other interested parties 
provided comments at this meeting, and submitted written comments, on 
the Framework Document. They addressed a range of issues.
    On December 19, 2008, after having considered these comments, 
gathering additional information, and performing preliminary analyses 
as to standards for small electric motors, DOE announced an informal 
public meeting and the availability on its Web site of a preliminary 
technical support document (preliminary TSD). 73 FR 79723 (December 30, 
2008). The preliminary TSD discussed the comments DOE had received in 
this rulemaking and described the actions DOE had taken, the analytical 
framework DOE was using, and the content and results of DOE's 
preliminary analyses. Id. at 79724-25. DOE's preliminary analyses were 
largely based on comments received from industry; including those 
focusing on what constitutes small electric motors and corresponding 
shipment estimates. DOE convened the public meeting to discuss, and 
receive comments on, these subjects, DOE's proposed product classes, 
potential standard levels that DOE might consider, and other issues 
participants believed were relevant to the rulemaking. Id. at 79723, 
79725. DOE also invited written comments on all of these matters. The 
public meeting took place on January 30, 2009. Eighteen interested 
parties participated, and ten submitted written comments during the 
comment period.
    On November 24, 2009, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NOPR) to establish small electric motor energy conservation standards. 
74 FR 61410. Shortly after, DOE also published on its Web site the 
complete technical support document (TSD) for the proposed rule, which 
incorporated the completed analyses DOE conducted and technical 
documentation for each analysis. These analyses were developed using, 
in part, NEMA-supplied data. The TSD included the LCC spreadsheet, the 
national impact analysis spreadsheet, and the manufacturer impact 
analysis (MIA) spreadsheet--all of which are available at https://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/small_electric_motors.html. The energy efficiency standards DOE proposed in 
the NOPR were as follows:

                    Table II.1--Proposed Standard Levels for Polyphase Small Electric Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Motor output power                          Six poles        Four poles         Two poles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25 Hp/0.18 kW...........................................              77.4              72.7              69.8
0.33 Hp/0.25 kW...........................................              79.1              75.6              73.7
0.5 Hp/0.37 kW............................................              81.1              80.1              76.0
0.75 Hp/0.55 kW...........................................              84.0              83.5              81.6
1 Hp/0.75 kW..............................................              84.2              85.2              83.6
1.5 Hp/1.1 kW.............................................              85.2              87.1              86.6
2 Hp/1.5 kW...............................................              89.2              88.0              88.2
>= 3 Hp/2.2 kW............................................              90.8              90.0              90.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Standard levels are expressed in terms of full-load efficiency.
** These efficiencies corresponded to NOPR Trial Standard Level 5 for polyphase motors.


          Table II.2--Proposed Standard Levels for Capacitor-Start Induction-Run Small Electric Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Motor output power                          Six poles        Four poles         Two poles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25 Hp/0.18 kW...........................................              65.4              69.8              71.4
0.33 Hp/0.25 kW...........................................              70.7              72.8              74.2
0.5 Hp/0.37 kW............................................              77.0              77.0              76.3
0.75 Hp/0.55 kW...........................................              81.0              80.9              78.1
1 Hp/0.75 kW..............................................              84.1              82.8              80.0
1.5 Hp/1.1 kW.............................................              87.7              85.5              82.2
2 Hp/1.5 kW...............................................              89.8              86.5              85.0
>= 3 Hp/2.2 kW............................................              92.2              88.9              85.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Standard levels are expressed in terms of full-load efficiency.
** These efficiencies corresponded to NOPR Trial Standard Level 7 for capacitor-start motors.


          Table II.3--Proposed Standard Levels for Capacitor-Start Capacitor-Run Small Electric Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Motor output power                          Six poles        Four poles         Two poles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25 Hp/0.18 kW...........................................              63.9              68.3              70.0
0.33 Hp/0.25 kW...........................................              69.2              71.6              72.9
0.5 Hp/0.37 kW............................................              75.8              76.0              75.1
0.75 Hp/0.55 kW...........................................              79.9              80.3              77.0
1 Hp/0.75 kW..............................................              83.2              82.0              79.0
1.5 Hp/1.1 kW.............................................              87.0              84.9              81.4
2 Hp/1.5 kW...............................................              89.1              86.1              84.2
>= 3 Hp/2.2 kW............................................              91.7              88.5              84.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Standard levels are expressed in terms of full-load efficiency.
** These efficiencies corresponded to NOPR Trial Standard Level 7 for capacitor-start motors.


[[Page 10880]]

    In the NOPR, DOE also identified issues on which it was 
particularly interested in receiving the comments and views of 
interested parties. DOE requested comment on the proposed energy 
efficiency levels for polyphase and single-phase motors, product 
classes, covered insulation class systems, its selection of baseline 
models, markups used in the engineering analysis, design option and 
limitations used in the engineering analysis, the approach to scaling 
the results of the engineering analysis, the proposed definition of 
nominal efficiency, the manufacturer impact analysis scenarios, capital 
investment costs used, market interaction between CSIR and CSCR motors, 
market response to standards, behavior of customers with space 
constraints, the combined effect of certain market assumptions, the 
appropriateness of other discount rates besides seven and three percent 
to discount future emissions, and the anticipated environmental 
impacts. The NOPR also included additional background information on 
the history of this rulemaking. 74 FR 61416-17.
    DOE held a public meeting in Washington, DC on December 17, 2009, 
to hear oral comments on, and solicit information relevant to, the 
proposed rule. DOE has also received written comments and information 
in response to the NOPR.

III. General Discussion

A. Test Procedures

    On July 7, 2009, DOE published a final rule that 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 Standard C747-94 
as the DOE test procedures to measure energy efficiency small electric 
motors. 74 FR 32059.
    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 when certifying their equipment 
as compliant but maintaining efficiency measurement 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.
    DOE notes that complete certification and enforcement provisions 
for small electric motors have not yet been developed. DOE intends to 
propose such provisions in a separate test procedure supplementary 
NOPR, at which time DOE will invite comments on how small electric 
motor efficiency standards can be effectively enforced. Section V.B of 
this final rule summarizes comments received in response to the NOPR 
that will be further addressed in the test procedure supplemental NOPR.

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    As stated above, any standards that DOE establishes for small 
electric motors must be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) DOE considers a design option to be 
technologically feasible if it is in use by the respective industry or 
if research has progressed to the development of a working prototype. 
``Technologies incorporated in commercially available equipment or in 
working prototypes will be considered technologically feasible.'' 10 
CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i). This final 
rule considers the same design options as those evaluated in the NOPR. 
(See chapter 5 of the TSD.) All the evaluated technologies have been 
used (or are being used) in commercially available products or working 
prototypes. Therefore, DOE has determined that all of the efficiency 
levels evaluated in this notice are technologically feasible.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    As required by EPCA, (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)), 
in developing the NOPR, DOE identified the efficiency levels that would 
achieve the maximum improvements in energy efficiency that are 
technologically feasible (max-tech levels) for small electric motors. 
74 FR 61418. Table III.1 lists the max-tech levels that DOE determined 
for this rulemaking. DOE identified these levels as part of the 
engineering analysis (chapter 5 of the TSD), using the most efficient 
design parameters that lead to the highest full-load efficiencies for 
small electric motors.

                  Table III.1--Max-Tech Efficiency Levels for Representative Product Classes *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Motor category                            Poles            Horsepower         Efficiency %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyphase.............................................                  4                1                  87.7
CSIR..................................................                  4                0.5                77.6
CSCR..................................................                  4                0.75               87.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These max-tech efficiency levels are only for the representative product classes described in section IV.C.2.
  Max-tech efficiency levels for the remaining product classes are determined using the scaling methodology
  outlined in section IV.C.5.

    DOE developed maximum technologically feasible efficiencies by 
creating motor designs for each product class analyzed, which use all 
the viable design options that DOE considered. The efficiency levels 
shown in Table III.1 correspond to designs that use a maximum increase 
in stack length, a copper rotor design, a premium electrical steel 
(Hiperco 50), a maximum slot-fill percentage (65-percent), 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

    DOE forecasted energy savings in its national energy savings (NES) 
analysis, through the use of an NES spreadsheet tool, as discussed in 
the NOPR. 74 FR 61418, 61440-42, 61470-72.
    One of the criteria that govern DOE's adoption of standards for 
small electric motors is that the standard must result in 
``significant'' energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)) While the term 
``significant'' is not defined by EPCA, a D.C. Circuit indicated that 
Congress intended ``significant'' energy savings to be savings that 
were not ``genuinely

[[Page 10881]]

trivial.'' Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 
1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985) The energy savings for the standard levels 
DOE is adopting today are non-trivial, and therefore DOE considers them 
``significant'' as required by 42 U.S.C. 6317.

D. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    The following section discusses how DOE has addressed each of the 
seven factors that it uses to determine if energy conservation 
standards are economically justified.
a. Economic Impact on Motor Customers and Manufacturers
    DOE considered the economic impact of today's new standards on 
purchasers and manufacturers of small electric motors. For purchasers 
of small electric motors, DOE measured the economic impact as the 
change in installed cost and life-cycle operating costs, i.e., the LCC. 
(See section IV.F of this preamble, and chapter 12 of the TSD.) DOE 
investigated the impacts on manufacturers through the manufacturer 
impact analysis (MIA). (See sections IV.I and VI.C.2 of this preamble 
and chapter 13 of the TSD.) The economic impact on purchasers and 
manufacturers is discussed in detail in the NOPR. 74 FR 61418-19, 
61436-40, 61442-46, and 61454-70.
b. Life-Cycle Costs
    DOE considered life-cycle costs of small electric motors, as 
discussed in the NOPR. 74 FR 61436-40, 61442, 61454-64. In considering 
these costs, DOE calculated the sum of the purchase price and the 
operating expense--discounted over the lifetime of the equipment--to 
estimate the range in LCC savings that small motors purchasers would 
expect to achieve due to the standards.
c. Energy Savings
    Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, EPCA also 
requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, 
to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to 
result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) and 
42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) As in the NOPR (74 FR 61440-42, 61470-72), for 
today's final rule, DOE used the NES spreadsheet results in its 
consideration of total projected energy savings that are directly 
attributable to the standard levels DOE considered.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment
    In selecting today's standard levels, DOE avoided selection of 
standards that lessen the utility or performance of the equipment under 
consideration in this rulemaking. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) 
and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) 74 FR 61419, 61476. The efficiency levels DOE 
considered maintain both motor performance and power factor in order to 
preserve consumer utility. 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). The 
designs adhering to the 20-percent increase in stack length maintain 
all aspects of consumer utility and were created for all efficiency 
levels, but these designs may become very expensive at higher 
efficiency levels when compared with DOE's other designs.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    DOE considered any lessening of competition that is likely to 
result from standards. As discussed in the NOPR, 74 FR 61419, 61476, 
and as required under EPCA, DOE requested that the Attorney General 
transmit to the Secretary a written determination of the impact, if 
any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from the 
standards proposed in the NOPR, together with an analysis of the nature 
and extent of such impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii) 
and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
    To assist the Attorney General in making such a determination, DOE 
provided the Department of Justice (DOJ) with copies of the November 
24, 2009 proposed rule and the NOPR TSD for review. The Attorney 
General's response is discussed in IV.F.7 below, and is reprinted at 
the end of this rule. DOJ concluded that TSL 5 for polyphase small 
electric motors and TSL 7 for single-phase small electric motors are 
likely to affect the replacement market for certain applications. DOJ 
requested that DOE consider this potential impact and, as warranted, 
allow exemptions from the proposed standard levels the manufacture and 
marketing of certain replacement small electric motors.
f. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    In considering standards for small electric motors, the Secretary 
must consider the need of the Nation to conserve energy. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) The Secretary recognizes 
that energy conservation benefits the Nation in several important ways. 
The non-monetary benefits of the standard are likely to be reflected in 
improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy 
system. Today's standard will also result in environmental benefits. As 
discussed in the NOPR, 74 FR 61419, 61447-61453, 61476-61484, and in 
section VI.C.6 of this final rule, DOE considered these factors in 
adopting today's standards.
g. Other Factors
    The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is 
economically justified, considers any other factors that the Secretary 
of Energy deems relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 42 
U.S.C. 6316(a)) In adopting today's standards, the Secretary considered 
the following: (1) Harmonization of standards for small electric motors 
with existing standards under EPCA for medium-sized polyphase general 
purpose motors; (2) the impact, on consumers who need to use CSIR 
motors, and on the prices for such motors at potential standard levels; 
and (3) the potential for standards to reduce reactive power demand and 
thereby lower costs for supplying electricity.\3\ 74 FR 61419-20, 
61484. These issues are addressed in section VI.C.7 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 increased installed cost for a product that meets the 
standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy 
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(a)) DOE's LCC and payback period (PBP) analyses generate values 
that calculate the PBP of potential energy conservation standards. The 
calculation includes, but is not limited to, the three-year PBP 
contemplated under the rebuttable presumption test just described. 
However, DOE routinely

[[Page 10882]]

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(a). 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 any presumption of 
economic justification).

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments on Methodology

    DOE used several analytical tools that it developed previously and 
adapted for use in this rulemaking. One is a spreadsheet that 
calculates LCC and PBP. Another tool calculates national energy savings 
and national NPV that would result from the adoption of energy 
conservation standards. DOE also used the Government Regulatory Impact 
Model (GRIM), along with other data obtained from interviews with 
manufacturers, in its MIA to determine the impacts of standards on 
manufacturers. Finally, DOE developed an approach using the National 
Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to estimate impacts of standards for 
small electric motors on electric utilities and the environment. The 
NOPR discusses each of these analytical tools in detail, 74 FR 61420, 
61436-53, as does the TSD.
    As a basis for this final rule, DOE has continued to use the 
spreadsheets and approaches explained in the NOPR. DOE used the same 
general methodology as applied in the NOPR, but revised some of the 
assumptions and inputs for the final rule in response to public 
comments. DOE also added new analysis based on the comments it received 
from interested parties. The following paragraphs address these 
revisions.

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 scope of 
coverage, 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
    EPCA defines a small electric motor as ``a NEMA 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)(G). NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987 is 
an industry guidance document that addresses, among other things, 
various aspects related to small and medium electric motors. As denoted 
in the title, this version of MG1 was prepared in 1987, more than 20 
years before the date of today's final rule. NEMA has since published 
updated versions of this document, the latest of which was released in 
2006. Of particular significance is the difference in what was 
considered in 1987 a general purpose, alternating current motor (only 
open construction motors) compared to what NEMA currently considers a 
general purpose alternating current motor (both open and enclosed 
construction motors).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An open motor is constructed with ventilating openings that 
permit external cooling air to pass over and around the windings of 
the motor. An enclosed motor is constructed to prevent the free 
exchange of air between the inside and outside of the housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE explained its view in the NOPR as to how it currently reads 42 
U.S.C. 6311(13)(G). 74 FR 61421. DOE indicated that the statute refers 
to MG1-1987 for purposes of ascertaining what constitutes a small 
electric motor. The agency explained and articulated certain 
assumptions in the NOPR regarding the scope of categories of motors, 
frame sizes, performance characteristics, insulation systems, and motor 
enclosures that it examined within the proposed scope of this 
rulemaking.
    DOE received several comments criticizing the scope of DOE's 
coverage in its analyses. Manufacturers indicated that DOE's scope was 
too broad because, in their view, many of the motors DOE examined in 
ascertaining the energy savings potential for small electric motors, 
were not small electric motors under MG1-1987. For example, Emerson 
commented that in order for standards to be enforceable, DOE should 
adhere strictly to MG1-1