[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 84 (Thursday, April 30, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24146-24172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08319]



[[Page 24145]]

Vol. 85

Thursday,

No. 84

April 30, 2020

Part III





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Part 431





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

  Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 84 / Thursday, April 30, 2020 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 24146]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0008]
RIN 1904-AD29


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Small Electric Motors

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

ACTION: Notification of proposed determination and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended, 
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products 
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including small 
electric motors. EPCA also requires the Secretary of Energy to 
periodically determine whether more-stringent, amended standards would 
be technologically feasible and cost effective, and would result in 
significant conservation of energy. In this document, DOE has 
tentatively determined that more stringent small electric motors 
standards would not be cost effective, and, thus, is not proposing to 
amend its energy conservation standards for this equipment. DOE 
requests comment on this proposed determination and associated analyses 
and results.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
notification of proposed determination before, but no later than June 
29, 2020. See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for details.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested 
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2019-BT-
STD-0008, by any of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Email: [email protected]. Include the 
docket number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0008 in the subject line of the message.
    (3) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    (4) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards 
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC, 20024. Telephone: (202) 
586-6636. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case 
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimilies (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the 
rulemaking process, see section VII of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in 
the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However, 
not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such 
as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0008. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section VII for information on how to submit 
comments through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC, 20585-0121. Email: [email protected].
    Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact the 
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by 
email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
    A. Authority and Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Small Electric Motors
III. General Discussion
    A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
    B. Test Procedure
    C. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    D. Energy Savings
    E. Cost Effectiveness
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Scope of Coverage
    2. Equipment Classes
    3. Technology Options for Efficiency Improvement
    B. Screening Analysis
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Summary of Significant Data Sources
    2. Representative Equipment Classes
    3. Engineering Analysis Methodology
    4. Cost
    5. Scaling Relationships
    D. Markups Analysis
    E. Energy Use Analysis
    1. Consumer Sample
    2. Motor Input Power
    3. Annual Operating Hours
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    1. Equipment Cost
    2. Installation Cost
    3. Annual Energy Consumption
    4. Energy Prices
    5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    6. Motor Lifetime
    7. Discount Rates
    8. Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    9. Payback Period Analysis
    G. Other Comments Received
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
    A. Energy Savings
    B. Cost Effectiveness
    C. Proposed Determination
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
    B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
    C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    M. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
    A. Submission of Comments
    B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

[[Page 24147]]

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination

    Title III, Part C \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as 
amended (``EPCA''),\2\ established the Energy Conservation Program for 
Certain Industrial Equipment, (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), which includes 
small electric motors, the subject of this notification of proposed 
determination (``NOPD'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, 
Public Law 115-270 (October 23, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to EPCA's requirement that not 
later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or 
amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notification of 
determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, 
or a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') including new proposed 
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as 
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
    For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed the small electric 
motors currently subject to the standards found at title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 431. See 10 CFR 431.446. Of these 
motors, DOE first analyzed the technological feasibility of more 
efficient small electric motors. For currently available small electric 
motors with efficiencies exceeding the levels of the current energy 
conservation standards, DOE preliminarily determined that more 
stringent standards would be technologically feasible. For these small 
electric motors, DOE evaluated whether more stringent standards would 
also be cost effective by conducting preliminary life-cycle cost 
(``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP'') analyses.
    Based on these analyses, as summarized in section V of this 
document, DOE has preliminarily determined that more stringent energy 
conservation standards would not be cost effective. Therefore, DOE has 
tentatively determined that the current standards for small electric 
motors do not need to be amended.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this proposed determination, as well as some of the relevant 
historical background related to the establishment of standards for 
small electric motors.

A. Authority and Background

    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
C of EPCA includes the small electric motors that are the subject of 
this proposed determination. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) As discussed in 
the following paragraphs, EPCA directed DOE to establish test 
procedures and prescribe energy conservation standards for small 
electric motors. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b))
    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant 
provisions of the Act specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 
6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures 
(42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the 
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 
U.S.C. 6316).
    EPCA directed DOE to establish a test procedure for those small 
electric motors for which DOE determined that energy conservation 
standards would (1) be technologically feasible and economically 
justified and (2) result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 
6317(b)(1)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal 
test procedures as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their 
equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards 
adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and 
(2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 
U.S.C. 6314(d)). The DOE test procedures for small electric motors 
appear at 10 CFR part 431, subpart X.
    EPCA further directed DOE to prescribe energy conservation 
standards for those small electric motors for which test procedures 
were established. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(2)) Additionally, EPCA prescribed 
that any such standards shall not apply to any small electric motor 
which is a component of a covered product under 42 U.S.C. 6292(a) or 
covered equipment under 42 U.S.C. 6311 of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) 
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (See 
42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)).
    EPCA requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of 
any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the 
energy conservation standards for each type of covered equipment, 
including those at issue here, and publish either a notification of 
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR 
that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to 
a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(1)). EPCA further provides that, not later than 3 years after 
the issuance of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must 
make a new determination not to amend the standards or issue a NOPR 
including new proposed energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on which a 
determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity 
for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
    In making a determination that the standards do not need to be 
amended, DOE must evaluate under the criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) 
whether amended standards (1) will result in significant conservation 
of energy, (2) are technologically feasible, and (3) are cost effective 
as described under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 
42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295 (n)(2)) Under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of cost effectiveness requires DOE 
to consider savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance 
expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the 
imposition of the standard.
    DOE is publishing this document in accordance with its authority 
under EPCA, and in satisfaction of its statutory requirement under 
EPCA.
1. Current Standards
    The current energy conservation standards for small electric motors 
are located in title 10 CFR 431.446, and are presented in Table II-1 
and Table II-2.

[[Page 24148]]



              Table II-1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Polyphase Small Electric Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Average full load efficiency
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent                    Open motors (number of poles)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         6               4               2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25/0.18.......................................................            67.5            69.5            65.6
0.33/0.25.......................................................            71.4            73.4            69.5
0.5/0.37........................................................            75.3            78.2            73.4
0.75/0.55.......................................................            81.7            81.1            76.8
1/0.75..........................................................            82.5            83.5            77.0
1.5/1.1.........................................................            83.8            86.5            84.0
2/1.5...........................................................             N/A            86.5            85.5
3/2.2...........................................................             N/A            86.9            85.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table II-2--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Capacitor-Start Induction-Run and Capacitor-Start
                                       Capacitor-Run Small Electric Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Average full load efficiency
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent                    Open motors (number of poles)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         6               4               2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25/0.18.......................................................            62.2            68.5            66.6
0.33/0.25.......................................................            66.6            72.4            70.5
0.5/0.37........................................................            76.2            76.2            72.4
0.75/0.55.......................................................            80.2            81.8            76.2
1/0.75..........................................................            81.1            82.6            80.4
1.5/1.1.........................................................             N/A            83.8            81.5
2/1.5...........................................................             N/A            84.5            82.9
3/2.2...........................................................             N/A             N/A            84.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Small Electric Motors
    In 2006, DOE determined that energy conservation standards for 
certain single-phase, capacitor-start, induction-run, small electric 
motors are technologically feasible and economically justified, and 
would result in significant energy savings. 71 FR 38799 (July 10, 
2006). Later, in 2010, DOE issued a final rule (the ``March 2010 Final 
Rule'') establishing energy conservation standards for small electric 
motors manufactured starting on March 9, 2015.\3\ 75 FR 10874 (March 9, 
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In a technical correction, DOE revised the compliance date 
for energy conservation standards to March 9, 2015, for each small 
electric motor manufactured (alone or as a component of another 
piece of non-covered equipment), or March 9, 2017, in the case of a 
small electric motor which requires listing or certification by a 
nationally recognized safety testing laboratory. 75 FR 17036 (April 
5, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In April 2019, DOE published a request for information (``April 
2019 ECS RFI'') to solicit input and data from interested parties to 
aid in the development of the technical analyses for the determination 
of whether new and/or amended standards for small electric motors are 
warranted. 84 FR 14027 (April 9, 2019). The comment period was re-
opened in response to a request from an interested party, see NEMA, No. 
4 at p. 1, until June 7, 2019. See 84 FR 25203 (May 31, 2019).
    DOE received a number of comments from interested parties in 
response to the April 2019 ECS RFI.\4\ The commenters that provided 
relevant comments are listed in Table II-3.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The comments received in response to the April 2019 ECS RFI 
are included in the docket for this action and can be found at 
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0008.
    \5\ DOE received a comment unrelated to small electric motors 
(i.e., Sims, No. 2), which was not addressed.

             Table II-3--April 2019 ECS RFI Written Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Reference in this
    Commenter/organization(s)            NOPD          Organization type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Motors and Mechanical Inc...  ABB...............  Manufacturer.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and    AHRI and AHAM.....  Trade
 Refrigeration Institute                               Associations.
 (``AHRI'') and Association of
 Home Appliance Manufacturers
 (``AHAM'').
Appliance Standards Awareness     ASAP, et al.......  Advocacy Groups
 Project (``ASAP''), Alliance to                       and State
 Save Energy, American Council                         Governmental
 for an Energy-Efficient                               Agency.
 Economy, the California Energy
 Commission, the Natural
 Resources Defense Council, and
 Northwest Energy Efficiency
 Alliance.
Belanger, Zach..................  Belanger..........  Individual.
California Investor-Owned         CA IOUs...........  Utilities.
 Utilities (``CA IOUs'')--
 Pacific Gas and Electric
 Company, San Diego Gas and
 Electric, and Southern
 California Edison.
Kasimos, Anastasia..............  Kasimos...........  Individual.
Lennox International Inc........  Lennox............  Manufacturer.
Lenze Americas..................  Lenze Americas....  Manufacturer.

[[Page 24149]]

 
National Electrical               NEMA..............  Trade Association.
 Manufacturers Association
 (``NEMA'').
The Institute for Policy          NYU...............  Non-Governmental
 Integrity at New York                                 Organization.
 University (``NYU'') School of
 Law.
Palubin, Erin...................  Palubin...........  Individual.
Sierra Club & Earthjustice......  Sierra Club &       Advocacy Groups.
                                   Earthjustice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also received a number of comments related to certification, 
compliance and enforcement issues, but these comments fell outside the 
scope of this rulemaking and are not addressed in this document. The 
remaining relevant comments and DOE's responses are provided in the 
appropriate sections of this document.

III. General Discussion

A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes

    This document covers equipment meeting the definition of ``small 
electric motor,'' as codified in 10 CFR 431.442. ``Small electric 
motor'' means 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, including IEC metric 
equivalent motors.'' 10 CFR 431.442.\6\ The scope of coverage for these 
motors is discussed in further detail in section IV.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``IEC'' refers to the International 
Electrotechnical Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy 
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify 
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In 
determining whether capacity or another performance-related feature 
justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the 
utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems 
appropriate. (Id.) The equipment classes for this proposed 
determination are discussed further in section IV.A.2.

B. Test Procedure

    As noted, EPCA directed DOE to establish a test procedure for those 
small electric motors for which DOE determined that energy conservation 
standards would (1) be technologically feasible and economically 
justified and (2) result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 
6317(b)(1)) In a final rule published on July 7, 2009, DOE adopted test 
procedures for small electric motors. 74 FR 32059.
    Subsequently, DOE updated the test procedures for small electric 
motors on May 4, 2012 (the ``May 2012 test procedure final rule''). 77 
FR 26608. The existing test procedures for small electric motors 
incorporate certain industry standards from the Institute of Electrical 
and Electronics Engineers (``IEEE'') and Canadian Standards Association 
(``CSA''), as listed in Table III-1.

 Table III-1--Industry Standards Currently Incorporated by Reference for
                          Small Electric Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Equipment description               Industry test procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-phase small electric motors...........  IEEE 114-2010.
                                               CSA C747-09.
Polyphase small electric motors less than or   IEEE 112-2004 Test Method
 equal to 1 horsepower.                         A.
                                               CSA C747-09.
Polyphase small electric motors greater than   IEEE 112-2004 Test Method
 1 horsepower.                                  B.
                                               CSA C390-10.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2017, DOE solicited the public for information pertaining to the 
test procedures for small electric motors and electric motors. 82 FR 
35468 (July 31, 2017) (the ``July 2017 test procedure RFI''). In the 
July 2017 test procedure RFI, DOE sought public comments, data, and 
information on all aspects of, and any issues or problems with, the 
existing DOE test procedure for small electric motors, including on any 
needed updates or revisions. DOE also discussed electric motor 
categories (as defined at 10 CFR 431.12) that may be considered in a 
future DOE test procedure. 82 FR 35470-35474.
    In April 2019, DOE proposed amending its test procedure for small 
electric motors. 84 FR 17004 (April 23, 2019). In that NOPR, DOE 
proposed harmonizing its procedure with industry practice by 
incorporating a new industry standard that manufacturers would be 
permitted to use in addition to the three industry standards currently 
incorporated by reference as options for use when testing small 
electric motor efficiency. 84 FR 17013-17014. In addition, DOE proposed 
to adopt industry provisions related to the test conditions to ensure 
the comparability of test results for small electric motors. 84 FR 
17014-17018. DOE is currently evaluating the comments received on these 
proposals.

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In evaluating potential amendments to energy conservation 
standards, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information 
gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that 
could improve the efficiency of the product or equipment at issue. As 
the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology 
options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design 
engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of 
those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE 
considers technologies incorporated in

[[Page 24150]]

commercially available equipment or in working prototypes to be 
technologically feasible. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 
section 4(a)(4)(i).
    After DOE has determined that particular options are 
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option 
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) 
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse 
impacts on equipment utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts 
on health or safety. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 
section 4(a)(4)(ii)-(iv).
    Additionally, it is DOE policy not to include in its analysis any 
proprietary technology that is a unique pathway to achieving a certain 
efficiency level. Section IV.B of this proposed determination discusses 
the results of the screening analysis for small electric motors, 
particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and 
those that are the basis for the proposed determination. In this NOPD, 
based on its review of the market and comments received in response to 
the April 2019 ECS RFI, DOE has tentatively determined that no 
significant technical advancements in induction motor technology have 
been made since publication of the March 2010 Final Rule.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When DOE evaluates the potential for new or amended standards, DOE 
must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum 
reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such 
equipment. Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the 
maximum technologically feasible (``max tech'') improvements in energy 
efficiency for small electric motors. DOE defines a max-tech efficiency 
level to represent the theoretical maximum possible efficiency if all 
available design options are incorporated in a model. In applying these 
design options, DOE would only include those that are compatible with 
each other such that when combined, they would represent the 
theoretical maximum possible efficiency. In many cases, the max-tech 
efficiency level is not commercially available because it is not 
economically feasible. The max-tech levels that DOE has determined are 
described in section IV.C of this proposed determination.

D. Energy Savings

    In determining whether to amend the current energy conservation 
standards for small electric motors, DOE must assess whether amended 
standards will result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A). See also 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2).) For 
each considered efficiency level, DOE estimated the lifetime energy 
savings for small electric motors purchased in the expected compliance 
year for potential standards. See section IV.E for more details for the 
energy use analysis.
    The term ``significant'' is not defined in EPCA. DOE notes that the 
meaning of this term is currently under consideration. See 84 FR 3910, 
3922 (Feb. 13, 2019). DOE is also considering whether to apply a two-
pronged threshold approach for determining whether significant energy 
savings is present in a given standards rulemaking scenario. See id. at 
84 FR 3921-3925. In the present case, when applying the criteria of 42 
U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) to determine whether to amend the current standards, 
DOE analyzed the available data and has tentatively determined that 
amended standards would not be cost-effective as required under EPCA. 
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. (n)(2)(C)) 
See also sections IV.F and V.B (discussing in greater detail DOE's 
analysis of the available data in reaching this tentative 
determination). Based on available data, DOE's analysis indicates that 
the LCC of a small electric motor would increase with more stringent 
standards and the payback period to recoup the relevant costs from 
investing in more stringent standards would, in most cases, likely 
exceed the expected lifetimes of the different classes of small 
electric motors DOE examined in its analysis--pointing to the inability 
of potential standards to satisfy the cost-effectiveness requirement 
under EPCA. Consequently, because DOE's analysis indicates that the 
three mandatory prerequisites that need to be satisfied to permit DOE 
to move forward with a determination to amend its current standards 
cannot be met, DOE did not separately determine whether the potential 
energy savings would be significant for purposes of the statutory test 
that applies. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) (requiring that amended 
standards must result in significant conservation energy, be 
technologically feasible, and be cost-effective as provided in 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), DOE must consider 
whether ``the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 
average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared 
to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or 
maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to 
result from the imposition of the standard.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Cost Effectiveness

    EPCA requires DOE to consider the cost effectiveness of amended 
standards in the context of the savings in operating costs throughout 
the estimated average life of the covered equipment class compared to 
any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or 
maintenance expenses of, the covered equipment that are likely to 
result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A))
    In considering cost effectiveness, DOE conducted LCC and PBP 
analyses. The LCC is the sum of the initial price of equipment 
(including its installation) and the operating expense (including 
energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the 
lifetime of the equipment. The LCC analysis requires a variety of 
inputs, such as equipment prices, equipment energy consumption, energy 
prices, maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, and discount 
rates appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and 
variability in specific inputs, such as equipment lifetime and discount 
rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to 
each value.
    The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes 
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of more-efficient equipment through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost 
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
    For its LCC and PBP analyses, DOE assumes that consumers would 
purchase the covered equipment in the first year of compliance with any 
amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels 
are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market 
trends in the absence of amended standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis 
is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this proposed 
determination.
    DOE's LCC and PBP analyses indicate that the LCC would increase 
with more stringent standards and that the payback period to recoup the 
relevant costs from investing in more stringent standards would, in 
most cases, likely exceed the expected lifetimes of the different 
classes of small electric motors DOE examined in its analysis.\8\ 
Therefore,

[[Page 24151]]

DOE has tentatively determined that amended standards would not be 
cost-effective as required under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C)) See also sections IV.F and 
V.B (discussing in greater detail DOE's analysis of the available data 
in reaching this tentative determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For polyphase small electric motors, the PBP exceeded the 
lifetime of the unit at all ELs considered. For CSCR small electric 
motors, the PBP at EL 1 and EL 2 was comparable to and/or lower than 
the lifetime of the unit (PBP of 6.7; 7.0; 5.9; and 6.4 years 
compared to an average lifetime of 6.6 years). For all equipment 
classes and at all ELs considered, the LCC increased with more 
stringent standards. (See results in section V.B and chapter 8 of 
the NOPD TSD for more details)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

    This section addresses the analyses DOE performed for this proposed 
determination regarding small electric motors. Separate subsections 
address each component of DOE's analyses and responses to related 
comments.
    Lennox commented that DOE should carefully consider and exercise 
caution to ensure that more stringent standards for small electric 
motors provide significant energy savings and are economically 
justified. (Lennox, No. 14 at p. 2) An individual commenter stated that 
small electric motors energy conservation standards should be 
considered a priority. (Kasimos, No. 9 at p. 1)
    As discussed previously, EPCA requires that, not later than 6 years 
after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a 
standard, DOE evaluate the energy conservation standards for each type 
of covered equipment, including those at issue here, and publish either 
a notification of determination that the standards do not need to be 
amended, or a NOPR that includes new proposed energy conservation 
standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)). In making a determination that the 
standards do not need to be amended, DOE must evaluate whether amended 
standards (1) will result in significant conservation of energy, (2) 
are technologically feasible, and (3) are cost effective as described 
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) The following discussion presents 
DOE's evaluation and tentative determination as required under EPCA.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

    DOE has conducted a preliminary market and technology assessment in 
support of a proposed determination for small electric motors. The goal 
of the market assessment is to develop a qualitative and quantitative 
characterization of the small electric motors industry. This assessment 
characterizes the market structure based on publicly available 
information as well as data supplied by manufacturers and other 
interested parties. The goal of the technology assessment is to develop 
a list of technology options that manufacturers can use to improve the 
efficiency of small electric motors.
    For this proposed determination, DOE evaluated the small electric 
motors currently subject to standards at 10 CFR 431.446. The following 
section reviews the scope of coverage and the equipment classes used in 
the development of the current energy conservation standards for small 
electric motors and this proposed determination.
1. Scope of Coverage
    By statute, a ``small electric motor'' is ``a NEMA general purpose 
alternating-current single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit 
frame number series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-
1987.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) DOE later clarified by regulation that 
this definition also includes IEC metric equivalent motors.'' See 10 
CFR 431.442. Equipment meeting this definition are within DOE's scope 
of coverage but not all may be subject to DOE's current standards.
    DOE's standards regulate the energy efficiency of those small 
electric motors that fall within three topologies (i.e., arrangements 
of component parts): Capacitor-start induction-run (``CSIR''), 
capacitor-start capacitor-run (``CSCR''), and polyphase motors. See 10 
CFR 431.446. EPCA prescribes that standards for small electric motors 
do not apply to any small electric motor which is a component of a 
covered product or covered equipment under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) 
DOE's current energy conservation standards only apply to small 
electric motors manufactured alone or as a component of another piece 
of non-covered equipment. 10 CFR 431.446(a).
    Subpart X of 10 CFR part 431 includes energy conservation standards 
and test procedures for the small electric motors listed in Table IV-1. 
DOE is not proposing any changes to the scope of small electric motors 
subject to energy conservation standards (i.e., ``scope of 
applicability'').

      Table IV-1--Small Electric Motors Currently Subject to Energy
                         Conservation Standards
  [Manufactured alone or as a component of another piece of non-covered
                               equipment]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Motor output
        Motor topology            Pole configuration          power
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-phase
    CSIR.....................                    2,4,6  0.25-3 hp
                                                        (0.18-2.2 kW) *
    CSCR.....................                    2,4,6  0.25-3 hp
                                                        (0.18-2.2 kW)
Polyphase....................                    2,4,6  0.25-3 hp
                                                        (0.18-2.2 kW)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain motor categories are not currently subject to standards. These
  include:
 Polyphase, 6-pole, 2 and 3 hp motors;
 CSCR and CSIR, 6-pole, 1.5, 2, and 3 hp motors;
 CSCR and CSIR, 4-pole, 3 hp motors.
* The values in parentheses are the equivalent metric ratings.

    In response to the April 2019 ECS RFI, DOE received a number of 
comments relevant to the scope of applicability of energy conservation 
standards for small electric motors. Lennox, AHRI and AHAM supported 
maintaining the existing standards scope for small electric motors. 
(Lennox, No. 14 at p. 1; AHRI and AHAM, No. 12 at p. 2) AHRI and AHAM 
also specifically opposed testing and regulating special and definite 
purpose motors. They argued that regulating special and definite 
purpose motors could: (1) Increase the cost of the motor

[[Page 24152]]

and of the finished product without necessarily improving its 
performance and (2) significantly increase burden on original equipment 
manufacturers (``OEMs'') if all manufacturers of products using special 
and definite purpose motors were required to certify compliance with 
standards for component parts. (AHRI and AHAM, No. 12 at p. 2-3) Lenze 
Americas added that the scope of applicability for small electric motor 
standards should not include non-continuous duty motors and motors that 
are combined with high-efficiency gears. (Lenze Americas, No. 4 at p. 
1)
    As previously stated in section III.A, this document pertains only 
to equipment meeting the definition of small electric motor, as 
codified in 10 CFR 431.442, which includes general purpose motors, but 
does not include special purpose and definite purpose motors because 
they do not meet the definition of general purpose motors.\9\ In 
addition, DOE notes that motors with non-continuous duty rating and 
integral gears are not included in the category of NEMA general purpose 
single-speed induction motor \10\ and are therefore not subject to the 
energy conservation standards prescribed at 10 CFR 431.446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(C) (defining a definite purpose motor 
as a motor ``designed in standard ratings with standard operating 
characteristics or standard mechanical construction for use under 
service conditions other than usual or for use on a particular type 
of application and which cannot be used in most general purpose 
application'') and 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(D) (defining a special purpose 
motor as ``a motor, other than a general purpose motor or definite 
purpose motor, which has special operating characteristics or 
special mechanical construction, or both, designed for a particular 
application'').
    \10\ In response to questions from NEMA and various motor 
manufacturers, DOE issued a guidance document that identifies some 
key design elements that manufacturers should consider when 
determining whether a given individual motor meets the small 
electric motor definition and is subject to the energy conservation 
standards promulgated for small electric motors. See https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047-0082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sierra Club & Earthjustice commented that DOE did not explain why 
it is not considering standards for motors other than currently 
regulated small electric motors, despite considering test procedures 
for motors that the market considers ``small'' in the July 2017 test 
procedure RFI. (Sierra Club & Earthjustice, No. 13 at p. 1) In 
addition, ASAP, et al. suggested that DOE carefully consider broadening 
the scope to address a wide range of motors that the market considers 
``small''. (ASAP, et al., No. 16 at p. 2) In its filing, the CA IOUs 
argued that DOE should consider establishing standards for additional 
categories of motors considered small by customers and the industry, 
including special- and definite-purpose motors, permanent split 
capacitor motors, and split phase induction motors. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at 
pp. 2-3)
    In the July 2017 test procedure RFI, DOE indicated that it may 
consider setting test procedures for electric motors that are 
considered ``small'' by customers and the electric motors industry, but 
that are not currently subject to the small electric motor test 
procedure. 82 FR 35470. DOE specified that the motors under 
consideration in that test procedure RFI may have similarities to 
motors that are currently regulated as small electric motors (such as 
horsepower) and may be used in similar applications, but that despite 
these similarities, DOE is still determining whether these motors would 
be regulated as small electric motor or as electric motors under DOE 
regulations. Id. As such, this proposed determination is based on the 
current scope of the small electric motor definition and not on any 
hypothetical expanded scope that DOE may consider in the future.
    As previously noted, the term ``small electric motor'' has a 
specific meaning under EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G) and 10 CFR 
431.442. Special purpose and definite purpose motors are not general 
purpose motors and therefore are not covered under the statutory or 
regulatory definition of ``small electric motor'' and are not ``small 
electric motors'' under DOE's statutory or regulatory framework.
    Further, 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. Of these five motor categories, DOE 
determined in the March 2010 Final Rule that only CSIR, CSCR, and 
polyphase motors were able to meet the relevant performance 
requirements in NEMA MG1 and fell within the general purpose 
alternating current motor category, as shown by the listings found in 
manufacturers' catalogs. 75 FR 10882. As stated previously, DOE is not 
proposing any changes to the scope of small electric motors subject to 
energy conservation standards. Therefore, for this determination, DOE 
only considered the currently regulated small electric motors subject 
to energy conservation standards.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Moreover, even if the facts supported the expansion of the 
current scope for small electric motors, DOE notes that it would 
first need to consider the potential test methods to apply when 
measuring the efficiency of a motor that is not in the scope of the 
current DOE test procedure. Nothing DOE has reviewed--or that 
commenters have submitted--have suggested that compatibility exists 
between motors that fall outside of the already prescribed small 
electric motor scope set by Congress and the definition of small 
electric motor. Comments related to the scope of applicability of 
the DOE test procedure for small electric motors were discussed as 
part of DOE's test procedure NOPR. 84 FR 17004, 17009 (April 23, 
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA, AHRI and AHAM, and Lennox commented that DOE should apply a 
finished-product or system level approach to energy efficiency 
regulations. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 18; AHRI and AHAM, No. 12 at pp. 2-3; 
Lennox, No. 14 at p. 2). NEMA, AHRI, and AHAM commented that there are 
greater energy savings opportunities when regulating at the finished-
product level compared to component level efficiency improvements of 
small electric motors. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 3; AHRI and AHAM, No. 12 at 
p. 3) While acknowledging that such considerations are outside the 
scope of a small electric motors rulemaking, NEMA commented that DOE 
should focus on system level efficiency for equipment where advanced 
technology motors can be applied. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 18) ABB suggested 
that regulating systems such as power pumps, compressors, and conveyors 
would provide greater energy savings than requiring incremental 
increases in small electric motor efficiency. (ABB, No. 15 at p. 1) 
Lennox stated that regulating components in covered products and 
covered equipment undermines innovation in developing more efficient 
finished-product systems, inhibits OEM flexibility to design better 
products at lower prices, and adds significant burden. (Lennox, No. 15 
at p. 2)
    EPCA prescribes that energy conservation standards for small 
electric motors do not apply to any small electric motor that is a 
component of a covered product or covered equipment under EPCA. (42 
U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) Small electric motors can also be incorporated in 
non-covered products and equipment, and in these scenarios, DOE would 
be unable to regulate--without first satisfying the statutory 
requirements for setting regulatory coverage over these non-covered 
products and equipment--the final product/equipment into which these 
motors would fit.
    The CA IOUs commented that DOE should consider motors with 
integrated controls to capture energy savings from part-load operation. 
They noted that the IEC 61800-9 Power Driven Systems Standard describes 
how to classify and test motors with controls and motors that are 
considered variable-speed systems. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 4) DOE

[[Page 24153]]

notes that the statutory definition of small electric motors (42 U.S.C. 
6311(13)(G)), which is reflected in the regulatory definition at 10 CFR 
431.442, is limited to motors that are single-speed. Consequently, 
motors with integrated controls or variable-speed configurations are 
beyond the statutory (and regulatory) definition of small electric 
motors.
2. Equipment Classes
    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy 
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify 
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In 
determining whether capacity or another performance-related feature 
justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the 
utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems 
appropriate. (Id.) For the analysis in this proposed determination, DOE 
considered the 62 equipment classes that it already regulates based on 
motor category, horsepower rating, and number of poles. This section 
reviews the motor characteristics used to delineate equipment classes 
for small electric motors under the current energy conservation 
standards and this proposed determination.
    The first characteristic used to establish equipment classes is 
phase count. Polyphase and single-phase equipment classes are used to 
differentiate motors based on the fundamental differences in how the 
two types of motors operate. 10 CFR 431.446(a). For a rotor to move, 
the stator (i.e., the stationary part of the motor) must produce a 
rotating magnetic field. To operate on single-phase alternating current 
(``AC'') power, the single-phase motor uses an auxiliary winding (or 
start winding) with current and voltage out of phase with the original 
(main) winding to produce a net rotating magnetic field. To operate on 
three-phase power, the polyphase motor uses windings arranged such that 
when supplied by three-phase alternating current, a rotating magnetic 
field is produced. In short, three-phase power in a polyphase motor 
naturally produces rotation, whereas a single-phase motor requires the 
auxiliary winding to ``engineer'' the conditions for rotation. Due to 
these differences, polyphase motors are inherently more efficient but 
require use of a three-phase power source. Based on the differences in 
efficiency and consumer utility, DOE separated equipment classes based 
on phase count in the March 2010 Final Rule. 75 FR 10886. This proposed 
determination maintains this approach.
    In addition to differentiating equipment classes by phase count, 
equipment classes are differentiated by the topology of single-phase 
motors. 10 CFR 431.446(a). DOE identified two topologies of single-
phase motors meeting the statutory definition of small electric motors: 
CSIR and CSCR. CSIR and CSCR motors both utilize a capacitor (``start-
capacitor'') and two windings (``start-winding'' and ``run-winding''). 
The difference between the two motors occurs when reaching operating 
speed; while CSIR motors run on the run-winding alone with no 
capacitor, CSCR motors run using an additional ``run-capacitor'' and 
both windings. While this additional capacitor can boost CSCR motor 
efficiency to levels higher than those exhibited by CSIR motor designs, 
it usually constitutes dimensional changes due to the need to mount the 
run-capacitor externally on the motor housing. This additional spatial 
requirement could potentially limit the use of CSCR motors in space-
constrained applications, and would cause motor topology to directly 
impact consumer utility. Given that motor topology can affect motor 
performance and consumer utility, DOE differentiated single-phase 
equipment classes by topology in the March 2010 Final Rule. 75 FR 
10886. DOE maintains this approach in this proposed determination.
    The current energy conservation standards also differentiate 
classes based on the number of poles in a motor. 10 CFR 431.446(a). The 
number of poles in an induction motor determines the synchronous speed 
(i.e., revolutions per minute). There is an inverse relationship 
between the number of poles and speed: As a motor design increases from 
two to eight poles, the synchronous speed drops from 3,600 to 900 
revolutions per minute. The desired synchronous speed varies by end use 
application, making the number of poles in a motor a factor directly 
impacting consumer utility. By examining the efficiency ratings for 1-
200 horsepower polyphase electric motors (10 CFR 431.25),\12\ motors 
meeting the NEMA Premium Motor standard, and manufacturer catalogs, DOE 
observed that full-load efficiency percentages tend to decrease with 
the number of poles. Therefore, DOE determined that the number of poles 
has a direct impact on the motor's performance and consumer utility, 
and consequently, the number of poles is a further means of 
differentiating among equipment classes. 75 FR 10886. DOE maintains 
this approach in this proposed determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ While there is no overlap between the scope of 
applicability for electric motor standards at 10 CFR 431.25 and 
small electric motors standards at 10 CFR 431.446, the pole-
efficiency relationships observed in the electric motor standards 
from 1 to 3 horsepower can be considered when determining 
appropriate pole-efficiency relationships for small electric motors 
in this horsepower range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, DOE employs motor horsepower as an equipment class setting 
factor under the current energy conservation standards. 10 CFR 
431.446(a). Average full load efficiency generally correlates with 
motor horsepower (e.g., a 3-horsepower motor is usually more efficient 
than a \1/4\-horsepower motor). DOE found that motor efficiency varies 
with motor horsepower by evaluating manufacturers' catalog data, the 
efficiency ratings of the established small electric motor energy 
conservation standards (10 CFR 431.446), and the efficiency 
requirements of the NEMA Premium Motor program. Additionally, motor 
horsepower dictates the maximum load that a motor can drive, which 
means that a motor's rated horsepower can influence and limit the end 
use applications where that motor can be used. Horsepower is a critical 
performance attribute of a small electric motor, and since horsepower 
has a direct relationship with average full load efficiency and 
consumer utility, DOE used this element as a criterion for 
distinguishing among equipment classes in the March 2010 Final Rule. 75 
FR 10886. DOE maintains this approach in this proposed determination.
    DOE did not identify any other performance-related features 
affecting consumer utility or efficiency applying to the motors falling 
within the scope of this proposed determination. Table IV-2 summarizes 
the structure of the equipment classes identified for this proposed 
determination and as designated by the current standards at 10 CFR 
431.446.

[[Page 24154]]



                          Table IV-2--Summary of Small Electric Motor Equipment Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Motor topology                             Pole configuration     Motor output power hp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-phase
    CSIR......................................................                    2,4,6                   0.25-3
    CSCR......................................................                    2,4,6                   0.25-3
Polyphase.....................................................                    2,4,6                   0.25-3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received a number of comments on the April 2019 ECS RFI 
regarding equipment classes. The CA IOUs, Sierra Club & Earthjustice, 
and ASAP, et al. supported merging the CSIR and CSCR equipment classes 
and noted that the market share estimates reported in the April 2019 
ECS RFI \13\ indicated that CSIR motors no longer appear available in 
the market. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 3; Sierra Club & Earthjustice, No. 
13 at p. 1; ASAP, et al., No. 16 at p. 4) The Sierra Club & 
Earthjustice commented that the market indicates that the initial 
concern regarding differences in consumer utility for space-constrained 
applications with respect to CSIR and CSCR small electric motors was 
not well-founded. (Sierra Club & Earthjustice, No. 13 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Note: The CA IOU comments referenced the ``2017 RFI'' but 
points to tables and discussion that are in the 2019 SEM ECS RFI. 
DOE is assuming that the intent was to refer to the April 2019 ECS 
RFI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA commented that while the CSIR class is no longer a significant 
equipment class as a result of the March 2010 Final Rule standards, 
there is no reason to make changes to the CSIR and CSCR equipment 
classes. NEMA commented that in order for CSIR motors to meet current 
efficiency standards, significant design changes were made that 
resulted in an increase in size and a subsequent reduction in utility 
compared to CSCR motors. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 4) NEMA stated that the 
vast majority of CSIR shipments have shifted to CSCR designs or to 
special and definite purpose motors except for the lowest horsepower 
ratings. It asserted that sales of small electric motors have decreased 
as a result of the standards and that it would expect to see a similar 
impact from amended standards (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 16) NEMA also 
commented that there are no new design options for small electric 
motors that would add consumer utility and, consequently, no need to 
consider any new equipment classes. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 5)
    As discussed previously, DOE has found that single-phase motor 
topology (CSIR vs. CSCR) can impact motor performance and consumer 
utility. Currently, DOE does not have conclusive evidence indicating 
that CSIR small electric motors are no longer available in the market 
and the statements offered by NEMA suggest the opposite is the case. In 
the absence of compelling evidence suggesting otherwise, DOE is 
maintaining both classes because of the differences in utility that 
these different classes of small electric motors offer--i.e. 
dimensional differences. Accordingly, DOE is not proposing to modify 
the equipment classes from those that currently apply under 10 CFR 
431.446(a). These equipment classes are summarized in Table IV-2.
    The CA IOUs commented that the American Standard for Motors and 
Generators ANSI/NEMA MG1 (``NEMA MG-1'') does not differentiate between 
CSIR and CSCR motors, as they are considered by the motor industry to 
be equivalent motor types. The CA IOUs also commented that DOE should 
consider defining these terms. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 3) ASAP, et al. 
commented that it would be helpful to provide regulatory definitions 
for the three topologies covered by the current regulations. (ASAP, et 
al., No. 16 at p. 4) NEMA commented that the current definitions for 
the three topologies of small electric motors are sufficient. (NEMA, 
No. 11 at p. 3) \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ While NEMA did not specify to which definitions it was 
referring, DOE understands NEMA's comment to be referring to the 
definitions in industry standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA MG-1, the industry consensus standard referenced in the 
statutory and regulatory definition of ``small electric motor,'' 
differentiates between the CSIR and CSCR motor topologies. 
Specifically, the definitions listed in section 1.20.3 of NEMA MG-1 
2016 identifies CSIR and CSCR as two of the three distinct types of 
capacitor motors (``capacitor-start, induction-run'' defined in section 
1.20.3.3.1 of NEMA MG-1 2016; ``permanent-split'' \15\ defined in 
section 1.20.3.3.2 of NEMA MG-1 2016; and ``capacitor-start, capacitor-
run'' defined in section 1.20.3.3.3 of NEMA MG-1 2016). Given the 
definitions in the industry consensus standard, the terms ``capacitor-
start, induction-run,'' ``permanent-split capacitor,'' or ``capacitor-
start, capacitor-run'' are well understood and therefore DOE is not 
proposing to provide explicit definitions of these motor topologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Permanent-split capacitor motors do not meet the 
performance requirements for general purpose motors in NEMA MG 1 and 
fall outside the scope of the current standards and test procedures 
for small electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Technology Options for Efficiency Improvement
    The purpose of the technology assessment is to develop a 
preliminary list of technology options that could improve the 
efficiency of small electric motors. For the motors covered in this 
determination, energy efficiency losses are grouped into four main 
categories: I\2\R losses,\16\ core losses, friction and windage losses, 
and stray load losses. The technology options considered in this 
section are categorized by these four categories of losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ I\2\R losses refer to conductor losses. In AC circuits, 
these losses are computed as the square of the current (``I'') 
multiplied by the conductor resistance (``R'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The small electric motors evaluated in this proposed determination 
are all AC induction motors. Induction motors have two core components: 
a stator and a rotor. The components work together to convert 
electrical energy into rotational mechanical energy. This is done by 
creating a rotating magnetic field in the stator, which induces a 
current flow in the rotor. This current flow creates an opposing 
magnetic field in the rotor, which creates rotational forces. Because 
of the orientation of these fields, the rotor field follows the stator 
field. The rotor is connected to a shaft that also rotates and provides 
the mechanical energy output.
    Table IV-3 summarizes the technology options discussed in this 
document. Details of each technology option can be found in chapter 3 
of the technical support document (``TSD'') prepared as part of DOE's 
evaluation, which is available in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0008.

[[Page 24155]]



   Table IV-3--Summary of Technology Options for Improving Efficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Type of loss to reduce             Technology option applied
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I\2\R Losses.................  Use a copper die-cast rotor cage.
                               Reduce skew on conductor cage.
                               Increase cross-sectional area of rotor
                                conductor bars.
                               Increase end ring size.
                               Changing gauges of copper wire in stator.
                               Manipulate stator slot size.
                               Decrease radial air gap.
                               Change run-capacitor rating.
Core Losses..................  Improve grades of electrical steel.
                               Use thinner steel laminations.
                               Anneal steel laminations.
                               Add stack height (i.e., add electrical
                                steel laminations).
                               Use high-efficiency lamination materials.
                               Use plastic bonded iron powder.
Friction and Windage Losses..  Use better bearings and lubricant.
                               Install a more efficient cooling system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CA IOUs asserted (without providing any supporting data or 
information) that DOE should consider the efficiency gains from 
enhanced motor technologies considered in the March 2010 Final Rule 
because the availability and affordability of these technologies has 
increased since publication of the that final rule. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at 
p. 3) In addition, ASAP, et al. commented that DOE should evaluate and 
consider all of the technology options that DOE previously analyzed. 
(ASAP, et al., No. 16 at p. 3) NEMA commented that no technical 
advancements have been made in small electric motor technology since 
the last rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 3)
    For this evaluation, DOE considered each of the technology options 
analyzed in the previous rulemaking and examined any changes to the 
cost or availability of these design options since the publication of 
the March 2010 Final Rule. In addition, DOE also researched whether 
there were any new technologies that could improve the efficiency of 
small electric motors. DOE tentatively determined that no significant 
technical advancements in induction motor technology have been made 
since publication of the March 2010 Final Rule. Details of the 
technology options DOE considered for this evaluation can be found in 
Chapter 3 of the NOPD TSD.
    NEMA commented that many of the motor design options that DOE 
listed in Table II-5 of the April 2019 ECS RFI are interdependent with 
one or more design options. In other words, the deployment of one 
design option sometimes favors the co-dependent application of another 
design option, but there are cases where deploying certain combinations 
of design options can negatively impact energy consumption. (NEMA, No. 
11 at p. 5) NEMA also commented that many of the design options listed 
are already optimized in practice, and there may not be further room to 
pursue efficiency gains with these design options. Id. at 6. NEMA 
asserted that some of the design options listed could negatively impact 
utility (e.g., through loss of starting torque, increased risk of motor 
failure, increase in motor size, etc.) or add to manufacturer 
production costs. (NEMA, No. 11 at pp. 11-12) ABB commented that 
substituting a copper rotor in a motor may require a complete redesign, 
and could also require significant investment for development, tooling, 
and manufacturing. (ABB, No. 15 at pp. 1-2) In addition, ABB commented 
that components in motors cannot be arbitrarily substituted without 
consequences to the performance and life of motors. Id. at 2.
    DOE acknowledges that the technology options listed in Table II-5 
cannot be considered individually as they are frequently interdependent 
(i.e., methods of reducing electrical losses in motors are not 
completely independent of one another). This means that some technology 
options that decrease one type of loss may cause an increase in a 
different type of loss in the motor. Thus, maximizing the efficiency 
gains in a motor design overall requires balancing out the loss 
mechanisms. In this evaluation, as in the previous rulemaking, DOE has 
considered the interactive effects, practical limitations, and costs of 
applying each technology option before making a determination whether 
to screen-in the technology options as design options for the 
engineering analysis. Details of the screened-in design options 
considered for each motor design can be found in Chapter 4 and 5 of the 
NOPD TSD.

B. Screening Analysis

    DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which 
technology options are suitable \17\ for further consideration of new 
or amended energy conservation standards:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ DOE refers to the technology options that pass the 
screening criteria as ``design options.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not 
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not 
be considered further.
    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing 
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the 
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the 
projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will 
not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is 
determined that a technology would have a significant adverse impact on 
the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers or 
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products 
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be 
considered further.
    (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a 
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, 
it will not be considered further.
    See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 4(a)(4) and 5(b)
    In sum, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of

[[Page 24156]]

technologies, fails to meet one or more of the above four criteria, it 
will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering 
analysis. Additionally, DOE notes that the four screening criteria do 
not directly address the propriety status of technology options. DOE 
only considers potential efficiency levels achieved through the use of 
proprietary designs in the engineering analysis if they are not part of 
a unique pathway to achieve that efficiency level (i.e., if there are 
other non-proprietary technologies capable of achieving the same 
efficiency level). The reasons for eliminating any technology are 
discussed below.
    Table IV-3 provides a summary of all the technology options DOE 
considered for improving small electric motor efficiency. For a 
description of how each of these technology options improves small 
electric motor efficiency, see NOPD TSD chapter 3. For the proposed 
determination, DOE screened out three of these technology options: 
Reducing the air gap below .0125 inches, amorphous metal laminations, 
and plastic bonded iron powder (``PBIP'').
    Reducing the air gap between the rotor and stator can improve motor 
efficiency. For small electric motors, the air gap is commonly set at 
15 thousandths of an inch. Although reducing this air gap can improve 
efficiency, there is some point at which the air gap is too tight and 
becomes impracticable to manufacture. In the March 2010 Final Rule DOE 
screened out air gaps below 12.5 thousandths of an inch because it 
would exceed the threshold for practicability to manufacture. 75 FR 
10887. In response to the April 2019 ECS RFI, NEMA commented that DOE 
should continue to screen out decreasing the radial air gap below 12.5 
thousandths of an inch. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 7)
    A reduction in air gaps is technologically feasible and DOE is 
unaware of any adverse impacts on health or safety associated with 
reducing the radial air gap below 12.5 thousandths of an inch. However, 
this technology option fails the screening criterion of being 
practicable to manufacture, install, and service. Such a tight air gap 
may cause problems in manufacturing and service, with the rotor 
potentially coming into contact with the stator. This technology option 
also fails the screening criterion of avoiding adverse impacts on 
consumer utility and reliability, because the motor may experience 
higher failure rates in service when the manufactured air gaps are less 
than 12.5 thousandths of an inch.
    Using amorphous metals in the rotor laminations is another 
potential technology option to improve the efficiency of small electric 
motors. Amorphous metal is extremely thin, has high electrical 
resistivity, and has little or no magnetic domain definition. Because 
of amorphous steel's high resistance, it exhibits a reduction in 
hysteresis and eddy current losses, which in turn reduces overall 
losses in small electric motors. However, amorphous steel is a very 
brittle material which makes it difficult to punch into motor 
laminations.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 1 S.R. Ning, J. Gao, and Y.G. Wang. Review on Applications 
of Low Loss Amorphous Metals in Motors. 2010. ShanDong University. 
Weihai, China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering the four screening criteria for this technology option, 
DOE screened out amorphous metal laminations as a means of improving 
efficiency. Although amorphous metals have the potential to improve 
efficiency, DOE does not consider this technology option 
technologically feasible, because it has not been incorporated into a 
working prototype of a small electric motor. Furthermore, DOE is 
uncertain whether amorphous metals are practicable to manufacture, 
install, and service, because a prototype amorphous metal-based small 
electric motor has not been made and little information is available on 
the feasibility of adapting this technology for manufacturing small 
electric motors to reach any conclusions regarding the practicability 
of using this option. DOE is not aware of any adverse impacts on 
consumer utility, reliability, health, or safety associated with 
amorphous metal laminations.
    Using PBIP to manufacture small electric motors could cut 
production costs while increasing production output. Although other 
researchers may be working on this technology option, DOE notes that a 
research team at Lund University in Sweden published a paper in 2007 
about using PBIP in manufacturing. This technology option is based on 
an iron powder alloy that is suspended in plastic, and is used in 
certain motor applications such as fans, pumps, and household 
appliances.\19\ The compound is then shaped into motor components using 
a centrifugal mold, reducing the number of manufacturing steps. 
Researchers claim that this technology option could cut losses by as 
much as 50 percent. The Lund University study, which is the most recent 
research paper to address the use of PBIP in the production context, 
indicated that its study team already produced inductors, transformers, 
and induction heating coils using PBIP, but had not yet produced a 
small electric motor. In addition, it appears that PBIP technology is 
aimed at torus, claw-pole, and transversal flux motors, none of which 
fit the regulatory definition of small electric motors at 10 CFR 
431.442. DOE has not found evidence of any significant research or 
technical advancement in PBIP methodologies that could be applied to 
small electric motors since publication of the March 2010 Final Rule. 
In response to the April 2019 ECS RFI, NEMA commented that DOE should 
continue to screen out this technology option for the same reasons that 
DOE had previously cited in its TSD to the March 2010 Final Rule. 
(NEMA, No. 11 at p. 7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Horrdin, H., and E. Olsson. Technology Shifts in Power 
Electronics and Electric Motors for Hybrid Electric Vehicles: A 
Study of Silicon Carbide and Iron Powder Materials. 2007. Chalmers 
University of Technology. G[ouml]teborg, Sweden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering the four screening criteria for this technology option, 
DOE screened out PBIP as a means of improving efficiency. Although PBIP 
has the potential to improve efficiency while reducing manufacturing 
costs, DOE does not consider this technology option technologically 
feasible because it has not been incorporated into a working prototype 
of a small electric motor. Also, DOE is uncertain whether the material 
has the structural integrity to form into the necessary shape of a 
small electric motor steel frame. Specifically, properties of PBIP can 
differ depending on the processing. If the metal particles are too 
closely compacted and begin to touch, the material will gain electrical 
conductivity, counteracting one of its most important features of 
preventing electric current from developing, which is critical because 
this essentially eliminates losses in the core due to eddy currents. If 
the metal particles are not compacted closely enough, its structural 
integrity could be compromised because the resulting material will be 
very porous.
    Furthermore, DOE is uncertain whether PBIP is practicable to 
manufacture, install, and service, because a prototype PBIP small 
electric motor has not yet been made and little information is 
available on the feasibility of adapting this option for manufacturing 
small electric motors. However, DOE is not aware at this time of any 
adverse impacts on product utility, product availability, health, or 
safety that may arise from the use of PBIP in small electric motors.
    DOE has determined that the remaining technology options listed in 
Table IV-2 are technologically feasible. The evaluated technologies all 
have been used (or are being used) in

[[Page 24157]]

commercially available products or working prototypes. These 
technologies all incorporate materials and components that are 
commercially available in today's supply markets for the small electric 
motors that are the subject of this document. Therefore, DOE has 
screened in these technology options as design options in the 
engineering analysis.

C. Engineering Analysis

    The engineering analysis estimates the increase in manufacturer 
selling price (``MSP'') associated with improvements to the average 
full load efficiency of small electric motors. This section presents 
DOE's assumptions and methodology for the engineering analysis. The 
output from the engineering analysis is a price-efficiency relationship 
for each equipment class that describes how MSP changes as efficiency 
increases. The engineering analysis is used as an input to the LCC and 
PBP analyses.
    DOE typically structures the engineering analysis using one of 
three approaches: (1) Design option, (2) efficiency level, or (3) 
reverse engineering (or cost assessment). The design option approach 
involves adding the estimated cost and associated efficiency of various 
efficiency-improving design changes to the baseline product to model 
different levels of efficiency. The efficiency level approach uses 
estimates of costs and efficiencies of products available on the market 
at distinct efficiency levels to develop the cost-efficiency 
relationship. The reverse engineering approach involves testing 
products for efficiency and determining cost from a detailed bill of 
materials (``BOM'') derived from reverse engineering representative 
products. The efficiency ranges from that of the least-efficient small 
electric motor sold today (i.e., the baseline) to the maximum 
technologically feasible efficiency level.
    For analysis purposes, this proposed determination reflects DOE's 
adoption of a design option approach based on motor modeling conducted 
in support of the March 2010 Final Rule. In this design option 
approach, DOE considers efficiency levels corresponding to motor 
designs that meet or exceed the efficiency requirements of the current 
energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.446. DOE has tentatively 
determined that there are no additional technology options that pass 
the screening criteria that would enable the consideration of any 
additional efficiency levels representing higher efficiency levels than 
the maximum technologically feasible level analyzed in the March 2010 
Final Rule.
1. Summary of Significant Data Sources
    DOE utilized two principal data sources for the engineering 
analysis: (1) A database of small electric motor manufacturer suggested 
retail price (``MSRP'') and performance data based on the current 
market, and (2) motor modeling data, test data, and performance 
specifications from the March 2010 Final Rule. DOE determined that 
relying on the data from the March 2010 Final Rule was reasonable 
because a review of the catalog data and responses to the April 2019 
ECS RFI suggested that there were no significant technological 
advancements in the motor industry that could lead to more efficient or 
lower cost motor designs relative to the motors modeled for the March 
2010 Final Rule. Accordingly, in this determination, DOE has elected to 
evaluate the motor designs that were modeled for the March 2010 Final 
Rule analysis. To confirm this approach, DOE is again requesting 
comments regarding this issue.
    DOE collected MSRP and performance data from product literature and 
catalogs distributed by four major motor manufacturers: ABB (which 
includes the manufacturer formerly known as Baldor Electric Company), 
Nidec Motor Corporation (which includes the US Motors brand), Regal-
Beloit Corporation (which includes the Marathon and Leeson brands), and 
WEG Electric Motors Corporation.\20\ Based on market information from 
the Low-Voltage Motors World Market Report,\21\ DOE estimates that the 
four major motor manufacturers noted above comprise the majority of the 
U.S. small electric motor market and are consistent with the motor 
brands considered in the March 2010 Final Rule. (Throughout this 
document this data will be referred to as the ``manufacturer catalog 
data.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ABB (Baldor-Reliance): Online Manufacturer Catalog, 
accessed January 3, 2019. Available at https://www.baldor.com/catalog#category=2; Nidec: Online Manufacturer Catalog, accessed 
December 26, 2018. Available at ecatalog.motorboss.com/Catalog/Motors/ALL; Regal (Marathon and Leeson): Online Manufacturer 
Catalog, accessed December 27, 2018. Available at https://www.regalbeloit.com/Products/Faceted-Search?category=Motors&brand=Leeson,Marathon%20Motors; WEG: Online 
Manufacturer Catalog, accessed December 24, 2018. Available at 
http://catalog.wegelectric.com/
    \21\ Based on the Low-Voltage Motors, World Market Report (IHS 
Markit Report September 2017, Edition 2017-2018) Table 5.15: Market 
Share Estimates for Low-voltage Motors: Americas; Suppliers `share 
of the Market in 2015 and 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Representative Equipment Classes
    Due to the large number of equipment classes, DOE did not directly 
analyze all 62 equipment classes of small electric motors considered 
under this proposed determination. Instead, DOE selected representative 
classes based on two factors: (1) The quantity of motor models 
available within an equipment class and (2) the ability to scale to 
other equipment classes.
    DOE notes that the minimum energy conservation standards adopted in 
the March 2010 Final Rule correspond to the efficiency level that 
represented the maximum technologically feasible efficiency for CSIR 
motors. As discussed previously, DOE was unable to identify any 
additional design options that passed the screening criteria that would 
indicate that a motor design meeting a higher efficiency level is 
technologically feasible and commercially viable (see NOPD TSD chapter 
3). In addition, DOE was unable to identify any CSIR motors in the 
manufacturer catalog data that exhibited efficiency levels exceeding 
the current energy conservation standards for CSIR motors. From this 
information, DOE tentatively concluded that more stringent energy 
conservation standards for CSIR motors do not appear to be 
technologically feasible. Consequently, DOE did not include a 
representative CSIR equipment class as part of the engineering 
analysis.
    The minimum energy conservation standards adopted in the March 2010 
Final Rule corresponded to efficiency levels below the maximum 
technologically feasible levels for the CSCR and polyphase topologies, 
and therefore DOE elected to analyze one representative equipment class 
for each of these motor topologies. Equipment classes in the both the 
polyphase and CSCR topologies were directly analyzed due to the 
fundamental differences in their starting and running electrical 
characteristics. These differences in operation have a direct impact on 
performance and indicate that polyphase motors are typically more 
efficient than single-phase motors. In addition, the efficiency 
relationships across horsepower and pole configuration are different 
between single-phase and polyphase motors.
    DOE did not vary the pole configuration of the representative 
classes it analyzed because analyzing the same pole configuration 
provided the strongest relationship upon which to base its scaling. See 
section IV.C.5 for details on DOE's scaling methodology. Keeping as 
many design characteristics constant as possible enabled DOE to more 
accurately identify how design

[[Page 24158]]

changes affect efficiency across horsepower ratings. For each motor 
topology, DOE directly analyzed the most common pole-configuration. For 
both motor topologies analyzed, 4-pole motors constitute the largest 
fraction of motor models on the market.
    When DOE selected its representative equipment classes, DOE chose 
the horsepower ratings that constitute a high volume of motor models 
and approximate the middle of the range of covered horsepower ratings 
so that DOE could develop a reasonable scaling methodology. DOE notes 
that the representative equipment classes for polyphase and CSCR motors 
that were selected for the engineering analysis align with the 
representative classes that were directly analyzed in the March 2010 
Final Rule. 75 FR 10874, 10888. These representative classes are 
outlined in Table IV-4.

                                  Table IV-4--Representative Equipment Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Motor topology                             Pole configuration     Motor output power hp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyphase.....................................................                        4                     1.00
Single-phase CSCR.............................................                        4                     0.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on the selection of representative equipment 
classes for CSCR and polyphase motors and the tentative determination 
that more stringent energy conservation standards for CSIR motors are 
not technologically feasible.
    See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks 
comments.
3. Engineering Analysis Methodology
    DOE relied on a design option approach to generate incremental MSPs 
and establish efficiency levels, in which the relative costs of 
achieving increases in efficiency are determined based on the cost of 
various efficiency-improving design changes to the baseline motor. For 
each representative equipment class, DOE identified a specific motor as 
a fundamental design against which it would apply changes to improve 
the motor's efficiency. Each increase in efficiency over the baseline 
level that DOE analyzed was assigned an efficiency level (``EL'') 
number.
    Consistent with its usual analytical approach, DOE considered the 
current minimum energy conservation standards to establish the baseline 
efficiency levels for each representative equipment class. In response 
to the April 2019 ECS RFI, the CA IOUs supported using the current 
standards as the baseline efficiency level. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 4) 
In addition, NEMA commented that the current energy conservation 
standards reasonably approximate the baseline for covered equipment. 
(NEMA, No. 11 at p. 7)
    As discussed previously, DOE selected representative equipment 
classes that align with the classes analyzed in the March 2010 Final 
Rule. DOE identified specific motor designs from the March 2010 Final 
Rule engineering analysis that exhibit full-load efficiency ratings 
that are representative of the minimum energy conservation standards 
for small electric motors. DOE chose these motor designs as the 
baseline designs against which design options to improve motor 
efficiency would be implemented as part of DOE's analysis.
    For the March 2010 Final Rule engineering analysis, DOE purchased 
and tested motors with the lowest catalog efficiency rating available 
in the market for each representative equipment class. DOE's technical 
expert tore down each motor to obtain dimensions, a BOM, and other 
pertinent design information. DOE worked with a subcontractor to 
reproduce these motor designs using modeling software and then applied 
design options to a modeled motor that would increase that motor's 
efficiency to develop a series of motor designs spanning a range of 
efficiency levels. For the current evaluation, DOE continued to base 
its analysis on the modeled motor designs. In light of its catalog 
review and the responses received to the April 2019 ECS RFI indicating 
that there were no significant technological advancements in the motor 
industry that could lead to more efficient or lower cost motor designs 
relative to the motors modeled for the March 2010 Final Rule.\22\ 
Further information on the development of modeled motor designs from 
the March 2010 Final Rule is available in section 5.3 of the NOPD TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ DOE also notes that ASAP, et al. recommended that DOE 
conduct an analysis similar to the modeling analysis completed for 
the March 2010 Final Rule. (ASAP, et al., No. 16 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA commented that DOE did not adequately consider comments 
regarding OEM design impacts from the larger motor dimensions that 
would result from re-designing motors to be compliant with the energy 
conservation standards adopted in the March 2010 Final Rule. (NEMA, No. 
11 at p. 7) NEMA added that DOE should seek input from OEMs on the 
impact of increased motor size that would be needed to increase motor 
efficiency. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 17) AHRI and AHAM commented that more 
efficient motors within a particular topology are likely to be larger 
and heavier, which could decrease consumer utility. AHRI and AHAM 
stated that replacement motors must be able to fit inside the finished 
product for which they are destined, and this factor must be considered 
when evaluating more stringent standards. (AHRI and AHAM, No. 12 at p. 
3)
    In developing the modeled motor designs and associated costs, DOE 
considered both space-constrained and non-space-constrained scenarios. 
DOE prepared designs of increased efficiency covering both scenarios 
for each representative equipment class. The design levels prepared for 
the space-constrained scenario included baseline and intermediate 
levels, a level for a design using a copper rotor, and a max-tech level 
with a design using a copper rotor and exotic core steel. The high-
efficiency space-constrained designs incorporate copper rotors and 
exotic core steel in order to meet comparable levels of efficiency to 
the high-efficiency non-space-constrained designs while meeting the 
parameters for minimally increased stack length. The design levels 
created for the non-space-constrained scenario corresponded to the same 
efficiency levels created for the space-constrained scenario. Further 
information on the development of modeled motor designs is available in 
section 5.3 of the March 2010 Final Rule TSD. In addition to developing 
different MSPs for space-constrained and non-space-constrained 
scenarios, DOE developed a modified OEM markup in support of the March 
2010 Final Rule to account for the costs faced by OEMs needing to 
redesign their products to incorporate small electric motors of 
different sizes.\23\ In this current evaluation, DOE continues to 
analyze increased efficiency in both space-

[[Page 24159]]

constrained and non-space-constrained scenarios for each of the 
representative equipment classes, in line with the March 2010 Final 
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ For more details see chapter 7 of the 2010 small electric 
motors final rule TSD, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA also commented that more stringent energy conservation 
standards would result in the design of motors with lower slip \24\ and 
in turn, higher full-load speeds. NEMA stated that, as such, more 
stringent energy conservation standards would force manufacturers of 
end-use products to redesign their products to account for the higher 
motor speeds. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 13) This factor, it asserted, would 
have the impact of increasing the speed and therefore the output power 
delivered to the motor's application and offset some of the improvement 
in motor efficiency. NEMA also commented that small businesses, 
including motor manufacturers and OEMs, would be required to spend more 
for motors that provide little additional energy savings from more 
stringent energy conservation standards for the small electric motors 
at issue. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 18) The designs analyzed in the 
engineering analysis did not show a significant (less than 2 percent) 
and consistent (some more efficient designs had slightly lower speeds) 
increase in speed with increasing efficiency across all ELs (See NOPD 
TSD Chapter 5). However, as discussed previously, DOE has tentatively 
determined that more stringent energy conservation standards would not 
be cost effective and therefore is not proposing to amend the current 
energy conservation standards for this equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Motor slip is the difference between the speed of the rotor 
(operating speed) and the speed of the rotating magnetic field of 
the stator (synchronous speed). When net rotor resistance of a motor 
design is reduced, efficiency of the motor increases but slip 
decreases, resulting in higher operating speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section IV.A.3, DOE considered each of the design 
options analyzed in the previous rulemaking and also researched whether 
there were any new technologies that could improve the efficiency of 
small electric motors. Accordingly, DOE determined that there were no 
significant technological advancements since the March 2010 Final Rule. 
In addition, comments received suggested the same. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 
3) Given that DOE was unable to identify any additional design options 
for improving efficiency that passed the screening criteria and were 
not already considered in the March 2010 Final Rule engineering 
analysis, DOE analyzed the same motor designs that were developed for 
the March 2010 Final Rule except for CSIR motors (which, as indicated 
earlier, did not appear to have any technologically-feasible options 
available to improve their efficiency). For each representative 
equipment class, DOE established an efficiency level for each motor 
design that exhibited improved efficiency over the baseline design. As 
discussed previously, DOE considered the current minimum energy 
conservation standards as the baseline efficiency levels for each 
representative equipment class. These efficiency levels are summarized 
in Table IV-5.

                Table IV-5--Summary of Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Efficiency
     Representative equipment class             EL              (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-phase CSCR, 4-pole, 0.75-hp......               0            81.8
                                                       1            82.8
                                                       2            84.0
                                                       3            84.6
                                                       4            86.7
                                                       5            87.9
Polyphase, 4-pole, 1-hp.................               0            83.5
                                                       1            85.2
                                                       2            86.3
                                                       3            87.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the April 2019 ECS RFI, ASAP, et al. commented that 
DOE should thoroughly investigate more stringent efficiency levels than 
those currently available in the market (ASAP, et al., No. 16 at p. 3) 
ASAP, et al. noted that DOE had found 15 percent of CSCR motor models 
attained efficiencies exceeding the levels adopted in the March 2010 
Final Rule and stated that the prior availability of these higher 
levels demonstrates technological feasibility. In addition, ASAP, et 
al. suggested that DOE review manufacturer literature and other data 
sources to determine if products exceeding minimum standards are 
available in the market for any regulated equipment class. (ASAP, et 
al., No. 16 at pp. 3-4) As noted previously, DOE is evaluating 
efficiency levels up to the maximum technologically feasible levels for 
each motor topology, including efficiency levels that represent motors 
that are not yet commercially available (e.g., a small electric motor 
design that is technologically feasible but not available on the market 
because of cost considerations). As part of this evaluation, DOE 
reviewed manufacturer literature to determine the availability of small 
electric motors across all equipment classes considered in this 
document by efficiency level. This literature includes efficiency 
values derived from manufacturer testing using the mandatory DOE test 
procedure. DOE's review of this information indicated that for CSCR 
motors, the most recent manufacturer catalog data only included a 
single model with an efficiency above the baseline level (i.e. the 
current standard required of these motors). (See also section IV.F.8).
    ASAP, et al. recommended that DOE conduct an analysis similar to 
the modeling analysis completed for the March 2010 Final Rule and added 
that while levels of maximum technological feasibility may not be 
commercially available today, energy conservation standards policy 
could provide the basis for making cost-effective improvements to 
motors that could not be otherwise achieved by market forces. (ASAP, et 
al., No. 16 at p. 4) Lenze Americas commented that DOE should consider 
setting standard levels at an International Efficiency (``IE'')2 \25\ 
equivalent for motors below 1 hp and an

[[Page 24160]]

IE3 equivalent for motors greater than or equal to 1 hp. (Lenze 
Americas, No. 3 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The IE designations are efficiency levels defined by IEC 
standard 60034-30-1 for 50 and 60 Hz single or three-phase line 
motors (regardless of the technology). Motors meeting the IE1 
efficiency level are designated ``standard efficiency,'' IE2 
qualifying motors are designated ``high-efficiency,'' IE3 qualifying 
motors are designated ``premium efficiency,'' and IE4 qualifying 
motors are designated ``super premium efficiency.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is adopting the motor modeling approach used in support of the 
March 2010 Final Rule to analyze and establish efficiency levels and 
incremental motor MSPs. DOE did not identify any additional design 
options in the market for improving efficiency that were not already 
considered in the March 2010 Final Rule. In addition, while DOE is not 
specifically evaluating the IE levels in this analysis, the range of 
motor efficiency levels analyzed in this evaluation is inclusive of 
efficiencies specified in the IE2 and IE3 efficiency levels.
    The CA IOUs commented that DOE should conduct independent testing 
to verify the efficiency performance of the motor designs considered in 
each representative equipment class. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 3) ASAP, et 
al. suggested that DOE investigate whether motors rated at the standard 
level are more efficient than stated because DOE regulations permit 
manufacturers to rate their products conservatively. (ASAP, et al., No. 
16 at pp. 3-4) DOE notes that the performance of the motor designs 
considered in this analysis were verified by conducting motor 
efficiency testing during the previous rulemaking. Details of this 
validation testing can be found in appendix 5A of the March 2010 Final 
Rule TSD.
    DOE seeks comment on the methodologies employed in the engineering 
analysis, specifically regarding the adoption of the motor designs and 
associated efficiency levels considered in the March 2010 Final Rule 
analysis as the basis for this proposed determination.
    See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks 
comments.
4. Cost
    For representative equipment classes, each efficiency level is 
based on a motor design with a distinct set of performance 
characteristics, production costs, and non-production costs. Full 
production cost is a combination of direct labor, direct materials, and 
overhead. Non-production costs include the cost of selling (market 
research, advertising, sales representatives, logistics), general and 
administrative costs, research and development, interest payments and 
profit factor.
    A standard BOM was constructed for each motor design that includes 
direct material costs and labor time estimates along with costs. The 
BOM is then multiplied by a markup for overhead to obtain an MPC that 
is further marked up to reflect non-production costs to create an MSP. 
DOE notes that the costs established for direct material costs and 
labor time were initially determined in terms of $2009 for the March 
2010 Final Rule. For this evaluation, DOE updated these material and 
labor costs to be representative of the market in 2018. DOE adjusted 
historical material prices to $2018 using the historical Bureau of 
Labor Statistics Producer Price Indices (``PPI'') \26\ for each 
commodity's industry. In addition, DOE updated labor costs and markups 
based on the most recent and complete version (i.e. 2012) of the 
Economic Census of Industry by the U.S. Census Bureau.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ www.bls.gov/ppi/.
    \27\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of Industry Series 
Reports for Industry, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the April 2019 ECS RFI, NEMA commented that tariffs 
on steel and aluminum have caused cost increases for current motor 
designs which could exacerbate the cost impacts of more stringent 
standards. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 13) DOE notes that changes in the cost 
of steel and aluminum components since 2010 have been accounted for in 
this proposed determination and are considered when evaluating more 
stringent energy conservation standards.
    DOE seeks input on whether and how the costs estimated for motor 
designs considered in the March 2010 Final Rule have changed since the 
time of that analysis. DOE also requests information on the investments 
(including related costs) necessary to incorporate specific design 
options, including, but not limited to, costs related to new or 
modified tooling (if any), materials, engineering and development 
efforts to implement each design option, and manufacturing/production 
impacts.
    See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks 
comments.
5. Scaling Relationships
    In analyzing the equipment classes, DOE developed a systematic 
approach to scaling efficiency across horsepower ratings and pole 
configurations, while retaining reasonable levels of accuracy, in a 
manner similar to the March 2010 Final Rule. DOE's current energy 
conservation standards for small electric motors found at 10 CFR 
431.446 list minimum required efficiencies over a range of horsepower 
and pole configurations, providing a basis for scaling efficiency 
across horsepower and pole configurations for polyphase and single-
phase motors. The efficiency relationships in the established standards 
are based on a combination of NEMA recommended efficiency standards, 
NEMA premium designations, catalog data, and test data for individual 
manufacturer motor product lines. DOE has elected to apply the same 
scaling methodologies used to support the March 2010 Final Rule to the 
engineering analysis for this proposed determination. 75 FR 10894-
10895. This approach has been presented previously to stakeholders and 
has been updated based on stakeholder input. In DOE's view, this 
approach has the added advantage of reducing the analytical complexity 
associated with conducting a detailed engineering analysis of the cost-
efficiency relationship on all 62 equipment classes. Id.
    For this NOPD, while the engineering analysis focuses on two 
representative units, the energy use and life-cycle cost analyses (see 
sections IV.E and IV.F) consider two additional representative units to 
separately analyze consumers of integral (i.e., with horsepower greater 
than or equal to 1 hp) single-phase CSCR small electric motors and 
fractional (i.e., with horsepower less than 1 hp) polyphase small 
electric motors. To scale to the equipment classes that were not 
directly analyzed, DOE followed several steps. First, DOE evaluated the 
efficiency relationships presented in the recommended standards 
provided by NEMA for the March 2010 Final Rule. DOE then compiled 
efficiency data for as many manufacturers and equipment classes as 
possible and filtered the data to ensure an accurate representation of 
the small electric motors that are covered by the statute. Next, DOE 
modeled all the efficiency data in terms of motor losses and used a 
best-fit curve to project values to fill in any potential gaps in data. 
Finally, DOE scaled the results of the engineering analysis based on 
the relationships found from the combined NEMA data and catalog data.
    DOE seeks input on implementing a similar scaling methodology as 
that used for the March 2010 Final Rule in this NOPD.
    See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks 
comments.

D. Markups Analysis

    The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer 
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution 
chain to convert the MSP estimates derived in the engineering analysis 
to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis. At 
each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of 
the equipment to cover business costs and profit margin. For small 
electric motors, the main

[[Page 24161]]

parties in the distribution chain are manufacturers, distributors, 
contractors or installers, OEMs of equipment incorporating small 
electric motors, and consumers.
    DOE relied on estimates provided by NEMA during the March 2010 
Final Rule to establish the proportion of shipments through each 
distribution channel.\28\ In response to the April 2019 ECS RFI, DOE 
did not receive any data to support alternative distribution channels 
for small electric motors. DOE used data from the U.S. Census Bureau 
\29\ and the Sales Tax Clearinghouse \30\ to develop distribution 
channel markups and sales tax estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For more details see chapter 7 of the 2010 small electric 
motors final rule TSD, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
    \29\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 Annual Survey of Manufacturers; 
2012 Economic Census Annual Wholesale Trade Survey.
    \30\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Inc. State sales tax rates along 
with combined average city and county rates, 2017. Available at: 
http://thestc.com/STrates.stm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also developed baseline and incremental markups for each actor 
in the distribution chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of 
equipment with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are 
applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-
efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental 
markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to 
maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or 
amended standards.\31\ DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census 
Bureau to estimate average baseline and incremental markups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products 
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the 
same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would 
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is 
possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably 
competitive it is unlikely that imposing more stringent standards 
would lead to a sustainable increase in profitability in the long 
run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, in the space-constrained scenario, DOE developed a 
modified OEM markup to account for the costs faced by those OEMs of 
equipment incorporating small electric motors needing to redesign their 
products in order to incorporate small electric motors of different, 
including larger, sizes. Nationally, businesses spend about 2.7 percent 
of U.S. gross domestic product on research and development 
(``R&D'').\32\ DOE estimates that R&D by equipment OEMs, including the 
design of new products, approximately represents at most 2.7 percent of 
company revenue. Similar to what was done in the March 2010 Final Rule, 
DOE accounted for the additional costs to redesign products and 
incorporate differently-shaped motors by adding 2 percent to the OEM 
markups.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ National Science Board. January 2018. Science and 
Engineering Indicators 2018. Figure 4-3, Ratio of U.S. R&D to gross 
domestic product, by roles of federal, business, and other 
nonfederal funding for R&D: 1953-2015. Arlington, VA: National 
Science Foundation (NSB-2018-1) Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/assets/1038/research-and-development-u-s-trends-and-international-comparisons.pdf.
    \33\ For more details see chapter 7 of the 2010 small electric 
motors final rule TSD, at https//www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV-6 summarizes the overall baseline and incremental markups 
for each distribution channel considered for small electric motors.

                                             Table IV-6--Small Electric Motors Distribution Channel Markups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Distribution channel  (from manufacturer)              Direct to OEMs  (65%)      Via wholesalers to OEMs  (30%)   Via wholesalers to end-users
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------              (5%)
                                                                                                                         -------------------------------
                       Main Party                            Baseline       Incremental      Baseline       Incremental      Baseline       Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Wholesaler........................................  ..............  ..............            1.35            1.19            1.35            1.19
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)*..................       1.47/1.50       1.23/1.25       1.47/1.50       1.23/1.25  ..............  ..............
Equipment Wholesaler....................................            1.41            1.19            1.41            1.19  ..............  ..............
Retailer................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............            1.53            1.27
Contractor..............................................             1.1             1.1             1.1             1.1             1.1             1.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sales Tax...............................................              1.0721
                                                                      1.0721
                                                                      1.0721
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall.................................................       2.45/2.50       1.72/1.76       3.31/3.37       2.06/2.10            2.44            1.78
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Non-space-constrained scenario/space-constrained scenario.

    DOE seeks comment on the methodology and data used for estimating 
end-user prices for small electric motors.
    See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks 
comments. Chapter 6 of the TSD provides details on the DOE's markup 
analysis for small electric motors.

E. Energy Use Analysis

    The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual 
energy consumption of small electric motors at different efficiency 
levels and to assess the energy savings potential of increased 
efficiency. The analysis estimates the range of energy use of small 
electric motors in the field (i.e., as they are actually used by 
consumers). The energy use analysis provides the basis for other 
analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the energy savings 
and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from 
adoption of amended or new standards.
    The analysis focuses on the two representative units identified in 
the engineering analysis (see section IV.C) for which engineering 
analysis results were obtained at levels at and above the baseline. Two 
additional representative units were included to separately analyze 
consumers of integral (i.e., with horsepower greater than or equal to 1 
hp) single-phase CSCR small electric motors and fractional (i.e., with 
horsepower less than 1 hp) polyphase small electric motors (see Table 
IV-7).\34\ For each representative unit, DOE determined the annual 
energy consumption value by multiplying the motor input power by the 
annual operating hours for a representative sample of motor consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Similar to the approach used in the engineering analysis 
when selecting representative units, DOE reviewed model counts from 
the manufacturer online catalog data to identify these additional 
units. DOE reviewed counts of CSCR, 4-poles small electric motors 
and polyphase, 4-poles, small electric motors models. For CSCR 
motors, the 1 horsepower value had the most counts and DOE selected 
a unit at 1 horsepower. For polyphase motors, the 0.33, 0.5, and 
0.75 horsepower values had the most counts (and similar counts) and 
DOE selected a unit at 0.5 horsepower (i.e. the mid-range of these 
horsepower values).

[[Page 24162]]



            Table IV-7--Representative Units Analyzed in the Energy Use and Life-Cycle Cost Analyses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Rated
           Representative unit               Equipment class group        Pole configuration        horsepower
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................  Single-phase, CSCR........  4-pole....................            0.75
2.......................................  Polyphase.................  4-pole....................               1
3.......................................  Single-phase, CSCR........  4-pole....................               1
4.......................................  Polyphase.................  4-pole....................             0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comments on how whether additions or changes should be 
made to the energy use analysis as well as any data supporting 
alternate inputs to characterize the variability in annual energy 
consumption for small electric motors.
    See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks 
comments. Chapter 7 of the TSD provides details on the DOE's energy use 
analysis for small electric motors.
1. Consumer Sample
    For each representative unit, DOE created consumer samples for 
three individual sectors: Residential, commercial, and industrial. DOE 
used the samples to determine small electric motor annual energy 
consumption as well as for conducting the LCC and PBP analyses. Each 
consumer in the sample was assigned a sector and an application. DOE 
used data from the March 2010 Final Rule to establish distributions of 
small electric motors by sector. Five main motor applications were 
selected as representative applications (compressors, fans, pumps, 
material handling, and others). In order to characterize the 
distributions of small electric motors across applications in the 
industrial sector, DOE used data from hundreds of field assessments 
aggregated in two databases: (1) A database of motor nameplate and 
field data compiled by the Washington State University (``WSU'') 
Extension Energy Program, Applied Proactive Technologies, and New York 
State Energy Research and Development Authority, and; (2) a database of 
motor nameplate and field data compiled by the Industrial Assessment 
Center at Oregon University (``field assessment data'').\35\ For the 
commercial and residential sectors, DOE used data from a previous DOE 
publication to estimate distribution of small electric motors by 
application.\36\ DOE also assumed that 20 percent of consumers had 
space-constraints and 80 percent were non-space-constrained based on 
data from the March 2010 Final Rule. In response to the April 2019 ECS 
RFI, DOE did not receive any data to support alternative distributions 
of small electric motors by sectors and applications or by space-
constrained/non-space-constrained applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Strategic Energy Group (January 2008), Northwest Industrial 
Motor Database Summary. Regional Technical Forum. Available at 
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/subcommittees/osumotor/Default.htm.
    \36\ W. Goetzler, T. Sutherland, C. Reis. ``Energy Savings 
Potential and Opportunities for High-Efficiency Electric Motors in 
Residential and Commercial Equipment'' U.S. Department of Energy, 
December 4, 2013. Available at https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/Motor%20Energy%20Savings%20Potential%20Report%202013-12-4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on the approach used for estimating distribution 
of consumers of small electric motors across applications and sectors, 
as well as any data supporting the use of alternate distributions.
    See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks 
comments. See chapter 7 of the TSD for more details on the resulting 
distribution of consumers by sector and applications.
2. Motor Input Power
    DOE calculated the motor input power as the sum of the motor rated 
horsepower multiplied by the motor operating load (i.e., the motor 
output power) and of the losses at the operating load (i.e., part-load 
losses). DOE determined the part-load losses using outputs from the 
engineering analysis (full-load efficiency at each efficiency level) 
and published part-load efficiency information from manufacturer 
catalogs to model motor part-load losses as a function of the motor's 
operating load. NEMA commented that there was a range of operating 
motor loads for small electric motors and that there was no typical 
operating load by application. NEMA did not provide data to 
characterize operating load. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 15) DOE estimated the 
operating load using operating load data specific to motors in the 
0.25-3 hp range, which was based on additional field assessments data 
collected since the publication of the March 2010 Final Rule.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ This horsepower range was selected as it corresponds to the 
motor horsepower of small electric motors that are currently subject 
to standards (see section IV.A.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on the methodology used for estimating the 
distribution of motor load for each application and sector, as well as 
any data supporting alternate distributions.
    See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks 
comments. See chapter 7 of the TSD for the resulting distribution of 
load for each application.
3. Annual Operating Hours
    NEMA commented that there was a range of operating hours for small 
electric motors and noted that for this equipment, operating hours are 
generally lower compared to electric motors and stated that most small 
electric motors do not run continuously. NEMA did not provide data to 
characterize operating hours. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 15) For the 
industrial sector, DOE used data specific to motors in the 0.25-3 hp 
range from the field assessment data to establish distributions of 
annual operating hours by application. For the commercial and 
residential sectors, DOE used operating hours data from the March 2010 
Final Rule.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ For more details see chapter 6 of the 2010 small electric 
motors final rule TSD, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on the methodology used to estimate annual 
operating hours, as well as any data supporting alternate distribution 
of operating hours by application and sector.
    See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks 
comments. See chapter 7 of the TSD for more details on the 
distributions of annual operating hours by application and sector.
    Table IV-8 shows the estimated average annual energy use at each 
efficiency level analyzed.

[[Page 24163]]



                            Table IV-8--Average Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Kilowatt-hours per year
        Rep. unit              Description     -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   EL 0       EL 1       EL 2       EL 3       EL 4       EL5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................  Single-phase, CSCR,     1,651.6    1,626.2    1,596.7    1,582.0    1,534.4    1,507.5
                           4-pole, 0.75 hp.
2.......................  Polyphase, 4-pole, 1    2,091.2    2,046.1    2,019.3    1,982.4  .........  .........
                           hp.
3.......................  Single-phase, CSCR,     2,176.6    2,144.1    2,107.9    2,089.3    2,029.0    1,994.2
                           4-pole, 1 hp.
4.......................  Polyphase, 4-pole,      1,164.9    1,129.8    1,108.3    1,079.4  .........  .........
                           0.5 hp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts 
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for 
small electric motors. The effect of new or amended energy conservation 
standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in 
operating cost and an increase in purchase price. DOE used the 
following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:
     The LCC is the total consumer expense of equipment over 
the life of that equipment, consisting of total installed cost (MSP, 
distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation costs) plus 
operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). To 
compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to 
the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the equipment.
     The simple PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) 
it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of more-efficient equipment through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the simple PBP by dividing the change in purchase 
cost at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost 
for the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
    For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC 
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the 
estimated efficiency distribution of small electric motors in the 
absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, 
the simple PBP for a given efficiency level is measured relative to the 
baseline equipment. The analysis focuses on the four representative 
units identified in Table IV-7.
    For each considered efficiency level in each equipment class, DOE 
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of 
consumers. As stated previously, DOE developed a sample based on 
distributions of consumers across sectors and applications, as well as 
across efficiency levels. For each sample consumer, DOE determined the 
unit energy consumption and appropriate energy price. By developing a 
representative sample of consumers, the analysis captured the 
variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with the 
use of small electric motors.
    Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost 
of the equipment--which includes MSPs, retailer markups, and sales 
taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating 
expenses include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price 
projections, repair and maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, and 
discount rates. DOE created distributions of values for equipment 
lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached 
to each value, to account for their uncertainty and variability.
    The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP relies on 
a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability 
into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input 
values from the probability distributions and consumer samples. The 
model calculated the LCC and PBP for equipment at each efficiency level 
for 10,000 consumers per representative unit per simulation run. The 
analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing 
the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the 
no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an 
iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, equipment 
efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen equipment 
efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard 
level under consideration, the LCC and PBP calculation reveals that a 
consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for 
consumers who already purchase more-efficient equipment, DOE avoids 
overstating the potential benefits from increasing equipment 
efficiency.
    DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers as if each were to 
purchase a new motor in the expected year of compliance with amended 
standards. For purposes of its analysis, DOE estimated that any amended 
standards would apply to small electric motors manufactured 5 years 
after the date on which the amended standard is published. DOE 
estimated publication of a final rule in the first half of 2023. 
Therefore, for purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2028 as the first 
full year of compliance.
    Table IV-9 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive 
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow 
provide further discussion.

Table IV-9--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Inputs                           Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Cost...............................  Derived by multiplying
                                                MSPs by distribution
                                                channel markups and
                                                sales tax, as
                                                appropriate.
Installation Costs...........................  Assumed no change with
                                                efficiency level other
                                                than shipping costs.
Annual Energy Use............................  Motor input power
                                                multiplied by annual
                                                operating hours per
                                                year.
                                               Variability: Based on
                                                plant surveys and
                                                previous DOE study.

[[Page 24164]]

 
Energy Prices................................  Electricity: Used average
                                                and marginal prices
                                                (Coughlin and Beraki).
Energy Price Trends..........................  Based on AEO 2019 price
                                                projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs.................  Assumed no change with
                                                efficiency level.
Equipment Lifetime...........................  Estimated using
                                                information from 2010
                                                standards final rule and
                                                from DOE's Advanced
                                                Manufacturing Office.
Discount Rates...............................  Residential: Approach
                                                involves identifying all
                                                possible debt or asset
                                                classes that might be
                                                used to purchase the
                                                considered appliances,
                                                or might be affected
                                                indirectly. Primary data
                                                source was the Federal
                                                Reserve Board's Survey
                                                of Consumer Finances.
                                               Commercial: Calculated as
                                                the weighted average
                                                cost of capital for
                                                entities purchasing
                                                small electric motors.
                                                Primary data source was
                                                Damodaran Online.
Compliance Date..............................  2028
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided
  in the sections following the table.

1. Equipment Cost
    To calculate consumer equipment costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs 
developed in the engineering analysis by the distribution channel 
markups described in section IV.D (along with sales taxes). DOE used 
different markups for baseline motors and higher-efficiency motors, 
because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in MSP 
associated with higher-efficiency equipment. Further, in this proposed 
determination, DOE assumed the prices of small electric motors would 
remain constant over time (no decrease in price).
2. Installation Cost
    Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous 
materials and parts needed to install the equipment. In response to the 
April 2019 ECS RFI, DOE did not receive any information on small 
electric motors consumer installation costs. Based on information from 
the March 2010 Final Rule and installation cost data from RS Means 
Electrical Cost Data 2019,\39\ DOE estimated that installation costs do 
not increase with equipment efficiency except in terms of shipping 
costs depending on the weight of the more efficient motor.\40\ To 
arrive at total installed costs, DOE included shipping costs as part of 
the installation costs. These were based on weight data from the 
engineering analysis, which accounted for updated manufacturer catalog 
data collected by DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ RS Means. Electrical Cost Data, 42\h\ Annual Edition, 2019. 
Rockland, MA. p. 315.
    \40\ For more details see chapter 8 of the 2010 small electric 
motors final rule TSD, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on the methodology used to estimate installation 
costs as well as any data supporting alternate installation cost 
estimates.
    See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks 
comments. See chapter 8 of the TSD for more information on the 
installation costs for small electric motors.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
    For each sampled consumer, DOE determined the energy consumption 
for small electric motors in each standards case analyzed using the 
approach described in section IV.E of this proposed determination.
4. Energy Prices
    For electricity prices, DOE used national annual marginal and 
average prices from Coughlin and Beraki (2019).\41\ To estimate energy 
prices in future years, DOE multiplied the energy prices by a 
projection of annual change in average price consistent with the 
projections in the AEO 2019, which has an end year of 2050. To estimate 
price trends after 2050, DOE used the average annual rate of change in 
prices from 2030 to 2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. Residential Electricity 
Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. 2018. 
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United 
States). Report No. LBNL-2001169. (Last accessed May 21, 2019.) 
https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review. See also Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. Non-residential 
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. 
2019. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United 
States). Report No. LBNL-2001203. (Last accessed May 21, 2019.) 
https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing small 
electric motor components that have failed; maintenance costs are 
associated with maintaining the operation of the equipment. Small 
electric motors are usually not repaired. Most small motors are mass 
produced and are not constructed or designed to be repaired because the 
manufacturing process uses spot welding welds and rivets to fasten or 
secure the frame and assembled components, not nuts and bolts--meaning 
that the small electric motor cannot be readily disassembled and 
reassembled. During the rulemaking for the March 2010 Final Rule, DOE 
found no evidence that repair or maintenance costs, if any, would 
increase with higher motor energy efficiency.\42\ DOE reviewed more 
recent motor repair cost data for small electric motors and found no 
evidence that maintenance and repair costs increase with efficiency for 
small electric motors in scope.\43\ NEMA commented that for small 
electric motor designs that simply added more active material to the 
rotors and/or stators, repair practices are unlikely to change. NEMA 
noted that CSCR motors have higher repair costs compared to CSIR motors 
due to the inclusion of a second capacitor. NEMA did not provide any

[[Page 24165]]

additional information to characterize repair costs. (NEMA, No. 11 at 
p. 15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ For more details see chapter 8 of the 2010 small electric 
motors final rule TSD, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
    \43\ Vaughen's (2013), Vaughen's Motor & Pump Repair Price 
Guide, 2013 Edition. Available at www.vaughens.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on information DOE reviewed, small electric motors are 
generally not repaired and NEMA's comments suggest that repair 
practices are unlikely to change within each equipment class group 
(i.e., polyphase, CSCR, and CSIR). Accordingly, DOE assumed that more 
efficient small electric motors would not have greater repair or 
maintenance costs and therefore did not account for these costs in the 
LCC calculation.
    DOE seeks comment on the assumptions for estimating repair and 
maintenance costs as well as any data supporting alternate repair and 
maintenance cost estimates.
    See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks 
comments. See chapter 8 of the TSD for more information on the repair 
and maintenance costs for small electric motors.
6. Motor Lifetime
    To characterize lifetimes in a manner that would reflect the fact 
that this factor is dependent on its application, DOE used two Weibull 
distributions.\44\ One characterizes the motor lifetime in total 
operating hours (i.e., mechanical lifetime), while the other 
characterizes the lifetime in years of use in the application (e.g., a 
pump). DOE used mechanical lifetime data from the 2010 small electric 
motors final rule analysis and from DOE's Advanced Manufacturing Office 
\45\ and estimated an average mechanical lifetime of 30,000 hours for 
CSCR motors and of 40,000 hours for polyphase motors. The Weibull 
parameters from the March 2010 Final Rule were used to derive these 
lifetime distributions.\46\ In the course of the life-cycle analysis, 
DOE's current analysis further combines these two distributions with 
OEM application lifetimes to estimate the distribution of small 
electric motor lifetimes. DOE determined the mechanical lifetime of 
each motor in years by dividing its mechanical lifetime in hours by its 
annual hours of operation. DOE then compared this mechanical lifetime 
(in years) with the sampled application lifetime (also in years), and 
assumed that the motor would be retired at the younger of these two 
ages. In the March 2010 Final Rule, this approach resulted in projected 
average lifetimes of 7 years for single-phase CSCR motors and 9 years 
for polyphase motors. In the April 2019 ECS RFI, DOE presented the 
average lifetimes from the March 2010 Final Rule (i.e. 7 years for 
single-phase CSCR motors and 9 years for polyphase motors). NEMA 
commented that 8 years was a reasonable starting point to estimate 
lifetime for small electric motors. NEMA did not provide lifetime 
estimates by equipment class and noted that the actual lifetime is 
heavily dependent on the application. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 15). Because 
of updates made to the annual operating hours (see section IV.E.3), the 
updated analysis for this NOPD yielded average lifetimes of 6.6 years 
for single-phase CSCR motors and 8.5 years for polyphase motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The Weibull distribution is one of the most commonly used 
distributions in reliability. It is commonly used to model time to 
fail, time to repair and material strength.
    \45\ U.S. Department of Energy. Advanced Manufacturing Office. 
Motors Systems Tip Sheet #3. Energy Tips: Motor Systems. Extending 
the Operating Life of Your Motor. 2012. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f15/extend_motor_operlife_motor_systemts3.pdf.
    \46\ For more details see chapter 8 of the 2010 small electric 
motors final rule TSD, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on the methodology it used for estimating small 
electric motor lifetimes, as well as any data supporting alternate 
values for these lifetimes.
    See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks 
comments. See chapter 8 of the TSD for more information on the lifetime 
of small electric motors.
7. Discount Rates
    In calculating LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate to 
commercial, industrial, and residential consumers to estimate the 
present value of future operating costs. DOE estimated a distribution 
of discount rates for small electric motors based on the cost of 
capital of publicly traded firms in the sectors that purchase small 
electric motors.
    As part of its analysis, DOE also applies weighted average discount 
rates calculated from consumer debt and asset data, rather than 
marginal or implicit discount rates.\47\ DOE notes that the LCC does 
not analyze the equipment purchase decision, so the implicit discount 
rate is not relevant in this model. The LCC estimates net present value 
over the lifetime of the equipment, so the appropriate discount rate 
will reflect the general opportunity cost of household funds, taking 
this time scale into account. Given the long time horizon modeled in 
the LCC, the application of a marginal interest rate associated with an 
initial source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of 
purchase, consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt 
and asset holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the 
restrictions consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the 
relative size of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE 
estimates the aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical 
distribution of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer 
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with 
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate 
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net 
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the 
influence of several factors: Transaction costs; risk premiums and 
response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a 
consumer is able to borrow or lend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE 
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to 
approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance 
energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the 
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data 
from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances \48\ 
(``SCF'') for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016. Using 
the SCF and other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates for 
each type of debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that 
may apply in the year in which amended standards would take effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Survey of 
Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 
2016. Available at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For commercial and industrial consumers, DOE used the cost of 
capital to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from 
a typical company project or investment. Most companies use both debt 
and equity capital to fund investments, so the cost of capital is the 
weighted-average cost to the firm of equity and debt financing. This 
corporate finance approach is referred to as the weighted-average cost 
of capital. DOE used currently available economic data in developing 
discount rates. See chapter 8 of the TSD for details on the development 
of end-user discount rates.
8. Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be 
affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular 
efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected 
distribution (market shares) of equipment efficiencies in the ``no-new-
standards'' case (i.e., the case without amended or new energy 
conservation standards) in the compliance year. In its analysis for the 
March 2010 Final Rule,

[[Page 24166]]

DOE developed no-new standards case efficiency distributions based on 
the distributions of currently available models for which small 
electric motor efficiency is included in catalog listings. In 
preparation for the NOPD, DOE collected updated catalog data and 
analyzed the distribution of small electric motors in the manufacturer 
catalog data for CSCR and polyphase small electric motors.\49\ In 
response to the April 2019 RFI, DOE did not receive any input on 
projected efficiency trends. DOE projected that these efficiency 
distributions would remain constant throughout 2028. See chapter 8 of 
the TSD for the estimated efficiency distributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ DOE relied on 140 models of CSCR small electric motors and 
229 models of polyphase small electric motors identified in the 
manufacturer catalog data. More details on the distributions of 
currently available models for which motor catalog list efficiency 
is available in Chapter 8 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Payback Period Analysis
    The PBP is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the 
additional installed cost of more-efficient equipment, compared to 
baseline equipment, through energy cost savings. PBPs are expressed in 
years. PBPs that exceed the life of the equipment mean that the 
increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced operating 
expenses.
    The inputs to the simple PBP calculation for each efficiency level 
are the change in total installed cost of the equipment and the change 
in the first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the 
baseline. The simple PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC 
analysis, except that discount rates are not needed.

G. Other Comments Received

    In response to the April 2019 ECS RFI, DOE also received comments 
on aspects of the standards for small electric motors that do not 
relate to the methodologies or discussions presented in other sections 
of this document. This section addresses these stakeholder comments.
    The Institute for Policy Integrity commented on monetizing the 
benefits of emissions reductions in analyzing the national impact and 
selecting the maximum economically justified efficiency level. 
(Institute for Policy Integrity, No. 5 at p. 1) DOE also received a 
comment from an individual questioning how DOE would ensure that GHG 
(i.e. greenhouse gas) emissions would not increase as a result of 
amended standards. (Zach Belanger, No. 7 at p. 1)
    As discussed previously, under the periodic review of energy 
conservation standards required by EPCA, DOE is directed to consider 
whether amended standards would result in significant conservation of 
energy; are technologically feasible; and would be cost effective. (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6295 (n)(2)) In 
evaluating the cost-effectiveness of amended standards, EPCA requires 
DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 
average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared 
to any increase in price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses of 
the covered equipment that are likely to result from the imposition of 
the standard. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C) and 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(II)) DOE has tentatively determined that the potential 
standards would not be cost-effective as defined in EPCA. See section 
V.B., infra. DOE has not conducted an emissions analysis as would 
generally be performed were DOE to propose amended energy conservation 
standards.
    The CA IOUs suggested that DOE adopt a common metric between small 
electric motors and electric motors. The CA IOUs commented that 
different metrics create confusion and represent an additional burden 
for the motor industry. The CA IOUs recommended consideration of a 
single metric for both small electric motors and electric motors or 
development of a new metric in consultation with industry. (CA IOUs, 
No. 10 at p. 4)
    The energy conservation standards for small electric motors at 10 
CFR 431.446 are expressed in terms of average full-load efficiency, 
while the standards for electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25 are expressed 
in terms of nominal full-load efficiency. The nominal efficiency values 
for electric motors are based on a sequence of discretized standard 
values in NEMA Standard MG 1-2016 Table 12-10, and are familiar to 
motor users. Under this approach, the full-load efficiency is 
identified on the electric motor nameplate by a nominal efficiency 
level selected from Table 12-10 that shall not be greater than the 
average efficiency of a large population of motors of the same design. 
However, NEMA has not adopted a comparable set of standardized values 
for small electric motors. Because no standardized nominal values are 
published for small electric motors, DOE is unable to consider at this 
time their appropriateness as a small electric motor performance 
metric. Absent standardized nominal values for small electric motors, 
DOE is unable to ascertain whether existing energy conservation 
standards would require the same level of stringency if based on 
nominal values. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to amend the metric for 
small electric motor energy conservation standards in this document.
    Finally, DOE received a comment from an individual requesting 
information on the RFI data collection process, specifically in 
reference to the privacy of manufacturers and consumers. (Palubin, No. 
2 at p. 1) As provided in the April 2019 ECS RFI, DOE accepted written 
comments from the public on any subject within the scope of the small 
electric motors energy conservation standards. The confidentiality of 
comments submitted is addressed in section VII of this document, 
including requests to have comments treated as confidential under 10 
CFR 1004.11.

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

    The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses 
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for small 
electric motors examined by DOE.

A. Energy Savings

    For each standards case considered, DOE estimated the per unit 
lifetime energy savings for small electric motors purchased in the 
expected compliance year of any potential standards. DOE did not 
separately evaluate the significance of the potential energy 
conservation under the considered amended standard because it has 
tentatively determined that the potential standards would not be cost-
effective as defined in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))

B. Cost Effectiveness

    In general, higher-efficiency equipment affects consumers in two 
ways: (1) Purchase price increases and (2) annual operating cost 
decreases. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total 
installed costs (i.e., equipment price plus installation costs), and 
operating costs (i.e., annual energy and water use, energy and water 
prices, energy and water price trends, repair costs, and maintenance 
costs). The LCC calculation also uses equipment lifetime and a discount 
rate.
    Table V-1 through Table V-7 show the LCC and PBP results for the 
ELs considered for each equipment class. Results for each 
representative unit are presented by two tables: In the first of each 
pair of tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline 
equipment. In the second table, the impacts are measured relative to 
the

[[Page 24167]]

efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case in the expected 
compliance year for the potential standards considered. Because some 
consumers purchase equipment with higher efficiency in the no-new-
standards case, the average savings are greater than the difference 
between the average LCC of the baseline equipment and the average LCC 
at each EL. The savings refer only to consumers who are affected by a 
standard at a given EL. Those who already purchase a small electric 
motor with efficiency at or above a given EL are not affected. 
Consumers for whom the LCC-increases at a given EL experience a net 
cost.

                Table V-1--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Representative Unit 1: Single-Phase, CSCR, 4-Pole, 0.75 hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average costs 2018$
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                    Efficiency Level                           Total       First year's      Lifetime                          years      lifetime years
                                                          installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           465.8           156.2           600.6         1,066.3  ..............             6.6
1.......................................................           481.8           153.8           591.4         1,073.2             6.7             6.6
2.......................................................           502.1           151.1           580.7         1,082.8             7.0             6.6
3.......................................................           544.4           149.7           575.4         1,119.8            12.0             6.6
4.......................................................           571.9           145.2           558.1         1,130.0             9.6             6.6
5.......................................................         1,403.1           142.7           548.3         1,951.4            69.2             6.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured
  relative to the baseline equipment.


 Table V-2--LCC Savings Relative to the No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Representative Unit 1:
                                       Single-Phase, CSCR, 4-Pole, 0.75 hp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Life-cycle cost savings
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Percent of customers  that         Average savings *
                  Efficiency level                             experience          -----------------------------
                                                     ------------------------------
                                                           Net cost (percent)                   2018$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................................                          78.3                          -6.8
2...................................................                          81.8                         -16.3
3...................................................                          90.7                         -53.3
4...................................................                          89.8                         -63.0
5...................................................                         100.0                        -884.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                      Table V-3--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Representative Unit 2: Polyphase, 4-Pole, 1 hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average costs 2018$
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                    Efficiency level                           Total       First year's      Lifetime                          years      lifetime years
                                                          installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           450.4           192.8           923.1         1,373.5  ..............             8.5
1.......................................................           519.7           188.7           903.2         1,423.0            16.7             8.5
2.......................................................           579.3           186.2           891.4         1,470.7            19.5             8.5
3.......................................................         1,386.3           182.8           875.2         2,261.4            93.6             8.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured
  relative to the baseline equipment.


 Table V-4--LCC Savings Relative to the No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Representative Unit 2:
                                             Polyphase, 4-pole, 1 hp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Life-cycle cost savings
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Percent of customers  that         Average Savings *
                  Efficiency level                             experience          -----------------------------
                                                     ------------------------------
                                                           Net cost (percent)                   2018$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................................                          85.8                         -49.4
2...................................................                          98.7                         -95.3
3...................................................                          99.2                        -885.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


[[Page 24168]]


                 Table V-5--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Representative Unit 3: Single-Phase, CSCR, 4-Pole, 1 hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average costs 2018$
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------
                    Efficiency level                           Total       First year's      Lifetime                         Simple          Average
                                                             installed       operating       operating          LCC        payback years  lifetime years
                                                               cost            cost            cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           529.6           206.3           784.1         1,313.8  ..............             6.6
1.......................................................           547.9           203.3           772.5         1,320.3             5.9             6.6
2.......................................................           570.9           199.9           759.5         1,330.4             6.4             6.6
3.......................................................           619.1           198.1           752.8         1,371.9            10.9             6.6
4.......................................................           650.3           192.4           731.1         1,381.5             8.7             6.6
5.......................................................         1,594.9           189.1           718.6         2,313.5            61.9             6.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured
  relative to the baseline equipment.


 Table V-6--LCC Savings Relative to the No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Representative Unit 3:
                                        Single-Phase, CSCR, 4-Pole, 1 hp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Life-cycle cost savings
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Percent of customers  that         Average savings *
                  Efficiency level                             experience          -----------------------------
                                                     ------------------------------
                                                           Net cost (percent)                   2018$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................................                          74.5                          -6.5
2...................................................                          78.8                         -16.6
3...................................................                          87.7                         -58.0
4...................................................                          86.8                         -66.9
5...................................................                         100.0                        -998.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                     Table V-7--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Representative Unit 4: Polyphase, 4-Pole, 0.5 hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average costs 2018$
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                    Efficiency level                           Total       First year's      Lifetime                          years      lifetime years
                                                          installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................           374.2           107.3           510.8           885.0  ..............             8.4
1.......................................................           431.7           104.1           495.5           927.2            17.9             8.4
2.......................................................           481.3           102.1           486.0           967.3            20.6             8.4
3.......................................................         1,150.6            99.4           473.4         1,624.0            99.0             8.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured
  relative to the baseline equipment.


 Table V-8--LCC Savings Relative to the No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Representative Unit 4:
                                            Polyphase, 4-Pole, 0.5 hp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Life-cycle cost savings
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Percent of customers  that         Average savings *
                  Efficiency level                             experience          -----------------------------
                                                     ------------------------------
                                                           Net cost (percent)                   2018$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................................                          88.2                         -42.1
2...................................................                          99.8                         -80.5
3...................................................                         100.0                        -737.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.

C. Proposed Determination

    For this proposed determination, DOE considered the amount of 
energy savings conservation, technological feasibility, and cost 
effectiveness of potential amended standards for small electric motors 
at each considered EL. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 
42 U.S.C. 6295 (n)(2)) As presented in the prior section, DOE projects 
that the average customer purchasing a representative small electric 
motor would experience an increase in LCC at each evaluated standards 
case as compared to the no

[[Page 24169]]

new standards case. The simple PBP for the average of a representative 
small electric motor customer at each EL is projected to be generally 
longer than the mean lifetime of the equipment. Based on the above 
considerations, DOE has tentatively determined that more stringent 
amended energy conservation standards for small electric motors cannot 
satisfy the relevant statutory requirements because such standards 
would not be cost effective as required and described under EPCA. (See 
42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) and (o)(2)(B)(II))
    DOE seeks comment on its analysis indicating that increasing the 
stringency of the energy conservation standards for small electric 
motors are not cost effective.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866

    This proposed determination has been determined to be not 
significant for purposes of Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As a 
result, the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') did not review 
this proposed determination.

B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777

    On January 30, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13771, ``Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' E.O. 13771 stated the 
policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and financially 
responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private 
sources. E.O. 13771 stated it is essential to manage the costs 
associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures 
required to comply with Federal regulations.
    Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O. 
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' See 82 FR 12285 
(March 1, 2017). E.O. 13777 required the head of each agency to 
designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer 
(``RRO''). Each RRO oversees the implementation of regulatory reform 
initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out 
regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. Further, E.O. 13777 
requires the establishment of a regulatory task force at each agency. 
The regulatory task force is required to make recommendations to the 
agency head regarding the repeal, replacement, or modification of 
existing regulations, consistent with applicable law. At a minimum, 
each regulatory reform task force must attempt to identify regulations 
that:
    (1) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
    (2) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
    (3) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
    (4) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
    (5) Are inconsistent with the requirements of the Information 
Quality Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, particularly 
those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, 
or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently 
transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
    (6) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential 
directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially 
modified.
    DOE initially concludes that this proposed determination is 
consistent with the directives set forth in these executive orders. As 
discussed in this document, DOE is proposing not to amend the current 
energy conservation standards for small electric motors and this 
proposal is estimated to have no cost impact. Therefore, if finalized 
as proposed, this determination is expected to be an E.O. 13771 other 
action.

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') 
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any rule 
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency 
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required 
by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's website (http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
    DOE reviewed this proposed determination pursuant to the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies discussed above. DOE 
has tentatively concluded that, based on the data and available 
information it has been able to review, amended energy conservation 
standards for small electric motors would not be cost-effective. 
Therefore, DOE is not proposing to amend the current energy 
conservation standards for small electric motors. On the basis of the 
foregoing, DOE certifies that this proposed determination, if adopted, 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an IRFA for this 
proposed determination. DOE will transmit this certification and 
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Manufacturers of small electric motors must certify to DOE that 
their products comply with any applicable energy conservation 
standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their 
equipment according to the DOE test procedures, including any 
amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established 
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for 
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including small 
electric motors. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011); 80 FR 5099 (Jan. 30, 
2015). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification 
and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This requirement has been approved 
by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for 
the certification is estimated to average 30 hours per response, 
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data 
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 
reviewing the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
    The proposed determination, which tentatively finds that amended 
energy conservation standards for small electric motors would not be 
cost effective, impose no new information or record keeping 
requirements. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.)

[[Page 24170]]

E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    DOE is analyzing this proposed action in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA 
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include 
a categorical exclusion for actions which are interpretations or 
rulings with respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart 
D, appendix A4. DOE anticipates that this action qualifies for 
categorical exclusion A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in 
regards to an existing regulation and otherwise meets the requirements 
for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE 
will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final action.

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), 
imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that 
have federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and 
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. As this proposed 
determination does not amend the standards for small electric motors, 
there is no impact on the policymaking discretion of the States. 
Therefore, no action is required by Executive Order 13132.

G. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, 
``Civil Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty 
to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors 
and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) 
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a 
general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 
61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 
3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that 
Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the 
regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) 
clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting 
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive 
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses 
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship 
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of 
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations 
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or 
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined 
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed determination meets 
the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'') 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published 
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation 
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at 
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf. This 
proposed determination does not contain a Federal intergovernmental 
mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or 
more in any one year by the private sector. As a result, the analytical 
requirements of UMRA do not apply.

I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This proposed determination would not have any impact on the autonomy 
or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

J. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 
8859 (March 18, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed 
determination would not result in any takings that might require 
compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to 
review most disseminations of information to the public under 
information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to 
general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 
FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this proposed determination 
under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is 
consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

L. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') at OMB, a 
Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a

[[Page 24171]]

significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the 
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy 
supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of 
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 
energy supply, distribution, and use.
    Because this proposed determination would not amend the current 
standards for small electric motors, it is not a significant energy 
action, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at 
OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

M. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information 
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear 
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 
decisions.'' 70 FR 2667.
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress 
peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process 
and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the 
energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. Generation of this 
report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using 
objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a 
judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or 
anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness 
of programs and/or projects. The ``Energy Conservation Standards 
Rulemaking Peer Review Report'' dated February 2007 has been 
disseminated and is available at: http://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/peer-review.

VII. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed determination no later than the date provided in the DATES 
section at the beginning of this proposed determination. Interested 
parties may submit comments, data, and other information using any of 
the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this 
document.
    Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments 
received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the 
information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the 
Confidential Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov 
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of 
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being 
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to 
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your 
comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact 
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment 
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact 
information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email 
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover 
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any 
comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. 
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (``ASCII'') file format. Provide documents 
that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of 
any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters 
or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: 
One copy of the document marked ``confidential'' including all the 
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document 
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be 
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if 
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential 
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

[[Page 24172]]

    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
    1. DOE seeks comment on the selection of representative equipment 
classes for CSCR and polyphase motors and the tentative determination 
that more stringent energy conservation standards for CSIR motors are 
not technologically feasible.
    2. DOE seeks comment on the methodologies employed in the 
engineering analysis, specifically regarding the adoption of the motor 
designs and associated efficiency levels considered in the March 2010 
Final Rule analysis as the basis for this proposed determination.
    3. DOE seeks input on whether and how the costs estimated for motor 
designs considered in the March 2010 Final Rule have changed since the 
time of that analysis. DOE also requests information on the investments 
(including related costs) necessary to incorporate specific design 
options, including, but not limited to, costs related to new or 
modified tooling (if any), materials, engineering and development 
efforts to implement each design option, and manufacturing/production 
impacts.
    4. DOE seeks input on implementing a similar scaling methodology as 
that used for the March 2010 Final Rule in this NOPD.
    5. DOE seeks comment on the methodology and data used for 
estimating end-user prices for small electric motors.
    6. DOE seeks comments on how whether additions or changes should be 
made to the energy use analysis as well as any data supporting 
alternate inputs to characterize the variability in annual energy 
consumption for small electric motors.
    7. DOE seeks comment on the approach used for estimating 
distribution of consumers of small electric motors across applications 
and sectors, as well as any data supporting the use of alternate 
distributions.
    8. DOE seeks comment on the methodology used for estimating the 
distribution of motor load for each application and sector, as well as 
any data supporting alternate distributions.
    9. DOE seeks comment on the methodology used to estimate annual 
operating hours, as well as any data supporting alternate distribution 
of operating hours by application and sector.
    10. DOE seeks comment on the methodology used to estimate 
installation costs as well as any data supporting alternate 
installation cost estimates.
    11. DOE seeks comment on the assumptions for estimating repair and 
maintenance costs as well as any data supporting alternate repair and 
maintenance cost estimates.
    12. DOE seeks comment on the methodology it used for estimating 
small electric motor lifetimes, as well as any data supporting 
alternate values for these lifetimes.
    13. DOE seeks comment on its analysis indicating that increasing 
the stringency of the energy conservation standards for small electric 
motors are not cost effective.
    14. Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to 
the conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified 
in this document.

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed 
determination.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on April 6, 2020.
Daniel R Simmons,
Assistant Secretary for Energy, Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-08319 Filed 4-29-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P