[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 99 (Thursday, May 21, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30878-30890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09989]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007]
RIN 1904-AE63


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Electric Motors

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

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is initiating an 
effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation 
standards for electric motors. DOE must review these standards at least 
once every six years and either propose new standards for electric 
motors or a notice of determination that the existing standards do not 
need amending. DOE is soliciting information from the public to help 
determine whether amending the current electric motor standards would 
produce significant energy savings while being technologically feasible 
and cost effective. Accordingly, DOE seeks information regarding any 
technological or market changes since the most recent standards update 
that would justify a new rulemaking to increase the stringency of the 
current standards consistent with these factors. DOE welcomes written 
comments from the public on any subject within the scope of this 
document (including those topics not specifically raised), as well as 
the submission of data and other relevant information.

DATES: Written comments and information will be accepted on or before 
June 22, 2020.

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-2020-BT-
STD-0007, 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-2020-BT-STD-0007 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) 
287-1445. 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 this 
process, see section III 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, 
some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    The docket web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section III for information on how to submit 
comments through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email: 
[email protected].
    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 submit a comment or review other 
public comments and 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. Introduction
    A. Authority and Background
    B. Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments
    A. Equipment Covered by This Process
    B. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Equipment Class Groups and Equipment Classes
    2. Technology Assessment
    C. Screening Analysis
    D. Engineering Analysis
    1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
    2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
    E. Distribution Channels
    F. Energy Use Analysis
    G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    H. Shipments
    I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    J. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
    1. Market Failures
    2. Emerging Smart Technology Market
    3. Other Issues
III. Submission of Comments

I. Introduction

A. Authority and Background

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\ 
among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of 
a number of consumer products and certain

[[Page 30879]]

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of 
EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 
6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program 
for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve the energy efficiency of certain types 
of industrial equipment, including electric motors, the subject of this 
RFI. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (``EPACT 
1992'') (Pub. L. 102-486 (October 24, 1992)) further amended EPCA by 
establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures for 
certain commercial and industrial electric motors that are manufactured 
alone or as a component of another piece of equipment. In December 
2007, Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
(``EISA 2007'') (Pub. L. 110-140). Section 313(b)(1) of EISA 2007 
updated the energy conservation standards for those electric motors 
already covered by EPCA and established energy conservation standards 
for a larger scope of motors not previously covered by standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) EISA 2007 also revised certain statutory definitions 
related to electric motors. See EISA 2007, sec. 313 (amending statutory 
definitions related to electric motors at 42 U.S.C. 6311(13))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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).
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 EPCA 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).
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant 
waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, 
in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 
EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
    On October 5, 1999, DOE published a final rule to codify the EPACT 
1992 electric motor requirements. 64 FR 54114. After EISA 2007's 
enactment, DOE updated, among other things, the corresponding electric 
motor regulations at 10 CFR part 431 by incorporating the new 
definitions and energy conservation standards that the law established. 
See 74 FR 12058 (March 23, 2009) (codifying various amendments enacted 
by Congress through EISA, including the adoption of specific energy 
conservation standards for certain classes of electric motors). DOE 
subsequently proposed new test procedures for small electric motors,\3\ 
see 73 FR 78220 (December 22, 2008), and later finalized key provisions 
related to small electric motor testing. See 74 FR 32059 (July 7, 
2009). Further updates to the test procedures for electric motors and 
small electric motors followed when DOE issued a rule that primarily 
focused on updating various definitions and incorporations by reference 
related to the current test procedure. See 77 FR 26608 (May 4, 2012). 
That rule defined the term ``electric motor'' to account for EISA 
2007's removal of the previous statutory definition of ``electric 
motor.'' DOE also clarified definitions related to those motors that 
EISA 2007 laid out as part of EPCA's statutory framework, including 
motor types that DOE had not previously regulated. See generally, 77 FR 
26608, 26613-26619. DOE also published a new test procedure on December 
13, 2013, that further refined various electric motor definitions and 
added certain definitions and test procedure preparatory steps to 
address a wider variety of electric motor types than are regulated, 
including those electric motors that are largely considered to be 
special-or definite-purpose motors. 78 FR 75962. On May 29, 2014, DOE 
published a final rule adopting new and amended energy conservation 
standards for electric motors that applied the standards to a wider 
scope of electric motors, required regulated motors, with the exception 
of fire pump electric motors, to satisfy the efficiency levels 
(``ELs'') prescribed in Table 12-12 of National Electrical 
Manufacturers Association (``NEMA'') Standards Publication MG 1-2011, 
``Motors and Generators,'' and retained the standards for fire pump 
motors. 79 FR 30934 (May 2014 Final Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Small electric motors'' are addressed separately from 
``electric motors'' in 10 CFR part 431 subpart X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE must also periodically evaluate the energy conservation 
standards for each type of covered equipment, including those at issue 
here, after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a 
standard. See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1). In doing so, 
DOE must issue (and have published) either a notice of determination 
that the standards do not need to be amended or a proposal 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)) Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), DOE must 
determine whether the benefits of a standard exceed its burdens by, to 
the greatest extent practicable, considering 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. If DOE 
decides not to amend a standard based on the statutory criteria, not 
later than 3 years after that determination DOE must issue (and submit 
for publication) either a determination that the standards do not need 
to be amended or propose amended energy conservation standards 
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (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 proposing new standards, DOE must evaluate that proposal against 
the criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as described in the following 
section, and follow the rulemaking procedures set out in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B) If DOE decides to 
amend the standard based on the statutory criteria, DOE must publish a 
final rule not later than two years after energy conservation standards 
are proposed. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(A))
    DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to 
inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA.

B. Rulemaking Process

    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria when prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered equipment. EPCA generally requires that 
any new or amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the

[[Page 30880]]

Secretary be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy or 
water efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically 
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) To determine 
whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires that DOE 
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by 
considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven 
factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and 
consumers of the affected products;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or 
maintenance expenses;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable) 
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products 
likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') considers 
relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))

    DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting 
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows 
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the 
requirements within EPCA.

       Table I.1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            EPCA requirement                Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings..............   Shipments Analysis
                                           National Impact
                                           Analysis
                                           Energy and Water Use
                                           Determination
Technological Feasibility...............   Market and Technology
                                           Assessment
                                           Screening Analysis
                                           Engineering Analysis
Economic Justification:                   ..............................
    1. Economic impact on manufacturers    Manufacturer Impact
     and consumers.                        Analysis
                                           Life-Cycle Cost and
                                           Payback Period Analysis
                                           Life-Cycle Cost
                                           Subgroup Analysis
                                           Shipments Analysis
    2. Lifetime operating cost savings     Markups for Product
     compared to increased cost for the    Price Determination
     product.
                                           Energy and Water Use
                                           Determination
                                           Life-Cycle Cost and
                                           Payback Period Analysis
    3. Total projected energy savings...   Shipments Analysis
                                           National Impact
                                           Analysis
    4. Impact on utility or performance.   Screening Analysis
                                           Engineering Analysis
    5. Impact of any lessening of          Manufacturer Impact
     competition.                          Analysis
    6. Need for national energy and        Shipments Analysis
     water conservation.
                                           National Impact
                                           Analysis
    7. Other factors the Secretary         Employment Impact
     considers relevant.                   Analysis
                                           Utility Impact
                                           Analysis
                                           Emissions Analysis
                                           Monetization of
                                           Emission Reductions Benefits
                                           Regulatory Impact
                                           Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document 
seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the 
development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely 
to determine whether (and if so, how) to amend the standards for 
electric motors.

II. Request for Information and Comments

    In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues 
on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and 
economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for electric 
motors may be warranted.
    As an initial matter, DOE seeks comment on whether there have been 
sufficient technological or market changes since the most recent 
standards update that may justify a new rulemaking to consider more 
stringent standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data and information to 
enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no new 
standard'' determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would 
not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not 
technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any 
combination of foregoing.

A. Equipment Covered by This Process

    This RFI covers equipment meeting the electric motor definition 
codified at 10 CFR 431.12 \4\ and includes the different classes of 
electric motors that DOE currently regulates. DOE's definitions related 
to electric motors were most recently amended in May 2014. See 79 FR 
30933 (May 29, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This RFI does not address small electric motors, which are 
covered separately under 10 CFR part 431, subpart X. 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 MG1-1987, 
including IEC metric equivalent motors.'' 10 CFR 431.442.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The term ``electric motor'' is broadly defined as ``a machine that 
converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power.'' 10 CFR 
431.12. Currently, DOE regulates electric motors falling into the NEMA 
Design A, NEMA Design B, NEMA Design C, and fire pump motor categories 
and those electric motors that meet the criteria specified at 10 CFR 
431.25(g). 10 CFR 431.25(h)-(j). Section 431.25(g) specifies that the 
relevant standards apply only to electric motors, including partial 
electric motors, that satisfy the following criteria:

    (1) Are single-speed, induction motors;

[[Page 30881]]

    (2) Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty 
type S1 (IEC)
    (3) Contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
    (4) Operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal 
line power;
    (5) Are rated 600 volts or less;
    (6) Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration;
    (7) Are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or 
IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two 
consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an 
enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent);
    (8) Produce at least one horsepower (0.746 kW) but not greater 
than 500 horsepower (373 kW), and
    (9) Meet all of the performance requirements of one of the 
following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC 
Design N or H motor.

10 CFR 431.25(g).

    NEMA Design A, B and C motors are all squirrel-cage motors. NEMA 
Design A and B motors are very similar, except one of the main 
differences between them is that NEMA Design A motors have no locked-
rotor current limits whereas NEMA Design B motors are required to stay 
below certain maximum locked-rotor current limits specified in NEMA MG 
1-2009. Otherwise, NEMA Design A and NEMA Design B motors have similar 
requirements for locked-rotor, pull-up, and breakdown torque and are 
consequently used in many of the same applications. IEC Design N motors 
have similar locked-rotor, pull-up, and breakdown torque requirements 
except that these requirements are specified in IEC 60034-12 edition 
2.1 rather than in NEMA MG 1-2009.
    NEMA Design C motors, on the other hand, have higher torque 
requirements than NEMA Design A or B motors. The difference in torque 
requirements restrict which applications can use which NEMA design 
types. As a result, NEMA Design C motors will not always be replaceable 
with NEMA Design A or B motors, or vice versa. IEC Design H motors have 
similar torque requirements except these are specified in IEC 60034-12 
edition 2.1.
    Fire pump electric motors are motors with special design 
characteristics that make them more suitable for emergency operation. 
Such electric motors, per the requirements of National Fire Protection 
(``NFPA'') standard NFPA 20, are required to be marked as complying 
with NEMA Design B performance standards and be capable of operating 
even if it overheats or may be damaged due to continued operation.
    The definitions for NEMA Design A motors, NEMA Design B motors, 
NEMA Design C motors, fire pump electric motors, IEC Design N motor and 
IEC Design H motor are codified in 10 CFR 431.12.
    DOE has also exempted certain categories of motors from being 
regulated by its standards because of the current absence of a reliable 
and repeatable method to accurately measure their efficiency. See 79 FR 
30934, 30945; see also, 78 FR 75962, 75974, 75987-75989). The current 
exemptions are as follows:

     Air-over electric motors;
     Component sets of an electric motor;
     Liquid-cooled electric motors;
     Submersible electric motors; and
     Inverter-only electric motors.

10 CFR 431.25(l)

    In a recent test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking for small 
electric motors and electric motors, DOE did not propose to change the 
scope of the test procedure for electric motors. (84 FR 17004 (April 
23, 2019)) DOE also requested comment in a test procedure RFI for 
electric motors published on November 2, 2017 (82 FR 50844) regarding 
the merits of revising the NEMA Design A, B, and C motor definitions, 
among others, and updating the current regulation's NEMA MG 1 
references to the most recent edition of the standard, NEMA MG 1-2016. 
DOE notes that comments received on issues related to the scope and 
definitions for electric motors discussed in the April 2019 proposed 
test procedure rulemaking for small electric motors and electric motors 
will be addressed as part of that rulemaking.
    In 2016, an updated version of the IEC 60034-12 was published that 
added new starting requirements to describe six new IEC motor designs 
in addition to the previously considered IEC Design N and H motors that 
DOE currently regulates: IEC Design NE, IEC Design HE, IEC Design NY, 
IEC Design NEY, IEC Design HY, and IEC Design HEY. All six additional 
categories are described as motors that are very similar in designs 
compared to the IEC Design N and H motors that DOE currently regulates, 
with the only differences being the locked rotor apparent power 
(indicated by the letter ``E''), and starting configuration (star-delta 
starter indicated by the letter ``Y''). DOE intends to review these 
additional IEC motor designs to determine whether these IEC designs are 
equivalent to the NEMA Design A, B, or C motors that DOE currently 
regulates.
    Issue A.1 DOE requests comment on whether additional equipment 
definitions are necessary to clarify any potential definitional 
ambiguities between existing equipment class groups. DOE also seeks 
input on whether such equipment currently exist in the market or 
whether they are being planned for introduction. DOE also requests 
comment on opportunities to combine equipment class groups that could 
reduce regulatory burden.
    Issue A.2 DOE requests input and comment on whether IEC Design NE, 
NEY, NY, HE, HEY, and HY motors are equivalent designs to NEMA Design 
A, B, or C motors, and if so, information and data to support such a 
consideration.

B. Market and Technology Assessment

    The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts 
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy 
conservation standard provides information about the electric motors 
industry that will be used in DOE's analysis throughout the rulemaking 
process. DOE uses qualitative and quantitative information to 
characterize the structure of the industry and market. DOE identifies 
manufacturers, estimates market shares and trends, addresses regulatory 
and non-regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or 
reduce energy consumption, and explores the potential for efficiency 
improvements in the design and manufacturing of electric motors. DOE 
also reviews equipment literature, industry publications, and company 
websites. Additionally, DOE conducts interviews with manufacturers to 
improve its assessment of the market and available technologies for 
electric motors.
1. Equipment Class Groups and Equipment Classes
    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
may divide 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 electric motors, due to the large number of characteristics 
involved in electric motor design, DOE developed both ``equipment class 
groups'' and ``equipment classes''. With respect to class groups, the 
current energy conservation standards specified in 10 CFR 431.25 are 
based on three broad equipment groupings determined according to 
performance-related features that provide utility to the

[[Page 30882]]

consumer and are described in terms of motor design (i.e. NEMA Design A 
and B, NEMA Design C, and Fire Pump Motors). Table II.1 lists the 
current three equipment class groups for electric motors.

                           Table II.1--Current Electric Motors Equipment Class Groups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Electric motor design     Horsepower         Pole
   Equipment class group               type               rating       configuration           Enclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..........................  NEMA Design A & B *....           1-500      2, 4, 6, 8  Open.
                                                                                      Enclosed.
2..........................  NEMA Design C *........           1-200         4, 6, 8  Open.
                                                                                      Enclosed.
3..........................  Fire Pump Motors *.....           1-500      2, 4, 6, 8  Open.
                                                                                      Enclosed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Including IEC equivalents.

    ``Design A'', ``Design B'' and ``Design C'' are NEMA-developed 
designations that define a motor's performance characteristics such as 
the locked-rotor torque, pull-up torque, breakdown torque, inrush 
current, and locked-rotor current. The motors within the equipment 
class groups in Table II.1 were further divided into equipment classes 
based on pole-configuration, enclosure type, and horsepower rating.
    Issue B.1 DOE requests feedback on the current electric motors 
equipment class groups and whether changes to these individual 
equipment class groups and their descriptions should be made or whether 
certain class groups should be merged or separated. DOE also seeks 
feedback on whether combining certain class groups could impact product 
utility by eliminating any performance-related features or impact the 
stringency of the current energy conservation standard for this 
equipment. DOE also requests comment on whether it should consider 
separating any of the existing equipment class groups and whether such 
a change would impact equipment utility by eliminating any performance-
related features or reduce any compliance burdens.
    Issue B.2 DOE seeks information regarding any other new equipment 
class groups it should consider for inclusion in its analysis. 
Specifically, DOE requests information on the performance-related 
features (e.g., input power supply, operating speed, etc.) that provide 
unique consumer utility and data detailing the corresponding impacts on 
energy use that would justify separate equipment class groups (i.e., 
explanation for why the presence of these performance-related features 
would increase energy consumption).
2. Technology Assessment
    In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy 
conservation standards, DOE uses information about existing and past 
technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies 
that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of 
energy conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with 
interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to 
consider in its analysis. That analysis will likely include a number of 
the technology options DOE previously considered during its most recent 
rulemaking for electric motors. A complete list of those prior options 
appears in Table II.2. See also 79 FR 30934, 30959.

 Table II.2--Technology Options Considered in the Development of the May
                             2014 Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Type of loss to reduce                  Technology option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stator I\2\R Losses...............  Increase cross-sectional area of
                                     copper in stator slots.
Decrease the length of coil
 extensions.
Rotor I\2\R Losses................  Increase cross-sectional area of end
                                     rings.
Increase cross-sectional area of
 rotor conductor bars.
Use a die-cast copper rotor cage.
Core Losses.......................  Use electrical steel laminations
                                     with lower losses (watts/lb).
Use thinner steel laminations.....
Increase stack length (i.e., add
 electrical steel laminations).
Friction and Windage Losses.        Optimize bearing and lubrication
                                     selection.
Improve cooling system design.....
Stray-Load Losses.................  Reduce skew on rotor cage.
Improve rotor bar insulation......
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is not aware of specific techniques manufacturers use to reduce 
stray-load losses, which are any losses that are not attributed to 
I\2\R losses, core losses, or friction and windage losses, other than 
those already noted in Table II.2.
    Issue B.3 DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table 
II.2 regarding their applicability to the current market and how these 
technologies may impact the efficiency of electric motors as measured 
according to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks information on how 
these technologies may have changed since their prior consideration 
during the May 2014 Final Rule analysis. Specifically, DOE seeks 
information on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics 
that are currently available for each technology option.
    Issue B.4 DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table 
II.2 regarding their market adoption, costs, and any concerns with 
incorporating them into products (e.g., impacts on consumer utility, 
potential safety concerns, manufacturing/production/implementation 
issues, etc.), particularly as to changes that may have occurred since 
the publication of the May 2014 Final Rule.

[[Page 30883]]

    Issue B.5 DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it 
should consider for inclusion in its analysis and details regarding the 
extent to which these technologies may impact product features or 
consumer utility. DOE also seeks input regarding the cost-effectiveness 
of implementing these options.

C. Screening Analysis

    The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the 
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which 
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which 
will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration.
    DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from 
further consideration based on the following criteria:

    (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 of a technology in commercial 
products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology 
could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant 
market at the time of the compliance date of the standard, then that 
technology will not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If a 
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the 
utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers, or 
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, 
sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as 
equipment 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 will have significant adverse impacts on health or 
safety, it will not be considered further.

See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sec. 4(a)(4) and 5(b).

    Technology options identified in the technology assessment are 
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from 
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and 
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the 
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the 
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more 
of the four criteria are eliminated from consideration.
    Additionally, DOE notes that the four screening criteria do not 
directly address the proprietary 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).
    Table II.3 summarizes specific examples of design options that DOE 
screened out in the May 2014 Final Rule, the type of loss reduced, and 
the applicable screening criteria.

                                     Table II.3--Previously Screened Out Design Options From the May 2014 Final Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Type of  loss reduced
                                                                            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  EPCA criteria  (X = basis for screening                                                        Practicability to
                    out)                       Screened technology option       Technological       manufacture,      Adverse impact    Adverse impacts
                                                                                 feasibility        install, and        on product       on health and
                                                                                                      service            utility             safety
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plastic Bonded Iron Powder (PBIP)..........  Core Losses...................                  X
Amorphous Steels...........................  Core Losses...................                  X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Plastic Bonded Iron Powder (``PBIP'') is a method that can be 
employed to reduce core losses. PBIP uses two main ingredients: Metal 
powder and plastics. Combining the ingredients creates a material with 
low conductivity and high permeability. The metal particles are 
surrounded by an insulating plastic, which prevents electric current 
from developing in the material and helps to eliminate losses in the 
core due to eddy currents. Properties of PBIP can differ depending on 
the processing steps that are followed. If the metal particles are too 
closely compacted and begin to touch each other, the material will gain 
electrical conductivity, counteracting one of its most important 
features.
    In the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE did not consider this technology 
option technologically feasible, because it had not been incorporated 
into a working prototype of an electric motor. 79 FR 30934, 30966. 
While DOE noted that a research team at Lund University in Sweden 
published a paper in 2007 about using PBIP in manufacturing, the same 
paper indicated that its study team produced inductors, transformers, 
and induction heating coils using PBIP, but has not yet produced a 
small electric motor.\5\ (See chapter 4 of the May 2014 Final Rule TSD) 
Also, DOE was uncertain whether the PBIP material had the structural 
integrity to form into the necessary shape of an electric motor steel 
frame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The use of amorphous metals in the rotor laminations is another 
method to improve the efficiency of electric motors by reducing core 
losses. 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 reduce overall losses in 
electric motors. However, amorphous steel is a very brittle material 
which makes it difficult to punch into motor laminations. In the May 
2014 Final Rule, DOE did not consider this technology option 
technologically feasible because it had not been incorporated into a 
working prototype of an electric motor. 79 FR 30934, 30936. 
Furthermore, DOE was uncertain at the time whether amorphous metals are 
practicable to manufacture, install, and service, because a prototype 
amorphous metal electric motor had not been made.
    Issue C.1 DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the four 
screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the 
technology options listed in Table II.2 with respect to electric 
motors. Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these same 
criteria would affect any other technology options not already 
identified in this document with respect to their potential use in 
electric motors.
    Issue C.2 With respect to the screened-out design options listed in 
Table II.3, DOE seeks information on

[[Page 30884]]

whether these options would, based on current and projected assessments 
regarding each of them, remain screened out under the four screening 
criteria described in this section. Also regarding each, what steps, if 
any, could be (or have already been) taken to facilitate the 
introduction of each method as a means to improve the energy 
performance of electric motors and, separately, what is the potential 
of each option to impact the consumer utility of an electric motor that 
uses it?

D. Engineering Analysis

    The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship 
of equipment at different levels of increased energy efficiency 
(``efficiency levels''). This relationship serves as the basis for the 
cost-benefit calculations for consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. 
In determining the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the 
increase in manufacturer production cost (``MPC'') associated with 
increasing equipment efficiency above the baseline, up to the maximum 
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') efficiency level for each 
equipment class.
    DOE historically has used the following three methodologies to 
generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency 
levels (``ELs'') for analysis: (1) The design-option approach, which 
provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model design 
options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level 
approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving increases in 
energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design 
options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or 
reverse engineering) approach, which provides ``bottom-up'' 
manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of 
increased efficiency, based on detailed cost data for parts and 
material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that 
operate at particular efficiency levels.
1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
    For each equipment class, DOE selects a baseline model as a 
reference point against which any changes resulting from new or amended 
energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline model in 
each equipment class represents the characteristics of common or 
typical equipment in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one 
that meets the current minimum energy conservation standards and 
provides basic consumer utility.
    If it determines that a rulemaking is merited, consistent with this 
analytical approach, DOE tentatively plans to consider the current 
minimum energy conservation standards (which went into effect June 1, 
2016) to establish baseline efficiency levels for each equipment class 
group. The current standards for each equipment class, which are based 
on nominal full load efficiency, are found at 10 CFR 431.25.
    Issue D.1 DOE requests feedback (including data) on whether using 
the current established energy conservation standards for electric 
motors are appropriate baseline efficiency levels for DOE to apply to 
each equipment class group in evaluating whether to amend the current 
energy conservation standards for these products.
    Issue D.2 DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline 
efficiency levels for any newly analyzed equipment class groups that 
are not currently in place or for the contemplated combined equipment 
class groups, as discussed in section II.B.1 of this document. For 
newly analyzed equipment class groups or equipment classes, DOE 
requests energy use data to develop a baseline relationship between 
energy use, horsepower rating, number of poles, and enclosure type.
2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level 
is the most efficient unit currently available on the market. For the 
May 2014 Final Rule, DOE did not directly analyze all 482 equipment 
classes. Rather, DOE selected and analyzed certain representative units 
from each equipment class group and based its overall analysis for all 
equipment classes with that equipment class group on those 
representative units. Results were then scaled to equipment classes 
that were not directly analyzed. The representative units from each 
equipment class group were determined based on the NEMA design type, 
horsepower rating, pole configuration and enclosure, in addition to 
corresponding shipment volumes, examining manufacturers' catalog data, 
and soliciting feedback from interested parties. For example, for 
equipment class group 1, which includes NEMA Design A and B motors, DOE 
selected only NEMA Design B motors as representative units to analyze 
in the engineering analysis. DOE chose NEMA Design B motors because 
NEMA Design B motors have slightly more stringent performance 
requirements--namely, their locked-rotor current has a maximum 
allowable level for a given rating. Consequently, NEMA Design B motors 
are slightly more restricted in terms of their maximum efficiency 
levels. By analyzing a NEMA Design B motor, DOE can ensure all designs 
covered in the equipment class group 1 analysis are technologically 
feasible. In addition, NEMA Design B units have much higher shipment 
volumes than NEMA Design A motors because most motor driven equipment 
is designed (and UL-listed) to run with NEMA Design B motors--which, as 
a result, is more likely to provide a broader picture of the impacts 
that would flow from amending the standards for electric motors. See 79 
FR 30934, 30967 and chapter 5 of the technical support document 
(``TSD'') for that rulemaking.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The TSD is available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE selected three representative units to analyze in equipment 
class group 1 (``ECG1'') and two representative units in equipment 
class group 2 (``ECG2''). For equipment class group 3 (``ECG3''), DOE 
analyzed the same equipment classes as for ECG1 because fire pump 
electric motors are required to meet NEMA Design B performance 
standards as per NFPA 20, and ECG1 includes NEMA Design B motors. The 
current maximum available efficiencies for the representative units for 
each of the three equipment class groups are included in Table II.4.

[[Page 30885]]



                                                Table II.4--Maximum Efficiency Levels Currently Available
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                              Maximum
                                                                                                                             available        Current
         ECG             Electric motor design       Pole  configuration            Enclosure  type         Horsepower         motor          energy
                                 type                                                                      rating  (hp)     efficiency     conservation
                                                                                                                                (%)        standard  (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................  NEMA Design B...........  4-pole.....................  Enclosed..................               5            91.0            89.5
                                                                                                                      30            94.5            93.6
                                                                                                                      75            96.2            95.4
2....................  NEMA Design C...........  4-pole.....................  Enclosed..................               5            91.0            89.5
                                                                                                                      50            95.0            94.5
3*...................  NEMA Design B...........  4-pole.....................  Enclosed..................               5            91.0            87.5
                                                                                                                      30            94.5            92.4
                                                                                                                      75            96.2            94.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE analyzed the same equipment classes from ECG1 for ECG3.

    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 that when 
combined, 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. In the May 2014 
Final Rule, depending on the equipment class group, DOE determined max-
tech efficiency levels using efficiencies for physical electric motors, 
energy modeling, and/or subject matter expert feedback. The energy 
models were based on using various technology (as discussed in section 
II.B.2), material (low loss electrical steel and increased stator 
copper), and geometry changes applicable to the specific equipment 
class groups. While all these product configurations had not likely 
been tested as prototypes available in the market, all the individual 
design options had been incorporated in available equipment, and 
therefore a compatible combination of the design options used for max-
tech is theoretically possible.
    Issue D.3 DOE seeks input on whether it is appropriate for ECG 1 
and ECG 3 to use the same representative units for purposes of the 
engineering analysis.
    Issue D.4 DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available 
efficiency levels discussed in this document are appropriate and 
technologically feasible for potential consideration as possible energy 
conservation standards for the products at issue--and if not, why not. 
DOE also requests feedback on whether the maximum available 
efficiencies presented in Table II.4 are representative of all other 
electric motor equipment classes not directly analyzed in the May 2014 
Final Rule. If the range of possible efficiencies is different for the 
other equipment classes not directly analyzed, what alternative 
approaches should DOE consider using for those equipment classes and 
why?
    Issue D.5 DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be 
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies 
associated with those levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks 
information as to whether there are limitations on the use of certain 
combinations of design options.
3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
    As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of 
the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that 
describe the estimated increases in manufacturer production cost 
associated with higher-efficiency products for the analyzed equipment 
classes. For the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE developed the cost-efficiency 
relationships by estimating the efficiency improvements and costs 
associated with incorporating specific design options into the assumed 
baseline model for each analyzed equipment class.
    Issue D.6 DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would 
incorporate the technology options listed in Table II.2 to increase the 
energy efficiency of electric motors beyond the baseline. This includes 
information on the order in which manufacturers would incorporate the 
different technologies to incrementally improve the efficiencies of 
equipment. DOE also requests feedback on whether increasing the energy 
efficiency of an electric motor would lead to other design changes that 
would not otherwise occur--and if so, what those changes would be. DOE 
is also interested in information regarding any potential impact of 
adopting a given design option on a manufacturer's ability to 
incorporate additional functions or attributes in response to consumer 
demand.
    Issue D.7 DOE also seeks input on the increase in MPC associated 
with incorporating each design option. Specifically, DOE is interested 
in whether and how the design option cost estimates used in the May 
2014 Final Rule have changed since the time of that analysis. DOE also 
requests information on the investments needed to incorporate specific 
design options (and combinations of 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 (including combinations of options), and manufacturing/
production impacts.
    Issue D.8 requests comment on whether certain design options (or 
combinations of options) may not be applicable to (or may be 
incompatible with) specific equipment class groups or equipment 
classes.
    As described in section II.D.2 of this document, DOE analyzed five 
representative units in the May 2014 Final Rule. DOE developed cost-
efficiency curves for each of the equipment classes that were used as 
the input for the downstream analyses conducted in support of that 
rulemaking. See chapter 5 of the May 2014 Final Rule TSD for the cost-
efficiency curves developed in that rulemaking.
    Issue D.9 DOE seeks feedback on whether its tentative approach of 
analyzing a sub-set of equipment classes is appropriate for a future 
electric motor energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE seeks 
comment on whether its prior approach of analyzing particular equipment 
classes and applying those results to the remaining classes remains 
appropriate in principle--and if not, why not? For example, if it is 
necessary to individually analyze more than the five

[[Page 30886]]

equipment classes used in the May 2014 Final Rule, please provide 
information on why aggregating certain equipment is not appropriate and 
suggestions on which additional classes that DOE should analyze. If the 
approach outlined in this document is not appropriate, what alternative 
approaches should DOE consider using as an alternative and why? If 
analyzing a different sub-set of electric motor classes is sufficient, 
which sub-sets should be analyzed, what minimum number of classes 
should be examined, and how should those selected classes be 
distributed among the 482 separate classes that DOE currently 
regulates?
    To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit 
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer 
markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') 
is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into 
commerce. For the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE used three manufacturer 
markups to account for costs that are part of each motor leaving a 
manufacturer's facility:
     Handling and scrap factor: 2.5 percent markup. This markup 
was applied to the direct material production costs of each electric 
motor. It accounts for the handling of material and the scrap material 
that cannot be used in the production of a finished electric motor.
     Factory overhead: 17.5 or 18.0 percent markup. DOE applied 
factory overhead to the direct material production costs, including the 
handling and scrap factor, and labor estimates. For aluminum rotor 
designs a 17.5 percent markup was used, but for all copper rotor 
designs, an 18.0 percent markup was used to factor in increased 
depreciation for the equipment.
     Non-production: 37-45 percent markup. This markup reflects 
costs including sales and general administrative, research and 
development costs, interest payments, and profit factor. DOE applied 
the non-production markup to the sum of the direct material production, 
the direct labor, the factory overhead and the product conversion 
costs. For the analyzed electric motors at or below 30-horsepower this 
markup was 37 percent and for electric motors above 30-horsepower this 
markup was 45 percent. This increase accounted for the extra profit 
margin manufacturers may receive on larger electric motors that are 
sold in smaller volumes.
    DOE developed these estimated markups based on corporate reports 
and conversations with manufacturers and experts. See chapter 5 of the 
May 2014 Final rule TSD for further detail.
    Issue D.10 DOE requests feedback on whether the manufacturer 
markups used in the May 2014 final rule are still appropriate for DOE 
to use when evaluating whether to amend its current standards. If the 
markups require revision, what specific revisions are needed for each? 
Are there additional markups that DOE should also consider--if so, 
which ones and why?

E. Distribution Channels

    In generating end-user price inputs for the life-cycle cost 
(``LCC'') analysis and national impact analysis (``NIA''), DOE must 
identify distribution channels (i.e., how the products are distributed 
from the manufacturer to the consumer), and estimate relative sales 
volumes through each channel. In the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE accounted 
for seven main distribution channels for electric motors and estimated 
their respective shares of sales volume (see Table II.5). Should 
sufficient information become available, DOE may consider modifying 
these distribution channels and respective share of sales volume.

    Table II.5--Fraction of Electric Motors Shipments by Distribution
                                Channels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Distribution channel                    Shipments  (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer [rarr] OEM [rarr] End-user.................              25
Manufacturer [rarr] OEM [rarr] Equipment Distributor                  25
 [rarr] End-user........................................
Manufacturer [rarr] Retailers [rarr] End-User...........              24
Manufacturer [rarr] Equipment Wholesaler [rarr] OEM                   23
 [rarr] End-user........................................
Manufacturer [rarr] Contractor [rarr] End-user..........            0.75
Manufacturer [rarr] Distributors or Retailers [rarr]                0.75
 Contractor [rarr] End-User.............................
Manufacturer [rarr] End-user............................             1.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these distribution channel markups, DOE estimated 
the shipping costs of the motors. More-efficient motors are often 
larger and heavier than less efficient motors and DOE also accounted 
for any increase in shipping costs due to changes in weight.
    Issue E.1 DOE requests information on the existence of any 
distribution channels other than the seven channels that were 
identified in the May 2014 Final Rule and as described in section E. 
DOE also requests data on the fraction of sales that go through these 
channels and any other identified channels.

F. Energy Use Analysis

    As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use 
analysis to identify how equipment is used by consumers, and thereby 
determine the energy savings potential of energy efficiency 
improvements. The energy use analysis is meant to represent the energy 
consumption of a given product or equipment when used in the field. In 
addition to the rated nominal full-load efficiency as determined by the 
DOE test procedure, DOE uses information related to motor annual 
operating hours, motor operating load, and part-load efficiency to 
characterize energy consumption in the field.
    In the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE determined the annual energy 
consumption of electric motors by multiplying the power consumed by the 
electric motor while in operation by the annual hours of operation in 
various sectors and applications. The power consumed in operation was 
established as a function of the motor's load and of the part-load 
efficiency of electric motors as characterized in the engineering 
analysis. DOE also included a sensitivity analysis to analyze the 
impacts of varying nominal speeds across efficiency levels to account 
for the energy use impacts of having more efficient motors potentially 
run at slightly higher speeds.\7\ DOE used data referenced in an Easton 
Consultants report to establish the share of electric motors by sector 
(commercial, industrial and agriculture).\8\ For the industrial sector, 
DOE derived the share of each motor application, the distributions of 
operating hours and load using data

[[Page 30887]]

from field surveys \9\ and other sources.\10\ For fire pumps, DOE 
assumed a uniform distribution of operating hours between 0.5 hours and 
up to 6 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A more efficient motor can have less slip than a less 
efficient motor, an attribute that can result in a higher operating 
speed and a potential overloading of the motor.
    \8\ Easton Consultants, I. (2000), Variable Frequency Drive. 
Retrieved February 9, 2011, from http://neea.org/research/reports/E00-054.pdf.
    \9\ Database of motor nameplate and field measurement data 
compiled by the Washington State University Extension Energy Program 
(``WSU'') and Applied Proactive Technologies (``APT'') under 
contract with the New York State Energy Research and Development 
Authority (``NYSERDA''). 2011. This database is composed of 
information gathered by WSU and APT during 123 industrial motor 
surveys or assessments: 11 motor assessments were conducted between 
2005 and 2011 and occurred in industrial plants; 112 industrial 
motor surveys were conducted between 2005 and 2011 and were funded 
by NYSERDA and conducted in New York State. See also Strategic 
Energy Group (January, 2008), Northwest Industrial Motor Database 
Summary. Regional Technical Forum. Available at http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/subcommittees/osumotor/Default.htm
    \10\ U.S. Department of Agriculture (February 2010), 2007 Census 
of Agriculture Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey, from http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Farm_and_Ranch_Irrigation_Survey/index.php. See also Gallaher, M., 
Delhotal, K., & Petrusa, J. (2009), Estimating the potential 
CO2 mitigation from agricultural energy efficiency in the 
United States, Energy Efficiency (2), 207-220.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue F.1 DOE seeks input on data sources to help characterize the 
variability in annual energy consumption for electric motors. 
Specifically, DOE is requesting data and information (by application 
and sector) related to: (1) The distribution of operating hours; (2) 
the distribution of motor average annual loads; and (3) applicable load 
profiles (i.e., percentage of annual operating hours spent at specified 
load points), including the distribution of those profiles.

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    DOE conducts the LCC and payback period (``PBP'') analysis to 
evaluate the economic effects of potential energy conservation 
standards for electric motors on individual customers. For any given 
efficiency level, DOE measures the PBP and the change in LCC relative 
to an estimated baseline level. The LCC is the total customer expense 
over the life of the equipment, consisting of purchase, installation, 
and operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). 
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost of 
the equipment--which includes MSPs, distribution channel 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, 
discount rates, and the year that compliance with new and amended 
standards is required. In this section, DOE discusses specific inputs 
to the LCC and PBP analysis for which it requests comment and feedback.

1. Installation, Repair and Maintenance Costs

    In the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE reviewed motor installation cost 
data from RS Means Electrical Cost Data 2013 which showed a variation 
in installation costs by horsepower (for three-phase electric motors), 
but not by efficiency. Therefore, DOE assumed there was no variation in 
installation costs between a baseline efficiency electric motor and a 
higher efficiency electric motor. 79 FR 30934, 30978. DOE reviewed 
repair and maintenance cost data from Vaughen's Price Publishing 
Company,\11\ which publishes an industry reference guide on motor 
repair and maintenance pricing. The price of replacing bearings, which 
is the most common maintenance practice, was found to be the same at 
all efficiency levels. Therefore, DOE did not consider variations in 
maintenance costs by efficiency levels for electric motors in its 
analysis. DOE accounted for the differences in repair costs of a higher 
efficiency motor compared to a baseline efficiency motor.\12\ Based on 
data from Vaughen's, DOE derived a model to estimate repair costs by 
horsepower, enclosure and pole, for each efficiency level. As part of a 
potential energy conservation standards rulemaking, should one be 
conducted, DOE would review available motor installation, maintenance 
and repair cost information and update these inputs as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Vaughen's (2011, 2013), Vaughen's Motor & Pump Repair Price 
Guide, 2011, 2013 Edition. http://www.vaughens.com/.
    \12\ DOE considered a repair as including a rewind and 
reconditioning of the motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue G.1 DOE requests feedback and data on whether installation 
and maintenance costs at higher efficiency levels differ in comparison 
to the baseline installation and maintenance costs for any of the 
specific technology options listed in Table II.2. To the extent that 
these costs differ, DOE seeks supporting data and the reasons for those 
differences.
    Issue G.2 DOE requests information and data on the frequency of 
repair and repair costs by equipment class for the technology options 
listed in Table II.2. While DOE is interested in information regarding 
each of the listed technology options, DOE is also interested in 
whether consumers simply replace the equipment when it fails as opposed 
to repairing it.
2. Lifetime
    The equipment lifetime is the age at which given equipment is 
retired from service. In the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE estimated the 
mechanical lifetime of electric motors in hours (i.e., the total number 
of hours an electric motor operates throughout its lifetime), depending 
on its horsepower size and sector of application. DOE then developed 
Weibull distributions of mechanical lifetimes. The lifetime in years 
for a sampled electric motor was then calculated by dividing the 
sampled mechanical lifetime by the sampled annual operating hours of 
the electric motor.
    In the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE established sector-specific motor 
lifetime estimates to account for differences in maintenance practices 
and field usage conditions. DOE consulted a subject matter expert to 
obtain lifetime information for the industrial sector. For the 
agricultural and commercial sector, DOE referred to published average 
lifetimes cited in previous publications.\13\ See Chapter 8 of the May 
2014 Final Rule TSD for further discussion of the lifetime estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Nadel, Steven et al. (2002), Energy Efficient Motor 
Systems: A Handbook on Technology, Program, and Policy 
Opportunities, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 
Washington, DC. See also Gallaher, M., Delhotal, K., & Petrusa, J. 
(2009), Estimating the potential CO2 mitigation from 
agricultural energy efficiency in the United States, Energy 
Efficiency (2), 207-220.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue G.3 DOE seeks data and input on the appropriate equipment 
lifetimes for electric motors both in years and by sector and in 
lifetime mechanical hours that DOE should apply when performing its 
analysis.
3. 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 considers 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 the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE used the number of models meeting 
the requirements of each efficiency level from six major manufacturers 
and one distributor's catalog data to develop the ``no new standards'' 
case efficiency distributions in the base year (2012). The distribution 
was estimated separately for each equipment class group and horsepower 
range. Beyond 2012, for NEMA Design A and B motors,

[[Page 30888]]

DOE assumed the efficiency distributions varied over time based on 
historical data \14\ for the market penetration of more efficient 
motors. For other equipment class groups, DOE did not find sufficient 
data to develop efficiency trends for them--and as a result, DOE kept 
the base case efficiency distributions in the compliance year equal to 
2012 levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Robert Boteler, USA Motor Update 2009, Energy Efficient 
Motor Driven Systems Conference 2009, Proceedings of the 6th 
International Conference eemods '09--Energy Efficiency in Motor 
Driven Systems, Nantes, FRANCE, 14-17 September 2009 (Volume 1) . 
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/books/proceedings-6th-international-conference-eemods-09-energy-efficiency-motor-driven-systems-nantes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue G.4 DOE seeks data and input on the appropriate efficiency 
distribution in the no-new standards case for electric motors.

H. Shipments

    DOE develops shipments forecasts of electric motors to calculate 
the national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards 
on energy consumption, net present value (``NPV''), and future 
manufacturer cash flows. DOE shipments projections are based on 
available historical data broken out by equipment class, horsepower, 
and efficiency. Current sales estimates allow for a more accurate model 
that captures recent trends in the market.
    In the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE's shipments projection assumed that 
electric motor sales are driven by machinery production growth for 
equipment, including motors. DOE estimated that growth rates for total 
motor shipments correlate to growth rates in fixed investment in 
equipment and structures including motors, as provided by the U.S. 
Bureau of Economic Analysis.\15\ The base year market distributions 
were maintained over the 30-year analysis period. See Chapter 9 of the 
2014 May Final Rule TSD for further discussion of the prior shipments 
analysis. DOE may consider using a similar approach if it undertakes an 
energy conservation standards rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Bureau of Economic Analysis (March 01, 2012), Private Fixed 
Investment in Equipment and Software by Type and Private Fixed 
Investment in Structures by Type (Available at: http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=12&step=1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue H.1 DOE requests 2019 annual sales data (or the most recent 
year available) --i.e., number of shipments--for electric motors by 
equipment class. If disaggregated data of annual sales are not 
available at the equipment class level, DOE requests more aggregated 
data of annual sales at the equipment class group level.
    Issue H.2 DOE requests 2019 data (or the most recent year 
available) on the fraction of sales in the industrial, agriculture, and 
commercial sectors for electric motors by equipment class group.
    Issue H.3 DOE requests information on the rate at which annual 
sales (i.e., number of shipments) of electric motors is expected to 
change in the next 5-10 years. If possible, DOE requests this 
information by equipment class. If disaggregated data of annual sales 
are not available at the equipment class level, DOE requests more 
aggregated data of annual sales at the equipment class group level.
    Issue H.4 DOE requests data and information on any trends in the 
motor market that could be used to forecast expected trends in market 
share by efficiency levels for each equipment class. If disaggregated 
data are not available at the equipment class level, DOE requests 
aggregated data at the equipment class group level.

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

    The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to 
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards 
on manufacturers of electric motors, and to evaluate the potential 
impact of such standards on direct employment and manufacturing 
capacity. The MIA includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. 
The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government 
Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash-flow model adapted 
for electric motors included in this analysis, with the key output of 
industry net present value (``INPV''). The qualitative part of the MIA 
addresses the potential impacts of energy conservation standards on 
direct employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as factors such 
as product characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of firms, 
industry competition, and important market and product trends.
    As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended 
energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of the 
covered equipment, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the 
Small Business Administration's (``SBA'') small business size standards 
to determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which 
are listed by the applicable North American Industry Classification 
System (``NAICS'') code.\16\ Manufacturing of consumer electric motors 
is classified under NAICS 335312, ``Motor and Generator Manufacturing'' 
and the SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or less for a domestic 
entity to be considered as a small business. This employee threshold 
includes all employees in a business' parent company and any other 
subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Available online at https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the 
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the 
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one 
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the 
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have 
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may 
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy 
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect 
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the 
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon 
product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than 
competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of 
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to 
appliance efficiency.
    Issue I.1 To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact 
information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that 
distribute electric motors in the United States.
    Issue I.2 DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of 
manufacturers that could be disproportionally impacted by amended 
energy conservation standards. DOE requests the names and contact 
information of small business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's 
size threshold, of electric motors that distribute equipment in the 
United States. In addition, DOE requests comment on any other 
manufacturer subgroups that could be disproportionally impacted by 
amended energy conservation standards. DOE requests feedback on any 
potential approaches that could be considered to address adverse 
impacts on manufacturers, including small businesses.
    Issue I.3 DOE requests information regarding the cumulative 
regulatory burden impacts on manufacturers of electric motors 
associated with (1) other DOE standards applying to different products 
that these manufacturers may

[[Page 30889]]

also make and (2) product-specific regulatory actions of other Federal 
agencies. DOE also requests comment on its methodology for evaluating 
cumulative regulatory burden and whether there are any flexibilities it 
can (and should) consider that would reduce this burden while remaining 
consistent with the requirements of EPCA.

J. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics

1. Market Failures
    In the field of economics, a market failure is a situation in which 
the market outcome does not maximize societal welfare. Such an outcome 
would result in unrealized potential welfare. DOE welcomes comment on 
any aspect of market failures, especially those in the context of 
amended energy conservation standards for electric motors.
2. Emerging Smart Technology Market
    DOE published an RFI on the emerging smart technology appliance and 
equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17, 2018). In that RFI, DOE sought 
information to better understand market trends and issues in the 
emerging market for appliances and commercial equipment that 
incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing the RFI was to 
ensure that DOE did not inadvertently impede such innovation in 
fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting efficiency standards 
for covered products and equipment. DOE seeks comments, data and 
information on the issues presented in the RFI as they may be 
applicable to energy conservation standards for electric motors.
3. Other Issues
    Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the 
conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in 
this document. In particular, DOE notes that under Executive Order 
13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' 
Executive Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage the costs 
associated with the imposition of expenditures required to comply with 
Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Consistent with 
that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to provide input on 
measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its energy conservation 
standards rulemakings, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and 
compliance and certification requirements applicable to electric motors 
while remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.

III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date 
specified previously in the DATES section of this document, comments 
and information on matters addressed in this document and on other 
matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy conservations 
standards for electric motors. After the close of the comment period, 
DOE will review the public comments received and may begin collecting 
data and conducting the analyses discussed in this document.
    Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies Office 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 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. 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 
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 on 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. 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, written in English and 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. According 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

[[Page 30890]]

status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
    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).
    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of 
the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively 
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the 
comment period in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions 
with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of 
the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking process.
    Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive 
future notices and information about this process or would like to 
request a public meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at 
[email protected].

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 10, 
2020, by Alexander N. Fitzsimmons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to 
delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with 
the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For 
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of 
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the 
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document 
of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way 
alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the 
Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-09989 Filed 5-20-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P