Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4885 

current standard, in addition to the one 

product that also had a cycle time of 30 

minutes (high temperature setting) and 

met the standard when tested under 

Appendix D2. The CA IOUs also 

conducted independent testing, using 

Appendix D1, that showed there were 

multiple clothes dryers on the market 

offering a 30 minute or less cycle time 

(high temperature setting) that also met 

the current energy conservation 

standard. (No. 0036, pp. 3–4) These 

commenters concluded that based on 

this data, short cycle time was not a 

feature justifying a different a standard 

and the proposed product classes were 

not warranted for clothes washers and 

clothes dryers. (No. 0036, p. 5) 

DOE testing presented in the NOPR 

was conducted according to the 

Appendix D2 methodology because, 

unlike Appendix D1, it produces a cycle 

time that is representative of an average 

use cycle (even though cycle time is not 

currently recorded in either test 

procedure). The methodology in 

Appendix D1 will not allow for the 

measurement of a cycle time that is 

representative of average use, because 

the cycle is interrupted before 

completion. While cycle time measured 

using Appendix D1 would be shorter 

than the cycle time measured under 

Appendix D2, DOE maintains that this 

is not an accurate representation of how 

consumers would use these products. 

As DOE explained in the December 

2020 final rule, even if clothes washers 

and clothes dryers with short normal 

cycle times for were available, the 

product class provision, 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q), would still be appropriately 

applied in this rulemaking. While there 

are some products on the market that 

may complete a cycle within the time 

thresholds, DOE is establishing these 

short cycle product classes to facilitate 

the development of products design to 

complete a normal cycle within the 

threshold times and be subject to testing 

by the manufacturer. DOE notes that the 

impact of this rulemaking is to establish 

product classes based on short normal 

wash or dry cycles, therefore 

incentivizing manufacturers to develop 

such products that can meet consumer 

needs. 85 FR 81359, 81367. 

The CA IOUs reliance on the Oak 

Ridge study, and the CA IOUs own data, 

are also out of place in the context of 

this rulemaking because these data were 

generated using the test method set forth 

in Appendix D1. As DOE explained in 

the NOPR, Appendix D1 does not 

provide data that can be used to 

determine a ‘‘cycle time’’ as experienced 

by the consumer. This is because 

Appendix D1 requires manually 

stopping operation at a specified 

moisture content, normalizing, and 

applying a field use factor, therefore, the 

length of time that a clothes dryer is 

operated during an Appendix D1 test 

does not necessarily correspond to the 

length of time that a consumer would 

operate the clothes dryers (in contrast to 

the calculated energy use, which is 

representative of the energy use 

experienced by the consumer). 85 FR 

49297, 49303. This means that while 

testing under Appendix D1 may identify 

products on the market that could dry 

clothes in 30 minutes, it is not an 

accurate representation of how 

consumers would use these products 

because the cycle is manually stopped 

at the target remaining moisture content. 

DOE established these short cycle 

product classes so that consumers 

would have access to products that 

accomplish normal washing or drying 

within the specified cycle time, not just 

in control room settings. 

The CA IOUs also present their 

review of 111 products in the Consumer 

Reports database that showed ‘‘no clear 

relationship between normal cycle time 

and consumer satisfaction’’ and 

requested DOE provide evidence of 

consumer demand. (No. 0036, p. 7) 

Comments submitted by the 

Competitive Enterprise Institute (‘‘CEI’’) 

and the 60 Plus Association 

demonstrated that consumers want and 

desire these faster products. CEI shared 

feedback it received from consumers 

that expressed a need for faster 

appliances and identified growing 

consumer dissatisfaction with the 

current length of cycles. 85 FR 81359, 

81366 referencing No. 0031, pp. 2–3. 

The 60 Plus Association submitted 

comments, arguing on behalf of its 

senior citizen members, that the 

rulemaking offers a significant benefit to 

individuals looking to make the most of 

their time. This commenter noted that 

the time saved by utilizing future, short 

normal cycle products would make a 

noticeable difference in the lives of its 

underrepresented members. 85 FR 

81363, referencing No. 0043, p. 1. 

The CA IOUs also worried that some 

manufacturers may easily modify their 

current products to meet the 

requirements of the new product classes 

at the expense of the consumer. (No. 

0036, p. 5) While DOE acknowledges 

these concerns, DOE has no information 

to support the contention, and does not 

anticipate that manufacturers would 

reengineer products already on the 

market in response to this rulemaking. 

Further, it remains the consumer’s 

choice ultimately to decide which 

product on the market that they will 

choose to purchase. The creation of the 

new product classes does not set a 

mandate that consumers must purchase 

products from these product classes. 

DOE thanks the CA IOUs for their 

comments and directs them to the 

responses provided in the December 

2020 final rule for the shared issues they 

raised. After considering the unique 

comments provided by the CA IOUs, 

DOE affirms the conclusions reached in 

the December 2020 final rule. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on January 11, 2021, 

by Daniel R. Simmons, Assistant 

Secretary for 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 January 12, 

2021. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00842 Filed 1–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

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: Final determination. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including small electric motors 

(‘‘SEMs’’). EPCA also requires the U.S. 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) to 

periodically determine whether morestringent standards would be 

technologically feasible and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4886 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1. 

2All 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). 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant conservation of energy. In 

this final determination, DOE has 

determined that more stringent SEMs 

standards would not be cost effective, 

and thus has determined that standards 

for SEMs should not be amended. 

DATES: The effective date of this final 

determination is January 19, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

rulemaking, 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. 

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: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

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: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by 

email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Final 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. Significance of 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. Efficiency Analysis 

4. Cost Analysis 

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-NewStandards Case 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Energy Savings 

B. Cost Effectiveness 

C. Final 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. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Final Determination 

Title III, Part C1 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 (‘‘SEMs’’), the subject of this 

final determination. 

Pursuant to the EPCA requirement 

that not later than 6 years after issuance 

of any final rule establishing or 

amending an energy conservation 

standard for covered equipment, DOE 

must publish either a notice of 

determination that standards for the 

equipment do not need to be amended, 

or a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘NOPR’’) including new proposed 

energy conservation standards. (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) 

DOE analyzed the SEMs 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 SEMs. For currently available 

SEMs with efficiencies exceeding the 

levels of the current energy conservation 

standards, DOE determined that more 

stringent standards would be 

technologically feasible. For these 

SEMs, DOE evaluated whether more 

stringent standards would also be cost 

effective by conducting preliminary lifecycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) and payback period 

(‘‘PBP’’) analyses. 

Based on these analyses, as 

summarized in section V of this 

document, DOE has determined that 

more stringent energy conservation 

standards would not be cost effective. 

Therefore, DOE has determined that the 

current standards for SEMs do not need 

to be amended. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this final determination, as 

well as some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for SEMs. 

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 final 

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 SEMs. 

(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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4887 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6316). 

EPCA directed DOE to establish a test 

procedure for those SEMs 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 SEMs appear at 

10 CFR part 431, subpart X. 

EPCA further directed DOE to 

prescribe energy conservation standards 

for those SEMs 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 SEM 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 notice 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 SEMs are located in title 

10 CFR 431.446, and are presented in 

Table II–1 and Table II–2. 

TABLE II–1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR POLYPHASE SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

Motor horsepower/ 

standard kilowatt 

equivalent 

Average full load efficiency 

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 CAPACITORSTART CAPACITOR-RUN SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

Motor horsepower/ 

standard kilowatt 

equivalent 

Average full load efficiency 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4888 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

4 DOE received two comments unrelated to the 

issues raised by the Notice of Proposed 

Determination (See Crosby, No. 30 and Crosby, No. 

31). 

5The term ‘‘IEC’’ refers to the International 

Electrotechnical Commission. 

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for 

Small Electric Motors 

In 2006, DOE determined that energy 

conservation standards for certain 

single-phase, capacitor-start, inductionrun, SEMs 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 SEMs 

manufactured starting on March 9, 

2015.3 75 FR 10874 (March 9, 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 SEMs 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). 

In April 2020, DOE published a notice 

of proposed determination (‘‘April 2020 

NOPD’’) with the tentative 

determination that energy conservation 

standards for SEMs do not need to be 

amended. 85 FR 24146 (April 30, 2020). 

The comment period for this notice 

closed on June 29, 2020. On September 

18, 2020, DOE published a notification 

of webinar public meeting and a limited 

reopening of the comment period 

(‘‘September 2020 Notice’’), which 

extended the comment period to 

October 20, 2020. 85 FR 58299. On 

October 6, 2020, DOE held a webinar to 

present the results from the April 2020 

NOPD. 

DOE received nine relevant comments 

from interested parties in response to 

the April 2020 NOPD and the 

September 2020 Notice. These 

comments are listed in Table II–3.4

NEMA and CA IOUs each had two 

separate comment submissions: One in 

response to the April 2020 NOPD and 

another as a follow up to the September 

2020 Notice. 

TABLE II–3—APRIL 2020 NOPD AND SEPTEMBER 2020 NOTICE WRITTEN COMMENTS

Commenter/organization(s) Reference in this NOPD Organization type 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (‘‘AHRI’’) and Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’).AHRI and AHAM ........................... Trade Associations. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project (‘‘ASAP’’), Alliance to Save 

Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the 

California Energy Commission, and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.

ASAP, et al .................................... Advocacy Groups and State Governmental Agency. 

California Investor-Owned Utilities (‘‘CA IOUs’’)—Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison.

CA IOUs ........................................ Utilities. 

General Electric Appliances (‘‘GEA’’) ...................................................... GEA ............................................... Manufacturer. 

Lennox International Inc .......................................................................... Lennox ........................................... Manufacturer. 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (‘‘NEMA’’) ....................... NEMA ............................................ Trade Association. 

DOE also notes that NEMA submitted 

a comment related to certification, 

compliance and enforcement issues, but 

this comment fell outside the scope of 

this rulemaking and is not addressed in 

this document. Additionally, DOE 

received a comment from an individual 

commenter (Tyler Crosby) who noted 

the potential impact of small electric 

motors standards to increase the number 

electric bicycle users—an outcome that 

the commenter supported. While DOE 

appreciates this feedback, it also falls 

outside of the specific issues raised in 

the NOPD. 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 

and consistent with the statutory 

definition set by Congress for this term. 

‘‘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 

431.442.5 The scope of coverage for 

these motors is discussed in further 

detail in section IV.A.1 of this 

document. 

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 final determination are 

discussed further in section IV.A.2 of 

this document. 

B. Test Procedure 

As noted, EPCA directed DOE to 

establish a test procedure for those 

SEMs 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 April 2019, DOE proposed 

amending its test procedure for SEMs 

(‘‘April 2019 NOPR’’). 84 FR 17004 

(April 23, 2019). In the April 2019 

NOPR, DOE proposed to harmonize 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 SEM efficiency. 84 FR 17004, 

17012–17014. The proposed industry 

standards from the Institute of Electrical 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4889 

and Electronics Engineers (‘‘IEEE’’), 

Canadian Standards Association 

(‘‘CSA’’), and the International 

Electrotechnical Commission (‘‘IEC’’) 

are listed in Table III–1. In addition, 

DOE proposed to adopt industry 

provisions related to the test conditions 

used to ensure the comparability of test 

results for SEMs. 84 FR 17004, 17014– 

17018. 

TABLE III–1—APRIL 2019 NOPR PROPOSED INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

Equipment description Industry test procedure 

Single-phase small electric motors ................................................................................................. IEEE 114–2010. 

CSA C747–09. 

IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1A. 

Polyphase small electric motors less than or equal to 1 horsepower ............................................ IEEE 112–2017 Test Method A. 

CSA C747–09. 

IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1A. 

Polyphase small electric motors greater than 1 horsepower ......................................................... IEEE 112–2017 Test Method B. 

CSA C390–10. 

IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1B. 

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 

commercially available equipment or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. See 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

sections 6(c)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1); 10 CFR 

431.4. 

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; (3) 

adverse impacts on health or safety; and 

(4) unique-pathway proprietary 

technologies. 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(3)(ii)–(v) 

and 7(b)(2)–(5); 10 CFR 431.4. 

Section IV.B of this final 

determination discusses the results of 

the screening analysis for SEMs, 

particularly the designs DOE 

considered, those it screened out, and 

those that are the basis for the final 

determination. In this final 

determination, based on its review of 

the market and comments received in 

response to the April 2020 NOPD and 

September 2020 Notice, DOE has 

determined that no significant technical 

advancements in induction motor 

technology within the scope of SEMs 

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. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 

engineering analysis, DOE determined 

the maximum technologically feasible 

(‘‘max tech’’) improvements in energy 

efficiency for SEMs using the design 

parameters for the most efficient 

equipment available on the market or in 

working prototypes. The max-tech 

levels that DOE has determined are 

described in section IV.C of this final 

determination. 

D. Significance of Energy Savings 

In determining whether to amend the 

current energy conservation standards 

for SEMs, 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).) While the 

term ‘‘significant’’ is not defined in 

EPCA, DOE has established a 

significance threshold for energy 

savings. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 

appendix A, section 6(b); 10 CFR 431.4. 

In evaluating the significance of energy 

savings, DOE conducts a two-step 

approach that considers both an 

absolute site energy savings threshold 

and a threshold that is percent 

reduction in the covered equipment 

energy use. Id. DOE first evaluates the 

projected energy savings from a 

potential maximum technologically 

feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) standard over a 

30-year period against a 0.3 quads of site 

energy threshold. 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 

6(b)(2). If the 0.3 quad-threshold is not 

met, DOE then compares the max-tech 

savings to the total energy usage of the 

covered equipment to calculate a 

percentage reduction in energy usage. 

10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

C, appendix A, section 6(b)(3). If this 

comparison does not yield a reduction 

in site energy use of at least 10 percent 

over a 30-year period, the analysis ends 

and DOE proposes that no significant 

energy savings would likely result from 

setting new or amended standards. 10 

CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 

appendix A, section 6(b)(3). The twostep approach allows DOE to ascertain 

whether a potential standard satisfies 

EPCA’s significant energy savings 

requirements in EPCA to ensure that 

DOE avoids setting a standard that ‘‘will 

not result in significant conservation of 

energy.’’ 

EPCA defines ‘‘energy efficiency’’ as 

the ratio of the useful output of services 

from an article of industrial equipment 

to the energy use of such article, 

measured according to the Federal test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(3)) EPCA 

defines ‘‘energy use’’ as the quantity of 

energy directly consumed by an article 

of industrial equipment at the point of 

use, as measured by the Federal test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(4)) 

As discussed in section V.B of this 

document, DOE has determined that 

amended standards would not satisfy 

the cost-effectiveness criterion as 

required by EPCA when determining 

whether to amend its standards for a 

given covered product or equipment. 

(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 determination). Consequently, DOE 

did not separately determine whether 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4890 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

the potential energy savings would be 

significant for the purpose of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2). 

E. Cost Effectiveness 

In making a determination of whether 

amended energy conservation standards 

are needed, 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); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) 

In determining cost effectiveness, 

DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses 

that estimate the costs and benefits to 

users from standards. 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 final 

determination. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Related Comments 

This section addresses the analyses 

DOE performed for this final 

determination regarding SEMs. Separate 

subsections address each component of 

DOE’s analyses and responses to related 

comments. DOE used a spreadsheet tool 

that calculates the LCC savings and PBP 

of potential energy conservation 

standards. This spreadsheet tool is 

available on the website: https://

www.regulations.gov/docket?EERE2019-BT-STD-0008. 

Lennox supported DOE’s proposed 

determination not to amend energy 

conservation standards for SEMs. 

(Lennox, No. 21 at p. 1) NEMA 

concurred with DOE that it is not cost 

effective to increase the stringency of 

SEM energy conservation standards. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 5; NEMA, No. 32 

at p. 2–3) CA IOUs also concurred with 

DOE that there is limited opportunity 

for additional energy efficiency in the 

current scope of regulation for SEMs. 

(CA IOUs, No. 24 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 

33 at p. 2) As discussed previously, 

based on the analyses summarized in 

section V of this document, DOE has 

determined that more stringent energy 

conservation standards would not be 

cost effective. Therefore, DOE has 

determined that the current standards 

for SEMs do not need to be amended 

under the relevant criteria in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2). 

See also 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying 42 

U.S.C. 6295(m) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n) to 

small electric motors). 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE has conducted a market and 

technology assessment in support of the 

final determination for SEMs. DOE 

develops information in the market and 

technology assessment that provides an 

overall picture of the market for the 

equipment concerned, including the 

purpose of the equipment, the industry 

structure, manufacturers, market 

characteristics, and technologies used in 

the equipment. This activity includes 

both quantitative and qualitative 

assessments, based primarily on 

publicly available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this final 

determination include (1) a 

determination of the scope and 

equipment classes, (2) manufacturers 

and industry structure, (3) existing 

efficiency programs, (4) shipments 

information, (5) market and industry 

trends, and (6) technologies or design 

options that could improve the energy 

efficiency of SEMs. The key findings of 

DOE’s market assessment are 

summarized in the following sections. 

See chapter 3 of the final determination 

technical support document (‘‘TSD’’) for 

further discussion of the market and 

technology assessment. 

1. Scope of Coverage 

By statute, a ‘‘small electric motor’’ is 

‘‘a NEMA general purpose alternatingcurrent 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— 

i.e., those motors that otherwise satisfy 

the statutory definition of ‘‘small 

electric motor’’ but that happen to be 

built in accordance with metric units. 

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 SEMs 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 SEMs do 

not apply to any SEM 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 

SEMs manufactured alone or as a 

component of another piece of noncovered equipment. 10 CFR 431.446(a). 

Subpart X of part 431 includes energy 

conservation standards and test 

procedures for the SEMs listed in Table 

IV–1. In the April 2020 NOPD, DOE did 

not propose any changes to the scope of 

SEMs 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 topology Pole 

configuration Motor output power 

Single-phase: 

CSIR ......................................................................................................................... 2, 4, 6 0.25–3 hp. (0.18–2.2 kW).* 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4891 

6 DOE notes that the definition of a SEM only 

includes single speed induction motors. 

7 DOE also notes that were it to determine that 

expansion of the scope is warranted and 

permissible, it would first need to establish test 

methods for any such motors. See 10 CFR 431.4; 10 

CFR part 430 subpart C appendix A section 8(d). 

Nothing DOE has reviewed—or that commenters 

have submitted—suggests that the existing test 

procedures for SEM are appropriate for motors that 

fall outside of the already prescribed small electric 

motor scope set by Congress and the definition of 

Continued 

TABLE IV–1—SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS—Continued 

[Manufactured alone or as a component of another piece of non-covered equipment] 

Motor topology Pole 

configuration Motor output power 

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 2020 NOPD 

and September 2020 Notice, DOE 

received a number of comments relevant 

to the scope of applicability of energy 

conservation standards for SEMs. 

Lennox, AHRI and AHAM supported 

maintaining the existing standards 

scope for SEMs. (Lennox, No. 21 at p. 

2; AHRI and AHAM, No. 25 at p. 2) In 

addition, NEMA stated that motor 

efficiency has reached its peak of 

practicality, and that system efficiency 

in applications must be the focus. 

NEMA commented in support of DOE’s 

efforts investigating or already 

establishing Extended Product 

Rulemakings (e.g., pumps) which set a 

system efficiency, rather than continue 

to focus on components (i.e,. the motor). 

(NEMA, No. 32 at p. 2) 

The Efficiency Advocates asserted 

that given DOE’s mandate to carry out 

the energy conservation purposes of the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 

DOE must consider expanding the scope 

of its motor standards, either in this 

docket or the electric motors docket. 

(Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at p. 2) 

Similarly, the CA IOUs commented that 

there is limited opportunity for 

additional energy efficiency gains in the 

current scope of regulation for SEMs 

and added that the industry technical 

standards on which the current SEM 

definition is based—NEMA MG1– 

1987—is no longer representative of the 

market. (CA IOUs, No. 24 at p. 2; No. 33 

at p. 2) 

In the view of the CA IOUs, DOE 

should expand the scope of the SEM 

rulemaking to consider advances in 

motor technology and incorporate 

brushless direct current (DC) and 

synchronous permanent magnet AC 

(‘‘PMAC’’) motors, irrespective of the 

limits already defined by Congress. See 

42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G) (defining the term 

‘‘small electric motor’’) and 10 CFR 

431.442 (incorporating motors meeting 

the statutory definition that are built in 

metric units). The CA IOUs provided an 

analysis and market data and technical 

information as to the energy savings 

potential, cost, and technical feasibility 

of brushless DC motors such as 

electronically commutated motors 

(‘‘ECMs’’) and PMAC motors compared 

to other available motor technologies 

such as permanent-split capacitor 

(‘‘PSC’’) motors. The CA IOUs further 

commented that motor consumers and 

regulators in other markets are already 

considering advanced motor 

technologies as substitutes for SEMs 

within the current scope of DOE’s 

energy conservation standards. (CA 

IOUs, No. 24 at p. 2–7; No. 33 at p. 2– 

8) 

In addition, the CA IOUs 

recommended that DOE consider 

expanding the definition of SEMs 

beyond the ‘‘general purpose motor’’ 

definition included in NEMA MG1– 

1987 (and as specified in the statute) to 

include additional motors used in 

general purpose applications such as 

split-phase, shaded pole, and PSC 

motors. In cases where the application 

requirements rely on part-load 

operation, the CA IOUs recommended 

that these motors be compared in a 

technology-neutral manner against other 

motor designs optimized for part load 

operation (i.e., brushless DC, 

synchronous PMAC/Q-Sync). (CA IOUs, 

No. 24 at p. 7; No. 33 at p. 8–9) 

Regarding the potential coverage of 

ECMs, NEMA commented that ECMs 

were not squirrel cage induction motors 

but instead are permanent magnet 

synchronous motors with electronic 

controls/drives integral to the machine 

and were not included in the scope of 

SEMs (NEMA, No. 32 at p. 2).6 In 

addition, NEMA commented that ECMs 

tend to be more expensive than singlespeed SEMs, and typically installed as 

components in appliances that DOE 

already regulates. In these instances, 

strict energy efficiency requirements on 

those appliances and the use of better 

motor controls outweigh the increased 

expense of using ECMs. NEMA added 

that making ECMs more efficient would 

not make regulated appliances more 

efficient because of component 

efficiency tradeoffs in satisfying 

efficiency requirements and protections 

from double-regulation. (NEMA, No. 32 

at p. 2–3) NEMA commented that 

bringing ECMs into scope could have 

significant impacts on Original 

Equipment Manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’). 

NEMA added that ECMs are not dropin fit replacements for SEMs and that 

DOE has not sufficiently examined the 

downstream impacts of adding such 

motors in scope on OEMs. (NEMA, No. 

32 at p. 2) Regarding PMAC/Q-sync 

designs, NEMA noted that such PMAC/ 

Q-sync motors did not meet NEMA MG– 

1–1987 torque requirements and were 

not effective substitutes for SEMs, as 

indicated by their small market share. 

(NEMA, No. 32 at p. 3) 

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 single speed induction motors. 

See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G) and 10 CFR 

431.442. Single-speed induction motors, 

as delineated and described in MG1– 

1987, fall into five categories: Splitphase, shaded-pole, capacitor-start (both 

CSIR and CSCR), 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 MG1–1987 and fell within the 

general purpose alternating current 

motor category, as indicated by the 

listings found in manufacturers’ 

catalogs. 75 FR 10874, 10882–10883. 

Therefore, for this determination, DOE 

only considered the regulated SEMs 

currently subject to energy conservation 

standards.7


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4892 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

8While 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. 

AHAM and AHRI referenced the 

statutory exemption regarding the 

application of energy conservation 

standards for SEMs that are components 

of covered products (42 U.S.C. 

6317(b)(3)) and requested that DOE 

interpret the exemption to apply to all 

SEMs destined for or used in covered 

products or equipment. (AHAM and 

AHRI, No. 25 at p. 4) Lennox 

commented that it opposes regulating 

components used in products and 

equipment already regulated by DOE, 

instead it supports a finished-product 

approach to energy efficiency 

regulation. (Lennox, No. 21 at p. 2) GEA 

commented that any regulation of 

individual components in products 

whose energy consumption is regulated 

on a product level will provide little to 

no energy savings for consumers, will 

disrupt the complex balance of 

component selection and design, and 

will likely increase cost for consumers 

for no benefit to consumers. (GEA, No. 

26 at p. 2) NEMA commented that 

because SEMs are always used as a 

component in larger product systems 

that consume electricity, there already 

exist dozens of appliance- and devicelevel regulations that address energy 

consumption of those end-use products. 

NEMA suggested examining and 

measuring energy savings at the end-use 

device makes the most sense, as system 

dynamics can vary for designs within 

each product class and from class to 

class. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 2) 

As noted, EPCA directs DOE to 

establish test procedures and energy 

conservation standards for SEMs, see 42 

U.S.C. 6317(b), both of which DOE has 

already done. EPCA further provides 

that standards shall not apply to any 

SEM which is a component of a covered 

product or covered equipment. (42 

U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) DOE has evaluated 

the scope of the SEM standards in this 

final determination in accordance with 

EPCA. 

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 April 

2020 NOPD, DOE assessed the 62 

equipment classes currently established 

based on phase count (i.e., single-phase 

versus polyphase), topology of singlephase motors, number of poles, and 

horsepower. This section reviews the 

motor characteristics used to delineate 

equipment classes for SEMs. 

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 singlephase 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 10874, 10886. DOE relied 

on the same approach for the proposed 

determination. See 85 FR 24146, 24153. 

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 

SEMs: CSIR and CSCR. CSIR and CSCR 

motors both utilize a capacitor (‘‘startcapacitor’’) and two windings (‘‘startwinding’’ and ‘‘run-winding’’). The 

difference between the two motors 

occurs when reaching operating speed; 

while CSIR motors run on the runwinding alone with no capacitor, CSCR 

motors run using an additional ‘‘runcapacitor’’ 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 spaceconstrained 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 proposed 

to use the same approach in the April 

2020 NOPD. See 85 FR 24146, 24153. 

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),8 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 

relied on the same approach for the 

proposed determination. See 85 FR 

24146, 24153. 

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 SEM 

energy conservation standards (10 CFR 

431.446), and the efficiency 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4893 

9 I2R 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’’). 

10 DOE refers to the technology options that pass 

the screening criteria as ‘‘design options.’’ 

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 relied on the same 

approach for the proposed 

determination. See 85 FR 24146, 24153. 

DOE did not receive any comments on 

the current structure of the equipment 

classes as assessed in the April 2020 

NOPD. Accordingly, in this final 

determination DOE continues to assess 

the SEM equipment classes as currently 

established. Table IV–2 summarizes the 

structure of the equipment classes 

identified for this final determination 

and as designated by the current 

standards at 10 CFR 431.446. 

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 

See chapter 3 of the final 

determination TSD for further 

discussion of the equipment classes. 

3. Technology Options for Efficiency 

Improvement 

The purpose of the technology 

assessment is to develop a list of 

technology options that could improve 

the efficiency of SEMs. For the motors 

covered in this determination, energy 

efficiency losses are grouped into four 

main categories: I2R losses,9 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. 

The SEMs evaluated in this 

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 identified in the 

April 2020 NOPD. 

TABLE IV–3—SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR IMPROVING EFFICIENCY

Type of loss to reduce Technology option applied 

I2R 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. 

85 FR 24146, 24155. 

DOE did not receive comments on the 

technology options identified in the 

April 2020 NOPD. Accordingly, DOE 

continued to consider the technology 

options identified in the April 2020 

NOPD in developing this final 

determination. Chapter 3 of the TSD 

provides details on the DOE’s market 

and technology assessment for SEMs. 

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following five screening 

criteria to determine which technology 

options are suitable 10 for further 

consideration of new or amended 

energy conservation standards: 

(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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4894 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

11 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. 

12Horrdin, 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. Go ̈teborg, Sweden. 

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. 

(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary 

Technologies. If a design option utilizes 

proprietary technology that represents a 

unique pathway to achieving a given 

efficiency level, that technology will not 

be considered further due to the 

potential for monopolistic concerns. 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix 

A, 6(c)(3) and 7(b); 10 CFR 431.4. 

In summary, if DOE determines that a 

technology, or a combination of 

technologies, fails to meet one or more 

of the above five criteria, it will be 

excluded from further consideration in 

the engineering analysis. 

Table IV–3 provides a summary of all 

the technology options DOE considered 

for improving SEM efficiency. For a 

description of how each of these 

technology options improves SEM 

efficiency, see final determination TSD 

chapter 3. For the April 2020 NOPD, 

DOE initially screened out three of the 

identified 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 SEMs, the air gap is 

commonly set at 15 thousandths of an 

inch. 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 SEMs. 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 SEMs. 

However, amorphous steel is a very 

brittle material which makes it difficult 

to punch into motor laminations.11

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 SEM has not been made 

and little information is available on the 

feasibility of adapting this technology 

for manufacturing SEMs 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 SEMs 

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, 

which is the most recent applicable 

paper on the subject. 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.12 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 are with in the regulatory 

definition of SEMs at 10 CFR 431.442. 

DOE has found no evidence of any 

significant research or technical 

advancement in PBIP methodologies 

that could be applied to SEMs since 

publication of the March 2010 Final 

Rule or the April 2020 NOPD. 

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 SEM 

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 SEM has not 

yet been made and little information is 

available on the feasibility of adapting 

this option for manufacturing SEMs. 

DOE continues to be unaware of any 

adverse impacts on product utility, 

product availability, health, or safety 

that may arise from the use of PBIP in 

SEMs. 

In the April 2020 NOPD, DOE 

tentatively 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 

commercially available products or 

working prototypes. These technologies 

all incorporate materials and 

components that are commercially 

available in today’s supply markets for 

the SEMs that are the subject of this 

document. 

DOE did not receive comments on the 

screening analysis in the April 2020 

NOPD. Accordingly, DOE considered 

the same screening analysis from the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4895 

13ABB (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/. 

14Based 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. 

April 2020 NOPD in this final 

determination and is screening out the 

following technology options: Reducing 

the air gap below .0125 inches, 

amorphous metal laminations, and 

plastic bonded iron powder (‘‘PBIP’’). 

DOE also finds that all of the remaining 

technology options meet the other 

screening criteria (i.e., practicable to 

manufacture, install, and service and do 

not result in adverse impacts on 

consumer utility, product availability, 

health, or safety, and do not represent 

unique pathway proprietary 

technologies). Chapter 4 of the TSD 

provides details on the DOE’s screening 

analysis for SEMs. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The engineering analysis establishes 

the relationship between the efficiency 

and cost of an SEM. There are two 

elements to consider in the engineering 

analysis; the selection of efficiency 

levels to analyze (i.e., the ‘‘efficiency 

analysis’’) and the determination of 

product cost at each efficiency level 

(i.e., the ‘‘cost analysis’’). In determining 

the performance of higher-efficiency 

equipment, DOE considers technologies 

and design option combinations not 

eliminated by the screening analysis. 

For each equipment class, DOE 

estimates the baseline cost, as well as 

the incremental cost for the equipment 

at efficiency levels above the baseline. 

The output of the engineering analysis 

is a set of cost-efficiency ‘‘curves’’ that 

are used in downstream analyses (i.e., 

the LCC and PBP analyses). The 

following sections provide further 

details on the engineering analysis 

methodology. 

1. Summary of Significant Data Sources 

DOE utilized two principal data 

sources for the engineering analysis: (1) 

The database of SEM manufacturer 

suggested retail price (‘‘MSRP’’) and 

performance data based on the current 

market (as evaluated in the April 2020 

NOPD), 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 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. In response to the April 

2020 NOPD, NEMA also commented 

that the motor designs and associated 

efficiency levels adopted from the 

March 2010 Final Rule analysis are 

appropriate. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 3) 

Accordingly, in preparing this 

determination, DOE continued to 

evaluate the motor designs that were 

modeled for the March 2010 Final Rule 

analysis. 

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.13 Based on market 

information from the Low-Voltage 

Motors World Market Report,14 DOE 

estimates that the four major motor 

manufacturers noted comprise the 

majority of the U.S. SEM 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.’’) 

2. Representative Equipment Classes 

Due to the large number of equipment 

classes, DOE did not directly analyze all 

62 equipment classes of SEMs 

considered under this final 

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. 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 proposed in 

the April 2020 NOPD 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 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 of 

this document for details on DOE’s 

scaling methodology. Keeping as many 

design characteristics constant as 

possible enabled DOE to more 

accurately identify how design 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4896 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

2010 Final Rule. 75 FR 10874, 10888. 

The proposed representative equipment 

classes from the April 2020 NOPD 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 

NEMA commented that the selected 

representative equipment classes are 

appropriate because there have not been 

any significant changes to design 

practices which might warrant 

modification. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 2) 

DOE did not receive any other 

comments regarding the representative 

equipment classes. Accordingly, DOE 

continued to analyze the same 

representative equipment classes from 

the April 2020 NOPD in preparing this 

final determination. 

3. Efficiency Analysis 

DOE typically uses one of two 

approaches to develop energy efficiency 

levels for the engineering analysis: (1) 

Relying on observed efficiency levels in 

the market (i.e., the efficiency-level 

approach), or (2) determining the 

incremental efficiency improvements 

associated with incorporating specific 

design options to a baseline model (i.e., 

the design-option approach). Using the 

efficiency-level approach, the efficiency 

levels established for the analysis are 

determined based on the market 

distribution of existing products (in 

other words, based on the range of 

efficiencies and efficiency level 

‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the 

market). Using the design option 

approach, the efficiency levels 

established for the analysis are 

determined through detailed 

engineering calculations and/or 

computer simulations of the efficiency 

improvements from implementing 

specific design options that have been 

identified in the technology assessment. 

DOE may also rely on a combination of 

these two approaches. For example, the 

efficiency-level approach (based on 

actual products on the market) may be 

extended using the design option 

approach to interpolate to define ‘‘gap 

fill’’ levels (to bridge large gaps between 

other identified efficiency levels) and/or 

to extrapolate to the ‘‘max-tech’’ level 

(particularly in cases where the ‘‘max 

tech’’ level exceeds the maximum 

efficiency level currently available on 

the market). 

In the March 2010 Final Rule DOE 

and in the April 2020 NOPD, DOE relied 

on the design option approach. DOE 

maintained the design option approach 

for this final determination. 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 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. 

For each equipment class, DOE 

generally selects a baseline model as a 

reference point, and measures changes 

resulting from potential energy 

conservation standards against the 

baseline. The baseline model in each 

equipment class represents the 

characteristics of a product/equipment 

typical of that class (e.g., capacity, 

physical size). Generally, a baseline 

model is one that just meets current 

energy conservation standards, or, if no 

standards are in place, the baseline is 

typically the most common or least 

efficient unit on the market. 

DOE considered the current minimum 

energy conservation standards to 

establish the baseline efficiency levels 

for each representative equipment class. 

As discussed previously, DOE selected 

representative equipment classes that 

align with the classes analyzed in the 

March 2010 Final Rule. See March 2010 

Final Rule TSD, sec. 5.2.1. 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 SEMs. DOE used these 

motor designs to form the baseline 

against which to compare improved 

efficiency design options in DOE’s 

analysis. Each increase in efficiency 

over the baseline level that DOE 

analyzed was assigned an efficiency 

level (‘‘EL’’) number. 

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, DOE 

discerned 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. In addition, DOE did not 

receive any contrasting comments 

suggesting any significant technological 

advancements for small electric motors 

within current scope. 

In developing the modeled motor 

designs and associated costs, DOE also 

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 spaceconstrained scenario included baseline 

and intermediate levels, a level for a 

design using a copper rotor, and a maxtech level with a design using a copper 

rotor and exotic core steel. The highefficiency 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-spaceconstrained 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4897 

15 ‘‘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. 

16www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

NEMA commented that improving 

efficiency in SEMs may not always 

result in overall equipment-level 

efficiency improvements. It noted that 

any modification to energy conservation 

standards or scope of regulated SEMs 

would require a revised analysis of the 

downstream impact of SEM design 

changes on OEM devices and 

appliances. NEMA asserted that changes 

in motor size, weight, rotational speed, 

slip,15 and other factors due to more 

stringent energy conservation standards 

have not been sufficiently evaluated. It 

added that because of the potential 

increase in the speed of the motor due 

to increases in efficiency, more stringent 

energy conservation standards could 

have significant downstream impacts in 

OEM devices which use these motors 

and would not always guarantee higher 

efficiency or better performance by that 

end-use device. (NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 

1–2, 5; No. 32 at p. 2) 

DOE continued to use the designs 

analyzed for the March 2010 Final Rule 

in preparing this final determination. 

The designs analyzed in the engineering 

analysis did not show a significant (less 

than 2 percent) and consistent increase 

in speed with increasing efficiency 

(some more efficient designs had 

slightly lower speeds) across all ELs 

(See Final Determination TSD Chapter 

5). In addition, as discussed previously, 

to account for motor size and weight 

limitations, DOE also analyzed both 

space-constrained and non-spaceconstrained scenarios. However, in this 

final determination, DOE is not 

considering amending the current 

energy conservation standards for this 

equipment. 

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 technologicallyfeasible 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 April 2020 NOPD efficiency 

levels are summarized in Table IV–5. 

TABLE IV–5—SUMMARY OF EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Representative equipment class EL Efficiency 

(%) 

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 

As mentioned previously, NEMA 

commented that the motor designs and 

associated efficiency levels adopted into 

this analysis from the March 2010 Final 

Rule analysis are appropriate. (NEMA, 

No. 22 at p. 3) Accordingly, similar to 

the April 2020 NOPD, DOE adopted 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. 

4. Cost Analysis 

The cost analysis portion of the 

Engineering Analysis is conducted 

using one or a combination of cost 

approaches. The selection of cost 

approach depends on a suite of factors, 

including the availability and reliability 

of public information, characteristics of 

the regulated product and the 

availability and timeliness of 

purchasing the equipment on the 

market. The cost approaches are 

summarized as follows: 

• Physical teardowns: Under this 

approach, DOE physically dismantles a 

commercially available product, 

component-by-component, to develop a 

detailed bill of materials for the product. 

• Catalog teardowns: In lieu of 

physically deconstructing a product, 

DOE identifies each component using 

parts diagrams (available from 

manufacturer websites or appliance 

repair websites, for example) to develop 

the bill of materials (‘‘BOM’’) for the 

product. 

• Price surveys: If neither a physical 

nor catalog teardown is feasible (for 

example, for tightly integrated products 

such as fluorescent lamps, which are 

infeasible to disassemble and for which 

parts diagrams are unavailable) or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical 

(e.g. large commercial boilers), DOE 

conducts price surveys using publicly 

available pricing data published on 

major online retailer websites and/or by 

soliciting prices from distributors and 

other commercial channels. 

In the present case, a standard BOM 

was constructed for each motor design 

that includes direct material costs and 

labor time estimates along with costs. 

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 the April 2020 NOPD, 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’’) 16 for each commodity’s 

industry. In addition, DOE updated 

labor costs and markups based on the 

most recent and complete version (i.e. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4898 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

17U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of 

Industry Series Reports for Industry, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 2012; NAICS code 

3353121 ‘‘Fractional Horsepower Motors’’ 

Production workers hours and wages. Although 

some summary statistics of the 2017 Economic 

Census for Manufacturing is currently available, the 

detailed statistics for the U.S. is estimated to be 

released in the time frame of November 2020- 

September 2021. https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/economic-census/about/releaseschedules.html. 

18For more details see chapter 7 of the 2010 small 

electric motors final rule TSD, at https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BTSTD-0007-0036. 

19U.S. Census Bureau. 2017 Annual Wholesale 

Trade Report. 2017. Washington, DC (Last accessed 

June 19, 2019.) https://www.census.gov/wholesale/ 

index.html; U.S. Census Bureau. 2017 Annual 

Retail Trade Survey, 2017. (Last accessed June 19, 

2019.) https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ 

arts/data/tables.2017.html.; 2017 Economic Census: 

Manufacturing: Summary Statistics for the U.S., 

States, and Selected Geographies: 2017. 2020. U.S. 

Census Bureau. (Last accessed October 21, 2020.) 

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/ 

economic-census/naics-sector-31-33.html. 

20Sales Tax Clearinghouse Inc. State Sales Tax 

Rates Along with Combined Average City and 

County Rates. October 21, 2020. (Last accessed 

October 21, 2020.) http://thestc.com/STrates.stm. 

21Because the projected price of standardscompliant products (and equipment) is typically 

higher than the price of baseline products (and 

equipment), 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. 

22National Science Board. January 15, 2020. 

Science and Engineering Indicators 2020. Research 

and Development: U.S Trends and International 

Comparisons. 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: 1953–2017. 2020. 

National Science Board: Arlington, VA: National 

Science Foundation (NSB–2020–3). 

2012) of the Economic Census of 

Industry by the U.S. Census Bureau.17

DOE did not receive comments on the 

cost analysis presented in the April 

2020 NOPD. Accordingly, using the 

same methodology presented in the 

April 2020 NOPD, in this final 

determination DOE updated the 

material and labor costs to be 

representative of the market in 2019$. 

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 SEMs 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 singlephase 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. 

In the April 2020 NOPD, DOE 

proposed to apply the same scaling 

methodologies used to support the 

March 2010 Final Rule to the 

engineering analysis. This includes 

scaling to two additional representative 

units needed in the energy use and lifecycle cost analyses to separately analyze 

consumers of integral (i.e., with 

horsepower greater than or equal to 1 

hp) single-phase CSCR SEMs and 

fractional (i.e., with horsepower less 

than 1 hp) polyphase SEMs. This 

scaling approach has been presented 

previously to stakeholders and has been 

updated based on stakeholder input. 

Additionally, the 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. 75 FR 10874, 10894–10895. 

NEMA commented that the 

previously developed scaling 

methodologies remain effective and 

appropriate. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 3) 

DOE did not receive any other 

comments on the scaling analysis 

methodology proposed in the April 

2020 NOPD. DOE continues to apply the 

scaling analysis methodology from the 

April 2020 NOPD in this final 

determination. Chapter 5 of the TSD 

provides details on the DOE’s 

engineering analysis for SEMs. 

D. Markups Analysis 

To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction 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. DOE developed an average 

manufacturer markup by examining the 

annual Securities and Exchange 

Commission 10–K reports filed by 

publicly-traded manufacturers primarily 

engaged in appliance manufacturing 

and whose combined product range 

includes SEM. 

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 SEMs, the main parties in the 

distribution chain are manufacturers, 

distributors, contractors or installers, 

OEMs of equipment incorporating 

SEMs, 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.18 In response to the April 2020 

NOPD, DOE did not receive any 

comments or data to support alternative 

distribution channels for SEMs. In this 

final determination, DOE relied on the 

same distributions of shipments by 

distribution channels as in the April 

2020 NOPD. Further, DOE did not 

receive any comments on the approach 

used to develop markups. DOE 

continued to rely on the same 

methodology for developing markups 

and updated relevant data sources to the 

most recent information available in 

preparation of this final determination. 

DOE used data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau and US Economic Census 19 and 

the Sales Tax Clearinghouse 20 to 

develop distribution channel markups 

and sales tax estimates. 

DOE used the same approach as in the 

April 2020 NOPD and 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.21 DOE relied on 

economic data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau to estimate average baseline and 

incremental markups. 

Further, in the space-constrained 

scenario, DOE developed a modified 

OEM markup to account for the costs 

faced by those OEMs of equipment 

incorporating SEMs needing to redesign 

their products in order to incorporate 

SEMs of different, including larger, 

sizes. Nationally, businesses spend 

about 2.7 percent of U.S. gross domestic 

product on research and development 

(‘‘R&D’’).22 DOE estimates that R&D by 

equipment OEMs, including the design 

of new products, approximately 

represents at most 2.7 percent of 

company revenue. DOE followed the 

same approach used in the March 2010 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4899 

23Fore more details see chapter 7 of the 2010 

small electric motors final rule TSD, at https:// 

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BTSTD-0007-0036. 24Similar 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). 

Final Rule and accounted for the 

additional costs to redesign products 

and incorporate differently-shaped 

motors by adding 2.7 percent to the 

OEM markups.23

Table IV–6 summarizes the overall 

baseline and incremental markups for 

each distribution channel considered for 

SEMs. These markups were updated 

since the April 2020 NOPD to reflect 

updates to relevant data sources to the 

most recent information available. 

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 1.20 1.35 1.20 

Original Equipment Manufacturer 

(OEM) * ................................................. 1.45/1.48 1.20/1.23 1.45/1.48 1.20/1.23 ........................ ........................

Equipment Wholesaler ............................. 1.41 1.20 1.41 1.20 ........................ ........................

Retailer ..................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 1.53 1.27 

Contractor ................................................ 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 

Sales Tax ................................................. 1.0727 1.0727 1.0727 

Overall ...................................................... 2.42/2.47 1.69/1.73 3.26/3.33 2.04/2.08 2.44 1.80 

* Non-space-constrained scenario/space-constrained scenario. 

Chapter 6 of the TSD provides details 

on the DOE’s markup analysis for SEMs. 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to determine the annual 

energy consumption of SEMs at 

different efficiency levels and to assess 

the energy savings potential of increased 

efficiency. The analysis estimates the 

range of energy use of SEMs 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 SEMs and 

fractional (i.e., with horsepower less 

than 1 hp) polyphase SEMs (see Table 

IV–7).24 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. 

TABLE IV–7—REPRESENTATIVE UNITS ANALYZED IN THE ENERGY USE AND LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSES

Representative unit Equipment class group Pole configuration Rated 

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 

In response to the April 2020 NOPD, 

NEMA commented that the inputs used 

to characterize the energy use of SEMs 

were appropriate. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 

3) Additionally, NEMA commented that 

improving SEM efficiency may not 

always result in overall equipment-level 

efficiency improvements. NEMA 

commented that any modification to 

energy conservation standards or scope 

of regulated SEMs would require a 

revised analysis of the downstream 

impact of SEM design changes on OEM 

devices and appliances, before 

proceeding to modify energy savings 

methodology and estimates. (NEMA, 

No. 22 at p. 5) 

As discussed previously, to account 

for motor size and weight limitations 

(including in OEM devices and 

appliances), DOE analyzed both spaceconstrained and non-space-constrained 

scenarios. DOE did not modify the 

scope or amend the current energy 

conservation standards for this 

equipment. Chapter 7 of the TSD 

provides details on the DOE’s energy 

use analysis for SEMs. 

1. Consumer Sample 

DOE used the same approach as in the 

April 2020 NOPD and created consumer 

samples for each representative unit, 

including three individual sectors: 

Residential, commercial, and industrial. 

DOE used the samples to determine 

SEM 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 SEMs by sector. Five 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4900 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

25 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). 

26Strategic Energy Group (January 2008), 

Northwest Industrial Motor Database Summary. 

Regional Technical Forum. Available at http://

rtf.nwcouncil.org/subcommittees/osumotor/ 

Default.htm. 

27W. Goetzler, T. Sutherland, C. Reis. ‘‘Energy 

Savings Potential and Opportunities for HighEfficiency 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. 

28This 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). 

29 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). 

30For more details see chapter 6 of the 2010 small 

electric motors final rule TSD, at https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BTSTD-0007-0036. 

main motor applications were selected 

as representative applications 

(compressors, fans, pumps, material 

handling, and others). In order to 

characterize the distributions of SEMs 

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 and; 25 (2) a 

database of motor nameplate and field 

data compiled by the Industrial 

Assessment Center at Oregon University 

(‘‘field assessment data’’).26 For the 

commercial and residential sectors, DOE 

used data from a previous DOE 

publication to estimate distribution of 

SEMs by application.27 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 2020 NOPD, 

NEMA commented that the inputs used 

to characterize the distributions of 

consumers across sectors and 

applications were appropriate. (NEMA, 

No. 22 at p. 3) DOE used the same 

consumer sample as in the April 2020 

NOPD for this final determination. 

See Chapter 7 of the TSD for more 

details on the resulting distribution of 

consumers by sector and applications. 

2. Motor Input Power 

DOE used the same approach as in the 

April 2020 NOPD and 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. 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.28

In response to the April 2020 NOPD, 

NEMA commented that an upcoming 

publication from DOE’s Advanced 

Manufacturing Office ‘‘Motor System 

Market Assessment’’ may provide 

additional information regarding load. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 4) DOE is aware of 

this upcoming report but notes that it is 

not yet available. Accordingly, DOE 

used the same load distributions as in 

the April 2020 NOPD for this final 

determination. 

See chapter 7 of the TSD for the 

resulting distribution of load for each 

application. 

3. Annual Operating Hours 

DOE used the same approach as in the 

April 2020 NOPD and DOE developed 

distributions of operating hours by 

application and sector. 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.29 For the commercial 

and residential sectors, DOE used 

operating hours data from the March 

2010 Final Rule.30 In response to the 

April 2020 NOPD, NEMA commented in 

support of the annual operating hours 

values used in the NOPD. NEMA 

commented that if DOE were to consider 

standards for a different scope, these 

assumptions would no longer be 

adequate. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 4) As 

discussed previously, DOE is not 

modifying the scope of the energy 

conservation standards for SEMs. 

Accordingly, DOE used the same 

operating hour distributions as in the 

April 2020 NOPD for this final 

determination. Table IV–8 shows the 

estimated average annual energy use at 

each efficiency level analyzed. 

The annual energy use values are 

calculated as an intermediate result in 

the LCC and PBP analysis. As further 

discussed section IV.F, 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. 

Although the energy use calculation 

performed in preparation of this final 

rule relied on the same probability 

distributions as used in the April 2020 

NOPD, each Monte Carlo simulation run 

randomly samples input values from the 

probability distributions and consumer 

samples, which resulted in updated 

annual energy use results. 

TABLE IV–8—SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS ANNUAL ENERGY USE RESULTS

Rep. Unit Description 

Kilowatt-hours per year 

EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5 

1 ..................... Single-phase, CSCR, 4-pole, 0.75 hp ......................... 1,653.6 1,628.2 1,598.5 1,583.8 1,536.0 1,509.0 

2 ..................... Polyphase, 4-pole, 1 hp .............................................. 2,092.8 2,047.7 2,020.8 1,983.8 ................ ................

3 ..................... Single-phase, CSCR, 4-pole, 1 hp .............................. 2,191.9 2,159.1 2,122.7 2,103.9 2,043.2 2,008.0 

4 ..................... Polyphase, 4-pole, 0.5 hp ........................................... 1,152.6 1,117.9 1,096.7 1,068.1 ................ ................

See Chapter 7 of the TSD for more 

details on the distributions of annual 

operating hours by application and 

sector. 

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 SEMs. 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4901 

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 SEMs 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 SEMs. 

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 nonew-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 moreefficient 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 SEMs 

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. DOE 

updated relevant data sources to the 

most recent information available in 

preparation of this final determination. 

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. 

Energy Prices ..................................................... Electricity: Used average and marginal prices methodology from (Coughlin and Beraki) and 

updated data from Edison Electric Institute Typical Bill and Average Rates Reports Winter 

2019, Summer 2019. 

Energy Price Trends ........................................... Based on AEO 2020 price projections. 

Repair and Maintenance Costs .......................... Assumed no change with efficiency level. 

Equipment Lifetime ............................................. Estimated using information from March 2010 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 higherefficiency motors, because DOE applies 

an incremental markup to the increase 

in MSP associated with higherefficiency equipment. Further, in this 

final determination, DOE assumed the 

prices of SEMs would remain constant 

over time (no decrease in price). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4902 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

31RS Means. Electrical Cost Data, 43rd Annual 

Edition, 2020. Rockland, MA. p. 315. 

32For more details see chapter 8 of the 2010 small 

electric motors final rule TSD, at https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BTSTD-0007-0036. 

33See 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/residentialelectricity-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-electricityprices. 

34U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office 

of Energy Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. 

Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy 

Outlook 2020 with projections to 2050. 2020. 

Washington DC. 20585 (Last accessed August 11, 

2020). https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/AEO/pdf/ 

AEO2020.pdf. 35For more details see chapter 8 of the 2010 small 

electric motors final rule TSD, at https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BTSTD-0007-0036. 36 Vaughen’s (2013), Vaughen’s Motor & Pump 

Repair Price Guide, 2013 Edition. Available at 

www.vaughens.com. 

37The 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. 

38U.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. 

39For more details see chapter 8 of the 2010 small 

electric motors final rule TSD, at https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BTSTD-0007-0036. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation cost includes labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

equipment. In response to the April 

2020 NOPD, DOE did not receive any 

information on SEM consumer 

installation costs and has relied on the 

same approach to estimate installations 

costs for this final determination. Based 

on information from the March 2010 

Final Rule and installation cost data 

from RS Means Electrical Cost Data 

2020,31 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.32 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. 

See Chapter 8 of the TSD for more 

information on the installation costs for 

SEMs. 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

For each sampled consumer, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

SEMs in each standards case analyzed 

using the approach described in section 

IV.E of this final determination. 

4. Energy Prices 

In response to the April 2020 NOPD, 

DOE did not receive any comments on 

electricity prices and relied on the same 

approach to develop national annual 

marginal and average prices and 

estimate energy prices in future years. 

DOE updated data sources to the most 

recent information available. For 

electricity prices, DOE used average and 

marginal electricity prices. As in the 

April 2020 NOPD, DOE estimated these 

prices using the methodology provided 

in two Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory reports (Coughlin and 

Beraki).33 In addition, in preparation for 

this final determination, DOE used 

updated data published from the Edison 

Electric Institute Typical Bills and 

Average Rates reports for summer and 

winter 2019 to reflect the latest 

electricity price information available. 

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 Energy Information 

Administration’s (EIA’s) Annual Energy 

Outlook 2020 (AEO 2020),34 which has 

an end year of 2050. To estimate price 

trends after 2050, DOE used the average 

annual rate of change in prices from 

2028 to 2050. 

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing SEM components 

that have failed; maintenance costs are 

associated with maintaining the 

operation of the equipment. SEMs 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 SEM cannot be readily 

disassembled and reassembled. In 

addition, 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.35 DOE 

reviewed more recent motor repair cost 

data for SEMs and found no evidence 

that maintenance and repair costs 

increase with efficiency for SEMs in 

scope.36 In response to the April 2020 

NOPD, NEMA supported DOE’s finding 

that SEMs are generally not repaired. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 4) 

Accordingly, similar to what was 

done in the April 2020 NOPD, DOE did 

not account for any repair costs in the 

LCC calculation. 

See Chapter 8 of the TSD for more 

information on the repair and 

maintenance costs for SEMs. 

6. Motor Lifetime 

To characterize lifetimes in a manner 

to reflect that this factor depends on an 

SEM’s application, DOE used two 

Weibull distributions.37 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). 

In response to the April 2020 NOPD, 

NEMA commented in support of the 

lifetime distributions developed by 

DOE. (NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 4–5) 

Consistent with the approach used in 

the April 2020 NOPD, DOE used 

mechanical lifetime data from the 

March 2010 Final Rule analysis and 

from a 2012 report from DOE’s 

Advanced Manufacturing Office 38 to 

derive an estimated average mechanical 

lifetime of 30,000 hours for CSCR 

motors and 40,000 hours for polyphase 

motors. The Weibull parameters from 

the March 2010 Final Rule were used to 

derive these lifetime distributions.39 In 

the course of the LCC analysis, DOE’s 

current analysis further combines these 

two distributions with OEM application 

lifetimes to estimate the distribution of 

SEM 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 singlephase CSCR motors and 9 years for 

polyphase motors. Because of updates 

made to the annual operating hours (see 

section IV.E.3) and calculation 

rounding, the updated analysis for this 

final determination yielded average 

lifetimes of 7.0 years for single-phase 

CSCR motors and 8.7 years for 

polyphase motors. 

See Chapter 8 of the TSD for more 

information on the lifetime of SEMs. 

7. Discount Rates 

In calculating LCC, DOE applies 

discount rates appropriate to 

commercial, industrial, and residential 

consumers to estimate the present value 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4903 

40The 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. 

41Board 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. 

42 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. 

43The March 2010 Final Rule estimated the 

national energy savings achieved by the current 

energy conservation standards to be 2.2 quads of 

primary energy savings (i.e., 0.29 quad at TSL 4b 

for polyphase SEMs and 1.91 quad at TSL 7 for 

single phase SEMs). The March 2010 Final Rule 

also estimated that the TSL resulting in the 

maximum national energy savings would provide a 

total of 2.7 quads of primary energy savings (i.e., 

0.37 quad at TSL 7 for polyphase SEMs and 2.33 

quad at TSL 8 for single phase SEMs). 75 FR 10874, 

10916 (March 9, 2010) Although DOE did not 

separately evaluate the significance of the potential 

energy conservation under the considered amended 

standards, this previous analysis indicates an upper 

limit of 0.5 quad of primary energy savings (2.7 ¥ 

2.2 = 0.5) which corresponds to 0.2 quad site 

national energy savings and is below the 0.3 quad 

threshold for determining whether energy savings 

would be significant. 

of future operating costs. DOE estimated 

a distribution of discount rates for SEMs 

based on the cost of capital of publicly 

traded firms in the sectors that purchase 

SEMs. 

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.40 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. 

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 41 (‘‘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. 

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. In response to the April 2020 

NOPD, DOE did not receive any 

comments on discount rates. DOE used 

the same approach for developing 

discount rates as in the April 2020 

NOPD for this final determination. DOE 

updated data sources to the most recent 

information available. See chapter 8 of 

the TSD for details on the development 

of end-user discount rates. 

8. Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-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-newstandards’’ 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, 

DOE developed no-new standards case 

efficiency distributions based on the 

distributions of then currently available 

models for which SEM efficiency is 

included in catalog listings. In 

preparation for the April 2020 NOPD, 

DOE collected updated catalog data and 

analyzed the distribution of SEMs in the 

manufacturer catalog data for CSCR and 

polyphase SEMs.42 DOE projected that 

these efficiency distributions would 

remain constant throughout 2028. In 

response to the April 2020 NOPD, DOE 

did not receive any comments related to 

efficiency distributions and efficiency 

trends. Accordingly, DOE retained the 

same efficiency distributions used in the 

April 2020 NOPD in preparing this final 

determination. See chapter 8 of the TSD 

for the estimated efficiency 

distributions. 

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 firstyear 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. 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to the considered energy 

conservation standards for SEMs 

examined by DOE. It addresses the ELs 

examined by DOE and the projected 

impacts of each of these levels. 

Additional details regarding DOE’s 

analyses are contained in the NOPD 

TSD supporting this document. 

A. Energy Savings 

For each standards case considered, 

DOE estimated the per unit lifetime 

energy savings for SEMs purchased in 

the expected compliance year of any 

potential standards. The per unit energy 

savings were used in the calculation of 

the LCC and PBP values. DOE did not 

separately evaluate the significance of 

the potential energy conservation under 

the considered amended standards 

because it has determined that the 

potential standards would not be costeffective as defined in EPCA.43 (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), 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4904 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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. Chapter 8 of the 

final determination TSD provides 

detailed information on the LCC and 

PBP analyses. 

Table V–1 through Table V–7 show 

the LCC and PBP results for the ELs 

considered for each equipment class. 

These results were updated since the 

April 2020 NOPD to reflect updates of 

relevant data sources to the most recent 

information available. 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 efficiency distribution in the nonew-standards case in the expected 

compliance year for the potential 

standards considered. Because some 

consumers purchase equipment with 

higher efficiency in the no-newstandards 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 SEMs with 

an 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 

Efficiency level 

Average costs 2019$ Simple 

payback 

years total 

installed cost 

Average 

lifetime years 

first year’s 

operating 

cost 

Total 

installed 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

0 ............................................................... 488.1 156.8 631.5 1,119.5 ........................ 6.97 

1 ............................................................... 504.4 154.4 621.8 1,126.2 6.8 6.97 

2 ............................................................... 525.7 151.6 610.6 1,136.3 7.3 6.97 

3 ............................................................... 567.1 150.3 605.0 1,172.0 12.0 6.97 

4 ............................................................... 594.7 145.8 586.8 1,181.5 9.6 6.97 

5 ............................................................... 1,411.4 143.2 576.6 1,988.0 67.9 6.97 

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 

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Percent of customers that 

experience Average savings * 

Net cost 

(percent) 2019$ 

1 ........................................................................................................................... 81.4 ¥6.4 

2 ........................................................................................................................... 83.3 ¥16.2 

3 ........................................................................................................................... 91.7 ¥51.4 

4 ........................................................................................................................... 88.8 ¥59.9 

5 ........................................................................................................................... 100.0 ¥855.0 

* 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 

Efficiency level 

Average costs 2019$ Simple 

payback 

years total 

installed cost 

Average 

lifetime years 

first year’s 

operating 

cost 

Total 

installed 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

0 ............................................................... 451.0 193.1 969.5 1,420.5 ........................ 8.73 

1 ............................................................... 520.7 189.0 948.8 1,469.5 16.9 8.73 

2 ............................................................... 580.0 186.5 936.4 1,516.3 19.5 8.73 

3 ............................................................... 1,395.5 183.1 919.3 2,314.8 94.5 8.73 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4905 

TABLE V–4—LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR

REPRESENTATIVE UNIT 2: POLYPHASE, 4-POLE, 1 hp 

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Percent of customers that 

experience Average savings * 

Net cost 

(percent) 2019$ 

1 ........................................................................................................................... 89.5 ¥48.1 

2 ........................................................................................................................... 99.1 ¥92.3 

3 ........................................................................................................................... 100.0 ¥878.7 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

TABLE V–5—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR REPRESENTATIVE UNIT 3: SINGLE-PHASE, 

CSCR, 4-POLE, 1 hp 

Efficiency level 

Average costs 2019$ Simple 

payback 

years total 

installed cost 

Average 

lifetime years 

first year’s 

operating 

cost 

Total 

installed 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

0 ............................................................... 554.8 208.4 831.5 1,386.4 ........................ 6.95 

1 ............................................................... 573.5 205.3 819.2 1,392.6 6.0 6.95 

2 ............................................................... 597.8 201.9 805.4 1,403.2 6.6 6.95 

3 ............................................................... 643.6 200.1 798.3 1,441.9 10.7 6.95 

4 ............................................................... 675.1 194.4 775.4 1,450.5 8.6 6.95 

5 ............................................................... 1,581.3 191.0 762.1 2,343.4 59.2 6.95 

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 

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Percent of customers that 

experience Average savings * 

Net cost 

(percent) 2019$ 

1 ........................................................................................................................... 76.9 ¥6.0 

2 ........................................................................................................................... 79.7 ¥16.2 

3 ........................................................................................................................... 88.5 ¥54.3 

4 ........................................................................................................................... 85.6 ¥61.8 

5 ........................................................................................................................... 100.0 ¥942.1 

* 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 

Efficiency level 

Average costs 2019$ Simple 

payback 

years total 

installed cost 

Average 

lifetime years 

first year’s 

operating 

cost 

Total 

installed 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

0 ............................................................... 375.7 106.6 535.2 910.9 ........................ 8.70 

1 ............................................................... 433.1 103.5 519.2 952.2 18.0 8.70 

2 ............................................................... 482.6 101.5 509.3 991.9 20.8 8.70 

3 ............................................................... 1,148.6 98.9 496.1 1,644.7 99.6 8.70 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4906 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V–8—LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR

REPRESENTATIVE UNIT 4: POLYPHASE, 4-POLE, 0.5 hp 

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Percent of customers that 

experience Average savings * 

Net cost 

(percent) 2019$ 

1 ........................................................................................................................... 91.7 ¥40.5 

2 ........................................................................................................................... 99.6 ¥77.9 

3 ........................................................................................................................... 100.0 ¥721.4 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

C. Final Determination 

For this final determination, DOE 

analyzed whether amended standards 

for SEMs would be technological 

feasible and cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) EPCA mandates that 

DOE consider whether amended energy 

conservation standards for SEMs would 

be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(B)) DOE has 

determined that there are technology 

options that would improve the 

efficiency of SEMs. These technology 

options are being used in commercially 

available SEMs and therefore are 

technologically feasible. (See section 

IV.B for further information.) Hence, 

DOE has determined that amended 

energy conservation standards for SEMs 

are technologically feasible. 

EPCA requires DOE to consider 

whether energy conservation standards 

for SEMs would be cost effective 

through an evaluation of the savings in 

operating costs throughout the 

estimated average life of the covered 

product/equipment compared to any 

increase in the price of, or in the initial 

charges for, or maintenance expenses of, 

the covered products/equipment which 

are/is likely to result from the 

imposition of an amended standard. (42 

U.S.C. 63136(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C), 

and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) As 

presented in the prior section, the 

average customer purchasing a 

representative SEM would experience 

an increase in LCC at each evaluated 

standards case as compared to the no 

new standards case. The simple PBP for 

the average of a representative SEM 

customer at each EL is projected to be 

generally longer than the mean lifetime 

of the equipment. Based on the above 

considerations, DOE has determined 

that more stringent amended energy 

conservation standards for SEMs cannot 

satisfy the relevant statutory 

requirements because such standards 

would not be cost effective as required 

under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(II); 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a)) 

Having determined that amended 

energy conservation standards for SEMs 

would not be cost-effective, DOE did not 

separately evaluate the significance of 

the amount of energy conservation 

under the considered amended 

standards because it has determined 

that the potential standards would not 

be cost-effective (and by extension, 

would not be economically justified) as 

required under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)) 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 

This final 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 

final 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 concludes that this final 

determination is consistent with the 

directives set forth in these executive 

orders. As discussed in this document, 

DOE is not amending the current energy 

conservation standards for SEMs and 

will not have any cost impact on 

manufacturers of SEMs. Therefore, this 

determination is 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4907 

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 final 

determination pursuant to the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

procedures and policies discussed 

above. DOE has concluded that, based 

on the data and available information it 

has been able to review, amended 

energy conservation standards for SEMs 

would not be cost-effective. Therefore, 

DOE is not amending the current energy 

conservation standards for SEMs. On 

the basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies 

that this final determination will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an 

FRFA for this final determination. DOE 

has transmitted its 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 SEMs must certify to 

DOE that their equipment 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 SEMs. 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. 

This final determination, which 

concludes that amended energy 

conservation standards for SEMs would 

not be cost effective (and by extension, 

not economically justified) as required 

under the relevant statute, imposes no 

new information or recordkeeping 

requirements. Accordingly, clearance 

from the OMB is not required under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) 

E. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE analyzed this final determination 

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 has 

determined 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. 

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 

final determination does not amend the 

standards for SEMs, 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 final 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4908 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 final 

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 

State, local, and Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or 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 

final determination will 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 final 

determination will 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). Pursuant 

to OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at 

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/ 

2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final

%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines

%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 

reviewed this final 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 

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 final determination does 

not amend the current standards for 

SEMs, 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/peerreview. 

VII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final determination. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on January 5, 2021, 

by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant 

Secretary for 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 January 6, 

2021. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00336 Filed 1–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES